click on image
Thanks, Greystoke, for taking on this task.
2. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:04:43 PM
Welcome to the Daily News thread. I see this as a free wheeling discussion of interesting and unusual news stories. Read the Rules of Engagement for the Mote. I hope no additional rules are needed for this thread. But I will make some, if there is bad behavior.
It was the pattern in the Fray that many, many links and quotes from news stories were posted for every one that actually generated a discussion. So don't be discouraged if you post something that you think is provocative and no-one responds. Just try again with a different topic.
Once there is an on-going discussion, please don't try to change the subject even if the current one doesn't interest you. Wait until there is a lull, then post your proposed subject changer.
3. CalGal - 9/12/1999 6:06:23 PM
Grey,
Excellent intro. I hope you save that off so when we get a permanent place for stuff like that, you repost it.
4. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:11:18 PM
robertjayb
Welcome! I hope you will be a frequent poster here. In the Fray you always had interesting links for us.
Any suggestions you have for conducting this thread would be appreciated.
My hope is to never have to delete a post or chide a poster (Motician? Moterhead?), but perhaps that is an unrealistic expectation.
5. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:12:39 PM
CalGal
Thanks.
Good idea. I will do that.
6. robertjayb - 9/12/1999 7:11:08 PM
Suggestions?
How about a ban on information from The Washington Times, The New York Post, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Strictly in the interest of hygiene, of course; I abhor censorship.
Interesting links?
Well, not to make light of the horrors of Indonesia and East Timor,
but here's a way odd (to me) bit of reporting.
General Wiranto sings "Feelings"
A way odd happening as well...
7. CalGal - 9/12/1999 7:16:52 PM
Ban on the Times? The Post? The Journal?
Gawd-dam liberals.
8. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 7:19:56 PM
My god, that's like some sick dystopic parody. General Wiranto sang 'Feelings' to indicate how much his army loves East Timor? That would be funny if it weren't so incredibly offensive.
9. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:20:42 PM
robertjayb
That's bizarre. One would think that the good General could do something more concrete to help the situation.
Sorry, I don't think we can limit where posters get their cites. Feel free to say something like: "The Wall Street Journal???? LOL!", though.
10. joezan - 9/12/1999 7:21:08 PM
Paul Williams?
11. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:25:44 PM
CalGal
"Gawd-dam liberals."
I hope I don't have to delete anyone's post or chide them.
(Man, I love having all this power.)
12. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:40:24 PM
There are three articles in the Salt Lake Tribune about how Utah conducts its concealed carry permitting process for handguns.
(Since we beat the gun issue to death in our old forum, I won't be hurt if this discussion doesn't fly.)
13. Au Naturel - 9/12/1999 9:56:09 PM
Sigh! But it's so fun making prohibitionists squirm!
Re. the Utah concealed carry permit process.
All it means is that a guild of firearms instructors haven't yet scraped together the moolah that the hair dressers did so they could "cut down" the level of competition. To wit:
"to qualify for a state license to style hair, an applicant must pass a written exam and prove at least 1,000 hours of applied schooling or 4,000 hours of experience"
If Utah sets up a requirement and then doesn't go about enforcing it, of course it's going to be ignored. The class is a merely sop to liberals anyhow. Vermont doesn't have any reqirements for CCW. There don't seem to be a lot of problems there.
The Nanny State marches on.
14. God - 9/12/1999 11:58:27 PM
Damn those liberals.
15. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 9:33:51 AM
CATEGORY 5?
click on image
16. ScottLoar - 9/13/1999 10:17:47 AM
Jesus, PP, are you an amateur hurricane hunter or just morbidly curious? Any projections on deaths and damage?
17. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 10:21:15 AM
Scott...as we post I am calculating possible outcomes, and I will forward such to my many fans as soon as they are available.
18. ScottLoar - 9/13/1999 10:24:02 AM
Seriously, we could take gentlemen's bets up to, say, a day before landfall on the US mainland, as to where the hurricane hits the coast. One must be accurate to within 50 miles.
19. JJBiener - 9/13/1999 10:49:19 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest in Floyd is more than betting on landfall. My father lives on the Florida coast and is directly in the path of the storm. I am hoping for a strong shift to the north.
20. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:00:16 AM
JJ...I have a son in Wilmington NC, and family throughout Florida...plus, I am empathic with anyone in harms way.
21. God - 9/13/1999 11:00:46 AM
You got it.
22. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:01:56 AM
I have?
23. God - 9/13/1999 11:03:23 AM
21-19
24. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:05:30 AM
Final score God...
25. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 2:03:08 PM
BRYAN, Texas (AP) - Dragging death murder defendant Lawrence Russell Brewer, labeled a leader of a white supremacist group while in prison, wrote he was proud that killed a black man last year by dragging him behind a pickup truck, prosecutors said today.
``This man has written how he sees himself after this murder,'' Jasper County District Attorney Guy James Gray said as Brewer's trial got under way.
``He seems himself as a hero, a star, that he's really accomplished. It's really a kind of weird mindset.''
Brewer is the second of three white men charged with dragging James Byrd Jr. to death 15 months ago.
His attorney, Doug Barlow, entered an innocent plea after the capital murder indictment against him was read this morning. Brewer did not speak.
Barlow declined to make an opening statement to the jury today.
Brewer, along with John William King and Shawn Allen Berry, both 24, are accused of killing Byrd, 49.
King, the first to go to trial, was convicted and sentenced to death in February by a Jasper County jury. This time, a jury of 12 whites and two Hispanics is hearing the case against Brewer, 32. Two of the jurors are alternates.
26. Wild Bill - 9/13/1999 2:36:12 PM
Just signed onto The Mote, but one upon a life time I spent more than a few years forecasting typhoons in the Pacific. I wouldn't bet on a hurricane or typhoon track with anyone, but the vicinity of Jacksonville looks very likely for "Floyd"
Glad I live on the left coast.
27. Mr.Right-O - 9/13/1999 2:49:31 PM
One never knows with hurricanes especially because the Gulf Stream is so warm right now.
That's why so many of them get caught up in it and move toward North Carolina.
28. JJBiener - 9/13/1999 2:56:02 PM
Pat Robertson isn't busy these days. Maybe we can get him to pray Floyd out to sea.
HAHAHAHA!
(sorry)
29. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 3:21:55 PM
JJB,
As long as Floyd has even the slightest chance of taking out Disney World I suspect that Pat will decline to intervene.
30. Mr.Right-O - 9/13/1999 3:48:29 PM
Praying is for losers.
31. vonKreedon - 9/13/1999 4:43:17 PM
Grey - Two things:
1) the CCW link above links to the SLTrib, but not at this time to a CCW article.
2) I have this near irresitable urge to refer to you as Tarzan, do you mind?
32. Greystoke - 9/13/1999 6:52:59 PM
Mr. President
Here is a link to the archived Salt Lake Tribune from yesterday.
Call me whatever you like.
33. ranheim - 9/13/1999 7:36:59 PM
Hey! Y'all.
My son's in-laws own a small place on Bar Harbor. They have had enough trouble lately! Don't even mention the fact that Floyd could bend north.
34. alistairconnor - 9/13/1999 7:54:22 PM
Why are you people so afraid of Mr Ridenour anyway?
35. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:00:29 PM
BRYAN, Texas (AP) - Murder defendant and white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer was so proud of his participation in the gruesome dragging death of a black East Texas man last year that he wrote about it weeks later, prosecutors said Monday as Brewer's trial got under way.
``I'm the goddamned hero of the day,'' he wrote to another inmate while being held at the Jasper County Jail for the June 1998 Byrd slaying.
...more grisly stuff here...
36. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:09:19 PM
37. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:36:44 PM
38. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:37:48 PM
Not a new frame, but it worked...
39. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 9:37:40 PM
Atlantic City, New Jersey, Sept 13 - In a stunning departure from tradition, the Miss America pageant has decided to let women who have been married or had abortions compete, The Associated Press has learned.
The board of the Miss America Organization voted last month to drop the 49-year-old requirement that contestants be women who have never been married and never been pregnant. The change takes effect next year.
Fear of violating New Jersey's discrimination laws spurred the change, according to court documents obtained today.
40. scabby ho - 9/13/1999 10:08:15 PM
How did the officials know whether a contestant had ever been pregnant before?
Looks like I can compete for the Miss America title now. Do they have any rules against venereal disease?
41. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 10:37:23 PM
ho,
Here is most of the rest of the story. Good luck!
...Since 1950, contestants have had to swear they had never been married and never been pregnant in order to vie for the rhinestone crown and thousands of dollars in scholarship money.
The new rules would require simply that they sign a document saying 'I am unmarried' and 'I am not pregnant and I am not the natural or adoptive parent of any child'.
That would open the door to divorced women, women who had had abortions and women who had children who later died.
Pageant chief executive Robert Beck sent new contracts to state pageant directors in August notifying them of the change. Beck and other pageant officials declined requests for comment.
Beck, who took over the top job last spring, told the state pageants to have contestants in this year's pageant - scheduled for Saturday at Convention Hall -sign the new contracts as a condition of competing for the title of Miss America 2000.
The state pageants went to court to fight the change, and the Miss America Organization agreed to back off for this year. But the board approved the change for next year.
The state pageants are expected to continue fighting it.
"Miss America has a long history of high moral standards and traditions, and I'm opposed to anything that changes that," said Libby Taylor, executive director of the Miss Kentucky Pageant and president of the National Association of Miss America State Pageants.
Leonard Horn, the longtime CEO of the pageant who stepped down last year after 30 years with the organisation, said the rule change was a mistake.
"It is totally unnecessary and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Miss America program," he said.
42. scabby ho - 9/13/1999 10:38:31 PM
I guess this means I'll have to off the kids.
43. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 11:18:17 PM
An excerpt from Salon's must-read debunking of the China-spy pseudo-scandal:
One of the most telling ironies is that perhaps the best article written to date on this whole complex subject was by William Broad in the New York Times Sept. 7. What makes this ironic, and not simply praiseworthy, is that Broad covered much of the same ground Times reporter Jeff Gerth did in "breaking" the Trulock-Wen Ho Lee story earlier this year -- but without all the breathless detail and implication of scandal and national-security disaster.
Broad's article reported that experts are not at all certain whether the Chinese achieved their success in warhead miniaturization by espionage, hard work or some mix of the two; that the common wisdom of a few months ago alleging "espionage" probably placed far too much emphasis on the Los Alamos Laboratory and on Wen Ho Lee in particular; and that even the extent of the damage to national security may have been greatly overstated. It put the Times in the odd position of correcting the mistakes, rushes-to-judgment and misapprehensions that the paper itself disseminated in the first place.
That hasn't been missed by observers who questioned Gerth's reporting on the Trulock story from the outset. "Broad reinterviewed all of [Gerth's] sources," New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson says. "You don't do that to a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter unless you have real doubts, unless you think he's made a major mistake."
The unraveling Chinese spy scandal has revealed once again that too many members of our elite political press have ferocity and doggedness in abundance without the historical consciousness or political acumen to make sense of what they report.
The Real China Scandal
44. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 12:23:59 AM
The heartwarming story of a family reunited.
45. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 6:32:44 PM
A $50,000 dollar windfall. But why should the government get to keep 60%?
46. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:05:06 PM
Slow news day, I guess.
47. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 7:12:26 PM
Hi marshame. Yes, its been slow here. Most people are talking about Censorship in the so-named thread, with spillover into the Playpen and Suggestions threads. Its quite interesting at times.
I'm hoping for more activity here once that debate winds down.
48. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:17:59 PM
Grey
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News this weekend about the Edinburgh, Texas school board banning the saying of the Pledge of Alligiance, because it contains the word "God" and the school attorney advised them to ban it in order to avoid possible litigation!
20th century validation of Shakespeare's opinion of lawyers!
49. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 7:52:12 PM
marshame
Ever since elementary school I've thought that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is quite silly. It sounds like a loyalty oath that would be more appropriate in an authoritarian nation. And why do we pledge allegiance to a flag? Its just a piece of cloth.
If someone is bothering to pledging allegiance, wouldn't it make more sense to pledge it to the nation, or to the President, or maybe to the Constitution?
Even so, I find it odd that a school board would ban the Pledge given its long tradition. How could anyone successfully sue simply because the Pledge contains the word "God"? I bet the school board will get lots of flack.
50. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 7:53:19 PM
"A $50,000 dollar windfall. But why should the government get to keep 60%?"
Income insurance for risk averse people
51. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 8:01:32 PM
Gruesome report from the second day of the "dragging death" trial in Texas.
52. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:04:18 PM
Spence
"Income insurance for risk averse people."
I don't understand.
53. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:09:43 PM
robertjayb
msg #51
Gruesome indeed. Why were the defendants tried separately?
54. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 8:16:09 PM
That's kind of tongue in cheek. Why 60%, and not 34.234%? I have no idea.
But for a general idea, imagine two risk averse people deciding on an income redistribution scheme, before they know their life situations --their families, their intelligence, etc. They are "behind the veil of ignorance" so to speak.
As far as they both know, their lifetime income is, at the time of this bargain behind the veil of ignorance, at least partially random. Some people will be born with less earning potential, for one reason or another, and behind the veil, nobody knows who if anyone it will be.
Since the bargainers are risk averse, they will want to accept a lower average lifetime income in exchange for less variance in their lifetime income. Behind the veil, they can and will want to reach an agreemnt wherein a high income person, whoever it may be, transfers some of his income to a low income person, whoever it may be. That way, everyone's variance in income is reduced, but they had to trade some of their average income (the amount they get when they are high-income weighted by the probability of being high income) to do it. That's life.
Now, when people learn their identities (are no longer behind the veil), and know more about their earning potentials, they will naturally want to renegotiate the deal. In particular, high-income types will know who they are now, and will want to renege on their scheme to compensate low income types.
This is one reason why, behind the veil of ignorance, the parties must agree to the artifice of a government. The government is useful because it makes it possible to commit to the agreement reached behind the veil -- government reduces the ability of high types to chip away at their committment to the low types.
Hypothetical in the extreme, yes. But still compelling from an ethical point of view.
55. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 8:17:18 PM
And since that has nothing to do with news of the day, I'll repost it in the econ thread, where it is more relevant. Please, take it up here or there if it interests you.
56. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:29:27 PM
Spence
"That's kind of tongue in cheek. Why 60%, and not 34.234%? I have no idea."
Why not 0% ?
I read your post #54 several times, and found it quite interesting. But I'm still not making the connection between your post and the woman who found the money.
57. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:41:24 PM
Spence
From the Economics thread:
"I have posted on progressive taxation as income insurance before -- at least 1.5 years ago in the Fray, in fact. But, I posted about it again just now in the News thread, and am copying the post here in the name of relevance to a thread's charge."
OK. Taxation as income insurance. Now I get it.
However, the 60% that the government took in the story I linked wasn't for taxes. The couple was taxed on the 40% they got to keep. I am unclear as to the rationalization for the government keeping 60% off the top.
58. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 9:26:29 PM
More about the $279,000 that a woman from Ringgold, Georgia found, from the Chattanooga Free Press.
An excerpt:
The money, placed in an interest-bearing account that had grown to $321,000 over two years, was split three ways: 40 percent went to Catoosa County, 40 percent was given to the Fultons and the federal government keeps 20 percent.
59. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 10:04:02 PM
Greystoke, these particular numbers highlight the limitations of simple toy models. Why them rather than some other numbers? Lots of touchy issues involving incomplete information and the need to eliminate the incentive for people to lie about their earning potential in their reports to the government, perhaps. Those constraints in a reasonably complex economy would make for a very complex tax code indeed, and could take ages to get a good handle on. (Of course, it does not mean that we owe our particular complicated tax code to these constraints rather than some other ones.)
60. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 11:12:49 PM
Greystoke,
There was talk early on about trying two of the guys together but the defense attorneys eventually asked for the trials to be separate.
Langiappe:
Molly Ivins Alerts Political Junkies
61. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:23:08 AM
The last sentence in the Chatanooga Free Press article gives the reason for the feds' getting a cut: it was deemed confiscated drug money (the next door neighbor might do well to assume a new identity, if he can). Of course, if the Tennessee "finder's keepers" law mentioned earlier applies, they were confiscating it from someone prima facie not the drug criminals from whom the confiscation statute doubtless stipulates it should be confiscated from. I think they should have had a better lawyer. (Presumably the county's cut is similarly rationalized.) There can be no doubt that it is sometimes true, the law is a ass.
Speaking of such laws and their relationship to the sterile offspring of horses and donkeys, can someone explain to me why such confiscatory laws as the RICO one, and NYC's seizure of a drunken driver's car on the spot, ie before arraignment, let alone trial and conviction, are not on the face of it unconstitutional?
(If you do this soon, I won't be here to thank you. I must to bed. But I will be tomorrow.)
62. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:23:43 AM
63. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:24:35 AM
Did I get it?
(Yes, per preview)
64. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:25:03 AM
And it's so. Good night, all.
65. CalGal - 9/15/1999 2:29:51 AM
66. CalGal - 9/15/1999 2:30:26 AM
Testing.
And if he means it's so it didn't show up as italic, that's something else I have to write up.
67. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 12:24:28 PM
68. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 1:54:52 PM
Thanks, Robert, for that excellent article...I especially liked the "textual exegetes" remark! I think that holds true for many political writers with axes to grind.
69. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 5:11:16 PM
Gene therapy reverses brain cell loss in aged monkeys
70. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:34:11 PM
ElliottRW,
That's wonderful news. I hope they hurry right along with the research.
A serious threat to brain cells during hurricane season:
Overexposure to callow news-twits stumbling about on beaches and piers while screaming unintelligible and unneeded information into the wind and rain.
Dan Rather has a lot to answer for...
71. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:36:19 PM
And he's still at it...
72. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 6:40:56 PM
robert:
Yes, I'm sure safety is served well by our local-yokel TV station sending a "Storm Team" to Florida. Imagine if every city the size of Dallas sent a team of reporters to cover a hurricane; well, hell, they probably DO. L'idiot! (Woody Allen-speak)
73. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:44:58 PM
Judith -- we're getting "hurricane" rains in DC. They say it may end our drought. We've already gotten some rains from Dennis, the previous hurricane.
That's what it was like in Central Texas when I was growing up. A good hurricane on the Gulf coast meant a source for rains in August and September in Waco. (Of course, one always hopes that the hurricane crashes into a county with only 500 people like the one that hit the Gulf below Corpus earlier this summer).
74. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 6:50:03 PM
glendajean:
I think Floyd is a breeze compared to what's going on a few threads over...
75. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:50:52 PM
As in hurricanes, this, too, shall pass.
76. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:52:38 PM
Chuckle.
An ill wind?
77. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:21:21 PM
I had logged off for the evening and we turned on the TV to see that there has been another mass shooting about an hour ago...in a church here in Fort Worth. Early reports say 6 are dead, including the shooter (self-inflicted). Many people are being taken to the hospital.
This happened 6 blocks from my sons house and 2 blocks from our friends house. Our friends son is there now looking for his girlfriend, who was attending what was basically a prayer rally for young people.
The kids who have talked to the reporters keep saying they thought it was a joke at first; they say this every time one of these insane shootings happens.
78. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:22:26 PM
Judith:
You're kidding?! I haven't heard a peep on the news or on the Internet.
79. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:23:47 PM
Here it is, from AP:
Several Shot in Texas Baptist Church
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A man dressed in black walked into a teen-age church service Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting, injuring several, witnesses said.
Authorities said the man was believed to be dead, and local television reported that the man shot himself.
No other fatalities were immediately reported.
Five ambulances were sent to Wedgwood Baptist Church after the 7 p.m. shooting. Medical helicopters also went to the scene in the southwest corner of Fort Worth.
Witness Christy Martin said she thought about 15 people had been shot.
``He was very calm and looked normal and was smoking a cigarette,'' Martin, 17, told KDFW-TV.
The man walked into the sanctuary, pulled a gun and began firing, she said. ``I just saw him point the gun and shoot.''
AP-NY-09-15-99 2100EDT
80. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:24:46 PM
Ace:
I am not kidding...they just broke in on the local news. You'll be seeing it soon enough. Check the NBC station; we have an NBC affiliate here that is very aggressive.
81. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:24:50 PM
No one except the shooter is reported dead, though. Some injuries, but no other deaths.
82. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:27:26 PM
Well, they are saying it here that 6 are dead but they did say it was unofficial.
83. glendajean - 9/15/1999 9:27:35 PM
I hope you're right about the killer being the only dead person.
84. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:28:51 PM
The wire report is obviously more dated than a contemporaneous television report, so some might have died in the interim.
85. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:30:17 PM
They are also saying he tossed an bomb in there before he started shooting.
We're going to our friends house, they just called and need someone to stay around while they go to the hospital to check on their sons girlfriend....hope for the best.
86. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:32:58 PM
Oh, boy, Judith. I only skimmed your post originally. I didn't realize you knew someone who feared his girlfriend might have been shot.
I hope for the best, obviously.
87. glendajean - 9/15/1999 9:33:57 PM
Judith, I hope your friends are ok.
88. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 9:43:08 PM
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - A man dressed in black walked into a church service filled with teen-agers Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting, witnesses said.
Fire department spokesman Tony Rodriguez said some people died inside the church in the city's southwest corner. He said he received early reports that six people were dead, but could not confirm that number.
Rodriguez said eight victims went to three area hospitals.
``Everybody that needed to be transported has already been taken away,'' Rodriguez said. ``Only those eight people needed medical attention.''
Five wounded were taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, one to Harris Methodist Hospital and one 12-year-old went to Cook Childrens' Medical Center, fire officials said.
Authorities said the shooter was believed to be dead, and local television reported that he shot himself.
The shooting took place shortly after 7 p.m.
89. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 9:57:16 PM
Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 15, 1999 at 20:49 CDT
Several shot in Fort Worth church sanctuary
By Chris Vaughn
Star-Telegram
FORT WORTH -- A gunman walked into a sanctuary full of young people at a southwest Fort Worth Baptist church Wednesday evening and commenced firing, killing seven, including himself.
The shooting occurred at the Wedgwood Baptist Church about 7 p.m. during a rally related to "See You at The Pole," which attracted hundreds of teen-agers from a number of area churches.
When the gunman entered the church, a number of teens thought it was a skit, witnesses said. But the band playing, a group called Forty Days, reportedly started ducking behind amplifiers.
Initial reports also indicated that a pipe bomb exploded, sending shrapnel all the way into the balcony.
"There's cartridges, shrapnel and empty cart boxes and blood splattered all over the wall," said Lt. David Ellis, a police spokesman at the scene.
The gunman was wearing black leather jacket, blue jeans and a bandanna when he walked into the church. But a number of church members said they did not recognize the man.
An off-duty police officer who lives near the church heard the shots and called 911.
One man was reportedly taken into custody by police for questioning, but it was unclear what they hoped to gain from questioning.
90. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:03:14 PM
Man kills 6, self at FW church
09/15/99
By Jason Sickles / The Dallas Morning News
FORT WORTH - A gunman opened fire on children and adults gathered in the sanctuary of a Fort Worth church Wednesday, killing at least six people and then fatally shooting himself, police said.
The man entered from the back of Wedgwood Baptist Church in South Fort Worth, where people were gathered for a youth rally Wednesday night about 7 p.m. At least one bomb went off, sending people fleeing for cover, police said.
Eight people were injured and taken to hospitals, some of them in critical condition. Children and parents wept outside the church on Whitman Street. Parents were taken to a nearby elementary school.
Lt. David Ellis of the Fort Worth Police Department said officers were searching the church for more bombs. ATF officials were on the scene and had evacuated a two-block area around the church. He said bodies were inside and outside the sanctuary.
"Some of them look fairly young," Lt. Ellis said. "It is not secure of bombs yet. There's a lot of evidence scattered around the church. It does appear that they were fleeing. There are shoes in the hallway."
Lt. Ellis said evidence is throughout the church. The call came in from an off-duty officer who lives nearby and heard the gunshots.
"There's evidence in the balcony. There's shell casings and bodies everywhere. It's tragic. . . . It's obviously the worst scene that has ever happened in Fort Worth."
Witnesses said the church has a large youth population, and many attend a regular Wednesday night service. About 60 to 70 attended Wednesday for a special celebration of the "See You at the Pole Day" rally Wednesday.
91. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:41:11 PM
more from the Star-Telegram:
Kevin Rutledge and wife, Sundi, 22 both, were in the fellowship hall attending prayer meeting when they heard a commotion elsewhere in the church.
"We thought it was hammering," said Kevin, a ministerial student at Dallas Baptist University. But minutes later, he heard someone saying, "I'm not joking, I'm shot."
The church's pastor, Al Meredith, was at home when the shooting occurred and found out when a reporter called him.
A woman in the lobby of John Peter Smith Hospital, her clothes splattered with blood, said her 17-year-old daughter, Heather MacDonald, was saved by her best friend who was sitting next to her.
As the gunman approached, the woman said that her daughter's friend "laid on top of my daughter to protect her, and she got shot."
The injured teen-ager, believed to be 17, was not immediately identified.
Steve Brown said his wife, Jaynanne, was shot, but only grazed in the head. His wife was supposed to pick him up from work last night, but instead decided to take their children to a prayer meeting and concert at the church.
He said his wife was taken to Harris Methodist Hospital with a graze wound to the head, but that his children were alright.
"I thank the Lord somebody protected her," Brown said. "But it's just a shame you can't go to church without something like this happening."
92. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:45:57 PM
more from the Star-Telegram:
Dax Hughes, the church's college minister, said at least 150 young people were inside the sanctuary.
"He hits the door real hard to make his presence known and he just immediately started firing," Hughes said.
When the gunfire was over, Hughes said, the man "sat in the back pew and put a gun (to his head) and shot himself and fell over."
Chris Applegate, a seventh grader, said he was in choir practice when the gunman burst into the room.
"We were singing a song and then in the middle of the song this guy opened the door and fired one shot," he said. "He just kept telling us to stay still.
"We all just jumped under the benches and he fired about 10 more shots. . . . Somebody said, 'Run, run," and we all started running."
The man reloaded several times during the rampage, which some first thought was a skit or prank.
"I was wondering . . . whether it was real or not," Chris said.
Shortly after 8 p.m., police told reporters and bystanders to get inside an elementary school across the street from the church because "secondary devices" -- believed to be explosives -- had been found by the bomb squad.
Wedgwood Baptist Church is located at 5522 Whitman.
93. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 11:25:16 PM
AP says eight dead
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Eight people died and seven others were injured after a man dressed in black walked into a church service filled with teen-agers Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting before fatally shooting himself, police said.
Fort Worth police Lt. David Ellis said three teen-agers and three adults were shot to death inside the church in the city's southwest corner. Another victim died at a hospital. The shooter appears to have been in his 30s.
Seven others went to hospitals with injuries, some of which appeared extremely critical, Ellis said.
94. joezan - 9/16/1999 12:20:24 AM
A young couple, both 24 years old, were in court today for an abuse and neglect hearing. My office is directly across the lobby from the main courtroom and, looking out the little window in my door I could tell there was something up, because shortly after the couple entered the courtroom 3 deputies entered the lobby and stood outside the courtroom, peeking through the window on the door.
Curious, I went out there and asked one of them what was going on. (I already knew about the charges - the younger of the two boys involved, 2 y.o., had been brought to the E.R. by his gramma with a spiral fracture of his arm, and the x-rays showed another, old fracture of the same arm. The father was facing several charges). The deputy explained that the husband had told his mother-in-law that if his two kids were taken away, "people were gonna die." They had run him through the metal detector and he was clean, but they wanted to be handy in case he rushed the bench or something.
As the Judge announced his decision to remove both children from the home, we could hear loud thuds from inside the courtroom. As the deputies opened the doors to run in, I saw the father smashing his head on the wooden table he was sitting at. At that moment, I recognized him.
9 years ago, he was in court for snatching the neighbor's dog, duct-taping it to a table, shaving its entire underside and melting hot wax all over it.
At that hearing, the same Judge he sat in front of today told him, "I pray you never have children."
95. glendajean - 9/16/1999 7:00:18 AM
NPR reported this morning that the Fort Worth killer has bulges in his clothes and authoritities are wary that it may be some kind of bomb or explosive device. So his body is on a church pew and they haven't approached it yet.
96. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:02:52 AM
We were unable to make it to our friends house...the girl is okay, just in shock. That entire neighborhood was closed off; no one getting in or out. My son was on his way to work and was stuck in front of the church for hours...he saw kids running out screaming and he helped calm several down; he was on site for about 3 hours and said it was the most incredible scene, that TV didn't show half of what was happening.
They've identified the shooter...a 47 year old man who was disturbed by the recent death of his father.
Reports from local news say the ATF is doing forensic tracking inside the church...I don't know if they've moved the bodies or not.
97. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:05:05 AM
Local FW/Dallas news this morning reports the bulges were full gun magazines.
98. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:07:25 AM
Holy Mother of God. Please tell me whether there's anywhere left in the world where you can feel safe. My heart is broken.
99. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 10:27:51 AM
Another day, another mass shooting, Deev.
Of course, guns don;t kill -- only people kill. The guns are merely innocent bystanders.
100. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:32:12 AM
Yes, Cellar...if this guy had only had sticks or stones, he could've wounded just as many. You bet...
I can hear it now: if a criminal wants a gun, laws won't prevent him from getting one, yada yada yada. Tell that to the parents of those kids.
101. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:38:11 AM
I have been feeling a sort of exhausted sadness ever since the news broke last night.
<:o(
102. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:46:11 AM
Cellar, I know you weren't in my bedroom last night, but that's exactly what I said to Sweetie when this item came on the news. When are people going to wake up?
103. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:50:33 AM
ChristiP:
My son was really shaken by this; he is a very personable guy but a loner by choice and I was surprised that he would stop and get involved with what was an extremely emotional situation. But he did and he said it was absolutely gut-wrenching.
He has in the past been somewhat anti-authority but he was really impressed with the way the police and rescue people handled the situation. He said it was like they had done this all their lives, which of course, they sort of have but still...this was the worst massacre in Fort Worth history.
Unfortunately, it may become an all too routine drill. Some one goes mad today and society pays.
104. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 11:15:15 AM
Judith -
Yes, I can empathize with your son.
I know that being there, supervisor in charge, when a guy went nuts and started shooting (USAF) was a life-changing experience for me.
I knew this guy. Prior to this I had thought of him as a mild sweet over-achiever. So the shock of what he did was big. It could have completely destroyed my already tenuous ability to trust people. However, there was the counterpoint of how well everyone in the situation pulled together and handled it - all of us in the shop, the SPs, and the base authorities higher up.
105. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 11:22:56 AM
You know, part of me is glad the guy shot himself as now we don't have to go through a long trial, etc. (and I feel guilty about feeling that way)
Another part of me is sorry he's dead because I would like to be able to ask him why he did it - not because any reason he had could possibly ever justify what he did, but because I have a small hope that if we can figure out why some people do these things, maybe we can prevent it from happening.
I know in the case of the guy who did the shooting in the USAF, we found out later that he had already tried to kill himself and he had been under psychiatric care. They told us that this is the way some people commit suicide - "suicide by cop" even though this guy, like the shooter last night, eventually shot himself.
Still, if it is a form of suicide...
WHY do some people feel the need to kill a bunch of other people when they kill themselves??
You know, I KNOW that there is a whole lot of life that doesn't make sense and never will, but I keep trying to make sense of it anyway...STOOOOPID!
106. DocBrown - 9/16/1999 12:19:10 PM
Bill Gates Gives a $ Billion in Minority Technology Scholarships.
The gift, to be announced in Seattle on Thursday, would be the Gateses' largest philanthropic contribution.
The scholarships in education, engineering, math and science will be called the Gates Millennium Scholarships and will seek to help at least of 1,000 high school students a year, The News Tribune of Tacoma and The New York Times reported Thursday editions.
A billion dollars is a lot of money to spend philanthropically. Interesting to see where Gates put it, hmmm?
107. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 12:32:26 PM
Doc
I think it's an excellent idea -- and something that state and federal government can no longer do due to various court decisions.
108. Macnas - 9/16/1999 12:47:42 PM
Message to all those who plan on shooting people and then shooting themselves....shoot yourself first.
What the fuck is going on over there? Here all gun owners must first register with the police, and every year are reviwed against police records. You can own only one rifle, and handguns are totally illegal.
Even air powered weapons are classed, by law, as firearms.
It might sound draconian, but if you are a law abiding citizen, you can still own a gun. Just a few more rules and checks to abide by, thats all.
109. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 12:54:13 PM
Macnas
"Here all gun owners must first register with the police, and every year are reviwed against police records."
Where is "here"?
110. Macnas - 9/16/1999 12:56:35 PM
Rep. of Ireland.
111. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/1999 1:15:30 PM
112. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 1:29:58 PM
Macnas
"You can own only one rifle, and handguns are totally illegal.
Even air powered weapons are classed, by law, as firearms."
I don't see those kinds of restrictions ever being imposed here in the US. There are millions of hunters. Most, at minimum, have a shotgun for birds and other small game, a .22 for small game, and a high powered rifle for deer.
I don't forsee a nationwide requirement for registration of handguns ever becoming law, let alone a ban.
Restrictions like those you mentioned would require a major confiscation effort by the government. We would have a civil war.
Do you know what the penalties are in Ireland for having more than one rifle, or for having an illegal handgun?
113. ranheim - 9/16/1999 1:46:06 PM
This is, very likely, not the proper thread for this; I don't know where it should belong.
Should you read the following, keep in mind that I am one who totally dis-likes the USA govt. at all three levels. Furthermore I have almost no trust in the govt.
Those of you who wish to control/ban weapons, how would you go about it?
I watched a very short piece on TV about a year ago. The scene was England just after they passed a law banning hand guns. I, in particular, noted all the very fancy dueling pistols that were confiscated. Some of them were works of art! Had they been in my family for several hundred years, I would have found a way to hide them from the State. Would your new proposed law make exception for this category of weapon? The dueling pistols that I saw on that TV program were good for 1 shot and had to be hand loaded (powder; the ball; tamping down; that whole bit) prior to the next use.
Would you include in your ban rifles and shotguns? Not military rifles! There must be some way to legally define the typical rifle used for hunting. I am on record as being an opponent of military, semi-automatic, and fully automatic weapons in the hand of civilians.
I have mentioned previously that the best hunter that I know uses, primarily, a bow and arrow. He feels that the usual hunting rifle does not utilize fully his skills. However, this same man must own at least a dozen weapons of various types. Some are extremely valuable.
We have never talked about a possible ban of guns.
BTW I do not own a weapon of any kind.
114. PsychProf - 9/16/1999 1:50:41 PM
SOME STORM 
115. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 1:53:53 PM
PP
Va Beach and the Eastern Shore are still getting hammered, but it looks like the worst has passed here.
Ranheim
How about controlling ammunition?
116. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 1:54:43 PM
ranhiem
"This is, very likely, not the proper thread for this; I don't know where it should belong."
Posts such as your #113 are entirely appropriate for this thread.
(BTW, I do not wish to control or ban firearms, so I cannot respond to your question.)
118. ranheim - 9/16/1999 1:57:17 PM
bubba
Same question "How would you do it?
After Waco, I am loathe to give the BATF more power!
119. CalGal - 9/16/1999 1:59:56 PM
Grey--a suggestion for the future. Not a complaint, either, just something to think about.
In the case of breaking big stories, you could put a few links in on the side so that people can easily catch up with what's happening. You could label the links as "Breaking News".
It might take a bit more maintenance, but it would avoid all the stories being posted in the thread, and seems in keeping with your thread.
I like your links--may I suggest the Merc?
And this next is a minor complaint--could people link more and post full text less?
120. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:01:06 PM
Ranheim
Many would argue that there is so much ammunition available now, that making any effort to institute controls is futile. The same reasoning might apply to the folks in Floyd's path who have 2 feet of water in their basement -- why bother to takes steps to control it?
It seems that by tagging explosive types (available technology) and registering ammunition purchases, we should be able to at least trace ammunition used illegally even if it is impossible or unreasonable to confiscate firearms already in circulation.
121. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:02:06 PM
I swear I didn't post in italics. I didn't do it, I'm not responsible.
122. CalGal - 9/16/1999 2:02:20 PM
Heavens. Sorry about that.
123. CalGal - 9/16/1999 2:02:35 PM
No, it was me. Sorry, bubba.
124. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:02:35 PM
can i fix it?
125. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:03:39 PM
Cal
sawright. I just seem so likely to be responsible for errant toys today.
126. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 2:08:24 PM
from The Dallas Morning News:
Church shooting victims
09/16/99
The gunman killed three teenagers and three adults before fatally shooting himself. A seventh victim died later at a hospital.
People killed:
Four youths
Kristi Beckel, 14, white female - wounded victim who died at John Peter Smith Hospital overnight
Joseph D. Ennis, 14, white male
Cassandra Griffin, 14, white female
Justin M. Ray, 17, white male
Three adults
Sydney R. Browning, 36, white female
Shawn C. Brown, 23, white male
Susan Kimberly Jones, 23, white female
The Gunman
Larry Gene Ashbrook, 47, shot self in head after shooting others
People taken to area hospitals
Harris Methodist hospital
Kevin Galey of Fort Worth, 38-year-old church counselor, good condition but in surgery
Jaynanne Brown of Crowley, 41-year-old choir member, superficial scalp wound, released
Cook Children’s Medical Center
12-year-old boy, shot in back, fair condition
John Peter Smith Hospital
Robert DeBord, 17, gunshot wound to chest, critical condition
Justin Laird, 16, gunshot wound to back, critical condition
Mary Beth Talley, 14, gunshot wound to torso, fair condition
Jeff Laster, 36, gunshot wound to abdomen, critical condition
Died overnight: Kristy Beckel, 14, gunshot wound to head, entered hospital in critical condition
127. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 2:10:58 PM
CalGal
Thanks for the suggestions. Both are good ideas.
Yesterday, I could only get 13 links to display. Today, all 16 that I input showed up. So, fortunately, I wouldn't have to bump something as important as the Drudge link in order to display a "breaking news" link.
What's the "Merc"?
129. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 2:19:35 PM
I have to grab a chainsaw and head for my mother-in-law's house. See you all later.
I have to trim her trees.
Really.
130. ranheim - 9/16/1999 2:26:20 PM
bubba #120
I am going to post and run. Wife insists that I must go shopping with her! God, how I hate the need for new clothes!!
In this poor and rural portion of Louisiana there remain a few families who supplement their tables with game and fish.
Would your proposition increase the cost of ammunition to them? I realize that this is very, very tiny amount of ammunition used.
131. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 2:32:15 PM
Greystoke,
Got room for Mother on the list of links?
MoJo Wire
132. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 3:02:48 PM
Will the "concealed carry" issue return for Shrub?
133. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:08:55 PM
Greystoke's #129 was funny as hell.
134. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 3:40:05 PM
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Thursday that ``a wave of evil'' - not a lack of gun control laws - is the cause of rampant gun violence in America.
When in doubt, go Metaphysical.
135. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:48:18 PM
that George Dubya. Whatta card.
136. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:48:36 PM
Toys, dear.
137. Fraaankster - 9/16/1999 4:04:38 PM
Is post # 111 courtesy of Robert Dente ? It's his style.
I'm still laughing...Throw in Ted Nugent while you're at it also.
138. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 4:14:37 PM
Whimsy Wizard: Nice job...love your style.
139. joezan - 9/16/1999 5:50:31 PM
Fraaaaank:
You beat me to it...I immediately thought the same thing...
140. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 7:06:23 PM
141. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 7:13:53 PM
What's shocking about this story, greaystoke, is that it's actually made the papers. None of this is new, you know.
142. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 7:25:53 PM
Another glorious victory in the war on drugs.
143. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 9:09:07 PM
Prosecution rests in dragging death trial...grim stuff
144. Cygnus X-1 - 9/16/1999 10:58:06 PM
This just in:
A new study reveals that kids (with both a mother and a father) that don't get along with their fathers are more likely to abuse drugs. Suprisingly, however, there was no study on what effects there would be if the kids didn't get along with the mother.
145. ranheim - 9/16/1999 11:04:05 PM
FEMA
This is a highly relevant organization. Federal Emergency M ...A. . .
What is the group's feelings or actual contact with this federal bureaucracy. FEMA had some very bad press early in its existanc; is its performance improving?
Should there be such an agency to begin with?
I'm headed for bed. See you in the morning.
146. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 11:16:00 PM
Today the Missouri Legislature voted to override Governor Carnahan's veto of a bill banning partial birth abortions. This was in spite of a well funded disinformation campaigned waged by the pro-abortion lobby. This demonstrates that lies and scare tactics no longer have the political power they once had.
147. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 11:26:34 PM
Ranheim - FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is one of those political third rails no one dares criticize no matter what they do. How can you possibly disagree with a government agency that helps people who have survived a disaster. It doesn't matter how badly FEMA mismanages their funding or whether they ignore regulation and reason when distributing money like a rich uncle at Christmas. The intention is good, so the actual execution is irrelevant.
148. Macnas - 9/17/1999 3:40:00 AM
Ranheim/Greystoke
I dont propose that the federal authorities confiscate all handguns. I was outlining the controls in my country. Its different in others, a lot of european countries have liberal gun laws. Most, however, do involve the police regulating the issuance of firearm certificates.
Guns are dangerous, so are some people. Try not to let the dangerous people have easy access to guns.
I know its a sore point, and one which gets a lot of backs up in America, but you folk should have more control over who has guns. You have had multiple "multiple" shootings, when we hear it over here we just cant fucking understand it! It sounds like a huge problem.
When it happened in the UK in Hungerford, they banned fullbore semiautos. When it happened in Dunblain, they banned handguns.
I know its different in the states, you love your guns, you love the right to own as many guns as you can fit in your house and the waistband of your pants. I know I'm generalising, but thats how it sounds to us all watching it on the nightly news.
As for the question I was was posed about penalties in Ireland for illegal firearms use/ownership, maximum is 25 years in Prison.
149. CalGal - 9/17/1999 3:43:46 AM
When it happened in Hungerford, they had incredibly strict gun control. Didn't do any good. When it happened in Dunblain, it sure hadn't helped, either. And I sincerely doubt you all are safe from the next nutjob who comes along.
My concern about these people is that they used to be naturally occurring phenomena. Now they are manufactured.
150. Macnas - 9/17/1999 3:52:07 AM
I'm afraid the Uk did not have incredibly strict gun laws at the time of Hungerford, at least by our standards anyway. You could own whatever you liked, even, in certain circumstances, full autos.
The Dunblain murders were carried out with pistols. It might tend to suggest that the next (God forbid) incident will be carried out with a shotgun, then a knife, then a club, then a rock, I dont know. I do know that you folk, in the US, have a big problem with guns.
151. CalGal - 9/17/1999 3:58:59 AM
In comparison to the US, the UK had incredibly strict gun laws. As did Scotland. There were strict licensing requirements.
And yet, I imagine until recently the occurrence of mass murders in both countries was pretty similar. Recently, in the US, it's become a fad. But until then I think you'd notice a pattern throughout our history (and probably England's as well) of random wacko multiple murders.
And as you know, nearly all armed crime in England is committed with illegal guns. So it's not like they're doing any good at keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who wants one.
Finally, armed crime in England is going up, despite all that increased control.
Face it--ain't no correlation between gun control and crime drops. So I'm not sure what you mean by the US having "a problem" with guns.
We are a violent people. Nothing's changing that.
And, of course, there is that pesky 2nd Amendment. I mean, in the end, we can't ban guns the way England did, even if we were silly enough to want to.
152. Macnas - 9/17/1999 4:13:50 AM
Have to agree with you on the tenuous connection between gun control and gun crime.
By the way, just about all the armed crime anywhere, is carried out with illegal guns, not just the UK. I dont recall hearing that armed crime has increased in the UK, you might point me to your source on that one.
But what are ye going to do about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns?
And for Christs sake! :
"We are a violent people. Nothing's changing that.
And, of course, there is that pesky 2nd Amendment. I mean, in the end, we can't ban guns the way England did, even if we were silly enough to want to."
You sound almost gleeful.
153. CalGal - 9/17/1999 4:36:24 AM
I'm zonked tonight, but if you do a search on Dunblaine, you'll find the Chief HooHaw's report online. The back of the report has a lot of data on crime in England.
If you can't find it, I'll look for it on the weekend.
Agreed about armed crime being generally committed with illegal arms. Of course, this particular crime was not done with illegal arms. Neither were at least two of the guns used in the Atlanta day trading catastrophe.
I'm not gleeful. We have a second amendment. Which I personally think is a good thing. And it's certainly arguable that Americans are just more violent.
154. ranheim - 9/17/1999 7:50:16 AM
FEMA
I vaguely recall a local newspaper making fun of FEMA a year (or so) ago. The source of the local report was the CATO Institute and the subject was snow removal - which we in LA don't have to worry about.
The local report was anti-FEMA as they believed that northern communities were taking advantage of a routine, yearly occurrence : snow fall. And we taxpayers in the south were picking up the tab for what should be a locally budgeted item.
155. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:46:31 AM
ranheim,
That argument is silly, because FEMA does not get involved in each snowfall, or even each major one. I can recall FEMA being involved in only 3 winter conditions in Eastern Pennsylvania in the 90's, a 15" snowfall in '94, a 25+" snowfall in '96 and a situation where we had a 2" coating of ice on all roads and the temperature stayed below the point where normal salt is useful in '93 (and FEMA provided nearly no help then). By the same token, FEMA is involved in earthquakes in California, and hurricanes in the South far more regularly.
156. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 12:31:48 PM
Fort Worth shooter said to have ties to Phineas Priests:
article
157. ranheim - 9/17/1999 7:01:55 PM
Dan
I'm not surprized that you consider #154 silly. It was a southern newspaper making fun of both the government and the north. That it too much fun for most local newspapers to pass up.
My purpose in asking about FEMA is twofold : it is going to be instructive, possibly, to see how it operates with the floods as a result of the recent hurricane + should that organization exist at all. I'm interested in comments about both.
158. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:27:51 PM
Macnas
"But what are ye going to do about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns? "
Nothing. We are going to do precisely nothing of consequence "about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns." That is one of the prices we pay for a free society. We will not follow the example of the oppressed sheep of the UK.
What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission. Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York.
159. Cellar Door - 9/17/1999 7:38:43 PM
"That is one of the prices we pay for a free society."
MUCH too expensive.
"We will not follow the example of the oppressed sheep of the UK."
BAAAAA! BAAAAA! We've got our own oppressed shepp.
"What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission."
Dream on, dream on.
Or more to the point -- Wet Dream On, Wet Dream on!
"Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York."
They see the "wisdom" in it already. They're already personally owned and operated by the NRA.
160. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:45:33 PM
"We've got our own oppressed shepp."
And Curly, Moe, and Larry.
161. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:58:18 PM
Ooops. I guess that would be Shemp.
162. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 9:01:40 PM
What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission. Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York.
Greystoke is certainly more right than wrong on this point. The concealed carry issue gained great momentum in Texas following
a 1991 horror at Killeen where the shooter crashed a pickup truck into a crowded cafeteria at lunchtime and started blasting away. Twenty-three people died.
The gunman was 35, lived with his mother and was described as being bitter, disgruntled, and deranged in the months before the shooting. He killed himself when the cops showed up.
Sound familiar?
When I first heard of this I was amazed that in central Texas,among the 200 or so diners, someone wasn't packing. But there was a woman who had left her piece in the car. I don't remember if any of her friends or family members were hurt. But she was motivated to run and win a seat in the legislature where she became a champion of a concealed carry law.
The law went into effect in 1996 and as of last July there were about 200,000 permit holders.
163. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 9:14:16 PM
164. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/1999 10:18:11 PM
165. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 10:57:35 PM
But there was a woman who had left her piece in the car. I don't remember if any of her friends or family members were hurt. But she was motivated to run and win a seat in the legislature where she became a champion of a concealed carry law.
She was Dr. Suzanna Gratia Delisi, a chiropractor. The following is from her legislative biography:
"Suzanna is recognized worldwide as one of the leading advocates for an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon. In 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. As a survivor of this tragedy, her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to self-defense have thrust her into the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Since the Killeen massacre, she has testified numerous times across the country for the restoration of the Second Amendment. She has been quoted in US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Texas Monthly, People, and many others. Suzanna's tireless efforts in this arena were recently recognized when she was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award by the National Rifle Association."
166. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 11:17:44 PM
Correction:
The name of the gun-toting legislator-chiropractor mentioned above is Suzanna Gratia Hupp, not Delisi.
167. TrialShark - 9/18/1999 3:45:03 AM
My favorite bit from the article about the dragging-death trial:
"[Brewer] also denied testimony from a fellow inmate that after his arrest in the Byrd case he said all black people should be shot in the head.
"'I never made that statement,' he said. 'I can't see myself making that statement, because I knew I was being watched because of the crime that occurred.'"
How much better his testimony would have been had Brewer said, "I can't see myself making that statement because I don't think that."
168. CalGal - 9/18/1999 4:54:12 AM
TrialShark! Hi.
Actually, I think the honesty makes it more believable. But send him to jail for eternity anyway.
169. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 4:58:50 AM
Cal:
I was going to say that, too. There's really no point in him claiming he's not a racist. If you lie, tell plausible lies. Say you'd never do it because of self-interest.
170. CalGal - 9/18/1999 5:02:34 AM
Exactly. If he was the kind of guy who'd never make that statement, then he'd probably not have done what he did.
171. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 5:07:38 AM
Cal:
"I might be a Murderer, but damnit, I certainly am not a racist!!!!"
Yeahp.
172. ranheim - 9/18/1999 12:17:33 PM
Is anyone paying any attention to the fact that Clinton is allowing limited status to N.Korea : non-military trade; air & sea transport; banking; communication. In return, they are delaying (possibly cancelling) a proposed launch of a longer range missile. N.Korea is "softening"?
Millions must be starving!
173. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:33:41 PM
Ran--I could swear someone mentioned it in International.
Grey--Ace mentioned somewhere that News of the Day is a Fray remnant. Truth, and you might want to consider renaming the thread?
Ace suggested Current Events, which is a good one. But in keeping with CoralReef's plaint that our thread titles are boring, maybe you want to make it something fun or quirky?
I am now becoming very Valley Girl? Everything ends in question marks?
174. coralreef - 9/18/1999 1:59:31 PM
Current Events is fine with me, for what that's worth. Not to stand in the way of any other change though, if people want it. Changing the titles somewhat from the old place might be a good general idea, in cases where it is a practical, workable thing to do.
175. TrialShark - 9/18/1999 3:07:26 PM
Cal --
Hi! back at you.
I've seen a lot of variations on that approach: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client may be a [insert socially-unacceptable adjective here], but he's no criminal!"
Oddly enough, it never seems to work. Counterintuitive, maybe, but there it is.
Here, you can count on the prosecutor to argue that the defendant conceded by implication that he does believe all blacks should be shot in the head. Call me a cynic, but I don't think that display of candor will advance the defendant's cause in this particular instance.
176. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:11:36 PM
Actually, I suggested "Current Affairs," which might sound stodgy, but "Current Events" sounds like a fourth-grade Weekly Reader thing.
177. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:12:09 PM
"In the News"?
"Headlines"?
178. God - 9/18/1999 3:12:37 PM
How 'bout just: Shit Happens
179. God - 9/18/1999 3:12:53 PM
or Shit Happening
180. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 3:14:24 PM
Some Happenin' Shit
181. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:41:57 PM
Excrement that was ordained to happen and has.
182. dusty - 9/18/1999 7:49:39 PM
ranheim
My purpose in asking about FEMA is twofold : it is going to be instructive, possibly, to see how it operates with the floods as a result of the recent hurricane + should that organization exist at all. I'm interested in comments about both.
I confess I haven't followed FEMA too closely, but I'd vote to eliminate it. I'm nervous about getting into too much of a discussion, becuase it seems to be a favorite subject of some of the whacked out right.
183. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 8:36:28 PM
184. CalGal - 9/18/1999 8:54:59 PM
Quite apart from the content, that is a gorgeous looking page.
185. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 9:08:39 PM
Molly Ivins' tips on mass killings: What to do while waiting for "more love in society." 186. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 9:13:22 PM From The Salt Lake Tribune: 187. joezan - 9/18/1999 9:18:24 PM Cal: 188. CalGal - 9/18/1999 9:21:23 PM
Molly
Besides protesting police crackdowns on Liberty Park drum circlers and State Street cruisers, Salt Lake City mayoral candidate Ken Larsen founded the Church of the Hemp Goddess.
Larsen says he formed the religion five years ago to "dramatize . . . that the drug war is a war of religious persecution, where the majority is enforcing their religious views on the minority."
Although Larsen says he has "never touched, much less inhaled" marijuana, he insists pot is no more harmful than wine, peyote or kava juice, all stimulants that are used in religious ceremonies. Larsen says marijuana should not be treated as an illegal drug.
Larsen has performed several marriages, two recorded, in his role as "mouth" of the Church of the Hemp Goddess. He also is an ordained minister with the Church of Universal Life.
Born and reared in Provo, Larsen graduated from Brigham Young University in 1974 with a degree in herpetology, the study of reptiles. Now he works as a researcher at the University of Utah, studying the effect of jet lag on rats.
Yea, but how the heck did this happen?
and IÕm donating my time and effort to oppose this bullshit!"
...and this: at the meeting: "You donÕt...
189. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 9:22:57 PM
Toys.
190. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 9:27:44 PM
Did I do that?
Sorry.
191. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 10:17:42 PM
I'm so embarrassed!
192. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 10:18:06 PM
Okay?
193. CalGal - 9/18/1999 10:22:43 PM
Robert--do you use the Check for Dust option? If you check the "did you put your toys away" question at the bottom, it will show whether or not you cleaned everything up.
Although I sometimes am convinced I put everything away and so don't bother to check, too.
195. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 12:19:06 PM
I'm watching a local program on the Mass Murder which happened here last week; one man has charged the media with "emotional vampirism", a nice turn of phrase, I think. The local stations were very intrusive and sensationalistic through this entire ordeal. I guess there is no way to handle this well but common decency toward the victims families might be a good place to start.
There were cameras following the families into the hospitals and the vultures were interviewing anyone caught standing around, whether they had anything to say or not. One teenage girl was obviously in shock; her delivery was monotone and unemotional and her eyes were clearly fixed...the reporter was completely oblivious to her condition and kept the microphone shoved in her face and the tape rolling. It was over the line of "news".
196. CalGal - 9/19/1999 12:49:34 PM
one man has charged the media with "emotional vampirism",
Very nice turn of phrase. Of course, the appalling thing is that we watch them suck the blood. ("we" in the generic sense; I refuse to watch coverage any more and I'm sure I'm not alone.)
If you look throughout US history, you will see a reasonably steady occurrence of the random wacko murderer angry at the world, taking out some people before he kills himself. It seemed to be a "naturally occurring" phenomenon (quotes because, of course, there isn't anything natural about it).
Sometime around Jonesboro, though, the coverage made the act attractive. At this point, I no longer think of it as a "natural" occurrence. It's a trend, a fad, a public-validated means of self-expression. Nauseating, isn't it?
I am hopeful that the rapidly decreasing coverage of each successive event will cause the fad to pass quickly.
197. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 1:56:16 PM
Some of the people who were involved in the Jonesboro crisis conducted a workshop at our school and their biggest emphasis after dealing with the initial crisis was on the media and how to help the victims and community while reporters and photographers are absolutely everywhere. Some of the stories they told about media tactics were thoroughly disgusting, and people didn't know how to deal with it because they were all over the place, listening to cell phone calls, calling victims' families at home, taking up hotel rooms (not a lot available in that town) that families and others who needed to be there could have used. They said most were reasonable, but the huge numbers made the few who weren't much harder to deal with.
198. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 5:06:46 PM
What happens to the old guns when the police buy new ones?
199. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 5:21:04 PM
Free speech versus the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division.
( I found it amusing. )
200. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 7:34:19 AM
Reasons to Not Live in the Ramparts
201. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 7:40:57 AM
Reasons to Not Live in the Ramparts
202. robertjayb - 9/20/1999 4:19:00 PM
....
Brewer Guilty in Dragging Death
203. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:15:13 PM
As I said last week, Mr. Brewer's display of "candor" wasn't especially helpful to his cause.
204. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:25:13 PM
Cal --
You wrote, re mass killings: "Sometime around Jonesboro, though, the coverage made the act attractive. At this point, I no longer think of it as a 'natural' occurrence. It's a trend, a fad, a public-validated means of self-expression."
Isn't that just a nuanced way of saying "Guns don't kill people -- the six o'clock news kills people?"
205. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 5:33:43 PM
Guns don't kill people, Charleton Heston kills people....
206. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:37:59 PM
Hey Jonesy!
I don't think Chucky H. has actually killed anyone, though he probably could qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
Did you see his performance in "True Lies?" Anything that stinks up a theatre that bad has to violate the Geneva Convention.
207. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 5:54:01 PM
Trial- agreed. Hey, I just saw Drudge on TV the other night between late night informercials. Why is he dressed like an extra for His Girl Friday? He really sees himself as a 90's Walter Winchell doesn't he?
208. CalGal - 9/20/1999 7:11:33 PM
TS,
For that particular category of wacko, yeah. That is what I'm saying.
209. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 7:11:49 PM
Another frivolous lawsuit.
( Getting castrated the hard way. )
210. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 7:29:39 PM
211. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 8:47:01 PM
Grey (re MSG NUM 209)
There is no easy way to be castrated. Although the guy at Luke AFB who did it to himself -- using the sawtooth edge of a fish-filleting knife -- still sort of stands out in my mind.
212. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 9:00:34 PM
Trialshark
"the guy at Luke AFB who did it to himself -- using the sawtooth edge of a fish-filleting knife"
Do you know why he did it?
213. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 9:06:03 PM
Grey --
He was about to be charged with molesting one of the young ladies in his church congregation. Apparently he recalled the Biblical passage "if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off," but realized that his hand wasn't the source of his troubles.
214. PsychProf - 9/20/1999 9:10:41 PM
TAIWAN EARTHQUAKE
Click on photo 
215. robertjayb - 9/20/1999 9:32:32 PM
...
I feel sorry for the Taiwanians.
216. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 1:26:52 AM
"I feel sorry for the Taiwanians."
Welcome to the Mote, Governor Bush.
217. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:07:13 AM
Virginia Governor Gilmore, ever the original thinker, feels that we haven't gotten tough enough on drugs and has made an unheard-of proposal -- a "War on Drug Kingpins"! Among his earth-shaking proposals are:
Requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for drug "kingpins", defined as anyone convicted of making a $100,000 profit in the previous 12 months, Selling 1 kg of heroin, 10 kg cocaine, 1 kg crack cocaine, 100 grams methamphetimine, or 260 lbs/50 plants of marijuana.
Why hasn't anyone every thought of having a "War on Drugs" before?
218. theDiva - 9/21/1999 11:13:04 AM
oh, as if drug kingpins pass out bidness cards and keep their books according to the accrual method.
God, I love the Commonwealth.
219. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:19:51 AM
I think most drug kingpins use double-entry bookkeeping. Wouldn't the prosecution need to know expenditures as well as receipts? And are the kingpins allowed standard deductions for business expenses?
220. theDiva - 9/21/1999 11:25:35 AM
Yeah, and you gotta watch 'em, because they can get real slippery on those bidness deductions. I mean, how can you determine when a hooker has been hired for bidness purposes? And then there's all that cheap champagne.
221. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 11:26:22 AM
Actually, the substantive terms of Governor Gilmore's proposal aren't that far-fetched. Ten kilos is a lot of cocaine.
And even if he is a latecomer to the war on drugs, at least it gives him something to do with his spare time. Everyone needs a hobby. His old one -- filing frivolous suits against prospective widows -- wasn't all that interesting.
222. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:28:07 AM
Trailshark
I especially like the "let's try this -- it's failed in the past" mentality.
223. JonesAtLaw - 9/21/1999 12:15:28 PM
I stick by my old TT tag line- "We still have a war on drugs because there are no good protest songs." Probably they keep forgetting the lyrics.
224. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 12:22:44 PM
bubba --
If at first you don't succeed, pass tougher sentencing guidelines.
225. ElliottRW - 9/21/1999 1:13:50 PM
Re: prospective widow
trialshark
What exactly is a "prospective widow" and what sorts of lawsuits might one file against one?
226. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 1:28:17 PM
ElliotRW --
Check out this link.
227. robertjayb - 9/21/1999 2:40:23 PM
.
slow news day...
HowdyDuty (the actual slug)
DALLAS (AP) - Big Tex's voice is changing this year.
Jim Lowe, 73, says his health is forcing him to give up the job of announcing greetings, announcements and commentary as the voice of the State Fair of Texas' famous 52-foot-tall cowboy.
``I won't be in any shape to take it on,'' Lowe said Monday, a week after doctors removed his gallbladder. ``I'll miss it like crazy.''
Booming out ``Howdy, pardner'' when the fair begins at 10 a.m. Friday will be Dan Alexander of Dallas, who has been singing advertising jingles since 1957.
``I'm kind of awestruck right now,'' Alexander, 64, told The Dallas Morning News. ``Those are big shoes to fill.''
228. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 2:45:37 PM
And here I thought a howdy duty was a tax on greeting cards...
229. ChristinO - 9/21/1999 2:54:52 PM
That's a nostalgia trip for me. Whenever our family would split up at the State Fair we'd agree to meet back up at the left boot of Big Tex.
230. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 7:47:21 PM
Grey --
I like the colorful links on the right-hand side of the page. Is it just a coincidence that the Washington Post is pink?
231. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 7:53:30 PM
The yellow CNN sucks, the pink post sucks, and the white fox is almost illegible.
232. JudithAtHome - 9/21/1999 7:56:24 PM
Well, they got the Dallas link the right color...just like the money over there.
233. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 7:57:49 PM
And why aren't they all the same size? Some kinda Mormon/Chinese moderator or something?
234. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 7:57:59 PM
Trialshark
Yes, its coincidence. I didn't mean to imply that the esteemed publication has a Commie pinko ideology.
I would attempt to get fancier, but there is a limitation of 40 characters per link name, including the html tags.
235. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 8:03:12 PM
Spiderman
Octo Octavius helped me do that just to confound you.
236. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 8:04:25 PM
Hi Tarzan,
Are Tonto and Frankenstein around here too?
237. robertjayb - 9/22/1999 12:23:47 AM
.
Maureen Dowd on the Forrest Gump biography of Ronald Reagan
238. JudithAtHome - 9/22/1999 11:19:58 AM
Did anyone see Politically Incorrect last night? Ann Coulter was put in her place by a young man who was a guest panelist; she tossed off the phrase "you people" to him and he jumped right on her. He asked, "Did you just say 'you people' to me? Do you mean blacks or fat people?" He was both and was holding his own in an argument with her over the founding fathers owning slaves and in one about obese people learning to accept themselves. I was cheering him on because I can't stand Ann Coulter but also because he was a good guest panelist, unlike many who are cowed by Mahr and the other panelists.
239. Thoughtful - 9/22/1999 12:38:30 PM
240. Thoughtful - 9/22/1999 12:38:53 PM
This is the current events page, no?
241. robertjayb - 9/22/1999 5:04:28 PM
Wm. F. Buckley,Jr., reviews articles on Bush and Buchanan
242. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 5:05:46 PM
thoughtful
An electrifyingly funny pair of posts.
243. dusty - 9/22/1999 8:57:53 PM
Anyone else ashamed of the brazen hypocrisy of the administration's decision to sue the tobacco companies?
I say the tobacco companies should counter-sue for all the money they've saved the government in reduced SS payments. I'd be willing to bet that the savings far exceed the claimed costs.
I'd also ask for a refund of all excise (not income) taxes paid over the years.
244. Cygnus X-1 - 9/22/1999 10:27:55 PM
dusty, Re Message #243
I'm ashamed - ashamed that they're not going after Hostess & Tasty Cake, too. I mean come on! The stuff they make is so good yet so fattening. I'm sure they knew that the more fat & sugar they put into their products, the more people would eat. Just think of all of the shame and humiliation - not to mention health problems - suffered by obese people who eat their admittedly legal products. Why I'd be willing to say that they're responsible for the epidemic of obesity among our nation's youth!
Let's face it. Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
245. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 2:17:34 AM
I say the tobacco companies should counter-sue for all the money they've saved the government in reduced SS payments.
Sure they should, dusty. I can almost hear closing arguments now:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client deserves to be compensated for its unselfish contribution to the public good, which consists of killing worthless scum like you before you have a chance to suck at the teat of FDR's socialist abomination, the Social Security system."
Yessir. That'd be a real winner.
246. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:34:13 AM
dusty
I posted on the Political thread my thoughts on this. It won't be long before the Feds. go after the bear, wine and wiskey makers. Of course, they will have their little simp backers, as we see above, defending such outrageous behavior. They will lose this suit, because it has no basis in fact or in law. Now there are a lot of posters on the MOTe that claim to be lawyers. Let's hear them sefend this kind of nonsense. they have become expert at it over the last coubple of years.
247. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:00:43 AM
Hey al --
Aside from your personality issues, you seem to be a pretty bright guy: do you think a jury would buy dusty's argument that the cigarette industry deserves compensation for all the Social Security payments its products have saved over the years?
And if you don't think that's likely to be an especially-successful argument, why are you busting my chops for pointing it out?
248. Macnas - 9/23/1999 3:37:52 AM
It'll be very interesting to see how the US go about this, I find it hard to believe that after many years of taxing a product, thereby gaining from its sales as the manufacturer does, that they can turn around and sue 'em!
249. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 7:15:46 AM
Macnas
Everytime the taxes increase on cigs, the leveying entity says that the tax is justified by the increased health and productivity taxes for smokers. I don't know if the Feds take a cut of that or not.
They're probably thinking, "we taxed the end user, maybe we can tax the manufacturer as well."
In our state, rather than using the proceeds from the states suit for things like stop-smoking programs or buying back farm tobacco allotments, they're currently talking about using the money to build roads and other projects usually provided from the general fund.
250. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:16:30 AM
TrialShark
That. Of course, is why they cannot do it. Not because their argument has no merit, but because it wouldn't play well.
251. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:19:06 AM
Aldavis
Why do you assume they will lose this suit? The attorneys general won similar suits with similarly weak arguments. (Ok, technically, they reached a settlement, but the industry was scared enough of the potential for loss to agree to fork over billions.)
252. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:21:01 AM
Macnas
Not just collecting billions in taxes, but actively promoting the industry through massive subsidies.
253. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 8:31:20 AM
Dusty
" Not because their argument
has no merit, but because it wouldn't play well. "
Also because their argument not only has no merit, but because it doesn't seem the tobacco companies would have any standing to sue. Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives? If anyone would be compensated or have the standing to sue based on shorter lives, it would be the smokers.
254. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:45:35 AM
Bubbaette
Also because their argument not only has no merit,
What is your reasoning for saying that the argument has no merit?
but because it doesn't seem the tobacco companies would have any standing to sue.
If the government argues that tobacco companies owe them money when tobacco causes an increase in costs, why wouldn't the tobacco companies get credit when their product causes a decrease in costs?
Please understand. I am not arguing that the tobacco companies should prevail in such a counter-suit. I am using it to point out the idiocy of the government suit. If the government wants to make their case, they should be forced to live with the consequences, and the argument that tobacco reduces SS payments is as valid as the argument that tobacco increases medial costs (actually, it is far more valid, but that's a different subject.)
Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives? If anyone would be compensated or have the standing to sue based on shorter lives, it would be the smokers.
Smokers have already made this case. Courts are dealing with it. Separate issue.
255. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:47:51 AM
Bubbaette
Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives?
I may have misunderstood your question. Are you saying you don't understand how tobacco saves the government money, or are you questioning why the tobacco companies should reap any such benefits?
256. Dusty - 9/23/1999 9:00:54 AM
As the Microsoft trial heads into the home stretch, anyone interested in a prediction contest? Informal, of course, because I don't know how to objectively "grade" answers, but make a prediction as to what the judge will rule, and we will see who does the best at predicting the outcome.
257. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:16:58 AM
Their argument has no merit: Imagine an airline sued for wrongful death in the case of a pilot error or equipment failure. Would the airline be justified if, to offset their losses, they sued the gubmint for future S.S. payments not made to the dead? I don't think so.
Similarly, in a product liability case for infant deaths caused by faulty spacing in the crib bars, could the company counter-sue local goverment to offset payouts because now local government will be spared the cost of educating the now-dead children?
258. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 9:36:49 AM
Dusty,
Microsoft's lawyers made such a hash of their case that I cannot see how the judge will rule for them. That said, I have difficulty figuring out the right remedy. My best guess is that the judge's order will provide that Microsoft must not install its internet software, but must sell it separately. I think breaking up Microsoft will not happen here.
259. ranheim - 9/23/1999 9:57:51 AM
As you know, I have no use for government at any level.
The three levels of USA government take approximately 50% of all of our incomes in taxes; yet they are hungry for still more money to waste! Government is finding it difficult to raise taxes; bond issues; any other obvious source of money. Thus, the suit against tobacco. (As government knows no shame.)
If this suit wins, what is next? Booze? Twinkies?
In the "good ole days" a tithe went to the church. And another 10% went to the king. Should this % approach 25 - 33 1/3, the king was in danger. And more than one lost his head by becoming too greedy. How can we hold our current rulers accountable?
Recently there have been a whole host of rules and regulations designed to prevent any action against any government employee. Do these new regulations restrict speech? Or only action/s?
260. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 10:32:54 AM
ranheim --
"As you know, I have no use for government at any level."
Is this completely true, or are you engaging in maybe a little bit of hyperbole? I want to know because I'm thinking of going into a life of crime, and I want to know whose homes to rob when the owners are away. Folks who won't call the police -- because the have no use for government at any level -- seem like excellent candidates.
261. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 10:39:15 AM
ranheim,
And if I hit you with my car, are you going to sue me in a court the government provides? Or wouldn't you be driving on a government provided road?
262. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 10:39:24 AM
The problem with "having no use" for government is deciding which parts of government one has no use for. Are you against Air Traffic Control? the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration? The police, firefighters, teachers? How about the Interstate highway system? Building Code inspectors? Social Security and Medicare? Public health in general?
263. ranheim - 9/23/1999 11:43:40 AM
I want the following from government - after all, I should expect something for all my tax dollars!
From feds : protect the borders from invasion -I'm not really sure where I stand on immigration. But, our border with Mexico is a scandal no matter how I resolve in my own mind the immigration issue. Domestic traquility is also in there. But, I don't trust the FBI. Social Security was a Depression program started by one of slimiest politicians of all time. Only Clinton has the potential of being as slimy as FDR.
From state : I don't drive very much. But, road up-keep for my wife.
I dis-trust all law enforcement : the old saw about giving a man/woman a uniform, a badge, and a gun. Ruins most people that wear them.
From local : don't bother me! Get out of my way!
Horace Mann was wrong. I don't think school should be compulsory.
The lame, the halt, and the blind can expect better care at the hands of the church than the government. I have read figures that Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing delivers 90 - 95 cents on the dollar to recipients. The government? I have read both 60 - 40 & 40 - 60. Bureaucrats squander about 50%!
264. DocBrown - 9/23/1999 12:00:33 PM
This morning NASA lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter.
First the Mars Observer and now this? The Angry Red Planet must be hiding something . . .
>;-)
265. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 12:06:25 PM
Ranheim...absolute crap from you today. Two members of my family are wheel-chair bound. The recent disability legislation has opened up the world for them. Falwell that. Where were you religious guys 20 years ago...
266. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 12:07:28 PM
Ranheim
I think that the amount spent on the bureaucracy itself varies according to the specific program and level of government. Medicare, last time I looked at the figures, delivers 98 cents on the dollar while Medigap policies deliver about 40 cents on the dollar. Medicare doesn't have to advertise or provide a profit for shareholders.
Local schools are often pointed out as spending too much of their funding on administration. Depending on the type of school board your locality has, their policies may be the easiest for most folks to influence (if they try) because the officials are close to home and very tuned in to the local political process.
267. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 12:11:57 PM
I was under the impression that smokers are, approximately, 25% of the population and the percentage is in decline. Does anyone know what the percentage of the obese is? Does obesity, which is linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and, depending on one's diet, certain cancers, ultimately cost the government more than cigarettes?
268. ranheim - 9/23/1999 12:15:56 PM
PP
It is impossible to argue with anecdotes like yours in #265.
But, how much have we spent, as a nation, to make curbs wheelchair friendly? Commercial buildings in general? Rest rooms? Bus systems?
etc.
Only a nation awash is cash as is the USA could afford such a law.
269. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 12:21:15 PM
Ranheim...if we take back the money spent, are we a better place? Chrissakes, you should hope for good health with that opine. Where would you spend the money? We are a wealthy place, and I am glad to have my tax dollars spent in this way. Perhaps some of the teenagers you suggest don't have to go to school will have some input here.
270. Uzmakk - 9/23/1999 12:26:30 PM
A bike rider was knocked off a highway overpass onto the highway below and was repeatedly run over by automobiles. No one stopped until a fellow with a flat tire decided to stop..
This in Florida.
271. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 12:37:08 PM
I have no use for government at any level.
I want the following from government ...
Both positions espoused by the same person. To me, they look a trifle contradictory. But maybe that's just me.
272. janjon - 9/23/1999 12:42:03 PM
The stuff posted by Ranheim just up above is not just contradictory, it is fatuous crap. Gives neanderthal a new meaning.
I assume he was going for effect and is into pulling legs a bit.
273. JudithAtHome - 9/23/1999 12:44:36 PM
George C. Scott....RIP.
274. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 12:50:51 PM
.
Jury hints at deadlock in dragging death trial
275. ranheim - 9/23/1999 1:00:40 PM
Believing in a minimalist government is neandertahl?
O.K. I plead guilty.
276. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 1:08:28 PM
Thrakkorzog,
I'm not sure about obesity. Hope the following helps:
Tuesday March 2 5:19 PM ET
Starchy Foods May Be Fattening After All -US Study
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Starchy and sugary foods may deserve their bad
reputation, sparking overeating in some people, researchers reported
Tuesday.
(snip)
More than 50 percent of U.S. adults and one-fifth of U.S. children are
overweight.
U.S. guidelines use body mass index (BMI) to determine who weighs too
much. That is figured by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by
height in meters squared. For example, someone 5 feet 9 inches (1.75
meters) tall and weighing 155 pounds (70.5 kilograms) has a BMI of 23
-- considered healthy. At 169 pounds (76 kilograms), such a person has
a BMI of 25 and is considered overweight.
(From Yahoo news)
277. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 1:13:01 PM
.
Brewer gets death in dragging death trial
278. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 1:14:52 PM
279. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:24:40 PM
Bubbaette
Yes,yes,no,maybe,generally yes with exceptions,no(for defense reasons),yes,yes,yes,not sure
280. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:30:05 PM
Thrakkorzog
Smokers probably do not represent a net cost to government spending. Even excluding that fact that a sensible government (is that an oxymoron) should have considered reduced or eliminated payments for problems caused by voluntary idiocy.
The government spending on medical costs is probably close to a wash, and the savings from reduced SS are probably in the trillions.
I haven't looked into what the obese cost, but if it is over $1, then it is far greater than smokers net costs.
281. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:38:11 PM
Bubbaette
Their argument has no merit: Imagine an airline sued for wrongful death in the case of a pilot error or equipment failure. Would the airline be justified if, to offset their losses, they sued the gubmint for future S.S. payments not made to the dead? I don't think so.
::sigh:: Let me repeat. I'm not making an agument that the countersuit has a lot of merit. It is weak. But it is probably stronger than the argument that the government should collect for payments to smokers.
People killed in aircraft accidents tend to be younger than those killed by smoking. While there is obviously a broad distribution, the "typical" airline death occurs to someone in their 30's or 40's while the typical smoker death is probably in the 60's (I'm guessing, but reasonably intelligent guesses). Thus, the person killed ina plane crash would have paid into the SS system for years, while the typical smoker who dies has been paying SS for many years and is now, or is about to start collecting. So an airline wouldn't want to make the arguemnt, because it would cost them more than they saved.
282. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 1:42:00 PM
It seems to me that the only thing Liberals do not like about government is that it is not quite big and powerful enough. It is obvious that ranheim is using hyperbole and I'm guess the reat of you have never done such a thing for effect.
bubbaette
You do mention some things that govevernment does that I don't like and the most obvious is S.S. It is a disaster, IMHO. Many zoning lawa and building code laws are needlessly oppresive. How cold does it get in Martinez, Calif.? Is it really necessary to have double paned windowns? Or R-30 insulation roof and floor? Or gaskets on every exterior socket? How much interaction have you had with building inspectors? Are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything? How much were the permits to build the pyrimids?
Unfortunately for me, I have a golf appoinment and cannot stay for all the fireworks. But I'll agitate as much as possible.
283. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 2:00:18 PM
Aldavis,
"How much were the permits to build the pyramids?"
How many workers died in their construction?
284. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 2:00:24 PM
Davis....if Ranheim really doesn't believe what he says, then I suggest he say what he means...
285. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 2:02:01 PM
.
AP reports dragging trial result
286. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:39:21 PM
Dantheman
17,645
287. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 2:43:20 PM
Aldavis,
I'll accept your number as correct, since I wasn't around back then. Do you believe that not having to pay a governmental entity to review the plans justifies this loss of life? (this is a moot point anyway, since the pyramids were built _by_ the government and the plans were surely internally reviewed, so it would necessitate one arm of the government of ancient Egypt paying another)
288. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:50:16 PM
HYPERBOLE PRESS, 9/23/99
"The Federal Govenment has just filed suit againt the Harley Davidson Co. in an attempt to recover the costs of caring for all persons injured in motorcycle accidents. A spokesman for the Justice Department pointed out that the Harley Davidson Co. should have, in manufacturing their product, the possibility of road accidents, and endevored to make their product more user friendly. When questioned how they might have done this he replied, "One thing they could have done is to provided their bikes with four wheels. Also, had they encased them in a protective covering, such a a steel housing, while accidents would have still occured, injuries would not have been as severe.
When a spokesman of the Harley Davidson Co. was asked to comment on the Government's action his only response was that they werte making an attempt to start negotiations, using a group of their main users, the Hells Angels. "It is our feeling," he continued, "that a meeting of that group and the members of the Justice Department would result in a satisfactory settlement.
When the spokesman for the Justice Department was told this, he seemed too shaken to respond.(30)
289. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 2:50:38 PM
"Are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything?"
No. I want everything for free. I'm mature enough to recognize that isn't the way the world works, however, which is why I pay my taxes and the various user fees charged by state and local governments without whining. Much.
290. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:58:01 PM
Dantheman
What in the world does your posts have to do with the legitimate questions I have raised? Why not speak to them. Have you had any experience with building department or building inspectors? Do you have any knowledge as to how much all the buearacracy has added to the cost of a home? Do you think homes are underpriced in America today and as easy to purchase for a young family as they were in past years?
I purchased my first home in San Mateo.in 1954 for $13,000. That home could not be built today, but it still exists and would sell today for over $300,000. At the time I was driving a bread truck. Can a bread truck driver today buy a house that costs over $300,000?
Those who seem to think that government is the be all and end all of existance amuse me.
291. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 3:10:44 PM
TrialShark
You also seem incapable of dealing with the questions I raised. Of course, that's nothing new.
292. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:13:39 PM
Aldavis,
I was speaking to your questions. You seem to ignore the fact that something of value is actually gained by having building inspectors do their job, that the building is actually better built (if you don't believe it, ask the people of Turkey or Taiwan where the builders paid off the inspectors and the buildings collapsed in recent earthquakes).
I have no idea why you believe that the fact that the market for existing housing has increased so tremendously in the last 45 years is evidence that building inspectors do not do legitimate work. Please explain.
P.S. I have considerable experience with building inspectors (both representing them and opposing them on behalf of builders). The cost they add to the price of new housing is a very small amount. The value that they add can be considerable.
293. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:18:15 PM
I'm pleased to announce that contestant number 2 in the Texas dragging case has received a sentence of death.
294. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:21:53 PM
Niner:
Please, that's old news. See post #285.
295. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 3:22:33 PM
Did I say that building inspectors added to the cost of housing? I did not. Can building inspectors be unreasonable and add to the cost of a job? Of course. Were the things I was required to do when i built a house in Martinez, Calif., unreasonable and costly? I think so. Has governemnt regulations been a cause of higher home cost? If you don't think so,... well that's what makes horse races. I have a friend who built a home just outside of Santa Cruz who incurred $30,000 in costs, all government related, before he put a shovel in the ground. I must leave now to play golf, but I will return and speak to you again.
296. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:22:48 PM
Rosetta
It is not old news that I am pleased.
297. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 3:27:28 PM
When people talk about how much they hate the government and how government is a waste of resources and can't do anything right, I'm reminded of two situations that have made the news in my area in recent years.
1) A nursing home burnt down and many of the residents died. The hue and cry? "Why didn't the government do something!" "We need regulations to require sprinkler systems in nursing homes!" So all regulations are bad til your granny burns up in the nursing home.
2) Homeowners in certain areas of the state were finding that parts of their foundation -- porches, chimny's, etc., were separating from their houses. The culprit? Shrink-swell soil. The hue and cry --"Why didn't the buiding inspector/builder tell me about this?" "We need regulations to warn people if they're builing in a shrink/swell soil area. Upshot -- regulations are terrible until they're protecting *your* property value.
Before the advent of Social Security, 1/3 of all elderly people lived in poverty. Since then, the poverty rate has declined to that of the population in general. Don't like SS? Give it back.
298. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:31:20 PM
Aldavis,
You previously asked "are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything?" That is where you said that building inspectors add to the cost of housing.
For your friend with the $30,000 pre-construction costs, how much of it dealt with soil studies for wetlands demarcation (so that the new construction did not harm the neighboring environment), flood plain demarcation (so that the building did not get flooded), steep slope demarcation (so that the house was not destroyed in the next mudslide), etc? How much of it was caused by the owner asking to avoid the local zoning regulations?
299. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 3:34:50 PM
Zoning! I hate god-damned zoning! The government should NOT be able to tell me what I can do with my own property. Unless someone wants to build a burger king next door to my $400,000 house, in which case, by gum, the gummint should DO something!
300. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:41:46 PM
Actually, I find private homeowner regulations generally sillier than government ones. The government at least does not try to tell you what color you shades must be, nor what color you can paint your house, nor whether you can park a camper in your driveway, nor whether you can have in your driveway an unregistered car, nor ...
(I've seen all of these and more in homeowner's association regulations).
301. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 3:42:01 PM
302. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:46:11 PM
Al --
"You also seem incapable of dealing with the questions I raised."
You mean like the one about how much the construction permits cost for the pyramids?
You seem to like fuming and sputtering and calling names, pal, and that's your right; but if you expect anyone to take your questions seriously when you toss in such obvious nonsense, you're likely to be disappointed.
303. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:50:51 PM
This argument over whether government is good or evil is really quite silly.
Of course we need a certain amount of regulation and wealth redistribution in a civilized society. Pure capitalism has many negative side effects, one of which is that if you don't work, you don't eat. The vast majority of Americans rightly find that unacceptable.
Of course it's fair to complain when government (as is its nature) starts to intrude into areas in which it has no business. For instance, Social security is a sham and should be phased out as soon as practicable. If you want to replace it with some sort of mandatory retirement account, in which the individual gets to decide how his investment funds are to be invested, that certainly makes sense.
As far as nursing homes burning down or mandatory property inspections, those are 2 more excellent examples of areas where government has no business. Because in both cases, the property owner already has a strong incentive to protect his own property as he or she sees fit and the government regulation is a burdensome redundancy.
304. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:52:37 PM
It's fun to read all these government workers, logging on to mote during "business" hours, telling the rest of us that we need more regulations and taxes.
305. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:55:20 PM
Good point, Rosetta. If any of the people arguing with Al are currently employed by the government and are at work while we speak, you have proven Al's point for him. Move on.
306. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:55:37 PM
Rosie --
There are government workers in the Mote? I thought we all agreed they wouldn't be given the URL or taught the secret handshake.
307. JonesAtLaw - 9/23/1999 3:56:56 PM
Aldavis- I appreciate your viewpoint. I don't agree with it, heavans knows, but I agree that you could use some more meat to the arguments. It may not get cold in California, but how about cooling? I would imagine that your local code requirements for insulation are aimed at that. Less electricity demand etc.
If you want to hear an outside view, I think that Calfornia is too damn lax on a lot of its codes. How ofter do we hear of houses burned in the chaperal in canyons where they have shake shingles on the roof, or asphalt. Why not straw or kindling for godsake?
308. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:58:11 PM
Where's boomerjeff when I need him?
309. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:59:42 PM
Yes, and let's outlaw cars while we're at it.
310. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:01:43 PM
Let's outlaw smoking and fat people (they would get sent to the fat farm) and motorcycles and knives and guns and teeth. Everyone please remove your teeth.
311. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:03:07 PM
Oh, we must outlaw wood as well, anything flammable, in fact.
It's called FREEDOM, folks, look into it.
312. Ronski - 9/23/1999 4:05:58 PM
We don't have to outlaw teeth. We already subsidize sugar growers.
313. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 4:12:01 PM
Bubbaette,
In the case of the shrink swell soils, the inspectors did not do their job. Therefore, the home owners bought houses assuming good faith in the inspectors who failed to do what the state required them to do. Of course, the value of the properties was significantly decreased, since few people want to buy houses with huge cracks in them.
Had Virginia not required inspections at the time that those houses were constructed (I believe those houses were built in the 1980's) and then the home owners complained, then your analogy would make more sense. In that case, the home owners would have bought at their own risk.
314. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:19:13 PM
I'm sure that Bubbaette will be pleased to hear that her line of reasoning almost made sense. She's probably enjoying a nice after-donut nap, however. Then, her hard day's work at the government done, back home. Tough life.
315. ranheim - 9/23/1999 4:24:54 PM
Since I work for myself, may I log on at any time?
#297 Bubba
I spent 9 years as an USAF Flight Surgeon. I was a part of the regulation making process. And since then, I have never said "There aught to be a law" for I know, first hand, how they can be made. Seems to me that if my mother, who lives in assisted living at 87, gets burned up in a fire, my siblings and I would have recourse with laws already on the books. I would assume those laws would be civil in nature and would have nothing to do with govt regulation/s.
Someone mentioned that prior to Social Security 1/3 of those USA citizens 65 or older were living in poverty. 2 or 3 years ago I had the unfortunate experience of listening to David Bonior. This Democratic Party stalwart was saying that, currently, 1/3 of senior citizens were living in poverty and that the majority party in congress was being pinchpenny in not granting them more benefits. Seems, according to Bonior, we haven't made any headway with poverty despite the huge amount of Social Security taxes collected since its inception.
I firmly believe in Mr. Jefferson's "The government that governs least governs best." IMO the government is a very poor and very expensive "do-gooder".
316. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 4:27:07 PM
ranheim --
"I spent 9 years as an USAF Flight Surgeon."
Welcome, fellow wing-nut! Where were you stationed?
317. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:28:04 PM
Anyway, if you want fewer old people living in poverty, give them money. But call it what it is: Welfare for Old People. Don't pretend they've earned it.
318. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 4:28:58 PM
Regarding the nursing homes, I am not familiar with that actual case. However, I assume that Virginia does license nursing homes, and I would assume that sprinklers would be a normal fire code requirement. If the government does not license nursing homes, then I assume the burden of picking a safe one. However, if the government is going to have licensing, I don't see why I can't assume that the state will do its job correctly.
319. Uzmakk - 9/23/1999 4:33:17 PM
re:#270 posted by Uzmakk the Magnificent
If the government was smaller, would that increase or decrease the chance that Floridians would drive over the body of a man in the highway without stopping?
320. ranheim - 9/23/1999 4:38:18 PM
TS
I interned at Madigan General Hospital between Seattle and Tacoma. It rained/misted all the damn time!
2 1/2 years at Naha Air Base on Okinawa. My wife and I saw much of the Orient. Thank you taxpayers of the 60s!
1+ year loosely attached to the Surgeon Genneral's Office in Washington D.C. I was, supposedly, learning Russian and how to be a spy. I failed at both. I have never been more broke. On a Capt. pay in D.C.!
2 1/2 years at our embassy in Moscow. My wife and I saw all the former "Soviet Bloc" countries, some of Germany and Scandanavia. Again, thank you taxpayers of the 60s.
1 year as dispensary commander at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque. I learned that I was not boss material in that year. Very useful information!
What was your job? where?
321. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 4:53:04 PM
Nostradamus
I agree that there are featherbeders in government who do not earn their keep. There are also lazy brainless twits in private industry, charities, churches, and every other profession you can mention. I've logged more than 200 hours of overtime this year -- all uncompensated. If I had wished to, instead of leaving Washington to work at the state government -- closer to where the rubber meets the road, IMO -- I could easily have become a lobbyist, making 3 times the salary I currently make. Instead, I went back to school for a master's degree and work at a job that I truly love. Part of the reason why I didn't become a lobbyist (I had offers of short term projects doing "grass roots" lobbying while I was in school) is I have a very difficult time lying for the highest bidder. Instead, I feel that I have a responsibility to weigh policy questions among the various stakeholders, seek and incorporate comment, mediate between competing interests and try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Moreover, I feel that I should strive to do the best job for each individual that I can, regardless of their party. I don't participate in party politics at all since I started working for the state since I feel strongly about non-partisan service and accountability. I am still allowed, as a citizen, to vote.
You may think that you're an all-seeing all-knowing kind of guy, I differ in my opinion.
322. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 4:57:38 PM
Haha...Ranheim...you were a GovEmployee!!!!!
323. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:00:22 PM
PP
Have you ever heard of the draft?
The Berry Plan was the draft for doctors.
324. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 5:00:22 PM
Don't forget to mention your criminal record in trashing your DNC opponents, bubba
325. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 5:03:31 PM
Look Ran...I did all I could to avoid VN...you just seem to be all over the place on this Gov issue. Did you suck at the tit longer than your draft would require.
326. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:05:18 PM
Thrakkorzog
Nursing homes are liscensed. However not all nursing homes are created equal. There are large nursing homes and "assisted living" communities and there are very small rural nursing homes. Prior to the fire there was no requirement for sprinkler systems in nursing homes of the type that burned down in Petersburg. Up to two years ago, there were no sprinkler systems in the high-rise dormatories of Virginia's public colleges.
My point is that many people hate the government until they want something from it, and then they hate the government for not foreseeing their wants and desires.
Ranheim
You might have recourse if your mom burns up in a nursing home fire. But maybe not -- if there were no negligence on the part of the nursing home. You'd have a much better case if the state required fire suppresion sufficient to get the residents out.
I happen to think that much of state professional licensure is little more than restraint of trade --how many people are killed by bad hairdo's -- but we still license hairdressers. Why do we liscense hairdressers? Because the ones who went to school don't want just anybody to be able to call themselves hairdressers. Same with docs, dentists, dental hygienists, geologists, nurses, contractors, electricians.....
So you think doctors should be unliscensed?
327. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:09:34 PM
Yes, Rosetta, I've noticed you. Run along now.
328. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:09:44 PM
With taxpayers footing the transportation bill (C-130s)in the Orient and giving me access to the Bloc countries, I would have been a fool not to remain in the USAF. As soon as they gave me a regular job, I resinged my commission.
Now sucking tit? How does an USAF officer's pay, even with flight pay, compare to what a civilian doctor makes? My wife and I had an opportunity for travel and we took it. That experience was more important to us than the money issue.
329. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 5:13:44 PM
Ran...the military was lucky to have you. I am glad physicians serve... I am glad to have a Fed Gov indeed. YOU are the one who seems to not be so. In any case, I am off to a meeting...
330. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 5:29:03 PM
Dusty,
Thanks for the info you looked up on a couple of topics. By the way, I believe the article on the French that I read was after implementation, since it mentioned the parking lot patrol. I suspect the Wall Street Journal was the source, but, not having access to their site, I don't think I can do a search.
331. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:33:29 PM
Bubba
Shots may have been fired in E. Timor!
For at least the past 15 years I have wondered why medicine/s in the USA are available only by Rx. It was back then that I realized that some of my patients vacationed in Mexico and brought back medications.
I'm not sure what is NOT available over-the-counter in Mexico.
A portion of my job is doing physicals on truck drivers; beauticians; giving hepatitis shots to funeral home employees; dentists and their assistants; etc. All of this regulation adds to the cost of doing business. I doubt very seriously that any of this expense is warranted.
In my old age I am beginning to wonder about licenses for doctors and all others. I am becoming more and more angry with lawyers and bureaucrats insisting that all of us leave "paper trails".
332. JudithAtHome - 9/23/1999 5:38:58 PM
ranheim:
I don't see your service in the military as any sort of sucking at anything because I know how hard flight surgeons work. I also know how hard many in the military work and can't understand it when people make snide remarks about them taking more than they deserve from Uncle Sam. It is a JOB, for which they are paid.
I'm also driven to chuckles by these calls for doing away with programs like Welfare with the assurance that personal charity will take up the slack if people are in "need": look at how people in "need" are seen now and how some rididcule them; just a few posts ago, Nost. was saying "give old people money but call it what it is, Welfare for Old People. Don't pretend they've earned it." Right, and don't pretend they've led productive lives and contributed anything to society, just sweep 'em under the rug. How charitable.
333. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:42:38 PM
Ranheim
And yet, every year our state legislature gets requests from one or two professions to be liscensed or certified.
I also have issues with zoning. I had a local government professor who talked about moving out to the far suburbs to escape city life and danged if they didn't give a zoning variance to build a shopping center right next to his property. He was all gung ho for development til he got there, and then he thought his locality had too many people and no more development should be allowed.
But on the other hand, the folks you see getting flooded out last week will rebuild right on the floodplain. The people who build there houses in fire hazard or mudslide areas will rebuild with slate roofs right on a fault line. Try telling them they can't.
334. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:44:38 PM
I meant cedar shake roofs, not slate roofs.
335. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 6:42:45 PM
NEW YORK (AP) - The 400 richest Americans for the first time have collectively amassed a total net worth of $1 trillion, a figure greater than the gross domestic product of China, according to Forbes magazine, which issued its annual ranking of the nation's wealthiest people on Thursday.
Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates once again led the list with a net worth of $85 billion, up from last year's $59 billion. The total number of billionaires on the annual list increased by 79 to 268, making 1999 the first time billionaires made up more than half the list, Forbes said in its issued dated Oct. 11.
336. Greystoke - 9/23/1999 8:05:00 PM
Uzmakk the Magnificent
Here is an acticle from the Orlando Sentinel about the bicyclist.
337. Greystoke - 9/23/1999 8:06:32 PM
acticle = article
338. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 8:24:46 PM
ranheim --
I had assignments as an intel officer at Wright-Patt and in DC, and assignments as a JAG at Luke, Vandenberg, Randolph, Kadena (just up Highway 58 from your old haunts), and back at Wright-Patt.
My job at Randolph entailed being on the road 270 days/year, prosecuting courts-martial at all the bases between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, so I got to see the (ahem) garden spots: Cannon, Altus, Laughlin, Goodfellow, Ellsworth, Whiteman, and so on. My job at Wright-Patt entailed defending the service in breach of contract cases at all the bases west of the Rockies.
I learned to hate traveling. Oddly enough, Mrs Shark misses it.
Kirtland was always one of my favorite bases: I wouldn't have killed to go there, but I would have inflicted superficial wounds on people I didn't like. I was never stationed there, alas.
Don't let 'em razz you about "sucking at the government teat." You did your bit to defend your country, which is more than a lot of folks -- on both sides of the fence -- can say.
339. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 9:02:57 PM
Now here's a stupid bit of political correctness, writes Alex Goroff from NPR Community.
The Appalachian Mountain Club is building a new hiker's hut on Mount Washington in New Hampshire. Mt Washington is the highest mountain east of the Rockies and is noted for having the highest winds and worst weather in the world.
The new hut is at 3,500 feet, and is over five miles from the nearest dirt road. It is the most remote hikers hut they've put up.
Work on the hut is now been stopped, because the hut is not HANDICAPED ACCESSABLE, and does not comply with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT!
340. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:15:34 PM
Why in these discussions does it almost always come down to "hate the government." And the rant that "sure, you hate the government until it's something you want." I don't hate anybody. Are you people really saying that you do not think those who feel government is too much with us have a point?
bubbaette
Do you really believe that S.S. keeps people out of poverty? My dear, please do a better job of providing for your retirement that S.S. But I guess if you don't, there is always rent subsidy, food stamps, and other government relief available. Believe me, I have no quarrel with all of society paying some tax to help the really needy.
It seems to me that government, Federal, State, and Local is too large and burdensome.
341. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:20:53 PM
TS
I don't remember calling names but the fuming and sputtering, no comment.
Jonesat Law
Yes, I realize my points could stand more meat, and I will try in future posts to do just that. That we don't agree, well, as I said, that's what makes horse races. One of the problems is that most of my ideas and opinions are not so much theoritical but based on my experience. If I mention these experience and draw conclusions from them, that is just my way.
342. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:31:16 PM
AlDAVis
As a baby boomer, I'm not really counting on S.S. to be around when I retire. I am certainly making other plans, but I'm fortunate to be able to do so. My employers offers a good pension plan, I contribute to a tax-deferred savings plan and invest a little on the side.
There are people who work their whole lives living on the margins and never qualify for or receive an employer-provided pension. When you're living from hand to mouth and trying to provide for a family, it's hard to put money aside. It's easy for those of us who have the wherewithal to put some money aside to say the hell with those who don't, but it's not as easy as all that for a significant proportion of the population.
As for means-testing Social Security, I have no problem with it myself. But then I look at the way people treat and talk about others who are on Welfare and how those people have come to be seen as the scum of the earth and not worth the air they breathe, and I wonder just how supportive the general populace would be of supporting the impoverished elderly if they're not getting a little piece of the action themselves.
343. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:50:44 PM
I have nothing against public assistance, but perhaps those recieving it could be specially marked so that if we saw one walking down the street, we could ask him/her to cut the grass or wash the dishes or something. This would give the person a sense of pride in that they would be helping the elderly. And neighborhoods would look better with all those lawns mowed. The only meat in the above is baloney.
344. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:53:17 PM
I kinda figured as much ;-)
345. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 10:13:50 PM
Al --
"I don't remember calling names but ..."
Does "little simp" ring a bell?
346. PoolShark - 9/23/1999 10:18:44 PM
A follow up on the hiker's hut on Mt. Washington.
They've changed the design, moving the bunkroom, taking out some stairs and expanding the bathroom, putting in a ramp to the newly added porch. The changes in design will add between $30,000 and $50,000 to the cost.
Says a civil rights program manager with the U.S. forest service "If someone wants to carry his child and a wheelchair to Galehead {a 4 mile, three hour hike gaining 2200 feet in elevation}he expects that the child will be able to push around there. The ADA does not make any exceptions for new construction, no matter where it is located".
The closing line on NPR which RosettaSTONE didn't copy was
"Does someone have their ass up their head?"
347. ranheim - 9/23/1999 10:27:31 PM
Its funny how we of my age group in medical school really didn't consider it a burden or in any way strange to go into the military. When I came of draft age, the draft was still in existance from WW II and Korea. So one was exempted to go to college; then, again, for med school. But, all of us - including the two women - knew that we would have to go into the military should they want us. I had a schoolteacher for a father so I had to make a salary right away : thus the USAF. And it was fortunate because I was in my first year in the USAF (internship year) when JFK screwed up and we had the Cuban Missile Crisis(CMC). Those of us already in the military had some choice in our assignments. Those drafted following the CMC were sent to choice places like Korea. And in 1962 Korea was no bargain. While I was permitted to go to Flight Surgeon's School; and then to Okinawa.
Let me stress this : that is just the way it was back then. We didn't feel oppressed or put upon. That was just the way it ways in the early 60s. ALL MALES KNEW THAT THEY COULD BE DRAFTED! Just the way it was! We didn't think in terms of defending the country. We knew better. The huge majority of us had fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins who had been killed or wounded in WW II. Those are the ones who defended their country! Not us.
I suppose that is just so different a brand thinking that you younger ones can't imagine it!?
348. Cygnus X-1 - 9/23/1999 11:37:09 PM
bubbaette, Re Message #342
Before your heart bleeds too much, you should ask yourself, "What is the definition of poor?"
349. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 11:59:42 PM
Cygnus X-1
This is a great link. It is a shame that it comes late in the day when most posters have left their offices. Will it have any effect on those who eat up the nonsense that people are starving in America? I doubt it.
350. bahama280 - 9/24/1999 6:27:47 AM
"While we might be number two in size, we are already number one in member satisfaction." -- MindSpring President Mike McQuary
A new way of saying, "it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it?" ;-)
351. Adrianne - 9/24/1999 6:52:44 AM
Cygnus - Nice strawman.
Aldavis
Has anyone disputed that the majority of the poor in America are better off than the majority of the poor in Calcutta? Does it afford you comfort and pride in yourself as an American to be able to say "well, we do better for the poor than India does, so what's your beef?"
It's impossible to take that story, btw, even if you agree with it and its conclusions 100%, and extrapolate: [it's] "nonsense that people are starving in America?" - or at least to do so with any semblance of intellectual honesty.
Which is it - are we to believe you duplicitous, or dim-witted?
352. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 7:49:21 AM
Cygnus
I do know what poor is, at least in America. Back in the 1970's I worked full time in a rural furniture factory making $2.10 an hour --25 cents above minimum wage. I lived in a mobile home renting for $65/month and made a $100/month car payment. It took more than half my salary to pay for transportation and rent. At that time, I could eat on $15 per week -- $60 per month. Electricity was $25 per month, unless I heated with the oven, and then it was between $45 and $60/month, depending on how cold it got. If I heated with oil, it actually cost more -- about $60 per month during the winter. That left me $10 per week for doctor bills, clothing, gas, tires, haircuts,vacations, entertainment, laundrymat, auto maintenance.
And I didn't have it bad --I wasn't supporting children on that salary.
Now I can hear JJ saying --yeah, but you didn't always make that little. No, I moved, got an education, and eventually got better jobs. But I had the freedom to do so -- I didn't have children and I avoided all forms of consumer debt. Many of my co-workers didn't have those advantages.
So it's possible to work full time, not qualify for any type of assistance and still live hand-to-mouth and always in debt even with a very meager lifestyle. A simple thing like a trip to the dentist can put you back for months.
353. Adrianne - 9/24/1999 8:18:21 AM
Bubba, catch up. Unless you're wallowing a pool of your own filth, crouching on a streetcorner with a distended belly and open, running, sores, chewing the skin from your fingers and drinking your own urine, you're not poor.
354. PsychProf - 9/24/1999 8:47:15 AM
Good grief Judith et al...the "sucking at the tit" was meant to satirize Ranheim's view of Federal Gov...like he's aginem, and he worked for em...
355. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 9:12:58 AM
Adrienne
I'm not poor now, but I can still see that there, but for the grace of god, go I.
And what would constitute poor in the estimations of Cygnet and Al? Starving refugee status?
I suppose that I'm just an old softy to feel that given the blessings and resources our nation has, a person who works full time should be able to afford both heat AND groceries.
356. Uzmakk - 9/24/1999 10:34:49 AM
336#Greystoke:
Thank you. Well, I guess it really means nothing and does't bear discussion. Thanks again.
357. PsychProf - 9/24/1999 11:08:29 AM
358. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 1:41:24 PM
PsychProf
I'm a little surprised they left my name off the list.
TrialShark
No, "little simp" does not ring a bell. I am not usualy given to name calling of individuals, but f I have insulted you in any way I am sorry.
359. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 1:46:18 PM
JudithatHome, bubbaette, ChristinO,
Do you really believe that people in America are starving? Are they dying of starvation with no means of obtaining support? If I knew that to be true, I think I would do something about it. If you can direct me to these people, let us start a group of doners from the MOTE to help these starving people. I will match any donation people care to make up to $1000. God has been good to me. Of course, I have tried to help him along.
360. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:52:34 PM
AlDavis
You appear to suffer from impaired reading comprehension. I did not say that working people are starving, I said that people can work regular full-time jobs and still have to choose between necessities like heat and food, much less being able to afford such luxuries as a telephone.
You seem to think that anyone who is not living the lush life with employer-provided insurance and retirement is a slug or a waste of human flesh. It aint so.
361. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 1:54:13 PM
Bubbaette - Many of my co-workers didn't have those advantages.
Many of your co-workers made other choices.
So it's possible to work full time, not qualify for any type of assistance and still live hand-to-mouth and always in debt even with a very meager lifestyle
And you have shown that if you make other choices, you don't have to live like that forever. If you had chosen to spend $40 a month on cigarettes and alcohol and run up a bunch of credit cards instead of pursuing an education, you would likely still be living in that trailer. Fortunately you chose not to.
I'm not poor now, but I can still see that there, but for the grace of god, go I.
God had little to do with it. There, but for the grace of you. . . It wasn't luck. It was choice.
362. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:58:59 PM
yep, JJ, I suppose those women at the furniture factory supporting kids by themselves should have aborted their kids so they'd have the freedom to go to college.
Believe it or not, not everyone is college material. Some people are not blessed with a great deal of native ability or parents to act as role models. I would think that, with the antipathy you have towards welfare, you would think it worthwhile to see to it that even those in disadvantaged areas or backgrounds could still make a living wage by working full time. Guess not -- instead it's I've got mine.
363. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 2:01:20 PM
Last Post from the dim bulb. (I saw a boat once named Last Boat III)
I contend that goverment regulations have had a significant effect on thecost of construction. As I said in an earlier post, I as a bread truck driver bought a house in 1954in San Mateo, Calif., for $13,000, with $1000. down. My payments were, as I remember, $87, PITI. I made around that a week, sometimes a little more. My hours were 6am-6pm, 5 days a week. If that house were built today with all the added government costs, I probably could not have afforded it. I would have been keep out of the Real Estate game.
I have learned from a reliable sourse, a bread truck driver in the same area today earns between $45,000-$55,000. Let's use $50,000, or $961 gross or $773 net a week, or $3,350 a month.
That $13,000 house nows sells (conservative estimate) for $325,000. With 20%down and a loan of $260,000 his monthly payment would be over $2000 PITI, or around 60% of monthly. Are there any loan officers out there that would like this loan? No chance.
Now I already realize that the S.F. Bay area in out of control on home prices, and there are areas where the ratios are better, but the point is, I at 22 could buy a home. Is that true today?
Most Moties would want to solve this problem, if it is one, with more government. A few would like to solve it with less.
See you later aligator.
364. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:03:37 PM
Home prices (as all prices) have definately risen since you drove a bread truck. But how do you link that to regulations rather than inflation?
365. Dusty - 9/24/1999 2:15:19 PM
RosettaSTONE
I tend to agree with the bottom line in your account of the AMC hut, namely, that Handicapped accessibility is silly at that location. However, I'm troubled when people overreach to make a point, because then people can focus on misleading bits instead of the central facts.
Yes, Mt. Washington has some of the most severe weather in the world, but that weather occurs above near the summit. The weather at 3500 feet, while potentially severe, it not in the same league. The mountain is famous for the highest wind speed ever recorded, despite the fact that it no longer holds the record. While wind speeds in excess of 100 mph are common at the summit (and 233, if I recall correctly, is possible), those wind speeds won't occur at 3500 feet. I'm surprised it is referred to as the most remote hut. That takes some creative definitions. Mt. Washington is one of the, if not the most traveled mountain in the Northeast. Still, unless the hut is next to the Auto road, or the Cog railway, it isn't accessible by wheelchair, so they shouldn't be applying that law. (I mean "shouldn't" in the sense of reasonableness, as opposed to legally.)
366. CalGal - 9/24/1999 2:15:34 PM
I suppose those women at the furniture factory supporting kids by themselves should have aborted their kids so they'd have the freedom to go to college.
Well, they shouldn't have had children until they could support them.
Some people are not blessed with a great deal of native ability or parents to act as role models.
And they should *not* be having children, ideally. In any event, they shouldn't be encouraged by subsidization.
367. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:23:52 PM
yes, we all know of your preference for eugenics, Cal -- only the rich , talented and beautiful should be permitted to breed. But pregancies happen, even despite birth control. To hell with both mother and kids?
368. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 2:27:33 PM
Regarding working poor women with children and the moral injunctions from JJ and Cal that they should not have kids until they can guarantee enough income to reasonably support the kids I ask you to consider the following: divorce/abandonment/death.
369. PoolShark - 9/24/1999 2:56:55 PM
Dusty,
RosettaSTONE just copied the post.
The hut in question is the most remote hut established and maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club on Mount Washington. It is the Galehead hut, on the Galehead trail. It is over 5 miles from the trailhead, which has a rise of 2200 feet to the hut. It is the last hut between the trailhead and the summit. It takes a healthy, experienced hiker at least 3 hours to reach.
370. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 3:33:08 PM
Bubbette & VonK - Do want me to believe that all or at least most of the women at the furniture factory are in the situation they are in though no fault of their own? Do you want me to believe that they had no choice in determining the life they lead? I have known far too many women in that position to believe it. I know there may be a handful who had no choice. They are the same women who in five years will have moved on to a better life. The women who stay in that situation are those whose choices have put them there.
There are amazing resources in this country from private organizations if you want to make a better life for yourself. No one has to spend their entire life in poverty unless they choose to. This is neither cold nor heartless, it is fact.
Bubbaette, think carefully about the women you worked with. How many of their problems were self-induced? How many were really unavoidable.
371. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:39:05 PM
Can we discuss the "Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore" issue?
372. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:40:17 PM
Let's do.
373. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:41:36 PM
All right. What's up with the garish blue font fucking up our nice home page, and the obscenely large GREYSTOKE by-line?
374. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 3:42:20 PM
Keep in mind that it is damn difficult to get social assistance if you are a childless adult with no job. And that most social assistance for parents disappears once kids reach a certain age. Why is this?
Because welfare programs are for the *kids*, not the parents . The kids can hardly be faulted for the choices of their parents, so all of this moralizing completely misses the points of the programs.
375. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:43:05 PM
And adjusting the place of "Current Events" in the thread list on the right?
This place is going to look like an elementary school fun fair soon.
Greystoke, please restore the settings.
376. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:43:38 PM
JJ
"Do want me to believe that all or at least most of
the women at the furniture factory are in the situation they are in
though no fault of their own?"
First of all, you make it sound like they're in prison being punished for their sins rather than working regular full-time jobs. I thought the 40-hour workweek was supposed to be uplifting and ennobling -- not a punishment for having children too young.
Now back to my original point -- what is so hideous about the notion of a living wage for people working full time regular jobs?
377. Ronski - 9/24/1999 3:45:04 PM
I must point out here (since there is no skiing thread) regarding Mt. Washington, the summit received its first snow of the season almost three weeks ago (a trace). Timberline Ski Area on Oregon's Mt. Hood has reopened (it's the U.S.'s only real glacier skiing) and Loveland in Colorado is just about to. Killington, in Vermont, has had skiing as early as late September (for a day or two, as a gimmick), but that does not look likely this year. More probably mid October.
378. JudithAtHome - 9/24/1999 3:46:05 PM
And Al, I have heard of cases where children died of starvation in this country because their parents were too poor, or too stupid, or too whacked out on drugs, or just plain MEAN to feed them. So technically, people die of starvation here.
You may believe in less government but I don't notice government shrinking any when your guys run show...
379. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 3:48:59 PM
Ace
"Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore"
Jealousy doesn't become you.
Spence
See the technical thread. I may have fucked something up because now I can't change the thread characteristics.
380. Ronski - 9/24/1999 3:50:11 PM
The value of a worker is primarily determined by the marketplace. If you inflate labor's cost, there are consequences. In the case of small, regular increases in the minimum wage, it is questionable how hideous the consequences are (probably not very), but undoubtedly some on the lowest rung of the skills ladder are denied jobs whenever the minimum wage is increased.
381. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:50:50 PM
yes, you changed the name of the host. I'm pretty sure the login screen recognizes the HTML tags as part of your name, and you're still trying to login with "Greystoke."
382. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 4:10:16 PM
Ronski: there are other ways to aid workers aside from mandating changes in their market wages.
383. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:13:19 PM
Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore
384. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:16:50 PM
Rask,
True. But there are consequences with that, as well.
385. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 4:21:20 PM
Ace
(shakes fist) Take that back, you hoodlum.
I'd delete your post if I still had the capability.
386. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:31:20 PM
You shouldn't wear so much eyeshadow. It makes you look slutty.
387. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 4:43:59 PM
Ace
Behave yourself, Buster. I have my super powers back now.
388. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 4:46:45 PM
Bubbaette - First of all, you make it sound like they're in prison being punished for their sins rather than working regular full-time jobs.
I wasn't the one bemoaning their fate. I was the one pointing out that their lives are the result of their choices.
I thought the 40-hour workweek was supposed to be uplifting and ennobling -- not a punishment for having children too young.
I wasn't the one complaining about it. I never mentioned pubishment, nor do I think it is appropriate to the discussion. I am making no judgment about them. I am just saying that they are living with the decisions they make.
"what is so hideous about the notion of a living wage for people working full time regular jobs?"
There is nothing hideous about it. Workers are free to negotiate their wages with their employer. If the employer does not want to negotiate, then workers are free to bring in a union to negotiate for them. That is what unions are for.
Labor is a commodity just like any other good or service. The value of that labor is set by the market. I would love to be a singer. Unfortunately, the market has set value of that labor at just about $0. Should I be able to demand that someone pay me a living wage to be a singer? I don't think so. If an employer doesn't want to pay a living wage, don't work for him. If someone else is willing to work for what is offered, that is their choice. You have been underbid. If you don't like this situation, your problem is with the underbidder. Not me, and not the government.
389. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:09:43 PM
JJ,
The government did pay people to be singers. Also artists, dancers, and actors. It was called CETA grants.
I have a friend who was enticed into a career in dance by the money floating around in those days. Today, things are very hard for him.
390. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:11:15 PM
P.S.: I sing too. My better half listens to it. But only for free.
391. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:18:05 PM
Ronski - Even the NEA would not support my singing. Nor should it.
My wife listens. She says lots of encouraging things like "You're flat," and "When are you going to start taking lessons again?"
392. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:21:12 PM
I view all comments along those lines from my beloved as constructive criticism.
393. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:29:42 PM
Ronski - Of course. They are said with love.
394. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:31:35 PM
Ace - You shouldn't wear so much eyeshadow. It makes you look slutty.
Words of wisdom from a man who know what it takes to look slutty.
395. robertjayb - 9/24/1999 6:32:51 PM
. 396. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 8:26:15 PM The Dutch consider legal euthanasia. 397. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 9:12:42 PM Man stumbles out of Canadian wilderness after being lost for two months. 398. CalGal - 9/24/1999 9:27:38 PM Bubba, 399. Sebastian Tombs - 9/25/1999 12:07:35 AM Sounds good to me. Glad a woman posted it though. 400. CalGal - 9/25/1999 12:12:46 AM Sebastian, 401. RosettaSTONE - 9/25/1999 11:46:47 AM from the Washington Post 9/25/99 402. robertjayb - 9/25/1999 1:39:09 PM . 403. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 1:39:59 PM RosettaStone 404. JudithAtHome - 9/25/1999 1:47:43 PM Depraved indifference toward children, again.... 405. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 1:50:22 PM Here is an article about the microwaved baby from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. 406. robertjayb - 9/25/1999 3:23:18 PM 407. dusty - 9/26/1999 5:13:06 PM I am writing a short article and would appreciate feedback. No thread seems perfect, but as Floyd was a recent current event, I place it here. Suggestions for improvement? 408. dusty - 9/26/1999 5:13:19 PM Continued 409. Greystoke - 9/26/1999 7:28:41 PM Dusty 410. Dusty - 9/27/1999 1:30:52 PM Thanks 411. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 4:32:16 PM Gold prices surged today, causing many gold stocks to increase in value by 20% to 30%. 412. JJBiener - 9/27/1999 4:45:06 PM Greystoke - A fucking lot of good it does me now. 413. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 4:57:04 PM JJ 414. JJBiener - 9/27/1999 5:15:21 PM Greystoke - Now you get it. 415. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:08:26 PM post? 416. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:19:37 PM . 417. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:39:21 PM . 418. Dusty - 9/27/1999 7:58:06 PM Greystoke 419. TrialShark - 9/27/1999 8:11:55 PM 420. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 8:29:17 PM Third dragging death defendant says the others did it......."I wet my pants." 421. Cygnus X-1 - 9/27/1999 9:12:29 PM TrialShark, Re Message #419 422. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 9:20:39 PM Dusty 423. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:11:30 AM 424. Bubbaette - 9/28/1999 8:10:51 AM Why Cygnus... 425. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 10:56:13 AM robert: 426. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:33:29 PM Oh come on now, people. First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose. Then, Bubbaette tries to make me out to argue that "everyone does it" is why Gingrich is being treated unfairly. Please stop trying to weasel into other tangential arguments so that you seem to win. No, they're not even tangential. They're just plain concocted. 427. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:34:49 PM JudithAtHome, Re Message #425 428. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 12:46:13 PM 429. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:56:21 PM Oh, I get it. You're playing tennis and I'm playing football. Forget I said anything. 430. Bubbaette - 9/28/1999 12:58:53 PM Cygnus 431. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 1:13:49 PM 432. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 1:19:35 PM 433. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 1:24:54 PM 434. robertjayb - 9/28/1999 1:43:52 PM JudithAtHome, here is some of The Houston Chronicle's take on the drugs story: 435. Dusty - 9/28/1999 2:00:16 PM robertjayb 436. PoolShark - 9/28/1999 2:02:17 PM >These invasions of privacy are wrong and conservatives have always believed that. 437. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:04:40 PM 438. 109109 - 9/28/1999 2:05:18 PM Ace 439. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:13:42 PM 440. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:26:09 PM 441. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 2:31:08 PM I just came home from running errands and found this cryptic message on my machine from a friend who was leaving to go to the dentist (so I can't call her back to ask for her source): "Which Republican candidate is having an affair with a 20 year old?" Did I miss something on the noon news? 442. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:37:04 PM 443. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:40:35 PM 444. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:40:57 PM 445. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 2:42:51 PM TS: 446. Dantheman - 9/28/1999 2:48:39 PM I'm hoping it's Steve Forbes -- the interplanetary "I seduced a space alien" aspect will keep the tabloids happy for years! 447. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:49:25 PM 448. janjon - 9/28/1999 3:03:41 PM The affair with a 20 year old? The most delicious would be if it turned out to be Liddy. 449. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:19:38 PM 450. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 3:31:06 PM You know, TrialShark, you're a real prick. It's bad enough that you can't simply defend a side, but you have to make up shit so that you can wallow in your delusional superiority. You post the article only because you think it's amusing. OK, assume we accept your spin. Why did you find it amusing? Was it ironic? Why was it ironic? 451. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 3:32:38 PM 452. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:38:11 PM 453. janjon - 9/28/1999 3:38:15 PM Trialshark - I must admit I used "droop" in a premeditated way. (Surely just like the stock market, Viagra's stock in trade must go both up and down.) 454. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:39:51 PM 455. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 3:41:08 PM Gee, TrialShark, what statement did I make up and attribute to someone? 456. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:56:46 PM 457. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 4:50:39 PM 458. robertjayb - 9/28/1999 5:14:23 PM #435 (Dusty); #437 (AceofSpades) 459. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 5:42:45 PM 460. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 6:03:20 PM Uh, Mr Bauer? Shouldn't you wait until there is an accusation before you start denials? I mean, this way you, uh, look, you know, guilty. 461. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 6:09:01 PM 462. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 6:18:46 PM TS - I wonder who the first person in the media will be who will refer to Bauer as Bakker. If this follows form the GOP might be able to rid itself of the Religious Right once and for all. This would give us the lion's share of the Reagan Democrats and the next few elections would be smooth sailing. 463. Thoughtful - 9/28/1999 6:38:44 PM A...er... I don't think so JJ, not when the rest of America discovers that GW Bush is about as bright as Quayle. Tell me why he didn't denounce Buchanan who now makes the Nazis look left of center? 464. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 6:53:52 PM 465. ranheim - 9/28/1999 8:01:27 PM Thoughtful in #463 466. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 10:22:54 PM I guess now we know why the press is so easy on Clinton. If you're not a household name and you ask him tough questions, you're banned from the White House. 467. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 10:58:42 PM Thoughtful - I don't think so JJ, not when the rest of America discovers that GW Bush is about as bright as Quayle. 468. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 11:02:24 PM Cyggie - I guess the Democrats love of a free press extends only so far as to cover those who agree with them. If you make them too uncomfortable, and they turn the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Suggestions 469. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 11:06:14 PM TS - Personally I think that Bauer wasn't the target. If I were guessing, it would have been Bush or McCain as the target. Bauer isn't causing enough of a stir to worry anyone in either party. 470. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 12:22:43 AM 471. Stumbo - 9/29/1999 1:08:48 AM TS: 472. EricCartman - 9/29/1999 1:21:34 AM JJ: 473. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:42:06 AM 474. Stumbo - 9/29/1999 2:19:34 AM TS: 475. SpenceMirrlees - 9/29/1999 2:54:29 AM I was going to say what Cartman said about the business success of Bush and Quayle, but, well, he said it. 476. moonflower - 9/29/1999 8:25:04 AM On many issues, I don't like McCain at all, but I do like his attempt to gut the money machine that elects these bores. George Jr. had 3 failed businesses by the time he was 40. But he also had the family name. It's rather sad that Bush Jr-Gore is the best we can hope for? No wonder people don't vote. The big money corporations will roll on no matter what. 477. Ronski - 9/29/1999 8:43:44 AM I'm beginning to think that Bush fils will collapse, if not before the Convention, then before the national election. He's an airhead, and people will eventually catch on to that. 478. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 8:58:26 AM 479. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:04:25 AM 480. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:12:21 AM 481. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:12:22 AM One of the things that made Clinton such a strong candidate was that, unlike recent previous Democrats, he played hardball (so much so that it adds to these rumours of having had people offed). You have to go back to JFK to find a Dem who so played to win. 482. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:15:40 AM 483. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:18:35 AM It's not a tough sell because Gore or Bradley won't do the selling. Their myrmidons will. And the issue largely stays alive because while the former two admitted it, Bush won't admit he used cocaine, though he probably did use it. 484. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:20:41 AM Ranheim, jj, as others have posted, the "successful" careers of Quayle and WBush have had a lot more to do with family name than being "self-made men". WBush's failed business enterprises prior to the baseball team (with which politics played a big role) are well known. Why won't WBush allow his Yale transcript to be released? 485. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:23:14 AM 486. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:24:32 AM 487. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:26:27 AM I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't counter-attack. I'm sure he will. My point is that if the Dems don't play this game, they haven't a prayer. They need to raise Bush's negatives. If they say, "Well, doing this sort of thing wouldn't be sporting," they're screwed. 488. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:27:22 AM 489. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:28:17 AM 490. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:28:37 AM More recently, Buchanan's book suggests that we should not have even gotten involved with Germany in WWII. As George Will asked on Sunday's TV show, is he aware that they declared war on us first? 491. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 9:29:04 AM Ace...her "undergrad" thesis? God forbid any of us think new thoughts, then or now... 492. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:30:07 AM 493. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:31:29 AM 494. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:37:37 AM Ace, I didn't say Gore's family name didn't have anything to do with his success -- of course it did. But one shouldn't support WBush & Quayle because they are self-made men because they aren't. (For the record, Forbes isn't either.) 495. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:43:04 AM 496. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:44:45 AM Pat is obsessed with Jews, gays, and sex (he's agin' it). Now, he also obsesssed over Communism, but given that they had missiles pointed at us for a very long time, that is somewhat more understandable. 497. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:49:22 AM 498. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:53:21 AM I agree that the Holocaust did not get us into the War. Pat uses that fact and the reality of what happened to Eastern Europe to rationalize his soft-on-Hitler views. 499. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:57:39 AM Incidentally, while the scope of the Holocaust was not widely known, perhaps not even in Germany, until the War ended, the general mistreatment of Jews by the Nazis was widely known by the mid 30s. Jews were virtually stripped of their citizenship in Germany by the end of 1936. 500. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 10:18:38 AM Awhile back the New Yorker ran a nice piece summarizing Bush's career in the "private sector". If it was the "private" sector, it was the side of it that was very much involved in politics including favorable contracts from the Kuwaitis to Bush's employer post Desert Storm. (The business deal failed anyway.) Of course we know that baseball stadiums have absolutely nothing to do with the public sector. Just like Neil Bush was in the private sector on the Silverado Bank Board because of his brilliant career in finance. Yup. 501. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 10:19:34 AM Ace...no I don't support concealment. I also don't support witch hunts investigating undergrad term papers. Somewhere in between these two is where I rest. 502. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:25:32 AM 503. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 10:25:44 AM 504. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:26:46 AM 505. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 10:29:33 AM I was under the impression that Bill Clinton has also refused to release school records, certainly with regard to his scholastic activities in Oxford. 506. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 10:45:56 AM Thoughtful: 507. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 10:52:15 AM I have not read Buchanan's book not have I any plans to (since I really have no inclination to vote for him). My knowledge of the book's contents comes solely from newspaper accounts, mainly a column by Chris Matthews on the book. 508. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 10:56:35 AM Buchanan seemed to be genuinely surprised at the reaction to the book. I know his surprise was genuine because he isn't very good at covering his true feelings. He told Tim Russert he thought the book tour would've lasted a week or so and then he could get back to campaigning...is he clueless or what? Surely he had to know this would be "news". 509. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:58:50 AM 510. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:01:06 AM 511. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 11:03:20 AM For all the Big Brothers out there...I am not at liberty to release any form of academic performance by any student I teach w/o their permission...the ability of students to freely explore(w/o constraint) intellectual options is a cornerstone of academia...sorry ACE, but any attempt by you or yours to access such is a witch hunt to me, and I'm sure to the student(eg Hillary) being hunted. 512. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:03:58 AM 513. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:05:50 AM 514. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 11:06:50 AM Judith - Buchanan seemed to be genuinely surprised at the reaction to the book. 515. 109109 - 9/29/1999 11:09:33 AM I think the candidate can keep secret whatever the candidate wishes to keep secret. It is the job of enterprising reporters to wangle secret information into the public sphere, and to the extent the voting public feels that Hillary is hiding something of value, they will punish her for it at the polls. This is no different than tax returns or the Bush decision to keep mum on his drug uses prior to a certain year. Some candidates reveal more than others. 516. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 11:09:46 AM JudithatHome#508, 517. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 11:13:45 AM Ace...baloney...I never require students to "believe" their Senior Thesis...what they must do is intellectually explore a topic, with a central point in mind. Why do you confuse thought with truth( in this case "belief")? How do we know she wrote with truth in mind? The paper was not written for us...she was a student...it was written for her own personal growth. Should we now have University Deans judge the political correctness(and obviously future implications) of student work? In case some "might" look...I guess enquiring minds! want to know. 518. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:18:04 AM Ace- What relevance does an undergrad thesis have to her views decades later. The very idea of post secondary education is to stretch the minds of young persons beyond the experiences and values they have when they arrive. It is supposed to be a time of intellectual trial and error. My views of the world are different twenty years later, are yours? 519. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 11:20:28 AM Ace: 520. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:22:44 AM PP makes a very good point. The paper was written with a particular audience in mind- the professor. What do we know of her/his slant on the subject? Do you suppose that Hillary may have "played the game" and written a thesis that she hoped demostrated here knowledge of the material, while insuring that it did not run afoul of the prof's pre-conceived notions of the subject? 521. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:27:00 AM 522. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 11:28:28 AM Jones: 523. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:30:15 AM I am certainly a different person than I was as an undergraduate student --some of my beliefs have changed as they're tempered by everyday experience. 524. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 11:36:07 AM thrakk, if you are looking for objective analysis of Buchanan's book, I certainly wouldn't go to Chris Matthews who is far right of center. 525. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 11:42:11 AM Is this the same Chris Matthews who hosts Hardball? I confess that I assumed it was. If these Matthews are the same, then he is a Democrat who worked for Tip O'Neill and now seems to be all over the board ideology wise. 526. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:46:27 AM 527. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:49:24 AM Matthews is simply a loud-mouthed devil's advocate. He has no discernible ideology. And no discernible principles except self-preservation, a trait which did at least lead him to give up drinking, apparently saving his marriage in the process. He's a bore. 528. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:49:48 AM Ace- If you wouldn't be chagrined at the release of your college term papers, I think at least one of the folowing would be true: 529. Cellar Door - 9/29/1999 11:49:48 AM I wish I'd never heard of Chris Matthews. 530. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:51:20 AM By the Academy, if you are referring to the University -- those professors who receive public funds for research might be required to make the results public (unless the research is for the Military or otherwise for limited distribution. But like most students, I suspect that Hillary paid tuition for the privilege of learning and should not be required to turn over her papers and notebooks for public inspection. 531. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:52:25 AM 532. Buck Mulligan - 9/29/1999 11:56:08 AM Yes, Ace, you are confusing the role of professors with the roles of students. If you were to ask to look at my students' homework, I would naturally refuse. 533. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:56:53 AM 534. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 11:57:26 AM I assume that Matthews can be either far right of center as Thoughtful stated or he can have no discernible ideology, but I rather doubt that he can be both. 535. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:57:46 AM Ace- undergrad thesis are academic exercises. They are not intended to further the scope of human knowledge. If you want her to release a Master's thesis, or a Doctoral dissertation, your point is stronger, as they are intended to be public additions to the academic literature. Universities maintain collections of sucessful theses and dissertations, at least mine did. They are supposed to be disseminated, and are supposed to advance an academic argument personally supported by the author. Term papers are another thing. 536. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:58:15 AM 537. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:59:11 AM 538. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:59:48 AM I don't know anyone who got a stipend or compensation of any kind for an undergrad thesis. 539. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:01:38 PM I assume that Matthews can be either far right of center as Thoughtful stated or he can have no discernible ideology, but I rather doubt that he can be both. 540. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 12:02:02 PM If Hillary's senior thesis was made under the same conditions as yours and included in the library collection, I concede the point to you, if it has been removed from the shelves. If a relase is needed, I doubt that is the case. Surely some enterprising reporter would have made her/his way to the stacks and obtained a copy by now. 541. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:02:16 PM 542. Buck Mulligan - 9/29/1999 12:02:24 PM At some schools senior theses are published and maintained in the school library, and you're free to go look at them. But in general, a student must give her consent, either at the time of writing in the case of a thesis to be published or after the fact. 543. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:03:02 PM Whoops, sorry about the double post. 544. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:03:44 PM 545. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:06:38 PM 546. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:08:56 PM I wrote not one but two Honors theses. Didn't get any money for them, wrote them as an exercise on how to get Honors with a minimum of effort, and would be deeply disappointed if either saw the light of day again. I don't know what Ace is talking about with this "add to the accumulated store of information/analysis available." No one who did an Honors thesis at my college was attempting any such thing, or had any inkling that this was what was required of us. 547. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:09:51 PM So, Ace, may we ask on which pirate you model yourself? 548. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:10:53 PM 549. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:11:40 PM Ace 550. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:11:43 PM 551. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:13:35 PM Ace, there is a genuine difference between an undergraduate thesis and a graduate thesis. The first is an academic exercise more than anything, the second is meant to contribute to the available published work. You are needlessly blurring the line between the two, a line that absolutely does exist. 551. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:13:35 PM 552. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:15:07 PM 553. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:16:20 PM My Military Politics professor used my term paper in his reserved readings for the course, but he got my permission first. I didn't receive or ask for any compensation. 554. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:17:11 PM Now, perhaps someone can explain to me why GW Bush is considered a viable or worthy candidate for anything other than the Board of Governors of Andover? Yes, I know he's raised money, and been anointed Republican frontrunner. 555. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:19:28 PM You folks must have been diligent undergrads, or attendees at prestigious universities. As a Pol SCI/HIS major, my undergrad thesis covered the confluence of Marxist-Leninist dogma, methamphetamine and Red White and Blue beer. 556. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:21:04 PM marjor 557. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:21:50 PM Marj 558. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 12:23:20 PM Niner, 559. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:27:51 PM GWBush is a complete weenie compared to Clinton in 1992. 560. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 12:29:42 PM Niner - GW is better qualified than the Dem 1992 candidate because he has at least some experience in business. The Dem 1992 candidate had none (and still has none). Having to make a payroll is an experience every cheif executive should have. 561. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 12:32:45 PM I am enternally greatful that my thesis in Jurisprudence is not on the stacks at the library. Very fuzzy stuff on Natural Law, that was right up my prof's alley, and earned a decent grade, but I wouldn't want to stand on it now. 562. Ronski - 9/29/1999 12:33:12 PM Even Reagan had considerably more experience than Bush, and had been tested in many more ways. 563. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:34:51 PM "Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar, and went to Yale Law School." 564. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:36:16 PM Ronski, 565. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:36:47 PM Well, I certainly think Hillary's thesis would be of great interest to historians of American politics if the thesis was related to political theory (as opposed to economic theory in Tudor England). It doesn't seem a huge stretch to say informed voters would like to know as well. I don't think anyone would vote for or against her based on her Senior Thesis, but it might give an insight into the evolution of her thinking. 566. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:38:54 PM Niner, 567. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:43:32 PM 568. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:46:12 PM Ace, 569. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:46:12 PM marjori 570. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:47:32 PM 571. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 12:48:16 PM Banks - Give me a break! Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar Kris Kristofferson was also a Rhodes scholar. That hardly makes him presidential material. 572. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 12:49:44 PM I remember when the critics were picking on Clinton for his anti-Vietnam letter he wrote in his college days which was finally published. It proved to be a well thought out, well written piece which expressed the sentiment of many people at that time -- one which many undergrads* would be hard-pressed to match today. 573. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 12:50:15 PM 574. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:50:34 PM JJ 575. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:52:19 PM Thoughtful 576. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:52:39 PM Bush Sr. ran against Clinton. Bush jr. will presumably be running against Gore or Bradley. So why compare Bush Jr. with Clinton? 577. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:56:00 PM Bubber 578. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:56:22 PM Seeing as Bush Jr. is not running against Clinton, I don't see that the comparisons btwn the 2 are appropriate. How about comparing Bush jr. with Bradley and Gore? 579. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:56:58 PM First of all, I do not have any party allegiance, whether you consider this risible or not. I have voted for Republicans, notably twice for Rudy Giuliani. In the right circumstance, I would be happy to vote Republican in a presidential election. 580. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 12:57:52 PM Bubbaette: 581. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:00:05 PM marj 582. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:00:57 PM Was I "smitten" with Clinton in 1992? Yes, and so were a lot of people. I specially went to the US consulate in Paris to cast an absentee ballot because I had great hopes for a man of such visible capability. Was I disappointed after that? Sure, so were a lot of people. 583. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:00:57 PM 13 months prior to the election, no one is my candidate as of yet, though certain people have been ruled out in the winnowing process. 584. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:02:01 PM What demonstrated expertise and experience did he have? He was governor of a very trouble Southern state. 585. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:04:48 PM Niner, I agree with you. I agree that the Clintons were stupid about a lot of things and continue to be stupid about things like this PR terrorist early release and Hillary's bringing up WJC's zipper problem after it had all died down. There's certainly enough out there to dislike the Clintons for, not the least of which has been bungling of many issues. 586. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 1:05:03 PM Tomorrow on NPRs (radio) Fresh Air, Terry Gross is going to interview the author of the new Reagan biography. I mention this because she is a very good interviewer. 587. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:10:10 PM Thoughtful 588. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:11:49 PM Niner, 589. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:12:32 PM 590. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:13:14 PM As for comparing Bush Jr. to Gore or Bradley, my rule of thumb is that all other things being equal, governor trumps senator, and representative or businessman should be avoided at all cost. 591. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:15:49 PM 592. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:18:41 PM marjori 593. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:19:30 PM Ronski 594. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:22:07 PM 595. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:23:03 PM What were their relative offices again? 596. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 1:25:37 PM Niner, 597. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:26:38 PM FDR. 598. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:28:07 PM Niner, fine. 599. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:28:26 PM Ronski, my concerns about McCain include the fact that in this election he seems to be a one-note samba, he voted to remove the pres from office, and I think he's crooked -- some of us remember the Keating-5 -- more than can be considered a "youthful indiscretion". 600. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:28:35 PM 601. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:31:05 PM 602. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:32:34 PM 603. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 1:32:56 PM Thoughtful #599, 604. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:34:13 PM Given some broad ad detailed campaign statements, and a couple of good debates, I would certainly vote Powell and Republican in a Presidential election. 605. CalGal - 9/29/1999 1:34:27 PM Banks, 606. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:38:33 PM 607. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:44:47 PM 608. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:46:56 PM Lets examine the hypothesis that if Buchanan bolts it will free up Bush to evince the requisite degree of moderation, the implied conclusion being that Bush will then win handily. 609. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:49:21 PM 610. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:50:15 PM Ronski, being Gov of TX in the buckle of the bible belt, it doesn't take any backbone to say you're anti-gay. And do you really think that he wouldn't fudge on that position if it served his needs? Like Clinton fudged on the military/gay issue? Any more so than Gore's switch from anti- to pro-choice to get the VPship? 611. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:50:45 PM I suspect you are not a soccor mom, Ronski. 612. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:51:08 PM e for o, please. 613. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:52:28 PM 614. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:55:05 PM 615. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:55:15 PM As for the prosperity issue, um, I suspect we will be reminded a bit about Poppa Bush's less than sterling performance on that front. And, um, there will be a few nice things for the Dems. to point to regarding the last six years or so. Gore will certainly tell us that. 616. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:55:52 PM Ronski, I agree with #609 -- and why WJC won vs. Bush in '92. He correctly had his finger on the pulse of the populace with his "It's the economy, stupid," as it was and shall be. Problem is, Gore is so weak a candidate that it's questionable that even the strongest economy in 30 years will carry him into office. 617. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:58:16 PM What scares me more than anything is that, even though everyone dismisses the religious right as fringe to the election, all the candidates (Bradley an exception?) are tripping over themselves to prove how religious they are. Shudder. 618. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:00:35 PM janjon, 619. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:03:50 PM Ronski. Admirable traits you have there. But when it comes to voting the soccer moms have you and yours outnumbered (even as to the Great New American Pastime - watching football). And, they take the gun control and abortion issues most seriously. 620. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 2:04:05 PM Sorry, Ronski -- I missed the wink'n'nod -- I tend to do that in this medium, especially when I'm talking politics. 621. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:04:09 PM janjon, 622. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:09:33 PM janjon, 623. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:09:58 PM Ronski - anybody who could go from an over 90% approval to less than 40% in slightly more than a year, without any dramatic reason for the cause, wasn't a victim. Just inept. Actually it was his READ MY LIPS that finally did him in. 624. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 2:11:24 PM 625. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:14:03 PM Yes. Bush's bewilderment and sense of awe at seeing how a supermarket checkout line worked really said it all to a lot of people. He did, of course, feel very comfortable in boat showrooms. Big boats, like Cigarettes. (Actually, I have always been a bit surprised that he wasn't a sailboat man. Much more in keeping with his background.) 626. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:15:00 PM 627. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:18:24 PM Trial, janjon, 628. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:19:48 PM Clinton has done little for the economy except not wreck it.... 629. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 2:20:40 PM Ronski, 630. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:21:22 PM 631. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:22:31 PM Greenspan cheats at tennis. I know that from unimpeachable sources. 632. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:24:38 PM 633. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:25:55 PM Bub- perhaps for the same reason that Reagan ran against Carter in his second term. Attack the record you don't like, not the candidate whose arguments you find difficult to make appealing sound bites out of. 634. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:26:11 PM 635. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:26:43 PM errrr, first term.... 636. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:27:33 PM Man, that was a good lunch, and I'm sleepy. Back to lurking... 637. ranheim - 9/29/1999 3:01:43 PM This may not be apropos here; BUT . . . 638. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:05:35 PM 639. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 3:06:32 PM ranheim: 640. Ronski - 9/29/1999 3:07:22 PM 641. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 3:09:16 PM Ronski: 642. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 3:13:16 PM County gives employees a ``living wage'' increase 643. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:31:44 PM 644. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 3:41:39 PM My one and only snorkelling experience was on Okinawa. 645. CalGal - 9/29/1999 3:59:14 PM I snorkelled in Saudi Arabia, and while I lived there I went to school with two girls who were born in Okinawa. 646. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:59:43 PM 647. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:06:00 PM Jimmy Breslin on the art flap in New York... 648. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:12:14 PM maybe this will be a working link to Breslin 649. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 4:13:34 PM Trialshark: Yes, the Terama Islands. I've been as far south as the Ishigaki Islands also, which are practically Taiwan. 650. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:26:17 PM Jacob Weisberg on Bush's complaint against a parody website 651. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 4:39:00 PM It would be so funny if this guy were the late Fredrick Exleys son... 652. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 5:14:40 PM 653. ranheim - 9/29/1999 6:23:14 PM Judith; TrialShark; pe 654. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 6:42:25 PM 655. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 6:44:48 PM I don't know what the Ernie Pyle Memorial is. 656. CalGal - 9/29/1999 6:49:46 PM Ernie Pyle was a WWII war correspondent--in fact, he probably still has the most name recognition of any war correspondent. He was killed by sniper fire on Okinawa. 657. CalGal - 9/29/1999 6:54:45 PM Oops--I just realized you mentioned the memorial, not the grave site--which makes sense given your discussion. He's buried at the Punch Bowl in Hawaii, which is where the picture in the above link was taken. 658. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 7:01:49 PM 659. ranheim - 9/29/1999 7:18:30 PM TrialShark #254 660. ranheim - 9/29/1999 7:19:05 PM #654 661. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 7:22:21 PM 662. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 7:22:48 PM ? 663. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 7:40:15 PM 664. ranheim - 9/29/1999 9:19:38 PM TrialShark 665. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:45:27 AM 666. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 2:07:10 AM 667. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:42:08 PM 668. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:50:04 PM 669. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 12:59:22 PM Trialshark, ranheim: 670. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 1:10:56 PM 671. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 1:21:25 PM Trial: 672. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 1:25:39 PM Trial: 673. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 1:35:12 PM 674. janjon - 9/30/1999 2:29:00 PM But unfortunately they just aren't in a position to take advantage of it, to make a killing so to speak, eh? 675. janjon - 9/30/1999 2:46:43 PM Japanese officials are being quoted as saying "abnormal reactions" could be continuing. 676. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 2:58:16 PM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN JAPAN 677. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 3:06:29 PM Does anyone else get annoyed when Clinton shows his compassion and empathy for poor countries by giving them other people's money? Since when are the poor in other countries more important than the poor in the United States? He just wants people to liken him to FDR. He should know, though, that a lot of people do - not that that's a good thing. 678. janjon - 9/30/1999 3:10:16 PM Cygnus. No. 679. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:15:49 PM CY...interesting response to 666...do you care or are you saying scew em they're not Americans...or were you simply ignoring the story and/or my post? 680. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:21:49 PM Trialshark: 681. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:25:27 PM I swear those typos weren't there when I posted that!!! 682. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:26:10 PM Interesting. It's only minutes old, and there has already been more coverage in this thread on the Japanese accident than on the Taiwan earthquake, despite the fact that the latter is orders of magnitude more serious. Anyone care to discuss why this is? 683. ranheim - 9/30/1999 3:26:38 PM Judith;Trial 684. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 3:27:49 PM PsychProf, Re Message #679 685. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:28:14 PM Dusty...I believe i posted on both...in any case, what is your point? 686. ranheim - 9/30/1999 3:30:27 PM The Teahouse of the August Moon was off limits for most of my tour on Okinawa. We got there only once. I believe it was off limits because the locals wanted a place to go where there wouldn't be "round eyes" and their money. 687. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:37:03 PM Cygnus X-1 688. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:39:14 PM PsychProf 689. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:39:46 PM Dusty: 690. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:42:25 PM 691. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:42:28 PM JudithAtHome 692. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:43:11 PM Dusty...hope the fear is irrational. 693. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:44:36 PM 694. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:44:36 PM JudithAtHome 695. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:46:19 PM 696. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:48:47 PM I found it of particlar interest because of the posts(eg TS, Ranheim Judith) that recounted such splendid memories...I was not trying to compete stories... 697. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:53:44 PM TrialShark 698. CalGal - 9/30/1999 3:57:17 PM Can't do anything about earthquakes--except build better. Nuclear accidents are not only man made, there is always the risk of permanent damage that affects everyone. In other words, the potential downside is longer and more severe. 699. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:57:23 PM FOR DUSTY...THE MEXICAN QUAKE 700. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:57:47 PM Sorry, Dusty, that we didn't gnash our teeth enough over these things; I guess we got a little carried away with talking about events in the past rather than current ones. 701. CalGal - 9/30/1999 3:57:56 PM As for shooting sprees--perhaps you haven't noticed, but the coverage level has subsided dramatically. Compare the April Littleton coverage to the Dallas coverage of a couple weeks ago. 702. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 4:00:48 PM CalGal: 703. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:02:37 PM Judith, 704. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 4:05:15 PM Cal: 705. JonesAtLaw - 9/30/1999 4:08:29 PM "Fly over country" eh, CalGal? 706. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 4:09:31 PM To be fair, some would claim that the covereage of the shooting sprees depends on the ethnicity or religion of the victims. 707. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:09:50 PM Ah, yes. The charm of a provincial Californian. 708. ranheim - 9/30/1999 4:10:40 PM Now Cal! 709. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:11:26 PM Ran, 710. ranheim - 9/30/1999 4:13:28 PM Cal 711. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 4:18:33 PM 712. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:22:53 PM TS, 713. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 4:37:09 PM 714. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:01:32 PM TrialShark 715. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 5:14:13 PM 716. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:18:29 PM TS 717. CalGal - 9/30/1999 5:20:22 PM Really? I think Chernobyl would have more coverage, overall. Taken from time of incident to present day. 718. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:21:55 PM TS 719. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:22:45 PM Wow, that some thread list. 720. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:23:23 PM Grey, forget to close a font size tag? 721. Greystoke - 9/30/1999 5:30:44 PM Hey, I'm experimenting. I only have 40 characters to work with for each link, counting both the link name and html tags. 722. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:32:09 PM Much better, thanks. 723. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 5:41:50 PM 724. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:47:57 PM TS, I agree, I'll try to elaborate later, but I'm out the door. 725. robertjayb - 9/30/1999 7:08:23 PM . 726. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 7:57:27 PM 727. Thoughtful - 10/1/1999 8:36:05 AM Interesting juxtaposition in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. My quote-a-day calendar today was by Einstein from 8/2/64: 728. Thoughtful - 10/1/1999 8:36:36 AM ..er..power not powr. 729. Ronski - 10/1/1999 9:38:48 AM 730. Amaxen@work - 10/1/1999 4:55:58 PM Does anyone know if any figures are kept in terms of, say number of Megawatts produced per human death by industry? I don't know if there are any, but I suspect that Nuclear would be way down on the list. If you look world-wide at the coal industry, for example, I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds of deaths per year in coal mining accidents alone, especially in the former Soviet Union/E.Europe. 731. robertjayb - 10/1/1999 5:25:29 PM DEA Drug Hawks Swoop Down on Birdseed 732. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:30:09 PM Amaxen@work 733. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:31:18 PM robertjayb 734. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:33:34 PM CNN announced that Gore has changed pollsters. Anyone think we'll see an improvment in his poll results? 735. TrialShark - 10/1/1999 5:38:10 PM 736. moonflower - 10/2/1999 4:13:41 PM No, changing pollsters won't help Big Al. But he's no more "stiff" than that Bush person. I don't understand all the nasty epithets ladeled onto Gore. But then again, I didn't understand why the movie star who became prez was the "great communicator." 737. TrialShark - 10/2/1999 4:48:20 PM 738. joezan - 10/2/1999 5:16:31 PM 739. moonflower - 10/2/1999 8:01:54 PM Joezan, I'm not convinced he should work to overcome them if these labels really describe who he is. He ought to be himself, which is dangerous in politics. But I suppose I've just contradicted myself: 740. Cellar Door - 10/2/1999 10:01:54 PM Regan was a spokesman for General Electric with considerable social skills and personal charm. They served him well. Even those opposed to his politics found him impossible to dislike personally. And when his deterioration began to show, they liked him all the more. No reason not to. His the wisdom of his political beliefs and the actions undertaken by his administration are still subject to debate -- though you wouldn't expect they would be to hear it from the Conservabot Media and their standard party line. 741. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 2:42:32 AM Cellar is absolutely correct. If there were truly such a thing as a "liberal media", Reagan would still be getting raked over the coals for the concrete, actual effects of his administration, which was probably the most crooked since Harding's. As it is, Ronnie has been given a pass all the way around, because of his deteriorating mental status. Maybe that's the right thing to do. But a truly objective media would at least attempt to pinpoint when in his administration Reagan became truly incapacitated, because it's nearly indisputable that the Alzheimer's kicked in well before he finally fessed up to it. This tends to debunk the mantra from the Limbaugh wing of the Conservative side of The Party, which is pretty much the entire fucking face of that coin these days. 742. CalGal - 10/3/1999 2:43:28 AM As it is, Ronnie has been given a pass all the way around, because of his deteriorating mental status. 743. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 3:12:48 AM Cal: 744. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 3:14:40 AM Goddammit, I hate when I dyslexically type "teh" instead of "the". Yet another paean to my anal-retentive nature. Argh! 745. TrialShark - 10/3/1999 4:23:28 AM 746. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 4:57:23 AM TS: 747. moonflower - 10/3/1999 8:49:44 AM Hi all--I agree with all these posts regarding Reagan (who I personally, as a prez, did not like at all). Gorbechev, in that new "bio" of Reagan said he was "sunlight and blue skies" when they met. He did have that kind of optimistic quality. Maybe he was tagged "the great communicator" because many Americans needed to feel some "sunlight and blue skies" after Viet Nam and Watergate, and they saw that in Reagan. 748. ranheim - 10/3/1999 9:54:17 AM Cartman 749. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 10:23:38 AM etal, 750. Cellar Door - 10/3/1999 10:54:40 AM I'm entranced by the prospect of a Nina Hartley Presidential bid. 751. moonflower - 10/3/1999 1:00:12 PM A funny story regarding Mr. Reagan. Asked if she regretted divorcing RR and not being First Lady, Jane Wyman replied, "I divorced him because he was boring." You go, girl! Even in the new bio where he concludes RR is a "great" prez, he says RR was boring, telling the same stories again and again. In some ways, though, I feel the Bush presidency was even worse than Reagan's. I don't see Reagan as a faker; he was what he was, a blank slate written on by Republican and business operatives. Bush suddenly saw the light and became anti-choice to be the veep. His son too will probably do as he's told and it'll be Meese-land all over again. 752. TrialShark - 10/3/1999 2:50:52 PM 753. Cellar Door - 10/3/1999 3:14:09 PM He also believes in amassing enormous amounts of money for his campaign. So do all the other candidates but Bush is apparently "better" at it. 754. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 6:46:03 PM Ranheim, Cellar: 755. moonflower - 10/3/1999 8:51:16 PM Cellar Door & Trial: yup, agree completely. It is ironic, though, that as much I dislike the Texas guv, I defend him when it comes to dull questions about his coke use in the past and possible affairs. 756. ranheim - 10/3/1999 8:53:34 PM Cartman 757. Cygnus X-1 - 10/3/1999 9:53:11 PM Why don't you all ask yourself this question: Were you better off after Reagan's tenure than you were before it? 758. Aldavis - 10/3/1999 10:25:01 PM Cygnus X-1 759. bubbaette - 10/3/1999 11:34:20 PM Actually, I don't think my situation improved at all under Reagan -- it seemed that I was spinning my wheels economically most of those years. I think that one of the worst aspect about Reagan's years was the decline in morale in public service. It used to be that working for the government was respectable --you would never get rich that way, but you could feel that you were of service. Now it seems that the only thing lower than public employees in public opinion, are felons. On the state level, this has contributed to an exodus of some of the best and brightest employees. 760. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 11:48:25 PM Cygnus X-1, 761. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 11:52:47 PM Cygnus X-1, 762. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:22:36 AM 763. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:25:49 AM No offense, but I think both Bubba and Joe are off. 764. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:31:37 AM 765. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:37:18 AM Anecdotes won't getcha anywhere, dude. 766. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:45:37 AM Seem's I've heard that before... 767. ee - 10/4/1999 12:48:27 AM One thing about RR, he stirs people up. 11 years from now no one will think a thing about Clinton except Monica Lewinski. 768. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:49:16 AM Joe, 769. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:51:21 AM Oh, I disagree. I think Clinton is just as capable of stirring up the populace as Ronnie. As is evidenced both by the dedicated effort to get him, the dedication of those who stuck up for him, and the interest his goings ons stirred in the public. 770. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 12:55:40 AM C-Span has played Warren's speech twice so far tonight. 771. joezan - 10/4/1999 1:04:13 AM 772. joezan - 10/4/1999 1:06:38 AM 773. EricCartman - 10/4/1999 1:46:36 AM Cygnus X-1 (Message #757): 774. EricCartman - 10/4/1999 1:46:59 AM Then, while you're enjoying our prosperity despite your contempt for the administration primarily responsible for it, consider this quote: "If you pick up a starving dog...and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between a dog...and a man." - Mark Twain 775. Amaxen@work - 10/4/1999 2:01:57 AM Mmmm, 776. Stumbo - 10/4/1999 4:18:30 AM "But Reagan created that Cold War hysteria during his tenure..." 777. RickNelson - 10/4/1999 7:13:28 AM You don't think Star Wars was cold war hysteria? 778. Dusty - 10/4/1999 8:22:03 AM RickNelson 779. Dusty - 10/4/1999 8:28:11 AM RickNelson 780. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:25:05 PM If the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" isn't increasing, then we're most likely in a recession or are being taxed too much. As long as we are continuously acquiring wealth, the difference between the richest and poorest will always be increasing. That is, the difference between and ever-increasing number an zero is always itself increasing. 781. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:27:56 PM EricCartman, Re Message #774 782. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:33:24 PM EricCartman, Re Message #773 783. TrialShark - 10/4/1999 1:36:54 PM 784. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 1:43:15 PM Here's an interesting little bit of dreck: Monica Lewinsky will get $10,000.00 for every pound she loses from Jenny Craig, Inc. Their goal for her is to slim down from 223 to 123...she's already lost 60 lbs. Wonder if she has to give back any money if she regains the tonnage? 785. JJBiener - 10/4/1999 2:00:53 PM Rick - again I can't prove this 786. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 5:22:38 PM Well let's "detroy" the "reputation" of this man FOR IGNORING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC! That unutterably stupid "Dutch" book gives AIDS barely a paragraph. 787. 109109 - 10/4/1999 5:25:22 PM Cellar 788. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 5:29:49 PM Naw. "Dutch" would have said "Well I knew Adrian and Janet Gaynor, and I don;t care what you say -- they had a REAL marriage." 789. 109109 - 10/4/1999 5:30:28 PM Ha ha ha ha ha. Well said. 790. Greystoke - 10/4/1999 5:54:01 PM An article about one of my pet peeves, running red lights. 791. JRoth - 10/4/1999 5:59:50 PM Just posting here for the first time. I was brought back to DC for a few months, and upon my return to Slate I found a weird and barren cyberspace. Good to see old acquaintances on these fora. 792. moonflower - 10/4/1999 6:06:39 PM Evidently most Americans disagree with me, but RR did NOTHING to "restore my confidence." If anything, his blank-it-out vision of 793. Amaxen@work - 10/4/1999 6:08:26 PM Um, Rick: 794. JRoth - 10/4/1999 6:38:22 PM Cabrini Green is the notorious group of high-rise public housing projects in Chicago. They remain the example, par excellence, of what M. Foucault called our intentionally penal method of housing 'undeserving' people. Needless to say life there is 'nasty, brutish and short'. 795. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 6:45:42 PM Welcome, JRoth...you sound as tho you're a thoughtful person...a thinking person, I mean. 796. Greystoke - 10/4/1999 6:47:49 PM The War on Drugs 797. ranheim - 10/4/1999 6:48:20 PM Judith 798. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 6:51:18 PM ranheim: 799. JRoth - 10/4/1999 7:04:55 PM One can actually eat well in England these days (Ireland and Scotland remain abysmal). Of course the Americanization of London proceeds apace so Lewinsky probably found all her favorite foods- and was travelling with expenses reimbursed. Actually it's a good trade for us; the Brits send over a plump Duchess of York and we send a plump ...... 800. RickNelson - 10/4/1999 7:29:03 PM JJ, Come on, I clearly said, this is all opinion. I have no time nor resource to find exact facts. And time blends as it goes by. 801. concerned - 10/4/1999 10:45:35 PM Re 786 - 802. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 2:47:44 AM Cygnus: 803. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 2:48:14 AM That is, the difference between and ever-increasing number and zero is always itself increasing. 804. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:01:41 AM Of course the overextension of the SU during those years helped create the economic catastrophe still evident in Russia. 805. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:06:25 AM #782 806. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:26:44 AM Didn't we talk about this before? Reagan didn't scare Gorbachev at all, but he probably provided Gorbachev with a convenient boogie-man to scare the hardliners with. I believe that Gorbachev himself says so. But to give Reagan any more credit than that is silliness. 807. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 3:28:22 AM Pseudo: 808. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 3:34:53 AM CG: 809. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:40:11 AM Stumbo, I think your #807 is sophistical. As far as I can tell, you're saying: given the slow decline of the Soviet Union, it might have lumbered on in existence for another half-century. I think that's debateable but plausible. But what's implausible is the contention that the external pressure applied in the years 1981-86 is what brought about the (allegedly) hastened collapse. This, logically, requires Reagan to be responsible for bringing to power Gorbachev, the proximate cause of the dissolution of the USSR. And that just doesn't fit the history. Gorbachev was in a reformist minority in the late 1970s. 810. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:41:50 AM I thought Gorbachev was just continuing on with Andropov's ideas, for some reason. 811. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:46:30 AM . But what's implausible is the contention that the external pressure applied in the years 1981-86 is what brought about the (allegedly) hastened collapse. 812. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 4:05:53 AM Pseudo: 813. msgreer - 10/5/1999 9:35:58 AM CNN REPORTING A nuclear accident occured in S. Korea some 14 hours ago or 7pm EST. 814. Ronski - 10/5/1999 9:53:31 AM Do these nuclear ineptitude events come in threes? I don't live too far from a plant. 815. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 9:54:40 AM Ronski: 816. Dusty - 10/5/1999 9:56:17 AM RickNelson 817. JRoth - 10/5/1999 10:28:21 AM Pseudo, 818. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:31:39 AM Reagan - The Man Who let Gorbachev Be Gorbachev 819. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:32:14 AM Of course, all of this is in the vacuum of a "crumbling" Soviet economy. So, naturally, diplomacy becomes secondary. After all, superpowers crumble similarly, in the same time frame, in a very predictable pattern. All Reagan had to do, if a certain line is accepted, is wait, smile and take the credit. 820. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:37:47 AM And the other contributory strand of this nonsense is the view that economies and economies alone dictate history. Of course, I am much more accepting of this brand of nonsense, because economists should have something to talk about. They are equivelent to the punter who speaks of his contribution after a team has won the Super Bowl. 821. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 10:43:54 AM JRoth (#817): I have not toured Magnitorsk or the Urals. I don't see why having done so gives one a privileged understanding of the Russian economy. I also have no idea what you're talking about in #817. 822. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 10:54:46 AM EricCartman, Re Message #802 823. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 10:56:38 AM JRoth, I'm not even sure what your argument is. 824. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:04:26 AM EricCartman, Re Message #803 825. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:09:41 AM And if the poor are getting poorer then something's right? 826. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:09:43 AM pseudoerasmus, Re Message #805 827. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:10:25 AM Cygnus: Your #822 assumes that the market is paying what the worker is worth, which is not necessarily true (unless of course you operate under the tautology that whatever the worker gets paid is what he's worth). 828. JRoth - 10/5/1999 11:10:28 AM Pseudo, 829. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:12:13 AM #826 830. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 11:12:32 AM Cygnus: 831. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:12:46 AM Let's give Bill Clinton the credit for "winning" the Cold War. 832. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:13:04 AM Cyngus- I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean if the rich are not accumulating more wealth or if they are not increasing their percentage of total wealth? 833. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:13:33 AM Cellar Door, Re Message #825 834. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:14:05 AM Hey -- let's kill the poor! They're just taking up space, aren't they? 835. Bubbaette - 10/5/1999 11:15:43 AM Yeah, they're taking up valuable jail space that could be rented out. And they look seedy hanging out in doorways. 836. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:21:17 AM #828 837. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:28:43 AM pseudoerasmus, Re Message #829 838. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:29:45 AM Cygnus, I will not work with your silly analogy. 839. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:37:39 AM JudithAtHome, Re Message #830 840. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:40:31 AM Debating over which is the more essential to a free market sucess, labor, management or capital is akin to debating what is more essential to sugar cookies, butter, sugar or flour. 841. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:42:14 AM JonesAtLaw, Re Message #832 842. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:46:07 AM If bakers have no money, they can't buy ovens, flour etc. They need others with know-how to expand their business. If you break the triangle, the venture is crippled. Creating wealth requires co-ordination of all three. 843. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:46:46 AM JRoth: Here is how I would summarise our respective positions. You seem to think that Russia is suffering today because the physical legacy of communism --those mammoth factories in the Urals and in Siberia -- are not fit for producing real goods for real people. I agree that Russia would be better off today had the Soviets not created that warped economic structure. However, where I disagree is, it does NOT follow that just because the Soviets bequeathed this structure, Russia today must be suffering. For there were alternative paths available -- one taken by many other previously transitional economies -- the primary one being the construction of new productive capacity from scratch. 844. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:47:13 AM In other words, a baker without labor or capital is a guy on the street with an idea and an empty belly. 845. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 11:49:18 AM Cygnus: 846. JRoth - 10/5/1999 2:23:58 PM Pseudo, 847. robertjayb - 10/5/1999 2:32:07 PM . 848. Dusty - 10/5/1999 2:47:29 PM robertjayb 849. ranheim - 10/5/1999 3:03:23 PM I got out of the USAF in 1972 and have lived in LA since. As Texas is right next door, I soon became acquainted with the name, Molly Ivins. She claims not to be a Democrat - at times. Occasionally, the uses the word Progressive to describe her political beliefs. 850. Ronski - 10/5/1999 3:06:11 PM 851. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 3:07:59 PM She loves big government and its big programs. 852. Dantheman - 10/5/1999 3:08:12 PM Can anyone explain the stock market's thought processes? All day, the market was up significantly, reaching 1% gains about a hour age. Now that the Fed decided not to raise rates (supposedly good news for the market) it falls quickly and is down over 1/2%. 853. Ronski - 10/5/1999 3:09:23 PM 854. Bubbaette - 10/5/1999 3:11:17 PM I think what Molly is trying to say resonates im my state too: 855. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:14:03 PM Pseudo, 856. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:27:33 PM Pseudo, 857. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 4:32:07 PM Jones - In other words, a baker without labor or capital is a guy on the street with an idea and an empty belly. 858. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 4:34:21 PM Pseudo: 859. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:39:20 PM Pseudo, 860. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:41:45 PM Apologies to all; I have no idea why I am posting multiple copies. Any advice on this particular problem? 861. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 4:55:11 PM Jroth #859 862. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 4:55:51 PM "...Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins." 863. Dusty - 10/5/1999 5:02:05 PM Dantheman 864. Dantheman - 10/5/1999 5:04:35 PM Dusty, 865. Dusty - 10/5/1999 5:05:40 PM EricCartman 866. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 5:17:52 PM By the way, in bickering over who was responsible for the death of the Soviet Union, we tend to overlook the possibility that its death was not the unequivocally good thing that people take for granted. I don't see why it would have been such a bad thing for a kind of USSR to survive -- a Soviet Union which had withdrawn from Eastern Europe and the Baltics, which was beginning to retreat from international expansion & adventurism in general, which could have undertaken gradual reform under the aegis of the Communist Party -- in short the Soviet Union that might have been emerging in 1990-91. 867. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 5:24:20 PM That the USSR shrink to the size of the Duchy of Muscovy would not have been a bad thing, for the parts of that Union together could not equal the monstrosity that was the USSR. 868. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:26:03 PM Cartman - I read what you wrote to Cygnus. Are you serious, or are you just spouting plattitudes? If you really don't know the answers to those questions, I could explain them to you. I think perhaps you already know the answers and you are just tormenting Cyggie. Which is it? 869. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:31:24 PM PE - It would have been far better for the world in general if the USSR could have moved away from a command economy without first going through economic collapse. I just don't think it was ever a political possibility. BTW, I agree with you that Reagan did not cause the collapse of the USSR. The collapse was inevitable. Reagan's policies just moved the date up by about 10 years. 870. janjon - 10/5/1999 5:36:22 PM The collapse was inevitable. Reagan's policies just moved the date up by about 10 years. 871. ElliottRW - 10/5/1999 5:39:59 PM pseudoerasmus 872. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:49:26 PM janjon - Your grasp of recent history astounding. And utterly predictable. 873. janjon - 10/5/1999 5:54:16 PM JJBiener. I wouldn't be tossing around the word predictable as a epithet, if I were you. Or introspection for that matter. 874. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:58:49 PM janjon - You are welcome to your beliefs, predictable as they are. You do know that even Gorbachev credits Reagan with hastening the end of the USSR, but I guess you are better informed than he is. 875. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 5:59:10 PM #867 876. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:04:45 PM Biener. I understand that Gorbachev used Reagan's "policies" as a bogeyman to help win support for his political purposes. Much in the same vein as how the US military for years used the Russian Bear as a bogeyman to help get superinflated military budgets. 877. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:08:10 PM And who was Reagan being used by (if I correctly 878. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:10:34 PM PE - What relationship do you see between the USSR's inability to defeat the mujahadeen in Afganistan, and its eventual political and economic collapse? 879. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:10:52 PM ScottLoar. I will assume that 877 was addressed to me and refers to my 876. Gorbachev, for his own internal politica purposes. 880. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:12:58 PM janjon - If I am reading you correctly, you giving Gorbachev credit (or blame) for using Reagan to destroy his own country. Are you serious? 881. ranheim - 10/5/1999 6:16:15 PM I am not an economist. 882. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:17:00 PM Janjon, you may assume that JJBeiner's #880 also stands as my rejoinder. 883. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:17:55 PM Biener. Yes. But blow what I am saying out of proportion. Using big bad bogeymen to further political purposes isn't exactly new. 884. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:18:33 PM Um, that was supposed to say but DON'T blow etc. 885. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:19:59 PM Ranheim, I am not an economist. No. Nascent industrialization by one of the poorest albeit largest European country in the early 20th century could not translate into anything other than that country had a long way to go to match industrialized Europe and the US. 886. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:22:03 PM The fact that Gorbachev's policies didn't exactly turn out the way he intended has nothing to do with the techniques (such as the use of bogeymen) he used to further his policies. I am simply saying that Reagan's posturing notwithstanding, it had no material impact on what actually happened to the USSR during the years of the Reagan presidency. 887. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:23:00 PM In fact Communism as evidenced in the USSR by the 20's was seen worldwide as the shortcut to modernity and social justice as opposed to capitalism or Christianity. 888. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 6:25:57 PM #878 889. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 6:27:08 PM Ranheim: Economic historians followed Alexander Gerschenkron long ago in agreeing that Russia in 1914 had already begun industrial takeoff. It's very apparent in brute numbers. 890. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:38:24 PM Janjon - You missed the point. In interviews recently, not while he was in office, Gorbachev gives credit to Reagan. Specifically, Reagan's commitment to a missle defense system and Reagan's stand at Reykevic among others. You will excuse me if I take Gorby's word over yours. 891. Aldavis - 10/5/1999 10:40:26 PM celler 892. proudnerd - 10/5/1999 11:06:21 PM In interviews recently, not while he was in office, Gorbachev gives credit to Reagan. 893. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:35:24 PM I've never stopped being an anarchist. 894. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 11:49:22 PM Dusty (#865): 895. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 11:55:58 PM Biener (#868): 896. Aldavis - 10/5/1999 11:59:35 PM celler 897. JRoth - 10/6/1999 8:02:10 AM Apologies to all; I have no idea why I am posting multiple copies. Any advice on this particular problem? 898. Uzmakk - 10/6/1999 8:09:44 AM jroth: 899. JRoth - 10/6/1999 8:23:15 AM Pseudo, 900. Dusty - 10/6/1999 8:29:41 AM A sad day. 901. JRoth - 10/6/1999 9:35:12 AM Dusty, 902. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:39:36 AM JRoth, #899 903. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:45:57 AM Jroth, sorry, 904. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:47:08 AM 905. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:47:32 AM is it fixed? 906. JRoth - 10/6/1999 10:23:25 AM Pseudo, 907. JRoth - 10/6/1999 10:33:02 AM Pseudo, 908. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:26:44 AM JRoth 909. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:26:48 AM JRoth 910. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:27:53 AM Oops, sorry about the double post. I got an error, and tried again. I got an error the second time, but apparently it posted each time. 911. robertjayb - 10/6/1999 12:18:16 PM . 912. Cellar Door - 10/6/1999 12:29:43 PM Kids -- they sure keep ya' hoppin'! 913. pellenilsson - 10/6/1999 4:26:01 PM For you Californians a quote from The Economist on water management: 914. Cygnus X-1 - 10/6/1999 6:19:49 PM Guess who is quoted as saying the following: 915. Cellar Door - 10/6/1999 6:59:51 PM What -- no three-ways in the White House? How rude! 916. concerned - 10/6/1999 10:31:31 PM Re. 914 - 917. concerned - 10/6/1999 10:37:37 PM Oops! My error. That was *another* forum in which I mentioned Brazile, after somebody had brought up the fact that Bore had also ganged up with another part-time criminal: Tony Coelho. 918. EricCartman - 10/7/1999 2:02:40 AM Concerned: 919. CalGal - 10/7/1999 3:39:43 AM Pelle, 920. Amaxen@work - 10/7/1999 3:59:00 AM The Soviet Bureaucrats knew that their economy was going into decline and were constantly experimenting with means to achieve increased efficiency. Unfortunately, they found that whenever they developed a means to do so they inevitably had decreased economic equality. This was socially unacceptable and violated the implicit contract that the Soviet people had made with the apparatchik. 921. EricCartman - 10/7/1999 4:02:17 AM I don't see how something will be figured out that will satisfy all the regions here, Cal. Most likely, as SoCal just keeps taking more and more and more people in, we'll get fucked up here in the north. More peripheral canal proposals and such. We simply won't have enough votes to offset the Angelenos. 922. SpenceMirrlees - 10/7/1999 4:23:23 AM Pelle, there is a book on the topic, called Cadillac Desert. It's not a very good book, frankly, as it is written with what is evidently a journalist's standard of proof, not very high. But there are plenty of interesting stories. 923. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 5:50:56 AM Spence 924. JRoth - 10/7/1999 8:58:35 AM Pelle, 925. Dusty - 10/7/1999 9:20:12 AM At yesterday's press conference, Joe Lockhart discussed the machinations surrounding the vote (or lack thereof) on the so-called "Patients Rights" bill. He characterized the Republicans as "thwarting the will of the American people". 926. Ronski - 10/7/1999 9:42:46 AM Perhaps it is worth remembering that the 1973 law which created the HMO mess in the first place, and which forbade enrollees from suing their HMO, was passed by a Democratic Congress. And now it is the Democrats who, their spined no doubt stiffened by the attentions of the Trial Lawyers Association (no offense to the Mote's many fine barristers), today want a bill to enable such lawsuits. 927. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 10:07:14 AM Ah yes, the "free" market. 928. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 10:11:40 AM "The goal is to 929. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 10:13:47 AM Socialized medicine cannot work and will itself eventually collapse. 930. Ronski - 10/7/1999 10:17:41 AM 931. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 10:18:05 AM NPR had a nice commentary yesterday about the HMO's and the Patient's Bill of Rights by a law professor. The thesis was that the real problem is that everyone pussyfoots around the real nature of HMO's- they ration health care and necessarily deny medially useful, and sometimes life saving treatment to their members. This is not some vicious or callous disregard for their members, it is an economic reality. We have greater medical capabilities than we have financial resources. But for HMO's to be sucessful, they need to market their provision of services rather than their restriction. 932. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 10:23:39 AM Proudnerd - Yeah right. Gorbachev also claims that Reagan is (maybe was) an extremely intelligent man. 933. Dantheman - 10/7/1999 10:28:29 AM bubbaette #928, 934. Dusty - 10/7/1999 10:29:35 AM JonesAtLaw 935. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 12:28:13 PM Ronski 936. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 12:38:09 PM Pelle - There are many more factors than just quality of health care that contribute to things like infant mortality and life expectancy. Neither of those indicators gives an accurate view of the quality of health care that is available to Americans compared to the rest of the world. 937. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 1:17:33 PM JJ 938. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:25:50 PM Pelle - Drug use and inadequate prenatal care among expectant mothers are major causes of infant mortality in the US. Help is available to all expectant mothers for these, but many choose not to take advantage of it. 939. janjon - 10/7/1999 1:32:51 PM Gorbachev. We should take at face value his purported assessment of Reagan's intelligence? This being the guy who made such sound assessments and managed things SOOOO well in the USSR? 940. CalGal - 10/7/1999 1:33:31 PM The goal is to make health care collapse so that the government can come in and "rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine. 941. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 1:37:37 PM The US probably does have the best health care available over all. I would note that there are exceptions to this, as many of our European friends will point out. Cutting edge medical techniques are developed in places other than the US, after all. However, the existence of high tech care is meaningless without access to it. Who cares if the guys at Mayo or the Cleveland Clinic can cure you, if you can't even get in to your local bones and body shop? 942. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:39:41 PM janjon - Gorbachev. We should take at face value his purported assessment of Reagan's intelligence? 943. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:41:17 PM Jones - How many people in the US have no access to health care? I am not asking about health insurance. I am asking about access. 944. janjon - 10/7/1999 1:44:35 PM I read a lot, Biener. Even Reagan's most ardent admirers can't get beyond assertions that he had the BIG PICTURE down pat, while leaving all of those pesky DETAILS to others. 945. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 1:44:47 PM #935 946. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 1:47:56 PM JJBiener- Uninsured Americans without independent wealth, and more than poverty level income would be one group with little or no access to high tech care. The chronical mentally ill who can manage to work would also be included. 947. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:11:15 PM JJ 948. CalGal - 10/7/1999 2:12:03 PM Actually, the U.S. does have socialized medicine. Everyone who has employer-provided health coverage is subsidized extensively by the government. We provide health care to the poor. 949. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:28:27 PM janjon - Even Reagan's most ardent admirers can't get beyond assertions that he had the BIG PICTURE down pat, while leaving all of those pesky DETAILS to others. 950. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 2:33:46 PM Trees cause pollution, ketchup is a vegatable, We will cut taxes, raise defense spending, and eliminate the deficit- Ronald Reagan. Enough said. 951. Thoughtful - 10/7/1999 2:33:59 PM PseuE, gini coefficients by country here in zip file format. 952. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:39:12 PM Bubbaette - It is available, it just may not be convenient. There is a big difference. OB-GYN's are not the only ones who are capable of providing adequate prenatal care. Any doctor can provide prenatal care for all but the most extreme cases. I never claimed that access in the US was perfect, nor do I believe it necessaarily has to be. What I claimed was that with very few exception, everyone in the US has access to at least minimal health care. Some may have to rely on emergency rooms, public hospitals, free clinics, etc., but that is not the same as having no access. 953. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 2:43:14 PM JJBiener- When you go the E room and are diagnosed with cancer- and are medically stable- you can be dismissed without care unless you have insurance or pre-pay for your treatment. That is not access. 954. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 2:48:35 PM Thoughtful, I have that already. What do Gini coefficients have to do with what I was talking about? 955. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:49:33 PM Nor is it access if you live in the middle of nowhere, are unemployed, and to qualify for assistance, must sell your car. (this used to be the case in Va. --how are people supposed to look for a job to get off assistance if they have no transportation?) 956. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:53:21 PM Another charming example of disincentives to healthcare -- used to be that for elderly people in Va. who needed foodstamps or SSI, the money they paid for their Medicare Part B premium was counted as money that could be used to buy groceries or pay rent, thus encouraging them to forego health care coverage for (at the time) $15 worth of groceries. 957. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:54:43 PM Jones - Some forms of pollution do come from trees, ketchup is made from a vegetable, and cutting taxes and raising defense spending did result in eventually balancing the budget. 958. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:57:33 PM I think JJ's given to exaggeration. Disagree with hime an you're a (dare I say this in mixed company?) *Liberal*. And as we all know, "liberal" is worse than any four letter word you could mention. 959. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:58:12 PM Bubbaette - used to be that for elderly people in Va. who needed foodstamps or SSI, the money they paid for their Medicare Part B premium was counted as money that could be used to buy groceries or pay rent, 960. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 3:00:22 PM JJ 961. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 3:02:38 PM Bubbaette - Why are liberals so afraid of being called liberals? 962. JudithAtHome - 10/7/1999 3:07:48 PM For gods sake, JJ, ketchup is not a vegetable! It may come from tomatoes but mustard also comes from plants so is mustard a vegetable, too? If you think ketchup is even marginally as nutritious as vegetables, then I don't want to eat at your house. 963. ChristiPeters - 10/7/1999 3:36:00 PM ummmm... JJ, tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables and Judith is right, ketchup is a condiment. 964. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 3:55:47 PM Judith, Christi - I swear sometimes you guys have no sense of humor. 965. janjon - 10/7/1999 3:58:26 PM Well, while we're in the kitchen so to speak, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Biener. 966. JudithAtHome - 10/7/1999 3:59:06 PM Thanks, janjon..... 967. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 4:01:43 PM PE -- 945 968. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 4:02:50 PM JJ 969. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 4:03:27 PM I don't know what your argument on healthcare is. I suspect I agree with it. I was only taking issue with your ridiculous Sri Lanka comparison for which you offered no proof. 970. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 4:04:35 PM Whoops posted too soon. 971. janjon - 10/7/1999 4:06:16 PM Biener. I just saw your 949. Getting a little huffy and sanctimonius with all that stuff about this discussion being closed, don't you think? 972. Amaxen - 10/7/1999 7:07:28 PM Re the ketchup thing; 973. thrakkorzog - 10/7/1999 8:02:09 PM Yeah, Amaxen, I remember that. And while some fresh made salsa is pretty wholesome looking, I assume that schools will be serving the stuff that comes out of a can and looks more like spaghetti sauce than veggie. 974. concerned - 10/7/1999 11:19:25 PM Re. 950 - 975. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:46:51 PM Reagan treated ketchup as a main course. 976. TabouliJones - 10/7/1999 11:48:16 PM 977. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:52:14 PM It's what's known as Cartesian Publicity: I think therefore I am whatever I'm able ot get away with in the press. 978. TabouliJones - 10/7/1999 11:57:07 PM 979. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:59:59 PM Tell it to his "enabler" -- Michael Fleming of "Daily Variety." 980. moonflower - 10/8/1999 8:19:11 AM Kevin should come out when he's good and ready. That he doesn't, if indeed he is gay, is more of a comment on our hate-based society 981. Cellar Door - 10/8/1999 10:06:38 AM And until he's "good and ready" we should allow him to lie? 982. Bubbaette - 10/8/1999 10:11:13 AM Cllrdr 983. 109109 - 10/8/1999 10:48:08 AM By accepting his lies, the argument goes that homosexuals contribute to a presumption that who they are, their inner core, is something to lie about. 984. Bubbaette - 10/8/1999 10:53:28 AM 109109 985. JonesAtLaw - 10/8/1999 11:18:03 AM I like Kevin Spacy as an actor. I've enjoyed his films when I presumed he was hetrosexual, and still did when I thought he was homosexual. Now, I don't know, and don't care. That is the only thing good I can say about his swinging on the closet door. 986. moonflower - 10/8/1999 12:20:44 PM Cellar Door, who is this "we" who has the power to "allow" him to lie? 987. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 1:14:06 PM Just read that Ron Reagan, son of Ronnie, thinks the latest biography of his dad is right on the money. He'll be on 60 Minutes Sunday night expounding on this subject. And before everyone starts trashing the boy, he was in a better position than we to judge the man. 988. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 1:16:03 PM Judith, 989. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 1:33:06 PM Hmmmmm....Maureen was Janes daughter, not Nancys. This seems kind of odd to me.... 990. robertjayb - 10/8/1999 3:30:01 PM . 991. Lou - 10/8/1999 4:00:35 PM Re: Spacey 992. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:10:53 PM Lou: 993. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:20:06 PM I can't believe no one is going for the millennial on this thread. 994. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:20:57 PM I think no one wants to start it and look silly making 5-10 posts and not get it. 995. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:22:30 PM I think everyone had a huge lunch and is snoozing right now. 996. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:40:18 PM Judith, Dan - It could be that no really want a current events millennial. Some threads are more prone to that than others. The social threads especially. 997. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:40:54 PM Of course if you guys want to make a run. There is nothing stopping you. 998. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:28 PM JJ, 999. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:43 PM Can we try? 1000. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:41:49 PM I mean, I wouldn't want you to feel awkward or out of place because you decided you wanted this millennial and went for it. 1001. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:53 PM ? 1002. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:42:52 PM Oh, Gee, imagine that. My first millennial in the Mote and I wasn't even trying (snicker, snicker). 1003. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:45:05 PM JJ: 1004. AceofSpades - 10/8/1999 4:46:19 PM 1005. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:46:28 PM Cute, JJ. Congrats. 1006. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:47:10 PM Ace, 1007. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:49:05 PM Dan: 1008. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:51:51 PM Judith, 1009. Cellar Door - 10/8/1999 8:08:03 PM Yep, Debbie and Jocko are Reno-vating. 1010. concerned - 10/9/1999 4:44:49 AM Here's something for haters of the right to cheer about: 1011. pellenilsson - 10/9/1999 5:58:38 AM concerned 1012. moonflower - 10/9/1999 8:00:32 AM When it comes to death threats, there's more than enough to go around from either side of the spectrum. 1013. Greystoke - 10/9/1999 12:03:32 PM Clinton plans to protect 40 million acres of National Forest land. 1014. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 12:22:33 PM Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas, as was Kenneth Starr last year. 1015. JudithAtHome - 10/9/1999 1:03:37 PM concerned: 1016. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 1:09:22 PM 1017. robertjayb - 10/9/1999 2:52:37 PM 1018. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 7:40:53 PM "the lives of five homosexuals"? That's what this play comes down to? Pathetic! These people don't know how to read. 1019. moonflower - 10/9/1999 9:51:01 PM Oh they know how to read alright--the sad thing is they read selectively. Hate only need apply. The censors can rail and throw tantrums all they want, but there are more writers dealing with gay issues now than ever before (imho). They will not be able to stop it but they will make for more bloodshed. 1020. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 1:36:12 AM Moonflower - You need to stop your knees from jerking. According to the article, no one was censoring the play. All they were doing is withdrawing financial support. Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1021. TrialShark - 10/11/1999 3:11:57 AM 1022. Cellar Door - 10/11/1999 9:38:33 AM Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1023. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 10:18:45 AM Cellar - I have no "voice" in how my tax money is used on anything else. 1024. Dantheman - 10/11/1999 10:31:01 AM JJ, 1025. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 10:41:42 AM Dan - I am saying the exact opposite. Funding should be determined by elected officials just like all other funding. Funding for the arts should not be treated as a sacred cow where only an appointed elite determine what should be supported. Guiliani as the duly elected Mayor has every right to influence how city funds are spent. I am surprised by those who want to deny him this voice and by extension the voice of the majority who elected him. 1026. JudithAtHome - 10/11/1999 11:14:01 AM JJ: 1027. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 11:47:13 AM Judith - My original comments were to moonflower. Moonflower was equating the withdrawal of funding with censorship, and I was pointing out the difference. The complaint seemed to be that public officials had no right to decide where public arts funding should be spent. Any exercise of discretion immediately became censorship. My question was, Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1028. JudithAtHome - 10/11/1999 4:57:12 PM Can someone please tell me if a magazine (or is it a newsletter?) called The Washington Spectator is any good? Has anyone read it or heard of it? 1029. moonflower - 10/11/1999 7:30:08 PM I'm not sure my "vote" = my "voice". They'll spend wads on defense no matter who wins. I agree with Cellar Door. If I have to pay for bombers no matter who wins, my vote is wasted. I hope the Brooklyn Museum does "Sensations 2." 1030. Cellar Door - 10/11/1999 7:35:23 PM Yes you do. It is called your vote. Like the rest of us, you speak through your elected officials. 1031. RosettaSTONE - 10/11/1999 7:47:20 PM David: Isn't your congresswoman Maxine Waters? She surely reflects your thinking. 1032. alistairconnor - 10/11/1999 8:06:28 PM Interesting debate about arts funding... Is cutting off funding "censorship" or not? 1033. EricCartman - 10/12/1999 4:22:46 AM Today, according to UN estimates, the Earth's six billionth inhabitant will be born. But is the problem of overpopulation merely too many people, or is it overconsumption, or is it distribution? 1034. Nostradamus - 10/12/1999 4:39:48 AM No, the problem is not too many people, it's too many people like you, Cartman. :) 1035. Stumbo - 10/12/1999 4:45:59 AM AC: 1036. alistairConnor - 10/12/1999 6:29:21 AM Stumbo, all over the civilised world, there are artistic events of various natures which rely on public funding. That is part of the definition of "civilised", in my opinion. Such events are not geared to making money, or to breaking even : they rely on some sort of patronage, whether it be public or private money. 1037. ranheim - 10/12/1999 8:37:41 AM #1033 1038. moonflower - 10/12/1999 8:41:50 AM Patronage itself is as old as the arts. For writers, schools are now a kind of patron (one with big THORNS, sometimes). Whether this has beren "good" for poetry/fiction is unclear. I agree with Stumbo. Without grants, I can still write and send out to journals. This is not the case for many musicians and painters. I', not convinced that politicians give a shit about "controversial" art as much as inspiring their constituencies to keep following them. 1039. JRoth - 10/12/1999 9:00:29 AM Watched Sen. McCain on GMA this morning. I'm pretty cynical about election year politics, but his views on campaign finance certainly resonated. Wish the guy had a chance in a party which has already annointed its Chosen One with the oil of 'contributions'. 1040. Schehezarade - 10/12/1999 9:12:34 AM Very interesting article, EricCartman. I wonder though, what is the average life expectancy for persons in Uttar Pradesh? Secondly, I didn't see any mentioning of the expected population decrease from the dying baby-boomers. My flatmates and I had a discussion regarding over-population just yesterday. One in particular stated that she believed that essentially all of the world's problems stemmed from over-population. She just returned from a two year stay in Thailand and Cambodia, so I can see why she would think this way, but I don't think that our problems can be reduced that simply. What's your opinion? 1041. Lou - 10/12/1999 5:54:44 PM A few days ago, there were a few posts on the "outing" of Kevin Spacey. One of the comments made was that it couldn't hurt his Hollywood career, I assume b/c of the liberal nature of Hollywood. Here's an excerpt of an article I just saw. I can post the link if anyone is interested: 1042. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 6:24:29 PM Stumbo 1043. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:35:53 PM Check out this Y2K story. Surely it is a hoax, but I've never seen AP do such a thing before. 1044. ranheim - 10/12/1999 7:37:49 PM I have a brother-in-law who is from Wales out of London and Oxford. 1045. CalGal - 10/12/1999 7:40:23 PM Grey, 1046. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:44:12 PM Clinton works on his legacy as The Conservationist President. 1047. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:49:08 PM CalGal 1048. CalGal - 10/12/1999 8:08:28 PM Oh. And here I thought you were pulling my leg, in pretending you thought this story was a hoax. 1049. Cellar Door - 10/12/1999 8:48:05 PM The only thing that can hurt Kevin Spacey's career is Kevin Spacey. He's quite the reckless boy, and at the moment he appears to be in the midst of a meltdown. 1050. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 8:59:16 PM CalGal 1051. moonflower - 10/12/1999 10:22:37 PM If Kevin S is in the midst of a meltdown because he can't handle telling lies anymore, so be it. Maybe it will inspire him to stop lying and be himself. I hope so, that is, if he's gay and all of this talk about him isn't just the National Enquirer thread. 1052. Cellar Door - 10/12/1999 11:04:58 PM He's gay. 1053. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 12:14:10 AM AC: 1054. alistairconnor - 10/13/1999 12:43:38 AM Obviously, Saint Umbo, cutting funding for political motives is OK with me, and equally obviously, the intent of cutting funding in such cases is censorship. As it happens, I have absolutely no problem with censoring your oratorio version of The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion. 1055. alistairconnor - 10/13/1999 12:46:12 AM And if the elected officials campaigned explicitly on an anti-gay platform, and were elected, then I suppose they have a mandate to lead their electors back towards the dark ages. If they did not campaign on such a platform, they are taking a pretty big liberty. 1056. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:10:58 AM AC: 1057. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:11:41 AM My take on public arts funding: I doubt that there's very many people who rate high enough on the Cro-Magnon scale so as to find no public value in artwork. Whether you enjoy artwork for pure aesthetic reasons, or you enjoy artwork because you believe it mirrors the spiritual development of the age, or you (as so many people before you) have found artwork to inspire you in your life or work, you probably place some kind of value on art. The problem with all of this is simple, really -- the art which comes to influence an entire generation, inspiring whole new artistic schools, is often far enough ahead of its time that it never really catches on in the artist's lifetime. This art, which later generations will cherish -- and wonder why the lot of us didn't see how excellent it was -- will be seen in our lifetime as having little to no value. People do not understand it -- it doesn't do anything for them. If we take some kind of populist approach to what art does or does not get funded, we run the risk of turning American art into a dead end, if not worse. We have so very many people who are prepared to say what art has merit and what art is self-indulgent crap that I think a populist approach to funding the arts is self-defeating and shallow. Who is to say what art would have never flourished in, say, Renaissance Florence or Impressionist Paris if only the artists with a popular appeal would have been supported? 1058. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:24:17 AM Which government agency funded the Impressionists, A5? 1059. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:33:58 AM That's not the point. If some forms of art are popularly privileged in some way above others, Stumbo -- say, if you can make a living doing PC art but not art which will go over poorly in the Baptist Belt -- then those artists who aren't disposed to pimp themselves for the populist appeal will be at a real disadvantage to produce their art. There is public art funding in the US, which is absolutely fine with me -- I happen to think, like AC, that it's to the overall betterment of the American people to have subsidized art. Chopping out public art funding is like tossing the baby with the bathwater. All you have to do is prevent the political power plays which sacrifice art for votes -- you don't cut it all out altogether. 1060. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:37:15 AM To phrase this another way: who knows how much MORE excellent art would have come out of Impressionist France if there had been equitable government funding of the arts? And, once again, who knows what kind of art would have been drowned out if the French government had, instead, chosen to subsidize bland, inoffensive, vanilla artwork but not subsidized the (at the time) shocking and insulting art of the Impressionists? 1061. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:47:18 AM Alas, A5, that is the point. You culminate your passionate speech in favor of apples by producing an orange as Exhibit A, and expect to be taken seriously? 1062. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:48:18 AM There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some No, no, this isn't the way it works. A lot more organisms die than just Y-X, and a lot of other species exhibit die-back as well as the resources they require are consumed as well. The final death toll puts the population at well below X -- and the damage to the ecosystem (caused by the intense competition among starving organisms for limited resources causes a lot of screwy things to happen). The above characterization shows little acquaintance with real-life population mechanics. It wouldn't be this simple and anaesthetic even IF that were the way populations were controlled by limiting resources, because we're talking about humans. Humans possessed of technology can do a lot of senseless harm in the process of starvation and resultant destabilization, and others who aren't starving can use the destabilization for their own nefarious purposes. It's just nowhere near that simple, Stumbo. 1063. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:49:52 AM 1061: See 1060. 1064. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:07:25 AM The "let's subsidize everything now, and maybe some of it will turn out to be good in a generation or two" argument doesn't persuade me in the least. It's too much of a crapshoot, and the prospect of a few gems that my grandchildren might appreciate doesn't justify paying for all the, well, crap. 1065. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:17:20 AM The "let's subsidize everything now, and maybe some of it That's nice, Stumbo. Who's made that argument? Bottom line: if it's a good bet, private investors will Oh, really? If anything, the history of art has shown that immediate demand for art has little to do with the final perceived value of that art. As far as your 'Well, they're spending MY money and I think they're wasting it on all this art nonsense' -- well, the government spends everyone's money, and few people agree that all of it is well spent. But fewer are in absolute agreement about what monetary practices are worthwhile. For every person you can find who would, say, insist that NEA funds are robbery but, say, tax cuts to the rich are worthwhile, I can find someone who will argue the opposite. 1066. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:19:52 AM #1062: 1067. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:27:47 AM "Who's made that argument?" 1068. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:38:53 AM "If anything, the history of art has shown that immediate demand for art has little to do with the final perceived value of that art." 1069. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:41:59 AM 1067: But I never argued for funding all art because we can't tell which will be good and which will not. I'm not willing to go to that extreme, and in any case that's certainly not what we do now. What I did argue against was cutting funding based upon our oh-so-sophisticated notions of what is art and what is crap. Equitable art funding is good. I think the art funding we have now is sustainable. Cutting that funding isn't necessary. Funding ALL art won't be feasible. Do you see the difference between what I say and what you say I said? 1066: A decent first approximation model? I'm not at all sure what you mean, but what you said, facetious or not, doesn't even approximate an approximation of die-back in nature. Would you be so kind as to tell me what good things have come out of, say, starvation in Ethiopia? This idealist 'necessity is the mother of invention' outlook overlooks the fact that people rarely take the necessary time to implement inventions in the midst of crisis, especially crises as pressing and destabilizing as massive starvation. 1070. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:50:11 AM The main problem is not overpopulation, but I don't think this is a meaningful thing to say. The inherent problem with overpopulation is not just resource based. The fragility of the system is one serious consequence of overpopulation -- ie. finding new ways to exploit the resources almost always makes those resources more vulnerable to a single change, such as a mild climate change doing great damage to the breadbaskets of the world. The crash of the human ecosystem becomes less recoverable with invreasing overpopulation. This 'well, overpopulation will just keep us on our toes and will straighten itself out eventually' notion is heedless of the very real dangers of overpopulation in humanity. The damage that humans could do to the planet -- and themselves -- in an attempt to support more and more people on the planet is something that you aren't taking into effect, if you see the only problem with overpopulation being an efficiency of resource extraction and allocation. 1071. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:22:36 AM "But I never argued for funding all art because we can't tell which will be good and which will not. I'm not willing to go to that extreme, and in any case that's certainly not what we do now. What I did argue against was cutting funding based upon our oh-so-sophisticated notions of what is art and what is crap." 1072. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:27:33 AM "Would you be so kind as to tell me what good things have come out of, say, starvation in Ethiopia?" 1073. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:32:37 AM Oh, wait, you asked for good things. Silly me. 1074. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 4:23:02 AM Heh. Geldof. As far as the 'bet' -- well, if we stop supporting art based upon popularity, given the disjunction between what is popular and what is often accepted to be great art, we're definitely making the bet worse. There's a common antipathy towards some rarefied kinds of art that results from a lack of understanding of some of that art's principles. (That doesn't mean that, in the end, the disliked art is any good per se -- it just means that many people aren't prepared to judge that art on its own merit.) I don't think popularity should be an index for the above and other reasons. FWIW, I'm perfectly content to let the index be rather amorphous -- just not politically or popularly defined. I think that once you let politicians start whoring for votes by exploiting misunderstood art, you're setting a bad trend. And, for me, the answer isn't to cut arts funding any more than mishaps in military acquisitions are grounds to end all military funding. The answer is to let the policy people determine what can be spent, and then let the experts figure out the best way to spend it. 1075. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 4:28:16 AM Oh, yeah, and the Ethiopian example is still solid in this case. While there may have been other factors involved in the starvation, you are still looking at a process where (if your surmise is correct) scarce availability of resources ought to have led to some improvement in resource efficiency. All it did lead to was increased violent competition for the available resources, which is usually going to be the case. 1076. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 4:58:29 AM Scheherezade (#1040): 1077. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 5:01:06 AM (cont. to Scheherezade): 1078. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 5:03:09 AM "As far as the 'bet' -- well, if we stop supporting art based upon popularity, given the disjunction between what is popular and what is often accepted to be great art, we're definitely making the bet worse." 1079. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 5:23:37 AM The salient point to take here is that the monetary value of art does not necessarily reflect its artistic worth. When we speak of 'valued' art, I strongly sense that you and I assign different meanings to 'value'. 1080. Schehezarade - 10/13/1999 9:29:59 AM EricCartman 1081. Dantheman - 10/13/1999 9:40:40 AM Schehezarade #1080, 1082. Cellar Door - 10/13/1999 10:09:18 AM From Army Archerd's column in today's"Daily Variety": "In DreamWorks' "American Beauty," the martinet ex-Marine Col. Fitts, played (multi-emotionally) by Chris Cooper, keeps a Nazi dinner plate in his trophy cabinet. His son (played equally magnificently by Wes Bentley) shows the plate to his girlfriend. And — you can buy that same Nazi plate — along with 2,650 other Nazi items — on Ebay by just typing in the word "Nazi" on your screen! The disgusting items range from those plates, Nazi uniforms, helmets, daggers, bayonets, yeah, even Nazi films. Better it all should have been burned at Dachau." 1083. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 12:28:46 PM 1084. Cellar Door - 10/13/1999 12:30:33 PM Bay, actually. 1085. JRoth - 10/13/1999 12:43:36 PM Cartman, 1086. OhioSTOPAS - 10/13/1999 1:19:21 PM (responding to Ranheim's msg 1585 in "PP's Sports Bar") 1087. PelleNilsson - 10/13/1999 1:26:57 PM Is there really overpopulation? Make the thought experiment of assembling all the six billion people in a large field giving them, say, 10 sq ft standing room each. Convert that into square miles (I would if I could) and compare to some of the smaller states in the US. 1088. Cygnus X-1 - 10/13/1999 1:30:25 PM EricCartman, Re Message #1077 1089. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 1:57:26 PM 1090. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 2:41:32 PM 1091. ranheim - 10/13/1999 6:27:03 PM #1086 1092. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 9:32:14 PM 1093. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 9:34:26 PM Police officer threatens to blow up department, gets fired, then sues to get job back. 1094. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 9:36:02 PM Scheherezade (#1080): 1095. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 10:04:50 PM 1096. Aldavis - 10/13/1999 10:05:30 PM Trial Shark 1097. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:29:38 AM 1098. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:33:57 AM 1099. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:08:12 AM Re. 1095 - 1100. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:14:43 AM Re. 1092 - 1101. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 1:17:33 AM Trial Shark 1102. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:22:37 AM Whoever posted: 1103. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 1:23:51 AM Concerned- I would like to know more details of the "harassment" before I would subscribe to your fear of facism or of Greystrokes posted article of the new improved BLM. The BLM has a rather cooperative history and ranchers have come to view their rental of BLM lands as almost a right. 1104. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 1:27:33 AM Concerned- re "the man with a moustache" and art- Stalin definitely knew art that he liked when he saw it, and subsidized only that art. Art that he didn't like earned the artist an all expense trip to view the more rustic parts of the USSR. 1105. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:56:19 AM Re. 1104 : 1106. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 2:02:13 AM concerned 1107. Stumbo - 10/14/1999 2:17:25 AM Concerned: 1108. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:20:41 AM Re. 1105 - 1109. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:26:11 AM Re. 1107 : 1110. Amaxen@work - 10/14/1999 2:34:54 AM Cartman, Scheherezade, Cy, 1111. Amaxen@work - 10/14/1999 2:35:04 AM 1112. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:59:33 AM Regarding (over)population: I haven't scanned many of the recent posts here on the subject, but the ones I have seen have done little to indicate that they are taking into account the differing characteristics and relative amounts of overpopulation in different parts of the world. 1113. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:15:28 AM 1114. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:35:49 AM Trial Shark 1115. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 4:28:54 AM Trial Shark 1116. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 11:30:25 AM I think that "nazi" and "Hitler" are used too casually today. People seem to have no recollection or understanding of how vile, disgusting, and damnable Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party were. Anyone who trivializes or uses those terms for simple effect need to be exposed (through film, literature, eye-witness account, or museum) to what the words really stand for. 1117. Cellar Door - 10/14/1999 12:09:38 PM Buchanan was the one who brought Hitler into the campaign, dear. None of us knew he was on the ballot 'til then. 1118. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:49:20 PM 1119. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 1:03:13 PM Regarding overpopulation, it is important to note that it is under control in rich countries, many of whom would be having negative population growth if not for immigration (and I think some are having population shrinkage anyway). Also, some of the lowest growth rates are occuring in predominantly Catholic countries like Italy, Ireland, and France. Hence, despite complaints about religious encouragement of population growth, there is pretty good evidence that it isn't nearly as important as other factors. 1120. Dantheman - 10/14/1999 1:05:38 PM Raskolnikov, 1121. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 1:16:30 PM Dan: I'm not sure what the relative factors are, but that makes sense. The strength of a social security-type program is another big factor since the elderly otherwise rely on their children for support. I seem to recall that subsistance agriculture is a factor as well. 1122. Cygnus X-1 - 10/14/1999 1:52:10 PM TrialShark, Re Message #1118 1123. Cygnus X-1 - 10/14/1999 1:59:02 PM Amaxen@work, Re Message #1111 1124. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 2:03:50 PM Trial Shark 1125. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:15:27 PM 1126. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:19:26 PM 1127. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:22:59 PM 1128. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 2:25:09 PM Go Pat Go, and take the rest of the religious right with you! 1129. SpenceMirrlees - 10/14/1999 2:32:59 PM I would think the impact of women's education on population growth is obvious and strong, as it increases the value of womens' opportunities outside the home, and therefore, the value of what they give up by having another child. In other words, it's nothing but the law of demand. 1130. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:34:37 PM 1131. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 3:24:31 PM TrialShark 1132. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:38:33 PM Trial Shark 1133. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:39:41 PM (cont.) 1134. PelleNilsson - 10/14/1999 3:43:51 PM Cygnus X-1 1135. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:46:59 PM 1136. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 3:56:35 PM TrialShark 1137. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:58:33 PM 1138. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:02:35 PM 1139. JJBiener - 10/14/1999 4:15:14 PM In 1991, David Duke was campaigning against Affirmative Action and in favor of trade and immigration restrictions. He used mainstream political issues in an attempt to disassociate himself from the KKK and other racist organizations. This did not last very long as Duke's true reptillian nature soon shone through. 1140. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:20:29 PM 1141. JJBiener - 10/14/1999 4:28:35 PM TS - Calling someone a "racist", an "Anti-Semite", and a "man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide" doesn't sound like much of an apologist. An apologist would say something like, "I don't care if he cheats on his wife and forces himself on women. What he does in his personal life is his own business." 1142. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:31:38 PM 1143. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:32:32 PM 1144. JudithAtHome - 10/14/1999 4:40:43 PM Like creating the Autobahns. 1145. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:46:42 PM 1146. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 4:49:36 PM Mussolini (he's a safer target and doesn't create the immediate visceral reaction that his pal Hitler does) made the trains run on time too. If a candidate or pundit held him up as an example of a strong effective leader, and mentioned his economic success, would you question his choice of examples. I think other, better examples would be abundant. 1147. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 5:01:47 PM 1148. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 5:09:13 PM 1149. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 5:13:54 PM Buchanan- 1150. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 5:38:49 PM 1151. JJBiener - 10/14/1999 5:40:15 PM Jones - Its one thing to acknowledge the ability of a leader, even an evil one, and another to distort the facts in order to praise him. 1152. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 5:44:25 PM 1153. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 5:52:18 PM 1154. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 5:58:26 PM 1155. Greystoke - 10/14/1999 6:06:56 PM 1156. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 6:08:55 PM 1157. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 6:11:33 PM 1158. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 6:16:05 PM 1159. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 6:20:24 PM 1160. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 6:25:59 PM 1161. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 6:31:35 PM 1162. AceofSpades - 10/14/1999 6:34:40 PM 1163. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 6:43:23 PM 1164. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 6:45:12 PM 1165. JudithAtHome - 10/14/1999 6:47:20 PM Sorry, Ace, but that one left me laughing in the aisles. Very good, Trial.... 1166. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 7:14:06 PM Perhaps Napoleon would have had better luch invading Russia had they been unforunate enough to live for 20 years under Uncle Joe. 1167. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 7:15:53 PM At the end of the day, we can always say in defense of Clinton, not only was he a great orator in the Hitler tradition, but the economy was good. the rich got much richer, praise the lord. 1168. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 7:25:33 PM Speaking of Hitler's height reminds me of what Red Buttons said after making Sianora (sp.), hell I have enough trouble with English. "Some people think the Japanese people are short. Not true. Many are almost as tall as I am." 1169. Cygnus X-1 - 10/14/1999 10:34:42 PM Pakistan's Army Suspends Constitution, Fires Government 1170. Cellar Door - 10/14/1999 11:40:08 PM But in America Uncle Joe doesn't create the same feelings as Stalin. 1171. concerned - 10/14/1999 11:51:23 PM Buchanan strikes me as a bigot and possibly a racist, IMO, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that he is a Hitler apologist, per se. That would require, in my book, that Buchanan would have been making comments intended to excuse, justify or deny the reality of the Nazi execution of millions of Jews and other groups. TS seems to have succumbed to the Lefty predeliction for broad brush demonization of enemies. 1172. concerned - 10/14/1999 11:56:22 PM Re. 1170 - 1173. JJBiener - 10/15/1999 12:12:31 AM TS - That's why Pat used the following objective terms to describe Der Fuhrer. . . 1174. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 12:41:57 AM 1175. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 12:42:41 AM 1176. Cellar Door - 10/15/1999 12:53:20 AM Btw, Hitler was a National Socialist - his agenda had much more in common with Lefty goals and methods than that of the political right. 1177. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:10:46 AM 1178. JJBiener - 10/15/1999 1:14:13 AM TS - If we are to believe you, Hitler was a cowardly, ignorant, feeble-minded nebbish who accidentally took control of a modern, industrialized nation and conquered most of Europe while carrying out a campaign of genocide and murder. I don't think so. 1179. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 1:30:14 AM For the record -- some excerpts from The Life and Death Of Adolf Hitler, by Robert Payne: 1180. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 1:35:21 AM He received the Iron Cross, first class, on the recommendation of First Lieutenant Hugo Gutmann, who had ordered him to carry urgent dispatches to the rear commanding the artillerymen to stop shelling the German forward trenches. There had been a breakdown in communications, the artillerymen did not know there had been a slight German advance, and many German soldiers had already been killed by German shells. The patch of ground between Lieutenant Gutmann's dugout and the base artillery was under heavy English machine gun fire, and the dispatch runner who crossed that patch of ground would have to be a very courageous man indeed. Lieutenant Gutmann promised Hitler the Iron Cross, first class, if he succeeded. Hitler accomplished his almost suicidal mission, and Lieutenant Gutmann kept his promise. The citation, dated July 31, 1918, was signed by Baron von Godin, the regimental commander, and read as follows: 1181. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:41:40 AM 1182. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 1:46:43 AM So, it seems to me that AH's personal courage is beyond dispute. Hence, quoting Buchanan (or anybody) calling him courageous is meaningless, since it's just a statement of fact. If there's a follow-up passage saying "and since he was courageous, his racial (or other) theories must be true," then I'd certainly like to see it. 1183. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 2:07:04 AM 1184. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 3:05:57 AM TS: 1185. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 3:22:43 AM (By "a reasonable chance," I of course mean "a reasonable chance, in his estimation, based on his underlying assumptions." Far be it from me to express any judgement on JH's assumptions as to what would get JF hot and bothered.) 1186. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 4:12:40 AM 1187. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 4:12:55 AM 1188. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 5:26:43 AM TS: 1189. ScottLoar - 10/15/1999 5:47:28 AM Acting under danger threatening one's life is courageous. To know the danger present, to know one may be killed and still act, is courageous. Taking necessary risks to achieve what one wants is not courage; hell, ambition could just as easily do. 1190. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 5:56:11 AM And if the necessary risk is to one's life, then your definitions clash, SL. 1191. ScottLoar - 10/15/1999 5:58:27 AM Sorry Stumbo, but I don't follow you. 1192. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:03:40 AM Someone posted an account of Robert Payne wrt Hitler's WWI achievements. Here is a slightly different take: 1193. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:04:12 AM Gutmann's reasons are vague. He speaks about "deeds, that go far beyound duty", about "bravery towards the enemy" and about "personal merits", but with no reference to a specific event. The recommendation takes place in May, but the award only becomes a reality on August 4. At this moment Gutmann is on leave, he himself suggested to promotion because of a heroic deed on the very same occasion, which is said to have evoked Hitler's distinction. Gutmann is tranferred to a desk job behind the front, and Hitler only sees him many years later. " 1194. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 6:08:48 AM SL: 1195. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:09:53 AM As for Pat Buchanan, I will never understand why he would feel such a pressing need to make his "objective" comments on Hitler and Nazism, if it wasn't out of some kind of innate affinity with these phenomena. Please tell me, anyone, what motivates Buchanan to so passionately pursue this issue? 1196. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:13:19 AM As for Hitler's being a "soldier's soldier", this account of his behaviour during the so-called Bierstube Putsch puts a different angle on it: 1197. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 6:16:05 AM 300: 1198. ScottLoar - 10/15/1999 6:19:03 AM Stumbo, yes, I see it now. Note that I do not address motive but the act. 1199. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 6:19:46 AM "Please tell me, anyone, what motivates Buchanan to so passionately pursue this issue?" 1200. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:23:25 AM The site also provides some insights into Hitler's determined struggle to become a great orator. His teacher wasn't very pleased with him. Yet, he did in the end seem to have mastered most of the technical skills of the discipline of that time. 1201. stostosto - 10/15/1999 6:29:44 AM Stumbo that's an old trick: Say something outrageous, and, when your opponents react with outrage, sit back and wonder why they are so passionate about it. 1202. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 6:48:18 AM 300: 1203. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 6:57:57 AM "No one, I believe, compelled him to defend a guy accused of being a Nazi concentration camp criminal." 1204. Spudboy - 10/15/1999 7:02:30 AM An interesting resource on Pat Buchanan: 1205. stostosto - 10/15/1999 7:03:35 AM Yes, I called Buchanan's quite consistent line on Nazism passionate. Then you say that you "don't know who is more passionate". 1206. msgreer - 10/15/1999 7:06:57 AM Doctors Without Borders received the Nobel Peace Prize today. 1207. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 7:33:22 AM OK, I've had enough of this nonsense. 1208. JRoth - 10/15/1999 9:53:01 AM Anybody else troubled by the Senate vote against nuclear testing? At one level I'm very disturbed by the apparent willingness of Senate Republicans to politicize this issue. At another level I'm very interested in how this vote (and the message it sends) will affect what I cansider to be an inevitable reaction to America's hegemonic position: the creation of regional blocs to counter American influence. 1209. PincherMartin - 10/15/1999 10:11:17 AM Roth -- 1210. 109109 - 10/15/1999 10:17:50 AM Pincher/JRoth 1211. PincherMartin - 10/15/1999 10:20:35 AM Niner -- 1212. PincherMartin - 10/15/1999 10:22:41 AM In #1211 I wrote two questions to answer your question because I'm not really sure what the answer is. From your vantage point, you probably have a better sense of that than I do 1213. JonesAtLaw - 10/15/1999 10:23:16 AM Hitler was a sociopath. Sociopaths are capable of being bold, but there usual approach is to seek the path of least resistance, to exploit any weakness in their target step by step. As has been pointed out- AH hid from fire in the Beer Hall Putch, and his wartime exploits have been massaged by the propaganda machine following his rise to power. A soldier's soldier to me means someone other men follow and trust in the heat of battle. So far I have seen no evidence of that, either here or in the history I have read. 1214. 109109 - 10/15/1999 10:23:42 AM Clinton's eyes have been plucked out. There is nothing left to poke. And all the isolationists are with Buchanan. 1215. Cellar Door - 10/15/1999 10:27:17 AM No. Trent Lott cited neo-fascist morons like Dick Chaney and Jeanne "collateral damage" Kirkpatrick as "authorities" on this. 1216. PincherMartin - 10/15/1999 10:36:16 AM Clinton's eyes have been plucked out. There is nothing left to poke. 1217. 109109 - 10/15/1999 10:37:50 AM Pinch 1218. PincherMartin - 10/15/1999 10:47:58 AM Niner -- 1219. Cellar Door - 10/15/1999 11:04:55 AM But that hasn't stopped India and Pakistan. 1220. 109109 - 10/15/1999 11:05:19 AM Pinch 1221. marjoribanks - 10/15/1999 11:11:11 AM 1222. CalGal - 10/15/1999 11:11:29 AM 1223. 109109 - 10/15/1999 11:12:48 AM Thanks marj and Cal 1224. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 12:56:49 PM 1225. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 12:57:38 PM 1226. 109109 - 10/15/1999 1:09:19 PM It cuts two ways. 1227. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:19:56 PM 1228. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:20:10 PM 1229. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:28:50 PM 1230. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:32:57 PM 1231. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:35:56 PM 1232. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:40:05 PM 1233. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:42:06 PM 1234. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 1:45:13 PM 1235. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:48:13 PM 1236. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:50:15 PM 1237. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:58:18 PM 1238. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:58:47 PM 1239. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 1:58:59 PM 1240. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 2:00:11 PM 1241. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 2:01:30 PM 1242. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 2:16:59 PM 1243. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 4:20:17 PM 1244. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 4:28:24 PM 1245. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 4:56:09 PM 1246. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 5:04:57 PM 1247. Stumbo - 10/15/1999 5:10:45 PM TS: 1248. Aldavis - 10/15/1999 5:36:07 PM Much of the above, while all thought provoking, misses what I concieve to be Buchanan's main point of his book, and of that first quote Trial Shark provided. Hitler was a monster. I believe Buchanan would agree with that. Stalin was a monster. What the hell was going on in the west in the '30's that so called great leaders seemed to see the obvious? For goodness sake, even in '45 western leaders did not see Stalin as evil, or the USSR as the evil empire. Now where did we first hear that? 1249. Aldavis - 10/15/1999 5:44:10 PM I now have to take four beautiful ladies to lunch for a birthday celebration. Since many of you are about to leave your place of employment, I shan't expect too many posts to appear before my return. 1250. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 5:48:51 PM "What the hell was going on in the west in the '30's that so called great leaders seemed to see the obvious? For goodness sake, even in '45 western leaders did not see Stalin as evil, or the USSR as the evil empire. Now where did we first hear that?" 1251. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 5:53:21 PM 1252. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 6:05:55 PM 1253. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 6:15:16 PM 1254. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 6:17:03 PM 1255. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 6:28:17 PM 1256. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 6:42:43 PM 1257. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 6:49:09 PM 1258. AceofSpades - 10/15/1999 6:50:51 PM Edit: 1259. JRoth - 10/15/1999 7:27:13 PM Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that evil, even Radical Evil, can coexist with intelligence, will, ambition or charisma? I have no problem acknowledging that Hitler and Stalin and probably Mao were evil genuises. Certainly Stalin consistently outmaneuvered Churchill and Roosevelt. 1260. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 7:31:55 PM Yesterday, a man in Pleasanton, Texas ambushed and killed three policemen, then committed suicide. Today, his friend, who was not present at the time of the shootings, was charged with capital murder. 1261. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 7:34:02 PM Errata: The murders and suicide occurred Tuesday, not yesterday. 1262. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 7:53:47 PM 1263. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 7:58:01 PM Harsh punishment for turnstile jumping. 1264. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 8:09:27 PM The Supreme Court will rule on the Clinton Administration's public lands grazing regulations. 1265. Bubbaette - 10/15/1999 8:34:21 PM Greystoke 1266. TrialShark - 10/15/1999 8:36:06 PM 1267. Aldavis - 10/15/1999 9:25:30 PM My goodness but things have been active since I left. Look Ace, you are bright enough to know that 1941 did not happpen in the 1930's. One in Roosevelt's Cabinet suggested that we help Stalin when he was losing and Hitler when he was losing. Yes, we had to lie down with Stalin from 1941-1945, and yes we had to declare war on Japan and Germany after Pearl Harbor. Are you aware of the fact that Stalin knew in 1941 that Roosevelt would not oppose his domination of the East block countries? After Hitler's defeat, we had to give Poland, et. al. to Stalin? I thought we went to war to make the world safe for Democracy and to end all wars? All of this is far off the subject of Buchanan so I will drop it now and we should/can all move on to more profitable subject 1268. Cellar Door - 10/15/1999 9:25:42 PM Bobo's vying to be Pat Buchanan's VP choice. 1269. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 9:33:14 PM Bubbaette 1270. Bubbaette - 10/15/1999 9:44:14 PM Greystoke 1271. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 9:49:12 PM TrialShark msg num = 1266 1272. Greystoke - 10/15/1999 9:52:37 PM Bubbaette 1273. Bubbaette - 10/15/1999 11:04:47 PM In D.C. -- ABA Administrative Law Section. I'm not an attorney, but they tolerate me anyway as an ex-officio member. 1274. Spudboy - 10/15/1999 11:40:40 PM Ace: John Hinckley is a bad example. OTOH, a better comparison would have been Tim McVeigh. The guy was decorated in the Gulf War and very respected in battle by his platoon-mates. He also massacred 168 innocent people, including a roomful of tots. Would you call him courageous? 1275. Spudboy - 10/15/1999 11:46:12 PM Incidentally, my impression of Buchanan's praise of Hitler as courageous referred not to his battlefield exploits, but by the fact that he moved boldly into a vulnerable political vacuum that was leading Germany to nowhere. 1276. Cellar Door - 10/15/1999 11:48:08 PM Oh why mince words? Buchanan's a Nazi and Ace is a Nazi sympathizer. 1277. Spudboy - 10/16/1999 12:06:07 AM Cellar: I have to object. Calling people who aren't Nazis that name lessens the meaning of the word. For me, it means something specific, and when I choose to label someone a Nazi I want it to carry the full weight of the term. Buchanan is not a Nazi; he is a Catholic anti-Semite who is "soft" on fascism. Ace is not a Nazi sympathizer (note that he doesn't support the man's candidacy); he just hates liberals, and by God, if there's something that liberals are against, he just has to find some way to yank their shorts about it. Even if it puts him in foolish positions. 1278. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 12:32:57 AM Oh alright, I'm too harsh on Ace. But I've had it up to here with excuses for Buchanan. I know his type all too well. 1279. JonesAtLaw - 10/16/1999 12:35:00 AM Cellar- Ah, the black Irish? 1280. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 12:36:14 AM spudboy 1281. JonesAtLaw - 10/16/1999 12:38:05 AM Cead mille failte! 1282. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 12:43:45 AM Jones 1283. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 12:56:53 AM I think Spudboy's assessment of Buchanan is on the money -- basically a clannish boyo who really doesn't care for much of anyone else, whether it's "Jews", "Zulus", or what have you. Of course, he's also cagey enough to realize that shooting his mouth off gets him plenty o' press (as long as they spell the name right, who cares if it's good or bad?), plus the unrepentant redneck vote. 1284. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 12:57:06 AM He assures us, after the fall of the evil empire, that the USSR was not really a communist system. 1285. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 12:59:05 AM Oh yeah, almost forgot, Erin go bragh! I'm a quarter Irish myself. Black Irish, of course. So at least Pat's not after me....yet. 1286. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 1:04:08 AM Warren Beatty's "The United States of America" -- A Paramount Picture. 1287. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 1:09:49 AM Cellar: 1288. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 1:35:33 AM 1289. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 1:40:05 AM TS: 1290. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 1:42:44 AM (Note: the bit in square brackets was an example, not part of the definition. I replaced triangular brackets with square ones, to avoid either screwing up the HTML, or inserting unsightly spaces.) 1291. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 1:48:32 AM Dion is Canadian, BTW. 1292. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 2:13:46 AM Stumbo: 1293. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 2:18:35 AM Stumbo -- 1294. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 2:22:51 AM 1295. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 2:26:46 AM TS: 1296. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 2:55:46 AM 1297. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 2:56:05 AM TrialShark 1298. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 2:57:06 AM 1299. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 3:09:59 AM TS: 1300. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 3:26:08 AM 1301. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 3:57:04 AM TS: 1302. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:05:02 AM Yet another Clowntoon coverup: Kennewick Man. An interesting case study in how Lefties deal with 'ideologically inconvenient' scientific discoveries. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the author's speculations, of course. 1303. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:07:37 AM "The bones seemed too old to be from someone who died recently, Chatters thought. They were discolored, and soil adhered to them as to bones buried for a century or more. At first Chatters guessed 1304. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 4:09:12 AM 1305. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:09:30 AM Some ancient paleoindians on the East Coast nine millennia ago exhibited skull features resembling Kennewick Man’s. University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson objected to use 1306. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:10:42 AM 1307. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:11:49 AM 1308. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:12:48 AM The Clinton Administration opposes the most basic precepts of open scientific inquiry in this matter. Some of the reasons why seem obvious. Suppose DNA analysis reveals that Kennewick Man’s 1309. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:13:35 AM If a Caucasoid Kennewick Man and his tribe roamed the Cascade rain-shadow dry interior of Washington State 9,000 years ago, we must then ask a painful question: what happened to them? Why 1310. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:14:21 AM History is written by the winners. Even the name "Kennewick" comes from Indian words meaning "winter heaven." On today’s university campuses, the fashion is to depict Euro-Americans as evil 1311. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:14:37 AM 1312. Spudboy - 10/16/1999 4:21:25 AM How, pray tell, is the Kennewick Man dispute a "Clowntoon coverup"? There are plenty of politics surrounding the skeleton, but they involve jurisdictional disputes. 1313. concerned - 10/16/1999 4:29:08 AM Read this excerpt from the article very, very carefully. 1314. Spudboy - 10/16/1999 5:03:15 AM Concerned: The Executive Branch, in case you're interested, refers to the Interior Department, under whose jurisdiction is the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is charged with representing the tribes' interest in these matters if the tribes seek it. The hangup on DNA testing comes primarily from the Umatilla Tribe, which has laid claim to the bones as one of their ancestors and does not wish for testing work to be performed. Federal law requires their wishes to be observed if actual ownership can be established, which it hasn't yet. 1315. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 5:14:31 AM TS: 1316. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 5:35:34 AM The titles in question (in addition to the one I cited yesterday) are: 1317. Spudboy - 10/16/1999 5:43:08 AM Stumbo: Have you read Ron Rosenbaum's Understanding Hitler yet? Curious as to your take. 1318. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 6:09:45 AM Spuds: 1319. Spudboy - 10/16/1999 6:20:21 AM No, it's more of a comparative study. Rosenbaum surveys the various theories about Hitler and his rise to power, and why he masterminded the Holocaust. As one reviewer on the Amazon site indicates, he ultimately seems to favor an "abandoned to evil" construct. He's pretty sympathetic to Goldhagen, whose work has a great deal of value but is flawed in important areas, IMHO. I found the book actually quite thorough, accurate, and balanced, and though its style seemed kind of forced at times, it was ultimately an interesting read. 1320. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 10:39:27 AM 7.0 and a pure delight! 1321. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 11:25:33 AM 1322. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 11:46:52 AM All together now! 1323. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 3:11:09 PM spudboy 1324. Stumbo - 10/16/1999 3:12:06 PM TS: 1325. dusty - 10/16/1999 4:35:14 PM PelleNilsson asks here: 1326. CalGal - 10/16/1999 4:44:58 PM Actually, there was a science fiction book written about that: Stand on Zanzibar, by John Brunner. Out of print (which is a bad thing), but you can find it in any library. Groundbreaking sci-fi work. 1327. PelleNilsson - 10/16/1999 4:51:25 PM In any event, the mental picture of the world as a teeming anthill of people is clearly wrong. 1328. robertjayb - 10/16/1999 5:04:07 PM .. 1329. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 5:06:21 PM pelle 1330. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 6:24:29 PM 1331. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 6:27:37 PM 1332. robertjayb - 10/16/1999 6:47:57 PM . 1333. EricCartman - 10/16/1999 6:57:40 PM Ehrlich may be in the Chicken Little category, but without such doomsayers, we might be totally ignorant of the situation in the first place. Better safe than sorry. 1334. TrialShark - 10/16/1999 8:00:50 PM 1335. Aldavis - 10/16/1999 8:24:53 PM Eric 1336. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 10:27:31 PM Pssst. Simon Templar eats elephant dung -- pass it on. 1337. AceofSpades - 10/16/1999 10:32:59 PM 1338. Cellar Door - 10/16/1999 10:34:43 PM Watch it babe. You're going to bring on an attack. 1339. JonesAtLaw - 10/17/1999 12:55:43 AM I have no idea whether the Kennewic man is european or east indian or native american etc. However, the existence of even a large population of europeans on the continent will do nothing to change the history of the american west and the conquest by various europeans and their treatment of the peoples they found on the continent on their rediscovery of it. 1340. Stumbo - 10/17/1999 2:26:21 AM TS: 1341. TrialShark - 10/17/1999 4:39:40 AM 1342. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 4:57:31 AM concerned, 1343. Angel-Five - 10/17/1999 5:01:25 AM Clinton covered up evidence that a Clovis-era Ainu was discovered in North America because that person might have been killed by Clovis people, and that would make us all think that the Clovis hunters were warlike? Have I just witnessed the reincarnation of ThomasD or is there just more of them out there? 1344. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 5:18:57 AM Clinton covered up evidence that a Clovis-era Ainu was discovered in North America because that person might have been killed by Clovis people, and that would make us all think that the Clovis hunters were warlike. 1345. Angel-Five - 10/17/1999 5:27:17 AM Yes, I suppose they all swam across the ocean to get here, too. And died without not only leaving a single trace of their journey, but also a single trace of their White European existence. Yet there was enough of them to annihilate all big-game life in the Americas, and the 'false' Clovis people eliminated all other evidence of their existence, down to the last bucket helmet and jackboot. Clinton must have descended from these scheming scoundrels. It's a thirteen thousand year old conspiracy. 1346. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 5:34:30 AM Have I just witnessed the reincarnation of ThomasD or is there just more of them out there? 1347. Stumbo - 10/17/1999 5:45:35 AM TS: 1348. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 5:50:58 AM the 'false' Clovis people eliminated all other evidence of their existence, down to the last bucket helmet and jackboot. 1349. Spudboy - 10/17/1999 6:07:49 AM Proudnerd, I take deep umbrage to your insinuation. 1350. Angel-Five - 10/17/1999 6:20:32 AM Well, it was rather easy. No one else could possibly say 'Clowntoon' with that straight a mien. 1351. Cellar Door - 10/17/1999 11:35:33 AM Did somebody say Thomas D? 1352. TrialShark - 10/17/1999 3:51:06 PM 1353. TrialShark - 10/17/1999 3:57:24 PM 1354. TrialShark - 10/17/1999 3:57:54 PM 1355. EricCartman - 10/17/1999 4:34:41 PM Cellar: 1356. CalGal - 10/17/1999 4:42:14 PM Cellar, 1357. Stumbo - 10/17/1999 7:21:05 PM TS: 1358. pseudoerasmus - 10/17/1999 8:22:46 PM In #1327, PelleN uttered: In any event, the mental picture of the world as a teeming anthill of people is clearly wrong. 1359. pseudoerasmus - 10/17/1999 8:26:38 PM Forget the Kennewick man, 1360. JonesAtLaw - 10/17/1999 10:01:21 PM How does one establish a carrying capacity for the planet? Does one use the rate at which land is used in Europe, Japan, eastern North America? Or the rate at which it is carried in Africa, Western North America, South America and Australia? Even allowing for deserts, tundra etc, there are still lands under utilized for either agriculture or other resources. 1361. pseudoerasmus - 10/17/1999 10:11:55 PM Jonesatlaw: Joel E Cohen's How Many People Can The Earth Support? spends about 300 pages introducing you to a whole field of scientific inequiry which tries to answer your question. 1362. CalGal - 10/17/1999 10:13:18 PM Well, I did mention that book a while ago. But I'm sure it will sound better now that you've said it. 1363. Aldavis - 10/17/1999 11:08:12 PM proudnerd 1364. Aldavis - 10/17/1999 11:17:32 PM pseudoerasmus 1365. pseudoerasmus - 10/17/1999 11:20:49 PM Aldavis, as Proudnerd correctly pointed out, "Caucasoid" doesn't mean "European", the latter is a subset of the former. No archaeologist or anthropologist has yet said "European". And given where Kennewick is, it seems improbable that the K man was a European, rather than, say, an Ainu, the Caucasoid indigenous people of Japan and Sakhalin. 1366. Aldavis - 10/17/1999 11:25:25 PM I never said that Caucasoid was strickly European. Not my point at all. After all, I have been in Hawaii for 20 years and am aware that Hawaiians are a sub-set, as all polynesians are, of the caucasoid race. 1367. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 11:26:06 PM I have never been convinced that man was directly descended from a lower form of life until I read your posts 1368. Cellar Door - 10/17/1999 11:35:42 PM The only true humans are white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual Baptist males. 1369. proudnerd - 10/17/1999 11:38:57 PM But it would be a shame if it could be established that Europeans came here many moons ago. 1370. concerned - 10/17/1999 11:39:56 PM Re. 1333 - 1371. EricCartman - 10/18/1999 12:28:38 AM I bet he plans on interring Vince Foster and Ron Brown at the excavation site. Maybe also the kids from Mena. 1372. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 12:43:34 AM You heard it here first, Ron Brown did not die in the plane crash, Clinton and Reno have perfected time travel with some repaired equipment from Area 51, and they sent Ron Brown to South America in the prehistoric past. Kenewic man is really Vince Foster. Al Gore was a failed early experiment, and the emotional portion of him is lost in time travel.... Pass it on. 1373. joezan - 10/18/1999 12:48:03 AM Too late. Already heard that one... 1374. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 12:55:22 AM Gee, Cellar, I wouldn't have said that for fear of hurting your feelings, but since you are already aware of the fact, I guess you have come to grips with it. 1375. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 1:06:50 AM WRT to whiteness- I saw a book the other day, which I mean to read soon entitiled "How the Irish Became White." A cursory examination is that it explores the relationship of Irish immigrants to blacks, and their vaulting over native born Americans to gain power denied blacks. It looks like it takes a hard look at Irish American racism. It doesn't look pretty, but worthwhile. 1376. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 1:27:28 AM OTOH- with my Irish blood, I've always been Rinso white. Does this mean I should give up Mass and start being Baptist? Is the mistress with the big hair optional? My wife will want to know... 1377. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:42:41 AM ConcernedThomas: 1378. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:43:13 AM What is required if one is to actually deal with the matter, is to determine why he did so, and this, the author of the article I posted has done. Hardly. The author determined nothing. He speculated wildly as to Clinton's motives for "covering this up." And he offered not a single shred of evidence that Clinton has any desire to defend "the exclusive historic claim of colored people’s priority in the New World." Where did he get this? Is the author unaware that virtually all of the archaeologists and anthropologists who sued to have the DNA tests are themselves "left liberals"? If the "left" is conspiring to cover up the truth about ethnic histories on the continent, then why are all those liberals pushing for these tests? 1379. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:43:49 AM This doesn't specify Clinton; it specifies the White House. The participation, for all we know, came from someone in the WH -- could have been his chief of staff or some other high-level staffer, could even have been his Interior Secretary. 1380. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:44:11 AM Oh, and while you're being angry over "vandalization," why don't you also express a little anger about what was done to the bones themselves by the first archaeologist (one of those suing in the matter) to examine them? Subsequent examinations have found that he applied glue to them, contaminating them in the process. He also appears to have swiped one of the femur bones. Maybe he was in cahoots with Clinton too? Oh wait -- he's on the other side, isn't he? 1381. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:44:41 AM Finally, let's look at the central thesis: Clinton, the author speculates, covered up the "truth" that the Kennewick man might reveal -- that the first inhabitants of the continent were Caucasoid and not "colored" in origin. (I might add that this theory, as the Asatru involvement suggests, was one of the top items of discussion at last summer's Aryan Congress. Not that our author is a white supremacist, but like a lot of people on the right, he seems to be getting his information and ideas from them.) The suggestion seems to be that maybe the place originally belonged to "white people." 1382. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:45:15 AM Truth is, ConcernedThomas, there's no "cover-up" here, merely a dispute between native peoples and archaeologists, which has been an increasingly common conflict in recent years. Even the most rabid Clinton-haters here -- with, of course, a singular exception -- recognize that there are limits even to just how much blame you can lay at the man's feet. 1383. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 2:46:31 AM I should mention my own theory, Concerned -- that you are living proof of the following story: 1384. proudnerd - 10/18/1999 2:54:59 AM I was the first to suggest such a possibility with msg #1346. 1385. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 3:05:57 AM Yeah, but you suggested they live in Idaho! Harrumph! Everyone knows they reside in (A)East Peoria, Ill., and (B) the GOP side of the House of Representatives. 1386. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 3:11:26 AM spudboy 1387. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 3:20:17 AM 1388. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 3:25:10 AM Al: Quite right, my mistake. The site belongs to the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a well-known Indian fishing site called Wy-ow-nut, where the tribes still go to fish. And once they claim a site as a burial site, they gain a certain amount of say (unless their claim is denied) over how it is treated. Obviously, they wanted to get people out of there, especially if there are other burials there. My understanding is that the tribes and the BIA persuaded the Army Corps to expedite its erosion-control project. 1389. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 3:34:09 AM Trial Shark 1390. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 3:34:44 AM 1391. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 3:43:01 AM TS: Of course! That was the idea. These posts are good for a chuckle, and contribute mightily to the amusement level here in the Mote. I just thought I'd save him a few steps. 1392. Macnas - 10/18/1999 3:51:09 AM Spudboy, 1393. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 3:57:56 AM 1394. proudnerd - 10/18/1999 4:00:00 AM Useful tool for conspiracy theorists - 1395. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 4:10:47 AM 1396. PelleNilsson - 10/18/1999 4:17:23 AM Yes, funny link! In a few minutes I had my own: 1397. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 4:25:16 AM Macnas: The non-conspiracist audience for this stuff is pretty small, so the answer to your question is the latter. I wouldn't say there's a large number (certainly not a large percentage) of people who really believe this stuff, but it's not insubstantial, either. When it comes to Clinton-hating stuff, it's pretty widespread; you just need to visit the ever-popular Free Republic site for a sample of that, and there are really a surprising number of other Clinton-conspiracy sites, including FrontPage Magazine, whence Concerned obtained his Kennewick Man story. 1398. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 4:28:51 AM Incidentally, I hope everyone understood that the Amish site was a parody. (You can never tell around here.) 1399. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 4:36:39 AM "Why can't anyone see that Martin Sheen is being 1400. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 5:00:31 AM TS: 1401. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 5:00:58 AM I notice that you don't choose to deny that Clowntoon I notice that you conveniently also choose to deny that "A rogue A.I. is stealing people so that it can 1402. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 5:08:16 AM TS: (cont.) 1403. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 5:14:42 AM TS: (concl.) 1404. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 5:17:46 AM 1405. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 5:22:06 AM (P.S.: strike the "of course" of your choice from the first line of paragraph 3 of #1402.) 1406. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 5:22:30 AM I notice that you don't choose to deny that Clowntoon You know, I prefer to deal with people logically. That is to say, I try to choose what I agree with logically, and if someone says something I don't like, I try to analyze it logically and see what makes it tick. If it's illogical, then I try to construct a logical argument to attack it, expose its weaknesses, and effectively nullify that illogical statement. I don't like to just sit back and ridicule, or snipe in the presence of my friends, because that's the hallmark of an idiot who can't debate logically and is a coward to boot. I just like stepping into the arena and logically engaging people. But the above statement betrays such a basic and utter disjunction with reality or any realistic logical system of thought that I'm at a loss where to strike it. One might as well have said 'I note that you choose not to deny that the space aliens are in league with you, and have been all along. ' I really can't find a logical ground to engage him on, because there's nothing I can identify in his words that would suggest such a ground. Yet I feel a strong urge to issue a retort to this syphilitic feverbrained trash, all the same. So I must resort to pointing out that I dearly hope ThomasD hasn't ever been allowed to breed, that I strongly suspect he posts from the greasy, dark interior of a Newark dumpster, that he has a strong strain of daylight-fearing oppossum in his DNA that has led at least one biologist to misclassify him, and he has numerous shock-burns all over his skin, owing to the government lab from which he recently escaped. 1407. Spudboy - 10/18/1999 5:23:21 AM Here's a compendium of relevant quotes: 1408. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 5:24:08 AM Stumbo -- 1409. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 6:12:06 AM TS: 1410. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 6:17:16 AM TS: (concl.) 1411. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 1:47:22 PM 1412. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 1:49:17 PM 1413. proudnerd - 10/18/1999 1:58:36 PM Stumbo, 1414. pseudoerasmus - 10/18/1999 2:08:16 PM God, I didn't know Buchanan was as bad as Spudboy's link demonstrates! But you have to admit, he has got a gift for coining amusing phrases, like "clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate" and "pederast proletariat". 1415. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 2:20:39 PM 1416. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 2:32:22 PM "Well, I'll give you that Pat doesn't think it necessary to condemn violence against Jews." 1417. proudnerd - 10/18/1999 2:46:45 PM pseudoE, PB was a speech writer for tricky Dick. Bombastic blabber comes with the territory. 1418. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 3:53:07 PM The Senate is telling the Nation how currupt they are. Gee, as if we didn't know. Wellstone's agrument is especially wonderful. Only 4 out of 10,000 give more than 200 to presidential candidates. Therefore, raising the limit from $1,000 to $3,000 would only show the American people what a joke reform is. Of course, we are not supposed to notice that Unions will spend $40,000,000 in support of particular Congrssmen and call it issue advertisment. We are not supposed to notice that 60 Minutes will run any anti Republican stories they can get their hands on. Let's do it right. Limit all contributions to $200, ban so called news programs from any comment which is not news, and do not let interest groups, Cato Institute encluded along with the Unions, from any advertisments. 1st Amendment ber damned. 1419. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 3:58:36 PM Al: 1420. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:02:22 PM Aldavis- You are correct, the unions contribute heavily to some campaigns. They also do their best to mobilize their membership to vote for/against certain candidates. However, so do the AMA, the ABA various industry groups, the Sierra Club, etc. etc. There seems to be no shortage of contributions for Bush the younger, and last I looked, there were plenty of organizations on his list. What's the difference save for you approve of one side and not the other? It seems that the candidates are raising plenty of cash with current limits. 1421. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:05:24 PM And for unions and their issue advertisements, I remember a series of ads during the health care debate, they were sponsored by the insurance industry. Same deal, different side. 1422. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:06:31 PM 1423. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:09:17 PM "There is no bias on Fox's news segments, except, perhaps, a bit of unreconstructed liberal bias" 1424. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 4:10:16 PM "Unreconstructed liberal bias" meaning a disinclination to mutter "Vote Republican or Else!" under your breath while reading glowing reports on how much money Shrub has hauled into his coffers. 1425. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:11:56 PM 1426. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 4:13:55 PM And "unbiased" to you means Tony Snow, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and "The Beltway Boys" 24/7. 1427. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:14:12 PM Ace- kindly let me know when you are done arguing with me, and what I said. You seem willing to do all the speaking for both of us. 1428. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:14:33 PM 1429. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 4:15:17 PM Ace won't rest until he has the Mote all to himself, Jonsey. 1430. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:16:12 PM 1431. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 4:17:21 PM Who are these "liberals"? 1432. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:17:46 PM Ace: 1433. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:19:28 PM Ace- all news is biased. Some is more strongly ideologically biased than others, but the very act of editing the thousands of events which happen daily to those which are considered newsworthy involves a bias. In modern times the media is increasingly concentrated in the traditional venues: newspapers and magazines, film, on air TV and cable, and radio. Counterbalancing this is the explosion of information on this system. This will add more and more voices, and will lead to views which were previously never heard or heard only locally being part of the larger discourse. 1434. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:20:55 PM 1435. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 4:21:30 PM That's the theory, Jonsey, but in practice all I see are right-wing Conservatives staging "debates" with alleged "liberals" who are ever-so-slightly less right-wing than they are. 1436. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:23:29 PM 1437. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:23:55 PM Ace: 1438. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:27:40 PM Cellar- it seems that liberals (real ones) are somewhat technophobic. The religous right seized on mass marketing, cable, the internet, and revamped local political orgainization in the 80's. They were far more sophisticated than the traditional "new left" in their approach to media. The left seems to be catching up. Just as the international scene is dealing with decentralization, the media will face it. The Freepers have the lead now, but we'll see more and more single issue sites and orgainzation. Look at us, we're a global group dedicated to the proposition that if you continue to work with conservatives, there's hope they can become people too. Sort of PETA for the political. 1439. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:28:05 PM 1440. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 4:29:05 PM You Liberals are a joke. "My local rag...." How many people read it, 10 or 12? Did you watch 60 Minutes last night? Is there any news show which competes with 60 Minutes. Of course, we know that opinions are for formed by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, but perhaps by Fox News, which can only be seen by a minority of people. If I wanted to be a household name, I sure wouldn't put ads on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. Why, I would put big ads in the Garden Island. You all have heard of that, haven't you. Of course, it could never have been predicted that Bubbaette would have popped up with her post, now would it. 1441. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:31:38 PM Aldavis, ever worked on a house or senate campaign? Ever see them grovel for the endorsement of the local rag, be it left or right? Remeber Tip O'Neil, all politics is local... 1442. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 4:33:23 PM Ace 1443. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:35:51 PM Al: 1444. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:35:59 PM Al-could you refresh my memory? When and where did Cellar ever club you with his being gay, brown or a commie? I could believe that he might have given you a smack on a film, but that's his home turf. Just like I give Ace Adjustor, Net Detective a smack on the law at times. 1445. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:38:03 PM 1446. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:39:50 PM 1447. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:41:28 PM Ace: 1448. vonKreedon - 10/18/1999 4:43:18 PM Spade - On what basis are you dissing Cellar's Commie quals? 1449. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:45:55 PM Ace- 1450. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:47:08 PM 1451. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 4:48:08 PM Jones 1452. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:51:58 PM Al- I thought about it, and must admit that Cellar has trotted out his race on occaision to make a point. I also must admit that he hasn't trotted that out any more than I have that I'm Irish, or a hayseed. 1453. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 4:52:04 PM 1454. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:53:24 PM Ace: 1455. vonKreedon - 10/18/1999 4:53:44 PM Spade - Several things that Cellar has said about alianation and class conflict lead me to believe that he has at least a passing familiarity with Marx. 1456. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 4:56:58 PM > 3. CRIMINAL LAW K> 641.3(6) 1457. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 4:57:49 PM Al: 1458. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 4:58:30 PM Wellstone "I have recieved a legal opinion that such a bill would not be un-Constitutional."hahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahhahaha (I learned that from pseudo) That's about as difficult as getting an opinion from a psychiatrist. 1459. Bubbaette - 10/18/1999 4:59:43 PM Pure numbers, in terms of how many people are watching one show vs. another are not the whole story. Just as important are the income levels and buying habits of competing audiences. 1460. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:00:21 PM 1461. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:02:26 PM 1462. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 5:05:38 PM Bubbaette: 1463. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 5:05:41 PM 3113. JonesAtLaw - 10/15/99 1:19:30 PM 1464. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:06:46 PM 1465. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:08:51 PM 1466. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 5:11:28 PM You were claiming that it didn't matter if a defendant knowingly, willingly, and purposely waived his right to counsel in an interrogation context (i.e., Miranda followed correctly and by the letter); you claimed you could still get a confession kicked out on an Escobedo analysis. 1467. JudithAtHome - 10/18/1999 5:13:57 PM This seems to be where I came in yesterday and even 3 months ago.... 1468. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 5:24:04 PM This is where it all started: 1469. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:32:43 PM 1470. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 5:50:53 PM Intent is proved in precisely the same way that motive is in a trial. Your distinction is pure semantics. The only characterization was that your original post spoke of intent when the rest spoke of motive. Otherwise, the quote is yours. 1471. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:53:17 PM 1472. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 5:54:01 PM In other words, Ace, you seem to think that if I target a minority to kill, rape or beat, merely on the basis of their minority, I have no intent to affect others whom I hate for the same reason? If I randomly select a minority member, isn't the real focus of my intent not the person, but the minority? 1473. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:55:34 PM 1474. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 5:58:04 PM 1475. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 6:03:24 PM Ace- my point was that unlike many facts at trial, intent is usually provable only through circumstancial evidence. The process of proving intent is no more and no less difficult in a courtroom than motive. If you tried cases, this would be obvious. 1476. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 6:05:33 PM 1477. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 6:07:47 PM You are assuming the presumption. I am stating it clearly, if the intent of selecting your victim is based soley on their racial characteristic, your intent is not specific to the victim, it is a generalized intent. There is no presumption involved. If I assault Will Jones, black man, because he just insulted the Cubs, he's the object of my intent. If assault Will Jones because he's a back man, and any other black man will do, the object of my intent is black men, not Will Jones, family man and insurance salesman. 1478. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 6:11:53 PM Compare- 1479. TrialShark - 10/18/1999 6:14:22 PM 1480. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 6:15:21 PM 1481. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 6:17:35 PM 1482. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 6:19:22 PM Ace is it possible to assault at random certain sub-sets of society because of their membership in that sub-set without intending to terrorize that sub-set? 1483. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 6:23:04 PM Notice- 1484. AceofSpades - 10/18/1999 7:22:44 PM 1485. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 9:09:57 PM TS: 1486. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 9:10:38 PM TS: (cont.) 1487. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 9:14:58 PM TS: (cont.) 1488. Stumbo - 10/18/1999 9:20:48 PM TS: (concl.) 1489. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 9:23:53 PM There is nothing in Pat's latest book to indicate he had any liking for Hitler. If anyone thinks so, let him page the page #'s that show it. Pat makes a lot of statements that indicate he is not fond of Zionism, which it is hard to do and not sound anti-semitic. Why is it, however, that people who know him well and are Jewish seem to think he is being unfairly accused. For a politician, which he really is not, Buchanan is very unpolitical in his utterances in public. 1490. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 9:27:12 PM "Clinton is very careful in public, but, it is alleged that that he is racist in private." 1491. 109109 - 10/18/1999 9:30:12 PM Is anyone actually suggesting that Buchanan 1492. CalGal - 10/18/1999 9:33:31 PM Actually, I think the evidence for Buchanan being anti-semite (small s) is good enough to at least peer at him suspiciously. A Hitler worshipper or one of those really weird way out there anti-Semites, no. 1493. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 9:35:15 PM Remember, this guy only is dubbed an anti-Semite or a Nazi sympathizer when he is off his television show, yukking it up with the likes of Bill Press and the rest of the Washington establishment. In that arena, he's deemed acceptable enough for pre-prime time, a real Washington insider. 1494. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 9:38:24 PM Fair enough. Let's presume intent in every criminal trial, then. 1495. 109109 - 10/18/1999 9:38:59 PM That's the thing, though. He is a vebal back-alley knife artist. He doesn't hem or haw or fudge around the edges. So, to a great extent, he is the establishment's bad boy. And you are dead on. They say, oh, that bad, bad Pat. Adn occasionally, he gets his wrist slapped, and he feigns shock that anyone could think he had a black heart. But his entire schtick is taking it too far. It is his currency. 1496. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 9:47:29 PM CalGal 1497. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 9:48:24 PM to be very accurate, "boy my greatness." 1498. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 9:50:27 PM Cellar 1499. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 10:17:17 PM Bill Moyers, Scaife of the Left? 1500. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 10:19:00 PM cont. 1501. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 10:21:41 PM Greve estimated that Moyers has hosted eight hours of PBS documentaries on campaign money. But he is 1502. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 10:24:29 PM cont. 1503. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 11:37:55 PM "the Clintons threw a stick at conservative philanthropist and newspaper owner Dick Scaife and told their lapdogs in the press to fetch. 1504. Cellar Door - 10/18/1999 11:47:32 PM Stamper?!?! Gack. 1505. AceofSpades - 10/19/1999 12:50:48 AM 1506. ee - 10/19/1999 1:51:45 AM You no like Stamper 1507. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 2:24:27 AM 1508. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 2:45:04 AM Ace: This was and remains correct. Hate Crime Laws do not punish, as Spudboy insists, an intent to spread fear among a community. There are laws on the books regarding terroristic threats; Hate Crime Laws are not among them. 1509. ee - 10/19/1999 2:46:34 AM I promise never ever to do that again! 1510. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 2:46:51 AM It was never Stamper. It was always stamper. 1511. ee - 10/19/1999 2:48:43 AM that was wierd 1512. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 2:56:09 AM Stumbo -- 1513. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 2:56:15 AM 1514. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 3:13:17 AM BTW, Spuds: 1515. proudnerd - 10/19/1999 3:59:07 AM stumbo, 1516. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 4:06:55 AM Stumbo: Actually, I thought FAIR's characterization was slanted. The information is usually accurate -- and so I expect the quotes are, which is why I posted them -- but their liberal bias makes them less than trustworthy. I consider the FAIR folks to be nearly in the category of Alexander Cockburn, who is a complete loony, IMHO. I dislike pseudo-populist poseurs almost as much as I do robotic ideologues. 1517. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 4:07:55 AM The key to understanding Buchanan is looking at where he came from (which he often harkens to in his columns, I might add). His father was really the seminal figure for his ideology. He was a member of the America First Party (which no doubt plays into why Pat refers to that principle as his primary criterion), and admired McCarthy, Franco, Father Coughlin and Mussolini (all of whom Buchanan has defended at various times). I happen to have done substantial research on this little corner of American history, as well as its antecedents and decedents. And Buchanan really fits right into their tradition: isolationist, nationalist, selectively populist and conspiracist (which usually takes on an anti-Semitic character). 1518. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 4:18:07 AM Spuds: 1519. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 4:21:33 AM TS: 1520. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 4:25:29 AM TS: (cont.) 1521. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 4:30:16 AM TS: (concl.) 1522. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 4:38:37 AM Sorry, I meant the America First Committee. They are most often remembered for being the folks who opposed aid to Britain during the Battle of Britain. Of course, there's always Buchanan's own take on the America First Committee, which paints a rather rosier view of them. 1523. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 4:51:25 AM Nerd: 1524. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 5:04:24 AM Spuds: 1525. proudnerd - 10/19/1999 5:28:22 AM Stumbo, 1526. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 5:52:37 AM Nerd: 1527. JonesAtLaw - 10/19/1999 10:07:53 AM Ace-I wasn't testing you on the definition of burglary at common law-breaking and entering at night with the intent to commit any felony. It was to point out the relationship of the victim, intent and motive. The intent is not directed at the victim per se, it is generally to commit a felony following the breaking and entry. In the same manner, hate crimes are not crimes of intent soley towards the victim. The target is directly the group, while the indirect intent is towards the actual victim. This is not unheard of in criminal law. It goes back to the common law, and we just saw in the case of burglary. 1528. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 1:02:50 PM 1529. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 1:21:55 PM spudboy 1530. ranheim - 10/19/1999 2:00:52 PM #1522 Spudboy 1531. 109109 - 10/19/1999 2:02:22 PM Buchanan does not deserve any particular ideological heritage, no matter how inglorious. He's a provacateur, plain and simple, dancing with Ross Perot one day, David Duke the next, Leonora Fulani the next. 1532. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 2:58:44 PM #1531 has been moved here from Political Ideas. 1533. JonesAtLaw - 10/19/1999 3:08:03 PM Ranheim- did you live in town or on a farm? 1534. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 3:20:54 PM Ranheim 1535. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 3:23:21 PM Ranheim 1536. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 3:41:36 PM "any German attack on USA shores would have resembled the Battle of New Orleans" 1537. JonesAtLaw - 10/19/1999 3:49:10 PM The outcome of a German invasion depends largely on when you anticipate it occurring and the factual backround. IF we assume that Hitler forced the British to sue for peace and that he was left to deal with Stalin alone, the US could have been in danger. It depends largely on what assume German production and losses on the eastern front would have been, and the state of the US navy. 1538. CalGal - 10/19/1999 3:51:56 PM Lord, people who write about Microsoft are unimaginably stupid. 1539. JJBiener - 10/19/1999 4:02:58 PM Jones - I don't think a German invasion of the US in WWII was ever a possibility. Hitler may have been able to defeat Britain and much of Europe, but he could never have overcome Russia. There is no way he could attempt an invasion of the US as long as the Eastern Front was active, and there is no way he could have prevailed over the USSR. The question then becomes: what does the world look like with a unified Europe acting as a superpower under Hitler. What effect would that have had on the Cold War. 1540. JonesAtLaw - 10/19/1999 4:08:20 PM JJB- I agree that the US Navy would have been a serious obstacle. But if we assume that we're talking about Europe under the German heel and that Hitler would have been able to complete work on weapons already designed and nearing production, the tide may have turned against Stalin. The Russians gained air superiority in the east which would have disappeared with the arrival of German jets, both fighters and bombers. This would have also caused great problems for the US navy near shore. A substantial safe zone around Europe would have also complicated antisubmarine warfare greatly. 1541. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 4:52:23 PM Hitler would never have contemplated an invasion of the US. If the isolationists had won out, Hitler would have subdued Britain and everybody would have lived happily afterwards - except the Jews, the Gypsies, the gays and the other "sub-humans". 1542. Cellar Door - 10/19/1999 4:56:54 PM "I was so left, I wanted to go help Castro." 1543. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 5:41:28 PM Cellar: I'm a big Dick fan (wait, how can I rephrase that?). I have a large collection of his work. "Man in the High Castle" has been ripped off numerous times, and never has been done as well as Dick's novel. Really a provocative thesis: That Roosevelt was assassinated in '36, the Allies lost the war, and America in 1967 is divided between Japanese (West) and German (East) halves. And brilliantly written, too. 1544. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 5:45:54 PM spudboy 1545. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 5:47:20 PM 1546. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 5:51:25 PM TrialShark 1547. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 6:11:54 PM Pelle: I'm forced to be brief this afternoon. The question in "History" is complex, and will require consultation of my references. I'll try and reply to it this evening. Thanks. 1548. Angel-Five - 10/19/1999 6:21:29 PM Well, it's sort of doubtful that the Germans would have got the Bomb on anywhere near the time-table the Allies were developing it. The German physicists were dragging their heels and according to some studies were a fair ways away anyway -- they claim to have deliberately slowed up so as to not give an atomic weapon to the madman in charge of them, but the American and Brit researchers of the time claim that is is a lie of convenience, and that the Germans would have been hard pressed to build a bomb before '47 or even later. I disagree, very much so, that the Germans could not have beaten Stalin. And that's what we're talking about -- beating Stalin, not conquering all of Russia. Barbarossa was a comedy of errors and even so, having been launched at the wrong time, almost got to Moscow where Stalin had no clue of how to stop him. Had the Nazis occupied Moscow before winter, instead of spending themselves trying to occupy it as winter was falling, or had they not lost an entire army group at the Volga due to an incredibly bad decision on the behalf of Hitler, things might have gone a bit differently as it was. With a subjugated England and the subsequent shift of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to the east, I cannot credit that the Soviet numerical superiority would have prevailed. 1549. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 6:32:05 PM Angel: My thesis, though, is that the USA wouldn't have been at work on a bomb at all, or at least not with any urgency, had we not been at war. Recall that the seminal event was Einstein's letter to FDR, warning him of the German danger. Had we not been at war with Germany, I doubt that the U.S. would have responded as we did. 1550. JJBiener - 10/19/1999 6:49:44 PM Spudboy - Look at it a different way. Even if the US did not intervene in Europe, it still should have recognized the threat a German nuclear weapon would pose. The resources that went into the defeat of Germany could have been used to produce a US nuke earlier. And even if they weren't, information of German research would have spurred the US to develop the weapon in a similar time line to what occurred. It would have been sheer insanity for the US to sit back and allow Germany to develop the nuke first. FDR had many flaws, but I don't count insanity among them. 1551. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 7:00:53 PM 1552. Spudboy - 10/19/1999 7:00:54 PM JJ: Actually, historian Robert Dallek makes much the same point as mine in today's Washington Post: Pat Buchanan's Revisionist Fantasy 1553. Angel-Five - 10/19/1999 7:40:55 PM Well, it's tricky with Einstein. Albert thought globally, and whether or not we had gone to war with the Third Reich I can't see anyone regarding the thought of German research into weapons of mass destruction with anything but fear. It might have taken a bit longer but still that letter would have been written. The important thing to keep in mind, too, is that the war forced the American armed forces to modernize, innovate, and grow at a rate much fastern than they ever would have been able to achieve without wartime conditions (i.e. rationing, bonds, whathaveyou) and that without American involvement in the war the Russians would have got no aid at all. And as far as having nuclear weapons -- the Germans were the only people with a serious ballistic missile program in progress. The US got most of their ballistic missile tech from Germany, don't forget. 1554. Angel-Five - 10/19/1999 7:50:56 PM I agree that out of all the 'what if the Axis had won WWII' stories, The Man in the High Castle is the most interesting. Fatherland wasn't terrible. The best short fiction I've ever seen on it, though, was this really excellent, disturbing story about the way fox hunts changed in England and the political intrigue between the Resistance and the Nazis. I wish I could remember the name of the tale. The important thing to keep in mind is that any scenario where an isolationist America started seriously arming itself for bear is one where the Americans would still have probably been attacked by the Japanese early on, before the American war machine could get into full swing. 1555. pseudoerasmus - 10/19/1999 8:05:37 PM A couple of remarks: 1556. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 8:05:41 PM spudboy 1557. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 8:09:27 PM If any of you had been in control of America in June of 1944, and knew that within one year you would have a weapon of mass destruction that could have brought both Japan and Germany to their knees, would you have ordered the invasion at Normandy and the slaughter that insued? Would America have used the A-bomb on Europeans they way it was used twice on Asians? I have not seen the movie Saving Pt. Ryan because the whole thing is just too upsetting to me. 1558. Angel-Five - 10/19/1999 8:18:04 PM No invasion of Europe: no occupation: Russian occupation of most of Europe and definitely all of Germany: a higher cost in the long run. 1559. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 8:22:32 PM 1560. ranheim - 10/19/1999 8:34:42 PM JonesAtLaw #1533 1561. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 8:35:12 PM TS 1562. Angel-Five - 10/19/1999 8:38:55 PM No, I think the US performed about one third of the bombing. 1563. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 8:53:22 PM 1564. TrialShark - 10/19/1999 8:53:23 PM 1565. AceofSpades - 10/19/1999 8:54:15 PM 1566. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 9:03:49 PM TS 1567. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 9:08:43 PM Why are posts reappearing? I think it is because when I reload and it says Repost from data. Now, Ace, I am interested in your comment that the a-bomb was meant for Germany. Could you give a cite I could go to to read about that? 1568. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 9:09:30 PM TS: 1569. Stumbo - 10/19/1999 9:09:52 PM TS: (concl.) 1570. AceofSpades - 10/19/1999 9:16:26 PM 1571. AceofSpades - 10/19/1999 9:22:07 PM 1572. 109109 - 10/19/1999 9:23:41 PM Bull Halsey may have had it planned especially for the Japanese, given his post-Pearl Harbor mantra, "Kill Japs. Kill Japs, and then kill more Japs." 1573. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 9:24:22 PM Ace 1574. 109109 - 10/19/1999 9:27:10 PM Or Truman's meassage pre-Nagasaki, post Hiroshima, to an objector from the Federal Council of Churches: "When you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast." 1575. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 9:37:04 PM Ace 1576. AceofSpades - 10/19/1999 9:56:14 PM 1577. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 9:59:56 PM Ace/Ranheim 1578. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 11:19:32 PM pelle 1579. Aldavis - 10/19/1999 11:21:05 PM (cont.) 1580. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 12:52:58 AM Al 1581. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 1:04:43 AM Pop groups? 1582. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 1:07:49 AM ABBA, Roxettes, others. I'm not well updated on these things. I think a rapper called Dr Alban has had some modest success in the US as well. 1583. CalGal - 10/20/1999 1:14:29 AM Ace of Base was the newest Swedish group, although I think they've already flashed in the pan. 1584. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 1:16:56 AM God, you people aren't responsible for Ace of Bass are you? 1585. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 1:18:10 AM Though there's definitely a trend in lead singers that I don't mind so much. 1586. EricCartman - 10/20/1999 1:47:43 AM There's also a new metal band from Sweden called "Drain sth" (the sth stands for Stockholm. They're not all that great, but better than Ace of Blasé, and they're all chicks. Real hot chicks at that. 1587. EricCartman - 10/20/1999 1:48:51 AM Should have been a right parenthesis after "Stockholm". I hate when that happens. 1588. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 1:49:12 AM Pop groups are not our number two export and Volvos are not number one. Telecom (Ericsson) is number one and pharmacuticals may be number two (Losec, you know, among others). Steel, paper, forestry products and iron ore are also big. 1589. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 1:50:28 AM Wasn't there something else the Swedes were famous for? 1590. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 1:51:03 AM Steel. 1591. JonesAtLaw - 10/20/1999 1:54:35 AM The Sweedes are also famous for all weather interceptors- The Drakken and the Viggen, and I believe there is a newer one. Each fairly cutting edge weaponry for a nuetral country. Finally there is the Bofors gun and the S-tank. A rather peaceful country in the recent past with a knack for innovation in arms. 1592. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 2:00:57 AM Is there an alcoholic drink that is uniquely Swedish? 1593. Aldavis - 10/20/1999 2:02:31 AM pelle 1594. JonesAtLaw - 10/20/1999 2:05:59 AM Is there an alcoholic drink that is uniquely Swedish? 1595. Angel-Five - 10/20/1999 2:09:51 AM Something redolent of ice cold bathing and scrubbing oneself with birch branches. 1596. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 2:20:42 AM Angel and others 1597. JonesAtLaw - 10/20/1999 2:27:51 AM Aquivit- Water of life- same origin as our whiskey, but an entirely different thing altogether. The Danes make Aalborg I believe, unusual stuff that I brought to a party of undergrads once. We set new records for drunken sillyness and fun that night. 1598. JonesAtLaw - 10/20/1999 2:30:21 AM Gentle Pelle- isn't there a traditional drink made around the holidays, some sort of punch or mulled wine? 1599. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 2:39:06 AM Jones 1600. Stumbo - 10/20/1999 2:52:29 AM Hmmm. I had always assumed "glögg" and "grog" were etymologically related (sound alike, both are halfway between wine and liquor, both have flavorful additives). But now that I looked it up, it doesn't seem like it... Any insight, Pelle? 1601. Stumbo - 10/20/1999 2:55:36 AM (Both served hot, too.) 1602. JonesAtLaw - 10/20/1999 2:57:34 AM Thank you Pelle- now I know the source of my confusion, the closeness of grog and glogg. (forgive me but I don't know how to add the umlaut). I think I had inadvertently slighted you in the past with an attempt at humor, and didn't want to appear to be be insulting. There are a lot of Sweedes here in the upper midwest, and most of what I know of Sweedish culture is farm food. Thanks again. 1603. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 2:58:22 AM Stumbo 1604. Stumbo - 10/20/1999 3:04:49 AM Pelle: "liquor (as rum) cut with water and now often served hot with lemon juice and sugar sometimes added." 1605. ranheim - 10/20/1999 8:46:06 AM Bjorn Borg! 1606. msgreer - 10/20/1999 8:46:31 AM CNN reporting Elizabeth Dole dropping out of Presidential Race. 1607. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 8:55:18 AM I have to report a rather shameful record though. Sweden is a major exporter of what is known as "White Power Music". It has to do with the fact that the freedom of speech laws here are more liberal than in most of Europe. And, of course, there is a lot of production and recording competence around. 1608. msgreer - 10/20/1999 9:33:35 AM Elizabeth Dole live at 11am Eastern on CNN, MSNBC..... 1609. Cellar Door - 10/21/1999 10:14:51 AM No surprise there. She was a control freak who refused to answer questions put to her by reporters in a setting she hadn't locked down within an inch of its life. 1610. JudithAtHome - 10/21/1999 10:21:00 AM I never got worked up over Dole; I didn't see how she could ever have a snowballs chance of making any difference at all. Bush is lauding her to the skies now that she can effectively be branded a loser. He is such a Southern gentleman... 1611. ranheim - 10/21/1999 10:47:21 AM I don't recall where we discussed pot previously; sorry if this is the wrong thread. 1612. Cellar Door - 10/21/1999 11:35:57 AM Think of it as a form of housing. 1613. cazart - 10/21/1999 2:04:04 PM It's also a way of keeping the unemployment numbers low. 1614. PsychProf - 10/21/1999 2:57:26 PM FOOD LION TAMED 1615. Aldavis - 10/21/1999 6:08:16 PM Rockets Slam Grozny, Killing 118 1616. Greystoke - 10/21/1999 8:09:42 PM Confession solves twenty-seven year old murder. 1617. Greystoke - 10/21/1999 8:16:36 PM 1618. TrialShark - 10/22/1999 12:42:12 AM 1619. concerned - 10/22/1999 1:49:46 AM Re. 1609 - 1620. concerned - 10/22/1999 1:51:16 AM Re. 1607 - 1621. concerned - 10/22/1999 1:51:37 AM ....variegated.... 1622. JonesAtLaw - 10/22/1999 2:21:12 AM Concerned- A trifle bitter perhaps? 1623. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 2:39:48 AM A trifle, anyway. Bitter is not exactly the right word. Concerned's mind is one-fifth vitriolic, obsessive hatred of all things Clintonian, three fifths raging inferno of contradiction, and one fifth from the duty free. 1624. concerned - 10/22/1999 2:50:26 AM I prefer to think of myself as acerbic:) 1625. concerned - 10/22/1999 2:52:41 AM Re. the Incredible Retracting Salon article on James Hatfield, today: 1626. concerned - 10/22/1999 2:58:03 AM Hey, no contradiction in my attitude about rapists. That alone puts me a few up on your garden variety Williesucker Moterodent. 1627. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 2:58:22 AM Tommy: Have you ever wondered what it is in your own life which requires you to paint Clinton as the anti-Christ? I mean, how bad do things have to be that you have to take this guy and accuse him of everything from raping children to personally covering up 14,000 year old acts of murder, and very definitely in between? You get damned near hysterical in your frantic allegations that Clinton (who is no one's saint) is the walking epitome of rankest evil upon the face of the earth. Your entire online existence, so far as I can determine, is to smear Clinton and his allies. It's as if you feel you have to do it. It's really easily noticed. It's classically psychologically identifiable behavior. Do you imagine you're fighting the good fight in here by influencing posters with your brilliant and subtle insights? Do you think you're winning people over to the opposition with your 'WH Rapist strikes again' posts? Do you have a wheel of crimes which you spin every time you feel the need to post, and just attribute the results to Clinton? What exactly is your crossed wire? 1628. Aldavis - 10/22/1999 3:01:45 AM I guess no one cares about Chechnia. Far more fun to talk about Clinton. the guy is history, as in past tense. Goodnight all. 1629. concerned - 10/22/1999 3:09:34 AM Re. 1627 - 1630. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:12:49 AM Yes, Tommy, thanks for making my point so easily. Now, what is it about yourself that making these accusations alleviates? Could it possibly be that hating someone so bad makes you feel better about yourself? 1631. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:16:54 AM And if you'd insist that you're just pointing out the truth... then how about proving the list? Or are Clinton's goons just forever one step ahead of you in erasing the proof? Do you think they watch you, Tommy? Keep tabs, in case you get too close to the truth? Do you think that they're mocking you by letting you know the truth and forever keeping the proof out of your hands, so you'll always be thought of as a right-wing paranoid schizophrenic while all along you're just onto the truth that few others see? Is this why you hate Clinton so bad -- because his minions are constantly toying with you? Maybe you should tell Drudge. No, better y 1632. Jonesatlaw - 10/22/1999 3:18:30 AM Concerned- Clinton a facist? Then he is opposing the leftist forces in the DOJ? No, wait, there in with him too. Then he's a left wing facist, or maybe a right wing marxist, or a buffalo wing. That's it! Clinton is a buffalo wing hiding in a basket waiting for an innocent Seventh Day Adventist from Waco to eat him and steal his soul while the guy is doing some missonary work, so Clinton can ban the missonary position and force Americans to jerk off in the sink while the Elite videos all this with the secret cameras that Reno has installed in all chicken wing and BBQ places in America in order to protect the left wing ecoterrorists in their plot to shoot cops and tie them to trees which are polluting the air and evaporating our precious bodily fluids which Hillary has poisoned with floridation. Did I miss anything? 1633. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:18:48 AM Better yet (and this is the part where you decide I'm firmly a part of the conspiracy, and that the doctors have been put on full alert to expect you and hit you with the brainwashers as soon as you walk in, that this is just one more ploy to turn yourself against yourself) why don't you get help? 1634. concerned - 10/22/1999 3:25:46 AM There's a bit more to my online attitude about the WH Rapist. I'm using some (not the wackier or dishonest ones, though) of the guidelines from the Liberal Rules of Engagement as defined by the Clarence Thomas Senate Confirmation imbroglio and its repercussions. 1635. Jonesatlaw - 10/22/1999 3:26:02 AM TommyD- Most government spy equipment works on microwaves now. If you put your head next to your microwave, you may pick up some signals. The stuff that doesn't use microwaves is infra-red so run your toaster oven and confuse them. 1636. Jonesatlaw - 10/22/1999 3:29:03 AM Why would a woman lie about unwanted sexual advances? If Clarence Thomas was accused in the same way as Clinton why believe one and not the other? Seems possible that both accusations are false, or both true or one is and one isn't. What, aside of your pathological hatred of one the parties, do you base a decision on? 1637. Jonesatlaw - 10/22/1999 3:30:53 AM Concerned- I can't decide if you are truly ill or an asshole. I think I'll sleep on it and get back to you later. Good night. 1638. Stumbo - 10/22/1999 3:31:22 AM Jones: you clearly missed the Tralfamadorians sabotage A5's #1631. Thank goodness he recovered... or so he thinks. 1639. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:32:11 AM I think I've hit upon it, judging by his refusal to engage. ThomasD really DOES think that Clinton's goon squad have people watching him, interfering with his attempt to gather the truth. 1640. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:34:10 AM Just so long as I get to bunk with Montana Wildhack every once in a while, the Elders' conspiracy can cut me off any time it wants to. Of course, I'm just glad that they didn't keep me from talking about the really sensitive stuff like the bugs in ThomasD's 1641. msgreer - 10/22/1999 3:34:26 AM Jonesatlaw Don't leave rightnow. Please check out my post in Politcal Thread.p> 1642. msgreer - 10/22/1999 3:34:57 AM sorry.. 1643. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:35:17 AM ThomasD: Have they ever tinkered with your car? 1644. concerned - 10/22/1999 3:38:59 AM ...were..... I should really preview...got out of the habit. 1645. Stumbo - 10/22/1999 3:41:13 AM A5: well, they cunningly hypnotized you into thinking it was Montana. It was really Pat B., who in turn thought you were Richard Simmons. 1646. concerned - 10/22/1999 3:43:04 AM Re. 1636 - 1647. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:45:41 AM That's so frickin' twisted I can't even plumb the depths of it. I can't even get past the second iteration. IT just breaks down into hilarious Frankie-Goes-To-Hollywood video themes and Pat Buchanan with way too many veins standing out on his forehead. 1648. Angel-Five - 10/22/1999 3:55:51 AM Concerned: Ah, (yawn) yes. So you don't believe in us. We'll see. 1649. Stumbo - 10/22/1999 4:09:26 AM While we're on the topic: trivia question (assuming I haven't posted it before -- if I have, blame my premature senility): 1650. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 12:55:03 PM Is anyone around here familiar with Hell Houses and The Living Hell? These are alternatives to Halloween staged by churches. For $7, you go through this house of horrors which includes graphic exhibitions of the evils of abortion, drug use, drinking, and this year, school shootings. They are geared toward young people and mean to scare them straight, I guess. Speaking of which, one local "hell" shows a victim dying of AIDS. 1651. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 1:01:25 PM 1652. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 1:06:55 PM Ace: 1653. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 1:13:14 PM 1654. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 1:14:18 PM 1655. JJBiener - 10/22/1999 1:19:28 PM Ace - Gore can do anything he wants because he is ultimately doing it for a good cause. It is a part of the by any means necessary philosophy so favored by the left. Normal standards of decency, honesty and decorum don't apply to Gore because he working for the right ends. 1656. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 1:35:49 PM Ace: 1657. msgreer - 10/22/1999 1:38:39 PM Judithathome Many of us were growing weary of breast sizes. You can come back to Politics anytime. It seems when the conversation changed all the T&A men vanished. 1658. PsychProf - 10/22/1999 1:40:48 PM This is the thread for one to keep abreast of breaking news, isn't it? 1659. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 1:43:13 PM Yes, PsychProf...even the titilating news. 1660. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 1:44:32 PM 1661. PsychProf - 10/22/1999 1:45:45 PM Ah Judith....you are indeed the fastest pun in the West... 1662. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 1:49:07 PM Ace: 1663. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 2:05:07 PM 1664. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 2:10:38 PM 1665. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 2:14:12 PM Ace: 1666. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 2:17:31 PM 1667. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 2:19:21 PM Well, then....congratulations. 1668. AceofSpades - 10/22/1999 2:22:52 PM 1669. JudithAtHome - 10/22/1999 2:24:49 PM Ace: 1670. Aldavis - 10/22/1999 2:44:03 PM JonesAtLaw 1671. iiibbb - 10/22/1999 6:12:55 PM I know many of you hate the slate, but this post was over the max here... 1672. robertjayb - 10/23/1999 12:50:30 AM . 1673. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 9:54:12 AM Posts#1671 and 1672 compliment one another perfectly. 1674. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 10:02:00 AM 1675. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 10:06:05 AM 1676. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 11:43:39 AM I realize Columbine is a terrible tragedy. My ownership of a gun is completely unrelated to it. 1677. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 11:52:50 AM THEN WHY BOTHER HAVING LAWS ON THE BOOKS? WHY BOTHER HAVING THE POLICE OR THE MILITARY? ACCORDING TO YOU THEY'RE UTTERLY USELESS AND WE SHOULD ALL BE ARMED TO THE TEETH TO DEFEND OURSELEVES FROM EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S ARMED TO THE TEETH. 1678. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 12:26:10 PM Someone who's armed to the teeth is paranoid. 1679. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 12:36:15 PM As to the utility of the police and military. I never said they were useless. I would much rather a cop handling a situation than me... but what if they're not there? 1683. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 12:47:33 PM sorry about that... my refresh did it... 1684. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 12:56:05 PM I wasn't trying to flame anything... when you hit refresh, even if you've already posted... it reposts your message. 1685. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 1:37:45 PM I would much rather a cop handling a situation than me... but what if they're not there? 1686. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 1:44:05 PM To not make contengencies plans is foolish. 1687. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 1:58:28 PM PS: see post #1678 1688. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 3:43:17 PM I don't drive. 1689. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 3:51:27 PM From iiibbb's #1678:"Someone who is simply armed to defend themselves has made a personal choice. Why should government interfere with my choice? I have no intention of hurting anyone, but if someone breaks into my home with a gun, an axe, or any weapon... what would you have me do? If they are standing over my child about to end his/her life... what would you have me do? I guess I could call 911, assuming he doesn't take me out next... but then all the cops can do is investigate the crime, and that doesn't help my kid one bit." 1690. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 3:53:30 PM Maybe I'm setting up an argument that could be utilized to support yours. But the fact of the matter is,while the government (being the hallMonitors of the Corporations) may have "ulterior motives" in protecting me, I'd rather have them do so than Joe NRA down the street. 1691. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 4:18:38 PM Cellar 1692. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 4:20:41 PM ib 1693. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 4:21:55 PM Cellar 1694. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 4:31:52 PM I did post in the fray... The problem is no one seems to be there. I first came there during the shake up which moved a lot of people over here... I'm seeking fruitful debate... apparently your criticisms of the new slate are valid in that no one is talking :) 1695. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 4:32:18 PM People have a right to protect themselves. But many of those who do put me in mortal danger. So who do I trust? As you well know, I have -- to put it mildly -- mixed feelings about the LAPD (currently in the process of dealing with chickens that have come home to roost.) There are no easy answers to anything. But all things considered, I'd rather have a trained authority in charge of the protection ofmy physical being. I'm not paranoid. I don't feel threatened 24/7, though if I set my mind to it I very well could. 1696. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 4:41:57 PM To Cellar 1697. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 4:42:48 PM iiibbb 1698. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 4:47:54 PM If you don't believe in vigilatism why do you want guns? Decor perchance? 1699. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 4:48:48 PM If I had a choice, I'd live forever. 1700. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 4:54:56 PM Cellar 1701. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 4:58:05 PM Immediate defense of one's life is not vigilantism. 1702. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 5:16:47 PM Well I know you;re not a threat Al. And there are other gun owners who i know are not threat. It's all the others who i don't know that concern me. And for that I think I'd like to be able to count on the people I pay taxes to. 1703. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 5:42:23 PM Registration is a right to privacy issue. Isn't the background check I had to go through enough. Once that becomes public information there is no telling what that informaion is going to get used for. 1704. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 5:49:48 PM or heck ... read the whole thing... 1705. PelleNilsson - 10/23/1999 6:15:18 PM Al -- Message # 1697 1706. concerned - 10/23/1999 6:28:44 PM 'cllrdr' posts: 1707. cpc - 10/23/1999 7:42:25 PM It seems to me that society has vastly underestimated the percentage of society that is not anti-gun. Most are indifferent or progun. I have heard of quite a few people joining the NRA that don't own a gun and have no interest in doing so, but they are scared to death of the government punishing law abiding citizens for others crimes. What ever happened to do process? Why are our rights being taken away when we have done nothing illegal/wrong? 1708. cpc - 10/23/1999 7:43:25 PM As noted earlier, the turn "assault weapon" is inaccurate but generally excepted for any rifle that resembles a military rifle. They are toted as 'weapons designed for only one purpose, killing' by the antigun crowd. I have heard such bold statements as "weapons of choice" and it is all inaccurate. Firstly, any Military Historian can tell you these medium caliber weapons were not made to kill, they were designed to only injure. The logic behind that was that injuring an enemy soldier took out not only that soldier out of the fight, but at least one other soldier to tend to the injured soldier. Also, the medium caliber ammo was lighter and more rounds could be carried. 1709. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 7:44:08 PM pelle 1710. cpc - 10/23/1999 7:45:08 PM I guess what it boils down to is why does it matter what my firearm looks like, what type of action it is, what kind of stalk is on it, how many rounds it holds, or how long the barrel is? 1711. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 7:45:48 PM iiibbb 1712. cpc - 10/23/1999 7:46:19 PM Shooting sports include, but are not limited to: Clays and skeet for the shotgun and bird hunting enthusiast. A larger variety of handgun competitions, each focusing on different aspects of the sport (practical defense, bullseye shooting, speed shooting). Long range rifle competions. And yes, even military style rifles have there own shooting sports. And to think the uninformed congressmen keep saying many of these categories of firearms "are unsuitable for any type of sporting activity". 1713. cpc - 10/23/1999 7:47:12 PM If you don't believe the above statement, try and call 911 in Miami on a summer weekend evening. The instructor of a course I took this spring said another one of his students had to do just that after shooting a violent criminal that broke into his home. He told the 911 operator there had been a shooting. She put him on hold. She came back over 5 minutes later at which time he asked of she had not heard him and that there had been a shooting. She said, sir, I have over 20 other shooting online, I have to take them in he order which they called. 1714. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 8:27:20 PM 1715. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 8:39:30 PM If you're new to the thread, and this interests you... please start from the beginning :) 1716. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 9:33:02 PM iiibbb 1717. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 9:36:56 PM iiibbb:"Isn't the background check I had to go through enough." 1718. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 9:39:37 PM cpc:"I am not a criminal." 1719. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 9:51:07 PM Cellar 1720. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 9:53:10 PM Won't it be fun when someone decides to repeal our 4th amendment because it's _so_ inconvenient to get a search warrant when we _KNOW_ they're up to something in there? Are you sure you want to set that kind of precedent? 1721. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 9:55:26 PM Any of the ammendments for that matter... but to me the original 10 have special meaning. 1722. Bubbaette - 10/23/1999 10:02:56 PM I don't think that the Framers intended for the constitution to be written in stone un-amendable until the end of time. It's a valid issue for debate whether the threat posed to society by unfettered access to guns in the 1990's outweigh the concerns of the framers that gave rise to the 2nd amendment more than 200 years ago. 1723. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 10:04:00 PM LikeI said -- why have ANY laws? 1724. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 10:07:52 PM Since you believe the "Constitution is not worth the parchment it's written on" why would you want the 2nd Amendment repealed? Or, perhaps you would like to retact that statement. 1725. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 10:09:32 PM Unfettered access to guns? 1726. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 10:09:36 PM Bubbbette 1727. DaveM - 10/23/1999 10:26:05 PM You don't have to repeal the second amendment to enact strict gun control legislation. There are multiple potential judicial interpretations of "bear arms" - the courts could just choose a more strict one. Actually, only one federal judge (a lower disctrict judge in texas) has ever interpreted the 2nd amendment as providing a substantive, largely unfettered right to own guns. 1728. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 10:27:13 PM But he's marreid to his guns, Dave. Guns are more important to him than people. 1729. DaveM - 10/23/1999 10:30:13 PM Clldr - 1730. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 10:35:43 PM Guns? Who said I own more than one? 1731. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 10:45:50 PM "I think that we should only give guns to inner city minorities. They are the only ones that really have to worry about tyranny." 1732. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 10:46:10 PM They've already got guns, Dave. What they need is a future. 1733. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 10:50:11 PM Cellar 1734. Bubbaette - 10/23/1999 10:57:18 PM iiibbb 1735. rubberducky - 10/23/1999 10:57:46 PM Personally I just thought "cpc" gave the best reason for responsible gun ownership there is in Message 1713. 1736. Bubbaette - 10/23/1999 10:59:54 PM That can also be construed as "shoot first and ask questions later" if you're the nervous type. 1737. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 11:01:00 PM You want a constructive suggestion, Al? How about putting more money into public education and stop all this blather about vouchers. I've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved by throwing money at it. 1738. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 11:01:55 PM I guess it would be best if those who carried guns would wear holsters so everyone could see they were armed. What would one have to fear from a law abiding citizen carrying a gun? 1739. CalGal - 10/23/1999 11:03:48 PM I've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved by throwing money at it. 1740. Bubbaette - 10/23/1999 11:06:56 PM Many gun deaths result from a person misunderstanding or misconstruing a situation. The otherwise law-abiding citizen with a gun in his jacket can be a true menace in these types of situations. Also at risk are those who can be caught in the crossfire. I think its a saner solution to try to make society safer overall rather than arm everyone to the teeth and say "cover your ass". 1741. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 11:08:18 PM No it's not. 1742. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 11:15:08 PM Bubbaette: 1743. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 11:15:54 PM Cellar 1744. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 11:16:23 PM Hynters=Hunters 1745. rubberducky - 10/23/1999 11:27:36 PM In 1740, "Bubbaette" writes "Many gun deaths result from a person misunderstanding or misconstruing a situation. The otherwise law-abiding citizen with a gun in his jacket can be a true menace in these types of situations." 1746. rubberducky - 10/23/1999 11:30:41 PM In 1740, "Bubbaette" writes "Many gun deaths result from a person misunderstanding or misconstruing a situation. The otherwise law-abiding citizen with a gun in his jacket can be a true menace in these types of situations." 1747. CalGal - 10/23/1999 11:34:20 PM Rubberducky--and welcome back, btw--using the "Refresh" button on your browser will cause a repost. Use the VCR button "Go to most recent message" instead. 1748. rubberducky - 10/23/1999 11:39:46 PM CalGal 1749. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 11:42:23 PM Actually... the majority of states (44 at last count) do have some sort of right to carry laws, although they vary in requirements to obtain. 1750. Bubbaette - 10/23/1999 11:43:40 PM "Perhaps the way to make society "saner" is allowing the average law abiding citizen the ability to legally carry a hidden firearm and defend oneself rather than relying on an increasingly inept and statistically smaller police force." 1751. rubberducky - 10/23/1999 11:45:01 PM 44 states allow carrying of concealed handguns? 1752. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 11:50:28 PM "Many gun deaths result from a person misunderstanding or misconstruing a situation." 1753. Aldavis - 10/23/1999 11:51:14 PM Bubbaette 1754. iiibbb - 10/23/1999 11:58:01 PM I got the 44 from the reciprocity table. It may be that some of those states don't issue permits, but they do recognize other state permits. 1755. Bubbaette - 10/24/1999 12:02:34 AM Al Davis 1756. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:02:45 AM Bubbaette... you couldn't carry in San Francisco/Oakland area because California does not recognize a permit from Hawaii. 1757. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:05:57 AM Bubbaette 1758. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 12:07:18 AM iiibbb 1759. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 12:09:25 AM Bubbaette 1760. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:12:50 AM We also spent a lot of time on threats where the police simply aren't there, and will not be there in time to save you. 1761. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 12:12:54 AM I once posted most (not all) of the incidents I've known of in my small rural community of deaths or injuries by guns and not one was a potential victim shooting an intruder. That rarely happens and the ridiculous speculation that two million incidents of successful self-defense with guns occur per year is a typical NRA stretch. And this post is from someone who owns guns and who believes in the right to carry a weapon. I don't mind registering something I legally own at all, and the suggestion that something like that should be private information when virtually anything about anybody can be known if the PTB's (or anyone else, for that matter) want to know it is patently absurd. Whether registration is effective or not is an entirely different question, but even the background check with its problems has caught a number of felons trying to buy guns. 1762. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:15:25 AM I appologize Bubbaette... seeing double... hope no one breaks into my house now... :) 1763. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 12:16:51 AM arkymalarky 1764. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:20:01 AM Arky Malarky: 1765. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:22:48 AM Arky Malarky... I'm all for background checks... They are perfectly appropriate. 1766. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 12:24:01 AM God, what a poke in the eye. 1767. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:28:04 AM I provide references to most of the numbers I quote... many from independent sources or at least mirrors to independent sources. I invite anyone to do the same. 1768. Bubbaette - 10/24/1999 12:29:01 AM iiibbb 1769. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:35:04 AM I'd never shoot an unidentified target in the dark in my home... ever... 1770. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:36:47 AM I'm not itching for an opportunity either. I hope to _GOD_ I never have to use the thing... 1771. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:46:59 AM BTW... to all who think I'm a gun totin' maniac. 1772. joezan - 10/24/1999 12:49:58 AM 1773. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 12:51:04 AM "I didn't say fired 2 million in self defense." 1774. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:59:55 AM Read the study. It's been throroughly and critically reviewed. All critics to this point have said the methodology was impecable. 1775. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:01:13 AM I invite you to cite any counter information to what I have shown... I've given my references... you give none. 1776. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:08:01 AM A federal court case is not too much propaganda for you I hope. 1777. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 1:28:21 AM arkymalarky 1778. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:34:50 AM A note about vigilante justice... 1779. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:38:25 AM Actually.. I'm a social libertarian with a smattering of liberal tendencies, and conservative fiscal ones. 1780. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:38:50 AM Oh, for pete's sake, Al. I think iiibbb isn't such a delicate flower as all that. I have heard his same song many times. "I wasn't thinking of owning a weapon until recently, but (following is the train of seemingly reasonable arguments if it weren't the vast number of pinholes in them which the deliverer hopes his audience doesn't see)." 1781. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:41:18 AM But, I did just buy a gun... 1782. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:42:45 AM my _first_ and likely only gun... 1783. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:43:34 AM BTW, if some people (not naming names, AL) would look at sources before they looked at content, they might get a more balanced view of the material instead of simply taking it at face value. 1784. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:44:58 AM that'd be great... if you gave me a source to look at. 1785. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:45:44 AM I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you a propagandist. 1786. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:47:34 AM BTW, Al, it's the job of propagandists to sound reasonable. If they didn't, then it wouldn't be very effective propaganda, now, would it? 1787. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:50:10 AM Throwing money, schools, etc. -- 1788. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:50:58 AM What of substance is backing it and how it's presented. There's plenty of propaganda for gun control, and there's plenty which would support a lot of what I personally believe. 1789. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:51:28 AM You called me a liar... 1790. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:52:39 AM ib -- gun training and gun safety: taking as given your earlier claim that people with requisite training are safer with guns, how would you go about proving that giving training to people who don't have it would also make them safer with guns? 1791. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:54:13 AM 1788 1792. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:54:15 AM debate begins at #1671 1793. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:54:17 AM WRT 1787, 1794. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:54:59 AM 1790 addendum... 1795. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:55:23 AM When is education ever bad? 1796. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:58:55 AM ib, is that your response? 1797. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 1:59:53 AM 1796 1798. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:14:56 AM Spence, 1799. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 2:16:48 AM iiibbb 1800. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 2:21:29 AM arkymalarky 1801. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 2:24:50 AM 1798 1802. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 2:26:06 AM 1800 1803. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 2:28:02 AM make that 1799. 1804. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:30:54 AM Al, you are not smarter than I am, and you're not on my side. Surely you're not referring to Spence, since I don't believe he's on my side either. He's managing to attack the weaknesses of both mine and iiibbb's arguments. Can I help it if he seems to find more in my opponent's? 1805. CalGal - 10/24/1999 2:40:30 AM iiiibbbbbbbbbbbbbb, 1806. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 2:42:35 AM 1805 1807. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 2:45:55 AM arkymalarky 1808. CalGal - 10/24/1999 2:48:35 AM eeeeeeek! 1809. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:57:38 AM "But there is no doubt in my mind that the real effort being made by gun control advocates is to disarm all U.S. citizens." 1810. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 3:05:11 AM arkymalarky 1811. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:17:39 AM Spence, 1812. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 10:37:33 AM 1796. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/99 5:58:55 AM 1813. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 10:52:05 AM I know arkymalarky doesn't believe me, but I did a thorough review before I bought a gun. It was _NOT_ an easy decision, do you think I would have brought a gun into my home if there really were overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a good idea? I tried to maintain an open mind. 1814. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 11:11:11 AM OK, I've read your site Arky... pretty much says that people use hanguns in crime. That's a big surprise to me. What about vhicular homicides? Murders using other means? 1815. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 11:20:13 AM Akrymalarky 1816. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 11:39:40 AM 1811. arkymalarky - 10/24/99 7:17:39 AM 1817. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 11:43:30 AM Think we can't be oppressed here? What about the university (forgive me for forgetting the name) in the 60's where our national guard fired on a peaceful college demostration against the VietNam war? 1818. Greystoke - 10/24/1999 11:56:23 AM iiibbb 1819. phillipdavid - 10/24/1999 12:06:38 PM Comparing gun ownership to automobile ownership: Reason Magazine. 1820. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:07:38 PM My point is that gov't doesn't always have our best interests in mind. 1821. Greystoke - 10/24/1999 12:15:08 PM phillipdavid 1822. Greystoke - 10/24/1999 12:17:13 PM iiibbb 1823. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 12:18:18 PM Ohfercryinoutloud, iiibbb. PLEASEOHPLEASE don't lose all respect for me. I don't think I could take that. 1824. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 12:32:00 PM "OK, I've read your site Arky... pretty much says that people use hanguns in crime." 1825. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:42:55 PM That point has some relevance. It does address peoples' right to do what they want on their property... 1826. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 12:53:29 PM I have no respect for namecallers... and you started it... so don't get indignant with me about my reaction. 1827. CalGal - 10/24/1999 12:53:35 PM Grey, 1828. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 12:58:33 PM "I have no respect for namecallers... and you started it... so don't get indignant with me about my reaction." 1829. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:03:07 PM Greystoke... 1830. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:07:37 PM Why not just carry your gun in the open, so that I, as an innocent bystander, know who around me is armed to the teeth? 1831. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:08:50 PM That should read "open carry" in my second point... 1832. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:11:28 PM "That practice is not open debate... it is defamation." 1833. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 1:14:02 PM "I would argue open carry would be more dangerous that concealed carry because a bad guy is more likely to start shooting if he sees people with guns." 1834. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:14:23 PM Oh, puhleeze. Isn't that a bit melodramatic? I didn't say you lied about making your first gun purchase recently, though I find the claim a little fishy myself, 1835. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:22:22 PM I would argue... 1836. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:26:22 PM From a commens sense point of view, it is better when the bad guys _don't_ know who has them and who doesn't. 1837. Greystoke - 10/24/1999 1:36:29 PM iiibbb 1838. CalGal - 10/24/1999 1:44:30 PM Now, just from a common sense point of view... it's not the norm in this country for a general citizen to carry in the open. From a common sense point of view, it draws unwanted attention to the carrier. 1839. Greystoke - 10/24/1999 1:49:35 PM CalGal 1840. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:51:05 PM It is technically allowed without a permit except in places that have specific ordinances that forbid it. 1841. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 1:52:42 PM my post was dirrected to Greystoke 1837 1842. ChristiPeters - 10/24/1999 1:59:07 PM It is completely legal in the state of New Mexico to openly cary an unconcealed weapon with no permit or license required. The restrictions are you cannot go into a bank, a church, a school, or anyplace liquor is sold or served. (State law, some cities have laws forbidding it in city limits) I know this because I did it when I lived in Tularosa, NM and Alamogordo, NM. I carried a 4" barrel, Colt Python .357 magnum in a waist holster, cross-draw. No one batted an eye. It was not unusual. It also stopped the people who had robbed me from harrassing me (they wanted me to drop the charges) I do think carrying a gun in plain sight on my person is more likely to make a criminal hesitate about bothering me. 1843. ChristiPeters - 10/24/1999 1:59:56 PM Well, I should clarify that I left NM in 1994. The laws may have changed since then, but I doubt it. 1844. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:08:15 PM I do not presently own a gun, although (obviously) I have in the past. If I should ever buy a gun again, I would not in the least mind needing to register it, get a license, go through a background check, gun safety class, or a waiting period 1845. cpc - 10/24/1999 2:11:42 PM >>I would like to know if the people around me are carrying firearms so that I can minimize my exposure to those situations and people. 1846. ChristiPeters - 10/24/1999 2:21:19 PM " I also think implementing these requirements will do very little to actually reduce the crime rate" 1847. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:24:48 PM Christi.. I respect your view fully. 1848. cpc - 10/24/1999 2:25:59 PM >>>>I guess it would be best if those who carried guns would wear holsters so everyone could see they were armed. What would one have to fear from a law abiding citizen carrying a gun? 1849. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:28:02 PM Some measures may very well have the results of reducing the rate of death and injury without reducing the crime rate per se. 1850. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:32:58 PM "Personal from the standpoint that one might become a target for a criminal or at least cause a criminal to target or pay special attention to you before committing further crimes." 1851. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:33:44 PM The laws that are in effect didn't reduce crime... so have justifiable skepticism that others would. In particular, those outlined by Christi. 1852. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:36:21 PM There was an incident several years ago in AR of a woman who dropped her purse and her loaded, concealed gun (at that time illegal to carry) went off and killed a bystander. 1853. cpc - 10/24/1999 2:38:37 PM >>>>The police have been given a great deal more training about what is a real threat and how to deal with it than have most citizens, even those who've been trained in firearm safety. 1854. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:40:18 PM RE last of #1850 1855. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:43:52 PM Statistics showing the rarity of attacks by bears in this country don't really mean a whole lot to they unlucky person who is attacked and killed by one. 1856. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:44:39 PM "The laws that are in effect didn't reduce crime... so have justifiable skepticism that others would. In particular, those outlined by Christi." 1857. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 2:50:00 PM RE 1856 1858. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:50:45 PM "Statistics showing the rarity of attacks by bears in this country don't really mean a whole lot to they unlucky person who is attacked and killed by one." 1859. cpc - 10/24/1999 2:53:23 PM >>>Either being armed deters criminals or doesn't. Which is it? 1860. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:56:41 PM "For every accidental shooting, we can probably come up with an equally compelling successful defense." 1861. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 2:59:47 PM "It has been explained why open carry is usually not a good idea." 1862. cpc - 10/24/1999 2:59:50 PM >>>>There was an incident several years ago in AR of a woman who dropped her purse and her loaded, concealed gun (at that time illegal to carry) went off and killed a bystander. 1863. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:00:35 PM So we have reached a stalemate. You can neither prevent doing harm to innocents, nor prevent having harm done to you. So why disable the right to choose. 1864. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:01:31 PM make that -ily. 1865. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:04:21 PM arky malarky... I promiss I have no intention of having this degrade to spell checking and grammar checks. I've made enough of those mistakes. 1866. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:08:55 PM I know, I did that for me. It didn't look right when I typed it, and it bugged me when I posted it. Not that I look for others' errors either, but my own (if they're not typos) sometimes continue to irritate me until I've corrected them. 1867. cpc - 10/24/1999 3:12:10 PM >>>>And anyone who would attempt to arm my grandmother is an idiot. She would shoot at the first sound she heard without looking. 1868. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:12:44 PM #1860 Oh, and btw, the black market is already illegal. That's the whole point of the black market. Enforcement is another matter, and one relevant to the gun laws and any other laws on the books, as well. 1869. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:14:21 PM 5/6ths of guns used illegally .. on that last post... 1870. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:14:58 PM I wish we had edit in here :) 1871. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:27:50 PM iiibbb, 1872. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:29:37 PM Well, since your edit, which I didn't notice at first, the number seems a little more plausible, but I'd still like to know how that figure was arrived at. 1873. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:33:33 PM I don't personally think guns have a place in restaurants, malls, etc, but it's my understanding that businesses can bar concealed weapons from being brought in. 1874. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:41:44 PM "From a liability standpoint, a business that bars CCW is taking on legal responsibility for the safety of all of the patrons in their establishment." 1875. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:43:50 PM I know several store owners who have weapons behind their counters. Were I in their shoes I really wouldn't want someone else having a concealed weapon and taking the discretion of when and how to react to a potential crime in my store out of my hands. 1876. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 3:52:08 PM If you own a store it is obviously your right to put a sign up saying no concealed weapons. A CCW permit holder would have to respect this. If a CCW didn't agree with the sign, then they can take their business elsewhere. 1877. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:52:53 PM Let me say one more thing about gun rights before I head out to enjoy the afternoon, and that is there is nothing that makes me madder than for someone to abuse a weapon or a car in my presence. We live amongst spotlighters, drunk hunters, trespassing hunters, etc, and I don't like feeling like I and my family can't walk on our own property without the possibility of being injured or killed. I shouldn't have to wear orange on my own land. I don't think every idiot should have a right to impose on me with the Second Amendment, and I think when they do, just as with car licenses, their right should be yanked away and/or they should be punished accordingly. 1878. arkymalarky - 10/24/1999 3:57:20 PM I enjoyed the debate, even though I stepped on your sensibilities with my "propagandist" appellation. I imagine we'll go around on this issue again and plenty more if you continue posting here. It's actually a very fun place for folks who don't take it too seriously. 1879. cpc - 10/24/1999 3:59:57 PM And now for something I think everyone can agree on... 1880. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:00:18 PM 1881. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 4:03:35 PM RE# 1877 1882. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/1999 4:07:22 PM ib, 1812 1883. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:18:25 PM >>>>>>I don't think every idiot should have a right to impose on me with the Second Amendment, and I think when they do, just as with car licenses, their right should be yanked away and/or they should be punished accordingly. 1884. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:24:49 PM Any business can exclude its patrons from carrying concealed. Many places, like schools, bars, churches, any government owned building like post offices and courthouses are always excluded by the law and a permit holder may never bring weapons in these places. Doing so breaks that law and you will have your permit taken away. 1885. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 4:28:25 PM RE #1882: spence 1886. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:50:19 PM While part of spencemirrlees post makes a valid arguement, part of the "other argument example" he post does not. 1887. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:51:34 PM How should we decide this then? Do away with a legal trade because a few might abuse it? And lets not go back to the "common good of society" debate, because more people do defend themselves each year than are illegally murdered (and you should also note that the anti gun "kids killed each day by guns" numbers include gang bangers shooting each other. If you look at the references of there studies, some include anyone 18 and under. Some even inlcude those 21 and under. These are kids killed with guns? These are young adults illegally killing each other with illigal guns. Here's an idea. Arrest them and put them (and keep them) in jail. A large part of the problem solved. 1888. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:52:42 PM Are they to exclude people from a legal trade for what they might do? We already correctly exclude those for what they have done. Criminals. 1889. cpc - 10/24/1999 4:57:36 PM >>>>iiibbb:"Isn't the background check I had to go through enough." 1890. cpc - 10/24/1999 5:16:49 PM 1891. robertjayb - 10/24/1999 6:15:23 PM . 1892. TrialShark - 10/24/1999 6:36:55 PM 1893. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 6:49:09 PM That's a sad story Trialshark... 1894. Stumbo - 10/24/1999 7:03:56 PM In case anyone cares, BTW: the answer to #1649 is "Two Tribes." 1895. Cellar Door - 10/24/1999 9:18:21 PM Why not? What do you recommend? 1896. iiibbb - 10/24/1999 10:21:11 PM Why not? What do you recommend? 1897. Cellar Door - 10/24/1999 10:43:51 PM Sounds good to me. 1898. Aldavis - 10/25/1999 12:41:58 AM iiibbb 1899. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:45:54 AM cpc, 1886 1900. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:47:50 AM also, cpc, don't bother with saying the proof is that people who take the classes are safer. Our goal here is to establish why that is the case, not to restate or assume it. 1901. Cellar Door - 10/25/1999 9:30:01 AM We have nothing to fear but Ace itself. 1902. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 10:01:49 AM RE: #1899. Spence: 1903. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 10:10:17 AM RE #1727 DaveM. 1904. robertjayb - 10/25/1999 1:25:21 PM . 1905. cazart - 10/25/1999 1:29:47 PM One of the passengers aboard the aircraft is alleged to be golfer Payne Stewart. 1906. 109109 - 10/25/1999 1:38:04 PM Plane has crashed in Mina, SD. 1907. robertjayb - 10/25/1999 1:43:05 PM . 1908. robertjayb - 10/25/1999 2:15:48 PM . 1909. Greystoke - 10/25/1999 4:45:14 PM iiibbb 1910. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 4:57:35 PM ib, 1911. CalGal - 10/25/1999 5:00:36 PM If you want to get the anti-gunners in this forum riled up, tell them that you own guns to pevent your rights from being trampled by the government. 1912. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:04:17 PM Yeesh.. I really, really, hope not Greystoke... 1913. Greystoke - 10/25/1999 5:14:32 PM iiibbb 1914. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:14:48 PM Spence #1910 1915. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:20:06 PM The revelution was over the tyranical rule of the British Empire, which was literally taking arms against the populus. 1916. CalGal - 10/25/1999 5:29:39 PM I don't think they'd condone selling our nuclear secrets to China. 1917. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 5:32:10 PM as for insurrections, they were a little preoccupied with that Shays character, in their own time. 1918. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:37:03 PM Very true Cal Gal... 1919. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:43:27 PM The idea of a revolution is somehow even freakier to me than someone breaking into my house, or looters after a hurricane. 1920. Greystoke - 10/25/1999 5:44:04 PM "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." 1921. Greystoke - 10/25/1999 5:51:17 PM iiibbb 1922. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 5:56:49 PM It's kinda scary how apt those statements are... 1923. CalGal - 10/25/1999 5:57:31 PM as for insurrections, they were a little preoccupied with that Shays character, in their own time. 1924. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 6:00:09 PM As I said in the politics room.. 1925. cpc - 10/25/1999 7:38:03 PM >>>>Gun safety classes, especially those classes geared toward the beginner, may very well convey the type of information that if you don't already know, you're too stupid and/or careless ever to know. 1926. cpc - 10/25/1999 7:58:29 PM New York Times Article. Project Exile: Using existing laws to reduce crime 1927. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 8:24:02 PM cpc... I think I got his point... he was being more rhetorical than anything... 1928. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 8:24:56 PM maybe incorrectly assuming spence = he... sorry if I missed... 1929. arkymalarky - 10/25/1999 8:30:21 PM "Actually, Jefferson probably would have, but only because he never thought things through." 1930. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 8:42:26 PM Arky. 1931. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 8:43:43 PM Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes 1932. Cellar Door - 10/25/1999 8:45:23 PM 1933. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 8:49:35 PM Hate Crime - sucks... 1934. arkymalarky - 10/25/1999 8:59:48 PM I know what it is, and I think "well regulated" has relevance as well. What I don't find in discussions is how this phrase in the 2nd amend can coexist with the idea that any regulation of firearms at all is in violation of it. 1935. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 9:29:26 PM That Emerson case I cited earlier does. This is by a federal judge. 1936. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 9:30:06 PM Another Discussion: 1937. iiibbb - 10/25/1999 9:30:18 PM That leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29: 1938. CalGal - 10/26/1999 5:25:20 AM Arky, 1939. JonesAtLaw - 10/26/1999 12:18:15 PM Let's examine the militia angle in light of historical reality. Militia members were white, male, usually property owners, of a certain age and of good character. The feeble minded, feeble bodied, non white, felons, persons of poor character and those without property were excluded. Therefore, if we are arguing original intent, and asking that no judicial activism re-interpret the language for today's reality, only adult white male property owners without felony histories have second amendment rights. This may not bother many who argue this line of reasoning, but it gives many others pause. 1940. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 12:25:59 PM I see CalGal is defending the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment, which argues that the Founding Fathers actually intended to provide for armed insurrection against the very government they were creating, which is absurd not only on its face but in the deepest legal sense as well. 1941. CalGal - 10/26/1999 12:47:37 PM I mentioned Shays Rebellion--the response was really quite mild, given the time. 1942. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:00:05 PM Spudboy 1943. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:03:16 PM Spudboy 1944. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 1:08:54 PM Dusty: 1945. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 1:15:36 PM Dusty: 1946. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:23:43 PM Spudboy 1947. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:29:06 PM Spudboy 1948. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 1:30:03 PM Dusty: 1949. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 1:31:51 PM Rather ... "they were about to create." 1950. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:32:01 PM Spudboy 1951. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:35:55 PM Spudboy 1952. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:37:44 PM pudboy 1953. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 1:38:38 PM Dusty: 1954. CalGal - 10/26/1999 1:39:52 PM I'm not "pretending" that they were worried about the tyranny of other countries. 1955. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:47:36 PM Spudboy 1956. CalGal - 10/26/1999 1:51:53 PM The "rabid opposition" to a standing army in fact was related to a fear that armed insurrection -- by the army, known better as a coup --would be used against the government they were creating. 1957. ranheim - 10/26/1999 1:57:25 PM I would assume that election results fall in this category. 1958. Dusty - 10/26/1999 1:59:35 PM ranheim 1959. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 2:05:07 PM CalGal: 1960. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 2:14:21 PM A passage from the above FAQ: 1961. Ronski - 10/26/1999 2:17:43 PM 1962. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 2:22:43 PM One more passage, regarding standing armies: 1963. CalGal - 10/26/1999 2:23:11 PM I swear to god, Spudboy. Every conversation with you is fucking Six Degrees to Militia. 1964. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 2:30:33 PM Ronski 1965. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 2:35:48 PM CalGal: 1966. JonesAtLaw - 10/26/1999 2:43:28 PM Millett, Allan R. & Maslowski, Peter, For The Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of American: Revised Edition is cited in the "A hysterical anti-militia lobbying site." 1967. janjon - 10/26/1999 2:44:50 PM CalGal. Let me get this straight. Are you stating that it is inapt to talk about modern day militias in the context of discussing the rights and/or restraints on private ownership of firearms under the Second Amendment? 1968. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 3:42:07 PM Janjon: I was hoping someone would notice that particular discrepancy. It's impossible to discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment without discussing militias and their historical role. 1969. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 4:03:22 PM Spudboy 1970. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 6:07:36 PM "China arrests more protesting sect members on Tiananmen Square 1971. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 6:09:24 PM (cont.) 1972. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 6:11:44 PM (cont.) 1973. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 6:16:31 PM 1939. JonesAtLaw - 10/26/99 4:18:15 PM 1974. EricCartman - 10/26/1999 6:17:07 PM Must be a division of the Ministry of Truth. Good story, Al. Did you see the one a while back about how the Chinese gov't was extremely unhappy about the possibility that the Nobel Peace Prize might get awarded to Wei Jingsheng (sp?) and another dissident? 1975. EricCartman - 10/26/1999 6:18:04 PM #1974 was to #1972. 1976. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 6:24:37 PM Eric 1977. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 6:42:40 PM I only just found these sites... way too much information, but I think this one is germane to the present discussion. 1978. cpc - 10/26/1999 6:45:40 PM >>>>CalGal: I'm finding myself beginning to support the wackos out of sheer irritation. 1979. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 6:51:54 PM Some of these private militias have armed themselves with weaponry that has been deemed inappropriate for the general public (unorganized militia). I'm referring to automatic weapons, which have strict federal controls. 1980. EricCartman - 10/26/1999 6:52:54 PM Al Message # 1976: 1981. CalGal - 10/26/1999 6:54:42 PM and you couldn't help but get a demeaning jab in by labeling those that support gun rights as "wackos". 1982. soUpisGoODfoOD - 10/26/1999 6:56:29 PM my god, what an unholy skank. 1983. ranheim - 10/26/1999 7:33:31 PM Dusty 1984. Indiana Jones - 10/26/1999 7:38:35 PM That's the first I've heard of the moter voter law, but I like it. 1985. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 7:44:36 PM 0.66666666%... 1986. robertjayb - 10/26/1999 7:51:08 PM . 1987. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 7:53:22 PM JK ramheim... 1988. CalGal - 10/26/1999 7:59:17 PM Goodness, Soup. When did you get so shy? 1989. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:02:39 PM Janjon, 1990. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 8:02:39 PM Should gun manufactures be held liable for gun violence? 1991. soUpisGoODfoOD - 10/26/1999 8:04:09 PM SHUDDER 1992. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:05:29 PM We'd certainly appreciate it. 1993. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 8:07:16 PM Eric 1994. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 8:07:24 PM Maybe I could bash someone's head in with a Microsoft Office 2000 instruction manual... 1995. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 8:21:22 PM Eric 1996. iiibbb - 10/26/1999 8:31:45 PM RE #1986 robertjb: 1997. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:34:16 PM all right.... 1998. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:34:27 PM this is.... 1999. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:34:57 PM ...taking...too... 2000. CalGal - 10/26/1999 8:35:05 PM long? 2001. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 9:01:19 PM I saw our President giving a speach at Hillary's birthday party, and there was Hillary beaming up at him with love and affection. I admire that in a woman. She reminded me of another First Lady but I can't quite remember which one. But never mind, Hillary is to be admired in her slavish devotion to a man who some might say has treated her in a shabby manor. Pun intended. 2002. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 9:38:27 PM "Tuesday, 26 October 1999 21:00 (GMT) 2003. Cellar Door - 10/26/1999 10:10:01 PM There's another cache located in the general vicinity of AOS's ass. 2004. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 10:21:24 PM Cellar 2005. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 10:21:49 PM is=if 2006. Cellar Door - 10/26/1999 10:54:17 PM I think Falwell's realized he's hit the wall with his Standard Operational Procedure. We can all sit here and argue about Hate Crime Laws til the proverbial cows come home, but the fact of the matter is the murder of Matthew Shepherd has had One Hell of an Impact on this culture. And it wasn't because of organizations like the HRC doing Shepherd-related ads. 2007. robertjayb - 10/26/1999 11:00:38 PM . 2008. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 11:08:11 PM Cellar 2009. Cellar Door - 10/26/1999 11:28:07 PM Actually I've come to know an ex-thumper over in Table Talk named Phyl Good. She's quite an interesting woman. 2010. Aldavis - 10/26/1999 11:43:43 PM Cellar 2011. Spudboy - 10/26/1999 11:54:02 PM CalGal: Pick a topic, any topic, and in six posts Spudboy will be handwringing about the militia. You ignorant little twit. I'm not in the mood to enumerate the many conversation topics I've covered just in the past month in the Mote without a single mention of the militias. You must have missed those conversations. And the many I've had with many people here and in the Fray as well in which the extremist right is never mentioned. 2012. JonesAtLaw - 10/26/1999 11:56:04 PM A dirty little secret is that the Roman Catholic Church has married priests. They are restricted to the Eastern Rite Churches. Married men can become priests in Eastern Rite Churches, but unmarried priests cannot marry. However, these churches are rather small out of their native localities and are surrounded by Orthodox majorities, or Muslim ones. These churches practice according to the Orthodox rites, but acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, and are in full communion with it. 2013. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 12:00:47 AM In the Bassano di Sutri sequence of "La Dolce Vita," the family of delightfully decadent aristocrats talk about their connections to the church by marriage 2014. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 12:02:50 AM Marty Scorsese wanted to be a priest too, Al -- and failed for the same reason your friend did. 2015. Aldavis - 10/27/1999 12:09:55 AM Cellar 2016. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 12:23:28 AM Well "Scorpio Rising" isn't a Hollywood movie -- just an L.A. one. 2017. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 12:26:47 AM Re Clarence Thomas the whole Anita Hill thing was a horrendous mistake. It's always been my contention that he shouldn't have been put on the Supreme Court for the simple reson that he was below standard. He's the most aggregious case of Affirmative Action in History -- and it was masterminded by Republicans! 2018. CalGal - 10/27/1999 12:37:12 AM Spud, 2019. CalGal - 10/27/1999 12:38:36 AM It's not like we haven't had other below standard justices in our history. Assuming that Thomas is, which certainly isn't a given. 2020. EricCartman - 10/27/1999 12:58:19 AM Al Message # 1993: 2021. CalGal - 10/27/1999 12:59:31 AM Oh, he's a pain in the ass. But you, you're okay. 2022. EricCartman - 10/27/1999 1:16:48 AM But I am a liberal. Ace says so. Al says so. Niner hasn't said so yet, but I know he's thinking it. Not that I mind, of course; in light of the other folks who called me "right-wing" 'cause of my Clinton-bashing, I think it's pretty damned funny. 2023. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:20:33 AM Davis calls everyone a liberal; I'm not sure he can tell the difference. Ace calls you a liberal? Maybe it's because you've got the whole Chomsky jones thing going. 2024. concerned - 10/27/1999 1:21:49 AM "Ha, ha, ha. Was that when you pouted because nobody stuck up for lil ol you in the ThomasD violations?" 2025. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:23:29 AM What are you, drunk? Pay attention. He was the one whining about it. 2026. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:26:08 AM And, in fact, I did stick up for him, which is why I mock him about it. You did continue to use his damn name, even after he asked you not to. So there's no lying either way. 2027. JonesAtLaw - 10/27/1999 1:29:56 AM ". By and large, I ignore cites here unless they are backed by something reasonable. They can be on a questionable site, provided they are referencing a well-regarded study--although I'm always wondering where the original is." 2028. concerned - 10/27/1999 1:37:02 AM In an encouraging bipartisan initiative, IMO, Rep. Chris Cox, (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-OR), have cosponsored the Global Internet Tax Freedom Act which was passed by the House 423-1. This bill is expected to also pass in the Senate. 2029. ranheim - 10/27/1999 1:37:28 AM #2009/10 2030. concerned - 10/27/1999 1:46:14 AM re. 2026 - 2031. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:46:28 AM Jones, 2032. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:50:44 AM although I tweaked him on a few occasions about a particular article he once wrote without mentioning either his real name or the name of the article itself. 2033. CalGal - 10/27/1999 1:51:26 AM And lordy, I forgot. I will not respond to you on this subject again. I hate it when that happens. 2034. concerned - 10/27/1999 2:00:51 AM Well, you, Spudboy or anybody else can bitch about anything they want 24/7, can't they (like you two are doing about each other right now)? That doesn't make what is being complained about a 'violation', as you wrongly asserted. 2035. CalGal - 10/27/1999 2:07:08 AM To refresh your memory, you repeatedly said that you thought it was quite likely that TJ fathered SH's youngest son. 2036. concerned - 10/27/1999 2:19:06 AM Sorry, CG. You, your very own self, just kept homing in TJ *himself* over & over & over again & never once changed your tune at the time, even though I reminded the Fray that he would had to have been 65 at the time, and that the Nature article was intentionally slanted by its leading author and that the more sensationalistic claims in the article were not substantiated by the data or subtext within the article itself. 2037. CalGal - 10/27/1999 2:22:57 AM Oh, lord. I just spent an entire three minutes writing a paragraph to you. Wasting my time. You're a sick pup. Go play with someone else. 2038. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 2:28:12 AM 2039. JonesAtLaw - 10/27/1999 2:37:48 AM Trial- when your only tool is a hammer, the world seems full of nails. 2040. CalGal - 10/27/1999 2:38:01 AM I grovel in abject apology for playing along. I don't know what got into me. 2041. concerned - 10/27/1999 2:44:19 AM re. 2038 - 2042. concerned - 10/27/1999 2:50:18 AM Hey, it was just a prediction. I've been known to be wrong, too. So, don't sweat it:) 2043. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 2:53:36 AM 2044. concerned - 10/27/1999 3:02:50 AM Sleep tight, Shrimpo. 2045. ranheim - 10/27/1999 3:03:23 AM TrialShark 2046. concerned - 10/27/1999 3:10:32 AM iiibbb posted: 2047. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 3:14:55 AM 2048. Aldavis - 10/27/1999 3:33:29 AM CalGal 2049. concerned - 10/27/1999 3:39:01 AM Snake Carville declares 'whoa' on Pizza Hut 2050. concerned - 10/27/1999 3:39:19 AM Maybe Pizza Hut should do a few ads with a Carville-type character. A couple of thematical ideas: 2051. CalGal - 10/27/1999 3:59:33 AM Compared to me, the ancient imbecile, there does seem to be a lot of Liberals around. 2052. Aldavis - 10/27/1999 4:05:28 AM concerned 2053. concerned - 10/27/1999 4:11:07 AM Re. 2052 - 2054. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 4:11:25 AM 2055. concerned - 10/27/1999 4:17:53 AM Actually, it was: 2056. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 4:53:04 AM 2057. ranheim - 10/27/1999 7:39:22 AM #2047 TrialShark 2058. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 10:55:05 AM 2059. Dusty - 10/27/1999 11:41:44 AM I missed the Pizza Hut ad. Is it online? 2060. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 11:46:41 AM Here is a link to Deteriorata for your viewing pleasure. 2061. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 12:34:37 PM Here's a quick update on the Carnahan situation. As you may recall Tax-man Carnahan was accusing Sen. Ashcroft of racism, then a picture surfaced of Carnahan and his brother in blackface from 1960. Carnahan made a public statement apologizing for his "insensitivity" and he claimed that he has not appeared in blackface since. Guess what? Carnahan lied. More pictures have surface ahowing him in blackface many times throughout the 60's. I guess we know who the real racist is. 2062. iiibbb - 10/27/1999 12:57:15 PM All the differing opinions about the "intent" of our founding fathers when they drafted our amendments reminds me of a story I saw in the news a few years ago. 2063. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 12:59:19 PM 2064. iiibbb - 10/27/1999 1:02:07 PM I don't like pictoral representations on controls. Have any of you ever purchase a tool, computer, or sat in a car, seen a button, and wonder "what the heck is that button supposed to do?" I wish they'd just use english sometimes, but I know these products go all over the world. 2065. cazart - 10/27/1999 1:09:17 PM Some of the pictograms on the controls of some european cars resemble the appendages atop the heads of the teletubbies. 2066. iiibbb - 10/27/1999 1:18:58 PM Hmmm... kinda makes me wonder what a Tinky-winky button does... 2067. cazart - 10/27/1999 1:21:38 PM The "tinkywink" control is pretty benign. 2068. Cygnus X-1 - 10/27/1999 1:21:51 PM Aldavis, Re Message #2052 2069. Dusty - 10/27/1999 1:30:02 PM JJBiener 2070. Dusty - 10/27/1999 1:55:38 PM (You need to page down a bit) 2071. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 2:03:58 PM Here is a better link to Disintegrata. 2072. ranheim - 10/27/1999 2:27:07 PM TrialShark 2073. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 3:28:26 PM 2074. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 3:32:49 PM 2075. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 3:45:38 PM TS - What's more, he also argued successfully that the Nazi overlords should be put to death, which really makes him look like a liberal. 2076. JudithAtHome - 10/27/1999 3:53:10 PM Trial: 2077. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 3:58:44 PM 2078. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 4:01:10 PM 2079. JudithAtHome - 10/27/1999 4:14:56 PM Trial: 2080. CalGal - 10/27/1999 4:16:57 PM Oh, don't be silly. You aren't pain. 2081. JudithAtHome - 10/27/1999 4:20:27 PM Oh god....I AM pain. I am pain and you be agony... 2082. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 4:24:53 PM TS - Better luck next time. 2083. JudithAtHome - 10/27/1999 4:30:08 PM Hey, I'm a liberal and I say fry 'em all. Seriously, I would never shoot someone personally but if they shoot my kid or my husband, I'll be there to pull the switch with nary a qualm. 2084. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 4:32:33 PM Judith - Cool. I knew there was something I liked about you. 2085. Spudboy - 10/27/1999 4:43:31 PM Actually, JJ, your point seems to be that if someone who most of the time follows the liberal point of view displays some independence of thought (in this case by favoring the death penalty), he's a hypocrite. But I have seen you flagellate liberals for doing the opposite -- robotically following the "liberal agenda." 2086. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 5:09:27 PM 2087. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 5:25:43 PM Spudbud - No, you misunderstood. I have no problem with a liberal favoring the death penalty. I was questioning the statement Jackson was a liberal because he worked to put the Nazis to death. One does not normally associate liberals with the "Let 'em fry" camp, and I was trying to determine what was meant. I also questioned it in a way to demonstrate hypocrisy as an inherent liberal trait. 2088. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 5:27:12 PM According to today's USA TODAY, Vincent Price's daughter has a new bio of him coming out revealing (to her complete shock) that he was once an anti-semite and an admirer of Hitler. There were, apparently some letters. . . . and donations.. . 2089. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 5:27:42 PM TS - Advocating the death penalty is not something I associate with liberals. Therefore I question whether it can be used as evidence of someone being a liberal. I think not. 2090. janjon - 10/27/1999 5:27:59 PM hypocrisy is an inherent liberal trait? 2091. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 5:30:52 PM Cellar Door - In the 20's and 30's, Hitler had many admirers in this country. Had he died in 1939, the world would have a much different view of him now. I know I would prefer that he had died then. 2092. JJBiener - 10/27/1999 5:32:00 PM Janjon - Do I have to put a (g) on every joke? 2093. janjon - 10/27/1999 5:33:01 PM Biener. In your case, yes. Trust me, the answer is yes. 2094. iiibbb - 10/27/1999 5:43:51 PM Spudboy #2085 2095. robertjayb - 10/27/1999 5:45:05 PM 2096. iiibbb - 10/27/1999 5:47:18 PM Gay Panic... that's got to be one of the lamest defenses I've heard of I think in my life. 2097. TrialShark - 10/27/1999 6:57:05 PM 2098. robertjayb - 10/27/1999 11:47:05 PM . 2099. TrialShark - 10/28/1999 3:33:34 AM 2100. CalGal - 10/28/1999 3:41:20 AM The first three were dumb. The last one is a gem. 2101. TrialShark - 10/28/1999 4:01:24 AM 2102. Cellar Door - 10/28/1999 10:54:17 AM "Gay Panic" is when I run out of clean shirts. 2103. JJBiener - 10/28/1999 11:07:27 AM Cellar Door - "Gay Panic" is when I run out of clean shirts. 2104. Bubbaette - 10/28/1999 11:10:16 AM If only we gals could have used such a defense when approached by fellows we felt were unsavory. 2105. JJBiener - 10/28/1999 11:15:50 AM Bubbaette - I suppose you could claim "Straight Panic". 2106. AceofSpades - 10/28/1999 12:30:24 PM 2107. ranheim - 10/28/1999 1:50:42 PM TrialShark 2108. JudithAtHome - 10/28/1999 2:04:56 PM Maybe the squabble is about the soldiers being used as guinea pigs. Or should be... 2109. ranheim - 10/28/1999 2:11:50 PM TrialShark 2110. cazart - 10/28/1999 2:29:31 PM ranheim: 2111. iiibbb - 10/28/1999 2:30:10 PM Just out of curriosity. I was noting in the politics thread.. a number of people I was engaged in the dabate with have made certain votes regarding gun control. 2112. TrialShark - 10/28/1999 3:44:49 PM ranheim -- 2113. TrialShark - 10/28/1999 3:45:03 PM 2114. cazart - 10/28/1999 3:48:13 PM Wow, TrialShark. 2115. JudithAtHome - 10/28/1999 3:49:06 PM cazart: 2116. cazart - 10/28/1999 3:52:33 PM "JAG" is a funny show, Judithathome. 2117. JudithAtHome - 10/28/1999 4:06:06 PM cazart: 2118. JudithAtHome - 10/28/1999 4:06:14 PM cazart: 2119. JudithAtHome - 10/28/1999 4:07:14 PM Wow, hitting "stop" really doesn't work, does it? 2120. TrialShark - 10/28/1999 4:20:39 PM 2121. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 12:22:04 AM Well, I managed to get a letter published in today's Washington Post. 2122. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 12:23:58 AM But of course, it's nothing but one-note wailing, hand-wringing and whining. My usual MO, evidently. 2123. robertjayb - 10/29/1999 12:32:44 AM . 2124. CalGal - 10/29/1999 12:50:13 AM No, the letter isn't whining. Congrats. 2125. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 1:06:15 AM Funny how you can hear whining whenever it suits your purposes (typically, when you don't wish to respond to the substance of the post). 2126. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:11:18 AM Oh, quit bitching. If you want to be a one-note wonder, then you have to take the heat when you start to streeeettch just to bring it into the conversation. 2127. SpenceMirrlees - 10/29/1999 1:12:39 AM ib Message # 2111 2128. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:16:17 AM Changing minds? But.....what would be the fun in that? 2129. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 1:23:07 AM CalGal: I suggest you leave the mind-reading to people who actually have one of their own. 2130. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:25:19 AM And Spudboy... 2131. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:28:11 AM Incidentally, whatever gave you the impression that anyone here gives a rusty fuck whether you are "irritated" by our posts? 2132. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:31:08 AM And that's my last post on the subject, so go ahead and fuss if it makes you feel better. 2133. CalGal - 10/29/1999 1:31:37 AM I mean, something's got to make you feel better. I hate it when I forget to edit. 2134. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 1:48:30 AM CalGal: I feel fine, really. This mind-reading stuff doesn't suit you well. (Remember our conversation about Stamper?) 2135. DaveM - 10/29/1999 2:52:28 AM Spudboy: 2136. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 3:17:43 AM DaveM: 2137. DaveM - 10/29/1999 3:46:40 AM Spudboy: 2138. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 4:01:32 AM DaveM: 2139. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 8:28:18 AM Spence 2127 and Re: ib 2111: 2140. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 9:07:10 AM You don't think "new world order" is even a little bit frightening? 2141. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 9:13:15 AM insert -defacto- 2142. Cellar Door - 10/29/1999 9:41:50 AM You don't think "new world order" is even a little bit frightening? 2143. Ronski - 10/29/1999 9:44:25 AM And every other country. 2144. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:02:54 AM I tend to think the CIA is just a teansie less sinister than those in the U.N. with aspirations of it being a world government. 2145. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:04:25 AM I tend to think the CIA is just a teansie less sinister than those in the U.N. with aspirations of it being a world government. 2146. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:05:34 AM note to self... using the "back" button reposts messages as well. 2147. DocBrown - 10/29/1999 11:11:15 AM For the record, today's headline on MSNBC is blown way out of proportion. The Cleveland school kids have not been arrested; they did not even have any guns. Yet MSNBC provides a link to ". . . other school shootings . . ." 2148. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:36:02 AM RE: 2147 2149. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 11:42:44 AM iibb- Well, lets see, if the weapons were registered, the police would have a place to start their investigation of where they came from. That would help them trace the passage of weapon from person to person so that those who violated gun laws could be prosecuted. It might also facilitate the return of the weapons to their rightful owners. It would also assist in determining who illegally modified the weapons. It would also give the prosecutors additional charges with which to plea bargain (or not) with the defendants and additional time in jail for the offenders. Would passage of a law stop commission of crime? No, but if it did, we's have no setencing provisions for crime, we'd outlaw behavior we didn't approve of and no one would do it. But we all know better, and so provide penalties for their violation. 2150. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:47:55 AM OK... but since you caught the criminal already... 2151. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 11:52:49 AM iibbb- I agree that many murderers will not use their registered weapon for the crime, but since the majority are used in crimes of passion against loved ones or neighbors etc you might be surprised. However, if it is a stolen weapon, then we may know more about the user. Either they stole it or had contact with the thief in many cases. One more piece of circumstantial evidence. Why do Narcs investigate users? They follow the food chain up to larger fish. (hopefully) 2152. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:53:58 AM If they'd just procescute the violations of current gun legislation to begin with... 2153. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 11:56:38 AM I don't think that adding a piece of circumstantial evidence to an already large pie justfies elliminating my constitutional right to privacy, or my constitutional right to own a gun. 2154. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 11:56:53 AM How about an alternative to registration? All weapons must be test fired, and an examplar bullet retained with the serial number of the weapon. This is disclosed to law enforcement authorities and placed in a computerized data bank for comparison with bullets/weapons involved in crimes. Big brother doesn't know who has the weapon, but it does know which weapon fired any given bullet, or at least has the possibilities narrowed down. 2155. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:00:01 PM Is Reno refusing to procecute just so crime statistics will remain high, and thereby lend weight to her contention that guns should be 'banned'... 2156. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:01:21 PM Jones 2157. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:06:02 PM Jones RE: 2154: 2158. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:07:21 PM Is Reno refusing to procecute just so crime statistics will remain high, and thereby lend weight to her contention that guns should be 'banned'... 2159. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:08:28 PM Sorry for the double post, I backed up from another site and it refreshed the page. 2160. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:09:16 PM More reasonable than registering all private firearms that is... 2161. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:09:57 PM I just descovered that too :)... made a "note to self" :) 2162. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:11:16 PM iibbb- cases could be a red herring, but unless the killer inserts a few bullets from the range into the victim, and unless the criminalist can't recognize something that's hit a backstop versus a person, it won't do much good. 2163. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:15:05 PM Te FBI's already have a system in place- Drugfire that does keep a data base of bullets from various crime labs for comparision. Lets add to the database. 2164. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:15:36 PM Jones #2156 is my stronger point. 2165. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:18:03 PM Jones... all I want is for my constitutional right to privacy, and my constitutional right to bear a firearm are not infringed. 2166. Cellar Door - 10/29/1999 12:31:21 PM I don't have a constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court formally outlawed it in Bowers Vs. Hardwick. 2167. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:32:47 PM It's not a myth... it's a right that's being illegally ignored. 2168. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:34:20 PM iibbb- cases are useful for evidence, as they bear marks from the chmaber, ejector (if there is one) and the firing pin. All of the mechanical operations of the gun place microscoping markings on the case, and these stirations are sometimes capable of matching a case to a particular firearm, and most often to a type of weapon at least. Bullets bear similar patterns for rifling, and microscopic imperfections in the barrel. As a prosecutor, I could argue that these are almost as reliable as fingerprints. Of course, as a defense attorney I am usually attemtpting to punch holes in the reliability of the testing as performed. But I usually surrender on the method itself. 2169. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:35:01 PM Jones #2156 is still my stronger point. 2170. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:38:37 PM Cellar- I agree with you on Bowers v Hardwick. It is none of government's business whose wick is hard in ones bower, or where it goes etc. Privacy is under attack from left and right, politically correct or religiously correct, they both want to impose conformity. I'd like a little room to breathe. 2171. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:41:23 PM iibbb- I don't argue that registration of firearms would prevent all homicides involving loved ones/neighbors/friends. There is a quantuum leap from the diffculty in killing someone with a baseball bat, knife or what have you than with a firearm. If they weren't so damned effective, the army would carry baseball bats and not M-16's. 2172. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:42:09 PM 2168-- 2173. Bubbaette - 10/29/1999 12:43:19 PM Don't ban guns, just ban bullets. That way you will not have infringed on anyone's right to bear arms. 2174. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:45:49 PM Here are some CDC stats on firearms injury/deaths:
Reuters picks up Salon scoop on Columbine:
Columbine martyr story in doubt
Salon: Everything you know about Columbine is wrong
Can the US be far behind?
yes, we all know of your preference for eugenics, Cal --only the rich , talented and beautiful should be permitted to breed.
Oh, cut your high dudgeon off before it chokes you. I've said no such thing.
vK,
I ask you to consider the following: divorce/abandonment/death.
Anyone who has a child is only ever a beertruck or a blond(e) away from being a single parent. Bad planning and stupidity is no excuse.
That being said, my response to Bubba was based on welfare for women who had no means of support when they got knocked up. Temporary assistance for women with children is silly, but bearable. Better would be a consistent program to help all poor.
Rask,
Because welfare programs are for the *kids*, not the parents .
Not if you look at it the other way around. If a girl is 16 and gets pregnant, we give her money. If she doesn't get pregnant, we give her nothing.
Take someone who is essentially incompetent (which is pretty much the case for the small number of long-term recipients) and you've just told her that the only way she can get any money is to have kids.
So we have a program that provides money for basically useless women to raise children in poverty--who'll grow up just like Mom.
Do tell--what good are we doing those children? Who will, by and large, grow up to have more children or become criminals or die, killed by other children of these women.
Short-term assistance for anyone who needs it is a fine idea. Assistance that encourages useless women to have babies is not.
Fully fund abortions for women who have no means of supporting themselves. Free birth control. Minimal amount of money as long as they don't have kids. And if she has one anyway, take it away from her.
That's a welfare program for kids.
Worse than that, I'm a divorced single mother. Takes away much of the ability to say "well, wait until you've walked a mile in their shoes."
And you are new? Welcome.
MOTHER OF BABY FOUND DEAD IN OVEN MAY HAVE HAD A SEIZURE
Lanexa, Va--Authorities are investigating whether a severe epileptic seizure could have caused a young mother in this rural Virginia town to become so disoriented that she put her 1-month-old baby into a microwave oven, killing it Thursday morning.
The death of infant, Joseph Lewis Martinez, has stunned this tight-knit community 35 miles east of Richmond.
The state medical examiner, who said the baby had burns resembling what a microwave oven would produce, performed an autopsy Thursday but has not released a cause of death pending further tests.
Elizabeth Renee Otte, 19, the mother of the child, was taking medication for epilepsy, friends and authorities say.
What happened at Waco?
a lengthy but useful AP review
"Authorities are investigating whether a severe epileptic seizure could have caused a young mother in this rural Virginia town to become so disoriented that she put her 1-month-old baby into a microwave oven"
I find that explanation hard to believe. A seizure so severe that she put her baby in the microwave and then turned it on?
The insurance industry doesn't exactly occupy an exalted position in the minds of many consumers. There is definitely room for improvement in the public perception of our industry. One area where we often get plaudits is the claims handling during and after hurricanes. The industry has done a decent job of getting people in quickly, and delivering money to recipients promptly. (The recent hurricane Floyd hasn't generated that same kind of positive press because so much of the damage was due to flooding, often uninsured.)
I think that the insurance industry could use hurricanes to do an even better job of putting their best foot forward. If implemented correctly, I think it would provide a happy coincidence of helping consumers, cutting costs for insurers, as well as positive public relations. At the end, I'll try to tie this in to an actuarial subject.
Media coverage of impending hurricanes wouldn't seem compete without the ubiquitous images of storeowners nailing sheets of plywood over store windows. A common story is the shortage of plywood, occasionally accompanied by reports of price increases. While some can be sympathetic to the inexorable economic forces of supply and demand, increases in prices for disaster supplies understandable rankles some.
My proposal is simple to state, although the logistics could take time to sort out. The insurance industry should stockpile plywood, oil lamps, and other supplies at strategic locations, and make them available for free or reduced prices in the event of an impending hurricane.
Timely provision of plywood and osb sheathing could reduce the losses to policyholders as well as insurers. As a result, the industry might find itself "purchasing" advertising with a negative net cost. A good marketing expert can figure out how to get the most mileage out of the potential public relations. I would suggest creating some industry association with a catchy name. Until the experts take over, I'll suggest iHELP-insurance Hurricane Emergency Loan Program. Instead of television shots of drab brown plywood sheets, we would see tastefully colored sheets of plywood emblazoned with an iHELP logo. Plywood intended for a single use is not coated, and will warp when wet. If this organization loans the plywood sheets and collects them after a storm it would make sense to go with coated material suitable for multiple uses. With proper planning, the industry could stockpile sufficient material to provide the necessary supplies for a major hurricane, and we would stop seeing the pictures of empty store shelves.
Detractors might argue that supplies such as drinking water or oil lamps cannot mitigate insured losses. However, as the industry looks for federal legislation relating to tax benefits for cat reserves and protected cells, it can only help the passage of such legislation if the legislators see the industry taking steps to help out people in the event of a hurricane.
So how does this relate to an actuarial issue? As I think about how to stockpile materials-whether there should be a few large locations or more numerous, smaller locations-whether one moves material to a storm area by train or truck, it seems that we need good models. Models of storm tracks as well as transportation logistics. And I'm convinced that actuaries can build good models.
It's a great idea and a well written article.
I hope you all bought some gold stocks last week.
Oh, you would prefer that I report the news before it happens? I'll see what I can do.
We're Number One!
WASHINGTON (AP) - With three months remaining, 1999 already is the deadliest year on America's death row in almost half a century. Eighteen states have executed 76 killers, and the total could reach 100 by year's end.
``There has been this stairway upward since the death penalty was reinstituted'' in 1976, said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group critical of how capital punishment is administered. ``It hasn't peaked yet: ... 150 is probably where things may max out over the next three to four years.''
Executions last Friday in Delaware and North Carolina raised the year's total to 76, the most since 1954, when 81 people were put to death in U.S. prisons. If the year-end toll reaches 100, as Dieter said could happen, it would be the first time since 105 people were executed in 1951.
There were 68 executions last year, 74 in 1997.
States have executed 576 convicted killers since the Supreme Court ended in 1976 a four-year nationwide ban on capital punishment. Currently, about 3,565 people are on death rows across the nation.
Many countries have abolished the death penalty, including Canada, Australia, France and Germany. Amnesty International said it received reports of 1,067 executions in China in 1998, more than 100 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 66 in Iran. The organization said it also has unconfirmed reports of hundreds of executions in Iraq.
Eighteen of the 38 American states with death penalty laws have imposed capital punishment this year, and once again Texas is first with 25 executions.
I didn't know nuthin' about it. Really!
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives acknowledged Monday that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot slot during the Vietnam War.
But Ben Barnes, who later was lieutenant governor, said the request for his help came from a Bush family friend -- not Bush or his father, who then was a congressman.
The Texas governor and Republican presidential front-runner, meanwhile, insisted again that neither he nor his father sought such assistance when he joined the Guard.
Actually, I was contemplating buying some gold, but the price was around $300 when I was thinking about it, so I would still be (ignoring portfolio reasons) worse off than I am.
Taking the f----ing Fifth:
***
Gingrich Avoiding Divorce Queries
By David Pace
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Sept. 27, 1999; 6:26 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and a congressional aide named in his divorce proceeding are trying to avoid answering questions about their relationship from lawyers for Gingrich's wife.
... In asking a District of Columbia judge to block her testimony, Ms. Bisek argued that it would violate her constitutional right to privacy by allowing Mrs. Gingrich's attorneys "to rummage through every aspect of her personal life without any meaningful restrictions or limitations of any nature."
She also argued that she cannot be required to testify about her relationship with Gingrich under the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination because adultery is a crime in the District of Columbia ...
***
Read the entire story here.
I see. Now it's important to tell the truth under oath about sex. It's a private citizen who's involved now. Only the president is exempt.
You have absolutely no right to complain. What's good for the president is good for Gingrich. More importantly, though, no one has lied under oath yet in this case. You see, they're taking the rule of law seriously and are taking legal steps to avoid testifying. There's a difference there. I know your blinders prevent you from seeing it. But, it's those same blinders that make you support Clinton, too.
I bought some gold and gold stocks when the price was around $255 an ounce. I was expecting the price to go up because of increased demand due to Y2K paranoia. For the past couple months the price was staying in the $253 to $260 range, the gold stocks were slowly losing value, and I was starting to have second thoughts.
There were moderate increases in gold prices last Thursday and Friday. Based on recent trends, I expected a quick retreat this week. Today's huge price increase due to European banks deciding not to sell their gold reserves really shocked me.
Of course, tomorrow the entire gain could be wiped out.
A footnote: It could be perceived as hypocritical for me to own gold and gold stocks because I am very much opposed to cyanide heap leach gold mining techniques. Modern gold mining can cause severe environmental impacts. I console myself by thinking that my paltry gold assets constitute an insignificant contributution to those greedy, polluting, multi-national gold mining corporations. Still, the conscience nags. All the way to the bank.
Cygnus X-1:
"You have absolutely no right to complain."
Who complained?
"There's a difference there. I know your blinders prevent you from seeing it."
What blinders? What complaint? How do you know? What are you smoking, son?
You just finished telling me over in Politicss that "everybody does it" is no defense. Please try to be consistant.
Did you read in yesterdays Star-Telegram about the 2 convicted drug offenders asking Georgie Boy for pardons?
You're claiming (albeit indirectly) Gingrich is a hypocrite for stooping to a tactic that you support. So I’m pointing out that the “everyone does it” argument is why you have no right to complain; but, I still do because I don’t adhere to that principle – if you can call it that. These invasions of privacy are wrong and conservatives have always believed that. But, when there is no other recourse, the truth must be told. In this case, however, Gingrich hasn’t exhausted all possibilities, so shut up.
Yeah, but I hear Clinton beat him to the punch.
Cygnus --
"First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose."
Two questions, sonny:
1) Where did I claim I posted the article "for no intended purpose?"
2) How many suns are there in the sky on the planet where you live?
You're spinning so fast I'm getting dizzy just reading your posts. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Cygnus --
"Oh, I get it."
I doubt very seriously that you do.
"You're playing tennis and I'm playing football."
Your strained use of sports metaphors does not demonstrate any deep comprehension. You are not merely playing football; you have invented the ball, the playing field, and the stadium from your fevered imagination.
You said that I made a specific claim. When challenged to find where I said it, you tucked tail and ran. While I'm pleased you didn't try to stand by your false statement, I'm bitterly disappointed that you didn't have the intellectual honesty or the courage to admit you were wrong.
"Forget I said anything."
Since you said nothing worth remembering, forgetting it will be a real pleasure.
ummmmmm... Clinton also broke the law in DC, then. But no one made an issue of that.
And no one would blame Clinton for having avoided perjury by lawful means, such as simply paying PJ $25,000 to drop the case, or demanding an interlocutory appeal regarding the Monica Lewinsky questions.
TrialShark apparently sees no difference between making a withdrawl from a bank and robbing it. Yes, both are manners of extracting money from a bank. But the first is legal and the second is a felony.
A tiny distinction which is lost on TrialShark.
Let's review:
"I refuse to answer that question on the basis of a valid priviledge" = LEGAL
"I didn't do it." = ILLEGAL if a lie.
Both are methods to prevent the truth from coming out. But the first is a legally sanctioned method, and the second is a felony.
Another distinction:
George Bush says, "I refuse to answer the cocaine question" = TRUTHFUL, even if nonresponsive
Bill Clinton says, "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" = a LIE
You people seem incapable of making such distinctions. Or rather, unwilling to do so, when it serves your partisan goals.
AUSTIN -- A handful of groups hoping to decriminalize some drug offenses asked Gov. George W. Bush on Monday to examine the cases of an estimated 28,000 people imprisoned in Texas for nonviolent drug offenses with an eye toward commuting some sentences or granting pardons.
"Warehousing the nonviolent (inmates) in Texas prisons does not increase the safety or security of Texans, nor does it do anything to help the inmate," said Alan Robison, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas.
Citing Bush's references to unspecified "mistakes" in refusing to answer questions about whether he used illegal drugs more than 25 years ago, the groups said Bush is proof that young people can overcome poor choices to experiment with illicit substances and become productive citizens.
If unsubstantiated allegations that Bush used drugs are true, then a "terrible double standard" exists, Robison added.
"Governor Bush thinks that if he did it, it should be regarded as a youthful indiscretion," Robison said. "Whereas if we do it, or at least if we get caught doing it, we should be punished for it by being sent to prison."
.
In a letter to former first lady Barbara Bush, a Dallas woman who has three sons in prisons on drug conspiracy charges, asked for her help in convincing the governor that drug policies should be changed.
"Youthful drug use, an issue that you and your son both claim is `irrelevant' to the governor's personal history, has been made permanently relevant to us by drug policies of the federal government and the 50 states, including Texas," wrote Virginia Traylor. "Our sons will have no second chances."
Maybe the groups should petition the President.
If being a part of an organization dedicated to killing people invites clemency because the prison sentences exceeded fairness, surely a bunch of tokers in for life will be even more deserving.
Whatcha think?
Except when conservatives do it.
Robert:
Clinton and Gore both smoked pot as part of their own "youthful indiscretions."
And yet I do not hear any clamor by Clinton or Gore for reducing the stiff penalties pot-smokers now face.
Why not? If your point applies to Bush, it applies with equal vigor to Clinton and Gore.
Well, yes, but er blub blub pssssssst.
"TrialShark apparently sees no difference between making a withdrawl [sic] from a bank and robbing it."
That would be "apparent" only in your imagination, Ace.
Truly, your power to read the minds of others never ceases to amaze me. I would be even more impressed if you were right.
Damn. Lesser-than, slash-i, greater-than.
Sorry 'bout that.
Judith --
"Which Republican candidate is having an affair with a 20 year old?"
I'm hoping it's Senator Hatch. He looks like he could use a little loosening up.
Trivial:
If you went something else by your "Taking the F-----g Fifth" post, please share with the group.
You're so, so cute. You clearly imply something, and when somebody calls you on how stupid your implication is, you whine that you meant something else entirely, without bothering to say precisely what that alternate meaning was.
"went" = meant
I'm holding out for Gary Bauer...it has a certain "old fashioned" bibical eye-for-an-eye ring to it if it's him.
Ace --
To borrow your pet phrase: you're an idiot.
I found the article amusing -- nothing more, nothing less. At this point, I couldn't care less if Mr. Gingrich nailed his alleged paramour on each and every desk on the floor of the House. While the House was in session.
Though it would have done wonders for C-SPAN's ratings.
The phrase "F---ing Fifth" was a play on words: adultery involves intercourse. If that was too subtle for you, I'll try being more obvious next time.
Obvious=funny.
Would cause Viagra's interest in Bob to droop, though.
janjon --
"...if it turned out to be Liddy [it] would cause Viagra's interest in Bob to droop ..."
In deference to Ace's plaintive cry for non-subtle humor: That's not all that would droop!
Or can it droop if you're on the big V?
Hmmm.
You know, it's a small mind indeed that takes pleasure in what you do. We infer meaning from what people post so that we don't have to write a book to get across our point. But, you find that catching people on these inferences is amusing. To each his hown. But, I don't care if you claim to have implied nothing. If it looks like shit and it smells like shit, it's shit as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder why he threw "because adultery is a crime in DC" in boldface.
Just more "amusement," I suppose.
Cygnus --
"You know, TrialShark, you're a real prick."
Guilty. And you have an unpleasant penchant for making up statements and attributing them to other people. Everyone has his flaws, I guess.
Ace --
Precisely. The "adultery" part is what made the "F---ing Fifth" a play on words.
janjon --
Badda-boomp!
Ahh... Ahh... Ahh.. AhhPrick.
Phew! Excuse me.
Cygnus --
"Gee, TrialShark, what statement did I make up and attribute to someone?"
In Message 426, you wrote: "First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose."
When I asked you where I had said my post was "for no intended purpose," you begged off. Not surprising, since I hadn't said that. In fact, I said nothing at all about my "intended purpose" in posting the article.
I found the article amusing -- nothing more, nothing less. My "purpose" in posting it was the obvious one: to share something I found amusing with other people.
Of course, I did rather expect it would make some of the less-thoughtful conservatives in here twitch reflexively. You and Ace have amply fulfilled my expectations. But that was just a delightful side benefit. I would have posted the article even if you weren't here ... or were less easily annoyed.
Hmmm. Apparently, you can't believe everything you read.
***
Girl Says She Is 'Columbine Martyr'
The Associated Press
Tuesday, Sept. 28, 1999; 4:33 p.m. EDT
LITTLETON, Colo. –– Cassie Bernall, the young woman held up as a martyr after the Columbine High bloodbath, may not have been the student who said yes when asked by one of the gunmen if she believed in God.
Val Schnurr, 18, said in Tuesday's Denver Post that it was she who uttered that response after a shotgun blast knocked her out from under a library table where she had been hiding during the attack in April ...
***
Read the entire article here.
I agree these groups should be petition the President. They probably do, all the time. And yes, of course their points apply to Clinton and Gore.
But Clinton and Gore, tagged as liberal Democrats, cannot go to China.
Bush, a compassionate and conservative Republican, can. If he is courageous as well as compassionate and conservative, he could call for eliminating the most egregious faults of our futile "war" on drugs.
And if the blatant hypocrisy of his present situation makes him squirm a bit...good!
And the winner of the "who gets slimed next for adultery" prize is ... Gary Bauer!
Read the entire article here. Please note that Mr. Bauer denies the rumors, even though he hasn't been explicitly named by anyone, calling them the work of his political opponents.
Maybe that's the real story: which campaign is so concerned about Gary Bauer that they'd sling this kind of mud?
Hmmm ...
Oh, and I think Judithathome had Bauer in the pool, no? Congratulations! I still think Orrin Hatch would have been a more amusing candidate, but maybe he's next.
JJ --
It's never too early to say "I did not have sex with that woman."
JJ --
It's too soon to say how the Bauer deal will play out. If it comes off like a hatchet job (and there are those in the Republican Party not noted for their deft touch), relious right may abandon the GOP and that may give the party a chance to reach out to more moderate conservatives, independents, and the "Reagan Democrats."
On the other hand, after last year's splash through the sewer -- which, rightly or wrongly, a significant part of the public blames on overzealous partisans in the GOP -- this kind of attack could easily taint the whole party ... especially if it's linked to the eventual nominee.
BTW ... I admittedly am assuming that the attack is coming from within the GOP. It seems unlikely to me at this point that anyone in the Democratic Party sees Bauer as a credible threat, and so there's probably been little opposition research done on him by Gore or Bradley. There's also the possibility of an apolitical attacker. Still, Bauer seems to think it's one of his political opponents, and I suspect that means someone he's running against now, not a Democrat or an independent.
I have a very low opinion of our government. Is yours even worse?
Qualye was not only a represntative, but, a senator from Indiana. And a graduate from law school. What is his golf handicap?
Bush was part owner of a professional baseball team; I have no idea what he did prior to this and don't particularly care. Additionaly, he is governor of Texas.
Were this a resume, would you conclude from that partial list of "accomplishments" that both come up a least one short in the attic.
Both Quayle and GW have had successful careers in business and politics. They have earned more on their own than either you or I can hope to. Both men are far brighter than you seem willing to give them credit for. BTW, with Gore as frontrunner in the Dem party, you have no room for making claims about relative intelligence.
Tell me why he didn't denounce Buchanan who now makes the Nazis look left of center?
Why did you feel compelled to post bullshit like this? I am no fan of Buchanan, but this is completely unnecessary. This puts you on the same level as some of our most obnoxious posters. You are certainly capable of better.
JJ --
"I am no fan of Buchanan, but ... "
No "buts," JJ: Governor Bush had a fabulous opportunity to follow Senator McCain's lead and bid adieu to one of his party's less-savory figures. It was the "Sistah Souljah moment" we've all been waiting for.
Instead, he made a public appeal for Mr. Buchanan to stay in the party. And why? Was it because he thinks Mr. Buchanan is a patriot? Because he thinks he's an innovator? Because he believes Mr. Buchanan stands for all that's good and just in America?
Naw.
"I need every vote I can get," is what he said.
Fifty million bucks in the bank, way ahead in the polls, and Governor Bush is afraid to risk offending Pat Buchanan. Now, that's a profile in courage.
Give me McCain any day, JJ. You can keep the lightweight.
Buchanan (to my knowledge) is hardly more unsavory than, say, Jesse Jackson or Ted Kennedy. I haven't seen you (or any Dem. luminary) invite either of them to leave the party.
Or, for that matter, let's take a further step on the unsavoriness scale: compare how the GOP establishment has treated David Duke, with how the Dem. establishment has treated Ron Dellums and Tom Hayden.
You now have a fabulous opportunity to risk offending any or all of those four, if you like. Go for it.
Both Quayle and GW have had successful careers in business and politics. They have earned more on their own than either you or I can hope to.
Hahaha! You or I could have easily been as successful, if our names were JJ Quayle and Eric Bush. Come on, who are we kidding here? Give me those guys' money and familial connections and I can gather additional wealth & power too. Anybody could.
Stumbo --
Hmmmm. Seems to me you're deliberately ducking the point, which is: as compared to Senator McCain, Governor Bush is a wimp.
Perhaps you disagree. If so, tell us why.
My opinion on Senator Kennedy, et. al. hardly changes anything. Since you asked, however, I think Senator Kennedy is an embarassment to his party who should have retired years ago. Why the people of Massachusetts keep reelecting him is a mystery to me ... roughly on a par with the mystery of why the folks in North Carolina keep reelecting Senator Helms. I find Congressman Dellums distasteful, though more for his ideological bent than his personal conduct; still, if he were to threaten to quit his party, as Pat Buchanan did, I certainly wouldn't beg him to stay.
Thank you for sharing your opinions on Kennedy and Dellums. My apologies for expecting them to be different.
As for the wimp thing: given his biography, I thought McCain already had the least-wimpy title sewn up, the day he hinted he might enter the race. And, of course, yes, he has been generally taking more controversial positions (within his party) than the rest. Were it not for the fact that a couple of those positions are dead wrong, he'd be my dream candidate (or, at least, as much of one as either of the major parties could possibly offer).
If the Cold War were still on, I'd instantly choose McCain over Bush. As it is, personal courage is somewhat less crucial. I guess I'll wait and see till some more-substantial debate takes place (if it ever does).
Duh. McCain, as the distant second or third runner, is fighting the battle for the nomination, and therefore can and must take risky, attention-getting, principled stands like telling Pat to fuck off.
Bush is not looking at the nomination-- he's looking at the general election, and his decision with regard to Pat reflect that fact.
Pat's defection will probably cost the Republicans the Presidency. Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Bradley will be decided by five or six percent, and Pat will probably take five or six percent from the Republicans (if not more). So it hardly shocks me that the man who will almost certainly be the Republican candidate is more cautious with regard to Buchanan.
McCain, on the other hand, still has to break out in the primaries before the general election even becomes an issue at all.
Do I like McCain's stance? Yes. Do I like yammering righteously about "principle over politics"? Sure I do. Do I think McCain is a great candidate? Of course. He's always been my first preference, before the Juggernaut Dubya blew into town.
But McCain can afford to take this stance at this point. It's dicey for Bush.
Combine that with the fact that Buchanan is just dying to tear into Bush... Bush is probably making the smart play by being "nice" to Buchanan.
McCain's also making a smart play. But the smart play for each of them is different due to their relative standings in the polls.
A good analysis.
Remember second place Tsongas versus first place, virtually "annoited" Clinton?
Do you remember who took principled stances and told the truth, and who was the Pander Bear?
If Gore or Bradley is not stupid, they will take that page out of Clinton's book and hammer Bush, should he get the GOP nod, with the hypocrisy part of the alleged past drug-use issue (why do you now throw people in jail for what may have just been "youthful indiscretions"). They wouldn't have to do it themselves, of course, because Clinton never did. He had people do it for him. If, on the other hand, Gore or Bradley play nice like Mondale or Dukakis, it's toast time.
, with the hypocrisy part of the alleged past drug-use issue (why do you now throw people in jail for what may have just been "youthful indiscretions")
Since Gore and Bradley (and Clinton) have all admitted smoking pot (Gore while in the Army!), and yet have not urged lower penalties for possession of marijuana, this is sort of a tough sell, don't you think?
Do you think Gore will propose that the Army stop Court Martialing drug users?
I don't.
JJ, if you think what I've posted was among the most obnoxious in these threads, then your scale is very different from mine. Check this out:
"In a 1990 newspaper column, Buchanan didn't hesitate to say that people who survived the Nazi death camps suffer from "group fantasies of martyrdom." He even tried his hand at Holocaust revisionism, arguing that diesel-engine exhaust could not have killed so many Jews at Treblinka. Hitler? A mass murderer, Buchanan admits in a 1977 piece, but a man of "great courage" and "a soldier's soldier." If it matters to you that you don't leave the impression that you are carrying a torch for the Fuhrer, that's a judgment you frame in such a way as to leave no doubt about your feelings.
From CNN -- full article here.
Ronski:
And Bill Bradley was a superstar athlete in New York during the coke-fueled seventies.
What do you figure the odds on that are?
Everytime one of Gore's flacks mention coke/hypocrisy, one of Bush's flacks should mention Army/pot/court martial/Gore...?
Why won't WBush allow his Yale transcript to be released?
Why won't Hillary Clinton allow her Wellesey senior thesis --apparently extolling a sixties revolutionary/radical-- to be released?
Release everything. Is Hillary a Commie? We New Yorkers want to know!
as others have posted, the "successful" careers of Quayle and WBush have had a lot more to do with family name than being "self-made men".
And I suppose that the fact that Gore's father was a longtime Senator had nothing to do with his career.
And I suppose Gore's money didn't get him a comfy spot in the Journalism Corps in Vietnam, "in the rear with the gear."
"In his new book Pat Buchanan tells us what he would have done if he'd been President when Nazi Germany was waging war on England and France: Nothing. Adolf Hitler, he insists, was somewhat misunderstood. The Nazis only wanted to move east into Russia and Eastern Europe--which posed no threat to U.S. interests--until we got them all riled up. The Holocaust? A bad thing, certainly, but not the kind of problem that should drag a nation into war."
Also from CNN, full article here.
Ronski:
They're trying to. Witness the deposition by Barnes, stating that a dead man asked him to call another dead man to help Bush get into the National Guard.
Barnes, to avoid libel, notes that no one in the Bush family talked to him about this, and that he has no information that the Bush family knew about it at all. But the story has been put out.
Psych:
She can think whatever "new thoughts" she likes (and certainly radical chic was a "new thought" in the early seventies! What a trendsetter Hillary was!).
I'd just appreciate it if she didn't try to conceal her "new thoughts" from the electorate. Or do you support concealment?
Thoughtful:
I have never heard Bush or Quayle (or Gore) referred to as a "self made man." I have read it noted that Bush spent most of his life in the private sector, which of course he did, and which of course Gore did not.
Your advice is similar to this: "Don't support McCain thinking he's pro-choice, because he's not." Well, thanks for the info.
Pat used to look at the map of Europe and sigh, "If only Hitler had attacked Russia and not the West, the Reds would be long gone." He rationalizes that the Holocaust did not actually get us into the war and happened in spite of our having fought Germany. Pat also rationalizes that Poles, Czechs, Balts, et alia were blasted by Hitler anyway, and then fell to the Russkies, so they were not particarly helped by our having fought in WW2.
I think his anti-Semitism is based mostly on the belief that somehow the "Jewish lobby" or "world Jewry" robbed the world of the chance to snuff out the Reds in the 40s. It's a ridiculous position, to say the least. And the man is clearly erotophobic to boot. I'm sure he's unstable.
He rationalizes that the Holocaust did not actually get us into the war and happened in spite of our having fought Germany.
The Holocaust didn't get us into the war. FDR & Co. kept it as sort of an Open Secret until '45.
A "witchhunt"? Asking someone to release their senior thesis?
Laugh. That's akin to the definition of "Demomonization" that was floated during the Lani Guinnear hearings. Demonization = using someone's own words, as printed in law review articles, against her.
(i>"Bush is probably making the smart play by being 'nice' to Buchanan."
Smart, maybe; craven, without a doubt.
Trial:
I don't hear Gore denouncing Buchanan, matie.
Because, of course, Gore wants Buchanan to bolt and get big votes.
I really don't see why it matters whether Bush's transcripts are larded with 'gentleman's C's' or not. It seems that he has been out of school long enough for people to base the decision of whether to vote for him or not on better criteria than his grade point average.
You are beating your head against a wall; no one will admit that Bushlite is just that...he has been packaged in an attractive bundle and tricked out to look like the White Knight sailing in to save the GOP and that is what people are buying. He was a lame business man but very good at politicking his way upward and he had the Name to trade on, ergo: he's our man!
The same people defending their right to support this guy are the same people who would ridicule our right to support an equally unsavory choice for the job. It's all cut from the same cloth.
According to Matthews, Buchanan is attempting to make an argument against US interventionism abroad today with an analogy to England in the 1930's. Specifically, that England ultimately lost her empire because she got involved in a war in which she had no interest (specifically, in Buchanan's view, going to the mat for Poland).
His point apparently is that Germany only overran France and attempted to conquer England because these countries declared war on Germany after Hitler (and Stalin) invaded Poland. Hitler had, in Buchanan's view, no interest in Europe to the west of Germany and was merely trying to prevent himself from getting entangled in a two front war before he went back to conquering his main interest, the East.
Again, not having read the book, I can't judge the quality of his argument. It seems to me that Buchanan's analysis is mainly based on the accuracy hindsight and fails to take into account the reality of the times. I certainly suspect that Buchanan is shoehorning select facts into an argument to fit his worldview. However, I question whether this is quite the apostacy that George Will is breathlessly describing it as.
Judith:
Please explain what makes Bush an "unsavory character." That he may have used drugs twenty years ago? My goodness, when did we become so judgemental about such a thing? The Clinton pot admission and coke allegations never gave you any particular pause.
And let's talk about Bush's accomplishments... no, let's talk about Gore's. His Daddy got him a cushy berth in the Army ("It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no Senator's son...") and then got him elected to Congress. And from that point on, he... well, he voted on things.
But he voted with great courage.
Ronski:
Not really. He got a reputation as a moderate. How? Because he voted for everyfuckingthing. Liberal social welfare initiatives? He voted for them. More defense spending? He voted for it.
He was named as one of the lowest-ranking Congressmen by some taxpayer thinktank. At least Teddy Kennedy voted AGAINST some costly programs.
Gore just said YES! to everything.
And earned a reputation as a "moderate" for it.
Psych:
1) Hillary can, and should, agree to release the thesis.
2) If Hillary didn't believe what she was writing, she shouldn't have written it at all. If she DID believe what she was writing, it's an important document upon which to evaluate her.
I can understand his surprise since nothing he says in his book is either new or particularly interesting. It is pretty much a repeat of what some historians have previously written and received no fanfare. The reason the book has caused a stir is because some reporters were able to quotes passages out of context and make Buchanan look like a Nazi sympathizer.
Given that we are talking bout a thesis, I do not believe she will be punished at the polls, especially in light of the fact that Bush will not be ounished for keeping mum on his drug use 25 years ago..
Be serious. Pat knew this would create headlines and wanted the free publicity. It gets him on the Sunday talk shows and sure beats spending money to place ads.
The day you start demanding George W. Bushs business history, you will see why I feel he is a rather unsavory character. He is a somewhat inept businessman. If that's your idea of a President, fine...looks as tho you'll be getting what you want. All you Frat Boys stick together. :-)
Dan:
Yeah, you're probably right. If that was his aim, he seems pretty crafty, huh? Maybe he's good fodder for public office; saves money, works the media, can articulate positions...hell, HAS positions. He's looking better and better.
Oh, listen to the nonsense...
As to Bush's business history:
Sorry, Judith, but the WP and NYT have both combed his business history for improprieties and found NOTHING. Funny how you excuse the Clintons' various improprieties, for which plenty of evidence exists, and yet damn Bush, when there is neither evidence nor credible ALLEGATION of wrongdoing.
As for him being an "inept" businessman:
Well, no, he can't turn $1,000 into $100,000 by reading the Wall Street Journal and playing cattle futures. But then, who can, absent a stockbroker in the employ of your political patron recording positive moves under YOUR account and negative moves under his bosses' account?
Of course not...in Acespeak, she laid out her future plans for world domination and the New World Order.
But even as a graduate student one of the things that I particularly treasured about the experience was the ability to explore various subjects that are important in day-to-day workings of government, but that we may not have the time to consider in depth at the time issues arise. It was a delight to me to be able to write in a manner unencumbered by the politics of my job or boss. Certainly if I were writing for an audience other than the professor, I might have written very different papers.
Search the candidates' public writings, absolutely. But to delve back several decades into undergraduate papers is misleading and a betrayal of academic freedom.
If they are different, then I have no idea what the ideological leanings of Chris Matthews the Columnist are, because I have never otherwise heard of him.
An interesting interpretation of the Academy.
Apparently the Academy doesn't exist to create and disseminate information and analysis to the public at large. Apparently it works in secret, and has only personal, therapeutic value.
1. You didn't put much thought into your paper then,
2. You haven't done much thinking since then,
3. You have no shame.
But then the list of people I wish I'd never heard of is quite lengthy as it is.
Ace,
The Academy does both, in a sense. It furthers knowledge, but it also takes part in exercises that train the mind. In both instances it fails sometimes, and succeeds sometimes.
This isn't a "term paper" or "notebook." It's a Senior Thesis.
I don't know where you guys went to school, but in some schools this is serious business, requiring a year's worth of research, a junior league version of a Graduate school thesis.
I wrote one. They keep all of them in a sub-sub-sub-basement at the Univerity library.
The notion of a "Senior Thesis" is to ADD to the accumulated store of information/analysis available. It isn't some stupid quiz. It's a paper you usually get money for (to spend on research).
This isn't a "term paper." It's the undergraduate equivalent of a Master's Thesis.
Where the hell did you all go to school?
Bubbaette:
I lowballed it and only got $600, with which I paid rent and bought beer.
One of my classmates-- a fucking GENIUS-- said she wanted to research Ireland and the EC, and got full freight to Ireland for six fucking months.
Genius. Pure Genius. Who the hell knew you could go over the top like that?
I'm getting waves of jealousy about that Ireland trip.
What fucking balls that chick had. Unbelievable. I give her major quals for her audacity.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have done my thesis on my favorite historical topic-- Pirates in the Golden Age-- and gone full-freight to the Carribean for six goddamn months. Swilling rum, diving to photograph pirate wrecks, getting a tan, checking out sixteenth century fortresses.
No one who did an Honors thesis at my college was attempting any such thing
The theory is that this is precisely what you were supposed to be doing.
In reality, of course, you were doing no such thing.
Where did you go to school? I had to pay tuition and then pay my own way for an unpaid internship my senior year. Hell, I even had to pay the student health and student activities fees even though I was all the way across state and could use neither.
Thrakk:
I don't know. Captain Kidd seems okay. Even though he mostly worked the Indian Ocean routes, which I've never been that interested in.
Bubbaette:
I don't want to get into detail, but the thesis option I'm talking about was only offered to a limited number of students. Most seniors didn't write a thesis, and most of those who did didn't get a stipend.
Doesn't that blow your mind about Ireland, though? I was shocked. Floored. Jealous that I hadn't thought of it.
Thrakk:
NO! I just thought of my favorite pirate: John Paul Jones, the only Revolutionary War Captain to win a victory on English soil (he sacked an English town).
Okay. You say he was a privateeer. Tomato, toemahto.
But he's dead now and I doubt that my paper is still in the stacks.
He is viable because he has money and is governor of Texas. He is worthy because he has approximately the same credentials as possessed by the 1992 Democratic nominee.
My guess about GW bush is that he gets the considerable name recognition that his pappy built up free of charge.
"My undergraduate thesis covered the confluence of Marxist-Leninist dogma, methamphetamine and Red White and Blue beer."
Well, now we know what substances were lying on Niner's college desk. I guess when his parents came to visit, he spread his thesis to cover it.
Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar, and went to Yale Law School. He was a multiple-term governor. He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues. He had an excellent record of leadership within his party, particularly among his fellow Dem governors. He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime.
Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale. And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad. And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas.
Please don't bother comparing the two. Tell me what is attractive about Bush other than his war-chest and connections.
How the GOP can be falling down in front of this guy still perplexes me. Or would, if I didn't know what politics was all about: power and money, not principle.
Ha ha ha. God forbid we don't have a law school grad in the White House.
"He was a multiple-term governor."
Ha ha ha. Bush too. And Clinton ran a state that was essentially two pigs and a goat.
"He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues."
Great. He's qualified for a talk show.
"He had an excellent record of leadership within his party, particularly among his fellow Dem governors. He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime."
This public fellatio is unseemly.
"Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale."
So college grades and theses do matter?
"And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad. And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas."
New requirement. A candidate must be controversial.
I have no party allegiances. However, I am mystified by this GW Bush phenomenon. It appears that he is "frontrunner" precisely because his party thinks that "this is a guy who can win." Ideology, experience, expertise, competence, these factors apparently are not very important at all.
Out of curiosity, if G. Dubbya were rumored to have written a Senior Thesis on Chaucerian English, would anyone think it relevant to his quest for the presidency? What if he were rumored to have written a Senior Thesis stating that Jim Crow laws were perfectly reasonable? Would voters have a right to know what he was thinking and whether he had repudiated such thought?
Forget the comparison, it's a fools game. The kind of game you like a bit too much.
Answer my question properly and in a non-evasive manner - what is there attractive about GW Bush that makes you want to vote him into the highest office this country offers?
Ideology, experience, expertise, competence, these factors apparently are not very important at all.
They haven't been before. Why start now?
I place my valuable vote based on precisely these things. I think a lot of people do. I have yet to hear from GW Bush any compelling reason to vote for him. I'm curious as to whether anyone has. Saying he's as demonstrably qualified as Clinton was in 1992, which I dispute, is not a good enough reason.
The comparison is apt. One was more glib than the other. They had and have the same foreign policy experience at the time of their candidacies. They were and are Southern governors, one of a small state, one of a large state. They are Ivy League. They are and were respected by fellow governors. One did college, law school, and run for office. The other did college, Air Reserve, run for office (or campaign for others), business. As for the wives, I'll leave to you the relative import of that nugget, but it seems relative to me in one sense: one had a wife willing to pull her husband's balls out of the fire on 60 Minutes. The other has not as yet had to call upon his spouse for that duty.
In the end, your loving pronouncements notwithstanding, the main difference is that you appear to be in love with one, and not the other.
As for your question, I answered it. He has money, he has momentum, and he looks like a winner. You may not know this, but these are the minimal qualifications - the attraction - of any party's nominee.
Clinton wasn't qualified for the job, Majori. Your claim of "no party allegiance" is laughable.
From Zogby.com:
Opinion of Bill Clinton continues to fall
The overall opinion of Bill Clinton continued its downward trend, a new Zogby America survey reveals.
The survey, taken September 21-23 of 1,005 likely voters throughout the nation, shows that Clinton's overall favorable rating dropped to 44.7% from the 46.8% rating taken in May. Both ratings represent yearly lows since he received a 46.7% rating in September 1998.
The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/-3.2%.
The survey also shows Clinton's positive job performance rating leveling out at 48.4%, a slight increase over the 47.4% rating in May, but a dramatic decline from the 60.5% positive rating for job performance in January.
He was a multiple-term governor.
Of a backwater state which he ran as his personal fiefdom with the help of organized crime. The only thing it qualified him for is running a Banana Republic.
Bush is governor of one of the largest states in the union which our performs Arkansas in every measure.
He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues.
Translation: He could repeat the party line without laughing.
He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime.
This was not a good thing. His wife was not a candidate and had no business imposing herself into the government.
Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale.
Have you seen his transcripts? Do you have a link perhaps?
And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad.
His record is far from poor as a businessman. While he has suffered some downturns as all successful businessmen have, his successes far outweighed his failures.
And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas.
I didn't realize that controversy was the hallmark of a great leader. I thought leaders avoided controversy in order to accomplish their goals.
One final note. Clinton didn't earn the name Slick Willie because he slicked his hair back.
I coulda said presidential candidates, but I restrained myself.
Ace --
"I don't hear Gore denouncing Buchanan, matie."
Yawn.
In case you missed it, Ace, the issue was a comparison of the GOP candidates' response to the threat by another GOP candidate to bolt the party. Senator McCain took a principled position; Governor Bush wimped out. I'm not surprised you want to change the subject.
The problem for Governor Bush, of course, isn't that he's been silent about Buchanan; I could settle for that. The problem is the Governor's craven plea for Buchanan to stay in the GOP because the Governor thinks he needs the votes. If, despite a commanding lead in the polls and a war chest unparalleled by his opponents, the Governor still can't summon up the courage to tell Pat Buchanan to get lost -- well, he's not much of a man, is he?
Gee, but maybe he'll do better when he's really under pressure. We should vote for him and then we'll find out.
Yeah.
It's no use. The man is positively smitten.
I agree. What was vomit-inducing was his attempt to state that he didn't mean what he said, or he didn't quite write it, or he didn't do the things the letter said he did, etc . . . There is honor to opposition to the war, honor that Clinton pitched for political expedience.
Because individuals who squawk about Bush Jr.'s credentials are made to look blinded by ardor when it is demonstrated that Bush Jr. has credentials strikingly similar to the 1992 Democratic nominee.
Like many voters, I look for displayed competence in the substantive issues that accompany a Presidential election. Again, this may be humorous to you. Clinton in 1992 was one of the finest political campaigners I have ever witnessed precisely because his grasp of and insight into the substantive issues was so demonstrably solid. In all honesty, both Bradley and Gore have shown their capabilities in this regard. Bush most decidedly has not. I'm wondering why he is your candidate.
Because one wants to be President and one already is....because Ace would rather throw up anything unfavorable about Clinton to bolster neoBush.
Were you so captured by Clinton 13 months prior to his election?
Does this mean that substance, and demonstrated expertise and experience, have nothing valuable to do with the way we choose a President? Are you fucking kidding?
That suggests to me that the Repubs only need to run a reasonably moderate, thinking candidate with demonstrated backbone to win the next election....but there are none on the slate.
If Buchanan bolts, it can give the GOP candidate the foil to approximate moderation. I have no evidence that Bush Jr., Dole, or McCain lack backbone.
I have politely asked you at least twice to stop with the comparisons, and give me some good reasons why Bush should be elected to the highest office in the country.
If you wish to focus exclusively on comparisons between Clinton 1992 and Bush 1999, I think you will be proven to hold a shallow argument. Maybe we can leave that for later. First make anything resembling a decent case for Bush. Please.
Thoughtful,
You would not consider McCain to be a moderate and thinking candidate?
Niner,
Would you have voted FDR over Wilkie?
I have politely declined your request with regard to comparison because your initial proposition was specious. I have since revealed it to be so, so I will move on.
You asked me why he was the frontrunner? I answered. Again, money, momentum, big state, a good chance, family name, and the aura of invincibility and moderation (we shall see how that aura holds up).
Now you now ask me to make a case for his election? As it is 13 months prior to the election and I am not a supporter of Bush, I am an inappropriate choice for this task.
All things being equal?
As equal as can be.
FDR was 2 term incumbent President. Willkie had never held office and was the head of one of the large brokerage houses, I think.
Can anyone else here please tell me why George Bush Jr. is a worthy candidate for President of the USA?
Niner, I have yet to see GWB (er that's not the George Washington Bridge) demonstrate any backbone. I have yet to see him take a stand on much of anything.
Majori, my last statement is to what I attribute his popularity. Remember how popular Colin Powell was until he started taking stands on issues? BTW, where is he now? He would certainly be a more attractive candidate than anyone the GOP is running now.
Not prone to changing horses in midstream, as the expression of the time went.
But Thoughtful, how can you say that?
Bush has said he wants to keep the sodomy laws on the books in the State of Texas as an expression of society's disapproval of homosexuality, that gay people should not be permitted to adopt, and there should be no civil rights laws for gays.
He's taken a whole lot of stands.
Bush also had a ton of gay friends at college and is a sniveling, deceitful opportunist. A lot like Forbes, actually.
I tend to agree with you on McCain. As to Bush, Jr., that is why we should be have candidate debates. As I recall from '88 (the last time there was no incumbent) we had several debates in the fall before. I have yet to hear of any this year, although Gore is today proposing some.
There is a factor of fatigue which builds in with one party which has held office for a long time. Also, since I tend to trust and distrust both parties equally, I'm inclined to vote in "new" goons whenever possible. But there must be at least a decent show of addressing the issues and matters of substance. It is astonishing to me that one of the huge political behemoths in this country is apparently throwing its weight behind a cipher, when a half-way decent candidate could definitely win with some comfort.
I don't see why Bush Jr. is de facto any less qualified than Clinton was. He's a governor. Do I want him to be President? Shrug. Not particularly. The country won't fall into a decline if he wins, though.
And now for something completely different ...
***
Bauer Denies Affair Rumors
By Douglas Kiker
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, Sept. 29, 1999; 1:12 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– Gary Bauer, surrounded by his family, denied speculation today that he had an extramarital affair.
"These rumors and character assassinations are disgusting, outrageous and sick," Bauer said at a press conference. "They are trash-can politics at its worst."
... Charlie Jarvis, Bauer's former national campaign chairman, told The Associated Press today he had warned Bauer "in the clearest terms" that he was spending too much time with a female campaign aide and it created a bad appearance. Jarvis, who now works for rival candidate Steve Forbes, did not say Bauer and the aide had an affair.
The Forbes campaign was adamant that it had nothing to do with Jarvis' assertion ...
***
Are the Republicans poised to bolster their public image as the gynecologically-obssessed party? Read the entire article here.
Cal --
"I don't see why Bush Jr. is de facto any less qualified than Clinton was."
Maybe so, but -- and you know I worship you in all things, so this cannot be a criticism -- so what?
The first question is whether Bush is more or less qualified than Dole, McCain, Forbes, or the other GOP candidates; and assuming he's the Republican nominee, whether he's better qualified than the Democratic nominee. When folks argue that the Governor is as qualified as the incumbent who's not on the ballot, it leads me to believe that they aren't comfortable comparing him with the candidates who are on the ballot.
Nonsense. The GOP needs its far right votes. And, they will follow Buchanan.
As for stances on issues that will attract the great mostly washed moderate American middle, the two issues that will ultimately decide the 2000 election will be gun control and abortion. Bush loses on both.
Neither gun control (agin' it) nor abortion (keep it legal) will decide the election, imo.
I think the election will be decided by who is seen as the more likely (given that only two candidates will matter, neither of whom I will vote for) to continue prosperity. The next factor will be the strength of Clinton fatigue. I suspect the latter will start to wain towards Nov., '00, tightening up a race between Gore and Bush. Bradley would have far less of a problem in that regard.
Thoughtful,
I was teasing. Yours is my point exactly. Bush is a coward on gay rights. He knows he's wrong, as does Forbes. It's a major reason why I can't stand either.
Actually, I prefer football, a man's game.
I'm also not a Mom. A mother, perhaps.
I should check out Ace's pool, though I'm not much into team sports anymore. I ski, and during the summer, think about skiing.
Bush pere, whom I voted against gleefully, was a victim of circumstance with the economy, at least to an extent. The recovery did in fact occur while he was still in office, just not early enough for the voting public to notice the improvement.
I know they do outnumber me (hard not to outnumber gay libertarian skiers, actually), but gun control does not have quite the steam as an issue that some people think. And abortion is not going to be outlawed, ever. It is not threatened, and many people understand that; that's why they went ahead and voted for Reagan, an alleged abortion foe.
I happen to agree with you that there had been a start to recovery of the economy shortly before the 1992 election and that it came too late for Bush. However, the kudos for the remarkable economic record of the past six years really must go to Clinton and Rubin and Greenspan.
Ronski --
President Bush was a victim of economic circumstance to some extent, true: but he was entirely responsible for the public perception that he did not understand -- or care about -- the discomfort felt by average voters when the economy took a dive. Governor Clinton's line about "feeling our pain" was a direct shot at Bush's seeming disengagement.
janjon,
I didn't say Bush wasn't inept. He ran the worst campaign imaginable. Clinton has done little for the economy except not wreck it, thanks, in part, to the GOP who stopped Hillary Care.
Greenspan, who remains something of a libertarian, deserves some admiration, mostly for restoring confidence by keeping a steady hand.
I agree about Bush's societal tin ear. I knew he would lose in early October of that year, when a country song was being played a lot with the refrain, "The president has a job, but I don't." Can't remember the singer.
Remember, Bush's family dressed for dinner all during the Depression.
Well, let me just say that I respectfully disagree and let it go at that. He started by listening to "experts" even before he took office (granted, he wanted to be sure to run the economy in a way to help insure his reelection) and he stuck with that "expert" advice in his various economic policies. He deserves praise for his economic performance.
Greenspan is something of a libertarian? This is the same person who warned of the need to take action to rein in the stockmarket's "irrational exuberance"? The same person who organized the bailout of the hedge fund, Long Term Capital?
janjon,
We agree to disagree. It is my philosophy in life that more people should do that.
So there.
Dantheman,
Yes. I did say something of. He was a follower of Rand in his youth. He is certainly no socialist.
janjon,
Doesn't suprise me. I like his wife, though.
The year was late in 1963 or early in 1964. My wife and I were on vacation : we flew from Okinawa to Clark AB in the Phillipines (now under volcanic ash). We were in Manila and took a taxi to the cemetary honoring the American dead form WW II (if you think Arlington is impressive, you should see this place!) They were in the midst of an election. Our taxi driver spoke very good English. I asked about the election and he said he didn't mind talking about it. At the end, we agreed that USA politics and Phillipine politics had a lot in common. We came to that conclusion after I asked him if he would mind telling us who he was going to vote for. His reply : "I am told that the new man is going to be for the little people. However, I am going to vote to return Mr. Magsaysay to office. It is my hope that he has stolen enough already and won't have to steal quite so much in his next term. If we elect the new guy, he will be at the beginning of his stealing!" The "new guy" was Ferdinand Marcos!
Of all the current candidates, do we know who has already stolen enough?
ranheim --
Man, your level of cynicism and despair have pretty much been pegged when you get to comparing U.S. and Filipino corruption.
I visited the Phillipines (from Kadina) long after Marcos had first been elected; he still hadn't stolen enough to suit his wife and himself. The country was the worst I'd ever seen.....
My father used to say he voted Republican because they had more money than the Democrats and would steal less. I'm not sure if it was a joke or not.
It's a nice theory, anyhow.
McALLEN, Texas (AP) - Hidalgo County commissioners have voted to implement a ``living wage'' increase for county employees over the next two years.
It might be the first Texas county to vote for such a policy -one that guarantees a wage higher than the federally set minimum wage.
The pay increases will go into effect in January 2000, raising the minimum wage for county workers from $5.15 an hour to $6.75 an hour. In 2001, the hourly wage will increase to $7.50 an hour.
Valley Interfaith is a community advocacy organization that spearheaded the push for wages high enough to allow workers to live without government assistance.
``It wasn't an overnight panacea, but a big victory,'' said the Rev. Jerry Frank, a Valley Interfaith leader who originally had hoped the $7.50 wage increase would happen on January 2000 instead of over a two-year period. ``The Valley is cheap labor market U.S.A. We are on the road to changing that.'
.......................
A big deal for Texas. County judges and commissioners throughout
the state must be clutching their chests.
Judith --
Let's see ... that's you, me, and ranheim. I wonder how many other Moties have spent time on Okinawa?
PE --
Okinawa proper, or the Kerama Islands off the western coast? I heard the reefs around Keramas, especially Tokashiki-jima, were pretty spectacular. I never cared for snorkelling, but the shallow-water reefs looked awfully pretty when you flew over them at low altitude.
"The real attacks on the Catholic religion are poverty, ignorance, hopelessness, blind fear and the lack of loving communication between human beings. The values which sustain the religion are trust, compassion, honesty, dignity, love. Those are not things found on a wall someplace. They reside in the heart."
...more of Breslin
PE --
Never made it down to Ishigaki, though Mrs Shark did when she was doing her fellowship. Did you ever get out to see the Ernie Pyle memorial on Ie-jima?
I don't recall (in 1962 - 1965) any way to get to the Ernie Pyle Memorial from Okinawa. Neither my wife nor I are into fishing; swimming; diving; snorkeling; etc. So we never rented a boat in our
2 1/2 years there. I wonder if that was possible then?
Was a side trip like that available when y'all were there?
ranheim --
There was a marina in Chatan-cho, a short way up Highway 58 from Kadena AB, that had boats available for rent. I say there was such a place because it was pretty much destroyed in a typhoon in 1992, and I don't know if it's been rebuilt. You could also rent boats at White Beach, on the Pacific side of the island, or at the Okuma recreation center north of Nago.
If you were conversant in Japanese, I'm sure you could hire a boat at a number of other places, too; but Mrs Shark suffers from dreadful seasickness, so it really never occurred to me to ask her about getting a boat. She'd have slugged me. For a girl, she hits pretty hard.
When you were on Okinawa, the Air Force had a communications station on the western end of Ie-jima. It's pretty much closed now, though I think there's still some relay equipment there. Ie-jima had a small airstrip, but it was most easily accessible through a regular ferry service; the ride took about 30-45 minutes.
The Ernie Pyle memorial is in a small field (a rice paddy, I think, but I'm not sure) just south of Ie-yama. It's built on the spot where Mr. Pyle was killed.
Ernie Pyle's grave site.
A quick search revealed this picture of his memorial site, but it's not very good.
Cal --
Not bad for a quick search.
I had my wife read your post to see if we could jog each others memories. Both of us remember the name Nago; none of the rest. In our time on the island, we would go up to the hospital on some occasions; rarely as far as Kadena.
Going north of Kadena in the 60s was not encouraged. God knows what the Marines were doing at their 3 camps up there. We never saw them in our dispensary or socially. If it was not forbidden, it was certainly discouraged.
We Naha Flight Surgeons were never made to feel welcombe at Kadena. I have always thought that was because of the U 2s. They were over-flying China/Taiwan/Vladivostak while we were there. It was a deep dark secret; but, we, at least, knew that.
I really dis-like our government. I see nothing redeeming about a democracy. We were founded as a republic. I believe in a republic; not a democracy.
Burning cross shocks residents of small town
SPUR, Texas (AP) - Moments after hearing several gunshots, followed by cackling laughter and the roaring of an unmuffled engine, Ronald Johnson crept out on his front porch in the early morning hours to find a horror he never thought he would see again.
In the intersection between several homes in the predominantly black neighborhood lay an 8-foot tall cross, covered in cloth, doused in gasoline and set on fire.
........
more on cross burning
ranheim --
Chatan-cho is the town immediately west of Kadena. It's largely reclaimed land, behind a seawall that may not have been built when you were there. Mrs Shark and I lived in Chatan-cho for about a year and a half before we moved on base prior to Little Shark's birth.
White Beach is pretty much due east of Kadena. It's a Navy facility, and not very big. I only got out there a couple of times.
Okuma recreation center is one of the few plots of land in Japan that the U.S. Department of Defense owns in fee simple, rather than occupying as a tenant under a lease. It's on a small peninsula on the west side of the island, located north of Nago. It's not a very elaborate place, but it books up pretty solidly throughout the year. If you never ventured north of Kadena, though, I'm sure you never saw it.
You mentioned "the hospital" -- did you mean the USAF facility at Kadena or the USN hospital on Camp Lester? It may amuse you to know that USNH Lester is still there, pretty much as it would have been in the early 60s, though I hear the Japanese have agreed to build a new hospital to replace it.
In our time, the hospital was mainly AS Army. It was south of Kadena.
What in hell were the Marines doing north of Kadena? We, at Naha, never once got an inkling! Did you?
What did having a baby on Okinawa cost you? My wife and I had 2 sons (she was 5 months pregnant when she joined my on the island) while there. Each C section cost us $2 a day : officer's food!
ranheim --
The Northern Training Area is still there. Periodically the Marines attack it. Other Marines defend it. They appear to have a good time.
The Joint Forces Brig is at Camp Hansen, in Kinville; I used to go up there periodically for pretrial confinement hearings. Never made it to the NTA, though. I understand it's pretty rugged terrain.
I think you're referring to the same hospital; USNH Lester is just south of Kadena and just north of Camp Foster. I didn't realize it once belonged to the Army. Little Shark's birth there was free of charge -- must be because of some damn Great Society welfare program or something. [g]
Well, if no one else wants it ...
Not quite as good as a millenial, but more sinister.
Whoops. This looks ugly:
***
Japanese nuclear accident injures workers
Thousands warned to stay indoors
TOKYO (CNN) -- At least 14 workers were exposed to radiation Thursday when a leak developed at a Japanese nuclear processing plant. Three of the workers were hospitalized and thousands of nearby residents were warned to stay indoors.
The Japanese government asked the U.S. military to help deal with the accident that may not be under control. The United States turned down Japan's request, saying U.S. forces were not equipped to handle the situation ... Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka said late Thursday that there was "strong possibility" of a "criticality incident" -- meaning the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining.
***
Read the entire article here.
More on the Japanese nuclear accident:
It took place in Tokaimura, a town of 34,000 people located 70 miles northeast of Tokyo. There have been at least two incidents there in the past two and a half years: an explosion and fire in March 1997 which injured over 30 workers, and leakage of radioactive waste, reported in August 1997.
Read about the explosion here.
Read about the leak here.
We lived very near Kadena about 2 blocks from Koza 4 Corners in a guest hotel (Japanese) that had 7 apartments for rent and 14 guest apartments for businessmen. It was really nice and we could hear the hyena from the zoo every night...we were a few blocks from there.
We traveled everywhere on the island and rented boats and visited outer islands but I don't think we saw the Ernie Pyle memorial. Did you ever visit the Peace Garden, with the memorials of every nation spread out over the park?
We had friends who lived in Naha, Ishikawa, at the Marine bases, and elsewhere. We were there in the early 80s and it was my first exposure to the rest of the "world"; I'd never been anywhere before. My husband had lived there before and had Okinawan friends; we spent several holidays with locals and loved their generosity. My favorite Okinawan holiday was Oban. I'll never forget my 4 years there...I loved the food and the gracious way of life. It was idyllic for me; my husband was pleased that I adapted so well.
Judith --
I'm trying to remember where Koza 4 Corners is located -- was it outside Gate One (on the western side of Kadena) or Gate Two (on the east)?
The Peace Park sounds familiar, but I'll have to ask Mrs Shark when we visited it. Our favorite tourist spot was Nakagusuku Castle, the ruins of which are located west of Kadena on a ridge at one of the highest elevations on the island. It's one of the few places where you can see both the Pacific and the East China Sea at the same time, and it's a great picnic spot.
Was Kanda's art gallery open when you were there? Mrs Shark and I dropped a lot of yen there during out 3-1/2 years on the island.
Koza 4 Corners was outside....hmmmmm....god, I can't remember which gate! I think it was Gate 1. It was on the side where China Petes was...
One of the most unusual things we did while there was accompany my husbands cousins wife to an island burial site that contained her parents remains. It was on this tiny island and she and her daughter went there to clean the bones and wrap them and place them in a "turtle back grave". They do this one year after the death. It was not something you're likely to experience very often. It was very moving.
Judith --
China Pete's was located across the street from Gate Two when I was there. It was a fairly new building, though, so I don't know if it used to be elsewhere. Gate One was the one next to the golf course; Gate Two was the one near the USO. I think Koza 4 Corners was the out Gate Two; when you hit the intersection, a right-hand turn would lead you down to Camp Foster. Does that sound right?
We never went to a funeral --fortunately, none of our friends or relatives died while we were there -- but Mrs Shark learned a lot about Okinawan burial traditions during her fellowship. Fascinating stuff. I'd almost forgotten the turtle back tombs -- some of the best real estate on the island belongs to the ancestors of the current residents.
Click on photo 
Yes, it was Gate 2..."I'll always remember my wonderful years on Okinawa, blah blah blah" but I can't seem to remember a thing about the actual location of my HOME there! Jeez...I can't believe I forgot the USO, scene of my Trivial Pursuit Chanpionship!
Did yo ever go to on a pottery tour or to see they way they made the Bengata cloth? Or the glass blowing factory, where they took recycled saki and beer bottles and turned them into beautiful utile objects?
At approximately the halfway point between Naha and Kadena there was a dance hall & bar. I don't recall if it was locally owned or not. However, my single colleagues could go there and talk to oriental females. Any other arrangement/s between the two were over-looked by my wife and I. As best as I recall, we got to the Officer's Club at Kadena only once. My wife served as older sister/mother to most of the M.D. staff of the Naha Dispensary. For a time, I was the only married M.D. on the staff. So between feeding them at our house and them reciprocating at the Naha O Club, we had little time to head north.
At Naha, the civilian Ryukyu's airline was located. About once a week 2 or 3 of us M.D.s would head to the civilian terminal to eat Yake Soba(spelling). Consisted of the meat left over from the day previous + fresh cooked vegetables and pasta. It was wonderful stuff.
We got out of the USAF because of me; not my wife. She had maid help; she traveled widely; had disposable income; was the queen bee for a group of very compatible doctors. What was not to like?
The handwriting following Albuquerque was on the wall for me, though. More and more time at a desk. Patient care would slowly, slowly disappear. LtCol Flight Surgeons were to consider themselves candidates for the job of THE Flight Surgeon of the USAF. "Flying a desk" was not for me.
But, both of us look back at our USAF days - particularly Okinawa - fondly.
I hope the three of us have not bored you others too greatly.
Hold on there, Chester. I wasn't responding to your post. I was referring to the recent news item (for which I couldn't find any links of my own) that Clinton is proposing to forgive the debt of the "poorest" countries. Disaster aid is one thing. Forgiving debt is another.
I'm in favor of loan forgiveness (if this is what you are referring to).
However:
Now I know part of the answer, but doesn't it send an incongruous message to the citizens to have the IMF defending their program on the basis that almost all debts are current, while simultaneously the administration is proposing debt forgiveness because countries are so badly in arrears that they can never repay?
I'm fascinated by the fact that so many people have (IMHO) an irrational fear of nuclear accidents as compared to other types of disasters. This fear has contributed to the deaths of thousands.
I counted 4 posts and maybe 3 links about the accident in Japan...does that seem excessive to you?
Judith --
Never got to a Bengata factory (if that's the right word), but we did go to a glass-blower's place down near Naha -- as I recall, it was a short distance from the limestone caves, though I don't think we hit both spots on the same trip.
yep, I'm sure there will be no more said on this issue. Uh-huh.
Dusty --
Actually, the nuclear accident happened several hours ago. I think it's getting attention because (a) it's a man-made disaster (if calling it a "disaster" at this point is appropriate) and (b) it's novel. Don't forget, the Taiwanese earthquake was the third in about a month.
More people have been killed by an earthquake in Mexico today. How many posts discussing that?
ranheim --
There was nothing boring about your posts, buddy.
Don't forget, the Taiwanese earthquake was the third in about a month.
I guess that's why the press stopped covering shooting sprees.
Click on photo 
I had a letter from a friend in Athens yesterday and he said the Athenians ae in a blind panic about another earthquake coming; some scientists are there now releasing prognostications about the next one being in 4 days or 18 days or whenever and my friend said people try to leave town in a rush every time one of these guys talks on TV. He said there have been more people killed in traffic accidents while people are running away from Athens than in any earthquake that has hit the city.
That was Fort Worth...not to be picky but we are a big city that is always being described as "30 miles west of Dallas".
Not to be a snob, but you're lucky I remembered that it was in Texas. (g)
I mean, oftentimes it's "one of those large, unattractive states in the middle somewhere".
Ha Ha Ha.......
Anyway, the point is that earthquakes are becoming old news and the gun-shooting spree in Fort Worth received ho hum coverage.
If we started having a lot of nuclear accidents, one of two things would happen: 1) people would start to get very nervous about how these places manage safety or 2) they, too, would start to become ho hum.
Unattractive states in the middle?!
I won't say a thing about LA'S TRAFFIC and/or SMOG if you can find a word other than unattractive.
You may say anything you like about the heathen southland.
I am comforted!
Dusty --
You focused on the habituation factor while ignoring the factor I listed first: that nuclear accidents are man-made disasters. Both factors affect how much attention a disaster gets.
For someone who worships me, you were dreadfully inattentive to the other factor I mentioned: the potential long-term and universal nature of serious nuclear accidents.
Cal --
[genuflecting]
How right you are. I most humbly apologize for failing to instantly hail the undeniable accuracy of your observation and abjectly note that I was, after all, responding only to Dusty's commentary on my earlier post. Still, I recognize should have acknowledged your wisdom forthwith.
I grovel for your forgiveness.
I'm still mulling over your point (as distinct from ignoring it).
It is an intriguing possibility, not the least of which is the fact that it is testable. Anyone have a Nexis account and some spare budget?
Dusty --
Well if you're mulling over my point, how can I complain? I'm not sure a NEXIS account would help you with what I took to be your initial point -- the comparative excess of posts in The Mote on the accident -- but you might want to look at the media coverage of this event and the ones at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. So far I think the media has been quite restrained.
I suspect at least two of the workers at the plant in Japan are going to die, but no one has opened a betting line on it or anything. Yet. Maybe Fox News will pick up on that, though ...
Actually, there is a large American air base near Tokyo, I believe in the same general direction as the site of the accident. I wonder if/when the U.S. news media will pick up on the potential local interest side of the story. That might generate some interesting coverage.
I thought it was clear that my observation re Mote posts was a proxy for similar weighting in the press in general. I'll bet that Three Mile Island had more press than other incidents involving as much actual or potential damage by a factor of ten. Even if we carefully select man-made incidents.
Any thoughts on why the press should care more about man causing distress to man, than nature causing the same amount of distress?
The first thought that leaps to mind is the potential to blame someone, but this may be bias at work.
I can't help but observe that press coverage of man's potential contribution to global warming exceeds the press coverage of a more likely candidate by a factor of probably 100. But who knows, maybe this is laziness and inertia.
Dusty --
"Any thoughts on why the press should care more about man causing distress to man, than nature causing the same amount of distress?"
People die of natural causes in great numbers every day. The occasional shooting spree is hardly a statistical blip by comparison; but the shooting spree gets the headline. Man-made disasters are by their nature avoidable; natural disasters less so. I suspect people are more engaged by things they think they can do something about than by things they must passively react to.
"The first thought that leaps to mind is the potential to blame someone, but this may be bias at work."
Cynical, but probably pretty close to the truth. [g]
Japan declares halt to critical nuclear reaction
Source: AFP | Published: Friday October 1 8:28:09 AM
TOKYO, Oct 1 -Japan's government today declared that a critical self-sustaining nuclear reaction at a uranium processing plant had stopped, Jiji Press said.
"A member of the government's atomic power safety commission has confirmed a halt to criticality on the spot at 6.15am (0715 AEST)" said the news agency.
An official of the regional Ibaraki government told AFP a neutron monitor at the site of the accident "plunged to zero", indicating the reaction at Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo, may have ended.
Okay, the nuke problem in Japan looks to be subsiding. Here's another disaster, this one posted by request from Dusty ...
***
Earthquake Rocks Southern Mexico
By Niko Price
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, September 30, 1999; 3:45 p.m. EDT
MEXICO CITY -- A strong earthquake rocked southern Mexico on Thursday, toppling church towers and old homes in Oaxaca and shaking buildings in the capital. At least seven people were killed and an unknown number injured.
The quake had a preliminary magnitude of 7.5 and it was centered 275 miles southeast of Mexico City, the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colo. said. It hit at about 11:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. EDT) ...
***
Read the entire story here.
The unleashed powr of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
Someone I worked for once (20 years ago) was a writer with the Paris Herald Tribune when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Presciently, he wrote a headline that went something like: "Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan: Face of War Changes Forever."
DETROIT, Michigan, September 30, 1999 (ENS) - The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has seized a tractor trailer of sterilized Canadian hemp seed on its way to a large U.S. company that has been selling hemp birdseed blends legally for years.
Following the August 9 seizure, U.S. Customs and the DEA demanded that Kenex, Canada's largest producer and processor of industrial hemp products, recall previous shipments of other hemp products such as oil, granola bars, horse bedding and animal feed. Kenex is based in Paincourt, Ontario, 60 miles from Detroit.
More on commercial hemp and the asinine war on drugs
I don't have the figures, but my recollection is that coal is hundreds, if not thousands of times more dangerous in terms of deaths per megawatt. Injuries will have a different ratio, but it is still orders of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear.
Our tax dollars at work.
Amaxen --
" ... I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds of deaths per year in coal mining accidents alone, especially in the former Soviet Union/E.Europe."
Neither would I.
Of course, if you're going to include Ivanland in the figures for coal, you've got to do the same for nuclear; and if you're going to count coal mining accidents (as opposed to coal-burning power plant accidents), you've got to count accidents in the uranium mines, as well.
Not to be discouraging but ... good luck getting those figures.
It's the liberal media.
moonflower:
What epithets? That he's wooden and wonky? These are always presented, from what I've seen, as hindrances to the popular appeal he's going to need in his run for the presidency - and not as any indication of some moral or character flaw. Even he acknowledges and jokes about these shortcomings, and works hard to try to overcome them.
Reagan, evidently, WAS himself, whatever it was. Who knows? Maybe "wooden" is a lot easier to live with than "charismatic."
At any rate, this "Zelig" approach to Reagan's hagiography is shamelessly lame; the average ten-year-old moron can come up with situations in which he interacts with famous historical figures. At least the ten-year-old has enough class to not attempt to pass such bullshit off as actual history.
Ronnie has been given a pass because--as difficult as it is for some of us to comprehend--most people like the man.
I find Reagan to be extremely likable, on the basis of personality. I always got a grandfatherly vibe from the man while he was president. That is immaterial to who would make a good president though; if we picked by who gave me the best vibe, we'd either have President Lemmy or President Nina Hartley.
I understand the concrete reasons Reagan has gotten an easy deal out of the media, but they are mainly the same reasons Clinton has gotten teh same deal -- most of 'em are supremely lazy, living on their reputations, waiting for the next parcel of journalistic meat to be tossed their way. They know their market is easy to please, and do not expend any effort in servicing them.
"Yet another paean to my anal-retentive nature. Argh!"
Sounds like a real paean in the ass, Cartman.
Yeah, it's my cross to bear. Suffice to say that there's a reason I was once the fourth-best speller in the entire state of CA -- because I'm uptight about that stupid shit.
If only I could figure out a way to get paid for such nonsense, I'd be one happy Cartman.
President Nina Hartley!
Now THAT is a thought.
I also agree with most of what I've read wrt Ronnie Raygun. I have no grandfatherly feelings for the putz however. I wholely loathe his presidency. I will seperate the current man, from those loathesome eight years and the four Bushwacked years that followed. As a liberal at heart, with realist attitudes, the administrations that controlled this countries future during the eighties and early nineties were military expanssionist, empirist, good ol'boy back door money takers(just a shot, don' know nothin concrete), star wars fucked in the head idiots. Damn BushII for having the stupidity to bring it up as a focus of his military platform. I hate star wars, who needs some f'in laser to shoot down some f'in bomb. Those bombs will not be harmless when detenated in space. What will happen isn't something I know, I don't want to know at this point. If nuclear missles can legitamately be shot down with lasers in space, the consequences will not be benign. Let alone the waste of resources which are only a smoke screen for military contract greed and misuse. There is no way in hell that those lasers will shoot down enough missiles to make the targeted locations "safe" it's ludicrous! I don't care what computer generated models tell us, those are only as good as the input they're given! Damn!
I'm done I suppose. More later if the topic contiues.
Bad news for Warren.
moon --
Unfair. Governor Bush has many strongly-held beliefs.
For example, he believes he wants to be President. And he believes that he shouldn't have to tell us about certain portions of his past. He may even believe that if he does, he won't get elected.
Yeah, Nina Hartley for President. Just imagine what the "inaugural ball" would be like....
If this country weren't so weird about sex, we wouldn't be having these "ohmygodhefux" concerns.
I like the way you think.
A . . . ball with Nina Hartley!
Then ask yourself this question: Was the country better off after Reagan's tenure than before it?
Then, while you're enjoying our prosperity despite your contempt for the administration primarily responsible for it, consider this quote:
"If you pick up a starving dog...and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between a dog...and a man." - Mark Twain
If you are broken hearted over the fall of the U.S.S.R., as most Liberals are, then the answer to your questions is a resounding "no!" There is no rationality behind the above posts, just rant
And though many of them have gone to "private" industry, they've been employed in position where their years of experience are put to use primarily in lobbying. Excuse me if I don't think that an improvement.
Your comments/question beg questions of their own. They will also require polling, and empirical study to prove a point. Neither of which I have time for. So, I will give off the cuff opinion instead.
Since you suggest we are better off after the Reagan administration I will believe that must be true for a portion of people. However, with my own experiences proving the opposite until many years after those strained years with Ronnie and his pals, I must say I am not benefitted from many of the economic policies of that time.
The sweeping generalization that we are better off, has always spurred contempt from me. Yet, I don't doubt the admisitration benefitted some. What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day. I'm just sick of Iraq! Who the hell cares anymore. Let Insane have his dictatorship back. Let him kill his people without us.
Ronnie Raygun was to me a figure head of the evil empire, that was his U.S. expanssionist regime. He was also a trickle down fuck head who can shove that bit of crapola right up his ass.
Your comments/question beg questions of their own. They will also require polling, and empirical study to prove a point. Neither of which I have time for. So, I will give off the cuff opinion instead.
Since you suggest we are better off after the Reagan administration I will believe that must be true for a portion of people. However, with my own experiences proving the opposite until many years after those strained years with Ronnie and his pals, I must say I am not benefitted from many of the economic policies of that time.
The sweeping generalization that we are better off, has always spurred contempt from me. Yet, I don't doubt the admisitration benefitted some. What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day. I'm just sick of Iraq! Who the hell cares anymore. Let Insane have his dictatorship back. Let him kill his people without us.
Ronnie Raygun was to me a figure head of the evil empire, that was his U.S. expanssionist regime. He was also a trickle down head who can shove that bit of crapola right up his .
Bubb:
It used to be that working for the government was respectable -- you would never get rich that way, but you could feel that you were of service. Now it seems that the only thing lower than public employees in public opinion, are felons.
Maybe it was the state you work/ed in. My older sister worked for the federal government for 5 years before Reagan took office. During that time (during and just after HS), I developed a very warped sense of the work-a-day world. Because I would always hear her talking about what she had accomplished on any given work day - got her hair done, did her taxes, renewed her license (a 4 - 6 hour process, in NY), went to the doctor, talked to 5 or 10 friends on the phone...
Probably my most frequently asked question of her during that time was, "Whadja, have the day off?" The answer, of course, was always "no".
She hated Reagan. Shortly after he started, she had to start working, and worrying about her job.
I can't think of a time in history when government workers have been well regarded. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Just giving the facts, ma'am.
Actually my point was not that civil servants gained any more respect when Reagan took office, although he did sort of say what everyone knew all along. And when the jobs are being cut right and left, and the new supervisors start asking for an accounting of your time, it's time to start producing or get the hell out.
On the other hand, I worked for NY State all through the Reagan years (which also happened to be the Cuomo years), and I can tell you that its workforce was full of drunkards, sluggards, slackers and embezzlers when I started, and they were all fatter, lazier and richer when I left.
And when the jobs are being cut right and left, and the new supervisors start asking for an accounting of your time, it's time to start producing or get the hell out.
Well, I've never seen any sign of it. Government workers have a low reputation. I don't even know (or much care) whether it's deserved or not. I was merely commenting on the relationship of Reagan to this perception.
No, Clinton inspires strong feelings. Carter and Bush are the big yawns.
Cal:
Oh, I agree. And that reputation is well deserved, for the most part. And apparently (obviously) the smaller the gov't entity, the less shenanigans.
I work for county gov't now, and it's bliss, because I like to work and I hate seeing people milking the taxpayers. But I doubt that many counties are as rigorous or dedicated about in its insistence on production as this one is.
In self-auditing our compliance with national standards, one of the stickiest things I've come across is a standard which requires that no employee can be dismissed without just cause. Well, I have HR fax over their Presonnel P&P, and lo and behold, we have a problem. It says, and I'm not kidding:
****** County reserves the right to dismiss any employee at any time, with or without just cause.
Likewise, any employee is free to leave employment with ****** County of his/her own will, for any reason, without cause or prior notification.
strike about in the 2nd paragraph...
Were you better off after Reagan's tenure than you were before it?
Not really. Maybe if I had worked for a defense contractor, I would have been.
Was the country better off after Reagan's tenure than before it?
Militarily, sure. Financially, no. Realisitically, Gorbachev bears some responsibility for us winning the Cold War too -- he realized that Reagan could and would outspend the Soviet Union by far, and the USSR just couldn't compete with us anymore. But Reagan created that Cold War hysteria during his tenure by using the cooked numbers that Robert Gates and the rest of Team B put out. How much money did we piss directly down the drain on Star Wars, $30-60 billion, depending on who you ask. That's a lot of money for nothing, but it's exemplary of the level of cronyism that went on between Reagan's administration, the Pentagon, and the defense contractors.
In the end, Reagan's administration was reflective of the man himself -- seemingly good-natured, fraught with platitudes and homilies, but with no real substance. He made us feel very good about taking money from the poor and using it to build weapons of questionable utility, and about fighting vicious proxy wars in banana republics, but he did not save us from ourselves, despite what his fans would like to believe. He spouted bullshit about "fighting terrorism" and "protecting democracy", while simultaneously dealing with terrorists and thwarting democracy.
I don't see how Reagan's Administration is responsible for our current prosperity. But here's a quote in return: "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken
I think that Reagan left the country in better condition than the found it. Keeping in mind that there is very little real power that the president actually has to control the economy. What he is able to do is mainly legalistic things like getting the DOJ off of companies backs. Most of what happens economically (i.e. monetary policy) is controlled by the Fed. In theory, Congress has control over fiscal policy, but in practice it's only allowed by the voters to choose between spending too much and spending too much. Militarism? Two factoids: 1. In real dollars, JFK presided over the biggest peacetime buildup of our military - that at a time when the SU was badly behind us in Strategic weapons and not showing any particular desire to catch up. 2. The Reagan increased military budgets were actually Carter policy when he was in office: both presidents were responding to overwhelming public opinion that spending on the military was too low.
Gawd, what tripe, EC.
I'm eagerly awaiting your follow-up post about how FDR created anti-Nazi hysteria.
Amexan@work,
Wrt your opening blurb in post 775. Reagan left this country far deeper in debt than any president in its history. He raised taxes and then how about Bushwacker's "read my lips", HA! Reagan, consumated deals with greedy military contractors. Oh, and the invisible Stealth that the Serbs shot down, Gee maybe they should cost 200 million apiece instead of 100, yah think? He created hysteria in the DEA so now we have a war on drugs and a huge prison system. We've increased the gap between the have nots and the haves(again I can't prove this) But, look how big our city projects and subsidized housing still are. It is in the Clinton era that Cabrini Green came down, sheesh Reagan would probably have had his cronies goose step on in and insist it just get some new paint and keep the place. Not that we should not have these, we should. But, they do explicitly show that there are needy peoples. (sidetrack)Here in Minnesota, we've absorbed a lot of those from other states. Especially Illinois' Chicago and Michigans' Detroit.
We've had huge influxes of refugees. My point is, from Reagan to now America's Militirism, has led us to new responsibilities with our tax dollars. It had stopped with Vietnam. But started up again.
Oh, and gun policy issues. Those years the entrenched gun lobby stayed real strong. They still are, yet we don't listen so keenly I hope. Schools saw a loss in dollars I think, I know my college tuition went up every year, sometimes twice. My book prices went up too. Inflation you say. Yeah I suppose something has to replace the government grant dry up. We didn't have anything left after Star Wars.
What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day.
It is hardly surprising that you have these feelings for Reagan if you hold him responsible for the S&L mess. Have you missed the extensive discussion of this issue in these threads? While the decision to deregulate the S&L's was a part of the puzzle, the actions of Democrats, particularly Fernand St. Germain, were substantially responsible for the debacle. While reasonable people can assign different weights to the relative contributions, I don't know any knowledgeable person who ascribes total blame to Republicans. And I doubt you could find many other than pure partisans who place the majority of the blame on Republican actions.
So if your antipathy for Reagan was induced by his involvement in the S&L mess, time to re-evaluate him.
We've increased the gap between the have nots and the haves(again I can't prove this)
The gap was narrowing under Reagan and Bush, but began widening again when Clinton became President. Causal? Probably not. But tell me again who you blame and why?
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken
Mr. Mencken may have a point there. I for one am ashamed of the socialism we are endeavoring to create.
Realisitically, Gorbachev bears some responsibility for us winning the Cold War too
I hope the operative word here is some. Because to claim that Gorbachev beares more responsibility than the Reagain administration is utterly absurd.
Stumbo --
"I'm eagerly awaiting your follow-up post about how FDR created anti-Nazi hysteria."
You might check with Pat Buchanan for that.
Of course not. But don't let that stop you from trying to destroy the reputation of a man spent many years in the service of his country and who nearly gave his life in that service.
Perhaps Morris could have created a Larry Kramer character to scream and yell at Dutch. In turn, Dutch could have said something like, "Oh, it is just a bunch of fags."
Sure pumps up the narrative.
I'm out of here.
I was serving the US Empire during the Reagan years and was doing a fair amount of work on, and in, the former SU. IMO Gorbachev had little wiggle room given his domestic and international constraints. I give him credit for trying to do a very difficult thing; reduce and rationalise Imperial boundaries without losing the core security position. It took 60+ years and four of Rome's best Emporers to accomplish the same task.
In the end the 'correlation of forces' went overwhelmingly against the SU except in ICBMs. To Reagan I give credit for, among other accomplishments, the restoration of American confidence.
poverty, AIDS, and basic human rights made me feel only profound sadness. And still does. Cellar Door, I'm with you!
You were aware that the Stealth fighter and the B2 bomber were both projects started under the Carter Administration, weren't you?
Also,
last time I checked, Congress is responsible for Fiscal policy (i.e. the increased expenditures on the military you were foaming about)
The president doesn't really have much more power over the economy than the head cheerleader has over the outcome of a foot ball game.
About the only notable exception I can think of is the executive's ability to negotiate trade treaties, altho since the current administration has lost its fast track negotiating authority, even that power looks like it is gone.
Mmm, you have a point there on the DEA, but as for guns, well, keep in mind that there are not too many lobbying groups on the hill that have their very own constitutional ammendment to back them up. I don't think the NRA needed Reagan, just as they don't need him today.
BTW, what is Cabrini Green?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Reagan years brought vastly improved morale in the DOD and other agencies in the national security community. He also funded projects which had roots in the administrations of the 1970's. I still maintain he changed the zeitgeist of America.
Put it this way: In the 1970's NATO would have lost a war in Central Europe. By 1985-87 Nato would have won. Since the war never occurred (thank God) we run the risk of forgetting that the SU posed a real threat during the Brezhnev years. Of course the overextension of the SU during those years helped create the economic catastrophe still evident in Russia. But at the time it was vitally important that the West be prepared to man the ramparts. We, collectively, did that during the 80's and I, for one, submit that the results were good.
News From the Front Lines:
Supreme Court upholds drug testing for teachers.
New Mexico Governor: "I hate to say it, but the majority of people who use drugs use them responsibly."
Ohio Senator knows better than 70% of DC voters.
Lewinsky did not look that big during her minutes of fame.
But, 223 lbs! That is a lot of her.
I know...I was shocked to hear she'd gotten up there. Guess it was all that yummy food in England on her book tour. :-)
Dusty, read the above for the answer to the S&L opinions I gave. I see your point, sure the mess should be born on more shoulders than Republicans. Sure the legislation is part of it. But, do you think the ultimate responsibility does NOT lay with the chief/s? Reagan and Bush?
Does the chief of this land not have veto power? Can he/she not lead and say NO? The years of deregulation must have had many concerns? I'm sure the learned people here made many an essay as to those concerns. However, I was not a participant. I cannot be responsible for knowing the vast array of data out here.
I will always state the information I am giving is opinion or I will find it's source and cite it. All of the previous is opinion. Ok?
How can the content of a rather poorly written *book* about Reagan possibly have any effect on his administration's actions re AIDS over a decade after the fact?
Before the end of his second term, over half a billion dollars a year was being spent on AIDS research, and Reagan had appointed an AG that was far more AIDS conscious than anyone during the WH Rapist's administration, which is most notable for not having any AG whatsoever for 3 years!
As long as we are continuously acquiring wealth, the difference between the richest and poorest will always be increasing.
No, as long as those who already have wealth, and ownership of resources to produce more wealth, continue accumulating apace, the gap will and does increase. Not that I advocate socialism, mind you, but consider: the average worker makes about what he did in 1974. At that time, the CEO of the worker's company made an average of 100 times more than the worker. Today, the CEO makes over 350 times as much as the worker. Once they're in a position to more easily accumulate wealth, the "haves" do just that. That's just human nature. I don't know what the right solution to this serious inequity is, but you're basing your premise on a false assumption -- that the playing field is level for rich and poor alike.
Another hoary "conservative" premise --that poor people are poor entirely of their own making. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. There are a lot of folks out there who bust their asses at a 9-to-5 (or an 8-to-6 or 7-to-7, for that matter), just so they can survive, while others who do less real work in the same organization may make far more money. Many many workers live paycheck to paycheck, and are often one missed paycheck away from living on the street.
A rising tide may eventually raise most boats, but in the meantime, some of those boats have transmogrified into yachts, while many are still in canoes, despite rowing furiously. (Gee, let's see if I can drag that metaphor out a little more!)
But, seriously, since most modern conservatives seem to be acolytes of Ayn Rand, I wonder: Rand was enamored of the notion that productivity is sacred, a noble act of creation. So why are her paramours so quick to defend management at the expense of the noble Randian worker, who actually makes the wares to be hawked? Is the pencil-pusher more valuable to society than the producer?
Nonsense. Balderdash. The economic problems of the 1970s and 1980s have little to do with the economic problems of today. In fact there was no catastrophe in the 1970s and 1980s, just a very slow and slowly felt decline of economic output and efficiency.
Because to claim that Gorbachev beares more responsibility than the Reagain administration is utterly absurd.
Not absurd at all. In fact, I would attribute to the events in 1981-86 very little role in the eventual collapse of the USSR.
Yes, the decline was very slow; had no external pressure been applied, the USSR could've easily creaked on for another 20, 50, or whatever years. And, of course, there was no guarantee at all that applying said pressure would work.
This, however, doesn't change the fact that the Reagan adm. was right to do what it did. And I do believe it had a large impact.
(Gorbachev may well deserve more personal credit than Reagan, because he seemingly did his part virtually all by himself. I am, to this day, surprised that he managed to walk the tightrope as long as he did, and that things turned out in such a relatively benign fashion.)
No, Reagan scared the FSC's in the Politburo to the point where they became willing to try something new -- such as putting someone like Gorbachev in charge, rather than someone more like themselves. Of course, they were hoping he would come up with new ways to prop the regime up, not tear it down.
I have no problem with attributing the eventual rise of Gorbachev to the 40 years of accumulated containment and external pressure brought bear by the USA.
As for the actual mechanics of the collapse, I have pontificated on the subject over at Salon. See here. (My moniker over there is "Toshimitsu-Jahangir Lyapunov".
There were a number of ways that the Soviet Union could have collapsed. Some much messier than others. I think it's certainly arguable that Reagan gave Gorbachev maneuvering room, which helped bring about a relatively neat and tidy collapse.
I don't think this was deliberate on Reagan's part. The man wasn't the brightest bulb in the bouquet.
"I have no problem with attributing the eventual rise of Gorbachev to the 40 years of accumulated containment and external pressure brought bear by the USA."
Right; and the more containment / pressure, the better, i.e. the higher the likelihood of bringing about the rise of a Gorbachev, and so forth. Reagan (or the people advising him) understood that (and acted accordingly) -- while, say, the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (or the people advising them) did not. That's the extent of my claim. (And this still earns RR & Company a lot of credit, IMHO.)
And, no, my real name isn't Simpson.
Ha ha ha ha........
Sure the legislation is part of it. But, do you think the ultimate responsibility does NOT lay with the chief/s? Reagan and Bush?
Does the chief of this land not have veto power?
The offending legislation was a tiny piece of more sweeping legislation, much of which had a laudable purpose. The President does not have a line-item veto. Would you have the President veto the entire financial bill because of a single piece increasing the federal government "insurance" limits?
Hardly.
He did sign it, so he takes some responsibility. But bad legislation ought to reflect more on those who drafted it, than those who signed it.
I must disagree. The militarization of the Soviet economy-guided by Gosplan- resulted in distortions of economic allocation that directly affected the trajectory of the Soviet economy with results still evident today. When was the last time you toured Magnitorsk? Or the Urals?
Beginning with a smaller base of GDP, the SU could only match the West by devoting an inordinate % of ALL economic resources (factor inputs) to the military. Couple the resultant distortions with the restrictions on information flow engendered by a national paranoia of the West and you get the lack of innovation and over-specialization that characterised 'the years of stagnation'.
To suggest that the effects have not persisted is to confuse various epiphenomena (tank factories making cars?) with the reality of current Russian economic structure.
Good laugh. Gorbachev himself has stated that Reagan's diplomacy at Reykjavik and elsewhere that turned the tide on the arms race. The Reagan administration was faced with a weakened Soviet Union. The peacenik influence in the United States was simultaneously on the rise. Reagan stood firm, discarded detente, embarked on a dizzying arms buildup that the Sovierts felt compelled to match (thereby draining their resources further), ignored the frightened wails of the left (and middle), stood his ground (with Kohl) in deployment of Pershings in West Germany, and pressed the Soviet Union and its satellites at every turn (from Central America to Angola to Afghanistan).
It was the Strobe Talbotts of the world - in his historically awry "Deadly Gambits" - who represented the diplomacy of fear and pointless arms "reductions." Of course, in 1987, Gorbachev credited Reagan with the zero option, which resulted in a removal of SS-20s.
Take the word of a Russian other than Gorbachev: Anatoly Dobrynin has stated that "opponents and experts alike clearly underestimated [Reagan]"; he "proved to be a much deeper person than he first appeared"; he "was endowed with natural instinct, flair, and optimism"; "[h]is imagination supported big ideas like SDI"; and, finally and most significantly considering the source, "Reagan's
achievements in dealing with the Soviet Union could certainly compare favorably with, and perhaps even surpass, those of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger."
This from one of Reagan's harshest critics.
A great deal of this revisionist nonsense emanates from the sad fact that Reagan was villified as some neanderthal when he took office, he used simplistic terms in denouncing the barbarity of the Soviet Union, and while the nation was tuning into "The Day After," he continued to hound the Soviet Union through its succession of 1980s leaders. When, in fact, history bore Reagan's diplomacy as largely on the mark and substantively contributory to the Soviet fall, Gorbachev - theretofore a marginal company man - was transformed into the greatest peacemaker of our time.
The determinants of Soviet economic growth to the 1970s are well known: it was driven by input accumulation and zero total factor productivity growth. Once returns to capital diminished, resources (inputs) in ever greater quantities had to be thrown at production in order just to churn out the same level of output. This explanation is at a much deeper level than talking about the militarisation of the Soviet economy.
But today's problems in Russia have little to do with such things. They are multifarious -- related to mismanagement of the currency, a botched privatisation process, stalled liberalisation of investment rules and property rights, a kleptocratic political arrangement.
The history of economic restructuring around the world shows that in many cases privatisation and restructuring of the old state industries fail in a corrupt political system, but under successful transitions new industries and new firms emerge to make the stagnation of the old irrelevant. But Russia has not yet created the political & institutional framework where that can happen.
In fact I daresay those who see Russia's problems in 1999 as transitional in nature, as vestiges of communism, don't know what they're talking about.
You are making my point. An average worker may indeed be making the same in real wages as he did in 1974. If that is the case, what should be the alternative? Should a worker be paid more than what he's worth? I certainly don't want a country ruled by rich snobs who don't want to work. But, I even more don't want an economy crippled by mandatory wage increases that only increase inflation.
The fact of the matter is that wealth is continuously created and it goes to the people who know how to acquire it. I don't mean to be elitist, but workers are really the tools to acquire wealth. They aren't the producers.
Virtually every factory in the Urals or around Krasnoyarsk-## or Omsk-## can disappear overnight from Russia and it would not make the least difference. They are not relevant. The factories can be replaced by completely new ones. Economic prosperity doesn't depend so much on the preexisting stock of factories, but on a combination of human capital (which Russia has in droves), institutional incentives (property rights, predictable domestic & foreign investment rules) and sound monetary policy.
Actually, the autonomous republic of Tatarstan (based in Kazan) has all of these things, what most of the rest of the Russian Federation hasn't got. What Tatarstan can't get is a sound monetary policy, which is the responsibility of the centre.
I think you're reading too far into what I wrote. I'm not assigning blame to anyone for being poor. I'm merely pointing out the meaninglessness of phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Like I said, if the rich aren't constantly getting richer, then something's wrong.
First, I'll attack the logic of your post. If you indeed attribute a very little role to the events of 1981-86, then not only must you include the Reagan administration, you also must include Gorbachev's role too. So, giving Gorbachev more credit for winning us the Cold War is indeed utterly absurd.
Second, I'll defend my premise. Who deserves credit for when a hostage taker gives himself up thus ending a police siege, the police or the hostage taker?
Mandatory wage increases, as long as they are of reasonable magnitude, need not "cripple an economy" and they certainly won't produce inflation. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. But there have been so many libertarians and market religionists that I've taken on, I'm no longer interested in doing so. I just wanted to let Cartman my opinion of this Cygnus fellow.
Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy. In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day. Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today. But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?
All of this is not to ignore the traditional Russian ails of drunkeness, falling demographics, authoritarian traditions, etc. All these worsen the problem. But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there.
By "events of 1981-86" I meant the entirely reasonable behaviour of the Reagan Administration toward the Soviet Union.
My premise is that Gorbachev is the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the secondary premise is that Reagan had little to do with the rise of Gorbachev.
For someone who doesn't want to be an elitist, you sound remarkably close to one.
How can on produce wealth without the workers?
After all, he's responsible for everything isn't he? All theose White House "Spin Doctors" toiling away night and day and all.
Lucky the Russians didn't get to Monica Lewinsky.
Or did they?
Oh, the humanity!
Nice try at righteous indignation, but my point is that the poor aren't getting poorer.
"Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy."
"But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there."
No, that was not my point. My point was that the physical legacy of those factories for Russia is not important. You're in this rut of thinking that if the communists had just left better factories in more diversified fields, Russia would be better off today. That may be true, but that's just not the fundamental problem in Russia today. The old productive capacity could have been scrapped in toto and a brand new one installed.
"Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today."
I disagree. Incentives are a question of institutions, and under the right institutions, Russia could have developed a more varied economic structure from scratch.
"In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day."
Frankly I don't see how the independent clause follows from your prepositional clause.
"But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?"
They could have been left to rot. Who cares?
So if one of the hostage takers decides his plight is hopeless, starts negotiating with the police, and is thrown out of his group by the members, then the police who have been diligently laying seige deserve less credit than the booted hostage taker? This, even though the police increased their efforts despite some of the public condemning the police because hostage taking isn't so bad?
Now I understand why it's so difficult for politicians to vote on principle...
If I start a home construction business because I know how to build houses well, I am the one "producing" the houses. Yes, I have workers doing labor and much of it may be skilled. But, I still know how to build houses well. If I have to, I'll do it myself. The workers save time. Eventually, machines may replace or reduce the need for the workers. I still know how to build the house well.
I'm not saying the workers have no value and are expendable, but they are not the ones "producing" the house (or at least they're not primarily responsible for producing the house). That's the way it works. Labor is not nearly as valuable as "know-how".
Now, why can't I understand this in principle without being thought of as elitist even though I may be one of the laborers?
I don't think it matters. If your buying power isn't decreasing, then you aren't getting poorer.
As for the sugar cookies, what is most essential is the baker.
Tell that to the baker with empty cupboards.
Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy. In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day. Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today. But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?
All of this is not to ignore the traditional Russian ails of drunkeness, falling demographics, authoritarian traditions, etc. All these worsen the problem. But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there.
We're Number Fifty!
Health insurance: Texas being Texas once again
AUSTIN -- So here's Texas yet again at the bottom of the barrel, worst in the nation, No. 50 in health insurance. This is not a consequence of accident or socioeconomic conditions in the state -- it's the result of deliberate policy and lack of policy both.
According to the Census Bureau, 24.5 percent of Texans have no health insurance, the highest rate of any state -- compared to, say, Hawaii, with a respectable 8.8 percent uninsured.
Molly Ivins
Why is this a bad thing? I noted that you did not compare access to health care, the ability of state residents to get minimal, average, or superb health care, or any health index of the residents. Why is the existence of a piece of paper more important than actual health care? Are you imputing a correlation?
In the past 25 years, I can think of very few programs that she did not support. And, usually, she wanted to throw more money at these programs. Privitization is not an option, best as I can tell, for Ivins.
She is for larger and larger government; makes no diference should she call herself liberal, progressive, or some other term of the left. She loves big government and its big programs.
She is funny, though.
Hey -- so do I!!!
Cellar,
And you're funny, too.
Dare to be Average!
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
The baker can obtain capital from any investor and he can obtain the labor from anyone with minimal skills and a willingness to work. It is the unique skills of baker that make the operation work. The individual investors can be replaced. The individual workers can be replaced. The baker cannot be replaced. It is his knowledge and experience that make it possible.
Mandatory wage increases, as long as they are of reasonable magnitude, need not "cripple an economy" and they certainly won't produce inflation. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. But there have been so many libertarians and market religionists that I've taken on, I'm no longer interested in doing so. I just wanted to let Cartman my opinion of this Cygnus fellow.
Thanks, Pseudo. I had a feeling that you would see the issue in that light. But you made the point quite ably in the above paragraph.
Cygnus:
Forget the analogies. Look at the hard reality. Who is doing the actual work of production? You imply that maybe workers are getting paid more than they're worth, but what about management? Many of these CEOs get their bonuses from "trimming the fat", axing workers, cutting corners on safety, cutting health benefits, and splitting the difference between themselves and their stockholders. Meanwhile, the company is no more productive than it was before; in fact, it's frequently less because the remaining workers are not as well-trained and morale is down.
So what tangible wealth has been created? None; it's merely a transference from those who work to survive to those who struggle to acquire that second vacation house (or fourth SUV). So when these guys start crying about "redistribution", I say fuck 'em. They have been redistributing quite a bit themselves; payback is a bitch.
I don't buy the company line. Their attitude about downsizing and the like is always, "Well, why can't they just invent lint-rollers or something?".
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
"You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan."
I had thought of that, but those aren't really good examples, because they took place in a political context totally unlike the Russian one. Much more germane to Russian reform is the PRC. There you've got a bipartite industrial structure: mammoth, bloated, decaying, inefficient, unreformable state enterprises co-existing side-by-side with a thriving private economy financed by overseas Chinese from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Many in the West raise alarums that the Chinese aren't reforming their state enteprises, but in my opinion what they're trying to do is wean them into death in order to avoid economic dislocation. Believe it or not Taiwan did something very similar between the 1950s and 1970s.
"But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy-with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain."
I thought I was willing in #843 and the previous post. But you keep missing my point, perhaps because of my failure to express myself adequately. You seem to think that the economic structure the Soviets created doomed today's Russians to having the problems that they do. I disagree violently. I agree that it would have been wonderful had the Soviets bequeathed the Russians a more varied industrial structure, but my point is that that did not condemn Russian efforts at reform. Not at all. The cause of the botching of Russian reform lies elsewhere.
I only objected to giving Reagan the lion's share of the credit. Of course, as I said earlier if external pressure is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, then it was the accumulation of 40 years of presure & containment, not Reagan's beating around a near-cadaver.
The market already knew that he wasn't going to raise the rate, so that "good news" was already factored into the thinking. However, they changed their bias to a tightening bias. This was new information. While not as significant as an actual increase, it is interpreted as bad news.
I heard that later. CNNfn didn't report it at first.
Many of these CEOs get their bonuses from "trimming the fat", axing workers, cutting corners on safety, cutting health benefits, and splitting the difference between themselves and their stockholders.
I don't recall any stories of companies cutting corners on safety. Do you?
Utter tripe. Reagan just happened to be in office when the collapse occurred.
...we tend to overlook the possibility that [the Soviet Union's] death was not the unequivocally good thing that people take for granted.
Are you suggesting that some kind of "counter-reformation" was taking place in 1990-91 that could have prevented the kind of kleptocratic corruption that exists today? Would this have included a real political choices for the average citizen, comparitively free capital and labor markets, an internationally traded currency?
I must admit that I have a hard time believing that any Soviet Union would be free from the constraints of Marxist dogma. (Not that the Russia of today is).
Whatever. I am much more correct about Reagan and the impact his, um, policies had on the collapse of the USSR than you.
Well, when I say the USSR, I mean a state centred on Russia ruled by the Communist Party, not necessarily the full-fledged multinational state that was dissolved in 1991. A Soviet Union shorn of the Baltics, Central Asia and some of the Caucasus, and continued to be ruled by a kind of reformist Communist Party à la chinoise, would have been viable and far from implausible.
#869
Biener: Gorbachev actively chose to reform the polity before the economy. That didn't need to happen. It wasn't inevitable. Moreover, even after the USSR dissolved, the economic collapse was not inevitable.
#871
ElliotRW: The kleptocracy didn't get truly entrenched til 1995-96. Before that, there was still hope for Russia. I don't see much now. What I'm saying is that if I had been Gorbachev in 1986, I would have embarked on Chinese-style reforms -- gradual freeing up parts of the economy, while leaving the dinosaurs intact; inviting foreign investment; eschewing political reform while loosening some of the political rigours of the Soviet Union.
Doesn't mean that Reagan's "policies" had any real impact. Just meant that he was being used by someone for the someone's own purposes.
understand your post)?
I agree that had Gorby been able to implement economic changes before the political reforms, he may have had a better chance at success. I just don't think those economic changes were possible without the political changes. Too many of the entrenched powers had staked their careers on hard-line communism. They would never have permitted the move toward capitalism.
I am not trying to bait anyone.
Would it be instuctive to look upon the last years of the Tsars? I know only several things : they were exporting wheat. They were exporting kerosene (the auto industry was in its infancy then. Had they begun to export gasoline as well?) Small potatoes I am sure : did they export caviar? Vodka? Faberge? ballet?
Would any of this translate 80 years later?
Re: your first paragraph. Very little.
Re: your second paragraph. I don't think that's necessarily true. After all, many entrenched communists themselves have been economic reformers elsewhere. Again, you can give the apparatchiks free rein to do what they will with their industrial enterprises, while at the same time encouraging new businesses & investments to emerge in the context of a market economy parallel to the command one.
#851
When did you stop being an anarchist?
Yeah right. Gorbachev also claims that Reagan is (maybe was) an extremely intelligent man.
I've never stopped wanting to annoy Conservative either.
I don't recall any stories of companies cutting corners on safety. Do you?
I've worked for two national companies that did just that, to save a few bucks. Happens all the time.
Cartman - I read what you wrote to Cygnus. Are you serious, or are you just spouting platitudes?
I'm quite serious. That you could ignore Cygnus' lame analogies and say that I'm "spouting platitudes" is odd, to say the least. Maybe you should re-read our entire exchange.
If you really don't know the answers to those questions, I could explain them to you.
I know the answers, but if you feel the need to take me to school, go for it. The entertainment value alone should be priceless.
I think perhaps you already know the answers and you are just tormenting Cyggie. Which is it?
I'm not trying to "torment" Cygnus, rather to point out the flawed assumptions in his premise.
I consider you an equal oppertunity annoyer.
Good to know that you are about.
Your #866 raises a good point. The dissolution of the SU has increased the probability of further nasty little wars between former subject peoples and/or against the center. We also forget that the current Russian Federation is composed of 140+ 'nationalities'; some quite restive.
Can Russia, recast as a regional power, rationalise its borders and sphere of influence? The partial occupation of Chechnya is clearly one attempt to do so. Still, there is far from any elite or mass consensus as to what the future role(s) should be.
The Russians- with a much reduced population, declining standards of health and an aging arsenal- will find it difficult to be a force for stability in the region.
Alex Lowe Feared Dead in Avalanche
Expedition Home Page
I didn't know Alex personally, but certainly by reputation. And I spent a few weeks on Shishapangma (shown below), so I feel a connection to the tragedy. 
My condolences to you and the international community of climbers. I do have one question which I hope is not in poor taste. I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
I think the restiveness of the non-Russian population within the Russian Federation is a bit exaggerated. In fact, outside the Caucasus, only Tuva is considered an ethnic trouble spot.
I think you should read the Russia thread over at Salon. I pontificate at quite length on this issue. See here.
Rather, here.
Thanks for the link, looks like I need to join Salon since the Russia thread on the NYT has been taken over by the crazies and malcontents.
Vous avez raison. I fail to understand how M. Howard(?) could ignore the evidences of poverty, dissolution and despair evident in the streets of the very cities he claimed to have visited. I wonder if he saw any of the grim Stalinist housing projects? Not to mention, as you correctly point out, the rural and more remote areas.
FTR, I am fully aware of the historical liabilities which predate the Communist period, and am under no illusion that there are any quick fixes. What must be changed and challenged are not simply laws and processes but cultural attitudes which have long endured and which were remarked upon by the earliest travellers to the region.
As one small example, there is the legacy of cdyelat' pokazyky- creating the false face- which was the job description of aspiring apparatchiki. C'est plus la change.....
It's a mess, and for those of us who both love and hate the place these are difficult times.
regards,
Post scriptum.
"The current state of the former Soviet Union is the greatest empirical refutation of libertarianism in all of history: a thriving market economy requires not a weak state, but a strong one."
I largely agree; not only contra Robert Nozick but because 'weight' in international affairs is useful for participation in the world economy. But doesn't the ethnic problem complicate the re-establishment of a strong central state?
I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
First, thanks for your thoughts.
There are two distinct climbing "seasons" in the Himalayas: the spring season, a period of relative calm following the winter and preceding the summer monsoon season, and the fall season, after the end of the summer monsoons, but preceding winter. Of course, there are a few hardy souls who have attempted some of the peaks in winter.
Were you suggesting that the fall season is more prone to avalanches? I have some stats at home on Everest expeditions; I'll check to see how the numbers break down between spring and fall. I think there has been a shift over time, but I didn't recall that the fall season was more prone to avalanches.
But you have me intrigued. Where have you climbed? (This is probably straying from Current Events, so perhaps you should answer in the Café).
I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
First, thanks for your thoughts.
There are two distinct climbing "seasons" in the Himalayas: the spring season, a period of relative calm following the winter and preceding the summer monsoon season, and the fall season, after the end of the summer monsoons, but preceding winter. Of course, there are a few hardy souls who have attempted some of the peaks in winter.
Were you suggesting that the fall season is more prone to avalanches? I have some stats at home on Everest expeditions; I'll check to see how the numbers break down between spring and fall. I think there has been a shift over time, but I didn't recall that the fall season was more prone to avalanches.
But you have me intrigued. Where have you climbed? (This is probably straying from Current Events, so perhaps you should answer in the Café).
School Shooting Survivor Killed
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) -- One of the two dozen students wounded in a 1998 shooting attack in a school cafeteria has been killed in a hunting accident, struck by a shot from his brother's rifle.
Richard Peek Jr., 19, who was wounded in one arm in the bloodshed at Thurston High School, was shot in the head Tuesday while hunting deer with his 17-year-old brother, Robert, said Lane County sheriff's Sgt. Byron Trapp.
The brothers were hunting near Vida when Robert's rifle discharged, Trapp said.
Robert was not charged but the shooting remains under investigation, Trapp said.
Both of the brothers were in the Thurston cafeteria in Springfield when Kip Kinkel opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle, killing two and wounded others. Kinkel, who had also killed his parents, pleaded guilty last month to four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder.
"There are black spots, of course. Southern California is one. Both Tinseltown and the state's central valley should, by rights, be deserts. But thanks to wholesale abuse of the Colorado river, the theft of water from upland California and massive federal subsidies, it is blooming. This cannot last. At some point irrigated land will become salt-ridden; the dams will silt up; the subsidies will prove unsupportable. The commercial consequences could be grim; the political fallout and ensuing lawsuits could be colossal (water has long been a prime source of sustenance to both politicians and lawyers). And yet the richest part of the world's richest country refuses to do anything about it."
"The American people have every right to know if [the prospective first lady] will share that bed with [the presidential candidate] in the White House."
"Is [the candidate] going to the White House with somebody other than [his wife]? It's important, we're not just voting for a man. We're voting for a family. The first family is very important."
Give up? It was Donna Brazile speaking about George & Barbara Bush. She has, by the way, just been hired as Al Gore's new campaign manager according to The Druge Report.
I just recently noted that Al 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore had taken on Brazile in this forum. With minions like that at one's command, I think it's easy enough to see what sort of vicious slime assault the Demorats have in store for us captive voters if Bore makes it to the general campaign.
Hey, hold up there a minute, pilgrim! Big Tony earned that $18,000 a month apartment in Lisbon (I was just surprised to hear that such a thing existed in the first place). How did he earn it you ask? By working his connects to scare up some taxpayer dough for the World's Fair.
[in Andy Rooney voice] And why is there a World's Fair anymore anyway? Do people still go to fairs? Does the World's Fair have the world's largest Ferris wheel, or the longest rolly-coaster? I doubt it. And why do they call it "taking a dump", instead of "leaving a dump"? I mean, you're not "taking" it anywhere....
I don't know if you followed our Movie conversation on Chinatown a few months ago. If you had, you would have seen me post the following:
A background note, of sorts: you can tell when a movie about California graft is made by those who don't understand, because they will make it about cars and freeways and the plot to do away with public transportation. Anyone who *really* knows what California politics are about goes for the jugular--water. The geopolitics of California are split into Northern, Southern, and Central and at the base of each bloc's interest is water--how much and How Much. Californians never forget that we are only a low rainy season or three away from each other's throats on the subject. Ask anyone who lived here in 1975-78.
That being said, I think that we'll probably figure something out in time. We usually do.
The bit about public transportation does have some validity. Last month, when I was down there, even in the bedroom town of Temecula (or as true Angelenos would say, "Bumfuck, Egypt") it was a madhouse -- took half an hour to get off 15 and drive about 2 miles. And this is in a small city of 60,000 at the latest estimate, though the way we heard it, Temecula has nearly doubled in size just in the past two years, because of its proximity to San Diego.
So even in a small (by LA standards) city, traffic is as bad as in LA itself. But there's no other way to get around. The bus system is a joke, and you'd have to be fucking nuts to ride a bike, or even a motorcycle.
It oughta be real peachy down there in about 20 years, when this state supposedly will have close to 50 million(!) people. Hopefully I'll have my dream house built in New Mexico by then.
Can this struggle for water be described in the terms of game theory? I'm thinking about Governing the Commons (which I have started but by no means finished). I'm not joking this time. If you care to comment we should perhaps take it to your thread.
Understand you are travelling, but the marvelous movies (two versions) *Chinatown* are about the California water issue. Of course Chandler was a Red.....
I missed the press conference following the Presidential veto of the tax cut bill, favored by a majority of Americans, and passed by a majority of their representatives in Congress, but I'll bet he didn't characterize the veto as "thwarting the will of the American people".
Can anyone explain the difference to me, so I will understand how one is "thwarting the will" and the other is not? Or is this just politics?
Well, I think people should pretty much have the right to sue anybody they want at any time.
But what is really happening here is that every new intervention in health care raises its cost and lowers its efficiency. The goal is to make health care collapse so that the government can come in and "rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine. Socialized medicine cannot work and will itself eventually collapse. Then we will finally get what we should have kept in the first place, fee-for-service medicine operating in the free market.
make health care collapse so that the government can come in and
"rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine."
Perhaps another or entirely different goal is to ensure that HMO don't deliver substandard care and arbitrarily deny necessary medical procedures in order to improve their bottom line. Did you see on the news last night where Humana has been providing financial incentives to docs. to deny treatment?
Prove.
Wait.
Or read von Mises.
Gorbachev is correct. Only a partisan extremist would not be able to see it.
I didn't see the piece, but it hardly surprising. consider it from Humana's point of view: their revenues are fixed in the short term, based on the amount of premiums they charge. To create greater profits, they need to reduce costs. By reducing the amount of treatment provided, they can reduce costs by a)reducing the number of doctors they employ to provide the treatment, b)reducing wear and tear on machinery, prolonging its life and c)reducing the amount of supplies consumed. It's an argument for why there should not be a profit-making middleman, but no surprise.
Yes, I heard that segment. Unfortunately, many people want to hide from this economic reality.
It is common knowledge that
Sure. The high murder rate, in particular among young black men, must have an impact on life expectancy. But I would think that infant mortality is almost exclusively a matter of access to adequate care.
But what I really took issue with was Ronski's assertion that socialised medicine must inevitably collapse. That is demonstrably not so.
I do not deny that the best American health care is the best anywhere. But how about access? And how about the average quality?
But I guess this belongs in the Health thread.
Hahahahaha.
Heavens, no. Nothing that organized. It is politicians responding to pissed off consumers.
BTW, guys, this is being hashed out in Health Issues right now.
Another interesting tidbit. Pregnancies of black women have a higher mortality rate (for, I believe, both infant and mother) even after income and education is factored out. Or in. Whatever. In other words, rich black women have a higher rate of pregnancy death than middle-class white women.
By all means, let's ignore the views of a former head of state who actually spent a great deal of time with Reagan, and accept your judgement of the man. Let's see, what were your qualifications again?
Dig just a little and it becomes obvious that what they call details is what most of us would call grasp of the substance of a matter.
Wait and see what comes out the woodwork about Reagan over the years. Especially after the ever vigilent Nancy goes to the Bloomingdales in the sky or whatever.
Your claim that the human development indicators of the poorest Americans is on par with those of Sri Lanka is unbelievable. I can't find any figures on the income distribution of social indicators. The fact that the USA has a higher level of income inequality than in Western Europe does not tell us very much about the conditon of the bottom rung of American society. In fact, according to the OECD Economic Outlook, December 1996, "when measured at purchasing power parity, the average labour income of the lowest quintile of working households is higher in the United States than in any other country studied except the Netherlands". Moreover, black Americans, the poorest segment of American society, have a higher average income than Swedes.
As for socialised medicine, please note that it doesn't necessarily mean "single-payer system". I've elaborated on this, and on the error of supposing that most European countries have single-payer systems, in the Health thread.
Prenatal care is NOT available to all expectant mothers --especially low income mothers in rural areas. About 10 years ago when I was in working in D.C., we had a problem in our district in that there was a 7-county area that had not a single OB-GYN that would accept Medicaid. Of those, four counties didn't have an OB-GYN at all.
Transportation can be a huge problem for the rural poor, so it wasn't really an option to drive 50 or 60 miles to the nearest OB. Instead, we cut and pasted for a less-than-satisfactory solution -- once or twice a month, the Social Services offices would use the senior center van, round up all the expectant mothers, and drive them to the one Rural Health Clinic that served the entire area. Rather than spend all day on the bus to see the doc., many mothers decided to forego pre-natal care.
Not everybody lives in a world like yours.
The problem is that their method of subsidization doesn't work. I am amazed more people don't realize this--particularly in the insurance industry.
We can still subsidize health care, but do it at the individual level. The people who will take the biggest hit are the middle-class employed. But the contract market is growing as more and more people are laid off, and they'll start figuring out the advantages. Besides, the upper income folks would welcome it, since the approach would also involve dropping the medical deduction limit from 7.5 to 1 or no percent.
No one denies that Reagan left the details to subordinates. All good managers do. No one wants a cheif executive micromanaging every detail.
Dig just a little and it becomes obvious that what they call details is what most of us would call grasp of the substance of a matter.
This is a nice little fantasy dreamed up by liberals like you for sole purpose of discrediting Reagan. When you have heads of state like Gorbachev, Thatcher and Mitterand who have no vested interest in the matter contradicting you, when you have members of the press like Stahl, Wallace and others who have no vested interest contradicting you, it doesn't give your assertions much credit. When the only people who make such statements had little or no contact with Reagan and have a history of animosity toward Reagan, it becomes obvious that all you are about is political character assassination.
Now unless you have some actual evidence to substantiate your claim, I will assume this discussion is finished.
I don't know whether this is still the case since I no longer follow those issues.
That is not access
I forgot I was dealing with a liberal. Liberals can redefine words as they see fit. According to the liberal definition, unless a person can have any medical procedure or treatment at anytime free of charge, they don't have access.
Before we go on, do we have to define what is is?
You mean the Democrats created a ridiculous, unworkable welfare system? Imagine that.
you are becoming a characature.
I think JJ's given to exaggeration
I am given to exaggeration? I'll remember this the next time Buchanan is accused of being a nazi or Barr is accused of being a klansman. No, we mustn't use exaggeration to make a point here. Strictly out of bounds.
Get this: ketchup is a condiment.
(grin)
Your claim that the human development indicators of the poorest
Americans is on par with those of Sri Lanka is unbelievable,
I claimed nothing of that. I discussed two specific indicators: life expectancy and infant mortality and I said that, for the latter, low-income groups in the US are on par with Sri Lanka.
And I don't like this harping about Swedes. OK, so blacks have higher income than Swedes. What is your point? If I were a Somalian you could have stated that the poorest of the poor in the US are better off than the average Somalian (statistically that is). Would that make my arguments about health care invalid in any way?
I don't mind being called a liberal, it's just not a very descriptive label. Unlike many folks
Unlike many folks, I don't think that "liberal" or "right wing" says everything about one's political philosophy. Instead, it's a very sloppy shorthand that keeps the lazy from having to think.
At any rate, out of many cogent responses, I'll just use one:
Iran Contra.
Was it just me, or did no one else see that "
In point of fact, some budget guy over at the department of Education is always trying to increase the number of veggies available so that he can feed the federally mandated X number of veggies in school lunches. I always thought it quite pathetic that lefties even made an issue over that the first time. The salsa thing was the same bureaucratic interest trying to address the same federally created problem.
Actually, no. Btw, it's 'vegetable' and Reagan never made any such assertion re. ketchup. The only thing you've established with this post is your bigoted attitude wrt Reagan.
Hey Cellar,
I heard Kevin Spacey came out as a hetero. . . . snicker, snicker.
I know someone who was in "The Iceman Cometh." He tells me Kevin took quite a shine to one of the members of the cast.
Cellar,
Spacey's current state of public denial reminds me of an old Kids in the Hall Skit, and that is just very sad.
that is good at blowing things up but utterly blank when it comes to
getting along with each other.
Why not accept his lies? It's not like he's a closeted elected or political figure who scores political points by gay-bashing.
After seeing a show on t.v. last night about violence against gays and perceived gays, it's understandable that some might want to downplay their sexuality to avoid the very real repercussions -- both in terms of discrimination and being a target of violence. It's a difficult question --which comes first -- everyone out of the closet, or changing laws and/or attitudes about gays.
It's awfully easy for someone like me to say he ought to stand up and be honest with everyone about his sexuality, I don't have to face any of the consequences he would. Though, being in the business he's in, and with the money he has, I can't imagine they'd be too terrible. It is a dilemma, stay in the closet and be complict in society's repression of gays, or be out and face the music.
People come out in their own ways and times, and sometimes it takes longer for some than for others. I do, however, feel it's sad when
someone is so scared that they can't make the leap. I would rather help them make the leap than push them. I didn't want to be pushed, did it my own way (sorry, Frank Sinatra)and am glad I did.
I've read that 3 of his 4 kids agree with the portrayal. It's only Maureen (as self-appointed keeper of his legacy) and the conservative commentators who object.
Moving on up!
"High ozone readings here Thursday pushed Houston ahead of Los Angeles in the dubious race for the nation's 1999 smog championship.
"The latest violations of the national health standard for ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient, increased the likelihood that Houston will finish the year as the U.S. smog leader for the first time.
"Never before has any U.S. metropolitan area but Los Angeles registered the most days with at least one ozone violation --the traditional yardstick for comparing smog severity.
"With readings above the ozone standard's maximum permissible level at at least four monitoring stations Thursday, Houston has now had 44 violation days this year."
...Houston Chronicle
I don't get it. Whether he is or he isn't shouldn't it be his choice when, if and what to tell the world? I understand the argument, that by lying or hiding, he makes it look likebeing gay is something to hide or to lie about, but does that mean that if he is gay, that he MUST become a crusader or poster boy. If he's happy or complacent as is, or just scared to come out in the open, why not leave the guy alone? As to it not hurting his career, don't be too sure. DeGeneres' show went downhill after she came out. Maybe that's b/c it was stale/had run its course/or some other reason, but maybe not. It's true that Heche got some publicity/parts afterwards, but that looks like it was a blip doesn't it? Has she done anything recently?
I'm sure people will say both Ellen and Anne have decided to take "time off from Hollywood" but as neither has been heard from or of lately, I'm wondering if that time-off thing they announced wasn't some sort of preemptive strike on their part because scripts weren't exactly hurtling their way...
NaaaaaH. Millennials are millennials, it seems.
You only "stumbled" into it because Dan and I were too polite to grab it hours ago! :-)
" LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pop star Michael Jackson and his second wife, former nurse Debbie Rowe Jackson, are divorcing after nearly three years of marriage and two children, according to court papers filed Friday in Los Angeles. Rowe filed for divorce in Los Angeles Superior Court, saying the couple had been separated since July 15 and citing "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for ending the marriage.
If those two kids can't make it, what hope do the rest of us have?
These alien love trysts never seem to work out...
Sure they do; haven't you seen "Roswell"?
Fortunately, I haven't seen it -- my brain hasn't entirely turned to mush. However, we're still in the first month of the show, so don't know whether this is true love or just the series version of Earth Girls Are Easy.
But here's some Good News: I GET CUSTODY OF THE TEST TUBE BABIES!
Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas, as was Kenneth Starr last year.
The TV and print press have all but ignored the development, but WCBS News Radio reported the Giuliani death threat news Wednesday, with City Hall correspondent Vicki Allen adding:
"The mayor's office refused to comment about the actual death threats. Mayor Giuliani said it's his personal choice not to discuss security issues."
Any high-profile public figure expects to get threats, but the CBS report indicates that concerns for Giuliani's security are greater than ever before.
Death threats: 'Democracy in action' the Leftists' way.
No, no, no. The proper cite is "Direct action" which I believe is Bakunin or possibly Proudhon, otherwise best known for another fine leftist slogan: "Property is theft".
Could you be more specific, concerned? Who are these "Clintonistas"?
How is antipathy to Starr connected to antipathy to Rudy? Do they want to kill all Republicans, or just maim them? And most important of all -- where do I sign up?
Why are death threats to Rudy necessairly Clintonistas; couldn't a crazed art lover from Brooklyn be at the bottom of this? How about some goon wearing a tin foil hat who's lost his squeegee? Maybe it's a Reform party devotee or a Libertarian or maybe it's all a ploy put out by Rudys own office to make him seem more sympathetic; you've no idea and neither do we.
"Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas..."
I was going to respond with a smart comment to the effect that with the tens of millions of "Clintonistas" who proved their fealty to the Evil One in 1992 and 1996, Da Mayor hasn't got a chance ... but then I realized that connie probably hasn't got a sense of humor. It doesn't seem fair to contribute to his/her hysteria.
So be of good cheer, connie -- they got Vince Foster and Ron Brown and Kathy Willie's kitty, but Mayor Giuliani is made of sterner stuff. He's more than a match for those bloodthirsty Clintonistas. Really.
Uh-huh.
Well gee whiz, J.J., I have no "voice" in how my tax money is used on anything else. Want to institute a line-item veto so voters can direct their money towards what they want and away from what they don't --like the Brooklyn Museum or in my case the so-called "defense budget"? If so, I'm all for it.
Yes you do. It is called your vote. Like the rest of us, you speak through your elected officials. It would seem that there are some who deny us this voice when it comes to arts funding.
Do you think that art funding should be unique, that the decisions of officials to determine what should be funded and what should not should be overturned by a vocal minority? We don't do this for defense, or Medicare or the National Park Service or any other government expenditure. Why art?
Surely those people (the minority) still HAVE a voice; my "elected official" is someone I voted against . Ergo, he is not voting for me, he is voting for a majority (very slim one) who don't think as I do. So am I not allowed to voice my opinion? Should I meekly becaome the Silent Minority?
Would that that were true. I don;t have enough money to buy an elected official. Votes meaning nothing. Money talks and bullshit walks.
It would seem that there are some who deny us this voice when it comes to arts funding.
Then you should start attending more corproate board meetings and complain to the owners of culture about those things to which you object.
Depends. Perhaps the elected officials who supervised this arts budget were sensitive, knowledgeable theatre lovers who judged that the (Pulitzer prize winning) play in question just didn't have enough artistic merit to justify lavishing public money on it. In that case, it's not a matter of censorship at all. Nobody is expected to fund crap.
On the other hand, perhaps the officials in question were elected on a platform of wiping out degenerate influences who are corrupting young people, and are intent on indoctrinating their constituency with sound moral values, à la Maoist China or Nazi Germany. In that case, sure, it's political censorship, but er that's democracy, right?
This article from the SF Chronicle examines the situation.
I shouldn't have to point this out, given how you yourself phrased the question, but: "not funding at the taxpayers' expense" != "wiping out." Maoist China and Nazi Germany went a leeeettle bit beyond the former, so why bring them up at all?
EC:
There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger number, Y, happen to be alive -- then Y-X of them will fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any inconvenience to the rest. (The great variance among the situations in different regions and countries makes the likelihood of a sudden, global dying-out pretty much negligible.)
Cutting funding to such events is indeed equivalent to wiping them out. In this particular case, was this done for political motives or not?
As someone who is economically challenged, I thought Martin's article in the SFChronicle quite good.
In medical articles dealing with world population I first came across the words "zero sum game" about 20 years ago. The general thrust was that Ehrlich had the population explosion wrong. Is that the prevailing view?
Martin tried to be even handed, but, his article tended slightly toward pessimism IMO.
Ellen and Anne "Quitting" Hollywood?
by Bridget Byrne
December 1, 1998, 1:25 p.m. PT
Ellen DeGeneres says she and partner Anne Heche are never going to have lunch in this town again.
But does that really mean the two are really getting out of Dodge, er, Hollywood?
On Sunday, an interview appeared in the Los Angeles Times in which the high-profile lovers both vociferously complained once again about how coming out had shut them out in Hollywood.
Then on Monday, DeGeneres told journalist Hilary de Vries, who conducted the earlier interview, "We've quit our agents, let go of our publicist, we're selling our home and leaving town."
"There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger number, Y, happen to be alive -- then Y-X of them will fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any inconvenience to the rest."
But you make it sound so sanitary and painless. As the Y-X people die out, don't you think that many of the surviving X people will be doing some serious suffering as well?
Sure the Earth could support several times the present population, if we all are willing to accept mass extinction of plant and animal species, a heavily polluted environment, and a greatly reduced quality of life.
His take on the "lousy Brits" is that most of their wars had to do with too many people living on a small island with limited resources.
I don't know enough English History to even comment on his statement. Is he even close to being right?
Why would it be a hoax? Sounds perfectly plausible to me.
"Sounds perfectly plausible to me."
Pulling the host's leg is strictly forbidden in this thread.
Ellen and Anne say they'll move to Vermont if same-sex marriage goes through there.
OK. I re-read the article. The first time I didn't comprehend that Maine still calls antique cars made before 1916 "horseless carriages".
It sounded so ridiculous I thought for sure it was a hoax.
Some people would be so embarrassed by such a mistake that they wouldn't post for the rest of the evening. Not me. I have no shame.
"... all over the civilised world, there are artistic events of various natures which rely on public funding. That is part of the definition of 'civilised', in my opinion."
Well, needless to say, my opinion differs.
"Cutting funding to such events is indeed equivalent to wiping them out."
Not if they can find private patronage (either from a few large donors, or many small ones, or some combination.) They shouldn't have any problem with that, if the event is truly worthwhile and beneficial to enough people. But if something costs $X to put on, and the total benefit to society (as measured by people's willingness to pay) is less than $X -- then it's a waste of money, time, and energy, and I'm not sorry to see it go.
I should also add that publicly-subsidized art is usually a form of regressive taxation (as opposed to publicly-subsidized strip joints, say). Are you sure you're fine with that?
However, if we postulate that the government should fund the arts, then making sure that those arts don't offend anybody is the least we can do -- so as not to add insult to injury.
"In this particular case, was this done for political motives or not?"
Just wondering -- do you automatically consider it bad if public funding is cut for political reasons, or not? Suppose that you are an elected official part of whose job is supervising some public festival. Some guy has written a musically-brilliant oratorio based on The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion, and would like to perform it at your festival -- will you approve it or not? If you won't, is it because you don't want to fund "crap," or because you want to uphold "sound moral values"?
Grey:
It might not be painless, but it's sure as hell self-regulating...
(An aside: Would such a show, in fact, be tolerated, if privately funded, in the USA? It would be banned outright anywhere in Europe).
The only problem I have is with hypocrisy. Those who defend the cutting of funding for the play mentioned earlier, are apparently happy that the elected officials can cut off funds if they don't like gays, and/or don't want people to see theatre in which gay people are depicted, for fear that someone might be offended. In other words, they are happy for censorship to apply in this case. However, they don't want to admit that the intent is censorship.
You yourself are apparently putting this play on a par with your anti-semitic oratorio : by which you mean to imply, I suppose, that the play in question would be as offensive to you (or perhaps only to the officials involved), as the oratorio would be to me.
In either case, that is pretty worrying.
As long as you refuse to acknowledge the crucial difference between "public" and "private" censorship (i.e. denying the use of public money to pay for something, and banning it completely), there isn't much we can agree on. Exercizing the former is a totally proper function of elected officials who, after all, are entrusted with the money in the first place; the latter should only be used in extreme cases. (And neither the play, nor even the oratorio, qualify.)
There will always be the problem of those officials inserting their personal tastes and biases. The solutions to that are a) vote them out of office if you disagree with them; b) promote a general policy of only funding the least-controversial stuff; c) get the state out of the art business altogether. I would like to give c) a try.
BTW, no, I wasn't putting anything "on par" with anything else. (But if I were, you'd have no standing to criticize me for it, after much more explicitly putting the US "on par" with Maoist China and Nazi Germany...)
point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger
number, Y, happen to be alive --then Y-X of them will
fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any
inconvenience to the rest.
However, if this argument is correct (or is believed to be correct by enough people), then -- at least when it comes to material art forms such as painting and sculpture -- you have not only private philanthropy, but also private greed working in your favor. If I believe that I can buy 1000 paintings at $1000 each, and be sure that one of them, due to increasingly-enlightened tastes, will in 30 years be worth more than $1 million (correcting for inflation and interest rates) --then, hell, I'll do it.
(Something similar could be arranged for, say, music and literature; e.g., an eternal, resellable copyright.)
Bottom line: if it's a good bet, private investors will pounce on it. If it's not, then it's a waste of money, regardless of whether that money is spent by private investors or by the government -- except that the government would be wasting my money, and I don't like that.
will turn out to be good in a generation or two" argument
doesn't persuade me in the least.
pounce on it.
No, of course it's nowhere near that simple; I was being facetious. But it's nonetheless a decent first-approximation model, heh. The main problem is not overpopulation, but inefficient use of resources (such as, for instance, all those people).
"... the intense competition among starving organisms for limited resources causes a lot of screwy things to happen..."
A lot of them being good, BTW.
Probably the same person who wrote, in #1057,
"... the art which comes to influence an entire generation, inspiring whole new artistic schools, is often far enough ahead of its time that it never really catches on in the artist's lifetime. This art, which later generations will cherish -- and wonder why the lot of us didn't see how excellent it was -- will be seen in our lifetime as having little to no value."
In other words, if we want to subsidize the art produced today that will be cherished by later generations, the only thing we can do is subsidize just about all art produced today -- since our ability to foresee what later generations will cherish is next to nil.
Just like the early value of a start-up's stock often has "little to do" with the value 10 or 20 years later. (BTW, what's a "final perceived value," anyway?) That doesn't prevent venture capitalists from investing in those start-ups, using their best judgement and the best information available at the time, and -- overall --making money out of it.
inefficient use of resources (such as, for instance, all those
people).
OK, so then you're suggesting we fund not all art, but x% of it, for some x -- and, mind you, a random x%, since we still can't tell what those later generations will like and what they won't. It's a smaller bet, but no better or worse than the funding-just-about-all-art one.
(Of course, the more art we fund, the more will be produced -- and an argument can be made that the marginal quality will be decreasing, since people who create art for art's sake are more likely to be better at it than those who only do it if it's funded. But the flip side of that argument is that perhaps we should not subsidize the arts at all, if we want to maximize the average quality. Again, remember all those starving Impressionists.)
A temporary boost to Bob Geldof's career?
Well, let's just say that good things are a bit harder to come by with a Mengistu type breathing down your neck. Overpopulation certainly wasn't the main cause of the problem, in that case.
I wonder though, what is the average life expectancy for persons in Uttar Pradesh?
Don't know, but India is a developing country, so I'm sure it's steadily increasing. Another question might be, what does 1 billion Indians do to the surrounding ecosystem. Example: the optimistic estimate is that there are maybe 4000 tigers left in the India-China frontier, and at the rate both nations accumulate more warm bodies (and poach tigers for their reputed aphrodisiac properties), they'll probably be extinct before too long. I dunno, I think 1 billion of any people is quite enough. I'd rather have more tigers, quite frankly.
Secondly, I didn't see any mentioning of the expected population decrease from the dying baby-boomers.
I'm sure we can expect greater life expectancy in Europe and North America as well, so the Boomers will live longer on average.
My flatmates and I had a discussion regarding over-population just yesterday. One in particular stated that she believed that essentially all of the world's problems stemmed from over-population. She just returned from a two year stay in Thailand and Cambodia, so I can see why she would think this way, but I don't think that our problems can be reduced that simply. What's your opinion?
The easy answer is that your flatmate is on to something there. It's the old rats-in-a-cage experiment: you have a certain amount of rats in a cage, they get along fine, and socialize peacefully. Too many rats in confined quarters, and they start killing each other, as though the concept of finite, crowded space made them "stir crazy".
Part of the problem is disproportionate consumption. The relatively underpopulated Western countries consume far more resources than the "overcrowded" developing nations. A one-child family in the US undoubtedly consumes more resources, and produces more landfill waste, than a seven-child family in Calcutta.
The problem arises though, as developing countries will acquire more wealth, they too will consume more resources. This will eventually obliterate surrounding ecosystems, if not sensibly monitored. It is unfair to say, but the simple fact is, if the entire world consumed at the rate Americans do, we'd probably be screwed, ecologically. So the rich countries need to get more serious about renewable resources, and help the developing countries adopt such technologies early on. At present rates of growth, we'll be at around 9 billion people in 50 years. Consumption, and especially disposal, of resources will be of paramount concern.
As for social unrest caused by overpopulation, I'm the wrong person to address that issue. I live in a town of 6000 people, and it's too fucking crowded for my taste.
If you're postulating a negative correlation between popularity today and popularity 30 years from now -- as opposed to no correlation at all -- then that's an even further boon (and therefore a further enticement) to the private investors, since this gives them additional information to base their picks on.
"I think that once you let politicians start whoring for votes by exploiting misunderstood art, you're setting a bad trend."
I agree, so far...
"And, for me, the answer isn't to cut arts funding any more than mishaps in military acquisitions are grounds to end all military funding. The answer is to let the policy people determine what can be spent, and then let the experts figure out the best way to spend it."
The problem is that I don't trust those "experts." (After all, if they could predict what art will be valued 30 years hence and what won't, they could make lots more money as consultants to private investors -- or, for that matter, as private investors, themselves -- than as NEA bureaucrats. Since they can't, they are more likely to favor their buddies, or art that makes political statements they agree with, etc.) Therefore, I would rather get the state out of the art game entirely, and leave it to the market.
(If I could come up with a similar solution for military funding, I might perhaps be tempted to try it, too.)
Thank you for your reply. When my flatmate said that she felt the world's problems stemmed from over population, I asked her what she believed the solution to be, and her immediate reply was "More effective family planning" (her polite way of saying population control via the Chinese method.) Thinking about that and what you said about disproportionate consumption, I wonder what would happen if say everything went on as it has been, but pollution was mostly eradicated. Of course I'm speaking in what-ifs here, but if pollution was more internationally addressed, don't you think that many of "the world's problems" could be solved?
Not really. Most of the world's problems stem not from pollution, but from distribution issues. We have plenty of food to feed everyone, but much of it goes to waste in storage. We can cure many of the diseases that keep lifespans short in the third world, but those who own the medications won't sell at prices the third world can pay.
I am curious what the people out there think of South Africa's intent to force the AIDS drug manufacturers to license the drugs at cost of production (and not include any recapture of research costs). I think it is a bad idea, which if it catches on will lead to drug companies having less incentive to perform research. I can see South Africa's point, that the cost that AIDS treatment is sold at exceeds the average person's income.
Oh lighten up, Arm. I'm sure Laura Ingraham would be delighted to pitch them on QVC.
Cellar --
You mean she's not? Don't tell me Pat Buchanan's still got that gig.
I largely agree but would add one more issue:
America's phenomenal success in exporting its mass culture via films and TV have helped ensure that people in developing nations have an increased appetite for what they view as the American life. While this might be a positive for America in that it encourages immigration of hardworking individuals, it certainly has a downside in that encourages more consumption.
It will be very difficult for America and Americans to preach a lower impact lifestyle to developing nations while we promulgate visions of materialist bliss.
What I know about the U.S. Justice Department/Columbus police department matter is that Justice has sued, or is threatening to sue, to enjoin an alleged "pattern or practice" of the police department that deprives persons of Constitutional rights. (42 U.S. 14141 authorizes such a lawsuit.) I don't know what the alleged deprivation of rights consists of - suburbanite that I am, I don't pay enough attention to the city I work in.
The Justice Department and the City have been negotiating a consent decree, but the police department from the Chief on down deny wrongdoing and oppose the proposed consent decree.
You can probably find out more at the Columbus Dispatch's website, www.dispatch.com.
The problem of overpopulation has much to do with the fact that we, as a whole, are living longer. So it would seem that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking.
"... that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking."
No, no, no. Smoking doesn't kill people -- people kill people. Ask Phillip Morris.
Interesting, if true:
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999; 2:21 p.m. EDT
Special prosecutor declines to indict Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt or anyone else in Indian casino deal, sources say.
Thanks ohio
The Chinese method of enforced family planning would work, certainly, but would be unacceptable in democratic societies, obviously. In undeveloped and developing countries, the most efficient way to curb high birth rates would be to strengthen their economies. The more money and opportunities people have, the fewer kids they have, in general.
Many industrialized nations actually have negative birth rates, such as Japan and Italy. The US has a higher birth rate in part because of immigration, particularly from societies where having a lot of kids is the cultural norm.
At any rate, as poorer nations develop, even though their birth rates decline, they will likely consume proportionally greater amounts of goods and resources. JRoth makes a great point in #1085, that America exports its way of life rather effectively to many other cultures, and they learn our materialism. I think this will be as much, if not more of a problem than actual overcrowding, because acquiring more resources with which to manufacture more goods will encroach upon and destroy natural habitats.
I don't really want to soapbox against the role organized religions play in this, but I do find it irresponsible that many adherents are still being exhorted to "be fruitful and multiply". It's just not necessary anymore. There are quite enough of us. That doesn't mean that no one should have any kids, but maybe three or four max might be a good place to stop nowadays, especially in industrialized countries.
You have made a number of cracks about Pat Buchanan being a Nazi or lover of Nazism, or an admirer of Hitler. Since you are the smartest person on the MOTE, could you tell from what Pat has written that brings you to that conclusion? You can quote from Pat's new book, just the page numbers, and I will go to the trouble of looking it up and reading it so I can understand just why you make the cracks, other than just being a knee jerk Liberal. Now please don't think I am calling you a jerk; it's just a figure of speech.
Al --
"You can quote from Pat's new book, just the page numbers, and I will go to the trouble of looking it up and reading it ..."
Sure.
Right after you cite the section of the Constitution you were discussing last night.
This is unfortunate (the injury, not the prognosis):
Nancy Reagan Breaks Rib at Home
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999; 10:48 p.m. EDT
LOS ANGELES –– Former first lady Nancy Reagan was described by her spokeswoman Wednesday as being in pain but otherwise doing fine after breaking a rib in a fall at her Bel-Air home last week.
Mrs. Reagan, 78, was looking through a box of old photos when she slipped, said spokeswoman Joanne Drake.
"She's in pain, but she's doing OK," Drake said.
Greystoke provides the world with yet another illustration of the fact that Lefties constitutionally love to nose through and capitalize on any negative sounding personal matters of those whom they hate. I call this the Donna Brazile complex.
The BLM harassing ranchers is 'good land stewardship'? The fascists are on the rise, IMO.
Is that a promise? All I have to do is cite the section of the Contitution that makes me believe "hate crime laws" violate the Constitution and you will give me the cites that convice you Pat is a Nazi sympathiser? If so, say so and I will gladly comply with your request.
"In other words, if we want to subsidize the art produced today that will be cherished by later generations, the only thing we can do is subsidize just about all art produced today -- since our ability to foresee what later generations will cherish is next to nil."
..probably thinks Joe Stalin is his kinda guy. The above proposal is little different than the state control of art that the Soviet Union practiced.
That being said, I'm not real comfortable with requiring Ma, Pa and Slim to prep a enviromental impact statement for the wet meadow and the summer range etc. Too many forms, too much paperwork etc. Now if one is prepared at Gov't expense for an entire area, and the ranchers get a real hearing from the feds, ok. If not, we're into overkill.
It wasn't quite so simple as that. Socialist Realist Paintings, for instance, as Soviet Communists termed it, were encouraged by the government to include ideologically significant messages, which are also surprisingly common in the current genre of Federally subsidized art.
What you have just said is very perceptive, and has profound consequences.
The passage in question was my rephrasing of A5's position (which rephrasing, for the record, he criticized as inaccurate). Neither of us was advocating anything even remotely Stalinist. So, please, don't be silly.
grammar!: substitute "...termed *them*...". & the *artists* were encouraged, of course.
So, then Stalin isn't your or A5's type, so feel free to disregard my (qualified, of course) prefatory statement. The rest stands.
Re: overpopulation/consumption of resources.
I must dissent. The view that overpopulation leading to resource consumption - and then running out of resources is, to my view, looking at the wrong problem.
There are several specific points that you made that I would like to address, but I don't really have the time for them all, so I will pick and choose.
For the first post of the evening I'll start with a little history.
In the early-60's, a group of computer scientists and economists collaborated on a project that used complex mathmatics and (for the time) high- speed computers to model how resource consumption, population, industrialization, etc. would interact over time. The group called themselves the Club of Rome. Their results were quite depressing. No matter what policies were taken (even quite draconian ones like mandating a 50% decline in world population) their models showed that increasing consumption of resources and increasing population would lead up to a point where all resources were consumed, and world population would crash to about 2-5% of 1960 levels. Their best case scenario claimed that even if world consumption and population growth were to be frozen, the crash would come no later than 1980. Why they were wrong is something I'll address after I fix the procedure I'm working on, but before I do, I wanted to toss this brickbat:
The problem of overpopulation has much to do with the fact that we, as a whole, are living longer. So it would seem that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking.
We already have a simple solution to this problem, if you think it is one. AIDS is killing an significant fraction of the population in Africa -- some estimates put it as high as half the population from it and its indirect consequences. Simply put, all we need to do is deny any therapies the first world develops to treat AIDS to Africa. Or perhaps just as effectively, insist on maintaining first-world prices for any treatments we sell there. Anyone think we should adopt this as policy for the 'good of world society'?
Human beings living their entire lives in close physical proximity to each other are an evolutionary fact of life. The establishment of urban centers 10,000 or more years was possible because of human beings' social tendencies, and the worst case examples of human crowding have been with us ever since.
The argument in this forum seems to devolve largely into the question of the availability of the necessary resources to sustain an expanding human population. This is more productively followed up in a regional manner and only secondarily from a global perspective. For instance, Mainland China adequately provides for the nutritional (and other) needs of its 1.2+ billion citizens with a locally sustainable environmental impact with a small fraction of the arable land of the US. For the entire world to approach this intensity of resource utilization would require a global population in excess of 30 billion. The fact is that overall global population trends are leveling off asymptotically to a level in the 10 billion range late in the 21st Century.
Global warming, while it exists, will level off within the next few generations, and the average global temperature will probably not attain the levels it reached during Medieval Warm Period.
Al --
"All I have to do is cite the section of the Contitution that makes me believe "hate crime laws" violate the Constitution ..."
Not quite. Let's see you cite the statuory language you object to and then the provision of the Constitution you contend is violated by that language. Who knows -- you might even persuade me that you're right.
I think I owe you an apology. When you so politely asked me to say where in the Contitution I gained the opinion that "hate crime laws" violated said Constitution, I sarcasticaly said, "Do the work yourself" or some some arrogant thing. Now, not being an attorney, nor as wise and smart as you, let me tell you what I meant. I cannot site chapter and verse of said "hate crime laws" nor would you expect a mere ignorant layment to do so.
Now, Amendment XIV, Section 1, All persons born or naturalized...;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As you can see from your copy of the Contitution, I have omitted some in order to get at the meaningful part.
I realize that I am only expressing my opinion of what is meant here, and that many would not see it my way.
realize that I abhor Nazism as much as I do Communism (are you with me on that), so if Pat Buchanan is truely a Nazi as you seem to indicate, I want to know about it. So please oblige me and inform me of just where in Mr. Buchanan's writings I might find that evidence.
Evidently you are abed, which makes good sense. Now, I will soon join you, in dreamland that is. Of course, I may not sleep easily having to worry just how it is that after reading "A Republic Not an Empire" I missed the part where Buchanan expressed his love for Hitler. You know, Trial Shark, to we old fogies who actually lived through the Hitler years and suffered real pain from WWII, accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathiser is serious business indeed. It is sort of like that terrible scoundral McCarthy did accusing people of being commies. The fact that he turned out to be right is no excuse.
Now please don't tell me that you are one of those who still believes that Hiss was just a good Liberal falsely accused. By the way, Trial Shark, just when was it that the Federal Government learned that Alger was in the pay of the KGB? Maybe that question belongs in the Quiz Thread. Good night all.
He says our entry into WWII was a mistake as Hitler was an Anti-Communist.
Al –
Good morning.
"When you so politely asked me to say where in the Contitution I gained the opinion that "hate crime laws" violated said Constitution, I sarcasticaly said, "Do the work yourself" or some some arrogant thing."
Now that you mention it, that did seem a little snippy.
"I think I owe you an apology."
It's big of you to say so. I accept.
Still, I can't agree with your position unless you cite language in a statute which violates the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment you cited. I assume from your edits you were referring to the Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What you haven't cited is a statute which denies any person the equal protection of the laws.
Rather than just leave the question open, though, let me cite to you a recent "hate crime" enactment, signed into being by the favorite conservative bogeyman, President William J. Clinton. It deals with matters which may be considered by the sentencing authority: "Evidence in aggravation ... may include evidence that the accused intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
Does that provision raise the Fourteenth Amendment concerns you cited earlier? If so, why?
FYI, I'm not blowing you off re our friend, Pat Buchanan. There's just a lot of stuff to gather.
The obvious conclusion of this, is that the best way to stop overpopulation, and a host of other problems, is to help third world countries get rich.
I remember an Economist article from a few years back suggesting it correlated better with level of education for women, but similar concept.
"Evidence in aggravation ... may include evidence..."
It depends on what the meaning of the word "may" is. Does this sentence list criteria for determining if aggravation is present? Or, does it mean that if the circumstances are right, the law could be interpreted in such a way that you could cite one of these criteria to make your case?
By "circumstances being right" I mean that a member of a favored minority was a victim.
I think the favored solution these days is to throw off the shackles of modern life and "return to the earth". As Al Gore would have us believe, it is the 1st world's consumption of resources that is killing the planet. For example, pesticides, while providing for much cheaper and more plentiful food, kill the environment. So, we should stop using them. True, we'll have to accept increases in food price along with decreases in food quality. But, we could "return to the earth" and start growing our own food. But, then we'd have problems with and agrarian society not being able to produce the energy to build, light, and heat our homes, so we'd have to live in huts with no toilets. At that point, water quality would be bad enough to wipe out a few million people.
If I admit that I don't know shit from shinola about hate crime laws, that I was just spouting off, will you then educate me further as to where in Buchanan's writings he indicates a liking for Hitler and Nazism? O.K., I admit to the above, Mr. Attorney. Please don't deprive me of knowledge on a technicality.
Al --
I wouldn't dream of depriving you of the full benefit of Pat Buchanan's wit and wisdom.
A note of clarification: it's not the man's latest work that convinces me a Nazi apologist; it's his accumulated record of public remarks which have led me to that conclusion. His book is just the latest brick in the oven, as it were.
Here are some of Pat Buchanan's comments over the years which give me pause:
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
"The school prayer crusade, then, is the first great counteroffensive of a badly routed Christian community to recapture their occupied public schools and re-establish their beliefs as the legitimate moral foundation of American society."
San Diego Union, February 25, 1984 (emphasis added)
[About claims that Jews were killed with, among other things, carbon monoxide at Treblinka] "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
NY Post March 17, 1990
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
On The McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990 (note the similarity to the term "Zionist Occupation Government," in vogue with groups such as Aryan Nation)
continued ...
More gems from Pat Buchanan ...
"The Negroes of the ‘50s became the blacks of the ‘60’s; now, the ‘African-Americans’ of the 90’s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along … Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the U.S.A.? …Is it not time to take America back?"
NY Post, June 20, 1990
"Whatever Rudolph did during World War II, his quarter century of service to the United States entitles the old man to a public hearing before he goes to his grave."
-NY Post, July 14, 1990 (emphasis added)
"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
On The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinal as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always-irate Elie Wiesel... he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith."
The New Republic, October 22, 1990
"David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
Manchester Union Leader, December 15, 1991
"After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."
A Republic, Not an Empire, p. 336
continued ...
Some concluding thoughts ...
Lest you attribute my assement of Pat Buchanan to the "knee jerk liberalism" you so often complain of, Al, let me leave you with the comments of a few distinguished non-liberals:
"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism…"
William F. Buckley
National Review, December 30, 1991
NEW YORK -- Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City accused GOP presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan Wednesday of having a "history of protecting Nazis," and he called the prospect of Buchanan becoming his party's nominee "frightening." Buchanan "did everything he could to prevent a commandant of a Nazi concentration camp from going back to the Soviet Union and being punished as he should," Giuliani said.
CNN Interactive, February 22, 1996
"Fascism is not a doctrine. It’s a sensibility, and you’re seeing it here. Tribalism in social policy, autarchy (ph) in economic policy. We’ve seen it before. Franco — it came in many flavors in the 1930s. One of them is on display right now in Pat Buchanan."
George F. Will
On ABC This Week, September 26, 1999
Cygnus --
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "may" is."
What a positively ... Clintonian ... observation. [g]
I'm not sure I understand your question. Aggravating evidence is the converse of mitigating evidence: evidence in mitigation may be considered in determining whether to lessen the accused's sentence following conviction, while evidence in aggravation may form a basis for increasing the sentence.
The "hate crime" provision I quoted is permissive: evidence of intentional selection of the victim on the basis of an enumerated characteristic may be considered as evidence in aggravation. The weight to be given to evidence in mitigation or in aggravation, if any, lies with the sentencing authority.
I'm still not convinced. Having just read portions of _Mein Kampf_, Buchanan doesn't seem to be a nazi sympathizer at all.
I *would* like to know more about this comment, though:
"David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
Manchester Union Leader, December 15, 1991
Like, who was he speaking to and what was said before and after this snippet.
You certainly have done a fine job. I take my hat off to you. Now, I will not at this time debate the question of Pat's anti-semetic, or some might say seeemingly anti-semetic. I would like to deal with this
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man
who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he
was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great
War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed
oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But
Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His
genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the
weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the
statesmen who stood in his path."
St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
I agree with the above. Does that meke me partial to Hitler and Nazism? A reading of Mein Kampf should have shown western leaders, Roosevelt among them, what he was up to. Did they prepare their countries to stand up to this tyrant, or did they shine him on, making in many cases favorable statements about him? I could make the argument that Roosevelt only became a hawk after Russia was attacked. Certainly he had many in his administration giving him good advise, good for the USSR that is. If you read Pat's book his point seems to be that if we are to tsake on tyrants, we should be prepared to do so.
What was more foolish in the '30's than a mutual defense agreement between Russia and France? I lost a brother because of WWII, and yet I have to read by some here that America contributed little to Gewrmany's defeat. The real credit goes to Uncle Joe.
Symbols are very powerful things, and nothing brings up my hackles more than a swastica. It puzzles me, however, that the Hammer and Scycle don't arouse the same feelings. What forces made me hate the Nazis but just love old Uncle Joe.
I have to leave now to go shopping, my least favorite activity. I do respect the work you have done in the above, and will take a vow not to be so sarcastic. I also take vows to quit golf, but a break it several times a week.
Admittedly there are still two weeks to go, but your #1123 has a very good chance at the coveted award of Most Shallow Post of The Month.
'zarade --
"I'm still not convinced."
I am.
The David Duke comment was reported during one of Mr. Buchanan's early campaign speeches. I have no idea what Pat said before or after.
I suppose it's possible Mr. Buchanan was complaining that Mr. Duke was infringing on a patent for multitexturing graphics chips.
Go to:
http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/index.htm#experiments
Look around at the Holocaust and what it stood for, and tell me you think Buchanan is a nazi sympathizer.
Al --
" Hitler ... was also an individual of great courage..."
Having toured some concentration camps in Europe, I'd demur. The mass slaughter or innocents -- including children -- knocks a couple of points off of your score for "courageousness" in my book.
But that's just me.
"Symbols are very powerful things, and nothing brings up my hackles more than a swastica. It puzzles me, however, that the Hammer and Scycle don't arouse the same feelings. What forces made me hate the Nazis but just love old Uncle Joe."
Beats the heck out of me. I put them on a par with each other.
'zerade --
Thanks for the link. Right as I was getting ready to go out for lunch, too.
BTW: Are you suggesting that those were the ideas Mr. Buchanan accused Mr. Duke of stealing? 'Cause I don't think that's what he was talking about, but you never know ...
Ok, the 'reptillian' crack was unfair. . . . . to the reptiles.
'zerade --
BTW, please remember that I used the term "apologist." If you mean to use the term "sympathizer" synonymously, then we're on the same wavelength.
JJ --
Sure he's a murderer and a racist, but let's not forget his good qualities ...
Nah. Sounds like an apologist to me.
And the Volkswagen. And let's not forget the advancement of rocketry and jet engine technology. Or techniques for mass burial.
Jonesy --
Works for me: "Sure, he sucked up to Hitler, but he made the trains run on time."
Hey, we could apply that now: "Sure, he sucked up to Buchanan, but he's been drug-free since 1974. Probably."
Nah. Too easy.
Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage,
Hitler was a gambler, not courageous. He started his murderous policies with those least able to resist, the "defective"- mentally retarded or mentally ill and the terminally ill. These were medically and "mercifully" killed first. Then he came for those on the margins of German society- gypsies, gays, jews. He was enthusiastic about creating Nordic racial "purity" in the German nation. Even he would not have qualified to reproduce under his programs- he was short, dark haired and not blue eyed, and had jewish ancestors. He chose the nations he would attack in the same fashion. Not courageous at all.
a soldier’s soldier in the Great War,
He received the lowest order of the iron cross in the war, not exactly a hero. He was gassed and in the hospital when the war ended. He was a corporal in the war, not exactly a leader of a large number of men. Given losses in the war, he would have had opportunites for
further advancement if he was a great soldier.
a leader steeped in the history of Europe..
Must have skipped Napoleon's invasion of Russia, and never heard the 1812 overture. Must have forgotten WWI and how long it lasted when he set the wheels in motion in 1939, and rejected German jet production as being too long to be useful in the war. 1943 would have been rather different for the 8th AF if the Me262 had not been ordered to be coverted into a bomber in early development.
Its one thing to acknowledge the ability of a leader, even an evil one, and another to distort the facts in order to praise him. Buchanan does this and is just as contemptuous as the ultra-PC liberals who loved the Sandinistas.
Jonesy --
Hitler must have known he would be criticized by namby-pamby Lie-berals like yourself for his views on racial purity, and he must have known his methods of ensuring the success of the Aryan people would be condemned by the mongrel nations of the West. Yet he held fast to his ideals and ordered the slaughter of millions, despite the naysayers.
Truly, this was an act of "great courage."
That's what Pat meant.
Yeah.
Maybe that's the problem. I don't see anything Buchanan said that could be construed as praise or admiration. I can recognize an enemy's courage and leadership while despising everything he stands for. Perhaps the problem isn't with Buchanan, but with those who are unable to view history objectively and must filter everything through their own prejudices and hatreds.
"Even he would not have qualified to reproduce under his programs- he was short, dark haired and not blue eyed, and had jewish ancestors. He chose the nations he would attack in the same fashion. Not courageous at all."
Not to defend Hitler, but first of all, he was a decorated soldier in World War I who apparently fought bravely. Does this make him courageous? Well, yes, according to the definition of "courage" which existed until the last fifty years. "Courage" and "Bravery" generally meant physical bravery, usually in battle.
As to short: He was of average height.
As to dark: He was pale.
And he had blue eyes. How do I know this? Go watch "Boys from Brazil," where Hitler's clones all had bright blue eyes. I doubt very much that a book & movie about Hitler's clones could possibly have botched his eye color.
Hitler was a monster, but we needn't invent facts to prove this. The Holocaust is pretty much all the proof we need.
Incidentally, Hitler's Final Solution of exterminating Gypsies and Jews was horrific enough. I really don't know how much "and he was a damn hypocrite, too!" adds to that horror.
Buchanan said:
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
I really don't know what's controversial in that statement. He was a decorated soldier; he was a history buff; he had (by all accounts) an absolutely electrifying presence when he spoke publicly. Yeah, he looks like an idiot when you see him on newsreel clips, but everyone I've read has stated he was masterful at oratory.
And I really must say that it is certainly conventional wisdom to call the government during the Weimar years "mushy." Certainly it was ineffectual.
Witness the rise of Nazism.
"Not to defend Hitler, but ..."
I wondered how long it would take Ace to chime in.
I wondered how much of an idiot TrialShark was. Well, maybe wondered isn't the right word.
"Marvelled at." That's better.
Thanks, Ace. I know I have a long way to go, but I hope someday to be as idiotic as you.
What a stupid little cunt you are, TrialShark.
TrialShark, the bitchiest bitch on the Net, has once agin resorted to unnecessary ad hominems, when no ad hominems were directed at himself or anyone else.
Much better, Ace. "Idiotic" didn't seem strong enough. I knew you could come up with a more manly epithet, if you gave it some thought.
Now go have a cookie.
Yawn. Everytime I read your bitchy, nasty little posts, I hear the voice of Truman Capote.
Go give your wife another unsatisfying poke, tool.
I'm sorry. I meant, of course, "Mrs. Shark."
That's so cute.
JJ --
"Perhaps the problem isn't with Buchanan, but with those who are unable to view history objectively ..."
Oh, so that's what was going on. Pat Buchanan wasn't praising Hitler; he was just "objectively" assessing his leadership qualities.
That's why Pat used the following objective terms to describe Der Fuhrer:
"an individual of great courage"
"a soldier's soldier"
"steeped in the history of Europe"
"extraordinary gifts"
"genius"
Yep. Pure objectivity. Thanks for clearing that up, JJ.
Ace --
"Everytime I read your bitchy, nasty little posts, I hear the voice of Truman Capote."
Perhaps if you tried reading without moving your lips it would be quieter, Ace.
I think you're just about ready for that step. I really do.
TrialShark
We have an area of agreement. We lump Hitler and Stalin together, both butcherous tyrants. But in America Uncle Joe doesn't create the same feelings as Stalin. Why is that? Certainly Churchill and Roosevelt admired him greatly and "understood" him much better than Chamberlain understood Hitler.
For God sakes, does anybody posting here think anyone is defending Hitler. That is beyond preposterous.
Anyone want to debate the possibility of something like this happening in the United States? Anyone want to question the wisdom of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
That's because Americans preferred Leni Reifenstahl to Sergei Eisenstein.
At the end of the day, we can always say in defense of Clinton, not only was he a great orator in the Hitler tradition
No, that was Reagan.
Clowntoon is the treasonous rapist idiot who lied himself into an impeachment.
Btw, Hitler was a National Socialist - his agenda had much more in common with Lefty goals and methods than that of the political right.
Indeed, the National Socialists comprised the farthest left government that Germany had had since unification.
Yes. To most people those terms are objective. I have seen Hitler described in the same and similar terms by historians. The only lack of objectivity I see here is yours. You are so desperate to paint Buchanan as a nazi apologist, you will grasp at any straw to do so. Buchanan has plenty of flaws for which he should be justly condemned. There is no need to distort the record in order to find more.
connie --
"TS seems to have succumbed to the Lefty predeliction for broad brush demonization of enemies."
Yup. Me and Bill and Rudy and George.
Lefties all.
JJ --
"To most people those terms are objective."
I laughed.
Then I looked those terms up in the dictionary and danged if Adolph Hitler's picture wasn't next to every one.
I wouldn't go around spreading my historical ignorance if I were you, concerned. National Socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism as its traditionally understood and operated. Tell all your Freeper Friends ASAP. Not that they'll listen.
What was the name of that concentration camp guard that Israel wanted to deport for trial a few years ago and Pat stepped in to help him get out of it?
connie --
"I haven't seen any evidence to date that he is a Hitler apologist, per se. That would require, in my book, that Buchanan would have been making comments intended to excuse, justify or deny the reality of the Nazi execution of millions of Jews ..."
Perhaps Mr. Buchanan had your definition of "Nazi apologist" in mind when he penned these words:
"Since the war, 1,600 medical papers have been written on 'The Psychological and Medical Effects of the Concentration Camps on Holocaust Survivors.' This so-called 'Holocaust Survivor Syndrome' involves 'group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.' Reportedly, half of the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem are considered 'unreliable,' not to be used in trials."
"The Israeli court ... concluded that the murder weapon for 850,000 was the diesel engine from a Soviet tank which drove its exhaust into the death chamber ... The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
New York Post, March 17, 1990
Ball's in your court, connie.
---------------
By all accounts [Hitler] was a good soldier who went to considerable pains to attract the attention of his superior officers. In the war he won nearly every medal and decoration available to a soldier but never rose above the rank of corporal and never applied for promotion, apparently because he was perfectly content with being a Meldeganger, or dispatch runner. In later years he liked to say that he had been a "front line soldier," but this was a totally inaccurate description. As a dispatch runner he was often in great danger, for he would be sent to the front line trenches in the midst of a battle, but he knew little about the interminable agonies of trench warfare.
[...]
[For an incident in which he and another man protected their c.o. from machine gun fire, with their bodies] Hitler received the Iron Cross, second class. Before the war ended, he collected four more medals. In September, 1917, he received the Cross of Military Merit, third class, with swords. In May, 1918, he received the regimental diploma. In August, 1918, he received the Iron Cross, first class, and a few days later the Medal of Military Service, third class. He is supposed to have received the Iron Cross, first class, for an outstanding feat of arms --singlehandedly capturing fifteen English or French soldiers encountered when he slipped into an enemy trench while acting as a dispatch runner. Four or five separate versions of the incident were published in official books and newspapers after Hitler came to power, and it was generally believed that an incident of this kind had happened. On the rare occasions when he was asked about it, Hitler was mildly reticent. In fact, the incident never took place and there were excellent reasons for his reticence.
[Cont.]
"As a dispatch runner, he has shown cold-blooded courage and exemplary boldness both in positional warfare and in the war of movement, and he has always volunteered to carry messages in the most difficult situations and at the risk of his life. Under conditions of great peril, when all the communication lines were cut, the untiring and fearless activity of Hitler made it possible for important messages to go through."
The Iron Cross, first class, was well deserved. Four days later the medal was pinned on his jacket. When Hitler came to power all the circumstances leading to the award were discreetly veiled as though some dark mystery was attached to it. The mystery was very simple. First Lieutenant Hugo Gutmann was a Jew, and by then Hitler preferred not to let it be known that he owed his Iron Cross, first class, to the recommendation of a Jewish officer in the German Army.
---------------
JJ --
Hmmm. If you're brandishing Hitler's success as proof of his courage, scholarship, and genius, what are we to make of the destruction of his nation and the 45-year enslavement of half of his people?
No, wait. I get it now: Hitler's suicide to avoid capture was a gesture of "great courage." He slaughtered millions of civilians because, after all, that's what "soldier's soldiers" do.
Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa because he was so "steeped in the history of Europe" he knew the invasion would succeed, and of course, his declaration of war on the United States was an act of positive "genius."
Truly, a lesser man would not be worthy of such objective descriptions, but you and Pat Buchanan have convinced me, JJ.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Really.
Stumbo --
Thanks for the post. In all seriousness, assuming Mr. Payne's account of how Hitler got his Iron Cross is any more valid than the four or five false ones he described, it's an interesting bit of history.
I disagree with your comment about "courageousness" being a "statement of fact." Men often perform daring -- even foolhardy -- acts in hope of gaining recognition or reward, as Hitler did. This means they are ambitious. It does not necessarily follow that they are courageous.
Here's an example I'm sure all the conservatives in the Mote will appreciate: John Hinckley shot the President of the United States in order to win the attention of the woman he loved. In so doing, he risked almost certain death at the hands of the Secret Service. There was never the possibility that he'd be disgraced or even executed for failing to carry out his mission.
I've not heard John Hinckley praised as a man of "great courage," nor would I expect to. But heck -- if what Pat Buchanan meant was to say that Adolph Hitler was a man of great courage, just like John Hinckley, who am I to disagree?
The difference between "courage" and "foolhardiness" is but an editorial comment. If someone strongly believes in a certain goal (be it the well-being of his country, or the desirability of earning himself an Iron Cross) and is willing to risk his life in exchange for a reasonable chance of promoting it, then I would certainly call that courage -- regardless of the worthiness of said goal. (And, unless Hinckley was so insane that he couldn't foresee the possible negative consequences to himself, he of course qualifies, too.)
But, anyway, in this particular case -- what's your claim? That nobody can be called courageous unless he's also a nice guy? Or that, Germany being the guilty party in WW1, no German soldier who took part in that war could ever be called courageous? Or that no soldier, anywhere, anytime, who takes a risk in exchange for the promise of a medal can be so called?
Yes, it would sure be aesthetically pleasing if, in addition to being a mass murderer, Hitler had also been a coward. But why react to the negation of the latter as if it somehow negated the former, as well? Perhaps a few eight-year-olds who were force-fed too much M*A*S*H believe that all good guys are brave, smart, and cute, while all bad guys are cowardly, stupid, and ugly -- but surely you and I know better?
I'm still waiting, BTW, to see that follow-up passage, if any.
Stumbo --
"The difference between "courage" and "foolhardiness" is but an editorial comment."
Precisely. And Mr. Buchanan chose the former editorial comment, rather than the latter. He even amplified on the adjective, calling Adolph Hitler a man of great courage. No one denies Mr. Buchanan's right to choose the words he wishes; but neither should anyone deny that they are the words Mr. Buchanan chooses. They represent his opinion; they are not, in this instance, compelled by immutable historical truth.
"But, anyway, in this particular case -- what's your claim?"
Zip back to about message number 1100 and work your way forward. Al wondered about my antipathy toward Pat Buchanan. I laid it out in as straightforward a fashion as I could. The executive summary: Pat Buchanan is anti-Semitic and an apologist for the Nazis ... or at least, he plays one on TV.
Naturally, some folks here want to ascribe my opinion to politics. While it's true that I am an admirer of Senator John McCain -- who has little use for Pat Buchanan -- my opinion was formed well before I heard of the Senator's opinions regarding Mr. Buchanan.
A couple of members of the wide-eyed set even say my critique of Mr. Buchanan is motivated by "liberalism." Since my opinion is shared, in whole or in part, by William F. Buckley, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and George F. Will, I think this analysis is somewhat off the mark.
Unless those gentlemen have all become "lefties," to borrow connie's phrase.
continued ...
continued from previous post ...
"Yes, it would sure be aesthetically pleasing if, in addition to being a mass murderer, Hitler had also been a coward. But why react to the negation of the latter as if it somehow negated the former, as well?"
It would be aesthetically pleasing, wouldn't it? One could easily argue that ordering the deliberate slaughter of unarmed people suggests a certain degree of cowardice -- in fact, I have argued as much. One could also argue that launching a sneak attack on another nation is a cowardly act. I believe that was how many people characterized Pearl Harbor, for example.
These factors do not appear to have entered into Mr. Buchanan's assessment of Der Fuhrer's courageousness.
I have no idea what the rest of your question was supposed to mean.
"Perhaps a few eight-year-olds who were force-fed too much M*A*S*H believe that all good guys are brave, smart, and cute, while all bad guys are cowardly, stupid, and ugly -- but surely you and I know better?"
Perhaps they do. And perhaps a few eight-year-olds believe that men who do dangerous things in war are ipso facto "courageous." Surely you and I know better -- don't we?
"Precisely. And Mr. Buchanan chose the former editorial comment, rather than the latter. He even amplified on the adjective, calling Adolph Hitler a man of great courage."
The point is that, in this case, the choice of editorial comment should only have to do with AH's performance on the front lines in WW1 -- not whether one endorses his subsequent political pursuits.
"A couple of members of the wide-eyed set even say my critique of Mr. Buchanan is motivated by 'liberalism.' Since my opinion is shared, in whole or in part, by William F. Buckley, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and George F. Will, I think this analysis is somewhat off the mark."
Well, it's certainly off the mark to bring this up in a reply to me, since I haven't claimed anything like that.
"One could easily argue that ordering the deliberate slaughter of unarmed people suggests a certain degree of cowardice --in fact, I have argued as much." etc.
Your definition of "cowardice" needs to be revised, then. Killing unarmed people may be quite immoral, but it's not cowardly, per se. Here's a quick glossary:
Note the lack of moral (as opposed to practical) judgement in the above definitions.
... And I'm still waiting for that follow-up passage, and am starting to believe it doesn't exist. If so, your case against PB (on that particular charge, at least -- which is all I'm discussing) consists of nothing but hair-splitting innuendo.
To risk all one has, to risk one's life, is courageous. This shouldn't be at all hard to understand and would seemingly be beyond niggling interpretation.
(I'm not saying mine are perfect, either, but they're the best I can furnish at 5 a.m.)
[excerpted from "Atawolf: The Riddle of Adolf Hitler," A Documentary Series for Television in Four Parts (appr. 150 Min.), Based on the Book "THE FUEHRER MYTH Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and the History Behind a Genocide" by Stig Hornshøj-Møller", here and here]
"In the real world of reality Hitler gained his first opportunity to become a hero as lance-corporal in the German army during World War I. The experience, however, was disappointing. Moreover, he was almost immediately transferred from active service in the frontline to tasks as an orderly further away from the shelling.
"Hitler's regiment landed three times in Flanders, and here he made his next personal experience with a Jew. Hitler had the rank of a lance- corporal, and was never promoted, because his superiors found him "unfit to lead men". However, in the beginning of 1918 he gets a new lieutenant, who apparently does appreciate him. His name is Hugo Gutmann - son of the Nurnberg merchant Salomon Gutmann, orthodox Jew. He recommends Gefreiter Hitler to the Iron Cross First Class. Already in 1914 Hitler had got the usual Iron Cross Second Class, and although this was a pure routine matter, he has written enthousiastically about the event to his former landlord. The Iron Cross First Class is, however, only awarded for special heroic acts, and no such is recorded in the case of Hitler.
Actually, interestingly, this mystery-shrouded event of having been awarded the Iron Cross of First Class by a Jew, seems to have somehow triggered Hitler's fanatic anti-semitism. According to this text, there is no evidence of Hitler being an anti-semite prior to his 1918 war time blinding incident. On the contrary, in fact.
During this incident, he reportedly had a vision, a virtual religious revelation, that demanded that he become a politician to lead the German people to restored greatness.
Suppose that, in order to achieve something I want, I need to risk my life.
"Taking necessary risks to achieve what one wants is not courage" implies that taking that risk is not courageous. "To risk all one has, to risk one's life, is courageous" implies that it is. Contradiction.
I'm sure you can easily rephrase your definitions so as to avoid it, but I can only go by what's in front of me at the time.
"This photograph [alas, the site doesn't actually provide the photograph, sto] is a later Nazi forgery, where Ludendorff is removed while Hitler is accentuated. The truth is, that when the police attacked, the lance-corporal disappeared into a side-street, while the general continued upright through the rain of bullets. All in all 14 rebels and four policemen died during the short skirmish. Hitler was arrested two days later and court-marshalled together with other conspirators. In the eyes of the officers he had acted like a coward, and Ludendorff - in the middle - did not deign to look to his side. This contempt was, however, lost upon Hitler, who used the dock as a preacher's chair for his political ideas. Considering the fact that he was charged with high treason which could have led to a death sentence, he got off with a remarkably mild sentence, the socalled "Festungshaft", which was served in Landsberg, only 30 kilometres outside Munich."
"No reference to a specific event"? Either SHM is clueless, or RP made it up. Given that RP (as you can tell even from the bits I quoted) isn't exactly a Hitler apologist, I would guess that the former case is a bit more likely.
Um, I was under the impression that it was others who dug up his references to the issue, out of the several books and several hundred columns he's written. So I'm not sure exactly who's more passionate about what.
However, I would like to see a specific reference to someone who despised Hitler, yet was in "awe" at his oratory skills. I have never read such an account. I seem recall having read accounts to the contrary: That his "despisers", or, political opponents, also actively despised his oratory. Often his guttural Austrian dialect was frowned at and hated by such people, I think.
No one compelled Buchanan to come forward in the first place with all the statements that TrialShark cited.
No one, I believe, compelled him to defend a guy accused of being a Nazi concentration camp criminal. Or, to try and downplay the Holocaust with that Diesel engine argument.
He seems to be quite capable of taking such actions himself.
"Passionate" was your word, not mine. Don't be so disingenuous, please.
The statement that I've been addressing happens to be (at least, reasonably defensible as) factual. To condemn someone based on it, with no context provided, is silly. Maybe TS will give us some context, at some point.
Do you also believe that, if the crime someone is accused of is sufficiently bad, he should be executed without a trial? Just wondering.
In any case, I don't see how arguing that "this specific guy wasn't the one who did X" amounts to "X wasn't a bad thing," or whatever it is that you're insinuating.
An examination of his Treblinka claim, from Nizkor
The point is, Buchanan does consistently try to see positive, angles in Nazism and/or its paraphernalia (such as Hitler's oratory skills). That's what I call a passionate pursuit of the issue - totally self-initiated, mind you.
Regarding the two differing historical accounts of the Iron Cross story: I really am in no position to assess the validity of either. But I observe that the quote in the Payne account in fact doesn't refer to a specific event. Which, according to Carlsen, was the normal procedure.
I wouldn't imagine Payne made up his story. And it may even be substantiated. But it seems it isn't referred to as the official reason for granting Hitler the Iron Cross. Admittedly, calling the wording "vague" is an interpretation, but not an unreasonable one.
300 -- reread my earlier comments to TS. I have no desire to retype them. G'night.
It was irresponsible, and what's worse, not in the best interests of the U.S. Yes, yes, there are problems with the Treaty, but they could have been worked out without a vote against it. Republicans (of which I am one) are increasingly marginalizing themselves with their actions.
What are the political benefits to the GOP's position?
A poke in Clinton's eye?
Perhaps flirting with the considerable isolationist sentiment out there?
Probably both.
Regardless of the alleged political advantage, does the GOP have legitimate substantive qualms?
(if you haven't noticed, I know nothing about this issue)
You forget the joy of kicking a man when he's down.
Regardless of the alleged political advantage, does the GOP have legitimate substantive qualms?
Yes, but they probably could have gotten what they wanted without voting the treaty down. The treaty is definitely in the interests of the U.S, but appears to have lost support for several reasons, only one of which was substantial: that being, it wasn't a particular well-written treaty (I haven't read the treaty, but I've read comments on it), and that there would have been some difficulty in verifying its provisions. The CIA reported just recently that some data (on an explosion, I believe) from the Russian Far East could not be verified as nonnuclear.
How often do we test nuclear weapons, where, etc . . . (if you don't mind edifying me)?
We don't. We haven't tested for some time.
I should probably read up on this. Thanks.
Stumbo --
In Message # 1182, you called Pat Buchanan's comments about Hitler's courage "just a statement of historical fact." You've now conceded they are actually a matter of editorial comment -- which was, of course, the point I was making with JJ. I'm glad to have you on board.
We remain in disagreement, however, about the definition of courage. Your formula: "Courageous = taking necessary risks to achieve what one wants" -- is both simplistic and inaccurate. For example: I drove to work this morning, in order to do my job and collect a paycheck. Doing so entailed some necessary risks. Heck, I could have been killed.
By your definition, driving to work was a courageous act. I don't see it that way. Nor do I agree that engaging in extremely dangerous conduct to obtain a reward is necessarily "courageous" -- unless you want to award that distinction to the heroin addicts downtown.
Still, since we are in agreement that Mr. Buchanan's comments were a matter of "editorial comment," I suppose the definition of courage isn't that important. In fact, each of the cited adjectives in the passage you've taken issue with involves a subjective assessment of Hitler's traits. I'm sure you agree.
As for your comment about "hair-splitting:" I posted many of Mr. Buchanan's comments. It is, as I said, the totality of those statements that lead me to conclude Mr. Buchanan is an apologist for the Nazis. You have elected to quibble about one term in one passage, while ignoring all the rest. Perhaps we need to debate your definition of "hair-splitting" next.
Your Message # 1199 intimates that you do not understand why I found and posted the Buchanan quotes. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. Al asked (several times) for me to provide cites to Mr. Buchanan's statements, and I did. I trust you now understand.
continued ...
continued from previous post ...
Finally, your suggestion in Message # 1202 -- "Maybe TS will give us some context, at some point" -- suggests that I've not done so. This is inaccurate. I've pointed you to the messages. It is entirely up to you to read them.
On Buchanan, he is a provacateur, a bombast, and a media personality. What matters first and foremost is getting a reaction. The reaction of Trial and others - that he is a Nazi or Hitler lover - is probably not true, but, given his nature, the conclusion probably tickles Buchanan no end. It is this sense of fun that allows him to maintain that hallowed place -the most famous, sought after interviewee/talk show host who also happens to dig Adolf.
The larger issue is the injection of political correctness into historical writing. It is a hard case to discuss with the tremor of Buchanan skewing the argument. But any other writer of historical argument would have gone rightly unnoticed, and were it not Buchanan, no one would feel the need to parse "courageous."
Niner --
I don't pretend to know what motivates the Senate GOPers. I imagine some genuinely opposed the CTBT on its merits. Others may simply have seen it as an opportunity to deal a defeat to a man they despise.
I would also imagine that there are some who, while not particularly opposed to the treaty or even angry with the President, still did not want to buck their leadership or the so-called GOP "core constituency" by giving the President anything that could be called a victory, unless they were certain it would redound to their political benefit. I don't think the test ban had enough public attention, or enough committed support, for those senators to cross the line for the President.
In fact, if the GOP is preparing to cave on the budget, the Congressional leadership may have felt the need to deal the President a defeat in order to appease the core constituency. But I don't as yet see any evidence that's true.
All of this is pure speculation, of course. My prediction is that this will have very little impact on public opinion. The public perception already is that the Congress and the President are at each other's throats. Even if the voters conclude that the CTBT's rejection was an act of pure partisan spite, it will simply appear to be business as usual. Neither party will gain much by the vote.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I think Buchanan is pretty clearly anti-Semitic. As Michael Kinsley noted, all of Pat's various anti-Jew, pro-accused-Nazi positions/statements are justifiable in and of themselves (in the sense that there are thoughtful arguments to be made for all of them), but when you sum them all up, well, as Goldfinger said: "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, the Third Time it's Enemy Action." You don't "just happen" to consistently fall on the anti-Israel, anti-Jew side of the line. If you keep flipping a coin and it keeps coming up "anti-Jew," you start to wonder if it's a fair coin.
And, since Pat will soon be leaving the Republicans in order to help elect Al Gore President, I just love the Hitler stuff. Love it. I was almost applauding Alan Derschowitcz a month ago when he was slamming Buchanan.
But I have this nagging sense of intellectual honesty and fair play which causes me to cry foul when TrialShark states that it demonstrates a great affection for Hitler to make the noncontroversial, nearly indisputable statements that Hitler-- yes, Hitler, the genocidal fascist monster Adolf Hitler-- was a courageous soldier in World War I, was pretty intelligent, and had a gift with oratory.
I suppose the test is this: If you really hated Hitler, you'd deny what is undeniable. Sort of like in 1984, when they ask Winston Smith to declare that 2 + 2 = 5.
Niner --
"The reaction of Trial and others - that [Buchanan] is a Nazi or Hitler lover ..."
"Apologist" was the term I used.
"... were it not Buchanan, no one would feel the need to parse 'courageous.'"
Funny how running for President sometimes gets your views extra attention.
That's not what he meant, Chester. He meant that dozens of historians have noted that Hitler was decorated in battle, and by all accounts acquitted himself bravely. That's simply the fact of the matter.
Trouble is, people like yourself decide on a whim that while it's okay for a historian to note that Hitler performed bravely in WWI, such a statement by Pat Buchanan makes him an "apologist."
But you guys like different rules for different people.
Ace --
"You don't 'just happen' to consistently fall on the anti-Israel, anti-Jew side of the line. If you keep flipping a coin and it keeps coming up 'anti-Jew,' you start to wonder if it's a fair coin."
Welcome aboard.
"But I have this nagging sense of intellectual honesty and fair play which causes me to cry foul when TrialShark states that it demonstrates a great affection for Hitler to make the noncontroversial, nearly indisputable statements ..."
No doubt your nagging sense of intellectual honest will eventually lead you to recall that I did not, in fact, say that the statements demonstrate "great affection."
You know, Ace, it's pretty clear to me that you and I come down on the same side of this issue. It's fun watching you look for a way to avoid coming out and saying so.
...you know, where the word "courageous" is parsed so that it no longer means "carrying on in the face of physical danger," but suddenly means "being a nice person who doesn't exterminate Jews or Gypsies."
Two good laughs: TrialShark comparing a battlefield to driving to work, and TrialShark postulating that many soldiers risk their lives for medals, and that these soldiers are therefore not "courageous" but rather merely "ambitious," and, needless to say, Hitler must of course fall in to the "ambitious, medal-coveting soldier" category.
Because he was a bad person. And bad people can't be brave. Why, look at the Emperor in Star Wars. He wasn't brave. He was ugly and had green skin and hid behind Darth Vader.
TrialShark:
Dope, I quibbled with ONE statement you alleged was apologetic towards Nazism and Hitler.
I don't disagree that Buchanan is almost certainly anti-Semetic. Unlike you, however, I am unwilling to trump common-wisdom statements ("Hitler had amazing oratorical gifts") into proof of Nazi sympathies.
Ace --
"Trouble is, people like yourself decide on a whim that while it's okay for a historian to note that Hitler performed bravely in WWI, such a statement by Pat Buchanan makes him an 'apologist.'"
You've found me out, Ace. My conclusion that Buchanan is an apologist is based on that single statement -- nothing more.
In fact, it's based on the sinister use of the vowel combination "ea" in the middle of the statement.
Surely the Mark of the Devil.
Pssst, TrialShark:
Hitler apparently had remarkable skill at oratory.
Am I a Nazi sympathizer?
"You've found me out, Ace. My conclusion that Buchanan is an apologist is based on that single statement -- nothing more."
The idiocy lies in your insistence that Hitler could never, never be courageous-- even though he was decorated with the highest possible medal, and several lesser ones -- because he was a bad, mean, vicious, awful, bad, stinky person.
And that Nazi sympathies are therefore evidenced by noting that someone who wins the Iron Cross, First Class, probably did something to earn that medal.
And one last thought:
You apparently think someone hates Hitler more, and is therefore a better person, if he can charge Hitler with new flaws, as if if exterminating millions of innocent civilians just wasn't flaw enough.
Okay, then. I'll play.
Not only was Hitler not smart, he was a retard. Not only did he have no gift of public speaking, he was a drooling, hair-lipped, stuttering retard. And not only did he not display bravery during WWI, he was a drooling, hair-lipped, stuttering retard who crapped his pants every time the wind shifted and who wore a dress, a la "Klinger" on M*A*S*H*, in order to get out of the Wehrmacht on a Sektion Acht.
Do I win?
Oh yeah. And I'll see your "cowardly" and raise you a "probably gay, too."
Will you see me or call?
Ace --
"The idiocy lies in your insistence that Hitler could never, never be courageous...because he was a bad, mean, vicious, awful, bad, stinky person."
Very good. That's exactly what I said.
Now go have another cookie.
Oh, I'm sorry, Ginger. What were you saying then?
"What were you saying then?"
Tell you what, Ace: Go back through the messages again. Find the part that you think says "Hitler could never, never be courageous...because he was a bad, mean, vicious, awful, bad, stinky person." Then I'll help you work through your reading comprehension problem.
How about (paraphrased) "slaughtering innocent civilians suggests cowardice," as if 1) such an act its capable of being calssified as either brave or cowardly (hint: It's neither; he wasn't at risk killing Jews, and he wasn't at risk not killing Jews) and 2) as if such an act, coming twenty years after his decoration during World War I, has any bearing on the courage he may or may not have shown on the battlefield.
If you're not going to stand behind your words, why bother writing them at all?
Ace --
"(paraphrased) 'slaughtering innocent civilians suggests cowardice'"
No need to paraphrase; here's the quote: "One could easily argue that ordering the deliberate slaughter of unarmed people suggests a certain degree of cowardice."
Yup. I'll stand by that.
"... as if such an act, coming twenty years after his decoration during World War I, has any bearing on the courage he may or may not have shown on the battlefield."
I'm sorry, Ace: did Pat Buchanan limit his comments on Hitler to "courage shown on on the battlefield?" If he did, then see my discussion with Stumbo regarding the subjective nature of courage in battle.
I thought, however, that Buchanan simply described Hitler as "an individual of great courage" without limitation; the WWI reference came in the next clause, wherein Pat used another nice, neutral and wholly objective term --calling Der Fuhrer a "soldier's soldier."
If I remember the quote correctly, then yes: acts committed after the end of WWI count.
TrialShark:
Words have meanings. The word "cowardice" really can't be applied to murdering innocent civilians. It was a sick act, yes. Jeffrey Dahmer committed sick acts too, but they weren't "cowardly." The notion of "bravery" and "cowardice" just doesn't apply.
You seem to be taking the metaphor of "moral courage"-- "nice" acts --and deciding that any "bad acts" must therefore be cowardly. You are free to use language as loosely and as metaphorically as you like; I prefer to use words the way they're commonly used. You also seem determined to heap as many character flaws on Hitler as you can think of. Bad public speaker, stupid, cowardly. That's fine, if you makes you feel good. But he definitely was a powerful speaker, certainly possessed at least superior intelligence, and there is ample evidence that he was brave in combat.
As for your separation of "great courage" and "soldier's soldier" on the pretext that a COMMA divides them-- well, you can be as silly as you like. I assumed throughout this debate he was talking about Hitler's battlefield courage. It never even occurred to me he was talking about anything else. So that's what I imagine Buchanan meant, your telltale comma nonwithstanding.
"In Message # 1182, you called Pat Buchanan's comments about Hitler's courage 'just a statement of historical fact.' You've now conceded they are actually a matter of editorial comment -- which was, of course, the point I was making..."
No; the historical fact is that he repeatedly risked his life in the service of his country, saving his fellow soldiers' lives, etc. --stuff that most people would call courageous. The editorial comment is the choice to call it not courage but foolhardiness (or whatever) -- and, if do you make that choice, it should be based solely on the circumstances of those particular events, not on your general opinion about the man. You've yet to explain (a) why you would choose the latter term rather than the former, and more importantly (b) why the opposite choice implies any sympathy for Nazism or the like.
"I drove to work this morning, in order to do my job and collect a paycheck. Doing so entailed some necessary risks."
Fine, make it "taking substantial necessary risks."
"Nor do I agree that engaging in extremely dangerous conduct to obtain a reward is necessarily 'courageous' -- unless you want to award that distinction to the heroin addicts downtown."
As long as they are aware of the danger, why wouldn't I?
"You have elected to quibble about one term in one passage, while ignoring all the rest."
What I elect to quibble about is my business, heh. You listed the passage (yes, yes, I know, at Aldavis' request), so it's fair game for quibbling.
As for the context I was asking for: where was he (PB) coming from and where was he going, with that passage? What conclusions, if any, did he draw from it? Could you humor me by posting, say, the paragraphs that preceded and followed that one?
Buchanan would rather have seen Germany and Russia destroy each other while the west built up a sufficient army to destroy both of them. I sort of like that ideaq. Now, the idea of the USSR being destroyed will propbably upset celler, but would the world have been better off if the evil empire had fallen in 1945?
Drat it, I just cannot seem to stop being sarcastic. Gotta work on that!
Dude, Communism was a double-plus bad thing in the US before WWII. Remember the Palmer/Mitchell raids?
We cozied up to Russia because we needed them to stay in the war. We needed them to fight Hitler.
Imagine if we had told Stalin to Fuck Off in '41. What would have happened? Would Russia have fallen? If Russia fell, would it have been possible to defeat Hitler in a one-front war?
Or what if Russia sued for peace after being pummelled for a few years, knowing that we'd never open a second Front? Hitler and Stalin were cozy before '38, right? Whose to say they couldn't have patched over their differences (and the minor matter of millions of war dead, which probably wouldn't phase either one of them too much)?
FDR and Churchill stroked Stalin because they wanted him to keep fighting.
Incidentally, we took a long time opening that second front, didn't we? For a couple of years we were just dicking around in Africa, just to get Stalin off our backs about doing some actual fighting. Then we fought in Italy, and eventually we opened the second front in earnest.
But think about it: Yes, we had a war in the Pacific to fight, and yes, we had an army and navy to recruit and rebuild before we entered the war, but we sort of did leave Stalin and Hitler to murder each other for a good, long while, didn't we?
"Buchanan would rather have seen Germany and Russia destroy each other while the west built up a sufficient army to destroy both of them. I sort of like that ideaq. Now, the idea of the USSR being destroyed will propbably upset celler, but would the world have been better off if the evil empire had fallen in 1945?"
If the Evil Empire fell in 1945, Hitler's Eastern Front would have been secured by the time we chose to confront him.
By the way, I don't think Buchanan is being pro-Nazi here (though I'll certainly cheer anyone who says so on; I want the son of a bitch to go down in flames).
All he's doing is taking the one inarguable case where Interventionism was absolutely, no-questions-about-it necessary and making a dopey argument that Isolationism was the better course. So that he can conclude, surprise, surprise, that there's not a single time in American history where we just shouldn't have minded our own damn business.
He's selling Isolationism, not Nazism. He's attempting to explain away the one exception to every rule-- "But what about Hitler?"-- so that he can claim an absolutist position, no need of fuzzy qualifiers like "it depends" and "that was a special case" etc.
Ace --
"Words have meanings."
Yes, they do. And as I said to Stumbo, if in this instance, Pat Buchanan meant that Hitler was a man of great courage in the same sense that John Hinckley was a man of great courage, I'm happy to agree. Is that the meaning you want to go with?
"You also seem determined to heap as many character flaws on Hitler as you can think of. Bad public speaker, stupid, cowardly ..."
Bad speaker? I said that when? Stupid? I don't think I said that either, though I'd certainly have to stack invading Russia and declaring war on the U.S. up against any arguments offered in favor of Pat Buchanan's term, "genius."
"I assumed throughout this debate he was talking about Hitler's battlefield courage. It never even occurred to me he was talking about anything else. So that's what I imagine Buchanan meant, your telltale comma nonwithstanding."
Well, heck, then. I imagined Buchanan meant what he wrote: that Hitler was "an individual of great courage," with no time limitation. Certainly I didn't imagine the comments in the same sentence, about Hitler's oratorical skills, referred only to WWI. Did you? If so, why?
Stumbo –
"The editorial comment is the choice to call it not courage but foolhardiness"
We part company here. Objectivity is describing what happened: editorial comment is characterizing it. You'll note that Mr. Buchanan elected to characterize Hitler (and not any specific act of conduct) in a manner most people would find flattering. I assume that when Mr. Buchanan chooses laudatory terms to describe someone, it's because he means to praise them.
As for your definition of "courage" – again you appear to be lowering the bar. If you mean that Hitler displayed the courage of John Hinckley or Jerry the Junkie – well, I guess I can't argue that. Somehow, I don't think that was what Mr. Buchanan meant, but maybe so.
As for where Mr. Buchanan was coming and going from -- I'll look for the preceding and following paragraphs, but I think his selection of adjectives pretty much stand on their own.
Al --
"...would the world have been better off if the evil empire had fallen in 1945?"
That would depend on who took over when it fell, wouldn't it?
"You'll note that Mr. Buchanan elected to characterize Hitler (and not any specific act of conduct) in a manner most people would find flattering."
Buchanan: "Hitler was a genocidal monster, a man who could kill innocents without compunction" (paraphrased).
Indeed. Most flattering. Really buttering him up.
And the dopiness continues:
"As for your definition of "courage" – again you appear to be lowering the bar. If you mean that Hitler displayed the courage of John Hinckley or Jerry the Junkie – well, I guess I can't argue that."
Yes, indeed. A soldier decorated in battle is precisely equivalent to a would-be assassin or smack addict. Yeahp.
It doesn't matter, I suppose, that the assassin and junkie are both driven by selfishness, whereas a soldier acts for others.
Oh wait--Hitler did it for the pretty medals.
That's what I hear about Vietnam. That soldiers were just lining up to get paralyzed or get their balls or hands blown off so they could wear those colorful ribbons. "I could wind up an impotent, comatose paraplegic, but it'll all be worth it if I could just snag that Silver Star...!"
Yeahp. That's how it works. Or rather, we know that's how it worked in Hitler's case, because he was a bad man.
To the extent, however, that Hinckley risked death without flinching, then yes, I suppose Hinckley, too, was courageous. So was John Wilkes Booth, I guess.
These are rather silly examples, however, since we usually don't term assassins "courageous."
Hitler's bravery did not occur during a crime, but rather during a war, when we generally acknowledge that it's okay to shoot people, so long as they're wearing different uniforms.
Here's a question:
I have absolutely no idea if Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, or Uncle Joe were "courageous," had "remarkable oratorical powers," or were "brilliant."
Well, I hear Uncle Joe wasn't too bright, but I'm not sure of that. I assume all were gifted to some extent, since they all won their fights.
If I evaluated the oratorical skill, battlefield courage and leadership, and intelligence of these three horrible butchers, and I found them to be superior in all three categories, does that make me a sympathizer?
In order to be politically correct, do I have to lie and pretend that Chairman Mao had no charisma? Or that Pol Pot was not a courageous soldier? Or that Joe Stalin didn't have animal cunning and a gift for reading people?
To pass TrialShark's "compliment test" (that is, if you compliment a butcher, even while acknowledging their butchery as very, very, bad, you must of course "sympathize" with that butcher), am I required to pretend none of these men had any sort of gifts whatsoever? That these three numbskulls just sorta blundered into taking control of their respective countries?
Or maybe I should just never say so? And when someone asks how Pol Pot took over Cambodia, I should just shrug politely?
What the hell is TrialShark's point, anyway?
An interesting conundrum.
One one hand, I cannot remark upon any of these butchers' gifts because to do so, according to TrialShark, would be to speak glowingly about them, and that's a bad thing. That means you're a bad person.
On the other hand, if I do not note they had various gifts and virtues, I'm forced to conclude that the nations they ruled were populated entirely by subhuman retards who could themselves to be subjugated by men who were not only evil, but stupid.
2 + 2 = 5.
I'm with ya, TrialShark. I'm pure. I believe anything you tell me.
Just as long as you keep the rats away.
"On the other hand, if I do not note they had various gifts and virtues, I'm forced to conclude that the nations they ruled were populated entirely by subhuman retards who allowed themselves to be subjugated by men who were not only evil, but stupid, besides."
I wonder if any TV execs have bought the movie rights yet.
Ace --
Since you insist on paraphrasing: "Sure, Hitler killed a lot of people, but hey -- look at all his good qualities."
Sure sounds like something an apologist would say. Maybe not, though. Maybe it's all an innocent misunderstanding. That and the anti-Semetic remarks. And the defense of the Nazi guards. And the article about the killings at Treblinka ...
Nah.
And if you divine from that, Ace, that I'd call you an apologist if you started spouting off about, say, Joe Stalin's "good qualities," took up the cause of the guards in the gulag, challenged the reports of the purges ... then you've broken the code.
As for this "bravery in battle" thing you're obsessing over -- give it a rest. You'd have a point, if that's what Pat wrote. But it isn't, and you don't.
"I suppose Hinckley, too, was courageous. So was John Wilkes Booth, I guess."
See, that's why I don't care for Stumbo's definition: I don't think I'd use the term "courageous" to describe either Hinckley or Booth, or the corner junkie. Still ... as long as you're willing to use the definition consistently, I'm happy to let you revise and extend Pat's remarks: "Hitler was a man of great courage, just like John Hinckley and John Wilkes Booth."
They mentioned that grazing regs appeal at the conference I attended today. One of the things that the Salt Lake Tribune article didn't mention is that Clinton made revising the grazing rights legislation that's been on the books since 1934 a priority of his administration, but was ultimately unsuccessful in getting the amendments he wished. While I think that the grazing rights to public land are a foolish give away, I can't help thinking it's not entirely kosher to try to accomplish through regulations what you couldn't get done by amending the basic law.
Grey --
Interesting story about the Marine case. This passage is probably misleading:
The Marines could have solved the problem quickly by looking at their own records, King's lawyers say. The impostor's file contained his medical and dental records, fingerprints, handwriting, and most importantly, his picture.
The imposter would have been classified as a deserter after about 30 days. His records would have been sent to the federal records repository in St. Louis long before 1996. I've ordered files from St. Louis -- forty days is not an unrealistic period of time to wait to get them. The records repository is described as looking a little like the warehouse in the final scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," only more cluttered.
So while the Marines "could have solved the problem quickly" by looking at the records, those records were not likely readily available. Which is not to say that this guy didn't get a raw deal -- it sounds like he did.
What I really want to know is why they let him out, and why (if it was because the records had come back from St. Louis), they kept him at Camp Lejeune.
"I can't help thinking it's not entirely kosher to try to accomplish through regulations what you couldn't get done by amending the basic law."
If the regulations conflicted with existing law, then I would agree with you. Since the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the regulations, I'm thinking its not a clearcut case of circumventing the legislative process.
Here is an article from the cattle industry's point of view.
An excerpt:
"The 10th Circuit Court based their decision on overturning three out of four rulings on the simple premise that the lands at issue belong to the U.S. government and that the issuance of grazing permits "shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands."
I need to read the cases. It was just mentioned in the framework of the conference as an administrative law case to watch in the current session of the Supreme Court.
You make some good points. I was unable to find additional information about the turnstile jumper. I will look again tomorrow.
"I need to read the cases."
I went to the 10th Circuit Court site, but it wasn't very helpful.
Where was your conference (if I may ask)?
Never mind that most historians found this behavior as more evidence that he was a power-mad opportunist. "Courageous" isn't the adjective that usually springs to mind. Unless you tended to be sympathetic.
I'm part Irish, you know.
Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I think if you read all of Ace's posts and all of Trial's posts, you will conclude that it is more a little fued between the two of them. I like your comment to celler, however. Especially to those of my generation, the word Nazi has real punch power and should be used accurately. Your take on Buchanan I not sure is absolutely right, but has some merit.
I wish the label "communist" carried the same punch as Nazi, as I feel they are on a par. While one can construct an Utopian ideal of Communism, I think it is just that, Utopian. I have Valdimar Pozner's edition of the Communist Manifesto. He assures us, after the fall of the evil empire, that the USSR was not really a communist system.
Why not finnish, Cead mille failte! I'll give you down at Donavan's, As cheery as the spring time, as Irish as the Donagans.
Ace also has a good point though: Buchanan, more than just about anything else, is a strict isolationist, and is apparently willing to walk the plank to drive his point home. He [Buchanan] seems to have bitten off more than he can chew this time though.
Not that Pat's putative candidacy really will matter if he defects to the Reform Party. If they allow Numbnuts Trump even to stick his foot in the door, they will have abandoned all pretense of being taken seriously. But hey, can you dig -- Oprah as the Veep? Hell, how about Maury Povich for Secretary of fucking State while we're at it?
Cellar:
You might get a laugh out of this. From the Personals section of Thursday's SF Chronicle: "...Garry Shandling's advice to possible presidential candidate Warren Beatty: 'Warren, listen, if you run and get elected, make sure that you get your name above the title of the country.'"
An interesting idea, worth exploring. But we'll need a lot moreinformation than we have now about life in the USSR before we can do so.
Sounds good to me.
Ryuichi Sakamoto should do the scroe. Dede Allen will editedand as usual Vittorio Storaro will be the DP.
Warren's hacking out the script right now with Elaine May.
I think they'll make most of the money on merchandising and soundtrack rights. Maybe Celine Dion to mangle the national anthem, plus the "irony" of having a foreigner (and a French one at that) sing it would be extra points. Couple rap videos to get the kids interested, we're talkin' boffo at the box office.
Actually, "Bulworth" would be just fine for Beatty's policy statement. I love that movie.
Eric --
"Maybe Celine Dion to mangle the national anthem, plus the "irony" of having a foreigner (and a French one at that) sing it ..."
Hey, there's a long history of patriotic and cultural ties between the U.S. and France:
They helped us in the Revolution, we helped them in WWI.
They gave us the Statue of Liberty, we gave them Operation Overlord.
They gave us Celine Dion -- and now it's our turn again.
I'm thinking a couple of Minuteman IIIs on Paris.
"See, that's why I don't care for Stumbo's definition..."
Okie dokie. Then take one from a dictionary -- e.g., M-W.
"mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.
synonyms: COURAGE, METTLE, SPIRIT, RESOLUTION, TENACITY mean mental or moral strength to resist opposition, danger, or hardship. COURAGE implies firmness of mind and will in the face of danger or extreme difficulty [the courage to support unpopular causes]"
Note that it's "mental or moral." The "good person" implication that you seem to be insisting on is entirely optional.
Hey now, no red-blooded Quebecois would ever admit to being a mere Canadian, would they? I think not. But you're right; I was going to amend that parenthetical remark of mine, but I figured everyone knew where Miss Thang actually hails from.
"COURAGE implies firmness of mind and will in the face of danger or extreme difficulty [the courage to support unpopular causes].
We've already established that Hinckley and the corner junkie qualify as persons of "courage" under your definition. With this latest, I see Jeffrey Dahmer would qualify as well. What could be more dangerous, difficult, and unpopular than cannibalism?
You don't suppose that's the kind of courage Pat meant, do you?
Stum-buddy, fun though it's been parsing the word "courage" with you, I've already conceded that Hitler was courageous -- as were Hinkley and Booth and Dahmer. Now let's go to the superlative: "great courage." And then we can parse the objective definition of the term "soldier's soldier." And then "genius ..."
Tell you what: if you believe that Pat Buchanan's assessment of Der Fuhrer is purely objective and backed by incontrovertible historical proof -- as opposed to merely being the fourth or fifth war story in a line of admitted falsehoods -- that's up to you. The cite you offered last night doesn't get you there, but you can fill in the gaps with faith if you like.
Regardless, Buchanan's comments about Hitler, along with the other remarks about Jews, Israel, concentration camp personnel, and the Holocaust, lead me to believe he's an apologist -- "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something," according to your dictionary -- for the Nazis. And if, as someone suggested, Mr. Buchanan's just pretending in order to get attention, then bully for him. He's got the impression down pat.
Stumbo & Eric --
Okay, then we can carpet bomb Quebec.
I still want the Minuteman IIIs on Paris.
Sounds like a plan (bombing Paris & Quebec). Probably just dousing them with clean water would suffice.
Eric --
Clean water it is. Though we'll have to rethink the Minuteman III thing -- not enough payload.
Hmmm. Did you see "Deep Impact?"
message #1288
Lord love a duck, two agreements in the same day.
Al --
Wonders must be ceasing.
"You don't suppose that's the kind of courage Pat meant, do you?"
No, I'm guessing he meant the delivering-dispatches-under-heavy-shelling kind. (That being a slightly more dangerous activity than filleting drugged-up boys, anyway, aside from any moral considerations.)
"Tell you what: if you believe that Pat Buchanan's assessment of Der Fuhrer is purely objective and backed by incontrovertible historical proof -- as opposed to merely being the fourth or fifth war story in a line of admitted falsehoods -- that's up to you. The cite you offered last night doesn't get you there, but you can fill in the gaps with faith if you like."
"Fill in the gaps with faith"? Heh. Want some more cites? I have 3 more bios here (by Louis Snyder, Konrad Heiden, and Joachim Fest). The term "brave" is used in each; Fest used "courageous," as well. I imagine this makes all 3 of them Nazi apologists, too?
I suggest you visit a library and check out any random book on the subject, yourself.
Stumbo --
"The term 'brave' is used in each; Fest used 'courageous,' as well ... I suggest you visit a library and check out any random book on the subject, yourself."
No need, buddy. If you say the Hitler biographies in your little collection all say the same thing, I'll assume you're telling the absolute truth.
"I imagine this makes all 3 of them Nazi apologists, too?"
If they fit the definition of "apologist" in your dictionary -- "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something" -- why yes, I suppose so. We are still using your dictionary, aren't we?
Of course, the case would be more convincing if they spoke out on behalf of some Nazi prison guards and concentration camp officials, or referred to survivors of the Holocaust as unreliable persons afflicted with "group fantasies of martyrdom." A couple of good shots at Jews in general would be helpful, too.
You don't happen to know if any of the writers -- apart from Mr. Buchanan, I mean -- fit that definition, do you?
Why don't you just admit that you don't happen to know enough on the subject, and move on?
It would be a lot more mature than resorting to gratuitous innuendo against professional historians. Mere ignorance is one thing; militant ignorance is a lot worse, and (I think) beneath you.
"Politically Incorrect Genocide
FrontPage Magazine
Author: LOWELL PONTE
COULD a few bones require the re-writing of every American history textbook? Could they discredit the politically correct party line that we and our children have been taught for generations
about Indian origins and European conquest in the New World? On September 21, a federal judge in Portland, Oregon, all but ordered a DNA test of these disputed relics. Such a test stands a good chance of proving that some of the first "Native Americans" had white skin and European ancestry. No wonder the Clinton Administration has moved heaven—and 500 tons of earth—to prevent a thorough scientific investigation of where one very old skeleton came from.
Two young men found a human skull while wading at the edge of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, on July 28, 1996, and notified the Sheriff. Asked to investigate by the county
coroner’s office, anthropologist James Chatters found more bones in the shallow water. That required a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which has legal jurisdiction over navigable
waterways such as the Columbia, and it promptly issued a retroactive permit to dig the site."
that they might be of some historic interest. Perhaps they were those of an Oregon Trail pioneer who came west by covered wagon.
But two surprising findings soon turned these remains into bones of contention. They are now part of the biggest political—and politically correct—tug of war since kings of Christendom fought over
ownership of holy relics.
When bone fragments were sent for radiocarbon dating to the University of California at Riverside, analyst R. Ervin Taylor estimated that "Kennewick Man," as the skeleton was quickly dubbed, had lived 8,410 (plus or minus 60) years ago. This was "broadly corroborated" by part of a stone arrowhead still imbedded in the 5’10" man’s pelvis. The arrowhead, experts said, dated from the
"Cascade" phase of Indian history in the Pacific Northwest that happened 9,000 to 4,500 years ago.
But even more surprising was Dr. Chatters’ analysis of the bones. The skull revealed that Kennewick Man had a long, narrow face, protruding nose, receding cheek bones, a high chin, and a square
mandible. "None of these features is typical of modern American Indians," reported the journal Archeology in January/February 1997. Chatters’ analysis, wrote New York Times reporter Timothy
Egan, "adds credence to theories that some early inhabitants of North America came from European stock."
Stumbo --
Why don't you compare Pat Buchanan against the definition of apologist in your dictionary and admit you've been pinned?
As for "gratuitous innuendo against professional historians" -- pal, I asked you a question: have any of those authors engaged in the same conduct as Mr. Buchanan? If you know, tell us. If you don't know, save your hectoring about "militant ignorance" for your next glance in the mirror.
of the term "Caucasoid" to describe the skeleton, calling it a "red flag, suggesting that whites were here earlier and Indians were here later, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that."
But others were taking no chances that further analysis of Kennewick Man’s bones or DNA might provide evidence and reason to believe that some of America’s earliest settlers had white skins and
European ancestry.
Five Indian tribes claimed ownership of the skeleton under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which grants control of human remains to the tribe most
likely to be their descendants or relatives. These tribes announced their intention to return Kennewick Man to Mother Earth by burial and to prevent any further religious or cultural affront such as
DNA testing.
"Some scientists say that if this individual is not studied further, we, as Indians, will be destroying evidence of our own history," said Umatilla tribal religious leader Armand Minthorn. "We already
know our history…. From our oral histories we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time…." (Scientists theorize that the Mongoloid ancestors of Amerindians
crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia sometime between 60,000 and 10,000 years ago, with different waves of migration bringing two different blood types.)
The Clinton Administration was also passionately interested in burying these bones and the revision of history they might require. No sooner had public discussion begun about whether Kennewick
Man was Caucasian than the Army Corps of Engineers took and locked away the bones from scientists. ACE officials, however, allowed Indians access to the remains and indicated the
government’s intention to turn over the skeleton to Native Americans for reburial as soon as possible.
Dr. Doug Owsley, curator and division head for physical anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum, along with seven other scientists, filed a lawsuit to prevent the government
from turning the skeleton over to Indians and to seek research access to the remains. Available evidence suggests that Kennewick Man had no "cultural affiliation" with Indians, as NAGPRA
requires. The closest thing to such an affiliation might have been the Indian arrowhead lodged painfully in this ancient man’s hip bone. (To visit the Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretative center for
links to news stories, documents, the text of NAGPRA, and much more, click here.)
The scientists’ lawsuit has impeded the Clinton-desired cover-up of Kennewick Man. It also opened the way for transfer of more than 350 bone pieces to the University of Washington’s Burke
Museum in Seattle, where they remain under lock and key—or most do. Of a dozen femur bone pieces collected and recorded, as of January 1999, only two reportedly could still be accounted for.
The rest have apparently been stolen in what Dr. Owsley called "a deliberate act of desecration."
But despite their loud protests, the scientists could not prevent another Clinton cover-up. On April 6, 1998, responding to a never-before-noticed urgent need to shore up one tiny spot along the banks
of the Columbia River, the Army Corps of Engineers buried the site where Kennewick Man was found.
At a cost to taxpayers of $160,000, the government dumped 500 tons of rock and dirt on the fragile archeological dig site and imbedded fiber blankets and other materials to prevent the river from
washing its work away. It then thickly planted the spot with dogwood, willow, and cottonwood trees whose fast-spreading roots will make future archeological work there almost impossible.
Orders directly from the Clinton White House apparently prompted this anti-scientific vandalism. As journalist Mark Lasswell reported in the January 8 Wall Street Journal, even the Army Corps of
Engineers in Walla Walla, Washington, acknowledges the "participation and interest at the Executive level" in the Kennewick Man controversy. The sudden decision to make further research at the
Kennewick archeological site, a Corps spokesman said, was a "good faith" effort at "erosion control" to protect both Indian and scientist "sensitivities" (over the screamed objections of scientists)
about safeguarding the site.
The Clinton Administration also opposed and defeated a bill by Congressman Richard "Doc" Hastings (R., WA), who represents Kennewick, that would have blunted NAGPRA regulation over the
remains and opened scientific access to study them.
skin was not red or brown but white. Suppose excavation of the site uncovered artifacts that confirmed a cultural link to European ancestors.
It has been an article of faith among politically correct Leftists that in 1491, before that white devil Columbus reached the New World, this land was a utopia peopled by peaceful, sensitive,
nature-worshipping people of color.
If DNA confirms what his bone structure suggests—that Kennewick Man may have European ancestry, or perhaps be related to the oppressed, ancient Caucasian-like Ainu people of Northern
Japan—then the exclusive historic claim of colored people’s priority in the New World goes Poof! and vanishes.
The long-cherished victim status of Native Americans would be weakened—or worse, reversed. Suppose an archeological dig at Kennewick revealed a whole community of people with Caucasian
DNA? Suppose it found dozens or hundreds of Euro-American skeletons, most with Native American arrowheads in their backs, victims of a pogrom-like massacre?
did they vanish while Native American tribes took over the land that once was theirs? Did white-skinned early Americans lack the skill or luck to survive? Or were they killed off by darker-skinned
invaders in an act we today would define as racism and genocide (especially if its victims were not of European ancestry)?
Such are the stakes that prompted President Clinton to carry out what could be called the biggest cover-up of his scandalous administration. If Kennewick Man is Caucasian, then white people,
according to the racial politics Clinton has promoted, have as legitimate a right to be on American soil as do any people of color.
If evidence shows that white-skinned Americans were exterminated by invading ancestors of today’s Indians, then this genocide could give Caucasian Americans a claim to victim status even
stronger than that of Native Americans. Had such genocide not taken place, the argument would go, perhaps most of America’s population and territory would have been Caucasian. Columbus might
have been greeted by natives with faces whiter than his own.
and Native Americans and most Hispanics as the virtuous survivors of white colonial exploitation, rape, and genocide. Kennewick Man might prove the opposite—that the true Native Americans
were white, victims of murderous genocide by the ancestors of today’s Indians who seized their land. The European invasion of the past five centuries, in this potential revisionist history, merely
reclaimed land stolen 9,000 years earlier from their murdered kin.
Which view is true? Perhaps a bit of both, perhaps neither. In an age of science it would have been best to let scientists, not politicians and politically correct ideologues, sort out the evidence
unhindered. But having built a racial spoils system, Leftists could not risk having the foundation of victim claims that legitimize their system blown to smithereens.
But science may yet prevail over Leftist racism and dishonesty. On September 21, U.S. Magistrate John Jelderks in Portland, Oregon, chastised the Interior Department and Army Corps of Engineers
for their foot-dragging that has prevented scientific ascertainment of the origins of Kennewick Man. This federal judge did not order DNA testing, but, he wrote, "any decision that did not include
DNA analysis would probably be challenged as arbitrary and capricious."
As with Monica’s blue dress, if and when scientists are allowed to pull down Kennewick Man’s genes, they may find that here, too, DNA will prove that William Jefferson Clinton has been guilty of
another of history’s greatest attempted cover-ups.
We and our children need the facts, not to re-define or justify hate, but to dismantle the whole phony shell-game of racial politics and the hate that such politics inevitably cause. As members of one
human race, we all carry two inheritances. We are the children of the killers who conquered and committed genocide against others. And we are the children of the lovers who created and preserved
their families in a dangerous world. So what is your race? When the Census form comes, write in "Human," and nothing less."
Here's a slightly more balanced story on the issue.
Also, you might want to check out the Oregonian's coverage, which has been fairly complete.
And then there's the archaeological viewpoint on the controversy.
Sure looks like a cover-up to me.
Incidentally, some of my interest in the Kennewick Man controversy arises from the involvement of the Asatru Folk Assembly, which is an organization that poses as a Nordic folk religion revival society, but in many locales is a recruiting front for white supremacists.
"Orders directly from the Clinton White House apparently prompted this anti-scientific vandalism. As journalist Mark Lasswell reported in the January 8 Wall Street Journal, even the Army Corps of
Engineers in Walla Walla, Washington, acknowledges the "participation and interest at the Executive level" in the Kennewick Man controversy."
If you need any assistance in understanding what the "Executive Branch" of the Federal Government refers to, or why what Clowntoon ordered, short-circuiting the normal legal process of legal appeals amounts to anti-scientific vandalism, feel free to ask.
Interior is conflicted, because its archaeologists are among those pressing to have the bones properly examined. But because of the BIA involvement, no DNA testing has been done. It's all been radiocarbon work, and it's been going slowly, as such tests usually do.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton were interested in the dispute; it's a fascinating story, and I think many people want to know what secrets the DNA will yield. I do know that Bruce Babbitt has been involved in working behind the scenes to resolve the case, but anyone who's been involved in tribal disputes can tell you it is not so simple.
How will "lefties" react? Well, the bones were stored not far from my home at UW's Burke Museum. I think nearly every one of the "lefties" I know who populate the Seattle intelligentsia have been supportive of the tests, but no one is interested in ignoring the federal laws regarding tribal rights. Everyone's looking for a satisfactory compromise on this.
Now, if you're trying to claim that Clinton caused all this ... I'm baffled. What, did he get his co-conspirators on the Umatilla Tribal Council to lay claim to the skeleton?
Since you haven't a whit of evidence that there's any kind of "cover-up" whatsoever, mebbe you should keep your conspiracy theories to the black-helicopter variety.
You know all about those contrails, I trust.
If that's your idea of "pinned," maybe you should become a WWF referee.
According to "my dictionary" -- as you for some reason keep referring to it -- an apologist is indeed "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." Now, let's see: nobody accuses Hitler of being a coward on the battlefield, or a bad orator. People accuse him of being a mass murderer. (And even if some accuse him of all three -- hmmm, which charge is most significant?) So, if someone states that he was a brave soldier, good orator, and mass murderer -- how on earth does that constitute a defense? I might agree with you if Buchanan had said, "Hitler was a brave soldier and a good orator, therefore he could not have been a mass murderer," or "... therefore it's OK that he was a mass murderer." But he said nothing of the kind.
As for the authors: sorry, it's not my job to defend them. (It's an impossible task: even if I could find and quote from a detailed biography of each of them, you would probably question the veracity of their biographers, and so on ad nauseam.) You're welcome to check out their books, if you like, and form your own opinions. Or, as I recommended earlier, you could simply randomly pick a book yourself, and see what it has to say -- I strongly suspect that virtually all the bios say pretty much the same thing. (Given that all 4 of my sources say pretty much the same thing, and they were picked randomly.)
If you refuse to do that, yet still keep insinuating that these authors are Nazi sympathizers -- then my characterization of your attitude as "militant ignorance" stands high and tall.
Have fun.
No, I haven't. Is it worth the $12.80? Is it more psychology than history? (Not that there's anything wrong with the former -- but, when it comes to that field, I usually prefer stuff more along the lines of the Schreber memoirs. I don't think Hitler can compete in that regard.)
However, as other reviewers noted, it could have used a good editor.
Hm. Quake in Los Angeles. Gotta run.
I put a link in "Politics" to Snitchens' take on Pat.
Stumbo --
Your posts have become increasingly shrill.
It's "your dictionary" because you decided to bring it in to the discussion in support of your position. Its definition of "apologist" -- and do please note that that's the term I've used, and not "sympathizer," the term you brought up -- is quite reasonable.
You claim not to see how Buchanan's writing -- which boils down to "Yes, Hitler was a mass murderer, but look at his good qualities" -- is a defense. Having seen defense counsel argue every day that "Yes, Your Honor, my client is a [thief][drug dealer][sex offender], but he [loves his family][contributes to his church][turned states' evidence]," I find your purported lack of understanding difficult to accept. Certainly it's convenient for you to claim that it's not a defense -- just a recitation of the truth -- but where in the definition of apologist does it say the defense has to be false?
You continue to ignore the other writings I've cited, which, as I said in my initial post on the subject, collectively persuade me that Buchanan is an apologist. If you want to disagree with my conclusion, that's fine. If you want to dispute it, please address it in its entirety.
Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Winter for Poland and France,
Springtime for Hitler and Ger-many,
Come on Germans -- Go into your dance!"
You really are an amazing man. Seven minutes after concerned's last post you post many links with great information on this story. As you know from previous conversations, I spend the summers in Wash. State and fish the Columbia. This is not a new story to me. I agree that what is going on can not really be laid at the feet of Clinton. As much as I detest the lying jerk, not all that happpens, even in government is caused by him. There is meat, INHO, in some of what concerned says, and that is the mystique that some on the left has bestowed on native American culture. I have been doing a bit of reading about "Indians" after reading several books on Lewis and Clark. The mystique I think comes from the romantic conception of primitive man, which goes back to the late 18th and 19th Centuries. In many way Liberal and Romantic go together. Hey, I was a liberal once, but we most all grow up.
"Your posts have become increasingly shrill."
I'll see your "shrill," and I'll raise you a "wipe that spit off your screen." Maybe you can come back and crush me with an ingenious color-of-the-sky question? Now that would convincingly prove you've won the argument.
"Having seen defense counsel argue every day that ..."
Perhaps that's your problem -- you see everyone as either prosecutor or defense attorney, with a paramount goal of either damning or defending the subject of the discussion. But we don't even know what was the subject of Buchanan's column, since you've yet to provide anything more than a paragraph from it. (Suppose, for example, that someone wrote a piece praising some football coach, in particular mentioning that in some game, his defense held OJ Simpson to 30 yards. He would probably include a paragraph explaining that, though Simpson is a double murderer and all, he was nonetheless a pretty good running back. Now, would it be fair to pull that paragraph out of context, and condemn the author as a "Simpson apologist"?)
At any rate: defense attorneys don't merely say, "Yes, Your Honor, my client is a [blah], but he [blah]." They say, "Yes, Your Honor, my client is a [blah], but he [blah], and therefore you should give him a reduced sentence." Again: if you find me the part of the column where Buchanan hints at that, I'll be much more inclined to agree with you. Until then -- sorry, Counsel, your evidence is inconclusive. And wipe that, etc.
Is there really overpopulation? Make the thought experiment of assembling all the six billion people in a large field giving them, say, 10 sq ft standing room each. Convert that into square miles (I would if I could) and compare to some of the smaller states in the US.
That's a bit tight for my taste. But you could put 6 billion people into a field the size of West Virginia and have more than 2000 square miles left over.
And I have a book at home about this: How Many People Can The Earth Support. I haven't finished it yet, though.
SEATTLE -- The ancient bones of Kennewick Man, found in the banks of the Columbia River in Washington State three years ago and hailed as one of decade's most significant archaeological finds, cannot be linked to any modern American Indian tribes or to Europeans, a scientific panel has concluded.
The remains, estimated to be about 9,300 years old, most closely resemble Asian people, particularly the Ainu of northern Japan, and Polynesians from the South Pacific, the scientists said. Both groups are descendants of people from southern Asia, they said.
more on Kennewick Man from the NY Times
I spend summers in the Pacific North West of the USA and always and struck with how much open land there is. Of course, when the subject comes up in the meadia, the press digs up Earlich (sp?) to let us know the sky is falling. Don't you know we all starved to death in the 80's?
Stumbo --
Sorry the term "shrill" bothers you. If you don't care to be negatively characterized, you might want to rethink your own use of perjoratives.
It's clear that, despite my invitation, you have no desire to address Mr. Buchanan's record -- anti-Semitic comments, defense of Nazis, and so on. That's a pity. Perhaps we could have had an interesting discussion.
robertjayb --
Wait. So President Clinto conspired to destroy evidence which would prove that Europeans weren't the first people to reach North America?
That evil, evil man. I can see why concerned is so -- er -- concerned.
I was disappointed by the Times' Kennewick man article. I thought I had detected a fairly strong family resemblance in the bust shown in
Spudboy's 1312.
concerned:
It has been an article of faith among politically correct Leftists that in 1491, before that white devil Columbus reached the New World, this land was a utopia peopled by peaceful, sensitive,
nature-worshipping people of color.
I don't think anyone denies that the natives committed violence upon one another, and that there was internecine warfare. But Columbus drastically upped the ante, introducing things that the Indians simply could not counter, like horses and gunpowder, and the documentation of Columbus' vicious enslavement of the Arawaks (by a priest who accompanied one of the voyages) is undeniable. I don't even think I need to mention the harsh subjugation the Aztecs suffered under Cortes, or the Incas from Pizarro.
If we are not to forget the German Holocaust, it is also unseemly to so blithely ignore the fact that the Spanish did their damndest to exterminate the Indians, and we nearly finished the job. It's not revisionist history, it's what happened, whatever the reasons were.
As for Clinton "covering up" the Kennewick Man, give me a break. What in the world would he have to gain by that? I have no respect for the man, but this is utterly ridiculous.
Eric --
"As for Clinton "covering up" the Kennewick Man, give me a break ... I have no respect for the man, but this is utterly ridiculous.
Speaking of respect, I just acquired more of it for you.
"Ehrlich may be in the Chicken Little category, but without such
doomsayers, we might be totally ignorant of the situation in the first
place. Better safe than sorry. "
What situation did Ehrlich make us aware of? The media's running to Ehrlich is just the same as when they ran to NOW to get the skinny on the claim that Super Day produced a huge rise in wife beatings. Think what you like of Ehrlich, my comment was about the media.
Dung?!!! Where?!!! I just adore Dung, and all those other scrumptious Chinese Revolutionary leaders!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And as we all know, it isn't very pretty.
The pejoratives I employ are (usually) relevant. What I don't care for is not the use of pejoratives per se, but meaningless, playground-style one-upsmanship.
We can still have an interesting discussion on this topic -- and one that might easily end up with me conceding your claims -- if you provide the context for that quote (and/or others). I have no vested interest in Pat Buchanan (well, I do think he has a pretty decent sense of humor; but, of all the current presidential candidates, he's probably the one I agree with on the least number of issues). However, I dislike seeing him as the target of pretty serious accusations, if the evidence presented does not (IMHO) justify them. The ball is still in your court. (And if, as I suspect, you don't have copies of the full columns, but took the quotes from a source that gave those quotes only -- well, there's always L/N.)
Stumbo --
"The pejoratives I employ are (usually) relevant."
Well, dang. So are the ones I use. And your phrase "militant ignorance" earned the appellation "shrill," if for no other reason than repetition.
As for an interesting discussion ... no, I really don't think there's one to be had. You've elected to focus exclusively on a single word in a single passage of a single column, one which I believe is subjective and which you claim -- unconvincingly, in my view -- is not. You have done so knowing full well that my evaluation of Mr. Buchanan is not based on that single word, that single passage, or that single column.
I did enjoy your efforts at defining courage; they were entertaining. I like the dictionary definition you picked up, which you agree would apply to other mass murderers besides Hitler, and to the corner junkie. Frankly, though, I think we've pretty much finished off whatever potential for an "interesting discussion" could be made of that word; and as you apparently don't have any interest in anything else, I think that about wraps it up.
Such a test stands a good chance of proving that some of the first "Native Americans" had white skin and European ancestry.
Firstly, it is gratifying to see that right-wing retards have started trusting radiocarbon dating.
The NYT article as well as other articles in popular media have shamelessly sensationalized this issue. Only asinine bunglers would interpret the physical anthropolgy term caucasoid as "white skin and European ancestry". In fact, caucasoid features are exhibited by the skulls of many races including Ainu of northern Japan, Armenoids of Iranian plateau, Indo-Dravidians etc. There is simply not enough evidence to determine ancestry of the Kennewick man yet. To suggest a white European colonization of North America on the basis of it is preposterous.
There prevails a theory in the right-wing circles that Clovis people were white European and they disappeared after genocidal wars with paleoindian people. How convenient !!!
I enjoyed having thomasd around in the ol' international scene thread in fray just so that someone could rough him up once in a while. Evidently there are more like him stuck in the evolutionary deadend.
"And your phrase 'militant ignorance' earned the appellation 'shrill,' if for no other reason than repetition."
Heh. So that's what "earned" it? Well, as anyone who rereads our exchange can easily notice, I repeated it only as a follow-up to your silly attempt to ascribe the same quality to me (as if your insinuation, backed by no evidence whatsoever, that 4 independent biographers of the extremely-well-known person whose life we had been discussing were biased -- to cover up for your unfamiliarity with the facts of said life -- was somehow no worse than my unfamiliarity with the lives of the biographers.)
"You've elected to focus exclusively on a single word in a single passage of a single column [...] You have done so knowing full well that my evaluation of Mr. Buchanan is not based on that single word, that single passage, or that single column."
Well, call me picky, but I'm more likely to be convinced by one in-context quote than by several out-of-context ones. I'm still puzzled by your apparent refusal to provide the context.
At any rate -- maybe we'll have some more-interesting discussions on other topics, in the future. Cheers.
Actually some of those European Clovis people survived and their descendents live now in remote areas of Idaho.
*My* neighbors were all descended from Neanderthals, thank you very much.
Incidentally, Angel, concerned was one of Thomas' noms de plume in the Fray. You are perceptive, if forgetful.
Where in Sam Hill is he for goodness sake? I truly miss him.
Stumbo --
Your concern for the integrity of the authors you cited is contrived and ill-founded, but nonetheless touching. I "insuinuated" nothing about them. You asked if I thought they were apologists: I said that if they fit the definition, that's what I'd call them. I then asked you whether their statements on Jews, Nazi officals, and the Holocaust were congruent with Pat Buchanan's views, questions which you were unable -- or unwilling -- to answer.
I find your glib explanation of why you refuse to address the remainder of Mr. Buchanan's record rather unconvincing. Still, here are a few more of his comments for you to studiously ignore:
"Horrified, fearing he would not survive a trial, Dr. Rudolph, a heart attack victim, capitulated and signed a paper saying he had persecuted unarmed civilians because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion. Then, heartbroken, he flew to West Germany and renounced his American citizenship ... What do friends of this 82-year-old man ask? Only this: that, considering his service to this country, America give him the public hearing, the fair "trial" he was denied, so the American people can decide whether Dr. Rudolph was a Nazi victimizer of slave labor, or himself a victim of an American political atrocity."
The Arizona Republic, July 18, 1989 (emphasis added)
continued ...
"In July, Bronx Rabbi Avraham Weiss clambered over a fence at Auschwitz, and trooped onto a convent porch to protest the presence there of Catholic nuns. As a priest looked on, Polish workers doused the rabbi, roughed up his followers, and ran them off. After enraged Jewish and press protests, Cardinal Fransiczek Macharski canceled plans for an interfaith center, blaming Jewish groups for a "violent campaign of accusations and defamation." With relations deteriorating, America's prestige press seems wholly sympathetic to the Jewish point of view ... Let me give a dissenting view, held by many orthodox Catholics. Those who preach loudest the need for "sensitivity" seem rarely to make an effort to constrain their hostility to catholicism."
The Arizona Republic, August 17, 1989 (incidentally, I'll be happy to e-mail you the entire column if you like; you can then search for the part where Buchanan condemns the attack on Rabbi Weiss and his followers)
"Who authorized such a war crime? The "fierce and obsessive hatred," of Dwight D. Eisenhower, "of all things German," Fisher writes, "produced the horror of death camps unequaled by anything in American military history." "The German is a beast," Ike had written Mamie during the war; as for the German General Staff, it should be "exterminated." Conclusion: The U.S. Army killed 10 times as many Germans in POW camps as we did on battlefields from Normandy to V-E Day. While the Wehrmacht followed the Geneva Convention, accounting for every U.S. POW, German soldiers died in the hundreds of thousands in American camps ... Fisher is a soldier-patriot who would not have endorsed a slander."
The Buffalo News, January 11, 1990
continued ...
"At Nuremberg we condemned to death Nazi criminals whose indispensable partner in launching World War II was the same Stalin whose judges sat beside ours. Was that equal justice under law?"
The Arizona Republic, January 29, 1991
I know very little about Joe Orton, and nothing about his plays, but I enjoyed your review of Orton's work in today's SF Chronicle book review section quite a lot. Nice job.
I enjoyed it, too. Also, I have a response to your comments on Prick Up Your Ears, but I'll post them in Movies.
Geez, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel, now.
Quote 1: again, no context. We don't know anything about this "Dr. Rudolph," except that he was presumably accused of participating in Nazi atrocities. I agree that it seems a bit odd to use the word "denied" about something he waived voluntarily, no matter how valid his health-related reasons for doing so may or may not have been. Nonetheless, we don't know what the evidence against him was, how reliable it was, and so forth. Yet you, presumably, assume that he's guilty, and consider Buchanan's request for a public hearing to be proof that he's "soft on Nazis." Isn't this the same kind of approach -- which you, I'm guessing, usually disapprove of -- that some conservatives take when accusing liberals of being "soft on crime," in general?
Quote 2: I don't see anything wrong with this. Many people hold views hostile to Catholics, and it's not surprising that a Catholic would be aware of that. So?
"As a priest looked on, Polish workers doused the rabbi, roughed up his followers, and ran them off." It sure doesn't sound to me like he's defending these actions. He's even pointing out the priest's complicity.
Quote 3: I have no idea whether, or to what extent, this is true. But in any case, PB seems to be condemning mistreatment of, and excessive hostility towards, Germans, not Nazis.
Quote 4: I wholeheartedly agree with this one. Yes, of course Stalin and his henchmen should've been among the accused, rather than among the judges.
I would really love to hear your explanation of what you find so terrible about that quote, and why you think it proves sympathy for the Nazis. This should be good.
Homework for PelleN, look up the phrase "carrying capacity". No one gets alarmed by population figures simply on account of persons per sq. metre.
the first Americans were Australians.
(sniff)
I have never been convinced that man was directly descended from a lower form of life until I read your posts.
Few will object to your Australians being the first on the North American continent. But it would be a shame if it could be established that Europeans came here many moons ago.
Most of us evolved, clearly some didn't.
All others (myself included bien sur) are Lectoids from Planet 10.
Firstly, there hasn't been any evidence (rock art, tools, mitochondrial DNA analysis) of a pre-Clovis European migration to North America. Any suggestion of a European migration without such proof is inane.
Even if archaeologists (and geneticists) someday find evidence of such a migration, it will be just that. It means nothing more, nothing less.
The fact remains that the WH Rapist did interfere with the process of scientific discovery. What is required if one is to actually deal with the matter, is to determine why he did so, and this, the author of the article I posted has done.
I notice that you don't choose to deny that Clowntoon involved himself in the Kennewick Man discovery, infringing on the rights of the scientists, (who had received all necessary prior authorization to perform the dig) and subsequently authorizing the vandalization of the excavation site.
This "Kennewick Man cover-up" story is too laughable to take seriously, but your lame defense in #1370 needs exposing, so, just for kicks …
The fact remains that the WH Rapist did interfere with the process of scientific discovery. Hardly a "fact." Your author provided no evidence, only vague secondhand information, that Clinton was personally involved in this. More to the point, there's been no effort to interfere with the process of scientific discovery by anyone but the tribes, and in that case, the intent clearly isn't to protect a "liberal myth." The intent is to defend its rights under the law.
As I pointed out, the BIA is in the position of representing the tribes' interest in this matter. According to the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, signed into law by President George Bush in 1990, if human remains are found on federal lands and their cultural affiliation can be established, the bones must be returned to the affiliated tribe.
I suppose if Clinton ignored the tribes and ordered the BIA to violate federal law by opposing their claim to the bones, you might have a real cover-up on your hands. (I can see the WorldNetDaily headlines now: "Clinton subverts Bush-approved law!") As it is, he's abiding by the letter of the law. And as we saw with the Makah whaling controversy, this administration has been scrupulous about respecting tribal treaty rights and defending them when called upon to do so.
Remember that in the Makah whaling controversy, this administration also took the side of the tribes against specifically (and famously) liberal interests in the anti-whaling community. Ah, but noting this fact wouldn't fit your thesis, would it?
I notice that you don't choose to deny that Clowntoon involved himself in the Kennewick Man discovery … Why should I? I haven’t any idea if he did or not, and neither do you. Let's go back to the relevant passage:
Orders directly from the Clinton White House apparently prompted this anti-scientific vandalism. As journalist Mark Lasswell reported in the January 8 Wall Street Journal, even the Army Corps of Engineers in Walla Walla, Washington, acknowledges the "participation and interest at the Executive level" in the Kennewick Man controversy.
And even if he did, so what? We know Clinton pays attention to detail. And, as I pointed out, all that the administration has done so far is adhere to the letter of the law and defend tribal rights -- admittedly at the expense of scientists who wish to study the bones. If he was involved, the only thing you can accuse him of is being consistently rigorous in defending tribal rights.
… infringing on the rights of the scientists, (who had received all necessary prior authorization to perform the dig) and subsequently authorizing the vandalization of the excavation site. Well, as someone who supports the archaeologists' interests, I also recognize that they have few "rights" in this matter. And I was furious about the covering-up work at the site. But I happen to know why it was done, too: The site was on tribal land. It was attracting kooks like the Asatru gang, who were performing their little Nordic rituals out there and attracting attention to the spot. The tribe wanted it covered up and unmolested, especially since they believe the site is a burial ground. As it happened, an erosion-control project for that particular site was already in the pipeline, well before the bones were discovered. So the bulldozers came and covered up a portion of it (they didn't cover the entire site, but enough of it to be a problem for further study). One consolation: If archaeologists later get court clearance, they'll be able to go back and uncover it. It won’t have washed away, thanks to the project. (Another a side-benefit will be that the Asatru folks won't be able to molest a delicate site any further.)
The author of your piece also commits a gross factual error: The Clinton Administration also opposed and defeated a bill by Congressman Richard "Doc" Hastings (R., WA), who represents Kennewick, that would have blunted NAGPRA regulation over the remains and opened scientific access to study them. This is wrong. The bills passed their respective houses with the amendments intact. But Congress adjourned until April 21 before approving a single measure that would have settled differences in the House and Senate versions. Clinton had nothing to do with it.
Well, the whole theory is cockamamie and betrays the author's ignorance. As others here have noted, the possibility that Kennewick Man was Caucasoid doesn't mean he was "white." Caucasoids also inhabited Asia and northern Africa. They weren't specifically white. But as the most recent information on the question indicates, he probably wasn't Caucasoid either.
You, however, have no such limits. So let me help you along in your blinkered fanaticism. This should save you some steps in researching the next evil Clinton conspiracy you can amuse us with.
I recall your advocacy of the claim that Executive Order 13083 was Clinton's evil plot to take over the states. Of course, in reality, when state officials protested, Clinton withdrew the order. However, there a new theory that Executive Order 12919, which was signed in 1994, is in fact "Bill Clinton's plan for slavery!" Get good and lathered up over that one, OK?
You might also want to go for this one: Bill Clinton was in charge of the Columbine massacre. He sent in black-clothed agents who fired from outside the school to manufacture the event, all for creating a pretext for imposing gun control. You can read about it here and here.
And then, there's the most insidious conspiracy of all: New World Order concentration camps run by the Amish!
Hope this keeps you in full supply of conspiracies for awhile.
Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'
They seem to have numerous Web sites too.
"The site was on tribal land."
Do you mean the site on the Columbia river where the bones were found is on Indian land? I don't think that is accurate, but if i am wrong, I know for sure you will give me nine cites to prove me wrong.
Stumbo --
You've put your finger on the problem with quote #1: Rudolph waived his trial. It's quite wrong to say it was "denied." Still, that word does serve to make an ex-Nazi seem more the victim, doesn't it?
As to the second: a rabbi and his followers are beaten, a cardinal accuses Jews of launching a "violent campaign of accusation and defamation" (which, even if the accusation were true, are non-violent acts). Buchanan finds it necessary to offer a dissent to those who are sympathetic to the Jews -without a word to rebuke those who assaulted the rabbi.
The third passage is notable in two respects: the first is the portrayal of the Nazi army, nobly adhering to the Geneva Convention, in contrast to the supposed war criminal Eisenhower. Of course, the Germans did commit war crimes against U.S. POWs, as Justice Jackson pointed out at Nuremberg; these included murder and use of prisoners as slave labor. Of course, this doesn't cast the Nazis in a sympathetic light. Odd how it was omitted.
The other amusing part is Buchanan's description of Ike's accuser, Fisher, as "a soldier-patriot who would not have endorsed a slander." Ike was not a "soldier-patriot?" Why is it more believable that Ike authorized mass murder than that Fisher endorsed a slander?
The last quote is pure red herring, raising the spectre of unfairness at Nuremberg. But how does the fact that Stalin escaped trial affect the appropriateness of the Nazis' punishment? If they deserved death, they deserved it; if not, they didn't. The presence or absence of Stalin in the dock in no way altered the magnitude of their crimes.
The consistent spin running through these statements - and the others, which you still haven't seen fit to address - is antipathy toward Jews and sympathy for the plight of the poor Nazis. You can argue that it's all coincidence, if you like. I'm not buying.
I am reading books about Soviet espionage: The Sword and the Shield and the Haunted Woods. If I point out that the vast majority of agents were Jewish, does that make me an anti-semite?
Spud --
The truth is, there's literally nothing so vile or outlandish tommie-d wouldn't believe Clinton capable of. Posting the links to the drooler sites just gives him new conspiracies to fantasize about.
BTW -- I note you linked to the site which discusses the Air Force involvement in the Columbine massacre. The "accidental" alpha strike should destroy your home, killing you and your family, just as you read this.
Nothing'll stop the U.S. Air Fooooooorce ...
Into the wild blue yonder, indeed.
Thanks for the links, just when I thought I'd heard it all, you come up with this stuff.
Tell me this, do folk read and participate in this in the same way as say, the national enquirer "batboy" stories (I came out of the house and saw him menacing my dog, he then saw me and jumped over the fence into next door), i.e. tongue-firmly-in-cheek, or is there really a large section of the population that believe it?
My wife will love this stuff, thanks again!
Al --
"... does that make me an anti-semite?"
Let's take a little quiz, Al. Have you ever:
a) referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory?"
b) identified Christianity as "the legitimate moral foundation of American society?"
c) claimed that Holocaust survivors suffer from "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics" and that their accounts are unreliable?
d) argued that reports of 850,000 Jews killed by carbon monoxide gas must be untrue because "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody?"
e) claimed, following an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
f) accused David Duke of stealing your ideas?
g) said that American leaders are obsessed with Jewish influence?
h) falsely said a Nazi was "denied" a trial?
i) described Hitler as "an individual of great courage," a "soldier's soldier," or a "genius?"
j) been identified by the Mayor of New York City as a person with a "history of protecting Nazis?"
k) suggested that the Nazi sentences handed down at Nuremberg were unfair?
If you can answer "yes" to all of these questions, then -- congratulations! You're an anti-semite, just like Pat Buchanan!
Conspiracy theory generator
proud --
Thanks for the link. Damn near as funny as the stuff tommie-d actually believes!
"Isn't it obvious that The King of Sweden has been killed by the Society for Protection of Animals and replaced by an agent of the Horse Meat Bund who has undergone extensive plastic surgery? Clearly the Society for Protection of Animals is planning to Liberate the King's horses when the agent of the Horse Meat Bund assassinates The Master of the Horse. The only solution is for the Secret Police to stop the Society for Protection of Animals and the Horse Meat Bund, which is impossible unless the United Nations will pass a resolution to allow the public to own nuclear devices.
I is all clear to me now. Scales falling from eyes and so on.
The audience drops quite a bit for Patriot sites, which contain much of the same kind of Clinton-hating material, plus all the black-helicopter stuff. But it's fairly widespread too, and as you can see, they are quite prolific and wide-ranging. The depth is not impressive (yet -- but an economic downturn could change all that) but the breadth is. The important point to remember, though, is that it doesn't take very many of them to create real messes.
Proudnerd, the generator is great. I'll be passing it along.
And, for another parody...
watched by Rudy Giuliani? It's all so that Helen
Chenoweth, hidden in a secret HQ near
Minneapolis can create a race of supermen. After
that, Rudy Giuliani will telepathically manipulate
the citizens of the USA when the disorder caused
by Helen Chenoweth reaches a peak. The only
thing we can do is let Jesse Ventura put together a
militia to stop them. "
"Still, that word does serve to make an ex-Nazi seem more the victim, doesn't it?"
No; someone accused of being an ex-Nazi (and who -- according to the scarce info provided -- apparently thought that, at 82, his health might be less damaged by a cross-Atlantic flight than by a trial.) Buchanan's not saying, "yes, this guy is an ex-Nazi, and that makes him my main man" -- hell, he's not even saying, "this guy is not an ex-Nazi." He's saying, "let's have an actual hearing to find out whether this guy is an ex-Nazi or not." And you find fault with that? Or is it your position that some crimes are so heinous that a mere accusation should suffice to hang the accused, with no proof required?
"Buchanan finds it necessary to offer a dissent to those who are sympathetic to the Jews - without a word to rebuke those who assaulted the rabbi."
No additional words of rebuke are necessary -- their violent actions, as plainly reported by Buchanan, speak for themselves. It's damn well obvious to any reader that beating someone up is not a nice thing to do. Nonetheless, if he subsequently went on to condemn anti-Catholic sentiments that might have had something to do with the genesis of the incident -- how is that different from, say, attempts to find "root causes" of crimes (unless, again, you believe that such attempts amount to being "soft on crime") ?
"Why is it more believable that Ike authorized mass murder than that Fisher endorsed a slander?"
Well, there's that (alleged) "The German is a beast" bit. In any case, the question is not who is more believable to you or me, but whether Buchanan's (right or wrong) opinion proves that he has Nazi sympathies. It doesn't -- unless you also hold that all those who believe the My Lai massacre occurred must have Communist sympathies.
involved himself in the Kennewick Man discovery, infringing
on the rights of the scientists, (who had received all necessary
prior authorization to perform the dig) and subsequently
authorizing the vandalization of the excavation site.
cover up the European pre-Clovis Americans'
existence by putting them into a computer
simulation where they have to track
ThomasD and all his real life friends to a secret base near Mena airport. The
mental power thus produced by the captive
thinkers allows Bill Clinton, in league with the AI,
to compromise the Posse Comitatus, allowing Bill Clinton to
prevent the return of the Messiah. "
"The last quote is pure red herring, raising the spectre of unfairness at Nuremberg."
For starters -- how on earth can a single quote, devoid (yet again) of context, possibly be a red herring? Please look up the definition of that term, either in "my" dictionary or anywhere else.
The unfairness, of course, is obvious: Nazi criminals (as Buchanan himself, of course, calls them) were punished, while Soviet ones were not. You may choose to fantasize that this means he'd rather see both (or at least the former) go scot-free; the common-sense interpretation is that he would like to see both punished.
"But how does the fact that Stalin escaped trial affect the appropriateness of the Nazis' punishment? If they deserved death, they deserved it; if not, they didn't. The presence or absence of Stalin in the dock in no way altered the magnitude of their crimes."
Are you saying that you wouldn't find it ridiculous if Jeffrey Dahmer were put on trial, with Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jack the Ripper among the jury? And that if you did, and said so in some column, that would imply sympathy on your part towards Dahmer? Gawd. I have a hard time believing that you really believe that.
"The consistent spin running through these statements -and the others, which you still haven't seen fit to address - is antipathy toward Jews and sympathy for the plight of the poor Nazis. You can argue that it's all coincidence, if you like. I'm not buying."
Again: you haven't come close to proving any "sympathy for the plight of the poor Nazis." But, at any rate -- since you seem to have conceded that none of these statements is damning by itself, and the best you can do is some sort of statistical argument -- how can you claim anything about a "consistent spin," when you've given maybe ten quotes from Buchanan's many hundreds of columns over the past few decades? That's pathetically inadequate. I could equally credibly argue that the number of characters in his columns is always a multiple of 37, by presenting ten columns in which that's indeed the case.
If you wanted your argument to have a chance at convincing a reasonable yet skeptical person (such as *bat eyelashes* moi), you would at the very least have compiled a list of Buchanan columns which mention anything related to Nazis or Jews (and I mean, Jews per se -- not Jewish political organizations, which are open to criticism for their actions and positions the way any other political organizations are), counted how many could be concluded to have a spin this way and how many to have one that way, and so forth. Of course, you haven't done that. Oh well.
Stumbo --
"Buchanan's not saying ... He's saying ..."
He's saying Rudolph was denied a trial when he wasn't. Suck it up and admit it like a man.
"No additional words of rebuke are necessary..."
Well, thank God for that, because Pat sure didn't have any.
"In any case, the question is not who is more believable to you or me, but ..."
The question is why Pat elected to falsely portray the Nazi army as nobly complying with the Geneva Convention while at the same time accusing Eisenhower of slaughtering Nazi soldiers.
Dunno, Stumb-buddy. Seems pretty clear to me that Pat has a soft spot for the old red-white-and-black. You're obviously beyond convincing, and I really don't plan to waste my time with you any further. Good night.
involved himself in the Kennewick Man discovery, infringing
on the rights of the scientists, (who had received all necessary
prior authorization to perform the dig) and subsequently
authorizing the vandalization of the excavation site.
Pat Buchanan: In His Own Words
Oh, damn, I missed your last efforts.
"Are you saying that you wouldn't find it ridiculous if Jeffrey Dahmer were put on trial, with Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jack the Ripper among the jury?"
Of course, Stalin wasn't on the jury, and you've not suggested except by innuendo that the Soviet judges were war criminals. So your analogy is pretty silly.
In any event, if they sentenced Dahmer to death, I'd think the procedure odd, but hardly unfair.
"... how can you claim anything about a 'consistent spin,' when you've given maybe ten quotes from Buchanan's many hundreds of columns over the past few decades? That's pathetically inadequate."
Buchanan's written many hundreds of columns about Nazis and Jews? Prove it, pal.
Now good night.
"He's saying Rudolph was denied a trial when he wasn't. Suck it up and admit it like a man."
Hello? I already stated that Buchanan's use of "denied" was incorrect, a few posts ago (and you even acknowledged that). But I thought the aim of your arguments was to prove not that Buchanan is merely prone to logical errors, but that he is a Nazi-lover. If so, then the "he's not saying... he's saying..." part becomes more relevant than anything else.
" 'No additional words of rebuke are necessary ...'
Well, thank God for that, because Pat sure didn't have any."
And, um, perhaps the reason he didn't have any is precisely that they weren't necessary?
"Of course, Stalin wasn't on the jury, and you've not suggested except by innuendo that the Soviet judges were war criminals. So your analogy is pretty silly."
No, it's your attempt to wiggle out of it that it is silly. Stalin appointed those judges, and he dictated how they voted. For all intents and purposes, he was on the jury.
And any war-criminals-vs.-just-plain-criminals quibbling is even sillier. The point is: mass murderers, in a trial that supposedly reflected civilized humanity's revulsion towards mass murder, were judged by a jury that included other mass murderers.
"In any event, if they sentenced Dahmer to death, I'd think the procedure odd, but hardly unfair."
Again, you're avoiding my point. If someone criticized this procedure (in a context unknown to you), would you consider that sufficient proof that he was a Dahmer fan?
"Buchanan's written many hundreds of columns about Nazis and Jews? Prove it, pal."
Did I say that? I said he's written many hundreds of columns. The onus is on you to determine how many were about Nazis and/or Jews, etc.
You complained that I wasn't responding to any of your quotes except that single one -- yet, when I do so, you choose to ignore my arguments, assert that your claims are "pretty clear" to you, and storm out in a huff. Well, it takes two to argue, so I guess that's the end of it.
But I do find your concern for the reputation of those Soviet judges somewhat touching. ;-)
Stumbo --
"I thought the aim of your arguments was to prove not that Buchanan is merely prone to logical errors, but that he is a Nazi-lover."
Saying Rudolph was "denied" a trial isn't a "logical error" -- it's a false statement. It makes Rudolph appear to be the victim of some injustice, rather than the author of his own predicament.
As for your "Nazi-lover" claim -- where did you get that phrase from? Was it somewhere in one of my messages? Or did you just make it up?
"...perhaps the reason he didn't have any [rebuke concerning the beating of a rabbi] is precisely that they weren't necessary?"
Let's see. A rabbi is beaten and a Catholic cardinal accuses Jews of planning "violent campaign of accusations and defamation," whatever that means. Pat points out that "America's prestige press seems wholly sympathetic to the Jewish point of view," and follows up with "Let me give a dissenting view." And you think Pat didn't say anything bad about the beating because it wasn't "necessary?"
Well, I'll give you that Pat doesn't think it necessary to condemn violence against Jews.
"The point is: mass murderers...were judged by a jury that included other mass murderers.
The point is: so what? Even if there were "mass murderers" on the jury (something you've still not established), that doesn't make the sentences handed down at Nuremberg unfair: if the Nazis deserved to die, they desrved it. Period. There's no injustice in their sentences.
"I said he's written many hundreds of columns. The onus is on you to determine how many were about Nazis and/or Jews, etc."
No, the onus is on you to demonstrate how the "hundreds of columns" (where did you come up with that figure, anyway?) in any way relate to the subject at hand. You offered the defense: if you can't show it's relevant, don't complain to me.
continued...
Finally, Stumbo, your claim that I "ignored" your arguments is patently false: I addressed every one. You don't care for the responses, but that's your problem.
Your claim that I "seem to have conceded that none of these statements is damning by itself" is equally dishonest. As you well know, I've said since my first post on the subject that it's the cumulative effect of Mr. Buchanan's statements that led me to my conclusions. This is not a "concession;" it was part of my original argument.
If you want to discuss this further, I'll be happy to, but I'd appreciate it if you'd try a little harder keep your facts straight.
Read Spudboys MSG #1407. Afterwards, if you still continue to argue that Buchanan is not a racist then you are nothing but a moronic twerp.
pe --
I hear he coined Agnew's famous remark about "nattering nabobs of negativism."
He does seem to like alliteration.
Takes my breath away!
If you'd like to see anti-liberal bias in media, check out Fox network news and any show thereon hosted by Tony Snow.
Finally, spare us the liberal media crap. My local rag is so pro GOP Bush should claim my subscription as a campaign contribution.
If you'd like to see anti-liberal bias in media, check out Fox network news and any show thereon hosted by Tony Snow.
Positively idiotic. There is no bias on Fox's news segments, except, perhaps, a bit of unreconstructed liberal bias. There is, of course, "bias" in Fox's various commentary shows-- because generally only conservatives get high enough ratings to stay on-air. Liberals are too busy watchings "Shasta McNasty."
You mean there's no bias YOU notice.....
Why vote? The 2000 election has already been bought and paid for.
Jones:
I expect that when you see a news station actually bother to play Republican soundbites in response to Democratic soundbites (the way unbiased reportage is supposed to work), you call it "biased." Of course only the Liberals should have their say.
...and please provide a single citation of bias on Fox.
I have provided an obviously biased AP story (nine Democratic statements, most in juicy, Republican-bashing quotes to three Republican statements, none in the form of quotes).
I have cited Jennings funereal cry of the nation throwing a "temper tantrum" when it dared to boot the Democrats out of Congress in 1994.
What have you got?
Snow and Hume do a MacNeil Lehrer type newsprogram which is not biased, except in the final analysis segment. Still, they've got two or three liberals on-board to analyze the day's news, so why are you whining?
The rest are commentary shows, NOT news. Commentary is supposed to have opinion in it.
If you would take the time to notice, I qualified Fox news with "any show thereon hosted by Tony Snow" who, during the Impeachment hearings was so balanced he had to preface many segments in his show with a disclaimer that he was a personal friend of Linda Tripps and was slavishly devoted to Lucianne Goldberg.
Judith:
Oooops. I wouldn't have said your statement was idiotic, except that I thought JONES said it.
Had I realized you said it, I would have said, "Wrong."
Since Tony Snow is only a guest-host on the Hume show, filling in when Hume is on vacation, I don't know, precisely, what Tony Snow show you're talking about.
Cellar Door:
The "liberals" I'm speaking of are Morton Kondrackie, a true-blue Democrat and liberal, even if of the less objecionable "neo" colored stripe, and Juan Williams, who is a paleoliberal of the first order.
The Liason woman I suspect may be liberal too, but if she is, she does a reasonably good job of keeping it out of her analysis and seeming, at least, fairly objective. She is the third I meant by "or three."
Fox Sunday Morning, at 8am CST.
Eight a.m. on a Sunday morning? Well, you have me at a disadvantage on that one.
That's a commentary show, too, however.
At any rate, I believe Snow's politics are generally Democratic. How do I know this? When he guest-hosted on either Limbaugh or Hannity, callers accused him of this, and he stated that yes, he was a Democrat. Or at least that's what I remember.
I'm not quite sure how his friendship with Tripp or Goldberg could possibly influence any issue except the fairly trivial issues relating to those two women. And I say "trivial" because only the Liberal Revanchists really care if Tripp serves time or not. It is simply irrelevant as a national story.
It does not matter how specific you are in pointing out media bias. Cellar will jump right in with his amusing little bromides. Hell, he is an expert on weird films, ergo, an expert on everything. And besides, he is Gay, Brown, Jewish, and a closet commie, so don't pick on him.
Are you crazed by all that nice weather? Fox is a viable network. Are people forced to watch 60 Minutes? There are probably more people watching America's Funniest Home Idiocies than watch 60 Minutes. Need I remind you (probably, I must) that the Simpsons runs opposite 60 Minutes...
Jones:
Please recall one of these times for us. And please tell us all how Escobeda is the current precedent for analyzing police interrogations.
Jesus. A criminal lawyer citing Escobeda. I wonder how many poor, doomed clients went to jail because you trotted out a decades-"out-of-date "precendent."
Incidentally, Cellar is only superficially a Communist. He claims to be a Communist because it disburdens him of the responsibility of knowing anything about history or politics or government or law. It's a convenient dodge allowing him to comment upon current events without having to actually know what the hell is going on.
But if you quizzed him, I think you'd find his grasp of Communist theory and history is just as shallow as his grasp of any other issue.
Why are you so cranky today?
1. Escobedo, not Escobeda.
2. Escobedo is still good law, but the portion relating to Miranda issues was clarified in a manner inconsistent with some of the dicta of Escobedo.
3. As for smacks, there's the confusion between intent and motive
4. Actus Reus vs. Mens rea
5. The second amendment granting a personal right to bear arms.
6. State v. Valdez-The search and seizure case from Nebraska concerning a seizure of a suspects home without a warrant, on the basis of an illegal stop and search of another suspect.
7. Choking suspects to unconciousness in order to search their mouths.
That's what springs to mind. I may have missed a few. I'm sure that having never appeared in a courtroom, your record is a perfect 0-0.
Judith:
I *did* apologize for calling your remark idiotic.
I'm not cranky. Jones just claimed that he "puts the smack down on me" regarding law. I'm just curious as to precisely when this has happened. And I'm tangentially curious as to how often he's cited the overruled Escobeda as a precedent to a judge.
VonKreedon:
Do you really doubt my analysis of Cellar, or are you just being nice? Cellar always strikes the pose of "I don't have to know anything about politics, dear, since there are no real 'politics' anyway." And yet he has never, to my knowledge, made any kind of substantive remark about politics from his allegedly-Communist point of view.
Which leads me to conclude he doesn't know Communism from KY.
Has Cellar hired you as his attorney? I like to jibe Cellar, and he likes to jibe others. I love, well let me be careful with my language, admire Cellar's quick wit. He's a little goofy, but I can relate to that.
Judith
Do you suppose that ads on 60 Minutes are a bargain compared to Fox? Now, I have no specific information, but would you like a wager on which is higher? I'm very honest, I'll hold the stakes.
Jones, you're an idiot, and you're flat-out lying.
2. Escobedo is still good law, but the portion relating to Miranda issues was clarified in a manner inconsistent with some of the dicta of Escobedo.
No it isn't. We've been through this. You early issued a very apologetic mea culpa. Now I see you're attempting to backpedal.
Miranda replaced Escobedo, chum.
3. As for smacks, there's the confusion between intent and motive
Confusion? No, you're the only one who confuses the two.
4. Actus Reus vs. Mens rea
Lie.
5. The second amendment granting a personal right to bear arms.
Never even discussed this. I don't talk about gun-rights, much.
6. State v. Valdez-The search and seizure case from Nebraska concerning a seizure of a suspects home without a warrant, on the basis of an illegal stop and search of another suspect.
Laugh. Okay, whatever.
7. Choking suspects to unconciousness in order to search their mouths.
Once again, I never discussed this, dope.
That's what springs to mind. I may have missed a few. I'm sure that having never appeared in a courtroom, your record is a perfect 0-0.
Better being 0-0 than citing Escobedo to a judge. At least I haven't performed legal malpractice.
That is true; you were nice enough to apologize to me.
And now I want to thank you for an idea you've just given me! I can use Cellars "I don't have to know anything about _____ because there is no real______, anyway" on just about anything.
110 ----
110XX Trial
110XX(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General
110k641 Counsel for Accused
110k641.3 Stage of Proceedings as Affecting Right
> 110k641.3(6) Inquiry, interrogation, or conversation.
Formerly 110k641.3, 110k641(1)
U.S.Ill. 1964.
The right of accused to counsel does not depend on whether, at time of interrogation, the authorities have secured a formal indictment.
84 S.Ct. 1758, 378 U.S. 478, Escobedo v. State of Ill., (U.S.Ill. 1964)
This is the point that I was addressing when I cited Escobedo.
I'm sure the ads for the SuperBowl are more than the ads for 60 Minutes. So what? What does that have to do with whether people watch Fox or not? I'd love to know what the ratings are between 60 Minutes and The Simpsons, tho....I think you might be surprised. I'll bet the Neilson families turn on 60 Minutes and then race to the other room and watch Simpsons.
This is the point that I was addressing when I cited Escobedo.
No, it wasn't.
You were claiming that it didn't matter if a defendant knowingly, willingly, and purposely waived his right to counsel in an interrogation context (i.e., Miranda followed correctly and by the letter); you claimed you could still get a confession kicked out on an Escobedo analysis.
You apologized and admitted your mistake earlier; oddly, as time as passed, it turns you never made a mistake at all. Funny how time heals all errors.
I agree. But Al seems to feel the entire nation is tuned to Mike Wallace & Co. and is being swayed by all that liberal claptrap. I personally think 2/3s of the country is watching something less enlightening and that 2/3s isn't voting, anyhow. The third that IS hanging on every word of 60 minutes has more than likely already decided who they are voting for and the 6 individuals who are grist for Wallaces mill will probably forget to show up at the polls, anyhow.
Ace- go back and dig up your first year criminal law text and look up mens rea and actus reas and get back to me before you go further on the "punishing evil thoughts" thing. If you need someone to explain it, I'm sure that Trial or I would if you ask politely.
3114. AceofSpades - 10/15/99 1:21:52 PM
Jones Who Needs to Bone up on Law:
Actus Rea is state of mind, imbecile. Level of intent. It is NOT motive.
Name a SINGLE crime where MOTIVE is a factor, other than in hate crimes laws.
You're not much of a lawyer if you have trouble distinguishing between INTENT and MOTIVE.
3115. AceofSpades - 10/15/99 1:23:59 PM
Incidentally, Elliot was very impressed by the argument that, because intent and motive both happen in your head, they are therefore indistinguishable. I didn't fault him for that, since he wasn't a lawyer.
But you, supposedly, are. And yet you believe, oddly, that one's motive or personality type is equivalent to intent, which is simply a "did you mean to do it or not?" proposition.
3116. AceofSpades - 10/15/99 1:29:25 PM
Mens Rea, I meant. Duh.
Jones:
As shown by my immediate retraction, this was a TYPO, dipshit.
And by "typo," I don't mean I accidentally typed "Actus." I mean we were discussing mens rea, but you had just mentioned actus rea, and I had a mind-glitch and wrote "actus rea" when I meant "mens rea."
You apologized and admitted your mistake earlier; oddly, as time as passed, it turns you never made a mistake at all. Funny how time heals all errors.
I believe the issue was one regarding Lewinksy and her sixth amendment right to counsel. Escobedo focused on the right to counsel, Miranda focused on the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. These were competing theories at the time. Miranda shifted the analysis from sixth amendment theory to fifth amendment theory. Escobedo would have life only in the context of a sixth amendment analysis or an overall due process one. I was right about the holding of each, but was wrong when I thought that Miranda hadn't shifted the paradigm.
Have a nice evening, all.
"Jones:
Yup. You like punishing people for having verboten thoughts.
The assaults and rapes don't bother you so much. But it's that damn racist thought the criminal has when he beats and rapes that gets you all up in arms.
Hate crimes laws, as far as I know, do not require proof that the perp "intended to spread fear of similar crimes occurring to a minority." Nope. No intent needs to be proved regarding that pernicious effect you're worried about. Unlike every other law on the books. "
You then went on to attempt to hide behind motive, when your original thesis was intent.
Hate crimes laws, as far as I know, do not require proof that the perp "intended to spread fear of similar crimes occurring to a minority." Nope. No intent needs to be proved regarding that pernicious effect you're worried about. Unlike every other law on the books. "
This was and remains correct. Hate Crime Laws do not punish, as Spudboy insists, an intent to spread fear among a community. There are laws on the books regarding terroristic threats; Hate Crime Laws are not among them.
I would have no problem with a law that punished someone for intending to strike fear into a minority community.
But, of course, intent is hard to prove. So Hate Crime Laws merely punish you for the MOTIVE of racism in picking your victim. The "intended to strike fear into the community" is all PRESUMED without the rigor of proof.
Idiot. All this is perfectly obvious from the discussion; your efforts to mischaracterize my statements are transparently dishonest.
The only characterization was that your original post spoke of intent when the rest spoke of motive.
Yes, and this is the mischaracterization, Dolt. *I* understand the difference between intent and motive. I know that you do not, but please do not ascribe YOUR ignorance to me.
Intent is proved in precisely the same way that motive is in a trial.
And a rape is proven the same way a nonsexual assault, i.e., with witness testimony and physical evidence. And 90% of things are "proven the same way" as everything else.
Tell me, in what possible way is this relevant?
Your distinction is pure semantics.
I know you think so, because, like an idiot, you don't understand the difference between INTENT (required to be proved) and MOTIVE (may be proved, if necessary).
In other words, Ace, you seem to think that if I target a minority to kill, rape or beat, merely on the basis of their minority, I have no intent to affect others whom I hate for the same reason?
Laugh. So you're in favor of assuming intent at trial in other situations?
Hysterical how your opinions change when it suits you.
Generally, Malpractice At Law, the State is required to PROVE intent, not presume it. Criminal Law 101.
If I randomly select a minority member, isn't the real focus of my intent not the person, but the minority?
I don't know. Why don't you prove intent to terrorize the community rather than presuming it?
The process of proving intent is no more and no less difficult in a courtroom than motive.
I never said otherwise.
If you tried cases, this would be obvious.
It's obvious to me WITHOUT having tried cases. But then, I actually learned a few things at law school, and didn't need to learn the law as I consigned my clients to prison, gleefully citing Escobedo as they were marched off in chains.
"The process of proving intent is no more and no less difficult in a courtroom than motive.(Jones)
I never said otherwise. (Ace)
to
"But, of course, intent is hard to prove. So Hate Crime Laws merely punish you for the MOTIVE of racism in picking your victim. "
Jonesy --
Good catch.
Jones:
The point is:
It is hard to prove you INTENDED TO TERRORIZE A COMMUNITY. It is relatively easier to prove your motive of racism.
That was somewhat obvious, given the context. Even you realized that, which is why you edited out the sentence that preceeded my quote, which discussed intent TO TERRORIZE A COMMUNITY.
When the facts don't fit, make new facts that do.
The full quote:
This was and remains correct. Hate Crime Laws do not punish, as Spudboy insists, an intent to spread fear among a community. There are laws on the books regarding terroristic threats; Hate Crime Laws are not among them.
I would have no problem with a law that punished someone for intending to strike fear into a minority community.
But, of course, intent is hard to prove. So Hate Crime Laws merely punish you for the MOTIVE of racism in picking your victim. The "intended to strike fear into the community" is all PRESUMED without the rigor of proof.
Try again, liar.
Intent and motive are proved just the same, and are, generally, equally hard to prove, when we're talking about proving the same thing.
We are NOT talking about the same thing when we contrast "intended to TERRORIZE A MINORITY COMMUNITY" and "had a racist motive in selecting the victim."
Entering Aceville- members of minority groups are regularly targeted for random violence in Aceville. This will have no effect on those not randomly targeted. Remember, this is all personal. Have a Nice Day.
Fair enough. Let's presume intent in every criminal trial, then.
Since you think proving intent is unnecessary, let's just be rid of it.
"Saying Rudolph was 'denied' a trial isn't a 'logical error' --it's a false statement. It makes Rudolph appear to be the victim of some injustice, rather than the author of his own predicament."
And the point is, we don't know that he is the author of his own predicament. If he is indeed guilty of the crimes he was accused of, then that's that. If he is innocent, but pled guilty because he wasn't sure that, given his health, he'd survive a trial -- then he deserves at least some sympathy, don't you think? What's so terrible about suggesting a hearing to help find out which is the case?
"As for your 'Nazi-lover' claim -- where did you get that phrase from? Was it somewhere in one of my messages? Or did you just make it up?"
I used it as a reasonably close synonym of "Nazi sympathizer." You wanna argue that there's a significant difference, and that I was therefore trying to distort what you were saying? Go rrrrright ahead.
"Well, I'll give you that Pat doesn't think it necessary to condemn violence against Jews."
You're being obtuse. He stated the facts of the violence in unambiguous terms, including -- as I mentioned already -- the fact that the priest stood by and just watched, rather than intervene. If this had been written by anyone else, you would take it as granted that "X roughed up Y" indicates the writer's disapproval, without insisting that he write "X roughed up Y (and, of course, roughing people up is bad!)". But since it's Buchanan, who you've already concluded is an anti-Semite, you take the lack of that parenthetical admonition as a sign that he approves of the roughing-up -- and then declare that to be further proof of his anti-Semitism!
How do we know Buchanan's an anti-Semite? Because of all the anti-Semitic things he's written. And how can we tell that they're anti-Semitic? Well, they were written by that anti-Semite Buchanan, so what else could he possibly have meant?
"Even if there were 'mass murderers' on the jury (something you've still not established), ..."
Which part is not established: that Stalin was a mass murderer, or that all votes by the Soviet judges on that panel were dictated by him? Why do you pick out the most irrelevant of hairs to split?
"... that doesn't make the sentences handed down at Nuremberg unfair: if the Nazis deserved to die, they desrved it. Period. There's no injustice in their sentences."
The sentences weren't unfair, and did not constitute an injustice. (The whole trial, nonetheless, was a joke.) Of course, Buchanan didn't use either of those terms, according to your quote; he asked whether this was "equal justice." To which the obvious answer is: no, because some mass murderers were convicted, and some -- who should've been convicted also -- were not. As usual, because this is Buchanan writing, you assume that this means he would've liked the Nazis to have gotten off, etc., and so on with the same circular argument.
"No, the onus is on you to demonstrate how the 'hundreds of columns' (where did you come up with that figure, anyway?) in any way relate to the subject at hand. You offered the defense: if you can't show it's relevant, don't complain to me."
I came up with that figure by considering that he wrote a once- or twice-weekly column for several years. Pretty simple, really.
As for the onus: you are the one who is trying to prove something. And when I point out a gaping hole in your method of proof, that doesn't somehow switch the responsibility over to me. Quite the contrary.
"your claim that I 'ignored' your arguments is patently false: I addressed every one. You don't care for the responses, but that's your problem."
I don't care for the responses, because you keep skirting the point. Either you bring up irrelevant side issues (like whether Stalin's puppet judges were mass murderers themselves -- I'm sure they were, but who cares?), or simply avoid a key issue no matter how often I bring it up (like in the Rudolph thing, where you consistently assume that he is guilty as charged, even though I've pointed out several times that that's precisely what's in dispute). Simply quoting a random line from a paragraph does not constitute "addressing" it.
Clinton is very careful in public, but, it is alleged that that he is racist in private.
By whom? Ace? concerned? BullElephant?
1) really digs or dug the Nazis
2) really hates Jews.
Because what he is an intemperate carnival barker, a political lightning rod, who has some fixed views, as long as they are the type of views that will infuriate and inflame. He is eminently criticizable on many fronts, and I have read the judgments of others that he is anti-Semitic (I think he's just addicted to skirting the lines of respectability in denouncing any special interest foe, be it feminists, various minority groups, the Israeli lobby, and the homosexual lobby).
Remember, this guy only is dubbed an anti-Semite or a Nazi sympathizer when he is off his television show, yukking it up with the likes of Bill Press and the rest of the Washington establishment. In that arena, he's deemed acceptable enough for pre-prime time, a real Washington insider.
That's what's interesting about the whole thing. Buchanan's just "lace-curtain" Irish anti-semite (I'm 1/4 Irish. I know my people.)The others along the Beltway who smile and nod and go "Oh it's just Pat, you know," are his enablers -- as Araianna would say.
Or maybe she wouldn't.
Since you think proving intent is unnecessary, let's just be rid of it.
Ace- Here is the heart of the matter. You keep harping on presumptions, but the presumptions are yours. Is it necessary to show that burglars entered into a house with the intention to steal from a known resident, or is it merely necessary to show illegal entry with intention to steal? MPC or name a state code please.
Wow, "peer him"! that is every bit as good as "boy me."
As I remember, I obtained that information from a famous Fraygrant. I believe he went under the sobriquet stamper.
By L. Brent Bozell III
October 14, 1999
The connections between political reporting and foundation giving are an almost completely ignored field of inquiry
for the media, with one notable exception. That would be early 1998, when the Clintons threw a stick at
conservative philanthropist and newspaper owner Dick Scaife and told their lapdogs in the press to fetch.
Suddenly, a cauldron of stories boiled over in outrage over how this "King of the Clinton Haters" would spend his
riches on a vast right-wing conspiracy to commit investigative journalism with a point of view.
The establishment media's complete marination in hypocrisy was recently proven by Frank Greve, a Washington
reporter for the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain. Greve discovered that PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers is the
Scaife counterpart of the vast left-wing "campaign finance reform" conspiracy. In addition to his day job vacuuming
up video and book royalties from his endless series of tax-subsidized PBS cash-in projects, Moyers earns
$200,000 a year as president of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, which has pumped more than $15
million into the crusade against the First Amendment's guarantees of free political speech.
Or, as Greve aptly put it: "Moyers is using his control over money and media in ways that would be the envy of the
special interests he deplores." But Moyers has never told PBS viewers a word about it. Where were the other
media outlets to follow up on this media ethics story? So much for shining the sunlight of information on the use of
money in politics.
Greve revealed how interconnected Moyers' journalistic and philanthropic duties have become. For example, on
Moyers' June PBS special "Free Speech for Sale," he opened with the views of three campaign "reform" activists
-- Burt Neuborne of the Brennan Center for Justice, Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, and Bob
Hall of Democracy South -- "but never revealed that their organizations have received a total of $2.6 million from
the Schumann Foundation in the last five years." Moyers most recent sermon for the "Frontline" series,
"Washington's Other Scandal," linked Web surfers to the "best" reform activists, most of which are -- surprise! --
Schumann grantees.
The Schumann Foundation reigns so supreme among campaign "reformers" that Greve found its annual donations
are "about a third of total philanthropic giving on this issue. Early grants helped found three of Washington's
most-quoted political reform groups: the Center for Responsive Politics, the Center for Public Integrity, and Public
Campaign." On top of that, Schumann also "has long subsidized coverage of money's role in politics on public
radio and public television."
responsible for more than that. In a 1991 article in the American Journalism Review, Michael Hudson explained
that the far-left Center for Investigative Reporting was saved from layoffs and bankruptcy by a $75,000 grant from
the Schumann Foundation. Moyers ushered CIR into a regular relationship with PBS, where they have routinely
produced campaign "reform" diatribes for the "Frontline" series.
Perhaps the strangest paragraph of the Greve article contained quotes from "ethics specialists" like the Poynter
Institute's Bob Steele, who worried, "Moyers' undisclosed roles will lead critics to conclude that public
broadcasting has what Steele calls ‘a point of view, a bias, an agenda' when it comes to money and politics." Truth
is, you didn't need Moyers' full disclosure to see that PBS documentaries on campaign money are always a
completely stacked deck of speech- gaggers. An apolitical 12-year-old kid could see they were one-sided.
When Greve asked Moyers to defend himself and his multiple roles, Moyers blurred any distinction between
journalism and philanthropy: "I practice journalism as a form of public education, and I practice grantmaking as a
form of public education. I think a journalist is a citizen and you have to be honest with yourself about what you
care about as a citizen as well as what you do as a journalist." In other words, Moyers believes that whatever
furthers the revolution for completely taxpayer-financed campaigns is ethical.
Moyers' manipulations underscore what is at the root of liberal "campaign reform." The villains of his rhetoric are
the free-market greedheads of for-profit businesses. But when Moyers and his foundation friends perform the
same role for the left -- manipulating millions throughout Washington advocacy groups and public television -- it's
not "influence-peddling" or "referee-buying," it's "public education."
Campaign "reform" is not a way to fix a dysfunctional democracy, but a way for the left to put the fix in for their
dysfunctional Democratic brethren.
I know at least one member of the press who would only be Niner's lapdog.
"But when Moyers and his foundation friends perform the
same role for the left -- manipulating millions throughout Washington advocacy groups and public television...
the same role as the right plays? A telling admission, and certainly a subconcious one.
Jones:
Burglary is defined, common law, as unlawfully entering a residence at night with the intent to carry property therefrom.
What's your point?
1507 Stamper 10/18/99 10:52:61 PM
Somebudy call me
Knock it off, ee.
Reading comprehension problems, perhaps? Or just your classic inability to keep anything straight? In the case of the first assertion, I wrote no such thing. In the case of the second, I wrote precisely the opposite. And you seem not to have absorbed the significance of Wisconsin v. Madison (a point about that case, BTW: the perp was a black man who had beaten up a white man because he was white).
Hate-crimes laws punish crimes in which a bias motive can be established. The motive, indeed, is what distinguishes it as this kind of crime; but you keep pretending that motive and intent are not merely discrete but entirely separate in the courtroom. Yet as I showed you in the Rehnquist's own ruling, in Madison, on these laws, they are in fact pretty closely interrelated. The intent is part of what the court sees, correctly, as "greater social harm," and establishing the motive (as in other criminal law) is the substantial part of proving intent.
And I said, in fact, that hate-crimes laws are considered a subset of anti-terrorism statutes. Like hate-crimes laws, these laws are written strictly to apply to acts that already are crimes, but in addition are "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct." In both kinds of crimes, motive establishes intent (to harm society), which is the cause for increased punishment.
And like anti-discrimination laws, hate-crimes laws focus on discriminatory acts and not the thoughts themselves, which removes them from the realm of "thought crime."
Got that straight?
"... we don't know that [Rudolph] is the author of his own predicament."
Sure we do. Rudolph's predicament is that he waived his trial and then changed his mind later. Too bad for him.
"I used it as a reasonably close synonym of 'Nazi sympathizer.' You wanna argue that there's a significant difference, and that I was therefore trying to distort what you were saying? Go rrrrright ahead."
Ah. You selected a "reasonably close synonym" of a term I never used. How silly of me to object.
"He stated the facts of the violence in unambiguous terms ..."
"Roughed up" is unambigous? Really? Oh, yeah: we can instantly surmise Pat's disapproval from that crystal-clear, spare-no-details description. Pat's "dissent" to those who are "wholly sympathetic to the Jewish point of view" is just further proof of how much he hates violence against Jews.
"Which part is not established"
That there were mass murderers on the jury.
"Why do you pick out the most irrelevant of hairs to split?"
I "pick them out" because you put them in your arguments. If they're irrelevant, why are you wasting your time -- and mine --with them?
"The sentences weren't unfair, and did not constitute an injustice."
Welcome aboard.
"The whole trial, nonetheless, was a joke."
Whoops, that was a short ride.
Hey, I wonder if Krupp, Schacht, von Papen, and Fritzsche were laughing?
"And when I point out a gaping hole in your method of proof ... "
... your obligation is to show that the "gaping hole" exists, and that the "evidence" you cite has anything to do with the question at hand. You haven't.
"I don't care for the responses, because ..."
Well, at least you're no longer complaining that I "ignore" your arguments. I suppose that's progress.
continued ...
"... you bring up irrelevant side issues (like whether Stalin's puppet judges were mass murderers themselves -- I'm sure they were, but who cares?)"
Riii-ight. You compare the judges to Dahmer, Bundy, and Manson, and I'm the one "bringing it up." I hadn't realized that's how it worked. Thanks for clarifying.
"... like in the Rudolph thing, where you consistently assume that he is guilty as charged, even though I've pointed out several times that that's precisely what's in dispute."
No, what's in dispute is Pat's claim that Rudolph was denied a trial. He wasn't; he waived it. But that word "denied" does make it all seem so unfair, doesn't it?
Stum-buddy, it's obvious you're committed to your defense of Mr. Buchanan, and it's equally clear that you're not only beyond convincing -- you're beyond admitting that the statements I've quoted even constitute evidence that he's an apologist. Rather than trouble you further tonight, I'll think I'll turn in.
The FAIR folks seem even less, well, fair to PB than even TS was. For instance, the context-less quote he listed that was the subject of our original argument is abridged even further, on their site. And their summary of the missing bits is tendentious, to say the least:
"Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, ..."
Oh. Just some tendencies, nothing more. Compare that to PB's actual words, according to TS:
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, ..." [emphasis mine]
Do you find FAIR's paraphrasing objective and accurate?
The Buchanan quotes in FAIR's website has *plenty* of context. The fact that Buchanan dislikes non-Euoropean races in the US, is so abundantly clear that only a numskulled curmudgeon like you would try to repudiate it.
However, I happen to have been tracking Buchanan closely for some time, and am in contact with some op researchers who keep complete files on him. The general content of the FAIR page is actually pretty accurate, and in many ways it does catch the tone of Buchanan's mindset. However, I think some of their characterizations jump to unfair conclusions in a couple of instances, which is why I posted it with no comment. Good grist for the mill, if nothing else.
I tend to agree with TS: "apologist" is an apt description, partly because it doesn't necessarily imply that he's an adherent. I think it's clear that he is not a Nazi, but he comes out of a tradition of American proto-fascism that can be dangerous.
Buchanan is like a lot of anti-Semites I know: His attitudes closely hew to those handed down by his parents, in almost all regards, which includes some admirable traits (integrity or courage, for instance) as well. And I can assure you that anti-Semitism was considered quite common and socially acceptable (even a social requisite) as recently as 40 years ago. People like Buchanan understand that many people find their beliefs offensive, and tend only to express them when they feel they have your true confidence.
Just my opinion, since you asked.
"Buchanan is like a lot of anti-Semites I know: His attitudes closely hew to those handed down by his parents, in almost all regards, which includes some admirable traits (integrity or courage, for instance) as well."
Heh. You are now officially a Buchanan apologist. Just wait till TS reads this...
"Rudolph's predicament is that he waived his trial and then changed his mind later. Too bad for him."
He's certainly the author of that part of his predicament, yes. Hell, I would probably be inclined to say "too bad for him, too." But if someone else is bothered by the possibility that he might be innocent of the crimes he is accused of (and made a possibly-mistaken decision to waive a trial, in view of his health), and would like to find out whether he is or not -- I don't find that totally unreasonable, and certainly don't assume that this person is implying that those crimes are no big deal. You seem unable to grasp this difference.
What is your attitude towards Mumia A-J's defenders? (Sorry if you've expressed one recently, and I missed it.) I personally think that they're (almost certainly) wrong --yet I wouldn't label them "cop-killer sympathizers," since (AFAIK) their claim is that he is not a cop-killer, rather than that he is one and that's OK.
"You selected a 'reasonably close synonym' of a term I never used. How silly of me to object."
Considering that I didn't present it as a direct quote -- yes, indeed, how silly of you.
"'Roughed up' is unambigous? Really?"
Yet again, you have ignored my point. Let me partially restate it:
Suppose that in a column by A, you read, "as B looked on, C roughed up D." If you knew nothing about A, B, C, or D, wouldn't your natural prima facie assumption be that, odds are, C's actions (and B's inaction) were bad, and that A thinks so too? (Mine would.)
In this case, that's not how you interpret it -- because D are Jews and A is Buchanan. Now, refer back to #1486.
" 'Which part is not established [?]' -- That there were mass murderers on the jury. -- 'Why do you pick out the most irrelevant of hairs to split?' -- I 'pick them out' because you put them in your arguments. If they're irrelevant, why are you wasting your time -- and mine -- with them?"
Oh, for fuck's sake. You're the one wasting everyone's time. (Then again, that's what we're all here for, I guess.)
I don't remember specifically who the Soviet members of that panel were -- but, if they were high-ranking government officials (especially, judges), then they most definitely had blood on their hands. Of course, maybe Stalin, for propaganda reasons, sent a delegation of tractor drivers and ballerinas. But their votes, too, would've been pre-scripted anyway.
So, let me repeat this slowly: it doesn't matter who physically sat in the actual courtroom. What matters is that they represented a government that had committed mass murder. Do you get the point, now?
" 'The whole trial, nonetheless, was a joke.' -- Whoops, that was a short ride."
Well, it was a joke. The whole point of the trial, presumably, was to send a moral message: mass murder is wrong. (Otherwise, they could've just shot them on the spot, and nobody would've complained.) Given that representatives of an equally mass-murdering regime were on the jury, the message was null and void.
"... your obligation is to show that the 'gaping hole' exists..."
And I have, by pointing out that your self-selected sample is too small to be statistically convincing.
"Riii-ight. You compare the judges to Dahmer, Bundy, and Manson, and I'm the one 'bringing it up.' I hadn't realized that's how it worked. Thanks for clarifying."
See above.
"No, what's in dispute is Pat's claim that Rudolph was denied a trial. He wasn't; he waived it. But that word 'denied' does make it all seem so unfair, doesn't it?"
Yet again: we (still) agree that "denied" is inappropriate hyperbole, but that's not PB's main point, anyway. His main point is that a hearing should be held -- which, as I explained earlier, is not unreasonable, and doesn't brand him a Nazi-anything.
"... it's obvious you're committed to your defense of Mr. Buchanan, and it's equally clear that you're not only beyond convincing -- you're beyond admitting that the statements I've quoted even constitute evidence that he's an apologist."
You keep repeating that, and I'm sure it makes you feel better about your failure to convince me. But, remember -- I'm not committed to PB; I've already mentioned that I disagree with him on most policy issues, and I certainly believe that he is bigoted against at least one group (gays). But on the anti-Semite / Nazi-whatever angle, I simply haven't seen enough proof. If and when I do, it won't be any skin off my back to change my opinion.
G'night.
Here's an antique poster from those fine folks. You might find its contents relevant to the current discussion. Does its argument seem familiar?
Also of interest: Charles Lindbergh's famous 1941 speech to the America First Committee. It came just a few months before his notorious Des Moines speech, in which he decried Jewish influence in America, saying: "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government."
"The fact that Buchanan dislikes non-Euoropean races in the US, is so abundantly clear that only a numskulled curmudgeon like you would try to repudiate it."
No; it's clear that he dislikes non-European cultures in the US. That might not be terribly broad-minded of him, but it doesn't make him a racist.
P.S.: did you learn punctuation rules by studying the 2nd Amendment?
"And Buchanan really fits right into their tradition: isolationist, nationalist, selectively populist and conspiracist (which usually takes on an anti-Semitic character)."
The operative word being "usually." It's one thing to state, "If I had to bet 50-50 one way or the other, I'd bet that Buchanan is an anti-Semite." It's quite another to flat-out assert that he is one, without conclusive proof. That's all I'm saying.
Those of us who don't spend all our time posting voluminous verbiage of abject denial have little time to pay attention to every comma we type.
On the contrary: the more you post, the more excusable occasional careless errors are. But if you're only posting 2 lines -- then you have no excuse for not rereading them carefully, before clicking on that CYM button.
At any rate, g'night all.
Stumbo --
"What is your attitude towards Mumia A-J's defenders? (Sorry if you've expressed one recently, and I missed it.) I personally think that they're (almost certainly) wrong -"
"Wrong" is too gentle a term.
"- yet I wouldn't label them "cop-killer sympathizers," since (AFAIK) their claim is that he is not a cop-killer, rather than that he is one and that's OK."
Nor would I. What's your point?
I have not claimed Buchanan is a "sympathizer;" as I've said repeatedly, he's an apologist. You keep switching terms so that you can refute an argument never made.
The remainder of your post is just silly. Given that you continue to argue against positions I've never taken, my "failure to convince" you doesn't especially bother me.
One last thought from me, and then you can have as many last words as you like -- this quote from your post to Spuds (you do know that everything you say in here is fair game, right?) got my attention:
"It's one thing to state, 'If I had to bet 50-50 one way or the other, I'd bet that Buchanan is an anti-Semite.' It's quite another to flat-out assert that he is one, without conclusive proof. That's all I'm saying."
If that's all you're saying, you're wasting both our time. You may require "conclusive proof" before you're willing to say a harsh word against anyone, but I don't. In fact, in light of your willingness to "flat-out assert" mass murder on the part of judges whose names you don't even know, I'll bet you don't apply that standard yourself, either -- except when it suits you.
The evidence I've seen leads me to believe Buchanan's an apologist, and anti-Semitic as well. You may disagree -- heck, let's not qualify that: you will disagree, now and forevermore -- but as far as I know, the Mote doesn't operate on a "conclusive proof" standard.
Now get in the last word and have a nice day.
A message for you (#149) in Political Ideas.
For a 64 year old born in rural Minnesota, I did not find too much wrong with either Buchanan's appraisal of the America First Committee or Lindberg's speech.
I grew up listening to my father (a school teacher) always refering to FDR as "that man". I give credit to FDR for only two things :
his 'fireside chats' propped up moral during the depression &
he had the ability to pick excellent generals and admirals.
I have no use for him in any other sphere. He was a vile man. The bureaucracy run amok in Washington today is due to FDR. It is overly intrusive and punitive.
Had Germany won the war, how could they attack this "island fortress"? D Day is considered a near unbelievable achievment. Even unprepared - which we were at the time of Lindberg's speech - any German attack on USA shores would have resembled the Battle of New Orleans.
I won't argue that we should not have been in WW II. The war we should not have entered was WW I. Given our role in WW I, it is witless to think that the banking, manufacturing, and internationalists on the east coast would not involve us once again.
I have no trouble with the label 'isolationist'. It is a hell of a lot better a title than 'policeman of the world".
I have been reading several books (the Sword and the Shield and The Haunted Wood) about KGB activity in the 30's, 40's and beyond. the Haunted Wood concentrates on activity in the U.S. If half of what is said about Roosevelt is true, he was indeed a vile man. Never in my life have I had such strong feelings against the man. While it is obvious that Hitler was a monster, there was another monster, Stalin, who either totaly fooled Roosevelt, or Roosevelt was a total traitor to America.
Unlike you, I grew up with a great love of Roosevelt, believing all the good things about him, and refusing to listen to his critics. I was born in 1932. I was so left, I wanted to go help Castro.
I very much doubt the Germans could run so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em, the way the British did. Too much schnitzel in heavy gravy.
Good grief, Al!
Speaking of a German invasion of the U.S., has anyone in here read "The Man in the High Castle" by Philip K. Dick?
Along that vein, I hope everyone here remembers another consequence that would have followed the America First agenda: Germany was developing an atomic bomb. If the U.S. had stayed out of the war, it is unlikely we would have. Guess who would be the superpower today if we had done as Buchanan suggested -- let Hitler and Stalin duke it out, etc. The one with The Bomb.
Pls check #1529
Pelle --
The fight for control of the Middle East -- or more to the point, the oil -- would have been interesting, though. Particularly if the Nazis obtained Britain's share of the Manhattan Project data.
Yes. Maybe there are some in favour of a "WW2 - What If" thread?
JJ --
Are you positing an isolationist Roosevelt or a country in which FDR lost to an isolationist candidate in 1936?
You're right. FDR was neither insane nor stupid. Which is why we fought World War II. A president who followed the America First agenda would have been both.
An aside to JJ: I don't think the Manhattan project could have gone much faster.
(1) Perfectly sane people believe that the Anglo-French guarantee to Poland, without a reciprocal Soviet guarantee, was a blunder.
(2) There is every reason to believe that had the Nazis and the Soviets been left alone to fight between themselves, the allies, at least the French, might have sided with the Nazis! Recall the Western reaction to the Soviet invasion of Finland. There were some in the British govt who toyed with the idea of sending aid to the Finns.
As smart as you are, your thesis about the A-bomb is flawed. You need to check out when England and the U.S. started work on the bomb. Roosevelt knew in '39 that America was going to war. he just failed to share that with the American people and prepare the country for war. He was far more interested in getting elected in 1940, breaking a 150 year tradition. We had to fight Hitler, and perhaps eventually Japan. Roosevelt, had he really been a great leader, should have told the American people that, instead he manipulated our relationship with Japan making them think they had no choice but to knock out the U.S. Navy and then move into Indochina to get the oil they needed and that we were depriving them of.
Al --
"Would America have used the A-bomb on Europeans they way it was used twice on Asians?"
The Brits and Canadians would have -- see, e.g., Dresden; see also Hamburg. I don't see why we wouldn't.
Dad was trying Principal, later Supt. of schools, as it was more remunerative. A series of small heart attacks put an end to that. So I was brought up in the small towns of Minnesota; mainly in the southern portion.
Aldavis #1534/35
I am part-way through George N. Crocker's : Roosevelt's Road To Russia. If I am reading Crocker correctly, Roosevelt had a fantastically large ego. He, after war's completion, was going to sit down with "Uncle Joe" and cajole him to better behavior. FDR should have known Stalin better than we; our access is reading history books. FDR knew Stalin from several meetings + he must have had intelligence reports. That is MASSIVE ego! FDR has the same problem as the left always has : their thinking is very close to socialism. "And communism is socialism with a frown." I wish I remembered who said that!! Buckeley?
Have you - or anyone else - read Amos Perlmutter : FDR & Stalin; A Not So Grand Alliance?
Spudboy #1552
Remember! It is not WW II that I believe we should have avoided. Once our bankers, industrialists, and the internationalists of the east coast had a taste of WW I, there is no way they would have permitted the USA to miss WW II. My belief is that we had no business in WW I.
are you suggesting that all those planes bombing Germeny were British and Canadian? I hope you are not; that would come as a big surprise to my btother-in-law, who was shot down and a POW.
Al --
"are you suggesting that all those planes bombing Germeny were British and Canadian?"
Good Lord, no. How did you get that impression? Curt LeMay would rise up from his grave and stick his cigar in my eye were I to forget the USAAF.
My post was in reference to the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden, raids sometimes compared with the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Al --
"are you suggesting that all those planes bombing Germeny were British and Canadian?"
Good Lord, no. How did you get that impression? Curt LeMay would rise up from his grave and stick his cigar in my eye were I to forget the USAAF.
My post was in reference to the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden, raids sometimes compared with the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The A-bomb was developed with the intention of being dropped on Germany. Had Germany not exited the war before the bomb's completion, Berlin would have been vaporized by nuclear fire.
are you suggesting that all those planes bombing Germeny were British and Canadian? I hope you are not; that would come as a big surprise to my btother-in-law, who was shot down and a POW.
Ranheim
Thanks for the books you have mentioned. I'll order them.
OK, last words...
"I have not claimed Buchanan is a 'sympathizer;' as I've said repeatedly, he's an apologist."
Well, if you mean "X apologist" exclusively in the trivial sense of "someone who has said something positive about X," then I'll offer the same concession you made to me earlier: sure, Buchanan is a Hitler apologist, just like 4 out of 4 randomly-chosen biographers.
Now, of course, this use is misleading --because when most people hear "Hitler apologist," they assume it means someone who defends the things Hitler is best known for, such as invading other countries and killing millions. But I guess this kind of fine distinction is OK when you do it.
"The remainder of your post is just silly. Given that you continue to argue against positions I've never taken, ..."
Well, you certainly did take the position that Buchanan is an anti-Semite. Part of that post's purpose is pointing out the circularity of your arguments in favor of that position.
"...this quote from your post to Spuds (you do know that everything you say in here is fair game, right?)"
Yawn. If I'd wanted to tell him something privately, I'd have emailed him.
"You may require 'conclusive proof' before you're willing to say a harsh word against anyone, but I don't. [...] as far as I know, the Mote doesn't operate on a 'conclusive proof' standard."
You're right, there's no clause about that in the RoE -- so I guess you won't get banned after all. Whew, what a relief! And here I was all worried and everything.
"In fact, in light of your willingness to 'flat-out assert' mass murder on the part of judges whose names you don't even know, ..."
I'm still amazed by your eagerness to keep standing up for them, even if it's only for the sake of cheap rhetorical points. Let's see -- does that mean I can now refer to you as a Soviet apologist?
Hmmmm.
Nah, I probably shouldn't, cause it would be misleading.
Have a nice day, too.
Al:
No cite, just my memory from my study of WWII in college. (I was a history major unofficially specializing in WWII.)
But surely you don't believe we developed the Bomb exclusively for the Japanese, now do you?
The plan, as I remember it, was to bomb Germany. Then Germany gave up. Japan was falling, and the decision was made to use it on the Japanese anyway, both to end the war quickly and to send a message to Russia.
And Al:
Keep in mind, Roosevelt's first priority was beating Germany. The Pacific War he viewed as a distraction-- a necessary one, of course, but a bit of a sideline nevertheless-- towards his chief priority of beating the Nazis in Europe.
That may be a bit overstated. But I think you know what I'm saying. The nation wanted revenge on Japan most of all. Roosevelt had to fight public opinion to keep Germany as the front-and-center enemy.
I like how he told a reporter after the surrender ceremony that he wanted to kick each Japanses delegate in the face.
And to see its real effect? I know that is very cynical. Perhaps it is being caused by the books I am reading. I guess I should do as Judith says and just watch the Simpsons. One thing for sure, had Roosevelt lived, Stalin would have had nothing to fear. the government did not start cracking down on Soviet spys until he died in April of 1945. Roosevelt was told in the late 30's that Hiss was a spy and yet he allowed him to stay in the government.
Are you suggesting that Roosevelt was more interested in smashing Germeny in order to keep Stalin in power? We should keep in mind that russia and Japan were enemies, and Stalin was very concerned that Japan might attack Russia. Of course, he learned from spies in England and America that Japan would not attack Russia.
Are you suggesting that Roosevelt was more interested in smashing Germeny in order to keep Stalin in power?
No. I'm suggesting he was more interested in smashing Germany in order to smash Nazism and liberate Europe and save what was left of the European Jewry.
We should keep in mind that russia and Japan were enemies, and Stalin was very concerned that Japan might attack Russia. Of course, he learned from spies in England and America that Japan would not attack Russia.
*WE* were afraid that the Soviet Union would invade Japan if we didn't beat them quickly, which would have resulted in a partitioned Japan.
In 1944 the OSS recieved through a Finnish source 1,500 pages of Soviet code. Donavan, head of the OSS, intended to make copies and use them to obtain information about USSR. Roosevelt, urged on by Secretary of State Stettinius, ordered Donavan not to make copies and to returm them to Gromyko. Fortunately for American, Donavan disobayed and made copies, and Roosevelt died in 1945.
Now, I imagine some will say I am as bad as McCarthy. Well, he may have been a jerk but much of what he claimed turned out to be accurate.
Have you heard anything about the following?
A Swiss newspaper has created such outrage over Colorado's arrest and handcuffing of a 10-year-old Evergreen boy on incest
charges that 4,900 people in Switzerland have signed a petition demanding his release.
At least a dozen European media outlets have sent crews to Denver to cover the hearing today in juvenile court for the son of
dual-citizenship parents. On Monday, the reporters toured Mount View juvenile detention center in Lakewood where the boy
turned 11 since his arrest Aug. 30.
One of the reporters thought the boy was being held in a facility "for death-row inmates," said Dwight Eisnach, spokesman for
the state Department of Human Services, which oversees Youth Corrections. "We wanted to dispel that impression."
The reporters were given a tour of dorm rooms and the dining hall at the campus just south of West Hampden Avenue and west
of South Wadsworth Boulevard.
The Europeans' concerns arose when the boy's parents, who hold citizenship in both Switzerland and the U.S., fled Colorado
for fear their other three children would be taken by Social Services. The parents then appealed to the Swiss tabloid
newspaper, Blick, which has run repeated stories of outrage at the boy's treatment.
Blick was appalled that such a small boy was taken from his bed, handcuffed while in the patrol car, shackled when taken to
court and detained without bail for six weeks awaiting a hearing.
Jefferson County officials say the handcuffs and shackles are standard security precautions for anyone arrested. The judge
denied bail for fear he would flee the country and to keep him away from his sister.
The foreign media that toured Mount View included representatives from several television stations, the Geneva Times and Le
Matin among others, Eisnach said.
Blick's latest edition on Monday included a note from the boy to his family, saying he is OK and knows they will someday be
together again.
In the accompanying article, Blick complained, "Ten years ago, a harmless play of "doctor" was considered quite
normal. But today, the prosecutors label it a crime of violence. Ten- and 11-year-old children are imprisoned
because prudish and unrealistic lawyers want it that way."
The boy is charged with aggravated incest -- a felony for an adult and "aggravated" due to the young age of the
victim. It was based on a neighbor's testimony that she saw him sexually touching his little sister.
Blick also reported the family believes the boy's mother would be arrested and her other three children taken from her if she
returned to the U.S. Jefferson County officials have said that is not the case.
The Swiss outrage prompted the highest U.S. diplomat in Switzerland, Charge d'Affaires Randolph Bell, to assure Blick and its
readers that in the American juvenile system, "the emphasis is on treatment, not punishment."
I don't know how I should break this to you, but to make a long story short: Switzerland and Sweden are two different countries.. There they make watches and milk chocolate. Here we make Volvo cars and pop groups.
...
If pop groups are your number two export and you can name two rather hinky bands, one of which hasn't had a hit since Carter was in office, I sure hope you sell a lot of Volvos.
Plus Sweden is responsible for guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen, who spawned nearly as many imitators as Eddie Van Halen, about 10-12 years ago.
Boy is my face red. Should I say that I thought Sweden was a city in Switzerland?
Isn't there a requirement that you have to have one before you join the UN? I mean everybody has a national drink, save for Islamic ones perhaps....
I keep forgetting. What's aquavit?
The "Absolut" brand of vodka is Swedish.
There is a drink called "glögg" which is a fortified wine to which has been added a lot of spices like cinnamon and cloves and others I don't know the name of (in English). It is served hot. It is a traditional drink during the Christmas season, but it is also a popular after-ski (or after-skate) drink.
I don't know, but grog is based on rum isn't it? In its Swedish form "grogg" it means any long drink but in particular whisky or brandy and soda.
Jones: gl & o uml ; gg (without the spaces.)
And there were some Swedes that were very successful after Borg.
I don't know about the current status.
Guess Liddy's going to have to face the horror of going home and dealing with an ever-aroused Bob.
Lurking in Table Talk in the Legalize MJ thread, I came across some FBI statistics. I was amazed and shocked! The FBI report covered '98.
682,885 pot related arrests! That figure is greater than the combined number of arrests for : aggravated assault, murder, rape, & robbery.
88% of these arrests were for POSSESSION only! They were not dealing.
At any one time in the USA, there are 59,300 people in jail for pot related "crimes". In my state, they argue about the cost of one year in Angola (a state prison). On the low side : $25,000 a year per inmate; on the high side $40,000. I know of no way to verify either figure. The state is very reluctant to break down figures.
In any case, we are spending at least $15 billion a year just to house MJ offenders in jail. This figure does not include police costs; court costs; etc. This is a ridiculous figure; a total waste.
Don't hold your breath for change. This is the way politicians and law enforcement want it!
Click on photo 
The Associated Press
Thursday, Oct. 21, 1999; 3:44 p.m. EDT
"GROZNY, Russia –– Massive explosions rocked the heart of Grozny
today after salvos of rockets slammed into an open air market and other parts of the city. A Chechen official said 118 people were killed and up to 400 wounded.
Chechen officials claimed the rockets were fired by Russian forces movingin on the city.
The city's central market was littered with bodies, severed body parts and pools of blood after six rockets exploded amid the stalls, which were crowded with shoppers. At least four other rockets slammed into other parts of the city, including one that hit a maternity home.
Magomed Magomadov, a senior government official, said that 118 people
had been killed and between 300 people and 400 wounded. Many of the
injured were in critical condition, he said."
Should the U.S, NATO, or the UN get involved?
There was no independent confirmation of the casualty toll.
CNN reports big earthquake in southern Taiwan.
Elizabeth Dole has nothing on the WH Rapist here. This scumbag doesn't even *have* press conferences because there's not a snowball's chance in hell this sicko can excuse or explain away all the criminality, corruption and varietaged bullshit he's subjected us to. He'd have his ass handed to him every second question if he did.
They don't come much whiter than in Sweden.
Could it be that, since this self-employed hack
disappeared, that he hired a hit man to kill his
*current* boss?
Clowntoon is:
1) A clinical psychopath
2) A rapist
3) The most corrupt politician I personally have ever encountered in my lifetime; a politically divisive manipulative demagogue, and little else in terms of policy.
4) An elitist
5) A pathological liar.
6) Having and perpetuating in government the nascent characteristics of a modern Hitler.
7) Possessed of Dictatorial, Fascist tendencies.
The above is hardly a complete lists of his deficiencies/defects, but it gives an idea.
Now, *that* was some really nasty work and millions left of center was on board 110% for months on end.
ThomasD, do you think they've ever been in your house?
Re. 1633 -
IMO, conspiracy theories are more popular among Lefties as re Hilliary's VRWC. I don't see conspiracies, in the sense you mention them - just Lefties in various stages of the process of being disabused of the efficacy of extreme anti right wing demagoguery and lying. Plus, I seem to have a knack for making Lefties crazy by exposing the more blatant Lefty hypocrisy and peccadilloes of that Leftwing icon, 'St.' WH Rapist, examples being such as the dear apparently departed Goobglop, or in another forum, someone who with his subsequent extreme Left Wing online harassment and hate messaging got himself kicked off of two ISPs and, additionally said Lefty virtually singlehandedly forced the Forum to reformat its posting procedures.
It's really amazing how much violent hate there is on the Left. Ultimately, I think what I do is cathartic, and it's usually fun to watch Left Wing bigots foam.
But Clarence Thomas was *not* accused in the 'same way' as the WH Rapist, and certainly not of any potential wrongdoing which bears the slightest comparison to the serial crimial sexual career of the WH Rapist.
You know why I think Clowntoon had his ass thrown out of Oxford? Because he raped that Englishwoman. Check the timelines.
LOL! You must really be damn proud you voted for the WH Rapist.
Which FGTH song's extended version contains a spoken quote from Hitler's speech at his 1923 trial?
"You can pronounce us guilty a thousand times over. But the Goddess of Eternal Justice will smile -- and tear to tatters the brief of the state prosecutor, and the sentence of this court. For She acquits us."
These places are defended as showing kids the truth and bringing them to the Church; what I want to know is why are these Living Hell things supposed to turn people away from these horrors when the same people putting them on are the most outspoken and critical about Hollywood and the evils of movies, music, and TV? Why is it good to show kids these things in church but bad to show them in a movie house?
Judith:
Context. It's the difference between a morality play and Natural Born Killers. Or between Taxi Driver and Rambo.
I understand context; it's like wine in church and wine from a paper bag on the curb.
Well, then, why'd you ask?
Incidentally, you said something I thought was a bit silly yesterday. You said something like, "NOW that Dole's out of the race and a 'loser,' Bush has no problems saying nice things about her. A perfect Southern gentleman."
Assuming the last statement was meant ironically, I'm just curious: When, do you suppose, is a candidate supposed to laud his opponents? Were you implying that perhaps Bush should have campaigned for Ms. Dole? Are you suggesting that Bush's failure to "say nice things about her" previously is some kind of character flaw?
If so, what do we say about Algore, who not only doesn't "say nice things" about Bradley or Bush, but actually says rather nasty (and usually untrue) things about either man?
PS:
It just occurred to me I might have read that on Table Talk, and that someone named "Judith Greer" said it. If you didn't say it, and if you're not Judith Greer, I apologiz.
I am not Judith Greer nor do I want to be...
I made that statement yesterday because I thought it was disingenuous of Bush to suddenly start talking about Dole in such glowing terms. He hadn't done so before and I saw no need for him to start doing so now.
I think sometimes you have difficulty with sarcasm...detecting it, I mean.
And if you'd really like to know why I brought up the Hell Houses, well, I was tired of reading about and participating in a discussion of breasts and decided to move over here and write something I'd read about in my morning paper. Isn't that what this thread is about? Current Events, things in the news?
I made that statement yesterday because I thought it was disingenuous of Bush to suddenly start talking about Dole in such glowing terms. He hadn't done so before and I saw no need for him to start doing so now.
Further silliness. He said exactly bubkiss about Dole for the last six months.
Ever seen the Super Bowl, Judith? Is it disingenuous for the winners to congratulate the losers on what terrific competitors they were after the game is won?
It's called sportsmanship and grace. And yet when a Republican does it, it is, predictably, cause for carping.
Read my lips: I SAID he hadn't made any remarks about Dole before. I SAID I didn't see any reason for him to do so now. It makes no difference that he is a Republican....I don't CARE what he is.
WHY am I not allowed to think this guy is a jerk? Because I'm a Democrat? Because I'm from Texas? Because YOU have decided he's not?
The question was:
"Is it disingenuous for the winners [of a game] to congratulate the losers on what terrific competitors they were after the game is won?"
If it is not "disingenuous" to do in a sports competition, why is it "disingenous" to do in a political competition?
PS: Name me a single candidate for office who did not heap effusive praise upon his adversary-- AFTER he'd won.
Losers call the winners to congratulate them. Congratulate them! After telling the public that their opponent's victory would be a disaster for the voters!
Disingenuous?
Schumer praised D'Amato after trouncing him. Disingenous? Or not?
Please explain to me what is objectionable about Bush's behavior, apart from the fact that it is Bush's behavior.
I know that "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."
But what do say when virtues like grace and sportsmanship are deemed vices like dishonesty?
OF COURSE Bush didn't want Dole to win. Is that where you find "disingenuousness"? That he said she had a great campaign, while he was previously hoping she wouldn't have a great campaign?
And when the Broncos congratulated the Falcons last February on playing a "great game," do you think the Broncos were hoping they played an even greater game? Perhaps great enough a game to win?
Huh?
What?
Oh, I guess it was his naked glee at courting all those previous Dole supporters. This lady was never a threat to him in any way so it seems oily to go out there and congratulate her like she posed a threat as big as the defensive line on a winning team in a 3-0 Superbowl game.
You are defending his behavior simply because it's his; I'm objecting to it for the same reason. Game over.
You are defending his behavior simply because it's his
I'm defending his "behavior" (zut alors, congratulating an opponent on a fight well fought is now a "behavior" to be discussed) because it is unobjectionable, despite your objections.
Congratulating an opponent after you've beaten him is a tradition going back, oh, approximately four or five thousand years or so. It's more or less expected. Look up "sportsmanship"; you'll see reference to it there.
And congratulations to you, too. You put on a really great fight, a really spirited argument. You're a true competitor and a debater par excellence. I really mean that.
Back attachya, guy!
"Why would a woman lie about unwanted sexual advances? If
Clarence Thomas was accused in the same way as Clinton why
believe one and not the other? Seems possible that both accusations
are false, or both true or one is and one isn't. What, aside of your
pathological hatred of one the parties, do you base a decision on?"
Do you really believe this? Would you, if you were representing a client in a sexual harrassment suit, not use the fact that he had never be accused before and that almost every woman who worked for him said the accusation was preposterous? Do you not feel information like that should color our opinion?
comments?
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-general/posts/ng/169.asp
Another Columbine Tragedy
The mother of a student wounded in the Columbine High School massacre walked into a suburban pawn shop Friday, asked to see a handgun, loaded it and killed herself with a shot to the head.
Carla June Hochhalter's suicide occurred about six months after her 17-year-old daughter, Anne Marie, was critically wounded in the April 20 tragedy and left partially paralyzed.
It was not immediately known what other factors might have contributed to Ms. Hochhalter's suicide.
Ms. Hochhalter, 48, entered the Alpha Pawn Shop in Englewood alone about 10 a.m. Friday and asked to see a .38-caliber handgun.
When a clerk turned around to fill out paperwork, Ms. Hochhalter loaded the weapon with her own ammunition, then fired one round that hit the wall and a second round into her head, Englewood police spokeswoman Leticia Castillo said.
Ms. Castillo said Ms. Hochhalter left a note, but she did not know the contents.
"I'm absolutely horrified," said Steve Cohn, parent of a 15-year-old Columbine student who survived the library assault. "We've been under a lot of stress recently but what do you do?"
"This pain and suffering is not fair. We do not understand it," said Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas. "All we can do is share it with the Hochhalters and others in the community."
The suicide was the latest shock for students and families in the Columbine area. Jefferson County School District officials planned to have grief counselors available this weekend to help deal with any trauma.
A student was arrested this week for allegedly threatening "to finish the job" begun by two student gunmen at Columbine.
Eric Harris, 18, and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold scattered gunfire and bombs at the school near Englewood, killing 12 students and a teacher and wounding about 26 others. Then they committed suicide.
Enoforcement of the gun laws we already have is the key. Criminals will always have guns because of the black market. Anyone with enough money or determination will be able to get a gun. If they don't get them here, they'll get them from russia or anywhere else and sneak them here like drugs. We all know how effective the US has been at preventing drugs from getting into this country.
When people commit suicide it is a sad, horrible thing. Still, people determined to kill themselves have many other means to do so. Are you saying that suicides with guns are somehow more tragic than suicides by slit wrists? Does this mean we should ban razor blades?
What about accidents in cars? There are 32 deaths per 100,000 cars every year in this country. There are only 16 deaths per 100,000 guns, of which half are suicides. This is normallized data so it is directly comparable.
If we ban guns. We're going to see just as many tragedies where people are murdered, raped, molested in situations where people would be able to otherwise defend themselves. Guns are used up to 2 million times a yr in self defense. Are their lives worth something different than those who lose their lives in a tragedy?
Government can't hope to successfully legislate morals. It's never been able to. I think education, not legislation is the key to prevent accidental gun deaths. I believe keeping violent criminals in prison instead of the revolving door criminal system they now reside.
Gun control only works with people who follow the laws. Criminals, by definition don't follow laws.
References:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcdguse.html
IN OTHER WORDS: MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION.
How "Millennial"?
I never said laws are pointless, but you have to realize that laws that attempt to regulate an illegal activity by controling a legal one is a false promise.
Laws against murder- pretty straitforward. Law against owning a gun- not so straitforward because my intended use is a peacable one. Criminal will have other means to obtain them. I believe I read in my references somewhere that less that 1/6 of guns used in crime were obtained legally.
Your logic would have us elliminate cars, garden tools, knives, lead pipes, common household cleaners... because these have all been used to kill others at some point or another.
Laws should be directed at activities that are illeagal.
Someone who is simply armed to defend themselves has made a personal choice. Why should government interfere with my choice? I have no intention of hurting anyone, but if someone breaks into my home with a gun, an axe, or any weapon... what would you have me do? If they are standing over my child about to end his/her life... what would you have me do? I guess I could call 911, assuming he doesn't take me out next... but then all the cops can do is investigate the crime, and that doesn't help my kid one bit.
I don't think government has a right to say one way or another what I do to prepare for this entirely plausible situation. I made a rational personal choice. I educate myself and seek training to minimize the risk to myself and innocents. I am a responsible American citizen.
You read my original post obviously. I've been in a situation where my safety was not guaranteed. I've read about others in the same situation.
Cops and the military are critical to this society, but they can't protect an individual every day, all the time. There are times when they simple aren't available, or too far away to help.
If they are available or right there I will happily defer to their expertise. Just like if I was giving someone CPR I would let the paramedic take over, or if my house was on fire I'd let the firemen do their work.
What do I do in the interim?
I do want this to be an intelligent debate.
What if the stock market crashes?
What if the Iranians invade Antigua?
What if Tom Cruise is really gay after all?
Why save for retirement?
Why write a will?
Why fasten your seatbelt? I'm sure you're a safe driver.
If the stock market crashes... might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with gardening.
Iranians vs Antigua... I don't think I'm going to in an individual position to stop them, so that is mute.
Tom Cruise is gay? :) To each his own :)
I'm fascinated by the use of the word "choice" in this culture when there are so few of them.
Theoretically the government takes it upon itself to protect you and avenge the crimes committed against you. I'm sure you recall my example of some small foreign faction stealing into 109's Georgetown manse, raping and murdering the lovely Mrs. Niner (Salma Hayak), wrapping her body in masking tape, storing it in the basement, leaving a ransom note and departing. Obviously an enraged Niner would like to "take the law into his own hands." But the authorities stop him. Why? Have they assumed a useful Moral Authority in the situation? Or is it that they're offended by the Salma-killers for dispatching her when they could have done the job just as well?
Think of the multifarious risks the authorities place before the general public in the name of declining to "discourage free commerce."
Do you believe that a person has no right to take his own life? You are really missing the point of iiibbb, which is that a person has a right and maybe a responsibility to protect himself. It is not the NRA. You are far too intelligent to making the arguments you are making.
I hate to be redundant. Didn't you post your thoughts on Slate yesterday? I hardly ever go there, but I did happpen to see a quite long post on the subject of "gun rights." I would have answered, but your point was so well made I didn't botheer.
Also, quit indulging yourself in wishful thinking. I might wish tom was female. I've dated women who didn't look as good.
Because this has evoked such strong feelings in me for and against... I've felt compelled to write about it... 1) for the debate 2) if someone out there is struggling with the same things I have what I say might help 3) to try to dispell some of the myths that gun owners are pickup driving, gun toting, toothless maniacs itching for a confrontation.
I'm sorry if you have to read it in more than one place... I am just interested in peoples' responses...
As regards Tom Not-So-Terrific, as he holds zilch appeal for me no wishful thinking has now nor has ever been involved. I have nonetheless been very very recently informed of certain pieces of information that I am now engaged in the extremely arduous (and somewhat dangerous) task of ATTEMPTING to bring to light in some fashion. Stay tuned.
"Obviously an enraged Niner would like to "take the law into his own hands." But the authorities stop him. Why?"
I do not believe in vigilantism. None of what I have writen suggests that I do. I'm talking about immediate peril to my life or my family's lives.
Cases involving the lawful use of lethal force have been quite clear on this matter. It is illegal to shoot someone who is just trying to get away. It is pretty much illegal to shoot someone to keep someone from leaving with your VCR. You can shoot someone who is trying to comit arson on a building, but simply protecting property isn't a good enough reason.
The use of a firearm is a last-resort. The use of a firearm is an incredible responsibility. I presonally don't take it lightly.
Indeed, it is a choice.
I think you mistook my post. I'm very glad you put your posts on the Mote. I read your post on Political thread and also agree with that. I hope you stay on the Mote to state your opinions. Of course, you probably know you will be called names, told that you don't know what you're talking about, etc. I would post on Slate, but there is really no conversation. I think if Slate went back to something like the old format they would get lots of action. The Fray became a very tight knit group who really did not like outsiders giving their opinions. the Mote is like that and only the tough, ornery ones last. The exception to this is several very gentle souls on the Spiritual Thread.
Meanwhile --
Immorality Triumphs Again!
I don't, and neither do you.
I have owned guns all my life, since I was 12. I am no threat to you nor anyone else. Now let me modify that statement. I could be a threat to govenrment officials but I lack the nerve and the thought of Penitentiary scares me as much as a proctologist.
Vigilantism is summary justice, aka revenge. Vigilantism includes following a guy down the street shooting at him so he doesn't get away.
If cars can be registered, then so can guns.
"But registration leads to confiscation!"
Tough darts.
Besides, I don't think any self respecting murderer is going to use a registered weapon. They'll get one off the black market.
Additionally, driving a car is a privilege... not a right... Gun ownership is a constitutional right which trancends analogies to car ownership.
I don't know if you'll take the time to read this link or not. If you're willing to read a federal judge's historical review of the second amendment, and scroll down to the section 3 of the analysis section.
Emerson Case
The Mote is like that and only the tough, ornery ones last. The exception to this is several very gentle souls on the Spiritual Thread.
That is not true and you know it isn't. And the Spiritual crowd may well be the toughest bunch around.
"If you don't believe in vigilatism why do you want guns? Decor perchance?"
You ought to associate with a broader spectrum of people, really.
To address the comment made that went something like "I would rather have them [government] protect me than you [an armed citizen]".
Fair enough. I think we all would. But if you are given a different choice, between an armed citizen and NOBODY, now what is your choice?
The truth is, most legislators are so uninformed of firearms information, they can't even write the laws correctly and can't speak in public about the issues without making glaringly inaccurate statements that they later have to retract. The media does not fair much better. The problem is the public that does not have an interest in firearms tends to believe what is on TV and in the newspapers. They don't see the small retraction buried on the back of the paper.
(continued)
The average deer hunting rifle is FAR more powerful and, in all honesty, is far more deadly. It is true that many "assault style rifles" were banned simply because of there looks. Why is a rifle with a pistol grip and synthetic stalk more deadly than dads dear rifle with a laminated oak stalk? Ask the congressmen. Of course they can't answer accurately so they won't discuss it.
By the way, these types of rifles are only very, very rarely used in crimes. Most are too expensive or too hard to conceal for criminal activity.
Semi-automatic firearms are also misrepresented continually and the media tries to represent semi-automatic actions as full_automatic action. The difference? Full automatic firearms continue to fire as long as the trigger is held back. These types of weapons have been strictly controlled for some time and a class III license is required to possess them. Semi-automatic, or auto-loading, firearms fire only one time for each time the trigger is pulled, no matter how long you hold the trigger back. This includes military rifles, many handguns, many types of hunting shotguns, many deer rifles, and many rimfire small game hunting rifle.
(continued...bear with me)
Why do you say I know it isn't true? do you really believe that the Fray encouraged newbies? Now I know that on the Mote when a new person posts several greet him/her with open arms. But for the most part the Mote, as was the Fray, is a tight clique, people who have wined and dined together, email personal messages, etc. I do not mean it shouldn't be this way. Do you not think people have been driven off the Fray and the Mote by the "in" group ganging up?
What is tough about bloodnfire, or e.e., or PhilipDavid, or marshme? They have strong beliefs, but when Angel Five gets in there and treats them like a bunch of nit wits, they answer with a soft voice.
Let me say more in the Play Pen, so as not to side track good discussion.
I am not a criminal. We have background checks before we can purchase any firearm or even ammunition (in my state) and I don't plan on becoming a criminal. I will defend my life and the lives of others, justifiably, if another individual is so bold as to break the law and but our lives in danger. Speaking of rights being taken away...what gives this person the right to attack another?
I do think it is the responsibility of all gun owners to know their areas laws and abide by them. If you legally own a gun and then use it improperly/criminally, you are now a criminal and I have no pity for you or the penalties you face.
Take the time to learn the laws. Learn when you are and are not justified in using deadly force.
Invest in a safe. If you have a family with children, look at keeping your defensive firearm in one of the quick access safes or keeping it locked up when you are not around. This will also prevent a burglar from stealing it.
Take at least one firearms course for the type of firearm you plan to use for self defense. They are worth every penny. You will learn safety, procedures, etc.
Practice. Go to the range and fire the firearm at least twice a year. You can't expect to be handy and in control under a time of stress with a weapon you have never used. Heck, you might even realize that shooting sports are fun and a challenging way to enjoy yourself. There are shooting sports for every kind of firearms interest you can imagine.
(continued...but getting closer)
Thanks for the link. I printed off the 18 pages, read them, and while much is complicated for a layman, I enjoyed reading it very much.
I have to close with an ironic story. During the LA riots, were the police basically couldn't control the situation because of its magnitude, citezens were arming themselves and defending themselves and property from looters and other criminals. When it first started, the gunshops were overrun with people wanting to purchase guns to defend themselves. Some of these people were literally strong public anti-gun supporters. Imagine there dismay when they were informed that LA has a 14 day waiting period on handgun purchases because of all the anti-gun sentiment in that area.
I must also clarify the first statement about the police not being able to handle it. I am very pro-law enforcement. That situation came about because they were overwhelmed. As mentioned before, it happens around natural disasters also. Most policeman will admit what has been stated earlier by other poster, they rarely get the opportunity to stop a violent crime. They generally arrive only in time to make a report and investigate.
(one more page and thats it...I promise)
Enough said.
Take responsibility for you own life and don't always rely on others.
cpc
Aldavis - iiibbb Thanks for the link. I printed off the 18 pages, read them, and while much is complicated for a layman, I enjoyed reading it very much.
I don't think lawyers have any kind of monopoly on brains. I don't mind challenging myself with heavy reading like that. It is no worse than tax forms.
I don't think people always understand what 'rights' really are. They are not government's to give or take away. They are innate to human existence.
Unfortunately, it seems people are too willing to give up their rights. They think, "as long as it isn't my rights". Well, they take one person's... they'll take yours next.
I think T. Jefferson said (paraphrasing) [A man, who is willing to give up his(her) freedom for temporary comfort, deserves neither].
#1671
I read#1671, tried to find the post on Slate and had no success. What was over the top? Perhaps I'll go back to Slate to see if anyone responded to your post there.
No.
"Once that becomes public information there is no telling what that informaion is going to get used for."
Spam.
"Besides, I don't think any self respecting murderer is going to use a registered weapon. They'll get one off the black market."
LikeI said -- why have ANY laws?
"Additionally, driving a car is a privilege... not a right..."
Oh please!
"Gun ownership is a constitutional right which trancends analogies to car ownership"
That'swhy I want the second amendment repealed.
concerned:"You ought to associate with a broader spectrum of people, really."
That's why I post in Table Talk.
Fine. I'll take your word for it. Others may want -- and deserve --a background check.
Since you believe the "Constitution is not worth the parchment it's written on" why would you want the 2nd Amendment repealed? Or, perhaps you would like to retact that statement.
If you stand for any right in the original 10... you must stand up for them all.
It will be a travesty if any of the original 10 amendments are repealed. The very idea of altering our original constitution... I'm sorry... but to even suggest that is frankly appalling to me.
There is more wisdom in that statement than you think.
Once again, I never said laws were pointless. We've visited this before. I think my point is "Why have laws that don't do anything to help?"
I'm just having some fun, All. Good old-fashioned chain-yankin' FUN!
We have background checks. We have permitting to carry in public. We have 20,000 laws that regulate the trade, use, and proliferation of firearms. What are more going to do?
I think there are a number of posts which outlined plenty of legitimate concerns that validate gun ownership in the 20th and 21st century.
Please read the whole thread. #1671
I would suggest you check the link in #1703. It is 18 pages long, but if you print it out, it can be read in a few minutes. While it is obvious that the Constitution is not written in stone, since it has 27 Amendments, great care should be taken. Republicans have come under much criticism, much of it justified, for wanting to amend the Constitution to gain political ends. While everyone is intitled to their opinion, in most cases it is like my opinion about art. Not worth s****.
Further, iiibbb, your interpretation of what "rights" mean in Message # 1714 is hardly the only legitimate interpretation. An old fashioned natural rights theorist like Locke or Paine might agree with you, but very few others. Modern theories of "rights" tend to define them as either trumps in political debate (Ronald Dworkin), or judicially constructed codewords for social 2nd order preferences (i.e., preferences which society as a whole tends to agree are desirable for the running of the government). Rights change all the time.
I think that we should only give guns to inner city minorities. They are the only ones that really have to worry about tyranny.
Who said I thought they were more important than people... Accident statistics for firearms pales in comparison to other things we could be regulating.
Accident Statistics
You have a great sense of humor that Cellar should really appreciate. Where do you live, Dave? Maybe I could suggest some neighborhoods to walk through at night to take a survey to see if they already have guns.
Some truth in that, but the future might be there with a good education. It really doesn't help to be so damned negative about things. How about some constructive suggestions?
As far as reading the thread to the end, this topic has been recurring every week or so in the year and a half that I've been posting to this forum. So far, I think the topic has been covered end to end at least 50 times. While different jurisdictions treat gun registration and concealed carry permits differently, they're really not at all difficult to obtain. Hell, there are enough guns in circulation now, that it would be easy to get a gun even if production stopped tomorrow.
I have no problem with skeet shooting and hunting. But I have a real problem with permits to carry concealed handguns, and I think that it infringes on my ability to make decisions for myself about the type of situations I enter into. I would like to know if the people around me are carrying firearms so that I can minimize my exposure to those situations and people.
"Take responsibility for you own life and don't always rely on others."
Very true and very, very apt.
Now, that's just silliness.
Anyone who shoots first and asks questions later is probably not someone who's completed the mandatory training that is required to obtain a conceled carry permit.
Statistics show that those who have obtained permits are far safer with guns than the general public, as well as far far less likely to be involved in a criminal act. The 'nervous' type you discuss isn't a large portion of that demographic.
I think these people take it more serously than anyone.
Education not legislation has long been my motto.
Reference:
The Mote
I taught high school for eight years, two in Susanville, Calif., a middle to lower middle class school, and six at Miramonte High in Orinda, Calif., upper middle to upper-upper. Which school do you think spent more per student? I quit teaching in 1973, mainly because I got fed up with the Administration and all the nonsense going down about, "What is it the students need to learn? What is relevant to their lives?" The problem is not money. It is direction and parent concern. I student taught at Pelton Jr. High, in the Hynters Point district. They had so much Federal money they didn't know what to do with it. That was in 1965.
I disagree. Quite the majority of states do not allow concealed handguns. Thus, logic dictates that on average "many" (as a relative whole) are not affected by what follows in the rest of the message.
It also doesn't follow that a citizen who must pass a test to be permitted to carry a handgun is a "menace". A liability, perhaps, but I wouldn't say menace.
Perhaps the way to make society "saner" is allowing the average law abiding citizen the ability to legally carry a hidden firearm and defend oneself rather than relying on an increasingly inept and statistically smaller police force. America has tried the former, how is the latter going to make anything any worse?
I disagree. Quite the majority of states do not allow concealed handguns. Thus, logic dictates that on average "many" (as a relative whole) are not affected by what follows in the rest of the message.
It also doesn't follow that a citizen who must pass a test to be permitted to carry a handgun is a "menace". A liability, perhaps, but I wouldn't say menace.
Perhaps the way to make society "saner" is allowing the average law abiding citizen the ability to legally carry a hidden firearm and defend oneself rather than relying on an increasingly inept and statistically smaller police force. America has tried the former, how is the latter going to make anything any worse?
It was only recently that I found the obscure "home" hyperlink that was the index. I'd consider renaming it.
Anyhoo, just checking things out, as I've been told to do by some ...
All require a fee, periodic training/testing, and periodic recertification.
For that matter, why bother with the police at all? Think of all the money we could save if we just issued handguns to everyone. Vigilante justice, anyone?
Approximately half of gun deaths in this country are suicides. I think these people understand their situation
The majority of the remainder are homicides... I think these people know what they're up to.
The rest are self defense... I think these people know what they're doing...
Gun Accidents National Health Safety Council
I also disagree with your statement about the supply of guns and its relavence to crime
Gun Supply vs Homicides/Suicides
One way to win an argument is to push the other person's reasoned arguments to the absurd. If I carry a gun to protect myself, as I would do if I lived in Oakland/San Francisco instead of Kauai, what has that got to do with having cops deal with law inforcement, investigation, etc.?
Carry Laws
Sate CCW Reciprocity Table
General Info on CCW
"Defending" oneself can be a relative concept, and what may seem like a threat to one person -- someone asking for spare change on a deserted city street at night, for example, may not be a threat at all. I served on a jury and helped convict a fellow of second degree murder who put four bullets in the chest of an unarmed man while "defending" himself. The police have been given a great deal more training about what is a real threat and how to deal with it than have most citizens, even those who've been trained in firearm safety. I don't think it's that much of a stretch from the person who arms himself because he doesn't trust the police, to that person taking the law into his own hands.
And you're right. What does your protecting yourself have to do with investigation of crime? Nothing, one is a proactive measure... the other is reactive.
I think a hypothetical shooting of someone who is asking for change is way way way way less common than attacks against women, and murders by criminal assailents.
If someone were to shoot a panhandler... they better hope there are no witnesses because that is at the very least manslaughter... and more than likely murder.
You posted to Bubbaette, but it was I who said I would carry a gun in Oakland/San Francisco. You are part correct, I could not leagally carry a gun. Now wouldn't it be wonderful if I could count on everyone obeying the law?
Very good point, one certainly to be considered. I'm just not sure that anecdotes prove much. But at least it is good argument.
We've talked about invaders in the home ready to do harm that instant, and a 5-10 min wait (minimum) while the 911 is able to send help.
We've talked about riots (which do happen) in LA... Atlanta... South Florida (huricane Andrew)... There are times where the authorities are simply overwhelmed and you are on your own.
You can't simply discount these concerns. You may not feel _you_ need a weapon. I'm not saying you do. I'm just saying law abiding citizens should have a right to protect themselves.
Like I said.. you have to go through all our posts. You can choose not to I suppose... but that's to your discredit despite the fact you've seen this "50 times before".
And FYI, iiibbb, trying to disguise propaganda as reasoned argument is like trying to cover up BO with cheap perfume. It just doesn't quite work.
1758. Aldavis - 10/24/99 4:07:18 AM
iiibbb
You posted to Bubbaette, but it was I who said I would carry a gun in Oakland/San Francisco
What has iiibbb done that is propaganda? Did you run off the 18 pages from the site he linked to and did you read it? Just because someone has a different opinion than yours is not a reason for insult. But as I posted above, that is the Mote way.
I didn't say fired 2 million in self defense.
I said 'used'... this includes merely displaying the weapon to ward off an attacker.
The author of that study was Gary Kleck, an independent researcher at Florida State University.
"The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization."
Gary Kleck
I also invite you to start from the beginning the thread (#1671)... because if you did... you'd realize that I've not been a gun owner for long... I am not a denzien of the NRA... and I've tried to make a rational personal choice for myself. I only contend that it is my right to do so.
Another anecdote before I haul myself off to bed. When I was a kid, my dad went away for a business trip for the first time since he and mom had been married. Mom was a bit nervous about being alone with five kids, and kept my grandfather's old army pistol on the bedside for self-defense. Dad came home before he was expected, and got in late at night. Mom woke up to hear someone moving around downstairs, picked up the revolver and crept downstairs to see about the intruder, scared half witless. The way my mom tells it, the only reason she didn't shoot my dad is that as she was leveling the gun, he pulled out his zippo and lit a cig, and by the sound of the lighter and the light on my dad's face, she knew it was him.
Anyhow, iiibbb, welcome to the Mote. I hope you'll stick around and get to know us.
I'd never shoot anything without sizing up the situation fully... it is foolhardy.
Training... Training... Training...
At present I don't conceal carry... I don't feel the need...
but I don't want the option taken from me.
I might also point out that even people who don't own guns derive benefit from those of us who do. Bad guys don't know who has them and who doesn't.
Do you realize that it's pretty much impossible to come up with a nickname for iiibbb?
I didn't either. But it's irrelevant, and there's no way such a study could have much validity because data on something of that nature is completely unverifiable. I scare off intruders all the time. Of course they could have been the neighbor dog or a raccoon or something, but who's to say? On the other hand, we had spotlighters up the road and there's no way I'd try to stop them with a gun of my own. Instead we hollered at them and called the game warden. What came of it, I don't know. All I know is that they left and that whether I was armed or not, I wouldn't have felt secure confronting them.
And Al, it's not a major dig to accuse someone of propaganda when I see it. I've seen good arguments in defense of a fairly unrestricted Second Amendment (Cigarlaw comes instantly to mind) and I know propaganda when I've heard it numerous times. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, you know.
Emerson
then please for my sake, since maybe I did just fall off the turnip truck, tell me exactly what 111bbb posted was propaganda. I read his original post on Slate and have read all of his posts here, and I find them reasonable. It appears to me that you just reacted because his posts seemed to you Conservative, you know, the hated enemy. Maybe you could insult him back to Slate.
The defense of my family's lives or my own life is not vigilantism.
Vigilantism is summary justice, aka revenge, and is not a justifiable use of lethal force. Court case after court case have established this fact.
You can not use lethal force on someone who is trying to escape. You can not use lethal force to prevent someone from leaving with your TV. You can only use lethal force if you, your family, or some other innocent person's life is in immediate peril.
I don't think we should "get rid of police". I happily defer to their expertise if they're available. Same as letting paramedics take over if I'm giving CPR. Same as letting firemen use their hoses if my house is on fire.
It's the interim we're talking about. The time between you being on your own, and those trained to handle a situation arrive.
BTW, Al, it's the job of propagandists to sound reasonable. If they didn't, then it wouldn't be very effective propaganda, now, would it?
Now you are calling me a liar.
I can't believe you just called me a liar... totally baseless.
Just curious Arky, how then do you decide what is propaganda and what isn't? Prior belief?
It is fairly difficult to demonstrate that throwing more money at schools won't help by claiming some (hell, take all of them) schools in low income districts spend more per pupil but produce inferior output. That might simply mean that not enough money was thrown in.
Now, that might not be a good argument, I'm not endorsing it, but it's hard to disprove.
You said that you'd hear this whole song before.. "First time gun owner, yadda yadda"
In effect calling me a liar... you dispute my references... the ones I used to make my own decision, and then offer none to refute them. I've done thorough research in making this decision. In good faith I started this debate. All you do is call me names... offer no counterpoints.
Actually... it's almost flattery becuase if all you can do is resort to personal attacks... my logic must pretty sound.
Again... my only point is that it is _my_ right and _my_ decision.
How do you evaluate the substance behind it? Obviously not by whether it is reasonable.
there's plenty which would support a lot of what I personally believe
Just curious, ignore if you wish: how did you decide what you personally believe?
Exactly. There's not enough information to determine whether the money would have done more good spent differently, or whether there had been more of it, etc.
provided, of course, that you believe it would make them safer.
1790. SpenceMirrlees - 10/24/99 5:52:39 AM
ib -- gun training and gun safety: taking as given your earlier claim that people with requisite training are safer with guns, how would you go about proving that giving training to people who don't have it would also make them safer with guns?
The point is not that it's bad; rather, we really don't know whether it's good. "It can't hurt" is a bit of a cop out, as there is a cost to spending time on it rather than something else.
We especially don't know whether it's good simply because we know people who have taken the trouble to get educated about guns are actually safer with them. The reason is that we have not taken the trouble to verify that the educateds (wrt guns) are not from a qualitatively different population than the noneducateds; therefore, we don't whether this selection bias, rather than the education, is driving the result.
we don't KNOW whether this IS selection bias...
I suddenly feel like I'm do-si-doing here. Of course anything we discuss here is going to be subjective, and you're working on getting me to pin down a definition of propaganda. You should toy with someone who's much better at this sort of thing.
I will say again, that I've heard iiibbb's presentation before. It has no balance. There's no effort to look at the entire issue. The material he offers, essentially from one website which I personally find dubious (interesting disclaimer they have there), all slants one direction.
"Just curious, ignore if you wish: how did you decide what you personally believe?"
Based on my certainty that I am always able to determine what's right. I read it or hear it, and instantly know if it's right or wrong. How about you?
Let me tell you how it works on the Mote. If one person who doesn't know what she is talking about, and can't refute you, she emails a buddy who is a lot smarter than her and he rushes in to the rescue. Now they won't deal with your original post. They have discovered you are somewhat conservative. That is enough.
I have the ability to know what is right even before I read it. I cast tea leaves and have visions, emenatiopns and penumbras. I would still like to know, where is the propaganda?
The material all slants one direction -- which we can all observe -- because it is either (a) the truth, or (b) propaganda. Whether (a) or (b) is actually correct is more difficult to discern. Now, we can all have beliefs about this, but how can one possibly proceed to argue from this belief that someone else's belief is wrong?
I'm not saying you shouldn't, and I'm not trying to pin you down. I don't want you to be wrong; I really don't care about that. One of these stories is the truth, and that in turn suggests an appropriate policy response. I do not care which story is actually true.
I decide about matters like this -- matters where some notion of truth is at stake -- only when presented with incontrovertible evidence. This frequently means I have no stance at all, as the present discussion indicates. Knowledge is very difficult to come by. Now, I form beliefs, a much murkier process, and I would reveal them by placing various wagers about what the truth really is. But beliefs I don't much like to argue about; at some point everyone just has to shrug and proclaim that beliefs are different, and possibly take a wager to make things interesting.
Where is that happening?
As I'm sure iiibbb already knows, there is plenty of information supporting a need for gun control. I'm not going to comb the net at this hour, but I did find this site in a quick search:
gun info
It's part of this site:
TAGV
(ooops! My fingers got stuck!)
No one emails someone else to help them out of an argument. And if we were silly enough to pull such stunts, Al wouldn't know about it. That's because the various cabals in control of the Mote have officially positioned him well outside the loop and have banished his name from all the secret insider distributions. It makes him terribly bitter, as you can see.
(psssssst! I'm kidding. He's not. But that's just cause he's clueless.)
And welcome, btw.
You are not supposed to reveal that, Cal. 5 demerits when the Grand Council meets.
I have printed out several of the things from your link. From just a cursory look, they seem much more propaganistic than the very reasoned discussion on an issue in iiibbb's link. What mainly is your point? You don't seem to object to gun ownership as you own guns. Obviously, you are not as strident as Bubbaette, wanting to amend the Contitution. Our right to own guns is a Constitutional guarantee. That there is some restrictions such as a waiting period or a background check, I would have no problem. But there is no doubt in my mind that the real effort being made by gun control advocates is to disarm all U.S. citizens.
Don't be silly. I'm a gun control advocate who supports the Second Amendment. I think the death penalty is ok in certain circumstances, too, but it doesn't mean I think we should be able to kill people by any method and for any reason.
As far as the website I provided, it has a lot of facts and statistics. Says so right on the home page.
On a humorous note. Do you have any idea how many posts I have logged away where CalGal came right in after poor old stamper? Hundreds. Of course, she never spoke to him. Nor does she speak to me, unless it is to call me an ancient imbecile. Lord I love that lady. In my novel, she and stamper run off together.
"The material all slants one direction -- which we can all observe -- because it is either (a) the truth, or (b) propaganda."
Facts and statistics are available to support both sides. We usually try to weigh them and base our judgments on them. That's why two people can very reasonably disagree on an issue and present valid arguments and neither be "wrong." I guess the ultimate truth is that if guns were eliminated no one would get killed with them, and the question becomes whether a reduction in the proliferation would reduce the number of deaths. That would be impossible to prove conclusively with available information afaik, so it then becomes a competition between beliefs, and I think I understand your position on that as you stated it in the last paragraph of 1801.
I knew you weren't trying to prove me wrong, and I'm not trying to prove iiibbb wrong. I simply believe his tactic in presenting an argument in favor of gun ownership is not one of reasoned debate backed by legitimate info, but propaganda.
ib, is that your response?
Spence: That was my short response because I had to go to sleep.
I'm not a good case study because it's my nature to read thoroughly about topics anyway.
Let's assume we have someone who has done nothing to educate themselves about a gun and they want to carry it concealed. They are required by law to take a class to qualify for the permit, as well as undergo a very rigourous background check.
The type of information they will be exposed to is 1) When lethal force is legally justified (which keeps people from just shooting into crowds), 2) Technique (Keeps people from putting a dozen bullets into others), 3) Safe storage and carrying (which prevents accidents from improper carry), 4) Marksmanship (minimum requirements with obvious benefits obviously good).
It raises general awareness.
I have provided as even-handed response as I can, but of course my resposnses are going pro-gun. That's the side of the debate I have chosen.
However anyone who takes the time to read even a few of my references... which I have freely provided in good faith instead of just seemingly pulling them out of my butt... the ultimate sources of which are independent or government data. Addmittedly some are mirrored via pro-gun cites, but it's only natural that I use those sites as they consolidate information.
I'll tell you what I don't like about the Handgun Control Site (HCI). Speaking of propaganda, they don't show me much raw data. They'll cite a single number and then banter about what I should conclude from it. It's more like a commandment which hopes to scare me into a conclusion. The gun cites present more information, comparing to other accident rates for example, and simply say, "See for yourself".
I think it is well established that 20,000 laws have had no effect on reducing the rates of crime you site. One reason is the refusal to prosicute. Criminals are _always_ going to have guns... you will not convince me otherwise.
I agree that something should be done about crimes against people using guns. However, look at the prison system today, with its veritable revolving door approach to rehabilitation. We stuff our prisons with people caught on simple drug possession, they get manditory minimums and keep us from keeping the violent folk in there.
Additionally.. I'd like to refute
A gun in the home is 43 more likely to kill a family member of friend than it is to kill in self-defense. Kellermann, A.L. and Reay, D.T. (1986) New England Journal of Medicine, 314.
That ratio compared violent deaths involving a handgun to justifiable homicide. One problem with the result is he inlcuded suicides which shouldn't be counted... lowers the rate 13:1...
further... if you calculate the same ratio using non-handgun deaths (including suicides) it's 99:1, and removing suicides a suprisingly similar 12.5:1
references:
Kellerman
I knew you weren't trying to prove me wrong, and I'm not trying to prove iiibbb wrong. I simply believe his tactic in presenting an argument in favor of gun ownership is not one of reasoned debate backed by legitimate info, but propaganda.
If you read my original posts... they began from a far more personal standpoint... I was forced into providing references because Cellar Door (and others) was challenging my position. I provided open references to my information... I encourage people to draw their own conclusions... about the data not me as a person.
I think I've provided sane explanations on when I think guns are appropriate and when they are not... I do not feel any of my views are the least bit extremist.
You obviously have not taken the time to explore the whole thread... why don't you do that before any of you continue with the personal assaults against my character and I lose all respect for you.
I guess the ultimate truth is that if guns were eliminated no one would get killed with them, and the question becomes whether a reduction in the proliferation would reduce the number of deaths. That would be impossible to prove conclusively with available information afaik
Finally, a point I can address.
I don't think we should ban public ownership of guns because it _might_ have an effect on gun deaths. I don't think a constitutional right should be overturned on a flimsy unproven theory.
There are places where everyone has guns and deaths are quite low: Switzerland and Israel.
There are places where guns have been banned and deaths have increased: Australia and England
There are places where guns have been banned and the people oppressed: pick from a number of African countries.
"What about the university (forgive me for forgetting the name) in the 60's where our national guard fired on a peaceful college demostration against the VietNam war?"
What is your point? If the Kent State students had guns there would have been a better outcome?
I post the link because I just read this short essay and enjoyed it, and because it has some info on various state laws that I was unaware of.
And before you start calling me names too...read the whole thread... #1671 starts...
Interesting article.
"If you keep your automobile on private property, there are virtually no restrictions. Even though your driver's license was revoked last week, you can drive your Jeep on your ranch as much as you want. Indeed, you can drink a case of beer before you go driving around your ranch, and enjoy the ride knowing that you are not violating a single law. "
I tried to make that point in the Fray during a gun debate and was scoffed at, particularly by Elliot.
"And before you start calling me names too...read the whole thread... #1671 starts."
I read the entire debate before I posted. What names did I call you?
The fact is, you posted that www.guncite propaganda site in your original Slate post and most of what you've done is use their propaganda pool to promote your own argument, and now you're using the Rush technique of skewing the premise of your opponent's positions, hoping no one will notice.
I'll give you my bottom line opinion on gun control. As much as possible should be done to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Will it be completely successful? Of course not. Will it help? If enforced correctly, yes, and stats indicate that it already has had some effect with background checks.
I own guns. I don't mind having an amount of regulation to do so any more than I mind having to have regulations to drive.
The sight says much more than that, as I could tell from just a quick glance. I just found it in about two minutes last night to prove the point that there's plenty of pro-gun control info available. The first thing the homocide link did was dispel the notion that most gun deaths come from strangers attacking random victims.
While you're at it, why don't you provide a list of those 20,000 laws? Are they all federal? Does it list any type of law, including those which expand gun rights such as concealed carry permits? Does it count each state's law which is the same or just count a particular law once, no matter how many states have it on their books? Does it count city ordinances?
As far as reading the thread, I read it all, I'm familiar with the arguments and the info, and, like most folks here, I've been around on this issue numerous times, including the arguments you present regarding stats in other countries, both here and irl. I grow as bored with it as quickly as I do debates on abortion and capital punishment. Suffice it to say that my dispute was more with your method than your argument, which I still contend was a weak effort at attempting to seem balanced while leaning heavily on one lame, biased site. That's what I call propaganda.
but as far as defending yourself in public... I don't think that applies very well.
I'll give you my bottom line opinion on gun control. As much as possible should be done to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Will it be completely successful? Of course not. Will it help? If enforced correctly,
That's all I've said all along
20,000 laws are federal, state, and local I believe... and you seriously expect me to give you a complete list here.
I familiarize myself with the ones relevant to my location.
As far as my use of the www.guncite.com as a reference list. I personally find that site useful to me. I think others might as well. I did not get all my information from there alone, but they give good synopsis. At least I'm open about my source... as are they. They fully reference their material. I'm hiding nothing.
Lastly... My main point all this time, is that it is _my_ right and _my_ choice. I have cited personal situations that make carrying a legitimate position to hold. Others got into the name calling... others wanted me to back up my statements with figures... So lay off with your pious attitude.
Yeah, I remember when we had that conversation with Elliot. It's an interesting comparison.
I'm laughing, not indignant. All I called you was a propagandist. You're kinda thin-skinned, imo.
BTW, it's interesting that you've gone from a broad statement to a few pointed remarks about concealed carry permits. Why not just carry your gun in the open, so that I, as an innocent bystander, know who around me is armed to the teeth?
You did not call me names, but others have jumped into this debate attacking small portions of what I say in individual posts. Also, in the case of arkymalarky, claims I lied in my posts about my personal experience... not outright... but discounted it saying it was "typical"
That practice is not open debate... it is defamation.
I apologize for accusing you. Thank you for starting from the beginning.
First off, I don't carry my gun in public at all. Should it be my right? I believe it should.
Second off, carrying a gun in public is impolite, ivites conflict, and people are basically uncomfortable around guns. I would argue open carry would be more dangerous that concealed carry because a bad guy is more likely to start shooting if he sees people with guns.
Third, you think I'm thin skinned? I've been in this debate for over 100 posts. I've been polite and as even-handed as I can.
Oh, puhleeze. Isn't that a bit melodramatic? I didn't say you lied about making your first gun purchase recently, though I find the claim a little fishy myself, considering how much pro-gun information you've descended on us with (albiet from one site, mostly); but if you say it's so, then I accept it as so. I have, however, heard this line before, and find it interesting that after so much soul-searching all the arguments come down on one side. Did you not look at any pro-gun control sites which gave you any pause before making such a monumental decision?
On what basis do you argue that? I thought your stats said that just having a weapon was a deterrent to crime. If he doesn't know you have it and he gets the drop on you because your gun is in your coat pocket or purse, you'll be the dead one, gun or no gun. So why conceal?
Nice way to qualify your statement just now... "[I didn't call you a liar, but what you say sure looks like a lie]"
is based soley on personal opinion based on an integration of all the knowledge I have on the subject to date.
My understanding is that open carry is illegal in many cities. Since I don't carry, and at present have no intention to, I am less familiar with the actual laws governing this aspect of ownership. I know the laws for transporting it to the firing range etc... which is unloaded and locked in my trunk (covers most places).
Now, just from a common sense point of view... it's not the norm in this country for a general citizen to carry in the open. From a common sense point of view, it draws unwanted attention to the carrier.
I am unclear on the laws regarding open carry of firearms. I searched, but every site I found talks about only about concealed carry. In states where there is a concealed carry law (i.e. it is allowed with a permit), is it usually the case than open carry is allowed without a permit?
THat's nonsense. Why count on things remaining the same after you've changed the norm?
(off topic aside)
I miss old Elliot. Too bad he didn't come over to the Mote. I almost always disagreed with him, but he was good at defending his position.
But think about it. Someone carrying in the open in today's society is going to be viewed with suspicion... and probably rightfully so. If I were a police officer, perhaps I wouldn't want to deal with the confusion.
BTW... A concealed carrier is obligated by law to notify a police officer that they have if they are carrying at that time, and produce their permit. This is if an officer has stopped them for anything, traffic stop, to ask questions, etc.
I do not presently own a gun, although (obviously) I have in the past. If I should ever buy a gun again, I would not in the least mind needing to register it, get a license, go through a background check, gun safety class, or a waiting period.
ok, done now.
I agree with you to a degree, but I also think implementing these requirements will do very little to actually reduce the crime rate. I think there are lots of people that advocate these proposals do it under the false pretense that it will affect crime rates.
People who want to carry in public are already required to do what you say… take a class, get a license, and register.
I think an education campaign would be just as effective in increasing gun safety and awareness.
I'd be more worried about the criminals around you, not the law abiding citizens that pasts tests, background checks, etc. and are statistically more law abiding that the average citizen.
>>>>That can also be construed as "shoot first and ask questions later" if you're the nervous type.
No it can not. How many times to we have to say the person defending themselves must be in justifiable grave fear for their or someones elses life. Anyone that shoots at an unverified target is foolish and quite possibly a criminal since they were breaking the law by not knowing they were in danger.
>>>>44 states allow carrying of concealed handguns?
Something like that. And of those, 30 are "shall issue" states meaning if the background check is clean, the person passes the tests, etc. the state can not turn them down and, by law, must grant the permit. Realize that background checks in most states disqualify you if you are a felon, have ever had a restraining order against you, have been convicted of domestic abuse, etc.
I think everyone agrees that background checks are OK. I don't want a felon getting a gun (though they easily can illegally and not from a legal gun dealer. They get them on the streets). Someone made the point that the background checks have stopped felons from legally buying guns. Great! We all like to see that. The problem comes when these felons are not convicted for attempting to purchase a gun. They know it is illigal, it says so right on the form. They should be put back in jail, but are not. One report I read said a felon attempted this several times, but was not jailed. Later, you got a gun illigally and committed murder. Its fine to have the laws in place...but inforce them. He should have been back in jail.
I neither said nor implied that it would. I just don't care one way or the other (self-centered, I know, and not ashamed of it either).
If you want to talk about how to prevent crime, I think you start with the people, not the tools.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time for discussion right now. So I'll just continue to pop in when I can. Sorry.
As has already been stated, the reason guns are normally not carried in the open, even in locals and states that allow it, is one of both personal and public concerns. Personal from the standpoint that one might become a target for a criminal or at least cause a criminal to target or pay special attention to you before committing further crimes. Also, it is also considerate for the public because those that carry are concerned about infringing on others fears of firearms and carry concealed to be polite.
>>>>>...it's not the norm in this country for a general citizen to carry in the open. From a common sense point of view, it draws unwanted attention to the carrier.
>>>THat's nonsense. Why count on things remaining the same after you've changed the norm?
Concealed carry has not changed the norm. I would be curious to see how often you pass someone on the street or are in the same establishment as someone carrying a concealed weapon. Even many states that do not have concealed carry or are at least very restrictive in them often allow business owners to carry while at work or in transit from home to work to home.
"I think there are lots of people that advocate these proposals do it under the false pretense that it will affect crime rates."
On what do you base your use of the term "false pretense"?
Either being armed deters criminals or doesn't. Which is it?
"Also, it is also considerate for the public because those that carry are concerned about infringing on others fears of firearms and carry concealed to be polite."
Ignorance is bliss? What you don't know can't hurt you?
There was an incident several years ago in AR of a woman who dropped her purse and her loaded, concealed gun (at that time illegal to carry) went off and killed a bystander.
Punish the criminals. Enforce the laws we already have. The should be sufficient. Take what CPC said in the last parpagraph of #1846, there are laws that aren't being enforced that should already be preventing felons from obtaining weapons legally.
Tell me how the proposed laws would prevent any criminal from obtaining a gun on the black market.
Should have had a revolver with an empty chamber first chamber. A double action revolver would have advanced to the loaded chamber as she pulled the trigger. This is how cowboys carry.
Training... Training... Training...
I strongly support our police departments. I wish they would spend more of our surplus budget in hiring more officers, paying the ones doing the job now a decent salary, and building more prisons so the officers stop seeing the killers and rapests they arrest go free due to prison overcrowding.
But, to answer the above statement about training, some do some don't. Many of the training classes I attend are with police officers. And they are usually paying for the training out of there own pocket. Most agencies only have to qualify two to four times a year and get no further traing. They are allowed to use their range whenever they want, but don't get specific trainging.
Many years ago, when most policemen were hunters and outdoorsmen, they had grown up with guns and were well practiced before ever reaching adulthood and joining the force. Today, it is not so. The force of today has a much wider spectrum of people, many of which have absolutely no interest in becoming handy with there weapon. They touch it twice a year for qualification, and after enough tries, they finally qualify and can holster it for another six months. This is sad. The qualifications are not that difficult, either.
Many police today are joining the force because they want to play a social worker role. This is needed, too, but with that comes responsibility to your partner and the citizens you are sworn to protect and you sure as heck better be able to stop a bad guy before they hurt you, your partner or a citizen...and do it in a safe precise manner.
We can exchange anecdotes all day...
For every accidental shooting, we can probably come up with an equally compelling successful defense. That's the downside of anecdotal evidence I suppose.
The crime rate has dropped dramatically in the last several years and the murder rate is lower than it's been in years.
"Tell me how the proposed laws would prevent any criminal from obtaining a gun on the black market."
How do any laws against anything prevent those things from being done illegally? That point has zero relevance, unless you're a supporter of anarchy.
It has 100% relevance because I don't support anarchy. Make laws that disrupt the black market then... no law in the legal market will have any effect on the black market.
Yes, crime rates have dropped, but gun ownership has skyrocketed. Concealed carry laws have been increasingly liberalized. I'm not saying the drops in rates are dirrectly a result of this. Correlation does not mean causation, but certainly you can conclude that increased ownership and liberalize CCW has not had a delitorious effect on crime.
Gun lobbyists feed on people's fear and paranoia with suggestions that there is a criminal around every corner just waiting to make them a victim. Yes, there are many hazards in the world and we're all living on borrowed time. Unfortunately, we just can't fend them all off, so we need to use a degree of common sense (I noticed you're fond of that term) which doesn't make us less safe than we already are by creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust that leads people falsely to believe that 1) they should arm themselves at all times in the midst of other citizens in public places and 2) they have a chance of pulling out their concealed weapon and killing an assailant who attacks them without warning (as assailants generally have an annoying habit of doing).
If you would read the argument, you would understand. It has been explained why open carry is usually not a good idea. Concealed carry does not make one a specific target, does not bother the public, and does not allow a criminal to know who may or may not be armed. The following is not the same ratio, but will give you the jist of it. If you had five buttons in front of you and pushing one of them would kill you and one of them would give you $100 and you had the choice of pushing any one of the buttons or not pushing any buttons, what would your choice be? It would not be worthe the risk to push any. That is a deterant.
>>Ignorance is bliss? What you don't know can't hurt you?
That does not address the comment I made. I never stated that a person legally carrying concealed would or would not hurt anything. I was simply pointing out that many people did this to be considerate of others feelings and to keep themselves out of harms way by not attracting attention. A criminal surprised by a citizen justifiably drawing there weapon will likely immediately stop the attack and flee.
If not, the law says the person being attacked can use whatever resonable orce is necassary to halt the attack. Obviously if the attack immediately stops, no further action is needed and firing is not justifiable.
A firearm is often called the great equalizer. While that has now become a common saying, it does ring true. An elder person or someone that is much physically weaker than an attacker does not have a chance to defend themselves without some type of weapon. Criminals know this. They are not attacking someone that is obviously much bigger and stronger than them, they attack someone they perceive as weak. With proper training, the use of a firearm can be the only way a weaker person can defend themselves from a larger attacker or several attackers.
OK. Go ahead. And I'll give you an impressive string of accidental shooting incidents that I'm personally familiar with.
And gun ownership hasn't "skyrocketed" wrt to the number of people owning guns.
Oh, and btw, the black market is already illegal. That's the whole point of the black market. Enforcement is another matter, and one relevant to the gun laws and any other laws on the books, as well.
"Correlation does not mean causation, but certainly you can conclude that increased ownership and liberalize CCW has not had a delitorious effect on crime."
Not necessarily. It might be even lower without them.
Not satisfactorally.
And anyone who would attempt to arm my grandmother is an idiot. She would shoot at the first sound she heard without looking. There are people who don't have any business having weapons who are not criminals.
You sum up our argument well. She was carrying illegally (she was a criminal). If there was a concealed carry law in place, she could have applied for a permit, performed the required training (both classroom and firing range) and written tests and probably made a better decision on how to carry the weapon. It sounds like it wasn't even in a holster (a handgun in a proper holser will not fire, no matter how far it is dropped or thrown). If she would have been able to go to a class, she would have learned all this and the accident may have been provented.
I'm not quivering at night in fear of my life. Once again we have come around to an individual's right to choose for themselves what risks in their life they accept and don't accept. I don't believe the government has the right to choose for me.
We buy health insurance, but it doens't mean we're scared we'll be in a horrible accident.
We buy life insurance but it doesn't mean we think we'll die tomorrow.
We have fire extiquishers but it doesn't mean we in constant fear our stove is going to fire.
We save for retirement, we wear our seatbelts.
In fact we voluntarily take on huge risks every day. Many of the people out there are smokers despite the well know effects it has on our health. Many drink alcohol despite its questionable merits to society. All perfectly legal endeavors, and responsible for far more deaths in this country than guns.
It's not the government's right to choose for us.
We're here for the spirit of debate.
She would likely not pass the requirement for concealed carry.
>>>There are people who don't have any business having weapons who are not criminals.
And there are people that should not be driving a car, not have children, etc.
You must realize that it is still the right of the a person to not own a firearm as well. Just because we want to keep our right to legally own something does not mean we think everyone should own or even be interested in said item.
>>"It has been explained why open carry is usually not a good idea."
>>>Not satisfactorally.
So are you now saying you think people should open carry? I guess I don't understand why you are disagreeing with my opinion why open carry is usually not a good idea. I am arguing against it, you understand. One would think you would agree. I will address any questions you have about my opinion if you post them.
Given that aproximatly 5/6ths of the guns in this country are obtained illegally... it seems that disrupting the black market is far more effective than harassing a legal one.
The legal market has enough regulations and laws that should already be effective in halting the flow of guns to the wrong people _IF_ they actually took the time to enforce them (again see #1845)
"Given that aproximatly 5/6ths of the guns in this country are obtained illegally... it seems that disrupting the black market is far more effective than harassing a legal one."
First, why can't you do both, and second, how in sam hill was that number arrived at? I don't disagree with your second paragraph, though I'd dump some of the other laws in favor of a consistent registration program.
cpc,
I mentioned my grandmother because she thought she should have a gun, but she has no business with one, concealed or otherwise. She wasn't safe to drive, either, but the family dealt with both issues for her safety and that of others, as was their responsibility. Otherwise she would likely have hurt or killed someone, including herself, despite the fact that the law says she's ok to have a gun. FWIW, she's now in a nursing home, so it's no longer an issue.
As far as the concealed carry argument, yes, I think that if people are allowed to carry in public at all their guns should be clearly visible. I feel I have a right to know who in my immediate proximity is armed. A criminal is dangerous and isn't going to obey the law anyway, so nothing we can say applies to him until he commits a crime and we begin talking punitive measures; but that's not a good enough defense to support allowing even licensed people to have hidden weapons around me. I don't personally think guns have a place in restaurants, malls, etc, but it's my understanding that businesses can bar concealed weapons from being brought in.
From a liability standpoint, a business that bars CCW is taking on legal responsibility for the safety of all of the patrons in their establishment.
As to my 5/6th number... I can't find it at the moment, but I know I read it (it was phrased "1/6th of guns used in crimes were obtained legally"). If I were to post it however, you'd just call it propaganda. Maybe I can find it on that FBI site.
I don't know how true that is beyond their general liability and whether they would be liable if a CCW shot someone in their store, either accidentally or on purpose. Certainly they would be as much so as if a criminal harmed or killed a patron.
"If I were to post it however, you'd just call it propaganda."
Man, when are you going to get over that? Sheesh! I wouldn't call the data itself propaganda on its face.
I don't debate a landowner's right to allow/disallow anything on their property. It's the privilege of ownership.
---still looking for that 1/6 reference. We can put an '*' next to it for now, and if you find something different please let me know. I would appreciate it.
There is a law enforcement innitiative call "Project Exhile" that is finally getting some notice for its results on reducing a cities murder rate. It began in Richmond, Virginia.
I had typed up a brief description, but then I found this TIME link and it describes it better. Take a look...
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,29376,00.html
The jist of it was this. Strict enforcement of all laws on the books with maximum penalities no matter what the cost and focused mainly on illegal possession of a firearm. The program is expensive to run since many of the criminals had to be sent to out of state prisons (which that state has to pay for each year). The results however paid off and after a year, the murder rate was drastically reduced. When the program was instituted, it was theorized that the people out committing these murders, rapes, etc. had an extensive criminal record and most had already spent time in prison. But due to the minumal sentences handed out (because of prison overcrowding and expenses) many were released before serving much of their sentence. Many had already been convicted of murder.
So now they they are using this project as a template for a nationally funded program that will begin in a handful of major cities. Why did this take so long to get funding? It was proven that it worked. Some say Clinton didn't want to address it because it was a program that the NRA found out about and had donated money. Is he really that stubborn that he can't realize that even though there are many differences, the one common cause that anti-gun and pro-gun people agree on is we want to stop criminals!
They keep asking what to do with all this extra money they have. How about doing something to reduce crime. We have to face the fact that unfortunately some people choose to contribute nothing to society but violence and criminal activity. That is why we have the justice system and prisons. If a criminal has made the decision that he is going to commit a crime, knowing the consequences, why should they not remain in prison. Say they have committed these crimes several times. How can we let them out knowing that they are going to commit the crime again. We owe it to the potential victims to keep violent criminal in jail, for their entire life if necassary. It is unfortunate that a percentage of the population has to be locked up to keep the remaining percentage safe from them, but choices are made everyday. They made theirs.
I totally agree with you Arky
I wish we could do more to catch poachers and people who abuse firearms. They should be punished. I don't think that taking action that punishes those of us who _are_ responsible, and _do_ the right thing, is the right way to handle it.
I plan/hope to be a responsible gun owner.
BTW: have you seen those TV shows where they set up the robot deer, and a poacher drives down the road and takes a shot at it... the poacher suddenly finds themselves surrounded by officers? They try to act all nonchalant... look around with with a "what gun?" look on their face... lol... I love shows like that.
The type of information they will be exposed to is 1) When lethal force is legally justified (which keeps people from just shooting into crowds), 2) Technique (Keeps people from putting a dozen bullets into others), 3) Safe storage and carrying (which prevents accidents from improper carry), 4) Marksmanship (minimum requirements with obvious benefits obviously good).
It raises general awareness.
Well, this is what I'm asking you to prove; in your post you have essentially assumed it. The statistics you cited -- that people with more gun education are safer with guns -- do not prove it, because, once again, one cannot infer from them that the educateds are not qualititively different from the non-educateds.
The argument from common sense doens't really help, as it does not answer the question of whether selection bias, rather than education, is driving the results. It is a decent story, but of course decent stories are sometimes wrong, and decent stories can be told to support a selection bias interpretation. For example:
people who presently take the trouble to get educated are much, much more likely to care about gun safety than people who don't get educated at present. Gun classes, which don't convey much useful information about how to use a gun, simply correlate with people simply correlate with a tendency to think through a wise use of a gun in the first place.
Based on the statistics you cited, it is impossible to distinguish between these two stories.
Hunters caught illegally hunting game can have their weapons confiscated and have crimianl charges filed which may include fines and jail time. It all goes back to there already being laws against all these things, but they are not enforced. Why add new ones if you don't plan on enforcing the ones that are already being broken?
Again, their rights are taken away if they abuse them. Anyone with a Concealed Carry permit has that permit taken away if they violate any laws that would have excluded them in the first place. There are laws on the books about brandishing a weapon in public. The right to carry a weapon does not give one the right to brandish a weapon. Again, all this is explained to anyone during the classroom portion of the process of getting a permit. Unless the weapon is drawn to stop an immediate threat, it is not justified, one has just broken the law, and one will likely lose that permit.
What has happened in the past when a state first becomes a shall issue state is this. For about the first half year to year, the business owners usually put up the sign excluding patrons with permits from carrying on the premises. The signs, which must have a specific minimum dimension and verbage to make the intentions clear, are well defined in the law. When society realizes there are no shoot outs with legally carried weapons at traffic accident or other arguements and permit holders, on average, are involved in less legal altercations per capita (I can post the reference and specific numbers when I come across them again) the store owners calm down and realize that it is actually a beneficial deterent.
If a robber is going to target a convenience-mart and one has a sign that does not allow permit holders to carry their weapon and another mart next door has no such sign and allows its patrons to carry if they choose, which business do you think is going to be targeted more often?
You're right, my statistics only show that those who have bothered to get a CCW to date are less criminally inclined than the general public. Maybe I made an improper leap of logic.
Was this the link?
CCW info
here is an op-ed from the independece institute
Op Ed
Whether or not having more people take this sort of training would be effective is a good question I guess. I just assume reasonable people, when exposed to reasonable information, react reasonably.
It's like when you are taught not to drink drain-o. A reasonable person does not insist they observe someone drinking drain-o to prove it's bad to do. It is also logical to assume this same person would not stand idly by as an 'uneducated' person tried to drink drain-o. I think they would make attempts to make sure drain-o is not readily accessible to children, or place it in the refridgerator next to the juice.
>>>>>>Gun classes, which don't convey much useful information about how to use a gun, simply correlate with people simply correlate with a tendency to think through a wise use of a gun in the first place.
Very incorrect is asking how can you say a "gun class" does not convey much useful information about how to use a gun? By there very nature they do this.
Anyway, it is likely true that those that take the time, expense, and interest to educate themselves about firearms have already shown a resposibility to be safe and conciencious. But you will also note that those same people get others interested in educating themselves if they choose to purchase a firearm.
Do we not allow certain people to by sports cars because we don't think they can handle the horsepower, even though they have never gotten a speeding ticket or been in a auto wreck?
Do we stop selling liquor to select individuals because we think they might not be able to drink responsibily, even though they have been responsible in the past?
I know people that have been ran off the road on their motorcycle by a person that did it just because they don't like motorcylclists. This friend was a teacher in highschool and was doing nothing wrong. This now criminal-by-his-actions that ran him off the road was acting on a sterotypical reaction he had to someone doing nothing wrong.
Lets not judge all the law abiding citizens that choose to own firearms because of a few crazy criminals actions that act so bold partially because they will suffer not great punishment if caught.
>>>>CellarDoor: No.
Why not? What do you recommend?
>>>Rubberducky: I disagree. Quite the majority of states do not allow concealed handguns.
Unfortunately, all this illustrates is that someone is commenting on a specific subject without easy to obtain facts to back them up. Allow me to clear this up with some facts.
The only states that do NOT have some type of concealed carry permits are the following: Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Vermont does not issue permits, but allows carrying of concealed firearms if there is no intent to commit a crime.
All other states have some form of concealed carry permit available to its law abiding citizens. Also, all of the remaining states honor at least one other states concealed carry permit. Most honor more.
For example: Tenessee honors not only their state carry permit, but also honors carry permits from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
30 of these states are "shall issue" states, meaning if the background check does not disquaify you, you participate in all classroom and written and range tests if required and pass them, you can not be denied a permit. Some of the other states ask that you show just cause and this varies from County to County.
Just thought I'd set the record straight on that subject.
Also, a side note on Concealed carry permits...
Using data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1994, University of Chicago Prof. John Lott
finds that for each additional year a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines
by 3%, robberies by over 2%, and the rape rate by 2%.
More casualties in the asinine War on Drugs
HOUSTON (AP) - Four law-enforcement officers and two civilians have been charged with drug crimes after they allegedly kicked in the door of house and stole money and cocaine last week.
Charges against the six men, three of them brothers, were filed Saturday.
Houston police officer Frank Ferguson, 52, was charged with manufacture or possession of a controlled substance and burglary; Pasadena city marshal's deputy Keith E. Wagner, 39, was charged with manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance, theft and burglary;
Troy Douglas South, 37, a Pasadena marshal's deputy, and Daniel Charles Wagner, 33, a reserve deputy with the Pasadena marshal's office, were each charged with manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance.
In addition to the officers, Michael Joe Wagner, 38, and Jon Eric Gibson, also 38, were each charged with theft, burglary and manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance.
All were charged in the 179th District Court and have hearings scheduled for Monday morning. Bond for each was set at $1 million or more.
Ferguson is a 17-year Houston police veteran, Michael Wagner is a former Galena Park police officer, and Keith Wagner is a former Houston police officer.
iiibbb --
"A reasonable person does not insist they observe someone drinking drain-o to prove it's bad to do."
Would but that were necessarily so. I attended a meeting about six months ago in which a doctor was asked, after he'd explained that pulmonary anthrax is better than 99% lethal in an untreated population, "Why haven't there been any controlled human trials validating the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine?"
The doctor blinked a couple of times and then explained, v-e-r-r-r-r-r-y slowly, "Because everyone in the control group would die."
Why does this society always seem to cater to the lowest common denomenator? It's all more of this dumbing down of America. We don't challenge ourselves it seems, and therefore lose the ability to comprehend even relatively simple concepts.
Your story reminds me of a statistics class I took in grad school. There was this woman who always asked stupid questions (yes...there are such a thing)... We were recieving a lecture on confidence intervals. The professor was going over the commonly used 95% and 99% alpha levels.
The woman raised her hand and wanted to know why we didn't just compute the 100% level. I turned to explain to her quietly as not to interupt the class, and tried to explain random error prevents you from doing this. She glared at me and wagged her finger in my face and said "I want to hear it from him."
sigh...
Something as thorough as Ken Starr's investigation of the workings of President Clinton's penis.
Nothing less will satisfy me when it comes to people walking around with deadly weapons.
but that comment was dirrected to simple purchase...not concealed carry.
The CCW background check, while isn't as thorough as a Starr investigation, is pretty intense (but far less expensive). Here in SC you can expect to wait as long as 60 days while they conduct the investigation.
Well, I see you stuck it out. You and others have provided good information, and after arky settled down and smothed out her feathers, she got very nice. Now please do not take my comment about emails going back and forth among Moties. Actually I am sure no one knows any one else's email and discussions on the Mote are always intellectual and never conducted on the buddy level. You have to keep in mind that almost all who post here are PHD's. Since I did not graduate from High School, I am easily intimidated.
Cellar is a famous writer. I think he was a speach writer for Roosevelt. Franklin that is.
how can you say a "gun class" does not convey much useful information about how to use a gun? By there very nature they do this.
Not so sure if that's the "nature" of a class -- not hard to imagine classes on sundry topics that convey no useful information at all. Including classes on how to operate a motor vehicle, with the singular exception that if your vehicle is skidding you should turn the wheel into the skid.
Gun safety classes, especially those classes geared toward the beginner, may very well convey the type of information that if you don't already know, you're too stupid and/or careless ever to know. Or let me put it this way: if that was my contention, how would you disprove it?
Please, no de rerum natura appeals.
ib, 1882
I just assume reasonable people, when exposed to reasonable information, react reasonably.
Well, I object to the assumption that people are reasonable in the sense that you mean. I object more so to using this assumption as a basis for policy.
Anyway, you can't refute a claim of selection bias with this sort of first-principles argument.
You avail yourself of the nearby samaritan skilled in the drain unclogging arts to give proper instruction on the use of dran-o to the darkness dwelling heathen. The primary structural (rather than substantive, in the sense of the position you take) objection to your argument as a basis for policy is your willingness to use this type of device, as it gives a best case scenario to the whole thing. A best case scenario, and its relative the "good case scenario," are not suitable bases for general policy prescriptions.
Remember AIDS? Well it hasn't forgotten You!
I think I now understand what you are asking. You raise valid points. I think what you are asking me is, "is it right to assume that just because someone takes a class does that make them safer given that there are some people who are inherently less disciplined/conscientious"
To that I have to answer ‘No’. There is no guarantee that 100% of the people exposed to that information will respond desirably. There are always people who are just there to go through the motions and don’t take education seriously.
For example, CPR classes, this information is very important. The Red Cross makes their training exceedingly simple, with workbooks that basically give you the answers. The tests are set up so that almost anyone can pass them. They make it easy so people are not discouraged from taking the training to begin with.
Driving Classes tend to be a little more difficult, especially when you first try to obtain them. There are eye tests, tests to make sure you comprehend the rules of the road. Not quite as easy as a CPR class.
SCUBA training, when I took it, was very intense (NAUI Certification). You simply had to know your shit to get the certificate.
There are people who take stuff lightly. I don’t dispute that. However, I think any course can establish it’s minimum requirements for passing, and limit the people who are just going through the motions. From what I have heard of CCW class, it’s just above the "driving class" level in terms of knowledge, and somewhere around the "scuba/ken starr" level in terms of background check.
I will conclude by asking that just because there are slackers out there, does that justify not offering the training to begin with? I don’t think that is fair to those who do take it seriously.
Sorry to take so long responding to you on this one. I had to consider it for a while because you made good points.
I've spent some time reviewing the Federalist Papers and portions of the constitutional debates over the bill of rights. They consistently refer to those rights as "natural rights". I'll quote another document, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I agree, not all rights are natural. However, in the constitutional debates they explicitly say that _those_ in the bill of rights are recognized as inherent to human existence, and not granted simply by their act of putting them to paper.
I disagree with your contention that right "change" all the time. The recognition of rights changes all the time.
By your logic, before women’s suffrage they didn’t have the right. I would counter that they _did_ have the right, but society failed to recognize it due to prejudice.
Are Americans the only one who really have the "right" to free speech. Does this mean this right could change? I would say that it is everyone’s right. Do Cubans not have the right to free speech, or is it Castro’s right to give it to them? I’d say that he’s failed to recognize a right that they already have.
Do I have a right to defend myself? There are places such as New York that would say "no" because I’m not allowed to carry a means to do so. Not even non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray. Is it my right, or theirs?
Learjet Found Flying Out of Control
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) -- A Learjet with five people aboard flew over the nation's heartland today apparently without a pilot at the controls. Authorities scrambled to figure out what to do.
``The only thing that I can confirm is that there is a Learjet in distress,'' Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said in Chicago.
``The aircraft left Orlando, Fla., this morning bound for Dallas. The last communication we had is that it was over Gainesville, Fla.,'' he said.
He said there was ``no radio contact at this time.''
In Atlanta, FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said authorities believe five people were on board though she wouldn't say who they were. The plane was believed to be over South Dakota around midday, she said.
``We can't speculate on what may or may not have happened,'' she said.
She said the FAA was tracking the aircraft and the military was sending up fighter jets to check out the situation.
CNN reports the jet crashed near Aberdeen, South Dakota.
Learjet Crashes in South Dakota
By GLEN JOHNSON AP Aviation Writer
A Learjet flew uncontrolled over the nation's heartland for hours today before crashing in South Dakota, apparently with five people aboard. There were no survivors.
Government officials feared that U.S. Open golf champion Payne Stewart was among the victims and that the plane may have suffered a pressurization failure. The golfer's mother, Bee Stewart, said in Springfield, Mo., she didn't know if her son was on the plane but said he was a part owner of the jet.
No one survived the crash, South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow said. Gene Abdallah, superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, confirmed that the plane had crashed about two miles west of Mina, S.D., in the north-central part of the state. No one on the ground was hurt, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said.
Lockhart said President Clinton was informed of the situation during a meeting with his economic advisers. When reporters pressed him for the identities of those on board, he threatened to cut short his daily briefing.
He said that FAA officials had an unofficial roster of those on board, and ``until they have confirmed that there won't be any further information.''
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, Tony Molinaro, said the aircraft left Orlando, Fla., this morning bound for Dallas, and the last communication was when the plane was over Gainesville, Fla.
Stewart, 42, has been one of the most recognizable players in golf because of his trademark knickers and tam-o'-shanter hat. He has won 18 tournaments around the world, including three major championships. In June, Stewart won his second U.S. Open over Phil Mickelson with a 15-foot putt, the longest putt to ever decide that championship on the final hole.
Orlando is his hometown.
"I've spent some time reviewing the Federalist Papers and portions of the constitutional debates over the bill of rights. "
I'm sure you noticed that the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights in order to facilitate the overthrow of a tyrannical government, not (primarily) as a means of individual self defense, nor for hunting purposes.
If you want to get the anti-gunners in this forum riled up, tell them that you own guns to pevent your rights from being trampled by the government. I think that is a valid reason. Others think millions of individual gun owners would stand no chance against the weapons of the military. Perhaps someday we will find out.
I quite agree, training must still be made available to those who want it. It would be ludicrous to take my posts to mean otherwise.
My only point is that we cannot necessarily expect some mandated training to make gun ownership safer. It's not necessarily my contention that it won't; I don't know.
In other words, what we currently observe is that people with voluntary training are safer with guns. That doesn't mean subjecting anyone else to compulsory training will also make them safer -- because it might be that the important part in what we observe isn't the "training," but the "voluntary."
This was a decidedly minor point in the foregoing discussion. I have heard this claim before and wanted to flesh it out -- see if you had some additional information to weigh on the matter.
It's the only reason that matters, in fact.
...But, if anyone doubts the potential abilities of small arms vs. a technologically superior force...
Vietnam vs. the US
Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union
In the debates they did mention personal self-defense, however, you are correct, their primary concern was tyranny. However, that does not mean they necessarily condoned taking arms up against the government, insurrections, or treason.
"However, that does not mean they necessarily condoned taking arms up against the government, insurrections, or treason."
Say what?
Of course the Founding Fathers condoned taking up arms against the government, insurrections, and treason. What do you think the American Revolution was?
My only point is that we cannot necessarily expect some mandated training to make gun ownership safer. It's not necessarily my contention that it won't; I don't know.
I know for a fact that mandated education tends to bring out the apathy in people who are less diligent. CPR is a good example for this one, as many places of employment require it. I've taken a number of these classes and you can tell that some people really don't give a crap.
It's too bad.
I think in the case of CCW, the threat of criminal prosecution would tend to make people take it a tad more seriously. Improper use of a weapon, and a concealed weapon especially, is likely to get you in a great deal of trouble... if not extremely uncomfortable scrutiny for years to come (i.e. Getz subway shootings).
I don't think they'd condone the actions of our "militia" friends holed up in Idaho, or the bombings in Oklahoma. I don't think they'd condone selling our nuclear secrets to China.
Whether they'd condone the issues behind the civil war is a bit more interesting. While I believe it was primarily about salvery. There are some who make good arguments that it was about state's rights.
I think there is a distinction between our revolution and the examples I gave, but I suppose the people who do those things really believe what they're doing is right.
Which has squat to do with gun control.
I don't think they'd condone the actions of our "militia" friends holed up in Idaho, or the bombings in Oklahoma.
Actually, Jefferson probably would have, but only because he never thought things through. Nonetheless, it is largely irrelevant whether or not they would have condoned the actions, once they were the government. They built the system so that actions like this could occur.
No one knows whether a revolution is righteous or not until it's over. The winners decide.
I'm not trying to say those acts have anything to do with gun control. I'm saying that the founding fathers recognized a difference between having a revolution every 20 yrs, and acts of treason. Ever since the beginning treasonous acts were punishable by death.
The armed populous is a protection against tyranical government. We know even ours is guilty of not always have our best interests at heart. It does pretty good though.
The winner of a revolution does decide the way it goes down in the history books. You are absolutely right. The wonders of revisionist history.
What are your theories about the possibilty that we'll see some rioting when Y2K rolls around? I personally don't feel to worried about it, but who knows?
-Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
I certainly did not mean to imply that I was sympathetic to the Oklahoma bombers or the militia nuts. I think we have the best form of government in the world. (Of course there is plenty of room for improvement.)
However, things can change, especially during wartime or economic crises.
Hell, we could even end up with a Repubublican President and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. So stock up on weapons and ammo.
Of course. As I said, the people who determine whether or not a rebellion is righteous are the winners.
But that doesn't change the fact that they wanted to ensure that the people had the ability to rebel against an oppressive government.
Also, if you read up on their handling of the rebellion, it was fairly mild. They were primarily concerned with handling it pragmatically; not a great deal of "Death to the Infidels!" about it. So it's not as if their perspective changed dramatically once they started running things.
It bugs me when elected officials assume that just becuase the landed the office... it gives them some sort of endorsement of their entire platform.
RE: bombings
Of course you don't condone that. I wouldn't assume it. You were just making a point
Then how are people supposed to learn the basics? Are they to be born with it? If people can not take classes on basic subjects to learn from the beginning, how are they expected to learn more advanced topics?
You must learn to count before you learn to perform addition. You must learn addition before performing complex alegrbra problems.
If a person does not know the basic safe operation of a firearm and want to learn it in a class, why do you say this is stupid? If you are so scared of people NOT knowing how to safely use firearms and learn justifiable actions, why make rude comments about those that want to learn from an instructor?
What a ridiculous overstatement.
As far as the main purpose of the Second Amendment is concerned, I don't disagree with Grey's assessment, but the "well-regulated militia" part is there for a reason, and I find it difficult to get anti-gun control people to adequately address it.
The militia, according to the framers of the constitution and military code, is made up of all able-bodied men(and women) under the age of 45.
Cornell Law, Sect 311 of US General Military Law - Definition of Militia
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
Man... I can't even comprehend what would cause people to do something like that to another human being.
That is so out of my realm of comprehension I am left utterly dumbfounded.
Here is the excerpt:
Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. Id. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "p[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. Id. at 201.
Well Regulated
Of all the words in the Second Amendment, it is the word "regulated" that probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate", which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy". A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. This definition is clearly inappropriate.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained and functioning militia.
Here is a quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 which also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
Finally, note the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defining regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
What a ridiculous overstatement.
Well, yes. It was intended to be. I've never cared for the man, as you know. Still, his lack of followthrough from top to bottom is a generally acknowledged flaw.
Actually, those Founding Fathers who referred to the militias of the time -- which then meant an armed populace -- as providing bulwark against tyranny were in fact referring to their ability to repel an armed invasion by tyrants from other nations. They hardly had their own government in mind. See Shay's Rebellion for a real-life example that this was the case.
I have never understood why people think it is so contradictory to design a government with the possibility that people will need to protect themselves against it--and yet withstand a rebellion once they are governing. Obviously, they didn't think they were being oppressive. And, in fact, they weren't.
As I said--note how they quashed the rebellion. It was imperative that they act quickly and decisively. And they did, by and large. They didn't violate their own premises to do so, nor were they unduly harsh on the rebels.
But to pretend that they were most worried about the tyranny of other countries? Nonsense. If that was their biggest concern, there wouldn't have been the nearly rabid opposition to a standing army.
So what does this mean, if it isn't a support of the "insurrectionist theory"?:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
What alternative explanation to you give to this statement of the founding fathers?:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
See anything about armed insurrection in that passage?
I didn't think so.
CalGal:
I'm not "pretending" that they were worried about the tyranny of other countries. It's a matter of historical fact. (See the War of 1812, for instance, or read any number of historical documents regarding early relations with European nations.)
The "rabid opposition" to a standing army in fact was related to a fear that armed insurrection -- by the army, known better as a coup -- would be used against the government they were creating. That particular argument actually militates against your position.
You keep bringing up passages that refer to Americans' desire to cast off the chains of European rulers. I see nothing in those passages that indicates that they believed the government they were creating might become despotic. It's probably latent in the principles, but these remarks are clearly directed toward the British.
Moreover, I think it's clear that they intended to provide for two simple civic mechanisms to deal with such oppression if it arose: 1) elections and 2) amendments. Nothing about armed insurrection.
Again, if they were in favor of armed insurrection, Shay's rebellion would have had a different outcome, wouldn't it?
Dusty:
See anything about armed insurrection in that passage?
They talk about the duty to throw off such government, even while they are in armed rebellion against the English. How silly of me to think that they might contemplate armed rebellion.
Dusty:
You keep bringing up passages that refer to Americans' desire to cast off the chains of European rulers.
Let's not over-react. Two passages from the same document doesn't quite beget a "keep bringing up".
I see nothing in those passages that indicates that they believed the government they were creating might become despotic.
Your timing is flawed. They haven't yet begun to write the Constitution, so of course they are referring to the Europeans, not to what they are years away from writing.
They talk about the duty to throw off such government, even while they are in armed rebellion against the English. How silly of me to think that they might contemplate armed rebellion.
Yes, it was. Particularly since they were creating for the first time a constitution that made it a simple matter to throw off such government. By voting them out.
Moreover, I think it's clear that they intended to provide for two simple civic mechanisms to deal with such oppression if it arose: 1) elections and 2) amendments. Nothing about armed insurrection.
I have no doubt they preferred elections and amendments to overthrow. Can you point me to anything that confirms, despite having instituted a violent overthrow of a government, they were insistent on repressing that right in the future?
However, you do make a good point in your comment about the opposition to standing armies.
Rather ... "they were about to create."
Precisely. It isn't easy to speak at length about the meaning of words that have not yet been penned.
I see no reason to think they wanted to "repress" anything, but I don't believe armed rebellion is among the "rights" they enumerated at any time either.
Which is why it's highly doubtful that they intended to write in a clause providing for the armed overthrow of the government they were creating. It's clear that they believed that they were creating a system in which it would be a simple matter to cast off despots, through civic means. The "armed rebellion" option isn't discussed anywhere in the Constitution that I can see.
Don't twist things. I added the word "most" before "worried". And in the early days, they didn't dream for a moment that they could handle a war with England or France, which is why maintaining neutrality was a chief concern.
It's very clear that tyranny of foreign countries was not high on their list of concerns in drafting the second amendment. The primary concerns were: ability of the individual to protect against government oppression and the aforementioned dislike of standing armies.
Actually, I agree with you that they weren't trying to affirmatively create a right to overthrow the government. Rather, they were prophylactically trying to ensure that a Federal Government wouldn't dare intrude too far on the rights of its citizens.
Standing armies they didn't like, but armed militias of freemen were a different story, as noted in Anti-federalist 28:
Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen. Experience has taught them that a standing body of regular forces, whenever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary; and slaves by profession themselves, are "nothing loth" to break down the barriers of freedom with a gout.
No, that wasn't their main concern. The main concern was the fear the state governments had against a strong federal government and the power that a standing army would provide.
And try not to be absurd. Jefferson was openly--and foolishly--on record as saying that armed insurrection was good for the country. While this is typical TJ nonsense, there is no question that he and others were very much concerned that they were creating a central government that could become tyrannical. The Amendments were their best shot at protecting the individual--and the 2nd Amendment was their means of ensuring that the individual could always protect himself if the government chose to ignore the constitution.
And this by no means contradicts their stance when they were in charge. As Franklin said, it is always "our" revolution. In the third person, it always becomes "their" rebellion. There is absolutely no requirement that they meekly accept an effort to overthrow the government just because they ensured that citizens had the ability to make the attempt.
Headlines in the Baton Rouge Advocat this morning : Voter Turnout Hits Record Low. This state has a motor-voter law in place for the first time. 1.8 of the 2.7 million registered voters actually voted. The record high was in 1991 when the gubernatorial race featured Edwin Edwards vs David Duke : almost 80%.
The 'pundits' could not agree on any two or three reasons why turnout was so low.
Is voter turnout the ratio of those showing up to those registered? If so, isn't it obvious that a motor voter bill would reduce the voter turnout ratio?
No, you're misunderstanding. The Second Amendment (at least according to the Supreme Court, and by my reading of its opening clause: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") is primarily aimed at creating a national defense. The FF opposed a standing army, so they built their defense around a sytem of militias, comprised of average citizens. These militias' structure are enumerated further in the Constitution by the War Powers Clause, Article 1, section 8; and the Militia Clauses: Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16. Somehow, I missed any further enumeration of an "armed insurrection" clause in the Constitution.
Try reading this history of the militias in America.
Incidentally, I *do* think the Second Amendment created an individual right to be armed, since armed individuals were requisite to this system of militias.
I will dig up the material on the debate over standing armies. Some of the fear of a standing army was as you describe it, but the states' fear also explicitly was directed at the ability of an army to overthrow the government.
Even if the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms as private citizens, it is a much further step to say it was intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control.
This latter, in essence, is the position you are claiming, CalGal. I can't think of a more unlikely (and frightening) scenario.
The Dutch parliament has voted to legalize brothels.
Every state ratifying a new constitution during the Revolutionary War save New Hampshire, Georgia, and New Jersey, noted the necessity for the subordination of military to civil authority, proclaimed the right and obligation of free men to bear arms, and denounced standing armies as a threat to the civil liberties of a free society ... [C]onstitutional conventions sought to ensure that the states' military capacities could not become the springboard by which ambitious political authorities could subvert the constitutional order for their own political ends. Establishing the primacy of the state assemblies in military affairs provided the principal means of acheiving that goal.
We're discussing the Second Amendment. A hysterical anti-militia lobbying site does not count as a reputable cite. And for heaven's sake, stop deluding yourself that such horseshit has any credibility in a conversation with you. At this point, you're such a one-note wailer on the subject that I'm finding myself beginning to support the wackos out of sheer irritation.
That goes to show they are no where near as sophisticated as the State of Nevada.
Sure, the Militia Watchdog site is hysterical.
It's only operated by a man with a PhD in history whose doctoral thesis was on the history of militias in America. And this particular FAQ is co-written by another highly regarded historian.
Hysterical, indeed.
Do you have anything with which to counter the abundance of facts they present?
Finally, please, feel free to support whomever you like. Your propensity for irrational crankiness is well established here, and certainly not a surprise to me or anyone else.
As for being a "one-note wailer" -- whatever. I won't waste my time going back through the wide variety of discussions I've had here. Nor, for that matter, will I waste any more time with you.
I am personally familiar with Peter Maslowski, he was the Professor for the Military in American Life course I took in college, as well as for two other military history courses I took. He is a very professional historian with a famously evenhanded approach to American Military History. I am familiar with Millet through use of his texts in my classes. He is also a rather well respected military historian. Neither is an ideologue, both are academics in the best sense of the word. Hardly what I would be using in a bibliography if my intention was to ruthelessly skew the issue.
The unorganized militia argument for a personal right to bear arms is deeply flawed. It presumes
a. that there is an historical precedent for an unorganized militia.
b. that "original intent" analysis of constitutional law is the proper form of analysis for deciding constitutional issues
c. that it is legitimate under (b) to expand the right to arms to persons not permitted under the "original intent" analysis, namely non whites, females and non militia members.
It does not account for
d. that even with state militias, the state could designate the type and amount of weaponry held by militia members;
e. the state could exclude certain citizens from the militia;
f. the existence of the National Guard and Reserve forces;
g. a shift in modes of constitutional interpretation;
h. the existence of a standing armed forces.
Note that I said nothing about the fact that I happen to know something about this argument primarily because I hear it most often uttered by denizens of the fringe right. I said nothing about it being a raison d'etre for the militia movement. I only tried to include a knowledgeable and historically sound source that happened to debunk many militia-movement theories.
Actually, I think I understand the source of CalGal's irritation. I probably weigh in most often in discussions about civil rights and the radical right because that happens to be my bailiwick. And because my time here is extremely limited, I prefer to discuss the things I care most about. Unlike certain others here, I have neither the time nor the disposition nor the chutzpah to weigh in on topics about which I know little or nothing.
May I take the liberty to say that not only did the above need saying but it is well said. I have enjoyed your comments and still remember the discussion of Jury Nullification, which I printed out. I have also learned from the Mote what a stupid old fool Thomas Jefferson was. I didn't print that out, but have commited it to memory.
2.19 p.m. ET (1828 GMT) October 26, 1999
By John Leicester, Associated Press
BEIJING (AP) — Chinese police detained dozens of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement — some of them
teen-agers, some middle aged — on Tuesday after they went to Tiananmen Square to protest in defiance of a government ban
on the group.
The low-key protest, which participants knew virtually assured their arrests, showed that a three-month government crackdown
and campaign of vilification targeting the group's leaders has yet to eradicate the once widely popular movement.
Police took at least 36 people from the square, often in batches of six or more. They included middle-aged or older women and
a middle-aged man in a dirty gray suit who was forced into a van along with seven women and teen-agers.
By gathering in clumps amid the usual throngs of tourists on Tiananmen Square, the protesters apparently hoped to highlight their
disapproval of a proposed law against Falun Gong and other groups China's communist leaders view as dangerous cults. The
national legislature is reviewing the law this week at the Great Hall of the People beside Tiananmen Square.
(cont.)
Police in street clothes distinguished the Falun Gong adherents from Chinese tourists in the vast square by quietly asking people
if they came to protest. Those who answered "yes'' were quickly pulled into police vans.
Gail Rachlin, a New York-based spokeswoman for the group, said the protesters "just want to have the government understand
them.''
"All they want to do is meditate,'' she said.
Falun Gong adherents were taken away after similar acts of civil disobedience at Tiananmen Square on Monday. A Web site
run by the group said police beat and detained a dozen followers who unfurled a Falun Gong banner.
The group also claimed police followed protesters home and arrested about 1,000 people. Rachlin said two members jumped
to their deaths from a train after being detained in Beijing and tortured. One was still handcuffed, Rachlin said.
The claims could not be independently verified.
Without directly addressing the allegations of mistreatment and mass arrests, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang
Qiyue defended the crackdown on Falun Gong as lawful.
"It is an illegal organization that constitutes a cult,'' Zhang said. "The organization has upset social order and has damaged the
health of practitioners.''
President Jiang Zemin likened Falun Gong to groups like the Branch Davidians in the United States and Japan's
Aum Shinri Kyo. The Davidians' 51-day standoff with the FBI in 1993 ended with the deaths of 81 sect members; Aum killed
12 people with a 1995 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subway.
"No responsible government should let such cult activities go unchecked,'' Jiang, who is on a two-week foreign tour, told the
French newspaper Le Figaro in an interview published Monday and excerpted by Chinese media.
Falun Gong was founded by a former government clerk who now lives in the United States. Its blend of traditional meditation,
slow-motion exercises and Buddhist and Taoist ideas is said to promote health and morality. It had a wide following throughout
much of China, particularly among pensioners, the unemployed and others who have trouble affording medical care.
Before the government banned the movement in July, one official estimate put the number of adherents at 70
million — 9 million more than the Communist Party.
As part of a campaign against Falun Gong ahead of expected trials of its leaders, state media carried government accusations
Tuesday that group founder Li Hongzhi and 12 other leading members stole or disseminated 59 classified government
documents.
An unidentified senior official quoted by Xinhua, the government news agency, said Falun Gong leaders broke the law "by
illegally obtaining state secrets and will be punished accordingly.''
If convicted of leaking state secrets, they would face at least five years in prison and could be put to death under the statute's
most severe section.
China's top technical school, Qinghua University in Beijing, suspended six students Monday for two months and said they would
be expelled if they did not stop practicing Falun Gong, a Hong Kong-based human rights group reported.
Police arrested 34 people practicing Falun Gong on Thursday and 21 were still in custody, the Information Center of Human
Rights and Democratic Movement in China said."
That last sentence is a pip!
Let's examine the militia angle in light of historical reality. Militia members were white, male, usually property owners, of a certain age and of good character. The feeble minded, feeble bodied, non white, felons, persons of poor character and those without property were excluded. Therefore, if we are arguing original intent, and asking that no judicial activism re-interpret the language for today's reality, only adult white male property owners without felony histories have second amendment rights. This may not bother many who argue this line of reasoning, but it gives many others pause.
That's the same reason the electoral college was created.
As I said in a prior argument (#1903), governments do fail to recognize the rights of those that should have them all the time (i.e. women, blacks, etc)...
I will always fall back on my central point that I bear an individual right to defend my mortal life. Particularly in a society that is incapable of guaranteeing 100% my safety every moment of every day...
This country is founded on individual rights, that come with responsibilities. The fact that some people ignore their responsibilities is not good cause to take the rights from everyone.
Nice guys, the Chinese gov't. They're just misunderstood. Good to see we're still expecting them to be somewhat civilized, in return for our engagement.
The Soviets just about went balistic when the thought Sacarov (sp.) might get the Nobel Peace Prize and were relieved when he did not. The Soviets were praised in this country by many intellectuals until the Evil Empire came apart. Reagan was called a fool for saying that by the main stream media. He was also called an idiot when he said the October Market Crash had nothing to do with the health of the economy. Of course, he was right on both points. Not bad for a dotering old fool. Almost as much an idiot as Thomas Jefferson.
S. Halbrook (1991) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OR THE POWER
OF THE STATE: BEARING ARMS, ARMING
MILITIAS, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
available from:
The 2nd Amendment Law Library
I want to follow with an anti-militia (private militia) article. I do not believe the 2nd amendment supports the abundant, radical, private militias that have fortified themselves in parts of this coutnry. A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment.
See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.
...and you couldn't help but get a demeaning jab in by labeling those that support gun rights as "wackos". Its a shame to see name calling just because you have a differing opinion. I hardly think someone that enjoys shooting sports and hunting, and also exercises their right to justifiably defend themselves from violent criminal attack in their own home (or abroad) are "wackos".
Maybe you should save that reference for someone actually committing a criminal act of violence rather than citizens who have broken no laws.
I've seen some news stories about militias which show a range of attitudes. Some of these private militias seem relatively benign... but some have made direct statements that they are in open rebellion against our government (or would support an open rebellion).
I agree with whoever mentioned our more immediate controls on government... elections, and ammendments... but it is plausible that at some point those controls fail... and the government begins to have too much control.
It's all about checks and balances.
Maybe so, but at least we weren't sucking up to the Soviets, kissing their asses just so they'd behave themselves and open up their markets to us. The Chinese, on the other hand, have made jerking us around their favorite pastime. And we love them for it.
Sorry, but I think Reagan was a doddering old fool, for the most part. As for Jefferson, I'm a bit biased, since he's a rather distant ancestor. Suffice to say he's one of my favorite American statesmen (were I to actually compile such a peculiar list).
Tsk, tsk. Someone isn't reading very well. Try again, and quit whining and wringing your hands. It irritates me.
Those were raw figures from the Commissioner of Elections Office.
1,800,000 voted out of 2,700,000 registered voters. The part that I didn't report out of deference to the Advocate writer who wrote "That is 48% of eligible voters!! There is a typo somewhere or the Advocate writer knows nothing about arithmatic as I leared it.
This was the first election with the moter-voter law in place. Nobody, yet, has blamed the ease of registration on the low turn out; if in fact it was a low turn out. The way I was taught arith. 1.8 divided by 2.7 is 0.6666666% turn out which I would not complain about.
nope 66.66666666~ %
To Protect and Serve?
Two El Paso officers on administrative leave...
EL PASO, Texas (AP) - Authorities were reviewing the fatal shooting of a man who reportedly attacked police trying to take him for psychiatric care.
The two officers involved in Monday's shooting were on paid administrative leave, police said Tuesday.
They had been called by Arturo Alfonso Villamil's mother, who had asked twice in February to have him picked up.
When officers arrived Monday, Villamil, armed with a knife and a club, was in his yard, police Sgt. Al Velarde said.
``He was outside the house, acting bizarre and in a menacing manner, but not to any one person,'' Velarde said.
Villamil then fled inside, locked a heavy wrought iron door and refused to come out, Velarde said.
The officers forced the door and entered, at which time Villamil lunged at them with a long metal object, Velarde said.
``It was an object about 12 inches long and one-and-one-quarter-inches wide,'' he said. ``It was solid steel, possibly a piece of something. It had a roller on one end''
The officers fired several shots at Villamil, who later was pronounced dead at an El Paso hospital.
Velarde said the shooting was being investigated by a police shooting review team, the crimes against persons unit and the district attorney's office.
AP-WS-10-26-99 1808EDT
I don't usually make fun of people's math... or grammer...or spelling...
I know better than to do that. :)
Let me get this straight. Are you stating that it is inapt to talk about modern day militias in the context of discussing the rights and/or restraints on private ownership of firearms under the Second Amendment?
No. I'm bored of Spudboy bringing it up, though. Like I said, it's six degrees. Pick a topic, any topic, and in six posts Spudboy will be handwringing about the militia. Had anyone mentioned it, fine. But no one had. To make matters worse, he cited an anti-militia site as a Second Amendment interpretation source and expects to be taken seriously.
http://cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/guns/
I don't know who came up with the idea of doing that, but talk about unjust. Why don't they do something about the criminals instead of wasting their time in civil court... yeesh!!
I must bathe now.
Do you think Reagan was more or less of a dodering old fool that Roosevelt. I realize you are hopelessly liberal, but I wonder if you can be a little bit objective.
Then they could sue Microsoft.
I think you should be right proud of having TJ as a progenitor. It is not I who casts aspersions on old Tom
I wonder when police are going to get to carry around some of those non-lethal weapons I see in the news so much.
My personal favorite is the sticky foam. Looks like that spray foam insulation you buy for window frames and outlets. The immobilization foam really adheres to itself. I saw a guy get sprayed with it one time, and within a short order their arms were stuck to their torso, and they couldn't move their legs.
The foam disolves with a simple solvent.
Pretty cool stuff, and would have been ideal in this situation. I'm all for non-lethal weapons where appropriate.
(NOTE: crx spelling of Weldon's name)
(UPI Spotlight)
Congressman: Soviets hid nukes in US
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 (UPI) - Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., said Tuesday
the Soviet Union may have hidden explosives, radio transmitters and
possibly nuclear weapons in the United States during the Cold War for
use in sabotage against U.S. power systems and other key infrastructure.
Two such caches were discovered last winter in Switzerland and Belgium,
both mentioned in KGB archives that also suggest U.S. sites. "I am
outraged the (Clinton) administration has not even asked the question of
the Russians about where the specific sites are in the United States,"
Weldon said.
Copyright 1999 by United Press International"
I copied this off the Drudge Report, but I would guess that Weldon't information comes from Anderson't "The Sword and the Shield" or right out of the same Soviet archives.
But don't go telling him about it!
Perhaps it went off. Haven't seen hiom around here lately. Nice of you to think of him, though. Perhaps this is off topic, but what is your opinion of Falwell's meeting this weekend with gays and his attempt to establish detante? Try, is you can manage, to be serious.
I think there was akind of one-two punch what with the Jenny Jones case underscoring the absurdity of the "Homosexual Panic" defense (which they're trying in this case, btw), and Matthew Shepherd himself. He was this little kid. Why would anyone want to beat his head in and leave him tied to a fence to die?
Falwell can't afford to be connected to this sort of thing, even by rhetorical association. Therefore we can expect to seea Kindler Gentler Homophobia comin' out of ol'Jer.
The gays he's meeting with,btw, are his old speechriter Mel White -- who left the CC (after writing speeches for both Falwell AND Pat Robertson) when he finally came out.
That's the power of the gay movement -- coming out. Once it's done there'snothing the opposition can do -- exceptkill you. And they would do that if you were in the closet anyway.
There's a whole new generation coming along for whom the closet holds no appeal.And some of like --like Congressman Steven May -- are even Republicans.
To conclude: It's all over, and I won!
Congratulations, Cellar Door!
thank you for your response. While I have the feeling that Gays think their major foes are Christians, I do not agree with that at all. Hatred of gays is only irrational and is not learned or taught in Church. I think you would agree that homophopia exists in countries that do not even tolerate Christians. It does not aid in understanding homophopes to think they are spawned by Jerry Falwell. I agree that gays should acknowledge the fact. It is by knowing personally a gay, and discovering that you care for that person that conquers homophobia.
I would suggest you cut the Christians a little slack. I remember you saying that a thumper could never be your friend. I would hope that your association with some Fraygrants and Moties who are Christians might alter that belief. By the way, I am not a thumper, although I was at one time in my life.
I agree that homophobia has nothing intrinsically Christian about it-- starting with the fact that Christ certainly wouldn't have approved. But then it's perfectly obvious that a whole mess of things are being done in his name that he would be horrified by. The problem is that orgs like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority have the loudest horns, and have been allowed to toot them at every opportnity-- the better to create that audience-drawing "controversy." I also hasten to add that the Fundies are rather different in their anti-gayness than the Catholic Church, whose difficulties with same-sex activity are quite baroque. For while its opposed for the usual reasons, its against ALL sex. Therefore you have the priesthood which because of celibacy requirements, has been a magnet for gay men wishing to closet themselves.
As I'm sure you've noticed it's getting harder and harder to find men who want to be priests. This would all be solved in an instant if the church would allow priests to marry (and NO I'm NOT talking about gay marriage), but the RC has never been for taking the easy way.
Or even the Slightly Less Hard Way.
Tjhere is little or no reason for the Catholic Church keeping that custom, for that is all it is. At one time priests did marry. My best friend would have made a great priest but he sure could not give up women and he knew it. Broke his mother's heart. Falwell will not give up his idea that gays can be "cured", but I can understand that without agreeing with it.
And if it does come up more frequently than usual with me, so what? As I said, I tend to focus my limited discussion time on things I have actual knowledge about. Unlike you.
Had anyone mentioned it, fine. But no one had.
That's right, including me. You're the one who brought it up. I only provided a link to a piece with an authoritative history on militias by recognized historians (if you can discredit the credentials of anyone cited here, please be me guest). The point being that the Second Amendment is about forming militias, so any discussion of it is usually helped by a discussion of the history. As I say, if you wish to contest the facts or demonstrate that they're somehow "slanted," please be my guest. But merely dismissing them out of hand because the site is activist in nature is ridiculous. It would also leave anyone else posting here with precious few places to cite from.
To make matters worse, he cited an anti-militia site as a Second Amendment interpretation source and expects to be taken seriously. That Second Amendment site linked to from above is an anti-gun-control site. Does that make its info immediately suspect? Are you snorting derisively at iiibb?
Finally, there is no greater irony than the sight of CalGal mischaracterizing other people's posts as "handwringing," "whining" and "wailing." Lest anyone forget your behavior during the entire Seguine dustup.
Tell you what, CalGal: Kindly miss my ass.
Just so you don't mistake my tone for whining.
"A Pope in the family?" asks Marcello.
"Two," syas the skagged-out Prince.
"Two Popes my Love!" coos his fiancee, Nico.
So he makes films like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Bringing Out the Dead" instead.
I hated that movie. As a poor person at the time I could really dig how awful it must be to be rich. Yeah, yeah. Now Mondo Cane, that was a movie. I was surprised I did not see a referance in your book to Scorpio Risen. Off to dinner now.
Jones
I don't suppose you saw my posts about the difference between believing the crap said about Thomas and that said about Clinton, but I am sure if you were defending Thomas you might point out that there was only one woman accusing him and about 30 defending him. Clinton's ratio was not as good. Perhaps you don't even remember what you said and I don't have time to search it out.
Sorry you didn't cotton to "La Dolce Vita." It was my favorite movie all through high school. What I wouldn't have given to fly to Rome and walk through fountains with cats on my head!
I also fell in love with the young Prince with the droopy sweater and the pencil-thin mustache.
In fact I think John Waters did too, as he modelled himself after him.
That Second Amendment site linked to from above is an anti-gun-control site. Does that make its info immediately suspect?
Of course it does. I'm hardly going to waste my time debating every idiot who makes a pedestrian argument. Why bother? I ignored him. I expect more from you, given your continual reference to your expertise.
The point being that the Second Amendment is about forming militias, so any discussion of it is usually helped by a discussion of the history.
Quite true. That's not what you were doing. You were bringing your favorite subject into it. Here is the quote you posted:
"Even if the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms as private citizens, it is a much further step to say it was intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control."
So who was saying any such thing? No one. But god knows what you'd do if you couldn't drag the militia, kicking and screaming, into the debate.
But merely dismissing them out of hand because the site is activist in nature is ridiculous. It would also leave anyone else posting here with precious few places to cite from.
No it's not ridiculous. By and large, I ignore cites here unless they are backed by something reasonable. They can be on a questionable site, provided they are referencing a well-regarded study--although I'm always wondering where the original is. But I would expect someone like you, with all your connections, to do better than to continually use "activist" sites. You have never cited anything that isn't instantly suspect.
Lest anyone forget your behavior during the entire Seguine dustup.
Ha, ha, ha. Was that when you pouted because nobody stuck up for lil ol you in the ThomasD violations?
Do you think Reagan was more or less of a doddering old fool that Roosevelt?
More.
I realize you are hopelessly liberal, but I wonder if you can be a little bit objective.
I try, Al, Lord how I try. Usually my objectivity gets wasted in the midst partisan horseshit (of others); that's when I up the daily dose of rhetoric. "Hopelessly liberal" -- heh. More like "hopelessly cynical", but I try to find a little bit of sense throughout the political spectrum. It ain't easy.
Message # 1995:
I think you should be right proud of having TJ as a progenitor. It is not I who casts aspersions on old Tom.
TJ would be more accurately a distant "relative" than a true "ancestor", since I'm not directly descended from him. If I recall, I believe it's more along the line of second or third cousins of my dad's who are directly descended from him. But I admired him long before I found all that family history out.
Anyway, doesn't bother me in the least what anyone says about the guy.
Although if you're a liberal, they've changed the definition recently.
There were no 'violations' by 'ThomasD'. I'll thank you not to lie about it in the future, CalGal.
But in any case, don't protest your innocence. And if you do, take it to the damn playpen so I can ignore you. I've had enough of both of you by this point, and it sure as hell isn't on topic.
CalGal- take a look at Millet and Maslowski's book then. It's in the cite provided by Spud.
In addition to chastising the UN for its "bit tax" proposal, which increases with the size of the file being transferred, the legislation calls on President Clinton to ask the World Trade Organization to enact a permanent moratorium on e-commerce tariffs. Last year, the U.S. obtained a one-year moratorium on international Internet tariffs.
The UN released a July 1999 'Human Development Report' which makes the claim that a gap exists between the per-capita extent of computer use in more developed countries and less advanced nations, which "market forces alone will not rectify." The UN Report recommends "a tax of one US cent on every 100 lengthy e-mails" to generate over $70 billion a year in revenue, ostensibly to buy computers and encourage Internet usage in third world nations.
Many communications experts believe that income is less important than a higher level of education and younger age in determining the likelihood of Internet utilization. What less developed parts of the world may lack in income, they tend to make up in age, using this 'equation'.
Jeffrey Eisenach, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, says that the way to make the Internet more accessible to poorer parts of the world is to lower the cost of telecommunications by cutting taxes, not raising them.
Unlike the U.S., "Most places around the world still have not de-regulated their telecommunications industry," said Eisenach.
"What they need to do is, they need to be privatizing their telephone companies. They need to be deregulating their telecommunications markets, and they need to be lowering taxes on their telecommunications services." he added.
Wasn't the celibacy of priests - like Mariology - an invention of the late 1800s? I am non-Catholic (married to one - we very seldom, any more, seriously, discuss religion). That was a change as recently as 100 years ago. The Catholic Church (Rome) has lasted 2000 years. Even you disbelievers have to respect its staying power!
#2012
As you see above, I am non-Catholic. I have never been impressed that Rome and Constantinople had much use for each other. I know only a little, tiny bit of the politics. None of the religious background.
#2020
If you haven't figured it out by now, you will never figure it out. I AM NO FAN OF FDR!
FDR caused the Cold War by putting Truman in a no win position. FDR was going to sweet talk "Uncle Joe" into reasonableness at the completion of WW II. A difficult job when one is six feet under!
What did Raegan do under his watch? The Berlin Wall came down!
You are merely compounding your lies, CalGal. I used Spudboy's given
name *once*, as part of an *excerpt* and never since that one occasion, in the Fray, over a fucking year ago. Furthermore, there were never any Fray constraints against doing such, and any protests on his part were after the single incident. Upon becoming aware of his particular sensitivity, I made sure I never mentioned his given name again in a public forum, although I tweaked him on a few occasions about a particular article he once wrote without mentioning either his real name or the name of the article itself.
So, desist in maintaining otherwise, unless you want to be thought of by me as a troublemaking vindictive little nitwit with a faulty memory.
Btw, you surely ate some bigtime crow wrt to the TJ/Sally Hemings controversy, as it turns out. LOL!
Do note what I said that got Spudboy started:
And try not to be absurd. Jefferson was openly--and foolishly--on record as saying that armed insurrection was good for the country. While this is typical TJ nonsense, there is no question that he and others were very much concerned that they were creating a central government that could become tyrannical. The Amendments were their best shot at protecting the individual--and the 2nd Amendment was their means of ensuring that the individual could always protect himself if the government chose to ignore the constitution.
Apart from saying that TJ supported it, foolishly, where do I assert anything about the right to armed insurrection?
Now, note Spudboy's response. First, he brings up (surprise!) the anti-militia site. Why? Well, to rebut my claim that there was a right to armed insurrection. Did I make any such claim? No. Why, then, did he rebut it? So that he could cite his damned militia nonsense.
He first says, Somehow, I missed any further enumeration of an "armed insurrection" clause in the Constitution. Then goes on to note"
"...it is a much further step to say it was intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control." (from his cite)
This latter, in essence, is the position you are claiming, CalGal. I can't think of a more unlikely (and frightening) scenario.
In other words, Spuds is howling "Wolf, Wolf!!!"
The site makes the assertion that the Second Amendment is primarily for national defense. To say this is a questionable interpretation is putting it mildly. But there are those who support it. I would not dispute that this is an interpretation supported by historians, with or without his handwringing site. But to use his anti-militia site as an attempt to add weight to his argument?
That's what he bitched about, incessantly. And it was rude of you, especially since it subjected the rest of us to his complaints. I told you on at least one occasion to cut it out.
Btw, you surely ate some bigtime crow wrt to the TJ/Sally Hemings controversy, as it turns out. LOL!
What the fuck are you talking about?
And you can't possibly delude yourself that I give a damn what you think of me. Please disabuse yourself of any such nonsensical notions.
To refresh your memory, you repeatedly said that you thought it was quite likely that TJ fathered SH's youngest son. At least, you certainly went to a great deal of trouble to give that appearance in the Fray. It turns out that one of the researchers on that very research project went public that this was, in fact, extremely unlikely. I agree. It's best that you refrain from putting your foot farther into it on this one:^)
God, you're bizarre. There was evidence released that the DNA of the male Heming descendents matched that of the Jefferson descendents. This could only occur if they were related on the male side. Since the prior rebuttal to the Jefferson/Hemings claim was that Jefferson's brother in law had fathered the children--something that would not have been possible, given the evidence.
So. I did not say that Jefferson had fathered the children. I said that the evidence had switched the burden of proof to the Jefferson descendants. There were other male Jeffersons that could have fathered the children--but the official Jefferson story had to be changed.
If there is proof that the DNA evidence is wrong, I haven't seen it. Which doesn't mean anything, but I'm surprised there wasn't more of a fuss about it. Other than that, I'm not sure what the researcher's opinion would have to do with it.
None of this made any difference to you. You seemed strangely proud of your viewpoint, and bizarrely obtuse in your rejection of the countervailing evidence during the Fray Days in your quite apparent satisfaction at having found such a 'flaw' in TJ.
So, this is the Mote: a snug little home for tommie-d to carp about who "won" a debate in the old Fray.
Very exciting.
Guess what else I was right about in the Fray? Looks like everybody here has lost their stomach for talking about how great the WH Rapist is. Looks to me that that's the voter's remorse kicking in that I predicted way, way back at the beginning of Tailgate.
"Guess what else I was right about in the Fray?"
Now, now, tommie, it's way past your bedtime. We can play guessing games with you in the morning. Have a warm glass of milk and go to sleep. There's a good little boy.
Be nice!
You never did answer what your opinion was about using USA troops as guinea pigs for a new vaccine/s.
I have been one already - during my days as a medical student. I did not feel, at the time, that there was any way that I could refuse gracefully. As I have said before, all of us students volunteered (snciker!).
These soldiers, who have refused the vaccine, are now being tried at Courts Martial. Do you consider the military's position viable? Or will the grunts win in court (civilain).
Should the military lose, as a country, have we lost something valuable?
"I wonder when police are going to get to carry around some of those non-lethal weapons I see in the news so much.
My personal favorite is the sticky foam. Looks like that spray foam insulation you buy for window frames and outlets. The immobilization foam really adheres to itself. I saw a guy get sprayed with it one time, and within a short order their arms were stuck to their torso, and they couldn't move their legs."
I have a concern that this foam could possibly pose a threat of suffocation, particularly in the case of individuals who are physically constrained or unable to clear their breathing passages for other reasons.
ranheim --
Are you asking about the anthrax vaccine? Or are there other vaccines whose refusal has led to trial by court-martial?
Compared to me, the ancient imbecile, there does seem to be a lot of Liberals around. But in the interest of acuracy, let be point out that I do not consider Ace to be a Liberal except on certain social issues. I think Ronski is more conservative in fiscal matters. JJ seems to be Conservative in most issues. I could go on but I will simply end with this. I think it was janjon who gave concerned some advise to loosen him up a bit. I think you should trace that advice down and apply it to yourself. You seem to be just a little bit up tight.
This rabid buffoon appears to have taken grave offense at a Pizza Hut commercial which spoofs would be Senator Hilliary Clowntoon.
Carville said:
"Anytime I speak to a Democratic group, I'm going to urge them not to have anything to do with Pizza Hut. Anybody from a Democratic campaign that orders pizza from Pizza Hut is a traitor. If I hear of anybody doing it at the White House, I'm going to try and get them fired. Um, uh, I said that jokingly. Carville continued to foam: "Giving up Pizza Hut pizza is the culinary equivalent of giving up Brussels Sprouts for Lent. That stuff tastes like cardboard anyway."
Pizza Hut Senior Vice President Jonathan Blum advised Carville to lighten up. "This is not about politics. It's about pizza." Blum said, claiming that the commercial, in which a drawling female Senate contender touts Big New Yorker Pizza at a campaign rally "is a spoof. We did research prior to airing it, and everybody who saw it thought it was humorous."
All Carville had to say to this was: "As long as they stick their nose into politics, I'm just going negative on Pizza Hut."
1) Carville storms a NYC Pizza Hut restaurant, raving and looning about politics and pizza. This actor should be wearing just enough National Socialist Brown Shirt regalia to get the idea across about current administration tactics, and should be played by a particularly short, scrawny individual who talks like Porky Pig with a bronchial condition. Since there are probably no other individuals in the human race with facial features that are sufficiently close to Snake Carville's, computer morphing would need to be resorted to here.
Finally, after disturbing the entire clientele with his threatening behavior, the proprieter jams a slice of Big New Yorker Pizza into his mouth, upon which a marked change in 'Carville's' demeaner and actions occurs, where he decides on the spot to shut up and enjoy the pizza instead.
2) Shot from inside the restaurant; manager sees Carville character (I know, I know, that's a redundancy) as described in previous spot crossing busy street to harass employees and patrons at Pizza. Suddenly, a Mack Truck strikes the Carville actor, flattening him on the spot. Manager then turns to camera and says something on the order of: "That's the kind of sloppy road pizza that you'll never get here at Pizza Hut." Quick fade to menu selections, etc. & voiceover.
No, I did not think that you called Ace, JJ, or Ronski a liberal.
I was actually referring to your incompetence in distinguishing between different POVs that all happen to disagree with your own predictable formulaic nonsense. As in, you can't tell the difference in outlook between a Bubba, an Arky, a Cartman, and a CalGal.
My remark was--hang on to your teeth--an overstatement.
Imus called Carville the banjo player from Deliverance. Good line. Now I am about as conservative as can be and I don't cotton much to Clinton or Hitlery, but I think that Pizza Hut comercial is junk. It is political and violates election law in MO. If some company did an ad like that about Bush I think you would be outraged. There is such a thing as fair play. Now the Liberals don't seem to think so and will use any device, racism or whatever. But we have to be better than them just because we are. Remember, 2 wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do.
I don't think such a commercial 'about' GWB would bother me unduly. But somehow, I suspect that 'Quayle Lite', otherwise known as
Tobacco "No Controlling Legal Authority" Bore would probably be the frontrunner here. Hey, it wouldn't be 'Love Story', but somehow, I think Bore might settle for stuffing his cake hole with pizza on TV.
"2 wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do."
"Deteriorata." One of Nat Lamp's funniest efforts.
"2 wrongs don't make a right. But three do."
in Deteriorata.
You're very welcome.
Right you are. Or wrong, three times.
Anthrax first.
Then a comment as to whether the ban on human experimentation as outlined in the Nurnberg Trial has any force today.
ranheim --
Well, if you're talking about anthrax, then I disagree with your premise. Since the FDA approved the vaccine in 1970, I wouldn't call it "new."
As for the "ban on human experimentation" from Nuremberg --you want to elaborate? 'Cause I'm not going to guess at what you think was banned.
The federal government contracted a firm to design warning signs for the hazardous wastes they hope to bury under Yuma Mountain or other sites.
The firm produced 4 proposed signs meant to indicate a "hazard". The article had examples. They looked similar to the biohazard and radioactivity signs.
A critic of these signs arose, noting that given the half lives of some of these materials, how do we know whatever society is in place centuries from now will have any idea what these signs mean. It could just be hieroglyphics to them. They might see one and think, "oh, what a pretty picture. I wonder what's in there?"
The critic pointed out how it would make more sense to make a little 4 frame pictogram/cartoon of A) people finding a door, B) opening the door, C) "stuff" coming out or being removed, and D) everything in the picture dying.
He offered this idea at no cost to the government. Made sense to me at the time. I wonder what came of it.
When the framers wrote the constitution, they must have thought they were being crystal clear as to their intent. At the time, no doubt it was crystal clear to everyone what was meant. 200 years later, we are having these debates, and it's in our own language even.
I perceive that 200 years of private gun ownership in this country bears out how I interpret the 2nd amendment, but obviously some people don't agree.
Semantics is a really interesting topic.
JJ --
There was also a take off on "Desiderata," written from the Klingon point of view. I believe it was called "Disintegrata." You don't happen to have a link to that one too, do you?
Not sure I want to know.
FYI-tinky winky is the purple one who's 'orientation' has been called into question...
Watch out for the "po" or "dipsy" controls, though...
Don't be so quick to call that commercial unfair. Remember, we're supposed to be allowed unregulated free speech. If a company wants to make that commercial and accept the economic consequences, then we have to let them.
Also, keep in mind the tremendous disadvantage any non-Democratic candidate has. We're flooded with so called "news" shows presenting a biased view of world events, TV shows mocking reality, and magazine reportors blurring the line between news and editorials as well. Anything to combat that should be welcomed.
I guess we know who the real racist is.
Not necessarily. I'm not ready to definitely apply the term to someone who wore black-face in the 60's.
But I think it is fair to say we know who the lying scumbag is.
Disintegrata
We go back and forth between politics and here on the vaccine don't we!
I am on shaky ground when quoting from the Nurnberg Trial. I hated it at the time it was going on. As I was 10 and 11 at that time, it had to be a gut instinct for I had no deep understanding of law at that age. As an aside, what were the politics of Justice Jackson? Was he considered to be a liberal?
This is second hand from another M.D. (who are usually bad sources of information on law!) It was her position that ALL experimentation on human beings was outlawed by Nurnberg. I accepted this as the two times that I, knowingly, have had experimental vaccines there was a fairly good explanation -after we had volunteered. Our bosses in med school and our bosses in the USAF were both careful to make sure we understood that we were volunteers (isn't that a joke!). How does a medical student say no; any more than a member of the military?
That is why I get a bad taste in my mouth when I hear that these soldiers face courts martial. They refused to volunteer; therefore, the brig. Does a dis-honorable discharge result in the equivalent of a felony conviction in your 'paper trail'?
ranheim --
"As an aside, what were the politics of Justice Jackson? Was he considered to be a liberal?"
Depends on who you ask, I suppose. He was appointed by FDR; for some folks here that fact, in and of itself, qualifies him for the "liberal" label. What's more, he also argued successfully that the Nazi overlords should be put to death, which really makes him look like a liberal.
"This is second hand from another M.D.... that ALL experimentation on human beings was outlawed by Nurnberg."
I don't think so. I'd be receptive to a cite on that, though.
"Does a dis-honorable discharge result in the equivalent of a felony conviction in your 'paper trail'?"
Theoretically, yes, though surprisingly few employers know to ask, and fewer still bother to check.
My favorite story about the supposedly life-long stigma of a punitive discharge comes from my Air Force days on Okinawa, where we had to fire one of our civilian employees who lied about receiving an honorable discharge. In fact, she'd been court-martialed -- by the Air Force -- and gotten a bad-conduct discharge. We never checked our own records.
Correction: we never checked our records prior to hiring her. We sure took a look after one of the witnesses against her expressed surprise that an NCO court-martialed for stealing from the government had gotten a civilian job handling government funds.
I was trying to parse this and had a little trouble. Under most circumstances liberals oppose the death penalty even in the most egregious cases. If you are saying that by seeking it against the Nazis, Jackson was guilty of hipocrisy and bowing to expediency, then I would have to agree he was acting as a modern liberal would. Thank you for pointing that out.
What'd she do after not being hired? Go into politics?
JJ --
"Under most circumstances liberals oppose the death penalty even in the most egregious cases."
"Under most circumstances."
Better luck next time.
Judith --
No, no, she did get hired -- that's why we had to fire her, rather than simply laughing at her application and using it to line the birdcage. I have no idea where she went after she got canned.
Sorry, I misread part of your remarks. Can only plead bad visit to the dentist. I am pain and it has fuzzed my comprehension.
I Am Pain. (bwahahahaahahhaha.)
You wouldn't believe what I went through.... that was pain.
Are you saying that most liberals favor the death penalty? If you are this is news to me.
So which is it? Or are you guilty of hypocrisy yourself -- criticizing your opponents for following a course you seem at other times to recommend?
And I'm wondering if conservatives who likewise fail to adhere rigorously to the "conservative agenda" are guilty of hypocrisy.
JJ --
The exception in your argument -- "under most circumstances" -- is so big the whole Wehrmacht could march through it.
Better luck next time.
She also claims to have "no evidence" that he was bisexual.
What a relief!
Better luck next time.
If that wasn't so trite, it could be taken as being condescending.
That's sorta been my point about Politicians who win an office and assume they have 100% endorsement of their platform. Far from the case.
I am for private gun ownership, and pro self-defense... but then I do a 180 on the death penalty.
I know some murder cases are pretty cut and dried, but there seem to be people who are regularly released because it's later found that they were innocent all along. I attribute it to the occasion for police to be so sure they have there man, that they ignore other leads.
I saw something on 20/20 about a HS kid who was identified by a witness as the gunman in a NY murder case. The police paraded him around the crime scene, where other witnesses only remember him being in cuffs, but then later fingered him in court.
As it turned out, almost at the same time as the murder (the time of the shooting they had well established), this kid had been stopped by subway security over a half mile from the scene.
Because the police failed to do thier job, because they were so certain of who they had, they didn't follow up on any of the other leads.
That's pretty scary... so I don't know if I can endorse the death penalty. There is also the matter that the death penalty doesn't bring someone back. I prefer life terms - which could be worse anyhow.
I still believe in self-defense though... when it's do or die... you have no choice.
They should put these boys away for a long, long time.
JJ --
"Advocating the death penalty is not something I associate with liberals."
Ah, if only the world were as simple as the "associations" you've drawn to help you understand it.
There's no need to apologize for your ignorance, JJ: we've already forgiven you. Just try not to display it so aggressively, okay?
And ... better luck next time.
More from the Protect and Serve department...
L.A. Shooting Within "Policy"
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The police shooting of a mentally ill homeless woman did not violate department policy, although the officer used faulty tactics, Chief Bernard Parks has reportedly determined.
The decision, reported by the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, was met with outrage from Leo Terrell, a lawyer for the woman's family. He said Parks ``should quit right now.''
The Times, citing sources it did not identify, said Parks disapproved of Officer Edward Larrigan's tactics. But he determined the May 21 shooting of Margaret Mitchell, after she allegedly lunged at officers with a screwdriver, was within Los Angeles Police Department guidelines.
A Police Department spokeswoman confirmed Parks made a recommendation to the Police Commission based on a report from his department's use-of-force review board, but she declined to reveal it.
According to the Times, Parks' findings are enough for Larrigan to face some sort of discipline if the Police Commission agrees with them.
The shooting sparked protests over allegations of excessive force and caused critics to question why the 54-year-old, 5-foot-1-inch, 102-pound woman wasn't subdued by nonlethal means.
AP-NY-10-27-99 2302EDT
Hmmm ... I wonder how many people I can offend with these?
Q: What was the longest hole-in-one in pro golf history?
A: Payne Stewart, 1,479 nautical miles
Q: What were Payne Stewart's last words?
A: Hey, what does this latch do?
Q: Where can you find Payne Stewart's new line of clothing?
A: All over South Dakota.
Q: What did St. Peter say to the Grim Reaper?
A: No, you stupid git, I said Martha Stewart!
Cal --
Mrs Shark thought so, too. Then she hit me for telling such tasteless jokes.
For a girl, she hits pretty hard.
Now that was funny. Better than the Payne Stewart jokes.
Trial:
Those jokes are lame, like all airplane crash jokes. At least they're sort of new, unlike the enlessly recycled "one blue this way, one blue that way" jokes.
Off topic, but here's a funny joke from Jay Leno:
Bill Bradley is soooooo boring that his Secret Service codename is "Al Gore."
I just spoke to my son. He is involved in the formation of NEW vaccines; has not recently paid too much attention to current vaccines.
This is his reading of the subject.
If one can make a vaccine using only antigen, that is preferable. Problems can arise when one starts adding other 'things' to the mixture.
The fuss in the Gulf War vaccine was about adjuvants. There are some antigens that are not powerful enough, on their own, to create enough of a responce by our immune systems. When this occurs, and it did with one of the vaccinces used in the Gulf War, you add an adjuvant.
The purpose of the adjuvant is to make the body's immune system react to the antigen in a stronger fashion than had the antigen been given on its own. Just about the only one used in the USA is alum. It has been used in multiple vaccines for 30 or 40 years. It is safe. Some people claim that aluminum may have an effect on brain cells in Alzheimers patients; but, that is an entire seperate story.
For whatever reason the Defence Dept used squalene in one of the Gulf War vaccines. The DoD can get away with this SO LONG AS THE VACCINE DOES NOT GET INTO THE CIVILIAN MARKET! If squalene were to be used in a civilian vaccine, the antigen AND squalene would have to be proven safe to the FDA. And that would double the cost and time needed to approve said vaccine.
It seems likely, then, that this squabble may be about the adjuvant squalene. Not the antigen.
Can you address Judith's comment. You know that I don't like using subjects as the military does - UNLESS they are volunteers.
Is there some lessor punishment than courts martial for a grunt who does not want to be immunized?
It's a question of readiness.
Are we prepared to allow "grunts" or "legs" to opt out of basic training because they might be injured or subjected to hazing?
There is simply no evidence supporting a contention that the anthrax vaccine is irrevocably harmful.
What impact did the recent gun control debate in here have on your official positions? Did it strengthen your resolve? Lighten your resolve? Made you indifferent. Change your mind, and if so, which way?
I've addressed Judith's comment before. The anthrax vaccine that's causing all the fuss was approved by the FDA in 1970.
As to your question -- "Is there some lessor punishment than courts martial for a grunt who does not want to be immunized?" -- the procedure for active duty folks, as I understand it, has been to order them to take the shot; if they refuse, to offer them non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and then give them another order to take the shot; and if they decline, prefer court-martial charges under Article 90, 91, or 92, UCMJ.
A number of servicemembers have requested administrative discharge in lieu of trial, and I'm anecdotally aware of some requests that have been granted. I couldn't give you a statistical breakdown on how many cases result in administrative discharge versus how many wind up going to trial. There are three categories of administrative discharge: Honorable, General Under Honorable Conditions (usually referred to as a "general discharge"), and Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (commonly referred to as a "UOTHC discharge). A person who is granted discharge in lieu of trial usually receives a UOTHC discharge. Again, I don't have any statistics on how often this happens in anthrax cases.
continued ...
If the member elects to go to trial and is convicted, the maximum penalty depends on the UCMJ article he's charged with violating and the type of court: a summary court-martial can impose no more than 30 days' confinement and no discharge (though they're usually followed by administrative discharges). A special court-martial can imposed no more than a bad-conduct discharge and six months' confinement, along with other ancillary punishments like loss of rank and pay. A general court-martial can impose any punishment allowed by law: if the member is convicted of violating Article 90, for example, he could theoretically receive a dishonorable discharge and up to five years' confinement. Note, though, that courts-martial almost always have the option of imposing any lesser punishment, including no punishment at all, even if the accused is convicted.
You must have seen every episode of "JAG."
That was funny...
I hope TrialShark realizes I was being facetious. I couldn't resist.
I wouldn't know about JAG being funny because I've never watched it.
I'm sure TrialShark recognized the natire of your post...he has a well-developed sense of humor.
I wouldn't know about JAG being funny because I've never watched it.
I'm sure TrialShark recognized the nature of your post...he has a well-developed sense of humor.
cazart --
"You must have seen every episode of 'JAG.'"
Seen them, hell. I wrote 'em.
Nice going, Spudboy.
Your post is, though.
Two can play that game, of course.
109109: Why can't we make all crimes the saaame? Why aren't rich people protected by hate crimes? (snivel, whine)
AceWipe: How come no other crimes depend on motivaaation? I don't believe the FBI's definition of terrorism. (pout) Cite me some reeeeal code! (mewl, whimper)
CalGal: Oooh, I just haaate it when you start talking about militias! Why don't you talk about something eeeeelse? Everything's just six degrees from militias -- even subjects that are only one degreeeee! (bleat, whimper)
Gee, I never knew cheap shots could be such fun. Beats debating.
Far worse, your bitterness is interfering with the already limited capacity you have for scathing mockery. If that's the best you can do, I suggest you stick to wounded dignity and a tone of bewildered hurt.
Are you new to online discussion forums in general? Almost nobody's mind gets changed on topics like this, by these sorts of discussions. And even fewer minds change that quickly.
Your pathetic attempt to claim that I was trying to bring the Patriot movement into the conversation is just patently silly. I was doing no such thing. But even more revealing was the fact that you shut down on what I thought was an interesting conversation simply because I used a source that was obviously related to the subject. I continued to research the question on my own, and came to the conclusion that you were right and I was wrong.
But then, we never got to that point, did we?
Incidentally, whatever gave you the impression that anyone here gives a rusty fuck whether you are "irritated" by our posts? Talk about a self-absorbed egoist. I find about half the scatterbrained nonsense you post here to be highly irritating, but hey, that's your gig.
Before you take this any further, do keep in mind that the reason I got so exasperated is because you invented an argument that you attributed to me--just to bring in the militia. Now, it is entirely possible, I suppose, that you didn't invent the argument, that you could possibly read my statement--which clearly specified the individual--as a support for armed insurrection, when instead I pointed out that Jefferson said it and that it was idiotic of him.
But the second would mean you were stupid. The first would just mean that your, er, dedication, your zeal, your fervor on behalf of the anti-militia movement causes you to be a tad disingenuous in debates that are too tantalizingly close to your pet baby project for you to ignore temptation.
I don't think you're stupid, so instead I periodically tell you to knock it off, because you damage your cause far more than you help it when you pull such nonsense.
Whatever gave you the impression that I care about anyone else's sex life or how much of it they're willing to give up for the knowledge of my emotional state one way or the other?
Really, Spud, I'm glad the Post printed your letter. I hope it makes you feel better.
It *is* incredibly annoying to be accused of whining when you're attempting to be rational instead of angry. I mean, I could just go off, I suppose. At least then you wouldn't mistake the tone I intend.
I'd really rather try to make this all rational. If you keep accusing me of hand-wringing and whining, though, it'll get nasty in a hurry.
I dove into coverage of the Patriot story in large part because I thought many of their opponents *were* whiners who liked to overhype the problem. I intended my book and other work to demystify the problem. I've tried in all my work (and my posts here) to be rational and straightforward.
So to be accused of hand-wringing, by someone I thought knew better, is enough to set me off. (I can blow it off when it's an idiot like AceFace, since he turns to the ad hominem when logic fails with predictable regularity.) I try to contain it, but I do have a temper.
Now, are you interested in what I dug up WRT the Second Amendment and armed resistance? (Be forewarned: I consulted a fellow militia researcher.)
What do you think of the Susan Faludi book, Stiffed.
I haven't read the book, but it seems that she draws some connections between changing norms of masculinity (she attributes them to the class structure and commercialism) and the militia movements (in some part of the substantial tome, at least). It sounds like an interesting argument.
Also, have you seen Fight Club? The gratuitous violence aside, its portrayal of masculinity, gender relations and political organization were thought provoking, if nothing more. The whole time that I was watching this thing, I was thinking about it as an attempt to reconstruct masculinity.
I haven't read Faludi's book yet; just the piece we ran at MSNBC. So I can't honestly or accurately assess what she wrote regarding the militias.
However, I can tell you that the vast majority of men (and women) drawn to the movement are devoted primarily to restoring "traditional" values, and the role of men is certainly at the heart of that. Believers see themselves as essentially heroic, out to rescue a decaying American society. Without fail, this entails restoring men (white Christian men especially) to their spot atop the social heap.
This extends into political and religious arenas as well. Christian Identity, the belief system underlying much of the movement, is quite critical of mainstream Christianity, referring to it as "feminized" Christianity. I think that ties in directly with Faludi's thesis.
I haven't seen Fight Club yet. (Shit, I just got around to seeing Arlington Road.) What's the central idea?
Fight Club is about a random guy who works in a dreary job, making cost benefit analyses of auto accidents - will the potential legal liability of putting the gas tank in a slightly dangerous position * the number of potential explosions be > the decreased cost of the placement. He is an insomniac and is only able to function by attending self help meetings for people with substantial life threatening maladies (mostly cancer and tuberculosis). Basically, he meets this "friend," who cajoles him into a fight, just for the fun of it. They get into a fight and it appears to make them feel more comfortable - more manly - like they have some control over their lives. They start meeting in parking lots and bringing friends who just beat the shit out of each other for its bonding effects. Eventually a whole underground scene develops, it develops into an active political force, and craziness ensues.
There was a bit too much violence for my admittedly meager tastes, but it was still very entertaining.
How do the militia movements feel about Capitalism? It seems like it would be difficult to endorse the type of traditionalism that you are referring to and support any type of modern capitalism (women contracting, etc.).
Do you think that there is a relationship between the end of the cold war and rise of the militia movements? The elimination of the type of masculinity embodied by Reagan - the "cold warrior" - seemed to leave many men searching for a villified "other" to define as the antithesis of themselves.
The more mainstream Patriots pay plenty of lip service to capitalism, but they vociferously oppose free trade and are obviously not keen on certain postindustrial developments like the ascent of women in the workplace. As you diver further into the movement, though, there are even more strident notions about capitalism, particularly banking. Identity believers --especially the Freemen and Phineas Priesthood types -- rail endlessly about "usury" (loans) as a mortal sin. At the root of all this, of course, are those nasty Jewish "international bankers."
I think the relationship between militias and the end of the Cold War has been remarked on at length. As I say, they see themselves as essentially heroic. Central to the hero-creating dynamic is the process of naming an enemy. It doesn't hurt that the Birch types and others on the extreme right have contended for years that the U.S. government and the United Nations are riddled with closeted Communists. When the Iron Curtain came down, they had already positioned themselves to move forward with a fresh "hidden enemy." And then Bush handed them that nice little phrase: the "New World Order."
I'm basically new to forums, except for random posts on fray a while ago.
I realize that opinions don't change overnight... especially ones that have such deep seeded emotions attached to them.
Also, I don't expect to change the minds of those who actually challenge mine... because they're often the ones who feel the absolute strongest about something... no matter how good my answers were to all their challenges.
My question was to lurkers and all...
I'm all for world peace... but I have to admit I view with some suspicion the motives of those who'd subject the citizens of the US to defaco rule by the UN.
I don't mean out and out handing over the reigns to this country and having them write our laws, but I do mean erroding our overall security by coercing us into agreements that are to the detriment of this country.
Bush et fils are more than a little bit frightening.
Of course, having a CIA chief actually run the country is, asthey say "cost effective."
Nothing happened! How can this be their top story?
This is not news, it is sensationalized crap.
Not only that... they planned to obtain illegally modified weapons (sawed off shotguns) from illegal source (street gang).
So, someone tell me how registering weapons, registering handguns and semiautomatic rifles, and additional proposed gun control would be a a mechanism to stop this kind of thing?
I'm glad the police were able to intervene, hats off to them and whoever was involved in blowing these nutcases' cover.
I hope these nuts don't get released from prison or juvi in a year because someone feels guilty on how they had such a disadvataged childhood.
What if the weapon were traced to one that was stolen? This is how a lot of weapons enter the illegal trade.
I don't think self respecting murderers are going to use registered weapons with their name attached to them.
Is Reno refusing to procecute just so crime statistics will remain high, and thereby lend weight to her contention that guns should be 'banned'...
Both she and Gore use "Banned" way to much to just think they mean gun-control.
The police have many tools available to them for enforcing the law. If they want the big fish... they can set up a sting and go after the big fish...
For some reason they avoid procecuting any of the current laws... why not?
This is bullshit, pure and simple. Northern District of Virginia has an agressive campaign against gun use- Exile project. GWB is pushing for its adoption in Texas, as are other states. Gun enhancements are de riguer for drug charges in my district.
Please provide proof that majority of murders are crimes of passion.
Then, provide proof that registering firearms will prevent crimes of passion by other means (baseball bat, vehicular homicide, gas and a match, poison etc.).
Also note, that when you buy a gun already, they keep a record of the FBI background check for 20 years... which should be sufficient for tracing who was the original purchaser... we can already reconstruct the purchase chain.
I'd be much more comfortable with that kind of database.
Here is a way around it. Criminal takes weapon to firing range. While there, criminal collects casings from other peoples' weapons of same caliber. Criminal deposits casings at crime scene and carfully removes his own casings if he can find them. Even then, you still have multiple casings at the crime scene.
But your proposal is a more reasonable possibility to me.
This is bullshit, pure and simple. Northern District of Virginia has an agressive campaign against gun use- Exile project. GWB is pushing for its adoption in Texas, as are other states. Gun enhancements are de riguer for drug charges in my district.
Is balistics forensics sophisticated enough to match a bullet that has deformed in it's victim (assuming they're using hollowpoints, which is reasonalble) to the casing? That's great if they are, I know there have been great strides.
If you have a casing from a 9mm that is identical in brand and caliber... I'm not sure they could tell the difference. Maybe they can.
Also... murder weapon might be a revolver, which doesn't deposit casings on the ground.
I will support any measure that does not compromise either of these rights. Your proposal I think tends to preserve my individual rights, and therefore, I would be willing to explore the concept.
And thanks to Clinton and Starr --not to mntion the internet -- the rest of you can forget about privacy as well.
In the real world, privacy is nothing more, and nothing less, than a myth.
Keep in mind one of my best friends used a gun to stand-off her _now_ ex-husband when he attacked her.
Another problem is the myriad of different bullets. Your database would have to include every brand of bullet. Some ballistics go for slow heavy bullets, and some light fast bullets. There are even bullets that completely disitigrate upon hitting a body such as Glazer safety slugs (they get the "safety" because they won't ricochet or pass through walls).
There is also the matter of people who reload their own bullets.
I think it could get quite confusing, and the useful information in the database would be limited to the imprint of the firing pin
2175. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:47:51 PM
I'm not arguing that firearms aren't an easier way to accomplish a murder. Still, registration isn't going to prevent one.
We are getting or logic mixed skewed a bit by trying to discuss the issues of issues of prevention, privacy, and investigation in the same breath.
Prevention - registration won't prevent murder.
Privacy - registration violates 2 constitutional rights.
Investigation - open to discussion, I like your idea of a closed database of bullets matched to individual firearms, and am only trying to help you look for potential holes in it. I don't disagree with it in concept.
2176. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:48:10 PM
Lets try again stats
2177. ranheim - 10/29/1999 12:49:58 PM
JonesAtLaw
In #2151 you mentioned "narcs".
The police that I have known to be narcs are just as low life as the users they are sent to catch. To use an old expression "I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them".
2178. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 12:51:35 PM
Bubbaette, if bullets weren't so easy to manufacture from scratch.. I might agree.
Simple firearms, for that matter, aren't all that hard either with the right machining equipment.
2179. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/1999 12:51:53 PM
iibbb- trust me on this, unless you want to clutter the thread with details of criminalistics that would put the OJ jury to sleep. The striations are the key, and they don't depend on manufacture, reloading etc. The only thing that would be a problem is disintigrating rounds, explosive bullets and fleschette rounds, and these only if there is no cladding or none that survives. I would ban these, save for the glaser rounds, which have a pretty tough jacket which tends to survive.
2180. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:08:22 PM
Jones... that looks like it has some good stats... several of them corroborate the pro-gun sites I've posted here.
Ok, the problem, Suicides, Homicides, Accidents
- Suicides- I don't think are preventable, I don't want to be calous, but if they mean to kill themselves they will find a way.
- Accidents- Education, and I don't mean to be calous, but it's darwinism
- Homicides- Accross the board procection and harsh punishment. Homicide prevention is the key... how do we accomplish it? We need to address the problem of why do people use violence. I admit, guns are an easier way to kill, but other weapons are available to assailents.
How do we address the fundamental problem of why people resort to murder. I want to see society address this element first. I want to see it addressed with the same passion that they attack guns... Why do people escalate confilcts to the point of murder? Why do children feel the _need_ to carry a gun to school?
I looked at the 5:1 risk of sucide for firearm owners... I think it's not a higher risk of sucide attempts... just a higher success rate... I object to the 'risk' language.
I want more fundamental questions to be answered about violence in this society. I want more diligent efforts to prosecute violence in this society.
2181. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:16:58 PM
RE: 2179. JonesAtLaw - 10/29/99 4:51:53 PM
iibbb- trust me on this, unless you want to clutter the thread with details of criminalistics
This is still interesting to me Jones.. I'm sorry if it's boring others... I'm actually learning something from you.
I don't think I'd necessarily object to certain types of bullets being banned such as "fleschette". I'm satisfied Glasers and holopoints have sufficient stopping power to achieve what a self-defender requires...
Armor piercing, not sure, haven't thought enough about it... they're only less likely to deform with their steel core. I don't think they're any more deadly... and if most crimes are of passion... then armor piercing is kinda irrelevent anyhow.
Teflon coated bullets? I'm not sure, because the main point of the teflon is to protect the gun's barrel, not to increase penetration.
2182. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:17:41 PM
I gotta hit the road though... thanks for the chat... I'll be on and off irregularly until Sunday night.
Thanks...
2183. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 1:19:22 PM
iiibbb:
That's all fine and good but not likely to happen overnight. Meanwhile, gun owners continue to leave loaded guns around for their curious kids to blow their brains...and those of their friends...out with and we all just shake our collective heads and listen to people mutter "Guns don't kill people".
2184. DaveM - 10/29/1999 1:19:39 PM
Suicides and guns -
Gun owners are probably more likely to commit suicide because people with mental disabilities are more likely to want guns (for security, of course).
Darwinism? Wow.
2185. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:21:32 PM
Judith... I abhore irresponsible gun ownership... there is no excuse for it. It isn't right. Those responsible are criminals.
I don't think it is a good enough reason to take my constitutional right.
We need to address safety and violence... but banning guns is the lazy cop out to these social issues.
2186. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 1:21:38 PM
DaveM:
Well said.
2187. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 1:24:14 PM
iiibbb:
I am a responsible person; I raise my child to be respomnsible; he visits a home where someone who is less responsible lives; my child is shot by the idiot child of the less responsible person. Do you think I give one whit about constitutional rights?
2188. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:24:18 PM
Dave M... that comment may be a little unfair to the sane ones like me...
I also don't think mentally unstable people should have guns... a criminal record is a good indicator of someones propensity for violence and should be a disqualifier to owning a gun.
2189. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:26:12 PM
Judith... I would hope that you would since there are a number of constiturional rights I'm sure you hold dear, but I may not give a hoot about.
The rights are for all of us.
It is your responsibility as a parent to know where your children are and the type of people they associate with.
2190. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 1:28:27 PM
iiibbb:
You obviously don't have a teenager....
2191. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:29:39 PM
I've been one though... and my mom knew what I was up to.
2192. LadyChaos - 10/29/1999 1:30:04 PM
FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE D.C. AREA
PROTEST IN WASHINGTON: Oppose Drug War Militarization in
Colombia, Rally Outside Drug Czars of the Americas
Conference Next Week
Thursday, November 4, at the Western Hemisphere Drug Czars
Conference, Woodley Park, 5:30pm
Help us stop the US from exporting its failed drug war to
Latin America! On November 3-5, "Drug Czar" General Barry
McCaffrey will host the Western Hemisphere Drug Czars
Conference to further this agenda. McCaffrey is currently
lobbying Congress to send billions of dollars to Colombia
for anti-drug aid to be used by the Colombian military,
which has a notorious record for human rights abuses. As
part of a larger effort to respond to this conference, on
November 4th hundreds of concerned citizens will protest at
a park adjacent to the Omni-Shoreham Hotel, where the drug
czars conference is taking place. THIS IS A MAJOR EVENT
INVOLVING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, SO PLEASE
COME OUT IF CAN TO "JUST SAY NO" TO DRUG WAR VIOLENCE.
Visit http://www.stopthedrugwar.org for further information,
flyers to download and distribute, embarrassing exposes of
Drug Czar McCaffrey's disinformational antics and more!
Forward this alert to your contacts in the Washington area,
or just tell them to go to http://www.stopthedrugwar.org to
find out where and when.
DETAILS
When: November 4, 1999, 5:30 - 7:00 pm
Where: Corner of Calvert Street & Connecticut Ave., NW,
Washington, DC -- adjacent to the Omni-Shoreham Hotel, half-
block south of the Woodley Park Metro, Red Line
2193. LadyChaos - 10/29/1999 1:30:27 PM
cont'd
The Protest Includes:
-- Speakers in English & Spanish
-- Candlelight Vigil
-- Street Theatre
-- Press & Information Booths
-- Hot Coffee and Snacks
Themes:
-- Stop the Drug War
-- Stop Drug War Violence
-- Paren la Guerra Contra las Drogas
-- No Vietnam in Colombia
-- Drug War: A Bad Export
-- Don't Export Drug Violence
-- McCzar: Billions of Lies Served
-- Drug Education, Not Incarceration
-- Czars Sellout Human Rights
-- Drug War Harms Environment
Signs will be available to protestors who arrive early.
Please feel free to make your own signs.
Special Requests:
Dress conservatively and warmly.
Remember this protest is about opposing the War on Drugs and
its exportation to Latin America. Please do not bring other
issues into protest.
What You Can Do:
--ATTEND THE PROTEST
-- Please post this message or similar announcement to your
organization's e-mail list or membership list.
-- Forward this message to others who may be interested.
-- Promote the protest on your website.
-- Print out the protest flyer from the PDF file available
at http://www.stopthedrugwar.org and distribute it to
churches, schools, etc. -- or contact us and we will mail
flyers to you.
-- Make PERSONAL PHONE CALLS to encourage others to attend
-- Contact us with suggestions
Contact: Chad Thevenot, (202) 312-2015 or David Guard,
(202) 682-4776, cjpf@igc.org
2194. iiibbb - 10/29/1999 1:31:13 PM
and I was taught enough sense, that when my peers were doing something pretty stupid... I knew enough to steer clear of it...
2195. DaveM - 10/29/1999 1:34:50 PM
LadyChaos:
I think we go to the same school (Hoya?). My e-mail is dtm@bulldog...
iiibbb:
Even the rich have the right to sleep under bridges.
2196. LadyChaos - 10/29/1999 1:41:44 PM
Dave,
No, I am not attending Georgia. Never did.
2197. DaveM - 10/29/1999 1:45:04 PM
LadyChaos -
Georgia is the Hoyas? I live in Gewirz.
2198. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 1:49:39 PM
iiibbb:
You were a good son and your mother should be proud. My son is a good man, also, but I am thankful he is grown and not a teenager today.
I imagine the parents of the kids who were at the church here in my town (where the latest shooting took place) felt relatively safe...they knew where their kids were and ended up attending their funerals, anyhow.
2199. JJBiener - 10/29/1999 2:05:07 PM
Judith - You can freedom or you can have security. You can't have one without sacrificing the other. Personally, I prefer freedom, but your opinion may be different.
2200. CalGal - 10/29/1999 2:06:22 PM
Gun owners are probably more likely to commit suicide because people with mental disabilities are more likely to want guns (for security, of course).
No, I believe the leading profile for suicide by handgun is a man in his 50s or 60s, reasonably well off, and no history of mental illness. While one can argue that suicide is a sign of mental illness, it certainly isn't the type of mental disability you seem to be implying.
The average schizo or bipolar dude isn't buying guns to off himself.
2201. JJBiener - 10/29/1999 2:07:08 PM
Judith - I do have a teenager and I know where she is and what she is doing and who she is with. I will grant you she is most likely the exception and not the rule, but it is possible with the right kid.
2202. LadyChaos - 10/29/1999 2:08:00 PM
Dave,
No, sorry, I mean Georgetown. I never went there, either. I am attending UM Law in Miami.
2203. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 2:12:56 PM
iiibb: About #2140...
You don't think "new world order" is even a little bit frightening?
Not really. It's more grandiose and self-serving than anything else. Bush's vision was essentially for worldwide democracy, led by the sole superpower, the United States.
I'm all for world peace... but I have to admit I view with some suspicion the motives of those who'd subject the citizens of the US to defaco rule by the UN.
Well, this is nonsense. The United Nations is so dominated by the United States that it's essentially become an American operation. Why do you think Annan is now the Secretary-General and not Boutrous-Gali? And every arrangement we have with the U.N. explicitly spells out the primacy of American national sovereignty. The alleged danger of putting the U.S. under U.N. rule is groundless fear-mongering of the kind that has emanated from the Birch Society since the 1950s. In reality, it's the other way around -- the U.N. is under U.S. rule.
I don't mean out and out handing over the reigns to this country and having them write our laws, but I do mean erroding our overall security by coercing us into agreements that are to the detriment of this country.
Which agreements are those? The biodiversity agreement? How is that a detriment to this country?
2204. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 2:13:35 PM
JJ:
Well, you might think we have freedom but I'm not so sure. And congratulations on your child but my point is that even when you KNOW where she is and who she is with, she's not exactly safe. There is no possible way to know who your child comes in contact with every minute. Not today.
I was riding in a car with 3 other ladies the other day and I've known these women for some time and been to their homes and feel I know them. The one driving mentioned how "safe" we were because she had her gun with her. Another woman piped up that she did, too. I didn't feel "safe" at all....
2205. JJBiener - 10/29/1999 2:22:05 PM
Judith - Well, you might think we have freedom but I'm not so sure.
I am not so sure either. I am just reluctant to sacrifice even more of my freedom in the name of increased security.
And congratulations on your child but my point is that even when you KNOW where she is and who she is with, she's not exactly safe.
I understand that and accept that. I do all that I can reasonably do to protect her, but I know that everything has risk associated with it. Just as I wouldn't allow her to take unnecessary risks, I am not going to isolate her from life in an attempt to remove all risk. Risk is a part of life.
2206. DaveM - 10/29/1999 2:27:39 PM
LadyChaos -
Oops. Sorry about that - I guess my memory is fading.
JJBeiner:
You can freedom or you can have security. You can't have one without sacrificing the other. Personally, I prefer freedom, but your opinion may be different.
This is ridiculous - you also can't have one without the other. Without security, one can't act without fear of incommensurate penalization. Without freedom, one can't be secure in their position in life. This is a false dichotomy if I have ever heard one. Freedom and security are NOT zero sum.
2207. DaveM - 10/29/1999 2:28:28 PM
oops - reverse the italics in that last post.
2208. DocBrown - 10/29/1999 2:30:42 PM
If any of you cares, MSNBC has revised their headline. It now says: Talk of Massacre Shuts School.
That's all we had here, some kids who talked about obtaining sawed off shotguns and talked about shooting up their school.
No one has been charged with any crimes here. They never even got their hands on any real guns.
I am glad the authorities are taking this seriously. But MSNBC's insistance on putting this on the front page and sprinkling it with the word "massacre" (they have removed the word "bloodbath" from the revised text) still makes me shake my head in sadness.
You may now resume your gun control rantings.
2209. JJBiener - 10/29/1999 2:39:04 PM
DaveM - you also can't have one without the other.
Of course you can.
Without security, one can't act without fear of incommensurate penalization.
Of course you can. One only lives in fear if they choose to. If one is free to interact with whoever and however one chooses, one can choose wisely and risk little.
Without freedom, one can't be secure in their position in life.
People in the USSR lived for years without freedom but with security guaranteed by the state.
You are providing a false correlation. You may prefer security and believe it is necessarily tied to freedom, but it isn't true.
2210. PelleNilsson - 10/29/1999 3:42:14 PM
iiibbb
Message # 2140
I view with some suspicion the motives of those who'd subject the citizens of the US to defacto rule by the UN [.... by] eroding our overall security by coercing us into agreements that are to the detriment of this country.
Who are "those"? And which are "the agreements".
Message # 2144
I tend to think the CIA is just a teansie less sinister than those in the U.N. with aspirations of it being a world government.
Again, who are "those". Names please.
Do you really think there is a sinister plot out there?
2211. JudithAtHome - 10/29/1999 5:13:47 PM
I'd fear the CIA before I worried about the UN swooping in and taking over.
2212. PelleNilsson - 10/29/1999 5:26:39 PM
An invitation to Political Ideas:
What is Freedom?
2213. JJBiener - 10/29/1999 6:38:04 PM
Pelle - What is Freedom?
Isn't that what Grace Slick called her kid?
2214. robertjayb - 10/29/1999 6:57:56 PM
.
Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose...
2215. DaveM - 10/29/1999 7:04:18 PM
JJBiener - A response in Political Ideas
2216. arkymalarky - 10/29/1999 7:48:39 PM
One of my many anecdotes wrt children and gun safety follows. In short, JJ is right, there is risk to be had in living and I've already said I support the Second Amendment with some common sense regulations.
The anecdote involves good kids at a gathering with adults--no alcohol or drugs, just friends socializing together. A teenage girl was talking on the phone to her parents and a rifle in the room accidently went off, killing her. I don't remember if someone was messing with it or what, but there were no charges filed. It was a terrible accident. I don't think the incident supports a need for a change in gun laws, but it's important to remember that a lot of gun deaths are accidents. They happen in the woods every single hunting season here in AR, and it's not always irresponsible people who are guilty, but sometimes those who have a moment's lapse of thought, etc. In contrast, one of my best friends in high school lost her brother when the other brother accidently shot and killed him with their father's gun, which was lying around a house full of kids, loaded. The man was a city policeman in a small town. IMO, there should have been a liability, whereas in the other case, I don't think there should have been. I also don't think the friend of mine who shot and shattered his son's arm (thankfully not to the point of requiring amputation) during a hunting accident should have been charged with negligence, though obviously he made some sort of terrible misjudgment for that to have happened.
WRT the mentally ill, I don't think they should automatically be denied gun ownership. It depends on the nature of the illness.
In all of the many gun incidents I'm personally familiar with, including the suicide of a good high school friend's father, the large majority were accidents or involved people who knew eachother well.
2217. MizPhys - 10/29/1999 8:38:42 PM
Earlier today I was browsing the Web during my lunch period (I teach high school). I read the article on MSNBC about the Cleveland non-massacre, and a related article on the signs of danger in potentially violent youths. When my next period class came in, one boy read what was on the monitor--the warning signs, and declared that he fit almost all of the criteria. He asked me to print them out and I did so. He went through the list and checked off all but 3: cruelty to animals, prior suspensions from school, and gang association (he is no longer in a gang.) I questioned him about this a bit, particularly the one about having brought a weapon to school in the past (He'd brought a knife "for protection"). After class, I talked to his grade-level counselor, who told me that she had talked to him extensively after Columbine because his name kept coming up as someone who had great potential for violence. Apparently he has suffered abuse and neglect at home, and has real "issues." I really don't fear this kid, but I sure as hell fear FOR him. As he said after he went through the list is that "This list is missing one point--do you know right from wrong. I do."
2218. arkymalarky - 10/29/1999 8:46:22 PM
I often think, MsPhyz, that schools are only one student away from a similar incident to Columbine or Jacksonville, and I think about kids I've had in the past (none come to mind as a concern now, but you never know) that I think were capable of doing great harm to other people. What prevented it from happening, I don't know.
2219. MizPhys - 10/29/1999 9:34:16 PM
Maybe you're right, Arky, but I don't want to live in fear and I don't want to view the children in my care as potential mass murderers. The more we display that attitude the more likely tragedy is to occur. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
2220. arkymalarky - 10/29/1999 9:49:15 PM
I didn't make my post clear at all, but I agree. I've never been afraid for a minute on my job, and I've been at it 19 years. The point is that there have always been unstable kids (and people in general, of course), some with the potential to do horrible things, and we try to help them as part of our job; but when someone does manage to commit a heinous act in a school, it's not at all necessarily a reflection on the security, school, staff, student body, or community.
2221. Gram2 - 10/29/1999 10:41:25 PM
2209. JJBiener - You mentioned Russians having security without freedom. It was my privilege to become acquainted with several Russian immigrants who had been brought to our city by an organization that sponsored their immigration. Actually this was before the Soviet Union was broken up. They had to turn over all their possessions except clothing and a small amount of money to the government before they were allowed to leave. They were all professional people, engineers, doctors, professors, spoke surprisingly good English and were fascinated by the equipment and everyday articles that we take for granted.
They had a very difficult time understanding what actual freedom meant and when we explained that they had the freedom to choose, within the framework of the law and their own capabilities, their own occupations, where they would live and work, which church they chose to attend, which political affiliations they chose to join, and so on, this was a very threatening concept to them. In the Soviet they were assigned jobs, housing, few were allowed to buy cars, they did not dare to be caught speaking out against their government. Their lives were regimented from birth and advancement depended mostly on their parentage and affliation with the government. They complained that there were too many choices that had to be made here and that we allowed our children to make too many decisions about their own futures. A small number actually found independence and self responsibility so intimidating that they returned to Russia.
So when we argue issues such as gun control, school security, and all the other controls on society that people seem to favor at the moment, we had better be careful before we trade true freedom for "security." Just how much are we giving away in an effort to feel protected and taken care of from cradle to grave?
2222. moonflower - 10/30/1999 7:56:02 AM
I agree with Arky and Gram2. Trading "freedom" for "security" is very scary. I'm waiting for more gun/bomb violence to happen on college campuses (I teach in one). What then? Metal detectors in classrooms and in teachers' offices? Teachers teaching behind bulletproof shields?
2223. Dusty - 10/30/1999 10:02:53 AM
Gram2
I've read similar stories, of Russians finding the panoply of choices too mind-boggling.
2224. PsychProf - 10/30/1999 4:22:26 PM
INDIA CYCLONE
click on photo 
2225. TrialShark - 10/31/1999 12:44:15 AM
The race for the 1999 "Tacky and Tasteless" Award has a new leader. From the San Ramon Valley Times, Saturday, October 30, 1999, p. A2:
***
Despite receiving complaints from local residents and folks in Littleton, Colo., officials at Trinity Church near Dallas say they see nothing wrong with hosting a Halloween haunted house for kids that includes a re-enactment of the Columbine High School massacre.
Church officials say the scene is intended to send kids a religious lesson on the perils of evil. In the haunted house re-enactment, two teen-age boys in dark trench coats burst into a library and gun down students. They commit suicide and are afterward led to hell.
Despite receiving a flood of complaints, the church has no intention of halting the scene. Trinity youth pastor Tim Ferguson said the re-enactment is a justifiable way to teach teen-agers good from evil. "It teaches them there are consequences for what you do; you will go to hell," he said on a Dallas radio talk show.
***
Personally, I'd want to keep an eye on the kids who play Harris and Klebold ... especially if they volunteered for the parts.
2226. Cellar Door - 10/31/1999 1:21:36 AM
You know, I should have made a post about this earlier. I just KNEW that somebody would try something like this!
2227. JudithAtHome - 10/31/1999 8:48:19 AM
The most disturbing thing I read about the recent church shooting in Fort Worth was that many of the kids who were there when that lunatic started shooting thought it was part of the skit rehersal ....what's going on in Sunday School these days? We used to study the Bible and make hot pad holders for our moms; now, they practice skits involving guns and mayhem?
2228. TrialShark - 10/31/1999 11:15:11 AM
Judith --
"...what's going on in Sunday School these days? We used to study the Bible and make hot pad holders for our moms; now, they practice skits involving guns and mayhem?
Carnage is a better draw than macrame.
I understand Freddy Krueger will be the guest pastor at one of the mega-churches in Tulsa next month.
2229. joezan - 10/31/1999 11:26:49 AM
I believe there is a hell - I really do. And I believe there is a special place there for idiots like this Tim Ferguson character.
2230. Greystoke - 10/31/1999 12:34:24 PM
Zero tolerance and common sense at odds again.
2231. Greystoke - 10/31/1999 12:38:01 PM
Here is another article about the zero tolerance morons in Minnesota.
2232. robertjayb - 10/31/1999 2:06:47 PM
.
Can the kids be pictured in their automobiles? Now there is a destructive item.
2233. CalGal - 10/31/1999 8:38:55 PM
Lordy, it annoys me when all this coverage of plane crashes happens. They have to give me the entire history of a 767? Couldn't they use that time to better use?
And then, they say that while the 767 history is generally solid, that there were three previous crashes to its record. One of the crashes, of course, was due to the fact that hijackers forced the pilots to fly the plane until it ran out of gas....but what does that prove, anyway?
2234. Aldavis - 10/31/1999 9:08:41 PM
We live in a strange land. We put people in jail for using illegal drugs, and yet we have several men running for president who have admitted using illegal drugs. We ought to assume that Bush has too.
We have a sanctimonius ass shouting to the roof tops about how Congressmen sell their votes and how he is going to "give the country bake to the folks" when it is common knowledge he sold his services to Keating. Now people just joke about it.
If I know change my name to "noneof theabove" and get on the ballot, I would be the next President.
then the morons would catch it good, let me tell you.
2235. Gram2 - 10/31/1999 10:42:57 PM
2234. Aldavis - Don't think it's fair to condemn W. for cocaine use--if true, it will come out. At least he refuses to lie about it like Bubba.
After being involved in politics for about 10 years I can tell you that I believe your intentions are good--you would clean things up if elected. But, let me tell you, it's a strange phenomenon that occurs. As soon as you get even a good man elected for the first time, the head swells--they believe they really are special and deserve the office. After that, they learn to compromise quickly to keep the office, to get good publicity, to prevent the opposition from attacking them--very disappointing. Maybe you'd be the exception, but not many are.
2236. Cellar Door - 10/31/1999 10:46:22 PM
At least he refuses to lie about it like Bubba.
A fascinating distinction. Changing the subject is more "honorable" thatn lying outright?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other IMHO.
2237. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 8:58:08 AM
CELLAR: "Changing the subject is more "honorable"
thatn lying outright?"
It is a lot smarter than lying and getting caught later like Bubba does. Why be branded as a long-ago cocaine user and a liar too?
2238. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 9:22:50 AM
Ask Bush...
2239. cazart - 11/1/1999 9:39:47 AM
President Clinton was caught using cocaine? When was this, Gram2? Do you have a newspaper cite?
2240. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 9:48:27 AM
I really miss Jexster. Any idea where he is, and why he doesn't post here? We can't blame CalGal for his disappearance, right?
I thought of him this morning when I read this quote from Jexster's hero in the New York Times:
"Pat Buchanan is a highly intelligent man with a very strong historical sense." --Sir John Keegan, military historian
2241. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 9:54:40 AM
Jexter's health is quite fragile.
2242. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 10:00:35 AM
I'm very sorry to hear that, Cellar Door. He is one of the best people I've "meet" in cyberspace and really like him.
If you're in contact with Jexster, please send him our family's love.
2243. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 10:01:52 AM
I will do that.
2244. Adrianne - 11/1/1999 10:37:11 AM
Can someone please point me to the NY Times article with that Keegan quote?
TX
2245. cazart - 11/1/1999 10:41:46 AM
Adrienne:
It's an old quote.
Why Rosettastone attributed it to a recent NY Times article is baffling. Not to mention that the quote is out of context.
2246. Adrianne - 11/1/1999 10:45:15 AM
Caz
Yup, so I figured. Rosettta does stuff like that all the time - he thinks we actually believe he reads NYT. I'm sure it was on the freeper site, or TT or something.
Not the brightest bulb on the string, that stone.
2247. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 10:52:48 AM
I read it this a.m. in the NYTimes's White House Campaign Inquires political thread, post #375.
Is it old? Does Keegan think differently now. I don't know.
I brought it up because it reminded me of Johnny Blowtorch.
2248. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 12:13:13 PM
I e-mailed Jexter and it was returned to me as "undeliverable."
He may have left us.
2249. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 12:17:34 PM
Well, let's just hope he changed e-mail providers and forgot to let us know.
2250. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 12:32:59 PM
CD: Last summer I asked Arky to help me get Jexster's email address to encourage him to join TT. She said that she would do it herself and then reported that she had an email problem.
Later while we were on vacation, he did post once on the old fraygrant's corner in TT looking for me. Others said he posted in some of the political threads but I never saw them.
I know that he became a regular at the LATimes' web site because of all of fray's problems.
I tell you this because it may be that you have an old email address. Let's hope so.
2251. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 12:37:58 PM
Cazart - Not to mention that the quote is out of context.
You mean it was taken out of context like so many Buchanan quotes are taken out of context. I see your point. I guess if we shouldn't believe the Keegan quote, we shouldn't believe the Buchanan quotes either.
2252. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 12:39:21 PM
I have a yahoo email address for Jexster but it has been disabled.
2253. Dusty - 11/1/1999 12:42:41 PM
CalGal
And then, they say that while the 767 history is generally solid, that there were three previous crashes to its record.
I only recall two, the hijacker incident, and the thrust reverser problem (Still a possibility in the present incident perhaps). What was the third?
2254. CalGal - 11/1/1999 12:45:17 PM
Dusty--another had a problem while landing, but no one was killed.
I fear for Jex, btw. I just checked a few emails I have for him and they have all been returned.
2255. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 12:45:56 PM
That's the one I used, J.J.
2256. Dusty - 11/1/1999 12:46:03 PM
Umm, never mind; I just decided that the word "previous" was inadvertent.
2257. Dusty - 11/1/1999 12:47:29 PM
CG, damn, you are too quick. OK, got it. Three fatal crashes, four crashes.
2258. cazart - 11/1/1999 12:52:13 PM
JJBiener:
Your spirited defense of Pat Buchanan would be enhanced by actual examples of Buchanan being quoted out of context.
2259. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 12:53:42 PM
Jex's health was rather precarious. I think it was the source of much of his famous anger.
2260. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 12:57:06 PM
Cazart - Your spirited defense of Pat Buchanan would be enhanced by actual examples of Buchanan being quoted out of context.
I am not defending Buchanan, I am pointing out hypocrisy. If you want examples, look at almost every Buchanan quote that has appeared in the Mote.
2261. cazart - 11/1/1999 1:01:50 PM
What hypocrisy? I've not seen a Buchanan quote that's been taken out of context. Feel free to enlighten us if I'm wrong.
2262. ChristinO - 11/1/1999 1:06:23 PM
The most recent Buchanan quotation I remember was the whole freakin' speach. It's difficult to take that out of context unless one claims he was speaking to aliens in a David Lynch movie dream-sequence.
2263. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 1:14:28 PM
cazart - There were quotes recently where supposedly Buchanan called Hitler "a genius" and other laudatory comments, but the quotes were in the context of calling Hiter a mass murderer. I wouldn't consider calling someone a mass murderer to be high praise, but without that context, the quotes were deliberately misleading.
2264. cazart - 11/1/1999 1:29:23 PM
JJBiener:
I believe the Buchanan quote in full is:
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even
those who despised him.
But Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the
character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
--Pat Buchanan, column, 25 August 1977.
Like most racists and bigots, Buchanan doesn't come out with unstinted praise or adoration for Hitler. Instead, he engages in a theme that Hitler was a genius whose evil intentions were often exaggerated by those statesmen--Churchill, Roosevelt, et al.--whom Buchanan seeks to exorciate. Additionally, this quote must be taken within the context of a larger picture which includes Buchanan's denial of the holocaust, anti-semitic comments, defense of Nazi war criminals, and hostility toward Israel.
Of course, there is currently Buchanan's latest book, "A Republic, Not An Empire."
2265. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 1:37:36 PM
I've read at Drudge a couple of months ago that Hitler was picked to be Time Magazine's MAN OF THE CENTURY because he was such an evil genius who had just an impact on the world.
Of course, that will never happen, Drudge said, and the heads on favorite now is FDR.
That gossip/prediction was made last July. Soon enough we'll see if Drudge is correct.
2266. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 1:38:25 PM
just=such
2267. TrialShark - 11/1/1999 1:43:17 PM
JJ --
Hope you're not referring to my posts of Buchanan's greatest hits, because I included exactly the language you're complaining was left out.
So who are you accusing of being "deliberately misleading?"
2268. Dusty - 11/1/1999 1:44:08 PM
rosettastone
Soon enough we'll see if Drudge is correct.
Soon? More than a year, unless Time is also going to wimp out, and join the pretense that the century is ending next month. (Although, a weak argument can be made that the ends of centuries aren't concurrent with the ends of millenniums.)
2269. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 1:51:07 PM
"Man of the Century"? Not "Man of the Millenium"?
2270. cazart - 11/1/1999 2:01:31 PM
It really doesn't matter what Matt Drudge predicts.
He's covered himself several ways. If it's Hitler; he's right. If it's FDR; he's right. It's hardly a valid prediction when you get to choose a number of the most likely outcomes.
By the way, if TIME's selection was based on reader mail, Attaturk would win.
2271. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 2:28:02 PM
cazart: Very good. LOL. I like your posts, although you are evil. Are you new, or is it just a new moniker?
CD/dusty: It might be MAN/PERSON of the Millennium. It thought it was century. Don't worry, the marketers will hype 2001 as much as 2K.
2272. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 2:32:33 PM
2239. cazart - 11/1/99 1:39:47 PM
President Clinton was caught using cocaine? When was this, Gram2?
Do you have a newspaper cite?
No, but even his own brother has said that he did, that he had a nose like a vacumn cleaner, as well as Gennifer, and Roger's landlady who said she saw him stoned. Don't know if any of those are true either, but you assume Bush is guilty on less.
2273. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 2:36:07 PM
Ms Flowers also said the Bill Clinton did coke. But you can never trust Clinton women.
2274. rosettastone - 11/1/1999 2:36:30 PM
Ms Flowers also said that Bill Clinton did coke. But you can never trust Clinton women.
2275. cazart - 11/1/1999 2:40:09 PM
Gram2:
A newspaper cite would greatly enhance your argument.
I believe the President has claimed that he has never used cocaine. Can GWBush make the same claim?
2276. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 2:50:03 PM
WOW--now that's proof, Clinton said he never used cocaine--he didn't inhale either, and he never had sex with... What does it take before you truly understand that he lies? Brings us back to my original post--it's better if found out later and be declared a coke user, than to be found out and be both a coke user and a liar. Smarter anyway.
2277. cazart - 11/1/1999 2:52:15 PM
Gram2:
You've yet to post a legitimate cite. Fine.
Does this mean that you won't support a GWBush who refuses to answer the coke question directly?
2278. cazart - 11/1/1999 3:10:39 PM
Disney in HongKong?
Interesting.
2279. PsychProf - 11/1/1999 3:23:28 PM
HOPE ABANDONED
click on image 
2280. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 3:30:33 PM
"Does this mean that you won't support a GWBush who refuses to
answer the coke question directly?"
No, not at all, as far as I'm concerned he hasn't used it. You are the one who thinks he has and you haven't quoted a cite for your opinion either.
2281. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 3:33:05 PM
"I believe the President has claimed that he has never used cocaine."
Cite please.
2282. cazart - 11/1/1999 3:35:29 PM
Gram2:
I've not said anything on my beliefs as to GWBush's coke use. To me, it is a non-issue.
What is interesting is your belief that Clinton is unfit for office because of allegations of coke use that you apparently cannot support. On the other hand, you are content to overlook GWBush's contorted non-denials on the same issue. I'd remind you that every candidate for President (Clinton's not running this time) has directly answered the cocaine question without caveats, conditions, or convoluted time periods.
Every candidate save for GWBush.
2283. TrialShark - 11/1/1999 3:47:12 PM
caz --
Bush fils' drug use is a non-issue.
While it's amusing watching the folks who were oh-so-concerned about drugs in 1992 finally reach the conclusion that it's only drug use by Democrats that matters, their hypocrisy is merely a distraction from the only issue that really, truly matters in this campaign: whether or not Senator McCain has a bad temper.
2284. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 3:50:51 PM
We only know about McCains temper; one of the reasons being given for Bush being kept away from the "debates" is that his people fear him losing his temper. Evidently it's not so pretty, either. Imagine that...him with a temper. I guess McCains will be okay when Bush has one, too.
2285. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 4:02:25 PM
"What is interesting is your belief that Clinton is unfit for office because of allegations of coke use that you apparently cannot support"
I never said Clinton was unfit because of coke allegations, there are a lot better reasons than that why he is unfit. You must have me confused with someone else. If you look back, I said I didn't know if the claims by his brother and the others were true. My only point was that you seem to think Bush has without even any credible allegations.
2286. TrialShark - 11/1/1999 4:02:29 PM
Judith --
I hear Governor Bush hasn't lost his temper since 1974.
2287. Cellar Door - 11/1/1999 4:07:24 PM
cazart, get with the program. Clinton is guilty of everything! If there's a crime, he committed it. Why he hasn't been arrested for the murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey is beyond me. Damn but that White House Spin Machine is powerful!
2288. cazart - 11/1/1999 4:09:59 PM
TrialShark:
Very true. I'm amazed by the flip-flop. Character mattered so dearly in '92 and '96. Now it doesn't, apparently.
JudithAtHome:
I've heard that GWBush can be somewhat prickly. However, I suspect his absence from the debates has more to do with his lack of knowledge on the issues of the day.
2289. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 4:11:09 PM
"Of course, there is currently Buchanan's latest book, "A Republic, Not An Empire." '
I would suggest that rather than just naming the book you read the book. No fair minded person would conclude that Pat admired Hitler. He points out that many leaders and inteligencia in England and U.S. admired Hitler. As a matter of fact, Roosevelt did not become a hawk until Hitler attacked Stalin's U.S.S.R. Roosevelt was a great admirer of Stalin as was Churchill.
England declared war on Germany when Hitler attacked Poland. Can you figure out why they did not declare war on Russia who attacked from the East, or when they attacked Finland, Latvia, Estonia? The more I read about the 1930's and the behavior of Western leaders, the more I view them with disgust.
2290. cazart - 11/1/1999 4:17:42 PM
Aldavis:
Sadly, I read Buchanan's latest. It is garbage. I don't know to describe it other than using the word 'garbage.'
To call it history is to denigrate history.
That aside, the book is part and parcel of the larger Buchanan picture which tended to glorify (or at least downplay)the atrocities committed by Hitler and his regime.
2291. 109109 - 11/1/1999 4:22:32 PM
On drug use, I don't recall drug use by any politician ever being much of an issue. I do recall Doug Ginsberg after his nomination to the Supreme Court (it appears he had smoked pot later in life) and some Clinton White House staffers who had been working for years without proper security clearance (and even these criticisms were muted).
Clinton was never criticized for drug use. Rather, he was criticized as "Slick Willie" for his attempt to avoid an admission that he toked (whereas his running mate was candid).
Am I missing someone?
2292. PelleNilsson - 11/1/1999 4:24:43 PM
AlDavis
Do you support a WW2 thread where we could straighten out some of you misconceptions?
England and France declared war on Germany because after the Czechoslovak fiasco they had drawn a line in the sand and told Germany that an attack on Poland would be regarded as casus belli.
Your implicit contention that they should have taken on the Soviet Union as well is, shall we say, a bit far-fetched.
But enough of that. This is Current Events.
2293. 109109 - 11/1/1999 4:26:28 PM
I think a WWII thread is a pretty good idea. Make it broader. The War thread.
2294. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 4:29:27 PM
109109 - Niner, I think you are right--if the media had anything real to critize Bush for they wouldn't have made an issue of it. Cazart and I have been smaltzing up this forum on nonsense. I apologize--won't waste time like that again. Sometimes it is difficult to resist when the opposite viewpoint poster implies something is true when it isn't known to be so.
2295. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 4:36:56 PM
cazart - "That aside, the book is part and parcel of the larger Buchanan picture which tended to glorify (or at least downplay)the atrocities committed by Hitler and his regime."
Cite please. This is standard issue bullshit. Even in quotes purportedly showing Buchanan's admiration for Hitler, he call the man a mass murderer. That hardly sounds like glorifying atrocities.
2296. 109109 - 11/1/1999 4:45:19 PM
Gram
Let me clarify.
If Bush did cocaine after 1974, given his firm denials and the subliminal GOP strategy on criticizing Clintonism (rather than the success of the Clinton Administration), and the fact can be established with reasonable certainty backed by reasonable proof, then he is finished. McCain comes in and lops his head off as another Clintonian fake who butchers the English language and is not a straight shooter.
2297. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 4:56:59 PM
Cazart
Yeah, I read the Dead Sea Scrools and didn't dig them either. Would you like numerous quotes from some of your heroes praising Hitler?
pelle
It may be far fetched in your opinion, and if England and the U.S. considered Stalin an ally it would be far fetched. But how could they do that since Hitler and Stalin had signed a pact? Usually the friend of my enemy is my enemy. I would love a thread on WWII, but I would probably piss off the Liberals with information about Commies in Roosevelt's Administration and his capitulation to Stalin. Liberal hate tyrants, unless they happpen to be reds.
2298. ChristinO - 11/1/1999 6:01:37 PM
Example 1)"Although Joe Smith was a child molester and arsonist he showed remarkable bravery as an enlisted man and his charisma in public speaking could move millions."
Example 2)"Although Joe Smith showed remarkable bravery as an enlisted man and his charisma in public speaking could move millions he was a child molester and arsonist."
While I'm no English scholar I think it's fairly obvious that the construction of the first sentence is more complimentary than the second. While the words are nearly identical the implication behind the first is that even though Joe was a monster he was still brave and charismatic and that's what's important. The construction of the second is that although brave and charismatic Joe was still a monster which outweighs whatever good points he might have had.
Let's call a spade a spade. Buchanan isn't an anti-Semite because while extoling Hitlers virtues he did happen to mention in passing that the man was a murderer? Get real. Why use Hitler as an example anyway?
I mean is it really necessary to mention that although Lucifer is the embodiment of evil he's also smarter and more charismatic than the rest of us average folk? What's the point? Where is the sense in talking up the Devil? Couldn't find anyone else who was smart and charismatic to hold up as a role model?
2299. cpc - 11/1/1999 6:16:34 PM
>>>There is simply no evidence supporting a contention that the anthrax vaccine is irrevocably harmful.
...and no evidence showing it is irrevocabley not harmful. Unfortunately, the Gov. has lost it credibility with the Gulf War Syndrome situation and past situations where pills or injections were given without the servicemen and women being told what was in them. They were just ordered to do it or face punishment. Personally, I support those that choose to refuse this vaccine. I am also very glad I chose not to re-enlist when my last enlistment in the Air Force came due. They had begun the vaccinations then and they were manditory for anyone traveling overseas, even if they were not going into combat zones. It was not the deciding factor for getting out, but it was a benefit of getting out in my eyes.
2300. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 6:29:34 PM
Christin - Buchanan was not holding Hitler up as a role model. Even his critics admit that.
BTW, I interpret your examples very differently. To me example 1 says the man is a monster. His courage and charisma make him a threat on global scale. The second example seemed to put his crimes as an afterthought.
2301. ChristinO - 11/1/1999 6:30:03 PM
cpc,
I'm a bit behind. Are they now attributing GWS to the Anthrax vaccine rather than to the anti-chemical warfare drugs that were administered to soldiers?
2302. cpc - 11/1/1999 6:31:49 PM
>>>>>..... but since the majority are used in crimes of passion against loved ones or neighbors etc....
Please don't say such a thing. People might actually believe this. It couldn't be further from the truth.
An assumption has apparently been made. Incorrectly. While some of the statistics that have been offered do say that a majority of firearm related homicide victims knew the attacker, you must understand that that most of these are not talking about boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, and neighbors. They are talking about gang members that knew another gang members, drug sellers or buyers that knew the seller or buyer, etc. You have to realize that statistics are often bent. You are not told the entire truth.
Its like the ones that say X number of children are killed with guns each day. These kids include those 18 and under (and sometimes 21 and under) including gang members, etc. How can the illegal use of illegal handguns by gang members be used agains law abiding citizens that legally use firearms for self-defense and sport? Here's an idea, enforce the laws these criminals are already committing and put them in jail. Down goes the crime rate and homicide rate in that area because all of the ones who commit such acts are in prison.
2303. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 6:32:19 PM
ChristinO
Most of the ravers about Pat seem to imply that he wrote a book extolling the virtues of Hitler. That is not true. He wrote a book expressing the belief that major mistakes were made in the 1930's with regard to Hitler. I agree. the biggest mistake is that the West did not prepare for war. Rooselelt prior to 1940 swore on a stack of Bibles he would keep us out of war. He did this to get elected for a third term, breaking a 150 year tradition. Chruchill knew in 1939 that Roosevelt was bent on war. He just did not prepare the Ameerican public for that. I realize most were against a war. But great leaders lead, others stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Please host, do not scold me for not being current.
2304. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 6:32:41 PM
cpc:
Your choice of the phrase "I support those who refused the vaccine" might be more true than you know; since they could've been drummed out of the military and might need public assistance if they can't find other jobs, support might be exactly what they need.
Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did an updated report of one they'd done a few years ago right after the Gulf War when the syndrome first appeared. My blood ran cold hearing that woman describe symptoms which came on within 30 minutes of taking those pills.
Welcome to the Mote, by the way.
2305. cpc - 11/1/1999 6:37:49 PM
This is bullshit, pure and simple. Northern District of Virginia has an agressive
campaign against gun use- Exile project. GWB is pushing for its adoption in
Texas, as are other states. Gun enhancements are de riguer for drug charges in
my district.
Reno had nothing to do with Project Exile in Richmond. Clinton wouldn't give credit to it either, but has finally buckled to the pressure of its success and admitting that similar projects might be a success without banning firearms. He apparently wouldn't give credit to it because the NRA has supported it, both with voice and dollars, since the beginning and Clinton refused to support something the NRA supported. Kind of shows one where his concerns really are.
2306. JJBiener - 11/1/1999 6:40:58 PM
cpc - Kind of shows one where his concerns really are.
Are you accusing Clinton of being *gasp* political?
2307. ChristinO - 11/1/1999 6:41:21 PM
JJ,
You have a unique reading style. Although is an adverb meaning "despite" or "notwhithstanding". It makes the emphasis of importance clear. It holds up a throw away or less important contrast to the main point.
If I say "Although we squabble my brother and I are very close" which is the salient point of the sentence? That fact that my brother and I have disagreements or the fact that we are close?
2308. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 6:41:59 PM
cpc:
Are you marching/talking to a different drummer?
2309. cpc - 11/1/1999 6:50:06 PM
>>>>Gun owners are probably more likely to commit suicide because people with mental disabilities are more likely to want guns (for security, of course).
Not real sure what you consider a "mental disability" or how you came to such a conclusion. Hopefully you were just trying to make a joke and don't actually believe that statement.
Anyway, in the extreme cases of mental disability, one is prohibited from legally posessing a firearm, anyway. Its on the application and in the background check.
2310. cpc - 11/1/1999 6:57:09 PM
>>>>I am a responsible person; I raise my child to be respomnsible; he visits a home where someone who is less responsible lives; my child is shot by the idiot child of the less responsible person. Do you think I give one whit about constitutional rights?
No doubt tragidies can happen. They could just as likely play with gasoline and matches or get electricuted. The friends father/mother could also get in a car accident while driving the children. How many scenarios are there?
Try this on. Get to know the parents of your childrens friends. Let your safety concerns be known. I don't know anyone that would lie if asked if there was a firearm in their house and how they store it. If you don't trust the other childrens parents, don't let you child go to that house. That's your right.
2311. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:06:29 PM
cpc:
Are you by any chance responding to posts as you read them? I mean, are you reading back through the thread and making responses to posts from days ago?
2312. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:07:39 PM
>>>>I was riding in a car with 3 other ladies the other day and I've known these women for some time and been to their homes and feel I know them. The one driving mentioned how "safe" we were because she had her gun with her. Another woman piped up that she did, too. I didn't feel "safe" at all....
2205
Why did you suddenly feel unsafe? Obviously they were not using them in a way that was putting you in harms way. Heck, you didn't even know they had them. You say you have known them for some time. They have probably carried around you on many occasions. No harm done.
Now what would happen if you were violently attacked when you and one of these ladies were walking down the street? And I'm not talking about a "hey, lady give me your purse and I won't hurt you" with no weapons brandished, I'm talking about ATTACKED like "dragging you to a car to take you away" attacked. Would you still have a problem if your friend displayed the weapon and the attacker fled? If you were a loved one of mine, I would be in never ending debt to that women.
I will mention that I hope they are caryying legally with a state issues CCW and not illegally carrying.
2313. ranheim - 11/1/1999 7:19:31 PM
#2289 Aldavis
Go back and read about the political leaders of Europe from the Boer War to WW I. There was a sense of optimism in the air. A sense that maybe we can avoid future wars.
And then they pissed it all away when the nephew of Emperor Franz Josef was killed in Sarejevo.
FDR; Stalin; and Churchill would have made Machiavelli proud. Seems to me that the men of late 1800s/early 1900s were slightly less cynical.
2314. arkymalarky - 11/1/1999 7:22:06 PM
You'll have to wait a couple of hours for your answer, Judith. He's still over a hundred posts away.
2315. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:24:54 PM
>>>I believe the President has claimed that he has never used cocaine. Can GWBush make the same claim?
Clinton also claimed he was never involved with several of the women he was involved with. A claim is a claim. It doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
2316. CalGal - 11/1/1999 7:25:17 PM
Judith,
Yeah, that's what he's doing. It's allowed, even if it confuses us more ephemeral sorts. Two days ago? THAT'S ANCIENT HISTORY!
2317. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 7:25:54 PM
cpc: Could you explain what Virginia gun laws are that are working so well, or did you before and I missed it. I believe people have a right to own a gun, but would like to see efficient background checks before being allowed to purchase one.
2318. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 7:26:19 PM
Well, at least a person reads the posts and makes a response. I never post without going back at least 50 posts, unless I am on the Play Pen. Could it pooible be the opinion expressed that is getting to you girls?
2319. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:28:46 PM
Not at all, Al. And it's not "getting to" us. I was merely curious about his method of responing to posts from days ago.
2320. CalGal - 11/1/1999 7:31:23 PM
No, it's not getting to anyone that I've seen. As I said, it's actually kind of interesting to go back a few days and see what was discussed.
2321. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 7:32:48 PM
CalGal
Would you have time?
2322. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:34:32 PM
I find lie after lie to the public now far worse than some act of long ago even if I don't agree with them. Obviously, a candidate that has never done anything immoral/illegal in their lives AND does not currently lie whenever they feel like it would be ideal, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon. The current and recent character of a person is more important than that of long ago.
2323. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:34:52 PM
Jeez, Al...all any of us has is time.
2324. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 7:35:13 PM
"I believe the President has claimed that he has never used cocaine.
Can GWBush make the same claim?"
"I did not have sex with that woman. Ms Lewinsky"!
2325. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:37:10 PM
Oh give it a rest. I'm so tired of beating dead horses, Al.
2326. CalGal - 11/1/1999 7:38:05 PM
Well, he didn't have sex with her. He just got a blowjob or two. Or five. And used a cigar as her dildo. Hey, do you actually have sex with an inflatable toy?
2327. CalGal - 11/1/1999 7:38:42 PM
Judith,
Oh, I'll kick the horse. It's fun to watch the death throes.
2328. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:48:48 PM
I'm a bit behind. Are they now attributing GWS to the Anthrax vaccine rather than to the anti-chemical warfare drugs that were administered to soldiers?
Not at all. I am just making a comparison of the Guinea Pig attitude in the military. "Take this, take that. We'll tell you if anything is wrong with it when we see how many of you get sick with side effects".
Here is another interesting note. Unless it has recently changed, a active duty military person can not sue the government/hospital/doctor for malpractice, no matter how big the screw up. Lots of doctors remain in the service for years, even with the low pay, because of this. No malpractice lawsuits or insurance to worry about. They 'learn' in an environment where the financial punishments are not there (though they can face disciplinary action for their screw ups). They then retire after 20 years and start their own practice.
While most military doctors probably don't fit in this category, there are plenty that do...and they don't mind talking about it. For those few, if it was about service, they would stay in for longer than the 20 year retirement time frame.
2329. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:52:48 PM
cpc:
There is a poster here who was a military doctor; maybe you and he can discuss this further.
2330. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 7:53:26 PM
Does it depend on which horse we are kicking? Sounds a lot like, we want to move on. After all the lies, misdeeds and "mistakes" that have been accepted as "not serious" in the Clinton administration, do you think that the public will hold the same "errors in judgment" against any of the candidates now? That's not a wise guy question, I am really curious if people's standards have truly been lowered, or if they think fair is fair, or if they will revert to the old standards when any scandal would trash a candidate.
What do you think about Gore's efforts to hide the fact that he hired the women's libber to guide his campaign?
2331. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:54:55 PM
>>>>Your choice of the phrase "I support those who refused the vaccine" might be more true than you know; since they could've been drummed out of the military and might need public assistance if they can't find other jobs, support might be exactly what they need.
With the good economy, I doubt it is too hard to find work. I suppose it also depends on what field one was in while in the service. I know a lot of places don't really care about a "Less than Honorable discharge". This type of discharged can and is generally changed to a "general discharge" after 6 months. Besides, if one of these soldiers explained why they got the discharger (refusing to take a questionable vaccine), they might be even more likely to get support in the form of a job. Not too many people I talk to would have hard feelings against one of these people.
2305
2332. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:56:03 PM
>>>>Are you accusing Clinton of being *gasp* political?
Well, kind of I guess. But mainly just a liar.
2333. cpc - 11/1/1999 7:57:22 PM
>>>> cpc,Are you marching/talking to a different drummer?
Meaning?
2334. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 7:59:01 PM
Gram:
Do you mean Naomi Wolfe? Or another one?
I sort of think the bar has been lowered. People will accept a whole lot more these days.
2335. cpc - 11/1/1999 8:01:05 PM
>>>>>>Are you by any chance responding to posts as you read them? I mean, are you reading back through the thread and making responses to posts from days ago?
Yes, when log in, I begin reading where I left off the last time I logged off. My apologies if that is considered a bad thing, but that is why I cut a paste the comment to which I am replying so it will make more sense. I don't have the time to check in daily.
2336. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 8:01:10 PM
cpc:
I made the "different drummer" remark because your responses to posts you were reading came up out of sequence and it seemed you were talking on a different plane of existance. It wasn't a slam or anything; just a joke.
2337. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 8:03:57 PM
JudithatHome
Please go back and read the last 50 posts to see why I "beat that dead horse." Besides, I am free, white and 67, and will post what I like. I especially do not take orders from shemales.
2338. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 8:05:29 PM
Judith: Yes, that's who I meant, Naomi--just couldn't think of her name at the moment and thought everybody would know who I was talking about since it has been in the news today. Any opinion?
2339. cpc - 11/1/1999 8:05:36 PM
Ah, but all is well now. I am caught up...for the time being. :)
2340. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 8:05:55 PM
What in the hell do you mean by that, Al? Am I a "shemale", whatever that might be in your overzealous mind....
2341. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 8:09:07 PM
Gram:
I personally think Naomi is a smart lady but maybe she was a bit overpaid. And I don't agree with her choices for Als wardrobe...he looked awful at the debates. Earth tones do nothing for him, despite her belief that they make the public trust him more. What it said to me was he let someone with no fashion sense dress him. :-)
2342. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 8:18:53 PM
For those who don't goto the politics thread... I said I'd post this many days ago and forgot. I think everyone should familiarize themselves with these whether they own a gun or not.
Basic rules of gun safety
2343. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 8:19:50 PM
Naomi is there to teach Gore how to gratify himself without abusing the interns, male or female. Mr. Gore has led a sheltered life.
Judith
You are a little cranky today. Hang loose, tita.
2344. cpc - 11/1/1999 8:21:20 PM
>>>>>Gram2: cpc, could you explain what Virginia gun laws are that are working so well, or did you before and I missed it. I believe people have a right to own a gun, but would like to see efficient background checks before being allowed to purchase one.
Some states so it different and it varies with handguns and long arms (rifles, shotguns) but most require a background check which involves checking to ensure one has never been convicted of a felony, never been found "mentally unsound", not under a restraining order, never been convicted of domestic abuse, etc. Many require a waiting perios as well.
I think two topics got combined here. The Virginia specific item I was referring to was Project Exile. The program is old enough to prove it results. The concept is simple. Enforce existing laws and make criminals serve their sentence rather than get out on parol after a couple months. Here is one link I have handy...
Project Exile
2345. JudithAtHome - 11/1/1999 8:22:33 PM
Al:
I intend to...I'm off to open a bottle of 96 ColDiSasso Toscana and enjoy the evening. 'Night!
2346. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 8:31:24 PM
Ah, you know the way to my heart. Have a delightful evening. Put a little sand under your pillow tonight and dream of Hawaii.
2347. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 8:47:54 PM
cpc: Thank you, I had never heard of "Project Exile" by name before. It's not surprising that it is working, it makes sense--if they are off the streets, they are not committing more crimes. I can understand why the Dept. of Justice would be reluctant to give Exile credit for the drop in crime, since it weakens the administration's ultimate goal of banning guns.
I saw an NRA documentary on the gun registration law in Canada and trying to be openminded (the bad NRA), I wondered if they had exaggerated the situation so I looked the subject up on the net. There are a lot of sites for it, mostly those of gun owners in protest of the law and how it is being used. Apparently they are confiscating guns and intend to continue. On the documentary, Canadians were telling Americans not to let our country pass gun registration. They said they had been given deadlines to turn in certain types of guns or they would be considered criminals, then it was the same for another type of gun. One man said, we never thought they would come after our hunting guns and our shotguns, but they are. Very scary. So I hope Project Exile will really be successful here. I don't have a particular net address for it, think I finally found it by searching Canadian Firearms legislation.
2348. Greystoke - 11/1/1999 8:59:28 PM
Five rules for gun safety
1. When shooting beer cans off your buddy's head, use empty ones. Shooting full cans is alcohol abuse.
2. When playing Russian roulette, its polite to let your opponent go first.
3. Holding a spotlight, shooting, and steering a vehicle at the same time is considered "reckless driving" in some states. So take a friend along when poaching deer.
4. Follow the lead of the NYPD. Always carry a "drop piece" when patrolling your property. The families of dead trespassers are frequently litigious. Fortunately, jurors are sympathetic to self-defense shootings.
5. During hunting season, if it moves and it ain't wearing orange, shoot it. Thousands of game animals escape every year due to a moment's hesitation by the hunter.
2349. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 9:15:31 PM
This bother anyone?
Look yourself up... look all your neightbors up... look everyone on your street up...
this kind of thing makes me nervous.
2350. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 9:17:02 PM
Greystoke: Since we are being humorous, Gordon Liddy always said if you shoot an intruder on the front porch, drag him in the house before you call the police--that's self-defense.
2351. Greystoke - 11/1/1999 9:20:34 PM
Gram2
"drag him in the house before you call the police--that's self-defense."
Just don't leave a blood trail.
2352. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 9:23:51 PM
111bbb
Why would this make you nervous? For the most part it does not work. I think it just searches phone directories. I have tried to find myself several times with no luck. then again, that should give me pause.
2353. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 9:24:58 PM
iiibbb - You can even get a map to someone's house on people search at Yahoo. Once I was trying to look up an old friend to see if I could find an address, they weren't listed so I clicked on the search ad at the bottom. They charge $39.00 and you could find out not only where the person was but all sorts of financial information about them--that was scary. They advertise it on TV too.
2354. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 9:26:02 PM
Greystoke: Good thinking!
2355. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 9:29:57 PM
Al, because each the fields are optional, you don't need to be looking for someone specific. I was able to look up most of my neighbors just by typing in the name of my street. I don't like this for one reason, with very little effort from my living room, I now know which apartments in my whole complex that have women who live alone.
I don't think that's all that good of an idea...
2356. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 9:36:25 PM
you can get a map through this one also gram...
2357. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 9:37:39 PM
iiibbb
How would you know they were living alone? Just because a woman is listed in a directory, does not mean that no male lives with her. I doubt one can get financial information without either a S.S. # or some other vital information. I will give you my name, address, and phone number if you would like to test it out. The name I use is real, and many Moties know where I live.
2358. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 9:38:56 PM
. iiibbb That is bad. I don't think you could do that on the Yahoo people search. You can find out phone numbers, or e-mails for some of them. I looked up our whole family and they were there--also have used the map thing for locating stores, etc. which came in handy. How could you tell if they were single women living alone?
2359. Gram2 - 11/1/1999 9:42:06 PM
Aldavis -I don't know how since I didn't pursue it, but that is what it says on their ad. It has an 800 number to call. It is advertised on our television all the time though they don't mention the other details such as financial information, that was listed on the net ad.
2360. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 9:43:16 PM
Al.. I can tell they live alone because I type in the street name only which generates a listing of everyone living in each unit. I also know their names... so if I wanted to I could pretend I knew them.
Maybe this kind of information has always been available, but it seems too easy to compile using a site like this.
It's still kind of creepy to me.
As to the financial information... I'm not sure becuase I don't want to pay the 40$.
2361. iiibbb - 11/1/1999 9:48:16 PM
Try it... pick a street name you don't know anyone on... or you know 1 person...
A criminal could take look up a whole street, and then introduce themselves as a friend of the neighbor's... using first names the whole time...
*insert crime here*
2362. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 10:10:45 PM
When I was a door to door salesman, we had reverse directories, that allowed us to have the names and phone #'s of everyone on every street in San Francisco. I don't know if such things still exist and admit that times have changed.
When my son lived in New York back in the early '80's, I said he should do a map showing which streets were safe. He said, "Sure dad, then the muggers would know just where to get you." Now N.Y. is said to be much safer. All due to Clinton, at least according to the Liberals.
2363. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 10:40:57 PM
The following may interest some who had an opinion on the Test Ban Treaty.
"Still With the Soul Of a Candidate
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 22, 1999; Page A33
The twilight of the Clinton presidency is here, and it is not a pretty sight. Not that Clinton's underside had ever been entirely hidden. We got our first national glimpse of it in the 1992 campaign, when Clinton, informed(incorrectly) that Jesse Jackson had endorsed an opponent, exploded with a stream of abuse into an open mike.
Unlike Nixon, however, Clinton always had the charm to work his way out of this and other embarrassments. But as his presidency wanes, as his power erodes, as respect for him evaporates, as the legacy he lusts for recedes over the horizon, the charm wears thin and we are left with the real Clinton: bitter, angry and flailing. Never was this more on display than during his extraordinary Oct. 13 and 14 press appearances, called by Clinton to savage the Senate for having voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Sen. James Inhofe later documented 36 lies and half-truths that the president managed to pack into an hour-long news conference. A new indoor record.Inhofe can be forgiven for double counting, as when Clinton would tell the same lie at two different points in the press conference. But Inhofe was not far off.
For example, Clinton repeated a lie he had broadcast nationally the night before, asserting that "the heads of our nuclear laboratories" have assured the nation that "we can maintain a strong nuclear force without testing."
2364. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 10:44:34 PM
(cont.)
In fact, the congressional testimony of the directors of the labs helped sink the treaty. C. Paul Robinson, director of Sandia National Laboratories, was asked by Sen. John Warner how long it would take for computer simulations to replace testing. Answer? "My guess is somewhere in the 10- to 20-year period." Why, SDI will be ready before that!
And, added Robinson: "If the United States scrupulously restricts itself to zero-yield while other nations"--which either don't sign, or sign and then cheat--"may conduct experiments up to the threshold of international detectability, we will be at an intolerable disadvantage."
Clinton warned that the Senate has opened the door to nuclear proliferation: "If we ever get a president that's against the Test Ban Treaty . . . we will have countries abandoning the Nonproliferation Treaty."
Will have? This is hilarious. Under our current president, who is for the test ban, North Korea has blatantly violated the Nonproliferation Treaty and extorted billions of dollars from the United States to remain a nominal signatory to an agreement it openly flouts. Indeed, this is a president who for seven years has presided over the worst proliferation in the history of the nuclear age. When Clinton came into office, Iraq's nuclear program was contained. As we speak, Iraq is developing its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons unmolested and unmonitored.
2365. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 10:49:33 PM
(cont.)
On Clinton's watch, Pakistan has gone nuclear. India has exploded its first bomb since 1974. And Iran has been acquiring nuclear material from Moscow, with the Clinton administration standing by powerlessly.
Indeed, Clinton's laxity about technology exports and hunger for campaign contributions (including from Chinese agents), has turned the United States into a major proliferator, with high technology and missile guidance going openly to the Chinese while nuclear secrets are stolen under our noses.
Clinton believes that a signature on a piece of paper will stop these developments. Bad enough. Worse is the way he attacks the good faith and patriotism of those who do not share his fantasy.
First he accuses Republicans of betraying their own consciences ("I know that many would have supported this treaty had they been free to vote their conscience"). Then of betraying their children and the nation (they "put the future of our children in peril and the leadership of America for a safer world in peril for some personal pique" and they practiced "partisan politics of the worst kind"). Then he has the chutzpah to denounce the Republicans for ad hominem attacks: "It's been my experience," he says loftily, "that very
often in politics, when a person is taking a position that he simply cannot defend, the only defense is to attack the opponent."
If this treaty meant so much to Clinton, the nation and the world, why wasn't he on national television explaining it to the American people before the vote? Instead he goes on national television after the vote to try to turn a substantive division of opinion in the United States Senate into a political football for the 2000 election.
2366. Aldavis - 11/1/1999 10:53:13 PM
(cont.)
When it was a treaty, he didn't move a muscle. Now that it is a campaign issue, he rises in anger. After seven years in office, he still has the soul of a candidate.
Someone ought to tell him that his campaigning days are over. Tell him, too, that it was not, as he weirdly maintained in his press conference, a "close vote." He lost by 19.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
I don't suppose this will get much attention from all those who voted on the Mote that they favored the Treaty, but if someone posts a rational attack on the Senators who voted against the Treaty, I will consider it.
2367. ranheim - 11/2/1999 8:57:10 AM
Clinton is just possibly the worst foreign affairs president we have had this century. Nearly everything he has done in the field of foreign affairs has blown up in his face. Plus we will continue to police lands such as Bosnia and Kosovo for years into the future - at our expense.
He is reputed to be a very smart man. How did this come about? Does this mean that his is smarter than the reporters that covered him?
2368. cazart - 11/2/1999 9:27:06 AM
A "War" thread is a good idea.
Although Buchanan-sympathizers such as JJBiener and Aldavis will find it to be tough sledding.
"A Republic Not An Empire," as I noted previously, is part of the larger picture of Buchanan's strange affection for the Third Reich and his anti-semetic views. Defenders of Buchanan clamor for a cite or a quotation (I provided the 1977 cite yesterday).
If the Buchanan brigade wishes, I can provide Buchanan quotes concerning his disbelief that the holocaust occurred as well as his many jabs at Israel and Judaism.
Buchanan's latest book is not a salute to Hitler; instead, it is a profoundly misguided effort to extol the virtues of isolationism. Imagine--Buchanan actually rails against US involvement in WWI and WWII, but deems our participation in Viet Nam to have been essential.
2369. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 11:05:17 AM
So, when do we find out who the Reform Party Candidate is going to be? Do they have a convention or an election or does someone simply grab the reins and ride into the National Election? When Perot left the race to be paranoid about his daughters wedding and decided to return later, didn't he just SAY: I'm back!
Is anyone a member of the Reform Party and if so, could you tell me how this works...does Pat just SAY: I'm your guy; give me the money?
2370. Ronski - 11/2/1999 11:20:03 AM
Was JJ defending Buchanan, recently?
2371. Dusty - 11/2/1999 11:23:02 AM
iiibbb
When I was looking at a house in MD, I used this feature (not your site, but one of the many others), to get a list of the neighbors of the house I was interested in. I then called some of them to discuss the area. SO thought I was nuts, but I think it helped.
2372. Dusty - 11/2/1999 11:26:54 AM
Gram2
I wish you had been here when we were discussing "The Transparent Society". The author (and our own Jay A.) made good arguments for why this should not bother anyone.
2373. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 11:51:55 AM
Ron --
"Was JJ defending Buchanan, recently?"
The appropriate question is: has he ever stopped defending Buchanan?
No, seriously: JJ got all hot under the collar in Message 2263, accusing somebody of editing one of Buchanan's writings to leave out the part about how Hitler committed mass-murder. This editing, said JJ, made the cite "deliberately misleading."
Of course, even when asked, JJ neither provided the name of the person who supposedly made the "deliberately misleading" edit nor the post in which it supposedly occurred.
2374. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 12:18:31 PM
So .... has anyone been following the McKinney trial in Wyoming? Now that the "gay panic" defense has been tossed by the judge, what's left? Voluntary intoxication?
Should be interesting: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client deserves leniency because he was totally cranked on amphetamines when he killed that faggot -- er, fellow."
2375. 109109 - 11/2/1999 12:22:37 PM
Trial
Sounds very Ron Kuby.
2376. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 12:24:23 PM
Niner --
I hear he stole all his best lines from Bill.
2377. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 12:45:14 PM
I'm interested in what people think about this article... I guess the proper thread is economics, but I know there are more people in this thread.
Econ Thread, Microsoft Financial Fraud
2378. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 12:48:00 PM
I imagine McKinney's lawyers can slip some of it back in via their summation. Moreover it was in their opening remarks and you can't unring a bell. Still it all depends on how it's playing to that jury and none of us are in that courtroom.
Do any of the lawyers here present have any thoughts?
2379. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 12:50:00 PM
Dusty.. you're right that the addy's alone shouldn't bother us too much. Your point about researching a home purchase shows a good use for it.
I guess I was a little uneased about it... and I'm not much of a target, so what do I really have to worry about... probably not a whole lot. I'll just keep my head up... or down.
I suppose anything in the wrong hands can be misused.
2380. Dusty - 11/2/1999 12:52:50 PM
iiibbb
I was uneasy also. I even linked one of those locations into the discussion. Jay Ackroyd did a good job of dispelling my concerns.
2381. 109109 - 11/2/1999 12:55:10 PM
Cellar
I expect the guy to fry. But appeals to the biases of jurors do not have to be subtle, and you only need one. What the jury has going for it is a judge who will not let rampant theorizing occur; if Lance Ito were hearing the Shepard case, I'd expect a hung jury (in October of 2000)
2382. Dusty - 11/2/1999 12:59:36 PM
iiibbb
It's probably unfair, but my initial reaction is that someone with such a poor command of the English language is unlikely to be credible. I'll try to wade through anyway.
2383. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 1:09:48 PM
cazart
2368
You prove to me without a doubt that you have not read Pat's book. You are getting yourt so called information from T.V. talk shows. I do not consider myself a Pat defender, and you cannot find one post that proves that. I have opinions about WWII that no doubt difer from yours. Perhaps had you been running America in the 1930's you would have been wise enough to see Hitler as a monster and prepared the Country for war. Roosevelt did not and was quite happy to send representatives to the 3rd Reich Olympic Games in 1936.
2384. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 1:11:40 PM
Good Morning, Al!
What are you doing up so early?
2385. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 1:13:19 PM
IIIBBB - I finally gave up trying to wade through the terrible writing. He never did get to saying, as far as I could tell, what the problem was, prefering to spend the time spin conspiracies to keep his analysis from the public. He appears to be claiming that MSFT's option and 401k program are a pyramid scheme that will lead to a stock market crash. I don't buy it. The option/employee stock purchase/401k stock purchase programs are certainly one of the engines that keep MSFT price high, but it would not be the case if the employees did not believe that the company is worth buying into for the long run.
2386. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 1:14:15 PM
difer=differ
2387. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 1:16:24 PM
Cellar --
One of the worst things you can do is promise the jury something in opening statement that you cannot deliver at trial.
When the defense staked their case to a theory they had not cleared with the judge, they took an enormous risk. Now, not only have they lost the heart of their defense, but the jurors may think the defense has been dishonest. If so, everything they say from here on out will be evaluated in that light: i.e., "what are they trying to pull on us now?"
2388. cazart - 11/2/1999 1:17:44 PM
Aldavis:
If you choose to believe that I didn't read Buchanan's book, that's your right.
To base your assumptions regarding Nazi Germany on US participation in the '36 Olympic Games does not stand you in good stead.
Let's try a different tack: why do you suppose Buchanan's latest book has drawn the criticism (from historians, academics, and those who share his political views)? Is it because he's Pat Buchanan? Or is it because his book is garbage?
2389. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 1:19:46 PM
Actually, I don't think you can always hold poor command of the English language as an indicator to a person's credibility. This guy may be right on with his accounting. Who knows? I'm not knowlegable enough in economics to discriminate against his conclusions.
There are really only a few things I'm am an expert.
2390. cazart - 11/2/1999 1:29:35 PM
By the way, Aldavis, "A Republic Not An Empire" reads better in the original German. 2391. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 1:32:09 PM Ronski - Was JJ defending Buchanan, recently? 2392. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 1:36:13 PM Ronski - If you want evidence, post #2390 is a perfect example. 2393. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 1:44:23 PM cazart 2394. cazart - 11/2/1999 1:46:44 PM Jawohl, Aldavis. 2395. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 1:47:44 PM 2396. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 1:50:28 PM JJ 2397. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 1:52:00 PM By the by, the "I" above refers to stamper, but I have no problem taking credit for the question, which I do consider a serious one. 2398. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 1:53:47 PM TS - People have such short memories around here. BTW, I was not "up in arms". I was drawing a comparison. Apparently it was not fair to quote Keegan's comments about Buchanan because they were out of context, but it was perfectly acceptable to quote Buchanan out of context if it served to further a position. It is just another shining example of hypocrisy on the Left. 2399. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 1:58:49 PM OK J.J., the floor is yours. What do you think Pat Buchanan is really saying about U.S. involvement in WWII? 2400. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 1:59:14 PM 2401. Dusty - 11/2/1999 2:00:39 PM iiibbb 2402. CalGal - 11/2/1999 2:04:10 PM Oh, my lord. That site on MS? The guy is a nutjob. The one valid thing he bitches about is, as Dusty says, an industry problem. He skates that by wailing, "But Microsoft is so BIG, it has to answer to a HIGHER standard!" 2403. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 2:06:48 PM Al - Do you remember when I posted on the Play Pen the question, "What makes a Jew a Jew?" Right away three people started calling be a Nazi, Jew hater, etc. 2404. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 2:13:24 PM . 2405. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 2:14:40 PM 2406. CalGal - 11/2/1999 2:22:24 PM BobbyJ, 2407. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:27:10 PM I'll call my uncle and see what he's heard... 2408. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 2:31:17 PM TS - Starting with you, evidently -- at least when it comes to charges you've made, but then realized you can't back up with evidence. 2409. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 2:31:36 PM The Xerox building is on the Nimitz, which belomes Ala Moana Blvd., leading into Waikiki. 2410. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:33:08 PM AL: 2411. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 2:34:48 PM The alleged shooter has fled the building. He is said to have 17 registered weapons. Seven people are dead as reported. He is fleeing toward the airport on Nimitx which has been closed off to trafic. 2412. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 2:36:39 PM . 2413. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:37:47 PM He was a former Xerox maintnence worker. 40 year old Asian man and they have his name. He was targeting certain people, they said. 2414. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:38:39 PM x-post w/robert... 2415. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 2:38:46 PM Judith 2416. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:40:22 PM Well, Al, I know but I couldn't remember it. And I can't recall what "mountain direction" is, either. 2417. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 2:41:04 PM Is it mauka? 2418. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 2:45:52 PM Dusty 2401.. 2419. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 2:48:21 PM Judith 2420. cazart - 11/2/1999 2:50:54 PM The Buchanan brigade would rather make pronouncements and usupported assertions than address the issues. 2421. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 3:00:22 PM POLICE IN ALL-POINTS SEARCH 2422. Dusty - 11/2/1999 3:30:06 PM iiibbb 2423. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:34:55 PM RE: robertjayb 2412: 2424. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:36:30 PM I admit some of the following reasons sound silly when "chain saw" is inserted, but not any sillier than "guns" sounds to someone like me. I recognize both as tools in our society that too many people don’t know how to use or don’t respect. 2425. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:36:59 PM 2426. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:39:12 PM Dusty... not your 2 posts... the first 2 posts... you weren't the only one who just criticized grammar... 2427. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 3:39:12 PM iiibbb: 2428. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:44:09 PM Judith... 2429. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:46:07 PM Well.. I guess finding the 16 other guns is important if they just let him out of jail in 3 to 5 years... 2430. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 3:46:33 PM . 2431. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 3:50:59 PM iiibbb: 2432. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 3:51:23 PM 2433. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 3:52:05 PM And since I have 2 cousins on the police force in Honolulu, I'm glad they have that info, too. 2434. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:52:40 PM It's true though rob... 2435. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 3:56:16 PM Judith 2436. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 3:56:55 PM Judith 2437. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 3:57:02 PM iiibbb, 2438. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 3:59:28 PM Al: 2439. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 3:59:44 PM . 2440. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 4:08:27 PM Re 2436: Chri-O 2441. Dusty - 11/2/1999 4:18:47 PM I'm sure the police chasing him down are glad to have that information. 2442. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 4:25:32 PM Translation: 2443. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 4:27:00 PM Dusty, iiibbb: 2444. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 4:29:29 PM Cellar 2445. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 4:31:57 PM If anyone who has some level of intelligence would like to quote from "A Republic Mot an Empire" statements with which they disagree, I would be happy to discuss. But what is the point of talking to people who get all of their notions from Hard Ball, etc. 2446. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 4:32:34 PM Not=Not 2447. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 4:32:43 PM Mot=Not 2448. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 4:34:44 PM 2449. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 4:36:11 PM Judith... 2450. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 4:39:08 PM iiibbb: 2451. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 4:44:17 PM Judith 2452. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 4:46:10 PM Oh, you've got that right....smugness abounds all over the place. Some days, we just swim in it and on others, we drown. 2453. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 4:47:36 PM "I have the feeling that few are really interested in serious discussion of what Buchanan has to say because they cannot get past their hatred of him." 2454. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 4:47:53 PM 2455. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 4:50:15 PM Trial: 2456. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 4:52:32 PM 2457. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 4:57:46 PM Judith... 2458. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 5:03:01 PM RE: 2454. TrialShark - 11/2/99 9:47:53 PM 2459. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 5:05:14 PM TS - Criticizing Pat Buchanan -- or suspecting that he harbors even the barest trace of anti-Semitism -- are conclusive proof of "leftyism." 2460. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:08:19 PM Cellar 2461. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:10:14 PM Of course, TS takes such a simplistic view of things. That is why he is never a match for either Ace or JJ, or even ninert for that matter. I offered to take the survey for him so niner would reach his goal of 50 but niner did not take me up on my offer. 2462. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:14:12 PM 2463. JJBiener - 11/2/1999 5:16:06 PM Al - Cellar can't see the left bias in the media because he is even farther left than they are. Compared to Cellar anyone short of the Symbionese Liberation Army is on the right. 2464. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:16:57 PM 2465. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:22:24 PM 2466. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 5:23:12 PM I didn't say no reason... I said no point... 2467. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:33:40 PM TS 2468. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:38:50 PM TS 2469. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:39:15 PM 2470. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 5:40:58 PM . 2471. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:42:05 PM TS 2472. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:42:55 PM 2473. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 5:44:43 PM 2474. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 5:49:51 PM iiibbb: 2475. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 5:59:25 PM Judith 2476. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:01:58 PM I think all citizens should register with the police when they purchase or begin to consume alcohol. Additionally they should provide information about their drinking histories or membership to organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, as it shows their propensity for abuse. 2477. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:04:40 PM TS 2478. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:05:26 PM Trialshark... I conceed the information is useful... I do not conceed the polices right to have it up front when I've done nothing wrong. 2479. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 6:07:37 PM Predictable Republican reaction to Clinton's forest protection plan. 2480. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:09:02 PM iiibbb 2481. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:10:28 PM Judith... 2482. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 6:12:31 PM iiibbb: 2483. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 6:14:05 PM iiibbb 2484. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 6:14:11 PM 2485. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 6:15:06 PM iiibbb: 2486. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:15:15 PM TS 2487. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 6:15:37 PM matresses=mattresses 2488. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:18:35 PM TS 2489. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 6:18:56 PM Well, as much as I hate to leave such good company and engaging conversation, I must go. Hope everyone has a nice evening and that iiibbb avoids any armed criminals on his way home. :-) 2490. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:19:38 PM Judith... the problem in registering to get that guy with 17 guns... you trample all the people like me who've done nothing. 2491. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:20:36 PM I've broken a couple of minor laws... a little speeding here and there... 2492. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:21:38 PM If I owned a large company, I would not allow computers to hook to the internet. 2493. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 6:23:16 PM 2494. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 6:23:37 PM Still fighting progress, huh, Al? How 'bout electricity or would you only work during daylight hours? 2495. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 6:24:06 PM 2496. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:31:20 PM Judith 2497. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 6:31:38 PM The Supreme Court will decide if police can apprehend you (solely) for running away from them. 2498. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 6:31:49 PM os=of, sorry TS. 2499. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 6:35:24 PM 2500. JudithAtHome - 11/2/1999 6:41:00 PM Al: 2501. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 6:52:07 PM For one Trial... the FBI already keeps records of gun purchases through their background checks at the time of purchase. So I believe the information is retrievable, just not centralized. 2502. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 7:08:54 PM For every criminal who gets in a shootout with the police... there are millions of law abiding gun owners who shouldn't have their rights infringed... 2503. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 7:24:08 PM see #2476 2504. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 7:38:04 PM I am in favor of registration and licensing of guns at the same level as the registration of cars and the licensing to drive. I fail to understand why this is a problem. 2505. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 7:47:10 PM 2506. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 7:49:49 PM TS - I heard that as well, and that both of the 767s were built immediately prior to a strike, during a time of tension and overtime. 2507. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 7:50:54 PM 2508. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 7:52:08 PM iiibbb, 2509. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 7:52:23 PM 2510. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 7:54:11 PM TS - I believe so, that was the impression I got from the local NPR story I heard yesterday. 2511. Gram2 - 11/2/1999 7:54:51 PM Clinton, threatens veto of budget: The Republican budget gives $3 billion more to education than Bubba requested, however, it would give the money to the school districts to use for their actual needs. Bubba says no, he wants the money in Washington to provide his 100,000 new teachers. Now if the districts need teachers they are perfectly free to use the money to hire them. Just another ploy on Bubba's part, providing Democrats with election year demagoguery that Republicans refused to add needed teachers. 2512. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 7:55:30 PM VonCreedon 2513. Gram2 - 11/2/1999 7:57:21 PM Forgot--facts from Fox News, speculation from me. 2514. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 7:59:58 PM 2515. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 8:01:35 PM 2516. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:01:47 PM IB - Are you arguing that guns are necessary to provide a countervailing force to the force of tyranny available to the state? 2517. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:07:20 PM TS 2518. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 8:07:22 PM RE: 2504 Von Credon 2519. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 8:08:38 PM Oh what an embarassing cross-post. 2520. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 8:10:03 PM So you support increased funding for BATF? 2521. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:13:59 PM IB - What licensing would do is make sure that people who legally buy guns are trained in the care and operation of guns. This might or might not have prevented the husband from getting out a handgun, pointing it at his wife and inadvertently pulling the trigger, but I believe that having to get and unlock the gun has at least a chance of then triggering the training about not pointing a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot. It also makes it less likely that my son or one of my son's friends will show off their parent's gun and shoot my son. That is what scares me, my son being shot by a friend or a member of a friends family, not that my home will be invaded by gun toting crack fiends and I will be underarmed. 2522. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 8:14:39 PM Aldavis, 2523. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 8:17:42 PM Cos, 2524. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:20:59 PM ChristinO 2525. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 8:21:12 PM RE 2516: I'm arguing that it is one potential check for an possible, albeit, unlikely scenario. Who knows what the political/societal atmosphere will be like in 20 or 50 years. 2526. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:22:31 PM Al - I still don't understand how registering guns and licensing their operation, as we do for motor vehicles, is a threat to the second amendment. 2527. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 8:28:32 PM Al -- 2528. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:29:19 PM Chris on "Hard Ball" just got off a good one. "What's with this Naomi, teaching Gore how to be an alpha male. Sounds like political viagra." 2529. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 8:30:00 PM 2530. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:33:16 PM IB - Yes, I agree that sometimes killing is necessary. I don't see how that is relevant to the registering and licensing of guns. 2531. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 8:33:59 PM RE 2521 Vc 2532. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:34:20 PM TS 2533. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 8:37:27 PM 2534. TrialShark - 11/2/1999 8:39:42 PM Al -- 2535. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:41:09 PM IB - I have done as you suggest, my son is well aware that we expect him to immediately leave the presence of a gun and find a responsible adult to put the gun away. I'm saying that given the numbers of guns and the mythic view that our society has about guns I do not trust that he would not be subject to a fatal hesitation in the presence of a cool peer with a gun. 2536. ChristinO - 11/2/1999 8:44:33 PM Aldavis, 2537. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:47:32 PM TS 2538. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 8:48:55 PM 2529. TrialShark - 11/3/99 1:30:00 AM 2539. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 8:58:54 PM TS 2540. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 8:59:32 PM IB - Regarding Vietnam and Afghanistan, the US/ARVN defeated the VietCong and were then defeated by the NVA, a regular army with anti-tank weapons, artillery, machine guns, and even tanks. The Soviets were in a position to defeat the Afghanis before we started supplying then with anti-tank and anti-air weapons. If we were to take our sidearms and assemble in great numbers to fight our government, we would be slaughtered. Sorry, its a myth that your 30-06 means anything when it comes to fighting government tyrrany. Only political action counts. Your gun will not keep you safe, it makes you and those around you less safe. 2541. CalGal - 11/2/1999 9:01:46 PM Sorry, its a myth that your 30-06 means anything when it comes to fighting government tyrrany. 2542. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 9:02:25 PM Cal - Sure, bring up Randy Weaver and his dead wife. 2543. CalGal - 11/2/1999 9:03:54 PM And his dead son killed by the government? Sure. 2544. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 9:09:12 PM Cal - You appear to arguing that Weaver and his family would have been less well off if he had been unarmed, correct? That they were safer because of the weapons he had? 2545. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 9:15:26 PM I never assumed my safety was guranteed by a gun. Nothing in life is guranteed despite what some would claim gov't can provide me. Guns are a final option in a long line of options. 2546. CalGal - 11/2/1999 9:16:49 PM No, actually, I think we are safer because of what Weaver did--given that a check to government power is generally a good thing. 2547. cpc - 11/2/1999 9:18:00 PM >>>>>What is it about guns that evokes such fierce resentment of any attempt to make their owners accountable for the safe possesion and operation? 2548. cpc - 11/2/1999 9:19:44 PM >>>>Guns are not going to keep you safe from the disgruntled Xerox 2549. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 9:24:20 PM Cal - Citing Weaver to show that guns protect us from government tyranny is not real useful since the right that was in question was the right to sell restricted firearms, in this case sawed off shotguns. That the Feds behaved horribly is not in question, what is in question is wether or not Weaver and the rest of us are more free because he suscribed to the mythic philosophy that an unrestricted gun equals a free man. 2550. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 9:24:31 PM vonKreedon 2551. vonKreedon - 11/2/1999 9:25:26 PM I will touch base with you all tomorow on this, I have to run and vote. 2552. cpc - 11/2/1999 9:26:01 PM >>>>Cal - Sure, bring up Randy Weaver and his dead wife. 2553. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 9:28:14 PM Von Creedon... it's not been proven a myth yet... and I don't want to be part of the experiment that tries to determine the invalidity of the myth. 2554. Greystoke - 11/2/1999 9:48:03 PM At the risk of repeating past arguments, there is a big difference between registering a gun and registering a car. We drive cars on roads owned by the government. If you drive your car only on private property, you don't need to register it, nor do you need a license. The state gets away with strict registration and licensing requirements and traffic laws because the state owns the highways you are driving on. 2555. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 9:50:23 PM Ken Keasey refused to licence his dog in Springfield, Ore., and he won the case. He claimed the dog belonged to himself. 2556. cpc - 11/2/1999 10:00:46 PM By licensing my car, I am allowed to legally drive it in every state. My firearms are registered, but I can't carry them in every state. 2557. Gram2 - 11/2/1999 10:11:39 PM Canada has a gun registration law. The NRA made a documentary about what has happened since. In the film Canadian citizens warned us not to pass such a law in our country, they were being forced to give up one gun type after another. One man said, we didn't think they would come after our hunting rifles and shotguns, but they are. Being very fond of Canada and the people (spent a lot of time there), I doubted the facts in the film so I checked on the net. It was a real eye-opener. You can start at www.nfa.ca if you would like to know more about it. 2558. Gram2 - 11/2/1999 10:11:40 PM Canada has a gun registration law. The NRA made a documentary about what has happened since. In the film Canadian citizens warned us not to pass such a law in our country, they were being forced to give up one gun type after another. One man said, we didn't think they would come after our hunting rifles and shotguns, but they are. Being very fond of Canada and the people (spent a lot of time there), I doubted the facts in the film so I checked on the net. It was a real eye-opener. You can start at www.nfa.ca if you would like to know more about it. 2559. Gram2 - 11/2/1999 10:12:29 PM Sorry, I did it again--damn impatience. 2560. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 10:24:32 PM The shooter's registered firearms 2561. Dusty - 11/2/1999 10:30:55 PM Aldavis 2562. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 10:32:56 PM I would love to know why he was denied a permit... if he was denied a permit... it means he may have been violating the law trying to obtain the firearm at that time. 2563. Aldavis - 11/2/1999 10:36:49 PM Dusty 2564. robertjayb - 11/2/1999 11:01:33 PM . 2565. iiibbb - 11/2/1999 11:25:48 PM Those sure sound like wonderful parents :/ hrm... 2566. cazart - 11/3/1999 11:19:10 AM iiibbb: 2567. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 11:55:33 AM 2568. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 11:57:57 AM 2569. CalGal - 11/3/1999 12:46:55 PM vK, 2570. Aldavis - 11/3/1999 12:56:33 PM CalGal 2571. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 1:00:18 PM Cazart 2568... please... I didn't say write a blank check. You asked if they deserve more funding. I said "depends what they want it for?" 2572. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 1:12:22 PM 2573. glendajean - 11/3/1999 1:24:17 PM CNN just reported that the jury in the Matthew Shepard murder trial has returned a verdict of guilty of felony murder, kidnapping and robbery against McKinny. They rejected premeditated first degree felony. 2574. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 1:28:02 PM RE 2566: I don't think my statistics are wrong, and here are some references. Just saying they’re wrong, and providing nothing to back your claim, is worthless. 2575. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 1:33:28 PM Trial shark 2572... 2576. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:36:33 PM CalGal: 2577. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:37:15 PM As for Weaver being the victim of government “tyranny”: Weaver was involved with a pack of criminals. The government informant who snared him on the weapons charge only knew him because he was hanging out with a fellow who was planning to take a bunch of schoolchildren hostage as part of a scheme to finance the white-supremacist cause. They decided to use the gun charge (a paltry charge, BTW) because he also was close friends with two other men who were believed to be smuggling guns over the Canadian border -- a serious matter, I think you’ll agree -- and they . And the marshals came to his home because he intentionally skipped his court date. This is not a case of government oppression; it’s a case of a petty crook refusing to face the music for being involved with some serious criminality. The only tyrants present in this case were the New World Order conspirators of his fevered imagination. 2578. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:38:06 PM I note this recent passage: The Feds behaved horribly. Had Weaver not resisted--which he did because he was armed--we would never have known they behaved horribly, and their tyranny (such as it was) would have gone on unchecked. 2579. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:39:04 PM Now, all that said, I don’t really disagree with your thesis -- I just think the Weaver case is a very poor example. My friend, Dr. Glenn Reynolds, put it best in a 1995 paper: 2580. Ronski - 11/3/1999 1:40:35 PM 2581. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:42:11 PM Sorry -- a missing phrase in #2577. The sentence should read: 2582. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 1:44:08 PM Trial Shark... re: 2567 2583. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:49:06 PM Ronski: In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am not a fan of gun control. 2584. CalGal - 11/3/1999 1:51:19 PM Spud, 2585. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 1:51:41 PM RE: 2579 and 2580 2586. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 1:52:44 PM 2587. CalGal - 11/3/1999 1:56:37 PM As I say, the Feds did not behave horribly until after the marshal was shot. 2588. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 1:59:41 PM 2589. JonesAtLaw - 11/3/1999 2:09:12 PM iiibbb- Trial is right, the exclusionary rule is a prophylatic one intended to vindicate citizen's constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure, and self-incrimination etc. It would be entirely constitutional for the court to craft another means of vindicating those rights, making a prior prosecution of illegal acts of the police mandatory before admitting illegally obtained evidence for example, granting some civil remedy or dismissal of the prosecution entirely if they thought that this would serve the purpose. 2590. robertjayb - 11/3/1999 2:14:31 PM . 2591. JonesAtLaw - 11/3/1999 2:15:02 PM The argument that irregulars with light arms are ineffective against modern armies [edit]...the Red Army, which many analysts once thought capable of cutting through the armies of Western Europe like a knife through cheese, is finding itself sorely tried by the irregulars of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic. 2592. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 2:18:19 PM CalGal: The government was on his property illegally, and they shot his dog. Generally speaking, if you are on someone else's property with a gun, you can expect to get shot. The marshals had a legal warrant. And they are trained to shoot animals that may reveal their positions or place members of the team at risk. All standard MO. 2593. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 2:18:56 PM Trial Shark-- 2594. JonesAtLaw - 11/3/1999 2:19:24 PM As for Randy Weaver- his guns lost- his wife and his son. His lawyers won. You want protection of your liberty against a tyranical government, thank a lawyer and don't duck jury duty. 2595. CalGal - 11/3/1999 2:24:26 PM Spud, 2596. cazart - 11/3/1999 2:25:34 PM Agree fully, JonesAtLaw. 2597. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 2:26:25 PM More nonsense: 2598. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 2:28:43 PM 2599. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 2:29:57 PM Cazart: I haven't a problem with the existence of SWAT teams, when deployed properly. I have a problem with them being deployed at the drop of a hat, and then given complete charge of scenes like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the result of doing so was disastrous. 2600. CalGal - 11/3/1999 2:34:05 PM You want protection of your liberty against a tyranical government, thank a lawyer and don't duck jury duty. 2601. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 2:35:32 PM RE: 2591: 2602. CalGal - 11/3/1999 2:36:18 PM The case had received considerable coverage well before the actual standoff. It was a prominent story in these parts. 2603. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 2:42:46 PM 2598. TrialShark - 11/3/99 7:28:43 PM 2604. 109109 - 11/3/1999 2:56:02 PM Spud 2605. 109109 - 11/3/1999 2:56:48 PM "He was shot in the back by a marshal positioned behind him when the incident began." 2606. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 3:10:26 PM 2598. TrialShark - 11/3/99 7:28:43 PM 2607. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 3:20:07 PM 2608. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 3:34:55 PM 2609. cazart - 11/3/1999 3:39:42 PM Looks like the "Wave of Evil" has traversed the Pacific from Hawaii to Washington state. 2610. CalGal - 11/3/1999 3:47:49 PM TS, 2611. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 3:49:01 PM Cazart... my gun has nothing to do with it. 2612. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 3:57:23 PM 2613. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:01:45 PM Trial... 2614. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 4:03:42 PM 2615. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:03:44 PM TS, 2616. JonesAtLaw - 11/3/1999 4:04:16 PM "You want protection of your liberty against a tyranical government, thank a lawyer and don't duck jury duty. [me] 2617. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:04:32 PM I wouldn't be suprised if some people are already armed at work. I work at a federal facility... so it's against the rules here. People could more or less walk right in if they wanted... not allowed to defend ourselves and no security provided either... 2618. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 4:08:18 PM 2619. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:14:13 PM Jones, 2620. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:14:48 PM I wonder how much of this press 'coverage' of crazed gunners doesn't inspire other crazed gunners. I mean they spend ---hours--- analyzing ever neuance of the psycho's life. I'm sure some nuts out there see it as finnally getting some legitamacy to their wacked out perception of the world. 2621. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:16:06 PM TS, 2622. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 4:17:52 PM 2623. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:17:53 PM I wonder how much of this press 'coverage' of crazed gunners doesn't inspire other crazed gunners. 2624. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:18:25 PM TS, 2625. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 4:21:29 PM 2626. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 4:22:32 PM 2627. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:28:53 PM lol @ copycat... 2628. Cellar Door - 11/3/1999 4:29:13 PM Yeah, it was Spielberg. 2629. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 4:30:17 PM CalGal: Because what made it interesting was the fight. Before then, it was just a case of potential government entrapment efforts. I haven't looked up the details lately, but I believe we were talking a misdemeanor and that he hadn't even failed to show yet. 2630. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:31:19 PM No, there is a difference between Hinkley, Unabomer, and McVey--and the ones I'm thinking of now. The first group had a cause. Yes, they wanted attention, but it was for the cause. 2631. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:31:28 PM I beleive I read that the concept of hijacking an airplane was inspired by a some novel. 2632. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 4:33:01 PM 109: 2633. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 4:34:16 PM CalGal: 2634. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:34:59 PM CAl: 2635. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 4:41:07 PM Some crazies might even think that once the press gets into it, they'll uncover the 'cause'. 2636. 109109 - 11/3/1999 4:44:15 PM Spud 2637. CalGal - 11/3/1999 4:59:28 PM A federal marshal, through intermediaries, warned Weaver that a warrant was about to be issued for his failure to appear. 2638. Dusty - 11/3/1999 5:00:12 PM Niner You may trust them implicitly, to the point of shilling. 2639. Dusty - 11/3/1999 5:03:12 PM TrialShark 2640. CalGal - 11/3/1999 5:05:51 PM Unfortunately getting on TV is a cause in and of itself for some people. 2641. Dusty - 11/3/1999 5:06:20 PM BTW, spudboy is right on the timing issue. I once thought the standoff occurred before the (mistaken) date on the letter, but I checked the facts and realized I had misremembered. This doesn't absolve the FBI of egregious conduct, but it isn't true that the firefight occurred prior to the date Randy thought he was supposed to show up. 2642. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 5:08:24 PM 2643. CalGal - 11/3/1999 5:09:03 PM but it isn't true that the firefight occurred prior to the date Randy thought he was supposed to show up. 2644. CalGal - 11/3/1999 5:09:54 PM Arrgggh. Issued. The bench warrant wasn't arrested; in fact, the charges against it were dismissed. 2645. iiibbb - 11/3/1999 5:14:35 PM RE 2640 Cal... perhaps we are arguing the same side of the point. 2646. CalGal - 11/3/1999 5:16:44 PM I don't think they're even getting 15 minutes now. 2647. JonesAtLaw - 11/3/1999 5:18:16 PM Weaver failed to appear for the date given him in the letter by the pre-trial services officer. The firefight was several months after that date, right? Failing to appear after pre-trial release is an offense in itself. However, given the rest of the cock-up of the case, the charge was dismissed. He was a fugitive, period. The government agents had the right and a duty to arrest him. 2648. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 6:46:32 PM 109109: Re #2636 2649. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 6:48:43 PM TrialShark: 2650. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 6:54:30 PM 2651. 109109 - 11/3/1999 7:31:44 PM Spud in recent discussion 2652. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 7:40:51 PM Whatever. It's clear you can't discern scorn for disseminating misinformation and falsehoods from questioning people's motives. 2653. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 7:42:14 PM Now if you'll excuse me, I have a police dog sniffing at my door. 2654. CalGal - 11/3/1999 7:45:35 PM Jones, 2655. 109109 - 11/3/1999 7:46:57 PM Spud 2656. ScottLoar - 11/3/1999 7:47:17 PM I do take some vicarious pleasure in occasionally reading the exchanges between Spudboy and 109109, both of whose intellect, competence, expression and opinion I respect, yet perversely are they paired. 2657. 109109 - 11/3/1999 7:47:59 PM Dinner calls. 2658. Cellar Door - 11/3/1999 7:54:44 PM 2659. Aldavis - 11/3/1999 8:10:42 PM spudboy 2660. Gram2 - 11/3/1999 8:11:33 PM 2661. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 8:20:51 PM 2662. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 8:33:52 PM Al: Actually, I live in Seattle, but Boundary and Bonner counties are my old stomping grounds. I did travel to Ruby Ridge the day after Sammy was shot and stayed there for two days. Obviously, I didn't get anywhere behind the police lines. 2663. Gram2 - 11/3/1999 8:40:02 PM Sharkbite: It will be awfully embarrassing if Braun confiscates some funds over there for her personal use. I think we should send our best to foreign countries, after all, we don't want them to think she represents most of us. 2664. Greystoke - 11/3/1999 8:47:01 PM Why do we need an ambassador to New Zealand anyway? Does the world's pre-eminent superpower need to treat every former British penal colony as if it were a real country? 2665. Gram2 - 11/3/1999 8:58:46 PM Greystoke: Hey, New Zealand was a great help and ally in WWII. It was also our base for armed forces preparing for the invasion of Japan. I think we owe them a little respect. 2666. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 9:01:18 PM 2667. Aldavis - 11/3/1999 9:17:44 PM TS 2668. TrialShark - 11/3/1999 10:39:32 PM 2669. Aldavis - 11/3/1999 11:22:17 PM TS 2670. JonesAtLaw - 11/4/1999 1:23:36 AM Al- 76? I can forgive your politics, but shooting 76 even after missing three easy birdies, that's beyond my powers. I'd frame my card if I hit 76 through divine intervention. Would my slice go away if I came over to the dark side? 2671. Dusty - 11/4/1999 9:27:25 AM TrialShark 2672. Dusty - 11/4/1999 9:30:28 AM TrialShark 2673. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 9:42:00 AM Maybe James Hormel should have gotten New Zealand and Carol Mosley Braun the Luxembourg gig. 2674. Bubbaette - 11/4/1999 10:24:30 AM An article in the New Republic(an) this week indicated that Helm's opposition to Mosley' Braun's nomination originated from her impassioned speech against renewing some sort of charter for the Daughter's of the American Conferacy, making him look (even more)racist and vindictive. However, the bigger story seems to be Carol and her Boyfriends' use of campaign funds for shopping sprees, cars, and vacations. 2675. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 10:28:08 AM 2676. Dusty - 11/4/1999 10:29:20 AM Cellar Door 2677. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:31:32 AM Spud tells us that Sammy Weaver "did not turn to run" during the initial shootout at Ruby Ridge. This, spud tells us, "is not in dispute." 2678. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:32:10 AM From the report: 2679. Dusty - 11/4/1999 10:34:37 AM Bubbaette 2680. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:34:49 AM Dr. Martin L. Fackler testified at trial for the prosecution as an expert in "wound ballistics." Dr. Fackler concluded that the fatal wound was caused by a.9mm bullet.[FN433] Dr. Fackler believed the bullet that caused the fatal wound was similar to the silver tipped bullets used in Cooper's weapon.[FN434] 2681. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:35:37 AM Cooper said that he purposely fired three shots at Harris, after Harris shot Degan and appeared to be preparing to fire at Degan again. Cooper was convinced that he wounded or killed Harris, who dropped to the ground "like a sack of potatoes."[FN440] Actually, Cooper missed Harris, who disappeared out of view into the woods along the trail. Cooper then wheeled his weapon toward Sammy and took aim, but did not fire.[FN441] Cooper next fired a second three round burst, in the direction from which he had received fire, as cover in an effort to reach Degan. He said this burst was not directed at a specific target. It is possible that Sammy may have been mortally wounded at that time. 2682. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:36:07 AM From Kevin Harris' Testimony 9/26/95 statement to the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM,TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 2683. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:36:29 AM Another? James Bovard, in the December 1997 American Spectator: "Marshal Arthur Roderick shot the boy's dog, the boy fired back, and a firefight ensued in which marshal William Degan was killed. As Sammy Weaver ran from the scene towards the family's shack, Marshal Larry Cooper shot him in the back and killed him." 2684. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 10:36:29 AM I would like to change my "test" answer on #14 from Molly Ivins to Niner. (I meant to do this yesterday but forgot.) 2685. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:38:25 AM Jesse Helms is modeled on Charles Laughton's senator in "Advise and Consent." A smiling, wily, vindictive piece if work. 2686. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:41:20 AM I mean, Ambassador to Mexico William Weld. 2687. Bubbaette - 11/4/1999 10:41:58 AM Dusty 2688. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 10:43:49 AM Because he's an idiot? 2689. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:47:17 AM There are just so many reasons to oppose CMB's nomination. Not the least of which is that she is just as dumb as a stump. If I am to endure Jesse's freezeouts, I'm glad he occasionally picks a winner. 2690. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 10:50:17 AM Cellar - Re #2675. Given the available description of the assailant, how would you propose the police handle that situation? Should they have just thrown up their hands and say, "We don't want to offend anyone, so we will let this guy walk." They had a description of a black man with a cut on his hand. They questioned people to see if they fit that description. If the person in question had been white they would have done the same thing. Its not like they arrested every black man in town. They just stopped them to see if they fit the description. Please explain what else they could have done? 2691. Dusty - 11/4/1999 10:52:30 AM Cellar Door 2692. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 10:59:18 AM The better question regarding CMB's nomination is not "why does Helm's oppose it" but rather "what was Clinton's motivation in making the nomination?" Is CMB really the best cadidate for the position? I doubt it. As CalGal pointed out there are many reasons to oppose her nomination. What reason are the Democrats going to claim? Racism. Democrats are once again resorting to the politics of racial division. 2693. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 11:01:12 AM Oh my god, JJ....this from the party of racial inclusiveness! 2694. Dusty - 11/4/1999 11:04:27 AM Bubbaette 2695. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:04:46 AM Dusty - "Never mind that the cops were not considering any other aspect of the so-called description except race." 2696. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:05:31 AM "If the person in question had been white they would have done the same thing." 2697. Dusty - 11/4/1999 11:07:56 AM JJBiener 2698. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:08:26 AM Judith - The Democrats have never been the party of racial inclusiveness. They have always used racial divisions for political gain. This is yet another egregious example. 2699. Dusty - 11/4/1999 11:10:12 AM JJBiener 2700. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:10:54 AM So why have the Republicans chosen George W. Bush over Alan Keyes? 2701. 109109 - 11/4/1999 11:15:38 AM Helms fucked over William Weld out of personal picque. 2702. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:16:39 AM Cellar - No they would not. 2703. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:17:39 AM Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. What do police do when a crime is committed? They question witnesses and and collect evidence. Then they take appropriate action. Stopping and questioning every black American becuase one of them is suspected of a crime is no logical way to proceed. Why do they do it. 2704. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 11:19:32 AM JJ: 2705. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:20:32 AM Cellar - Why have the Democrats picked Gore and Bradley over Jesse Jackson? The Republicans have a black man in the race, why don't the Democrats. Why is the "party of inclusion" excluding blacks? 2706. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 11:20:57 AM 2707. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 11:21:29 AM On the other hand, maybe Cellar is right and I'm just not "seeing" all those black Republicans in the pictures. 2708. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:22:20 AM I asked first, J.J. 2709. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 11:22:54 AM 2710. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:25:13 AM Judith - Think about it. You have two parties to choose from. One party favors giving you preferential treatment in school admissions, hiring decisions, government contracts, etc. The other party says you have to compete on the same basis as everyone else. Do you think this might influence your choice? 2711. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:27:51 AM And the other party wants to featherbed overpaid "defense" contractors and establish a Christian Fundamentalist Thocracy. 2712. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 11:29:44 AM JJ: 2713. 109109 - 11/4/1999 11:30:48 AM Trial 2714. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:32:02 AM Cellar - But of course you know the answer to that: "Hymietown" ended Jackson's political career. 2715. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 11:32:21 AM I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a 'white male'... 2716. JonesAtLaw - 11/4/1999 11:33:40 AM JJB- we had a system that supposedly did exactly as you said- everything on merit, save for the South where the exclusions were in law. However, both North and South had a conspicuous lack of minorities and women in positions of prestige and power. You might understand the skepticism the GOP faces when some of the ardent supporters of de jure segregation and discrimination are at the helm and want to return to their previous standard. 2717. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:34:21 AM Why the quotes around white male? 2718. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:36:12 AM Judith - For one thing, I think you are slightly skewed by your hatred of all things Democratic. 2719. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 11:36:24 AM "Since your token has eliminated himself from contention, why are there no other blacks at the national level who can take his place?" 2720. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 11:38:34 AM The quotes are there becasue that was the precise words that were on why I was being turned down for the position.... used "off the record" of course. 2721. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 11:39:46 AM CORRECTION: 2722. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:42:34 AM Jones - You might understand the skepticism the GOP faces when some of the ardent supporters of de jure segregation and discrimination are at the helm 2723. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:48:55 AM Cellar - And weren't we just talking Carol Mosley Braun? What sbout Willie Brown? 2724. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 11:51:24 AM Judith - You never answered the question. Do you think the fact that Democratic Party supports preferential treatment for blacks might have something to do with support they receive from black voters? 2725. vonKreedon - 11/4/1999 11:54:15 AM JJ - That the Dems seek to advocate for the full inclusion of blacks and other minorities in civil society does indeed have much to do with the support that the Dems receive from said minorities. That the Reps view such inclusion as special rights has much to do with the lack of said minorities in the Rep party. 2726. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 12:01:43 PM VonK: 2727. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 12:07:29 PM The cynic in me makes me think some people on both sides try to exploit the race to their advantage. I don’t mean to diminish anyone’s personal experiences by saying what I do here either. 2728. Dusty - 11/4/1999 12:15:20 PM Cellar Door 2729. Dusty - 11/4/1999 12:18:13 PM Cellar Door 2730. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 12:50:42 PM Mayor Willi(am) Brown may be free to run for President; an article in Salon today says he's being forced into a run-off by a successful write-in campaign for a city supervisor who is a gay former stand-up comic. 2731. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 12:54:46 PM vonK - That the Dems seek to advocate for the full inclusion of blacks and other minorities in civil society does indeed have much to do with the support that the Dems receive from said minorities. 2732. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 12:56:40 PM Judith - How much support do you think Mr. Brown would receive from the DNC if he decided to make a Presidential bid? 2733. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:00:50 PM JJ: 2734. CalGal - 11/4/1999 1:01:46 PM Willie's cool. I wish he'd run for Senator last year. 2735. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:02:53 PM JJ: 2736. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:06:27 PM So, that killer in the Shepard case got 2 consecutive life terms instead of death. 2737. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 1:09:22 PM 2738. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:11:47 PM Yeah, he will certainly learn the meaning of THAT term. Poetic justice? 2739. DaveM - 11/4/1999 1:13:23 PM JJBiener: 2740. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 1:14:06 PM Judith - Sometimes entire hours go by where I don't think about party affiliations at all. 2741. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:25:21 PM JJ: 2742. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 1:25:31 PM 2743. CalGal - 11/4/1999 1:28:15 PM I will bring up my bi-monthly mention of how unhealthy it is for blacks to be so loyal to the Dems. 2744. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 1:30:18 PM DaveM - I am astounded that you refuse to recognize, even critically, that the GOP has a tradition, linked to Nixon, of catering to racial animosity in the South. 2745. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 1:35:59 PM TS - I wonder if Ms Shark's opinion is similar to mine. I think McKinney should be beaten severely and left to die tied to a fence post. I think the needle is far to merciful for him. As an alternative I would accept releasing him into the general prison population with a racial epithet tatooed on his forehead. 2746. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 1:41:32 PM 2747. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 1:50:05 PM TS - I support humane executions in almost all instances. 2748. 109109 - 11/4/1999 1:51:25 PM I have no real problem with execution of death sentence in like manner to the crime committed. I understand that most would consider such a sentence barbaric, but I think it would speak rather well of us as a society, and it really couldn't get much more barbaric than electrocuting or hanging a man. 2749. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 1:53:34 PM I think we should not only execute them but televise it, too. 2750. glendajean - 11/4/1999 1:55:18 PM The Shepard family is much kinder than I would be. I understand that they consented to the plea agreement. 2751. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 1:55:18 PM 2752. 109109 - 11/4/1999 1:57:40 PM Juditha 2753. 109109 - 11/4/1999 1:59:17 PM Trial 2754. DaveM - 11/4/1999 1:59:53 PM JJ: 2755. DaveM - 11/4/1999 2:00:00 PM Again: insinuating that advocates of affirmative action don't want people to be treated equally is the very rhetoric that is so divisive. It is divisive to characterize affirmative action as "preferences" without addressing the promulgated justifications for it. It is easy to be opposed to affirmative action; in fact, I am opposed to most types of it (I think that it falsely identifies racism as aberrant rather than pervasive). Even if you think that Democrats are merely lying in their defense of affirmative action, attempting to get the endorsement of those huge and politically powerful minority voting blocks, you should still attempt to deal with the argument. 2756. DaveM - 11/4/1999 2:02:18 PM Oops. I meant to put a smiley face after the "false consciousness" line -Freudian slip? 2757. CalGal - 11/4/1999 2:08:14 PM No, I think the other 50% should go to social services. We could start orphanages to remove kids from the parents who turn them into animals. 2758. 109109 - 11/4/1999 2:09:41 PM Cal 2759. CalGal - 11/4/1999 2:12:02 PM I hate her. I mean, I hate her. 2760. 109109 - 11/4/1999 2:16:24 PM Cal 2761. JonesAtLaw - 11/4/1999 2:17:12 PM Most of the racists and segregationists stayed in the Democratic party because that is where their power base is. 2762. JudithAtHome - 11/4/1999 2:19:51 PM We can call the show "Who Wants To Be An Executioner?" 2763. CalGal - 11/4/1999 2:21:49 PM Niner, 2764. 109109 - 11/4/1999 2:23:38 PM Juditha, Juditha, Juditha 2765. 109109 - 11/4/1999 2:24:11 PM Cal 2766. CalGal - 11/4/1999 2:26:01 PM Niner, 2767. DaveM - 11/4/1999 2:26:06 PM 109109: 2768. cazart - 11/4/1999 2:27:28 PM We know, from Oval Office tapes of Nixon, that he ordered Fred Mallek to gather all the names of all Jews serving in certain Government agencies. I don't think it was to send them Hannukah cards. 2769. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 2:50:17 PM I don't care to be an executioner, thanks. I'm may be willing to kill if pushed to it in self defense, but I don't want to have to do that either. 2770. glendajean - 11/4/1999 2:56:06 PM I support gun control. I don't want to see people tortured on television. I do support the right of the state to execute murderers. 2771. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 3:05:29 PM Jones - Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and others went over to the GOP 2772. CalGal - 11/4/1999 3:06:07 PM I oppose most gun control (only Niner could get away with saying his position on gun control implies support), oppose the death penalty, and think that as long as we're going to be barbaric, we should do it properly. 2773. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:15:01 PM RE:2772 Cal-- 2774. CalGal - 11/4/1999 3:23:46 PM One has nothing to do with the other, really. No reason that any combination isn't allowed. 2775. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:29:34 PM I just feel that those fundamental emotions that would lead to those views are diametrically opposed... 2776. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:30:58 PM ...not important really... 2777. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 3:31:25 PM The death penalty is an admission that some crimes are beyond the pale of human forgiveness, beyond hope of reform, which very existence trespass the standards of decent conduct a society sets for itself as necessary for that society to continue. The death penalty is necessary for a society that cannot choose to ignore those who violate those basic standards. 2778. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 3:32:23 PM DaveM - Your argument is nothing but mischaracterization and distortion. 2779. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:33:32 PM I understand that Scott... but then for someone to turn around and tell me I can't use a gun to kill someone who is trying to kill me... 2780. EricCartman - 11/4/1999 3:35:05 PM Niner Message # 2748: 2781. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 3:36:27 PM Hell, of course you are obliged to protect your life! There must be a tacit understanding in civilized society that each man (okay, "person" intended for the PC concerned)has the right to live, and acknowledging so then his right to defend his life is implicit. 2782. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 3:37:33 PM Eric Cartman, is my reasoning explained in #2777 full of shit? 2783. EricCartman - 11/4/1999 3:39:14 PM Loar Message # 2777: 2784. EricCartman - 11/4/1999 3:41:15 PM Crosspost Loar. No, of course you're not full of shit. #2777 says nothing about deterrence. I think even die-hard DP proponents scarcely bother with the deterrence argument anymore anyway. 2785. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:42:02 PM I can visualize the emotions behind 2786. CalGal - 11/4/1999 3:44:10 PM 33B, 2787. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 3:44:54 PM I understood the legal procedures involving the death penalty to be quite different from the ordinary, the protocols acknowledging the seriousness of the proceedings and designed to convict only in the complete absence of doubt. 2788. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 3:47:14 PM DaveM - Again: insinuating that advocates of affirmative action don't want people to be treated equally is the very rhetoric that is so divisive. 2789. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:48:15 PM RE: 2781 Scott... you don't need to convince me of that. 2790. CalGal - 11/4/1999 3:49:15 PM My original comment in 2769 was inspired by my belief that there are some in this forum who would deny me my right to defend myself with a gun, but then apparently turn around and say the state can execute people. 2791. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:50:50 PM I'm not assuming about anyone's motives Cal... just stating an opinion about the inconsistancy I see in two views... 2792. CalGal - 11/4/1999 3:53:26 PM I'm just pointing out that there isn't any inconsistency at all. 2793. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 3:53:43 PM I'm sure there are. So what? 2794. EricCartman - 11/4/1999 3:54:24 PM I understood the legal procedures involving the death penalty to be quite different from the ordinary, the protocols acknowledging the seriousness of the proceedings and designed to convict only in the complete absence of doubt. 2795. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 3:59:49 PM I would think the protocols in play for crimes subject to the death penalty would disallow the jury to convict on grounds of simple perception, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, is the death penalty necessary? I say yes, and we must be perfect in our judicious use of the death penalty. 2796. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 4:21:09 PM The use of the Death Penalty should be extremely rare. It should be saved for the most egregious cases where the individual has shown extreme cruelty. The recent cases in Wyoming and Texas are fine examples. Crimes against children would also qualify. The kid who shoots a 7-11 clerk because he panics during a robbery should not be executed. 2797. EricCartman - 11/4/1999 4:27:10 PM Absolutely. There needs to be a mechanism in place to rid us of the John Gacys and Ted Bundys of the world, so the DP definitely serves a useful purpose. 2798. ScottLoar - 11/4/1999 4:31:21 PM Sure the death penalty should be rare else to what end? I was quite, quite clear at to what crimes were deserving the death penalty. 2799. iiibbb - 11/4/1999 4:31:50 PM I've got no problem executing the real monsters out there like thsoe serial killers etc... it's the other cases where the DP makes me uneasy. 2800. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:34:00 PM JJBiener, msg 2788: "The only party that has ever catered to the Southern racists is the Democrats." 2801. DaveM - 11/4/1999 4:34:35 PM JJ: 2802. DaveM - 11/4/1999 4:34:43 PM Don't you recognize the irony in this? You are accusing me of doing the exact same thing that you are doing; your statement that discrimination is always wrong is every bit as subjective as my statement that discrimination is wrong when it reinforces a legacy of oppression. We simply identify "discrimination" differently. I would be more than happy to argue with you about which is the more desirable definition of the word. Additionally, you seem to be arguing circularly - affirmative action is wrong because it is divisive, but it is divisive because it is wrong. I have a particularly violent visceral gut reaction to your definition of discrimination - does that make it divisive? 2803. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:39:14 PM As long-time participants in the Fray and the Mote now, JJ's remarks are yet another return to his theme that Democrats are racist and Republicans are not because in 1964 Southern Senators - then all Democrats - voted against the Civil Rights act. Of course, the Democratic party, led by Lyndon Johnson, shortly thereafter moved away from its shameful history while the Republican party actively courted the southern white racists left behind by the Democrats (the "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon and other Republican leaders of the late 60's/early 70's). This is documented fact, however often JJ denies it. 2804. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:42:58 PM Here's one summary of the "Southern Strategy": 2805. DaveM - 11/4/1999 4:44:21 PM Ohio: 2806. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:51:12 PM Sorry, Dave, I missed your link. 2807. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 4:53:53 PM Ohio - . Two obvious contrary examples: David Duke as Republican nominee for governor of Louisiana, and Trent Lott as keynote speaker before the Council of Conservative Citizens. 2808. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:57:08 PM If so, then why was Lott ever a Democrat to begin with? 2809. OhioSTOPAS - 11/4/1999 4:58:24 PM And by the way, JJ, what is the basis for your statement in #2771 that Lloyd Bentsen is or was a "racist/segregationist"? 2810. Spudboy - 11/4/1999 5:09:39 PM JJ, DaveM: 2811. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:13:46 PM DaveM - There are two obvious responses: first, your assertion that "discrimination" is always bad amounts to the same sort of picking and choosing; 2812. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:14:05 PM Suggest an alternative. Your fetishization of color blindness is amusing -it never fails to maze me how an initially progressive argument can be turned regressive. 2813. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:19:33 PM Ohio - the Republican party actively courted the southern white racists left behind by the Democrats (the "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon and other Republican leaders of the late 60's/early 70's). This is documented fact, however often JJ denies it. 2814. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:24:06 PM Spudboy - These moves, as well as the continuing GOP efforts to pander to white bigots in the South -- which were plain to anyone inside the party, except perhaps the most self-deluded partisan -- are the primary reason I left the Republican party in the late '70s. Trying to pretend that Democrats are lying about the strategy and the cynicism underlying it are simply delusional or revisionist. 2815. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:26:04 PM Ohio - what is the basis for your statement in #2771 that Lloyd Bentsen is or was a "racist/segregationist"? 2816. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 5:32:16 PM Ohio - If so, then why was Lott ever a Democrat to begin with 2817. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 6:14:13 PM 2818. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 6:22:06 PM 2819. JJBiener - 11/4/1999 6:27:50 PM Grey - Would you feel different if it had been the sex offender who was attacked? I know I would, but I am curious how you feel about it. 2820. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 6:48:41 PM Trialshark 2821. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 6:59:45 PM JJ 2822. CalGal - 11/4/1999 7:03:35 PM My opinion is that either the offender has paid his debt to society or he should stay in prison. 2823. DaveM - 11/4/1999 7:12:45 PM Spudboy: 2824. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 7:14:24 PM 2825. CalGal - 11/4/1999 7:16:31 PM TS, 2826. ranheim - 11/4/1999 7:20:37 PM TrialShark 2827. robertjayb - 11/4/1999 7:36:16 PM 2828. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 8:12:43 PM Trailshark 2829. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 8:19:58 PM roberjayb 2830. TrialShark - 11/4/1999 8:23:10 PM 2831. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 8:43:57 PM Death penalty reform proposed in Illinois. 2832. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 9:15:32 PM 2833. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 9:44:11 PM Read it and weep -- Breeder-Boys! 2834. 109109 - 11/4/1999 9:51:40 PM I second Cal and TS. Given the extreme harm and the as-yet unreliability of rehabilitation, child molestors should be subject to a 2 strikes and life rule. 2835. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:03:02 PM Depending on the type of offense, I'm not sure I'd give them a second strike. 2836. robertjayb - 11/4/1999 10:07:17 PM . 2837. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:14:41 PM Cal 2838. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:18:05 PM Niner, 2839. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 10:18:14 PM robertjayb 2840. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:22:58 PM Cal 2841. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 10:26:11 PM cellar 2842. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:27:47 PM Niner, 2843. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:32:02 PM Although if Greystoke wagged his, he'd probably do some serious damage and do time on a related aggravated assault charge. 2844. Stumbo - 11/4/1999 10:32:50 PM "I am potentially biased, but since there is no legacy of oppression, I am not racist." 2845. Aldavis - 11/4/1999 10:35:51 PM I am very happy to say that I can provide no information on Cellar's claim. 2846. 109109 - 11/4/1999 10:39:34 PM Stumbo 2847. joezan - 11/4/1999 10:45:39 PM 2848. CalGal - 11/4/1999 10:45:41 PM Yes, but geeks are oppressed. And Stumbo is a major geek. Since he's oppressed, he can say things that would otherwise be racist and it's okay. 2849. Aldavis - 11/4/1999 10:45:58 PM I can tell you that the first liar does not stand a chance. 2850. Greystoke - 11/4/1999 10:49:52 PM CalGal 2851. Stumbo - 11/4/1999 10:59:10 PM Heh. Good points, folks. 2852. robertjayb - 11/4/1999 11:03:29 PM . 2853. joezan - 11/4/1999 11:12:23 PM rjb: 2854. robertjayb - 11/4/1999 11:41:40 PM . 2855. joezan - 11/4/1999 11:46:48 PM 2856. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 12:50:54 AM I'm conducting a study. Mine's the size of a baseball bat. How about yours? 2857. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 1:27:11 AM Hoo boy. 2858. JonesAtLaw - 11/5/1999 1:38:52 AM I'm conducting a study. Mine's the size of a baseball bat. How about yours? 2859. EricCartman - 11/5/1999 2:02:09 AM Spuds: 2860. cigarlaw - 11/5/1999 2:36:38 AM in calif, a child molester is likely to stay locked for life on a civil commitment. every2yrs he is entitled to a jury trial to decide if he is no longer a thret. the burden of proof is only to a perponderence of evidence--a pretty low standard. 2861. concerned - 11/5/1999 3:01:57 AM The British 'Spectator' is reporting that William Cohen and Phony Blare's claims of as many as 100,000 or more Kosovars 'killed' by Serbs appear to be out and out lies meant to justify the Clowntoon/Blare warmongering in Kosovo set up by the Rambouillet Ultimatum. 2862. concerned - 11/5/1999 3:02:19 AM So what is the final body count? A senior intelligence source in Croatia insists that, with 20 forensic teams comprising 400 individuals active in Kosovo throughout the summer, the total number of bodies exhumed in Kosovo to date is 670 with the approximate following breakdown: 2863. cigarlaw - 11/5/1999 3:04:43 AM ?SUPREMES TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS ANY REASON WHY PEOPLE MIGHT RUN FROM THE 2864. cigarlaw - 11/5/1999 3:05:45 AM ? 2865. cigarlaw - 11/5/1999 3:08:00 AM ABC reporter Beverley Lumpkin's weekly report, "Halls Of Justice," which 2866. concerned - 11/5/1999 3:23:45 AM A person carrying a placard protesting the WH Rapist in Hartford, Connecticut today (name not available) says he required a police escort to his car when members of an African American crowd taunted and began to assault him, saying such things as: 2867. concerned - 11/5/1999 3:26:26 AM ..is this... 2868. Dusty - 11/5/1999 7:44:03 AM Greystoke 2869. Dusty - 11/5/1999 7:44:58 AM OhioSTOPAS 2870. Dusty - 11/5/1999 7:50:04 AM Stumbo 2871. joezan - 11/5/1999 10:14:55 AM 2872. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 10:25:07 AM 'Clinton is the only good white man?' What racist insanity it this? 2873. JonesAtLaw - 11/5/1999 10:46:36 AM Ciggie- nice posts on the flight from the cops. I would offer the following as a reason for running from police. If I saw several cars stop quickly and men jump out running around, I wouldn't think that they were the Welcome Waggon, and that they intended to harm someone. I wouldn't want to be around to be the innocent bystander that gets shot in one of these exchanges, and so my feet and I would be going as fast as possible away from the scene. I wouldn't stick around to see if they were cops, robbers or what have you. 2874. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 10:53:50 AM I know enough not to run from the cops. 2875. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 10:56:01 AM Cellar: 2876. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 10:57:46 AM Whoa.....guess I'm not as sensitive as I thought! 2877. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:06:14 AM DaveM 2878. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:13:46 AM Cellar - LOL! 2879. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 11:13:50 AM I didn't find out that I was one of a set of groups until elementary school when I first encountered the salutation "HEY NIIGER WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN HERE?" 2880. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 11:15:11 AM I don't know what you're laughing at. You're more white than you are black. 2881. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:15:23 AM Cellar - BTW, #2874 was disgusting. There are children present. 2882. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 11:16:49 AM Hey, I put up a warning. 2883. JonesAtLaw - 11/5/1999 11:21:29 AM I dislike the "legacy of oppression" cop out. At least there is the honesty of admission of "bias." But race itself is a lie, using a lie to distinguish one's bias from another's racism is perpetuating the big lie. 2884. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 11:22:24 AM JJ: 2885. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 11:23:36 AM I think he meant Ace, Judith. 2886. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:24:59 AM Cellar - According to J.J., doing something about such treatment constitutes racism. 2887. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 11:25:45 AM Oh.....well, I think Ace can take care of himself. (heh, heh) 2888. vonKreedon - 11/5/1999 11:26:33 AM JJ wrote, "And don't try to tell me that all blacks are disadvantaged, I know better." This is almost funny. Yes, there are in fact blacks who are well off, who have high ranking management positions etc etc. But relative to whites at the same level they are at a disadvantage BECAUSE they are black. Same thing with women, with latinos, with openly gay/lesbian... 2889. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:26:39 AM 2884. JudithAtHome - 11/5/99 11:22:24 AM 2890. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 11:26:57 AM JJ: 2891. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 11:27:49 AM How many cops are there in LA? 2892. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:32:46 AM vonK - But relative to whites at the same level they are at a disadvantage BECAUSE they are black. 2893. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:37:42 AM Judith - It's common knowledge that blacks are routinely stopped in LA for DWB. 2894. JonesAtLaw - 11/5/1999 11:41:28 AM We have more minorities in positions of power and prestige now than in the past largely due to the changes in our gatekeeper institutions. Schools and social clubs stopped expressly segregating and opened themselves to minorities. Minorities did just what the majority did in these organizations, learned skills, made contacts found mentors. They went on to enjoy the benefits that the majority had and suceeded much as the majority. However, we are still not at the point where all our gatekeepers are open to qualified people. Once that happens affirmative action can stop. We do need to recognize that advances have been made and tailor AA to those advances. 2895. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 11:42:41 AM JJ: 2896. CalGal - 11/5/1999 11:47:31 AM But Judith, college education is available to all, now. And as a result of government preference requirements, many minority owned businesses rely on the government as their source of business. They don't have to compete, they can bid higher prices and get the job anyway. That can't be a good idea. 2897. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 11:55:41 AM I'll tell you how not to do it affirmative action... and this happened to me. 2898. CalGal - 11/5/1999 11:58:34 AM Oh, that's nonsense. People hire for all sorts of reasons. I see no reason why an employer shouldn't have to make damn sure that they have a diverse employee population. Skill sets don't matter fer shit a great deal of the time. 2899. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 12:03:20 PM Cal: 2900. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 12:04:31 PM Skill sets matter plenty if there is a specific job to be filled... maybe in large companies you have some flexibility... but where I am we have only 20 employees... and skill sets mean a great deal more. 2901. CalGal - 11/5/1999 12:04:37 PM Judith, 2902. JudithAtHome - 11/5/1999 12:06:06 PM Well, I have some standards! :-) 2903. ElliottRW - 11/5/1999 12:09:34 PM 2904. ElliottRW - 11/5/1999 12:09:54 PM 2905. ElliottRW - 11/5/1999 12:10:42 PM Whoops. Interesting to me, maybe. I meant to post a different article. 2906. ElliottRW - 11/5/1999 12:13:15 PM Here's the article I meant to post: 2907. ElliottRW - 11/5/1999 12:13:42 PM 2908. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 12:26:39 PM Judith - Why not ask me to explain the riddle of the universe 2909. cazart - 11/5/1999 12:32:32 PM How is affirmative action related to racial discrimination? Only bigots could make such a sweeping and erroneous declaration. 2910. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 12:38:26 PM 2911. joezan - 11/5/1999 12:41:59 PM 2912. JonesAtLaw - 11/5/1999 12:46:31 PM Is a firearm a biblical punishment- just a modern way of casting stones? Maybe he should have got to the part where Christ dicusses the subject. 2913. theDiva - 11/5/1999 12:49:48 PM Goodness, that guy certain chose which parts of Scripture he felt he ought to follow. Guess he must have skipped the 'You shall not kill' section. I just love these self-proclaimed 'Christians', and how they give the rest of us such a bad image. 2914. cazart - 11/5/1999 12:51:02 PM CalGal is right to an extent. 2915. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 1:00:42 PM 2916. theDiva - 11/5/1999 1:04:45 PM Truly, he must not have stopped to consider what Christ would have done. He obviously has his own agenda and his bastardized and inaccurate version Christianity merely provided the excuse to fulfill it. 2917. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 1:14:42 PM 2918. joezan - 11/5/1999 1:22:32 PM 2919. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 1:34:33 PM Come to think of it, He does look a little prissy in all those paintings of Him, doesn't He? Maybe He's a little light in the sandals, if you get my drift ... 2920. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:37:10 PM Cellar - Thirthyish, unmarried, hangs out with 12 other guys, very attached to his mother -- YOU do the math. Right? 2921. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:38:50 PM cazart - Only bigots could make such a sweeping and erroneous declaration. 2922. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:39:40 PM Sorry. 2923. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:40:03 PM Try again 2924. joezan - 11/5/1999 1:43:24 PM 2925. vonKreedon - 11/5/1999 1:45:18 PM JJ - Hung out with, but did not have sex with prostitutes. Clearer and clearer. 2926. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 1:47:45 PM RE: Skill Sets. 2927. CalGal - 11/5/1999 1:50:06 PM This is a case where affirmative action is incorrectly applied. 2928. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:50:31 PM vonK - Hung out with, but did not have sex with prostitutes 2929. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 1:55:47 PM CalGal - May as well throw color into the mix. 2930. cazart - 11/5/1999 1:56:23 PM iiibbb: 2931. CalGal - 11/5/1999 2:01:34 PM Don't you hate it when someone is hired/promoted because of nepotism, favoritism, athletic ability? Don't you resent the person who took advantage of the situation? Why would you want to subject someone to that? It doesn't sound like you are doing him a favor. 2932. theDiva - 11/5/1999 2:02:10 PM Y'all playin' fast and loose with the NT better watch out for the lightnin' bolt, is all I can say. 2933. vonKreedon - 11/5/1999 2:06:06 PM Diva - Just reading into the blank spaces between the lines, certainly a traditional Biblical interpretive activity. 2934. joezan - 11/5/1999 2:06:08 PM 2935. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 2:06:59 PM Skill sets simply aren't evaluated in the hiring process most of the time. 2936. theDiva - 11/5/1999 2:08:23 PM vonK 2937. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 2:13:03 PM 2927. CalGal - 11/5/99 6:50:06 PM 2938. CalGal - 11/5/1999 2:15:22 PM One would think you should make sure they could do the job first before you consider racial diversity, golf ability, or the baseball crown. 2939. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 2:20:34 PM I have an example of affirmative action that works too. We had a guy here a couple of summers ago. He was partly qualified for the work, but he did have some basic knowledge we needed. His best attribute was his great attitude. I wound up taking him under my wing, taught him a lot about what I know... 2940. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 2:27:07 PM 2941. joezan - 11/5/1999 2:28:14 PM JJ: 2942. joezan - 11/5/1999 2:30:24 PM 2943. joezan - 11/5/1999 2:31:08 PM 2944. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 2:42:27 PM 2938. CalGal - 11/5/99 7:15:22 PM 2945. cazart - 11/5/1999 2:49:49 PM JJ Biener/joezan: 2946. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 2:50:03 PM 2930. cazart - 11/5/99 6:56:23 PM 2947. joezan - 11/5/1999 2:51:52 PM 2948. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 2:52:07 PM 2945. cazart - 11/5/99 7:49:49 PM 2949. cazart - 11/5/1999 2:59:41 PM iiibbb; 2950. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:02:39 PM joezan: 2951. joezan - 11/5/1999 3:03:42 PM 2952. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 3:09:05 PM Cazart... what lesson? 2953. joezan - 11/5/1999 3:09:41 PM 2954. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:12:29 PM joezan: 2955. joezan - 11/5/1999 3:18:14 PM 2956. Gram2 - 11/5/1999 3:20:52 PM 2930. cazart - 11/5/99 6:56:23 PM 2957. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:23:56 PM iiibbb: 2958. joezan - 11/5/1999 3:26:24 PM 2959. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 3:29:08 PM cazart... 2960. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:30:53 PM joezan: 2961. Angel-Five - 11/5/1999 3:31:00 PM `JJ et al: Actually in one of the banned gospels -- the Gospel of Philip -- it is discussed. The gospel speaks of how Hesus was overly fond of Mary Magdalene and spent a lot of time kissing her on the mouth, so much so that the disciples all started getting a little jealous of the time he was spending on her. One of them asked him 'What is it that she has that we haven't got that you spend so much time with her?' And Jesus more or less answered, 'Indeed, guys, what is it she has that you haven't got?' 2962. joezan - 11/5/1999 3:35:40 PM 2963. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:37:32 PM iiibbb: 2964. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 3:39:54 PM Cazart. 2965. cazart - 11/5/1999 3:46:16 PM iiibbb: 2966. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 3:48:15 PM That's what I've been saying the whole time... 2967. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 3:53:21 PM note my first entry in this discussion 2968. joezan - 11/5/1999 4:04:39 PM 2969. cazart - 11/5/1999 4:04:58 PM iibbb: 2970. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 4:05:20 PM ib - The backlash could easily lead to cynicism about the system, resentment directed at the minority, and develop into racist attitudes, thus defeating what affirmative action was trying to accomplish to begin with. 2971. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 4:05:50 PM ib (cont) - These messages become the drumbeat of your public statements. Your goal is to polarize the races as much as possible. How do divert attention from what is obviously a policy of race-baiting? By attacking your opponent and accusing him loudly and publicly of the very things you are engaging in. Call him a racist. Accuse him of promoting hatred. Do it at every opportunity and others will soon come to believe it and repeat it. 2972. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 4:09:55 PM Yeah, JJ, that's sure the course that Strom Thurmond took. 2973. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 4:11:25 PM 2968. joezan - 11/5/99 9:04:39 PM 2974. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 4:17:15 PM cazart - For example, say two applicants come in for a position requiring expert knowledge of C++. Both applicants list appropriate education/training in C++; both have work experience on their resume which indicates proficiency. 2975. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 4:25:49 PM Spuds - Standing up for civil rights, as LBJ and the Democrats did in reversing course in the mid-'60s, was not fueled by a desire to widen the racial gap. You're contending, essentially, that all the efforts to combat racism since the 1950s have actually been designed to *promote* racism. 2976. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 4:42:40 PM Spuds - Your position is downright Orwellian. 2977. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 4:53:57 PM JJ: 2978. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 4:54:13 PM JJ 2970-- I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. 2979. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 4:54:25 PM 2980. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 5:00:38 PM 2981. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:12:04 PM iiibb: 2982. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 5:18:25 PM I don't disagree with you either Spud... 2983. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 5:21:39 PM Spuds - Remember that through '70s and '80s Southern Democrats could be counted on to join the GOP in voting against civil-rights measures. 2984. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:24:17 PM iiibb: Yeah, I try to refrain from initiating personal attacks. But responding in kind -- I tend not to be able to refrain from that temptation, especially lately. My temper seems to be shortening on that account. Which is a pretty good indicator that it's time for a vacation. 2985. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 5:27:35 PM Committee members of both parties pronounced her exonerated ... 2986. iiibbb - 11/5/1999 5:27:57 PM It seems difficult to even take a middle of the road opinion on anything anymore without being called names. I guess people are drawn to the far left or far right, because then only half the people are calling you names. *heh* 2987. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:28:06 PM JJ: 2988. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 5:29:08 PM Spuds - Yeah, I try to refrain from initiating personal attacks. But responding in kind -- I tend not to be able to refrain from that temptation, especially lately. My temper seems to be shortening on that account. Which is a pretty good indicator that it's time for a vacation. 2989. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 5:37:30 PM Spuds - The Civil Rights Act of 1991? LOL! Talk about Orwellian. The only place civil rights appeared in that bill was in the title. Why did Democrats oppose the California Civil Rights Initiative? Why did Democrats oppose the Canady bill that outlawed all discrimination based on race? Because Democrats support racial discrimination when if favors their constituency. 2990. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:41:17 PM JJ: 2991. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:43:50 PM BTW, here's one description of the Civil Rights Act of 1991: "U.S. legislation protecting workers' rights; the job rights act increased workers' protection against bias in hiring and on the job; also provided for greater money damages and reimbursement of costs for workers who successfully sue employers." 2992. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:46:05 PM For your reference: The Civil Rights Act of 1991 2993. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 5:53:14 PM Another reference: 2994. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:22:52 PM Spudboy - My mistake. I thought you were referring to something else. Public law 102-166 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Danforth (R). Its cosponsors were Sens. Chafee, Durenberger, Jeffords, Cohen, Hatfield and Spector. It passed the Senate with a vote of 93-5. It passed the House with a vote of 381-38. Republicans in the House supported the bill by more than 4 to 1. 2995. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 6:25:03 PM 2996. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:30:16 PM Spuds - Here is a link to CCRI. Explain to me why someone would oppose this unless they wanted the state to engage in racial discrimination. 2997. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:34:58 PM TS - Coming so close on the heels of the Ronnie White incident, what would you think? These guys know they have to stand for reelection, and they know that if the vote against CWB no matter their reasons, they will be branded as racists and paraded on the evening news. It is not much of leap to assume that self-preservation affected their votes. 2998. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:42:24 PM Gee where did Spudboy go? I hope I didn't make him mad by proving him wrong. 2999. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:42:49 PM Oh, well. I guess no one is around. 3000. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:43:07 PM Millennial! 3001. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 6:43:59 PM I am glad that is out of the way. I'll check back later. Maybe Spuds will have regained his dignity by then. 3002. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 6:54:23 PM Well, I can think of some recent examples: 3003. Spudboy - 11/5/1999 6:56:03 PM Um, JJ, we can do without the cheap shots. Some of us have other things to do than lurk here constantly to provide you with instantaneous replies. 3004. Cellar Door - 11/5/1999 7:22:31 PM 3005. rasheed - 11/5/1999 8:18:48 PM "'Committee members of both parties pronounced her exonerated ... '" 3006. TrialShark - 11/5/1999 9:14:49 PM 3007. Aldavis - 11/5/1999 10:02:59 PM Trial 3008. Aldavis - 11/5/1999 10:09:30 PM rasheed 3009. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 10:16:48 PM rasheed - I've been reading the Mote all afternoon shaking my head mostly, but this is the first thing I read that made me angry. 3010. Aldavis - 11/5/1999 10:28:33 PM JJ 3011. Aldavis - 11/5/1999 10:30:20 PM After the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was passed, Johnson said, "Now the niggers will vote for us for the next 100 years." 3012. rasheed - 11/5/1999 10:51:12 PM "I am not implying anything. I am saying how in the Hell would we ever know?" 3013. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:24:47 PM Spud - The ongoing assault(begun under Reagan) on the Voting Rights Act. 3014. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:37:12 PM rasheed - We know because "CWB" [sic] has been exonerated. 3015. Stumbo - 11/5/1999 11:37:36 PM "We know because 'CWB' [sic] has been exonerated." 3016. JJBiener - 11/5/1999 11:40:21 PM Al - After the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was passed, Johnson said, "Now the niggers will vote for us for the next 100 years." 3017. rasheed - 11/5/1999 11:45:58 PM "Debunked"? By your illustrious self, Mr. Biener? With the same objectivity you bring to your other party-line statements? 3018. TrialShark - 11/6/1999 12:02:58 AM 3019. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 12:42:19 AM "What have you got against Clarence Thomas?" 3020. joezan - 11/6/1999 12:49:01 AM 3021. JonesAtLaw - 11/6/1999 12:52:14 AM You know damn well that any Republican who voted against Carol Mosely-Braun would be called a racist, not only by the Democratic Senators, but by almost every talking head on T.V." 3022. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 1:46:35 AM Rasheed - "Debunked"? By your illustrious self, Mr. Biener? 3023. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 1:51:32 AM Cellar - He left his public hairs on a coke can I was drinking from. 3024. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 1:52:34 AM Jones - the wine was very good with dinner 3025. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 2:16:59 AM Trial 3026. TrialShark - 11/6/1999 3:00:02 AM 3027. TrialShark - 11/6/1999 3:03:43 AM 3028. rasheed - 11/6/1999 5:30:27 AM OK, I clearly got off on the wrong foot with you, Mr. Biener, judging by the hostility. Maybe you're always like this. I don't know. I remember discussing music with you briefly in the old Slate Magazine board, so I know you can conduct a civil conversation. 3029. rasheed - 11/6/1999 5:46:16 AM continued: 3030. stostosto - 11/6/1999 6:32:39 AM I bring to you; exclusive for the Mote: Latest world news: 3031. PelleNilsson - 11/6/1999 6:40:45 AM sto 3032. Spudboy - 11/6/1999 6:41:47 AM JJ: 3033. Spudboy - 11/6/1999 6:43:10 AM Another vague bullshit accusation. Specifics, Spudboy. Also we are talking about Republicans as a party, not the actions of individuals. Actually, it isn't just Gorton; both he and Conrad Burns are heading this one up, and they enjoyed broad support among their GOP colleagues. Gorton used his Senate Committee on Indian Affairs role and his Commerce Committee slot to promote legislation that would have ended tribal sovereign immunity, a cornerstone of their legal sovereignty. Ironically, he called it the American Indian Equal Justice Act. It enjoyed considerable currency among the Trent Lott set, but fortunately, Ben Nighthorse Campbell had the sense to shoot it down. 3034. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 9:57:47 AM 3035. JonesAtLaw - 11/6/1999 10:16:02 AM Rasheed- welcome! Don't worry about JJB- he's just another adamant partisan. 3036. dusty - 11/6/1999 12:13:04 PM Spudboy 3037. dusty - 11/6/1999 12:14:46 PM Spudboy 3038. dusty - 11/6/1999 12:18:27 PM TrialShark 3039. CalGal - 11/6/1999 12:48:12 PM Sto, 3040. TrialShark - 11/6/1999 1:02:28 PM 3041. stostosto - 11/6/1999 2:14:54 PM Pelle: 3042. pseudoerasmus - 11/6/1999 2:24:28 PM Stostosto: Any closeups of the infant's face? Being myself one-quarter East Asian, I'm curious to see what another one-quarter East Asian (other than my younger brother) looks like. 3043. pseudoerasmus - 11/6/1999 2:33:57 PM And here is the Dano-Austro-Chinese prince: 3044. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:36:57 PM Oh, lordy. Stop. This is too much cuteness. And to think he's going to grow up to be a rather dull Dane! 3045. PelleNilsson - 11/6/1999 2:47:44 PM sto 3046. joezan - 11/6/1999 2:51:25 PM 3047. joezan - 11/6/1999 2:52:05 PM 3048. rasheed - 11/6/1999 3:28:03 PM Carol Mosely-Braun and Jesse Helms had a shouting match over the Confederate flag when she was still in the Senate and Jesse's feelings were hurt. That's why he said he would never let her become ambassador to New Zealand. Then yesterday I heard on NPR that he wasn't attending the committee hearing because he says he only chairs when they're considering ambassadorships to "major" countries. You seem to have some Europeans here, do you have any New Zealanders? Or do you only let people from "major" countries post messages here? 3049. Stumbo - 11/6/1999 3:43:28 PM Rasheed: 3050. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 4:13:23 PM Rasheed - OK, I clearly got off on the wrong foot with you, Mr. Biener, judging by the hostility. 3051. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 4:32:38 PM Rasheed - You claim to have "debunked" the "Southern strategy". Is that so? I don't have to read all the way through these messages to surmise that your debunking may be as partisan as the other things you have posted here. 3052. stostosto - 11/6/1999 4:39:17 PM Pseud: 3053. OhioSTOPAS - 11/6/1999 4:46:06 PM A "few votes in the South"? No, the "Southern Strategy" has resulted in Republican dominance from Virginia to Texas. A prize well worth seeking. 3054. OhioSTOPAS - 11/6/1999 4:49:00 PM Al Davis, #3011: I doubt Lyndon Johnson said this. Source? 3055. stostosto - 11/6/1999 4:50:05 PM Anyway, the story on her and the Crown Prince (picture below) 3056. joezan - 11/6/1999 4:51:18 PM 3057. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 4:51:37 PM Rasheed - Notice I don't contend that Republicans are therefore racist --merely that their institutional position has easily been interepreted as hostile to governmental remedies to what some of us perceive as racial problems in this country. 3058. stostosto - 11/6/1999 4:53:01 PM Oh, and joezan 3059. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 5:10:12 PM Jones - Don't worry about JJB- he's just another adamant partisan. 3060. joezan - 11/6/1999 5:27:17 PM 3061. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 5:50:30 PM Spuds - Well, as recently as 1996, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a GOP proposal that many constitutional scholars (and as you can see, the ACLU) considered a specific assault on the Voting Rights Act. 3062. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 6:03:59 PM "Because, JJ, to a lefty it is ideas that count." 3063. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 6:05:23 PM Spuds - Actually, it isn't just Gorton; both he and Conrad Burns are heading this one up, and they enjoyed broad support among their GOP colleagues. 3064. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 6:14:43 PM stostosto 3065. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 6:16:20 PM Spuds - You misremember the count on the CRA 1991. 3066. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 6:19:36 PM Cellar - And to a righty they're meaningless? 3067. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 6:30:55 PM And only Republicans are in possession of the facts? 3068. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 6:38:11 PM JJ 3069. stostosto - 11/6/1999 7:06:29 PM Aldavis: 3070. stostosto - 11/6/1999 7:07:54 PM (I have the feeling that the above post belongs in International. Please bear with me... Further comments on Scandic skiing, if any, will be made there). 3071. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 7:13:06 PM "I am getting sick and tired of you using facts to debate with Jones, Trial, Spud, Rasheed, Cellar, et. al" 3072. joezan - 11/6/1999 7:20:40 PM 3073. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 7:39:48 PM Cellar - And only Republicans are in possession of the facts? 3074. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 7:40:57 PM Do they do much of that in Scandiland? 3075. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 7:41:47 PM Al - LOL! 3076. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 7:42:24 PM stostosto 3077. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 7:51:03 PM Now on to more serious things. Jones will scream, but that's life. When I talk of media control or left bias, I am thinking of things such as the following. When the Thomas hearings were going on, a group of women who had worked for Thomas held a press conference to make the point that they had never even heard him use a vulgar word, let alone sexually harass anyone. As they started their press conferance, CNN cut away to do a story on sheep in Scotland. 3078. stostosto - 11/6/1999 7:54:09 PM Aldavis: 3079. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 7:55:35 PM Hiss was a KGB agent, which Roosevelt knew in 1939, and yet look at what a great job the media has done over the years convincing the populace that he was sand bagged by that wretched Nixon. Just last week MSNBC had Hiss's son on insisting his father was not a spy. Honorable for a son, of course, but creepy of a network without counter information. 3080. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 7:58:57 PM Please do not misunderstand me. I fully realize that the main aim of media is money. News programs have no real interest in keeping America informed. Most entertainment seems to have an agenda, however, and I think that is more persuacive than so called news shows anyway. 3081. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 8:02:37 PM stostosto 3082. stostosto - 11/6/1999 8:05:19 PM Al 3083. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 8:08:39 PM stostosto 3084. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 8:10:48 PM 3035. JonesAtLaw - 11/6/99 5:16:02 AM 3085. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 8:26:20 PM The Mote 3086. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 8:27:25 PM It did not work, sorry. I will try in other thread. 3087. ee - 11/6/1999 8:30:13 PM AlDavis: Try clicking your link when you "check for dust" it makes it easier to practice. 3088. TrialShark - 11/6/1999 8:33:57 PM 3089. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 8:53:03 PM As if Hollywood was not riddled with Commies. It wasn't a witch hunt. It was a Commie hunt, and pretty sucessful at that. 3090. EricCartman - 11/6/1999 9:11:25 PM Cellar: 3091. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 9:50:38 PM Eric - Have you seen the movie The Front starring Woody Allen? It is about blacklisting in the 50's and the effect it had on people's lives. It is one of my all time favorites. It is particularly interesting when they roll the final credits and show how many of the actors and crew had been blacklisted. 3092. Cellar Door - 11/6/1999 9:53:11 PM Abe was an amazing man. He seems to have decided very early on in his life not to try to be bitter about anything, and refuse to knuckle under to your enemies. Combine that with an amazing sense of humor, and you've discovered THE SECRET OF LIFE! 3093. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 10:02:47 PM Eric 3094. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 10:04:43 PM And please do not listen to Cellar, who is a KGB opperative, who writes books that cannot be understood unless one has the code book. 3095. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 10:20:24 PM Al - I don't think anyone denies that there were communists in Hollywood and lots of other places. It doesn't justify the actions that were taken. Whether someone was a communist or not, they still had rights as American citizens and many times those rights were violated. Too often they were presumed guilty until and unless they could prove themselves innocent. This presumption was based solely on their political beliefs. This is about as un-American as you can get. 3096. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 10:27:48 PM JJ 3097. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 10:33:52 PM It looks as if Clinton got a little lonely. 3098. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 10:42:14 PM Al - My daughter has been studying about yellow journalism and the techniques that were used to distort the truth. What was interesting to me when I was helping her study, is that the same techniques are still being used. There were many in the media who wanted Hiss to be innocent, and they did everything they could to promote that belief. I think they had an idealized view of communism and the USSR and they did not want to believe that their ideals had been corrupted. Remember, there are none so blind as he who will not see. 3099. JJBiener - 11/6/1999 10:44:11 PM Al - It looks as if Clinton got a little lonely. 3100. Aldavis - 11/6/1999 10:52:02 PM JJ 3101. iiibbb - 11/6/1999 11:40:22 PM This is pretty interesting. If you take the tests, it'll give you some pointers on lowering your risk to be the victim of a crime. 3102. joezan - 11/6/1999 11:42:08 PM 3103. EricCartman - 11/7/1999 12:02:47 AM JJ: 3104. Cellar Door - 11/7/1999 12:33:09 AM They just ran Warren Beatty's harvard speech on C-Span. One student who said he was from Harvard Right-to-Life asked him about his being pro-life. Warren said that afew weeks ago "That embodiment of Walter Lippman -- Matt Drudge" came up to him at an event and asked him abouth whether having kids had any effect on his his stand on abortion. He said he told Drudge. "Well it makes you think." And that's all,/i> he said. Drudge then turned this into an "exclusive" that Warren Beatty was "pro-life." 3105. Cellar Door - 11/7/1999 12:34:08 AM toystoys 3106. EricCartman - 11/7/1999 12:40:49 AM ....That embodiment of Walter Lippman [Drudge].... 3107. JJBiener - 11/7/1999 1:34:48 AM Eric - The Front is only a Woody Allen film in that he starred in it. It was directed by Martin Ritt and written by Walter Bernstein. They had both been blacklisted. Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi also starred in the movie and they had also been blacklisted. The ending is a classic. I saw it when it came out in the theaters and I almost stood up and cheered. I highly recommend it. 3108. Stumbo - 11/7/1999 1:44:21 AM EC: 3109. stostosto - 11/7/1999 6:51:14 AM Stumbo: 3110. EricCartman - 11/7/1999 5:34:53 PM Stumbo Message # 3108: 3111. cazart - 11/8/1999 9:45:48 AM Good points, EC. 3112. 109109 - 11/8/1999 10:05:33 AM The canard as to the GOP Southern Strategy is indicated less in the facts than in the interpretation. It begins from the idiocy that the GOP's catering to the political interests of white Southerners beginning in 1968 is somehow racist ab initio. JJ Biener has valiantly tried to posit what I think is a historical non-starter, mainly because he accepts at the starting gate the tossed gauntlet of "The GOP caters to racists." As such, he immediately starts at the disadvantage of dispelling a nasty stigma. 3113. 109109 - 11/8/1999 10:05:39 AM 3114. 109109 - 11/8/1999 10:07:03 AM Cellar 3115. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 10:19:41 AM Well it was a replay of his earlier talk and he seemed (unaccountably) nervous. But I loved his Q & A. 3116. 109109 - 11/8/1999 10:22:25 AM Cellar 3117. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 10:25:05 AM Actually that's what Dubya should do -- go on "Inside the Actor's Studio" and have James Lipton shoot him the Bernard Pivot questions right off the bat! 3118. 109109 - 11/8/1999 10:27:21 AM Cellar 3119. JudithAtHome - 11/8/1999 10:34:02 AM GW could've avoided all that crap last week if he'd just answered truthfully: "Things change so fast these days, it's hard to keep up with the names; let me talk to my people and I'll get back to ya'." 3120. cazart - 11/8/1999 10:35:28 AM With regard to Nixon's "Southern Strategy," it was Buchanan (part of the Nixon WH) who said that it aimed to tear the country in two with the GOP taking the larger half. 3121. cazart - 11/8/1999 10:37:24 AM JudithAtHome: 3122. JudithAtHome - 11/8/1999 10:43:18 AM cazart: 3123. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 10:50:30 AM cazart - With regard to Nixon's "Southern Strategy," it was Buchanan (part of the Nixon WH) who said that it aimed to tear the country in two with the GOP taking the larger half. 3124. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:06:40 AM Niner made some good points regarding the "Southern Strategy". In the late 60's and early 70's there was a number of people in the South who supported traditional conservative positions on subjects like taxes, welfare, the role of the Federal government, etc. While they supported many of the same positions as the Republicans, the voted for Democrats because Democrats were the only ones who supported segregation and discrimination. Once the Democratic party finally abandoned those positions, this group was left with choosing between two parties neither of which supported their racist views. Since they could no longer use race policy to make their decision, they had to select a party based on other considerations. 3125. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:07:18 AM "Particularly this candidate whose intellectual prowess is questionable at best." 3126. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:09:10 AM Calling the GOP strategy racist or divisive in the 70s is politically helpful for opponents, but it is akin to calling Democratic strategy in the 90s racist or divisive when they cater to racial fears in the inner cities. The reality is that both parties are strenuously attempting to cater to their natural blocs, and politics is a messy business. 3127. JudithAtHome - 11/8/1999 11:12:44 AM Niner: 3128. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:13:20 AM Niner - Hack alert! Hack alert! 3129. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 11:13:59 AM I think all of you are overlooking the atmosphere that was gripping the country throughout the 60's re race. 3130. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:16:45 AM JJ 3131. Stumbo - 11/8/1999 11:19:07 AM 300, #3109: 3132. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:20:40 AM Niner - Calling the GOP strategy racist or divisive in the 70s is politically helpful for opponents, but it is akin to calling Democratic strategy in the 90s racist or divisive when they cater to racial fears in the inner cities. 3133. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:22:04 AM Cellar 3134. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 11:23:45 AM The Republican position has always been to promote color-blindness and the elimination of discrimination. 3135. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:26:26 AM Cellar - The '64 Watts riots put the fear of God into every journalist in the country, and they were all scrambling to find a good position to cover the full-scale race war that they were ALL anticipating. 3136. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:28:08 AM JJ 3137. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 11:29:33 AM Cellar makes a good point re race in the 60's- we look at things as if MLK was firmly ensconced in the pantheon of American heroes are he is now. He inspired vehement hatred by by many whites, and skepticism by mainstream America. Even those who would not support de jure segregation or blatant discrimination regarded him as radical. There was real fear that the country would dissolve into widespread racial violence. The LA riots following Rodney King were small potatoes compared to late 60's. There were large riots in most major northern cities. Arson was the major tool of urban renewal. Truely radical parties were growing over race- the KKK renewed its strength and moved north, the Black Panther party was expanding, and things looked like they would explode. 3138. 109109 - 11/8/1999 11:30:25 AM JJ 3139. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 11:30:33 AM Neither party would pass a present day test for political correctness. Those who advocated policies that are mainstream today were viewed as wildly liberal. 3140. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:35:17 AM Cellar - So I take it you're voting for Allan Keyes? 3141. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 11:39:41 AM So you're voting for racial reasons,J.J. Why else would you consider Keyes and Powell equivalent? 3142. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:42:17 AM Niner - Southern Democrats opposed the civil rights movement before the riots. Many Republicans (including George Bush, Sr.) also opposed certain portions of civil rights legislation. 3143. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 11:44:33 AM Republicans opposed the same things then as they do now, racial preferences, quotas and set-asides. 3144. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:47:31 AM Cellar - So you're voting for racial reasons,J.J. Why else would you consider Keyes and Powell equivalent? 3145. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 11:51:33 AM Cellar - You know as well as I do that such notions weren't even on the table back then. Please! 3146. stostosto - 11/8/1999 11:52:02 AM Stumbo 3147. Ronski - 11/8/1999 11:57:18 AM JJ is correct. Preferences, set-asides, etc. were added by regulatory agencies, the fourth branch of government, in an example of Congressional evasion of taking a direct stand on the issues. This process was abetted by a left/liberal activist judiciary. 3148. Ronski - 11/8/1999 12:04:21 PM The West's interest in Romania was based on the fact that it followed a foreign policy independent of Moscow, not on liberalization within the country itself, since no liberalization ever took place. 3149. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 12:11:09 PM And when was this, ronski? 3150. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 12:11:55 PM Don't start telling me the Civil Rights Act was a racial quoata or "set aside"! 3151. Ronski - 11/8/1999 12:19:06 PM 3152. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 12:19:38 PM Cellar - Don't start telling me the Civil Rights Act was a racial quoata or "set aside" 3153. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 12:21:27 PM Please cite specific passages of the act. I want chapter and verse, and I want it NOW. 3154. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 12:22:27 PM Cellar - Title VII. 3155. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 12:23:50 PM LINK! 3156. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 12:46:02 PM Cellar - Here is a link to Title VII 3157. Stumbo - 11/8/1999 2:14:30 PM 300: 3158. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 3:03:36 PM That's exactly what I thought J.J. This was instituted in 1964, remember? And where did the beefs about set asides and quotes come from? The Reagan era. 3159. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 3:06:21 PM WRT quotas- no the Civil Rights Act of '64 did not require quotas. It did grant broad authority to remedy discriminatory practices once they were found to exist in violation of the act of '64- 3160. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 3:10:18 PM Clarence Thomas was nominated and approved by the Senate in honor of a former member, namely Roman Hruska. Hruska on a previous appointee regarded as mediocre " There's lots of mediocre people, aren't they entitled to a little representation? I mean we can't have all Frankfurters and Cardozo's and such..." 3161. OhioSTOPAS - 11/8/1999 3:17:22 PM Jones: I think that's going to be George W's campaign slogan. 3162. CalGal - 11/8/1999 3:30:05 PM Behind Bars, an Iron Hand Drastically Lowers Violence 3163. Ronski - 11/8/1999 3:31:58 PM Jones, 3164. 109109 - 11/8/1999 3:33:35 PM Cal 3165. CalGal - 11/8/1999 3:43:00 PM Niner, 3166. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 3:53:08 PM Well old Roman "Hrooshka" was a great guy personally and a good friend of SAC. He was truly loved in Nebraska, but we're pretty tolerant of incumbants. His notable quote is unintentionally up there with Twain and Rogers, and so he's earned a place in history, which his pal Carl Curtis is rightfully denied. 3167. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 4:04:39 PM Perhaps someone can tell me why we really need razors in jails? If an inmate needs to shave for court, then he can do it when he's transported. Let the rest of 'em grow beards. It sounds like they are on the right track, though. It's important to remember, a less than insignificant number in jail at any one time are not guilty. 3168. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 4:06:30 PM Cellar - That's exactly what I thought J.J. This was instituted in 1964, remember? And where did the beefs about set asides and quotes come from? The Reagan era. 3169. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 4:09:28 PM Jones - Quotas arose in attempt to resolve class actions concerning hiring practices in large employers or institutions. 3170. OhioSTOPAS - 11/8/1999 4:18:25 PM JJ (3168): President Johnson endorsed affirmative action in a well-known speech at Howard University in 1965. The analogy he used was of someone who had been long hobbled by chains having the chains removed at the starting line and told to race "equally" with the other contestants. Recognizing this unfairness is not "discrimination". 3171. OhioSTOPAS - 11/8/1999 4:20:54 PM JJ (3171): I disagree. Racial discrimination still exists in society, and is an obstacle that members of minority ethnic groups still have to overcome. It's appropriate that this obstacle be recognized. 3172. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 4:22:34 PM "What this suggests to me is that no one has really tried to make prisons safe before now. I hope this galvanizes further efforts." 3173. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 4:25:14 PM I know they were used as a remedy to correct some of the most egregious examples of racism and discrimination. 25 years later there is no reason such remedies should still be used. 3174. Dusty - 11/8/1999 4:30:00 PM JonesAtLaw 3175. JJBiener - 11/8/1999 4:30:20 PM Ohio - It's appropriate that this obstacle be recognized. 3176. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 4:42:51 PM I'll bet some religion requires shaving. 3177. stostosto - 11/8/1999 4:52:32 PM Stumbo: 3178. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 6:24:44 PM Since then Democrats have abandoned this position and have become advocates for discrimination as long as it favors their constituency. 3179. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 6:26:24 PM Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled media give us Armstrong Williams, Ken Hamblin, Larry Elder, and selected negro ladies from the "Independent Women's Forum." SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS 24/7! 3180. ranheim - 11/8/1999 6:54:22 PM Cellar 3181. Cellar Door - 11/8/1999 8:08:09 PM All those papers are AT BEST center-right. 3182. Bubbaette - 11/8/1999 9:12:13 PM My hometown paper, the Richmond Times Disgrace, is about as far right as you can get. Reading the RTD is like paying 50 cents a day to be spit upon by a senile grumpy old man. 3183. iiibbb - 11/8/1999 9:39:43 PM The idea that the press as a whole is republican controlled is laughable. 3184. Bubbaette - 11/8/1999 10:25:09 PM Actually, the press is largely controlled by business interests. And the business interests are interested in one thing primarily -- what sells? In my town, most of the radio stations are owned by two companies. The stations don't "compete" with each other to attract listeners. Why should they attract listeners from one station they own to another station they own? 3185. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 1:22:22 AM 3186. Stumbo - 11/9/1999 1:33:45 AM 300: 3187. EricCartman - 11/9/1999 1:54:23 AM Stumbo Message # 3131: 3188. EricCartman - 11/9/1999 2:03:11 AM (cont. to Stumbo): 3189. EricCartman - 11/9/1999 2:04:13 AM (cont. to Stumbo): 3190. EricCartman - 11/9/1999 2:07:29 AM (concl. to Stumbo): 3191. ranheim - 11/9/1999 9:02:27 AM This occurred locally on the 5th. Another example of how stupid is our government and why I am for anything that will decrease the power of government at all three levels. 3192. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:10:33 AM To follow up on my points as to the thinness of ascribing Nixon's Southern Strategy to racism, from James T Patterson's Grand Expectations, The United States, 1945-1974 (it also dovetails into some of JJ's writings on Title VII, but rebuts his inferences that Democrats solely misconstrued Title VII for the allowance of affirmative action): 3193. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:10:53 AM . . . In supporting the Philadelphia Plan, Nixon seems to have acted in part to get even with the unions, most of which had opposed him in 1968, in part to promote "black capitalism" that might attract African Americans to the GOP, and in part on the assumption that a key to progress in race relations rested in employment . . . . Many employers and white workers denounced [the regulations] as reverse or affirmative discrimination. Even the NAACP, perceiving the Philadelphia Plan as a political ploy aimed at breaking up alliances between blacks and trade unions, opposed it." 3194. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:12:04 AM As for the similarly simplistic concept that the Democrats were the saviors of the black man in America, see Jeff Sheshol's "Mutual Contempt": 3195. stostosto - 11/9/1999 9:19:38 AM 3196. stostosto - 11/9/1999 9:20:50 AM #3195 was to Stumbo's #3186 3197. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 9:21:03 AM Niner 3198. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:22:06 AM Bubba 3199. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:22:28 AM Oh. I forgot. 3200. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 9:24:00 AM Dang. Fuck you too, buddy, and the white horse you rode in on. (g) 3201. Ronski - 11/9/1999 9:30:36 AM Why do we, as Americans, have to choose between Pinochet and a Stalinist (I know the historical, Cold War-period arguments)? Why do we have to be everywhere, telling everyone what to do, always managing to enflame one faction or another against us? 3202. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 11:02:12 AM Tell it to Jeanne Kirkpatrick, ronski. 3203. 109109 - 11/9/1999 11:17:59 AM Cellar 3204. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 11:25:41 AM And in that Big Picture, Johnson worked for racial harmony, and Nixon for racial divisiveness. 3205. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 11:34:05 AM Niner - Cellar has made up his mind. Don't confuse him with the facts. He loves playing the martyr, and he can't do that if you take away his boogeyman. You take that away and his whole world will crumble around him. 3206. 109109 - 11/9/1999 11:44:31 AM Nixon's 1968 strategy was less Southern than hardhat, despite the ruminations of my elders. The GOP plank was for a "fair and equitable settlement of the war in Vietnam." It also deplored the rise of crime and violence and promised a return to law and order. And it overtly appealed to short hairs and suburbanites: as Nixon stated in Miami, "the forgotten Ammericans, the non-shouters, the non-demonstrators." 3207. 109109 - 11/9/1999 11:46:12 AM As to the charge that liberals are "bigots" and conservatives "colorblind," I missed this weepingly inaccurate indictment. But the kaleidescope of reality is often less dramatic than we would prefer. 3208. 109109 - 11/9/1999 11:53:01 AM weepingly=sweepingly 3209. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 12:11:29 PM Niner - As to the charge that liberals are "bigots" and conservatives "colorblind," I missed this [s]weepingly inaccurate indictment. 3210. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 12:25:20 PM For example, falsely labeling an African-American, Democratic judge an opponent of the death penalty? 3211. 109109 - 11/9/1999 12:33:04 PM Ohio 3212. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 12:34:24 PM 3213. 109109 - 11/9/1999 12:37:42 PM Interestingly, and to their credit, not one self-styled conservative or Republican on the Mote accused Democratic Governor "Slappy" Carnahan of racism for his past as a minstrel (even with a return engagement). I imagine most figured it was a sign of the times and he had moved passed it and that the bar to deeming someone a bigot or racist is extremely high. 3214. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 12:42:21 PM No, Ace, I don't think Ashcroft's a bigot. In Ashcroft's defense, I think he would have screwed Justice White out of his deserved federal appointment by lying about his record even if White were white. 3215. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 12:42:37 PM Any comments on my latest link? 3216. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 12:44:43 PM By the way, there's a good column by Anthony Lewis in today's New York Times regarding Justice White and his receipt of the shaft from the GOP. 3217. CalGal - 11/9/1999 12:46:44 PM Cellar, 3218. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 12:51:13 PM 3219. 109109 - 11/9/1999 12:51:44 PM Ohio 3220. CalGal - 11/9/1999 12:54:36 PM TS, 3221. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 12:56:50 PM 3222. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 12:59:36 PM Ohio - For example, falsely labeling an African-American, Democratic judge an opponent of the death penalty? 3223. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:00:13 PM Niner: If an employer were to screw a Black man out of a job, and give a demonstrably false explanation for its action, any judge or jury would infer that the decision was affected by the man's race. Excuse me for making the same inference. 3224. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 1:01:06 PM 3225. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:02:46 PM Trial 3226. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:03:23 PM JJ: If White's opinions don't evidence his opposition to the death penalty, why do you say he opposes it? What is it in "his written opinions" and "his reasoning" that has persuaded you? 3227. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:10:21 PM Ashcroft statement cont . . . "The Missouri law enforcement community has expressed its strong opposition to the White nomination. In a letter to Missouri Sheriffs, Sheriff Jones said of Judge White's anti-death penalty record: "I believe there is a pattern here. To me, Ronnie White is clearly the wrong person to entrust with the tremendous power of a federal judge who serves for life." The Missouri Sheriffs Association delivered to Senators Ashcroft and Kit Bond a petition by 75 Missouri Sheriffs asking the Missouri Senators to make the Johnson case a factor in Senate consideration of White's nomination. The Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs, representing law enforcement in more than 100 communities, protested the White nomination in a letter to Senators Ashcroft and Bond, citing White's dissent in the Johnson case. 3228. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:13:59 PM Niner (3225): 3229. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:14:36 PM Ohio 3230. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:22:19 PM Niner: Your alternate explanations for Justice White's "firing" are not supported by the evidence. All we have in the record is the unsupportable "death penalty opponent" justification. 3231. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:22:42 PM Ohio 3232. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:28:48 PM The State v. Johnson case cited by Senator Ashcroft as evidence of Justice White's alleged anti-death-penalty position can be found at 3233. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 1:30:15 PM Cllrdr 3234. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:30:44 PM Ohio 3235. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 1:34:01 PM 3236. glendajean - 11/9/1999 1:40:39 PM Ashcroft had a nice juicy "wedge" issue with the gun referendum. Another juicy "wedge" issue bit him, momentarily, in the butt over killing White's nomination. 3237. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:42:20 PM Now the National Law Journal is an unreliable liberal source? 3238. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 1:45:44 PM "They [death penalty opponents] simply find, time and time again, merit in meritless appeals." 3239. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 1:48:21 PM 3240. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:52:08 PM On the National Law Journal piece: it states that other members of the Missouri Supreme Court have voted to reverse death penalty sentences more than White. It does not, however, state the tenures of the other justices vis-a-vis Mr. White. 3241. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:52:58 PM The facts are less egregious. From the Kinder opinion: 3242. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:54:03 PM Kinder opinion cont . . . 3243. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:54:43 PM Kinder opinion cont . . . 3244. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 1:55:58 PM CalGal:I see no reason to attach any importance to the fact that a nutjob killed in the name of Our Lord, rather than Walelelelele, the Shark God. 3245. 109109 - 11/9/1999 1:56:14 PM Kinder opinion cont . . . 'This defendant can rest assured there is no prejudice on the part of this Court. If there is prejudice in any direction, it is prejudice toward upholding each individual's constitutional rights. As I say, whether the individual be white, black, red, yellow, or whatever, it doesn't make any difference to this Court. Therefore, the motion for recusal is overruled.' By all accounts, the trial judge was true to his word, and Kinder, himself, is unable to point to any statement or ruling or other conduct by the trial judge during the course of the trial that bears any hint of bias. Indeed, Judge Kennedy-Bader, who presided at the Rule 29.15 hearing, found specifically that the trial judge did not exhibit racial bias in the conduct of the underlying trial. According to the dissent, Smulls requires disqualification of the judge whenever the judge has made any statement, in court or out of court, that might be considered offensive to minorities. In fact, Smulls turned largely on a narrower legal point. The trial judge made specific comments on the record in that case, raising genuine doubts as to his willingness to apply Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986), and in particular, he expressed an apparent unwillingness to follow the law despite his disagreement with it Smulls should be read no more broadly than for the proposition that a judicial statement - on the record or off - that raises a genuine doubt as to the judge's willingness to follow the law, provides a basis for recusal or, if the judge refuses to recuse, reversal on appeal. In that instance, the presumption of lack of judicial bias is overcome, and, as the Court stated in Smulls, the judge is at that point no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, this case is distinguished from Smulls because the judge made no statement that could reasonably be perceived as a threat to 3246. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:00:32 PM Apparently, Ohio, you're not aware that statistics and numbers can be easily manipulated to convince the simple-minded. 3247. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:00:54 PM 3248. cazart - 11/9/1999 2:07:25 PM Interesting debate. 3249. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:08:08 PM 3250. glendajean - 11/9/1999 2:09:49 PM Yes, Ohio. Democrats are bad, evil, not to be trusted, blah, blah, blah. Get with the program. 3251. CalGal - 11/9/1999 2:12:35 PM Well, how often do they believe the spin? Again, except for blacks, the Dems don't have a HUGE advantage over Republicans. 3252. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 2:12:36 PM Ace: The percentage of reversals by justices appointed by Senators (then Governors) Ashcroft and Bond, even retired Justices, certainly is relevant to the Senators' current claim that Justice White (who voted to reverse less often) is unfit to serve by reason of his propensity to reverse convictions. 3253. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:12:39 PM The National Law Journal article also states of the kinder decision: "He then rejected Mr. Kinder's argument that Judge Blackwell had improperly excluded all blacks from his jury." 3254. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 2:13:02 PM Yer darn tootin. Way back when I used to be a democrat, you had to skin and roast a kitten and eat it as an initiation rite. 3255. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:14:07 PM . . . . "whether the juror's views would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'" Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 105 S. Ct. 844 (1985). See also State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 308-09 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 136 L. Ed. 2d 317, 117 S. Ct. 403 (1996). Subject to the rules just stated, the trial court has broad discretion in determining qualifications of prospective jurors, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly against the evidence and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 58 L. Ed. 2d 135, 3256. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:14:09 PM 3257. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:14:58 PM . . . When faced with the conflicting testimony from Kelley and Vrouvas, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by giving more weight to one response than the other and in finding that the venirepersons could not properly consider the death penalty. Therefore, the trial court did not err in striking these two venirepersons. 3258. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:15:41 PM " . . . The circumstances of the sixth person disqualified, venireperson Kramper, are more unusual than the others. The record shows that during voir dire the trial court received notice that venireperson Kramper wished to speak with the trial judge privately concerning a personal matter. Neither party objected to such a meeting. After the judge met with Kramper, he informed the parties that Kramper was disqualified for cause, because Kramper stated that he could not be fair and impartial. The court declined to make a sealed record of the testimony, but informed the parties that Kramper had stated he belonged to an all-white organization, and that he could not be fair to a black defendant. At Kinder's Rule 29.15 hearing, Kramper testified that he told the trial judge that he was a member of an organization that he thought was racially exclusive, and that he was of the opinion that he should not serve on the jury. He explained that because of his membership in the organization he felt that it would not look right if he served as a juror, and he stated further that he was offended that the organization to which he belonged might be racially exclusive. 3259. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:15:59 PM " . . . Kinder argues that the disqualification of Kramper from the venire panel and the denial of the request for a sealed record deprived him of a potential juror who was especially concerned about the fairness of the proceedings to an African-American defendant In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837, 121 L. Ed. 2d 71, 113 S. Ct. 114 (1992), this Court held: "When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person's scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges." The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qualified jurors. We can find no reason not to apply this same rule when a trial court disqualifies a juror for cause on the court's own motion. In the present case, the reasons for the disqualification were unrelated to any objections to the death penalty, and Kinder has not argued 3260. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:18:42 PM OH THE HUE AND CRY IF THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD KEPT KRAMPER - AN ADMITTED MEMBER OF AN ALL-WHITE ORGANIZATION - ON THE PANEL. 3261. glendajean - 11/9/1999 2:20:02 PM Democrats and idiots (largely synomous)... 3262. cazart - 11/9/1999 2:20:46 PM AceofSpades: 3263. glendajean - 11/9/1999 2:20:47 PM 3264. Ronski - 11/9/1999 2:25:32 PM Ace, 3265. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 2:26:13 PM Kinder involved a trial judge who during his campaign, just before Kinder's trial, drew a distinction between "minorities" and "hard-working taxpayers". Justice White criticized the trial judge for his racist remark and held that he should have recused himself from the trial of Kinder, a Black man. 3266. Ronski - 11/9/1999 2:27:09 PM The Attack of the Italics People. 3267. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:27:26 PM 3268. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:28:50 PM 3269. cazart - 11/9/1999 2:31:49 PM I'm sad for you, AceofSpades. 3270. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:31:59 PM 3271. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:35:39 PM Ohio 3272. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:36:23 PM 3273. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:36:59 PM Y'know Ace, for a Republicam, you're really an asshole. 3274. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:37:40 PM Ace 3274. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:37:41 PM 3275. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:38:22 PM 3276. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:38:54 PM Ace is actually Alan Keyes. (The last word in blackface.) 3277. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:39:24 PM 3278. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:39:53 PM You know, for an asshole, you're really sort of a dolt. 3279. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:40:40 PM Ace 3280. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:41:23 PM 3281. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:42:22 PM 3282. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:42:40 PM I prefer Marlowe to Shakespeare. Always have. 3283. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:43:33 PM Mi hermana, Charo, trabaja en la Boat de Amor, tu perro comida caucasian. 3284. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:43:42 PM Yeah, you tell your mother to get her dust-bustin' ass back under my desk. 3285. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:44:04 PM 3286. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:45:11 PM Maybe The Mote should revive "I Love Lucy" with Niner as Ricky. 3287. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:45:46 PM 3288. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 2:46:17 PM No one asked. No one ever asks, but you persist in offering your What's Hot/What's Not lists to us on a daily basis. 3289. AceofSpades - 11/9/1999 2:47:32 PM 3290. 109109 - 11/9/1999 2:48:16 PM Senor Kenta Grahama es muy, muy bueno. 3291. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 3:34:31 PM Glendajean - Democrats are bad, evil, not to be trusted, blah, blah, blah. 3292. Cellar Door - 11/9/1999 3:40:21 PM When the opportunity presents itself, why not take it? I don't see anyone in the Republican-Controlled Media shying away from critcizing Al Gore -- no matter how flimsey the pretext for doing so. 3293. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/1999 3:48:50 PM JJ: You're back, so I'll ask again: 3294. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 3:54:20 PM Ohio - Kinder involved a trial judge who during his campaign, just before Kinder's trial, drew a distinction between "minorities" and "hard-working taxpayers". 3295. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 4:00:35 PM Ohio - If White's opinions don't evidence his opposition to the death penalty, why do you say he opposes it? 3296. cazart - 11/9/1999 4:06:44 PM In your misguided opinion, JJBiener. 3297. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 4:32:38 PM cazart - If you had read the comment in context you would know otherwise. But then you are not concerned with facts or fairness. You are only interested partisan attacks. 3298. cazart - 11/9/1999 4:35:41 PM Nice spin. 3299. JJBiener - 11/9/1999 5:02:14 PM cazart - Someone has to counter your spin. 3300. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:04:10 PM Does hackery require counter tops? Counter cleaning? 3301. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 7:56:29 PM 3302. Aldavis - 11/9/1999 8:36:38 PM Trial 3303. ranheim - 11/9/1999 8:44:09 PM Since there is so much controversy over Judge White, why not freeze the number of judges at the number sitting currently? 3304. robertjayb - 11/9/1999 9:09:25 PM 3305. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 9:15:35 PM 3306. dusty - 11/9/1999 9:21:04 PM JJBiener 3307. Gram2 - 11/9/1999 9:38:28 PM Hey, we don't know what the Republicans got in trade for Mosely-Braun, maybe it was worth it, after all she'll only be there a year and New Zealand should be able to handle her that long. 3308. 109109 - 11/9/1999 9:38:42 PM Trial 3309. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 9:55:29 PM I mentioned that article last week. My take on it was that Helms missed the boat by initially basing his opposition to the nomination on M-B's sucessfully tanking some type of Daughters of Confederacy charter that Helms was sponsoring, rather than on M-B's questionable ethics. 3310. Aldavis - 11/9/1999 9:58:15 PM niner 3311. Bubbaette - 11/9/1999 10:01:07 PM AlDavis 3312. CalGal - 11/9/1999 10:05:30 PM For those who actually check TNR, the article is in the 11/15 issue, or here. 3313. TrialShark - 11/9/1999 10:06:31 PM 3314. CalGal - 11/9/1999 10:06:42 PM Oh, wait. Jesus, never mind. The dweebs were in the middle of updating their server. Niner, you got the date right. 3315. 109109 - 11/9/1999 10:10:07 PM Trial 3316. CalGal - 11/9/1999 10:12:30 PM Niner, 3317. 109109 - 11/9/1999 10:21:09 PM Link! 3318. CalGal - 11/9/1999 10:22:49 PM But you could do this, you know. I have faith in you. 3319. 109109 - 11/9/1999 10:27:43 PM I feel like Robert Vaughn in "The Magnificent Seven." 3320. CalGal - 11/9/1999 10:37:48 PM Yes, but soon you will be Robert Vaughan in The Man From U*N*C*L*E, and have many techno toys, comfortable and accomplished in their use. 3321. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 12:45:16 AM Bubbaette 3322. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 12:54:34 AM 3323. 109109 - 11/10/1999 9:53:48 AM Trial 3324. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 10:11:01 AM Hey Niner, good thing you're not doing Divorce cases. Read this from Lloyd Grove's column in today's Washington Post: 3325. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 10:20:58 AM RE 3304: 3326. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 10:24:44 AM Much as I would like to join the dog pile on Newt deal, what public good is served by dirt of his divorce. 3327. cazart - 11/10/1999 10:36:28 AM Why, JonesAtLaw! 3328. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 10:37:09 AM It's Entertainment, Jonsey. Post-Modern Political Entertainment. 3329. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 10:38:51 AM Right you are, cazart. We MUST hear about "the unseemly details of their physical contact." 3330. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 10:54:20 AM TS - JJ, here's your opportunity to bitterly denounce the Republican senators for their craven cowardice in failing to stand tall with Senator Helms. I can't wait to read your denunciation of those gutless GOP weasels. 3331. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 10:56:59 AM cazart - Sometimes your ignorance is awe-inspiring. 3332. cazart - 11/10/1999 11:02:57 AM CellarDoor: 3333. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 11:10:00 AM Oh come on, J.J. Don't you want to hear more about Newt and Callista doin' the horizontal tango in the Senate garage? 3334. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 11:11:44 AM My objection to Clinton's affair had little to do with the affair itself... or the sex... 3335. 109109 - 11/10/1999 11:23:03 AM iiibbb 3336. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 11:32:26 AM Cellar - Don't you want to hear more about Newt and Callista doin' the horizontal tango in the Senate garage? 3337. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 11:33:40 AM They can be even and largely non-partisan, like Robert Novak (who is certainly an ideologue, but is as hard on one party as the other) 3338. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 11:36:16 AM Did he lie about it under oath? Did he ask others to lie for him? 3339. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 11:38:30 AM 3335 RE: 3340. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 11:40:46 AM Not only did he do it on the job, but Clinton reportedly had her in the office while he discussed secret and sensitive national security information on the phone... 3341. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 11:42:00 AM 3342. 109109 - 11/10/1999 11:45:07 AM Cellar 3343. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 11:46:01 AM Clinton can pull his own pants down... 3344. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 11:46:46 AM Freeper rallies, Niner. Freeper rallies. 3345. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 11:47:50 AM Cellar- you're right, Newt hasn't got to the lying stage yet. Since he's political toast, he might 'fess up. 3346. cazart - 11/10/1999 11:49:03 AM iiibbb: 3347. 109109 - 11/10/1999 11:49:07 AM TS 3348. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 11:50:28 AM Also, since Newt's punting on marriage no 2, and Clinton elected to go for fourth and long on his first, he has less motive to fudge the details. In fact he might get some jollies in comparing the squeeze du jour to the wife. 3349. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 11:53:14 AM 3346: I don't know much about the case, but if a hearing is warranted and the information germaine... Newt ought not lie. 3350. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 11:55:56 AM Like I said... it's not the details of the marriages...details of the sex... details of the divorce that I care about... 3351. Gram2 - 11/10/1999 11:56:11 AM One girl in six years? That almost makes him pure by Washington standards. Clinton sure outscored him on that issue (no pun intended.) 3352. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 11:59:37 AM Gram- Newt's outscored him on wives already and is perhaps going for another. 3353. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:01:06 PM cazart - If you are so opposed to what you term "a double standard," then surely you will be in the forefront of those calling for a hearing concerning Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Bisek. 3354. cazart - 11/10/1999 12:03:12 PM JJBiener: 3355. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:03:27 PM TS - You disappoint me, JJ. 3356. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:05:15 PM Niner - There is a benefit to Braun going to New Zealand. She won't be here. 3357. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 12:05:25 PM 3354. cazart - 11/10/99 5:03:12 PM 3358. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:06:52 PM cazart - Isn't that what the GOP did? 3359. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:07:27 PM ib - cp! 3360. 109109 - 11/10/1999 12:09:08 PM A current event: 3361. cazart - 11/10/1999 12:10:00 PM iiibbb: 3362. 109109 - 11/10/1999 12:12:45 PM Joke! 3363. cazart - 11/10/1999 12:14:02 PM Gutsy move by Gilmore. 3364. iiibbb - 11/10/1999 12:16:15 PM RE: 3361: Cazart.. I default to #3350 as my primary response... particularly the last paragraph. 3365. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 12:16:37 PM "Tell me Ms. Bizek. . .when he sent you this book by the Pope was it some sort of erotic message between the two of you?" 3366. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:22:19 PM ib - and I don't agree with you that the Clinton investigation was just a fishing trip, as you propose. 3367. theDiva - 11/10/1999 12:22:20 PM cellar 3368. 109109 - 11/10/1999 12:22:34 PM Associated Press Writer 3369. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 12:38:07 PM Beltway Bureaucrat Helmet Head 3370. Gram2 - 11/10/1999 12:42:41 PM JONSEY: At least he marries them--he doesn't use them, deny them, and trash them. Still not comparable offenses, but then probably nobody could ever reach the heights (or depths) already set by Bubba. It was fun though to watch the scramble from "that woman" to "nice girl" when caught. 3371. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 12:45:22 PM 3372. cazart - 11/10/1999 12:47:09 PM At least he marries them--he doesn't use them, deny them, 3373. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 12:48:45 PM Still not comparable offenses 3374. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 12:56:44 PM Gram- Newt merely changes the order, instead of using and discarding the paramour, he uses and discards the wife. Neither seems to hold moral superiority to me. 3375. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 12:58:29 PM TS - Pretty sorry record for the GOP on these two nominations, wouldn't you say? 3376. Gram2 - 11/10/1999 1:03:08 PM 3377. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 1:03:44 PM 3378. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 1:07:01 PM TS - Define qualified. Does he have a law degree? Yes. Does he have experience? Yes. Is he a good choice for the Federal bench? No. Is he the best candidate the Democrats have to offer? Scary if true. 3379. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 1:10:10 PM Could someone refresh my memory? Did anyone cite to an instance of where Justice White indicated that he opposed the death penalty? I don't mean that he opposed its imposition in a particular case, but instead that he thought it impermissible to impose as a matter of constitutional/state law as a matter of law. 3380. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 1:11:45 PM "as a matter of constitutional/state law as a matter of law." 3381. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 1:17:46 PM Cellar 3382. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 1:18:44 PM Jones - Wouldn't making such a statement force him to recuse himself from any DP cases? 3383. OhioSTOPAS - 11/10/1999 1:37:24 PM JonesatLaw: The answer to your question is no. Justice White has never stated a per se opposition to the death penatly, and I'm not aware of any statements by him indicating that he differs from other judges regarding the propriety of a sentence of death. In fact, he has affirmed about 40 verdicts where the death penalty was imposed, compared to 17 reversals. See yesterday's discussion (msgs 3210 to 3265) for more detail. 3384. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 2:10:28 PM 3385. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 2:21:45 PM 3386. OhioSTOPAS - 11/10/1999 2:22:12 PM By the way, the opposition to Justice White by one law enforcement group (often cited in defense of Senator Ashcroft and the GOP's rejection of White) was instigated by Ashcroft himself, according to an article in the November 1 New Republic. 3387. CalGal - 11/10/1999 2:26:48 PM Kinkel is a sad case. Whenever some idiot rants about how the parents should have known about their sick kids, I just point them to Kinkel. Knowing didn't stop anything. 3388. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 3:08:14 PM TS - Let's assume for the moment that the opposition to White was purely political. How is this different from Democrats who have played politics with numerous nominations in the past? How does this justify the Democrats' campaign of racial division waged in White's name? 3389. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 3:13:24 PM Al re Trumbo. That's an interesting question whose proper answer, like so much else in American history, isn't easily supplied. There were a lot of reasons people joined the Communist Party back in the 30's. Some were true believers in "the cause," some went so far as to act as foreign agents, others were simply Leftists who were moved to join for one deeply serious political reason or another -- and then left it for other similarly serious reasons. And some were dilletantes. 3390. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 3:13:42 PM Everyone says "well the committee already had the names, how could his mentioning them matter?" That's because their having the names wasn't the point. The point was getting the industry to kowtow to the committee by doing its bidding in this publically staged fashion. While it amy be difficult for some people to beleive, it's perfectly possible to be opposed to Communism and be opposed to HUAC at the same time. 3391. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 3:15:09 PM 3392. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 3:33:28 PM TS - Well, I'll take that as a concession 3393. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 3:41:23 PM The recent spate of attacks on "politicizing" the appointment process began with Bork. Bork was not in the mainstream of legal thought, contrary to partisan contention. We have Clarence Thomas, where there was a hue and cry over the "high tech lynching" concerning an appointee who was far from the "best qualified" candidate on most criteria, but who fit two criteria rather well- he was black and republican. 3394. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 3:44:42 PM The GOP controlled Senate has held up a huge number of appointments, leaving significant gaps in the federal judicary in the hope that they would have a larger majority in comming elections, only to find their lead reduced. This ain't beanbag, and the Democrats aren't the only ones playing. 3395. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 3:46:44 PM Cellar 3396. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 3:48:40 PM 3397. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 4:10:49 PM You'rewelcome, Al. But whether anybody is interested in this subject or not at this particular moment, it's going to come back into our discussions one way or another. The fall of the Soviet Union has created and enormous hole in the Historical Record thatmust be traversed before it's finally filled-in. 3398. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 4:11:00 PM TS - I don't need to fool anyone. I have the facts on my side. Whereas all you have are personal attacks. 3399. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 4:15:23 PM Jones - Politics has always been in play in judicial appointments, it is just far more naked than it has been in the past 3400. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 4:26:31 PM 3401. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 4:27:44 PM 3402. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 4:33:35 PM 3403. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 4:38:26 PM TS - the Honorable Carol Mosely-Braun 3404. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 4:40:22 PM 3405. OhioSTOPAS - 11/10/1999 4:43:18 PM JJ: You've been quite self-righteous recently about having "the facts on your side" (#3398 and other messages). I'd like to know the basis for a few factual assertions you've made here recently: 3406. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 4:50:21 PM Ohio 3407. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 4:52:50 PM 3408. Angel-Five - 11/10/1999 4:55:28 PM Look JJ, I do like you, but you are a hack. Out of all the long-term contributors to this forum (if we were still in the Fray I'd include Jade, but we aren't still in the Fray) I've seen the most lopsided political criticism and the most lopsided political praise out of you. I've never seen a liberal or a Democrat in this forum who shows such one sided hatred of Republicans and/or conservatives and slavish defense of liberalism and democracy as you do on the other side of the fence. Such bias is acceptable only when it's openly acknowledged, whereas you would paint yourself as someone much less biased. This is a smart bunch and I don't think that's the best tack to take if you want to convince people of your position. I know it will kill you, but you ought to agree with Trialshark on this one. You're a hack -- if the term offends, then perhaps we can find something less offensive like 'the Nicholas Chauvin of the GOP'. Revel in it. Embrace it. 3409. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 4:59:57 PM Ohio - I don't know what happened to that last post. 3410. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 5:07:29 PM 3411. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 5:19:43 PM A5 - I've never seen a liberal or a Democrat in this forum who shows such one sided hatred of Republicans and/or conservatives and slavish defense of liberalism and democracy as you do on the other side of the fence. 3412. Angel-Five - 11/10/1999 5:23:59 PM Hey, JJ, as you will. There are other people in this forum who are politically dedicated, too, but I'm nominating you as the crown prince. You might not like it. I think more people will agree with me, though, for whatever it's worth. If you don't think it's a fair categorization, well, I'm sorry you don't. 3413. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 5:25:46 PM TS - I have enough confidence in Ohio's intelligence to believe he can read the opinions and reach an appropriate conclusion. If you notice, the post wasn't addressed to you. If it was I would have had to resort to citing chapter and verse and explaining to you the why and wherefors. I won't bother doing that since you have made it clear that you will hold on to your precious opinions in the face of all facts to the contrary. 3414. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 5:27:54 PM 3415. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 5:31:20 PM 3416. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 5:39:39 PM A5 - We recently had a discussion in Politics on the legalization of drugs. In that discussion I sided with people like LadyChaos and others against the traditional Republican position. I have stated that one thing I dislike about GW Bush is his stand on this issue. There are other issues where I depart from the GOP. 3417. Spudboy - 11/10/1999 5:41:23 PM 3418. DaveM - 11/10/1999 5:41:49 PM JJ - 3419. Spudboy - 11/10/1999 5:45:23 PM And JJ ... you're mischaracterizing my posts (I said the GOP fought against the ERA -- they did -- and that Republicans led the opposition to the CRA of 1991 -- they did). I haven't the time, energy or desire to rehash all this. But please be more precise. 3420. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 5:46:51 PM TS - Since you can't. 3421. CalGal - 11/10/1999 5:47:44 PM What's it have to do with kids running out of control? Unless you actually believe those teary-eyed women ("I didn't teach Junior to be like this!!") 3422. ScottLoar - 11/10/1999 5:49:53 PM Spudboy, (t)he typical white supremacist is a male between 13 and 23 years old. He may wear a bomber jacket and boots with red shoelaces. He very likely has a tattoo of his favorite Nazi-related image: a swastika, an iron cross or a lightning bolt. And he decorates his room with swastikas and pictures of Hitler. 3423. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 5:55:10 PM Spuds - I am sorry if I mischaracterized your posts, but they were at best misleading. You attempted to portray Republicans as a whole as opposed the ERA and CRA 1991 (et al) when it wasn't true. I will try to be more accurate in describing your posts if you refrain from misrepresenting GOP positions. 3424. Spudboy - 11/10/1999 5:57:02 PM CalGal: Actually, I'd say the majority of the parents of young white supremacists and skinheads (Buford Furrow's parents spring to mind) weren't racist and tried not to encourage such values. But kids do have minds of their own, especially in that rebellious phase. I know of one set of parents who were highly active in combating hate groups whose kid turned into a skinhead. 3425. cigarlaw - 11/10/1999 5:57:22 PM hey ts and jj. i can't believe you guys are talking about the 'whizzer', the conservative voice of the warren court. he played football one too many times without a helment, but in comparison to reichquist and thomas, he was a lewgal giant. 3426. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 5:58:02 PM 3427. Spudboy - 11/10/1999 5:58:04 PM Loar: I say she should be arrested now. 3428. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 5:58:31 PM 3429. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 6:00:47 PM 3430. JJBiener - 11/10/1999 6:01:44 PM Spuds - BTW, interesting article. I want to know why that women hasn't taken some action if her teenage kids have been missing for four days. Before my daughter came to us as a foster child, her biological family raised her for 11 years in a racist environment. It took us very little effort to teach her the truth and put her on the right track. She now finds racism and discrimination as offensive as my wife and I do. If those kids are racist, you need look no further than their parents. 3431. CalGal - 11/10/1999 6:01:59 PM Mebbe he was annoyed by their one-note whining and handwringing. 3432. ScottLoar - 11/10/1999 6:04:12 PM TrialShark, you saucy boy, you. My wife has no tattoos but her friends... ah! 3433. CalGal - 11/10/1999 6:04:42 PM Oh, I missed this: 3434. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 6:04:52 PM 3405. OhioSTOPAS 3435. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 6:13:21 PM 3436. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 6:18:19 PM J.J. 3437. OhioSTOPAS - 11/10/1999 6:21:20 PM ". . . a bomber jacket and boots with red shoelaces . . ." 3438. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 6:23:36 PM Like a thong, for instance. 3439. ScottLoar - 11/10/1999 6:32:49 PM You guys sound like rejects from Fantasy Island try-outs. 3440. Angel-Five - 11/10/1999 6:34:41 PM Scott: My wife dresses like that.Is it the weekend already?? 3441. Stumbo - 11/10/1999 9:13:13 PM 300, #3196: 3442. Stumbo - 11/10/1999 9:17:04 PM EC, concl.: 3443. Cellar Door - 11/10/1999 9:49:22 PM Once upon a time we thought Ho Chi Minh was a swell guy. 3444. pseudoerasmus - 11/10/1999 9:59:53 PM EricCartman (Message # 3188) 3445. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 10:13:46 PM For some strange reason, liberals in America always seem make the argument that while Communist regimes were brutal, those which proceeded or followed them were also brutal. Nothing in history can compete with Communist regimes, who are responsible in less than a century for nearly 100,000,000 deaths. Compare Czarist Russia to the Communist regime which followed. 3446. pseudoerasmus - 11/10/1999 10:14:47 PM The idea of a CIA "blowback" in Afghanistan is also nonsense. 3447. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 10:26:33 PM Cellar 3448. pseudoerasmus - 11/10/1999 10:29:49 PM Eric Cartman (Message # 3188) 3449. pseudoerasmus - 11/10/1999 10:33:29 PM I actually agree with you that anti-communism, as opposed to anti-Sovietism, was a kind of religious fervour and in many instances it was quite irrational. IMO, the USA should have simply left Vietnam and Central America to their own devices. What I can't agree with, and what I find dunderheaded beyond measure, is the contention that US undertook some of its morally dubious actions because of corporate interests or because of some "great deals on mineral extraction". What a lot of rubbish that is. 3450. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 10:44:57 PM Well, the U.S is supporting Russia and so far I haven't heard much on the news about Chechnia. Where is the outrage? Where is NATO? Where is the Congress? Where is Clinton? 3451. Aldavis - 11/10/1999 10:52:23 PM Trial 3452. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 11:27:49 PM 3453. TrialShark - 11/10/1999 11:32:03 PM 3454. Angel-Five - 11/10/1999 11:47:05 PM What? Oh, come on. We supported an Islamic resistance against the Soviets and that resistance later turned out to be inimical to the US. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the region to argue whether or not the victory of the Afghans or the fundamentalist government which ensued was inevitable. I was under the impression that the survival of the mujahideen forces was in large part due to their acquisition of American antiaircraft missiles (to counter the Soviet airmobility and more importantly the Sov attack helicopters). I also believed that their victory was less dependent upon their own numbers than it was on the rate of attrition to a failing Soviet army, but I expect you know more than I do about the topic. What I DO know is that it is still 'blowback' in that American prestige suffers whenever their supported 'allies' turn on them. I can't think of any insurgency which was Are any insurgencies? Not to quibble on the use of the word but how many such revolutionary groups are unequivocally popular? 3455. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 12:10:21 AM Message # 3454 3456. JJBiener - 11/11/1999 1:58:26 AM TS - Nope, I didn't know JJ was Jewish. 3457. TrialShark - 11/11/1999 2:04:34 AM 3458. Aldavis - 11/11/1999 2:35:22 AM Trial 3459. CalGal - 11/11/1999 2:44:36 AM Hey, TS--I don't know your email, but I'm working in Emeryville these days. Is that anywhere near you? Assuming the Ms. Shark lets you out among strangers, with or without her able assistance. 3460. TrialShark - 11/11/1999 2:47:27 AM 3461. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 2:55:49 AM Nonsense. The Taliban have little to do with the Afghan Are you then saying that the Taliban was not supported by the mujahideen, and that the ideological bent of most mujahideen was not in line with that of the Taliban? The time difference you quote is not a convincing argument that the two are unrelated, once you consider the terrible damage and infighting in Afghanistan during and after the Soviet withdrawal. If the Taliban was not supported by the fighters, how did it establish itself? I'm not speaking of direct planned causation here but I recall that well before the Sov withdrawal some American journalists were writing exposes on the fundamentalist nature of the mujahideen and their affinity for figures such as Khomeini. 3462. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 3:07:10 AM The Communist insurgency in Vietnam was definitely more than a small minority and we propped up more than one government there which would have otherwise fallen in a hurry to the political opposition. I think the Ortegas enjoyed wide support in their bid to rule Nicaragua. I'm not so sure about the size of Communist insurgencies in the Philippines and in Indonesia. I'm not sure if the history of Israel fits under our discussion, but we certainly supported them and still support them against a dedicated insurgency. WRT your argument against US involvement in countries having to do with the resource wealth we might extract with them: I agree with your position in theory, but nonetheless you cannot argue that the United States's foreign policy -- what land we will go to war over, who we support, and so on -- is not heavily influenced by the extractable resources of those lands. 3463. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 3:16:19 AM Message # 3461 3464. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 3:16:31 AM I'm not speaking of direct planned causation here but I recall that well before the Sov withdrawal some American journalists were writing exposes on the fundamentalist nature of the mujahideen and their affinity for figures such as Khomeini. 3465. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 3:24:05 AM #3462 3466. cigarlaw - 11/11/1999 3:26:14 AM it's armistce day. you all are wearing red poppies. yes?????/ 3467. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 3:30:48 AM PE: Excellent posts. I had made a few erroneous assumptions WRT the mujahideen. 3468. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 3:37:37 AM So we could characterize pre-Taliban Afghanistan as a sort of power vacuum which was eventually filled by the Taliban? 3469. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 3:41:28 AM But [Israel is] a question of resistance to foreign occupation. WRT the people in the occupied zones, surely. But what of the Palestinians who were there before and had a claim to the land as well? It may well be a semantic issue but I think that it's related to the concept of the US supporting a government against a large insurgency. 3470. EricCartman - 11/11/1999 3:48:00 AM PE Message # 3444: 3471. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 3:53:45 AM The Sandinistas didn't have wide support? Not in the rural areas, perhaps, but all those years under US supported Somoza rule gave the Sandinistas a large amount of support from people who wanted an alternative -- any alternative --government. I'd remind you that the Sandinistas seized power even while the US was supporting Somoza -- so we aren't talking about a small minority group. 3472. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 4:13:30 AM 3473. pseudoerasmus - 11/11/1999 4:14:37 AM Message # 3471 3474. Angel-Five - 11/11/1999 4:43:05 AM Yes, of course, but the whole point is that we were discussing the American practice of supporting governments against popular insurgencies, and that, as you have admitted, is precisely what we did in Nicaragua with the Somoza government and the Sandinista rebels. The exceptions I am quoting are the ones which prove the rule, because they are exceptions where the United States felt supporting the government in question was important enough to risk the backlash. In most other instances, the US government seems reluctant to back a corrupt government against a popular insurgency, simply because it's such a hard thing to do and has such a tendency to lash back. We, after all, want stable allies, not nations full of pissed-off revolutionaries who hate us. 3475. robertjayb - 11/11/1999 2:55:52 PM 3476. TrialShark - 11/11/1999 3:12:37 PM 3477. JJBiener - 11/11/1999 4:59:28 PM TS - I heard Gore has refused to campaign in New Orleans. It seems they have an infestation of Formosan Termites and Gore is afraid he'll catch the bug. 3478. TrialShark - 11/11/1999 6:25:23 PM 3479. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 6:34:56 PM If he followed Clinton's example he'd need a hickory dickery Doc. 3480. Greystoke - 11/11/1999 7:22:19 PM If Danny Glover needs a ride, someone better give him one. 3481. Cellar Door - 11/11/1999 9:09:04 PM Vehicular Racism. 3482. Aldavis - 11/11/1999 9:50:31 PM Cellar 3483. msgreer - 11/11/1999 10:04:36 PM JonesatLaw Nat's case has gone to the jury. He is up for Murder 1. 3484. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 10:35:13 PM msgreer- I am afraid that I cannot justify what you describe. The common law presupposed that children of less than 7 years of age did not have the capacity to form criminal intent. Children over the age of 14 were presumed to be capable. Children between ages of 7 and 14 were subject to proof of capacity. 3485. msgreer - 11/11/1999 10:41:05 PM JonesatLaw Explain one thing to me again. Did you say it is legally acceptable to give the death penalty to the mentally retarded at any age? I have to ask again what happens to a mentally retarded person of any age that can not aid in their own defense not to mention the fact they may not even comprehend what is happening during their trial. 3486. msgreer - 11/11/1999 10:44:02 PM JonesatLaw Why in the hell can't the Supreme Court reverse this action? Are you saying State law supersedes Supreme Court decisions. God help us. 3487. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 10:51:13 PM Several states have excluded the developmentally delayed from captial punishment, but the existence of developmental disability does not constitutionally protect someone from execution. If a person is severely enough affected they may not have the capacity to form the intent to commit a crime, and would not be convicted. Similarly if they are so severely affected that they cannot understand the nature of the charge or the proceedings they cannot assist in their defense and thus could not be brought to trial. They may face civil commitment to be sure, but that is a more appropriate remedy in my opinion anyway. 3488. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 10:53:39 PM msgreer- I'm not saying that the US Supreme Court can't reverse such a conviction, I'm predicting that they won't. However, with the possibility of international pressure and the treaty obligations of the US, there is a posibility that I'm wrong. 3489. msgreer - 11/11/1999 10:58:35 PM JonesatLaw Thanks for your explanations. I guess we have to wait and see what happens to Nat. I still say this is the wrong case to make this juvenile a poster boy to say we will treat you as an adult no matter what your age or disability. Even Amnesty International came up with a statement stating they hoped the State of Michigan would reconsider Nat's case. 3490. Cellar Door - 11/11/1999 11:15:08 PM Al -- I take Lady Chaos' point in the "Politics" thread re HUAC. If the government had a case against people for treason it should have been filed in a court of law. HUAC was a means to intimidate people over their political pasts -- not their actions in the present. 3491. Aldavis - 11/11/1999 11:23:26 PM Cellar 3492. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 12:03:28 AM Oh come on, Al. Filing charges and holding a trial is a very simple thing to do. This is the U.S. government we're talking about, not some dog-catcher in Podunk. 3493. Gram2 - 11/12/1999 12:12:35 AM Jonsey: I don't agree with the death penalty for 16 year olds at all, but then I don't agree with murdering babies partially born either. So yes, we do have to be careful who is appointed to the Supreme Court don't we. 3494. JayAckroyd - 11/12/1999 9:24:23 AM Did the pilot crash EgyptAir 990? 3495. dusty - 11/12/1999 10:13:19 AM The Banks Strike Back: Santa Monica ATM-Fee Ban Results in Restricted Access 3496. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 10:50:39 AM I know nada about Calif. law but I wonder if cities have the authority to regulate banking transactions like this. It doesn't seem to help the consumer if the rules change for ATMs from city to city. 3497. dusty - 11/12/1999 10:59:22 AM JonesAtLaw 3498. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 11:05:00 AM From today's "Page 6" of the NYPost: 3499. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 11:05:21 AM When she finally called Kennedy at George magazine, he is said to have exploded in anger, kicking his office door shut and shouting at her. 3500. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 11:05:27 AM MsGreer - God help us. 3501. dusty - 11/12/1999 11:09:45 AM I was walking on the Santa Monica pier not that long ago. If I had seen something I liked, the fact that I could walk over to a machine, stick in a piece of plastic, and get $300 out, even at 2 in the morning ought to be viewed as incredibly convenient. That the local city fathers have decided that I shouldn't be willing to pay two bucks for this privilege is incredibly paternalistic and condescending. 3502. cazart - 11/12/1999 11:26:30 AM $300 bucks? 2AM? Santa Monica Pier? What were you in the market for? 3503. msgreer - 11/12/1999 11:26:59 AM JJ You said it yourself yesterday. The trend in this country has been going in the direction of charging juveniles as adults at a younger age than say 10 years ago. It seems this country is hell bent on punishing the "criminal" regardless of age or mental capacity. There has to be a separate juvenile code. I thought there was one. Where has it gone? Someone stop me. My blood pressure is starting to shoot up. JJ If Nat is found guilty of Murder 1 you will hear me ranting and raving. Yes, let's send a mentally challenged 13 year old to jail with his "adult peers". You know what will happen to him there. 3504. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 11:33:09 AM MsGreer - I don't even want to think about what will happen to him. 3505. Bubbaette - 11/12/1999 11:35:24 AM I find banks practices in VA of charging combined fees of $2.50 for access to my own money very hard to justify, particularly since the transaction costs each bank only pennies. 3506. cazart - 11/12/1999 11:39:32 AM Bubbaette: 3507. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 11:42:13 AM There have been attempts at making the juvenile justice system have more teeth. I would argue that it is probably more appropriate to allow juvenile courts the ability to confine persons past their 18th birthday, or some means of transferring them to adult court at that point. I think that if you have a juvenile committing serious crime, it is unlikely that they are able to address those kinds of problems in the time that is available before the juvenile court loses jurisidition. It would be preferable to treat even older youths as juveniles if we had the option of taking the time necessary for them to complete treatment. I will conceed that there are some older juveniles that are probably more appropriate for adult court, but I think it is being over-used. 3508. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 11:44:00 AM cazart - My primary bank is great. No ATM fees--super services. 3509. dusty - 11/12/1999 11:45:48 AM cazart 3510. cazart - 11/12/1999 11:46:09 AM Competition is wonderful. 3511. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 11:47:03 AM Jones - I would argue that it is probably more appropriate to allow juvenile courts the ability to confine persons past their 18th birthday, or some means of transferring them to adult court at that point. 3512. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 11:47:05 AM My wife banks in the town she went to college in. Its 55 miles away, and it won't let her deposit in ATMs that don't belong to them because they won't split fees with the provider banks. What a pisser. Yet she's been happy with the rest of the service and refuses to change banks. 3513. dusty - 11/12/1999 11:48:23 AM Bubbaette 3514. cazart - 11/12/1999 11:49:21 AM Reduced services in terms of conducting various bank transactions as compared to a teller. Further, more and more banks are cutting back services with regard to various types of consumer loans and financial services. 3515. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 11:55:33 AM JJB- well, it is at the heart of the juvenile court theory that they are rehabilitative and not punitive. Some opposition comes to the idea that they would more closely model the adult system and would become punitive rather than rehabilitative. Colorado had a plan where they would release certain juveniles convicted of serious crime into the adult prison system when they reached 18 and yet would expunge their record as juveniles if they successfully completed the program. 3516. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:02:23 PM JonesAtLaw 3517. cazart - 11/12/1999 12:03:45 PM Unfortunately, the trend toward a more draconian juvenile justice system has come from conservatives. It's the simple way out; instead of looking at the causes which may have precipitated horrible crimes, it's much easier to kill the perpetrator or lock 'em up forever. 3518. Bubbaette - 11/12/1999 12:10:52 PM Dusty 3519. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:11:08 PM cazart 3520. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 12:14:20 PM Hey Dusty -- You live in Santa Monica? I'm on Curzon between Venice and Pico in the "Wilshire Vista" district. 3521. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:15:39 PM Bubbaette 3522. cazart - 11/12/1999 12:16:27 PM You're confused, dusty. 3523. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:17:20 PM Cellar Door 3524. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 12:19:06 PM Next time, then. 3525. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:22:01 PM cazart 3526. dusty - 11/12/1999 12:23:25 PM Cellar Door 3527. cazart - 11/12/1999 12:35:52 PM dusty: 3528. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 1:34:27 PM cazart - Next, banks reduce the number of branches(where a patron may actually talk to a teller) in favor of more ATMs. 3529. CalGal - 11/12/1999 1:37:52 PM Oh, banks should get rid of all tellers. They terrify me. 3530. cazart - 11/12/1999 1:39:02 PM Great anecdote, JJBiener. I once lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, too. 3531. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 1:42:32 PM cazart - I didn't realize Kansas City was a small town. I have lived in small towns and there wasn't much resemblance. 3532. CalGal - 11/12/1999 1:44:16 PM Kansas City isn't a small town. It's a flyover city that usually thinks like a small town, but that's different. 3533. cazart - 11/12/1999 1:48:18 PM It depends on KC, MO or KC, KS. 3534. ranheim - 11/12/1999 2:05:23 PM #3533 cazart 3535. ranheim - 11/12/1999 2:06:57 PM insert local for lower 3536. cazart - 11/12/1999 2:13:53 PM ranheim: 3537. dusty - 11/12/1999 2:53:03 PM cazart 3538. cazart - 11/12/1999 2:57:13 PM dusty: 3539. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:06:09 PM cazart 3540. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 3:12:37 PM Dusty - Between direct deposit and ATMs I haven't talked to a teller in years. The only time I even walked into a bank in recent memory was to set up the Mote account last summer. I can't imagine what cazart does that he would need to see a teller on weekly basis. 3541. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:14:54 PM dusty: 3542. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 3:20:52 PM How about some disclosure as a response to the ATM problem. Just a little notice- "This transaction will cost you $X" before you proceed? If you want to pay, fine, you're a big boy or girl. If not, screw it. Maybe that will serve competition and keep prices down. 3543. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:21:33 PM 3544. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:21:40 PM 3545. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:23:53 PM JonesAtLaw 3546. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:24:42 PM JJBiener: 3547. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:33:54 PM cazart 3548. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:36:24 PM Stop whining, dusty. It's unbecoming. 3549. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:36:41 PM cazart 3550. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:38:38 PM cazart 3551. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:41:29 PM Anecdotes, dusty, that's all you've got. 3552. dusty - 11/12/1999 3:47:53 PM cazart 3553. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 3:49:30 PM cazart - Answer Dusty's questions. Quit trying to weasel out of them. 3554. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:54:44 PM JJBiener: 3555. cazart - 11/12/1999 3:57:37 PM Whine, dusty, whine. 3556. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 4:00:55 PM cazart - But I still need the services of a teller. At least once per week. 3557. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 4:01:35 PM Not sure how universal my experience with ATMs are, but I use them quite a bit in Minnesota. I have never seen one which didn't warn you about a charge, and specify the exact amount, before continuing the transaction. And most ATMs here are affiliated with a specific financial institution, and members of that institution are not charged for ATM withdrawals. Some ATMs are still completely free. 3558. cazart - 11/12/1999 4:01:57 PM In which case I will continue to support any bank that fights 3559. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 4:04:05 PM Rask - It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't see why a bank has to provide services to non-customers for free. 3560. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 4:08:37 PM some people apparently want something for nothing. 3561. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:13:34 PM You conservatives and libertarians are just wierd. 3562. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 4:25:28 PM DaveM - First, the double charging is the real issue 3563. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 4:25:28 PM I am no conservative or libertarian. 3564. Dantheman - 11/12/1999 4:25:56 PM Raskolnikov, 3565. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:27:00 PM Cazart 3566. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 4:33:55 PM Dusty - And I need certain services at least once a week that I'm not willing to explain. And I want you to pay for them. 3567. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:35:25 PM DaveM 3568. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 4:37:43 PM "I will note that, in a similar vein, a Philly-local convenience store chain (Wawa) required ATM's placed in its stores not to charge non-depositors, again to make sure they could put money in their pockets and buy stuff in the convenience store." 3569. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:38:49 PM Dantheman 3570. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:44:24 PM Raskolnikov 3571. Dantheman - 11/12/1999 4:45:44 PM dusty, 3572. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 4:48:38 PM "This is an argument for fees, actually. I'm sorry to hear that you were mugged, but I'm sure you agree that the linkage is weak. Tell you what: if muggings in Santa Monica drop, because criminals realize that the reduction in fees will encourage people to take out smaller amounts each time, and therefore it is hardly worth the effort of a mugging, we'll talk). " 3573. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 4:50:01 PM In my experience, airports do charge higher ATM fees. But almost everything is more expensive there. 3574. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:51:46 PM Dantheman 3575. Dantheman - 11/12/1999 4:53:28 PM Raskolnikov, 3576. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:55:48 PM Raskolnikov 3577. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:56:31 PM 1. Why shouldn't the government "get involved?" The knee jerk opposition to action by nominally representative government is always kind of surprising. If the citizenry is devastated by having to spend more time in their SUVs to find an ATM, then vote the bastards out! (Sarcasm) 3578. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:57:57 PM Dantheman 3579. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:59:42 PM 3580. dusty - 11/12/1999 4:59:43 PM 3581. Dantheman - 11/12/1999 5:04:09 PM dusty, 3582. dusty - 11/12/1999 5:05:54 PM DaveM 3583. dusty - 11/12/1999 5:07:51 PM DaveM 3584. dusty - 11/12/1999 5:12:00 PM The fee is "hidden" because it only shows up on your monthly statement -not when you are actually making the transaction. 3585. dusty - 11/12/1999 5:14:20 PM Dave 3586. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 5:17:24 PM DaveM - Why shouldn't the government "get involved?" 3587. dusty - 11/12/1999 5:19:58 PM Dantheman 3588. JayAckroyd - 11/12/1999 5:30:11 PM The argument for government involvement in ATM fees is that there may well be collusion among banks to set fees. 3589. DaveM - 11/12/1999 5:31:55 PM Dusty - 3590. Raskolnikov - 11/12/1999 5:38:47 PM Jay: If ATM user fees spiked into something substantial, it might warrant some investigating. 3591. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 5:42:00 PM Jay - The argument for government involvement in ATM fees is that there may well be collusion among banks to set fees. 3592. CalGal - 11/12/1999 5:45:46 PM All of a sudden I can't find a bank credit card that doesn't charge a late fee of at least $25, regardless of the overdue amount. Seems to me that the practice approaches usury. 3593. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 5:49:10 PM DaveM - Frankly, I don't think that the concept of freedom embodied by capitalist economics is any better than that embodied by representative politics. 3594. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 5:50:44 PM Jay & Cal - I couldn't tell you what the late fees on my credit cards are. We don't pay any. 3595. CalGal - 11/12/1999 5:56:26 PM JJ, 3596. DaveM - 11/12/1999 6:03:10 PM JJ - 3597. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 6:04:25 PM CalGal - I thought that was the meta-humor of my post. 3598. JayAckroyd - 11/12/1999 6:10:44 PM property" is an ambiguous term, "due process" is an ambiguous term, "freedom" is an ambiguous term, "assets" is an ambiguous term, etc. 3599. JayAckroyd - 11/12/1999 6:11:30 PM On late fees, we almost never pay them, so were surprised to see an under 200 dollar bill that was paid three days late generated a 25 dollar late fee. 3600. dusty - 11/12/1999 6:14:04 PM JayAckroyd 3601. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 6:15:59 PM DaveM - If a sufficient number of people supported that idea, there would be nothing that I or anyone could do to stop it. 3602. CalGal - 11/12/1999 6:17:49 PM Dusty, 3603. DaveM - 11/12/1999 6:19:03 PM Jay - 3604. DaveM - 11/12/1999 6:31:53 PM JJ - 3605. dusty - 11/12/1999 6:32:53 PM DaveM 3606. dusty - 11/12/1999 6:34:34 PM CalGal 3607. CalGal - 11/12/1999 6:45:28 PM Actually, I almost never use ATMs outside my bank. ATM fees aren't a problem. Late fees are a problem. Although this wondrous concept known as online banking is helping. Who knows, maybe I'll get brave in several years and set up an automatic payment of $45. 3608. DaveM - 11/12/1999 6:47:16 PM Dusty - 3609. dusty - 11/12/1999 7:37:24 PM DaveM 3610. DaveM - 11/12/1999 7:50:05 PM Dusty - 3611. DaveM - 11/12/1999 7:51:56 PM btw - change all of my posts from "wierd" to "weird." 3612. TrialShark - 11/12/1999 7:56:39 PM 3613. dusty - 11/12/1999 9:00:50 PM DaveM 3614. TrialShark - 11/13/1999 10:26:58 AM 3615. JudithAtHome - 11/13/1999 10:39:25 AM Thought I'd mention this: I have never used an ATM machine in my entire life. 3616. rosettastone - 11/13/1999 10:42:54 AM LOL! 3617. TrialShark - 11/13/1999 11:12:54 AM 3618. JudithAtHome - 11/13/1999 11:52:10 AM Trial: 3619. JudithAtHome - 11/13/1999 12:19:16 PM Sorry, rosetta....caffiene headache is directing my fingers over the keyboard. 3620. dusty - 11/13/1999 2:21:25 PM JudithAtHome 3621. TrialShark - 11/13/1999 3:07:32 PM 3622. JudithAtHome - 11/13/1999 4:40:06 PM Trial: 3623. TrialShark - 11/13/1999 4:54:45 PM 3624. dusty - 11/13/1999 5:15:22 PM JudithAtHome 3625. JudithAtHome - 11/13/1999 6:04:40 PM dusty: 3626. CalGal - 11/13/1999 7:11:37 PM I gave up recording checks two years ago. I was doing actually rather well on my own with finances for five years after the divorce--my ex was the person who did money, I just grabbed a 20 out of the ATM every so often and made sure to record checks that I did write. 3627. CalGal - 11/13/1999 10:08:57 PM Is anyone following the EgyptAir crash? 3628. dusty - 11/13/1999 10:14:06 PM JudithAtHome 3629. dusty - 11/13/1999 10:16:43 PM I sure hope that isn't the reason. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to commit suicide, but if they feel compelled, I'd rather they didn't take others with them. 3630. CalGal - 11/13/1999 10:20:31 PM Well, that's what makes suicide so incredibly nonsensical. 3631. Gram2 - 11/13/1999 10:47:25 PM Cal Gal: Hi! Maybe it wasn't a pilot, maybe it was someone who was on a mission--not that I usually believe in conspiracy, but planes have been hijacked before, possibly this time with a different purpose. Have they come up with anyone on the passenger list who could have been a target? 3632. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:04:15 PM Gram, 3633. robertjayb - 11/13/1999 11:05:00 PM . 3634. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:09:20 PM Missed a question: 3635. Gram2 - 11/13/1999 11:09:30 PM Cal Gal: You are probably right, but it's hard to believe someone who wanted to kill himself would want to take all those people with him. 3636. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:10:42 PM It's happened before at least three times. 3637. cazart - 11/13/1999 11:15:22 PM Far too early to assign cause to the air disaster. 3638. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:24:46 PM It is the most likely interpretation of the data. 3639. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:28:59 PM BTW, I refer you to my original post, in which I said that the suicidal pilot (whether the EgyptAir pilot or any other) also makes no sense. In other words, the most likely explanation for the data is an extremely unlikely situation. 3640. cazart - 11/13/1999 11:33:35 PM CalGal: 3641. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:45:26 PM Post coverage--which is the only one that does a decent job explaining all the data so far, although they don't seem to manage to put two and two together, either. 3642. cazart - 11/13/1999 11:48:18 PM No, CalGal. Tell us about the "elevator split" and the "scenario." 3643. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:51:16 PM You can read all the coverage in the papers linked on the right. Only the Post mentions the fact that Boeing designs the plane for that capability in limited situations--the LA Times quotes a pilot that explains what caused it. The NY Times missed it completely--or if they are right, then the Post and the Times screwed up, which I doubt, given that the Post quoted Boeing and their manual, and the Times quoted a 767 pilot and well-known consultant. But for amusement value, here is the NY Times: 3644. CalGal - 11/13/1999 11:57:22 PM Caz, 3645. cazart - 11/14/1999 12:00:49 AM You're shifting your story, CalGal. 3646. CalGal - 11/14/1999 12:04:05 AM Caz, 3647. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 12:38:58 AM . 3648. CalGal - 11/14/1999 12:59:04 AM Oh, that's good. I hope that it's something less unpleasant than a pilot deciding to off himself. 3649. CalGal - 11/14/1999 1:29:14 AM Oh, I think I see what you are referring to, Cazart. I believe you have misunderstood this comment of mine: 3650. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 10:31:22 AM Murders in rural New Mexico. 3651. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 10:48:46 AM Sheriff's deputies kill uncooperative motorist in Utah. 3652. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 2:56:18 PM . 3653. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 3:30:47 PM robertjayb 3654. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 3:52:44 PM . 3655. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 4:12:28 PM Robertjayb, under what circumstances do you live and what kind of people do you know that talk of killing and killed is so casual? In the whole of civilian life I have never heard killing described so casually and frequently as you maintain. 3656. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 4:31:37 PM . 3657. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 4:41:26 PM By the amounts of pills, elexirs and nostrums the American public buys and their overweening concern for health and attentions to avoid pain I think most Americans' sole acquaintance with blood, suffering and killing is by way of movies and tv. If more people had direct experience they wouldn't treat death, pain and killing so lightly or choose to enjoy them vicariously through investigative reporting and exposes. 3658. CalGal - 11/14/1999 4:45:35 PM Especially since it wasn't his comment, but rather one he was reporting. 3659. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 5:00:20 PM 3660. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 5:17:08 PM . 3661. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 5:19:40 PM Trialshark 3662. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 5:25:00 PM And here is another press release from the tough talking Republican Senator from Minnesota. 3663. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 5:31:27 PM Yet another press release from the verbose Sen. Grams. 3664. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 5:35:09 PM Correction: 3665. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 5:59:00 PM Roberjayb wrote in #3654:Haven't encountered that expression in quite awhile, but I heard it often in times past...."Well, that old boy was good for nothing anyway. He needed killing." 3666. CalGal - 11/14/1999 6:19:11 PM Heavens. All comments here are uninvited. In fact, your original comment was an uninvited comment on someone else's post--the same as mine was. Seems a tad odd for you to object. 3667. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 6:21:42 PM Chicago Tribune article about the death penalty in Illinois. 3668. CalGal - 11/14/1999 6:25:14 PM Well, at least they exonerate before they execute. 3669. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 6:31:10 PM CalGal 3670. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 6:34:33 PM Calgal, please go talk to anybody who has the patience for you. 3671. CalGal - 11/14/1999 6:37:54 PM Honey, you're free to ignore me. In fact, I haven't typed your name once--it's you who keeps addressing me! 3672. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 6:41:02 PM Calgal, you haven't the faintest idea about what or to whom you're talking. 3673. CalGal - 11/14/1999 6:45:57 PM You are quite right. Moreover, I don't care. I'm just passing the time on a Sunday, fussing you. Trot off and pout somewhere else now, like a good boy. 3674. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 6:46:34 PM CalGal re: #3672 3675. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 6:47:50 PM Calgal, you haven't the faintest idea about what or to whom you're talking. 3676. ScottLoar - 11/14/1999 6:48:52 PM Greystoke, believe me, you don't want a piece of this. 3677. CalGal - 11/14/1999 6:51:42 PM Grey, 3678. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 6:58:04 PM 3679. CalGal - 11/14/1999 7:00:10 PM You know what's amazing about that story? Not the hypocrisy--that's pretty garden variety for any politician of either party. No, it's the stupidity. Here is a perfect opportunity to pony up, to prove (whether true or not) that he's a man who lives what he preaches--and he misses it. 3680. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 8:10:38 PM 3681. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 8:27:32 PM 3682. Greystoke - 11/14/1999 9:17:27 PM Trialshark 3683. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 9:25:58 PM 3684. Stumbo - 11/14/1999 9:26:48 PM Apologists, Grey, not sympathizers. 3685. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 9:29:34 PM 3686. Stumbo - 11/14/1999 9:31:21 PM I'm gonna start charging royalties, one of these days. 3687. TrialShark - 11/14/1999 9:31:58 PM 3688. Stumbo - 11/14/1999 9:35:18 PM Or even in toilet paper, in these pre-Y2K days... 3689. robertjayb - 11/14/1999 11:04:59 PM . 3690. Stumbo - 11/14/1999 11:23:42 PM Days. Days. Days. 3691. CalGal - 11/14/1999 11:25:23 PM Hmm. 3692. EricCartman - 11/14/1999 11:54:15 PM I still treasure the "static electricity" theory for Flight 800. Hilarious, just fucking hilarious. Someone actually got paid to think that one up, it boggles the mind. Right up there with Koop's "green monkey" hypothesis for AIDS, and Grimm's Fairy Tales. 3693. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 12:02:59 AM I would love to know the weight of marijuana in the Sneator's son's rental car. You see, I have this nice defendant who rented a car for a friend and he had about 10 bags of marijuana in his car, and he had a valid drivers license and the car wasn't overdue. Do you think that my poor Hispanic client could use this precendent when we come back to federal court? 3694. joezan - 11/15/1999 12:21:33 AM 3695. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 12:39:51 AM Zan: 3696. Roadrage - 11/15/1999 12:41:27 AM JonesAtLaw:#3693 This article says 10 quarter ounce bags. Another hypocritical family values politician exposed! 3697. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 12:53:34 AM From Roadrage's link: 3698. joezan - 11/15/1999 12:55:22 AM 3699. joezan - 11/15/1999 12:58:14 AM 3700. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 1:20:49 AM Yeah, I haven't read the article since it first came out, 8 years ago or whatever, so I'm a bit sketchy on some of the specifics (it could have been spleens rather than kidneys, and I remember the dead sailor also, but not his nationality). But the proposition is unforgettable, and seems so clear and plausible, it's the most likely theory I've read on that subject. 3701. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 1:21:46 AM Well, my client doesn't have a senate staff ID card, and his bags were two and a quarter pounds each, so I guess he's hosed. Just to be safe though, I'll see if he's related to anybody who's somebody..., otherwise he's hosed. 3702. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 1:24:51 AM The really sad thing is when my clients on court appointments ask how much money their family needs to send me to pay the judge etc., and I have to tell them I can't/won't do that. They are confused, insulted and then incredulous. I mean, trouble like this in Mexico can be handled with a bite by a judge or prosecutor or two. Apparently here, only political capital will do. 3703. joezan - 11/15/1999 1:28:46 AM 3704. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 1:36:37 AM Zan: 3705. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 1:54:58 AM Yes, with the spread of AIDS and the ever present possibility of prison rape, now one can get the death penalty for minor drug possession. Or even being charged with it, given how some jails are run. 3706. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 1:57:22 AM 3707. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 2:06:30 AM Indeed. Senator Ounces -- 'scuse me, Senator Grams -- is just trying to uphold the family values that this country was built on. Namely, if you hold a position of wealth & power, and you have a useless criminal for a relative, you use your wealth & power to ensure that the relative doesn't get treated like a commoner. Then you give the media that "nobody here but us chickens" look and hope everyone forgets about it by next election. 3708. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 2:42:54 AM Cart- The redeeming thing about the Pokemon movie is that the Chimpokuman episode is even funnier in retrospective. I had to keep from laughing in the theatre as I remembered parts of the episode during the movie. 3709. EricCartman - 11/15/1999 2:48:18 AM Jones: 3710. cazart - 11/15/1999 9:00:55 AM The auto pilot was turned off and no master alarm sounded. This suggests it was turned off deliberately. 3711. 109109 - 11/15/1999 9:25:29 AM Has it been determined that Senator Grams did anything (i.e., used his wealth or power) to grease the wheels for his turd of a son or is it accepted that the deputy acted independently? Should the former be true, Senators Grams is rightfully toast next year. Should the latter be true, what is he supposed to do? Demand that they lock up his creepy offspring after they drop him off? The boy caught a break. 3712. dusty - 11/15/1999 9:26:24 AM cazart 3713. cazart - 11/15/1999 9:33:38 AM dusty: 3714. Cellar Door - 11/15/1999 9:42:13 AM 3715. dusty - 11/15/1999 10:02:23 AM Me? humor? No way. 3716. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 10:28:04 AM Niner- Senator Gram denies he sought any preferential treatment-"Sen. Rod Grams, R-Minn., on Sunday denied that he sought preferential treatment from law-enforcement officials for his son when he asked the Anoka County sheriff to track down Morgan Grams, 21, last July. 3717. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 10:28:04 AM Eric: 3718. 109109 - 11/15/1999 10:28:59 AM Jones 3719. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 10:29:19 AM Hells Bells, they didn't even question him! 3720. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 10:30:52 AM Sorry about the toys. 3721. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 10:40:07 AM Jones: 3722. PelleNilsson - 11/15/1999 11:56:41 AM The polio vaccine theory for the origin of AIDS is the subject of a recent book by Edward Hooper. According to a review I saw it is not sensationalist; it raises some intriguing questions which may be answered by tests on the remaining samples of the vaccine. 3723. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 12:01:31 PM Jones - Call me cynical . . . 3724. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 12:08:16 PM JJ: or anyone who might know how to do this: 3725. cazart - 11/15/1999 12:22:06 PM JJ Biener: 3726. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 12:22:08 PM Michigan boy charged with murder for shooting at age 11- update. Jury is still out for third day of deliberation. 3727. msgreer - 11/15/1999 12:26:16 PM JonesatLaw You must have seen my post. I was looking for you. Thanks for the link. 3728. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 12:28:22 PM If the kid's name would have been Kennedy, you would have heard about it last summer because someone would have gotten $ instead of revenge for the story. 3729. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 12:30:20 PM It seems that Michigan has more options for juvenile offenders charges as adults. Nat probably needs until he's 21 for the treatment he requires. I hope he gets it. 3730. msgreer - 11/15/1999 12:35:34 PM JonesatLaw I am praying he gets what he needs. As you must know the outcome of Nat's case is very important to me personally. It should be important to all who are concerned when a State goes after an 11 year old and tries him as an adult. Not to speak of the facts of the case we have already discussed. He is mentally challenged. I will be in Ann Arbor Friday for the Michigan-Ohio State game. But if the jury isn't back with a verdict by then I plan to join UofMichigan Law Students who have been picketing outside the courthouse. 3731. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 12:43:27 PM 3732. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 12:46:37 PM MsGeer - How will I recognize you on the national news when you are arrested on the courthouse steps? (g) 3733. 109109 - 11/15/1999 12:48:56 PM Trial 3734. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 1:00:34 PM Niner- I would be more inclined to believe your scenario, had the kid who had the overdue rental car not called Gram to find the car, and had Gram not called the police to find him. I might expect he would have asked for more information if he got "nothing" as a response from young Mr. Gram. 3735. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 1:02:39 PM 3736. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 1:06:05 PM I hate to sound like a cruel parent but I think if my grown son made a mistake like this, after repeatedly making others, I would say "Lock him up" and get him a lawyer. There comes a time when children have to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions. 3737. msgreer - 11/15/1999 1:07:38 PM JJBiener You really want me to answer that? Height, weight, size hair and eye color? I will be in jeans with a shirt. I remember you recommending jeans and a shirt to me once before. Why do you want me to mention your name? hehheh 3738. 109109 - 11/15/1999 1:18:06 PM Jones 3739. 109109 - 11/15/1999 1:37:58 PM "On Tuesday morning, we're going to cross the line," [Jesse Jackson] said. "If Dr. (Martin Luther) King could do it in Birmingham ... and (Nelson) Mandela could do it in South Africa, we can do it in Decatur." 3740. Cellar Door - 11/15/1999 1:39:56 PM You said it! 3741. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 1:50:36 PM 3742. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 1:52:10 PM For me the low came when I heard an editorial by S'Souza on Jesse Jackson and had to agree with the former. I wish Jackson would have talked to Nelson Mandela before starting on the latest crusade. Mandela is better at dealing with thugs. 3743. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:12:24 PM Trial 3744. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:12:32 PM 3745. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:14:09 PM Niner, 3746. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:15:03 PM That is, assuming I took that position on drugs--which I don't, so I'm safe. 3747. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 2:16:03 PM In recent years I had regained some respect for Jesse Jackson after hearing him speak several times about accepting responsibility for one's position in life and not blaming others for one's misfortunes. This latest incident in Decatur has me rethinking my opinion of him once again. 3748. Bubbaette - 11/15/1999 2:23:13 PM Don't forget about position f. "You're a waste of human flesh. Get the hell out of my house, get a job, support yourself or hit the gutter. I'm tired of pulling your worthless-ass fat out of the flame and I'm not going to do it anymore." 3749. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 2:25:09 PM 3750. cazart - 11/15/1999 2:27:17 PM JJ Biener: 3751. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 2:31:36 PM cazart - I am sure Jackson will be up all night fretting about it. 3752. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:33:12 PM Trial 3753. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:35:12 PM Similar to believing in the speed limit and requiring your children to "turn themselves in" after exceeding same to spare your consistency. 3754. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:35:54 PM And it doesn't have to be "fuck you for the favor", but rather--"Hey. Thanks. I appreciate the intent, but I feel strongly about this and I need you to put him into the system." 3755. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:37:03 PM Bubbaette 3756. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:39:30 PM Cal 3757. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:39:32 PM Actually, I have no problem with "f", either--but it would have to be a pretty permanent break. 3758. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 2:40:11 PM TS - If you don't believe in double standards, and you're committed to mandatory penalties, you either push to have your own children subjected to the same rules you push for others or you're a hypocrite. 3759. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:40:45 PM Niner, 3760. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:45:10 PM Cal 3761. cazart - 11/15/1999 2:45:29 PM I don't know anyone who could live up to the standards that you have set for Grams. 3762. CalGal - 11/15/1999 2:46:17 PM Niner, 3763. Bubbaette - 11/15/1999 2:50:39 PM I think that option "f" works with family values. Contrary to pop psychology, parents aren't always responsible for the way their kids turn out, and even kids with plenty of attention and lots of resources can turn out to be selfish creeps. To me, family values implies that you raise your kids to be self-supporting and contributing humans, not that you keep him in the nest forever and excuse faults on the theory that blood is thicker than water. 3764. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 2:58:25 PM 3765. 109109 - 11/15/1999 2:58:39 PM Cal 3766. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:01:44 PM Trial 3767. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 3:06:49 PM 3768. cazart - 11/15/1999 3:07:56 PM 109109: 3769. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:13:00 PM cazart 3770. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 3:13:24 PM 3771. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 3:15:13 PM As a Minnesota resident who can't stand Grams, I think this little furor is ridiculous. If he didn't push or hint that he wanted a favor, the man is blameless in this incident. Although it is certainly fair to question why the cops were so easy on the kid, this is evidence of a police department problem. 3772. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:18:47 PM Trial 3773. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:19:28 PM inout=input 3774. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:21:03 PM Niner, 3775. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 3:22:26 PM TS - if I accepted special treatment for my son . . . 3776. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 3:24:09 PM "Is Penny in?" 3777. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:25:01 PM JJ 3778. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 3:25:34 PM Rask: 3779. Bubbaette - 11/15/1999 3:26:00 PM Can we all call the police and ask them to "look out" for our adult son who has no liscense but is driving an overdue rental car? Think we'll get that kind of service, or would the kid in question be booked for driving without a liscense and possession with intent? 3780. JudithAtHome - 11/15/1999 3:27:18 PM responsibility... 3781. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 3:27:35 PM 3782. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:28:13 PM Rask, 3783. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:29:34 PM And I agree with TS as well. Rask, your dad's behavior was hypocritical and if the other kids at school knew about his special treatment of your son, he'd probably have lost a great deal of respect as a result. 3784. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:29:38 PM Rask 3785. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 3:33:54 PM 3786. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:34:23 PM Ahem. 3787. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:38:11 PM Trial 3788. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 3:42:14 PM Trial - I am suggesting that in order to be consistent, the Senator had to insist that his son receive the same treatment your son would receive. 3789. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:43:02 PM Niner, 3790. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:45:22 PM As a lad, I was given breaks by D.C. cops all the time. This spoke to 1) my winning personality; 2) my first name basis with some of their colleagues; 3) their desire to attain the beer I was illegally possessing, which overshadowed their desire to make a bust of a 16 year old and 4) my then height of 4 feet, 2 inches, which made a nighttime search both arduous and unlikely to bear fruit. 3791. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:48:17 PM Cal 3792. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:49:00 PM "has just drive" = "has just driven" 3793. cazart - 11/15/1999 3:51:31 PM 109109 and JJ Biener insist on attempting to shift the argument to something it's not. 3794. CalGal - 11/15/1999 3:52:49 PM Niner, 3795. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:54:25 PM cazart 3796. 109109 - 11/15/1999 3:55:08 PM Cal 3797. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 3:58:21 PM 3798. dusty - 11/15/1999 3:59:47 PM Bubbaette 3799. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:01:41 PM It has to be fairly permanent, or it looks expedient. And I think it is inconsistent with family values. 3800. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:02:49 PM Niner, 3801. cazart - 11/15/1999 4:03:32 PM 109109: 3802. dusty - 11/15/1999 4:05:32 PM Raskolnikov 3803. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 4:05:46 PM 3804. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:09:31 PM Trial 3805. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:11:49 PM cazart 3806. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 4:12:43 PM 3807. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:14:20 PM Niner, 3808. cazart - 11/15/1999 4:14:37 PM Wow, 109109. That's trenchant. 3809. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 4:19:52 PM Judith: "Are you saying you wouldn't expect your grown son to take responsability for his own actions? Would you help your grown child evade the law or allow him to "get away with it"?" 3810. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:21:53 PM cazart 3811. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 4:23:22 PM dusty: 3812. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:24:49 PM And how does a call to the cops asking them to look for your son add up to an implicit request for special treatment? 3813. dusty - 11/15/1999 4:27:28 PM 109109 3814. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:29:14 PM Cal 3815. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:29:37 PM dusty 3816. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:30:02 PM And I cannot spell "presumptuous." 3817. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:35:04 PM Niner, 3818. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 4:37:27 PM I agree with Niner. I see nothing unusual in calling up the cops to find a missing son, even if he is 21. I don't think concern for your kids has an age limit. 3819. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:38:49 PM Cal 3820. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 4:40:40 PM Cal: people call the police before missing persons timelines have elapsed. It isn't as if the police were conducting a manhunt and interviewing all known acquaintances to track the kid down. They just put out a notice on the computer to keep an eye out for a vehicle matching a certain description. I like to think that if I called up a similar request for my kid, the police would do the same, even before a missing persons report could be filed. 3821. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 4:42:02 PM I had a case recently where a very nice young man came to the US illegally to help his brother in law with a car business he started. Unbeknownst to my client, the repair business involved trucks traveling to Texas, where the one of the gas tanks was replaced with one with a false bottom. On one visit to another repair shop my guy was told buy his brother in law to carry about a grand in cash out of the building. My guy had seen his brother in law give a package to the guy in the business. The DEA etc. swooped down and arrested everyone. My guy spoke only Spanish, and didn't understand the transaction conducted in English. He had seen his brother in law with drugs since his arrival in the US. My guy told the cops everything he knew and showed them where to dig up the marijuana in his basement. It was an amount smaller than the amount Gram's kid had. The brother in law had been running coke and meth. The DEA and local cops wanted to jam my guy with the whole weight of the conspiracy, even though he'd only been seen at the business twice. Gram's kid got one hell of a break. My guy went federal. 3822. dusty - 11/15/1999 4:44:30 PM Why the hell would anyone want to be a Senator if they didn't think they would get special treatment? It sure isn't the salary. 3823. 109109 - 11/15/1999 4:47:31 PM Jones 3824. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:50:02 PM Niner, 3825. CalGal - 11/15/1999 4:51:56 PM Rask, 3826. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 5:00:50 PM Suburban cops are pretty damned accomodating. They don't have a hell of a lot to do. Particularly not in Anoka, which doesn't even border Minneapolis, and is a pretty nice suburb. 3827. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 5:03:00 PM I have read a lot in the local papers about how Grams kid getting away without an arrest was very unusual. But I haven't read anything stating that a request to the cops to find the kid was at all unusual. 3828. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 5:03:52 PM Gram's kid totals out at two and a half ounces for the weight in the car. My guy was under two ounces. He went federal because of the coke conspiracy his brother in law was in, and carrying the package and money the day of the bust. They are not one to one comparisons by any means. It's just that he was a very small fish, and the cops knew it the day of the bust. They'd never got him on any of the survelience or the wire taps, save for one visit prior to the bust. They questioned him about everything, including events prior to his first being seen at the business. 3829. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 5:07:04 PM CalGal - After your kid was 21? I doubt they would. 3830. CalGal - 11/15/1999 5:12:51 PM Small town, Minneapolis suburb. Same diff. (g) 3831. 109109 - 11/15/1999 5:14:24 PM Cal 3832. CalGal - 11/15/1999 5:15:16 PM But I haven't read anything stating that a request to the cops to find the kid was at all unusual. 3833. CalGal - 11/15/1999 5:16:21 PM Niner, 3834. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 5:19:31 PM Rask - There were ten bags of marijuana found in the car. 9 were in the possession of a 17 year old riding shotgun, who was arrested. One was under the seat of the Grams' kid. 3835. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 5:24:53 PM "Since the car didn't belong to Gram's kid, the cops had no way to connect him to the drugs. They couldn't prove he knew the drugs were there. Last time I checked, possession was a crime, but proximity wasn't. This leaves only the driving without a license charge. I suppose we could rant and rave about his not getting a ticket, but what would be the point? " 3836. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 5:27:19 PM 3837. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 5:37:03 PM TS - And so they saw no reason to ask. 3838. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 5:42:34 PM Rask - Usually, the mere fact that something is in your car is more than enough to nail the driver. 3839. CalGal - 11/15/1999 5:42:53 PM JJ--ten bags of marijuana and you think there is some other reason than special treatment? 3840. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 5:57:44 PM 3841. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 5:59:16 PM CalGal - ten bags of marijuana and you think there is some other reason than special treatment? 3842. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 6:02:25 PM TS - Yes. Do try to keep up with the coverage. 3843. CalGal - 11/15/1999 6:04:40 PM He was not in possession of any of it. 9 of them were on the kid in passenger seat and one was under the driver's seat of a car that did not belong to him. There is no way any charges would have stuck. 3844. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 6:07:01 PM 3845. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 6:12:49 PM JJB- Morgan was the driver. He was in possession of the vehicle, and is in constructive possession of the marijuana if he knew of its existence. As far as being able to make the charges stick, I would agree, the defendant is white, upper class and has a senator for a father. If he was non white, lower class etc. he'd be trying to make bail. 3846. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 6:13:41 PM *maybe* he couldn't have gotten convicted on possession. But I can't imagine that the police would just ignore it as unimportant. 3847. CalGal - 11/15/1999 6:15:37 PM Rask, 3848. JonesAtLaw - 11/15/1999 6:20:46 PM Funny how Mister Grams didn't fit any drug courier profile.... 3849. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 6:31:12 PM Even if we assume that the bag under the driver seat was the son's, it only contained a quarter ounce of pot. If I am not mistaken, that would only net a misdemeanor charge if proven. Trying to prove that the son knew the pot was there would be difficult at best. 3850. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 6:35:40 PM 3851. JJBiener - 11/15/1999 6:49:11 PM TS - Tell us what "disinformation" has you "concerned." 3852. CalGal - 11/15/1999 7:00:54 PM . I don't know about Minnesota, but that is not an offense in Missouri. 3853. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 7:38:00 PM 3854. CalGal - 11/15/1999 8:07:23 PM Caz, 3855. CalGal - 11/15/1999 8:07:54 PM Which has been bolstered somewhat by the most recent information--the NTSB is considering turning it over to the FBI. 3856. joezan - 11/15/1999 8:37:36 PM 3857. joezan - 11/15/1999 8:37:38 PM 3858. joezan - 11/15/1999 8:38:34 PM 3859. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 8:51:16 PM "It was claimed that Grams was driving illegally without a license. He had a valid license, he just wasn't carrying it. I don't know about Minnesota, but that is not an offense in Missouri. " 3860. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 8:54:44 PM Joe: I do know from work I have done for the MN dept of Corrections that it is quite possible that the police didn't know the kid was on probation, or know that one of the probation conditions was that he abstain from alchohol. The data systems are fucked up. 3861. ranheim - 11/15/1999 9:02:26 PM Grams is considered to be a conservative senator. 3862. joezan - 11/15/1999 9:08:41 PM 3863. joezan - 11/15/1999 10:14:57 PM 3864. Raskolnikov - 11/15/1999 10:41:22 PM I suspect Grams' friend *could* have reported the car stolen to the rental company, who could have reported it as such to the police, but the friend didn't. So he didn't get special treatment on that charge. 3865. Greystoke - 11/15/1999 11:06:23 PM ranheim 3866. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 11:29:09 PM 3867. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 11:33:38 PM 3868. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 11:38:30 PM 3869. joezan - 11/15/1999 11:39:52 PM 3870. joezan - 11/15/1999 11:40:47 PM 3871. CalGal - 11/15/1999 11:43:49 PM TS, 3872. joezan - 11/15/1999 11:46:29 PM 3873. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 11:52:53 PM 3874. joezan - 11/15/1999 11:53:03 PM 3875. TrialShark - 11/15/1999 11:55:45 PM 3876. joezan - 11/15/1999 11:56:59 PM 3877. TrialShark - 11/16/1999 12:07:49 AM 3878. joezan - 11/16/1999 12:12:14 AM 3879. joezan - 11/16/1999 12:13:46 AM 3880. TrialShark - 11/16/1999 12:18:51 AM 3881. joezan - 11/16/1999 12:22:46 AM 3882. robertjayb - 11/16/1999 1:10:40 AM . 3883. CalGal - 11/16/1999 1:18:49 AM I would like to note that I successfully intuited all but one of the elements of their working theory two nights ago. 3884. ranheim - 11/16/1999 8:26:57 AM An interesting e-mail message from my brother this morning. For you Minnesota Motes he lives on Hazeltine Golf Course. 3885. 109109 - 11/16/1999 9:55:54 AM Lodry. 3886. Cellar Door - 11/16/1999 10:28:53 AM is only a day away. 3887. TrialShark - 11/16/1999 10:29:21 AM 3888. TrialShark - 11/16/1999 10:29:49 AM 3889. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:35:36 AM Never Dies. 3890. cigarlaw - 11/16/1999 10:55:40 AM ?A new study published in the Chicago Tribune advises that 3891. 109109 - 11/16/1999 11:05:03 AM Apropos 3892. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 2:34:48 PM #3890: cigarlaw 3893. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 3:06:46 PM #3882 & 3883 --Egyptair990: First the Learjet ghost ship and now this end-of-the-millenium Made-for-TV drama. Should I copyright the T-shirt? Forget it. It's the end of civilization as we know it. 3894. CalGal - 11/16/1999 3:09:34 PM Roadrage, 3895. CalGal - 11/16/1999 3:10:35 PM Please excuse that egregious apostrophe. 3896. dusty - 11/16/1999 3:13:05 PM Re death penalty. I was in favor of the death penalty, until I joined this group. I don't know whether anyone else has changed an opinion based upon the considered arguments in these threads, but I did. 3897. dusty - 11/16/1999 3:16:40 PM Cigarlaw. In most of the cases identified as problems, it wasn't necessarily the case that the accused didn't do the crime. Not even necessarily any of those completely "exonerated". I'm in favor of making sure that we tip the scales in favor of the defense, and refuse to convist when justice isn't delivered, but I wonder how many of the verdicts that were overturned involved someone who didn't do the crime? 3898. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 3:31:22 PM #3894 CalGal: Wonder if the doctors have read this article:Artificially Grown Sex Organs? The science & technology coverage by mainline media seems to be mostly hype/tripe. 3899. CalGal - 11/16/1999 3:39:42 PM About the only fundamental issue I've changed positions on as a result of hanging out in this forum was the Second Amendment. I really hadn't ever thought about it before, and was mildly pro-gun control (based on my near phobic fear of guns). Once I thought about it, I changed my mind. It wasn't anyone here who caused me to do it, but it was the endless Second Amendment discussions that made me first start to think about it. 3900. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 3:49:02 PM No, the validity of the "executing an innocent man" pragmatic argument still stands. 3901. CalGal - 11/16/1999 3:57:13 PM Rask, 3902. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 3:59:12 PM CalGal 3903. CalGal - 11/16/1999 4:02:29 PM Road, 3904. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 4:05:28 PM the expense of capital punishment is another practical problem. Yes, you can streamline the appeals process, but only at the risk of an increase in the number of innocent persons executed. 3905. CalGal - 11/16/1999 4:06:46 PM Yeah, that's another pragmatic one. Thanks. 3906. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 4:13:32 PM Re:3903 CalGal 3907. CalGal - 11/16/1999 4:24:33 PM Road, 3908. robertjayb - 11/16/1999 4:25:37 PM . 3909. robertjayb - 11/16/1999 4:32:01 PM . 3910. CalGal - 11/16/1999 4:36:59 PM Road, 3911. msgreer - 11/16/1999 4:46:43 PM Nat Abraham was found guilty of second degree murder today in Detroit. 3912. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 4:50:47 PM I support the death penalty quite strongly, but I think Pseudo's reasoning, as stated above, is a bit flawed. The prisoner can be freed if exculpatory evidence is later found. Mistakes can be rectified. Obviously it's a little tougher to do that with DP. Even though death row inmates are given numerous appeals, and chances to state their cases, there is one common factor claimed in all the Illinois exonerations -- inept counsel. It's hardly the defendant's fault if his lawyer has his head up his own ass, or if the prosecution decides to bury exculpatory evidence, or the lab screwed up the tests. 3913. JJBiener - 11/16/1999 4:50:56 PM msgreer - What does that mean for him? 3914. CalGal - 11/16/1999 4:52:44 PM Lost time is lost time. If someone spends 20 years in prison, how can that mistake be rectified? The unjust situation can be ended, but so what? What if the person is killed while in prison? And so on. 3915. JudithAtHome - 11/16/1999 4:54:55 PM Victims loose time, also...without benefit of redress. 3916. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 4:56:23 PM If I understand the details of the Nat Abraham case, it is possible that the shooting was accidental, right? 3917. JudithAtHome - 11/16/1999 5:02:12 PM Eric: 3918. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 5:05:36 PM Cal Message # 3914: 3919. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:07:01 PM "Lost time is lost time. If someone spends 20 years in prison, how can that mistake be rectified? The unjust situation can be ended, but so what? What if the person is killed while in prison?" 3920. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:07:39 PM Cart, 3921. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 5:08:20 PM Judith Message # 3917: 3922. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 5:11:24 PM Cal: 3923. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:12:36 PM Cal: you have a surprising amount of faith in the ability of money to compensate someone for the loss of a loved one. 3924. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:18:12 PM I think Cal is confusing the pragmatic arguments with moral arguments. A *moral* argument would be that we can't tolerate the conviction or execution of even *one* innocent person. A *pragmatic* argument is that we recognize that some wrongful conviction will occur, but see no need to increase the chance of harm from a wrongful conviction unless we see a greater amount of benefit. Therefore, demonstrating how the death penalty can increase the possibility of harm from a wrongful conviction is a valid pragmatic argument. 3925. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:19:48 PM Rask, 3926. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:23:30 PM A *moral* argument would be that we can't tolerate the conviction or execution of even *one* innocent person. 3927. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 5:24:00 PM 3928. PelleNilsson - 11/16/1999 5:28:15 PM Raskolnikov 3929. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:29:13 PM "You have a surprising lack of faith in the power of money, especially in exchange for the life of a vermin." 3930. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:29:55 PM Rask, 3931. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:30:21 PM Pelle, 3932. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:30:50 PM "That is not a moral argument." 3933. msgreer - 11/16/1999 5:31:24 PM JJ Check your email. 3934. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:33:06 PM Rask, 3935. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:40:57 PM "I fail to see how the harm done is worse in a deliberate execution as opposed to a death incurred during a wrongful imprisonment" 3936. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:43:39 PM "Is it, though? In that case, one is supporting the concept of the death penalty, but objecting to it because of practical considerations." 3937. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:46:32 PM You are making the unnecessary assumption that the person dies during a wrong imprisonment. This is not always the case of a life imprisonment. 3938. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:48:37 PM as well as the moral absolutism that it is intolerable that an innocent person be punished. *This* is the argument which falls when you bring up other types of punishment. 3939. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 5:49:11 PM I would also not be surprised if the number of people who are killed in prison after wrongful convictions for non-capital offenses probably outnumber the people who have been wrongfully executed. 3940. CalGal - 11/16/1999 5:50:40 PM Cart, 3941. PelleNilsson - 11/16/1999 5:51:42 PM Raskolnikov 3942. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:56:43 PM "No, I am not assuming that a person will die in prison. I am saying that a wrongfully imprisoned person can die in prison--and it doesn't have to be a life sentence, either." 3943. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 5:59:03 PM "I don't understand. How does the argument fall?" 3944. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 6:00:44 PM 3945. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:01:13 PM "I completely deny that. To deliberately kill a person is to engage in first degree murder, and I don't think government should be involved in that." 3946. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:03:15 PM Because people won't be willing to apply the same standard to non-capital crimes. 3947. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:03:39 PM "Not necesarily, but in reality, it is almost always correct. The number of men sentenced to death who are first time offenders is very low." 3948. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:06:41 PM "Well, they should. As has just been discussed, a person can be killed in prison. So a wrongful conviction on a non-capital offense can result in the death of that person." 3949. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:09:55 PM Exactly, which is why an absolutist moral argument falls, but a pragmatic one based on the increased social costs of wrongful executions still stands. 3950. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 6:10:44 PM 3951. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:11:12 PM Pelle: 3952. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:11:47 PM Not that the mere possibility of wrongful executions means that capital punishment is instantly refuted, but it *is* an argument against it. 3953. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:13:55 PM "No, it doesn't. I didn't realize that's what you were debating. The increased costs of wrongful convictions apply across the board. The settlements to family members of those wrongfully convicted who die in prison--to say nothing of those who were wrongfully convicted but then set free--add up. " 3954. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:14:43 PM "No, but it puts the lie to your "money can't make up for a lost life" thesis." 3955. Roadrage - 11/16/1999 6:14:47 PM CalGal: From today's Yahoo headlines: 3956. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 6:16:40 PM "I do not see at all how this paragraph connects to the one before it. This is what I thought you were originally arguing, and I am pretty sure it has just been smacked around." 3957. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:17:08 PM Road, 3958. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:22:19 PM Rask, 3959. robertjayb - 11/16/1999 6:23:36 PM . 3960. CalGal - 11/16/1999 6:27:44 PM And Rask: 3961. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 6:33:53 PM 3962. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 6:58:16 PM Ace Message # 3961: 3963. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 7:00:37 PM 3964. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 7:04:38 PM "But I don't think any of this touches the main issue--there is no argument against the death penalty that can't be equally applied to any other sort of punishment." 3965. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 7:07:55 PM 3966. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 7:12:20 PM There ya go. Let God sort 'em out. 3967. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 7:22:32 PM 3968. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 7:22:52 PM AceofSpade 3969. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 7:26:49 PM 3970. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 7:30:00 PM 3971. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 7:54:26 PM Ace 3972. dusty - 11/16/1999 7:55:13 PM Crossfire is discussing the ATM fee issue as we sit here. 3973. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 8:08:43 PM Here is a somewhat outdated death penalty site. 3974. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 8:09:23 PM * Walter McMillian in Alabama in 1993. His conviction was overturned by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and he was freed, after three witnesses recanted their testimony and prosecutors agreed the case had been mishandled. His case was the subject of a 60 Minutes investigation. 3975. dusty - 11/16/1999 8:18:00 PM Greystoke 3976. Greystoke - 11/16/1999 8:31:26 PM dusty 3977. robertjayb - 11/16/1999 8:42:35 PM . 3978. dusty - 11/16/1999 9:24:37 PM Greystoke 3979. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 9:34:56 PM Cal:"You are actually making two different arguments, I think? It's hard to tell. In any event, the cost argument doesn't "add up"." 3980. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 9:35:06 PM "So we have just made life far worse for the wrongfully convicted." 3981. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 9:41:32 PM "Most that were not guilty were found not guilty by the process. So they wouldn't have been "accidentally" executed. A person found guilty, then cleared by an appeals court is not an argument against the death penalty, it is an arguement in favor of an appeals process. Which we have." 3982. CalGal - 11/16/1999 9:53:29 PM You do agree that killing the wrong person is a bad thing, yes? and it is worse to kill him than it is lock him for life? 3983. CalGal - 11/16/1999 9:58:30 PM If nothing else, damned few death row inmates would see it that way. 3984. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:01:33 PM So the question is, how many others are out there? 3985. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 10:01:52 PM "Which method gives the innocent person a better chance of surviving? Which method gives the innocent person a better chance of justice? " 3986. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 10:03:45 PM "I think it's entirely possible that Niner is correct on this--that the system we have in place catches all the truly innocent. It doesn't capture all the injustices (guilty people who shouldn't have received the death penalty), but that's a different story." 3987. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:06:06 PM In the end, the costs argument militates for the death penalty. Assume an innocent executed a year (an absurd assumption). Then, assume the mayhem created by all the violent individuals NOT executed in that same year (i.e., what would the ____ men executed in 1998 have done while alive). 3988. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:11:44 PM Face it. Even if 1 out of 100 executed is innocent, we know definitively that the 99 are 3989. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:12:47 PM I just doubt that most wrongfully accused people would see it that way. 3990. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:13:56 PM 3991. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:16:08 PM A Christmas present? 3992. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:17:38 PM 3993. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:18:56 PM I hope Woody Harrelson is there to hold him. 3994. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:19:55 PM And I forgot to restate that the number of innocents who have been killed while in prison for lesser offenses is undoubtedly larger than the number of wrongful executions. 3995. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:20:26 PM 3996. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:20:26 PM Who is Mumia? That one that everyone gets fussed about, or different? 3997. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:22:33 PM 3998. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:22:54 PM Mumia is a pimp on death row in Pennsylvania. He shot a cop, claimed political prisoner status, and the French love him. 3999. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:25:58 PM 4000. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 10:26:41 PM Never understood all the hoo-ha over Mumia. He did get a fucked-up trial, but it seems pretty clear that he did it. But do all cop-killers get the death penalty? Doesn't seem like it. 4001. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:30:05 PM 4002. 109109 - 11/16/1999 10:30:52 PM Eric 4003. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:31:29 PM 4004. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:34:22 PM Cop killers nearly always get the death penalty if the state has it as an option, don't they? 4005. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 10:40:45 PM 4006. CalGal - 11/16/1999 10:41:15 PM BTW, it looks like the copilot did it: 4007. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 10:53:18 PM I didn't even realize I got the millennial. I posted and went to watch Ace and the rest of the "Seinfeld" gang. You're right, no one seems to care anymore. My, how jaded we've become. 4008. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 10:57:47 PM I have an idea: Let's have the Rodney King cops (Koon, Powell, Briseno, and some other jagoff whose name escapes me) first beat the shit out him, then the NYPD guys who took out Diallo can empty their guns into him (hitting with about 45% of the shots, of course). 4009. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 10:58:05 PM I really don't enjoy death penalty arguments (I am actually quite apathetic about the death penalty - I think there are much more significant problems to tackle), but I do enjoy logical discussions, and I entered this because of a poor logical attack on a specific anti-death penalty argument, which has been refuted (although Cal "The Blair Witch kids were killed by hunters" Gal naturally doesn't see it that way). 4010. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:07:14 PM 4011. alistairconnor - 11/16/1999 11:12:35 PM But the main reason he has to die is that the French love him... 4012. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 11:17:06 PM Ace: 4013. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:20:44 PM 4014. Raskolnikov - 11/16/1999 11:24:20 PM I also strongly recommend Thin Blue Line. Scarier than The Exorcist. 4015. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:25:38 PM 4016. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:26:35 PM 4017. EricCartman - 11/16/1999 11:34:36 PM Ace: 4018. CalGal - 11/16/1999 11:36:25 PM Thin Blue Line is a good movie, but my lord. It has exactly squat to do with the death penalty. 4019. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:45:31 PM 4020. AceofSpades - 11/16/1999 11:46:40 PM 4021. TrialShark - 11/16/1999 11:57:59 PM 4022. Raskolnikov - 11/17/1999 12:47:42 AM "Thin Blue Line is a good movie, but my lord. It has exactly squat to do with the death penalty." 4023. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 12:57:56 AM Ace Message # 4019: 4024. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 12:58:22 AM Ace Message # 4020: 4025. CalGal - 11/17/1999 1:02:37 AM Rask, 4026. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:04:24 AM 4027. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 1:20:27 AM You're insane. 4028. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 1:21:01 AM (cont.) 4029. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:23:33 AM 4030. Cellar Door - 11/17/1999 1:26:36 AM Free Mumia! 4031. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:29:42 AM 4032. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:31:53 AM BRIEF REBUTTAL 4033. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:35:36 AM WHAT DID THE BALLISTICS REPORTS REVEAL ABOUT THE GUN AND BULLET? 4034. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:35:51 AM 4035. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 1:46:34 AM 4036. Stumbo - 11/17/1999 2:01:12 AM So we're having a big debate between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond a fucking reasonable doubt, uncle-fucker." 4037. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:02:21 AM Okay, at the risk of turning this into a very special episode of "Dueling Assholes", I'll play. 4038. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:03:08 AM (cont.): 4039. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:04:38 AM (cont.): 4040. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:05:05 AM We now know from the 1995 testimony of Officer Wakshul that after Jamal filed his charges, Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGill convened a meeting of police officers involved in the case. At this meeting McGill raised the question of whether Jamal might have made a confession (hint, hint!). He then asked any officers who might have heard a confession to raise their hands. (This meeting had never before been disclosed to the defense.) 4041. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:14:27 AM CLAIM- The defense claims a bullet fragment was lost or withheld by the police that would have allowed the bullet to be traced to a gun other than Mr. Jamal’s. 4042. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:14:44 AM 4043. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:16:34 AM You know, Ace, this looks alarmingly like your expose of Niner's assassination. 4044. Stumbo - 11/17/1999 2:22:25 AM Just goes to prove that the vast cavalry-sabre conspiracy was behind both. 4045. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:28:59 AM 4046. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:31:26 AM Out of curiousity, have any of you been following Cigarlaw's posts in Stories? You might want to read the current installment. 4047. Stumbo - 11/17/1999 2:32:36 AM "Wakschul" sounds like one of those dorky whitey names. 'Nuff said. 4048. cigarlaw - 11/17/1999 2:35:26 AM i know little about the case under discussion, but my experience is that too often the police deide who killed a person first, then set out to prove it. they too often ignore evidence pointing to anything other than their theory. the job of a good def. attorney is to demonstrate to a jury,not only that hi9s client did not do it, but, if possible, show the jury and the cops who actually did the crime. 4049. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:39:47 AM Further: 4050. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:40:05 AM Re: THe "Secret Meeting" disclosed by Officer Waskshul 4051. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:46:20 AM 4052. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:46:54 AM Ace Message # 4045: 4053. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:52:02 AM 4054. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:55:09 AM Sigh. I knew this would come down to cites. OF COURSE it's a Mumia advocacy site, you dunce, I told you I typed "Mumia" into a search engine and picked the top link on the list. Note that I don't try to discredit your site, even though it's got Faulkner's NAME in the fucking domain name. 4055. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:56:26 AM 4056. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:58:53 AM And once again, Ace, why did Durham [the hospital security guard] not mention the confession during her initial police interview. Indeed, why did the police themselves [Officer Wakshul] fail to mention it? 4057. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:02:39 AM 4058. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:05:02 AM 4059. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:06:25 AM Short witness excerpt (wrt the crack-whore witness, of course -- emphasis mine): 4060. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:09:53 AM 4061. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:11:41 AM 4062. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:12:33 AM 4063. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:14:44 AM I've caught them in three lies. 4064. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:22:29 AM 4065. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:23:40 AM 4066. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:26:16 AM 4067. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:30:38 AM OK, I'll try to respond to your allegations of lies: 4068. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:38:33 AM It is amazing to me that three LIES are enough to convince you of the possibility that Mumia didn't get a fair trial. 4069. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 4:10:32 AM No offense, but if you want to play 1) stupid or 2) games, I'm not really in the mood. 4070. Cellar Door - 11/17/1999 9:04:22 AM There's No Business Like Show Business. 4071. Bubbaette - 11/17/1999 9:07:52 AM Did anyone see the 13 year old kid that was convicted of 2nd degree murder? I saw him on the news last night, and it sent a chill down my spine to think of the kid in prison. Though he hasn't been sentenced yet, I expect a sentence to rape. 4072. theDiva - 11/17/1999 9:09:58 AM Are they actually going to put that child into the general prison population? Jesus, Mary and Joseph. That's a crime in itself. 4073. Bubbaette - 11/17/1999 9:18:11 AM Diva 4074. theDiva - 11/17/1999 9:23:04 AM Bubb 4075. Adrianne - 11/17/1999 9:23:59 AM 4076. theDiva - 11/17/1999 9:26:45 AM Ad 4077. 109109 - 11/17/1999 9:31:03 AM One brief point, on Mumia. 4078. msgreer - 11/17/1999 9:46:26 AM Diva Are you aware this kid whose name is Nat is mentally challenged? His mental capacity is that of a 6 year old. The options the judge has stated above are generally correct. However, if they put Nat in a juvenile facility they will reasses him to see if he has be rehabilated at age 19 and 21. Well, Nat has been in juvenile detention for 2 years and nothing has been done for this boy. NADA. Now if he gets sentenced as an adult he goes to jail with the big boys. The judge can give a "blended sentence". Nat would then go to a juvenile facility, reassesed at 21 and if the Grand State of Michigan felt he was a treat to society off he goes to adult jail for the rest of his life. There are no good answers. As Greta of CNN fame said "No one seems to remember this boy mental capacity is of a 6 year old. Even seond degree murder is saying the boy had intent". She went on to say "it is shocking". The great Repub Governor came out with a statement he ought to go to jail for, he is thrilled, delighted at the verdict. BTW, pay no attention to the woman prosecutor in this case. She went for Murder 1 and she wanted it badly. Now she is on TV saying oh this is so much better. Now we can give Nat the help he needs. Please. The State of Michigan has closed 60% of their facilities for the mentally challenged years ago. Don't you just know how much help he'll get in detention or jail. Shame on all of us. I am going to Ann Arbor early early Friday for the football game on Saturday. A large body of the UofMichigan Law School has been picking on the steps of the courthouse. I plan to do the same if the judge hasn't handed down a verdict by then. 4079. theDiva - 11/17/1999 9:50:52 AM Ms G 4080. Dantheman - 11/17/1999 10:00:42 AM A few brief points on Mumia: 4081. msgreer - 11/17/1999 10:09:08 AM Diva Nat did not testify in this trial but he did in another part of this horror story. It touched me. Actually brought me to tears. You know MissMsGreer. She is a high level mentally challenged 29 year old. My daughter does not know the difference between her left or right hand. For example, if we are at a restaurant and wants to go to the ladies room she will ask me where it is. I will say, just go straight and turn to your left (or right) when you get to the pay phone. She says which is my left hand. I gently show her. She holds it up in the air and says I will follow my hand. And she does fine but she needs that kind of help. God bless her. Now she has had the best this country has to offer. Can you imagine how the State of Michigan is going to rehabilate Nat? We failed this kid from day 1 and now we fail him again. 4082. theDiva - 11/17/1999 10:12:14 AM Ms G 4083. JudithAtHome - 11/17/1999 10:25:15 AM I hate to be a spoil sport but msgreer, I doubt your daughter would admit she knew people were out there while she was shooting the gun but she didn't think she would hit any of them. This child is mentally challenged, yes, but I think something has to be done. 4084. Bubbaette - 11/17/1999 10:54:45 AM I wouldn't argue for no punishment and I think it's important that we save some compassion for the victim as well as the perp. But I think that this particular case was one of the horror stories expected when the states began to get tough on crime by trying juveniles as adults. Regardless of the circumstances, I can't help thinking that an 11 year old (even an 11 year old with no mental handicaps) is too young to be tried as an adult. 4085. theDiva - 11/17/1999 10:59:10 AM Couldn't agree more, Bubb. 4086. theDiva - 11/17/1999 11:06:06 AM Ms. Greer is unable to connect to the Mote right now and asks that I post the following: 4087. JonesAtLaw - 11/17/1999 12:32:16 PM Msgreer- a bit off topic, but please bear with me. Does your daughter recognize letters well enough to know them? If she reverses them sometime this is no help, but if she doesn't have her hold her hands out in front of her, with her thumbs out. Her left hand will make an "L". A trick of my mother's for second graders with problems with left and right. It's no help if the child had letter reversal problems, but it's good otherwise. 4088. msgreer - 11/17/1999 12:38:19 PM JonesatLaw Glad I am back online. That is a great idea for my daughter. I really don't know how she will do with this exercise but I will try it when she comes home for the holidays. She knows her letters and can read on a 4th grade level. But I have noticed some problems with reversing letters and numbers. Thanks for taking the time to give me this information. I'll let you know how it works out. 4089. JonesAtLaw - 11/17/1999 12:40:26 PM I understand that Nat's defense included testimony of several mental health professionals who stated that Nat did not have the mental capacity to form criminal intent. Obviously what Nat did is dangerous, and he should not be released into the public without treatment, and perhaps he will never be able to live independently. It does not follow that he is a good candidate for survival in the general prison population. 4090. Bubbaette - 11/17/1999 12:41:25 PM I was in my early teens before I knew my left from right. My grandmother made it simple -- I'm right handed so my right hand is the hand I write with. Right/write. 4091. JonesAtLaw - 11/17/1999 12:44:14 PM The same is true of victims of violence- many kids and developmentally disordered people witness violence or are the victims of abuse. They are at higher risk to act impulsively, and sometimes violently. There are few facilities that are suited to these people as well, and many are placed in the regular foster care system, where they victimize other foster children, or the children of the foster parents. 4092. TrialShark - 11/17/1999 12:47:10 PM 4093. msgreer - 11/17/1999 12:52:02 PM JudithatHome I don't disagree with you. I think something needs to be done also. But remember he was abused by his father so I'm not sure how much family support Nat ever got. I still feel Michigan should place him in a residential setting for the mentally challenged and review his case at age 19 or 21 after he has had time to be helped.I would expect Nat to be watched by the state during this time. I just don't see how jail or juvenile detention is going to help this boy. He's already spent two years in juvenile detention and nothing was done for him.Are we to trust the State now? I don't condone what he did. I just feel there are many aspects to this case that need to be addressed if Michigan is saying they truly want to "get him the help he needs", so said the lead prosecutor. 4094. msgreer - 11/17/1999 1:00:58 PM I might add it all comes down to money. I have know this population for close to 30 years. My daughter had the best of the best and still does. She also had me, my family and friends who loved her for who she was. But I also have known families or single parents who did not have the finances to get their children help. Their kids end up with the quality of life none of us want for our children. It is tough, very tough to raise a challenged kid in this country without financially resources. So why should my daughter be the lucky one? Just because there is plenty of funds? Does not every child, challenged or not, deserve to reach their highest potential? BTW, my daughter works 5 days a week, pulls in a paycheck, pays taxes. It can only help society to get these special folks on their feet. Isn't that what we want? People who can contribute to society? No I am not foolish enough to believe every challenged kid/adult can hold down a job. But how will we know if we don't invest in them to begin with? 4095. JonesAtLaw - 11/17/1999 1:10:49 PM My favorite nervous witness story. A well endowed woman was on the stand in a misdemeanor trial in county court. She began to cry under cross examination. She reached for the bottom of her T shirt to wipe her eyes. She was not wearing a bra. The judge called a recess while the court was in shock. 4096. Thoughtful - 11/17/1999 1:31:52 PM Jones, ROFL. I guess she wanted to make a clean breast of things! She must have wanted to get something off her chest, eh? She obviously didn't have anything to hide. Unless it was an admission that she was a real boob. 4097. msgreer - 11/17/1999 1:47:03 PM CNN reporting: 30 minutes into EAir 990 flight leaves the cockpit. While the pilot was out of the cockpit the co-pilot is heard over the voice recorder saying I have made up my mind. " I put my faith into God's hands". Very soon after that statement the auto pilot is turned off. The Captain comes back to the cockpit and is heard saying "what is going on here". The plane had started is to dive. The Captain is heard saying as he pulls back on the yolk, "help me, help me". It is surmised the co-pilot is not pulling back on the yolk, thus the elevators go in different directions. The Captain was able to get the plane to take a turn up, then the engines are shut down, manually. One touchy point is this "accident" happened in International Waters. Any lawyers out there know how the law comes down on how this will be investigated? 4098. msgreer - 11/17/1999 2:25:44 PM From DetroitNews: 1. July 30, 1997: Mother accuses Nat Abraham of shooting her with a BB gun; she declines to press charges. 2. May 9, 1997: Several kids, including Nat, chased out of vacant house. Auguist 24, 1996: Witness says Nat was seen running from home before it caught fire; fire investigators later say fire could have been started accidently in stove. 4. May 21, 1997: Student reports Nat threatened to shoot him on school bus; police meet bus at school and search but find no weapon. 4099. Ronski - 11/17/1999 2:29:54 PM I had heard on the radio that most nations defer to the U.S. when it comes to investigations of crashes in international waters if the plane originates from an American airport. Don't know if that's true, or what kind of international law ultimately applies. Is there an international aviation law like there is a well-developed law of the sea? 4100. JJBiener - 11/17/1999 2:30:17 PM Ms Greer - Where is the rest of it? 4101. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:32:52 PM MsG--your facts are somewhat incorrect. The NTSB originally planned to turn it over to the FBI but deferred for political reasons. If you've followed this story in the Egyptian press at all, conspiracy theories (in which American missiles shot the plane down) are rampant. The Egyptians are very angry that the NTSB is narrowing it down to pilot error this soon and have requested that they be allowed to review the tape first. (this is all as of yesterday). 4102. Spudboy - 11/17/1999 2:34:36 PM Humor break: 4103. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:35:57 PM Ronski, 4104. msgreer - 11/17/1999 2:38:48 PM JJ Got me. I posted and where it went I do not know. CalGal I was reporting what CNN said. I did not say this was fact. I have been following EAir 990. 4105. Dusty - 11/17/1999 2:40:00 PM CalGal 4106. msgreer - 11/17/1999 2:40:12 PM JJ I posted what was stated in an article out of Detroit News. That is all they had on Nat. I have heard he had some 22 offenses. 4107. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:41:43 PM MsG, 4108. PsychProf - 11/17/1999 2:42:01 PM CNN..."STRUGGLE IN COCKPIT" 4109. CalGal - 11/17/1999 2:42:25 PM Dusty--crosspost. Since I knew the rest of it, I skipped right over it and focused on the part about the FBI. Silly of me not to say so. 4110. PsychProf - 11/17/1999 2:44:20 PM 4111. msgreer - 11/17/1999 2:44:51 PM CalGal I don't believe it has been decided if the FBI will be called in. CNN reported it is being discussed. 4112. TrialShark - 11/17/1999 2:45:41 PM 4113. msgreer - 11/17/1999 2:46:22 PM PP Nice post. Thanks. 4114. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:48:00 PM Not that I really want to rehash the Mumia thing (so far, it appears that we all agree he's guilty), but a couple of short responses: 4115. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:48:16 PM Dan Message # 4080: 4116. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 2:52:25 PM 4117. PsychProf - 11/17/1999 2:54:04 PM YAHOO LINKS FOR EGYPTAIR CRASH 4118. Dusty - 11/17/1999 2:54:12 PM Well, I had a post written, but my boss came in and interrupted me with work questions. The nerve. 4119. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 2:58:51 PM Ace: 4120. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:01:28 PM 4121. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:06:37 PM MsG, 4122. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:07:59 PM Ace Message # 4120: 4123. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:09:08 PM Dusty, 4124. OhioSTOPAS - 11/17/1999 3:14:09 PM Dusty, Cal (4118, 4123): We should have a discussion sometimes on Moting, and other personal internet use, at work. 4125. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:15:15 PM Ohio, 4126. Dusty - 11/17/1999 3:17:57 PM OhioSTOPAS 4127. EricCartman - 11/17/1999 3:18:10 PM On the plus side, I deliver and my clients are happy. 4128. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:18:46 PM You know, I thought of that interpretation .00000008 seconds after clicking "cast". 4129. Dusty - 11/17/1999 3:18:56 PM BTW Ohio, condolences on OSU, if a sports note isn't too out of line. 4130. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 3:20:25 PM 4131. Dusty - 11/17/1999 3:21:09 PM EricCartman 4132. PsychProf - 11/17/1999 3:21:52 PM Dusty...Ohio is a UCONN fan, if I am not mistaken... 4133. OhioSTOPAS - 11/17/1999 3:21:57 PM I don't mean a SERIOUS discussion, I'm just curious about a lot of things. How many employees with internet access use it for personal use, and for what? (In theory, an employee shouldn't be spending any time for that, just like in theory we shouldn't make any phone calls on company time.) Does anyone know of anyone who's been "busted" for improper internet use? (I don't. I've heard higher-ups say people have been fired for it, but I don't know any name of anyone who has been.) Do employers really monitor internet use? (Again, my employer says it does, but I don't know how or by whom.) 4134. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:23:12 PM Ohio, 4135. OhioSTOPAS - 11/17/1999 3:23:34 PM Condolences appreciated, Dusty. My first love is still the Huskies, but Scoonie and the guys are a close second. 4136. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:28:41 PM BTW, TS--I just thought of another possibility that might make more sense than depression. 4137. Dusty - 11/17/1999 3:35:09 PM PsychProf 4138. Dusty - 11/17/1999 3:36:34 PM Of course, if I learned to refresh... 4139. TrialShark - 11/17/1999 3:39:39 PM 4140. TrialShark - 11/17/1999 3:40:07 PM 4141. CalGal - 11/17/1999 3:40:37 PM TS, 4142. JJBiener - 11/17/1999 4:03:52 PM MsGreer - I just read the artiicle in the Detroit News. Can you spell Railroad? 4143. Raskolnikov - 11/17/1999 4:28:09 PM "Does anyone know of anyone who's been "busted" for improper internet use? " 4144. CalGal - 11/17/1999 4:31:23 PM Yeah, but you can also get canned for taking phone calls in that regard. 4145. Dusty - 11/17/1999 4:32:30 PM yeah, what Cal said 4146. Dusty - 11/17/1999 4:33:51 PM Although I am behind on a project for Australia, thanks to the boyz in the hood, I mean Politics. But it means I stay late, not that it doesn't get done. 4147. TrialShark - 11/17/1999 5:07:56 PM 4148. CalGal - 11/17/1999 5:10:47 PM Right. Just as you could get busted for calling 1-900-SPANKME, or calling Mama Honey's Whorehouse while at work to schedule a weekly blowjob. 4149. JJBiener - 11/17/1999 5:12:05 PM TS - Yes, but ... the Internet use involved downloading pictures of naked kids. 4150. Dusty - 11/17/1999 5:12:17 PM CalGal 4151. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 8:43:05 PM Jackson Calls Mumia Abul-Jamal Death Warrant an ‘Act of Revenge’ 4152. Gram2 - 11/17/1999 8:43:27 PM wysiwyg://7/http://www.nypost.com/millenium/mill_analysis3.htm 4153. Greystoke - 11/17/1999 8:44:59 PM Orange County judge says the drug war is a failure. 4154. Cellar Door - 11/17/1999 8:54:39 PM I didn't make the list? 4155. Cellar Door - 11/17/1999 8:55:43 PM Guess I'll have to kill Ace and make it look like Gram2 did the deed. 4156. Greystoke - 11/17/1999 9:00:02 PM Fox News calls Drudge "completely unprofessional" 4157. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 9:02:59 PM 4158. Greystoke - 11/17/1999 9:07:56 PM Still, said one Fox insider, "he hasn't broken news in some time. He might have outlived his 15 minutes of fame." 4159. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 9:10:20 PM 4160. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 9:10:21 PM 4161. dusty - 11/17/1999 9:45:10 PM Old news Ace. it's so... one second ago. 4162. AceofSpades - 11/17/1999 9:54:10 PM 4163. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 12:50:38 AM Speaking of Jesse Jackson- what is up with him and the hoodlums that were teeing off on other kids at a footbal game? We want kids like that in school? Sure they need an education, but they should be removed from regular school. Someone ought to remind Jesse who usually gets victimized by violence in urban schools. 4164. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 12:59:05 AM 4165. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:10:36 AM Ace- just disappointed in a politician I once voted for... 4166. TrialShark - 11/18/1999 1:13:05 AM 4167. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:17:23 AM 4168. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:22:35 AM Anyone know the reason for the original altercation? I assume that it wasn't racially motivated, I would imagine that Jackson wouldn't touch such a situation. I have just seen snippets of the tape, and there seemed to be lots of black kids in the crowd. Who does he think these jokers are going to tune up on next time? I'd bet there would be some black victims. Is he going to get arrested for them? 4169. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:24:02 AM 4170. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:26:59 AM 4171. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:33:13 AM Just checked the Chicago Tribune- their reports indicate that it was kids yelling insults at one another from different schools. Standard high school stuff. However, even though the "riot" that ensued was minor, there's no question that their asses should be out for the year. The Trib mentions rumors concerning gangs etc., and that if the kids were white there wouldn't be the gang rumors. Must have never heard of South Boston. 4172. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:33:18 AM From Capitol Hill Blue... 4173. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:34:40 AM 4174. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:34:49 AM Ace- just an example of the fairminded folk at Fox. 4175. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:35:54 AM Why Has Jackson Picked Decatur? 4176. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:35:57 AM 4177. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:37:21 AM Another excerpt from the AP article: 4178. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:38:44 AM Ace- you are right, but before such stuff happens there is something in the air. They knew the balloon was about to go up, and hung in there to see what would come of it. That puts them over the line. There is a mob mentality that takes over in those circumstances, and people, all people, do shit they'd never do on their own. That's precisely why these kids have to get punished for an offense greater than your standard exchange of punches over yo' mama jokes or looking at somebody's main squeeze. 4179. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:40:04 AM 4180. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:42:12 AM 4181. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:43:00 AM Ace: 4182. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:43:53 AM Ace- I have many conservative friends and colleagues who defend the bill of rights almost exclusively by defending criminals. The innocent don't usually get into court on the issues. Who suppresses stops where there's no contraban? How many innocent citizens hire lawyers when they've been illegally searched, knowing that the many jurrors will have an attitude similar to yours? 4183. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:46:08 AM 4184. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 1:46:30 AM Ace- yo' mama jokes are popular with kids of all ethnic backrounds. A favorite response of my lily white suburban 8th graders years ago. 4185. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:48:49 AM 4186. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:49:57 AM 4187. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:50:44 AM If all I do is get into a fight, I should be punished for getting into a fight-- not for my incidental, accidental participation in a riot which occurs around me. 4188. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:53:16 AM 4189. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:53:37 AM Ace Message # 4183: 4190. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 1:54:40 AM Yo mama's an astronaut. 4191. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:55:03 AM 4192. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:56:16 AM 4193. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:57:08 AM 4194. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 1:59:46 AM 4195. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 2:09:47 AM Ace- that's the flavor we used to do- 4196. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:11:12 AM 4197. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:12:54 AM Jeezus. Mr. Pop Culture Reference doesn't remember White Men Can't Jump? 4198. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:14:46 AM 4199. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:15:53 AM Ace Message # 4192: 4200. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:17:16 AM 4201. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:20:43 AM Well, the astronaut mama joke was from WMCJ, so take it up with Wesley Snipes. FWIW, I thought it was stupid too, but most of the other ones in that movie were good. 4202. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:21:39 AM Eh, let's get off mamas -- 'cause I just got off yours. 4203. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:24:10 AM 4204. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:33:09 AM Oh yeah, I admit, it's got fucking cobwebs on it. Another old one: "Keep my mama outta this, and maybe I'll keep this outta yo mama." 4205. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:36:10 AM 4206. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 2:39:28 AM 4207. EricCartman - 11/18/1999 2:53:05 AM Ace Message # 4205: 4208. Stumbo - 11/18/1999 3:15:16 AM And it'll really go over well if the guy wasn't kidding... 4209. Stumbo - 11/18/1999 3:54:58 AM BTW, I found this coupon amusing: 21st-century technology meets 18th-century mores... 4210. Roadrage - 11/18/1999 4:29:39 AM Yo' Mamma's pits so hairy she look like she got Don King in a headlock! 4211. Cellar Door - 11/18/1999 9:31:55 AM "Mother died yesterday, or was it the day before?" 4212. cazart - 11/18/1999 9:58:45 AM Disney has put out a computer "playstation" for kids. 4213. Raskolnikov - 11/18/1999 10:20:03 AM The "Your mama is an astronaut" line was hysterical. Not because the line itself was funny (it isn't), but because the characters reacted to it so strongly. I think the point was that it didn't matter *what* you said about someone's mama. 4214. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 11:19:51 AM . 4215. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 11:36:54 AM . 4216. TrialShark - 11/18/1999 11:47:50 AM 4217. 109109 - 11/18/1999 11:48:43 AM Amen. 4218. JonesAtLaw - 11/18/1999 12:05:19 PM Trial- these people are a waste of protoplasm, agreed. But I fear that the healing doesn't really begin or end with the end of the killer. 4219. TrialShark - 11/18/1999 12:31:37 PM 4220. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 12:47:27 PM I wonder if Jesse Jackson is going to demonstrate in Jasper, TX claiming "These boys are being treated unfairly." 4221. msgreer - 11/18/1999 12:49:06 PM JJ Can you spell smart ass? 4222. TrialShark - 11/18/1999 12:50:16 PM 4223. 109109 - 11/18/1999 12:54:59 PM To the family of James Byrd, I cannot imagine it is much solace to have these three animals put down. 4224. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 1:05:22 PM TS - Well, they're not going to be chained to the back of a truck and dragged, so I suppose they are being "treated unfairly." 4225. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 1:05:45 PM MsGreer - Moi? 4226. msgreer - 11/18/1999 1:15:52 PM JJ 4227. msgreer - 11/18/1999 1:20:40 PM JJ Excuse the railroad. Something just took me over. hehheh. 4228. msgreer - 11/18/1999 1:21:41 PM JJ, JonesatLaw Nat's sentencing date, December 14th. 4229. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 1:27:58 PM MsGreer - Tying them to a railroad track would be acceptable if bit melodramatic. Isn't that what you meant? 4230. msgreer - 11/18/1999 1:41:29 PM JJ Abit melodramatic. Apologies. 4231. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 1:52:22 PM Stoning would also work even if it is a bit biblical. 4232. msgreer - 11/18/1999 1:54:47 PM JJ UNCLE UNCLE..I give in. See my white hankie?Now I will go to my room and take a time out. 4233. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 2:16:03 PM . 4234. ranheim - 11/18/1999 4:20:46 PM Back to the death penalty. 4235. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 4:33:04 PM . 4236. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 4:51:39 PM RobertJayB - I'd say that was Darwinisn in action. What were dozens of students doing climbing on the pyramid to begin with? 4237. Cellar Door - 11/18/1999 5:03:57 PM How many Aggies does it take to start a bonfire? 4238. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 5:04:24 PM . 4239. msgreer - 11/18/1999 5:11:34 PM JJ Well I took my time out. Now I see fog, a big truck and my daughter's father trying to cross the street. 4240. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 5:19:57 PM 4241. AceofSpades - 11/18/1999 5:20:27 PM 4242. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 5:21:02 PM RobertJayB - Maybe next time they'll get some help from the Engineering School. Just think about what would have happened if it collapsed after it was lit. 4243. JJBiener - 11/18/1999 5:22:30 PM MsGreer - Don't leave us hanging. Did the guy make it across or did the truck driver earn another notch on his steering wheel. 4244. msgreer - 11/18/1999 5:26:21 PM JJ Since I can't get arrested for thought only I will tell you the rest of the story. He gets hit and thrown 100 feet. I see him dying a slow and painful death. Give him more time to think about his life as it flashes before him. 4245. ChristiPeters - 11/18/1999 5:41:38 PM msgreer- 4246. msgreer - 11/18/1999 5:43:03 PM CP I could live with that. 4247. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 7:10:26 PM 4248. Roadrage - 11/18/1999 9:33:26 PM Re:4242 JJ -- The Yahoo (Reuters)story says that the engineers were in charge. They had a collapse in '94? but nobody was hurt. Blamed that one on rain, supposedly destabilized the earth. Sounds like a hazard to me. Heads should roll. 4249. CalGal - 11/18/1999 9:35:10 PM From what I can tell, it's one of those long-time traditions that was only a lawsuit away from being discontinued. I mean, a 40 foot pile of logs? 4250. robertjayb - 11/18/1999 11:45:51 PM . 4251. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 1:36:00 AM 4252. CalGal - 11/19/1999 1:38:31 AM Ha, ha. 4253. CalGal - 11/19/1999 2:08:10 AM Mary Kay Bergman killed herself. 4254. msgreer - 11/19/1999 2:33:19 AM CalGal Have you heard of the singer Cris Williamson? When I lived in Marin County (early 70's) she was in Oakland. 4255. CalGal - 11/19/1999 2:55:19 AM MsG, 4256. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:02:39 AM CalGal I like Cris very much. I was dating a man from SF who knew Cris. When she was making her demo which had "Hurts Like the Devil" on it I was lucky enough to be at her studio listening to her. She gave me one of the demo tapes. Songs on it also included, "Marcy" which referred to her lover that was dying of cancer at the time, "Song of the Spirit or Soul". I would have to get the tape out again to be able to list all the songs. No she is not dead but the guy I was dating who took me to listen to Cris is. 4257. CalGal - 11/19/1999 3:33:40 AM I'm sorry your friend died. 4258. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:48:27 AM CalGal The demo tape I have starts with "Song of the Soul", followed by "Waterfall", "Hurts Like the Devil", "Come Back to the Darkness", "Sweet Woman", "Song of the Soul" again,( a favorite of mine), "Go Through a Desert For You", "Dream Child of Desire", "Wondering Around in my Feelings" or is it "Where is the Light"?. It continues with "Tender Lady" (another favorite, a very sensitive song about her lover who was dying during the recording of this tape..have you ever listened to this song?),"Child of God". There are many others but just listening to this tape is making my eyes begin to close which is not such a bad considering the hour. 4259. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:53:07 AM CalGal, Yes the "Changer and the Changed". And I believe you have the correct titles. You have a tape of this being made? Oh I would love to see that. I really would. I only have the tape so there are no titles to look at. It's a small world, CalGal. Did you like the songs other than "Waterfall" and "Hurts Like The Devil"? Oh here comes another, "Strange Paradise". 4260. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:55:03 AM CalGal I like each song. I know not every one likes Cris but I appreciate her voice and the lyrics to her songs. 4261. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:56:25 AM Strange =Stranger in Paradise. 4262. msgreer - 11/19/1999 3:59:23 AM CalGal Why is it "odd" to think I was at the taping?" 4263. msgreer - 11/19/1999 4:10:59 AM CalGal And of course the song I spoke of in an earlier post, "Marcy" sung in English and French. Then there is "Twisted Love" another goodie. I won't go on, you obviuolsy know all the songs. 4264. concerned - 11/19/1999 5:30:18 AM From a NY Post Millennial poll. Congrats, Lefties; you sure have an eye for corruption. Your boy the WH Rapist made number 2, beating out Josef Stalin, Pol Pot *and* Genghis Khan. 4265. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 7:42:58 AM Which just goes to show that there are at least 1625 pinheads out there totally devoid of any sense of logic or proportion. 4266. ChristiPeters - 11/19/1999 9:15:20 AM bubbaette - yes, I agree. 4267. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 9:29:19 AM On the other hand, maybe "concerned" voted 1625 times. Did you note that Hilary is Number 6, right between Josef Mengele and Saddam Hussein? 4268. theDiva - 11/19/1999 9:33:43 AM God, that is so idiotic. I have no use for the Clintons, but damn, they don't belong on that list. 4269. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 9:38:20 AM So you don't think that Hillary is more evil than Ted Bundy, Idi Amin and Vlad the Impaler? 4270. theDiva - 11/19/1999 9:40:28 AM Of course not. For one thing, she dresses better. 4271. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 9:46:53 AM But Idi had such a nice smile. 4272. theDiva - 11/19/1999 9:50:01 AM This is my point. Adultery and insider trading somehow pale in comparison to mass murder and genocide. Call me old fashioned. 4273. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 9:51:46 AM "Bubbaette the Misquoter" -- somehow our transgressions seem pale and whimpy. 4274. theDiva - 11/19/1999 9:52:51 AM Diva the Digressor 4275. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 9:54:47 AM I don't want to get them started, but I am very puzzled by the intensity of Clinton hatred. I'm not a particular Clinton booster but I just don't get it, particularly their vilification of Hillary. Anybody have a clue? 4276. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 9:58:39 AM At first I thought it was just sore losers, but the reaction seems too sustained and virulent. I must now assume that they're pining for the good old days of the cold war when we had a national enemy. 4277. theDiva - 11/19/1999 10:00:47 AM The level of hatred is stunning. I can't imagine what inspires it. That's an amazing number of write-in votes. It had to have been orchestrated by some group or other. 4278. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 10:05:01 AM I wonder is it's an outgrowth of the Gingrich type bomb throwing as political speech? It's not enough to oppose the opposition, you must make them into the anti-christ. 4279. theDiva - 11/19/1999 10:06:04 AM Right. God forbid people with differing viewpoints and goals actually respect and like one another. 4280. ChristiPeters - 11/19/1999 10:07:02 AM Yep, I'm not particularly a Clinton fan either, but I don't understand the virulent hatred either. It seems so petty and unreasoning. Like Bubbaette said "totally devoid of any sense of logic or proportion." 4281. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 10:10:52 AM Bubb 4282. theDiva - 11/19/1999 10:14:20 AM RR 4283. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 10:15:20 AM I think that some of the Hillary hatred comes from her being an uppity wench and not the traditional first lady. I'm probably forgetting hateful things that were said about Regan and Bush, but the level of vituperation just didn't seem to be there. 4284. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 10:17:43 AM I think Bubbaette is close to the mark. Maybe it's just the Newt/Rush brigade. Many people, particularly those who are already fearful and hateful, can be easily whipped into an unreasoning frenzy. 4285. theDiva - 11/19/1999 10:19:53 AM I dunno, guys. People were, and still are, pretty virulent about Reagan, as I recall. 4286. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 10:21:03 AM Right again Bubbaette. Much of Hillary hatred is just anti-feminist. 4287. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 10:22:45 AM Nixon (even before watergate) was much-hated as well. We need a repub in here to give examples of Clinton-hater-type stuff that was leveled at Regan and Nixon. I think that Bush just got the sort of low-level contempt and ridicule reserved for the clueless. 4288. Dusty - 11/19/1999 10:33:26 AM I don't think there's any doubt that some smartass saw the poll, realized that it wouldn't be hard to skew the results, and organized a few friends to start a write-in campaign. If six people convinced six compatriots to write in Clinton and asked them to contact six friends, it only take four levels to get the votes. I think it fits the Beavis and Butthead mold of humor (heh-heh Clinton's evil heh-heh they printed it heh-heh) than some deep-set evil. 4289. Dusty - 11/19/1999 10:35:30 AM Roadrage 4290. floater - 11/19/1999 11:35:41 AM I heard through the grapevine that 9 students were killed at the Texas A & M bonfire. This is absolutely terrible news. It seems that many of the Texas universities are experiencing a higher number of fatalities than normal. At my alma mater, something like eight kids within the last 12 months have been killed while drivign to or from the university. Texas Tech, UT, and aTm are all suffering that way as well. The Aggies are a rival (they always kick our butt in football), but I find myself very sad during this tragedy. 4291. floater - 11/19/1999 11:58:09 AM Make that 11 deaths. I was just now able to connect with the Dallas Morning News online. 4292. Dantheman - 11/19/1999 12:04:17 PM I must confess to not understanding Clinton haters, too. Since it started while he was still a candidate, its root cannot be for anything he's done in office. I've had discussions with friends and family on this issue, and 2 suggestions predominate: 4293. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 12:10:16 PM I dunno -- the vietnam vets I know don't seem to bear any grudge for that --not that it's such a large sample. There seems to be a kind of mixed feeling --a tinge of resentment that most of the upper middle class kids were able to defer service and the feeling that they would have deferred as well, were they able. If that's the cause of the hate -- hate from many who avoided the draft themselves -- then it would seem that many other politicians would be in the same boat. 4294. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 12:11:50 PM In fact, the vietnam vets I know bear more animus to the political figures who were in power at the time of the war. 4295. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 12:13:47 PM I could understand Clinton's draft shenannigans as the initiator of the hatred if I saw some evidence that these patriots are also disturbed by Dubya's squirrely draft avoidance. 4296. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 12:14:34 PM I'm pretty damned sure if the Internet had existed in its current form back in 1987, Ronald Reagan would have made the list on a write in. I probably would have even considered voting for him on a lark, until the other names on the list put things into perspective. 4297. Dantheman - 11/19/1999 12:19:15 PM bubbaette, 4298. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 12:20:50 PM #4228 Dusty: While it is true that feminists do not regard Hillary as a leading feminist, I think that the haters regard her as too uppity and powerful for a woman; definitely an anti-feminist view. 4299. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 12:24:44 PM Arghh! Dusty, I referenced 4228 when I meant 4289. Sorry. 4300. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 12:26:55 PM I guess it's too frivilous to suggest they're just jealous? I'd like to do so if only to hack them off... 4301. Cellar Door - 11/19/1999 12:28:31 PM I know I've said it before, but so much of Clinton-hatred stems, to my mind, from the collapse of the Soviet Union. With no immediately available villain (Saddam Hussein was bascially a Summer Replacement Show) the culture turned inwards. "We have met the enemy and he is us," in Pogo's immortal words. 4302. ChristinO - 11/19/1999 12:30:06 PM Judith, you may have a point, though. When was the last time there was a Democrat who actually won the presidency? I think a lot of it started along the lines of "Hey! That guy is stealing OUR spot!" 4303. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 12:30:21 PM Cellar: 4304. Dusty - 11/19/1999 12:48:18 PM Roadrage 4305. Dusty - 11/19/1999 12:49:36 PM Cellar Door 4306. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 12:51:39 PM Cellar 4307. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:00:22 PM Dusty 4308. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 1:01:12 PM Dusty: 4309. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 1:02:32 PM I hope historians point out the fact that Linda Tripp is begging money on the Internet for help in her defense against "the Clinton Machine". Puh-leeze. She shit in her own nest; let her pay for fumigating it. 4310. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:05:17 PM And then there was the unending fascination with Hillary's hairdoo, for god's sake. A lot of the media coverage of Hillary had that sort of "is she a ball-buster" undertone. 4311. Cellar Door - 11/19/1999 1:23:20 PM Hey -- Ace is still dragging around the old Hillary's-a-Dyke bit. 4312. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 1:25:15 PM HAs anyone posited that Hillary is bi? 4313. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:29:52 PM Bubbaette 4314. Cellar Door - 11/19/1999 1:37:37 PM HAs anyone posited that Hillary is bi? 4315. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 1:39:47 PM I could more easily be interested in Hillary than Nancy. Too scrawny. 4316. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:42:43 PM Dusty 4317. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 1:47:44 PM Bubbaette: 4318. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:49:56 PM Yeah! And how many times you have to ask the candidate to take out the frickin trash before he does it. 4319. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 1:50:46 PM Maybe Ken Starr should run for office: he's great at that trash thing. 4320. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:52:03 PM Bubbaette 4321. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:52:20 PM I understand that he's a shoe-polishing prodigy, too. But does he change oil? 4322. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:53:34 PM Bubbaette 4323. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:53:56 PM Dusty 4324. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:54:09 PM Yokes Yikes,Tomato, to mahto 4325. Bubbaette - 11/19/1999 1:55:31 PM Dusty 4326. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 1:56:12 PM While a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment is not rooted in sexism (a lot of feminists don't like the way she has stood by Clinton, so why can't conservatives dislike her for the same reason), I am quite sure that a lot of the hatred *is* rooted in sexism. 4327. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:58:02 PM Bubbaette 4328. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 2:47:10 PM 4329. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 2:49:15 PM Got the quotes in the wrong place. She started calling herself Hillary Rodham "Clinton" 4330. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 2:51:34 PM 4331. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 2:55:29 PM I took the opposite tack from Ace. Hated Clinton, thought he'd bankrupt America. Watched him serve well for almost 8 years. Don't give a backwards flying fuck about Lewinsky. Thankful that 'Read My Lips' Bush didn't get elected, nor Bob Olde. Hope that Clinton's found a nice piece of ass who can keep her mouth shut to reward him for his outstanding service to America. 4332. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:06:48 PM Message # 4330: 4333. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:10:54 PM AceOfSpades protests too much. 4334. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:15:23 PM 4335. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:15:26 PM Case in point: Mary Matalin. 4336. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:17:12 PM 4337. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:18:27 PM AceOfSpades: 4338. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:18:51 PM 4339. theDiva - 11/19/1999 3:18:56 PM Not for anything, but Hillary is the one who dragged the frickin' cookies into the mix in the first place with her snide and condescending 'I'm not just some little woman standing by her man and baking cookies' crack during the Genifer (and just who the hell spells that name with a G?) Flowers interview. 4340. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:20:13 PM 4341. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:20:46 PM I obviously meant almost 7 years... 4342. Dusty - 11/19/1999 3:21:10 PM cazart 4343. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:22:29 PM White trash spells Jennifer with a G. Although there are certain exceptions... 4344. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:23:03 PM Who cares if HRC "channeled" Eleanor Roosevelt. You know it didn't happen. Even if it did, so what? What calamity befell the country? 4345. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:23:57 PM 4346. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/1999 3:24:44 PM No one's made a joke playing off the last sentence in Nostradamus's last post? 4347. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:25:18 PM Ace: 4348. OhioSTOPAS - 11/19/1999 3:25:39 PM By "Nostradamus's last post" I meant 4331. Too slow again! 4349. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:26:42 PM 4350. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:27:10 PM 4351. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:28:30 PM Cite, please. 4352. Dusty - 11/19/1999 3:28:58 PM OhioSTOPAS 4353. theDiva - 11/19/1999 3:29:32 PM yeah, even I had a hard time with that one, Ohio. 4354. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:30:38 PM 4355. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:30:43 PM Dumbass: 4356. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 3:30:56 PM C'mon Ace, you know Hillary wasn't communing with Eleanor during a seance. This is the sort of thing we should be more concise about. Isn't it enough to simply blast her for admitting to admiring the woman? 4357. Roadrage - 11/19/1999 3:31:46 PM I too was disgusted by the humiliating sight of a man being forced to answer on the BIG MEGAPHONE whether he'd got a blowjob on the side. Particularly since it was all founded upon a 'did so/did not' encounter in a Little Rock hotel room. Justice? 4358. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:31:52 PM 'Uninformed detachment'? 4359. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:32:15 PM Before Ingraham got canned by the major network she worked for, she did a feature on the PromiseKeepers group. 4360. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:34:06 PM Ace: 4361. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:34:19 PM 4362. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:34:36 PM Fat-ass. 4363. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:35:06 PM 4364. theDiva - 11/19/1999 3:38:17 PM Eric 4365. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:38:38 PM Roadrage Message # 4357: 4366. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 3:39:13 PM Okay, Ace, where's this seance cite? I think you are misremembering a bit and please don't hinge this on the Nancy/astrologers info; you were correct when you stated that we all know that was in the news but I don't recall hearing that Hillary attended a seance. 4367. Spudboy - 11/19/1999 3:39:43 PM A former colleague on Laura Ingraham: 4368. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:39:58 PM Ace 4369. Nostradamus - 11/19/1999 3:40:42 PM Gotta fly. Ciao. 4370. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:40:46 PM Ron & Nancy's Age of Aquarius 4371. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:43:52 PM Diva: 4372. Dusty - 11/19/1999 3:44:25 PM Spudboy 4373. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:45:02 PM 4374. Dusty - 11/19/1999 3:46:18 PM EricCartman 4375. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 3:46:45 PM I guess I missed the part about the table rapping and the spooky sound effects in that description of the seance , huh, Ace? 4376. Spudboy - 11/19/1999 3:48:53 PM Dusty: 4377. theDiva - 11/19/1999 3:50:20 PM Eric 4378. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:50:31 PM 4379. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:50:55 PM Incidentally, did I mention the Democrats THRIVE on Soft Money 4380. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 3:50:57 PM Spud Message # 4367: 4381. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:51:05 PM 4382. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:51:58 PM 4383. Spudboy - 11/19/1999 3:52:20 PM Alterman doesn't mention it, but among Ingraham's accomplishments at the Dartmouth Review was, after posing as a potential member of a group of campus gay activists, mailing letters to the parents of all the members to inform them that their children were homosexuals. 4384. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:52:37 PM Very weak, AceofSpades. 4385. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:55:47 PM 4386. Dusty - 11/19/1999 3:55:49 PM Spudboy 4387. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 3:58:14 PM 4388. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 3:58:23 PM Oh god....beware the Hellenistic coin ploy! 4389. cazart - 11/19/1999 3:59:27 PM Democrats THRIVE On Soft Money 4390. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:00:09 PM 4391. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:00:36 PM Dusty Message # 4372: 4392. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:01:16 PM 4393. theDiva - 11/19/1999 4:02:41 PM I don't think that'll happen. She's made her deal with the Democratic party, I think, and she'll stick to it. She's too arrogant to do otherwise. 4394. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:02:48 PM 4395. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:03:36 PM Spuds Message # 4383: 4396. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:04:04 PM 4397. theDiva - 11/19/1999 4:04:48 PM Interesting that she wouldn't talk to Jesus. What did she mean, 'too personal', I wonder? What, channelling Eleanor wasn't personal enough? How very odd. 4398. Dusty - 11/19/1999 4:04:53 PM AceofSpades 4399. cazart - 11/19/1999 4:05:32 PM Nope, you're not reading, pea-brain. You're streaming horseshit. 4400. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:06:48 PM 4401. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:07:53 PM 4402. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:08:22 PM Diva: 4403. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:09:25 PM 4404. theDiva - 11/19/1999 4:10:01 PM Hmmmmm.....somehow I think this is the deal.....'Just hang in there, Hillary, and I PROMISE there's a Senate seat waiting for you.' 4405. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:10:22 PM 4406. cazart - 11/19/1999 4:10:38 PM AceOf Spades: 4407. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:12:10 PM HRC was asked to speak as Eleanor R. This is a touchy-feely exercise, nothing much different than what's being foisted in most major corporations. 4408. Spudboy - 11/19/1999 4:12:19 PM More GOP moral paragons: 4409. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 4:14:24 PM Okay....have it your way. Hillary is in league with the devil. I give up because even if I were to drag the participants together and have them sign a blood oath that it was not a seance, you wouldn't believe it. 4410. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:14:52 PM WH staff worried: 4411. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 4:15:33 PM I never heard that the seance was particularly serious. A lot of people conduct seances as a lark (hell, I read an article recently about how trying to contact Houdini is an annual Halloween event by some members of SCICOP (a skeptic organization). 4412. cazart - 11/19/1999 4:16:09 PM Ace Of Spades: 4413. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:16:11 PM Judith: 4414. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 4:16:22 PM 4405: 4415. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:16:23 PM 4416. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:17:07 PM 4417. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:18:51 PM 4418. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 4:19:50 PM I wouldn't equate Covey with a pseudoscience. Covey is a basic self-help expert, and presents rather common sensical and well-accepted life principles (always educate yourself, be goal oriented, prioritize, cherish your family, etc.) in a very readable, if rather over-emotive, fashion. If everyone actually followed all of his principles, I suspect their lives *would* be improved. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is dangerous. 4419. JudithAtHome - 11/19/1999 4:22:08 PM I just love it when you bring out the dictionary!! It's the equivilent of having little veins pop up on your forehead and in your neck, the strain to be proved right is so strong. 4420. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:23:41 PM 4421. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 4:24:12 PM A seance is just as much paranormal spiritual hokum as astrology. But I am much more interested in whether the activity is actually taken seriously. A lot of people read astrology columns in the paper periodically, but damned few act on them. It is my understanding that Nancy Reagan did act on them, if in a limited fashion. I haven't heard anything saying that Hillary took the seance seriously. 4422. CalGal - 11/19/1999 4:24:14 PM Do major corporations really bring in aromatherapists and crystal healers and have their executives pretend to be dead people? 4423. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:24:31 PM Ace: 4424. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:24:47 PM 4425. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:26:01 PM 4426. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 4:26:33 PM "I don't know about major corporations. But a lot of smaller ones do goofy stuff along these lines, sure." 4427. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 4:27:05 PM 4428. Cellar Door - 11/19/1999 4:33:15 PM I ran into Shirley Maclaine just the other day, Ace. She aksed how you were and said "Send Horst Wessel my love." 4429. EricCartman - 11/19/1999 4:40:43 PM Cellar, that was me who channeled Shirley. At the time, though, she seemed to think she was either Joan of Arc or Marie Antionette. 4430. Spudboy - 11/19/1999 5:18:25 PM I loved this little outtake from the Journal-Constitution piece on Marianne Gingrich: 4431. CalGal - 11/19/1999 5:26:42 PM Ace, Rask: 4432. Raskolnikov - 11/19/1999 5:30:21 PM And the general idea of aromatherapy isn't completely nutty. I would imagine that a citrus smell would have quite a different effect on productivity from the smell of raw sewage, for instance. Its some of the micro level distinctions (lavender vs hibiscus or lilac, or rose) where I think the aromatherapists are getting a bit flaky. 4433. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 6:58:19 PM 4434. CalGal - 11/19/1999 7:11:44 PM ????? 4435. Cellar Door - 11/19/1999 8:30:34 PM Boy -- makes you wonder about Newt's reaction to Congressional staffers who get headcolds. 4436. AceofSpades - 11/19/1999 11:20:35 PM 4437. dusty - 11/21/1999 4:01:50 PM In Message # 3495 I raised the issue of the banks fighting back against city prohibitions of certain ATM fees. To my surprise, people actually cared, and a lively discussion ensued. 4438. Cellar Door - 11/22/1999 9:31:49 AM 4439. JudithAtHome - 11/22/1999 9:57:00 AM Oh no.....big tears. What a sweetie! 4440. cazart - 11/22/1999 11:17:19 AM Good News Regarding Crime 4441. TrialShark - 11/22/1999 1:14:31 PM 4442. Dusty - 11/22/1999 1:16:04 PM TrialShark 4443. PsychProf - 11/22/1999 1:22:11 PM 4444. TrialShark - 11/22/1999 1:23:18 PM 4445. cazart - 11/22/1999 1:25:22 PM TrialShark: 4446. 109109 - 11/22/1999 1:26:40 PM The anthrax vaccine - the nation's new, number one proven way TO LOSE WEIGHT FASTER THAN YOU'VE EVER LOST IT BEFORE! 4447. Dusty - 11/22/1999 1:26:41 PM TrialShark 4448. TrialShark - 11/22/1999 1:34:04 PM 4449. robertjayb - 11/22/1999 2:30:05 PM . 4450. Dusty - 11/22/1999 5:47:14 PM Does this sentence from the Newsweek article cross over the bounds of responsbility? 4451. ranheim - 11/22/1999 6:05:20 PM Would some of our lawyers please enlighten me. 4452. AceofSpades - 11/22/1999 6:15:01 PM 4453. ranheim - 11/22/1999 6:16:28 PM Or wanting to collect on a law suit. 4454. TrialShark - 11/22/1999 6:31:31 PM 4455. Greystoke - 11/22/1999 8:38:19 PM Clinton plans to protect more federal land. 4456. iiibbb - 11/22/1999 9:58:43 PM Clinton bypasses congress by creating defacto wilderness... it's an abuse of power. 4457. Elaine Supkis - 11/22/1999 10:18:54 PM Times Square was a wilderness area but then Guiliani sold it to Disney and now it is infested with mice. 4458. iiibbb - 11/22/1999 10:53:25 PM Having clinton cordon off 40 million acres without doing an environmental impact statement or even coveying the slightest consideration of the impacts to the ecology as a result of this arbitrary decision... This act is breaking so many environmental laws it isn't even funny. 4459. Greystoke - 11/22/1999 11:08:12 PM iiibbb 4460. Greystoke - 11/22/1999 11:24:32 PM iiibbb 4461. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 12:35:57 AM His actions may not officially designate the land as wilderness... but in every way the land is managed that way... so it is in fact defacto wilderness... Additionally... parks, monuments, and wilderness areas can only be legally formed by acts of congress. Just because we have a republican congress does not give a president the right to bypass them. If the people don't like it...they need to elect represtatives that will promote what they want... 4462. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 12:36:06 AM 4463. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 12:42:51 AM 4464. JJBiener - 11/23/1999 12:47:30 AM TS - I see you are up to your old tactics. You can't argue based on the facts so you attack the person. How Democratic of you. 4465. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 3:15:45 AM 4466. Diogenes - 11/23/1999 7:55:03 AM If Clinton truly abused power, Congress could impeach him. His motivation for bypassing Congress in accomplishing anything may be the past performances of the Disloyal Opposition. 4467. Bubbaette - 11/23/1999 8:15:03 AM Carpal tunnel syndrome is a very difficult workers comp case to win. I've had the surgery on both hands now, but did it through my regular insurance because it can take years to sue under workers comp. 4468. Dusty - 11/23/1999 8:33:05 AM ranheim 4469. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 8:55:51 AM 4463. TrialShark - 11/23/99 5:42:51 AM 4470. cazart - 11/23/1999 8:58:45 AM 4471. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 12:41:12 PM 4472. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 1:53:45 PM The fundamental problem with the proposal, is it isn't based on science... it has fully considered the environmental impacts to these resources, and it's trying to bypass the normal channels for establishing environmental policy in this country. I will view any EIS generated for a prescription on 40 million acres of extremely diverse ecosystems with a great deal of skepticism. 4473. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 1:54:00 PM 4474. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 1:55:50 PM from 4472 4475. Cellar Door - 11/23/1999 2:03:56 PM 4476. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 2:03:59 PM 4471. TrialShark - 11/23/99 5:41:12 PM 4477. ChristinO - 11/23/1999 2:07:29 PM Ranheim, 4478. cazart - 11/23/1999 2:07:49 PM iiibbb: 4479. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 2:45:10 PM Where do I say congress should do whatever it wants? You seem to be arguing that the President should be able to do anything he wants. 4480. msgreer - 11/23/1999 3:04:32 PM CNN reporting Hillary to announce via news conference she is running for Senate in the state of NY. News conference to be carried live but no time given. What a shocker. 4481. msgreer - 11/23/1999 3:05:14 PM Oh my, Hillary is on CNN as we speak. 4482. JonesAtLaw - 11/23/1999 5:34:45 PM Okay, the Hillarity can begin. Is she going to answer questions? 4483. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 6:08:51 PM iiibbb 4484. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 6:22:43 PM iiibbb 4485. EricCartman - 11/23/1999 6:28:19 PM WRT Clinton invoking the Wilderness act, talk about life imitating art. Martin Sheen did the exact same thing last week on The West Wing. Will Bill be protesting at the School of the Americas next? 4486. JonesAtLaw - 11/23/1999 6:30:43 PM I don't think that all forresters in the government see trees as lumber in waiting, but there are lots of folk who would like to see it that way. 4487. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 6:37:33 PM JonesAtLaw 4488. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 7:04:04 PM Greystoke... I don't know how to displace your cynacism. Call it BS if you like. 4489. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 7:04:15 PM Do you have any idea the number of private forest owners who depend on foresters for creating management plans for their lands? No, we don't tell them to chop it all down and spray herbicide all over the place. We ask what are their objectives... we might prescribe thinnings, planting mast species for wildlife. Forest industry is less poluting than private homeowners when it comes to herbicides. 4490. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 7:16:49 PM iiibbb 4491. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 7:20:46 PM "You can't write an environmental impact statement that covers an entire 40 million acres" 4492. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 7:26:33 PM Hell.. you virtually have to write an EIS for every proposed harvesting activity these days... 4493. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 7:28:58 PM 4494. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 7:38:16 PM iiibbb 4495. ChristinO - 11/23/1999 7:42:54 PM Greystoke, 4496. Greystoke - 11/23/1999 7:49:59 PM ChristinO 4497. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 7:50:41 PM This is kind of second hand info, but when I talk to the old-timers where I work... they come from back in the 60 and 70's when sustainable yield were the buzzwords... according to some of them it was unfortunatley the late 70's and 80's where a lot of bad environmental decisions were made. Both congress and the President increased cuts and threw the a relatively sound concept of maximum sustainable yields out the window... 4498. ChristinO - 11/23/1999 7:54:53 PM Greystoke, 4499. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 8:22:26 PM 4490. Greystoke - 11/24/99 12:16:49 AM 4500. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 8:55:11 PM 4501. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 9:21:10 PM my point? 4502. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 9:35:18 PM 4503. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 9:47:20 PM Be careful Trial Shark... they'll sic the thought police on you. 4504. TrialShark - 11/23/1999 10:25:30 PM 4505. iiibbb - 11/23/1999 10:32:59 PM I suppose there are a few West Virginians out there who are proud to be illiterate hillbillies too... 4506. CalGal - 11/24/1999 12:07:34 AM The claim was made that an inmate is better off on death row than he is with a long prison sentence. 4507. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 1:55:48 AM 4508. JJBiener - 11/24/1999 2:27:06 AM ib - Stereotypes aren't wrong if Democrats use them. Democrats are promoting sacred causes so they are allowed to use any form of bigotry or hatred to further their cause. Since their ends are noble, they can use any means available. If you are expecting consistency, forget it. 4509. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 3:55:54 AM 4510. cazart - 11/24/1999 10:14:08 AM 4511. Cellar Door - 11/24/1999 10:44:52 AM Of interest to everyone except Bobo. 4512. LadyChaos - 11/24/1999 10:48:46 AM Blue Cross and Blue Shield just killed one of the Czech Republic's brightest politicians. Joseph Lux, a center-rightt former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, was diagnosed with leukemia over a year ago. He was flown to Seattle for a bone marrow transplant. The Czech insurance company that covered him had a contract with Blue Cross to pay for procedures in the U.S. Too bad that they were dealing with an American H.M.O. 4513. ranheim - 11/24/1999 1:40:54 PM As an ex-USAF, I enjoy reading David Hackworth. For those of you not familar with him, he enlisted at the tail end of WW II. Saw a lot of action in Korea and recieved a battlefield promotion to officer's status. He could not keep his mouth shut in Viet Nam - he was an outspoken foe of the LBJ/McNamara policies. He is fortunate that they didn't try him for treason. (Maybe TrialShark could comment on whether this is a treasonable act - in a combat zone - by a light colonel). They, only, forced his retirement. 4514. ranheim - 11/24/1999 1:50:41 PM cont. from #4513 above 4515. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 3:12:20 PM 4516. ranheim - 11/24/1999 3:36:47 PM TrialShark 4517. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 4:44:27 PM 4518. JonesAtLaw - 11/24/1999 5:13:16 PM Everyone bitches about strengthening the military and how wasteful the pentagon is. Then they dissolve into a squabble about the latest weapons system. While I agree that some of the systems are piss poor uses of money, I would think that there would be more public support for spending that directly benefits servicemen and women. We piss more money away in losing capable and expensively trained people than we do in weapons systems waste I would wager. 4519. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 5:28:50 PM 4520. JonesAtLaw - 11/24/1999 5:35:56 PM Trial, perhaps I am behind the curve. I understood that the way to a star was to manage a weapons acquisition project. The Bradly as an example. I remember a rather preachy movie on the subject which I disregarded as hyperbole. This summer I saw one at a military museum. Not exactly what my uneducated eye would see as a troop carrier. I don't mean to say that senior officers are encouraged to disreagrd their command, but that it isn't the fast track. Maybe it should be. 4521. EricCartman - 11/24/1999 5:39:47 PM I would much rather see more of the military budget go to taking care of the men & women who serve, than to bankroll another defense contractor with a questionable device to sell. I can't imagine that even the most pacifist among us wouldn't feel the same way. 4522. ranheim - 11/24/1999 6:07:26 PM TrialShark 4523. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 6:32:05 PM 4524. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:22:31 PM 4525. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:24:45 PM 4526. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:29:56 PM 4527. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 7:30:15 PM 4528. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:33:47 PM 4529. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:35:07 PM 4530. EricCartman - 11/24/1999 7:42:18 PM I'll second that. "Pentagon Wars" is excellent, regardless of its accuracy. 4531. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:45:54 PM 4532. TrialShark - 11/24/1999 7:46:43 PM 4533. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 7:48:43 PM 4534. EricCartman - 11/24/1999 7:51:14 PM Yeah, I love the sheep procurement stuff. Brilliant. I can't believe I haven't taped that sucker off of HBO yet; they show it on one of 'em or the other practically every few weeks. 4535. Greystoke - 11/24/1999 9:26:05 PM Nine starving grizzly bears killed in British Columbia. 4536. AceofSpades - 11/25/1999 2:59:43 AM 4537. EricCartman - 11/25/1999 3:13:09 AM Ah, yes. The dreaded "carpal beaver syndrome". 4538. AceofSpades - 11/25/1999 3:16:49 AM 4539. EricCartman - 11/25/1999 3:27:34 AM Yeah, but do you do it at work? 4540. AceofSpades - 11/25/1999 3:31:25 AM 4541. EricCartman - 11/25/1999 3:50:50 AM I can dig it. I don't do much office work, so I'm shit out of luck. I suppose you keep plenty of JPGs and movies on your office computer. Have you seen the Claudia Schiffer movie yet? 4542. phillipdavid - 11/25/1999 10:34:49 AM She claimed weekly benefits of $267 a week and also asked to be 4543. Greystoke - 11/25/1999 1:23:07 PM time test 4544. AceofSpades - 11/25/1999 4:56:18 PM 4545. ranheim - 11/25/1999 7:05:12 PM Ace #4536 4546. JJBiener - 11/26/1999 12:26:11 AM A neurosurgeon would be appropriate for this woman since she has more nerve than I thought possible. 4547. JonesAtLaw - 11/26/1999 10:58:24 AM Perhaps in the age of aids we've discovered the real reason for the rise in carpal tunnel syndrome. 4548. JonesAtLaw - 11/26/1999 11:00:05 AM Please answer the following interrogatories for your claim for carpal tunnel-How often do you masturbate? Which hand do you use? etc. Worker's comp just got stranger.... 4549. Indiana Jones - 11/26/1999 11:09:06 AM Look at it this way. She could have claimed it made her go blind. 4550. bubbaette - 11/26/1999 2:14:29 PM The carpal tunnel story makes a good anecdote, but doesn't quite pass the smell test with me, for a couple of reasons. 4551. TrialShark - 11/26/1999 3:02:08 PM 4552. bubbaette - 11/26/1999 4:21:02 PM TS 4553. Greystoke - 11/26/1999 7:51:18 PM Gov. Pothead seeks to expand medicinal marijuana uses in New Mexico. 4554. Greystoke - 11/26/1999 8:24:35 PM 4555. Greystoke - 11/27/1999 8:33:32 PM 4556. Greystoke - 11/27/1999 9:18:20 PM An interesting snippet from the Idaho World newspaper: 4557. Greystoke - 11/27/1999 9:35:35 PM The Sante Fe New Mexican moved the article in my msg #4553 link. 4558. robertjayb - 11/28/1999 12:37:14 AM . 4559. Nostradamus - 11/28/1999 12:41:55 AM How is it insane? What philosophical justification does the Land of the Free and the home of the Statue of Liberty use to prevent Mexicans from emigrating there? 4560. robertjayb - 11/28/1999 1:30:57 AM . 4561. EricCartman - 11/28/1999 1:45:45 AM Nos: 4562. Nostradamus - 11/28/1999 1:54:35 AM Cartman 4563. Stumbo - 11/28/1999 2:09:46 AM Hmm. Did Ireland have an open-borders policy during Ms. Robinson's tenure? And was free transportation offered to all takers, or were they cruelly forced to swim? 4564. EricCartman - 11/28/1999 2:15:55 AM Part of me is an isolationist, shut the borders to any non-millionaire. Another part is a freedom-lover, open the borders to any and all. 4565. Stumbo - 11/28/1999 2:23:52 AM "Pay my fucking bills, Uncle Sucker..." 4566. EricCartman - 11/28/1999 2:29:57 AM Hahaha! Very good one, Stumbo. Or, we could go ahead and blame Nostradamus and his beady-eyed, head-flapping countrymen. 4567. JonesAtLaw - 11/28/1999 4:37:53 AM Or they can have a kid while here illegally, and collect welfare and send the kid to school. Not a bad deal. 4568. ScottLoar - 11/28/1999 8:39:41 AM The child born here is entitled to stay, the parents are not. They have a choice, give up the child so it can stay here, or take it home with them. 4569. ranheim - 11/28/1999 4:45:16 PM Are any of you from different regions of the USA familiar with a writer : Martha Johanek? 4570. robertjayb - 11/28/1999 5:59:09 PM . 4571. lemwalker - 11/28/1999 8:44:56 PM Local news full of upcoming meeting and the planned disruptions. 4572. ranheim - 11/28/1999 10:19:29 PM robert 4573. robertjayb - 11/28/1999 11:35:44 PM . 4574. TrialShark - 11/29/1999 5:03:05 AM 4575. JonesAtLaw - 11/29/1999 10:06:28 AM Loar- They are not required to give up the child, they have the choice to take it with them, or arrange for its care in the US with a legal resident or american citizen. I do not practice immigration law and so don't have a cite handy for the exact provisions, but I believe that it is popularly titled the Immigration Reform Act and I think that it was passed with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by Congress following the Oklahoma City bombing. 4576. ScottLoar - 11/29/1999 3:10:40 PM Interesting. 4577. JudithAtHome - 11/29/1999 3:17:46 PM If the alien parents are not willing to take the child with them, they shouldn't have had one in the first place. Are we supposed to encourage irresponsible practices such as having babies when one can neither afford to have it or keep it? 4578. JonesAtLaw - 11/29/1999 3:38:00 PM Judith- the intention is not to encourage parents to leave their children to the state, but is to provide a disincentive to illegals having a child in the US as a means of improving their chances for immigration status review. 4579. ScottLoar - 11/29/1999 4:04:04 PM My prescription - which I thought practice - was a child born in the US to deported aliens could, on reaching 18 years of age, choose to retain US citenzenship or that of his parents' citizenry but not dual citizenship. This allows the child born in the US to become a citizen but not become a ward of the State by separation from the natural parents, and the birth of the child may not be used by the parents as cause for permanent residency in the US. 4580. Indiana Jones - 11/29/1999 4:04:49 PM Regarding Ace's story about the woman who sued her employer for workman's comp due to masturbation, it's now on the Village Voice site. Evidently not an urban legend. (Scroll to the heading "It Won't Make You Go Blind, But . . .") 4581. JJBiener - 11/29/1999 4:46:40 PM Speaking of Urban Legends. . . It seems that the rumor going around that Republican Senators having been talking to the press about McCain's failings is in fact a just a rumor. No reporter has come forward to say they have actually heard one of these disparaging remarks. It would appear it is just a figment of a liberal imagination. 4582. JonesAtLaw - 11/29/1999 4:52:14 PM Scot Loar- immigration law is a byzantine matter, however, all US citizens are entitled to residency in the US. Whether dual citizenship is possible is a matter which depends on the laws of the countries involved. It is possible for adults to have dual citizenship in the US. A number of Irish-Americans, for example, have dual citizenship, as Ireland does not require one to renounce your citizenship in another country in order to obtain citizenship in Ireland under certain conditions. Other countries may also do this, though I do not know who does. 4583. ScottLoar - 11/29/1999 5:23:56 PM Yes, I understand some countries allow dual citizenship (so what? the US can choose to ignore so by not awarding citizenry to anyone claiming allegiance to any foreign power, state or potentate) but my prescription was, I thought, practice. If not it remains good sense. 4584. Spudboy - 11/29/1999 6:17:09 PM WRT#4581... 4585. RosettaSTONE - 11/29/1999 6:25:20 PM Spuds' back! 4586. JJBiener - 11/29/1999 6:34:55 PM Spuds - If you notice in the Drew's article there are no direct quotes from any of the Senators who are being accused. There are only references to a whispering campaign. All of the sources are conveniently anonymous. 4587. Spudboy - 11/29/1999 6:43:05 PM JJ: 4588. JJBiener - 11/29/1999 6:54:27 PM Spuds - What does Hagel have to do with it? 4589. Spudboy - 11/29/1999 7:06:50 PM Hagel has been quite public (appearing on MSNBC, CNN and Fox) about describing the whisper campaign. 4590. RosettaStone - 11/29/1999 7:42:03 PM Spud: Don't say that to my in-laws in Vermont. There are lots of liberals still in the Republican party. 4591. Cellar Door - 11/29/1999 8:02:48 PM Thanks for the Drew link, Spuds. 4592. Spudboy - 11/29/1999 8:03:26 PM Interesting story... 4593. Cellar Door - 11/29/1999 8:07:40 PM Great story. At last, a true example of "Compassionate Conservatism": aiding and abetting a man who rapes and murders a six year-old girl. 4594. TrialShark - 11/29/1999 8:17:12 PM 4595. CalGal - 11/29/1999 10:33:14 PM Actually, I linked in that Drew article a while ago, as did someone else (Bobby J, I think? TS?) I agree with Spud--Drew named names down the line, and I don't think she would have done so had she not had them on record. I said as much, I think, when I first linked her column in. 4596. OhioSTOPAS - 11/29/1999 10:45:31 PM Republicans (if Niner and Ace are representative) deride Al Gore's Vietnam experience because he didn't see any REAL action. 4597. JonesAtLaw - 11/29/1999 11:13:21 PM IF Hegel is part of the whispering campaign, I just lost all respect for him. He is a combat vet of Vietnam, and rode that horse hard in his carpetbag campaign here. If McCain has a screw loose, Hegel's had an obligation to point it out in public. If he can't or won't do that, he should hold his water. Hegel's brother served with him, and doesn't seem to have become as comfortable with his experience as Chuck has. I wonder how Chuck Hegel would appreciate such a whispering campaign concerning his brother? 4598. CalGal - 11/29/1999 11:17:17 PM Republicans (if Niner and Ace are representative) deride Al Gore's Vietnam experience because he didn't see any REAL action. 4599. JonesAtLaw - 11/29/1999 11:24:32 PM CalGal- Just another reason why Kerry is so likeable. If Hegel is in fact part of this, I should hear rumblings locally. I'll have to question the usual suspects. 4600. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 12:43:29 AM Cellar - It seems your reading skills are even weaker than I thought. Read the article again. Enrique Fuentes León did not rape and murder a 6-year-old. Or don't the facts matter to you? 4601. robertjayb - 11/30/1999 12:55:44 AM . 4602. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 12:57:03 AM CalGal - Drew named names down the line, and I don't think she would have done so had she not had them on record. 4603. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:00:29 AM 4604. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:03:36 AM 4605. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:08:32 AM Spudboy - I expected better from you. Are you assuming Fuentes León is guilty just because he has been accused of a crime by the Mexican government? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Clinton has been accused of many things. Should we assume he is guilty? 4606. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:17:44 AM TS - I know you have rushed to judgement, but unlike you I am waiting for someone to actually present a fact or two. So far all we have are statements by unidentified "colleagues" who may or may not have heard what they claim. This story as well substantiated as the one about Clinton runnning drugs out of Mena. Should we believe that one too? 4607. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 1:27:04 AM JJ: 4608. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:41:21 AM Eric - So far, it sounds as if he's quite content to bribe judges and attempt to flee the country. Is that what innocent people do? 4609. angel-five - 11/30/1999 1:57:01 AM Whyever would the Democrats want to make McCain look bad? It seems to me that they stand to gain more by making him look good and further dividing the Republican camp. 4610. angel-five - 11/30/1999 1:58:14 AM And I'd think most of them would, in honesty, rather see McCain in office than Bush Redux, should it come down to that point of view. 4611. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 2:00:50 AM JJ: 4612. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 2:02:43 AM A5 - I can't explain why Democrats do what they do, but whenever a Republican starts looking like a serious candidate the trash starts. It is a bit of early character assassination in case they have to face him in the fall. 4613. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 2:03:28 AM 4614. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:05:48 AM JJ: Why do you assume it's the Democrats? I mean, come on, guy, this isn't the Big Dance and while partisan politics always is in the cards the simple fact is that McCain's major competition right now isn't a Democrat, it's a Texas Republican Bush scion. Or is it impossible, within the Republican party, for two candidates and/or the powers sponsoring them to engage in dirty tactics? 4615. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:10:42 AM I mean, why would the Democrats attack now? A year before the election? It makes no sense. If you're going to engage in dirty tactics (and damned near everyone does) you want your smears to be fresh in the voters' minds when it comes time to vote, not old and tired. 4616. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 2:13:59 AM Eric - I am not convinced there was a quid pro quo. I think they were sitting around the Rangers luxury box watching the game. Fuentes told a good story and W bought it. He makes a quick call to Pop and promptly forgets it ever happened. It was 5 minutes to help out a guy who seemed to be in trouble not of his own making. 4617. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:14:23 AM A5 You're waiting for someone to actually present a fact 4618. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:28:45 AM Eric - I am not convinced there was a quid pro quo. I I really am laughing, JJ. I hope you were when you wrote this. IOW: There is no way in hell that you would ever extend such forensic charity to this guy if he were on the other side of the aisle. 4619. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 2:45:19 AM JJ: 4620. joezan - 11/30/1999 7:44:20 AM 4621. cazart - 11/30/1999 9:14:30 AM No reporter has come forward to say they have actually heard one of these disparaging remarks. It would appear it is just a figment of a liberal imagination. 4622. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 9:32:59 AM JJ: 4623. 109109 - 11/30/1999 10:00:01 AM On McCain 4624. 109109 - 11/30/1999 10:03:01 AM cazart 4625. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 10:05:19 AM You say "dirt", I say "weaknesses"....let's call the whole thing off. 4626. cazart - 11/30/1999 10:12:01 AM Wow. Tying the whispering campaign against McCain to Barry's hotel room escapades. 4627. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:15:25 AM Jonesy -- 4628. 109109 - 11/30/1999 10:16:43 AM cazart 4629. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:20:20 AM We don't know if McCain is unstable or not. We don't know if his POW experience damaged him psychologically. 4630. cazart - 11/30/1999 10:27:21 AM There's the rub, 109109. Certain GOPers are forwarding that very notion that McCain is nuts and it's due to his captivity. 4631. 109109 - 11/30/1999 10:28:01 AM Cal 4632. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:31:04 AM It is foolish to think that McCain was not affected by the torture and deprivation he suffered as a POW. What remains to be seen is evidence that he has continuing mental health problems. I am sure that his personality is in part shaped by his experiences, but he could have had a temper and/or been an asshole before his experience. 4633. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 10:31:35 AM What Niner said, especially that part about cazart's strategy, which is pretty transparent. 4634. 109109 - 11/30/1999 10:32:33 AM Jones 4635. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:33:58 AM I dunno. In the first place, I never thought it was Bush, but rather a sabotage by Lott and others--done more to demonstrate how little they would support him were we all silly enough to elect him. 4636. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 10:34:29 AM 109: 4637. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:34:53 AM Re Tom Eagleton- I'll give 2-1 odds that if we gave each and every member of Congress an MMPI-2 and a clinical interview, that there would be at least 5 members with a diagnosable condition. 4638. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:36:44 AM Well, if you use the DSM-IV, excessive coffee-drinking is a diagnosable condition. 4639. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 10:38:37 AM Having worked on the Hill, I can attest that many many reps and senators have temper problems. The new staff of one Congressman from Ohio were advised not to approach his desk any closer than the edge of an area rug on his floor because that's how far the member could throw his telephone. It's not at all unusual for staffers from different offices to get together to swap war stories about how far up their respective rectums the members had lodged office furniture that day. 4640. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:40:31 AM CalGal- But the caffeine use must cause clinically significant distress or impairment- a fairly high standard. 4641. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 10:41:57 AM A5 - Why do you assume it's the Democrats? 4642. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 10:45:12 AM I think McCain would make a fine President, and I'm predisposed to like any candidate with a little bit of the maverick in him, but... 4643. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:45:33 AM JJ- your spin would be more effective if the front runner among the GOP candidates was the target of Democratic attacks. But McCain is far from the front runner, and Democrats seem to be attacking the whipsering campaign. 4644. cazart - 11/30/1999 10:47:05 AM Or we look at behavior on the job and then we do, indeed, know that 4645. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 10:48:10 AM Signs of mental illness include explosive ourtbursts, an inability to get along, and erratic behavior. 4646. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 10:48:46 AM Popularity-wise, I think it's helped McCain, though I did see one story that said it had hurt him money-wise. Say McCain holds on and wins New Hampshire. Next up is SC, which last poll shows he's trailing badly. My understanding is SC is heavy military, so an NH win coupled with a backlash from this smear might make those numbers move. If he wins NH and SC, then we might just have a race. 4647. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:49:49 AM You cannot, however, say with any certainty that he isn't unstable or that his experiences didn't damage him. 4648. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 10:51:06 AM PincherMartin, I'm surprised you'd think such an experience would not strengthen character. I look at all the candidates and excepting McCain none seems to have any experience of life which challenged - hell, threatened - their familiar worlds. These candidates were born with security blankets, their sole adversity being persons of equal ambition stroking the same egos, trying to advance above them. 4649. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:51:12 AM A person's mind is not a glass vase which once broken is lost forever. It can heal, just as the body can. Sometimes once healed, it is stronger than before. Some rather effective leaders have had mental health problems. It is widely accepted that Lincoln was clinically depressed at times during his life, and Churchill as well. Yet both were extraordinary leaders. 4650. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 10:52:15 AM In none of the candidates save McCain do I see any flicker of character. 4651. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:52:57 AM Signs of mental illness include explosive ourtbursts, an inability to get along, and erratic behavior. 4652. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 10:53:21 AM 4653. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 10:54:09 AM I would want to consider that candidate who plowed uphill behind a mule in this century, and not just in his fervid imagination. 4654. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 10:54:16 AM cazart - The question remains, why are very conservative GOPers engaging in this very risky ploy? 4655. theDiva - 11/30/1999 10:55:24 AM "4645. PincherMartin - 11/30/99 10:48:10 AM 4656. CalGal - 11/30/1999 10:56:16 AM Jones, 4657. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 10:58:29 AM It does not describe the sparkly face which seems the template for successful candidates to office. 4658. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 10:59:17 AM "I don't think anyone could manage to serve as a Senator if they had a severe personality disorder--i.e., schizophrenia, bi-polar" 4659. cazart - 11/30/1999 10:59:19 AM My point--since you seem unable to grasp it--is that you can not say that with certainty about anyone. 4660. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 10:59:33 AM CalGal- I would agree that it is unlikely that any senators are schizophrenics, but it is very possible that some have personality disorders, mood disorders, etc. I agree that the onset of many of the major mental disorders become obvious prior to the age of eligibility for the positions. 4661. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 11:01:26 AM 4662. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 11:03:42 AM PincherMartin, I'm surprised you'd think such an experience would not strengthen character. I look at all the candidates and excepting McCain none seems to have any experience of life which challenged - hell, threatened - their familiar worlds. These candidates were born with security blankets, their sole adversity being persons of equal ambition stroking the same egos, trying to advance above them. 4663. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 11:06:57 AM Diva -- 4664. CalGal - 11/30/1999 11:07:11 AM Caz, 4665. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 11:08:43 AM Only certain rare types can take such a horrible experience and make themselves better because of it. John McCain appears to be such a man. 4666. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:09:23 AM Jones - your spin would be more effective if the front runner among the GOP candidates was the target of Democratic attacks. 4667. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 11:11:02 AM That we even doubt McCain's suitability as President because of his war experience does seem to mark us as desperately seeking mediocrity in the candidates. 4668. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:11:40 AM Look at JJ, for example. 4669. theDiva - 11/30/1999 11:13:23 AM Pincher 4670. CalGal - 11/30/1999 11:14:00 AM JJ, 4671. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:15:06 AM 3) The people involved want Bush, not McCain, to be President. 4672. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:16:14 AM Caz - Please respond to #4654. 4673. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 11:18:07 AM Scott Loar -- 4674. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:20:37 AM JJBiener: 4675. Adrianne - 11/30/1999 11:23:09 AM 4676. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:23:25 AM CalGal - It is no secret that McCain is disliked by his fellow Republicans. 4677. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:23:49 AM is=are 4678. CalGal - 11/30/1999 11:25:03 AM Caz, 4679. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 11:27:23 AM " there are tons of issues that they could 4680. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:27:27 AM Cazart - Because GOPers like Chuck Hagel confirm that certain members of the GOP leadership is behind the whispering campaign 4681. CalGal - 11/30/1999 11:27:56 AM There is a long way between dislike and the hatred and sabotage described by the Drew article. 4682. CalGal - 11/30/1999 11:28:54 AM He's been serving merrily along in the senate with nairy a whimper afore now, but their great civic concern has suddenly sprung to the fore at the prospect of McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. 4683. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:30:03 AM Adrianne: 4684. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 11:30:21 AM I think Ad is right -- the primary reason that McCain is so hated by his colleagues is campaign finance reform. 4685. angel-five - 11/30/1999 11:31:46 AM JJ: Let me get this straight. Someone chooses not to name names and the reason must be that naming names would hurt her position? You don't know much about journalism or else you're being extremely disingenuous. Pick up a political newspaper and count the number of non-specific references in it, then please do apply the same logic. Journalists have to protect sources, especially on a touchy issue such as this, and if they don't want to be named then you don't name them, or else you suddenly find yourself way short of sources. Since I God, what a joke. And I reiterate: It best serves Democrat interests at this time to SUPPORT McCain, and indeed that's what they're doing. Look around the thread and see how many people are blaming anyone but the Republicans for the 'whispering campaign'. I'll wait. 4686. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 11:32:23 AM Really? Then I want wall-to-wall coverage of the Gingrich divorce! 4687. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 11:33:00 AM CalGal--I'm purty used to editing after posting. Plus, when the discussion moves fast, my illiterate persona comes back on me like bad Thanksgiving stuffing. 4688. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 11:33:24 AM CalGal -- 4689. Adrianne - 11/30/1999 11:34:01 AM 4690. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 11:36:39 AM . Journalists have to protect sources, especially on a touchy issue such as this, and if they don't want to be named then you don't name them, or else you suddenly find yourself way short of sources. 4691. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:39:40 AM CalGal - From what I hear, McCain is hated. 4692. angel-five - 11/30/1999 11:43:02 AM Of course it's play. The point is that whether or not you think it's bullshit, it's the way things work sometimes with hot information -- getting the story is worth not naming the sources. Or are you arguing that it doesn't happen that way? What happens if staffer X gives a confidential story to Reporter Y and asks not to have his name linked to the news, but Y does anyway? 4693. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 11:44:39 AM Cellar Door - Re #4690. You said that much better than I ever could. 4694. 109109 - 11/30/1999 11:47:33 AM Ad 4695. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 11:50:21 AM PincherMartin, but of course I agree with #4673 (if you find this post, even). And I say again, it seems we are desperately seeking mediocrity in candidates. 4696. 109109 - 11/30/1999 11:56:11 AM At a time when issues are secondary, a time of surplus and general agreement between the parties - from power back to the states to welfare reform to crime prevention to tax cuts, the issue is how much, not "should we?" - the mettle of the man or woman is the primary issue. It is my primary opposition to Gore, and my consistent criticisms of the vice president have a theme - he is not comfortable in his own skin, he wants to be loved by the masses, and he will morph and/or effect any self-promotion to transform. 4697. cazart - 11/30/1999 11:58:36 AM My connections tell a different story. 4698. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 11:58:51 AM (T)he mettle of the man or woman is the primary issue or should be, but is not and will not be. 4699. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 11:59:19 AM And I say again, it seems we are desperately seeking mediocrity in candidates. 4700. Adrianne - 11/30/1999 12:00:11 PM 109109 4701. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 12:00:27 PM #4697 is spam. 4702. ScottLoar - 11/30/1999 12:02:04 PM Gore's morphs are ambition seeking to accomodate every dip and rise in the topography. He is totally without character, a man also without scruple who is hell-bent on gaining the Presidency by sucking up. 4703. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 12:06:14 PM I have to say I agree with Niner that Gore is the only candidate that I can't abide, and therefore the one I will probably have to put up with as my next President. I say this because I have a perfect record in Presdential elections. I voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, and Dole. 4704. 109109 - 11/30/1999 12:06:52 PM Ad 4705. robertjayb - 11/30/1999 12:07:33 PM . 4706. cazart - 11/30/1999 12:07:45 PM All candidates suck up, Scott Loar. 4707. 109109 - 11/30/1999 12:08:00 PM Pincher 4708. Adrianne - 11/30/1999 12:08:04 PM 4709. 109109 - 11/30/1999 12:09:34 PM The ads will be paid by Exxon and NARAL, unless they are on "Wild Willie's Late Night Jamboree" at 3:00 am on WSUK AM. 4710. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 12:09:52 PM Cazart -- 4711. PincherMartin - 11/30/1999 12:10:44 PM Niner -- 4712. 109109 - 11/30/1999 12:12:47 PM cazart's intellectual Wispride fails. All politicians try to attract voters, which makes them generalists and often supplicants. 4713. cazart - 11/30/1999 12:15:51 PM No, some politicians do it more than others. 4714. cazart - 11/30/1999 12:19:17 PM "But Gore sucks up worse," whined 109109. 4715. 109109 - 11/30/1999 12:26:05 PM 4716. cazart - 11/30/1999 12:30:31 PM True enough, 109109. 4717. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 12:53:18 PM 4718. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:00:53 PM The fact remains that the GOP is engaging in a whispering campaign against McCain that transcends ordinary campaign fare. This campaign is either extraordinarily misguided or there exists some basis for concern. 4719. Dusty - 11/30/1999 1:02:22 PM TrialShark 4720. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:02:24 PM Trial 4721. Dusty - 11/30/1999 1:03:30 PM Niner 4722. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:11:58 PM 4723. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:14:20 PM TS - If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. Besides, no one with my precarious health could ever be elected. 4724. Dusty - 11/30/1999 1:15:29 PM TrialShark 4725. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:15:51 PM JJ 4726. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:16:25 PM 4727. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:17:03 PM Dusty 4728. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:18:24 PM TS - LOL! I could run as a Democrat but I would have to get a lobotomy first. 4729. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:18:44 PM 4730. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 1:19:35 PM Niner - Isn't that you on page 64 of Madonna's Sex book? 4731. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:20:34 PM 4732. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:21:45 PM JJ, Trial 4733. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 1:22:52 PM I KISS YOU!! 4734. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 1:25:16 PM bubbaette, 4735. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:26:22 PM 4736. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 1:27:04 PM But he said he loved me...he promised me a job with his administration. I'm certain he tried to grope me, in fact, while I'm thinking about it RAPE!!!! 4737. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 1:28:33 PM bubbaette, 4738. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:31:21 PM I do no know this woman. 4739. OhioSTOPAS - 11/30/1999 1:32:01 PM Bubbaette: A check from the "Star" is in the mail. You don't have to take the lie detector test until after the check clears. 4740. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:41:08 PM 4741. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:44:12 PM It is with great sadness that I must come clean with the American public. Cursed by a bladder control problem and neglected posterior boils, when I was very young, I sought comfort in the arms of this bubbaette. Now, I initially denied these accusations because, well, she's not as hot as I thought after six boilermakers at the Danville Royale. So, naturally, I was a little embarrassed. 4742. theDiva - 11/30/1999 1:45:08 PM Jaysus, not this again. 4743. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 1:46:38 PM Deev, 4744. theDiva - 11/30/1999 1:48:16 PM Frickin' bimbo eruptions. Really screwed us good in the last election. We ended up with vonKreedon and the Ms.....and you will note that they are both AWOL. 4745. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 1:50:03 PM 4746. 109109 - 11/30/1999 1:54:24 PM They are AWOL, aren't they. 4747. theDiva - 11/30/1999 1:54:57 PM Honey, there's a fresh box in the back of the truck. 4748. Dusty - 11/30/1999 2:01:17 PM I'm thinking that the story of humble roots, living in a cardboard box and rising to live in a middle class home will play well with the American people. 4749. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:03:25 PM Under the category of strong PR moves 4750. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:03:38 PM She and her opposite number at NBC had to catch a plane back to New York. Roland McFarland, Fox's vice president of broadcast standards and practices, walked out "in deference to my colleagues." 4751. cazart - 11/30/1999 2:06:12 PM Not a smart move. 4752. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:06:17 PM ooooohhhh.....plenty of arrogance and posturing to go around on that one, eh? 4753. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 2:14:37 PM 4754. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:18:34 PM It is brilliant marketing. 4755. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:19:53 PM er.... 4756. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 2:22:11 PM #4753 4757. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:24:32 PM Jeez, you guys, I was talking about #s 4749 and 4750. 4758. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 2:29:13 PM 4759. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:31:10 PM Mi bonita wants mi a drop la chalupa. 4760. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:31:49 PM ai, ai, ai, si, SI, Papi! 4761. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 2:33:29 PM TS, 4762. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:36:05 PM You guys are just jealous because you secretly want to be exactly like Niner. 4763. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 2:37:25 PM Diva - One Niner is more than enough. 4764. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 2:37:25 PM Deev, 4765. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:38:04 PM We all secretly want to be your spanky toy, or we all secretly want to be short and balding, or we all want to be a bull made of custard, or what? We're all big Ike Turner fans? 4766. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 2:38:38 PM 4767. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:38:58 PM Niner isn't balding. 4768. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:39:08 PM BTW. 4769. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:40:05 PM I've got Mini-Me's body and Paul Stanley's hair, so back off, cholo. 4770. OhioSTOPAS - 11/30/1999 2:40:05 PM "Niner - plenty of arrogance and posturing to go around." 4771. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:40:07 PM Niner isn't balding anymore? The shampoo worked? 4772. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:41:13 PM Why do you think I call him 'mi peludo toro'? 4773. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:42:03 PM Oh, my god, that's it. That's IT! 4774. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 2:42:10 PM Ohio - It also doesn't have the ring os "No controlling legal authority." 4775. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:42:24 PM Uno Million Dolares! 4776. cazart - 11/30/1999 2:43:16 PM "There ought to be limits to freedom." 4777. theDiva - 11/30/1999 2:43:35 PM SWOON! 4778. floater - 11/30/1999 2:45:14 PM 109109, 4779. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:45:45 PM Perfect. 4780. 109109 - 11/30/1999 2:46:39 PM Don't worry baby. 4781. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 2:50:55 PM It won't get weird. 4782. Dantheman - 11/30/1999 2:57:35 PM If 4777 was in response to 4775, then we know what it takes for Deev to swoon... 4783. cazart - 11/30/1999 2:57:39 PM The GOP debates are really fun. Must see TV. 4784. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:57:54 PM 4785. angel-five - 11/30/1999 2:59:02 PM I nominate Diva. Maybe we should get her a stage name, tho, like 'Hanky Panky'. 4786. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:00:36 PM Cazart - Never is a question directly answered. 4787. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:01:54 PM 4788. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:02:03 PM Angel - I know the campaign song: 4789. theDiva - 11/30/1999 3:02:08 PM Dan 4790. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:03:52 PM JJBiener: 4791. angel-five - 11/30/1999 3:04:28 PM How about 'The Hanky-Pankier formerly known as Diva'? I mean, hanky panky has to be a part of it, it's a vote-getting thing. 4792. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:07:57 PM cazart - Stockdale wasn't in his element. He's a great man. He got a bad rap for his "Who am I, Where am I?" spiel. 4793. theDiva - 11/30/1999 3:08:34 PM Oh, and theDiva isn't? I have name recognition, pal, NAME RECOGNITION. 4794. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 3:08:36 PM 4795. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:10:24 PM Of course Stockdale showed poor judgement in agreeing to be Perot's running mate. 4796. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:16:42 PM Caz - I can forgive Stockdale for that. Perot can be quite the salesman when he wants to be. 4797. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:18:47 PM I haven't a link because Washingtonian Magazine doesn't update their site in a timely manner, but this month's issue contains an interesting tidbit. 4798. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:23:09 PM Cazart - That sounds like a decent strategy to me. 8 years as VP would put her in good standing for a shot at the top spot in 2008. The Presidential run gets her name in front of the public and gives her solid contacts in the party. 4799. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 3:23:53 PM 4800. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 3:24:20 PM I'd think she'd be too old eight years from now. She's already past 60. But first woman VP wouldn't be bad. 4801. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:33:27 PM Liddy Dole is 63. She'd be 64 when she took office. If she ran for President after 8 years as VP she would be 72 when she took office. Assuming her health is good, there is no reason she couldn't win election at that age. 4802. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:33:38 PM Too cute, TrialShark. 4803. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:35:15 PM Assuming her health is good, there is no reason she couldn't win 4804. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:39:30 PM cazart - Now you're claiming you can predict the future? Can you also walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead? 4805. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 3:40:27 PM JJ, I'm not saying it's impossible, but she'd be running to be the oldest President outside of Reagan, and she'd be a woman. Let's face it: even though men usually kick off before women, a 72-year-old woman is perceived politically older than a 72-year-old man. Plus, she doesn't demonstrate a lot of political stamina at 63. As quickly as she tired of this race, do you think she'd make a better showing eight years from now? Hmmmm. 4806. TrialShark - 11/30/1999 3:41:01 PM 4807. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 3:44:15 PM TS - Only Republicans can do all that. 4808. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 3:45:06 PM Is that why Pat Robertson was interested in the job? 4809. cazart - 11/30/1999 3:45:33 PM JJBiener: 4810. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 3:53:41 PM JJB- maybe the GOP could cast the demons out of the budget then- I rebuke thee demons- begone unclean spirits! Demons: Sendt us into that herd of swine, please! Lott- Begone pork! 4811. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 3:55:46 PM JJ: 4812. ChristiPeters - 11/30/1999 4:00:23 PM Geeez, my Mom's 72. I love her dearly, but I sure wouldn't want her in any political office. Fergadsakes, she can't remember that the Super Wal Mart sells groceries even after being in there with me buying groceries at least 3 times in the past two weeks. 4813. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:01:21 PM E. Dole might want to serve as vice president for eight years because it would give her a lot of contacts to be able to run for president in 2008 while in her (granted, early) 70s? 4814. cazart - 11/30/1999 4:02:40 PM 72? Why not? 4815. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:06:41 PM cazart. Shame. How soon you forgot Wendell Willkie. 4816. cazart - 11/30/1999 4:12:32 PM janjon: 4817. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:22:22 PM Judith - For you to state that any woman could run for Pres at the age of 72 makes me doubt your sanity. 4818. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:23:47 PM cazart - The GOP runs leaders. Obviously, that is something you have no experience with. 4819. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:24:02 PM Biener. You ain't seen nothing yet. 4820. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:26:41 PM I for one thought George Herbert Walker Bush's brand of leadership was nothing short of....unique. 4821. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:27:48 PM janjon - Happy Days Are Here Again! 4822. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:28:01 PM Boring. 4823. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:29:47 PM What else is new around here, 109109. 4824. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:30:13 PM janjon - how many others could have taken a 90% plus approval rating (after the bizarre Gulf stuff) and.and.and....not been re-elected only about a year and a half later. 4825. ChristinO - 11/30/1999 4:30:22 PM Hey Niner! 4826. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:30:44 PM New Book Challenges Theories of AIDS Origins 4827. cazart - 11/30/1999 4:31:15 PM JJBiener: 4828. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:31:15 PM 4829. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:32:23 PM Still, even if the vaccine thesis is disproved, Hooper's research has embarrassed scientists. He has found that leading researchers kept sloppy records and that prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals published reports that omitted crucial details. 4830. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:32:53 PM What is known is that the earliest documented H.I.V.-1 infection is from 1959 in a man in Kinshasa in what was then the Belgian Congo, was later Zaire and is now Congo. 4831. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:32:56 PM Niner - Old news. 4832. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:33:39 PM Any contamination would have been accidental, because specific tests could not have been performed before 1985, when a simian counterpart of H.I.V. was first isolated. 4833. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:34:06 PM Still, the committee was so concerned about the theoretical dangers from primate tissues that it urged vaccine manufacturers to make "a serious effort" to stop using them. 4834. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:34:35 PM One proposal is to conduct a formal investigation into the missing information and how the vaccine was made. If the precise technique could be determined, then scientists could investigate whether a contaminating simian virus was capable of surviving the vaccine-making process. 4835. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:34:46 PM Yet many scientists say privately that publicizing Hooper's theory would risk tarnishing public confidence in the safety of vaccines. Scientific groups that could have sponsored scientific meetings to discuss the vaccine theory, or taken an interest in testing the vaccine, have not done so. Hooper said an official of the World Health Organization told him that the origin of AIDS was "certainly of no interest today." 4836. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:35:02 PM Wow. The power of suggestion really works. 4837. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:35:02 PM cazart - Let me know when the drugs wear off. You are hallucinating again. 4838. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:37:34 PM 109109. Do you get paid by the word around here? 4839. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:39:12 PM Actually, I was just injecting a NY Times current article. I implore you and JJ and cazart to my thread, which is losing its title as the sewer of the Mote now that you have brought your pithy bickering here to Current Events. Back, Back to your home! 4840. cazart - 11/30/1999 4:39:37 PM Personal attacks, again, JJBiener? 4841. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:40:36 PM why? so you and Ace can get around to talking about knockers again? 4842. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:41:11 PM If they are current knockers, yes. 4843. OhioSTOPAS - 11/30/1999 4:41:58 PM We discuss all kinds of boobs in "Politics". 4844. ChristinO - 11/30/1999 4:42:23 PM Niner, 4845. janjon - 11/30/1999 4:42:48 PM stick to your polls, son. 4846. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 4:48:24 PM Cazart Message # 4787: 4847. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:52:14 PM Cart 4848. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 4:56:28 PM cazart - I suspect you are more than a bit chagrined by the weaknesses of the candidates your party has decided to field. 4849. 109109 - 11/30/1999 4:58:12 PM Bring it to Politics people, We need the slop. 4850. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:03:14 PM Niner: 4851. angel-five - 11/30/1999 5:05:30 PM How about 'We put the 'Vice' in Vice President? Only as a secondary slogan to Trial's BRILLIANT idea. 4852. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:07:51 PM Shasta McNasty. He he he. I just love reading and typing that. Makes me laugh my ass off. We need more Jake Busey vehicles. 4853. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 5:08:59 PM How about 'We put the 'Vice' in Vice President?' 4854. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:09:13 PM A5: 4855. janjon - 11/30/1999 5:10:29 PM I begin to get the feeling that 109109 isn't very tall. 4856. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 5:11:40 PM Clinton needs to get a clue from his buddy in Britain. There they show nudity on the normal broadcast channels. I guess Clinton's position shows that Democrats believe in choice except when they don't. 4857. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:12:35 PM I am going to need lifts. Any chance I can get the ones that light up whenever pressure is applied? 4858. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:14:40 PM Clinton's position is eminently reasonable and certainly in keeping with mainstream thought. We all should learn to accept the legislation and squint through the flickering horizontal images as best we can during this vicious and unprecedented assault on our most cherished amendment, the right to see Shannon Tweed get dry-humped by some gay car parker hoping to make it big in cable. 4859. Thoughtful - 11/30/1999 5:16:20 PM ah, er, to change the subject -- have you seen the news about the demonstrations and rioting at the WTO meeting in Seattle? I remember when most American's thought GATT was slang for a tommy gun! Suddenly it's a cause. See here. 4860. angel-five - 11/30/1999 5:18:06 PM Well, once you think about it, half the population is under average height. 4861. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:19:14 PM Niner: 4862. JonesAtLaw - 11/30/1999 5:20:07 PM Niner- Our Napoleon! 4863. angel-five - 11/30/1999 5:23:22 PM Niner could lead a campaign against the big folk, a la 'Canadian Bacon'. 4864. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 5:24:14 PM Thoughtful - I heard about the demonstrations and riots on the news earlier. I think there are some obvious political conclusions to be drawn, but so far I have resisted the urge to gloat. 4865. Thoughtful - 11/30/1999 5:28:46 PM Aw, jj, go ahead -- what's your take on it? 4866. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:29:46 PM Niner: 4867. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 5:30:22 PM Slouching Towards Gay Marriage Gommorrah. "You there-- Stop that slouching!" 4868. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:32:18 PM Cart 4869. janjon - 11/30/1999 5:32:47 PM Forbidden candy is always more tempting than the stuff that is just there for the taking. 4870. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:34:21 PM Cart 4871. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 5:34:55 PM Will you stop that, Niner! 4872. 109109 - 11/30/1999 5:35:28 PM Cellar 4873. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:54:39 PM Niner Message # 4868: 4874. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 5:55:54 PM I am inclined to agree, but then I'll get Rosie O'Donnell topless on the tube and it will engender violence. 4875. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 5:58:21 PM Wasn't she in a really bad movie where she was naked part of the time? For some reason I'm thinking it also featured Danny DiVito. 4876. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 5:58:44 PM Thoughtful - Naw, it's too easy. I'll save it for the next time someone is complaining about how dangerous the far right is and how there is no equivalent on the left. This little incident should provide a nice contrast. 4877. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 6:02:05 PM Indy - I don't think shw was actually naked. She was dressed in some kinky leather outfit which hid all the really gross parts. Even so, it was a rather traumatic experience. 4878. 109109 - 11/30/1999 6:02:07 PM Cart 4879. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 6:03:06 PM Jones: 4880. 109109 - 11/30/1999 6:05:50 PM Cart 4881. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 6:11:10 PM Niner Message # 4878: 4882. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 6:14:33 PM "In 1996, worried about graphic adult programming that was seeping into the homes of non-subscribers, Congress adopted a provision requiring cable operators to "fully scramble" their signal or to only show their sexually oriented fare between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m." 4883. Lucky - 11/30/1999 6:16:49 PM 4884. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 6:17:36 PM Bubbaette - Yeah! And what about people who work nights? When are they supposed to get their minimum daily requirement of unscrambled titties? 4885. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 6:19:40 PM I could not agree more (except with your elevation of violence as more damaging than sex - they are both probably fine). But our mores are not the issue. The mores of the nation find a tit more insidious than Mr. T. 4886. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 6:20:51 PM JJ 4887. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 6:23:08 PM Bubbaette - You are absolutely right. We need to get our resident sex lawyer to file a class action suit, or in this case a class action birthday suit. 4888. EricCartman - 11/30/1999 6:23:45 PM Lucky Message # 4883: 4889. bubbaette - 11/30/1999 6:25:34 PM How the hell can you folks yammer on about peacable protest when we have bare breasted bigotry going on all over these here United States? Have you no priorities? 4890. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 6:29:41 PM Bubbaette - Oh, the inhumanity! 4891. JJBiener - 11/30/1999 6:32:27 PM Eric - It ain't just the Chinese that do that shit, it's just that they have it down to a science. 4892. Cellar Door - 11/30/1999 6:55:30 PM The U.S.Government has known about crowd control for some timeJ.J. Remember Chicago in '68? Remember Kent State? 4893. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 6:55:33 PM Lucky: 4894. ChristinO - 11/30/1999 7:01:57 PM I've solved both the Gay Marriage and the Obscenity questions. 4895. ranheim - 11/30/1999 7:05:44 PM Isn't ProfEmeritus from Seattle? 4896. robertjayb - 11/30/1999 7:07:00 PM . 4897. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 7:08:13 PM Ranheim: 4898. robertjayb - 11/30/1999 7:08:47 PM . 4899. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 7:09:13 PM The best commentary I've seen on the WTO: 4900. Lucky - 11/30/1999 7:12:22 PM The protesters were gassed only briefly... 4901. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 7:24:11 PM A coupla quick notes, and then I must be off to wade into the hordes... 4902. Lucky - 11/30/1999 7:27:59 PM BTW, my mistake in Chicago concerned my youth (not yet 16), not my convictions. I hadn't learned that being in the front line of protest against the corporate power structure could get you busted up, maimed, and ignored. Now I don't fight cops anymore... I'm way older and wiser. That doesn't change the fact, however, that the same brown shiny F.B.I. shoes control the economy and the destruction of the environment that control the WTO and the Seattle cops willing to gas the demonstrators. 4903. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 7:30:34 PM Lucky: 4904. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 7:35:34 PM Hate to sound contrary but some of those protesters were pretty scarey; if I owned a local business, I certainly wouldn't appreciate having the windows bashed in like that. I'm for peaceful protest but why the mayhem of destroying property like that? 4905. Lucky - 11/30/1999 7:37:18 PM Alright, Spud, then we have a basis for good conversation and discussion of beliefs. I am not completely hepped-up on all the Seattle groups in conflict, and you may be right on some of the varying groups' agendas. 4906. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 7:38:54 PM Many of them reminded me of Marlon Brando in The Wild One : "What are you rebeling against?" "Whaddya got?" 4907. Lucky - 11/30/1999 7:39:35 PM X-post. Judith, I just saw that too, and I cannot agree with those acts of destruction. 4908. JudithAtHome - 11/30/1999 7:41:32 PM Lucky: 4909. Spudboy - 11/30/1999 7:47:02 PM Lucky: 4910. ProfEmeritus - 11/30/1999 8:35:23 PM An emergency has been declared in Seattle. The protest has become a major civil disturbance. There has been vandalism and looting of stores in downtown Seattle. The Governor has called out the National Guard. 4911. ilyavinarsky - 11/30/1999 8:47:17 PM Spudboy, 4912. ranheim - 11/30/1999 8:53:21 PM I am not an internationalist. So, I see myself on the side of the protestors. But, I cannot countenance vandalism and looting. 4913. Indiana Jones - 11/30/1999 8:57:02 PM Thanks, Eric and JJ, for clearing up that Rosie/Akroyed question for me. Casting like that sort of puts the whole Y2K thing in perspective. 4914. Lucky - 11/30/1999 9:18:24 PM Alright. Here's a somewhat confused spin. I agree with most of what the demonstrators are saying about the WTO. 4915. ChristinO - 11/30/1999 9:32:20 PM Lucky, 4916. Lucky - 11/30/1999 9:42:13 PM I didn't go there this time, anyway. I learned my lesson years ago. It hurts going up against cops when they have batons and teargas and military training, and all you have is a somewhat fuzzy cause, indignation, and long hair. The cops always win, just like the WTO will start meeting tommorrow. The demonstrators will either withdraw to a safe distance and beat their chests or be summarily beaten and hauled off en mass. 4917. Lucky - 11/30/1999 9:45:39 PM edit-- tomorrow. I still can't get used to this no editing after ya post stuff. 4918. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 2:02:16 AM Spudboy Message # 4901: 4919. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 2:04:22 AM (cont. to Spuds): 4920. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 2:22:47 AM (cont. to Spudboy): 4921. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 2:36:21 AM EC: 4922. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 2:42:34 AM Lucky: 4923. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 3:02:34 AM Stumbo: 4924. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 3:13:16 AM EC: 4925. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 3:18:56 AM From a link in Spudboy's link in Message # 4899, here is a WTO article by Brad DeLong, painting not-a-quite-as-rosy picture (although I agree that the Krugman article was spot-on -- in the issues it addressed). The WTO could quite easily become another UN, an organization that can't get anything done unless we want it to, and breeds derision and resentment among hyper-patriotic Americans. 4926. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 3:23:57 AM And if some 50-year-old piece of crematorium bait loses his job because he's been making a living selling me $5 widgets that, but for his protectionist buddies in D.C., I could've been buying for $2 -- then, to hell with him. I don't care how he makes his ends meet, and certainly don't care to subsidize him; he should be paying me reparations for his previous ill-gotten gains, if anything. 4927. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 3:33:32 AM Stumbo: 4928. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 3:43:05 AM Stumbo Message # 4926: 4929. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 3:50:51 AM EC: 4930. concerned - 12/1/1999 3:57:34 AM The Carter/Clowntoon handoff of the Panama Canal to China. From an AP release titled: Clinton: No Second Thoughts on Panama 4931. Stumbo - 12/1/1999 3:58:28 AM #4928 is incomprehensible. Please rephrase it. 4932. concerned - 12/1/1999 4:12:09 AM Re. 4896 - 4933. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 4:17:59 AM Stumbo Message # 4931: 4934. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 4:20:26 AM Concerned Message # 4932: 4935. EricCartman - 12/1/1999 4:44:57 AM Normally The Onion is just silly fun, and they're one of the best at it. But here's an article that's just plain sad, 'cause it's true -- a damning commentary on our priorities, as well as that of the media. 4936. Candide - 12/1/1999 5:51:39 AM EricCartman 4937. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 8:40:05 AM Eric, good Burundi post. 4938. cazart - 12/1/1999 8:53:08 AM What is Clinton's mission on such an asinine request (asinine because the Playboy Channel is already edited for content -- no 4939. OhioSTOPAS - 12/1/1999 9:15:20 AM Recognize political reality, Cazart. As a Democrat, I'm glad the leader of my party isn't helping the Republicans by taking a position that would surely be characterized as "pro-pornography". 4940. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 9:21:39 AM Re Ohio's post 4939: This is more of the triangulation that the Democrats are practicing under Clinton. Folks call him slick and deride his lack of principles, but the Democrats are perfectly willing to sacrifice much of the baby as long as they can stay in the bathtub. The Republicans on the other hand keep hanging on to constituencies like the pro-lifers and the NRA. It's a flipflop from the early 70s when the Demos would appease the unions and were real strong on affirmative action, for example. 4941. OhioSTOPAS - 12/1/1999 9:28:11 AM I don't know if it's "triangulation" as much as a typical politician's willingness to compromise rather than push a politically damaging position. 4942. 109109 - 12/1/1999 9:49:22 AM It is a comforting falsehood that somehow Clinton takes conservative social positions because he has been "forced" to by those mean ole' Republicans, and otherwise, it would 24 hours of gay marriages and unrestricted porno. He is pragmatic, to be sure, but he is also standard, middle class conscious (ask his prayer group), and the concept that soft or hard porn should be regulated strictly is not exactly mind-boggling. The cable outlets/entertainment providers are issuing a product, and from a First Amendment analysis, there is no question it can be regulated. The question is: how strictly? Unlike cazart (with whom I agree regarding his sentiments of parental responsibility) , Clinton is in line with 99% of Americans who indeed would have an objection to the broadcast of hard core porno on television. But the insinuation that Clinton's pose is purely political is off the mark. 4943. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 9:56:30 AM . 4944. cazart - 12/1/1999 9:57:27 AM OhioSTOPAS: 4945. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:01:57 AM cazart 4946. glendajean - 12/1/1999 10:04:13 AM 1) Ricky Martin is muy caliente ... just to set the record straight. 4947. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:04:22 AM Justice Halts Enforcement of States' Late-Term Abortion Bans 4948. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:04:42 AM "Dilation and extraction," as the procedure is known medically, involves dilating a pregnant woman's cervix to allow the fetus to partially emerge, after which the fetus is killed by inserting a suction tube into its skull and removing the contents. 4949. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:04:53 AM 4950. glendajean - 12/1/1999 10:05:38 AM Damn...I thought I lost a post and it was over in Politics all the while. The mental breakdown is almost complete. Sorry for the repetition. 4951. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 10:10:06 AM cazart, describing yourself with the words "smug satisfaction" in any of your thick-headed posts is redundant. Your invoking the h word just because I questioned Bubba's motives betrays either a lack of reasoning capacity (which I've long suspected in your case) or at least an inability to distinguish between motive and action. Did I say pornography is good? (As a matter of fact, I don't even think I took Senor Guillermo "to task" at all.) 4952. Thoughtful - 12/1/1999 10:11:33 AM Oh boy. There is so much misinformation and horse dookey in here on this WTO stuff that I don't even know where to begin -- or if I should bother. But one simple point, EricC, if the WTO is operating in so much secrecy, why do you suppose that they have a web site on line in 3 languages and that all of the agreements signed by members are available publicly? If you haven't heard much about it, maybe it's because in the past GATT negotiations in the past were considered so dull and boring that they had trouble even getting reporters to show up. 109109: 4954. ButterfieldSwire - 12/1/1999 10:14:27 AM You know, I'm pro-choice and all. I'm especially in favor of abortions in the cases of poor people and other mental defectives. But I have to wonder how people live with themselves arguing it should be legal to break open 9 month old fetus's skulls and suck out their brains with a vacuum cleaner. 4955. OhioSTOPAS - 12/1/1999 10:17:26 AM "poor people and other mental defectives"??? 4956. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 10:18:21 AM cuisinart, you never make any sense but just argue the same ridiculous position over and over. Say you and Bubba go to the same church. Say you put two bits in the collection plate to help the needy. Say Bubba puts in a $100 cause he knows he's gonna boff ol Moanica after the service and wants a good word with the man upstairs should the perish in the throes of self-induced orgasm. 4957. Thoughtful - 12/1/1999 10:20:10 AM 4958. Thoughtful - 12/1/1999 10:21:39 AM Sorry about that -- somehow I screwed up the link. Let me try again. 4959. cazart - 12/1/1999 10:22:56 AM Indiana Jones, you ignorant pimp: 4960. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:23:33 AM Thoughtful 4961. ButterfieldSwire - 12/1/1999 10:25:24 AM I have to admit that I hope these anti-WTO "anarchists" destroy the NikeTown in Seattle. I hate shopping, so going to some store that I hate is not an unusual for me. But out of all the awful stores that I've had to go to, somehow Niketown in Seattle was the worst. Burn, baby, burn. 4962. Cellar Door - 12/1/1999 10:26:44 AM Hmmm -- A "Fight Club" fan in post #4961. 4963. ButterfieldSwire - 12/1/1999 10:27:51 AM What does "Fight Club" mean? 4964. Indiana Jones - 12/1/1999 10:29:34 AM Somebody fix the cuisinart, it's looping again. 4965. cazart - 12/1/1999 10:31:46 AM 109109: 4966. 109109 - 12/1/1999 10:34:26 AM cazart 4967. cazart - 12/1/1999 10:44:32 AM 109109: 4968. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 10:46:08 AM . 4969. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 10:47:14 AM . 4970. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 10:54:34 AM . 4971. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 11:01:33 AM . 4972. PincherMartin - 12/1/1999 11:06:03 AM RobertJay B -- 4973. PincherMartin - 12/1/1999 11:06:56 AM Is there anyone here who really believes the WTO violates democracy? 4974. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 11:11:30 AM . 4975. JudithAtHome - 12/1/1999 11:18:25 AM Pincher: 4976. ProfEmeritus - 12/1/1999 11:27:02 AM Seattle WTO: The authorities have announced a much tougher approach to maintaining order today. Police Chief Stamper (remember him) has said that anyone violating the no-protest zone will be arrested. That zone covers a mile or two around the Convention Center. Many protesters are currently being arrested, handcuffed and hauled away in Metro buses and vans. Those disrupting normal activities outside the zone are also being arrested. I saw one incident a few blocks outside the restricted zone where several people were interfering with traffic by sitting in the middle of the intersection. They were hauled away. All the equipment (backpacks etc) carried by those arrested is being thrown on piles. Banners and radio communication devices are being seized from all protesters near the zone. 4977. robertjayb - 12/1/1999 11:27:07 AM . 4978. JudithAtHome - 12/1/1999 11:30:45 AM I think the delegates have a right to be concerned about security. All they see in the news of this country is about how we carry guns and kill people and when we're caught killing people, we're killed by the government. 4979. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 11:47:45 AM While I don't condone breaking Nordstrom's windows etc... what happened to the first amendment here? 4980. PelleNilsson - 12/1/1999 11:54:15 AM ButterfieldSwire - Message # 4954 4981. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 11:55:27 AM The protesters need to do some policing of their own. They need to do everything possible to isolate the "bomb throwers" from the bulk of the protesters, and seize on non-violent resistance. They've played into the hands of those who would discredit their criticism as radicalism. 4982. JudithAtHome - 12/1/1999 11:57:20 AM Jones: 4983. JudithAtHome - 12/1/1999 11:58:56 AM Jones; x-post, sort of... 4984. vonKreedon - 12/1/1999 12:42:13 PM I disagree that the protesters are out of control or that they are not doing their best to isolate themselves from those who are bent on simple mayhem. My sister in law was part of the civil disobedience yesterday and a couple from our childcare coop took part in the labor march. Their reports on the give me the impression that the organized civil disobedience was very controlled. That when property destruction would begin members of the protesters would protest the destruction, urge it to stop, and move away from it. I saw several instances on TV of protesters moving in after acts of destruction to clean up the debry and put out fires, and this perception was shared by my friends who were on the scene. 4985. JonesAtLaw - 12/1/1999 12:43:38 PM Judith- I think that the attention has gone to the fire-eaters while the more mainstream opposition has gone realitivly unnoticed. There was a large and peaceful opposition march by organized labor that should have commanded our attention. 4986. CalGal - 12/1/1999 12:44:15 PM But I have to wonder how people live with themselves arguing it should be legal to break open 9 month old fetus's skulls and suck out their brains with a vacuum cleaner. 4987. vonKreedon - 12/1/1999 12:46:58 PM One of the interesting things that happened last night was that the police cleared the curfew zone downtown and pushed what rioters were left over the highway and out of the zone. They then continued up Capitol Hill, out off the curfew zone. Now the Capitol Hill neighborhood is known as a center of youth/counter culture. As the police continued up the hill the crowd, which had been thinning, began to grow as residents came out of their apartments to join. The news feed was cut off before I saw how far into Capitol Hill the police moved, but there was ALOT of tear gas deployed in this residential area outside of the curfew zone. 4988. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 12:59:24 PM 4989. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 1:23:02 PM 4990. CalGal - 12/1/1999 1:24:22 PM TS, 4991. bubbaette - 12/1/1999 1:28:23 PM I think it should be based on the viability of the fetus past a certain age. That way a woman could deliver a doomed or dead fetus, even at nine months, through D&X rather than going through the trauma of childbirth in order to deliver a dead baby. 4992. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 1:31:40 PM 4993. TrialShark - 12/1/1999 1:35:26 PM 4994. JJBiener - 12/1/1999 1:43:42 PM Cal - PBA's are the foot in the door. It is such a horrific procedure that it is hard to defend. Once it has been successfully banned, then other procedures will become the target. 4995. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:18:39 PM Make it a millennial run already! 4996. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:18:53 PM Or 4997. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:19:04 PM is 4998. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:19:15 PM that 4999. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:19:27 PM a 5000. Dantheman - 12/1/1999 2:19:36 PM mmm 5001. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:19:39 PM gorsennial? 5002. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:20:08 PM You stinker. 5003. Dantheman - 12/1/1999 2:21:15 PM Jen, 5004. Jenerator - 12/1/1999 2:28:20 PM Don't be coy. You robbed me. 5005. cazart - 12/1/1999 2:35:42 PM PBA's are the foot in the door. 5006. cazart - 12/1/1999 2:37:00 PM Naturally, I omitted the italics html. News and Current Events, pt. 2
Badda Bing
Pat Buchanan must be going after the WWII veteran vote. Unfortunately, nobody's told Pat that SS/Gestapo vets can't vote.
Of course not, but you have to reallize how cazart's (among others) mind works. He called me a "Buchanan-sympathizer" in #2368 despite all of my comments to the contrary. It is just another example of how things like truth and facts are sacrificed in order to try to win an advantage.
If he really believes I am a Buchanan-sympathizer, I can see how he would believe Buchanan is a Nazi-sympathizer. In cazart parlance a sympathizer is anyone who fails to excoriate the subject at every opportunity and to support every imaginable attack whether it is true or not. For example if he claimed Buchanan murdered someone in New York and I point out that Buchanan was in LA at the time, I am a sympathizer.
It is the same thing with his attacks on Buchanan. He doesn't believe Buchanan is forceful enough in his condemnations of Hitler, so he must be a sympathizer. Buchanan points out characteristics of Hitler that are not strictly evil, so he must be a sympathizer.
It is the dark side of political correctness. When someone has been declared the enemy, anything said must be negative. Just as only positive comments are allowed about allies. Any variation from this, and you become the enemy. It is seriously pathetic.
You are an idiot. You again prove you haven't read the book and can only take shots. Don't respond to any posts of mine and I will do likewise for you.
But, please, continue to post your views of WWII. They are so amusing.
JJ --
So who did the edits you were so up in arms about? Or do they exist only in your mind?
Do you remember when I posted on the Play Pen the question, "What makes a Jew a Jew?" Right away three people started calling be a Nazi, Jew hater, etc. You, on the other hand, responded politely, saying, if that is a serious question, here is an answer. Am I wrong to feel that this name calling comes from the left faster than the right? Does it seem to you that cazart has read Pat's book?
JJ --
"People have such short memories around here."
Starting with you, evidently -- at least when it comes to charges you've made, but then realized you can't back up with evidence.
Actually, I don't think you can always hold poor command of the English language as an indicator to a person's credibility.
I agree, hence my caveat. But I'll cut someone a lot more slack if English isn't the native language (not the problem in this case), or if someone is writing more or less extemporaneously, e.g. most posts in this forum. But when someone publishes a web page with the intent of swaying opinion, one hopes that the writing would be at least passable. That site is painful to read.
This guy may be right on with his accounting. Who knows? I'm not knowlegable enough in economics to discriminate against his conclusions.
I haven't checked his accounting. (Of course, among other problems, it isn't easy to track down what he is trying to say.) A few "facts" leaped out at me. He makes much of the fact that Microsoft represents 15% or so of the Dow. It doesn't. The Dow is not a market cap index. I don't expect that everyone knows this, but surely someone posing as an expert in an investment arena ought to know this basic fact.
He repeats ad nauseum that Microsoft is engaging in a pyramid scheme, but I missed any cogent rationale for saying this.
He makes the outlandish claim that the next target will be Social Security assets, without even a pretense of explanation. This is fear-mongering at its worst.
He claims that Microsoft is laying games with accounting, but then proposes a breakup of the company along product lines. Huh? How does this address accounting issues?
No, I haven't yet addressed (nor even found) the evidence behind his main claim. Ironically, I support some of his position; that the accounting for stock options should be revisited by the accounting profession, but this is an industry, not Microsoft, problem.
I remember the incident quite clearly. It was political correctness at its most vile.
Am I wrong to feel that this name calling comes from the left faster than the right?
You are absolutely correct. It seems like the left operates on an "The ends justify the means," basis. Any attack on an opponent is justified if it put the opponent in a bad light and furthers the cause. The truth of the attack is irrelevant.
Does it seem to you that cazart has read Pat's book?
It is possible that cazart read Buchanan's book, but if he did his mind was already made up before he ever got to page one. It was an exercise in finding evidence to support his existing conclusions. Anything that failed to support his preconceptions was ignored. His posts resemble the rantings of a relgious zealot castigating evil. I keep expecting to see a "Can I hear an 'Amen', brothers" at the end of his posts.
Report: 7 people dead in Honolulu office shooting
November 2, 1999
Web posted at: 1:58 p.m. EDT (1758 GMT)
HONOLULU (AP) -- Seven people reportedly were killed Tuesday in a shooting at a Xerox building in Honolulu.
A Honolulu radio station reports that ambulance dispatchers said seven people died in the shooting shortly after 8 a.m.
Witnesses say the suspect fled in a company van.
Al: "Am I wrong to feel that this name calling comes from the left faster than the right?"
JJ: "You are absolutely correct."
Say "Amen," brothers!
Spooky, isn't it? The Honolulu paper site is down temporarily. Anyone know the address of the Xerox building?
I swear, random wackodom has become a fad and a contagion.
Sigh!
Posts #1352-1354, #1393, #1411 all contain quotes taken out of context and they are no different from the Keegan quote.
Is it on the Hickam side?
Disgruntled former employee strikes again, says CNN.
The shooting was at a building on North Nimitz Highway.
Shooter said to be 40-year-old Asian male who has 17 weapons
registered in his name.
Thank God for gun registration.
Over here we say Eva direction.
Don't get me wrong. My whole point behind posting that article is not to endorse his position, but to give myself an opportunity to see what more knowledgable people than myself have to say about it.
The first two critiques were over his writing style... which don't really address his argument. If you don't have time to mince over it, don't worry about it.
I read it... wondered about it... don't have enough knowledge to decide one way or another.
Yeah, mauka=mountain, makai=ocean, eva=west, Koko head=east. Few directions are ever given by street. More like, past three coconut tree, turn mauka.
Why have historians, academics, even politicians/pundits who share the same views as Buchanan panned this book?
FOR SHOOTER
Star-Bulletin staff
A gunman shot and killed seven people this morning at the Xerox Engineering Systems office, 1200 N. Nimitz Highway.
The suspect fled, possibly in a Xerox van, and police were canvassing the area. Fearing that the suspect might head to other Xerox facilities, police evacuated the company's sales office at 700 Bishop St.
Police dispatch indicated that the suspect may have been a former employee and issued an all-points bulletin for Byron K. Uyesugi, 40, of a Nuuanu-area address.
After the shootings occurred at about 8 a.m., dozens of police swarmed the area. Crisis counselors and paramedics were also called in. People from nearby businesses and bystanders milled around. Police kept Xerox employees blocked off from the media.
A police helicopter flew overhead, and a two-block stretch of Ewa-bound Nimitz Highway from Alakawa to Waiakamilo Road was closed. The bumper-to-bumper traffic was being rerouted to Dillingham.
Bystander Christine Conn said her neighbor had given her a ride into the city. After dropping off Conn, the woman entered the Xerox buildiung to see her son, a Xerox employee.
"I'm praying to God she's not in there and her son's not one of the victims," said Conn.
The weapon used in the shootings was believed to be a 9mm handgun. The shootings occurred in two rooms, according to city spokeswoman Carol Costa.
Ambulance dispatch confirmed that seven people were dead. No ages or identities were available as of press time.
Don't get me wrong. My whole point behind posting that article is not to endorse his position, but to give myself an opportunity to see what more knowledgable people than myself have to say about it.
No problem. I didn't assume you endorsed it, you just wanted reactions.
The first two critiques were over his writing style... which don't really address his argument.
Of course, but one can discern piss poor prose promptly-accounting legerdemain takes longer.
If you don't have time to mince over it, don't worry about it.
So my list of factual blunders hasn't convinced you?
Advocating for registration/banning firearms to affect crime in this country is the functional equivalent of an environmentalist advocating registering/banning chain saws in order to affect environmental policies.
Banning either is pointless in my opinion
------------------------------------------
Pro-registration/banning arguments:
Guns are dangerous… Chain saws are dangerous.
A gun’s only purpose is to kill a person… A chain saw’s only purpose is to take down a tree (murder in the eyes of some environmentalists) .
People use guns irresponsibly… People use chain saws irresponsibly (A LOT) .
Guns kill and injure too many people in preventable accidents… Chain saws kill and injure too many people in preventable accidents (sawyer is recognized as one of the top 10 most dangerous occupations the insurance industry) .
People leave guns where children and teens have access to them… People leave chain saws where children and teens have access to them.
The public can’t be trusted with guns… the public can’t be trusted with chain saws (arguable from my experience) .
Guns are used to poach animals… Chain saws are used to poach trees (they actually are) .
We don’t _need_ guns… We don’t _need_ chain saws.
Gun violence is glorified in movies and video games… Chain saw violence is glorified in movies and video games anyone heard of "Doom"
Anti-registration/banning arguments
Law abiding citizens should be able to own a gun… Law abiding citizens should be able to own a chain saw.
Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands… Chain saws are dangerous in the wrong hands.
People would benefit from gun safety education… People would benefit from chain saw safety education.
A gun can prevent harm from coming to your home and family, although there are risks… A chain saw can prevent harm from coming to your home and family, although there are risks.
Your comments were a start... no worries... I'll wait and see what other people stir up.
Thanks :)
Are you implying that being able to learn the shooters name in a short time by using his gun registration and finding out he has 16 OTHER GUNS SOMEWHERE is a bad thing?
That's not what I'm implying...
Are you implying that registration would have done anything to prevent this tragedy?
C'mon... he committed a crime... I think they're going to do a throrough search of property and confiscate all those guns anyway.
What would registration have done to prevent this?
iiibbb,
wry, adjective
Marked by or displaying contemptuous mockery of the motives or virtues of others : cynic, cynical, ironic, ironical, sardonic
No, I'm not implying any such thing. I just happen to think it's a good idea to know this nut might have 17 guns IN HIS CAR WITH HIM while he is committing his crimes. I'm sure the police chasing him down are glad to have that information.
JJ --
You wrote "There were quotes recently where supposedly Buchanan called Hitler "a genius" and other laudatory comments, but the quotes were in the context of calling Hiter a mass murderer. I wouldn't consider calling someone a mass murderer to be high praise, but without that context, the quotes were deliberately misleading."
That passage is quoted in Message 1125. You'll note that the message does not omit the reference to mass murder. Your claim that "without that context, the quotes were deliberately misleading" is absurd and undermines your further claim that the other quotes are "taken out of context."
The idea that registration or banning guns will affect crime is the same as expecting registration or banning chain saws to prevent clear cuts.
If you want to effect change... you have to go to the root cause.
If you want less violence in this society... find out why people are violent and try to change attitudes. Punish those who are violent with meaningful vigor.
If you don't want trees to be cut down... don't use so much paper and recycle. Try to change peoples values so less has to be cut.
I don't think it's so cynical.
I think as soon as they find out he has 1 gun they should assume he has more and treat him as dangerous. A criminal might have 1 registered and 15 unregistered guns for all the police know.
I don't think that information is as valuable as you say during a pursuit.
Plese give me the names of your cousins in case I get stopped in Honolulu. Those boys have a reputation of being very tough. One guide book warns tourists not to get sassy. Not that I would ever do such a thing, not even with a female cop.
Are you suggesting that a human life is equivalent to the life of a tree? I support the right of Americans to own firearms, but your chainsaw analogy is seriously lacking.
Registration obviously did not prevent this crime, but that is not the sole purpose of registration and possibly not even the most important purpose. Being able to trace weapons from the scene of a crime helps us to track down the guilty parties and bring them to justice.
I'll tell you this much: they are healthy and very good looking. So be careful around all policemen matching that description.
Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris said police have surrounded the suspect as he sat in a vehicle in a residential neighborhood north of the shooting scene. It was not immediately clear if the van was the same one the suspect used to flee the scene.
iiibbb,
Sorry for being so opaque. I agree that registration is apt to be useless in curbing gun crime. Further, I suspect it is unconstitutional.
I didn't say that _only_ trees are killed by chainsaws... people are killed by them too through negligence and misuse.
The functional equvalency of registration/banning in #2423 is my main point. The list was more "wry" to use another poster's description.
Registration will not prevent that crime or any crime. I had a similar discussion with Jones-Law a few days ago. The police have plenty of tools at their disposal for investigating crimes after the fact.
Also keep in mind that only 1/6 of guns used illegally in this country were obtained legally to begin with. Few self respecting murderers are going to used a registered weapon.
If his 'registered weapons' were obtained legally to begin with... it means he had a clean record to begin with... otherwise he wouldn't have been able to obtain them legally.
Registration will do nothing in prevention.
Yep, if I'm a cop chasing a crazed killer who just killed seven people in a shooting spree I know I'm sure as hell going to be mellow UNLESS I LEARN HE OWNS OTHER GUNS!!! That changes everything!!!
If I were a cop and was chasing someone who just went on a killing spree killing 7 people. I'm _not_ going to treat him any different if he has 1 gun, 2 guns, 5 guns, 18 guns.
You people are so smug, sitting at your computers and spouting off about things you'll never have to face....how in hell do you know what information police value?
One of the points that Pat makes in his book is that Werstern leaders should have seen what Hitler was up to and have prepared for it. He makes the point that giving gaurantees to Nations without the ability to back them up is poor policy. But, Cellar, I have the feeling that few are really interested in serious discussion of what Buchanan has to say because they cannot get past their hatred of him. This idea that points are gained by destroying the messenger is, of course, not new. It is also childish.
Al --
A Tip For You: It's best to proofread the posts where you question the intelligence of others before posting them.
as un-smuggly as I can say this.
A police officer, in pursuit of murderer, had better assume the murderer is armed. A police officer should not take use any less caution when dealing with a criminal armed with 1 gun vs. one armed with 20 guns.
Criminals have only 2 hands and 1 dominant eye. They can only competantly fire 1 weapon at a time.
I guess if that gun jams, they won't pick up another.
Okay, fine....you win. I give up. It is pointless to argue.
Aren't we lucky there is no requirement for registering brains?
BTW: I dare say Dusty and I are not the first to breech the "smugness" barrier. I dare say we'll not be the last. In my since coming to The Mote, there is no shortage of smugness on either side of any discussion.
My apologies.
Feelings towards Buchanan are heated, no question about it. But in varying ways and to varying degress. And considering the kind of access he has in the media to both defend himself and advance whatever new positions he may choose to take, he scarcelyqualifies as one of the "100 Neediest Cases."
My antipathy to him reached its apex at that now-famous "Culture War" speech at the Republican National Convention, and scarcely needs any further explication on my part. You must remember that the equally Media-accessed Donald Trump has been out there "calling names" well in excess of anybody in here.
What interests me in regard to the whole story is the way the media --once so cozy and comfy with him -- is now trying to establish distance. And by "Media" I'm referring to that noted Left-winger Charles Krauthammer.
Judith --
"I guess if that gun jams, they won't pick up another."
And there is no difference between a .22 handgun and an AK-47 that would make any difference to a cop. You should take your lead from iiibbb: see how easy it is not to care how the criminal is armed when it's not your life on the line?
Exactly. Thanks.
Cellar --
Get with the program. Criticizing Pat Buchanan -- or suspecting that he harbors even the barest trace of anti-Semitism -- are conclusive proof of "leftyism."
George Will, Rudy Giuliani, and William F. Buckley might be surprised to hear this, but what do they know?
I want to see an end to gun violence. Don't misunderstand my position on the matter. I abhor violence, but I want to see programs that will actually have an affect on crime. At the same time I want to protect my rights.
I think it is possible to make programs that will be able to both address violence in this society as well as protect our rights. To that effect, I do not want to see programs that don't help, because they are a waste of time, money, and effort.
When they don't work, Ineffective programs also have the negetive effect of demoralizing the public while setting precedents that erode our rights. Very rarely does the government take the time to repeal ineffective laws.
I honestly feel that going after the _people_ who commit violent crimes is the answer. Get them out of society and keep them out. Address the cultural influences that make people do these kind of things.
And there is no difference between a .22 handgun and an AK-47 that would make any difference to a cop. You should take your lead from iiibbb: see how easy it is not to care how the criminal is armed when it's not your life on the line?
Won't it be funny when the police... thinking the bad man only has his trusty .22 left... storm the building and get mowed down by that AK-47 he got off the black market.
Cops should take the same precautions taking on someone armed with a.22, AK-47, shotgun, or bow and arrow for that matter. They're all deadly weapons, and will all kill you just as dead.
There is no reason they should let down their guard... period.
The proof is in the inabiliy to discuss anything else related to Buchanan. As long as he can be branded a racist, a Nazi, an anti-Semite, etc. nothing else he does or says is of any significance. It saves you the trouble of actually presenting an argument in support of your positions. "I believe X because Buchanan is a racist and he believes Y. If you believe Y you must also be a racist."
I was not refering to you with my remarks about hateing Buchanan. Pat has given reasonable people good reason to detest him. I am in no way defending Pat.
Charles Krauthammer's comments have more to do with Pat's alleged anti-semitism than his views of WWII. I only say alleged because some of Pat's defenders, some Jewish, claim he is not an anti-semite.
I found Pat's book interesting and somewhat informative. The reason I bought it was because I like to make up my own mind about things rather than have the media I abhor tell me what to think. While I know you do not feel the media has a left bias, I think you would agree that most of them are full of crap.
iiibbb --
"Won't it be funny when the police... thinking the bad man only has his trusty .22 left... storm the building and get mowed down by that AK-47 he got off the black market."
Yeah. Hilarious. I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off just thinking about it. You crack me up, iiibbb.
You're absolutely right -- there's no reason at all a police officer would want to know as much as he could about the weapons the other guy is carrying. Let's repeat that: NO REASON AT ALL. Just like there's no reason at all for a squad commander in combat to want as much intel as possible about the enemy's firepower, and no reason at all for a fighter pilot to want to know what kind of anti-aircraft weapons are deployed against him. They never have to make tactical judgments and take calculated risks, and neither do cops.
Just keep repeating it: no reason at all.
Of course, if it was your ass on the line, you'd probably want to know. But it isn't. So just keep repeating: no reason at all.
JJ --
That syllogism of yours would be more interesting if it bore any resemblance to anything anyone here said. But it doesn't, so it's not.
Al --
"Of course, TS takes such a simplistic view of things."
But that's why I come here, Al -- so that I can be enlightened by your brilliant analysis of the nuances of every world event.
They should treat all armed criminals with the identical level of respect. The second they let their guard down they're dead. Our example of the .22 proves my point.
A fighter pilot, flying into enemy airspace, will have some benefit to intelligence and recon. He's a fool if he takes that as the last word, and isn't prepared to react to the threats they missed.
Then there is the whole thing about trampling my constitutional right to privacy just for that one tidbit of information. Sorry... the value of the info isn't paramount to my rights, especially in light of the fact they have to treat that criminal with the identical level of respect as if they didn't have that information at all.
Fine, but at least you say thank you.
Oh, thank you very much for informing me I should proof read my post so as not to make an error. That certainly does reflect on my intelligence, now doesn't it. You have now morphed into Charlie L.
iiibbb --
"A fighter pilot, flying into enemy airspace, will have some benefit to intelligence and recon. He's a fool if he takes that as the last word, and isn't prepared to react to the threats they missed."
And he's an idiot if he skips the threat briefing: "Nope, no need for me to hear about those SAMs and AAA emplacements -- I'll just be real careful out there!"
Or maybe you think that withholding the information will keep him on his toes: "Captain, I want you to be especially careful on this mission, so I'm not going to tell you what missiles and artillery you might be up against."
"Then there is the whole thing about trampling my constitutional right to privacy just for that one tidbit of information."
Finally, the real issue. Not that the cops can't use the information, not that they don't want the information --it's that you don't want them to have it. Glad we've got that established.
This seems to be the latest from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Online
Also, it might help you if your read posts carefully before reacting. I did not question anyone's intelligence.
Al --
"Oh, thank you very much for informing me I should proof read my post so as not to make an error."
You're welcome.
"That certainly does reflect on my intelligence, now doesn't it."
Don't be a crybaby. Actually, it was funnier'n heck: like calling someone a "moron," but spelling it with two "r"s.
"You have now morphed into Charlie L."
Speaking of whom, where is Charlie these days?
Al --
"I did not question anyone's intelligence."
Spin a little faster, baby. I'm not buying.
You seem to value your privacy above all; first, this morning, you were worried about a site on the internet that allows people to locate other people through that site. Now, you seem to think America will fall if knowledge about gun owners is collected. Let me guess: you think the privacy of child molesters should be protected by changing the recent law that allows publication of their names and addresses in the newspaper.
I do not think child molesters names or addresses should be given to anyone. I would, however, dye them green.
This information would serve society because it would be extremely helpful in catching DUI offenders and preventing the 16,189 alcohol related automobile deaths, and 1,058,990 injuries in this country every year (MADD 1997 statistics).
It is also a well know fact that those under the influence of alcohol tend to be more beligerant to others. The police need this information to handle the situations more expeditiously and safely.
Do I believe in privacy? Yes.
Be careful dude, Ace the rapier is back in town, and he don't take no prisoners.
After all, if National Forest land cannot be clearcut, mined, or leased to a private ski resort, what good is it?
Please keep in mind that TS neveer allows sense to get in the way of a strongly held belief. He is, however, the salt of the earth and a really nice guy, and a great daddy, so I hear.
There is a problem in comparing the situation of a known child molestor to that of a private citizen, like me, who's never really done anything against the law.
I can see you and I think differently. To quote Martha Stewart, that's a good thing.
"who's never really done anything against the law."
Never? No speeding, driving while intoxicated, smoking a little weed, or pulling the tags off matresses? Wow!
Al --
"...TS neveer allows sense to get in the way of a strongly held belief. He is, however, the salt of the earth and a really nice guy, and a great daddy, so I hear."
Wrong on #1, right on #2-4. Grading on a curve, you get a B+.
Where did you get the idea I was comaparing a child molester to a private citizen? Oh, I guess I should have stipulated I meant a private citizen who uses 17 guns in the commission of a crime. Sorry.
That's a good one. I enjoyed that.
I was trying to figure why you graded so generously; then I realized you would, of course, give far more weight to a compliment than a shot.
There are other mechanisms available to the police...
never done drugs..
never assaulted anyone...
never raped anyone...
I don't molest children...
I'm unexciting I guess...
iiibbb --
I almost missed your post, what with Al's "salt of the earth" stuff: "Trialshark... I conceed the information is useful... I do not conceed the polices right to have it up front when I've done nothing wrong."
Thank you for the concession. Your stock just went up in my book ... not that you should particularly care.
What method would you propose to allow the police to get the information, while it still makes a difference? Lest you think this is a set-up, I'm not expecting a 100%-effective system: I just want to know how you'd balance the officer's need to know as much as he can about the threat, against your need for privacy.
Al --
"I realized you would, of course, give far more weight to a compliment than a shot."
Doesn't everyone?
Am I really that subtle? I was trying to get your goat, but I guess you are a house frau and not an office bunny. I just have a strange sense os humor, as you well know, you shemale you.
Al --
That's okay. You'll note I haven't picked on your spelling in any other posts; it was only funny in context.
I am so glad I don't have to cook dinner tonight...that means I get to check back in and see you call me a shemale again. I am not dressing in drag. I am not undergoing gender reassignment. So I wonder what you mean by that term.
I promise not to lose any sleep over it...
I don't like centralized data. It's too easy to muck about with people's rights...
How exactly are guns different? Both guns and alcohol seperately invoke a cost on society. Alcohol is almost as deadly as firearms, and causes far more injuries... but a database on people who purchase or consume alcohol is completely inappropriate. How are guns different?
In a criminal act involving either guns or alcohol, they are being used illegally. Both often involve violent offenders. The police would find that information equally useful in catching DUI offenders as they leave bars.
Should the police have this much access to our personal information prior to the majority of us do anything wrong? I don't think they do. There are too many other costs to our society... particularly the erroding of rights.
The police would have an easier time catching criminals if we ignored the 4th amendment. We'd catch a lot more criminals that way... is it good for society? I don't think so.
IB asks, "How are guns different?", after comparing them to chain saws and alcohol. Well, guns exist to kill; chain says exist to cut up wood and alocohol exists for a variety of reasons. A significant difference.
Given that guns are a tool for killing, why is it that people are opposed to insisting that those who would own and operate such a tool be licensed to at least know the proper way to operate the tool? I do not hear squawking about the intrusion into our right to travel freely inherent in the licensing and registration of cars, and that is far more intrusive on a day to day basis than the same conditions laid on gun ownership. Yes, the registration and licensing of guns will not have a significant immediate effect on hard criminals, but I am far more concerned about the guns that are used on family members than the ones that are used in robberies. The only person I knew who was shot was killed by her husband.
Interesting tidbit about the EgyptAir 990 crash ... CNN is now reporting the crew reported problems with the thrust reversers, apparently on the cross-country flight from LAX to JFK.
I believe I read that the 767 that rolled off the Boeing production line immediately after this one did also crashed -- because of problems with its thrust reversers. Not a happy coincidence.
Correction -- CNN is now reporting that the crew reported the problem with the thrust reversers during their stopover at LAX.
How does it infringe on your rights for the police to know you own a gun? They know you own a car. That is an equal violation of your rights, isn't it?
vK --
That was the strike where the workers were complaining that they were pulling so much overtime it was a safety hazard, wasn't it?
Madeline Albright sent a letter to all the countries involved with the Test Ban Treaty blaming Congress for defeating it, the administration won't confirm this, but won't deny it either so obviously it is true. Now at least the other countries are forewarned that Republicans are a lot smarter than the administration. No doubt campaign funds will come pouring into the Dems coffers from the aggressor nations who liked it just fine that America would stop testing. It's something new every day from this group. No wonder I've become a cynic!
The thing about guns that is different in my eyes is that it is a constitutional right which transcends societies right to control it.
If you read the federalist papers, our founding fathers outline a number of reasons why it's not a good idea for government to know which citizens are armed. There is too much potential for abuse.... futher abuse even of our already haggard rights.
We spent some time on the federalist papers around post #1903 and then in depth starting about #1909... at some point it goes onto a tangent about the legality of private militias, which I think was a bit of a digression from the main points...
I do think the government would eventually abuse the regitration system. Once the right is gone... it's gone for good. If they compromise this right, what's going to keep them from compromising others?
I understand there are not easy answers.
I think step one is to enfore what we have on the books already like in project Excile which has been liked to 2 or 3 times now.
Gram --
"No doubt campaign funds will come pouring into the Dems coffers from the aggressor nations who liked it just fine that America would stop testing."
Yes. No doubt. Quite.
"No wonder I've become a cynic!"
"Cynic" wasn't the word I'd have chosen.
iiibbb --
"I think step one is to enfore what we have on the books already like in project Excile which has been liked to 2 or 3 times now."
So you support increased funding for BATF?
What about ib's point that the police could do a better job of keeping society civil if it were not for the 4th Amendment? What is so sacred about the 4th?
Yes, the registration and licensing of guns will not have a significant immediate effect on hard criminals, but I am far more concerned about the guns that are used on family members than the ones that are used in robberies. The only person I knew who was shot was killed by her husband.
Again, what is registration going to do to prevent this kind of thing from happening? We keep bringing up scenarios like this, but none of them could be prevented by registration. If it doesn't offer a significant benefit then I don't think it's a good enough reason to justify eroding my rights.
Trialsharks' did give an example of a benefit, but I don't think it's significant enough to justify stomping on the millions of law abiding gun owners who've done nothing wrong, and don't plan to.
I've also given the ficticious example of registering alcohol. Taken to the same level as you propose for guns, it does not meet constitutional standards. Your point that guns are deadly isn't enough for me because alcohol is almost equally deadly 16K vs. 18K/yr.
Your point about everyday infringement? Once they have information... they keep it every day.
We keep bringing up scenarios that registration would have no proactive effect.
Sorry, Cos, didn't mean to echo.
iiibbb,
We have a Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press and yet there are forms of speech that are punishable under law. Despite this we do still have freedom of speech and the press. The few consessions that were made haven't eroded our rights in any significant way.
Why squawk about registration? How likely is it that even without registration any citizen would be able to amass enough guns to overthrow a tyrannical government from his home without anyone knowing? How often do people seriously try to overthrow the government here? How many thousands of times more often do the police need access to information about the ownership of a particular gun so that they can pursue a criminal?
I support procecuting anyone currently breaking any of the myriad of laws already in effect. We don't enforce the laws we have.
What's the point of laws we don't or can't enforce?
You see no difference between local law enforcement having a record of my handgun purchase and local law enforcement being able to break down the door of my home in the middle of the night and drag me away to see if I've committed any crimes?
Just occurred to me that it's awfully convenient for a murdering spouse to just toss the gun down and claim an assailant broke into the house if there's no record of who owns the gun, isn't it? At least with registration they have to go to the trouble of buying an illegal fire arm.
It seems to me that you and others are quite willing to give up Constitutional rights to live in a safer society. Can you give me a logical reason that law enforcement people should not have the right to stop and search people in the street, in their homes, in their cars. Leave the hysteria of the Gestapo breaking down your door in the middle of the night. many drug dealers have gotten off on the "illegal search" defense. Wouldn't society be better off if we just ignored the 4th? Please just give me the logical argument, you know, as TS would.
Rights taken away are not going to be given back.
There is still my point about the 4th amendment. If we repealed that, the police would have a far easier time fighting criminals. I don't think you can make a valid argument for selective acceptence of the constitution.
I know guns have a cost to this society. There are lots of things that have costs to society that we do nothing about.
I think people don't like guns becuase they fear them and they don't like the sort of death that results, it is unsavory. However, aren't all the deaths from auto accidents, smoking, alcohol just as fatal? Are the tragedies less tragic? They all kill innocents... far more innocents than guns do. Why do guns deserve special attention?
Because they're designed to kill? Did it ever occur to you that sometimes, killing is necessary and justified?
"What is so sacred about the 4th?"
I keep forgetting you're new to our little community (counting back to the days of the old Fray). You weren't around for my posts in favor of abolishing the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule.
Nothing is sacred.
rough paraphrase
iiibbb --
"I support procecuting anyone currently breaking any of the myriad of laws already in effect. We don't enforce the laws we have. What's the point of laws we don't or can't enforce?"
You didn't answer my question. I'll ask again: So you support increased funding for BATF?
Yes, more people are killed by cars than by guns, far more cars are operated every day. Cars are far more of an everyday necessity than guns and yet we have no problems with the orderly registration and licensing of motor vehicles. What is it about guns that evokes such fierce resentment of any attempt to make their owners accountable for the safe possesion and operation? I believe that it is the myth that a populace armed with handguns and hunting rifles is a significant check on state tyrrany. This is an American myth that should have been put to rest with Shay's Rebellion, or the Wiskey Rebellion, or Waco. Simply put noone is arguing for the right of the people to keep and bear anti-tank weapons, to quote the Clash:
"Better find another solution,
Than playing with a gun.
The English army is waiting out there,
And it weighs fifteen hundred tons!"
Guns are not going to keep you safe for political tyranny, only political action will do this. Guns are not going to keep you safe from the disgruntled Xerox worker, guns are not going to keep you safe from your spouse, guns are not going to keep you safe...
It also makes it less likely that my son or one of my son's friends will show off their parent's gun and shoot my son. That is what scares me, my son being shot by a friend or a member of a friends family, not
Teach your kid these rules even if he never picks up a gun. Make sure your kid knows your feelings about firearms and what to do if a friend of his ever pulls one out unsupervised. Be dead serious...
10 Basic Gun Safety Rules
Pay attention to the types of people your son is hanging out with. Don't leave it up to society to raise your kid. If you are worried about the homes he hangs out in, I suggest you have a talk with their parents. My parents took a pretty active involvement in who I associated with.
I think in most cases the threat of diligent criminal prosecution in a gross negligence case is going to keep most people in line with safety.
But even if someone has a license... and their kid independently manages to break into the guns... what do you propose we do to the parent? Lose their license? Jail? If proper safety proceedures are bypassed... who is at fault exactly?
You know, I have nothing against amending the Constitution, after all it's been done 27 or 17 times depending how you look at it. But I don't think any of the first 10 have been Amended. Still, as you say, nothing in the Constitution is sacred. However, until it is Amended, it is sort of sacred to me. Now, Cellar doesn't think it's worth the Parchment it was written on. Is that where you are?
CNN reports Honolulu police have apprehended the Xerox employee who allegedly shot seven coworkers.
State authorities plan to charge him under Hawaii's copy cat killer statute.
Sorry.
"Cellar doesn't think [the Constitution is] worth the Parchment it was written on. Is that where you are?"
You know, I doubt you've fairly characterized Cellar's position.
Be that as it may... find the exclusionary rule on the parchment, and then we'll talk.
Exactly what Constitutional Right have I stated I'm ready to give up? Please point it out to me because I have no idea what you're talking about.
I think you are saying that the 4th does not give a right to an "exclusionary rule". I really cannot speak to that as I not that conversant with law. Please explain, if you would.
I don't know if I support increased funding to the BATF... it depends entirely on what they want to do with that funding.
Donut Machines (no)
Handgun REgistry (no)
Tanks (no),..
Prosecute people who try to sell firearms to felons (yes)
Enforcing current laws (yes)
otherwise... I don't get your question.
VonCreedon
there are 32 deaths per 100,000 cars per year in this country
there are 16 deaths per 100,000 firearms per year in this country of which half are suicides.
Additionally, I do not support Waco, the oklahoma bombing, or any of the private militia's out there who have 'declared war' on the US. They are outside the law. Fighting against tyranny does not give free license to rebel against the gov't.
Further... if tyranny did come to the point where the gov't turned it's arms against the populus, our small arms and large numbers would have the potential for a significant impact against them. This is despite our technologically advanced army... take Vietnam or Afganistan to see the effect small arms can have against a superior force.
Saying this doesn't mean I want it to happen, or even honestly think it's going to happen... but the potential for abuse of power is there. We've no idea what the political climate is going to be 50 or 100 yrs from now, but we shouldnt' give them a leg up at siezing power.
What if we have another depression, and another hitler comes around?
We don't know the future, but we better leave our options open.
As to my comment about Cellar and the Constitution. It is a direct quote from the Fray; of course, Cellar (cllrdr)was just being his provacative self, and I just like to yank his chain. He well knows he is one of my favorites. I never kid someone I don't like and respect. I would never kid crazert.
Oh, please. Don't make me bring up Randy Weaver again. A gun does very nicely for fighting against the government.
He won. Flat out. No one said that winning doesn't involve casualties.
This line we've taken about tyranny is not a major point of mine anyhow. I defer to the early parts of my arguments this afternoon.
Liscencing and Registration have no proven proactive effect.
Alcohol and other social ills are more deadly, and inspire less reaction.
The benefit to police is not enough to justify the social cost to our righs with the 4th amendment being a direct analogy.
Also, you didn't respond to this point.
there are 32 deaths per 100,000 cars per year in this country
there are 16 deaths per 100,000 firearms per year in this country of which half are suicides.
Also, if you are at all interested, I entered the mote on this subject... and my whole gun control philosophy begins at #1671 in current events.
But if you note, I clipped your assertion that fighting against government tyranny with a gun is a myth. I said nothing of safety. If you are contending that the Weaver case would have had the same results had he not had a gun, you are sadly mistaken. He would have been arrested, probably not gotten a media-happy lawyer, and been found guilty of all sorts of things. And the government would still have killed his son.
As it was, the government was caught in a rather excessive case of abuse because he and his wife had guns and fought. That is pretty much a textbook case of fighting government tyranny--and winning.
We don't mind being accountable. What we mind is the government keeping a list of types of firearms we own so when it decides to ban a certain type of firearm on a whim (usually because of how it looks rather than how it operates), they can come around and collect them. Example: Europe and Australia.
worker...
I think anyone that has a Concealed Carry Permit would disagree with this statement. They would be able to defend themselves and the lives of others (and they probably would even defend the life of an antigun person even though they may ask not to be defended).
"If we were to take our sidearms and assemble in great numbers to fight our government, we would be slaughtered. "
Well, if there was such a scenario, I doubt that armed citizens would be facing down the US Army on the Plains of Abraham. It would more likely be a hit and run, assassination oriented revolt. Our own Army bringing all of its might to bear on the citizens of the US? Very doubtful.
"Sorry, its a myth that your 30-06 means anything when it comes to fighting government tyrrany."
One man, acting alone, killed the President of the United States with his rifle in 1963. Of course that wasn't a blow against tyranny. But it shows what one armed man can do. What can millions of armed citizens do against a tyrannical government? Let's hope we never have to find out.
cheers.
And don't forget the nagging and entrapment that the narc did for over a year to finally get him to sell a couple illegal shotguns. Since when does selling a couple illegal shotguns call for brining in an assault team to monitor a family and shoot at a kid and his dog?
Leave it to the Canadians, English, and Australians who just banned guns and have had their crime rates steadily rise.
Name an item kept in the home that the govenment requires you to register. Nothing, right?* Because that would be an invasion of privacy. But you anti-gunners want to require me to register a personal possession of mine, my gun.
Then what? Maybe my bow and arrows? How about knives with a blade longer than 6 inches? Cigarettes? They can kill. Alcohol? Ditto. Baseball bats? Once the door is open, why stop with guns?
* Dogs don't count because they sometimes leave your property.
Even those 30 states that have "Shall Issue" policies for concealed carry licenses (and the other 14 or so that have the licenses available, but one must show just cause to apply for them) all have different classroom requirements and different written and performance tests. Some honor other states licenses, some don't.
I think this license process should be standardized and there should be one federal Concealed Carry license that is honored in all states and there is one standardized written and performance test and one standard training class.
Uesugi was denied a gun permit in 1994 for unknown reasons but, as CBS News Correspondent Jerry Bowen reports, he was allowed to keep an extensive collection of handguns that he had purchased and registered over a 10-year period leading up to 1992.
CBS News has acquired a list of those guns from Uesugi's official Hawaii Police Department firearms registration file. They include:
Colt .45 (semi-automatic pistol)
Glock 9mm (semi-automatic pistol)
Four (4) .38 caliber Smith & Wesson Revolvers
Two (2) .45 caliber Springfield pistols (semi-automatic)
9mm Browning (semi-auto pistol)
.223 Remington Bolt Pistol
.357 Ruger revolver
.45 Ruger pistol
7mm Remington Pistol (semi-automatic)
.44 Ruger (handgun)
.22 Ruger (handgun)
.41 caliber Smith & Wesson Revolver
Smith & Wesson Revolver-- type unknown
If I owned a large company, I would not allow computers to hook to the internet.
In which case you would soon be the owner of a small company.
I work for a large company. I just emailed, via the internet, some data to a colleague in Australia. She called me back, we discussed the data, and continued our work. Tomorrow, we will use the internet to pull up a white board which we can work on simultaneously.
Meantime, I've been using the internet to monitor flights to see if my son is successfully on his way to CT. I left him for a 4 pm flight. Without the internet, I would have waited for him to take off, and would not have gotten any work done. This way, I am getting work done, staying current on the delay, followed by cancellation, followed by flight change, followed by delay. Seconds ago, my screen updated to show that he took off. Yes, personal use, but I couldn't be at work if I didn't have the capability of monitoring him.
I was without internet access for a few hours this evening, and it was hell, personally, and for business reasons. Companies will not thrive, and possibly will nor survive, without it.
I wonder if the police didn't follow up on the failure.
I was kidding.
But was it registered?
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A 4-year-old boy who brought a loaded .38-caliber handgun to school has been suspended for one year.
The boy's name was not released because of his age.
A one-year suspension is required by district policy for any student who brings a gun to school. The boy was enrolled in a half-day, pre-kindergarten program.
David Klaassen, Putnam City School District spokesman, said the boy's parents did not show up for a due process hearing Monday afternoon. They forfeited their right to appeal the suspension.
The boy apparently got the gun from a dresser in his parents' room. A teacher reportedly discovered the gun when the boy took a toy gun from his backpack. The teacher then searched the backpack.
Some of your gun statistics are wrong or misleading.
Al --
"I think you are saying that the 4th does not give a right to an 'exclusionary rule'."
The e-rule found is not anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
Courts impose the e-rule ostensibly to enforce the 4th and 5th Amendments, so you could argue the 4th "gives a right" to it. However, this "right" is a judicial creation, not one compelled by the 4th Amendment, and is in practice littered with exceptions.
"I really cannot speak to that as I not that conversant with law."
That's okay. Just watch that stuff about "not worth the parchment it's written on" unless you actually know what's written on the parchment. [g]
iiibbb --
"I don't know if I support increased funding to the BATF."
No government agency deserves a blank check.
But if you advocate enforcing existing laws, you have to be willing to provide the necessary resources. Otherwise you're being dishonest.
Citing Weaver to show that guns protect us from government tyranny is not real useful since the right that was in question was the right to sell restricted firearms, in this case sawed off shotguns.
Oh, for heaven's sake. I am not speaking of the specific right that Weaver had. You said that a gun doesn't protect you against government tyranny. Yes, it does. Here in the U.S., at any rate, it can be very helpful.
That the Feds behaved horribly is not in question, what is in question is wether or not Weaver and the rest of us are more free because he suscribed to the mythic philosophy that an unrestricted gun equals a free man.
You seem to be missing the point. The Feds behaved horribly. Had Weaver not resisted--which he did because he was armed--we would never have known they behaved horribly, and their tyranny (such as it was) would have gone on unchecked. Because of Weaver, we discovered that our government agencies were out of control, and they had to scale back. As a result, we are all freer from government abuse because of Weaver, and he was able to withstand the government because he was armed.
You make a very interesting point. Would it be logical to assume that if the government were able to disposses people of guns, abuses by BATF might not be as well known. I mean, what point would there be for the press to cover a story with no real glamor.
As an aside, Evie and I were returning from a trip to Canada and went through (was it Sand Point Idaho?) just as the Weaver incident was getting started. We have never seen so many police cars in our life and could not imaging what had happened. We found out when we got to Coer d' Alene and saw the report on T.V.
If you are aware of some proposal in the works, please elaborate... otherwise I don't know what you're getting at.
Enforce the laws we have... if you can't enforce them, why write more?
iiibbb --
I presume your Message 2571 was intended for me, not caz, since it responds to a message I wrote.
"please... I didn't say write a blank check."
Nor did I say you did. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't advocate doing so, either. Still, if you want additional enforcement, however, you have to be willing to pay for it. If you're not, then talk about enforcement is just that -- talk.
McKinny is still eligible for the death penalty; however, Wyoming rarely uses it.
National Safety Council
The Independence Institute's Robert Racansky points out that in 1994 (the last year for which data are available), there were 32 auto deaths for every 100,000 autos in the United States. The same year, there were 16 firearm deaths for every 100,000 firearms in the United States. Put another way, in any given year, the average car is twice as likely as the average gun to cause a death. from Taking It to the Streets: treating guns like cars
Homicide, Suicide, and Gun Supply
Still, if you want additional enforcement, however, you have to be willing to pay for it. If you're not, then talk about enforcement is just that -- talk.
and contunue with the logic if you're not willing to enforce the laws to begin with... then why write more laws? Exactly my point! It's all just talk if the government is going to do nothing about it.
I really don't understand where you're going with this line.
Outside of the courtroom, Randy Weaver did not win.
His wife and son are dead. He lives basically alone in Montana’s Yaak Valley with his grown daughter, Sara. He drinks a lot and has few friends. His other surviving daughter, Rachel, lives with her maternal grandparents in Iowa and will have little to do with him. (The view of Vicki’s parents, incidentally, is that she and Randy became so radicalized by Christian Identity that they essentially sought their own martyrdom and placed their children in harm’s way. An accurate view, I might add.)
Only under the most strained construction of events can you argue that Weaver came out a winner in all this.
Had there been no guns, there would only have been an arrest. Sammy would not have been killed; after all, the only reason he was dead was that he opened fire on a group of federal marshals and killed one of them. Vicki would not be dead; she was killed in the aftermath of the shooting of that marshal.
And, contrary to cpc’s blatherings, the evidence is rather overwhelming (including the testimony of neighbors and acquaintances) that Weaver was not coached into sawing off those shotguns. Rather, it was the other way around; the informant wasn’t eager to buy Randy’s cooked guns, but Weaver (who was out of money, out of work and desperate for any kind of income) kept pursuing the matter until the informant, posing as an arms dealer, finally agreed to buy them. Then he filed what he thought would be an innocuous report noting that Weaver had provided him with illegal weaponry. The rest is history.
As I say, the Feds did not behave horribly until after the marshal was shot. Unless you think that being involved with gun-runners and potential kidnappers is the kind of thing the government has no business investigating.
The government did change because of the Ruby Ridge incident. Combined with the Waco fiasco, there was a realization on the part of federal law enforcement that the tactics favored in the drug war -- particularly the heavy deployment of tactical units, and their complete control of the scene once deployed -- were not the best solution for all kinds of situations. Indeed, one can make a case that the ascendance of SWAT teams in law enforcement at all levels has been responsible for a broad range of travesties around the country. As we saw with the Freemen standoff, the FBI learned that placing the negotiation units in charge can produce more desirable results. At any rate, while I think this matter represents bad government, it is correctable; it falls far short of my definition of “tyranny.”
The argument that irregulars with light arms are ineffective against modern armies --though no doubt pleasing to the self-esteem of military professionals -- is not especially compelling based on the facts. As I write this article, the Red Army, which many analysts once thought capable of cutting through the armies of Western Europe like a knife through cheese, is finding itself sorely tried by the irregulars of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic. Though most observers predict eventual victory for the Russian armed forces, some believe that the fighting will bring down the Yeltsin government, and pretty much everyone agrees that this will make the Russian authorities less likely to crack down in the same fashion again: it has just been too expensive. Similarly, a recent peasant revolt in Chiapas left the Mexican army and authorities looking rather bad. In my lifetime, we have seen modern armies defeated or embarrassed by lightly armed irregulars from Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Lebanon to Somalia. It thus seems rather believable that an armed citizenry could frustrate tyranny, or at least make would-be tyrants weigh the high costs against the dubious benefits of, say, a military coup.
Reynolds’ examples, you may note, involve more genuine cases of tyranny.
And this is a reason to disarm the law-abiding citizenry?
They decided to use the gun charge (a paltry charge, BTW) because he also was close friends with two other men who were believed to be smuggling guns over the Canadian border -- a serious matter, I think you’ll agree -- and they decided to squeeze the little fish (Weaver) to get at the big boys (Howarth and Trochmann), a fairly standard ploy by law enforcement and hardly "horrible behavior."
In regards to your constitutional opinions on the meanings of the constitutional amendments. I think they speak for themselves. If you mean to say that there are exceptions to the fundamental rights the constitution gives me... you’ve got a lot way to go to convince me of it.
It all depends on your definition of "win". And if your point is that our government isn't as tyrannical as, say, China, you'll get no argument from me.
Quite frankly, pointing out that Weaver is a sleaze is much the same as turning up one's nose at Larry Flynt when the issue of the latter's first amendment rights come up. Egregious government abuse always turns up in places where they think they can get away with it. Which means that the attempts are usually on the unsavory.
Had there been no guns, there would only have been an arrest. Sammy would not have been killed; after all, the only reason he was dead was that he opened fire on a group of federal marshals and killed one of them.
Lordy, it amazes me when you think stating nonsense is going to go unchallenged.
They were on his property. Illegally. Changing monitoring equipment. They shot the dog. The kid didn't know what was up and fired and then ran. And they shot him in the back. A 16-year-old kid who was entirely within his rights.
Had the government been able to walk up to the door and arrest Weaver, they should have. They were not able to, they were trying to trap him because they didn't have enough. The missed date was, as is generally agreed, because the letter had the wrong date on it.
And no one would have known all this had Weaver not had guns and fought.
You also need to remember that vK's original point was that a gun doesn't do any good against our government. Weaver stands as an example to the contrary. Which is why I brought him up.
We've no idea what the political climate is going to be 20, 50, or 100 years down the road. We could have another depression, someone with similar aspirations of Hitler could find his way into power. It's unlikey, yes, but a possibility.
I don't think we should give them a leg up in seizing power.
For those of you who keep repeating "It'll never happen, why worry." I'm reminded of the parable of the ant and the grasshopper.
CNN reports Aaron McKinney convicted of murder.
Actually, I was just using vK's phrase back at him. Nonetheless, you are completely wrong. The government was on his property illegally, and they shot his dog. Generally speaking, if you are on someone else's property with a gun, you can expect to get shot.
And the fairly large amount of money the DoJ paid to Weaver suggests that they, too, are worried that they might have behaved horribly.
iiibbb --
On BATF funding: "I really don't understand where you're going with this line."
That's because you assume I'm "going somewhere" with it. Relax; occasionally I ask questions just to find out the answer, not to use the answer against anyone.
On the exclusionary rule: "In regards to your constitutional opinions on the meanings of the constitutional amendments. I think they speak for themselves."
And they're utterly silent on the subject of the exclusionary rule.
"If you mean to say that there are exceptions to the fundamental rights the constitution gives me... you’ve got a lot way to go to convince me of it."
No sweat. Convince yourself: go look through the text of the Constitution. Take as much time as you like. Then you can come back here and fess up like a man that the exclusionary rule is not there. Then we can discuss how the courts created the rule, and all the exceptions they've carved out of this so-called "fundamental right."
CNN reporting one dead and four wounded in a shooting at North Lake shipyard in Seattle. Suspect at large.
I believe that the Chechen fighters are armed with "light weapons" in the military sense- rifles, machine guns, mortars etc. that are used at the infantry company level and below. They are not armed with .25 autos, revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns. They had access to military hardware from local units, I believe that defected in large to the Chechen cause. I don't believe that this speaks much to the circumstances we would find here. Again, the best defense of liberty in the US is the democratic loyalty of the military.
Please, don't start doing your eye-rolling routine and claiming that I'm posting "nonsense." You obviously don't have a clear grasp of the facts of this case; you are the one who has posted genuine nonsense about this.
Unless you think a federal warrant is somehow "illegal."
Well... I'm reading some stuff about it. I'm not going to pursue this debate right now because you have obvious points to consider.
I will say that my -gut- feeling is that the police should not have too much power/flexibility with regards to search and seizure. They have been known to abuse it on occasion.
the exclusionary rule
ACLU
I would roll my eyes, but I don't know how. I will, instead, wrinkle my nose in mild annoyance. There.
We've gone through the rest of this already.
Weaver created a violent situation and placed his family in the middle of it.
I'd take issue with Spudboy's misrepresentation of SWAT teams. SWAT teams were created because criminals gained access to greater and more powerful firepower. Law enforcement was weary of being outgunned by the bad guys.
The kid didn't know what was up and fired and then ran. No, after firing at the marshals he continued to charge them.
And they shot him in the back. He was shot in the back by a marshal positioned behind him when the incident began.
Had the government been able to walk up to the door and arrest Weaver, they should have. They were not able to, they were trying to trap him because they didn't have enough. Complete blather. The ATF had already arrested him once on the gun charge -- there was never any question of "having enough." The government didn't walk up and arrest him because they knew he was armed and they were afraid of getting into a firefight. The feds genuinely tried to avoid exchanging gunfire with Weaver for about eight months. They were acting out of a concern for avoiding unnecessary bloodshed -- a concern that Weaver obviously did not share. That's why they had surveillance equipment up -- they were hoping to catch him unawares at some point.
And no one would have known all this had Weaver not had guns and fought. Utter bullshit. The case had received considerable coverage well before the actual standoff. It was a prominent story in these parts.
Please, get your facts straight before you wade in on these things.
iiibbb --
"I'm not going to pursue this debate right now because you have obvious points to consider."
If you don't want to "pursue this debate," that's your right.
Please don't ascribe your decision to drop the matter to the "obvious points" I have to "consider," because you haven't made any.
SWAT teams are the macho de la macho of the law-enforcement set. Their ascendance and overuse is highly problematic. Particularly in an era when law enforcement is becoming disattached from the communities they are supposed to serve.
He would not have had the lawyer he had, had he not fought. Had he not had the right lawyer, he wouldn't have won.
Besides, Ruby Ridge and Waco revealed to many people that the government was going well overboard in their zeal--in fact, they were helping to justify the paranoid wacko fantasies. This caused the government to scale back.
No doubt many of you see all tyranny as nice and clearcut, where the government agents are played by Ceaucescu clones and the oppressed are all rape victims of their ethnic cleansing. But in our little corner of the world, most of the government's actions were abusive, and these abuses were uncovered because a guy owned a gun and felt like fighting them.
I don't think "you can't win anyway" is going to convince me not to try if something really nasty "hit the fan" in this country.
I read somewhere the armed citizenry of this country outnumber the military by some obscene amount... 100:1 or something (probalby not right, I need to find it)... suffice it to say it's A LOT .
Take into account I've also read about a survey they took of our rank and file military. One of the question asked was something along the lines of "[would you follow an order to turn your weapons on American citizens]"... and something like 70 or 80% said "no".
So, I think a tyrannical government, arising from some socio-political catastrophy might have a very difficult time subjecting the armed citizenry to their rule.
Don't underestimate us.
On a personal note- I'd rather die than hand this country over to someone like Hitler... and I'd prefer to die fighting against it.
Ah, well. When I said "no one", I should have said "It would not have received national coverage." People in Podunk don't count.
If you don't want to "pursue this debate," that's your right.
Please don't ascribe your decision to drop the matter to the "obvious points" I have to "consider," because you haven't made any.
your turn to relax dude...
I gave you my gut feelings, and that's all I am prepared to give you. That's the reason I'm choosing not to pursue it. I'm not going to waste our time debating something I don't know a hell of a lot about... my gut feelings are all you get right now... sorry to disappoint you.
"No, after firing at the marshals he continued to charge them."
This "fact" is disputed. For you to speak definitively is plum goofy.
For example, Kevin Harris, a friend of Weaver, testified that three marshals began the gunfight at Ruby Ridge by killing the Weavers' dog. Harris then said they shot Sammy Weaver in the back, and pretended not to know the boy was dead until the FBI found his body two days later, he said. A former Justice Department official, Jeffrey Howard, lent support to Harris's account before the Senate subcommittee on terrorism. Howard testified he was informed by the FBI early Aug. 22 that Sammy may have been shot. He said he believed the information came from then-FBI Assistant Director Larry Potts or his top deputy, Danny O. Coulson. "I was informed . . . that someone on the scene had overheard the mother, or [Vicki] Weaver, wailing about her son having been shot or her son having been murdered," Howard testified. " . . . Because of that, they believed the boy may have been hit."
The FBI and the Marshals Service had claimed that they were unaware
Sammy Weaver had been shot until they discovered his body later, 1992, when they were preparing to demolish a shed where his parents had placed the boy's body. At a later date, however, two federal marshals testified that Randy Weaver accidentally shot and killed his own son in the gunfight that started the siege at Ruby Ridge.
Really? You mean, he wasn't shot by his own father?
"The ATF had already arrested him once on the gun charge -- there was never any question of 'having enough.' The government didn't walk up and arrest him because they knew he was armed and they were afraid of getting into a firefight. The feds genuinely tried to avoid exchanging gunfire with Weaver for about eight months. They were acting out of a concern for avoiding unnecessary bloodshed --a concern that Weaver obviously did not share. That's why they had surveillance equipment up -- they were hoping to catch him unawares at some point."
I refer you to George Lardner's 9/3/95 exhaustive piece in the Post, which I shall reproduce for all. Lardner, unlike you, presents a balanced account.
Of course, these "facts" are disputed in large part because the FBI has lied consistently on the matter. You may trust them implicitly, to the point of shilling. Others do not. And they are not relegated to the fringe right. For example, FBI official Michale Kahoe was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for destroying an internal critique of the deadly FBI siege of Ruby Ridge, ordering an aide to wipe out all traces of the report, and then lying about it to two sets of investigators.
lol...
I just realized you thought I was saying _you_ had to consider _my_ points. You misinterpreted my meaning. _You_ made points, _I_ need to read some. That's what I was saying... you got the inflection all wrong.
iiibbb --
"That's what I was saying... you got the inflection all wrong."
Damn ... and it sounded so clear over my Internet speakerphone. [g]
From CNN's coverage on the shootings in Seattle:
"A shipyard employee working on a boat outside said he heard seven to nine shots. "We kind of thought it was a joke at first, because this is the last thing you think of," the man said."
Two observations:
He thought it was a joke? What kind of f---ing joke is it when you hear gunfire in your workplace? Who laughs at that?
It's "the last thing you think of?" Really? Where has this guy been living, the f---ing moon?
Rant over.
Good thing guns had nothing to do with this.
You wait. We are but two or three incidents away from employees wanting to keep guns in their desk drawers for protection.
Cal --
"You wait. We are but two or three incidents away from employees wanting to keep guns in their desk drawers for protection."
Guns, heck. I'm bringing in a flamethrower.
And I think I can get my hands on a couple of Stinger rounds for the helicopters.
I think I know where you can get plans to convert a super-soaker into a flame thrower with just a few parts from a hardware store...
Forget the stinger missles... the black helicopters have multi-phase-innerspace technology. Besides... the aliens will just use their telepathy to turn the missles around on your butt.
iiibbb --
"Forget the stinger missles... the black helicopters have multi-phase-innerspace technology. Besides... the aliens will just use their telepathy to turn the missles around on your butt."
Boy, I hate it when that happens.
Actually, I see the makings of a good scene in a satire or black comedy--similar to the highway gun shootout in LA Story. A disgruntled wacko comes into an office with 17 guns and instantly an employee hollers "Incoming!"
They all dive under their desks and scramble for their cache, and come out with guns blazing. The wacko falls in a hail of bullets.
[CalGal]He would not have had the lawyer he had, had he not fought. Had he not had the right lawyer, he wouldn't have won.
Besides, Ruby Ridge and Waco revealed to many people that the government was going well overboard in their zeal--in fact, they were helping to justify the paranoid wacko fantasies. This caused the government to scale back.
CalGal- Weaver could have had a lawyer when he was originally charged. If his case was against government tyranny, do you think that he wouldn't have had a lawyer interested then? Or are you conceding that he was a garden variety criminal until he f$%#*^& up with some overealous agents?
hmmm... glad I'm near a door.
Cal --
Or that scene toward the end of "The Blues Brothers," when John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd finally deliver the money to the Cook County Assessor's office.
BTW ... it was Steven Spielberg who played the clerk in that scene, wasn't it?
If his case was against government tyranny, do you think that he wouldn't have had a lawyer interested then? Or are you conceding that he was a garden variety criminal until he f$%#*^& up with some overealous agents?
Because what made it interesting was the fight. Before then, it was just a case of potential government entrapment efforts. I haven't looked up the details lately, but I believe we were talking a misdemeanor and that he hadn't even failed to show yet. The letter had the wrong date and the government hadn't done its homework.
And let's face it--all that firepower for a misdemeanor? Clearly, they wanted him for other purposes, as we all know. Now, they have the right to try and catch him on something else, in order to cut a deal and get him to turn informant. But after all this time, all they had him on was a potential misdemeanor.
So yes. He was, indeed, a garden variety citizen with a misdemeanor to his record--which probably puts him somewhere behind me, with my numerous speeding tickets. Until the government thought they were justified in overstepping their bounds--and he fought back.
I just have a picture in my head of a wacko making his pipe bombs while talking to himself "oh, yeah... this will show them... they're going to finally see!" They're delusional. Covering them in the press to the gnats behind only serves to validate their delusions... certainly gives them more than their fair share of 15 minutes of fame.
Yes, I've always thought so.
And in rereading my scenario, I am thinking that a screenwriter had best hurry up, or reality will overtake art.
iiibbb --
"I wonder how much of this press 'coverage' of crazed gunners doesn't inspire other crazed gunners."
Do you think the Hawaii shooter was a copycat killer? I mean, he was a Xerox employee, so I suppose it's possible, but...
Oh, well, of course. Until Jonesboro, I think, these incidents were naturally and randomly occurring. After Jonesboro, it became a fad. On the plus side, to be gruesome about it, they are becoming so ordinary that we really don't devote much time to them any more. Consequently, their attraction will dim and I have every hope they will return to a randomly occurring phenomenon in the very near future.
Oooo, boy. I laughed.
Cal --
It's just one more reason I'm sure to burn in Hell.
It you get there first, see if you can get me a seat by the lake of boiling blood, willya? Thanks.
"If"
...but seriously... we spend days and weeks... even months sometimes looking into the lives of these individuals, who usually have pretty sad lives. I'm sure some killers see that coverage and take note of the attention it stands to get them. What better way to draw attention to yourself?
Hinkly shot Regan trying to impress an actress...
I'm sure McVey had some dilussion that people would come to his rescue and he would be some sort of hero.
The Unibomber was obsessed with getting his manifesto out.
I'm not saying all shootings are inspired this way, but there are a number in recent memory that were just sick and trying to be heard.
Well, you said you hadn't looked it up lately. But again, your facts are wrong. His initial appearance, after being arrested, was in late January 1992. The court set a March date for his trial, announced at the January arraignment. In mid-February, he received a letter from a probation officer in charge of arranging his pretrial services that mentioned an April trial, mistakenly. Weaver failed to appear in March. A federal marshal, through intermediaries, warned Weaver that a warrant was about to be issued for his failure to appear. He cited the PO's letter. The warrant was issued two weeks later. And a week after that -- the April date -- he was nowhere near the courthouse.
The Sammy/Degan shooting and standoff occurred in August.
But now, people are just going wacko and figuring they may as well do it on TV.
As Paula Poundstone once said... "the reason adults always ask little kids what they want to be when they grow up, is because they're lookin' for ideas."
You may trust them implicitly, to the point of shilling.
Cheap shot. Forget any further discussion of this from me.
People in Podunk don't count. Seattle is Podunk? It was news here. Carried on the regional AP wire. Eight months before the standoff.
Unfortunately getting on TV is a cause in and of itself for some people. Ever see those morning shows with those people gathered around the camera? How about the dance shows on TV.
Psycho people's values are out of whack... their causes aren't always going to make a hell of a lot of sense.
I think they guy who shot up the church in Texas could have had it in his mind to expose the hypocracy of the church. He might not have used those big words... might have just thought "the church is f**ked up", and decided a public shooting would bring it into the light.
Someone who shoots up a minority day care probably "thinks" that people will see how awful minorities are... they're dilusional of course.
Maybe this xerox guy felt there was some injustice going on there, and this was the only way to bring it to the light...
I'm not saying all shooters are inspired this way, but some must be. The others I'm sure some are anger or revenge.
Expected. Your m.o. is to dance only with those you perceive as less-equipped on any given point, and to often do so haughtily. But should you continue to cite "facts" that are not factual, I'll correct the record. Exchange with you is unnecessary for provision of this service.
Yes. But he hadn't yet failed to appear. So the federal marshall, in effect, informed Weaver that they were going to arrest him when he hadn't done anything wrong. Thereby validating all of his paranoia. Who knows whether he would have shown up in March if that hadn't happened? Heavens, it certainly seems feasible that he holed himself up due to his now entirely reasonable belief that the government was determined to arrest him before he'd done anything wrong.
From the DOJ report: We found that: the government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily rigid in itsapproach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that theUSAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991.
If the DoJ report is correct, you have your dates wrong. The standoff was for 18 months. From the report again:
From February 1991 through August 1992, the Marshals Service was involved in efforts to apprehend Weaver to stand trial for the weapons charges and for his failure to appear for trial.
It's actually a bit tragic. The government spent 18 months trying to placate a wacko who had holed up in large part because they fucked up and gave him reason to believe that they were intent on arresting him with no cause.
Spudboy Cheap shot. Forget any further discussion of this from me.
Don't be a wimp. If I ran from a discussion every time someone took a cheap shot at me, you wouldn't read many posts from me in this forum…Wait a minute, maybe I'd better rethink how I write this.
He thought it was a joke? What kind of f---ing joke is it when you hear gunfire in your workplace? Who laughs at that?
Yesterday, while sitting at my desk, I heard cannonfire. While I didn't think it was a joke, I certainly didn't stop drop and roll, or whatever it is you are supposed to do when fired upon.
You are perhaps not paying attention. That's the only excuse I can figure, anyway.
When these cases occurred randomly, the wackos were fervent believers in something. Truly nut jobs. Now, many of them are acting not because they are fervent believers in anything, but because they have seen the attention that the act creates. They are, therefore, not random. They are responding to incentives--and fairly logical ones at that.
Dusty --
"While I didn't think it was a joke ..."
That puts you one ahead of the guy in Seattle.
He hadn't even failed to show when the bench warrant was arrested. I was not clear in my original post to Jones.
Basically... I don't think much is gained by covering these guys for a week or more, but the press may do that anyway.
Expected. Your m.o. is to dance only with those you perceive as less-equipped on any given point, and to often do so haughtily. That would explain our long, multi-day conversation on this topic. And on hate crimes. I don't care whether someone is less equipped or not. However, an inordinate amount of my posting time *is* spent in correcting nonsense from such founts of misinformation as yourself. As you say, exchange with you is unnecessary for this purpose.
But should you continue to cite "facts" that are not factual, I'll correct the record. Well, it would help if you actually cited "facts" that weren't factual. Even Kevin Harris testified that Sammy charged toward the marshals and was felled in that act. And my sources of info are not FBI files (I don't have access to those, and neither do you). My sources are the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform report on Ruby Ridge, and the internal Department of Justice investigation of the affair, as well as journalists' accounts.
Let me make it clear: I resent the hell out of being called an FBI shill. I've spent most of my career criticizing government and law enforcement. I have written a number of stories over the years questioning federal agents' behavior, including the Judi Barry case. I am currently at work on a story that may not make the FBI look very good, if the facts pan out. But I've learned that if you're going to criticize these federal agencies, you better have your facts straight. It doesn't make you a credible critic if you get half your facts wrong. A point you and CalGal would do well to remember.
More to the point, I don't come here to have my motives questioned. I come here to (a) have lively discussions of current issues and (b) correct misinformation. I don't need some snotty little pudknocker telling me I'm shilling for the FBI. Knock it off.
You neo-Nazi apologist.
The reason many people thought the shots were a "joke" is that the site of the shooting was a loud place where nail and rivet guns pop off incessantly. No one thought it was a real gun.
I live about six blocks from the site of this shooting.
Spud --
"I live about six blocks from the site of this shooting."
No kidding? Keep your head down till they find the guy. Seriously.
"You obviously don't have a clear grasp of the facts of this case"
"genuine nonsense"
"more nonsense"
"complete blather"
"Utter bullshit"
Then, when it turns out that he doesn't have a clear grasp of a basic fact - See The Charge of Sammy Weaver (tell me spud - does the government often deem the felling of a gun-toting charging individual by federal marshal "accidental"?) - and he is chided just a bit (the dreaded "shill"), oh the gnashing and wailing and "how dare you!"
I'm sorry you have to spend time correcting the record with your "facts."
Is it fact that Sammy Weaver was shot by his own father? (one theory offered by marshals on the scene)
Is it fact that Sammy Weaver chased Marshall Degan down and shot him? (another theory recently bandied in the civil cases based upon ballistics)
Is it fact that the federal government deemed the shooting of Weaver accidental? (see the DOJ report linked by CalGal)
Is it fact that Weaver received a multimillion dollar settlement based in part upon the death of his son?
I don't give a flip why you come here. I do care a little that you feel comfortable condescending to people, only to pull the classic pussy whine about having your motives questioned when given a minor jab. As your father should have told you, you need to learn to take it if you want to dish it out. And I'll always bust your chops when you speak as if there are unalterable, unrebuttable facts in a case marred by cover-up, inconsistent stories, ass-covering, and the like, all on a monumental level.
I am happy, however, that you can't stay mad at me for long. I just hate the silent treatment.
I guess I can feel free calling you a neo-Nazi apologist in the future, then.
Weaver was informed that the government was going to arrest him, even though he hadn't done anything wrong. This caused him to think, justifiably, that the government was out to get him, so he holed up.
The government never issued a bench warrant for the date that he actually failed to show for--a date he might have kept had he not been told the government was planning on arresting him for what was, to him, no reason. Consequently, they had no right and duty to arrest him. The first bench warrant was in error; the second one--for his failure to show on March 21--was never issued. As a result, they had no real grounds to arrest him at all.
So I think it was fairly reasonable of them to drop the charges of a no-show, given that they created the circumstances that caused him not to show in the first place.
Your discernment is self-serving. Translated, it allows great latitude for you to storm off in a huff (even as your "facts" crumble before your eyes) yet continue your own practice of dishing it out. And you are just as free to call me a neo-Nazi now, as you have intimated when pressed in the past.
I confess I have not read every post today, but I would like tom respond to your remarks about the Weaver incident.
Vas you there, Charlie? You make statements that unless you were on the spot with total visability cannot be taken in the absolute sense you make them. Some of what you say does not square with other things I have heard. Now I realize you live in Idaho, but it is a big state and hard to know everything.
On a more current subject--Washington Times article by Bill Gertz:
In her letter to foreign governments last week, Madeline Albright claimed U.S. is still bound to follow the treaty under international law. Trent Lott challenges the Clinton administration's refusal to accept the treaty-approval role of the Senate. Sen. Lott says, "...the Senate vote serves to release the U.S. from any possible obligations as a signatory to the negotiated text of the treaty."
Albright also said the administration plans to take the unprecedented step of seeking a second Senate ratification vote. Senator Kyl, responded that her letter was illustrative of the arrogance that got them into trouble with the treaty in the first place and that that the White House plans to resubmit the treaty will not happen, certainly not in the near term or during the remainder of this administration.
In my opinion, Bill Clinton has attempted to conduct the presidency as though he had the powers of a dictator. Look for his appointment of Moseley-Braun to the ambassadorship while the Senate is in recess.
"In my opinion, Bill Clinton has attempted to conduct the presidency as though he had the powers of a dictator. Look for his appointment of Moseley-Braun to the ambassadorship while the Senate is in recess."
Oh God, not a recess appointment! How can we survive as a nation if Carol Mosely-Braun becomes ambassador to New Zealand? Democracy in America will surely be doomed!
Or not.
Most of my facts, as I told 109109, are taken from the congressional and DOJ reports. I did conduct interviews with several of the participants, including Randy and Sara Weaver and Ken Fadeley, the informant. It's true that there is some confusion about some of the sequence of events, especially during the firefight. No one yet knows for sure which agent shot Sammy, since bullets were flying everywhere, which gave the marshals and FBI an opening to speculate that Randy Weaver might have actually fired the fatal shot; I base my conclusions on those made by the DOJ and House reports. For that matter, they're not entirely sure who shot Degan, but Harris himself admits it probably was him. And the fact that Sammy charged the marshals, and did not turn to run, is not in dispute, 109109's claims notwithstanding.
Gram --
"It will be awfully embarrassing if Braun confiscates some funds over there for her personal use."
Sure it will.
"I think we should send our best to foreign countries, after all, we don't want them to think she represents most of us."
Agreed on the first part, though in practice it rarely happens -- ambassadorships have long been treated by both parties as patronage plums rather than critical government positions to be awarded to our finest diplomats. I think by now foreign governments have gotten over the notion that they're necessarily getting the best or the brightest.
I have no idea what you meant by the second part.
Yeah, th9is whole idea of Advice and Consent is so old fashioned. Why should we pay any attention to it.
Al --
You're not suggesting that recess appointments violate the law, are you? And if not, why are you making a fuss about a perfectly legal procedure?
Or is the law so "old fashioned" that you don't feel it should apply?
Actually, Trial, I just like to kick up a fuss. If you knew how little I know about these things, you would take pity on me. Or is it abundantly obvious? Played great golf today, though, 76. And I missed three easy birdie putts. So why don't I just stick to what I know? Beats the hell out of me.
Can someone tell me what we have against New Zealand?
Oops sorry, I see you answered my question in 2666, should have read ahead before spouting.
You have something against Luxemborg?
Unanswered?
Why the DOJ Report linked previously deemed the shooting "accidental."
Why the full DOJ report sets forth several versions of the shooting, from Marshals Cooper and Roderick as well as Harris and Weaver. They differ.
Indeed, Harris states that Sammy Weaver was shot in the back as he ran up the trail.
Why Sammy's fatal wound was a shot to the back.
b. The Initiation of Gunfire at the Y
"The prosecution charged at trial that Harris fired at Degan at the Y and set off the chain of events that led to the deaths of Degan, Sammy Weaver, and the Weaver dog. The defense countered that it was the marshals, not Harris, who had initiated the gunfire. The jury acquitted Weaver and Harris of all charges that they had assaulted federal officers . . . . Sammy Weaver was struck twice in the exchange of gunfire. One round hit him in the right arm, near the elbow, traveling from front to back. This bullet also shattered the stock of his rifle. The second and fatal shot hit the boy in the back and passed through his body, exiting after a slight track from
left to right.[FN430]
(3) The First Shot
We are presented with diametrically opposed descriptions of events that occurred at the Y. However, we are sensitive to the fact that the gunfight occurred quickly and that all of the participants were under extraordinary stress during and after the shooting[FN431] which may have affected the witnesses' perception of events. The physical evidence is inconclusive and provides no assistance in determining who initiated the gunfight, although it is clear that the marshals did not "ambush" the Weavers. Thus, based upon the evidence available, we do not believe we can definitively reconstruct the
sequence of fire that occurred at the Y.
c. The Shooting of Sammy Weaver
Dr. Charles R. Lindholm, who performed the autopsy on Sammy Weaver, could not offer an opinion on the type of bullet which wounded Sammy's arm. Dr. Lindholm reported that the fatal back/chest wound was "indicative of a low velocity round." he did not believe that it was caused by a.223 caliber bullet and thought that the wound "would be more consistent with that of a 9 millimeter round."[FN432]
An article in the New Republic(an) this week indicated that Helm's opposition to Mosley' Braun's nomination originated from her impassioned speech against renewing some sort of charter for the Daughter's of the American Conferacy, making him look (even more)racist and vindictive.
Wait a minute—makes him look vindictive? The whole pint is that she was being vindictive, and she is now reaping what she sowed. (I confess I know little about the DAC, but I haven't heard that it is universally consider to be racist. Is it, and I've missed something?)
And I'm missing the point of your reference to the publication. Can you explain?
Two .9mm firearms were at or near the "Y": Randy Weaver had a .9mm pistol; Cooper had been assigned a .9mm "suppressed" semi-automatic weapon. Weaver claims to have fired his weapon three or four times;[FN435] Cooper's was fired six times. Harris reported that he heard the shot that killed Sammy.[FN436]
Degan's M16 rifle fires a .223 caliber round. None of the marshals saw Degan discharge his weapon, though his gun was fired seven times. Cooper said that he did not fire Degan's weapon after he retrieved it.[FN437] Dr. Fackler testified that Degan could have fired his weapon after he had been shot in the chest by Harris, although his accuracy would have been impaired.[FN438] However, Fackler did not believe that Degan's M16 caused the fatal injury, but thought it was possible that the weapon could have caused the wound to Sammy's arm. [FN439]
Cooper and Roderick last saw Sammy run out of view up the trail. The location where Harris found Sammy's body is unknown because the Weavers moved the body.
Although it is not our intention to speculate, the evidence, though not conclusive, certainly suggests that the shot that killed Sammy came from Cooper's .9mm weapon. We have found no evidence that Cooper, or any of the marshals, intentionally sought to kill or injure Sammy Weaver.
Sammy Weaver was shot during a firefight in which he was a participant. There is no proof, and we do not conclude, that Cooper intentionally aimed the fatal shot at Sammy Weaver. Indeed, the record demonstrates that the marshals went to great lengths in preparing for their mission to avoid endangering the Weaver children."
"Up behind me I heard Sam saying something that made me think he'd been hit -- it was something like "Oh shit! " I'm not sure where he was, but I could tell he was well back behind me. I could also hear Randy yelling that we should come home, and I heard Sam say, "I'm coming, Dad." I also heard Sam say, "c'mon Kevin, Kevin c'mon!"
I heard a dull hissing sound like "thhhpp," and right away I heard Sam yelp -- it was the kind of sound you'd make if you were slugged in your chest with a fist. I didn't hear anything from Sam after that . . . . Sam was laying face down in the road. He had on blue jeans, a white t-shirt, a flannel shirt, and a sheepskin vest, with the fuzzy side in. I rolled him over, and there was blood all over his front. His eyes were rolled back in his head, half closed. His lips were turning blue. He wasn't breathing. I felt for a pulse, and there wasn't one. I left him laying on his back.
I learned later that Sam's right arm was shot up pretty bad, probably from when he was shot the first time, but I didn't see the arm wound then. I also learned later that the killing shot, the second shot, went right through him, from the back, and pierced his heart."
Another person disputing spuds' "fact": Boston Globe reporter Michael Grunwald, who, on February 15, 1998, wrote "[a] marshal killed the Weavers' yellow Lab, Striker. Samuel Weaver screamed and fired at the marshals, but was shot in the arm and back as he tried to run away."
Of course, I guess it all depends on how you "define" dispute.
Just ask William Weld.
Helms' stated reason for opposing the nomination: Weld was "soft" on drugs (medicinal marijuana). His true reason: Weld had attacked Helms in his Senate race against John Kerry, in an attempt to differntiate himself from the right wing of the GOP. A perfectly understandable gambit, one which should be understood by a right-wing senator from North Carolina as he views an attempt by the GOP to pick up a seat in Massachusetts.
But Jesse don't forget.
According to TNR, Helm's stated his intention to bottle-up the nomination because of her successful opposition to giving some type (I forget exactly what) of official recognition to the daughters of the confederacy. The point being, why oppose her on the basis of something that is comparatively minor, looks vindictive, and is racially charged, when he could oppose her on the basis of her use of campaign funds so that she and her sweetie pie could buy 2 jeeps, trips to Hawaii, and thousands of dollars worth of clothing and jewelry?
I don't know enough about the Constitution to know whether this decision was an affront to it, but I agree the action was wrong (Not the same as saying it was illegal.)
I didn't follow: " Never mind that the cops were not considering any other aspect of the so-called description except race." Was this information missing from the article, or did I miss it?
According to TNR, Helm's stated his intention to bottle-up the nomination because of her successful opposition to giving some type (I forget exactly what) of official recognition to the daughters of the confederacy.
It wasn't some sort of official recognition, in the sense of something new. It was the renewal of an extension of a patent. It normally expires after 14 years, but has been often, and uncontroversially extended by Congress, presumably several times. CMB tried to block the most recent extension.
Source
The point being, why oppose her on the basis of something that is comparatively minor, looks vindictive, and is racially charged, when he could oppose her on the basis of her use of campaign funds so that she and her sweetie pie could buy 2 jeeps, trips to Hawaii, and thousands of dollars worth of clothing and jewelry?
Perhaps because he is honest? Instead of taking the politically easier route, he told the truth?
The problem with this quote from the article is that it is wrong. The cops were looking for the most significant aspect of the description, the cut on the hand. Since they could find no one fitting that part of the description, they arrested no one. I don't see how this case is different from any other case where only a partial description is available.
No they would not.
Is CMB really the best cadidate for the position? I doubt it.
As someone else pointed out, we don't even really pretend that this is the case. One, therefore, cannot credibly argue against a nomination on this basis. Helms, not being an idiot (although he has other less than admirable qualities), didn't pretend he was opposing her because she was less than the most qualified.
As Niner points out, he has a long memory. Attempt to screw him at your peril.
If the person in question had been white they would have done the same thing.
I don't believe that.
Nevertheless, I am at a loss as to what they should have done. I'll be interested to hear Cellar's take on what should have happened, and what should happen is the assailant is white.
And I believe they have performed a pigmentation test, and medically, it is incontrovertible that William Weld is the whitest Brahmin on the face of the planet, with the exception of Edgar Winter.
Evidence? If the description was for a white male with a cut on his hand, are you claiming the cops would not have been looking for someone fitting that description? My wife was pulled over once because the cops were looking for a person in a red Toyota Celica. She was driving a blue Honda Prelude. It was a dark sports car, and that was close enough to check out. The cops would have searched for a white male with a cut on his hand just as they looked for a black male with a cut on his hand. Answer my question, what would you have the police do in this case? Nothing?
Oh, gee, I don't know, could it be. . . . RACISM?
I don't want to harp on my experiences at the tender hands of the LAPD, but as I'm sure you all recall the suspect they were looking for when I was importuned LOOKED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE ME!
So why did they act as they did. I think some whites simply can't see black people. We're all a vast undifferentiated mass to them -- like peas in a pod. And since we're seen as outsiders/interlopers/perps, "mistakes" really don't matter much.
I can only speak of what I see: when there is a huge group of local Republicans pictured in my newspaper, you have to search long and hard to locate a black face in the crowd and this is not the case with pictures of local Democrates.
Niner --
"I believe they have performed a pigmentation test, and medically, it is incontrovertible that William Weld is the whitest Brahmin on the face of the planet ..."
That's "Willie" Weld to you, bub.
But of course you know the answer to that: "Hymietown" ended Jackson's political career.
Watch out for Jesse Jr., however.
JJ --
"The Republicans have a black man in the race, why don't the Democrats. Why is the "party of inclusion" excluding blacks?"
Such breathtaking logic.
Despite your rapier-like comparisons, I am unmoved. For one thing, I think you are slightly skewed by your hatred of all things Democratic. I can at least see some good in the Republicans but you can see nothing of any value coming from the other side.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Very good.
Ah yes, another example of racism in the Democratic party. Thanks for reminding me.
But that brings up another question. Since your token has eliminated himself from contention, why are there no other blacks at the national level who can take his place? I guess blacks in the Democratic party are supposed to be content with their handouts and not challenge the whites at the top.
I've had racist comments directed at me by black people... while I was living with a black guy even.
I've had racist comments directed at me by black people... while I was living with a black guy even.
Really? I'm shocked. I live in a predominantly black neighborhood and nobody disses my white boyfriend.
I have no hatred of anyone or anything. I am just returning arguments in kind. There are several Democrats and Democratic positions I approve of. But that isn't the issue.
Like I said -- watch out for Jesse Jr.
And weren't we just talking Carol Mosley Braun?
What sbout Willie Brown?
Hey -- what about ME?
The quotes are there becasue that was the precise words that were used on why I was being turned down for the position.... "off the record" of course.
The why doesn't the Democratic party when they have just as many if not more ardent supporters at the helm? Most of the racists and segregationists stayed in the Democratic party because that is where their power base is.
and want to return to their previous standard.
I don't know of anyone in the GOP who has indicated that they want a return to segregation and discrimination. Care to back this statement up?
This is my point exactly. CMB lost her first reelection bid, and is now looking for a handout from Clinton. I personally like Mr. Brown, but he has no chance of ever competing at the national leverl. As far as Jesse Jr. I wish him luck, but he has a long road ahead of him.
There is one black man who could win the Presidency easily. And he is a Republican.
You took the words right out of my mouth.....thanks! :-) (If only that were so; that's what I wanted to say but you stated it so much better than I.)
I try to treat everyone I meet and talk to with respect.
I was in an argument with a friend of my room-mate once… and he accused me that my viewpoints about him were based on his race. I corrected him, I thought what I thought about him because he was a jerk.
In my opinion, the means doesn’t justify the ends. You want to do something about racism in this country… You have to do something about society’s attitudes.
Things like affirmative action, are born of honorable intent, but seem to lose focus somewhere because they are sometimes applied indiscriminately. I can’t help but think this reinforces the negative attitudes it hopes to erase.
People exploit race to their own advantage on both sides… in both cases it’s wrong.
Dusty, Dusty, Dusty. What do police do when a crime is committed? They question witnesses and and collect evidence. Then they take appropriate action. Stopping and questioning every black American becuase one of them is suspected of a crime is no logical way to proceed.
Are you preaching to the choir? I said they shouldn't have done this.
I then went on to ask what you would have them do. As yet, unanswered.
What sbout Willie Brown?
Willie? Are you racist? others have argued that calling someone Willie is racist.
This would be nice if it were true. As I have demonstrated, it is not.
That the Reps view such inclusion as special rights has much to do with the lack of said minorities in the Rep party.
The GOP has lead the efforts to include minorities and fight discrimination. I have documented this a dozen times.
Answer the question I asked Judith. Doesn't the fact that Democratic party advocates preferential treatment for blacks have a significant bearing on the support they receive from blacks?
I haven't a clue and neither do you...how far do think he'd get if he ran with the Reform Party? I mentioned that article because we were talking about him. I don't seriously expect him to challenge Donald Trump for newspaper space.
By the way, I don't get up each day and ask myself if the "Democratic" sun is going to rise or if I should eat "Republican" eggs for breakfast. Sometimes entire hours go by where I don't think about party affiliations at all.
Judith --
Life in prison, eh?
Hope young Mr. McKinney gets over his "gay panic" real soon.
I am astounded that you refuse to recognize, even critically, that the GOP has a tradition, linked to Nixon, of catering to racial animosity in the South.
Your argument that minorities support the Democratic Party because it throws "special preferences" at them is exactly the type of pandering rhetoric that typifies the racial divisiveness of the Republican Party. They are not "preferences" if they are attempts to remedy systemic racial discrimination and oppression. Since the Democratic Party, at least nominally, support efforts to remedy this systemic discrimination, it seems entirely natural and material that minorities would lend it greater support than the GOP.
I am glad to hear it. Outside of this forum, I rarely discuss politics. I don't even know how most of my friends and family vote. However, when I do discuss politics, I do everything I can to support my position.
You take me entirely too seriously. I am a very sarcasticly inclined individual. If it's a choice between being flip and being serious, flip wins every time. I like to laugh; it causes far fewer lines in the aging face.
Judith --
"Poetic justice"
Mrs Shark and I were discussing Mr. McKinney's likely career as an inmate this morning while reading the paper. I'll spare you her thoughts on an appropriate punishment -- she is considerably more bloodthirsty than I and her views may disturb some of the more gentle-natured souls here. [g]
I think giving him the needle would be more merciful. But that's just me.
I am astounded you would trot this out after it has been disproven numerous times. One of Nixon's first acts as President was to sign an executive order directing all government agencies to place the implementation and enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act as their highest priority. Nixon as Eisenhower's VP was instumental in getting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 passed over the objections of many Democrats in Congress.
Your argument that minorities support the Democratic Party because it throws "special preferences" at them is exactly the type of pandering rhetoric that typifies the racial divisiveness of the Republican Party.
It has now become divisive to want people to be treated equally? It is divisive to give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. It is divisive to cry "Racist!" every time someone disagrees with you.
They are not "preferences" if they are attempts to remedy systemic racial discrimination and oppression.
They are "preferences" if someone is given an advantage based on the color of their skin. It doesn't matter how noble your intentions are. You can't remedy discrimination with discrimination.
Since the Democratic Party, at least nominally, support efforts to remedy this systemic discrimination, it seems entirely natural and material that minorities would lend it greater support than the GOP.
As I said before, it would nice if it were true, but it is not. The Democratic Party seeks to exploit racial tension for political gain. The recent attacks on Ashcroft and the defense of Carnahan in Missouri are ample proof of Democrats true motivation. I am sorry that you refuse to see it.
JJ --
"I think the needle is far to merciful for him."
Yeah, but I'm a merciful guy. It must be because I'm a "lefty" -- I support humane executions in almost all instances.
Well, if there is no other alternative. I kinda like the deterrent effect of inhumane executions, but I will concede that point.
Of course, I don't know who would do the eating in the case of Mr. Dahmer.
Niner --
With enough ketchup, almost anything is palatable.
Actually, I don't know if you are being sly, but I agree, for several reasons. First, we can test the anti-death penalty contingent's presumption that once the public saw public executions, they would be disgusted and withdraw support (I think the assumption is hogawsh). Second, states could televise the executions pay-per-view, with 50% of the proceeds going to the families of the victims, and 50% going to the state correctional system. Third, you want some measure of deterrence, you got it.
I, for one, would pay $50 to see the killer of the little Klass girl.
Hell, people pay $4 to rent "Faces of Death."
Well, we could also feed him to dogs, I suppose.
It lacks some of the visual quality, but every week can't be Bundy Week.
First, I wasn't calling you a racist. I think you are merely a victim of "false consciousness."
I have no idea how Nixon personally viewed race or racism. I am probably convinced that he was a raving anti-semite, but it is really pretty beside the point.
Second, Nixon managed to appoint four Supreme Court Justices; he had what amounts to a litmus test: opposing school desegregation. His offical actions, though, I also think are sort of beside the point.
Nixon explicitly appealed to the Wallace Democrats in his '72 presidential campaign. He recognized, prudently and strategically from his perspective, that he would gain more in white votes by demonizing minorities in the south than he would lose in black votes. His strategy, which ultimately became the relatively stable coalition of Northern blue collar Catholics, Southern anti-desegregationists and fiscal conservatives nationally, would not have been viable if he had not catered to the racism of the South. Whether or not the man was personally racist, or whatever, the impact of his '72 electoral strategy on the composition and racial position of the Repulican is indisputable. LA Times Article
It has now become divisive to want people to be treated equally? It is divisive to give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. It is divisive to cry "Racist!" every time someone disagrees with you.
They are "preferences" if someone is given an advantage based on the color of their skin. It doesn't matter how noble your intentions are. You can't remedy discrimination with discrimination.
I really don't feel like getting into a huge argument about your particular principles. I'll just say that you are decontextualizing a bit - all "discrimination" isn't the same, all "discrimination" isn't necessarily bad (using your apparently broad definition of the term), and all "discrimination" doesn't give someone an advantage. Sometimes, you have to admit, it just levels the field.
Finally, I am not a Democrat. I vote Democratic, but their really isn't a political party that expresses my views. Further, I am from Kentucky: we have as many racist Democrats as we do Republicans. Still, the Republican's official party line, much moreso than the Democrats, reflects its tradition of catering to the concerns of Southern racists.
I confess that, as long as we are killing people, I would like to have seen Susan Smith placed in a car that was dumped into the water. However, I think she should have had to endure the water level rising for 6-8 hours before it finally drowned her.
We would have saved Smith for Sweeps Week to counterbalance "Must See TV."
But really, all she does is act as a focal point for my rage at a society that pities women rather than hold them responsible for their acts.
Rant over.
Still, a 6 to 8 hour show is too much. We need to crunch it into one hour. With commercials, 38 minutes. 15 on a video montage of the crime. 10 on events in and outside the prison. 5 on panel discussion. 5 on promos of upcoming executions.
I can give 3 minutes for the drowning.
Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and others went over to the GOP, to jooin Bob Barr et al.
No, no. You start it in the afternoon, but just show the highlights, starting on the evening news. You do all the interviews with an inset picture of the water slowly rising--cutting to her periodically if she howls to particularly good effect.
The show starts in real time just as the water hits her forehead. Remember, she'll be going in upside down, so she'll be able to scream--and then gurgle--to the end.
Actually, the show will be called
"Just Desserts"
But, we can certainly work in audience participation - perhaps even an auction - for the more mundane killings.
Since most deaths are caused by gunshot, most executions will be by firing squad. A squad of 8. Filled by paying customers.
This is pay-per-view. We have an hour.
Okay, fine. All the insets are still there, and you show the last three minutes in real time.
A box set of the complete footage can be made available for PBS pledge time incentives.
Do you get a refund if you get the dummy bullet?
Mallek remains active in Republican politics.
I find it odd that some of the gun-control advocates here seem to relish the idea of toturing people on television... yet don't think people have the right to defend themselves in the first place.
Even if you're only kidding, it’s still kinda sick y'all.
I hope none of you were the ones who called me a vigilante...
Yes. And Robert Byrd, Mel Carnahan, George Wallace, Lloyd Bentsen and the majority of the racist/segregationist Democrats remained as Democrats. In order to divert attention from their own racism, they have engaged in an ongoing attack against Republicans.
The only position I think is difficult to justify is pro-gun control, pro-death penalty. I personally feel those two concepts are just so diametrically opposed.
The other three possible combinations are at least viable from a philosophical standpoint.
I'm anti-gun control, anti death penalty... I feel the only time killing someone else is justified there is no other way... it is the last option.
[for state killing...against killing in self defense...]
I personally can't visualize how that works. I would seem difficult to resolve their opposition to each other...
I hope that's not too wordy. In hindsight I hope it's intelligible.
Nixon managed to appoint four Supreme Court Justices; he had what amounts to a litmus test: opposing school desegregation.
Nixon opposed busing, not desegregation. There is a significant difference.
Nixon explicitly appealed to the Wallace Democrats in his '72 presidential campaign.
I have heard this accusations many times, but I have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. Do you have any evidence?
He recognized, prudently and strategically from his perspective, that he would gain more in white votes by demonizing minorities in the south than he would lose in black votes.
Please provide an instance where he demonized minorities.
Whether or not the man was personally racist, or whatever, the impact of his '72 electoral strategy on the composition and racial position of the Repulican is indisputable
I dispute it. All you have provided is accusation and innuendo. Please provide some facts to back up your assertions. The article you linked only repeats the same accusations the Democrats have been spouting for years. It offers no evidence either.
...doesn't work...
Of course, I don't know who would do the eating in the case of Mr. Dahmer.
Good point. Or Gacy, for that matter. Nasty scenario to have to act out there.
I rather like the Susan Smith idea, though. I have about the same visceral loathing of that woman as CalGal indicated. Truly a vile, sickening little person.
The death penalty is not about deterrence, it's about vengeance. Anyone who says different is full of shit.
But hey, what's wrong with enacting vengeance on animals like Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez? Not a damned thing. I don't like the public execution idea though; in this "When Good Pets Go Bad" age where people will watch absolutely anything, it wouldn't be long before some sick fucks started killing people just for the 15 minutes of fame. Some of the copycat school/workplace shootings are probably from that very line of thought, "If I'm going out, I might as well take a dozen people with me and go with huge coverage".
Nicely put, and quite true. Some folks are simply too evil to be allowed to exist.
Having said that, the procedure needs to addressed. The fact that dozens of death-row inmates have been exonerated over the last 20 years bespeaks this fact. Prosecutors need to be concerned with truly finding justice, and hammering the right people, not just getting publicity for their political purposes. Human nature is no excuse; people's lives are at stake. Hopefully as DNA technology improves, human error and venality can be taken out of the equation.
against guns, and against the death penalty
for guns, and for the death penalty
for guns, and against the death penalty
but not behind
against guns, for the death penalty
My only personal problem with the death penalty, is the large number of people we find out who are innocent after the exicution. It happens a little too often for my comfort.
I know there are cut/dried cases with the real monsters out there like Gacy and Dahmer... those two I more or less don't give a big crap about. Just don't televise it.
My problem with the death penalty has more to do with the faceless criminals that have been nailed on circumstatial evidence, that we find out are innocent later.
You assume that everyone supports everything for the same reason you do. Silly. For example, I could give a fuck about people's safety. That has nothing to do with why I oppose most gun control. Safety is, IMO, as bad a reason for opposing gun control as it is for supporting it.
Advocating racial discrimination in the form of preferences, set-asides or quotas is divisive. Advocating equal treatment is not divisive.
It is divisive to characterize affirmative action as "preferences" without addressing the promulgated justifications for it.
It doesn't matter whether you feel justified in discriminating for or against a group, it is still divisive. The KKK feels just as justified as you do that their discrimination is proper. Discrimination is wrong no matter what your motives.
I'll just say that you are decontextualizing a bit - all "discrimination" isn't the same, all "discrimination" isn't necessarily bad
You are deconstructing. All discrimination based on race is necessarily bad. You can't say "When you discriminate it is bad, but when I discriminate it is alright because my motives are better."
all "discrimination" doesn't give someone an advantage. Sometimes, you have to admit, it just levels the field.
If you want to level the field, then level the field. Discrimination cannot do that. It favors one group over another on the basis of skin color. It is inherently wrong.
Still, the Republican's official party line, much moreso than the Democrats, reflects its tradition of catering to the concerns of Southern racists.
This demonstrates that you haven't a clue about the GOP's official party line. The only party that has ever catered to the Southern racists is the Democrats.
Finally, I am not a Democrat. I vote Democratic
And the difference would be?
My original comment in 2769 was inspired by my belief that there are some in this forum who would deny me my right to defend myself with a gun, but then apparently turn around and say the state can execute people.
I'm sure there are. So what?
Not trying to argue with anyone
So nothing... they are just the furthest from me in viewpoint.
That's true, and the appeals process in the DP tends to be drawn out. From what I've read about the inmates who've been exonerated over the years, the problem with erroneous convictions in DP cases seems to be largely the same as with other crimes -- poor defendants saddled with inept public defenders. Not that all PDs are inept, mind you, but at the least, they were not adept (or just had too much of a caseload to find the time) at finding exculpatory evidence.
And of course it's impossible to prove whether or not the prosecution knows of such exculpatory evidence, but there have been cases that make one wonder.
Plus in DP cases especially, cops are frequently called as witnesses. Juries tend to believe and side with cops (and rightly so, for the most part). Many times, a jury's decision boils down to perception.
Odd that this subject comes up. On Halloween night, CourtTV had a marathon of hour-long serial-killer profiles (yes, I know, I lead a dull life). I saw a couple of them, one on Gacy, one on Ramirez, and one on Bundy. I think when one hears the graphic details of what they did, it's much easier to endorse the idea of executing them.
Oh, please. Two obvious contrary examples: David Duke as Republican nominee for governor of Louisiana, and Trent Lott as keynote speaker before the Council of Conservative Citizens.
By the way, Trent Lott is another example of a Democratic politician turned Republican. I wonder why he thought the Republican party was more suited to his views?
You say that I can not pick and choose what sort of "discrimination" is acceptable and unacceptable (implying that I am granting license to my capricious whims). There are two obvious responses: first, your assertion that "discrimination" is always bad amounts to the same sort of picking and choosing; second, that affirmative action isn't discrimination. Discrimination is not just wrong; it is wrong for a reason. To me, that reason is because it builds upon a legacy in which certain groups of people have been arbitrarily persecuted. For you, it is apparently wrong because it recognizes the existence of those groups which have born the brunt of historical oppression.
Advocating racial discrimination in the form of preferences, set-asides or quotas is divisive. Advocating equal treatment is not divisive.
How does that respond to my argument that affirmative action is necessary for equal treatment? What is "preferences," as you characterize them, are necessary for "equal treatment?"
It doesn't matter whether you feel justified in discriminating for or against a group, it is still divisive. The KKK feels just as justified as you do that their discrimination is proper. Discrimination is wrong no matter what your motives...
You are deconstructing. All discrimination based on race is necessarily bad. You can't say "When you discriminate it is bad, but when I discriminate it is alright because my motives are better."
If you want to level the field, then level the field. Discrimination cannot do that. It favors one group over another on the basis of skin color. It is inherently wrong.
Suggest an alternative. Your fetishization of color blindness is amusing - it never fails to maze me how an initially progressive argument can be turned regressive.
This demonstrates that you haven't a clue about the GOP's official party line. The only party that has ever catered to the Southern racists is the Democrats.
Whatever. Democrats explicitly catered to racists until the mid-sixties. Both parties have catered to it since then, but the Republicans do so much more explicitly. For Christ's sake, almost everything about modern Republicanism reflects the ethical and governmental desires of the anti-desegregation South - from state's rights down to school vouchers.
"In 1972, the core of President Nixon's reelection campaign was not break-ins and wire-tapping but rather the "Southern
strategy," or as the Nixon team called it, "positive polarization." It was about winning over the South by pitting a singled-out
minority, such as African Americans, against a fearful majority, such as angry Southern whites. The key was to play directly into
the hands of bigotry and intolerance, veering away from the heritage of the party of Lincoln.
"This was the same Nixon who had been vice president when President Eisenhower sent troops into Arkansas and Mississippi
to enforce desegregation orders against the insolent resistance of racist Democratic governors and police chiefs. Nixon's
Faustian reversal radically changed the GOP, shifting the party's center of gravity and making intolerance toward minorities of
all kinds a hallmark of Republican strategic thinking."
That's the same article I linked above.
Anyway, here's the cite for what I just quoted: http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/othersrv/isar/Institut/CCC/southernstrategy.html
The author is with the Log Cabin Republicans.
David Duke was defeated because Republicans actively campaigned against him. He received no support from the national party. Try again.
Lott has also spoken before the NAACP. What does that prove?
I wonder why he thought the Republican party was more suited to his views?
Uh, because he agrees with the GOP on subjects like taxation, defense, the role of government, etc.
Actually, the cornerstone of Nixon's Southern strategy was ending federal efforts to desegregate schools and appointing "strict constructionists" from the South to the Supreme Court. These moves, as well as the continuing GOP efforts to pander to white bigots in the South -- which were plain to anyone inside the party, except perhaps the most self-deluded partisan -- are the primary reason I left the Republican party in the late '70s. Trying to pretend that Democrats are lying about the strategy and the cynicism underlying it are simply delusional or revisionist.
Here are some non-Democratic sources discussing the strategy:
Richard Tafel of the Log Cabin Republicans on the bottoming out of the strategy
Samuel Francis rips Kemp for decrying 'Southern strategy'
Get real. You are saying "I get to discriminate because I am wise and good, but you can't because you are evil." ALL racial discrimination is wrong. There is no picking and choosing involved.
second, that affirmative action isn't discrimination.
There are forms of AA that are not. They aren't the issue. The issue is preferences, set-asides and quotas. They are discrimination and denying will do you no good.
Discrimination is not just wrong; it is wrong for a reason.
It is wrong because it makes judgements about people based on superficial characteristics, in this case skin color.
How does that respond to my argument that affirmative action is necessary for equal treatment? What is "preferences," as you characterize them, are necessary for "equal treatment?"
How can you possibly make this argument? Preferential treatment = equal treatment? It is absurd.
Don't you recognize the irony in this?
Don't you recognize the illogic of your position?
We simply identify "discrimination" differently.
The difference as I see it is that you think it is all right to make decisions about people by their skin color and I do not. Please explain why that doesn't make you a racist? Because your motives are pure?
It amazes me that you support something as vile and desctructive as racial disctrimination. My alternative is simple. End discrimination. Prosecute those violate the law. No preferences based on race.
Both parties have catered to it since then, but the Republicans do so much more explicitly.
Get real. Who brings race into virtually every discussion? Democrats! The Democrats are now and have always been the party of racism and racial division.
If this is documented fact, then provide some documentation. All I've seen is claims that Nixon did this and Nixon did that. How about a quote from Nixon, a speech, a campaign ad, anything?
I will ask you the same thing. Do you have any documentation for these claims? What has the GOP done to pander specifically to white bigots in the South? What statements were made by Nixon or his campaign to indicate a reversal in the party's commitment to civil rights? Why would an entire party go against 100 years of tradition for the sake of a few votes in the South? It is absurd on its face. I am surprised you support it.
He belongs to a "whites-only" country club.
In the 60's there were conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. Between '68 and '72 the Humphrey wing (moderate to conservative) was ousted by the McGovern wing (liberal). It is the reason that many conservative Democrats changed parties. When Lott was a young man in the South, there was only one option if you wanted a career in politics, the Democratic Party. When that situation changes, Lott changed parties.
Grey --
So your point is that we should uniformly withhold information from citizens because it might be abused, or only information about convicted sex offenders?
Or are you just pointing out that the state screwed up by not reporting accurate information in the first place?
I am saying that there should not be a sex offender registry. Keeping such a registry invites attacks on the sex offenders. Yes, yes, some will say that is a good thing. My opinion is that either the offender has paid his debt to society or he should stay in prison. Why release him from prison so that he can be punished by vigilante justice?
It is inevitable that the infomation contained in such a registry is outdated or just plain inaccurate, causing grief for the innocent. And what about the family members that released sex offenders live with? What if they have committed no crimes, but nevertheless have their addresses published?
I am certainly not advocating being soft on child molsters. I have kids, too. I am not opposed to long jail sentences for deserving offenders.
"Would you feel different if it had been the sex offender who was attacked? I know I would, but I am curious how you feel about it."
My emotional response would be, "Go ahead and kick the shit out of that pervert." But, unless you are willing to endorse vigilante-ism, such a response should be suppressed.
If the family of the sex offender's victim was taking vengeance, it would certainly be understandable, but cannot be condoned by society. In the case of the story I linked, it appeared that the assailants didn't even know who the sex offender was (since they beat up the wrong guy). I would be interested in knowing the rationale for what they did.
Agreed. In fact, given that most sex offenders are not rehabilitable, keep them in jail. Make it a club Fed after the first couple years. Put them on their own island.
But not this nonsense of registering them.
Wow, that Log Cabin Republican article is pretty popular. Thanks for the info. = my characterization was pretty similar: see Message # 2754.
JJ:
1. I am not a racist because I dislike white males. I am potentially biased, but since there is no legacy of oppression, I am not racist. (This was illustrative, though not far from the truth).
2. The government isn't the only oppressive force in the world. Sometimes the workings of the market, sometimes conscious, intentional discrimination and sometimes unconscious, social discrimination disproportionately disadvantage people who have been historically identified as minorities.
3. By taking action to remedy the disadvantages born by minorities because of their social position, the government can use "preferential treatment" to increase "equal treatment."
4. It amazes me that you support something as vile and desctructive as racial disctrimination. My alternative is simple. End discrimination. Prosecute those violate the law. No preferences based on race.
You can not end social discrimination unless you allow some level of race consciousness in the law.
I agree with Cal, to a point: I don't believe it can be proven that child molesters are rehabilitable (by which I mean they will not recidivate). Given that, I see no reason to let them out.
However, since we have decided that warehousing is not an option for molesters (no doubt because the prisons are too full of dangerous drug users, who, if released, might run for political office), I'm all for registration. I'm not especially moved by the argument that the molester has "paid his debt to society;" the point of registration is to make it more difficult for him to incur future debts. It's not as effective as warehousing, but I'll settle for registration if I have to.
The current laws encourage vigilantism. If registration has to occur, then I think the current procedure needs to be improved. Megan's Law is an abomination, IMO.
Are there any recent statistics on child molesters? Is cure possible?
Back in the dark ages (50s/60s) I was taught that this was learned behavior that, essentially, could not be unlearned.
As you may know, there were some work in that era consisting of putting men on large doses of female hormones. It worked! Was it the ACLU that put a stop to it? Someone did.
"but I'll settle for registration if I have to."
And what about vigilanteism, inaccurate information in the registries, and innocent family members who are harrassed because of the registries?
I am somewhat undecided about the issue of taking DNA samples from everyone who is arrested. It doesn't seem all that much different than fingerprinting, as long as the DNA is only used for identification purposes. If such a procedure can help to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, then its difficult for me to oppose it.
Of course I would oppose the police sharing the DNA with your insurance company or employer so they could check for genetic predispositions.
What's your opinion?
ranheim --
When I prosecuted courts-martial for the Air Force, I tried about 30 child molesters. There were tons of statistics then; none showed that a cure was possible. I don't keep current on the state of the art, but I seriously doubt it's changed.
The hormone treatments you describe --sometimes called "chemical castration" -- had, as I recall, a mixed track record for effectiveness. I believe they're still used, but I'm not certain. Nowdays, I'd be concerned about some joker getting his hands on Viagra to counteract his Depo-provera. Unless they're fatal in combination. Hmmm ...
Cal is right: the current laws encourage vigilantism. I'd support changing them. But I can't support turning dangerous offenders loose without warning the public.
An excerpt:
Three main points the association proposed for reforming the Illinois capital punishment system were: Eliminating single witness identifications; requiring reliability hearings for government informants; and requiring videotaping of all police interrogations.
Another excerpt:
"The Chicago police department has acknowledged that police members have engaged in torture. We're talking about electric shock and Russian roulette," Marshall said. "Anybody in their right mind would confess."
Letting the jury see and hear the entire interrogation process leading up to the confession -- as well as the confession itself -- is needed to accurately decide who is guilty, Marshall said.
While the damage they cause is severe, I'm not sure the cost of putting them in a penitentiary is justified. (I'm excluding the violent ones, obviously) And then there is the fact that we let actual murderers out in 7-10 years on occasion. Toss in the fact that most of them don't act out of choice, but out of some completely broken wiring, I think they should have a special prison just for sex offenders.
Greystoke, Message # 2829
Some form of DNA directory is sure to come about but I would object to the police having such information on any but persons convicted of violent felonies.
Any other collection of DNA should be accessible only through a warrant.
A second strike builds in a safety. Sure, it is possible a conviction can be erroneous (as in McMartin). But lightning striking twice?
I am sure that there are appeals. I seem to recall someone making this argument before about....death penalty cases, wasn't it?
"Any other collection of DNA should be accessible only through a warrant."
How is collecting DNA significantly different from taking fingerprints? Even those charged with misdemeanors get their fingerprints taken.
Find me one person executed on a first offense, and I'll concede the point.
msg #2833
A telling excerpt from your link:
Did Kinsey researchers actually measure the arched staffs of their subjects?
"No," the Canadian admitted. "The subjects reported themselves, either by mailing their measurements in, or by reporting their size to an interviewer."
I'm conducting a study. Mine's the size of a baseball bat. How about yours?
I did say that it depended on the type of offense. I would not lock up weenie waggers for life. That being said, I'm sure there are people whose first crime was a murder.
"Officer, this man was exposing himself to a woman directly to my right. When she screamed, he turned to run away and his member knocked me off the sidewalk and into oncoming traffic."
Ah yes -- the old make-up-your-own-definition trick.
How's this: a racist is someone who judges people based on their race, unless he goes by the nickname "Stumbo."
So: "I think all niggers and gooks should be shot on sight, but since my nickname is 'Stumbo,' I am not racist."
Sounds about as good as your defense, Dave.
"If so, then why was Lott ever a Democrat to begin with?"
Because he was young and foolish. But he grew up as most people do. I will not make the claim that all grow up; there is too much evidence to the contrary.
At one time I was a big supporter of AA, in that I thought that companies and trades should make an effort to hire and train minorities. I was convinced that given an equal opportunity, blacks could compete on a level playing field. Liberals do do believe that; they are convinced that African Americans are an inferior race and that they need special treatment, much like little children and women. Should we concede to them? I think not.
You're cool.
Gooks ain't oppressed.
The sex-offender registry discussion reminded me of a story in the local paper last week, that I started reading but never finished (it was from one of the news services). Anyway, it seems a convicted molester was released from prison some years back after doing his time. Shortly thereafter he was assaulted by several people, including one or two members of the victim's family.
Anyway, the story was about the sheriff in the case, who was successfully sued by the molester. It seems that when he was assaulted, his assailants cut off his balls.
...which the sheriff proudly displayed in a jar on his desk.
"he'd probably do some serious damage and do time on a related aggravated assault charge."
You wouldn't believe how many raincoats I go through.
"I would not lock up weenie waggers for life. "
We prefer the term "garmentally deficient."
GM/CS$ d- s+/- a C++ UL/S$ !E W++ N++ K+++ !w ?O M+ V PS PE++ Y t--->? !5 X- R- tv++ b++ DI+ !D G-- e++++ h+ r y++
(That's proof of the latter.)
To clarify my view:
Scratch collection.
"Any other (library, database, file, archive) of DNA should be accessible only through a warrant."
As far as I know a fingerprint, is a fingerprint, is a fingerprint.
Whereas DNA is a blueprint of me and my ancestors as well as an analysis of all my operating systems.
The criminal justice system has a legitimate interest in matching my fingerprints to those on the bank vault. But they don't need to know my family maladies.
What's the CJ System gonna do - sell your dna info to the insurance companies?
joezan,
Yes. Insurance companies, bankers, lawyers, employers, nosy neighbors, political opponents, run-of-the-mill mischief makers and assorted blackmailers.
I have no doubt that DNA databases will exist one day and that they will not be secure. Nothing is. But the last place to entrust such information is the criminal justice system.
rjb:
I agree, mostly. But, planted evidence notwithstanding, of all the entities you listed, I'd say the CJ System is likely to have the least sinister intent.
WAY larger.
I don't know if many of you remember Cyrus Krohn, formerly managing editor of Slate and Fray Overlord. Some of you met him at the two Fray gatherings in Seattle.
Anyway, he had a little run-in recently...
Cyrus Krohn, Seattle murder suspect
WAY larger.
In the dreamtime, my ancestors invented the tent pole.
Wow. Small world, no? Did the cops bug you for very long yesterday? I recall you saying you were in the area too.
You know, now that I think about it, Spudboy, you have talked about your extensive experience hunting with guns. And you hang out with them Freemen guys. I read your book; I'm on to you, buddy.
BTW, if you're looking for yet another bizarre conspiracy link, this one will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the Skull & Bones Society, but were afraid to ask. Find out all about the Bush family's master plan to enslave humanity!
so, if the bad guys remain locked up, what is the purpose of public access top registration info, o'r reg istragtion at all?
As NATO troops occupied Kosovo, maps showing 'dozens' of mass graves were disseminated to the public. There was particular excitement when "the biggest mass grave ever" was announced to have been discovered in Ljubenic. It was said to contain 350 bodies, a figure given extensive play in the media. However, the true figure turns out to be only seven. Billed as the "biggest mass grave in Kosovo," Ljubenic was in fact not a mass grave at all.
Excerpted:
"Similarly, on Oct. 11, a spokesman for the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague announced that no bodies or bones had been found in the mines at Trepca in northern Kosovo: rumours had been circulating in Kosovo that Serbian forces had dumped the bodies of as many as 700 Kosovars into its shafts.
Various experts have confirmed the more extravagant claims were fantasy. In August, Perez Pujol, a Spanish forensic expert, told El Pais, "I have been reading the data from the UN. They began with 44,000 deaths. Then they lowered it to 22,000. And now they're going with 11,000. I look forward to seeing what the final count will really be."
The chief Spanish inspector, Juan Lopez Palafox, added: "They told us that we should prepare ourselves to perform more than 2,000 autopsies. The result is very different. We only found 187 cadavers and now we are going to return [to Spain]."
(1) About 100 prisoners of unknown nationality from the Kosovo Prison bombed by NATO. Some of these were killed by bombs and others shot while trying to escape;
(2) Several persons that the Spanish forensic experts found had died of natural causes;
(3) Up to 250 Albanians killed in NATO strafing and bombing runs;
(4) A few of the 600 Serbs kidnapped since the end of the war;
(5) A few Albanians, Serbs and other nationalities kidnapped and killed in the months before the NATO bombing;
(6) A few hundred of the estimated 4,000 KLA troops killed during the war.
(7) A few Kosovo residents that picked up cluster bombs during the last days of the war;
(8) A few dozen Serb soldiers and reservists that are still missing from the war.
This is an example of what results can be expected from the idiotic 'foreign policy' of a corrupt socialist treasonous WH Rapist selected by the Party of War.
POLICE OTHER THAN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Well, duh.
Perhaps we should take them on a tour of the Westside. Then again, it probably wouldn’t help. Only one of them has the right skin
color, and the rest of them would certainly stand out in their black robes.
I can see the police report now: “I saw a group wearing obvious gang attire. One of them was clearly the leader, since he had stripes
on his black outfit, so I issued them an antigang loitering citation. While patting them down for officer safety reasons, one of them
began pounding my car with a wooden hammer he had concealed under his black attire and screaming, “guilty, guilty, guilty,” so
I had to arrest him to determine exactly what he was guilty of. The others ran to his assistance, so I arrested them also. After
reading them their Miranda rights, three of them spontaneously announced that they were “Out to kill cops” and that is why they
had a wooden hammer. I wrote down their exact words and asked, politely, if the gang leader would sign a statement. He did so
voluntarily and freely. (See attached confession.) I then transported them to the hospital because I had scratched my finger on the
handcuffs as I placed them on the gang members and needed medical attention. The suspects all received medical attention also,
for minor cuts and bruises and broken bones they inflicted upon each other. In the car I heard one of them say, in a spontaneous
declaration, “I will cut your head if you’ll break my arm so that we can claim this cop beat us up.”“
S.J.
I heard the story last night on PBS. I did not get the case name, but apparently it involved a man in Chicago who, when he saw a
bunch of police cars turning around a corner and converging on his location began to run (I personally cannot think of any reason
why a person would run from the Chicago police that way). One of the police cars followed him, stopped him, patted him down,
and found a gun. He was convicted of carrying a firearm. He appealed, saying the search was illegal.
It seemed, during argument, the Supremes were divided between the so-called liberals, and the so-called conservatives. One of
the so-called liberal justices, apparently said that there were many reasons why the man might run from the police – for example,
I suppose, he might have been late for the opera and did not wish to miss the opening aria. Scalia, on the other hand, wondered
why they didn’t just shoot the man and be done with it.
This case will further “refine” the issue of Terry stops. Be prepared when this decision comes out to have the police in Modesto
routinely stopping people and shaking them down and then saying in their reports they took off running.
is access in Netscape's ABC News.Com, reported Thursday that the U.S.
Department of Justice is in a quandry over how to respond to the appeal
from the Fourth Circut, where the U.S. Court o f Appeals overturned
Miranda. She reports that, " Justice has already asked for two
extensions because it faces a real Hobsonis choice . . ."
She goes on to report that the Department of Justice "now has to argue
somehow that the Dickerson
prosecution should be upheld, Miranda not overturned, and a
Congressional statute o which it would normally defend o should be
tossed
""Cracker", "Get that white boy out of here!", "Clinton is the only good White Man!", etc.
'Clinton is the only good white man?' What racist insanity it this?
I'm conducting a study. Mine's the size of a baseball bat. How about yours?
Hey, I've seen those miniature bats at souvenir stands. Used for key chains, if I recall correctly.
If so, then why was Lott ever a Democrat to begin with?
Many of us have committed youthful indiscretions.
GM/CS$ d- s+/- a C++ UL/S$ !E W++ N++ K+++ !w ?O M+ V PS PE++ Y t--->? !5 X- R- tv++ b++ DI+ !D G-- e++++ h+ r y++
(That's proof of the latter.)
No, it's called argument from authority.
concerned - Message # 2861:
I posted the very same thing months ago - a couple of weeks after the bombing stopped. At that time, the revised estimate (by UN inspectors) was less than 10,000 Kosovars killed. I had a feeling those numbers would continue to decrease.
Another fallacy, apparently, was NATO claims of a "seriously degraded" Serb military. The same inspection turned up evidence that upwards of 50% of the tanks and artillery reported destroyed during the bombing campaign were either wooden decoys or civilian vehicles.
But, as we know, a year from now there will be some here who will be touting the "glorious victory" in Kosovo as just one chapter of the Clinton legacy.
LOL!
(The truth hurts, don't it?)
I just walk briskly
Meanwhile on the penis front, here's something that our bat boy greystoke should know about.Or maybe not. In any event, this is For Mature Audiences Only, meaning that sensitive souls like Ace MUST be forewarned at all costs in advance,lest it upset their delicate ecosystems. The photo in question might best be described as Your Truly offering a hearty "Good Morning," to 109>
Now Cyrus has a story to tell about being stopped by the police because he fit the description...a white man running amok. (re: #2857)
1. I am not a racist because I dislike white males. I am potentially biased, but since there is no legacy of oppression, I am not racist.
David Duke claims he isn't a racist either. Your claim has as much credibility as his does. If you judge someone by their race, you are a racist. Period. The "legacy of oppression" defense is a cop out.
2. The government isn't the only oppressive force in the world. . .
Traditionally government has been the most oppresive force in racial discrimination. I agree that discrimination exists, but giving someone an advantage based on the color of their skin is not the solution. Discrimination should be prosecuted and punished.
3. By taking action to remedy the disadvantages born by minorities because of their social position, the government can use "preferential treatment" to increase "equal treatment."
This is completely illogical. You can't use preferential treatment to increase equal treatment. It is a complete nonsequitur. It is like using sex to increase celibacy.
4. You can not end social discrimination unless you allow some level of race consciousness in the law.
The only way to end social discrimination is to remove racism from the law. Then you can enforce it in society.
You want to view society as a set of groups. You want to correct problems by taking from one group and giving to another in the hope that somehow the aggregate will even out.
The problem is that we do not exist as groups. We exist as individuals. It is wrong to discriminate against an individual based on his skin color regardless of what that skin color is. If you want to help the disadvantaged, then help the disadvantaged, but don't bring race into it. And don't try to tell me that all blacks are disadvantaged, I know better.
I don't know what you're laughing at. You're more white than you are black.
BTW, since Cyrus was stopped because he fit a description, does this mean you will stop bringing up your incident with the LAPD? I know it is fun to play the martyr, but it the act gets old.
According to J.J., doing something about such treatment constitutes racism.
Tell it to the LAPD, J.J. They don't see it that way.
At all.
What children?
I didn't say that, did I. I said prosecute and punish those guilty. I don't think it is appropriate to say, "Poor little Cellar Door, he is black so we will always put him at the front of the line, give him the best desk and always give him an A."
Tell it to the LAPD, J.J. They don't see it that way.
How many cops are there in LA? How long have you been in LA? How many times have you been stopped? Once? Get over it.
There is certainly some truth that idea that to eliminate racial discrimination we must eliminate racial discrimination, but to obtain a state of color blindness we must first overcome our simple blindness and that takes surgery.
JJ:
What children?
2885. Cellar Door - 11/5/99 11:23:36 AM
I think he meant Ace, Judith.
Actually, I meant me.
It's common knowledge that blacks are routinely stopped in LA for DWB.
During the riots, NONE.
How long have you been in LA?
Since 1976.
How many times have you been stopped? Once?
I've lost count.
Get over it.
This is a racist society. YOU get over it.
It is this kind of thinking that is destructive. If they are at the same level, then neither is at a disadvantage. To give a preference to either one based on their race is wrong.
It happens where I live as well. I don't condone the behavior and believe cops who engage in it should be punished. Explain why this means that schools should have lower entrance requirements for blacks. Or why the government should give preferences to blacks in contracts.
Why not ask me to explain the riddle of the universe....I don't necessairly think that because police act like boors we should lower requirements for entrance into schools or give preferences in government contracts; tell me, JJ, what do you suggest we do to promote more contracts for minority owned businesses? How do you suggest we make an college education available and open to all those who aspire to a better life?
My bosses got a lot of grief for hiring me instead of a minority.
The job that needed to be filled required skill set:
ABCDEF
I had skill set:
ABCD FGH
The minority I was competing against had skill set:
B E IJK
There were people who were actually adamant that they should have passed me over and built a job to suit the minority's skill set... when it's not the skills needed to fill a specific position. I was lucky I was so ideally suited for the job or I probably wouldn't have gotten the job.
That was potentially affirmative action at its worst.
I was just turning the tables on JJ because he always addresses me as though I were the standard bearer for everything liberal and Bill Clintons premier apologist. I can't make a remark that he doesn't hit me with a bombardment of questions asking me to justify every single thing the Democrats have done since time immemorial.
Oh, I wasn't challenging you. I ws just answering you. I don't think of you as a standard bearer, I promise. Thursday November 4 7:26 PM ET
White cells may help repair spinal cord injury
NEW YORK, Nov 04 (Reuters Health) -- The first US
Food and Drug Administration-approved clinical
trial using autologous macrophage therapy in newly
injured spinal cord patients will begin this month
in Israel, according to a report presented this
week at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Congress of
Neurological Surgeons, held in Boston.
In this potential treatment, which has shown
promise in animal studies, a specific type of
white blood cells called macrophages are taken
from the injured patient, processed, and then
injected into the spinal cord at the site of the
injury. The goal of the technique is to use
macrophages to promote healing and regeneration of
severed nerves in the damaged cord. Macrophages
cannot naturally get to the site of spinal cord
injury.
Dr. Nachshon Knoller of Sheba Medical Center in
Tel Aviv, Israel, told Reuters Health that in
preclinical studies ``about 75% of animals showed
nerve regeneration'' following spinal cord injury
using this technique.
Knoller and colleagues at Sheba Medical Center and
at Rabin Medical Center in Tel Aviv, plan to treat
up to 10 newly injured spinal cord patients to
determine if autologous macrophage therapy will
promote regeneration of nerve cells at the site of
cord injury.
``Enrolling patients is very complex in this
study,'' Knoller told Reuters Health. The
patients, who will range in age from 18 to 65
years, must have a newly acquired blunt spinal
injury between the fifth cervical and the tenth
thoracic vertebrae. To be eligible, patients
cannot be in spinal shock or have trouble
breathing, Knoller explained.
Continued...
``Every patient will receive standard treatments
during the acute stage of their injury,'' Knoller
said. All the patients will continue standard
long-term therapy at the National Spinal Cord
Injury Rehabilitation Center at Sheba Medical
Center, he added.
Therapy must be initiated within 5 to 14 days of
injury, Knoller said. If successful, the
researchers expect regeneration to occur within 9
to 12 months following treatment.
``For the first time, we might be able to
regenerate spinal nerve tissue,'' said Dr. Moshe
Hadani, chairman of the Neurosurgery Department at
Sheba Medical Center, in a statement. ``This new
modality has the potential to become a major
breakthrough in the treatment of diseases of the
central nervous system.'' The central nervous
system includes the brain and spinal cord.
About 450,000 people in the US have spinal cord
injuries, with more than 10,000 new cases each
year. Motor vehicle accidents and violent attacks
are the most common causes of such injuries, which
can result in loss of sensation and paralysis of
the legs or the arms and legs. Injuries to the
spinal cord in the neck can also interfere with
the patient's ability to breathe.
Thursday November 4 7:28 PM ET
Personality due to nurture, not nature
NEW YORK, Nov 04 (Reuters Health) -- What gets the credit -- or blame
-- for personality? The genes we inherit? Or the environment we grow
up in? In this great debate, lab rats have won a round for the
environment, according to results of a study that found behavior
learned from mothers is passed on to offspring in the next generation.
A team of researchers led by Dr. Michael J. Meaney of McGill
University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, looked at how maternal
behavior in Norway rats affects responses to stress in offspring over
several generations. It has already been shown that pups whose mothers
lick and groom them more during nursing tend to be less fearful and
less responsive to stress.
Female offspring of attentive mothers tend to be similarly attentive
to their own pups, the researchers found, while those of less
attentive mothers tend to follow suit, and also be less attentive. To
find out if this behavior is genetic or learned, pups from each type
of mother were fostered to the opposite type, and then observed when
they matured and had pups of their own.
The researchers report that pups raised by attentive mothers,
regardless of which type their biological mothers were, were
significantly less fearful than pups raised by non-attentive mothers.
As adults, female pups raised by attentive mothers were more attentive
to their own pups, and those raised by non-attentive mothers were less
attentive to their pups, again regardless of what their biological
mothers were like.
Continued...
To further test the theory that this maternal behavior is learned, not
genetic, the researchers did one more experiment. When pups are
handled by humans, mother rats tend to lick and groom them more. The
researchers found that among females whose own mothers had been
less-attentive, handling pups frequently made the mothers lick and
groom more, as expected. When their own offspring -- the third
generation -- had pups, these mothers were just as attentive as those
who had been raised by attentive mothers.
Writing in the November 5th issue of Science, Meaney and his
colleagues suggest that these behaviors do not seem to be genetically
determined, but are learned during a pup's first week of life, and
then passed on through subsequent generations. They emphasize that
providing pups with more attentive maternal environments not only
changed their responses to stress, but also taught them to be more
attentive mothers themselves.
``In humans, social, emotional, and economic context influence the
quality of the relationship between parent and child, and can show
continuity across generations,'' they conclude. ``Our findings in rats
may thus be relevant in understanding the importance of early
intervention programs in humans.''
SOURCE: Science 1999;286:1155-1158.
DaveM, et al, have been defending racial discrimination and you jumped in with your comment about DWB. I was trying to figure out how it related to the subject.
I don't necessairly think that because police act like boors we should lower requirements for entrance into schools or give preferences in government contracts;
I am glad to hear it.
what do you suggest we do to promote more contracts for minority owned businesses?
I don't know that more contracts is necessarily a good thing if it harms someone else. Proposals should be evaluated without regard to the race of the owners. The company best suited for the contract should be chosen. Minority owned businesses will get a proportionate share of the contracts because the color of one's skin does not affect their ability to run a business.
How do you suggest we make an college education available and open to all those who aspire to a better life?
Everyone aspires to a better life. As I said, if you want to help the disadvantaged, then help the disadvantaged. Just leave race out of it. The first step is to correct the funding disparity between urban, suburban and rural schools. Fix the schools that are crumbling around the student's ears. Give all students the tools to compete. Don't try to correct the problem after the fact by applying different standards. It does the student no good to be accepted to a school when they haven't been given the resources to compete. Recognize that most problems are based on socioeconomics, not race.
Here's the foundation for a novel argument -- that killing gays is a protected activity under the First Amendment:
***
Paper: Brother Admits Shooting Gays
The Associated Press
Friday, Nov. 5, 1999; 6:39 a.m. EST
REDDING, Calif. –– One of two brothers charged with killing a gay couple in July has admitted shooting them in their bed, The Sacramento Bee reported today.
In a jailhouse interview, Benjamin Matthew Williams insisted Thursday that his younger brother, James Tyler Williams, who also is charged in the killings, had nothing to do with the crime.
Williams told the newspaper that he killed the men because he believed their homosexuality violated God's laws. He said he hoped his violence would incite more killings.
"I'm not guilty of murder," said Williams, a 31-year-old landscaper. "I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the Creator," which he said holds that homosexuality must be punished by death.
"You obey a government of man until there is a conflict," he said. "Then you obey a higher law. So many people claim to be Christians and complain about all these things their religion says are a sin, but they're not willing to do anything about it. They don't have the guts."
... The elder Williams' court-appointed attorney, Frank J. O'Connor, told the newspaper he wasn't surprised by his client's comments.
"It's not a whodunit," O'Connor said. He confirmed that his client is hoping to use a "religious defense" when the case goes to trial.
***
The story goes on to discuss the brothers' suspected involvement in firebombing three synagogues. No doubt the Lord commanded those particular acts, as well.
CalGal: Message # 2898
Skill sets don't matter fer shit a great deal of the time.
C'mon - you don't really believe that!
Well, maybe when people are competing for an entry-level position. But beyond that?
And as far as a company's obligation to have a diverse work force, I am very tired of hearing that. My best friend just got turned down for the job he was made for, and for which he has been pursuing his masters (although he already is eminently qualified), for the third time. Why? Because of community pressure to hire from the dominant minority group.
Never mind that we already employ a higher % of that minority group than is represented in the community - they want their man in that position.
Never mind that whenever I talk to students in the CJ programs at the local colleges, I never see one member of that minority group.
Subsequently, both of the guys we hired were hired from outside the field, and it showed immediately, and only got worse.
So, what happened to the other two people who were hired in front of my friend? They both left before their 3 month probation was up, for jobs in their own field.
Far more jobs are won on the basis of who the applicant knows rather than a skill set. Additionally, many jobs are won on the basis of similar interests; i.e., Steeler fan, same fraternity, etc.
Skill sets often never come into play because they are not tested or evaluated during the hiring process.
I suspect that young Mr. Williams would have expected Jesus to administer a double-tap to the head Himself. Unless Jesus was a fag.
Come to think of it, He does look a little prissy in all those paintings of Him, doesn't He? Maybe He's a little light in the sandals, if you get my drift ...
Incidentally, Message 2915 was solely intended to express disapproval of Mr. Williams' views, using satire as the vehicle for doing so. It was not intended to disparage Jesus. The literal-minded and irony-impaired need not post hate mail in response.
Unless you agree with Mr. Williams' contention that all gays should be killed, in which case, post away.
Hmmmmnnn...
Pre-emptive - or would it be preventive - ass covering?
Thirthyish, unmarried, hangs out with 12 other guys, very attached to his mother -- YOU do the math. Right?
Yeah, but he also hung out with prostitutes.
Oh, the blessed irony. At least DaveM is honest enough to admit he favors racial discrimination.
cllrdr:
Well, if we're gonna determine sexual preference by pictures, then the Village People must all be straight, right?
Joe - Cellar has gone well beyond mere pictures and into behavior.
No, I'm not actually arguing that JC was gay, but I am arguing that he could have been.
I agree with Cal Gal if skill sets are relatively similar or analagous... Joezan and I are talking about people who are hired when their knowledge and abilities are way outside the requirements to do the work. This is a case where affirmative action is incorrectly applied.
Of course companies have leeway in hiring, that's their perogative... The job I was applying to was federal, and highly technical. They needed certain abilities in order to get their objective accomplished.
I happened to come in on the heels of another minority that was hired into a job he was marginally qualified for, he got preferentially given promotions whetehr he had the training or not. When it was all over, he flat out couldn't do the work correctly. It was a mess, he was unhappy, his bosses were unhappy, the work wasn't getting done. He wound up leaving and a lot of time, effort, and money were wasted.
I'm applying to other jobs right now... I sure do spend a ton of time explaining on my applications what I can do and what I've accomplished. Hard to believe that's only meant to be ignored.
Oh, probably. But so is nepotism, favoritism, gosh the guy is useful to have around for the company baseball team, and so on. May as well throw color into the mix.
Do we know this? He and Mary Magdalene were pretty close. You don't suppose the boys just forgot to mention it in the gospel, do you?
Ooops, I'm going to hell for that one.
Why? Don't you hate it when someone is hired/promoted because of nepotism, favoritism, athletic ability? Don't you resent the person who took advantage of the situation? Why would you want to subject someone to that? It doesn't sound like you are doing him a favor.
Affirmative action does not require companies to hire people who are incompetent. If they do, that's the fault of the company, not the policy.
As to your experience, it is irrelevant and anecdotal. Have you ever known a white male superior who was incompetent and received promotions and advancement far beyond the Peter Principle?
Skill sets simply aren't evaluated in the hiring process most of the time.
I hate them all equally, which is to say not at all. Employment has nothing to do with "fair".
cazart:
Skill sets simply aren't evaluated in the hiring process most of the time
In my experience they most certainly are. In our hiring and interview process, in fact, education and skills are weighted the highest of all considerations. So, in our case, we are violating our own standards, and knowingly hiring inferior and/or unqualified people.
This comment could only come from someone who has never been involved in the hiring process. Skill sets are always evaulated. That is why people put their experience on their resumes. Other criteria are used as well, but only to distinguish between candidates with similar abilities.
This argument is usually put forward by failures who don't want to admit to themselves that they have nothing to offer an employer and need someone or something to blame. I can't say for sure if it is true in this case, but one can suspect.
I'll just move my chair a little further from the window, thankyouverymuch.....
Oh, probably. But so is nepotism, favoritism, gosh the guy is useful to have around for the company baseball team, and so on. May as well throw color into the mix.
One would think you should make sure they could do the job first before you consider racial diversity, golf ability, or the baseball crown.
First priority should be can they do what is needed...
If a company wants to hire someone just because of baseball, and ignore all other factors... then they should just give them the title "Baseball Player".
If a company wants to hire a minority for that only... you might as well go ahead and just call them the 'token minority'.
Companies can do this at their own peril, because somebody is going to have to pick up the slack when the new worker can't do their job. The backlash could easily lead to cynicism about the system, resentment directed at the minority, and develop into racist attitudes, thus defeating what affirmative action was trying to accomplish to begin with.
Oh, you should, should you. Glad to hear it.
There's "should" and there's "is".
All I'm saying is that employment is but rarely about the most qualified. So toss one thing more or less into the mix and quitcher whining.
I'm happy to say my advice helped land him a graduate assistantship and he's doing pretty well... more work than he ever expected it to be, but he'll do well I think.
JJ --
"Ooops, I'm going to hell for that one."
Save a couple of spots next to the lake of boiling blood for me and Cal, willya?
Well put.
The thing that rots my socks is that no one realizes we need minorities in representative numbers, nor wants them more badly, than those of us who do the interviewing and hiring (at least at my job).
Every month, we meet with a Citizens Advisory Committee (an organization, btw, which our court started, on our own and not due to any pressure, a few years ago in an effort to have more community input into court activities and practices). These are the people who are doing the complaining. Yet, when we explain to them that we are just not even getting any job applications from members of their community, and ask that they help us, the response has always been Hey - that's your problem.
Did I?...
Yes!
There's "should" and there's "is".
You could say the same thing about the existance racism to begin with... it shouldn't exist... but it does.
I can denounce anything that ins't the way it should be... I reject out of hand the "that's life" explanation.
On the contrary. I've owned my own business for over a decade now. During this period, I've hired probably half of my workforce of about 100 directly.
I did not say that evaluation of skill sets was not important; I did say that most companies did not evaluate the skill sets.
For example, say two applicants come in for a position requiring expert knowledge of C++. Both applicants list appropriate education/training in C++; both have work experience on their resume which indicates proficiency. Who gets the job? Dollars to donuts, it's the applicant who has an "in" with the company or has established a mutual interest with the hiring person.
There are engineers and there are engineers...
Affirmative action does not require companies to hire people who are incompetent. If they do, that's the fault of the company, not the policy.
As to your experience, it is irrelevant and anecdotal.
Annecdotal information is not irrelevent if it shows how a system is abused. I didn't say get rid of affirmative action... you are not reading everything I am writing very carefully. I'm saying that affirmative action, indiscriminately applied, defeats what it's trying to accomplish.
Quit skimming...
cazart:
But what's that got to do with AA?
I thought you said annecdotal information was irrelevant? Then you talk about people you hired...
get consistant why don't you?
JJ Biener stated that I had no experience with the hiring process. It was a falsehood directed at me and dealing with an issue concerning my experience (or lack thereof). Therefore, my anecdote was relevant.
On the other hand, to criticize a policy as broad as affirmative action by stating that you knew a minority hire who was incompetent is irrelevant. I attempted to demonstrate this by asking if you had ever known a white male superior who was incompetent. Obviously, you were unable to grasp this lesson.
My own experience is related to skill sets and the larger issue of affirmative action.
Most jobs simply do not go to the best qualified. There are many, many other factors involved. Very few companies can afford the time and expense of evaluating candidate skill sets.
No, cazart. Your example is worthless, because you do not even consider that there are also minority-owned businesses where cronyism and nepotism are just as rampant as in white-owned businesses. The difference is, a minority business owner's cronyism is never labeled discrimination.
you are skimming again...
I said... affirmative action.. "WHEN" (please note this word cazart) AA is abused it is wrong and serves to defeat the purpose of promoting racial equality. I have no problem with programs that seek to promote racial equality... seek to give minorities opportunities.
"_WHEN_" (please not the qualifier here Cazart... pay attention... I know your ADD kicks in here) the system is used indescriminately it can serve to undermine what it is trying to accomplish.
My annectdotes show an example of it being used the wrong way... I do not present them as a reason to dump the whole concept.
Quit Skimming...
cazart:
That's nonsense. To an extent, I consider the learning curve for any job I'm interviewing for., and have, in fact, voted for such things as attitude over experience. But only when there is a foreseeable return on my decision.
IOW, if the job is going to take an inexperienced person a year to learn, and I need something done now, I'd be an idiot to not hire the more experienced person. And I'm in the public sector. I cannot imagine that a small-business owner has any more of a luxury in that respect than I.
Perhaps you have an example of minority-owned nepotism, cronyism, and racism.
I can furnish you examples of white-owned business nepotism, cronyism, and racism. Texaco. Shoney's.
Maybe you're happy with your anecdotes, though....
cazart:
Nice try.
I mentioned nepotism and cronyism - not racism, which is out of context in this phase of the discussion. As you know, incidents of nepotism and cronyism do not make the news. Are you saying that this means there are none among minority business-owners?
"Affirmative action does not require companies to hire people who are incompetent. If they do, that's the fault of the company, not the policy."
Have you got that wrong. Not only hiring, but one major corporation that I know well sent a memo to all department heads stating that if there was a promotion spot open, they were to promote the minority employee even if he was unqualified for the job over a qualified applicant who was not a minority--train him was the mandate.
The FCC requires radio stations to hire a number of minorities in keeping with the percentage of population of minorities in the area--sounds simple, but they have to be hired in managerial and professional positions--station manager, sales manager, program director, air talents. Secretaries, clerical, etc. do not count.
Efforts to recruit minorities, in case of not finding applicants, had to be exhaustive and recorded in detail and would buy the station a reprieve although it would not postpone the requirement indefinitely.
Your anecdote remains irrelevant.
You keep stating that when affirmative action is abused. By whom? Affirmative action does not require companies to hire unqualified or incompetent candidates. Thus, if a candidate is hired who turns out to be incompetent--it is the fault of the company.
Should I be permitted to cry 'abuse' if I buy a stock that immediately goes south? Of course not. Nobody required me to make an investment or select that particular stock.
cazart:
Stinko analogy.
My examples were where people wanted to hire an incompentant person, and invent a job for them despite the work that was required, rather than hire me. They wanted to do this under the auspices of AA. So I don't know how you want me to interpret it. It's an attempted misapplication of AA. Plain and simple.
Wheter or not it is really AA is irrelevant... trying to do it in the name of AA is enough to make it wrong.
So I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
It's a fair analogy.
After all, you have yet to demonstrate that affirmative action requires or directs companies to hire unqualified or incompetent candidates. Instead, you offer some anecdote about some relative of yours who didn't get a job he wanted.
cazart:
No - you need to show how you are under any pressure to choose one stock over another, based on any factor other than past performance and/or projected future performance.
Your anecdote's not getting any better.
I must be plain; for your anecdote to be relevant, you must demonstrate that affirmative action requires companies to hire unqualified or incompetent people. The problem is that you cannot.
If I break into your house and steal your possessions, but I do so under the auspices of what I claim to be National Security, does that mean National Security is wrong or harmful? Of course not. It means I'm trying to blame my criminal behavior on something that does not apply.
Because we are talking about the misapplication of AA, we don't have to show you where AA directs companies to hire unqualified people.
I didn't ever say AA makes people hire underqualified minorites. I said that some are hired in the name of AA. That's why it's a "misapplication". Misapplications of a rule, mean they don't follow the spirit of the rule.
Then you would agree that affirmative action as a policy is not flawed, but that some companies are at fault?
I could agree with that.
That's why I've been trying to use qualifiers in each of my statements...
2897. iiibbb - 11/5/99 4:55:41 PM
I'll tell you how not to do it affirmative action... and this happened to me.
It was an example of how NOT to apply AA... a misapplication...
Then I proceeded to say how misapplications undermine what AA is trying to accomplish.
Ok - iiibbb, cazart - how would you two characterize my dilemma -misapplication? Unnecessary heavy-handedness? A situation where affirmative action is just not the answer?
Perhaps one example of what happens when the aggrieved refuse to assume some responsibility in the matter?
My apologies.
Must run now. Have house guests (yuck) for the weekend.
I think you are making an assumption about the purpose of affirmative action. I am not convinced that there aren't elements promoting affirmative action who want exactly the response you are describing. There are those who are well meaning and have bought into this scheme, but if you look at the history you have to wonder. People and groups don't change their stripes over night. It is hard to believe that all those Southern Democrats who stayed in the Democratic party suddenly had a change of heart.
Imagine you're a Southern Democrat in the mid-60's. You have been fighting for segregation your entire career, but you see the tide is turning against you. What would you do to return the country to what you believe is the correct course?
The first step would be to turn the races against each other, to foster an atmosphere of suspicion, distrust, anger and resentment. To the black communtiy your message is "The whites hate you. They will hold you back and hold you down unless the government intervenes on your behalf. They will not let you succeed. You have every right be angry. Express you anger. Fight back."
Your message to the white community is "Preferential treatment for blacks is equal treatment. Blacks who are less qualified will be given jobs and promotions ahead of you. If you dare complain you will be labelled as a racist and harassed publicly."
The second problem is how do you deal with blacks. You really don't want them to succeed, but you have to make them believe you are looking out for their best interests. The answer? Affirmative Action. It sounds so positive, how could anyone object. You want kids to fail so you admit them to colleges where they do not have tools to succeed, so they fail and drop out. You lobby for increases in education funding but then you spend it every where else and you leave the inner-city schools to decay. You hire them for jobs they can't do so they fail and quit. Each time you do this the anger in the white community increases. Eventually the white community will become so angry they will return to policy of segregation and you will have your victory.
It is hard to imagine that a group of people would actually attempt this, but it is equally hard to imagine that a group of people who were trying to help, could promote policies that were so destructive to their stated goals.
There's a real conspiratorial bent to this post, you know. Racist bigots are hardly so sophisticated as to attempt such a ruse, as near as I can tell.
Your position is downright Orwellian. Standing up for civil rights, as LBJ and the Democrats did in reversing course in the mid-'60s, was not fueled by a desire to widen the racial gap. You're contending, essentially, that all the efforts to combat racism since the 1950s have actually been designed to *promote* racism.
Yeah, sure. And ignorance is wisdom.
Ok - iiibbb, cazart - how would you two characterize my dilemma - misapplication? Unnecessary heavy-handedness? A situation where affirmative action is just not the answer?
I think misapplication is anytime someone considers race before qualifications. If qualifications are equal, then you may proceed to consider racial equity, baseball teams, fishing partners etc...
This contradicts your original statement. You said skill sets are not used in hiring decisions. Obviously they are because they eliminated all of the applicants who did not have sufficient knowledge of C++.
Pay attention. I said nothing about standing up for civil rights. I said nothing about efforts to combat racism. I alluded to specific policies which included racial preferences, set-asides and quotas. I mentioned the use of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at creating anger and resentment in the black community. I mentioned the constant accusations of racism and hate-mongering aimed at opponents to divert attention from one's own activities. These have been the policies of the Democratic Party since the late 60's. These policies are a betrayal of principles LBJ and HH Humphrey fought for.
That is what I thought of DaveM's posts as I read them. Discrimination = Equality. Now that is positively Orwellian.
I am curious about what you think happened with all those Southern Democrats who stayed in the party after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act. Do you believe that they all had this wonderful epiphany and became hardcore advocates for minority rights, or is it possible they had a different agenda.
I am trying to account for the dramatic shift in the Democratic party from the moderate Humphrey wing which opposed preferences and quotas to the more radical McGovern wing which favored preferences and quotas. I am suggesting that the Southern Democrats knew how destructive these policies would be and they pushed to make them even more destructive. I think it is a better explanation than the epiphany.
Do you believe that they all had this wonderful epiphany and became hardcore advocates for minority rights, or is it possible they had a different agenda.
No, actually, they remained consistent in their positions and continued to vote against their own party. Remember that through '70s and '80s Southern Democrats could be counted on to join the GOP in voting against civil-rights measures.
I don't think republicans are racist as a party. Anyone who says so is flat wrong. Although I know there are racist republicans who do have loud voices.
I don't think democrats are as so great either. I'm sure some of them are using racial division or other issues to gain political power. I don't think they consider the potential reprecusions to their policies.
I think the republicans idealize the individual ability to provide for themselves, and the democrats idealize society's ability to provide for individuals. I think the fundamental flaw with each is that republican policies tend to let people slip through the cracks, and democratic policies steamroll a single individuals for the sake of larger group of individuals.
I prefer the basic republican philosophy... except for when they try to legislate morals.
I don't believe in the government's ability to legislate away our social ills. It takes decades for social attitudes to change. That's why I believe government should be as hands off as possible, because when they do intervene they create situations where people abuse the system, people percieve favoritism, etc... and it undermines everything you're trying to accomplish.
(cont)
I think that most proponents of AA just want people to be treated fairly, but they're impatient and want it 'now'. They are zealous in their cause, and racial equity is a righteous cause.
I'm sure you're right. There are definitely those that see these causes as tickets to power... and definitely play them to their advantage. Their weapons are powerful because the cause is righteous and they can stigmatize anyone who even raises legitimate concerns.
There are several of these causes.
The anti-gun people call anyone to oppose their view vigilantes.
The environmental groups call anyone to oppose their view rapists.
The equal rights groups call anyone to oppose their view racists.
They use these labels indescriminately because it's easier to stigmatize someone than attack legitimate points.
It doesn't matter how legitimate an argument is made. It especially annoys me when 95% of what is said is basically true, while maybe 5% is debatable, but that 5% is the only thing that anyone pays any attention to.
I'm sure all the Republicans in the Mote who were worried about how New Zealanders might view the next U.S. Ambassador there will be relieved to read this article.
***
Senate Panel Praises Moseley-Braun
By Tom Raum
Associated Press Writer
Friday, Nov. 5, 1999; 2:56 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON –– Former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun drew warm praise from members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today as she defended herself against the allegations of ethical misconduct that have clouded her nomination to be U.S. ambassador to New Zealand.
Moseley-Braun, the nation's first black female senator, denied any misuse of campaign funds and said she used her own money to pay for two trips to Nigeria while she was a senator.
Committee members of both parties pronounced her exonerated ...
Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., chairman of the panel's subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific affairs, who presided over the hearing, told reporters that he didn't believe the ethical allegations would be a factor.
"I'm satisfied. I think these matters have pretty much been researched," he said.
***
Apparently, Chairman Helms didn't attend the hearing. No doubt, however, he will defer to the judgment of his colleagues who were actually there.
It cuts both ways.
Anyone who defends government programs is labeled a "tax-and-spendaholic."
Anyone who defends gay rights is declared a "pervert."
Anyone who argues for protection of the environment is deemed "anti-jobs, anti-working people."
Anyone who defends Bill Clinton is "ignoring the rule of law" and "defending a rapist/pervert/Satanist."
Anyone who criticizes politicians' associations with racist bigots is "playing guilt by association."
Anyone who favors limited gun controls is called a "gun grabber."
Anyone who favors decriminalizing certain kinds of drugs is "soft on crime."
And anyone who defends anti-discrimination laws is told he's being "divisive."
Got a problem with overheated rhetoric? I do too. But it's not exactly the domain of one side of the aisle.
I hope you'll notice that I rarely utter personal attacks and the use of stigmitizing terms in any of my debates because they are not constructive.
I don't claim to be perfect either... but I try to aviod it.
That's funny since Republicans didn't vote against civil rights issues.
Gee, there's a surprise. Anyone who voted against her would end up on national news labelled as a racist by every Democrat in earshot of a mic. I guess the Republicans learned a lesson from Ronnie White after all.
Excuse me while I puke.
Care for me to trot out the votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
Ditto.
So why did Bush sign it into law?
And one could make the same characterization of those GOP-sponsored "civil rights" bills, which were focused on so-called "reverse discrimination." The GOP, one could similarly argue, is only interested in civil rights when it affects their constituency: white people.
Of course, I won't make that argument.
Its official title: "Public Law 102-166. An Act to Amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Strengthen and Improve Federal Civil Rights Laws, to Provide for Damages in Cases of Intentional Employment Discrimination, to Clarify Provisions Regarding Disparate Impact Actions, and for Other Purposes."
Can you explain how this was about civil rights "in name only"?
Bush's remarks on signing the Civil Rights Act of 1991
If this is an example of Republicans opposing civil rights legislation, I think you need a better example.
I just love JJ's take on the Mosely-Braun hearings: if she's exonerated, it must be because the Republicans are afraid of being called racists.
The ongoing assault(begun under Reagan) on the Voting Rights Act.
Opposition to civil rights protections for gays.
Slade Gorton's campaign to strip tribes of their treaty rights.
The current GOP opposition to expanding protections of hate-crimes laws to gays.
And then there was the Equal Rights Amendment. And the Civil Rights Act of 1985 (defeated in the GOP Senate).
And did you happen to check out where those "nays" were on the 1991 CRA? Are you aware of who led the opposition to that bill? (Hint: It wasn't Democrats.)
JJBiener: "Gee, there's a surprise. Anyone who voted against her would end up on national news labelled as a racist by every Democrat in earshot of a mic. I guess the Republicans learned a lesson from Ronnie White after all.
Excuse me while I puke."
I've been reading the Mote all afternoon shaking my head mostly, but this is the first thing I read that made me angry. Mr Biener seems to imply that Braun is guitly of something. How is it that Mr. Biener knows this when the article linked above explicitly states: "allegations that Moseley-Braun diverted up to $200,000 in 1992 campaign funds to her personal use ... have been raised repeatedly but never proven."
If you can prove it, Mr. Biener, why don't you speak up!
JJ --
"Coming so close on the heels of the Ronnie White incident, what would you think?"
Let's see ... my choices appear to be:
a) the Republicans on the committee exonerated Carol Mosely-Braun because she's innocent;
b) she's guilty, but the Republicans on the committee exonerated Carol Mosely-Braun because they're craven, gutless weasels who are desperate to save their own miserable hides; or
c) she's innocent, but the Republicans on the committee are afraid to go after Carol Mosely-Braun despite her innocence because they're craven, gutless weasels who are desperate to save their own miserable hides.
Tough call. Let me mull it over a bit.
Would you please cut the crap and be honest. You know damn well that any Republican who voted against Carol Mosely-Braun would be called a racist, not only by the Democratic Senators, but by almost every talking head on T.V. I will certainly concede that the Democrats win the bullshit award. Vote no on any of their issues and it is a partisan vote. If it is the Test Ban Treaty, they are not only partisan but un-American. Dare not to confirm a Black and they are vicous racists. The power of they media molds opinion as a baker molds bread. Quayle may be stupid (he is not really) but he is no more stupid than Gore (who is not either). Where do you suppose the perception came from that Quayle wears loafers because he can't tie his shoes?
Your post confused me. Was it the shaking of the head that caused your anger? Lots of people have implied that Brown was guilty of something. I would imagine that lots of voters in Il. thought she was guilty of something. But I guess we will never know, will we. Sometimes it is best to be above suspicion. Lots of Democrats are very concerned about GWB's drug use even though so far nothing has been proved.
I am glad I accomplished something today. Now you know how I feel when these ridiculous charges are trotted out on a periodic basis.
Mr Biener seems to imply that Braun is guitly of something.
I am not implying anything. I am saying how in the Hell would we ever know? After the disgusting display from prominent Democrats over the White nomination, how can we know whether CWB is really innocent or if Republicans decided that it wasn't worth fighting and having their reputations dragged through the mud. There is no question in my mind that Democrats would have repeated their cries of racism had CWB not been given the green light. I have trouble believing this threat didn't effect the voting. If you want to accept eveything the Democrats tell you at face value, that is your right. You will excuse those of us who have become a bit cynical over the Democrats' ongoing campaign of lies and distortion.
One does not have to wonder how Democrats and the media would have responded. Just as I know I will get wet standing out in the rain, I know what Democrats are going to do. TS and the rest know too, they just don't want to admit it.
We know because "CWB" [sic] has been exonerated.
"You will excuse those of us who have become a bit cynical over the Democrats' ongoing campaign of lies and distortion."
I was born cynical. The "southern strategy". Clarence Thomas. The "quota" boogeyman. Lee Atwater. Pat Buchanan.
Walk a mile in my sneaks, my friend.
Don't start with these vague, bullshit accusations. What specifically have Republicans done to assault the VRA?
Opposition to civil rights protections for gays.
The discussion is about race. Don't change the subject.
Slade Gorton's campaign to strip tribes of their treaty rights.
Another vague bullshit accusation. Specifics, Spudboy. Also we are talking about Republicans as a party, not the actions of individuals.
The current GOP opposition to expanding protections of hate-crimes laws to gays.
See above.
And then there was the Equal Rights Amendment.
This isn't related to race either, but I thought you might be interested in the facts. The ERA passed the House with a vote of 354-24 and the Senate 84-8. In other words, you are wrong again. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it.
And the Civil Rights Act of 1985 (defeated in the GOP Senate).
I checked the LOC and could not find a bill called the Civil Rights Act of 1985. Please give me more information, so I can track down the correct bill. Then I can respond.
And did you happen to check out where those "nays" were on the 1991 CRA?
Yes, I did. Did you? There were nays on both side of the aisle. There weren't enough nays on both sides to support your claim.
Are you aware of who led the opposition to that bill? (Hint: It wasn't Democrats.)
What opposition? The measure passed by better than 10 to 1 in the house and 20 to 1 in the Senate. There was no significant opposition.
I guess you really do believe everything you are told.
I was born cynical.
Apparently not. You swallowed the CMB (sorry for the typo) story with nary a hiccup. It seems you aren't as much cynical as you are partisan.
The "southern strategy".
I have debunked this once already this week. Please go back a couple of days and read it.
Clarence Thomas.
What have you got against Clarence Thomas?
The "quota" boogeyman.
So you're saying that you support racial discrimination?
Lee Atwater.
He's dead. Besides, this was debunked this week as well.
Pat Buchanan.
He's not a Republican. Despite his claims to the contrary, I don't belive he ever was.
Walk a mile in my sneaks, my friend.
Trust me, you do not want to trade places.
To my knowledge, she hasn't been exonerated of being chummy with thugs like Abacha. (One could, of course, argue that being able to be chummy with thugs is a desirable quality, in a diplomat...)
"Walk a mile in my sneaks, my friend."
I'll split a "LOL" between that, and Dusty's earlier joke.
But of course he wasn't being racist when he said that.
"The "quota" boogeyman. -- So you're saying that you support racial discrimination?"
I see the boogeyman is alive and well.
"(Pat Buchanan is) not a Republican. Despite his claims to the contrary, I don't belive he ever was."
Who was that I saw speaking at those Republican conventions?
"Trust me, you do not want to trade places."
If you mean Party affiliation, I hear you. But I'm not a Democrat and it's interesting you would assume that ("you are partisan").
Al --
"You know damn well that any Republican who voted against Carol Mosely-Braun would be called a racist, not only by the Democratic Senators, but by almost every talking head on T.V."
So is your choice (b) -- that she's guilty, but the Republicans on the committee exonerated Carol Mosely-Braun because they're craven, gutless weasels who are desperate to save their own miserable hides?
Come on, don't be shy.
He left his public hairs on a coke can I was drinking from.
"But of course he [Johnson] wasn't being racist when he said that."
No he wasn't J.J.
Johnson was the greatest civil rights president this country has ever known. Kennedy had no interest in doing anything other than keeping the likes of me "in line."
Feel free to quote from the latest Nixon transcripts, they're most entertaining.
Of course he wasn't being racist - just monumentally cynical and consummately political, which was his wont. And he was right, of course - there is no group more lock-step in voting for any party than are Blacks for demo's.
Not much different from Al Sharpton, who said, at the height of the Tawana Brawley fiction, "Now we da biggest niggas in dis whole damn city!"
Yes, I'm sure that Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, William Buckley, Pat Robertson, Bob Novak, and Larry King have all joined the NAACP over this and are screaming racist at every republican they see. Fox news has reported that CMB will be their new anchor since she won't get the post, and are refusing advertising from every corporation that contributes soft money to Helms or the GOP in general. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Bob Barr and Trent Lott are conferring with David Duke on how t be more mainstream at this very moment.
OTOH, the wine was very good with dinner and I could be mistaken...
By the facts. If you can't be bothered to go back and read the exchange and respond, why should I take anything you have to say seriously?
I see the boogeyman is alive and well.
If you can't take the truth, don't bring it up. Quotas and preferences have been covered over the past couple of days. Once again, I suggest you catch up with the conversation before making idiotic remarks.
Who was that I saw speaking at those Republican conventions?
I don't know, I wasn't standing behind you. Buchanan's views have never been shared by the majority of Republicans. That is why he left the GOP in favor of the Reform party. That is why the GOP said "Don't let the door hit you ass on your way out."
If you mean Party affiliation, I hear you.
No, party affiliation had nothing to do with it. Don't presume you know anything about me.
But I'm not a Democrat and it's interesting you would assume that ("you are partisan").
What is interesting is that given your posts, you would deny being a Democrat. Well, maybe not. I can understand the revulsion you would feel having to express support for the Democratic leadership. You are the second person in as many days to deny being a Democrat after repeating the standard DNC talking points and making erroneous attacks against Republicans. When you walk like a Democrat and talk like a Democrat, chances are . . .
I would have thought you'd enjoy that.
Johnson was the greatest civil rights president this country has ever known.
The ends justify the means. Crystal clear, Cellar. You don't mind bigotry and racism as long they vote right. Crystal clear indeed.
And obviously plentiful.
The day that I get shy is the day your break 100. I don't have to answer every question you ask. What the hell in Jones talkiing about Buckley for? What chanel is he seeing him on? How come no one has given rasheed a big welcome? He is very much needed to give balance to the Mote. There are just too many centrists on this damn Mote. At least Cellar and I are radical.
"Buchanan's views have never been shared by the majority of Republicans ... That is why the GOP said 'Don't let the door hit you ass on your way out.'"
***
G.O.P. Chairman Appeals to Buchanan to Stay in Party
By ALISON MITCHELL
The New York Times
September 29, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Republican National Committee met with Pat Buchanan on Tuesday and made his own appeal not to bolt the party and fracture Republican ranks.
Neither man revealed how long they conferred. But Jim Nicholson, the party chairman, made clear that he had tried to use both personal loyalties and matters of principle to appeal to Buchanan, the conservative commentator.
Nicholson said in a statement that he had asked Buchanan to "consider very carefully" before taking any actions that would help Democrats retain their hold on the presidency.
***
MSNBC Transcripts
Meet The Press
Sunday, September 19, 1999
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, can you stop Pat Buchanan from leaving the Republican Party?
MR. NICHOLSON: It remains to be seen. It’s going to be Pat’s decision. I used to be a paratrooper in the Army, and I think about when you used to stand up and you shuffle to the door and you look at jumping out, and Pat’s gotten himself in the door. I’m going to try to talk him back out of that door and have him, you know, join our team and be with us because there’s so much riding on this election.
MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Nicholson, thanks very much for joining us.
MR. NICHOLSON: Good to be with you, Tim.
Al --
"I don't have to answer every question you ask."
Yes, but isn't it interesting how you shy away from the hard ones?
Come on: do you think Carol Mosely-Braun was "exonerated" by the Republicans on the committee because she's innocent, or because the Republicans on the committee are gutless little weasels too afraid of being tagged as racists to do the right thing?
Still let me just revisit a few thing and then I promise I'll get out of your face.
First you say that "how can we know whether CMB is really innocent or if Republicans decided that it wasn't worth fighting..." I replied that she was exonerated. That is a fact. And while you "don't know", you still see fit to accuse me of partisanship because I'm willing to accept the only thing we have as a last word on the subject. That was a cheap shot. OK. May I suggest that you've also made up your mind about Carol Mosely-Braun, and that your conclusion may be partisan? (See if you can respond instead of react.)
You claim to have "debunked" the "Southern strategy". Is that so? I don't have to read all the way through these messages to surmise that your debunking may be as partisan as the other things you have posted here. It's very possible that your messages in The Mote may not be the ultimate authority on this.
In case you haven't figured it out, my "bias" has less to do with which party did what as with the substance of their respective actions with regard to race issues. Ever since Barry Goldwater campaigned against the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans have found aid and comfort among those who oppose the extension of civil rights through legislation. Notice I don't contend that Republicans are therefore racist -- merely that their institutional position has easily been interepreted as hostile to governmental remedies to what some of us perceive as racial problems in this country. I grew up in post-Goldwater America and have watched how the Republican Party's dealings on race have unfolded. You can't tell me my perception is invalid especially since it is apparently not unique.
Mr. Biener, you clearly misunderstood my reference to the "quota boogeyman" because your reply ("So you're saying that you support racial discrimination?") is the embodiment of it. George Bush invoked the "quota" mantra every chance he got despite the fact that the affirmative action debate rarely centered on anything so crass as a defense of numerical quotas. That was pure Bush propaganda. Ironically when Bush had the chance to fill the Supreme Court's "black quota" he fell right in line. Or are you going to tell me that replacing Thurgood Marshall with another black man was sheer coincidence. Please try to tell me that.
As for my party affiliation, I have none. I've made a few of my disagreements with the Republicans clear, yes. But politics isn't merely a Rep.-Dem. dichotomy. I also happen to disagree with the current mainstream of the Democratic party or the president as regards to capital punishment, welfare reform/devolution, playing fast and loose with social security funds, sending bombers all over the world, etc., etc. (somebody in the other section with regard to "the Test" said that opposition to capital punishment was a "Democratic" position. Say what? I'm convinced Bill Clinton would like to pull the lever himself.)
I'm not interested in continuing a food fight with anyone. And I apologize if my debut on this board was clumsy. But man, somebody's drawers are too tight.................
Danmarks yngste prins hedder
Nikolaj William Alexander Frederik
Denmark's youngest prince is called
Nikolaj William Alexander Frederik 
He has just been baptized. The name was kept a royal secret until the very moment of the baptism itself. The old kingdom has been stirring with guessing and betting at the little prince's name.
Here he is held by his mother, princess Alexandra. She is from Hong Kong, half Chinese, half Austrian.
Married to the crown prince's brother in 1995, she has been the object of immense attention from the Danish world press tabloids and gossip magazines.
The question of whether and when, and if, she was going to have children, and subsequently, what his name was going to be, has been second in the mind of the nation only to the speculation and rumours about the crown prince's amorous liaisons.
This baptism has at least given the crown prince, a handsome bachelor at 33, a welcome break from the all-consuming prying into his love life...
Are you in the wrong thread? In any case the names are interesting, underlining as they do the Danish royal family's ties to the house of Romanov.
The discussion is about race. Don't change the subject.
No it isn't. It's about civil rights. Check your own posts: You asked me when Republicans voted against civil rights.
Don't try to change the subject.
Don't start with these vague, bullshit accusations. What specifically have Republicans done to assault the VRA? Well, as recently as 1996, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a GOP proposal that many constitutional scholars (and as you can see, the ACLU) considered a specific assault on the Voting Rights Act. During the Reagan years, the GOP took part in a broad campaign to undermine the VRA in its application in creating minority voting districts. It's a complex problem -- essentially circling around the idea that minorities would never receive political representation without having districts drawn to give them a majority within that district. The VRA was used to make that happen. Here's a decently objective rundown of the situation. Also, here are some more scholarly discussions of the issue.
This isn't related to race either, [again, that's irrelevant; we're talking civil rights] but I thought you might be interested in the facts. The ERA passed the House with a vote of 354-24 and the Senate 84-8. In other words, you are wrong again. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it. So what? Christ, don't you remember the campaign mounted by conservative Republicans to defeat it at the state level?
You misremember the count on the CRA 1991. Of the 38 votes against, 33 of them were Republican. Your pals Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms tried to shoot it down in the Senate. So much for your theory about what course the old-line bigots would take to damage race relations.
Look, I'm dead tired. I'd go through the rest of your points, but it's late and I just don't have the energy. I'm heading out of town in the morning and won't be back in for awhile. Take your shots, and I'll see you later.
By the way, I think we're both showing worn tempers here.
In Message # 2983 JJB said "That's funny since Republicans didn't vote against civil rights issues."
This statement can be interpreted in (at least) two ways:
If you interpreted the sentence in the first sense, let's stop the nonsense. There isn't a subject upon which both Democrats and Republicans have a perfect voting record. This is such a ludicrous interpretation, it didn't occur to me until later, when you trotted out stats that would only support your position if you thought this was the interpretation.
Most reasonable people would say Party X opposes Position Y if a majority of the party votes in opposition. Otherwise, fair people might a say a vocal minority of the party opposes Position Y, or a small wing of the party opposes Position Y.
Would you, as a journalist, really write that Party X opposes Position Y if the yeah votes of Party X far outnumbered the nay votes?
Anyone who defends gay rights is declared a "pervert."
Many people have defended gay rights in this forum. I don't recall a single instance of them being called a "pervert". Might you be a bit hyperbolic?
Apparently, Chairman Helms didn't attend the hearing. No doubt, however, he will defer to the judgment of his colleagues who were actually there.
I believe Helms is opposing her because she attempted to shaft him on another issue. Why would exoneration of those charges, if it actually occurred, change his opinion? She tried to screw him, he believes in returning the favor. What has changed?
He is so CUTE!
Dusty --
You don't mean to imply that Chairman Helms will cast a vote in the Senate based on anything other than his objective and dispassionate assessment of what's best for the Nation, do you?
I'm shocked --shocked -- that you could suggest such a thing.
#3031
Are you in the wrong thread?
No, this is the Current Events thread, right? I posted while the TV reportage from the Royal Baptism was still on. Can you get much more current than that?
"...the names are interesting, underlining as they do the Danish royal family's ties to the house of Romanov."
You are probably right. I haven't really been paying attention to the flood of punditry over the name of this little man. (But where does "William" enter the saga..?)
CalGal: #3039
He is so CUTE!
He certainly is! 
Everybody in royalty is related to Queen Victoria and her descendants in one way or the other. Hence William, I would guess.
Beautiful kid, sto. Do Dane's treat their royals more kindly than the Brits traet theirs?
...uhhh - that's treat.
No, we don't currently have a Kiwi filter, but it does sound like an interesting idea. I'll suggest it to Alistair, our developer, and see what he thinks...
I have been defending the GOP against baseless charges all week, so you timing wasn't the best.
May I suggest that you've also made up your mind about Carol Mosely-Braun, and that your conclusion may be partisan?
You can suggest anything you like. As I said before, I have no idea whether she is guilty or not. I have made no judgement. I am suspicious of the vote considering how close it came on the heels of the White incident. The Democrats have demostrated they are willing to play the race card no matter what the facts of the case are. I have every confidence they would have done the same thing to Republicans who opposed Braun. In light of this I don't know if the votes were based on the facts or on self-preservation. These are politicians who have to stand for reelection. As we have seen with Ashcroft, the charge of racism is one for which there is no defense. The accusation repeated often enough can destroy a career. Why would they take that risk over the appointment of an ambassador? I ask you, do believe that the vote was based solely on the facts or do you believe that the White case may have influenced votes?
It is funny that you accuse me of partisanship when I am presenting facts, and you are posting accusations and innuendo. To give you a brief recap of the "Southern Strategy" discussion, it went like this. We started with the accusation that in 1972 Nixon attempted to drive a wedge between whites and blacks. The strategy was to gain white votes while sacrificing the black votes.
I pointed out this was absurd since as Eisenhower's VP Nixon was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 passed over the objections of the Democrats in Congress. One of Nixon's first acts as President was an Executive Order directing the government agencies to place enforcement of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts as the highest priority. It is absurd to think that after this Nixon would a 180 in order to get a few votes in the South. It would be a betrayal of everything the party had stood for for 100 years.
I asked for any evidence, a speech, a memo, a campaign ad, anything that would support the accusation. No evidence was produced. I consider the accusation debunked until someone can present some evidence supporting it.
Is this partisan? No. It is a conclusion based on the facts presented.
Good job! Does he look like you?
joezan:
The Danish royal family is incredibly popular. The Queen is a chain-smoking bean stake wearing extravagant hats, laughing like a fisherman's wife (as one Danish expression goes), speaking with a quaint upper class accent, educated in archeology, and endowed with an artistic talent, the extent of which is much-debated. But she has done illustrations for several books, and scenography and coustumes for the Danish Royal Theatre.
Her husband, the Prince gemal Henri (de Monpassant) is a descendant from French landed gentry. After having been here for more than three decades, he is still unable to speak Danish without the most comic of French accents. Persistent rumours has it that he is gay, and that he has some bad habits, such as spanking his sons. He always seems out of place, always being overshone by the Queen.
The Crown Prince, Frederik, is going to be king Frederik X (= the tenth) when his time is due. For a long time he was considered something of a laggard, probably because he has never shown much trace of intellectual proficiency - especially when compared with his younger brother. But he has engaged in various extremely manly activities such as going through a tough education in the Royal Danish Navy Frogman Corps, running marathons, and doing a months long stint patrolling in Greenland, dog slay and all. For all this, he is well-respected. He is - as I mentioned - a bachelor with a tendency for partying. He is "supposed" to marry a girl of foreign royal descent, but hitherto his most serious - and incredibly talked about - liaison has been with a Danish pop singer, Maria Montell, of "Di Da Di" fame. 
This is her with some Norwegian radio host. (It took me an hour to come up with that picture. Sheesh...)
Nixon's pursuit of white Southern votes was carried out by nominations of conservative Supreme Court justices (Haynesworth, Carswell) and pulling back on federal enforcement of school desegregation.
From John Ehrlichman's "Witness to Power", p. 222: "That subliminal appeal to the antiblack voter was always in Nixon's statements and speeches on schools and housing, and it always bothered me. Richard Nixon was against busing, against desegregatin schools quicklly, against public housing insofar as 'public' menat putting mixed-racial projects into white neighborhoods."
"Nixon in the White House" by Evans and Novak also describes the "Southern Strategy".
However, Johnson did realize that his efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights legislation would likely turn the South to the Republican party. 
is that the Queen didn't approve of her, so she was never let in for any official Royal events.
Prince Frederik also had a fling with a Danish underwear model. Now he is dallying around with an unbelievably ordinary-looking girl by the unbelievably ordinary name of Bettina.
His brother, Joachim, father of the above cutie pie, is a thoroughly cool, aristocratic kind of guy. Intelligent, upright, well-spoken, if old-fashioned in his beliefs. He'd be perfect King material, except we Danes don't much care for those qualities in a King. Frederik is definitely the popular one.
To round it up, I'll just mention the - also very popular - Queen's mother, Queen Ingrid. She is 89 years old and of Swedish descent, but for some reason that isn't held against her. The persistent rumour on her is that she is a kleptomaniac. It is said that when she is shopping, she is discreetly followed by a laquey who keeps records of everything she steals and pays for it afterwards...
So CalGal: A small peek into the lives of the Royalty of us rather dull Danes.
sto:
Thanks much for the royal mini-bio.
And from what I've seen of European royal women, Freddie is much better off with this Di-Da-Di girl.
The problem with this statement is that it isn't true. Republicans have always supported legislation to protect civil rights. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1991, The Voting Rights Act, The Equal Rights Amendment and the Executive Orders of Republican Presidents have support these legislative activities. If you interpret this as hostile to government remedies, I don't know how to respond to you.
The GOP is hostile to racial discrimination in any form. This means they oppose racial preferences, quotas and set-asides. No matter how you try to put a pretty face on them, they are racial discrimination and they are divisive and wrong.
I grew up in post-Goldwater America and have watched how the Republican Party's dealings on race have unfolded. You can't tell me my perception is invalid especially since it is apparently not unique.
So did I. I am telling you that you are victim of propaganda. Your views do not fit the facts. The only party with a history of racism and segregationism is the Democrats. They are justifiably ashamed of their past and they have attempted to divert attention by engaging in campaign of baseless attacks against Republicans. The incident with Ashcroft recently is a prime example.
There isn't the same "paparazzi" heat on the Danish Royal family as in Britain. The same goes for the other Scandi Royals.
Read more about this fascinating subject here:
Popular Scandinavian monarchies largely spared aggressive paparazzi
Why am I a partisan when I am presenting facts, and the others aren't when they are presenting baseless accusations and innuendo?
Because, JJ, to a lefty it is ideas that count. If they let the facts get in the way, then they have to go around explaining things - like the many uses of the word is, or how, when a projected budget is increased by 6%, and it is lowered by 1%, it is a net loss and the world will come to an end.
That's why.
I didn't realize that holding hearings on a proposal constituted support. The "assault" in question is the "BILINGUAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS REPEAL ACT OF 1996". It proposed no more than to remove the federal mandate for certain districts to provide multiligual materials during elections. It left the decision for these matters to the states and communities affected. As insignificant as the measure is, you can't even claim Republican support because it never even came up for a vote.
During the Reagan years, the GOP took part in a broad campaign to undermine the VRA in its application in creating minority voting districts.
Please explain how this undermines the VRA and why Democrats are not guilty when they too supported minority districts. The purpose was to insure minority representation by creating districts with minority majorities. This doesn't undermine the VRA, it supports the intent of the VRA.
And to a righty they're meaningless?
I checked the Congressional Record. Gorton was the sole sponsor. If there was broad support for it, that support was certainly quiet. There is nothing in the record to indicate any support.
Gorton used his Senate Committee on Indian Affairs role and his Commerce Committee slot to promote legislation that would have ended tribal sovereign immunity, a cornerstone of their legal sovereignty.
I will ignore the fact that this is a gross distortion of the bill's intent. I don't feel like fighting that battle.
Ironically, he called it the American Indian Equal Justice Act.
Since it provided for tribes to be treated like any other individuals or corporations, I think it is an appropriate title.
It enjoyed considerable currency among the Trent Lott set,
Really? I didn't see anything in the Congressional Record to that effect.
but fortunately, Ben Nighthorse Campbell had the sense to shoot it down.
Really? I didn't see that in the Congressional Record either.
If you are going to claim that Republicans are doing something, then you need to demonstrate that a majority of Republicans are doing it. I know you pride yourself on you objectivity, but right now you are not coming across as very objective.
Is it really true that Denmark is where the Swedes go to leard to ski? My friend from Norway assures me that is a fact.
I got the count from the Library of Congress. It is accurate. In my post I stated
It passed the Senate with a vote of 93-5. It passed the House with a vote of 381-38. Republicans in the House supported the bill by more than 4 to 1.
Your link confirms that.
Of the 38 votes against, 33 of them were Republican.
Yes, and 5 of the were Democrats. I said there was opposition on both sides of the aisle. That is true. Neither one is significant enough to warrant your accusation that Republicans voted against the Act.
Once again the facts don't support your argument.
No, they have to be supported by the facts.
I am getting sick and tired of you using facts to debate with Jones, Trial, Spud, Rasheed, Cellar, et. al. What in the world do facts have to do with it? It is feelings that count. That is the problem with you cold hearted conservatives. Thomas is evil because he makes Liberals like rasheed feel bad.
Oh, not that it is of any interest, but Ted Keddedy did not attend any of Thomas's hearings when there were witnesses on Thomas's behalf. I sent him a telegram praising him on his unbelievable honesty, that he could make the decision without hearing all evidence in support of Thomas. Are Liberals really so stupid that they think Senators attend hearings to hear the opposition? Do they really think that debate goes on in the Senate or the House? Poor babies.
Is it really true that Denmark is where the Swedes go to leard to ski? My friend from Norway assures me that is a fact.
Either I am making a total fool of myself for answering such an obviously sarcastically intended comment in earnest (and I admit that I really, really don't get it, if that's the intention) - or, your Norwegian friend is having you on in a big way.
Denmark is the only one of the three Scandinavian countries where there is hardly ever enough snow in the winter for decent skiing - and even when there is, we haven't got the faintest hint of a mountain to ski on. In this, we are also alone among the Scandilands.
On the contrary to your jestful Norwegian friend's mocking musings, Danes traditionally go to Norway to learn to ski - the Norwegians are born with ski on their feet, as the saying goes. Indeed, the very word 'ski' is of Norwegian origin, as I am sure your friend could tell you, if he weren't so busy pulling your leg with his odd Norwegian humour. ('Odd', by the way, is a common boy's name in Norway...).
More recently, Danes have picked up the habit of going south to the Alps for skiing holidays, and have, on average, become fairly capable. That's where you have the best Alpine(!) slopes. There are those of us who still prefer Norway or Sweden because you are not maliciously laughed at or condescended to, the way arrogant Frencmen and Italians are liable to do at clumsy skiers. Our Scandic brethren are, for unknown reasons, very patient and tolerant with Danes.
In Scandinavia, cross-country skiing is traditionally the way to ski, even if Norwegians and Swedes also excel at the Alpine kind in recent decades.
Don't give up so easily, Al.
sto:
X-country skiing is also very popular here in west Michigan, where we get more snow than anywhere else in the contiguous 48 states. There are miles of groomed trails in just about every county and state park. The land is flat-to-hilly, with many glacial ravines, and heavily wooded inland dunes once you get within a few miles of the Lake Michigan coast. I understand the activity (along with ice skating) was brought over by the Dutch settlers in the mid 19th century.
In the last few years, snow-shoeing has also become very popular - supposed to be great exercise. Do they do much of that in Scandiland?
I don't know. The opposition has been rather short on facts lately. I don't know why since they have the same access I do. I guess if they relied on facts they could support their arguments.
This sounds like a kid's game.
I am sorry for my post. It was a little joke that I thought pelle might get, or not get right away, of course.
When the Gay Parade was held in N.Y., C-Span covered it as it occured, the good, the bad, and the badder. The major networks cut any of the really disgusting behavior.
When the Republican Convention is held, reporters run all over the floor asking ad nauseum questions on abortion. They never ask Democracts who are Pro Life their opinion. For example, do they make the populace aware that Bonier is Pro Life? I did not learn that on CNN, CBS, ABC, or NBC. One could go on, but I don't think a million examples would ever make much of a point to the true believers.
Don't be sorry. It was fun explaing Scandinavian skiing. Even if it was completely off the mark.
Are you always this hard to figure out?
Perhaps only for Scandinavians...
We hear in great abundance over the years about the witch hunt in Hollywood. What a joke. As if Hollywood was not riddled with Commies. It wasn't a witch hunt. It was a Commie hunt, and pretty sucessful at that.
Also, don't think I am uptight and annoyed with the world. Shot 77 today and won all my bets.
Read my post on the Play Play saying that my posts are most often misunderstood, especially by the ladies. Now if you are a lady, please do not take that as a cut. But I think you're a guy. I post on Free Rebublic as bigal and very often get called a lesbian because I am not a homophobe.
Perhaps you're a lesbian woman trapped inside a man's body?
That sounds like a good line for scoring. Pretending to be gay also works. It's sort of like telling a Born Again what a sinner you are. They want to save you. Women love saving men. Of course, one must keep in mind that the bite of a toothless dog is harmless.
" Rasheed- welcome! Don't worry about JJB- he's just another
adamant partisan."
When did you decide to take up comedy? I thought that was Ace's department.
No need to check this link, I just want to see if it works.
Al --
"Oh, not that it is of any interest, but ..."
Hey, you were right -- it wasn't of any interest.
Oh yeah. Really did in those Commies. Take Abe Plonsky. He went to New York and wrote "You Are There," and that scurrilous Commie sitcom, "The Goldbergs." Abe made quite a nice living in TV, though he wasn't able to get a movie credit until "Madigan" in 1967 -- directed by that well-known Commie-symp, Don Siegel. Then in 1969 he wrote and directed "Tell Them Willie Boy is Here," starring noted Commie, Robert Redford. Recently the Academy gave Abe back credit for his screenplay of "Odds Against Tomorrow."
Going to Abe's funeral this Tuesday. He passed away quietly reading the newspaper in his apartment on McCarty Drive in Beverly Hills.
"That's McCarty Drive, not McCarthy Drive," Abe always said.
I hadn't heard that Polonsky had passed until you posted that link the other day. I've read a few articles about him here and there in the SF Chronicle. He sounds like an amazing man. It must be great to know someone like that as well you did.
Aldavis:
If by successful "Commie hunting" you mean that the HUAC was able to flush some folks out and wreck their lives for their political beliefs (which, last I heard, was antithetical to everything this nation was founded upon), then yeah, Tailgunner Joe was Da Man.
As wrong-headed as I find communism as a workable and productive political/social philosophy, one of the founding tenets of America is that it's your right to be wrong, that you shouldn't be hounded and persecuted merely because you don't subscribe to laissez-faire capitalism.
That period demonstrates how dangerous it is when the ends are used to justify the means.
There's a wonderful interview with Abe in "Projections *"-- John Boorman's movie annual. He talks about growing up and making friends with Bernard Herrmann when they were both around 13.
I agree with every word you said. I have no problem with one who claims to support communism or fascism or wiccaism or any ism. What I have a problem with is people whose interest was in destroying calitalism or in promoting the interest of a foreign power, namely in this case USSR. But my real point is how the media shaped the attitude of most Americans to believe bullshit. Look, there were communists in Hollywood who were denying they belonged to the Communist Party, which was working hand and glove with the KGB through the '30's and beyond. Browder, head of the Communist Party in the 30's was a Soviet agent. If you doubt this read KGB The Inside Story by Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, or The Haunted Wood by Allen Weinstein & Alexander Vassiliev. Having opinions formed my the American media is worth about as much as my opinion on Art. Not worth a damn.
I think it is instructive that there are still people who believe others are guilty of terrible things based solely on their political beliefs. As aware as they are of the tragedy of the McCarthy era, they can't see how they engage in the same behavior they condemn.
I agree that one should not be condemmed for their beliefs, not should they have to prove they are innocent. Where this occured, it should be criticized. However, how was the media so successful in convincing most people that Hiss was a victim and Nixon the villian? My point is more about how media manipulates opinion than about Commies. However, unless one really studies the issue, they would never conclude that Roosevelt's administration was loaded with Communist agents, not just Communists.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 1999 00:52:49 ET XXXXX
CLINTON TRIED TO LOOK UP OLD GIRLFIREND IN OLSO - ISRAELI PAPER
U.S. President Bill Clinton tried to look up an old girlfriend this week while visiting Oslo for the Mideast summit, the Israeli tabloid YEDIOTH AHRONOTH claimed Friday.
U.S. diplomats "turned Oslo upside down" to find the woman Clinton had not been able to forget since touring Europe as a student 30 years ago. When they found her, she thought hard and said:
"Clinton? I don't recall ever meeting someone of that name," reported YEDIOTH, Israel's largest circulated tabloid.
Israeli Minister for International Relations Shimon Peres said Clinton had described how he asked Ambassador to Norway David Hermelin to see if he could find the former contact, the paper said.
Clinton, who was studying at Oxford University in England at the time, was said to have made her acquaintance on his first visit to Oslo.
His stay in Norway this week was the first by a sitting U.S. resident. There was no immediate comment from the White House.
The man is brazen, isn't he?
Remember "Butterflies Are Free"? There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, ...so lame as those who will not walk, ...as tired as those who will not sleep. I liked the movie because it was set in my city, Frisco., strike that, San Francisco.
Rate your Risk
That Clinton story is a joke...right Al?
Please, Al -tell me it's a joke, before I pee my frickin' pants...
I've never been much of a Woody Allen fan, to tell you the truth. Maybe I haven't seen the right films of his; they mostly seem to ruminate on the hardships of being a nebbishy Jew. But I will keep an eye out for The Front, it sounds more like something I'd like.
Al:
What I have a problem with is people whose interest was in destroying capitalism or in promoting the interest of a foreign power, namely in this case USSR.
I agree, but I submit that that street ran in two directions. The US has backed some the nastiest butchers and tyrants imaginable, in the service of the religion of anti-communism. The Soviets weren't innocents, to be sure, and espoused a fatally flawed premise, but we got our hands pretty dirty as well.
But my real point is how the media shaped the attitude of most Americans to believe bullshit.
Yes indeed. Sometimes it's "liberal" horseshit, sometimes "conservative" bullshit. Shit is shit; it's all in the name of the Golden Rule -- those who have the gold make the rules. But I do immensely enjoy the irony of the "liberal bias" canard, juxtaposed with the urgency of the "Drudge Report" headline. I mean, what's next, "Clinton Jerks Off to Pamela Anderson on the Internet"? Hell, don't we all?
I fail to see why anyone should care that Fatboy is looking for trim again. We know he's a shameless pussyhound. I'm a lot more pissed off about his ham-fisted Balkans policy, which will cost us for many years to come.
"I am pro-choice," Beatty reiterated for the benefit of those stupid enough to fall for the cheaps tricks of a paid right-wing hack.
No doubt. Drudge thinks he's Walter Winchell, with that dork-ass hat, but he's really the other Walter, dispensing fables and nostrums for the consumption of the "bewildered herd", as Lippman so arrogantly characterized the citizenry.
"The US has backed some the nastiest butchers and tyrants imaginable, in the service of the religion of anti-communism."
"Nastiest imaginable"? Name one who was in the same league as Stalin. (Hell, in the same league as Ceausescu.)
"I mean, what's next, 'Clinton Jerks Off to Pamela Anderson on the Internet'? Hell, don't we all?"
Speak for yourself. Some of us have enough taste to prefer Kristy.
The US, to my knowledge, actually did a pretty good job backing Ceausescu - that great anti-Stalinist.
Name one who was in the same league as Stalin. (Hell, in the same league as Ceausescu.)
In terms of sheer numbers, no, none of our Central American proxies could compete with Stalin. If you've ever read some of the detailed reports the Catholic Church made about what the Guatemalan and Salvadoran death squads (many trained/armed directly by the US) did to the peasants there, it surely rivals Stalin for barbarism. In terms of percentage of population exterminated, I'd say Suharto in East Timor tops Stalin.
I believe Ceaucescu occupies the same level of brutality, more or less, as people like the Duvaliers, or Roberto D'Aubuisson. Pinochet or Galtieri, perhaps.
Not that I particularly want to compare atrocities item by item. I merely point out that we enabled many tyrants in many nations to do the same thing to their citizens as Stalin did to his. But it all boils down to what FDR reputedly said about Anastasio Somoza: "He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch."
The problem is that when "our sons-of-bitches" fall, they are often displaced by regimes that are vehemently opposed to US interests. We've seen it in Iran, Nicaragua, and a host of other countries.
We are repeating our mistakes in Cuba.
For a fair playing field, however, the discussion becomes less polarized, if not as politically advantageous to those who want the GOP branded as a haven for racists, a practical coven where the party boils its brew of racial vitriol for the benefit of fat, tobacco-spewing rednecks who hold the key to electoral success. "See David Duke!" though it is forgotten that Duke was birthed in his first races as a Democrat.
This lapse of memory is indicative of the political uses of the stigma.
Here are the facts. The GOP courted Southern whites beginning in the 1960s as an alternative to Wallace, as a bellweather for social conservatism, and in overt response to the turmoil of the times. Many voters in many regions were concerned about the speed of social change, the anti-war movement, the power of the federal government, racial policy, etc . . . And the GOP was in agreement with those principles. Hence, it appealed to those who opposed busing, affirmative action, hippies, and the like. And some of those who
opposed busing, affirmative action, and hippies were also virulent racists. Some still are.
What of it? Al Sharpton is presently a supporter of affirmative action. I do not equate all supporters of affirmative action with that bewigged bigot.
Back to the 1960ss. The Democrats courted urban blacks on the offers of restitution for past injustices, urban renewal, and a belief in activist, federal power in support of policy aims. Hence, their appeal was to a more educated and colorful coalition.
As with most political questions, the devil is in the definition. But the details are rather mundane. The GOP sought votes and it received the votes it sought from like-minded voters, not just in the South, but everywhere. Similarly, the Democrats sought votes from groups consonant with its view. That Al Sharpton is a Democrat, Pat Buchanan a recent Republican, and David Duke a political chameleon is irrelevant.
I saw Beatty's talk. He was damn close to unintelligible. I was disappointed (though his hair is fabulous).
Of course I'm used to talking to a lot more actors than most of you, and if you think that was unintelligible. . .
The problem is that when "our sons-of-bitches" fall,
Their crimes tend to be "overlooked" by the "Liberal" media, and much of the historical "record." That's why I read the Anti-Christ (aka Noam Chomsky.)
Was it? I saw the one that was most recent (I thought). He's in the sports coat and collarless shirt, and he gets many tough questions (including one on disparity of pay in the entertainment industry) which he doesn't really handle all that well. I got the sense that he was expecting questions of a more fawning nature, as if he were on that godawful "Inside the Actors Studio." He wasn't awful, he was just muddled.
Ha ha ha ha.
Lipton: "What do you want as your legacy on your tombstone?"
Bush: "Huh? Uh . . . died some time after 2040? Two-term president? Am I getting close?"
Either that or he could have refused to answer any questions about world leaders not in power since 1974.
They were fair questions to be asked of a presidential candidate. Particularly this candidate whose intellectual prowess is questionable at best.
Hey, I wasn't taking up for him by any means. I am the one eagerly awaiting a debate between Bush and anyone because I know he will finally be seen for what I think he is: a rich little frat boy who believes all the BS being whispered in his ear by those who want a Republican in office they can pretty much control. Because he really won't have the desire to read all those policy papers and bills and such; he'll just appoint "good people" to do that for him and prepare the Cliffs Notes.
Cite please. And BTW, since when do you believe anything Buchanan says?
There was also a larger group made up of moderate and liberal Democrats in the South. The supported discrimination and segregation, but they tended to support other Democratic positions as well. They stayed in the Democratic party even after the party changed its position on race. If you look at polls in the South, the majority still consider themselves to be Democrats.
Hack alert! Hack alert!
Juditha
Exactly. Better if he said, "Tell you what? I'll answer, but for each one I get right, you have to give me $500. Deal?"
#3126 and others like it are why I asked to change my answer on #14 of TheTest from Molly Ivins to "Niner".
Yes, if GW had only been clever enough to do that! Personally, I think he ought to hire Naomi to advise him on that FloBee haircut he has...
No, propaganda alert. It is a classic propaganda technique. Repeat the same accusation at every opportunity until it becomes the public perception. It worked with Quayle, so they are trying it with Bush. It is so obvious, I don't know who they think they are fooling. The polls seem to indicate they aren't fooling anyone. Except maybe themselves.
I'm working at the moment on a documentary about the Beatles in Los Angeles. As a result, I've been researching the newspapers circa '65-'66. You would not believe the number of front page stories about race in both the NYT and the "L.A. Times." The '64 Watts riots put the fear of God into every journalist in the country, and they were all scrambling to find a good position to cover the full-scale race war that they were ALL anticipating. There fore the strategies of Repubs and the Dems had less to do with simply appealing to particular constituencies in a general way, with race being one issue among many. The Country was in Total Crisis Mode. Therefore, the "Sourthern Strategy" was simply (like so much else in Politics) Divide and Conquer.
You may be correct. But, I worked in the Senate during the time of Quayle, and while I would not want to disseminate propoganda, he was not known as the sharpest blade in the drawer. To be fair, neither was Gore. While Quayle was not considered Larry Pressler/Chic Hecht stupid, he was definitely bottom third. And be fair: his choice in 1988 was poor. He was unseasoned, and the selection was unfair first and foremost to Quayle.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Are you thinking of Tito, perhaps? Not that the US particularly "backed" him, either.
EC, #3110:
I've seen some of those reports, and, no, they didn't come close. As for your percentage example -- I'm skeptical also that it reached the same magnitude, since reliable figures are hard to come by -- but note that you had to pick out a small part of a huge country. (Anyway, I believe Pol Pot holds the record, percentage-wise.)
"I believe Ceaucescu occupies the same level of brutality, more or less, as people like the Duvaliers, or Roberto D'Aubuisson. Pinochet or Galtieri, perhaps."
Pinochet, as you recall, voluntarily stepped down after a few years in power. That alone puts him light-years ahead of the Ceausescus.
The difference between the levels of brutality is very simple: authoritarianism (I'll shoot you if you try to overthrow me) vs. totalitarianism (I'll shoot you if you don't sing my praises loudly enough on a given day). That's a broad characterization, of course; but by and large, the Communist dictatorships were of the latter kind, and the US-backed ones, of the former. I wouldn't want to live under either, needless to say; but, given the choice between the two, I'd much prefer the former, as would most people.
(Then there's economics: Pinochet took a poor country and made it relatively well-off; the Duvaliers took a poor country and kept it that way; the Ceausescus took a relatively well-off country and made it poor.)
The bottom line: anti-communism wasn't a "religion," any more than anti-Nazism was. It was a fight against a system that had killed tens of millions, and terrorized and enslaved hundreds of millions, in many countries, and aimed at doing so everywhere else as well. I won't claim that US policies were as productive, or as moral, as they should've been, in every single case --but, overall, they were unquestionably right.
The problem with this analysis is that the Democratic strategy really is racist and divisive and always has been. It was racist in the 50's and 60's when it promoted segregation and it has been racist ever since by trying to stir up racial hatred. The Republican position has always been to promote color-blindness and the elimination of discrimination.
Well said. One thing that has struck me about the time (in my reading) is the bunker mentality of Washington, D.C. amidst the frenetic social change. Cinematically, this was captured well in Stone's "Nixon." Even outside of D.C., a real nice depiction is given in TNT's "Wallace" with Gary Sinise. Memoirs of Nixon Administration staffers attest to the strange clash of culture at the time, wherein they were scared of violent conflagration every time they left the White House, which in turn distorted their lenses and made paramount their enemies. Like cops, they began to trust no one, and their vision narrowed to the point of a tunnell.
The recall of the blood draining from Ted Kennedy's face after a loud bang was heard during a speaking engagement in the early 70s drives it home.
So I take it you're voting for Allan Keyes?
What is instructive is that the Republicans supported the cause of civil rights even before the riots. The Democrats supported it only after the riots.
The strategies are relatively similar. Work on the gut of the constituency, and, when push comes to shove, justify your excesses with claims of "They did it first!" or ends justify the means. I am no more swayed by your lily-white perception of GOP tactics than I accept from opponents that the GOP is a wing of the Klan. I can certainly defend what has been deemed racist, and have never shied from it in this forum (see my view of Willie Horton as entirely reasonable and benign). I cannot, however, accept your black-and-white view of the parties, having seen hardball pitches to gut from both. Interestingly enough, my view places race behind greater sins of both parties (the GOP distortion of Democratic doveisheness and support of civil liberties as unAmerican in the early 80s/Democratic distortion of GOP economic policies as cruel and insensitive to the poor and the elderly in the mid to late 80s).
"What is instructive is that the Republicans supported the cause of civil rights even before the riots. The Democrats supported it only after the riots."
This is false. Southern Democrats opposed the civil rights movement before the riots. Many Republicans (including George Bush, Sr.) also opposed certain portions of civil rights legislation. Times were in flux and the parties were nowhere near the lockstep you describe.
I will vote for him if he is the nominee. My first preference is Colin Powell. I saw him speak a couple of years ago and believe he would be an excellent President. I am still relatively undecided about the rest of the candidates.
Republicans opposed the same things then as they do now, racial preferences, quotas and set-asides. They also opposed allowing the EEOC to decide discrimination cases instead of the courts. The Republicans supported the cause of civil rights, when the Southern Democrats did not.
Work on the gut of the constituency, and, when push comes to shove, justify your excesses with claims of "They did it first!" or ends justify the means.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to substantiate this claim against the GOP. I have presented quotes from Democrats who continue to this day. No one has presented anything against the GOP except accusations.
Oh come on, J.J. You know as well as I do that such notions weren't even on the table back then. Please!
What makes you think I am voting for racial reasons? Obviously I don't think Keyes and Powell are equivalent since I prefer Powell. You asked me who I was voting for, and I told you my preferences. I would vote for Powell because I believe he would be the best President. I would vote for Keyes if he were the nominee just as I would vote for Bush or McCain because he is a better choice than either Gore or Bradley.
Check your history, pal. They are the reason that initial versions of the bill were defeated. It was only after those sections were removed by Humphrey and Dirksen in their rewrite of the bill that the bill finally acheived broad-based support.
I am not thinking of Tito. I am no expert on Ceausescu, but I think he fairly consistently distanced himself from the Moscow line, refusing e.g. to lend "brotherly assistance" to the crushing of the Prague spring. Therefore, he was to some extent considered a useful tool by the West, deserving of trade credits and such.
In this country, he was even officially received as a guest of honour, and was, to our eternal disgrace, awarded the highest Danish order. This was in the mid-80s under a conservative, NATO-friendly government (which has been the case for most, but not all, of our governments). Does this amount to "backing"? Well, it's certainly an instance of fairly cynical Realpolitik.
Ceausescu didn't massacre his people, by the way. (I don't know of other incidents than the pretty small Timisoara event in 1989). He just put them on a brutal austerity program in order to hasten the pay-back of a huge foreign debt that he had built up during the 70s. He also forced peasants to move into newly constructed extremely ugly concrete towns. He discriminated against the Hungarian minority, ad Gypsies. Plus he instigated a Stalinesque personality cult, complete with monstrous monuments and sprawling palaces. Plus he had an infamous secret service, the Securitate (though I am not sure they were worse than the East German Stasi, or the KGB).
Starting in the late 60s.
Pay attention. Early versions of the CRA called for preferences and quotas. These were eliminated in the final version. The CRA as passed does not provide for preferences, quotas or set-asides. These were added later by either judicial fiat or through bureaucratic intiative.
Here is the relevant paragraph:
(j) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint
labor management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.
Oh, OK; I thought you meant "anti-Stalinist" literally.
Yes, of course the West tried (with varying success) to exploit any divisions among the Communist regimes, by playing footsie with some -- easing trade sanctions, state visits, etc. I wouldn't call that "backing," though.
And, yes, the East-European ones generally needed to use less violence (just like the USSR itself, after Stalin) -- simply because the people had already been terrorized into near-total submission. It wasn't necessary to show them what would result from any dissent; they already knew.
Late on we got the biggest set asde/quota ever pulled off ahnded to us on a silver platter by the Republican Party: Clarence Thomas.
"If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally
engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment
practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the
respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and
order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may
include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of
employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer,
employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be,
responsible for the unlawful employment practice),or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
Quotas arose in attempt to resolve class actions concerning hiring practices in large employers or institutions. Many of the publicized quota cases didn't arise under title VII but under the title for government employees, and so Bienner's cite is not applicable in those instances.
Some amazingly good news about prison reform at Rykers.
Using an array of tools and tactics -- from a huge SWAT team to electric stun shields to a program that aggressively prosecutes inmates for crimes committed inside the jails -- correction officials have reduced slashings and stabbings among inmates by more than 90 percent. Stabbings by inmates have plummeted to 78 so far this year from nearly 1,100 in 1994.
I suspect that the prisoners will develop new methods of getting around the security restrictions. But it is encouraging to see that someone is working to keep prisons safe--and getting good results.
So you had to bring up the one embarrassing quote left to posterity by the only Czech to serve in the Senate, didn't you?
(g)
I don't know. A 90% drop-off in stabbings suggests that prisoners may be unable to meet the effectiveness of the new procedures. And technology will only work against them.
Oh, I think you are right. I didn't mean to imply that the numbers would shoot back up; only that some level of ingenuity might be expected. Still, the systemic solution--aggressively prosecuting prisoners for jail offenses--might offset that.
What this suggests to me is that no one has really tried to make prisons safe before now. I hope this galvanizes further efforts.
I know when this was instituted. I quoted it, remember? The beefs came about because despite this law, Democrats instituted quotas and set-asides in awarding government contracts. Colleges and Universities used racial preferences and quotas in admissions. In 1964 Democrats like Humphrey agreed that all racial discrimination was wrong. Since then Democrats have abandoned this position and have become advocates for discrimination as long as it favors their constituency.
I know they were used as a remedy to correct some of the most egregious examples of racism and discrimination. 25 years later there is no reason such remedies should still be used.
Most jails are safer than Riker is and certainly was. However, many people's response to jail/prison rapes assaults etc is "serves 'em right." Perhaps this is one of the reasons that some jurisdictions have been less than effective in attacking these problems before.
Do you know of an instance where they are being used outside of those instances I mentioned?
Perhaps someone can tell me why we really need razors in jails?
I'll bet some religion requires shaving.
I agree it should be recognized. It should also be prosecuted and punished as the law requires. Even though it does still exist, it is only a tiny fraction of what it was 25 years ago. There has also been an explosion in the number of minority owned companies. The use of preferences and quotas is no longer warranted.
Recognizing this unfairness is not "discrimination".
I agree it is appropriate to recognize unfairness. The question is what do we do to combat it. I support efforts at recruitment and outreach to members of minority groups as long as the final decision is made on ability and not race. I also have no problem with efforts aimed at those who are disadvantaged economically as long as it is not based on race.
The only relgious edicts I know of regarding shaving oppose it. But you may be right.
"It wasn't necessary to show them [the East European peoples] what would result from any dissent; they already knew."
Perhaps. Just the same there were numerous uprisings in these countries. The most famous are Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Other examples include East Germany 1953, and Poland 1956(?), 1968, 1970 and 1980. They were crushed by tanks and police brutality. But there weren't any outright massacres. I don't really know what you are referring to. The Soviet Gulag and forced collectivization of the 30s?
But, you are right in saying that these regimes didn't have to slaughter people on a massive scale to keep things under control. It's amazing what you can do with a little intimidation, a few show trials, and a web of secret informers who dispel a creeping sense of being constantly under surveillance. And, possibly, a working propaganda machine that offers people a faintly credible party line to tow.
But that goes for a nice guy like Pinochet as well. He "only" killed around 3,000. Many others were prisoned, and tortured on summary charges. The number was never in the millions but evenso, he certainly got his message across.
(He did expel/scare around 500,000 into exile, though, hardly a trivial percentage of a population of around 14 mill).
And Republicans put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Who are those people? Of course, about the only TV I watch is sports and the Game Show Channel. (Polly Bergen is a stunner in b&w!) I quit watching all network news programs when Huntley quit. I found that all the others were too liberal then; Huntley died in 1974. So its been a while since I watched anything but Brinkley's Sunday morning show.
With the exception - I am talking newspapers - of the Washington Times and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, where are the consevatives in print media?
Here in boondocks LA I subscribe to two local papers. But, have read and/or been told that all these papers are liberal/left : Boston Globe; Los Angeles Times & New York Times; Minneapolis Tribune; Washington Post. Those are some of the more prominent newspapers.
I know nothing about southern newspapers; despite the fact that I live in LA. The New Orleans Times Picayune is a rag. I know nothing about the Atlanta or Florida newspapers.
There currently is a fuss about the Arizona paper that first called attention the McClain's temper. Is this paper conservative?
I work during the day so can say nothing about talk radio. I know the name Limbaugh; but, have never listened to his program.
The LA Times, recently put their great cartoonist Paul Conrad
(Seen here seated alongside sub-human Lucianne Goldberg toadie, Michael Isikoff)
out to pasture, the better to hire a "Conservative" cartoonist for "balance." The creep they found (under a rock in L. Brent Bozell's stinkweed garden, no doubt) is named Michael Ramirez and claims to be a Mestizo Indian. Hah! How Reaganesque. So what's left of the left? Certainly not the gaseous "The New Republic." And I've stopped subscribing to "The Nation" because they refused to take my advice about getting Sntichens into Betty Ford before he's found swinging from a beam at the Chateau Marmont in a last ditch attempt to get the ol' pecker up.
"There currently is a fuss about the Arizona paper that first called attention the McClain's temper. Is this paper conservative?
When I lived in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic was pretty much a mouthpiece for the state GOP.
Sure; there were even some spontaneous uprisings in the USSR itself (e.g., Novocherkassk, 1962). But all these were few and far between. When I mentioned tens of millions killed, I of course meant the 20s-30s-40s-50s (at least, as far as Europe was concerned).
And, yes, Pinochet definitely got his message across. But his message was: "Don't even think of overthrowing my government; if you don't, I'll let you lead a more or less normal life" -- as opposed to the "I will control your every waking moment, and you'll stand up and tell me how much you love it, every hour on the hour" message preferred by Stalin and his followers and successors. Again: I know which one I would pick, if I had to choose between the two.
As for your percentage example -- I'm skeptical also that it reached the same magnitude, since reliable figures are hard to come by -- but note that you had to pick out a small part of a huge country. (Anyway, I believe Pol Pot holds the record, percentage-wise.)
Yes, but there's an asterisk next to Pot's name, because he had a 162-game season (ba-dump-bump). As for East Timor, the numbers vary widely, of course. I've seen from 150,000 to 800,000 listed; most reputable sources indicate around 250,000 -- still about one quarter of the entire population of the territory. I didn't mention ET to nit-pick, btw. Given our expensive handwringing earlier this year over 2000 dead Albanians, the question begs as to why we've only now stopped selling arms to Indonesia, after 25 years and a quarter-million or so slaughtered. It's relevant, and it epitomizes the sorts of horrid deeds we were always told the Evil Empire did, and we merely defended ourselves from.
Pinochet, as you recall, voluntarily stepped down after a few years in power. That alone puts him light-years ahead of the Ceausescus.
Well, the Ceausescus certainly got what was coming to them. As for Pinochet "voluntarily stepping down", not a big step from dictator to "senator for life", is there? But you're right, Pinochet did get some actual economic benefits out of his authoritarianism, unlike, say, the Duvaliers or the Marcoses.
The difference....is very simple: authoritarianism....vs. totalitarianism.... That's a broad characterization, of course; but by and large, the Communist dictatorships were of the latter kind, and the US-backed ones, of the former. I wouldn't want to live under either, needless to say; but, given the choice between the two, I'd much prefer the former, as would most people.
Agreed, but that is a vast oversimplification. You're forgetting that many of the authoritarian governments we installed or fomented trampled grassroots peasant revolutions, often for little more than material concerns. Take Guatemala, which only recently emerged from 40+ years of civil war, marked by a nauseating level of brutality on the part of gov't-backed paramilitaries. This was nominally about fighting communism; more realistically, it was about protecting United Fruit's interests, at the expense of some 200,000 civilians massacred over the years. Arbenz's prospective gov't had a chance of doing something for the citizens besides perpetuating the oligarchy, but we don't mind it when people are serfs of capitalist oligarchies, as Central American peasants undeniably were and are.
Afghanistan is another prime example of what the CIA refers to as "blowback" -- unintended consequences. Even when the Soviets occupied Kabul, women attended college, had careers, did pretty much what they want to. Now they have to wear a fucking tent to leave the house, as long as a male relative accompanies them. And the country will probably take at least two generations just to get it back to moderate 20th century standards of living. Gee, maybe the Russkies weren't quite so bad, eh?
The bottom line: anti-communism wasn't a "religion," any more than anti-Nazism was. It was a fight against a system that had killed tens of millions, and terrorized and enslaved hundreds of millions, in many countries, and aimed at doing so everywhere else as well. I won't claim that US policies were as productive, or as moral, as they should've been, in every single case -- but, overall, they were unquestionably right.
I disagree quite strongly. Occasionally, as in Chile, our intervention, covert or overt, has had somewhat productive results. More often than not, it's been supporting tyrants who were just as happy to torment and enslave their people as Stalin was. It's just that they either had some real or imagined geopolitical importance, or they gave us a great deal on extracting their natural resources. Where it became a "religion", imho, is in cases like Guatemala and Vietnam, where socialism/communism might actually have had a positive effect on their populaces, attempting to shake off their colonial pasts.
But the high priests of anti-communism declared that it could not be allowed even to better some peasants' lives, even if we had to destroy the country in order to save it. It is that ultimate irrationality that casts certain policies in that vein in a religious tone. Certainly it does not mean that all of our efforts against communism were not required, just that many were misguided and arrogant, and we never bother to fix our "mistakes". It becomes someone else's problem.
Anyway, not only do I find the Kosovo/East Timor hypocrisy fascinating, but also the current coverage of Russia's latest Chechnya campaign. Lots of coverage about how Russian planes are intentionally targeting civilians, and how bad that is! Never mind that we did the exact same thing just 6 months ago, and the Serbs hadn't even blown up any of our apartment buildings.
I don't know what makes me more cynical and disillusioned, the fact that our gov't counts on us not caring about these things, or the fact that they're right -- most of us really don't give a shit, 'cause it just ain't on the radar. That's fucked up, imho. I hate the idea that our tax dollars went to support these fucking thugs, when we could have helped and nurtured some of those nascent revolutionary governments, and had them on our side anyway. Unnecessary bloodbaths, paid for with our money.
A rural man - the paper did not give his employment - lives on two acres of land with a great many pets. Yesterday, the LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries came by and took one of his pets away : a raccoon. This raccoon had been found as a baby next to its dead mother. It was the only one of the litter to survive. The raccoon had been nursed back to life; had a cage of its own; played with the other animals on the 2 acres; and had a sweet tooth.
The interesting thing to me was the fact that the raccoon was 15 years old! That is no typo : 15. Wildlife and Fisheries issued the owner a ticket saying that he was not qualified to take care of a raccoon!! Who made the rules for raccoon caring? LA Wildlife and Fisheries?
The man contacted the local newspaper in a hope that the raccoon will be returned to him as he believes that the raccoon has been domesticated after 15 years. If released in the wild, he believes that the raccoon will quickly be killed.
One would think that LA Wildlife and Fisheries has more important things to do than confiscate a 15 year old raccoon who was giving no one trouble.
Can you doubt why I have no/little use for government? Why I want to see it lose its funding and power?
"With [Nixon's] approval Secretary of Labor George Schultz established in October 1969 the so-called Philadelphia Plan. This required construction unions in Philadelphia employed on government contracts to set up 'goals and timetables' for the hiring of black apprentices. In 1970 this mechanism was incorporated in government regulations governing all federal hiring and contracting -- thereby involving corporations that employed more than one-third of the national labor force. In doing so, the Nixon administration transformed the meaning of 'affirmative action.' When Congress approved Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ban job discrimination, it had affirmed a meritocratic and color-blind principle: hiring was to be done without regard to race, religion, sex or national origin. Although executive orders in the Johnson years had called on employers to pursue affirmative action in order to counter discrimination against individuals, the orders had not demanded 'goals and timetables' or 'set asides' that would protect
groups. After 1970, however, many American institutions - corporations, unions, universities, others - were required to set aside what were in effect quotas, a process that engaged the federal government as never before in a wide variety of personnel decisions taken in the private sector. This dramatic and rapid transformation of congressional intent took place as a a result of executive decisions - especially Nixon's - and court interpretations. Affirmative action of this sort never had the support of democratically elected representatives . ..
"There had been no civil rights platform in the Kennedy campaign of 1960. . . . [Bobby Kennedy's] main objective was to contain the civil rights struggle - not to encourage civil disobedience and thereby antagonize Southern Democrats. Bobby reserved his greatest contempt not for segregationists but for liberals who failed to look out for 'the best interests of President Kennedy.' Under Bobby's active stewardship the Justice Department filed a series of voting rights suits in the South, but this was largely an effort to
keep the matter in the courts and out of the news."
Hmmm . . . sounds like a Southern Strategy.
In fact, it was.
"I know which one I would pick, if I had to choose between the two."
Is the assumption here that if it hadn't been for Pinochet, Chile would have been Stalinist?
Such is the constant refrain when the U.S. backing of tyrannical regimes is pointed out: "Would you rather have Stalin??? Well, would you??!!!"
That line of argument cuts the Pinochets of the world a lot of slack.
remember your pledge to stick to posts a paragraph long or shorter? Entertain me.
That pledge does not include excerpts.
So fuck you, buddy.
(g).
I'm ready to be amused.
Bring the boys home. Girls, too.
Niner, you apparently haven't read the latest Nixon tape transcripts. There's nothing "thin" about his motives. Or methods.
Johnson didn't dig "nigras." Byrd was a member of the Klan. Hollings has used the "darkies." Nixon has used epithets for all sorts of groups (Jews getting top billing). RFK blocked an inquiry of the Civil Rights Commission into white violence. Lott spoke to the CCC.
Nice spice, but none of which is relevant to the soup of legislation and the big picture.
I understand the Southern Democrats far better than you do, young man.
(Damned kids. Get off my lawn!)
Meanwhile, it would appear that Jerry Falwell changed his mind about gay-baiting just in the nick of time.
Moreover you can't go blithely about collapsing one era in American political life into another. The notion (pushed by certain all-too-well-known parties in this forum) that Liberals are "bigots" whereas Conservatives, being "colorblind" have solved the problem of racism is hilarious in the extreme.
Given the fiasco that was Chicago, no greater point could have been made. Nothing like Abe Ribicoff pointing at Mayor Daley and decrying "Gestapo tactics."
As James Reston put it at the time: "It's hippies. It's draft card burners. It's demonstrators. It's blacks. It's high taxation. It's easy sex and dope and kids running away from home. It's uncertainty, fear, madness, murder - all these appearing day after day on the television and in the nespapers, adding up to a feeling that something is deeply wrong and must be changed."
Nixon played it safe in 1968. Remember, he didn't even debate Humphrey on television.
Indeed, from Paul Boller's book on Presidential Campaigns, San Francisco Mayor Joe Alioto cracked that "None of the candidates is running for president. They're all running for sheriff."
As for a Southern Strategy in 1972, no real strategy was necessary given the self-destructive Democratic nominee.
You missed it because it was never made. The comparison was between Democrats and Republicans and the charge wasn't "bigot". It was "racist". The bigotry of Democrats has nothing to do with race, it has to do with falsely attributing beliefs based on political affiliation.
if you are going to take the shot, take it. Call Ashcroft a bigot. A racist. I'll say this for Clay and Waters. Hateful and wrong as they are, at least they step up to the plate rather than mealy-mouth it.
I wonder if Ashcroft was a bigot when he supported and voted for numerous African-American candidates for judicial office and high positions in the Executive Branch, including over 90% of African-American nominees for the federal judiciary. Or when he appointed African-Americans to Missouri courts, including David Mason, Jimmy Edwards, Charles Shaw and Michael Calvin. Or when he appointed the first African-American judge, Ferdinand Gaitan, on the Western Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City, Missouris' state's second highest court.
I guess not. But magically, for the purposes of Ohio and other purveyors of race-baiting, when he opposes Ronnie White (along with every major Missouri law enforcement organization - bigots all, I'm sure) he becomes a racist.
You'd think he was running around Missouri in black face.
What a joke.
You'd think he was running around Missouri in black face.
Errata: Two years in a row.
Higher for some than others.
I can't say the same for all of the Republican Senators who unanimously found White to be unfit for the bench. It's likely that at least some of them, in buying Ashcroft's lie, jumped to the conclusion "Black judge = criminal-coddling death penalty opponent". JJBeiner has suggested that such ascribing of political beliefs on the basis of race is bigotry, and for once I agree with JJ.
I see no reason to attach any importance to the fact that a nutjob killed in the name of Our Lord, rather than Walelelelele, the Shark God.
Cal --
Do not take the name of Walelelelele in vain.
You have been warned.
"It's likely that at least some of them, in buying Ashcroft's lie, jumped to the conclusion "Black judge = criminal-coddling death penalty opponent". JJBeiner has suggested that such ascribing of political beliefs on the basis of race is bigotry, and for once I agree with JJ."
Just gutless insinuation. No doubt, White got screwed in the politics of the death penalty. Your own addition of the racial flavor, however, is pure creation.
Very nice sweeping indictment, by the way, after being confronted with evidence of Ashcroft's incontrovertible support for African-American nominees: "Oh, maybe not him, but with 55 white folks, there just MUST be some bigots in the crowd").
But I'm already slotted for a good seat in Hell, right next to the burning, molten lake.
Niner --
What do you make of Anthony Lewis' assertion that Senator Ashcroft falsely accused Justice White of dissenting on a death penalty case because the trial judge said he "opposed affirmative action?"
This isn't false labelling. White does oppose the death penalty. However, as an Appeals Court Judge he does not have the freedom to merely decide cases on his personal opinion. He is only able to reverse a death sentence when there is a legal reason to do so. Otherwise he would be removed for judicial misconduct. In other words, you can't just point to his record of affirming or overruling death penalty decisions and claim he supports or opposes the death penalty. It is necessary to look at his written opinions and evaluate his reasoning before making a judgement.
If you are interested, you can find his opinions at this site.
Cal --
"But I'm already slotted for a good seat in Hell, right next to the burning, molten lake."
Oh, yeah, I forgot.
BTW, it's considered bad form to toast marshmallows over the burning carcasses of the damned. So make sure you hide the bag when the overseers are looking.
I'd have to read the decision and the Lewis piece. Do you have a cite?
In the mean, here is Ashcroft's release on the White nomination:
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (MO), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that confirmation of Judge Ronnie White to the federal judiciary would be a blow to grassroots law enforcement in Missouri. Ashcroft cited widespread opposition to White from law enforcement officers statewide.
"Selecting federal judges is serious business. Judges who are appointed to the federal bench serve for life and wield enormous power. After careful review of Judge White's record, I believe Judge White would use his lifetime appointment to push the law in a pro-criminal direction, consistent with his own personal political agenda, rather than defer to the legislative will of the people and interpret the law as written," Ashcroft said, as the Senate considered White's nomination on Monday.
"Judge White is the most anti-capital punishment judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. Since joining the court, he has voted against capital punishment more often than any other judge. He is the judge most likely to vote against the death penalty. He is the judge most likely to dissent in death penalty cases, and the judge most likely to dissent alone. In a shocking opinion, Judge White alone found a reason to give a second chance to a multiple cop killer. When the Missouri Supreme Court considered cop killer James Johnson's appeal of his death penalty conviction, only Judge White voted to overturn the death sentence and grant a new trial." Johnson was convicted of capital murder in the 1991 killings of Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones' wife, Pam; Cooper County Sheriff Charles Smith; Deputy Sheriff Les Roark of Moniteau County; and Deputy Sheriff Sandra Wilson of Miller County. (State v. Johnson 968 SW 2d 123)
"Judge White's opinions have generated great concern in the Missouri law enforcement community, and have caused me to conclude that I must oppose his confirmation. I urge my fellow Senators to consider whether we should sanction the life appointment of a federal district court judge who has earned a vote of no confidence from so many in the law enforcement community. Based on Judge White's track record, this is not a situation that the law-biding citizens of Missouri should have to endure," Ashcroft said. In addition to voting against the death penalty more than any other judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge White also was the sole vote against drug checkpoints at off-ramps on major Missouri highways. In 1997, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed defense challenges to law enforcement seizure of illegal drugs and weapons from these traffic stops. The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to uphold such checkpoints for drugs. Writing in dissent, Judge White said the checkpoints in question were unconstitutional invasions of privacy, of unproven effectiveness, and were inadequately supervised by high ranking officers. (State v. Damask 936 SW 2d 565)
The facts about Justice White's record appear in an article in the November 1 edition of the National Law Journal by Sean O'Brien. (I don't know if it's available on line.) Excerpt:
"In fact, four Ashcroft appointees have voted to reverse more death sentences than has Justice White (Covington and Holstein, 24 each; Benton, 19; Price, 18). [White voted 17 times to reverse death sentences, compared to 41 times to affirm.] Only Justice Chip Robertson and Justice Limbaugh [yes, a relative of Rush] have a substantially lower reversal rate than Justice White's.
"The late Justice Elwood Thomas [Ashcroft appointee] voted to reverse death sentences 47% of the time. Justice Charles Blackmar, appointed by then-Governor Kit Bond [a Republican, now Missouri's other Senator] voted against 44% of the death sentences he reviewed. Justice White's record is within the norm, even by Republican standards."
"If an employer were to screw a Black man out of a job, and give a demonstrably false explanation for its action, any judge or jury would infer that the decision was affected by the man's race. Excuse me for making the same inference."
What if the decision maker was the NAACP? Or the replacement was black? Or the firing recommended by an outside consultant? Or the falsity of the explanation not so much demonstrable, but debatable? Or the black man was fired because of office politics, and office politics created the false justification?
Thank God juries are not as simplistic as you.
If you want an argument as to whether Ronnie White got caught up in death penalty politics (given Carnahan's commutation of a sentence at the behest of the Pope), you'll get no argument from me. I have clashed briefly with JJ on the point. But judicial nominess can be embroiled in political struggles, no matter their race, no matter the party.
Expanding run-of-the mill political muscle into a racist conspiracy, however, is a different manner. You have exonerated Ashcroft of racism, but you continue to smear those who heeded Ashcroft's call (and there can be no doubt that Ashcroft made the call - many GOP Senators who voted for White in committee voted against him on the floor). Without basis.
Making the link in the face of revelations as to Governor "Slappy" Carnahan singing "Mammie" is chutzpah.
As to your article, a question. Have Covington, Holstein, Benton, Thomas, Blackmar or Price come before Ashcroft as judicial nominees AFTER establishing these reversal rates?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MO&vol=/supreme/041998/&invol=204_98. (Sorry for not linking.) In this case, a domestic disturbance led to multiple killings by James Johnson, a Viet Nam veteran. Johnson's lawyers incompetently presented the defense of mental incapacity due to a Viet Nam "flashback". Justice White's dissent stated that although Johnson would have indisputedly deserved the death penalty had he been of full mental capacity, a competent presentation of his defense might have resulted in a different verdict or sentence, and Johnson was therefore entitled to a new trial.
WRT the proud biblical avenger of heterosexuals, is his attorney compelled to continue representing him? I cant' quite picture an attorney representing a client who insists on a defense that the bible says it's not murder to kill gay people.
"Your alternate explanations for Justice White's "firing" are not supported by the evidence. All we have in the record is the unsupportable "death penalty opponent" justification."
And Ashcroft's solid record of appointing and supporting African-American appointees, the kind of evidence that more often than not obviates the need for a jury, because I've won on summary judgment.
Ohio:
If you knew a damn thing about any damn thing, you'd know that, of course, death-penalty-opponent judges don't reverse cases on the grounds that they're "against the death penalty." That's illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable.
Rather, they simply find, time and time again, merit in meritless appeals.
There are roughly eighteen bazillion possible rationales for reversing a decision. Your naive recounting of White's proffered "Vietnam flashback/inadequate defense/yadda yadda yadda" rationale does not disprove an anti-death penalty animus.
Further, why on earth should anybody accept your citation re: death penalty reversal rates over Ashcroft's?
FYI, the Missouri newspapers spewed out a number of editorials over the unfairness of Ashcroft in dealing with White.
Moral shock from both sides. Hacks. Hacks. Hacks.
As noted above, most of the other Justices on the Missouri Supreme Court have voted to reverse verdicts with death sentences approximately as often as Justice White. But those, I suppose, were the meritORIOUS appeals.
Now the National Law Journal is an unreliable liberal source?
In a word: Yeahp.
Give me a cite from the NEA Monthly or the CISPES-G newsletter and you'll convince me.
It also states: "Perhaps the 1996 case of Brian Kinder holds the answer. Mr. Kinder was sentenced to death by Judge Earl Blackwell, who circulated a press release stating, "The truth is that I have noticed in recent years that the Democrat party places far too much emphasis on representing minorities such as homosexuals, people who don't' [sic] want to work, and people with a skin that's any color but white. " State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Mo. 1996)
(en banc). Writing for the court, Justice Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., (Rush Limbaugh's cousin) said, "We do not agree that the statements in the press release...would cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality of the court." He then rejected Mr. Kinder's argument that Judge Blackwell had improperly excluded all blacks from his jury. Justice White, referring to Judge Blackwell's campaign
literature as "race-baiting nonsense," voted to grant Mr. Kinder a new trial before a nonracist judge. Is that notion so far out of the mainstream, Sen. Ashcroft?"
"A. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Six days before the trial was scheduled to begin, the trial judge, who was facing an election that year, issued a press release announcing his decision to switch parties from Democrat to Republican. Kinder, an indigent African-American, then filed a motion to disqualify on the ground that the press release reflected that the trial judge could not fairly serve on a case involving an unemployed African-American. The press release, which was the sole evidence Kinder presented in support of the motion, stated, in relevant part, as follows:
'The truth is that I have noticed in recent years that the Democrat party places far too much emphasis on representing minorities such as homosexuals, people who don't want to work, and people with a skin that's any color but white. Their reverse-discriminatory quotas and affirmative action, in the workplace as well as in schools and colleges, are repugnant to me . . . . I believe that a person should be advanced and promoted, in this life, on the basis of initiative, qualifications, and willingness to work, not simply on the color of his or her skin, or sexual preference.
While minorities need to be represented, or [sic] course, I believe the time has come for us to place much more emphasis and concern on the hard-working taxpayers in this country . .. . That majority group of our citizens seems to have been virtually forgotten by the Democrat party.'
"After a hearing, the motion was denied, and Kinder now presses the point on appeal.
It is presumed that judges act with honesty and integrity, Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 43 L. Ed. 2d 712, 95 S. Ct. 1456 (1975), and will not undertake to preside in a trial in which they cannot be impartial, see, e.g, State v. McElroy, 894 S.W.2d 180, 189 (Mo. App. 1995); State v. Cooper, 811 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Mo. App. 1991). That presumption is overcome, and disqualification of a judge is required, however, if a reasonable person, giving due regard to that presumption, would find an appearance of impropriety and doubt the impartiality of the Court. See State v. Smulls, 935 S.W.2d
9 (Mo. banc 1996) (No. 75511, decided November 19, 1996, slip op. at 9); State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 918 (Mo. banc 1996). The rule announced in Smulls and Nunley is drawn from our Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2, Canons 2 and 3 (C), which provide that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety and shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice, and Rule 2, Canon 3 (D), which provides that a judge should recuse in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
"In this case, we do not agree that the statements in the press release, when coupled with all other relevant considerations, would cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality of the court. In context, the statements merely express the trial judge's dissatisfaction with affirmative action and government entitlement programs. To the extent that the comments can be read to disparage
minorities, there is little point in defending them, even as the political act they were intended to be. But they are a political act, not a judicial one, and, as such, they do not necessarily have any bearing on the judge's in-court treatment of minorities. At the hearing on the motion, the trial judge's response, ignored or disregarded by the defendant, should have set to rest any concern. The court stated:
'The Court is not prejudiced against this defendant or any black person in any degree. The Court, as a matter of fact, and the Court's record will show, having served in the Missouri legislature for 16 years, that there is no stronger believer in constitutional rights than this Court. People get confused sometimes when you talk about group rights, civil rights. Or white rights, or black rights, or yellow rights, when they start talking that way, they lost me. As far
as this Court is concerned every individual and every citizen of this county is absolutely entitled to their individual constitutional rights, whether they are yellow, red, white, black, or polka dot. It doesn't make any difference to this Court. A person is a person, and an individual is an individual. I think people get off the track when they start talking about color. But insofar as this Court is concerned, there is no stronger defender of individual constitutional rights, and this Court and this defendant can rests assured and if he doesn't know it now he will know it after the trial, I am sure.
That's not the angle that interests me dear. It"s that they're selling themselves to television as means of spreading racist,anti-gay extremist-Fundie propaganda. I would LOVE to hear the tapes of their "negotations" with Tom "The Greatest Generation" Brokaw.
ignore the law in favor of his own policy preferences.
Those numbers regarding other judges reversing a greater number of dp cases? Surely, m'boy, you understand they might have judged far more cases than White-- in which case, a greater actual number of reversals isn't very telling, because we'd want to know the percentage reversed.
Let's take a closer look:
"In fact, four Ashcroft appointees have voted to reverse more death sentences than has Justice White (Covington and Holstein, 24 each; Benton, 19; Price, 18). -- NO DATA ON PERCENTAGE
[White voted 17 times to reverse death sentences, compared to 41 times to affirm.]
Only Justice Chip Robertson and Justice Limbaugh [yes, a relative of Rush] have a ****substantially*** lower reversal rate than Justice White's.
Note the weasel word "Substantially." Who decides what's a "substantially" lower reversal rate? Well, the writer you place so much credence in, of course. Note that he doesn't provide the numbers to allow us to judge ourselves; rather, he passes judgement on to us while witholding the relevant evidence upon which we ourselves could decide.
Go back and read your stupid cite. Note that your author NEVER claims that the judges listed as having reversed a greater ACTUAL NUMBER of dp cases also reversed a greater PERCENTAGE of cases than White. All we know is that, in the author's not-so-humble opinion, only two other judges have a SUBSTANTIALLY (whatever that means) lower reversal rate.
Ashcroft's statement that White has the highest dp reversal rate, in other words, remains unchallenged. The mention of the two other judges is inapposite, since one is dead and the other is retired-- hence, they're not serving.
And keep in mind, a shitload of dp cases were reversed in the early-mid seventies when the supreme court was working out the new rules, so citing a seventies-era judges' reversal rate is hardly relevant.
Now let's talk about "Mammie." Mammie, Mammie I love yuh Mammie...
The overarching question, though, is how did the Republican Party gain the reputation as "an exclusive white Christian club," as Peggy Noonan describes it?
Are the Democrats so expert at spinning this perception of the GOP? Are minorities, women, and other faiths essentially rubes and yokels for believing the spin?
Or is there more than a tinge of truth to the charges?
"Are minorities, women, and other faiths essentially rubes and yokels for believing the spin?"
In a word: Yeahp.
So only 40-50% of women are rubes, 60% of Hispanics, and 60% of gays. That's not terrible. Someone has to live in Omaha.
This is a gross distortion. In fact. in his dissent, White never addressed jury selection. Moreover, on appeal, Kinder only complained of the exclusion of one black juror.
In short, on my cursory review, I have demonstarted that the O'Brien piece is crapola.
From the decision:
III. VOIR DIRE
Kinder contends that the trial court erred in striking six venirepersons for cause, two of whom initially expressed reservations about being able to consider the death penalty. While it is clear that jurors cannot be excluded in a capital punishment case just because they reveal conscientious objections to capital punishment, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 522, 20 L. Ed. 2d
776, 88 S. Ct. 1770 (1968); Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 657, 95 L. Ed. 2d 622, 107 S. Ct. 2045 (1987), they can be excluded if they are "irrevocably committed . . . to vote against the death penalty regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings," Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522 n.21; Gray, 481 U.S. at 657-58. As the Supreme Court later explained, the standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on the death penalty is
99 S. Ct. 124 (1978), and overruled on other grounds by Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 91 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 112 L. Ed. 2d 179, 111 S. Ct. 225 (1990).
Venirepersons Kelley and Vrouvas were struck because of opinions they expressed about the death penalty. Both persons indicated during voir dire that they would be unable to impose the death penalty under any circumstances, but, as Kinder points out, they also made statements to the opposite effect, indicating that they could consider the death penalty as a punishment. We are not bound solely by the statements favoring Kinder's position because the ruling
on a challenge for cause is to be based on the whole record. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d at 649; State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 285 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031, 133 L. Ed. 2d 527, 116 S. Ct. 679 (1995).
It's like this: Every single group in America wants something. Most want more than they actually deserve. Everyone feels they have a right to someone else's money.
Democrats and idiots (largely synomous) assume that if a Black or Latino/a or woman or gay asks for something, that's the end of the argument; they should get what they ask for, and if you dare question their request, you're a bigot.
Want more immigrants coming into the country? Well, minority groups (most of 'em, anyway) do; therefore we should have more. How many more? Well, as many as they ask for. Since there's no legitimate contrarian opionion to their request, they could ask for 100,000,000 immigrants a year, and that's the number we get, because it is of course racist to suggest we could do well with half that amount, or even fewer.
Black civil rights leaders make a stink about welfare reform, as if a helping hand is a constitutional civil right? Well, they must be right; they are Black, after all, and therefore are always correct when it comes to civil rights questions, even if the subject isn't really about civil rights. And if you want to cut the welfare budget, you're racist, because it's just plain not the European Way (the only Way that's Sophisticated and Good) to put boring things like fiscal discipline ahead of an extra forty dollars a month for welfare recipients...
Three other potential jurors, Lewis, Lynde and Courtois, also gave responses that justified the trial court's conclusion that they would be unable to perform their duties as jurors. Lewis and Lynde both expressed reservations about sitting in judgment of another person. Lynde stated that he could consider both life imprisonment and the death penalty as punishments, but he did not feel that
he was qualified to make a decision on punishment. Lewis stated that he would have difficulty considering any punishment and making a sentencing decision. Courtois indicated that she was having difficulty understanding any of what was going on. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking these three venirepersons.
and the record does not show that the tendered panel was not qualified. Under these circumstances, he was not prejudiced. Similarly, Kinder cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the denial to make a sealed record. While the trial court should have made a more complete record for review, the disqualification of the juror would still be upheld unless Kinder established that a full panel of
qualified jurors was not tendered. This point is denied."
Yet this was one of the bases of appeal, and one of the trial court's decisions unmentioned by the National Law Journal.
1) spelled synonymous. Dumb to correct such an easy mistake, but given the context of your sweeping statement...
2) Disappointed in you, Ace. So much easier to call your opponents names.
You're joking, right?
Just checking.
I hope you weren't joking when you wrote: Everyone feels they have a right to someone else's money, because you are correct, and Bastiat, in The Law, said essentially the same thing more than a century ago: The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of another.
I disagree with you about immigration, of course, being the Libertarian wacko that I am.
For what it's worth, I'd vote with the majority result since I don't know where you'd draw the line in scrutinizing judical candidates' statements for "recusable" remarks. But singling out this case as evidence of Justice White's unfitness, and minimizing the trial judge's statement by characterizing it as merely stating opposition to affirmative action, did a disservice to White.
I never joke.
The whole canard of "racism" is a dishonest tactic you use to shut down any contrarian opinion on what your little voting-blocs want.
If everyone in this country were the color purple, and of one gender (asexual; sporing), we would still be arguing about things like the proper time limit for welfare. But of course, race would not be an issue. It would simply be an argument between those who place fiscal discipline and capalist incentives as first-priority versus those who place "niceness" and wanton disregard of moral hazard as first-priority.
But, in the real world, when race can somehow be injected into the debate, Democrats and idiots (largely synONomous) almost never fail to do so.
More whites USED TO BE on welfare than blacks. Liberals and civil rights "leaders" always liked to point that out, to combat "myths" about presumably-black welfare mothers. And yet they consistently use welfare reform as a race-card. Wait a minute-- if more whites were on welfare than blacks...?
Nevermind the logic. It's Alice in Wonderland. Facts mean precisely what you want them to mean and no more and no less.
because you are correct, and Bastiat, in The Law, said essentially the same thing more than a century ago: The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of another.
I wasn't joking, and of course it's completely correct.
Y'know Ronski, for a fag, you're really a straight-thinker.
"For what it's worth, I'd vote with the majority result since I don't know where you'd draw the line in scrutinizing judical candidates' statements for "recusable" remarks. But singling out this case as evidence of Justice White's unfitness, and minimizing the trial judge's statement by characterizing it as merely stating opposition to affirmative action, did a disservice to White."
Of course, your own judiciousness would probably elicit charges of racism, if deemed necessary. Ask Democratic Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a white man who had the temerity to enter a primary theretofore occupied by two black Democrats.
If you're lucky, you'll skate through life making the pernicious suggestions, instead of being on the receiving end of them.
And Ronski:
My point about immigration wasn't that we should have less of it (though I think we should; one Niner is enough). My point is that when any contratrian opion to the vested interest of a voting-bloc is demonized as illegitimate and outside the parameters of civil discourse, the voting-bloc can pick whatever damn number of immigrants it likes. Sky's the limit. Because, of course, no objection will be tolerated.
These sorts of distortions are well-used by Democrats and associated miscreants, time and time again.
Incidently, a substantial (SUBSTANTIAL, Ohio, y'hear that, Ginger?) majority of Americans want immigration levels cut. I'm not saying that's right simply because the majority wants it. However, when neither party advances what the MAJORITY of voters want as a policy, there's a distortion in the system.
And that distortion has arisen because it's simply VERBOTEN to suggest cutting immigration rates. Despite the fact that the Majority would like such a cut.
Choo talkin' to me, cholo?
Cellar:
You know, for an asshole, you're really sort of a dolt.
Ronski:
I hope you weren't put off by my "fag" remark. It was meant with a (g).
Niner:
Tell your mother she forgot to vaccuum under my computer-desk.
Ah yes, AOS the Soul of Wit!
She was busy stealing your pens, gringo.
No, Cellar. Exclamation Points are the soul of wit. Like William Shakespeare said. Or rather,
Like William Shakespeare said, dears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Niner:
Yeah, you tell your mother to get her dust-bustin' ass back under my desk.
And you can tell your hoochi-coochi seeester I've got a job for her, too.
She'll have her work cut out for her pushing aside all those kneepad-ready interns.
I prefer Marlowe to Shakespeare. Always have.
No one asked. No one ever asks, but you persist in offering your What's Hot/What's Not lists to us on a daily basis.
I'll play Ethel Mertz to Diva's Lucy.
Mi hermana, Charo, trabaja en la Boat de Amor, tu perro comida caucasian.
The only Spanish word I recognize in this sentence is "Boat." And "Charo."
This is America, Paco. Speaka de English or don't speaka at all.
Just so long as you're annoyed. That's all that I ask for.
There was a good joke lurking in 3287, but I fubared it.
Adios.
Democrats are not necessarily bad or evil. They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Their current campaign against Ashcroft is evidence.
So much easier to call your opponents names.
Like Democrats calling Republicans racist at every opportunity.
3226. OhioSTOPAS - 11/9/99 6:03:23 PM
JJ: If White's opinions don't evidence his opposition to the death penalty, why do you say he opposes it? What is it in "his written opinions" and "his reasoning" that has persuaded you?
This is a gross distortion of his comments. Here is the quote.
While minorities need to be represented, or [sic] course, I believe the time has come for us to place much more emphasis and concern on the hard-working taxpayers in this country . . . . That majority group of our citizens seems to have been virtually forgotten by the Democrat party.'
The only way this can be viewed as racist is if it is viewed out of context. In context it is clear he is criticizing the Democrats for catering to any group other than taxpayers including "those who don't want to work for a living" and ignoring the people who pay the taxes.
Justice White criticized the trial judge for his racist remark and held that he should have recused himself from the trial of Kinder, a Black man.
White's willingness to play the race card disqualifies him in my book. It is curious that when people are quoting the trial judge, they leave out this quote.
I believe that a person should be advanced and promoted, in this life, on the basis of initiative, qualifications, and willingness to work, not simply on the color of his or her skin
Since White disagreed with the judge's statements, should we also assume he disagrees with this statement.
Maybe I wasn't clear. White's opinions do show his opposition to the death penalty.
What is it in "his written opinions" and "his reasoning" that has persuaded you?
His willingness to dissent from the majority opinion on rather flimsy grounds. His attack on the judge in the Kinder case was unjustified and uncalled for. His dissent in other cases was similarly spurious.
While minorities need to be represented, or [sic] course, I
believe the time has come for us to place much more
emphasis and concern on the hard-working taxpayers in
this country . . . . That majority group of our citizens seems
to have been virtually forgotten by the Democrat party.
Clearly, the judge is drawing a distinction between minorities and "hard-working taxpayers."
I'm aghast that anyone would attempt to defend this comment.
What part of
I believe that a person should be advanced and promoted, in this life, on the basis of initiative, qualifications, and willingness to work, not simply on the color of his or her skin
don't you understand?
Are you aware that a minority is any group other than the majority? The majority in this comment is clearly taxpayers. Therefore the minority in question is non-taxpayers. This would be painfully clear to anyone not driven by a partisan agenda. Which I suppose leaves you out.
Very nice.
Proud, noble, and not-in-the-tiniest-bit-vindictive Senator Jesse Helms goes it alone:
***
Helms Denounces Moseley-Braun Alone
By Tom Raum
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Nov. 9, 1999; 7:05 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON –– Jesse Helms waged a solitary battle on the floor of the Senate Tuesday against the nomination of former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun to be ambassador to New Zealand, accusing her of "well-known ethical lapses."
However, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, received no support from his own party's leadership in opposing the nomination further and members of both parties predicted Moseley-Braun would be confirmed decisively by the Senate.
***
Read the entire article here.
JJ, here's your opportunity to bitterly denounce the Republican senators for their craven cowardice in failing to stand tall with Senator Helms. I can't wait to read your denunciation of those gutless GOP weasels.
You have been harping on this theme for days. Yes, the Republicans were gutless, no doubt about it. The power of the media that would have fried them as racists scared them off. You should be proud of your lying buddies.
That would :
1) Save us money in salaries paid to judges.
2) Fewer decisions would lead to less intrusion into our lives. Seems like every time a judge makes a decision, we have less freedom.
3) A growing backlog of cases just might discourage a few needless law suits.
Al --
"Yes, the Republicans were gutless, no doubt about it... You should be proud of your lying buddies."
Al, I'm crushed to hear you talk that way about the GOP. Listening to you and JJ, I thought Republicans stood for everything good and decent and true in the world. Now you tell me that they're gutless cowards too interested in saving their own worthless hides to tell the honest truth --
I guess that means that means we can't trust the GOP any more than we can the Democrats.
Oh, woe to us all.
I can't believe you are arguing with someone about legal questions. Your job is to obey the law, not understand it. Wouldn't you, as a musician, be upset if a non-musician formed an opinion about your music?
Michelle Cottelle writes a compelling piece against Moseley-Braun for her ethical lapses in the 11/9 New Republic. She also bemoans having to take a position consonant with Helms.
Trial doesn't give a hoot about the rightness or wrongness of things. If is, can he score off of someone. What he has not come to realize about me is that I think all politicians are whores. But, as in life, there are some whores I prefer.
So you vote for the candidate that gives you the best hummer?
Niner --
"Michelle Cottelle writes a compelling piece against Moseley-Braun for her ethical lapses in the 11/9 New Republic."
I have great faith that the Senate subcommittee, on reviewing all of the evidence, concluded that the case against the nominee was somewhat less than compelling.
Otherwise I would be forced to conclude -- as Al has -- that the Republican senators who abandoned their chairman are all "gutless whores."
Read it.
Cal
Thanks for linking it.
Well, I'd make a comment about how your post was pretty much a naked appeal for help, but....
Stat!
I guess a hummer would be nice, but right now I drive a Ford.
Niner --
I did.
Good.
"Here's the latest weird twist in the four-month-old Gingrich divorce-- which is fast becoming the marital equivalent of the Microsoft suit: House staffer Callista Bisek was grilled yesterday morning by boyfriend Newt Gingrich's lawyers. During the 2 1/2-hour deposition at an Alexandria law office, the 33-year-old Bisek said she and Gingrich began their intimate relationship in November 1993, when Newt was separated from wife Marianne.
According to Newt's lawyer Randy Evans, Bisek also answered questions about gifts the 56-year-old former House speaker has given her. Aside from wine purchases, Newt apparently is not a big spender; before this year, his only presents were two CDs--a Johann Strauss collection and a Christmas album--and a book about Pope John Paul II. This year, Newt gave her a pearl ring, a set of golf clubs and some luggage. "There was just nothing to hide," Evans told us, adding that Bisek refused to answer queries about "the unseemly details of their physical contact."
Because of a scheduling snafu, Marianne's lawyers did not attend the session--which was odd because they've been trying to grill Bisek since August. "I have never seen a court case where a husband seeks to take the testimony of his own alleged paramour under oath, particularly when the alleged paramour will not agree to be deposed by the other spouse," Marianne's attorney, John Mayoue, told us. The parties are scheduled to appear in D.C. Superior Court on Nov. 23, while tomorrow down in Cobb County, Ga., Marianne's attorneys will try to force Newt to answer a long list of their own questions."
Not a very good case for banning guns... besides all the extenuating circumstances, and the fact that either Hansen or Foster could have prevented the whole thing from escalating to begin with. Remember... Foster didn't have to get out of her car in the open road and charge Hansen's car.
Hansen is innocent until proven guilty. Who knows what Foster was planning to do when she got out of her car and came running at Hansen's car... Who knows what words were exchanged... did Foster threaten to kill her? Who knows?
However, it doesn't look like Hansen made the right choice. It sounds like she was carrying the gun illegally anyhow. She probably should pay the price. I don't think this proves that guns should be banned, and again, how would registration prevent this tragedy? It can't. Hansen did wrong, and only she should pay the price.
I had a similar situation happen to me once, although I wasn't trying to tick the guy off. I think he thought I was following him, but I just happened to be going the same way. The guy got out of his car in front of me at a stop, approached my car, I gave him a funny look, and drove around him and away. Even if I did have a gun in this situation I wouldn't have pulled it out.
The public good is served by getting every salacious detail of Mr. Gingrich's affair. It is necessary. It is crucial to the fabric of our moral being.
At least, that's what the GOP has told us for the last 5 years.
The Nation's future depends upon it.
You have such a limited vision.
Hearings must be held. How did Ms. Bisek obtain her job? Is she qualified? Did she receive preferential treatment?
Our children cannot sleep until we have all the answers.
It's the fact that if I did the same thing with an intern in my government office I'd be fired... no questions about fairness...
It's a double standard... and that's what I object to.
Yes, but you are not a sophisticate. So, your homespun wisdom is due for flaying by the smart set.
Over time, people have choices as to the processing of political memory. They can be even and largely non-partisan, like Robert Novak (who is certainly an ideologue, but is as hard on one party as the other) and Chris Hitchens (a liberal's liberal who saw gross corruption and called it as it was). As a politican, you can aspire to Bob Kerrey or Russ Feingold or Pat Moynihan, who even within the constraints of their party (and even in opposing impeachment), managed dignity and fairness during the impeachment process.
Or, you can opt for the dime-thin wit and talking point mentality ("It's impeachment over a blowjob!" you must scream) of a Paul Begala, a Lanny Davis, a James Carville, an Eleanor Clift, a Robert Wexler.
The deficiencies of your intellect may place you in the latter category, and if that is the case, my condolences. But if you have the aptitude to know better, than nothing less than your soul is in the balance.
Good luck.
Did he lie about it under oath? Did he ask others to lie for him? Then, no, I don't want to know. All I wanted to know about Clinton was whether or not he lied. The details only became necessary because he was trying to run from the truth.
I have yet to see Novak so much as mildly critical of the Republicans -- save for the fact that they don't want to see blood running in the streets at quite the rate that suits him.
and Chris Hitchens (a liberal's liberal
Not THIS liberal.
who saw gross corruption and called it as it was).
He saw gross behavior and wondered why he wasn't gettin' any (a common concern in the Beltway.) Hitchens is a whole topic unto himself, of course. I used to be a fan. Not after Monicamania and Impeachment-O-Rama. When he started attending Freeper rallies he not only lost his Liberal credentials, he lost what soul he had left.
I long to know what he wants out of life other than Clinton's head on a platter. Does he believe in anything? Anything at all? What sort of world would he like to live in, and what does he think outght to be done to bring it up to his expectations. Somehow I get the feeling he has no expectations. Just a longing to sprew misanthropic bile.
Well that's why we want a court proceeding J.J. We all how the game is played. Confect a trial, put the subject under oath, and then ask for "the truth."
Simmer for six months under an open fire of television news cameras. Serves millions.
Whatever they want to say man... my sensibilities have nothing to do with my intelligence.
It's not the affair... it's not the sex...
Not only did he do it on the job, but Clinton reportedly had her in the office while he discussed secret and sensitive national security information on the phone...
Clinton did wrong... then he perjured himself...
I resent the fact that I have always tried to live and do the right things, and people like him get chance after chance after chance...
I guess that's life.
Heavens to Betsy Palmer! And we all just know what Monica was going to do next, don't we?
Spill it to Saddam Hussein, of course.
JJ --
TS: "JJ, here's your opportunity to bitterly denounce the Republican senators for their craven cowardice in failing to stand tall with Senator Helms. I can't wait to read your denunciation of those gutless GOP weasels."
JJ: "You have such a limited vision."
You disappoint me, JJ.
I knew you wouldn't say anything bad about the GOP -- you're far too predictable a hack to do anything so bold. I just thought you'd come up with a better response.
You largely make my point. When Hitchens was honest, he was also in league with devil, and he was lost to you. In politics, you, as many, choose dogma over truth, team over individual.
He writes eloquently and with great force as to the falsity and corruption of the Clinton Administration, none of which is factually rebutted. Simultaneously, he is one of the most brilliant pens in opposition to the death penalty, worldwide slavery (he estimates the number at 27 million), and various other progressive and/or liberal causes.
For this, he appears to have lost his soul?
... but screw him for pulling the country's pants down too...
and screw anyone for thinking there's nothing wrong with him doing it.
Secure information is supposed to remain secure... the way to keep it secure is to not give people who shouldn't have it access to it. It's not unknown for people to sell information to countries that don't have our best interests at heart.
If you are so opposed to what you term "a double standard," then surely you will be in the forefront of those calling for a hearing concerning Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Bisek.
Hell, I'll say it. The best thing that happened to Carol Mosely Braun was Helms' opposition, it took the heat off of her ethical lapses (my favorite is cashing her dead Mom's assistance checks), and the GOP wasn't about to 1) kabosh a former colleague and 2) follow up Ronnie White with Braun.
So, you get the rejection of a qualified jurist on political grounds and you have to eat the acceptance of a criminal in the process.
Missouri's loss is New Zealand's gain.
I could care less about their personal lives...
but if it affects the job they're supposed to be doing as public servants... I want them out. I don't care what party they're in.
On what grounds? What is he accused of?
Does it matter? Let's hold the hearings and see what turns up.
Isn't that what the GOP did?
Glad to do it.
I knew you wouldn't say anything bad about the GOP -- you're far too predictable a hack to do anything so bold. I just thought you'd come up with a better response
Coming from such a predictable hack as yourself, I will give this all the consideration it is due. None.
Does it matter? Let's hold the hearings and see what turns up.
Isn't that what the GOP did?
No.
No. Obviously you have been in a coma since '92.
Washington Post excerpt
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
"Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R), the chairman of a congressionally appointed commission that is trying to hammer out a tax policy for the booming and largely unregulated world of online commerce, yesterday urged the group to recommend that Internet purchases be exempt from sales taxes.
Gilmore's proposal also calls for the repeal of a federal excise tax on local and long-distance telephone service--which he said would save consumers more than $3.3 billion a year--and for states to be free to spend welfare money on computers and Internet access for poor people.
"Electronic commerce is a driving force of our economy," Gilmore said in an interview yesterday. "We shouldn't slow it down with taxes."
All sorts of things might turn up. How Ms. Bisek got her job, the book deals, the odd credit card receipts, illegal gifts and gratuities and the like.
Let's all demand a better Government by ridding ourselves of "the double standard."
Rib Spreader!
Stat!
Not bright, but gutsy.
and I don't agree with you that the Clinton investigation was just a fishing trip, as you propose.
He knows that as well as we do. He is just contributing to the DNC propaganda machine.
they printed a picture of her in today's Post, and it completely cleared up, for me, anyway, what a woman her age would want with the likes of Newtie. Strictly Beltway Bureaucrat Helmet Head, if you know what I mean. Yech.
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
SAN FRANCISCO –– Computer security experts are warning of a dangerous new e-mail virus, one able to destroy information even when users don't fully open their messages.
It appears as a message with the following information: "From: (person who sent worm unintentionally); Subject: BubbleBoy is back!"
"Bubbleboy," apparently nicknamed after an episode of the TV show "Seinfeld," is the first known e-mail virus that doesn't even need to be fully opened to be activated. Just highlighting the e-mail's subject line in Microsoft Outlook Express activates its hidden code.
It also takes every address in a computer's e-mail program and passes the virus along, unless the computer user has installed a patch distributed in August by Microsoft.
I love it.
Niner --
"So, you get the rejection of a qualified jurist on political grounds ..."
Specifically, as I believe you've said, to serve the re-election hopes of Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO).
"... and you have to eat the acceptance of a criminal in the process."
Because Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) doesn't want to make his party look bad.
Pretty sorry record for the GOP on these two nominations, wouldn't you say?
and trash them.
Sure. What a moral pillar.
Mr. Gingrich was so caring that he brought the divorce papers to the first Mrs. Gingrich as she lay in a hospital bed recovering from a cancer operation. Then, Mr. Gingrich decided not to burden her with the hassle of going to the bank to cash child support checks; so he didn't send her any.
A true moral Republican.
How do we know? There hasn't been an investigation. Let's bring back the Special Prosecutor and find out.
What is really pathetic is that these were the two best candidates the Democrats could muster. At one point the Democrats had standards. Boy, are those days gone.
"Neither seems to hold moral superiority to me."
Basically that's true, but still see a distinction between bad and worst--perhaps sheer numbers if nothing else.
JJ --
But Niner says Justice White was a qualified jurist. Surely you don't disagree?
Oh, wait -- the Republicans in the Senate rejected White, so of course you disagree. You have to. You're a hack.
stike this garbage and replace with "per se" please! Thank you.
This is a bit of a change of subject from the sillness above, so I hope you will all forgive me.
Now I have always believed that Dalton Trumbo was a victim of a witch hunt by the HCUA, a facsist bunch if there ever was one. However, in 1945 when Earl Browder was ousted from the Communist Party, it seems on orderts from Stalin, and William Z. Foster was put in, Dolton Trumbo said: "It comes down to this, if Lenin was right, then Browder was wrong-and vice versa. I believe that Lenin was right."
Is it just possible that Trumbo was a Communist? Now I don't mean just a Communist like you may be. I mean the kind of Communist so common in the '30's, '40's, and on into the early '90's, whose allegiance was to Stalin, sort of like your former hero Hitchens.
If Dalton Trumbo was a red who favored the USSR, maybe seeing him as a victim is bull shit, just as it was bullshit to see Hiss as a victim of that nasty Nixon.
Senator Ashcroft declared White to be a death penalty opponent because it served his political ambitions in Ashcroft's upcoming reelection race against his likely opponent, Governor Carnahan. Carnahan appointed White, and Ashcroft wants to portray Carnahan as someone who appoints criminal-coddling death penalty opponents to the bench. This of course required portraying White as a criminal-coddling death penalty opponent.
JJ --
"Is [Justice White] a good choice for the Federal bench?"
Well, let's see ... Senator Bond thought so. According to Senator Hatch, "Senator Bond did support this judge at the hearing but later changed his position on this as he became more and more aware of the opposition by law enforcement." Unfortunately, Senator Bond never checked with the President of the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police, who called White "an individual who surely would have proven to be an asset to the Federal Judiciary."
But none of this matters to a hack like you, JJ. Your party voted him down. That's all you need to know.
CNN reports Kip Kinkel sentenced to 111 years in prison, death penalty not imposed. Republicans blame Justice White for the lenient sentence.
BTW, You own political hackery has so blinded you, you think anyone who disagrees with you is a hack. Straighten out your own thinking and you will realize that you are the one who has been the hack.
Lucille Ball claimed she became a party member because a dear old Uncle of hers insisted that she do so. I don't believe that for one minute. But in the 50's she a force more powerful than J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarhty, Walter Winchell and Sherman Billingsley combined.
I haven't had a gander on Trumbo's writings on the subject for some time, but I'm sure what he meant by "Lenin was right," was quite nuanced in context. He wasn't a knee-jerker of any sort, IMO.
There's a real problem in viewing this area of history in an abosolute one-side-or-the-other way. Abe Polonsky joined the party only to discover that its stances were not at all to his highly idiosyncratic liking. But he NEVER backed down from being a leftist radical. He was luckier than most in that he made a comfortable living via "fronts." And that's why he so despised Kazan -- selling out his friends, and stabbing the backs of people he didn't even know, by grandstanding to the committee.
Presenting a united front of refusing to cooperate sounded good on paper, but it didn't work in practice because of the dramatic potential created by those who went along with it.
The real drma of course was in the ruined lives of those ground under by the "Anti-Communist" juggernaut. Like Dorothy Commingore.
As for Trumbo, I seriously doubt that Moscow could have been in any way pleased by "Johnny Got His Gun."
JJ --
"Let's assume for the moment that the opposition to White was purely political ..."
Well, I'll take that as a concession.
"... How is this different from Democrats who have played politics with numerous nominations in the past?"
It's not. You're the one insisting that the Republicans rejected White purely on his merits. As always, whatever the GOP does you slavishly support.
"... you think anyone who disagrees with you is a hack."
Actually, I respect lots of folks without agreeing with them, and disagree with lots of folks without thinking they're hacks. You, on the other hand, are dull, predictable, and so throroughly smitten with the Republican Party that you richly deserve the title.
Obviously you don't know what "Let's assume . . ." means.
It's not.
Then your attacks are purely hypocritical.
You, on the other hand, are dull, predictable, and so throroughly smitten with the Republican Party that you richly deserve the title.
I bring facts into a political discussion to counter the lies and distortions of the Demcrats and this is your response. I hope you defend your clients better than you defend your positions.
Politics has always been in play in judicial appointments, it is just far more naked than it has been in the past. An the race card has been played heavily by the GOP as well. Witness Justice Tom.
Thank you for your reply to my off Thread post. As much as I would love to go on with this discussion, this is not the place. I will request a Thread on it, but I doubt anyone but me is interested.
JJ --
"Then your attacks are purely hypocritical."
On the contrary: I assume that any process left to politicians will be politicized. You, on the other hand, insist that Justice White was rejected on his merits simply because it was the GOP who rejected him.
"I bring facts into a political discussion to counter the lies and distortions of the Demcrats ..."
Ah, yes, those "lies and distortions" that are the sole province of Democrats. You remain dull, predictable, and throroughly smitten with the Republican Party. You're a hack, JJ. Admit it. Revel in it. Enjoy it.
Because you're not fooling anyone.
It's funny how much more serious things seem when the shoe is on the other foot.
The GOP controlled Senate has held up a huge number of appointments
And the Clinton administration has failed to nominate candidates for a huge number of positions in a timely manner.
JJ --
Spin harder. You may actually fool yourself.
I hope all will join me in toasting the Senate's 96-2 confirmation of the Honorable Carol Mosely-Braun as Ambassador to New Zealand.
Here's an interesting item -- not that it'll make a bit of difference what Bauer thinks, but perhaps some other candidates will be asked their views.
***
Bauer files for primary,
backs government in
Microsoft case
By KEVIN LANDRIGAN/Telegraph Staff
November 10, 1999
Web posted at: 10:13 a.m. EST (1513 GMT)
CONCORD, New Hampshire (NHPrimary.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer said Tuesday that he agreed with the federal judge who ruled that Microsoft Corp. was a monopoly and urged founder Bill Gates to seek and out-of-court settlement.
Bauer said Microsoft has engaged in the same anti-competitive practices in personal computers as multinational corporations in reducing the number of family owned farms in Iowa, home of the nation’s first caucus.
After officially filing for a place on the Feb. 1 New Hampshire primary ballot, Bauer, 53, said the Republican Party should stand for tough enforcement of anti-trust laws when a powerful company tries to snuff out competition.
"I think the decision was correct. My party should be standing with the little guy with the entrepreneurial spirit, with startup companies that are trying to find a niche, not with the company that was trying to close off all the real ways to compete," Bauer told reporters.
***
Read the entire article here.
When used in a political context, some words lose all of their meaning.
Spin harder. You may actually fool yourself.
I bow to the master of self-deception.
JJ --
"I bow to the master of self-deception."
Doesn't it hurt when you bow to yourself?
In msg 2815, you stated that former Senator Lloyd Bentsen "belongs to a 'whites-only country club'". Where did you read or hear this?
In msg 3016, you endorsed a statement made by Al Davis in msg 3011 about something Lyndon Johnson allegedly said. I disputed it to Al in 3054, but he didn't respond. Since you also said Johnson said it, do you have any proof?
In 3295, you said Justice Ronnie White made "spurious" dissents in other cases (in addition to Kinder, which we discussed yesterday). To what cases were you referring?
No surprise here ...
***
Gingrich Aide Said To Admit Affair
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Nov. 10, 1999; 4:36 p.m. EST
ATLANTA –– The congressional aide linked romantically to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has admitted that their affair began six years ago, while he was still married, Gingrich's lawyer says.
Attorney Randy Evans said Callista Bisek, 33, made the admission under oath during a deposition Tuesday.
Ms. Bisek told Gingrich's attorneys, who questioned her at a law office in suburban Washington, that the relationship began in November 1993, more than a year before Gingrich became House speaker, Evans said.
***
Wasn't that back when ol' Newt was telling the world that Republicans would defend "family values?"
Read the entire article here.
In msg 2815, you stated that former Senator Lloyd Bentsen "belongs to a 'whites-only country club'". Where did you read or hear this?
When he was running for VP he was asked about it at a news conferences. He stated he was going to resign from it. After he lost the election he was asked about it again and he said, "I'll be damned if I am going to resign now." It made the news at the time.
Since you also said Johnson said it, do you have any proof?
It was on the Oval Office tapes released a couple of years ago and it appears in the edited transcript that was published shortly after. NPR made reference to the quote during their reporting of the release.
In 3295, you said Justice Ronnie White made "spurious" dissents in other cases (in addition to Kinder, which we discussed yesterday). To what cases were you referring?
I provided you a link to his opinions. Were you unable to find them?
Ohio: "In 3295, you said Justice Ronnie White made "spurious" dissents in other cases (in addition to Kinder, which we discussed yesterday). To what cases were you referring?"
JJ: "I provided you a link to his opinions. Were you unable to find them?"
Gotta love it. Rather than identify the dissents he believes are "spurious" -- which would undoubtedly lead to a query about why they were spurious -- JJ ducks. It's transparent, but it's the best JJ can muster.
Then, my friend, you haven't been paying attention. The hatred expressed towards Republicans and conservatives in this forum (and in the previous) borders on the astonishing. The defense of Democrats like Clinton, Gore, etc. defies all reason. When Republicans are attacked, I present the facts that show who is really guilty and why they are desperately trying to cover their past.
This is a smart bunch and I don't think that's the best tack to take if you want to convince people of your position.
I am not trying to convince people to support my position. I am trying to get people to question what they have assumed is the conventional wisdom. Whether you want to accept it or not, the Democratic party is involved in an ongoing disinformation campaign. Unfortunately, this campaign has been quite successful. The recent accusations of racism against Ashcroft and Bond are prime examples of this campaign in action.
You're a hack
If I'm a hack, what does that make the cazarts, TrialSharks and CellarDoors of this forum?
"When Republicans are attacked, I present the facts that show who is really guilty ..."
And, amazingly enough, it's never the Republicans.
JJ --
"I have enough confidence in Ohio's intelligence to believe he can read the opinions and reach an appropriate conclusion."
As long as it's your conclusion, it must be appropriate, eh? Ohio asked which opinions you believe contain "spurious" dissents. You ducked.
"If you notice, the post wasn't addressed to you."
Bee-eff-dee, pal.
"I would have had to resort to citing chapter and verse and explaining to you the why and wherefors. I won't bother doing that ..."
Since you can't.
Hack.
That said, when someone posts something about the GOP that isn't true, I will correct the record. For example when Spudboy posted that the GOP voted against the ERA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, I posted the votes to prove he was wrong. When he tried to attribute the actions of a few individuals to the entire party I showed where the vast majority of the party did not support those actions. When we discussed the "Southern Strategy" I posted Nixon's record on civil rights to show that the claims of racism and divisiveness were ridiculous. No one was able to post any evidence in support of those claims.
I agree there is a lot of political hackery around here. You are just looking for it in the wrong place.
Your belief that "facts" show who is "really guilty" is the best example I have ever seen of a formalist, classical liberal worldview. If you have some time, I'd like it if you checked out my recent posts in Politics.
I could and would if you had shown any interest in the facts of the case. Since you have demonstrated that the facts are irrelevant to you, I am not going to waste my time. Anything I post you will contradict just to be contrary. Why should I bother? If you think White's dissents are justified and don't show a willingness to overturn DP cases on spurious grounds, then you defend them. I provided the link. Knock yourself out.
Uh-huh.
Is it Doomsday yet?
My wife dresses like that.
Mebbe he was annoyed by their one-note whining and handwringing.
JJ --
"I could and would if you had shown any interest in the facts of the case. Since you have demonstrated that the facts are irrelevant to you, I am not going to waste my time."
Translation: JJ can't even articulate his position, let alone defend it; instead, he has to blame someone else for his inability.
"Anything I post you will contradict just to be contrary."
"Just to be contrary?" Maybe I'll disagree because you're wrong. Oops, forgot -- in your world you're never wrong, are you, JJ?
Funny: you claim Justice White authored "spurious" dissents, yet when Ohio asks you to tell us which dissents are "spurious," you can't.
Hack.
ciggy --
Good one.
Scott --
I want to know about the tattoos.
Purely from a sociological standpoint, of course. [g]
No joke. Using a kid of activists is a lousy f'rinstance. Kids whose parents tend to shove values down their face are known to rebel. What better way to piss off a parent who spends all their time fighting against racism than to become a racist?
In fact, it does not speak well of the parents. But not for the obvious reasons.
Actually, I'd say the majority of the parents of young white supremacists and skinheads (Buford Furrow's parents spring to mind) weren't racist and tried not to encourage such values.
They might not have been white power freaks, but I would bet a good amount that they provided one of the following:
Al in 3054, but he didn't respond. Since you also said Johnson said it, do you have any proof?
Sorry I missed your question of source before. I started to post an hour ago but not a virus alert which took this long to correct. I cannot right now remember where I read it, but when I posted it, the source seemed reliable to me (not Pat Buchanan). All J.J. did was to make a comment about my post, something to the effect But that doesn't make him a racist though, does it Al.
He should not have to answer for my post. If the argument is about J.J. relying on information he considers to be accurate, I am sure you would not argue that point.
People are often accused of saying things in private they would never say in public. The Clintons have been accused of using therms like nigger and kike, but I guess all we can say is, Vas you there Charlie? We do know for a fact that he talked about Cuomo being mafia because of his Italian ancestry. Now as one who grew up in an Italian neighborhood, I would not have been awarded the sobriquet dago Davis. Gee, I'm getting fond of these italians
Scott --
Hmmm, friends with tattoos? Very intriguing ...
Love to chat with you further, but it's Little Shark's birthday and it's almost time for her party, so I gotta go.
As Al would say --ciao.
Doesn't the following really bright comment make you see the light?
I think more people will agree with me, though,
for whatever it's worth.
Spudboy (3427): Don't be too harsh regarding Mrs. Loar's fashion choices until we find out what else - if anything - she's wearing.
"Is the assumption here that if it hadn't been for Pinochet, Chile would have been Stalinist?"
It's a judgement call. As I said before -- I'm not necessarily defending any particular decisions, just the general strategy.
EC, #3187-90:
"As for Pinochet 'voluntarily stepping down', not a big step from dictator to 'senator for life', is there?"
Sure there is. Heck, "senator for life" didn't even come with diplomatic immunity.
"Even when the Soviets occupied Kabul, women attended college, had careers, did pretty much what they want to. Now they have to wear a fucking tent to leave the house, as long as a male relative accompanies them."
Well, women's rights in the USSR weren't so hot, either; I don't know about the situation in Afghanistan, back then, but I doubt it was as rosy as you put it. Of course, some might prefer having to wear a f.t. than to be subject to, say, Ceausescu's abortion policy. (Under which women who sought emergency help at hospitals after failed back-alley abortions would be denied any treatment until they told the authorities who had performed them... That was just C.'s personal quirk, though, and not typical of Communist states. The average Soviet woman had something like 6 or 7 abortions in her lifetime --which isn't too healthy, either.)
"You're forgetting that many of the authoritarian governments we installed or fomented trampled grassroots peasant revolutions, often for little more than material concerns. [...] I hate the idea that our tax dollars went to support these fucking thugs, when we could have helped and nurtured some of those nascent revolutionary governments, and had them on our side anyway."
Heh. Noam Chomsky probably still thinks of Pol Pot as a misunderstood agrarian reformer. Wouldn't it have been nice to have had him on our side?
"Occasionally, as in Chile, our intervention, covert or overt, has had somewhat productive results. More often than not, it's been supporting tyrants who were just as happy to torment and enslave their people as Stalin was."
I don't really know about their happiness level, but they certainly did not t. and e. their p. to the extent Stalin did, his.
"Where it became a 'religion', imho, is in cases like Guatemala and Vietnam, where socialism/communism might actually have had a positive effect on their populaces..."
Of course, Vietnam did end up Communist, and I didn't notice it turn into a workers' and peasants' paradise. Or look at North vs. South Korea -- among the populace of which of those would you rather be?
BTW, I do apologize for the sporadicness (sporadicality?) of my responses. Work, etc.
The suddenly we didn't.
See Sam Fuller's "China Gate" (1957) with Angie Dickinson, Nat King Cole, Gene Barry, and Lee Van Cleef.
Also Mankiewicz's film of Graham Greene's "The Quiet American" (1958, I think) with Audie Murphy, Michael Redgrave, and Georgia Moll.
They're the two earliest -- and best --Vietnam movies.
Afghanistan is another prime example of what the CIA refers to as "blowback" -- unintended consequences. Even when the Soviets occupied Kabul, women attended college, had careers, did pretty much what they want to. Now they have to wear a fucking tent to leave the house, as long as a male relative accompanies them. And the country will probably take at least two generations just to get it back to moderate 20th century standards of living. Gee, maybe the Russkies weren't quite so bad, eh?
Eric Cartman, why don't you go fuck yourself?
The Soviet army killed at least 500,000 Afghans, maimed 2 millions, drove 5 millions out of the country and was well on its way to winning the war by simple outright depopulation. (We're talking about a country with a pre-invasion population of 14 million.) Living in that stupid idyll of yours you've never seen an Afghan mujahiddeen with his lower face torn off, right? No, I didn't think so.
Not to mention historic and ancient cities like Kandahar and Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif -- Afghanistan's cultural memory -- which got destroyed by missile fire from Soviet helicopters & aircraft trying to ferret out resistance fighters.
"The Russkies weren't so bad"! Why don't you go fuck off? What the hell do you know about Afghanistan anyway?
From The Black Book of Communism.
"...from 1825 to 1917 the total number of people sentenced to death in russia for their political beliefs or activities was 6,360, of whom only 3,932 were executed.
The Bolsheviks surpassed that figure in four months, and in the following 30 years had done away with 20,000,000 by Roosevelt's friend Uncle Joe. It troubles me that anyone in America has better feelings towards the Soviet Empire than to Nazi Germany. Communist progaganda is mighty strong.
First, one must realise that the Afghan countryside had already been radicalised by the communisation efforts of the Marxist Taraki-Amin regime before the Soviet Union even invaded the bloody country on 24 December 1979. That year-long civil war had already forced a couple of hundred thousand refugees into Pakistan. What sealed Afghanistan's present fate was hardly CIA assistance, but Soviet sponsorship of the Marxist regime in Kabul and the subsequent invasion.
It's naive in the utmost to believe that in the absence of American aid other sources would not have made up for the lack, particularly Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries. As it is, they already provided at least half of the total aid the resistance received from abroad. One might even plausibly argue that with less aid from the US, the Afghan resistance would have simply sold more drugs to finance their operations. Also, surely the numbers of foreign volunteers in Afghanistan from all over the Islamic world would have been much higher.
What is your opinion of Song of Russia as a piece of Soviet propaganda?
You're forgetting that many of the authoritarian governments we installed or fomented trampled grassroots peasant revolutions, often for little more than material concerns.
Which ones? I can't think of any insurgency which was unequivocally popular, or which would have won a free election. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that the Marxist-Leninist insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador consistently refused to participate in UN-monitored elections.
Take Guatemala, which only recently emerged from 40+ years of civil war, marked by a nauseating level of brutality on the part of gov't-backed paramilitaries. This was nominally about fighting communism; more realistically, it was about protecting United Fruit's interests, at the expense of some 200,000 civilians massacred over the years. Arbenz's prospective gov't had a chance of doing something for the citizens besides perpetuating the oligarchy, but we don't mind it when people are serfs of capitalist oligarchies, as Central American peasants undeniably were and are.
Arbenz??? You're talking about something which happened 45 years ago. What was happening in Guatemala in the last 20 years was a civil war, fought between two brutal sides. And the government side opposed the Marxist side quite simply because they were Marxists. You don't need to bring United Fruit into the picture at all.
More often than not, it's been supporting tyrants who were just as happy to torment and enslave their people as Stalin was. It's just that they either had some real or imagined geopolitical importance, or they gave us a great deal on extracting their natural resources.
Which ones?
Message # 3190
Anyway, not only do I find the Kosovo/East Timor hypocrisy fascinating, but also the current coverage of Russia's latest Chechnya campaign. Lots of coverage about how Russian planes are intentionally targeting civilians, and how bad that is! Never mind that we did the exact same thing just 6 months ago, and the Serbs hadn't even blown up any of our apartment buildings.
Let's see. NATO did deliberately bomb civilian targets in Serbia, though not civilians themselves. Russia has been indiscriminately shelling Grozny with missiles for the last several weeks. Were there Serb refugees all over Bulgaria and Hungary? Not that I know of. Russian shelling has forced nearly 200,000 Chechen civilians into Ingushetia.
I hate the idea that our tax dollars went to support these fucking thugs, when we could have helped and nurtured some of those nascent revolutionary governments, and had them on our side anyway.
Which revolutionary govts?
Now you always seem to be on J.J.'s case, calling him a hack and all. Now do you mean he is a hack for the Republicans? Gosh and golly, I kind of like J.J. and would not say a bad word about him (he's a Jew, you know, and I don't want to be called an anti Semite), but my problem with the boy is he just a mite too liberal.
And also, I sure hope your little baby girl had a great birthday.
Al --
Nope, I didn't know JJ was Jewish.
And thanks for the kind thoughts for Little Shark. Actually, she came down with a nasty cough today, and a fever of 102-103 degrees, so this was not her best birthday ever. It looks like we'll have to postpone her party this weekend, too.
But she got to talk with her grandparents and got a bunch of nice gifts, so it wasn't a total loss.
Maybe this explains how Governor Bush has raised so much money: his backers are armed. [g]
***
Former S.C. Gov. Stopped With Gun
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Nov. 10, 1999; 10:14 p.m. EST
GREER, S.C. –– Former South Carolina Gov. Carroll Campbell was detained for four hours by airport police Wednesday after a metal detector went off and an unloaded gun was found in his carry-on luggage.
... Campbell, a Republican, said the gun ended up in his carry-on bag as a result of a mix-up as he prepared to leave following a fund-raiser for GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush.
***
Read the entire story here.
The idea of a CIA "blowback" in Afghanistan is also
nonsense.
unequivocally popular
We supported an Islamic resistance against the Soviets and that resistance later turned out to be inimical to the US.
Nonsense. The Taliban have little to do with the Afghan resistance which actually did the fighting. The Soviet Union withdrew in 1988; the Taliban emerged in 1994.
Not to quibble on the use of the word but how many such revolutionary groups are unequivocally popular?
OK, which revolutionary groups represented anything but a small minority of the population (other than Mao's CCP in the 1940s)?
You see, if I were a Democrat I would have claimed that you were an anti-Semite for disagreeing with me. Fortunately for you I require actual evidence of anti-Semitism before I start making accusations.
JJ --
And you would have looked pretty silly claiming it, given that I'm Jewish, too.
Putz.
I think it is spelled putts. Good night all.
Cal --
"Assuming the Ms. Shark lets you out among strangers..."
Mrs. Shark frequently tells me that no one is stranger than I am.
You can e-mail me at the Microsoft bulletin board: trialshark@hotmail.com
resistance which actually did the fighting.
Look, this post shows you don't know the first thing about what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawl. I did not quote the time difference as an argument that the Taliban and the Afghan resistance were unrelated, only to show that a lot happened before the Taliban actually emerged.
Of course the Taliban and the Afghan resistance are to some extent related. The founder, Mulawi Mohammed Omar, was a Mujahideen. Several of his earliest lieutenants were also resistance veterans. But the Taliban movement did not begin as a mujahideen/veteran movement, nor were the recruits mujahideen -- they were too young to have fought in the Soviet war.
Are you then saying that the Taliban was not supported by the mujahideen, and that the ideological bent of most mujahideen was not in line with that of the Taliban?
Yes, and yes. The Taliban exploded onto the scene by assassinating old mujahiddeen leaders, especially those supported by Pakistan.
If the Taliban was not supported by the fighters, how did it establish itself?
They got their start by assassinating a drug-dealing warlord and taking over his assets. Then they began running drugs themselves (all for export to the lands of infidels). Then Pakistani intelligence, or the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), took notice of their potential and decided to finance them.
Yes, some mujahiddeen figures, especially those who are currently the sworn enemy of the Taliban, sympathised with Iran. But the vast majority of the Afghan mujahiddeen being Sunnis were hostile to Iran's Shiite regime. In fact, it's possible to talk about Iran and Pakistan having had a kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over Afghanistan, with Iran getting the raw end of the deal, now that the Pak-backed Taliban have basically wiped out the Iran-backed factions.
Well, the communists may have enjoyed popular support in North Vietnam, but I'm not sure that was the case in South Vietnam. But I'll let you have Vietnam, since that was probably perceived as a nationalist struggle against outside powers. Now, how many insurgencies claim any serious kind of popular support where foreign troops could not produce a nationalist reaction? I can only think of China in 1945-49.
I think the Ortegas enjoyed wide support in their bid to rule Nicaragua.
I would argue they did not.
I'm not so sure about the size of Communist insurgencies in the Philippines and in Indonesia.
These are jokes. Definitely tiny minorities.
I'm not sure if the history of Israel fits under our discussion, but we certainly supported them and still support them against a dedicated insurgency.
But that's a question of resistance to foreign occupation. Not a civil war or an armed insurgency within the national borders like those in Central America.
I agree with your position in theory, but nonetheless you cannot argue that the United States's foreign policy -- what land we will go to war over, who we support, and so on -- is not heavily influenced by the extractable resources of those lands.
I didn't say the USA doesn't conduct foreign policy along such lines. Obviously it does. I denied that the USA has been "supporting tyrants who were just as happy to torment and enslave their people as Stalin was [because]...they gave us a great deal on extracting their natural resources. That's sheer nonsense.
Not a civil war or an armed insurgency within the national
borders like those in Central America.
Eric Cartman, why don't you go fuck yourself?
I was going to just ignore all this, but considering you have some familial concerns in this topic, and are understandably pissed, let me clarify something -- the remark "Gee, maybe the Russkies weren't quite so bad, eh?" was sarcastic (which I thought was perfectly obvious), and was intended to contrast how everyday civilian life was imposed upon by the Soviet occupational gov't vs. the current Taliban gov't (which was probably not as apparent).
I don't contest at all that the Soviets were horribly vicious in their warfare against the mujahedin. Again, I was referring to how civilians are allowed to live and function. I submit that now that the Taliban have most of the country under their control, from everything I have read and heard, they treat their citizens abominably, especially women.
Maybe I've been misinformed. Maybe you've been there recently and it's all rainbows and unicorns and friendly elves, and Sharia enforcers don't really pull shopkeepers out in the street and beat the hell out of them because they sold groceries to a woman. Maybe they really don't bury people up to their necks or waists and throw rocks at them until they die, for the capital crime of adultery.
Whatever. But before you pop a vein in your neck telling me to go fuck myself, realize that I was strictly referring to civilian life in Afghanistan, comparatively under the two governments. If I don't have my facts straight, then blame the glorious impartial media, because I do know how to read.
The idea of a CIA "blowback" in Afghanistan is also nonsense.
Well, tell it to the CIA then, because several ex-agents have publicly said the same thing, including Dewey Clarridge(sp?).
I'll have to respond to the rest of your comments tomorrow.
I did not contest that the Taliban are awful and appalling. Did I do that? I was objecting to a statement which you now call sarcastic but which began by talking about how civilian life wasn't so bad under the Soviets. Well, you have got to be kidding. How can you sit there and talk about how "everyday civilian life" was pretty good under the Soviets, even compared to the Taliban regime, when the Soviets converted something like a quarter of all Afghans -- civilians -- into refugees? Earlier, I was being too conservative with the 500,000 dead figure between 1978-88. That's just the minimum estimate. The upper bound is a million and a half! Out of a population which in 1979 was 14 million! How can chopping off the hands of murderers and covering women in burqas compare with that? You are impressed because the Marxist regime allowed women to be dentists? Please! Get some perspective.
The overthrow of Somoza was surely popular, but that doesn't mean that the Sandinistas who continued to rule without a proper mandate were.
Robert --
I hear Newt Gingrich will be moving to Tulsa next week to work as a marriage counselor.
JJ --
Coming from a GOP hack, that's pretty funny.
Heck, it's pretty funny, without any qualifiers.
Charging a cab driver with a misdemeanor for failing to pick up a black man? What would the charge be?
I read all of your links and what I read did not impress me very much. Theodore hall was a very active KGB agent who should have been executive along with Julius Rosenberg Ethel should have gone to jail as an aid, but IMO not executed. While it is true that some people may have been damaged, all the had to do was to either admit they were Communists and withdraw from the party, or if they were not, say so. Your friend Comingore played games with the Commitee. Perhaps those in Hollywood knew damn well she was a member of the Communist Party and had enough of them. After the very first hearings, it was the Hollywood moguls who said they were going to clean house. You know, Cellar, we may have to agree just to disagree, because we come from such different perpectives.
As a matter of fact, I really do not care who was or who is a Communist. My main concern is how did I ever come to believe that Hiss was a victim of Nixon, and that Dalton Trombo was a victim of HUAC? This is pure bullshit and does not square with reality. What also does not square with reality is your view that it was all a plot to get liberals. Do you think Brewer, head of the IA Union in Hollywood was not a liberal. At any rate, I will read all the things on the other side as you mention them.
Can you explain to me how a 13 year old whose mental capacities are that of a 6 year old can aid in his own defense? Can anyone explain to me why this boy, who at age 11 is said to have commited this crime is being charged as an adult?
What is for juvenile court for? Yes yes I am hearing about Nat's so called long rap sheet.
The system failed him from day one. Now he is being charged with Murder 1 and has no idea what the hell the lawyers are talking about in court as he sits there listening. I have a feeling the jury will not be out long on this one. Appeals to follow.
In response to a sharp rise in mortality associated with juvenile crime, and the general "get tough on crime" ethos in the political establishment there has been a substantial creep downward in the age at which children can be charged as adults. The sentiment is that if a child is capable of committing an "adult crime" they are capable of standing trial for it.
Our Supreme Court in its expansive wisdom has declared that it is constitutionally permissible to execute persons as young as 16. It's also ok to execute the mentally retarded. They haven't passed on executing mentally retarded 16 year olds, but give Rhenquist time and they will.
There is no constitutional right to be tried as a juvenile. Juvenile courts are creatures of legislative creation. They can be created or destroyed at the legislature's pleasure. So long as Michigan scrupulously follows its legislative design, there is little that can be expected of the present Supreme Court in the way of a reversal.
I'll tell you one thing... folks ought to give alot of thought who they plan to cast their vote for in the Presidential race. Whoever it is may have 2 or 3 justices to name.
Some states use a model where if the person cannot understand the nature of the act, or conform their behavior to the law as the result of a mental defect or disease, they would be not guilty or not responsible. Other states use the M'Naughten test- could the person understand that the act was evil? If a person is mentally ill or developmentally delayed and can appreciate that the act was evil despite the illness or delay they can still be found guilty.
His was by no means a "victim" of Nixon. He was simply a trophy our former President had hung over his fireplace. And Trumbo wasn't a victim at all. He won the Oscar for "The Brave One" under the pseudonym "Robert Rich," remember. And then there's his work on that masterpiece of Communist propaganda, "Roman Holday" to consider.
No sane person would say that every Communist Party member who wrote movie scrips filled them with propaganda. They were instructed not to try that as it would be too obvious. But also, no sane person should deny that they put as much in as they thought they could get away with. Kazan made On The Waterfront as a metaphor for his actions. As he said, I told the truth about people who did not have America's interest at heart, and fuck them. Of course, almost every left wing writer in the country came unglued. Had Brando been smart enough to know what was going on, he would have refused to make the movie.
the very idea that Congress has no right to hold investigations before trials are held is too silly for me to even deal with. I'm sure the mafia would agree with LadyChaos and you, though.
"They were instructed not to try that as it would be too obvious." Oh yeah, we all know that the party had more power than studio chiefs like Mayer, Cohen, Warner and Zanuck. Come on, Al. You're smarter than that.
"Action in the North Atlantic" was on Turner Classic Movies today, BTW. Did you ever see that one? John Howard Lawson wrote it.
Had Brando been smart enough to know what was going on, he would have refused to make the movie.
Brando was smart enough to know a career-making part when he saw it, Al. The name of the game is Show Business. Karl Marx will just have to leave his resume and hope the assistant choreographer gets back to him next week.
I think the banks made the right decision. Anyone else have an opinion?
ATM fees rub me the wrong way, though. Remember the first use was to lessen bank costs by reducing the number of tellers and satelite locations they had to run. They then became a matter of convience, and now the banks are making a profit off of what was a cost cutting measure. I can't say I'm sympathetic to the double charges.
I can't say I'm sympathetic to the double charges.
I can't disagree with you here. But it isn't hard to avoid most double charges, and the rest (at least to me) are worth it.
I was interested in opinions on whether government should be micro-managing rather than discussing the details of the banks fee structure. They obviously have the legal authority to do so (although there are open questions about which level can do it), but I contend they shouldn't be intruding here. I hope the banks prevail.
WAS JFK JR. MARRIAGE ON BRINK?
Kennedy family and friends are bristling over a British tabloid's claims that John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette Kennedy had "given up on their marriage" and were about to split when they were killed in a plane crash July 16.
Citing unnamed pals of Kennedy, the bombshell story by Annette Witheridge and Paul Bracchi in the Daily Mail claims the couple hadn't even slept together in 18 months.
Fed up with his willowy wife's alleged cocaine use and bizarre behavior, JFK Jr. supposedly told her to "get out of my life" just two days before their fateful flight.
The newspaper's claims rankled those close to the Kennedys. "I don't want to dignify this with a response," said Sen. Ted Kennedy's spokesman, Jim Manley.
A source close to the clan told The Post's Braden Keil: "We should let the dead rest in peace."
The Mail article claims the couple had been attending counseling sessions in a last-ditch attempt to save their 3-year-old marriage.
Four days before the plane crash, Carolyn stormed out of a session and failed to return home for two nights, it claims.
"That's it. You've gone too far. Get your stuff, get out of my apartment and get out of my life," he said, according to the paper.
The fight was so serious that the couple decided they would not attend cousin Rory Kennedy's wedding at the family compound at Hyannis Port - and it was Carolyn's sister Lauren who finally talked John into taking them there.
The Mail even quotes an unnamed Kennedy friend suggesting that Carolyn was so volatile, she may have grabbed John during the flight or screamed at him and caused the crash. The newspaper claims the Kennedy-Bessette union began deteriorating almost immediately after their 1996 wedding.
We aren't the ones who need help. I am still holding out hope that the jury will come to the the appropriate decision.
I have a question for the group. Why is treating juveniles as adults considered "getting tough on crime"? I understand that juveniles have certain protections and trying them as adults circumvents those protections. Instead of trying children as adults, why don't they just change the rules as they apply to juveniles?
I'll take my business elsewhere.
Seriously, though. ATMs are a great convenience, particularly when traveling. The fees are ridiculous, though, in light of the reduced services and lower interest fees being paid.
We have become a society obsessed with the good guys vs. the bad guys.
The hell with "equal justice for all". Arrest someone and make the community feel safe.
Why is it so difficult to just change the laws regarding juveniles to make them stricter and more effective instead of abandoning them and treating kids as adults?
True enough. The average ATM transaction costs the bank less than a quarter. To have a teller process the same transaction costs a dollar.
Banks introduced ATMs as a 'cost savings' measure. Instead, we see higher fees, lower interest rates, fewer branches, and fees for checking and other services.
I speak rhetorically, though. My primary bank is great. No ATM fees--super services.
Isn't competition a wonderful thing? Several banks in my area are now offering free checking to attract customers.
Seriously, though. ATMs are a great convenience, particularly when traveling. The fees are ridiculous, though, in light of the reduced services and lower interest fees being paid.
Reduced service? Please explain. Having access to your money at any time, in any place, sounds like increased service to me. And what does the current level of interest rates have to do with anything?
However, since my primary bank is a Credit Union, it is not available to everyone.
This seems reasonable to me. Why is it so difficult to implement?
I find banks practices in VA of charging combined fees of $2.50 for access to my own money very hard to justify, particularly since the transaction costs each bank only pennies.
I pay nothing for access to my own money, despite the fact that it costs the bank something to provide this service. Are you telling me there are no banks in VA with free ATM service at their own ATM's? I find this difficult to believe.
Part of the problem is that the kid may or may not be capable of rehabilitation, as I would argue is Nat's case. His case probably calls for isolation from the community unless and until the threat of future violence is addressed. This is notoriously difficult, and some professionals say impossible, to do. It may take several years to have a handle on it. If you guess wrong and keep the kid in only till he's 18, someone else will likely die/be raped etc, before we know that he's incapable and finally deal with him as an adult.
Sounds like the bank has made a decision about what services to provide, and which ones not to provide. Unless something thinks up a way for banks to provide infinite service at zero cost, every bank must make this decision. Based upon the reaction of your wife, they made the right decision, no?
Conservatives use this as a wedge issue.
We get something like 4 ATM transactions per month free of charge. Then, if we use our own bank's ATM, it's a dollar per use. If we us another bank's ATM, our bank charges $1 and the other bank charges $1.50. Four "free" transactions a month is not much for the two of us. And in order to get those free, we have to have a sizable balance such that the bank's use of those funds is certain to provide them greater returns thant the few pennies an ATM costs them
Reduced services in terms of conducting various bank transactions as compared to a teller. Further, more and more banks are cutting back services with regard to various types of consumer loans and financial services.
You think trying to get to a branch during baking hours, on a banking day, and waiting in a line is preferable to getting money from conveniently located machines at any time? You have a curious notion of service. I hate standing in line for a teller; my goal in life is to never have to set foot inside the walls of a bank—I manage to keep it down to once or twice a year.
The last time I needed a loan, I got it from the internet. I can't think of any financial service I would want from a bank that has been cut back, but I don't use banks much, so maybe there are things that others miss.
Four "free" transactions a month is not much for the two of us.
The two of us average six transactions a month. If they start charging for more than four, we would average four.
I did state that ATMs were great conveniences, particularly on the road. However, ATMs do not offer many services beyond depositing checks and withdrawing cash.
The point is that ATMs were billed by the banks as a 'cost-cutting' measure. Yet, more people pay more for reduced services.
No, I'm in MD. I was just visiting. I wish I had realized you were there, I would have loved to visit.
You're confused, dusty.
A vague generality, undoubtedly accurate. If you can be more specific about where you think I am confused, I'll be happy to try to clear it up.
However, ATMs do not offer many services beyond depositing checks and withdrawing cash.
OK. What else do you need?
The point is that ATMs were billed by the banks as a 'cost-cutting' measure. Yet, more people pay more for reduced services.
People pay more voluntarily. What are these reduced services you keep alluding to?
Now I'm really pulling for them to change their law.
I use my credit union for a bunch of services. Does it offer the best rate or service for each item I'm seeking? No. But overall, it's quite competitive. I like the idea of consolidating my banking activities. Most people probably do.
People pay more voluntarily. What are these reduced services you
keep alluding to?
Not in actual practice. Few ATMs list the fees that may be charged for a transaction. Next, banks reduce the number of branches(where a patron may actually talk to a teller) in favor of more ATMs. I think we agree that an ATM cannot process certain transactions that a teller can.
I have yet to see this happen. When I was in KC my bank had 4 branches between my apartment and the grocery store I went to. There were at least 10 branches within 10 minutes of either my apartment or office.
In KC, KS, they don't believe in dinosaurs. Either way, it's a cultural wasteland. Chiefs have a helluva defense this year, though.
This is another anecdote. I was talking to an M.D. acquaintance of mine from Baton Rouge last week. He gave me a little static about the cultural wasteland that I live in. "Be honest now! When was the last time you were at an LSU football game? Or any function at LSU?" I had been to a game more recently that he. He had not been to the opera; a concert; a museum; etc.
When you talk about cultural wastelands, I have to assume that you are frequently taking advantage of the cultural events in your city. If you are not, you are paying higher state and lower taxes than am I for the POSSIBILITY
I do avail myself of the wonderful opportunities that my city provides. And it transcends museums, concerts, and the like.
Of course, I was only teasing JJBiener who sought to interject a personal anecdote that had no relevance into an issue being discussed.
Many small towns have cultural opportunities and items of historical interest of their own.
I like the idea of consolidating my banking activities. Most people probably do.
I like the idea of using more than one financial provider, to keeps tabs on relative service, and for diversification. But I'm not most people.
Not in actual practice. Few ATMs list the fees that may be charged for a transaction.
Are you telling me that there are people who don't know how much it costs for an ATM transaction and they use ATMs over and over again? And do you want me to advocate passing a law to help these people avoid paying for their stupidity?
Let me emphasize the "over and over" part. I just incurred a $12 free for a wire transfer. I was mildly miffed, but now I know. I won't use a wire transfer unless it is worth more than $12 to me.
Next, banks reduce the number of branches(where a patron may actually talk to a teller) in favor of more ATMs. I think we agree that an ATM cannot process certain transactions that a teller can.
So? How many transaction a year do you do that require a teller?
With regard to ATM charges, absolutely. if you're using ATMs in multiple locales, you often may not be aware of the fees being charged.
It depends. Generally speaking, I require the services of a teller at least once per week. But, I, too, am not most people.
With regard to ATM charges, absolutely. if you're using ATMs in multiple locales, you often may not be aware of the fees being charged.
How long does it take for it to sink in?
It depends. Generally speaking, I require the services of a teller at least once per week. But, I, too, am not most people.
Not very helpful. You've alluded several times to reduced services, but, despite repeated requests, you haven't listed a single example. I'm holding open the possibility that there may be a regular need for tellers, but I can't think of one, and you won't tell me one, so don't expect support.
I've outlined my opposition to ATM fees, ad nauseum, for you. I realize you don't agree, but there it is. I've also outlined the reduced services (fewer branches, greater fees for checking and other services, elimination or reduction of services such as consumer-type loans and financial services, lower interest rates, and the like).
Your response has been "I don't need/want 'em...why should you?"
Again with feeling: banks instituted ATMs as a 'cost-cutting' measure. One would think that businesses that are able to achieve 'cost-savings' might be able to pass some greater benefits or services on to its patrons. Aside from the convenience of being able to withdraw cash 24 hours/day, there has been no net benefit.
How about some disclosure as a response to the ATM problem. Just a little notice- "This transaction will cost you $X" before you proceed?
Are you saying this isn't universal? I've seen such a notice whenever I've used an ATM overseas. I think I've seen it in the US, but I haven't done a survey.
As a reminder, I belong to a wonderful credit union that has no ATM charges.
I use a teller at least once a week because I manage my family's accounts, including those of my parents, as well as a relative's small business account.
I've outlined my opposition to ATM fees, ad nauseum, for you.
Point me to the posts, please. The ones other than those I have responded to. You keep whining, but I keep asking questions because you never say anything.
You claim a linkage between ATM fees and fewer branches. This is meaningful only if you give me examples of things you do regularly that requires a branch not an ATM. I've asked, you won't answer.
You did say that banks have eliminated or reduced consumer loans. First, you think this is linked to the use of ATM's? Please explain, if you can. Second, how often do you take out a consumer loan? Often enough that driving ten miles instead of five is a major inconvenience? Somehow, I doubt it. Third, if loans are being cut back (and I note you simply asserted it, you didn't provide any evidence), so what? It's easier to get a loan over the internet. Why do you need to go into a branch to fill out a piece of paper?
And please stop mentioning lower interest rates. Unless you want to explain how the banks are responsible for reducing interest rates, and why it is a bad thing.
So far, you've listed benefits of ATM's but no proof of a reduction in service that is meaningful.
You've nothing to add but anecdotes. It doesn't help your argument.
I use a teller at least once a week because I manage my family's accounts, including those of my parents, as well as a relative's small business account.
Help us all out and give some examples of things you can do there that cannot be done by mail, ATM, phone or internet. If the real reason you want to live at the bank is to ogle the pretty teller, well, that's a service I cannot match. But you repeat ad nauseaum that you are so inconvenienced because of the paucity of tellers, and I have yet to hear word one of explanation.
You've nothing to add but anecdotes. It doesn't help your argument.
Please pay attention. I'm not telling anecdotes, I'm asking you for anecdotes. Or data, or surveys, or even reasoned arguments. But noooooo, all I get is whining that you must visit a teller regularly. Why????
Let's explore what an ATM does for you. List 'em. Convince me that they provide every banking service that you personally require.
Easy enough?
Easy enough?
Nice try, but fugettaboutit.
I opened the discussion by referencing the decision by CA banks to stop servicing non-customers if they cannot charge for those services. I asked if anyone agreed or disagreed.
You have gone on a non-stop whine, devoid of facts, about how terrible it is that we have ATMs with fees. Your simple-minded thesis is that banks have cut back on live tellers, thereby depriving you of a necessary service.
For all I know, you may have a legitimate point. If you do, I will support you, and change my opinion about how banks should operate.
But you are the one making the claim that you need tellers (and you need them close by), so the onus is on you to tell us why you need them.
Or not. In which case I will continue to support any bank that fights the CA idiocy, and I will boycott those places that cave into the idiocy.
Ball's in your court. Can you dribble?
Fess up, it's the coffee and donuts in the lobby that you miss going to the ATM. Right?
It's the swell pocket calendars.
"I don't use 'em...so nobody else should."
I do use the internet, I do use the phone, I use ATMs. But I still need the services of a teller. At least once per week.
""I don't use 'em...so nobody else should."
You have said this. Which services? Or do you just like the teller on the end with the impressive cleavage?
It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't see why a bank has to provide services to non-customers for free.
the CA idiocy, and I will boycott those places that cave into the
idiocy.
Good for you. You'll be the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Libertarians. Or the Tom Joad of the kooks.
Same difference.
I don't either, but some people apparently want something for nothing.
Such people are usually called "coporations."
First, the double charging is the real issue - ATM owners charge a fee and many primary banks charge a hidden fee whenever someone withdraws money from the ATM of a different bank. At the very least, the hidden views seem abusive.
Second, as for people wanting something for nothing: it is the banks that want that now, as shown by their ridiculous price-gouging. How about limiting the fees to say, 200% of per-transaction cost? Would that reduce supply so drastically that the poor suburbanites would have to drive their SUVs all the way to the bank? Further, users already pay something by lending banks money through the checking system.
To whom?
as for people wanting something for nothing: it is the banks that want that now, as shown by their ridiculous price-gouging
The banks are providing a service. Why shouldn't they be able to charge for that service?
How about limiting the fees to say, 200% of per-transaction cost?
Why? Why shouldn't we let the market handle it? If a person doesn't want to pay the fee, they don't have to use the ATM. They can go to their bank or use their bank's ATM machine. If they want to use someone else's ATM they have to weigh the benefit against the cost. Why should government intervene in a voluntary transaction?
I fully support full disclosure of any charges, in advance of making the withdrawal. But I wasn't aware anyone was doing this.
But limiting the ATM fees strikes me as pointless. Do we next regulate the amounts that candy vending machines can charge? Consumers have dozens of choices for payment, and hundreds of ATMs to choose from, so it isn't as if they are forced to use a specific ATM.
I can think of only 1 reason why a bank should be forced to provide the ATM services to a non-depositor for free (and I expect I'm going to need to deal with it professionally sooner or later). If the ATM is in a shopping area (such as a mall) and the mall owner wants to have all customers to be able to put money in their pockets to buy more at the mall, then it will want to avoid having bank refuse to service non-depositors. The mall owner and the bank should be able to work this out by private contract.
I will note that, in a similar vein, a Philly-local convenience store chain (Wawa) required ATM's placed in its stores not to charge non-depositors, again to make sure they could put money in their pockets and buy stuff in the convenience store.
But I still need the services of a teller. At least once per week.
And I need certain services at least once a week that I'm not willing to explain. And I want you to pay for them.
At $700 a night, you are on your own.
You conservatives and libertarians are just wierd.
This based upon something in particular, or just the standard cheap shot?
First, the double charging is the real issue - ATM owners charge a fee and many primary banks charge a hidden fee whenever someone withdraws money from the ATM of a different bank. At the very least, the hidden views seem abusive.
Well, interesting if true. How is this fee hidden?
How about limiting the fees to say, 200% of per-transaction cost?
Are you proposing this rule for ATM fees, or a broader rule? What is the basis for it? Why do you suggest that setting the maximum price as a ratio to marginal costs? Ever heard of supply and demand?
I do find the occasional ATM machine which is completely free. I don't know how it gets set up, but I am sure it is quite possible for a store owner and a bank to work this out for themselves. However, most of the big stores that I know which have ATMs on site, charge a $1 fee.
The only reason I can think of against ATM fees is that it creates pressure for larger withdrawals. If you have to pay $1 whether you withdraw $20, or $200, you might as well withdraw the larger amount, and avoid a future ATM charge to get the rest.
Larger amounts of cash then create a possible reason for increased muggings at ATMs, which are a bad things (having been mugged after an ATM withdrawal, I may be personalizing this a bit).
Ironically, your one example is a perfect example of why banks shouldn't be forced. If the mall owner sees value in having more people with spending money in their pocket, they should make suitable arrangements with the bank. As you pointed out. So why does the government need to get involved?
The only reason I can think of against ATM fees is that it creates pressure for larger withdrawals. If you have to pay $1 whether you withdraw $20, or $200, you might as well withdraw the larger amount, and avoid a future ATM charge to get the rest.
This is an argument for fees, actually. I'm sorry to hear that you were mugged, but I'm sure you agree that the linkage is weak. Tell you what: if muggings in Santa Monica drop, because criminals realize that the reduction in fees will encourage people to take out smaller amounts each time, and therefore it is hardly worth the effort of a mugging, we'll talk).
One feature I've noticed in Baltimore is a button on the ATM linked directly into the police station (or so it claims). I'm simultaneously sad that it is necessary, but cheered that someone is working on a sensible solution.
I didn't say the government should be doing the forcing. The mall owner should be able to do it on its own (and hopefully my employer was shrewd enough to do that, but I doubt they thought of it).
I am also unsure whether areas where people are somewhat captive (airports, etc.) should be under similar restrictions. Again, the landlord should be able to negotiate for it.
Sure its weak. But I am curious as to whether or not muggers target ATMs with fees in preference to ATMs without. I doubt your typical meth addict can think clearly enough to act in this way, but I am curious.
I didn't say the government should be doing the forcing.
The original question was whether the government should be forcing them not to charge fees. And if it doesn't involve the government, it is called forcing, it is called voluntary contract. Only the government (and parents) can force someone to do something.
But I'm happy to see that you agree with me.
(How's that for hanging out? Go ahead, give me counter-examp
My experience is somewhat limited, as I rarely fly without having a healthy amount of cash in my pocket for taxis, etc. However, if they charge higher ATM fees, they probably decided they'd rather get a cut of the fees than encourage people to take money out and buy stuff with cash.
Sure its weak. But I am curious as to whether or not muggers target ATMs with fees in preference to ATMs without. I doubt your typical meth addict can think clearly enough to act in this way, but I am curious.
I can't tell by looking at it whether an ATM changes fees, so I'm betting that your typical mugger is less able to make the distinction. I'll bet your typical mugger trying to do the Bayesian analysis to estimate the expected cash haul will factor in personal attributes of the person drawing the money (how wealthy they appear) before factoring in such data as the fee structure.
2. JJ:
Dusty
Interesting. I was sitting here musing about why I need cash. The number one reason I could think of was taxis. The combination of reduced travel, and increased likelihood that a taxi accepts charge cards has reduced my cash needs considerably. Probably from twice a month to once a month.
Sorry
Toys dave
Most ATM's in the Philly area post a sign indicating that they charge non-depositors fees (I am not sure if it is required by law), so as long as the mugger can read he can tell whether it is a fee charging ATM.
I tend to use cash in the airport (and other places) for many little things (magazines, food, etc.) just because I don't like holding up lines to run my credit card. As a result, I take cash out of the bank regularly (at least every week).
Why shouldn't the government "get involved?"
It shouldn't, but I was trying to avoid that line (even though I agree with it.) My original point wasn't to decry the idiocy of the government getting involved where it didn't belong, but to ask opinions about whether the response of the bank to this intrusion was the right response.
Separately, the banks are taking the City to court on the basis that the city should not have jurisdiction. I disagree with this step.
But I agree with the position of the bank, which essentially is, Fine, if we can't charge non-customers we won't. Of course, we'll stop offering the service.
In theory, the city should be pleased. They didn't want non-customers charges for using ATMs, and the banks decision is in conformance with that desire.
It's not a voluntary action if you have no other choice.
Please elaborate. I've never heard of anyone being forced to use an ATM associated with a different bank.
In other words, it isn't hidden, unless you have a very short memory. And others have claimed that the information is generally available at the time of the transaction. I know I've seen it, but you would have us believe that millions of people get money from ATMs, and then are surprised, month after month, to see fees in their monthly statements? Somehow, I find this difficult to believe.
If you can use the word "elastic" in a sentence correctly, I have to wonder why you think the market is so unable to handle this issue.
This doesn't answer the question. Government should only get involved when there is a compelling reason to do so. It should NOT get involved for S&G.
If the citizenry is devastated by having to spend more time in their SUVs to find an ATM, then vote the bastards out!
But this is precisely my point. If your average suburbanite doesn't want to pay the fee, they can spend a few more minutes in their car and go their own bank.
People should have a say in what that charge is
People do have a say. They speak with their feet. If they don't like the fee structure at a bank or the charges at an ATM, they take their business elsewhere.
It's not a voluntary action if you have no other choice.
But we do have a choice. We have lots of choices.
exorbitant ATM fees aren't that different.
That's funny. I never considered the $1-2 ATM fee to be exorbitant. Especially when it saves me from spending a half hour driving to my bank. They are providing a valuable service that I am willing to pay for.
The fee is "hidden" because it only shows up on your monthly statement - not when you are actually making the transaction.
Banks provide customers with a schedule of charges when they open an account. If the customer doesn't read this material and doesn't understand the fee structure, it is his own fault. There is nothing hidden about it.
Most ATM's in the Philly area post a sign indicating that they charge non-depositors fees (I am not sure if it is required by law), so as long as the mugger can read he can tell whether it is a fee charging ATM.
Thanks for pointing out that the fees aren't hidden in your area (paying attention Dave?).
So how does the mugger know that when someone approaches the machine that they do not use that bank? Rask's presumption is that the existence of fees increases the average cash withdrawal; this same logic indicates that users of their own bank's machines will take out smaller amounts. So the intelligent mugger doesn't want to mug someone unless they are a non-depositor.
There's apparent collusion in other areas. All of a sudden I can't find a bank credit card that doesn't charge a late fee of at least $25, regardless of the overdue amount. Seems to me that the practice approaches usury.
First, I just read the article you linked for the first time - it raises an issue that I don't know the answer to:
Do primary banks benefit when you withdraw money from a competitior's ATM? If I use my Citibank card to withdraw from my PNC account, does PNC benefit?
Second, the "voluntariness" of an action related to the withdrawal of money is inherently limited by the scarcity of options and the necessity of money. If one has no transportation, for instance, the cost of going to your primary ATM can be substantially higher than the fee imposed by a competitor's bank. This structurally imposed transaction cost makes an ATM withdrawal less that "voluntary." (Yes, I do realize the broad-reaching implications of this line of thought.)
Third, "hidden" costs often aren't actually that simple - they frequently depend on your minimum balance (which I still don't know how my bank calculates) and the number of withdrawals per statement period (which frequently aren't calendar months).
Fourth, I think that market can "handle" this issue. I just don't think that anything that the market can "handle" needs to be left up to the market. Frankly, I don't think that the concept of freedom embodied by capitalist economics is any better than that embodied by representative politics.
Now, if you want to regulate credit card late fee charges, sign me up.
If there is illegal collusion, then the government should make the charge and prosecute those involved. It should not just assume guilt and apply a penalty without due process.
Oh, MAN. I thought it was just me!!!!!
This is a serious problem. Your view seems to be that anything favored by the majority should be done. This comes frighteningly close to mob rule. If the majority decided that all individuals with assets over $1 million should have their assets confiscated and be expelled from the country, would you support it? An issue like this is nothing but rabble rousing for political gain.
I thought that was the meta-humor of my post. I must have been too obscure. Sob.
Slippery slope, the most slippery of arguments. If a sufficient number of people supported that idea, there would be nothing that I or anyone could do to stop it.
The conception of "freedom" underlying representative government is typically construed as having a moderate-Liberal (everytime I refer to Classical Liberalism, its big-L) bias - you know, people shouldn't have their property taken away without due process, etc...
Personally, I think most of this is just a bunch of hogwash, since "property" is an ambiguous term, "due process" is an ambiguous term, "freedom" is an ambiguous term, "assets" is an ambiguous term, etc.
Would I support an effort to "seize" all "assets" held by an individual after their first million - no. I don't think that our property tradition is particularly undesirable (except for its general failure to recognize a property interest in human capital) and I think that it holds some normative value.
Further, I don't think that your fears are reasonable, given that our goernmental system has so many checks one "mob rule." The much more realistic fear is the the rich will further exploit the poor...
Meta-humor, not real humor but an amazing simulation!
Way too obscure.
These terms are defined by the state, with the possible exception of freedom. Libertarianism's fundamental incoherence stems in part from the need for a state to define these terms, and to impose, using force, the result of those definitions on the citizens who disagree with the definitions.
There's apparent collusion in other areas. All of a sudden I can't find a bank credit card that doesn't charge a late fee of at least $25, regardless of the overdue amount. Seems to me that the practice approaches usury.
Interesting point. I've started noticing this. And I think I got burnt once. So I found a solution. I set up an automatic payment of $100 a month for each of the credit cards that I use, plus one charge card. This payment will always be there a few days before it is due. If I am around, and get to pay my bills, I'll pay the rest. If I am out of town, or busy, and send it in late, at least I won't get that charge. Cheap, easy and foolproof.
That is why we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Personally, I think most of this is just a bunch of hogwash, since "property" is an ambiguous term, "due process" is an ambiguous term, "freedom" is an ambiguous term, "assets" is an ambiguous term, etc.
You are entitled to your silly-ass opinion (g), but 200 years of history show you are mistaken. None of those terms are particularly ambiguous, and they have been used effectivey to convey meaning for hundreds of years.
Further, I don't think that your fears are reasonable, given that our governmental system has so many checks one "mob rule."
But that is exactly what you are supporting. By saying that government should involve itself in things like setting ATM fees because it comes from a representative government says that you support the will of the majority over the rights of the individual or the minority.
The much more realistic fear is the the rich will further exploit the poor...
You complain that words like "assets" and "freedom" are ambiguous yet you try to justify you position with a term like "exploit". Not only is that term extremely subjective, it is deliberately inflammatory.
Only foolproof if you always know the money is going to be in your account when the checks go out. I have never mastered that; consequently I won't go near automatic payments.
Right. The definitions, themselves, though, are also inevitably incoherent, as they are frequently swallowed by their own exceptions and counterrules.
A good example:
Rule: The news and other information of public interest is not property.
Counterrule: A report on an independently "discovered" event is property (actually, quasiproperty, but the distinction is irrlevant in general use).
Which rule governs an independent report about a presidential press conference?
Who am I trying to inflame?
If you think that property (which shifted from a Lockeian/civic republican view to a materialist view, which use be unavailable to women and minorities, etc.), due process (the understanding of which has shifted from a general limitation on the power of a sovereign to a general concern about "fairness"), freedom (which has shifted a thousand times from the civic republican era, to the Lochner/formalist era to the New Deal/Realist era, to the New Left era, to the neoconservative era, and isn't even agreed upon today), and assets (analogous to property - I only included it to mirror your comment)) have remained static for the last two hundred years, I am surprised.
The whole mob rule argument is specious: it assumes that the current relationship is natural, and not just the imposition of the will of an elite minority on a vulnerable majority. Law and the courts do one thing: decide disputes. If it wasn't a dispute (even constructively), no one would bother. In settling a dispute, the legislative process and the judicial process both pick a winner; they can't just choose not to act because that very choice is indistinguishable from choosing as the winner the person with current entitlement.
Saying that "mob rule" is bad represents little more than a fear of instability and the potential effect that any change attendant to that instability might have on your person. The "principle" of anti-majoritarian tyranny is simply a reflection of elitism. This is not, of course, to say that elitism is entirely a bad thing...
Do primary banks benefit when you withdraw money from a competitior's ATM? If I use my Citibank card to withdraw from my PNC account, does PNC benefit?
I thought someone stated that the fee would be shared, but I cannot seem to find the post.
Second, the "voluntariness" of an action related to the withdrawal of money is inherently limited by the scarcity of options and the necessity of money. If one has no transportation, for instance, the cost of going to your primary ATM can be substantially higher than the fee imposed by a competitor's bank.
Surely you are joking. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't have ATMs. And I'll bet there are more branches today, than there were before ATMs. How did people manage to survive in those olden days?
I am trying to imagine this person with no transportation, has selected a bank that cannot be reached by public transportation (why?), has competitors banks within an acceptable distance, but the person doesn't want to bank there. Does this set have a member? How many? And how could this be?
Fourth, I think that market can "handle" this issue. I just don't think that anything that the market can "handle" needs to be left up to the market. Frankly, I don't think that the concept of freedom embodied by capitalist economics is any better than that embodied by representative politics.
I can think of situations where representative politics might work better than markets (actually, I'm making this up, but if I worked at it, I might be able to). But when governments get to tinker in one area of economics, how do you tell them not to tinker in other areas? What happens when your list of acceptable area for government override of market decisions fails to match my list?
Your finances have problems beyond my ability to solve them. A few bucks here and there for ATM fees will get lost in the dust.
There is no principled way to decide when governmental/legal action should be taken. The market is governmentally and legally constructed; the government's refusal to intervene in the market is indistinguishable from the government opting to allocate resources to whoever will be the winner in the market (neither Pareto nor Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is necessarily desirable).
You might want to look at Law and Economics (Posner) for a discussion of when governmental action is appropriate. They typically say that the government's role is to act when transaction costs prevents meaningful bargaining (it is inefficient, for instance, for an individual to bargain with every single person he or she meets for his of her protection from murder). I have much greater sympathy for Posner's critics (Sunstein, Duncan Kennedy), who rely primarily on the endowment effect and the existence of adaptive preferences to refute the "naturalness" of Posner's arguments.
Further, the lack of "voluntariness" is inherent in the fact that ATMs involve money and money is necessary to do so much. Since the option to "not to anything" doesn't exist, it is not a genuinely "voluntary" situation.
The market is governmentally and legally constructed; the government's refusal to intervene in the market is indistinguishable from the government opting to allocate resources to whoever will be the winner in the market (neither Pareto nor Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is necessarily desirable).
You can discuss Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks, but you can't figure out your minimum balance rules for your bank? Pardon me for being surprised.
Further, the lack of "voluntariness" is inherent in the fact that ATMs involve money and money is necessary to do so much. Since the option to "not to anything" doesn't exist, it is not a genuinely "voluntary" situation.
Absolute blather. Your implicit assumption is that people absolutely must use the ATM of competitor banks. If you want to make the assertion that it is not feasible to live in this society without money, I'll agree. If you want to make the stronger assertion that one cannot exist in this society without interacting with financial institutions, I'll pause to think, but probably end up agreeing. But your intimation that one must withdraw cash from ATMs owned by competitors sufficiently often that the fees are meaningful is, well laughable. Sorry, but I'll bet if you think about it, you'll realize the absurdity of the assertion.
Was the surprise comment sarcastic? Simply put - I really don't know how they average out my balance and have never taken the time to figure it out (I am so far below the minimum to get deals that it was never worth the time).
The fact that you can not imagine a situation when the only realistic option (for a person with reasonable foresight) is to withdraw money from the ATM of a competitor's bank is kind of surprising. I don't think that the SQ is an inherently unfair system, or even a bad system - merely that it is not genuinely "voluntary."
Dave --
Use the Mote find-and-replace key.
The fact that you can not imagine a situation when the only realistic option (for a person with reasonable foresight) is to withdraw money from the ATM of a competitor's bank is kind of surprising.
I tried to make clear that someone might occasionally need to withdraw funds from a competitors ATM, but you aren't seriously going to engage in a policy discussion about the economic destitution wrought by a 4-6 bucks are you? If we are talking 4-5 times a month, or $100 a year, there are people for which this is an issue worth discussing. But I do not accept that you can find such a person. (For clarity, I don't doubt for a second that there are people who pay these types of fees annually, my contention is that there is not a single person in this country who has to pay these types of fees annually, due to inability to find a bank with proximate ATMs or inability to get to ATMs without fees.
I assume folks who advocate enforcing existing gun laws rather than passing new ones applaud this bit of news:
***
Gun provider sentenced to 6 years in Columbine case
Victims' families applaud
November 13, 1999
Web posted at: 1:04 a.m. EST (0604 GMT)
GOLDEN, Colorado (CNN) -- The 22-year-old man who provided one of the guns fired by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine High School massacre was sentenced Friday to six years in prison.
Jefferson County Judge Henry Nieto said Mark Manes "had a history of ignoring rules of law" and should serve a tough sentence because "the harm caused by this is almost too hard to comprehend."
"I fear that the habit of ignoring rules of law came into play here," Nieto said.
Manes received six years in prison for selling a weapon to a minor and three years for possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The sentences will run concurrently.
He could have received a maximum 18 years behind bars.
***
Read the entire article here.
Love me or hate me, but spare me your indifference.
Rosie --
Yeah, right. Whatever.
Who cares?
Did you understand that remark by the erudite LaRosa? Was he responding to my ATM remark? Is he an enigma wrapped in canvas jacket inside a soft walled room or what?
Was he responding to my ATM remark?
No.
But I will.
Frankly, it's been so long since I obtained cash in any other way, I've forgotten the alternatives. How do you get cash?
Is it more difficult that it used to be?
Why don't you use an ATM? Any particular aversion, or have you just never seen the need?
Judith --
"Is he an enigma wrapped in canvas jacket inside a soft walled room or what?"
Oh, jeeeez, that was a good one. I hope you don't mind if I steal it, 'cause I'm going to anyway.
This may sound sexist but we have never had the use of ATMs because long ago when my husband and I first opened a joint checking account, I saw the future and realized he was somewhat forgetful. We decided that, in order to avoid possible friction, neither one of us would use the ATM option. I could see that at the end of each month, there was the possibility of coming up hundreds of dollars short because of him forgetting to deduct withdrawals from the check register. He totally agreed. He even gave me a classy little calculator with the inscription, "May this house be safe from numbers."
We get cash by going to the bank drive-thru. I usually go prior to a weekend and get a stack of cash which lasts us over the weekend and maybe all the way til the next week. If the need for cash arises, I go back to the bank or to the local grocery here in our village which cashs checks for cash for a $.50 per transaction fee. We either charge or write checks for things like eating out, groceries, etc. We pay off our charges each month (no interest! and double milage for plane tickets!) and keep a large enough balance at the bank that our checking is free, also.
This may make us sound like Luddites or old fashioned but we never argue over money nor have we ever had "hot checks" and it has worked seamlessly for almost 19 years. I think we got into the habit of planning how much money we'd need in advance when we lived overseas and had to buy whichever foreign currency we'd need with our American money. We lived in Japan and in Germany for about the first 9 years of our marriage and it was easy to come back here and continue our quirky habits.
Judith --
I think the only real issue is whether your system works and does what you need it to do. It sounds like it does.
I don't see how that is sexist. If you assumed that he would be forgetful simply because he is a male, that might be true. If you assumed he was forgetful because he was forgetful, seems like a reasonable conclusion. When I got married, we decided I should take care of recording our finances. Not because I was the male, but because she didn't believe in recording checks. She still won't, but she writes few enough that I can stay ahead of her.
I guess you're right; I know he's forgetful and while that might be thought by some to be a secondary male sex characteristic, it isn't by me. :-)
Then things went blooey in 1996, and I've never really quite recovered organization. So I always believe the bank, and try to remember that I always probably have $500-1000 less than I think I have. It doesn't work all the time, but enough to keep the cops away.
Of course, there was the time that American Express decided that a $200 check I wrote them was for $2000, and the bank cashed it for that amount.
It took me 6 weeks to even notice, and another 3 months to get around to doing something about it.
I spoke to my dad about it today and he says that the only theory that makes any sense to him is that one of the pilots wanted to kill themselves. Which, he agrees, makes no sense at all.
Sorry what were you saying?
I assume the voice recorder can resolve that issue.
Besides, the data suggests the possibility that the two pilots struggled for control. If one of them were going to commit suicide, why not wait until other had left his seat?
The plane would not only have to have been hijacked, it would have had to have had both pilots replaced with two other pilots.
Regardless of which two people were flying the plane, the most likely explanation seems to go like this:
Pilot #1 decides to nosedive the plane into the ground. Pilot #2, who is in the cockpit belted in, can't figure out what is going on for a bit, then jerks sharply upwards on the controls, causing what is known as an elevator "split". (From what I can tell, Boeing created this capability for precisely this sort of scenario). Pilot #1, not to be deterred from his goal, shuts the engines off.
Molly Ivins on Jacobo Timerman
No, there really isn't anyone on board who would have been a target. And in any event, someone would then have claimed responsibility.
The pilots were flying the plane up until the moment that the engines were shut down. There was no cabin depressurization, no fire. The autopilot was manually turned off.
None of this suggests hijacking, although it's certainly possible that two gunmen came in, kicked the pilots out or killed them, got in their seats, and then one of them suddenly went suicidal.
The only thing that isn't clear is why Pilot #2 wouldn't have radioed for help, but it's quite possible that there wouldn't have been time, given the nosedive.
What makes this particularly tragic, actually, is the fact that someone was there frantically trying to stop him--and nearly succeeded. It makes it all seem somehow more avoidable.
If the data is wrong, that's a different story. However, "experts" were quite sure that the original radar data (showing the drop and then the ascent) was incorrect. It was not. And it's equally unlikely that this data is wrong.
I agree that there are other possibilities that could somehow turn out to fit the available evidence. I have only said that it is the most likely.
Assuming the data is correct, there is little question that the plane was under control, and that both the autopilot and the engines were manually turned off. There is even less question that the elevator "split" is only allowed to occur if both pilots are applying 50 lbs of pressure to the controls in opposite directions.
So if you are saying it is too early to assert definitively that one of the pilots was suicidal, I agree.
If you are somehow suggesting that this isn't the most likely explanation for the data they've found, then you apparently are more knowledgeable than the experts investigating the crash themselves--all of whom know exactly what the data suggests and, while being mum about confirming it, are not suggesting any other possibilities because they have none to offer.
Tell us about this "elevator split" again. Tell us that this is designed into the aircraft to prevent...what was the "scenario" again?
There also is some preliminary indication that late in the dive, the two pilots may have been pushing and pulling hard in opposite directions on the controls. That analysis of the data by outside experts is not conclusive. If the pilots were struggling with the controls, there is no way yet to determine whether they were fighting with each other or with other passengers, or had panicked.
It is unlikely that it was other passengers, unless they were belted in. The plane was in zero gravity conditions during much of the dive, making it impossible for someone to rush in and struggle.
The "panic" scenario is almost completely impossible. Yes, it would be completely possible that the pilots weren't communicating well. But that one of them, in an effort to bring a plane out of a nose dive, would force the nose down? Okay, suppose it's so. Then, once the plane was nosing up--one of them turns off the engine.
So fighting with each other remains the most likely possibility.
At that point[after the nosedive], Hall said, "the data show a split between the left and right elevator positions" – meaning that the devices that usually move in tandem moved in opposite directions.
A Boeing spokesman said that the aircraft's "design allows for split elevators," but would not comment further.
Boeing manuals detail a "column breakout" mechanism that gives way if pilots are pushing with at least 50 pounds of pressure in opposite directions on the control column, allowing the elevators to split a limited distance.
I've read the Post's (and other outlets) coverage.
It is not possible for the crew to intentionally cause such a movement on the 767, according to pilots, and the fact that the elevators moved out of unison indicates a major malfunction. But it was not clear from the information released so far whether this was a cause of the accident or a malfunction along the way.
I just did. Unless you mean that my comment that Boeing might have designed it for that? As I said, it was "from what I can tell". I was talking to my dad this afternoon, and he read me some stuff from the Boeing documentation. It seems clear that they designed this for the express possibility that the two pilots might, er, disagree on the direction that the plane would be headed. And it had to be a vehement disagreement, which is why they require at least 50 lbs of pressure.
But that's hardly relevant (which is why I put it in parentheses). I just mentioned that because I thought it was interesting to think of Boeing designing planes for suicidal pilots. Those guys think of everything.
It has nothing to do with your inability to distinguish between "assigning cause" and interpreting data to reach likely, if not proven or even definitive conclusions.
To be specific--it doesn't matter whether or not Boeing designed the planes for that reason. What matters is the plane was deliberately put into a dive after the autopilot was turned off manually, the pilots were violently trying to move the plane in opposite directions (up vs. down), and the engines were manually turned off.
Earlier, you noted that Boeing had designed the control linkage breakout to prevent a scenario where one pilot goes bananas and the other tries to prevent a disaster.
In truth, it is a certification requirement for the 767 to fly the aircraft in the event of a control run jam. Other airliners use similar means of separate pitch control.
My exact quote:
(From what I can tell, Boeing created this capability for precisely this sort of scenario).
And you are distracting, which is fine. Fuss all you like.
Filed at 12:13 a.m. EST
By The Associated Press
NEWPORT, R.I. (AP) -- The Navy recovered the cockpit voice recorder from EgyptAir Flight 990 Saturday, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said.
NTSB chairman James Hall said the cockpit voice recorder was recovered at 10:12 p.m. Saturday. He said it was found in the midst of wreckage deep in the Atlantic Ocean and that its ``pinger'' was detached from the box.
``I am very relieved,'' Hall said.
Investigators were hoping the voice recorder would provide answers to questions raised by information gleaned from the flight data recorder, which was retrieved on Tuesday.
The flight data and cockpit voice recorders -- the so-called black boxes -- could tell investigators what doomed the Boeing 767 that crashed Oct. 31 in the ocean off the Massachusetts island of Nantucket, killing all 217 people aboard.
There is even less question that the elevator "split" is only allowed to occur if both pilots are applying 50 lbs of pressure to the controls in opposite directions.
You apparently think I am using my guess about Boeing's reason for designing this possibility as proof of the cause of the crash.
I can't think how you would come to such a conclusion, given that my guess has nothing to do with the specifics. But you're one of those sorts, so I suppose anything is possible.
Refer to the quote in the last paragraph of #3641, which references the Boeing manual. That's all I was referring to. The situation in question could not have occurred unless both pilots were making a serious attempt to move the plane in opposite directions.
Yes, this assumes that the problem wasn't caused by a malfunction, which has already largely been ruled out.
Quote from the Catron County Sheriff:
"Some of these people wouldn't call us, anyway," Snyder said. "If someone breaks in their house, needs killing, they'll take care of it. They'll call us to pick up the pieces."
Greystoke,
Excellent contribution to the Protect and Serve Department.
Total Appendage Restraint Procedure, indeed.
BTW, the link in Message # 3650 doesn't work for me.
Apparently, Newsweek renamed the link since this morning. Try this one:
Murders in rural New Mexico.
"Some of these people wouldn't call us, anyway," Snyder said. "If someone breaks in their house, needs killing, they'll take care of it. They'll call us to pick up the pieces."
Haven't encountered that expression in quite awhile, but I heard it often in times past...."Well, that old boy was good for nothing anyway. He needed killing."
Well, my father once sat on a jury that acquitted a woman who killed her abusive husband. I can't recall with absolute certainty that this prayerful, hymn-leading man said that the husband "needed killing," but the sentiment was there. Perhaps he was unduly annoyed by threats against the jurors from relatives of the deceased.
See the link in Greystoke's Message # 3653.
Life is hard, out here on the frontier.
I thought your comment in #3654 immoderate. No, you don't deserve this lecture. (Exits stage left)
Let's see ... driving a rental car whose return was overdue, on a suspended license, on probation, with ten baggies of marijuana in the car.
No charges.
But we alllllll believe the deputy who says that the fact Mr. Grams is a senator's son played no part in the young man's fate.
***
Report: Sen.'s Son Escaped Charges
The Associated Press
Sunday, Nov. 14, 1999; 3:35 p.m. EST
MINNEAPOLIS –– A sheriff's deputy denied he gave preferential treatment to a U.S. senator's son who allegedly was driving with 10 bags of marijuana in his car but was not charged with any crime, the Star Tribune reported Sunday.
Morgan Grams, the 21-year-old son of Sen. Rod Grams, R-Minn., was stopped in July by Anoka County sheriff's deputies, the paper said, citing reports on file.
He was driving without a license and on probation, but was driven home in the front seat of Chief Deputy Peter Beberg's car, the newspaper reported.
Deputies had been searching for Grams at the personal request of the senator, who was worried after his son borrowed a rental car but failed to return it, the paper said.
***
Read the entire article here.
In Minnesota? Good grief!
Interesting article. I wouldn't find fault with the sheriff if he was this lenient with everyone. But this appears to be an obvious case of preferential treatment.
Here is a recent press release from Senator Grams.
An excerpt:
I understand the concerns expressed by some Members of Congress, federal judges, and the public regarding the fairness of mandatory minimum sentences. However, I believe mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses is an important part of our national drug control policy and contributes to safer schools, work places, and communities.
I wonder if he has an opinion on mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses by children of Senators.
An excerpt:
I believe that our nation can reverse these troubling trends in drug abuse and decrease the number of Americans who use drugs. First and foremost, we must enforce our existing drug laws.
An excerpt:
Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the City of Anoka Police Department on its selection as a semifinalist in the 1998 Innovations in American Government Awards competition.
Perhaps selective enforcement of the drug laws is another one of their innovations.
Disregard my post #3663.
I now see that it is Anoka County that is seletively enforcing the drug laws, not the City of Anoka.
Calgal, your comment was uninvited, officious and plainly wrong.
Or do you simply need instruction on the placement and meaning of quotation marks?
I read that quote as him giving an example of the sort of comment he meant. If I was in error, then your lecture--by your own admission--was still undeserved. But I will withdraw the "especial" nature of it, should I turn out to be incorrect in my assumption.
I am under no illusion that this will meet with your approval.
Excerpts:
Capital punishment in Illinois is a system so riddled with faulty evidence, unscrupulous trial tactics and legal incompetence that justice has been forsaken, a Tribune investigation has found.
Illinois has claimed the dubious distinction of having exonerated as many Death Row inmates as it has executed.
"Well, at least they exonerate before they execute."
Yes, but I've never heard of anyone being exonerated after execution, although its probably happened. Would the courts even hear such a case, since its a moot point?
These crushes hit you fifty-year olds hard, don't they?
Note the defensive, dismissive response. He's in denial about the depth of his affection for you.
This happens all the time in TV movies, just before the guy kisses the girl.
Now, now. Don't tease him. These feelings are so difficult for others to understand. A little empathy, if you please.
Grey --
"I now see that it is Anoka County that is seletively enforcing the drug laws, not the City of Anoka."
Yes, but the deputy sheriff who gave the senator's son a ride home after his confrontation with the law (to use the term extremely loosely) is also the mayor of the city of Anoka. So your original post has more validity than you may have imagined.
Idiotic.
Cal --
More's the pity, he probably didn't even think about the hypocrisy.
Actually, in fairness to Senator Grams, he may have had little or nothing to do with the initial release of his son. The deputy may simply have decided to dispense a little leniency all on his own.
You'll note, however, that the Senator neglected to mention his personal experience with the scourge of illegal drug trafficking in his statement to the Senate last week. Of course, he was speaking about drugs his son did not have in his car, so the oversight is understandable.
Still -- I wonder what steps he's taken to ensure that his offspring receives "equal justice?" Or is this just another case of special rules for special people?
"in fairness to Senator Grams, he may have had little or nothing to do with the initial release of his son. "
"Of course, he was speaking about drugs his son did not have in his car, so the oversight is understandable."
Our job is to cast aspersions on the integrity of Senator Grams. It is the responsibility of the Republican sympathizers in this forum to provide reasons for giving him the benefit of the doubt.
One more outburst of fairness like that, mister, and your reputation as a partisan hack is history.
Grey --
Oh, damn.
Does this mean I have to turn in my Party card?
Stumbo is right.
You can look it up in his dictionary if you like.
Worth its virtual weight in gold, man.
EgyptAir Recorder Data Inconclusive
NEWPORT, R.I. (AP) --Cockpit voice recordings from EgyptAir Flight 990 show the pilot and co-pilot talking ``like pals'' before something goes wrong and both men desperately try to fix a problem that soon caused the plane to crash into the Atlantic, a source close to the investigation said Sunday.
``Something happens. Alarms go off. Both work to try to fix it,'' the source said. ``There is some kind of problem that they're dealing with. It gets progressively worse. And the tape stops.''
In a statement Sunday night, National Transportation Safety Board chairman James Hall said no conclusions could be drawn from the initial review of the tape. The recorder was found to be in good condition and it provided about 31 1/2 minutes of data, he said.
The tape provides no evidence of an intruder in the cockpit or of any fighting among the crew, the source said.
It was reviewed by American and Egyptian officials, including representatives from the FBI.
Hall said a Cockpit Voice Recorder Group, directed by the NTSB and including representatives from Egypt, the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney Engines, would meet Monday to begin a thorough review of the recorder.
After a two-week search, the recorder was found Saturday night by a remote-operated robot, and on Sunday it was delivered to National Transportation Safety Board headquarters in Washington.
The New York-to-Cairo jetliner crashed off Massachusetts' Nantucket Island on Oct. 31, killing all 217 people aboard.
OK, I think it's out of my system now.
Here are the questions I don't see answered yet:
Of course, it's still possible that the malfunction is one they aren't aware of yet. And it's also possible that the pilots did all this because they fucked up from start to finish--turned off the auto pilot, wrenched the wrong way on the controls, then turned off the engine.
Of course, being the terrible suspicious person that I am, I wonder if the suicidal pilot just decided to fake it!
But then, I'm still skeptical about Flight 800.
"Your honor, this was a minor matter, my client didn't have a single bag more of marijuana than young Mr. Gram, and he had a drivers license and the car was paid for. Lets show those cynical partisan hacks that this is not special treatment for special people, but instead is standard practice..."
Cartman:
What is Koop's Green Monkey theory? I ask because I once read an extremely convincing theory on the origin of HIV in Rolling Stone, which also had to do with monkeys.
Koop theorized that AIDS got its start when an African native cut himself while skinning a "green monkey" for food. Which is theoretically possible, but the Rolling Stone article you refer to presents a much more plausible theory.
In the late '50s, in what was then the Belgian Congo, mass polio vaccinations took place, where as many as 250,000 people where vaccinated at a time. I forget the total number of vaccinations, but it was over 10 million. Anyway, the vaccine was made from, in part, monkey kidneys, specifically, monkeys which have been found to carry SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus). Since the screening capabilities weren't all that hot at the time, and probably weren't heavily scrutinized anyway (we are, after all, talking about post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa), it's very possible, even likely, that tainted kidneys found their way into the vaccines, and infected some people. In most people, the SIV would have made them mildly ill, but one of the doctors consulted by the RS article said that the SIV mutates within its normally simian hosts, so a particularly virulent strain could have mutated to the extent that it became deadly to humans.
It's all "could have, may have" theorizing either way, but I found the theory outlined in RS far more plausible than Koop's feeble "one guy skinning a monkey" explanation.
The July incident wasn't the first time Morgan Grams had been in trouble with the law, nor is it the only time he has relied on his expired Senate pass.
He was convicted in 1996 of gross misdemeanors for stealing his aunt's $400 television and later that year for stalking and making harassing phone calls to one of his sister's girlfriends. His former probation officer said Morgan Grams did two stints in a county jail, totaling three months.
Less than two weeks after he was driven home by Beberg, Morgan Grams stole a car and purse from a woman he took to a nightclub in Coon Rapids, according to a criminal complaint filed last week. He was charged with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a felony, and gross misdemeanor counts of check forgery and credit card fraud.
The complaint said Morgan Grams used his expired U.S. Senate pass while trying unsuccessfully to cash the woman's checks in Ramsey. His next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 3 in Anoka County District Court.
Jesus H. Christ. His dad must be sooo proud of him. Forget the pot, this little fucker needs some jail time just on general principles. Another spoiled little asshole who counts on Daddy's connections to get him out of trouble. I think he deserves extra time just for trying to throw his weight around, abuse of power, impersonating a human, something like that.
Yup...that's the one. It had to be 8 years ago that I read that article, and I've yet to see a more plausible theory.
Besides all the strictly medical/biological evidence, I was most struck by the demographic evidence -supposedly, the areas in which this particular live virus was given (which I'd thought the article said were grown in the monkeys' spleens - but you may be correct), to this day have the highest incidence of AIDS of any region in the world.
Another fact from the article which I have never seen mentioned before or since, was the story of the European (Portugese?) sailor, whose fluids were preserved when he died of some "unknown" disease in the mid 60's. Which fluids, of course, when tested in the 80's, were found to contain HIV.
Uhhh...3698 was to 3695...
And you'd think that there'd be some effort to confirm this, because it would put to rest the various conspiracy theories regarding the origin of AIDS, if it were found to be the result of benign neglect. But as I recall from the article, most of the doctors who had been involved in the mass vaccinations vigorously denied even the possibility. They may have been telling the truth, but it stunk to high heaven of covering their asses.
Cartman:
Yes...either that, or an almost understandable reluctance to besmirch the Salk name - an inevitable outcome, if this theory were to gain wide acceptance.
I believe Albert Sabin was directly involved in the Congo mass vaccinations. I remember RS mentioned him in the article. I may have that issue boxed up somewhere; if I get intrigued enough I might have to dig it out.
Jones:
Perhaps your client had an underage passenger he could get to take the rap for him? After all, the kid would just get a few months in juvy, while your client is looking at a serious felony bust. He could be pushing ass out of state prison for the next decade. Odd how neatly that dovetails with the AIDS discussion, no?
Just remind him that we have to do it this way. For the children.
Jonesy --
It's still your client's fault. He could have chosen to be born to a hardline, law-and-order U.S. Senator.
So. I hear that Pokémon movie blows rhino. And when will those darned British royals finally get the happiness they so richly deserve? I hear Wills is secretly engaged to Kneepad Spice (or is it Skanky Spice? I can never keep them straight).
I was wondering -- is the Japanese girl who keeps appearing in the "Chinpokomon" episode actually from the Pokemon cartoons? Do they really do that -- have a live-action person pop up here and there and mumble unintelligible phrases, right in the middle of things?
Bizarre. Although just to hedge my bets, I may have to invest in mass quantities of "Pengin" and "Shoe".
So? If there was a malfunction or some other problem, it is SOP tto disengage the auto-pilot.
The experts were anxious to find the flight recorder, mainly
because they were hoping for a hijacking or something--in other words, they had apparently ruled out any malfunction. So what "went wrong" that they were trying to fix?
Wrongo. Investigators of any crash are interested in the voice data recorder, it furnishes more pieces to a puzzle. What they hope to find is the pilot and crew discussing the nature of the problem and the steps taken to recover.
I can see no reason why they would turn off the engines--and
there is no indication that they were off.
Read up on "Mach tuck," while you're investigating "elevator splits." What must be understood is that when an aircraft is in an in extremis situation, frequently decisions are taken that may make little sense.
Still don't see why one pilot would have been pushing down on the controls.
See the "deep kimchee" explanation above.
Given that he has done jail time, and looks to be doing some more, it is a fair indication that his breaks are few and far between.
Nice to see you making sense
Great to see that sense of humor kicking in.
"When I learned he might be in trouble, I asked the authorities to find him -- and that's all I asked for," Grams said in a written statement released Sunday. "My son has struggled with addiction and behavioral problems for years and has received treatment for those problems."
Grams' written remarks came in response to an article that appeared in Sunday's Star Tribune about his son.
Morgan Grams had been driving a borrowed rental car that carried 10 small bags of marijuana, including one under his seat when he was pulled over by the sheriff's Chief Deputy Peter Beberg.
Although Morgan Grams was on probation and had no driver's license on him, he was not charged or questioned about the drugs in his car, according to sheriff's reports." St. Paul Star Tribune.
Call me cynical-but when a US Senator calls the cops and asks them to find his kid who's in a stolen vehicle, and when they find him with no license on him, with alchol and marijuana in the car (enough for a felony) a minor in the car, and he's on probation, and the Chief Deputy brings him home in the front seat of his car, I think either he asked, or didn't need to because it was understood. I would be less inclined to by cynical if this was the kids first run in with the law.
Hell, I have clients who got popped when they are in a car with four other guys and one is holding a small amount on his person.
If you find that Rolling Stone article, could you post it? I know this lady who is convinced the "US government spread AIDS in San Francisco" urban myth is true and nothing I say can change her thinking. This story probably won't, either, but it might give her pause.
Thanks for the update.
They seem to have a mind of their own...
We all know that if the kid's name had been Kennedy it would have been a very different scenario. They would have bought him dinner before taking him home.
(g)
Could you read my post in Technical and see if you can do the "invisible" post?
We all know that if the kid's name had been Kennedy....
Well, it wasn't.
Besides, we all know what libertine degenerates the Kennedy family is so had this happened to a Kennedy kid, we wouldn't or shouldn't be surprised.
But it happened to Sen. Gram's kid. You know, a champion of "family values" and a proponent of the "get tough" on crime and drugs agenda.
Niner --
"... what is [Senator Grams] supposed to do? Demand that they lock up his creepy offspring after they drop him off? The boy caught a break."
It is a dilemma, isn't it?
On the one hand, as a parent, I'd be reluctant not to accept such a break for my child.
On the other, if I did accept it, I think I'd be inclined to moderate my stance somewhat on drug offenses and mandatory minimums. I would be particularly mindful of my remarks on the floor of the Senate: "We must not accept double standards ... a double standard ... is completely unacceptable for a nation that prides itself on a legal system which provides equal justice under the law."
It's one thing, as a parent, to say "my kid deserves a break." It's another, as a lawmaker, to follow up with "but your kid doesn't."
"On the one hand, as a parent, I'd be reluctant not to accept such a break for my child."
Well, my comment is probably irrelevant. The little thug is a not so little 21. I guess Grams was just worried about him because he's such a fuck-up, and he's trying to help him through this time (the Senate job, the calls to the cops). But I don't think you or Grams would have much input if a deputy drops the kid off at home and he strolls in, you say "What the hell happened?" and he says, "Nothing" and goes to make a sandwich. So, while I understand your political point, it isn'r relevant yet. Should Grams be shown to have interceded, your point will then be apropos, but the kid has done time, apparently, without Grams' intercession, and it sounds like he has more coming up.
Niner --
"I don't think you or Grams would have much input if a deputy drops the kid off at home and he strolls in, you say "What the hell happened?" and he says, "Nothing" and goes to make a sandwich."
Perhaps.
But I'd certainly call to get the story from the deputy. And having learned that my son got -- by any reasonable measure --extraordinarily lenient treatment, I think I'd be inclined to moderate my views somewhat concerning the value of leniency for other peoples' kids.
"Niner- I would be more inclined to believe your scenario, had the kid who had the overdue rental car not called Gram to find the car, and had Gram not called the police to find him. I might expect he would have asked for more information if he got "nothing" as a response from young Mr. Gram."
I'm not even sure I believe my scenario, but given the myriad of reactions, I simply offer that the situation is not yet ripe for political utilization.
Trial
"But I'd certainly call to get the story from the deputy. And having learned that my son got -- by any reasonable measure --extraordinarily lenient treatment, I think I'd be inclined to moderate my views somewhat concerning the value of leniency for other peoples' kids."
Really? If your son came home and said he had been pulled over by Officer 109109 (who you know) and you called me, and I said, 'Yea. The boy was wasted, but we go way back, so I drove him home and let him off," this would revise your position on drunk driving laws?
I find it bizarre you would let the largess of one cop mutate your conviction.
Man, it is a low day when marching for six brawling thugs makes you Rosa Parks.
Niner --
"I find it bizarre you would let the largess of one cop mutate your conviction."
You'll note I said if I accepted favorable treatment for my son.
Under your scenario, in which I knew my child was shown leniency not given to other peoples' children, my options would be to
(a) alter my position, at least insofar as leniency is concerned. This might be politically difficult in Senator Grams' case, because the law-and-order segment of his constituency might not be pleased, but that's the price you pay for consistency; or
(b) insist that the police treat my child the same as any other, and use whatever influence I have to make sure that happened. I suspect the Senator has sufficient clout to persuade law enforcement to at least have his son questioned. I'm sure that would certainly put a strain on his family, but again, that's the price you pay for consistency; or
(c) revel in the hypocrisy and accept the double standard.
If I was committed to a policy of mandatory punishment and no double standards, I'd go with (b). If I was committed to no double standards, but not to mandatory punishment, I'd go with (a).
"You'll note I said if I accepted favorable treatment for my son."
You had no choice. Nor did Grams (as far as we know today). Both of you called to have him looked for, he was found, and he - an adult - received the lenient treatment gratis.
"Under your scenario, in which I knew my child was shown leniency not given to other peoples' children, my options would be to
(a) alter my position, at least insofar as leniency is concerned. This might be politically difficult in Senator Grams' case, because the law-and-order segment of his constituency might not be pleased, but that's the price you pay for consistency; or
(b) insist that the police treat my child the same as any other, and use whatever influence I have to make sure that happened. I suspect the Senator has sufficient clout to persuade law enforcement to at least have his son questioned. I'm sure that would certainly put a strain on his family, but again, that's the price you pay for consistency; or
(c) revel in the hypocrisy and accept the double standard."
So, you a) alter your law and order beliefs on drunk driving because I cut your son a break or b) you would insist I came right over to bust your 21 year old boy, who, presumably, would still be drunk, because your buddy, 109019, cut your son a break?
I don't understand a). You and Grams believe what you believe and you espouse what you espouse. If your adult sons catch a break, fine. You shouldn't feel compelled to change your belief system because you have crap lucky offspring. As for b), I just can't buy you or Grams putting a nice cop in harm's way for cutting your boy a break, or getting your boy locked up after he caught the break (and, to be fair, we have no evidence as to what Grams was told by his shit-ass son when he got in the house, but I doubt the boy said "Dad, I got sooooo lucky. The deputy didn't bust me for the pot").
Try d). Tell your son, "You lucky bastard. I told Officer 109109 that next time, he shouldn't jeopardize his job for the likes of a turd like you."
Actually, I'd go for B. I think it could be managed without getting anyone in trouble.
Niner --
"You had no choice. Nor did Grams ..."
Sure we did; option (b).
"I just can't buy you or Grams putting a nice cop in harm's way for cutting your boy a break, or getting your boy locked up after he caught the break ..."
Doesn't matter if you buy it or not. If you don't believe in double standards, and you're committed to mandatory penalties, you either push to have your own children subjected to the same rules you push for others or you're a hypocrite.
I'll bet Jackson loses sleep after that broadside.
Your conclusion is absurdist, but I suspect you realize that. Similar to believing in the speed limit and requiring your children to "turn themselves in" after exceeding same to spare your consistency.
"Officer 109109. Come back here, fuck you for the favor, bust my son and keep me clean of the charge of hypocrisy."
No. Similar to requiring that the judge not cut your kid a break when he goes in to contest the ticket.
No one is arguing about what to do if your kid isn't caught.
At 21 years of age, I like option "f" very much as well. It actually tags on well to my "d", no well-meaning cop gets put in an awkward situation, and it allows an adult son to receive the rewards of a lucky break (given his 3 month jail stint, a break he does not always get) while simultaneously allowing Daddy his convictions, keeping him free from the charge of hypocrisy, and preventing him from calling the cops to "demand" they come back and bust his boy.
The break has been cut. No one is discussing what to do if the police call you and say "Hey. You want me to give Mikey a break?" The answer is "No."
Trial and I are discussing a situation wherein Trial's child has been let off without Trial's knowledge, Officer 109109 is long gone to get a donut and it may be a few hours before the kid even spills that he was cut a break.
You see the world in such black and white terms. One thing you neglect to consider is that the police have a great deal of leeway in determining who they pursue and arrest, the DA has a great deal of discretion in determining who they take to trial, and many things go into those decisions. As usual you are making judgements using absolutes when you aren't in possession of all the facts. I don't know anyone who could live up to the standards that you have set for Grams. I would like to see you live up to you own standards sometime.
Yes, I know. I don't see how that changes things.
One other thing on "f"--it doesn't work for someone who is selling himself as a "family values" politician.
If that doesn't change things, than I agree 100% with your response. (g)
Nobody has set standards for Grams. He set them for himself and others.
He was the guy who deemed that the solution to crime and drugs was a "get tough" policy. Obviously, he did not envision this standard as applying to his family but it applies to an awful lot of other families.
As for the notoriety, he knew the job was dangerous when he campaigned for it.
???
You characterized it as "fuck you"; I did not. How could that constitute agreement?
Niner --
"Your conclusion is absurdist, but I suspect you realize that."
You clearly miss the point.
The issue is not whether it's understandable that Senator Gramsn would compromise his principles in favor of his son, while refusing to do so for other peoples' sons; it's whether it's hypocritical for him to do so.
The Senator's denunciation of double standards simply makes his behavior all the more amusing.
I said that if you see no difference between Grams or Trial being confronted with an OFFER of leniency for an adult son by the police and Grams or Trial being confronted with the FACT of lenient treatment already extended, i.e., if these factual predicates do not change how one reacts, and the estimation of such a reaction, than since we agree that Trial and Grams should say "No" to the OFFER, if we agree that there is no difference as to the factual predicates, we will agree as to what a proper response should be to the after the fact leniency.
"The issue is not whether it's understandable that Senator Gramsn would compromise his principles in favor of his son, while refusing to do so for other peoples' sons; it's whether it's hypocritical for him to do so."
Actually, we were talking less about Grams - because, as I said, the facts are such that political maximization should maybe wait (cazart necessarily excluded) - than you.
JJ --
"I don't know anyone who could live up to the standards that you have set for Grams."
I didn't set the standards: he did. Whether he chooses to live up to them or to compromise them is entirely his decision.
"I would like to see you live up to you own standards sometime."
I try to do so every day. Sometimes I fall short. If I impose standards on others that I cannot or will not abide by myself, I am a hypocrite. Nothing fancy about that.
I know it causes you endless grief to see that term applied to Senator Grams, but there it is.
Grams was toast prior to this latest revelation.
It's part of a larger picture of hypocrisy; one which extends to the GOP candidate for President. In other words, the rule of law applies to everyone but me.
Is Penny in?
If not, I remember the juggernaut that was Ann Wynia. She outspent Grams and still lost by almost a million votes.
Toast usually brings out the top-notch candidates.
Niner --
"Actually, we were talking less about Grams ... than you."
Well, then : if I accepted special treatment for my son, while simultaneously insisting on mandatory punishment for other peoples' sons and insisting that there be no double standards -- I'd be a hypocrite. I don't see where that's a particularly difficult concept.
And I won't believe a parent who says "I would insist that my son be arrested" unless they actually did it when push came to shove.
My dad was a high school teacher, who had turned in many kids when they caught drinking. He once caught my brother drunk, while in high school (I never got drunk enough to get stupid enough to let him catch me, but my brother has never been as prudent). He didn't turn him in. He was pissed as hell, and instituted some house arrest procedures, but he couldn't turn him in, even though he had always warned us older kids that he would.
And Grams didn't even catch his son in the act.
"Well, then : if I accepted special treatment for my son, while simultaneously insisting on mandatory punishment for other peoples' sons and insisting that there be no double standards -- I'd be a hypocrite. I don't see where that's a particularly difficult concept."
Then you are clear. In the hypothetical, you accepted nothing. The transaction was completed without your inout. Your 21 year old son accepted the preferential treatment, and the cop insists that the treatment was not preferential.
It wasn't until you advocated calling the cops and ratting out your son for the sake of immunization from the charge of hypocrisy that this became confusing.
Your Message # 3765 is completely incomprehensible. I am much comforted to note you are occasionally capable of it. (I am speaking of the writing, not your argument.)
As far as we can tell, Grams had no choice in the matter. Apparently it was a fait accompli by the time he found out about it. Since his son was an adult, he had no say in the matter. Are you suggesting that Grams had to demand his son be arrested, tried and convicted in order to avoid hipocrisy. This is absurd.
The more I hear, the more likely it seems to be.
"If not, I remember the juggernaut that was Ann Wynia. She outspent Grams and still lost by almost a million votes."
Well, that was '94, when there was a major national Republican landslide. I see no evidence that such a repeat occurrence is imminent.
But, of course, this time Grams is an incumbent. However, I still think he is toast against all but the most inept of campaigners. Like Wynia.
Toast usually brings out the top-notch candidates.
It was one of Trial's suggestions, based on varying desires. To be fair, he had an a), a b), and a c).
Cal
It has been known to happen.
Are you saying you wouldn't expect your grown son to take responsability for his own actions? Would you help your grown child evade the law or allow him to "get away with it"?
Rask --
"My dad was a high school teacher, who had turned in many kids when they caught drinking. He once caught my brother drunk ... He didn't turn him in."
Sorry to break it to you, buddy: your dad was, on that occasion at least, a hypocrite.
"He was pissed as hell, and instituted some house arrest procedures, but he couldn't turn him in, even though he had always warned us older kids that he would."
Sure he could have. He elected not to. I understand the decision, but it's still a decision.
Bubba nails it. Ain't no fucking way that Grams' call can be considered anything other than a request for special treatment. "Hey, guys, my son is out there, you know his history, please make sure you find him and handle it."
And it also knocks the shit out of Niner's "he's 21". If he's 21 and a big boy, then why is Daddy checking up on him?
Penny will mop the floor with Grams. And Minnesota is iconoclastic, as is evidenced by its governor, and its senators. And the next tier candidate, Mike Ciresi, is independently wealthy (he is a tobacco plaintiff's lawyer). But he is an unknown, the nomination will be contested (there are four other announced candidates), and that leaves 2 months to go after Grams.
Niner --
By "accepted," I include accepting the fait accompli rather than attempting to reverse it.
JJ --
"Are you suggesting that Grams had to demand his son be arrested, tried and convicted in order to avoid hipocrisy."
I am suggesting that in order to be consistent, the Senator had to insist that his son receive the same treatment your son would receive.
Rask, my post to you sounds more judgmental and on high than I meant it to--it's fine by me if your dad gave his kids a break. I was merely using it as you provided it, as an example in this debate. Sorry if I offended.
Of course, I've said I wouldn't commit perjury to save my son, so I'm a bit odd that way.
"By 'accepted,' I include accepting the fait accompli rather than attempting to reverse it."
I know. Translated, it means that every time your 16 year old son comes home drunk after walking or driving, you must either revise your support of stiff punishment for underage drinking and/or drunk driving, OR, to remain pristine and free of the charge of hypocrisy, call the cops and have him busted.
"Bill . . . Yeah . . . It's Trial. Look, the kid is wasted . . . No . . . I think it's just beer . . . but you know how I support drunk driving laws. And my non-hypocritical status is very important to me. So come on quick before his blood alcohol dissipates . . . A witness? At trial . . . Sure, you can count on Trial as a witness at trial."
How do you know my son would not receive the same treatment from this cop? As I posted earlier, lots of people are given breaks by the police in similar situations. When my brother was that age, the cops drove him home several times and never pressed charges. My family has NO political connections.
If Grams' son had been arrested, tried and convicted then given special treatment, you might have a case. As it is, all you have is gas.
Be fair. There is a big difference between the kid being picked up by the system and getting a walk and eluding the system. So keep those analogies straight, shall we?
Not by Trial's rigid calculation. A hypocrite is a hypocrite is a hypocrite. And I would not expect him to hide behind such technical niceties as "picked up" versus "eluded." fact is, Trial supports drunk driving laws and he knows that his drunk son, 5 minutes in the house, has just drive. By Trial's a) and b) and c), he can 1) change his mind about punishing drunk drivers; 2) call the cops; or, 3) be a happy hypocrite.
We're not talking about a 16-year old kid here. Nor are are we talking about a parent who discovers his kid has been breaking the law and faces the decision to turn him in or not.
Grams has forwarded a "get tough" policy with regard to drugs and crime. He has done so because it is (a.) politically advantageous; (b.) his earnest solution to help society; or (c.) some combination of (a.) and (b.)
Either this "get tough" policy applies to his son or it applies to nobody's kid.
It's still not an accurate comparison. That being said, if I had a kid who was wild--as opposed to having a drinking problem--I'd turn him in.
Actually, JJ and 109109 are having a philosophical discussion that only tangentially impacts upon Grams or politics. You, however, are talking to yourself, and you are saying "Senator Grams is bad. Bad, I tell you!!!!!"
So, it appears, would Trial.
Niner --
"I know. Translated, it means that ..."
Don't translate. You're not very good at it.
"... every time your 16 year old son comes home drunk after walking or driving, you must either revise your support of stiff punishment for underage drinking and/or drunk driving, OR, to remain pristine and free of the charge of hypocrisy, call the cops and have him busted."
If the cops treated him differently than they would other kids who they caught doing the same thing, and I oppose double standards in the criminal justice system, that's right.
Another vote for option f.
I don't see it as permanent, or inconsistent with family values.
However, the fact that the guy called the cops to be on the lookout for his son pretty much takes f out of the picture in this particular instance.
I differentiated between a drinking problem and a wild kid because the former would not be helped in the judicial system. The latter might--but in any event, at a certain point I'd figure the grief the kid caused me was enough.
You're looking very bad on this issue.
Several times you've attempted to frame the argument into something it's not. Again, the issue is not Grams. Grams is toast and destined to once again be anchorman at Lou Grant's TV station. It's the larger picture.
GW Bush. The poster-boy for failing upward.
If you prefer we can use Democrats as examples. Bradley, for example, makes all kind of noises about campaign finance reform. But he is not too concerned about getting the corporate jet trips. Same with McCain.
Well, that was '94, when there was a major national Republican landslide. I see no evidence that such a repeat occurrence is imminent.
As opposed to the evidence that 94 would turn out as it did? My recollection is that no one who predicted 94 was taken seriously.
Having said that, the GOP is acting incredibly stupid, and may well blow what should be a good opportunity. Which is to the benefit of me financially, so I have mixed emotions.
JJ --
"How do you know my son would not receive the same treatment from this cop?"
That's almost too stupid to respond to. Let's see: on probation, driving with no license, in an overdue rental, with ten baggies of marijuana in the car -- yeah, JJ, they'd drive your son home without even questioning him. Sure.
"If the cops treated him differently than they would other kids who they caught doing the same thing, and I oppose double standards in the criminal justice system, that's right."
It appears my translation was dead on here.
"GW Bush. The poster-boy for failing upward. If you prefer we can use Democrats as examples. Bradley, for example, makes all kind of noises about campaign finance reform. But he is not too concerned about getting the corporate jet trips. Same with McCain."
Yes. And I understand you to be a Gore supporter, who has no such glaring problems on the tobacco issue. Regardless, no one seems to have gleaned your higher message, but take heart. It may catch on.
Niner --
Your translation, unfortunately, excluded the relevant factors I supplied in my follow-up.
Doubtless a mere oversight on your part.
Again, I agree with TS. Cops can, occasionally, give a kid a break on a DUI. But ten bags of marijuana in a stolen car with no license?
Sure.
Refresh my memory, how did Gore get preferential treatment from the tobacco industry?
My son is 17 months old, so I honestly would be talking out of my ass if I said what I expect him to do when he is grown, and it would depend on the situation. You want to know if I would call the cops if I found cocaine in his drawer? I doubt I would. And I honestly don't trust anyone who tells me they would, unless they have already done something similar and had their kid seriously busted. *That* was the point of the anecdote about my father. I know he was hypocritical in that instance (although he was supposed to report drinkers to the principal, for academic punishment, not the police).
Lets be honest. How many of us were caught underage drinking by our parents, and not turned into the police? Do you honestly think that they should have, in order to "hold us accountable for our actions?"
And how does a call to the cops asking them to look for your son add up to an implicit request for special treatment? Any parent can call up the cops and ask them to look for a missing kid. I know parents who have done it.
You clearly delineate between accepting perks and favors (Bush, Bradley, McCain) and accepting tobacco money while your sister is ravaged by lung cancer and later capitalizing on her death during a national convention, wherein you tell everyone that you will fight until your own dying breath to stop tobacco, and then it is revealed that you accepted tobacco money AFTER her death and you claim post-traumatic stress syndrome/denial and you also claim that today is the dawning of your new understanding on the issue until you are in trouble against Bradley and you need to hire Carter Eskew, who has just come off a stint as big tobacco's numero uno media consultant, but no matter.
My bad.
"As opposed to the evidence that 94 would turn out as it did? My recollection is that no one who predicted 94 was taken seriously."
I'll certainly grant that anything can happen, but right now, there is no more reason to suspect a GOp landslide than a Dem landslide. Thus, I think making predictions based on a GOP landslide is a bad idea.
He was 21. Had a history of problems. The Senator was not apparently worried about foul play.
In this case, I think it is obvious that the Senator's call was a request for special treatment. As such, the fact that he didn't request special treatment is a moot point. Given what the kid was picked up for, I also am extremely skeptical that the cops would have reacted similarly had they not known who he was.
And I stress, again, that there is a difference between what you do with your kid privately and what happens once the system finds him. I am not sure what I would do if my son were driving drunk and came home--precisely because there is no guarantee the cops would have picked him up, or tested him, or anything like that. I am not averse to the concept of lucky breaks, provided it doesn't happen regularly.
How can you even think of comparing that to a free plane ride. I mean, really!
"The Senator was not apparently worried about foul play."
This seems presumptious.
"In this case, I think it is obvious that the Senator's call was a request for special treatment. As such, the fact that he didn't request special treatment is a moot point. Given what the kid was picked up for, I also am extremely skeptical that the cops would have reacted similarly had they not known who he was."
What kind? Special treatment of "Mac, help me. The kid is missing and I need you to be on the lookout in Anoka."
Or "Mac, help me. The kid is missing and if you find him in a car with 9 bags of pot on one kid and another under the seat, let him off for your old buddy, the Senator."
You seem so sure of Grams' import that it is "obvious."
I am hopelessly unfair.
Earlier, you stressed the point that he was 21 and an adult. If so, Daddy shouldn't be calling on his whereabouts without it being a loooooong time.
If the Senator called in as per your first example, I view that as special treatment. Unless, of course, he called it in as a Missing Person report and a form was filled out. Hopefully, the kid had been missing an appropriate amount of time, as well. Seriously, if that happened, then I would change my assessment of his call.
Sure, I think one can question what the cops would have done if they hadn't known it was the Senator's kid. But I don't see that as Grams' fault. I would have viewed a "now, I want no special treatment for my son" comment to the police as insulting.
Now, if you want to use his son's misbehavior to point out the hypocrisy in his Christian Coalition "seal of approval" platform, I won't gainsay you. But I generally don't like exploiting the children of politicians for political points, unless it is invited by the kids (Reagan's publicity-seeking kids springs to mind).
Again, I don't share your fixed application of the "should" or the fixed quotients of proper age versus number of days missing. I imagine a world with 21 year olds in varied worrying situations and histories, and fathers who are trying to help same. Nor does an estimation of Gram's presumed request for preference hinge on whether he filled out a report in Anoka, Minnesota.
How much marijuana did your client possess and how much did Grams' kid possess?
If I called up on my 21 year old and he hadn't been missing for the requisite amount of days, it would not be handled in the same way. BTW--was the car reported as stolen? Should it have been?
It also seems unlikely that the subtext--kid with a history of problems--was not taken into account.
I like to think that if I called up a similar request for my kid, the police would do the same, even before a missing persons report could be filed.
After your kid was 21? I doubt they would.
This was, of course, a small town. But that underscores the point even more.
There were ten bags of marijuana found in the car. 9 were in the possession of a 17 year old riding shotgun, who was arrested. One was under the seat of the Grams' kid.
Why? When my daughter first came to live with us as a foster child, there were some threats against her from her biological family. Our next door neighbor and some of his fellow officers kept a watch on our house to make sure there were no problems. This wasn't an official activity, it was done because we were neighbors and friends.
It is easy to imagine that Grams was concerned that his son hadn't returned home on time and might have been in an accident. He calls a friend on the force to be on the lookout for him. Grams would have no way of knowing that his son had drugs on him or was driving without a license. How can this be construed as a request for special treatment? All he knew was that his son was missing.
We can conjecture about why the cop acted as he did. If he knew the kid, he knew the kid had been in trouble in the past. He would know that an arrest could have resulted in serious consequences. He could have thought the the violation wasn't serious enough to warrant those consequences and gave the kid a break.
Another thing: the guy says that his son has a drug problem and is receiving treatment.
Well, isn't that precious. Any acknowledgement that many people can't afford this option, and as such are not allowed to use it as a mitigating factor?
"Well, isn't that precious. Any acknowledgement that many people can't afford this option, and as such are not allowed to use it as a mitigating factor?"
Again, your insight into the import of the conversation is nothing short of mystical. (g)
Nite folks.
Should he start to make any really loud noises about not requesting special treatment, I imagine someone will think of the objection. I'm always ahead of the curve.
???
It's not the conversation, it was his comment. This is my reaction to it.
Had he said, "I realize that me and my family are lucky in that we can afford treatment and others are not", well, fine.
Since the car didn't belong to Gram's kid, the cops had no way to connect him to the drugs. They couldn't prove he knew the drugs were there. Last time I checked, possession was a crime, but proximity wasn't. This leaves only the driving without a license charge. I suppose we could rant and rave about his not getting a ticket, but what would be the point?
Here is a quote from Grams statement:
"Morgan is an adult and as such he should be subject to the consequences of his actions"
Once again the facts prevail. Maybe now we can discuss something else, like Reich announcing support for Bradley.
According to local police procedure experts that the Strib interviewed, letting Grams off was very unusual. Usually, the mere fact that something is in your car is more than enough to nail the driver. I know several guys who have gotten nailed for underage alcohol possession even though the drink was just near them.
I'm not on the warpath about this. I don't have a lot of faith in the Strib's reporters, so I take any reports from "experts" with a grain of salt. But it does strike me as unusual to let the kid off without at least bringing him in for questioning.
I just don't think that police attempts to curry favor, on their own initiative, reflect poorly on Senator Grams.
His congressional voting record, however, indicts him.
JJ --
"They couldn't prove he knew the drugs were there."
And so they saw no reason to ask. Wouldn't want to disrupt his emotional equilibrium, after all.
I can only hope that every young man on probation in Minnesota is treated with the same tender loving care.
Do we know this? Do we know Grams wasn't questioned at the scene? There was no mention of him trying to avoid the police or prevent them from searching the car. If he had known there were drugs in the car, why didn't he try to dispose of them? The presumption that he received special treatment is a stretch at best.
It wasn't his car. The fact that he was driving is not enough to connect him to it.
I know several guys who have gotten nailed for underage alcohol possession even though the drink was just near them.
There is a difference between an open container in plain sight and a baggie stashed under the seat. If it was his car, you could make the case that he should have known. Since he had borrowed the car from someone else, that is a tough case to make. Since the car was a rental, it would be hard to make the case that even the friend knew about it.
Please.
I agree with Rask, btw, that it could have been the cops trying to do Grams a favor. But Grams call makes it very unlikely that he wasn't tipping them off to avoid any unseemly arrests.
JJ --
"Do we know Grams wasn't questioned at the scene?"
Yes. Do try to keep up with the coverage.
"It wasn't his car."
Right. It was a rental car, borrowed from a friend named Robert Hyman and then not returned. Hyman called the police.
"The fact that he was driving is not enough to connect him to it."
I laughed.
He was not in possession of any of it. 9 of them were on the kid in passenger seat and one was under the driver's seat of a car that did not belong to him. There is no way any charges would have stuck.
. . . it could have been the cops trying to do Grams a favor.
Or they could have realized that they had no grounds for arresting the son, and do so to a Senator's son was a career limiting move.
But Grams call makes it very unlikely that he wasn't tipping them off to avoid any unseemly arrests.
Explain how Grams had any way of knowing that there were drugs under the driver's seat or on the person of his son's passenger. It is far more likely that he was concerned because his son was late and hadn't called. It is a real stretch to think that Grams knew there were drugs in the car and he called the police to stop the car, arrest the passenger, but not arrest his son. You don't really believe that, do you?
Please direct me to an appropriate cite.
It was a rental car, borrowed from a friend named Robert Hyman and then not returned. Hyman called the police.
I thought Grams called the police. Please provide a cite.
I laughed.
I am glad you aren't my lawyer.
I can't believe that. In any event, I refuse to believe for a moment that the cops would have shrugged it off.
JJ --
Your cite is here.
"I am glad you aren't my lawyer."
You mean you weren't trying to get a laugh?
Note to self: when next smuggling drugs, make sure to have the car rented in someone else's name, and stash the drugs under the front seat. That way, the cops will *never* get me.
Thank you. I've been racking my brain for a suitably sarcastic means of addressing that point.
What is interesting to me in the amount of disinformation that has appeared in this thread about the subject. It might not be a concern if it didn't happen so often.
JJ --
"What is interesting to me in the amount of disinformation that has appeared in this thread about the subject."
What is interesting to me is watching you spin. It's actually quite amusing.
"It might not be a concern if it didn't happen so often."
Well, by all means, set us straight, JJ. Tell us what "disinformation" has you "concerned."
It was posted here that Grams was in possession of 10 baggies with a total of 2 1/2 ounces of pot in them. He was not.
It was claimed that Grams received special treatment. The police deny it. The other passenger in the car received the same treatment as Grams. Since both received the same treatment it hard to claim that Grams received special treatment and the passenger didn't. Since the passenger (presumably) wasn't the son of a Senator, there doesn't seem to be a reason why he would have received special treatment. The only people who claim there was special treatment were "experts" who had no connection to the police department.
It was claimed that Grams was driving illegally without a license. He had a valid license, he just wasn't carrying it. I don't know about Minnesota, but that is not an offense in Missouri.
It was claimed that the car was stolen. It was not. It was borrowed with the permission of the renter. Granted he should have returned it, but it doesn't qualify as theft.
Actually, I believe it is a requirement in most states that you be able to produce your license when operating a vehicle. It isn't a felony and, if you prove you are licensed, it is no problem. But it is a ticketable offense in most places.
It was claimed that Grams received special treatment.
Actually, that is what the discussion is about--whether or not he did.
It was posted here that Grams was in possession of 10 baggies with a total of 2 1/2 ounces of pot in them. He was not.
They were in the rental car that he was driving. That generally counts as possession for an arrest, anyway. It doesn't guarantee a conviction.
Since the passenger (presumably) wasn't the son of a Senator, there doesn't seem to be a reason why he would have received special treatment.
Oooo, let's laugh long and hard. Yes, let's make sure we treat the two differently! HIGHLIGHT the fact that we're giving the Senator's kid a break!!!!!!
Or, maybe, the second guy was lucky because he was wise enough to be nabbed with a Senator's son.
It was claimed that the car was stolen. It was not. It was borrowed with the permission of the renter. Granted he should have returned it, but it doesn't qualify as theft.
When he didn't return it, I believe the clock ran out on the borrowing.
JJ --
"It was posted here that Grams was in possession of 10 baggies with a total of 2 1/2 ounces of pot in them. He was not."
Hmmm ... I don't recall anyone saying Grams had possession of all 10, only that they were in the car and one was under his seat. But if someone said that, they were mistaken.
"It was claimed that Grams received special treatment. The police deny it ... The only people who claim there was special treatment were "experts" who had no connection to the police department."
Neal Melton, executive director of the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST) and an 11-year veteran of the Bloomington police force, and John Laux, former Minneapolis police chief and former executive director of the POST board, both said that basic police procedures were not followed. There's no question that the treatment was "special;" the only issue is why it was special.
"The other passenger in the car received the same treatment as Grams."
Which passenger: the one who was arrested? Or the other one, who did not have a baggie of marijuana stashed under his seat and was not in possession of the vehicle?
"It was claimed that Grams was driving illegally without a license. He had a valid license, he just wasn't carrying it. I don't know about Minnesota, but that is not an offense in Missouri."
Perhaps if he'd committed the offense in Missouri, your observation would have some relevance. Driving without having your license in your possession is a violation of Minn. Stat. 171.08. It's a misdemeanor.
"It was claimed that the car was stolen. It was not. It was borrowed with the permission of the renter. Granted he should have returned it, but it doesn't qualify as theft."
On July 13th, Grams was told to return the car; instead, he drove off with it. Under Minn. Stat. 609.52, that's theft. It's also a felony.
Message # 3710
I said nothing that wasn't generally agreed to by all the experts, so you can fuss all you like. Since I specified the possibility that the pilots fucked up, your "rebuttal" on that count seemed a tad redundant.
Of course they always want the voice recorder. Good heavens. What was odd was their near admission that they really hadn't anything further to investigate without it.
But don't spend too much time fussing yourself. You were wrong in saying that the suicide interpretation was not, at that point in time, the most likely scenario. Sure, there were other possibilities. But by Saturday night it was the specter hovering over the crash--due entirely to its increasing likelihood.
From the Times:
The chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board questioned Monday whether his agency would continue leading the investigation of the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, raising the specter that the plane was downed by a criminal act.
Jim Hall also met with FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to discuss having the law enforcement agency take over the investigation after the plane's cockpit voice recorder taped one of the crew members making a questionable statement.
A federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the question of whether to open a criminal investigation was raised because ``one view is that a crew member is heard on the cockpit tape to say something religious in nature.''
...
Besides Hall's statements at the news conference, there were other signs the probe may turn into a criminal investigation:
--Hall pledged over the weekend that the cockpit voice tape would be reviewed Monday by a group that included Boeing, which made the 767 that crashed, and Pratt & Whitney, which made the plane's engines.
That meeting was canceled, a government official close to the investigation told The Associated Press, and a smaller group primarily including NTSB officials and FBI agents reviewed the tape instead.
--Hall's meeting with Freeh and other officials to discuss whether there was enough evidence to open a criminal investigation, said an official who requested anonymity.
``Not everyone agrees over what to make of some things on the (cockpit) tape,'' the official said.
The Grams boy was no doubt guilty as all get out. He got lucky that the other guy was carrying 90% of the stash. I don't care who his dad is - in a situation such as this, past history and present circumstances ought to count against him.
That said, in my extremely conservative, law-n-order district, kids who are carrying a bag of pot are set free all the time.
But never when they are on probation, as the Grams kid was. At the very least they spend 2 - 4 days locked up, are urine-dropped, evaluted for drug abuse, and usually ordered into locked treatment for 3 to 4 weeks if they have any prior drug-related arrests.
I think the boy received special treatment, and it isn't going to do him, or anyone any good. He will no doubt grow up to be another Roger Clinton.
The Grams boy was no doubt guilty as all get out. He got lucky that the other guy was carrying 90% of the stash. I don't care who his dad is - in a situation such as this, past history and present circumstances ought to count against him.
That said, in my extremely conservative, law-n-order district, kids who are carrying a bag of pot are set free all the time.
But never when they are on probation, as the Grams kid was. At the very least they spend 2 - 4 days locked up, are urine-dropped, evaluted for drug abuse, and usually ordered into locked treatment for 3 to 4 weeks if they have any prior drug-related arrests.
I think the boy received special treatment, and it isn't going to do him, or anyone any good. He will no doubt grow up to be another Roger Clinton.
Sorry 'bout the double...
Sure its an offense. They give you a ticket that costs a bout $40, and they can verify whether you have a valid license over the radio, which the cops did, as long as you have another ID with you, which Grams did.
And was the car evidently wasn't reported stolen.
Also, the chief cop on the scene says he didn't know about the bag under the front seat, but that he wouldn't have done anything different if he had known.
There were also some empty beer cans in the back seat, although the cops state that they were unopened when they searched (the passenger who was arrested, and the guy who originally rented the car, both claimed that there were empties in the back seat). A friend of my brothers got nailed on an open container violation once when he stored an empty can in his back seat to avoid littering.
It seems clear to me that the Police let the kid off incredibly easy. But there is no evidence that it wasn't solely at the initiative of the cops, trying to curry favor with Grams.
Would we have all these posts had he been liberal?
ranheim:
Yes. They'd be arguing that he wasn't given special treatment...(-;
TS - Message # 3853:
On July 13th, Grams was told to return the car; instead, he drove off with it. Under Minn. Stat. 609.52, that's theft. It's also a felony.
Of course, MN law could be different from MI law, but we get calls all the time from people wanting to press charges on their kids or friends for stealing their car, when what they did was borrowed the car and held on to it overly long - no dice...that's not UDAA.
"Grams is considered to be a conservative senator.
Would we have all these posts had he been liberal?"
Grams is getting this treatment because he is a hypocrite, not simply because he is a conservative. He favors mandatory sentences and strict, zero tolerance enforcement of the drug laws. Quotes from his speeches and press releases on the subject were linked earlier in this debate.
ranheim --
"Grams is considered to be a conservative senator. Would we have all these posts had he been liberal?"
Yes. You would be posting them, along with joe, JJ, and the rest of the amen chorus from the right.
And I would agree with you.
joe --
"Of course, MN law could be different from MI law, but..."
So that's what happened: the cops were applying Michigan law. They're both cold, start with the letter "M," and are located in the middle of North America -- easy mistake.
Thanks for clearing that up.
BTW, joe, there should be a [g] at the end of # 3867. You probably figured that out already, but better safe than sorry.
[G] again.
TS:
So, in MN, I lend my car to a friend and tell him to return it by 12 midnight. Instead, he goes out, picks up a girl and brings her home. At 6am I call the cops and report my car stolen, giving them the story of our agreement. They would then actually go to the guy's house and arrest him for UDAA?
TS:
I caught the silent G.
I thought the middle of North America was Pennsylvania, or something. I keep forgetting how large the wastelands are.
Cal:
The more Californians who are convinced of that, the happier we are.
joe --
If he doesn't have your consent to have the car but drives it anyway -- yeah, they could nail him.
Actually, it'd surprise me if that actually wasn't an offense of some sort even in your notoriously criminal-coddling home state of Michigan. But I'll take your word for it.
Now, if they caught your pal driving the car, with no license in his possession, with a baggie of pot under his seat, with beer and a couple of minors in the car, while he was on probation ... you think he's going to get the same kid-gloves treatment as young Mr. Grams? Even in Michgan?
...in fact, the covers of the brochures sent out by the MI Tourism Commission are decorated with photos of the mighty Mackinac Bridge, and the Sleeping Bear Dunes.
...except for the ones mailed to CA, which use photos of elk herds in the UP, migrating over the frozen Lake Superior, with ice bergs all around.
"... the covers of the brochures sent out by the MI Tourism Commission are decorated with photos of the mighty Mackinac Bridge, and the Sleeping Bear Dunes ... except for the ones mailed to CA, which use photos of elk herds in the UP, migrating over the frozen Lake Superior, with ice bergs all around."
The difference between the two is largely in your mind, joe.
It ain't California. That's all that matters.
TS:
See my Message # 3857. He'd be in deep kimshee here, although they'd have a hard time pinning any drug charges on him.
Likely, he wouldn't be able to get any of the other charges reduced.
joe --
Let me guess ... your pal is not the son of a U.S. senator?
TS:
Actually, it'd surprise me if that actually wasn't an offense of some sort even in your notoriously criminal-coddling home state of
Michigan. But I'll take your word for it.
Technically, sure. But here's what happens (and I don't pretend to be telling you anything you don't already know). In my scenario, the cops go to my friend's house, tell him what I said, and he replies, "Oh! Did he mean 12 midnight? He just said to have it back by 12". No prosecutor would pursue it.
Even more technically...the charge is Unauthorized Driving Away of an Automobile. I gave the guy permission to drive the automobile away. Without a signed contract specifying a return time, unless the guy admits he kept my car longer than he should just because he felt like it, he's never gonna be charged.
TS - #3877:
Well, that goes without saying...
joe --
"In my scenario, the cops go to my friend's house, tell him what I said, and he replies, "Oh! Did he mean 12 midnight? He just said to have it back by 12"."
Damn. You mean in Michigan, they'd actually question the guy?
Well, if he were a juvenile, yes.
The Washington Post on EgyptAir 990
Suspicious Utterance Preceded Fatal Dive
I did assume that both were buckled in, because I couldn't figure out how one could get back to his seat in zero-g. Still, not too shabby.
Thank you, thank you.
His first subject concerned the Grams kid (he is 21). This happened in July; why the fuss about it now? One of the papers - sounds like the Tribune - wonders why this divorced man is working 1,000 miles away from his CHILD. He should be home taking care of this child. Sounds like gratuitous advice to me; but, I am 1500 miles away.
The other part of his e-mail was the weeping and gnashing of teeth over test scores of Minnesota public school kids : lower than expected as the MN scores are down in the middle of the pack. Imagine! Total state budget $12 billion; $7 billion for schools. The lack of usual high performance is blamed on childhood poverty (in that pristine and lovely state of my birth???); disabled kids; and immigrants.
Immigrants in MN!! My, I'm sure Texas, Florida, and California educators are wringing their hands, worried about the immigrant problem in MN.
I'm going to tell my brother to keep me informed of this story. We'll have to see whether the politicians and educators of MN come up with a different spin than their brethren in Texas, Florida, and CA.
Yesterday, Grams is a hypocrite for supporting tough drug laws while having a son who has been previously throttled by the criminal justice system (including 3 months in the pokey) because the kid got lucky enough to be pulled over by Anoka Bob, the successor to Andy Griffith, and Anoka Bob figured, "What the hell. I'll let him off." Some wanted Grams to call Anoka Bob back to the house the moment his son fessed up on getting the easy treatment, if in fact, the son idd fess up, which is unlikely (I assume Grams would also offer to be a witness as to any incriminating statements his son uttered). Or, barring that, renounce all of his prior views on tough sentencing for drug offenses.
Today, he is a bad father because he is not home with his 21 year old.
Tomorrow . . . .
... der vorld!
I like these complete-the-sentence games.
of the 285 death-penalty convictions rendered in Illinois since
capital punishment was restored in the state 22 years ago, massive
evidence of injustice and incompetence has been shown.
The investigation included analysis of court opinions and
briefs, trial transcripts and lawyer disciplinary records,
as well as interviews with witnesses, attorneys and
defendants. Of the 285 cases, 259 have completed at least one round of
appeals. In almost half of those cases - 127 - new trials or sentencings were
ordered because of the problems, the Tribune reported. Twelve
of the defendants were completely exonerated, and 74 others received
something less than a death sentence. -In at least 33 cases where a
defendant was sentenced to death, he was represented at trial by an attorney
who has been disbarred or suspended. -In at least 46 cases, prosecutors
relied on jailhouse informants. Critics contend informants are an unreliable
form of evidence because they often receive reduced sentences in exchange
for testifying. - In at least 35 cases, the person sent to death row was black
and jury was all white.
On a poll of the Mote, of 56 respondents on this issue
66% Oppose the death penalty
34% Support the death penalty
Is there information available that illuminates the 'intent' of law enforcement and prosecution in these death penalty cases. Is it mostly incompetence, prejudgement or the drive to win convictions, even questionable ones? I don't want to hear that public officials participate in the killing of defendants whom they privately suspect may be innocent.
Nah. It's not even the first time a pilot has offed himself and taken his passengers along with them.
BTW, here's a headline you don't see every day:
Doctor's Remove Girl's Third Leg
On the death penalty, my position has remained unchanged. However, I used to discuss it in terms of wrongful executions and the potential for racial bias--even though my objection to it has always been strictly on moral grounds, not of pragmatism. I have always been most grateful to PseudoErasmus for demonstrating the silliness of the pragmatic arguments against capital punishment, leaving me with the purity of a moral objection.
Not for me. But then, I never had any respect for moral pragmatism anyway, so I was happy to shed the weight.
I'm a newcomer here at the mote and missed Pseudo's capital punishment arguments. Can you give me a starting point and in which thread? My argument is something like this: If the victim of murder were one of my loved ones, I would crave the death penalty but society must not grant me revenge as it does not satisfy me, does not deter crime, and it poisons the heart of society.
That is a moral position, imo. Pragmatic positions against death penalty are usually:
I would not dare to state Pseudo's argument; it upsets him to see his positions misstated.
Give me a chance to see if I can find it in the archives.
I suppose my second point (capital punishment does not deter crime) could be regarded as pragmatic. If capital punishment did irrefutably deter violent crime, would you regard it more favorably?
Maybe I should read Pseudo'd thread first. My issue may be D.O.A. already. I'll wait for your ref.
You seem to be under the impression that we only discuss things once. Banish that thought from your brain anon.
If you check the Fray archives, under Law, you'll see all but the first 200 posts of Capital Punishment. Unfortunately, that's the last place I remember Pseudo articulating it. I will give it a shot, but do not attribute it to him unless he blesses it. Just take it as my translation of his position:
There is no objection to the death penalty that can't be applied to other forms of punishment as well. If one is worried about wrongful execution and opposes the death penalty on those grounds, then one should also oppose imprisonment--since we often wrongly imprison people.
If the reason for opposing the death penalty is its racial bias, then why should we not ban all forms of imprisonment that seem to be racially biased?
If the reason for opposing the death penalty is its cost, or its deterrence value, or....]
Well, you get the idea.
The above is my understanding of Pseudo's position; this next is where I take it:
Capital punishment is either on a spectrum of acceptable punishments, or it is not. If it is on that spectrum--and making any pragmatic argument against it implies that it is--then any argument you make against it must be applied to other forms of punishment as well.
If it is not on that spectrum, then there really isn't any reason to make a pragmatic argument. The fact that you don't think it is an acceptable punishment is sufficient.
Defendant Denies Part in Texas Dragging Death
Fear kept third dragging death defendant from warding off friends
I did find a quote of Pseudo's that sums it up, but it was addressing a slightly different issue:
If you have no moral problems with a punishment such as life imprisonment which features both unjust and unnecessary elements, then surely you oughtn't object to the death penalty, which also has unjust and unnecessary elements. Thus, my conclusion: punishment is punishment, retribution is retribution.
This is from the Fray Archives
None of which changes my mind about DP in principle, but I don't think it's logically inconsistent at all for someone to not support it because of the possibility of mistakes.
Compare and contrast with those little shits in Jonesboro, Arkansas, who deliberately and methodically stole guns and mowed down their classmates, have normal intellectual and reasoning abilities, and will probably get out of juvy prison when they turn 18, definitely by 21.
So why is this other kid getting sent up the river? Why is it even possible that he'll get put in an adult facility? Sounds like the DA is making some political hay on this kid's back. I don't know how people like that can sleep at night.
Nat stated that he knew people were in the area where he was shooting the gun but he just didn't think he would hit any of them.
Well, there's no way to completely replace lost time of course, nor to make good on whatever horrors the prisoner would have experienced there in gladiator school. But monetary compensation counts for something, anyway. An attempt, no matter how feeble, can be made to make it right (or at least a little less wrong).
But you're right to a certain extent. I remember reading a story about a guy a few years ago, who got sent to prison on a burglary charge. After a couple of years, the case was overturned -- police screwing with evidence, lying witnesses. It was pretty clear the guy had been railroaded. Imagine that, sometimes cops will just hammer whoever looks close enough, so they don't look incompetent.
Anyway, so the state (Kentucky, I think) set him free. Unfortunately, by that time the poor bastard had AIDS -- gang-raped, of course. Whoops. So the state gave him something like a million bucks compensation, but you wonder how the guy keeps from just snapping, and taking a few people with him. Horrible.
Look. It isn't as if anyone expects a system to be perfect in order for a pragmatic argument to be valid. Sure, both imprisonment and capital sentencing cost money, but the argument is that a capital sentence costs more because of the appeals process, so it is worthwhile to ask whether it is worth the extra cost. The objection isn't "we don't want to pay to have someone put to death", its "we don't think we are gaining anything for the extra money".
The same thing applies to the potential for the execution of innocents. Sure, innocent life sentencees lose several years, but that will usually be less severe to them than losing their life. Again, the *cost* of the death penalty is greater, in the terms of the impact on the innocent. And again, the argument isn't "we refuse to tolerate the punishment of someone who may be innocent". It is instead "we don't think that any advantages of the death penalty warrant the extra cost in the lives of people wrongfully convicted.
Sure. And then figure that you could just as easily pay that million (or more) to the family of the person who was wrongfully executed, and what's the difference?
OK, fair enough. Again, compare and contrast with Jonesboro; since those kids were about the same age it seems a fair comparison. Keeping in mind also that Nat apparently has an IQ of about 70.
It's not a big enough difference to me to change my mind about capital punishment. I'm just saying that I can understand why someone else might make that argument. I don't find it logically inconsistent with the general concept of incarceration at all.
Not at all. I have no faith in it, quite frankly. Cart brought up a wrongfully imprisoned guy who was raped and got AIDS as a result. He will be dead in a few years, presumably, and his family will only have the money that was paid them.
I am not sure what the difference is.
Interesting. From my position--that killing people is not an acceptable punishment, period--the argument that we can't tolerate the execution of one innocent person looks like pragmatism.
You may be right, though.
: you have a surprising amount of faith in the ability of money to compensate someone for the loss of a loved one.
You have a surprising lack of faith in the power of money, especially in exchange for the life of a vermin.
A *moral* argument would be that we can't tolerate the conviction or execution of even *one* innocent person
That is not a moral argument.
The moral argument is that it is wrong for government to deliberatly kill its citizens.
Ace, we are talking about people wrongfully convicted. Hence "vermin" isn't necessarily correct.
And I do agree that money can serve as *some* compensation, but I think that the extent to which compensation actually matches the amount of harm done is pretty weak.
I fail to see how the harm done is worse in a deliberate execution as opposed to a death incurred during a wrongful imprisonment.
Hey, that's what I said, too. I feel much better.
Sure it is. You can easily argue that it is moral to execute murderers, but immoral to execute the innocent, so any system which executes the innocent is immoral.
"The moral argument is that it is wrong for government to deliberatly kill its citizens."
That is also a moral argument. There can be more than one.
Is it, though? In that case, one is supporting the concept of the death penalty, but objecting to it because of practical considerations.
You are making the unnecessary assumption that the person dies during a wrong imprisonment. This is not always the case of a life imprisonment.
as well as the moral absolutism that it is intolerable that an innocent person be punished. *This* is the argument which falls when you bring up other types of punishment.
No, I am not assuming that a person will die in prison. I am saying that a wrongfully imprisoned person can die in prison--and it doesn't have to be a life sentence, either.
For example, a guy who is wrongfully convicted of a burglary and is spending four years in prison might get killed in a riot. In that case, he was given the death penalty by the government's error. I'm not sure what advantage he had over the guy who was wrongfully executed--hell, he even had less time to live.
I would also not be surprised if the number of people who are killed in prison after wrongful convictions for non-capital offenses probably outnumber the people who have been wrongfully executed.
So which is worse? To stuff someone in prison wrongfully and go oops! if they die before the mistake is discovered? Or to deliberately decide to kill someone and but give them some 9-10 years of imprisonment prior to execution to ensure that no mistakes in process (or fact) were made?
?????
I don't understand. How does the argument fall?
Very good point. I bet you're right about that.
Well, according to Niner, no one has been wrongfully executed since 1975. If that's true, then I win hands down.
You can easily argue that it is moral to execute murderers
I completely deny that. To deliberately kill a person is to engage in first degree murder, and I don't think government should be involved in that.
My argument is based on probability. Sure, an innocent person with a life sentence *can* die in prison, but the longer he lives, the greater the chance that his erroneous conviction will be discovered.
All that is necessary for a capital sentence to be more harmful, on average, is for the life expectancy of people with a death penalty conviction to be greater than the life expectancy of those given a life sentence.
"So which is worse? To stuff someone in prison wrongfully and go oops! if they die before the mistake is discovered? Or to deliberately decide to kill someone and but give them some 9-10 years of imprisonment prior to execution to ensure that no mistakes in process (or fact) were made?"
False choice. You imply that by choosing #2, you eliminate the possibility of number 1 occurring. This isn't the case. Wrongfully accused non-capital inmates will die *anyway*, the question is whether you wish to potentially increase this number through the application of the death penalty. And if so, what is gained from it.
Because people won't be willing to apply the same standard to non-capital crimes.
Ace, we are talking about people wrongfully convicted. Hence "vermin" isn't necessarily correct.
Not necesarily, but in reality, it is almost always correct. The number of men sentenced to death who are first time offenders is very low.
I am not arguing that it *is* moral. I am arguing that it is a moral argument, since it is based on absolute perceptions of right and wrong.
Well, they should. As has just been discussed, a person can be killed in prison. So a wrongful conviction on a non-capital offense can result in the death of that person.
But we are dealing with a subset of people who were *incorrectly* sentenced to death.
If you get me stats showing that people who have been incorrectly sentenced, but were subsequently exonerated, also had criminal records, I may at least buy your argument that they are probably "vermin" - not that this would validate any conclusions about the rightness of executing them anyway.
Exactly, which is why an absolutist moral argument falls, but a pragmatic one based on the increased social costs of wrongful executions still stands.
Not that the mere possibility of wrongful executions means that capital punishment is instantly refuted, but it *is* an argument against it. Since I see very little benefit to capital punishment, it is enough, however, to turn me against it as a "rule of thumb".
No, it doesn't. I didn't realize that's what you were debating. The increased costs of wrongful convictions apply across the board. The settlements to family members of those wrongfully convicted who die in prison--to say nothing of those who were wrongfully convicted but then set free--add up.
So let's do away with imprisonment altogether! It's much cheaper.
not that this would validate any conclusions about the rightness of executing them anyway.
No, but it puts the lie to your "money can't make up for a lost life" thesis.
"I completely deny that. To deliberately kill a person is to engage in first degree murder, and I don't think government should be involved in that. "
And by the way, how do you reconcile this statement with any governmental act of war, even a defensive one? Or is killing a German draftee in World War II an exception?
I do not see at all how this paragraph connects to the one before it. This is what I thought you were originally arguing, and I am pretty sure it has just been smacked around. It is entirely probable that more people die because of wrongful convictions on non-capital offenses than do because of wrongful executions. Therefore, you should be arguing against imprisonment altogether.
Re-read what I wrote. I am arguing that the costs of a capital sentence are *greater*, with negligible benefits, when compared to the alternative of life sentence. This is not the case for other forms of punishment. The costs of refusing to incarcerate robbers on the outside chance that all of their victims are lying, are vast.
How?
Pilot suicide using an airliner, though rare, is not unheard of.
In 1994 a woman co-pilot of a Moroccan airliner fought without success for the controls after the captain switched off the automatic pilot and pointed an Royal Air Maroc plane at the ground. All 44 people on board were killed, minutes after takeoff on a trip from Agadir to Casablanca.
Suicide is a leading theory in the 1997 Indonesian crash of a Silkair Boeing 737 that plunged from cruising altitude in perfectly fine weather. All 104 people on board were killed.
Silkair captain Tsu Way Ming had financial difficulties, according to a preliminary investigation report.
A government human factors expert said that if one pilot was intent on trying to crash the plane then the other would be almost powerless to prevent it. ``It's a losing battle,'' said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity
Cal, you are being routed and don't know it.
"It is entirely probable that more people die because of wrongful convictions on non-capital offenses than do because of wrongful executions. Therefore, you should be arguing against imprisonment altogether."
That doesn't follow. Read what I just wrote above. I am making a cost/benefit argument.
There is one other case, too--it is an African pilot, I think.
Up to now, there hasn't been anything done to change procedures or technology to prevent against a pilot suicide. I think that this will now change, based on the number of Americans killed in the crash.
You are actually making two different arguments, I think? It's hard to tell. In any event, the cost argument doesn't "add up".
The increased cost of executions is due to our determination not to make a mistake, yes? The appeals process. The cost of them being on Death Row, etc.
So all death penalty cases are wiped out. Punishment then starts immediately--incarceration for life.
But if one supposes that any of these people are innocent, two things are clear:
So we have just made life far worse for the wrongfully convicted. Yet the cost will still be tremendously high, since the lawsuits for wrongful deaths and wrongful convictions will increase significantly.
How does that help things out?
...Holy Shit!!!
Is that a prayer?
If I wasn't clear, I don't think the cost differential would drop all that much if we did away with the death penalty. For one thing, death penalty cases are usually handled pro bono--I don't think that's true of life imprisonment cases. Someone would be picking up the increased cost of legal aid. For another, you have just radically increased the possibility of wrongful death due to wrongful convictions by converting death row inmates into the general population. This ups the possibility of lawsuits, etc. And then there would be the increased cost of the time in jail--if we do away with executions, the prisoners would be alive a lot longer, eating up a lot more expenses.
Besides, I think Niner posted some links about the cost issue that indicated it wasn't all that significant? Can't remember for sure, though.
But I don't think any of this touches the main issue--there is no argument against the death penalty that can't be equally applied to any other sort of punishment.
How?
Because the very few men who will be wrongfully executed are guaranteed to be, with 99.9% assurity, miscreants who have beaten, raped, and attempted murder previously.
And their families will ask: "A hundred g's in exchange for that cocksucker's wrongful execution...? What's the catch?"
That seems to be the common rationale for shrugging off wrongful imprisonment, or execution. In fact, when cops and prosecutors are caught intimidating witnesses, or burying exculpatory evidence, or bending the rules to bust the wrong person in whatever way, that's their defense. "He's a bad guy. Even if he didn't do this crime, he's done a lot of others, and he'll do more if we let him", and so on.
Well, that's bullshit, because even if it were true, that still means that the person who actually did the crime is out there somewhere. It's a cop-out. Either the rule of law is important, and it's important to apply it universally and consistently, or it's all bullshit. If we agree it's important, then it's crucial that the rules are not bent just so nobody on the "good guys side" looks bad.
So if the person is a "miscreant who has beaten, raped, and attempted murder previously", then we have to assume they paid their debt to society for those crimes, else they wouldn't be out on the street. If they've already been punished, we don't punish them again for the same crime. If they weren't punished, then somebody fucked up in the prosecution.
Once again, I don't say that "He's a baaaaad man" is a good reason to lock someone up or kill them. I DO say that the wrongful execution of a lifelong miscreant can rather CHEAPLY be compensated with money.
Once an innocent man has been executed, he can no longer seek to clear his name. The state has done more than take away the man's life and years of living free, it has assured that his name will be besmirched for eternity.
I am skeptical of the claim that no innocent man has been executed since 1975. How would we know? Once the man is executed, all serious attempts to exonerate cease.
Once an innocent man has been executed, he can no longer seek to clear his name.
Silly. He can also no longer breathe. He's dead.
The state has done more than take away the man's life and years of living free, it has assured that his name will be besmirched for eternity.
Names can be cleared posthumously. If the "name" is what concerns you, by all means let us establish committees to investigate crimes AFTER we put people to death, in order to possibly unsmirch their names for eternity.
In the meantime:
Kill them. Kill them all.
We'll clear the names later.
In the meantime, figure out a way to ensure that cops & prosecutors won't fuck around trying to make a bad charge stick, and that would be a nice bonus. Unrealistic, but something to shoot for.
Sigh.
"Silly. He can also no longer breathe. He's dead."
No shit. The comment I was responding to said that the death penalty is not significantly different than other forms of punishment. The fact that the innocent man can no longer seek to prove his innocence is unique to the death penalty, and that is my point.
"Names can be cleared posthumously."
This hardly ever happens because once the innocent man is executed, who is going to put forth the effort to clear his name? Even if someone did turn up some evidence of innocence, would a court even hear the case, since the point is moot?
This hardly ever happens because once the innocent man is executed, who is going to put forth the effort to clear his name?
Presumably that huge family who loves him so very, very much that money cannot compensate for his death.
Even if someone did turn up some evidence of innocence, would a court even hear the case, since the point is moot?
I don't know about a court, but a Parole & Pardon Board or a Governor or a President.
Greystoke:
Your point is silly because you try to amplify the worst possible injustice-- the execution of an innocent man-- by emphasizing that his NAME will be "besmirched for eternity."
How about this:
If you kill a man, not only do you kill him, but you kill his SPLEEN!!!!
Name, spleen. Who gives a fuck. The man is dead. To talk about "besmirched names" or "spleens cut down in the very pink of health" is to talk trivialities in the face of the solemn.
"To talk about "besmirched names" or "spleens cut down in the very pink of health" is to talk trivialities in the face of the solemn."
I agree that the outrage of the state taking the life of an innocent man is far more significant than the consequence of the man's name being besmirched.
However, note the argument I am responding to. The point has been made that the execution of an innocent man is not significantly different than putting an innocent man in prison for many years. In fact, CalGal made the argument that the innocent man is worse off with a regular prison sentence than he is on death row.
I don't buy that argument. But rather than going directly against it, I am saying that, even if one accepts the premise that a long prison sentence is at least as bad as the death penalty (for the prisoner), the death penalty has other negative consequences that a long prison sentence doesn't.
Some death row inmates who were exonerated:
* Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts in Florida in 1975. They were convicted of a double murder and sentenced to death. They were released and received a full pardon from Governor Askew because of their innocence. Another man had confessed to the killings.
* Randall Dale Adams in Texas in 1989. He was ordered to be released by the Texas Court of Appeals after new evidence emerged. The prosecutors declined to seek a new trial. Adams was the subject of the movie, The Thin Blue Line, which was produced while he was still in prison.
* Clarence Brandley in Texas in 1990. Brandley was awarded a new trial when evidence of racism, perjury and suppression of evidence was uncovered. After ten years on death row, all charges were dropped.
* Gary Nelson in Georgia in 1991. Nelson's representation at trial was a disgrace. Fortunately, a major law firm in Atlanta took over his case. The county district attorney eventually acknowledged: "There is no material element of the state's case in the original trial which has not subsequently been determined to be impeached or contradicted."
* Kirk Bloodsworth in Maryland in 1993. Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. He was first granted a new trial and given a life sentence. He was released after subsequent DNA testing confirmed his innocence.
[continued]
* Andrew Golden in Florida in 1994. Golden's conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in 1993. The court held that the state had failed to prove that the victim's death was anything but an accident. Golden, a former teacher, was released into the waiting arms of his children on January 6, 1994.
* Rolando Cruz in Illinois in 1995. Cruz was sentenced to death for the murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Another man, Brian Dugan, confessed to the killing. An assistant state attorney general resigned and other law enforcement officials protested, because they thought it improper to continue the prosecution of Cruz, whom they said was innocent. In July, 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned Cruz's conviction. Cruz was acquitted at his retrial in November, 1995.
Pretty thin gruel, huh?
"Pretty thin gruel, huh?"
Please enlighten us with your views on the subject.
A friend testified the killings did not faze Jennings, who was most upset that blood had splattered on his Chuck Taylor All-Star basketball shoes and his pants.
``I messed my Chucks up,'' Jennings told him. ``I got blood all over my Chucks and my khakis.''
Convicted killer fights execution, is forced onto gurney
Most that were not guilty were found not guilty by the process. So they wouldn't have been "accidentally" executed. A person found guilty, then cleared by an appeals court is not an argument against the death penalty, it is an arguement in favor of an appeals process. Which we have. People who have been executed, and then found innocent are arguemtns against the death penalty. or people sentenced to life imprisonment and found innocent after they would have been executed had there been a death penalty (and even this is subject to argument).
I am using the word "cost" in a broader sense. Not just the dollars spent in legal appeals, but the social costs in executing an innocent person. You do agree that killing the wrong person is a bad thing, yes? and it is worse to kill him than it is lock him for life? and it is worse to lock him up for life than it is to discover part-way through his sentence that he is innocent, and should be set free?
"he increased cost of executions is due to our determination not to make a mistake, yes? The appeals process. The cost of them being on Death Row, etc. "
Yes.
"But if one supposes that any of these people are innocent, two things are clear:
Their chances of being found innocent just decreased dramatically (the main reason for the urgency is because of the death penalty clock);"
This is an interesting argument, that having a death sentence actually helps the wrongfully accused. It may even be true, but it isn't a given that it would make up for the increased likelihood of being executed. If nothing else, if you asked innocent men with life sentences whether they would want a death sentence to have a better chance of getting help from Alan Dershowitz, I doubt you would get many takers.
"They now have a far greater chance of being killed while in prison, since they're immediately in the general population."
I very much doubt that the life expectancy of people in the general population is lower than the life expectancy of those on Death Row.
That is very much far from clear. If nothing else, damned few death row inmates would see it that way.
"Yet the cost will still be tremendously high, since the lawsuits for wrongful deaths and wrongful convictions will increase significantly."
How? You are contradicting yourself. First you are arguing that it will be less likely to discover that they are wrongfully convicted, and then you argue that lawsuits for wrongful convictions would increase. Make up your mind.
I'll admit that there are potential countervailing factors. The best argument I have seen for the death penalty is that it gives prosecuters leverage - they can promise not to seek the DP in exchange for a guilty plea, which reduces costs. But I am not sure how often this happens.
Do keep in mind that many DP advocates want to gut the appeals process.
"People who have been executed, and then found innocent are arguemtns against the death penalty. or people sentenced to life imprisonment and found innocent after they would have been executed had there been a death penalty (and even this is subject to argument). "
Given the large number of capital reversals, do you *really* think that no innocent person has been executed? As many have pointed out, the investigation stops after they are killed.
Very often, the exoneration occurs due to blind luck. Another killer confesses, or the case happens to catch the attention of someone with power, such as the case in the Thin Blue Line? If not for Errol Morris stumbling upon the case, what makes you think that the wrongfully convicted man would have been freed?
So the question is, how many others are out there?
Those aren't the parameters. The parameters are:
Which method gives the innocent person a better chance of surviving? Which method gives the innocent person a better chance of justice?
And, quite frankly, life in prison or death penalty--they are both a method of taking your life. (assuming no parole, obviously). So in that case, were I innocent, I'd take the method that gives me the best chance of having that proven--which is death row, with all the attention it gets me.
I submit that the miniscule (read zero) cases in which we know of a wrongful conviction suggests that the method works pretty well. I would be much happier if this process were formalized, but you can't have everything.
The guilty ones, no. But the innocent ones? Whether they see it that way or not, I think they're better off. The guilty ones don't play in the equation, since you're talking pragmatics. The cost of keeping them alive for 40 years does tend to add up.
First you are arguing that it will be less likely to discover that they are wrongfully convicted, and then you argue that lawsuits for wrongful convictions would increase.
I don't see those as contradictory. There will always be some who get their case heard. They'll just have to work a hell of a lot harder and have more money. Or, as I said, the state would have to provide them with attorneys services--and that, too, would start to add up. Probono wouldn't be as glamourous any more.
If nothing else, if you asked innocent men with life sentences whether they would want a death sentence to have a better chance of getting help from Alan Dershowitz, I doubt you would get many takers.
That would probably be because the average death row convict, innocent or guilty, isn't all that smart. I'd take death row and a lawyer looking for glamour over life imprisonment and Legal Aid, thanks so much.
I think it's entirely possible that Niner is correct on this--that the system we have in place catches all the truly innocent. It doesn't capture all the injustices (guilty people who shouldn't have received the death penalty), but that's a different story.
I don't think there the ones that are found are the tip of the iceberg; rather, I think they are the bulk--possibly all of them. Law students need a reason to live, apparently, and they do nothing but review cases.
I'll give you that its an interesting argument. I just doubt that most wrongfully accused people would see it that way.
Also, keep in mind that my reason for entering this discussion was demonstrate that the "innocent man" argument was a logically valid one. I have done so.
And I think it is entirely possible that he is wrong, and the number of DP cases that were exonerated due to blind luck works in favor.
On dollars, men on death row and men imprisoned for life appeal, and the appeal exhaustively. So, this cost is fixed, though higher for a death row prisoner. But a death row appeal is 8 years, and the man costs $______ per year ($20k to $75k). When he is killed, all costs end. Keep him in for life, however, and his costs are significantly higher (8 years versus 50).
Cal is correct. Undoubtedly, more innocent prisoners are killed while incarcerated than are executed. And Ace is right. These innocents exist largely in Robert Redford films. And dusty is right. The proper guage of the fairness of the death penalty vis-a-vis innocents is not how many have been exonerated in the process, but how many innocents have been executed. I submit that from the Supreme Court's ruling forward, that figure is 0.
1) violent
2) expensive
3) dangerous
If we can ice them in 8 years, as opposed to 50, everybody wins except the 1 innocent (who is a phantom).
I would imagine that any individual wrongly executed in the last 30 years would be the Mumia of the anti-death penalty cause (I can't wait until they zap his ass). But we do not know that name because it has not occurred.
Take your pick, but either way, you have blood on your hands.
Leaving even the most attractive argument against the death penalty -the moral argument - sullied.
And the last thing anti-death penalty advocates want to be is the same as anti-abortion advocates.
As I said--just because they wouldn't doesn't mean they are right.
Also, keep in mind that my reason for entering this discussion was demonstrate that the "innocent man" argument was a logically valid one. I have done so.
No, you haven't. Not to me, at any rate. I don't see anything that applies to death penalty cases that doesn't apply to the general population. Your one possible argument--that it's cheaper to do things differently--is probably untrue, and can also be made for any number of non-capital offenses.
And I think it is entirely possible that he is wrong, and the number of DP cases that were exonerated due to blind luck works in favor.
That is possible. But--using that logic--blind luck should have turned up some wrongful convictions after execution. And yet, this hasn't happened.
I contend it is far more likely that people are being wrongfully convicted and serving sentences for lesser crimes than being executed for capital offenses. And since there are countless cases of wrongful convictions on lesser offenses--but none on capital offenses--it seems very likely that this is true.
Mumia's death warrant (love that term: Death... Warrant) has been signed and he's scheduled for the Chamber in December.
For me?
You shouldn't have.
It's a Christmas present for all of us.
Bonus Present: Getting to see Mike Farrell (TV's BJ Hunnicut) cry like a bitch when they pull the switch.
Yet there is no outrage. The death penalty is too easy to point to.
Frankly, I would rather we be evenhanded in our concern for wrongful state actions.
And Lou Grant. And that idiot from Rage against the Machine.
Yeah. He's about to take that long, last breath before the chamber fills with poison.
No Justice, No Peace. Kill him.
Just getting my Mumia jokes ready...
What color is Mumia's skin? Blue-- due to death from cyanosis.
What was the last thing to go through Mumia's mind? Cyanide.
What were Mumia's last words? SHit, no, don't, fuck, please, I don' wanna die--!
Yeahp. Just gettin' 'em ready.
Millenial, Cart.
Nobody seems to care anymore.
Here's another joke:
How many Mumias does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: No number of Mumias will suffice, because the motherfucker is dead and no longer capable of screwing in either the literal or vulgar sense.
Most cop killers get the death penalty prior to apprehension.
He did get a fucked-up trial
Incorrect. That's the claim; the truth is that he got a perfectly normal trial. His lawyer is a fucking liar, and he's a fucking murderer.
Go to www.justice4danielfaulkner.com 
Investigators say it appears that the aircraft’s relief co-pilot, Gameel el-Battouti, took the place of his fellow co-pilot earlier than would be normal on a trans-Atlantic flight.
Sources tell ABCNEWS it appears from the cockpit voice recorder that Battouti may have been alone at the controls when he started repeating a Muslim prayer, “There is no God but God,” and at least two other phrases in Arabic.
Ace:
Oh, I agree that Mumia did it. It just sounds like Sabo (the judge) had it in for him, and a couple of the witnesses may have been intimidated. Interesting, btw, how drug-addicted hookers are occasionally considered to be reliable eyewitnesses, if the state wants to fry a guy badly enough.
Imagine, a lawyer who's a fucking liar. Just imagine. I, for one, am shocked at the implications.
Niner Message # 4002:
Most cop killers get the death penalty prior to apprehension.
Why, you wouldn't be insinuating that cops are not averse to applying their own justice before the machinery of the law has had a chance, now are you? Again, I am just shocked. It truly is Giuliani time, n'est-ce pas?
Too obvious?
I'll leave the arguments about the extent of the evidence in favor of various practical arguments to those who care enough to research them.
Cartman:
Read the Faulkner cite before you mouth the Ed Asner line. The fact is that FIVE WITNESSES, only one or two of whom was a prostitute, testified they saw Mumia shoot the cop.
Sabo was not biased against Mumia; Mumia insisted on making irrelevant political speeches and engaging in other such "Fight the Power" antics during the trial. Sabo gave him numerous warnings to the effect that while Mumia had the right to act as his own laywer, he did NOT have the right to speak out of turn and shout and give irrelevant speeches rather than presenting evidence, and that if he persisted in doing so he would, according to law, be disallowed from acting as his own counsel. Acting as your own attorney doesn't give you the right to break the normal rules of evidence and proceedure, though Mr. Mumia apparently believed it did.
Mumia continued with the shenanigans, and he was eventually ejected from the court on a dozen occasions, and a REAL lawyer was declared his counsel.
Combine this with a definitive ballistics match, Mumia's confession in the hospital overheard by four witnesses, including two doctors and a nurse...
I will check out the Faulkner site later (it is Just Shoot Me time now), but it's a moot point. I already said I think Mumia did it, and is just using his past experience as a rabble-rouser to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings. But I firmly believe that his activism is also what made him such a juicy target for the powers that be. If he'd called "only one or two prostitutes" as defense witnesses, and one of them couldn't get her story straight, no doubt you'd be crying foul about it, and rightly so.
Check out "The Thin Blue Line" sometime, if you never have. It won't change your mind about capital punishment (at least it didn't change mine), but it makes you think about how criminals are frequently used merely as political footballs by ambitious and overzealous prosecutors, judges, and cops. I'm as law and order as the next guy, believe it or not, but I'm instantly suspicious when I see a lot of grandstanding by prosecution.
And I have no doubt you'll have a field day with the phrase "I'm as law and order as the next guy". Have at it. You might be surprised.
But I firmly believe that his activism is also what made him such a juicy target for the powers that be.
Yeah. His "activism," combined with shooting a cop in the head, made him "such a juicy target."
I'm sure it was 99% the "activism." And then there's just that little matter of shooting a cop in the head that adds the 1% that breaks the camel's back.
I understand Jeffrey Dahmer voted Republican. His conservatism, PLUS his cannabilistic Satanic murders, are what made him such a juicy target for grandstanding Pennsylvania prosecutors.
"Hey, fellow cops and prosecutors, Abu-Jamal Mumia just shot our colleague, Daniel Faulkner, to death."
"Yeah? So fucking what? Oh, could you get me a Fresca while you're up?"
"NO-- you don't understand. He didn't just kill a cop-- he's an activist!!!"
"AN ACTIVIST!!! Well why didn't you say so to begin with!!! Let's start concocting some fabricated evidence!!! We can't have black radicals spreading their message freely!!! Why, they're so close to winning public opinion we've GOT to stop them!!!!"
Saw it, Long time ago. I've recommended it more than either than you numbskulls, I trow.
No. Again, I'm merely suggesting that perhaps he pissed off a few too many of the wrong people. I just don't understand why this case is such a cause-celebre with both sides. Cops get killed, unfortunately, but I seriously doubt that every single cop killer ends up on Death Row. And on the other hand, it seems clear that he did it, so I don't understand why the Hollywood community has seen fit to rally around him, unless they're privy to some sort of exculpatory evidence that has miraculously escaped the public eye.
I've recommended it more than either than you numbskulls, I trow.
What the fuck does this sentence mean? You "trow"? I've never seen you even refer to The Thin Blue Line, and I'd be amazed to see you recommend it.
Cartman:
Does anything ever happen in your world that's purely explicable by the obvious?
In other words, if a cop-killer is to be put to death, is he ever put to death simply for killing a cop, or is there ALWAYS some X-Files like conspiracy driving the process?
People who think there's ALWAYS "More here than meets the eye" are generally insane.
Most of the time there's only what meets the eye. Sometimes there's even less.
Eric --
"I seriously doubt that every single cop killer ends up on Death Row."
Hey, we're working on it.
Only if you think that innocent people being sentenced to death has squat all to do with the death penalty.
Does anything ever happen in your world that's purely explicable by the obvious?
Of course. That sort of stuff isn't much fun to argue about though, is it?
....if a cop-killer is to be put to death, is he ever put to death simply for killing a cop....
Sure, and that's what'll happen to Mumia in a couple of weeks. That doesn't mean that some of the eyewitness testimony wasn't questionable, or derived from questionable sources. Really, you're reading far too much into this.
People who think there's ALWAYS "More here than meets the eye" are generally insane....Most of the time there's only what meets the eye. Sometimes there's even less.
Wow. Heavy. Do you mind if I borrow that one? Thanks. I promise to return it. Of course you'd say that sort of thing; after all, your use of the secret Freemason word "trow" gives you away. All I can say in my own defense is another secret Freemason word: tubalcane.
Look, seriously, I actually agree that Ockham's Razor is usually correct. Frequently, though, there is more than meets the eye. The Mumia case is probably not one of those; I merely raised the point that it is possible. There are a few things in what I have read about the trial that sounded a little hinky. Not exculpatory hinky, mind you, but hinky nonetheless. As I said, if Mumia had a drug-addicted prostitute who couldn't keep her story straight as an exculpatory witness, you'd harp on that.
At any rate, whenever there's a matter of politics, public policy, a cause which could help an ambitious prosecutor, or any time large sums of money are involved, you're damned skippy there's likely more than meets the eye. I don't doubt Mumia's guilt (yet again), but I think he's basically a political football for certain people on either side to push their agenda.
I think innocent people being incorrectly sentenced due to the sort of bullshit that occurred in that movie happens all the time. And most of their circumstances aren't interesting enough to warrant a movie.
So no--it doesn't have much to do with the death penalty. That's just the carrot.
You're insane.
There is a pile of evidence against Mumia. There is NO evidence of a conspiracy. But you are, as always, pathologically determined to suggest a conspiracy absent any evidence whatsoever.
You can't just admit that a murdering cocksucker is guilty without adding, "But I'm just sure those dirty lying cops and prosecutors and judges were up to something nefarious, too. MUST be."
No, it needn't be so, and you might want to cool your Conspiracy Jets before flying into speculation every time.
There are a few things in what I have read about the trial that sounded a little hinky.
Like what? And where did you read them? Rage Against the Machine's liner notes? No legitimate press has given any credence to Mumia's various outrageous claims.
As I said, if Mumia had a drug-addicted prostitute who couldn't keep her story straight as an exculpatory witness, you'd harp on that.
Sorry, but only one prostitute was a witness against Mumia; the others were an out-of-town man there on business, some dude, and two taxi-drivers at the scene. Plus the doctors and nurses who heard his hospital exclamation of "I shot the motherfucker and I hope he dies!"
If you want to keep claiming, contrary to the facts, that all of these people were crack-addled prostitutes, be my guest.
And you're an idiot. Can you read? I did say one prostitute, repeatedly. I never said all the witnesses were drug-addled hookers. My bad on discounting the testimony of "some dude", though.
Here is a webpage (from some radical group; I just punched "Mumia" into the MSN search engine and this was at the top of the list) you might want to read -- or not. Plenty of details about all of the eyewitnesses, and what they saw. It's too long to to put in here, so you'll have to check the link.
But the part about the ballistics evidence, and how it was handled, is short enough to put on here. Here you go: KGO asserts that: "In fact, there was extensive ballistics testimony, and though the bullets were mangled, tests showed them to be .38 caliber, with markings consistent with Jamal's gun." A prosecution expert did indeed testify that the mangled bullet was "consistent" with Jamal's gun, if you are willing to fudge a few hundredths of an inch. [24] Of course, this also made it "consistent" with several hundred thousand other .38 and .40 caliber guns in the Philadelphia area. The fact is that prosecution witnesses were never able to establish that the bullets that killed Faulkner came from Jamal's gun.
Jamal's lack of funds to retain ballistics and medical experts meant that the following key points were not adequately brought out in the trial: First, police failed to perform the most basic tests on the night of the two shootings. They did not test Jamal's hand for nitrate residues to prove that he had recently fired a gun, and they did not test Jamal's gun to determine if it had recently been fired. The police failure to conduct these basic and routine tests has led to speculation that they were deliberately omitted because they would have shown that Jamal had not fired a gun.
Second, the jury that sentenced Jamal to death never saw the medical examiner's report that described the bullet taken from Faulkner's body as being .44 caliber. [25] Third, the first shot that hit Faulkner was not fired at close range as claimed by the prosecution. And fourth, the prosecution scenario, that Jamal was shot by Faulkner as he fell to the ground, was physically impossible. Faulkner's bullet that struck Jamal entered his chest from above and traveled down through his body. For the bullet to follow that path, Jamal would have to have been bending over, or lying on the ground, when he was shot by Faulkner.
Finally we should add that no expert for the defense has ever been able to examine the bullet fragments in question. Since there was conflicting evidence concerning the caliber of the bullet fragments taken from Faulkner's body, it would seem a rather simple matter for the police to produce the fragments for them to be examined by independent experts. But the police seem to have lost one of them. KGO might have considered doing some investigative reporting by asking the Philadelphia police department how key evidence in a murder of a police officer can just disappear.
FACT
The gun found next to Mr. Jamal was owned by Jamal and registered in his name.
Mr. Jamal was found wearing an empty gun holster and his gun contained five spent unique high velocity Special P+ casings, the exact brand, caliber and type of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner’s brain.
FACT
Tests were entered into evidence showing that the bullets removed from Officer Faulkner's body were consistent with the same unique .38 caliber Federal Arms ammunition found in Jamal's gun. A storeowner testified that he sold Jamal his gun shortly before the killing. He produced a signed receipt with the guns serial number to verify his allegation.
FACT
The general rifling characteristics found on the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner’s brain identically matched the general rifling characteristics found in the barrel of Jamal’s gun.
Bill Clinton did it.
Finally we should add that no expert for the defense has ever been able to examine the bullet fragments in question.
Untrue. Mumia's own ballistic expert said the bullets came from his gun.
Since there was conflicting evidence concerning the caliber of the bullet fragments taken from Faulkner's body
There is no conflicting evidence. The man who did the autopsy jotted down a note, "45 caliber?" as he surveyed the wounds initially. When he examined the bullet more closely, he found it was a .38.
Mumia's supporters have made much of this initial guess as to the caliber of a deformed bullet inside a corpse. They don't talk too much about the subsequent measurement and weighing.
Ballistics tests verify that Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 Caliber Federal Arms Special +P bullet. It’s been proven that the gun used to kill Officer Faulkner had the same general rifling characteristics that Mr. Jamal’s Charter Arms .38 Caliber handgun has. Further, Mr. Jamal’s own ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, has agreed under oath that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was not .44 caliber and was most likely a .38.
The only shred of documentation inferring the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was .44 caliber, was Dr. James Hoyer’s hand written notation to himself. This notation made on a piece of scrap paper by Dr. Hoyer and simply stated "44 cal". Dr. Hoyer, a medical doctor who had no formal ballistics training, testified in 1995 that his notation was not meant to be part of his final report and that he had intended to discard it.
Dr. Hoyer also stated that he had measured the badly distorted bullet with a standard ruler, which he acknowledged was a "highly inaccurate instrument." He further admitted that, in retrospect, the measurement was consistent with a .38 caliber bullet, not a .44.
Dr. Hoyer also stated that when he made his erroneous observation, he had no idea that the bullet he was measuring was +P ammunition. This unique type of high velocity ammunition has a hollow base that expands on impact. He stated that had he known this, he would not have guessed that the bullet was ".44 Cal". Dr. Hoyer further stated that he has no formal ballistics training. Therefore, he states, he wasn’t qualified to make his observation in 1981.
Finally, George Fassnacht, Jamal’s own ballistics expert has twice stated that the bullet was not a .44 Caliber bullet.
In 1982, the prosecution’s criminalist, Anthony Paul, was asked if the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner’s brain was consistent with having been fired from a Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver, which is the type of gun owned by Mr. Jamal and found next to him at the scene.
Mr. Paul states: "It’s possible to say that it [the bullet which killed Officer Faulkner] was fired from a revolver with that type of rifling, with the Charter Arms type of rifling." (6-23-82 T.R. 6.110)
Later, Anthony Jackson asks Anthony Paul if the general characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner’s brain matched the pattern found in Mr. Jamal’s gun. Mr. Paul states:
"The general characteristics being part of the eight lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist, you have a part of that [bullet] still exposed with sufficient quantity to be able to say that a firearm riffled with eight lands and grooves with a right hand direction of twist discharged that projectile." (6-23-82 T.R. 6.168)
Mr. Paul goes on to state that there are thousands of .38 caliber handguns with eight lands and grooves and a right hand twist and that the bullet cannot be matched identically to Jamal's gun, to the exclusion of all others. However, he stresses the fact that there was only one gun with these characteristics found at the crime scene -- the gun owned by Mr. Jamal. This is the same gun that was registered in Jamal's name and that was found next to him at the crime scene less than a minute after the shooting.
In addition to matching exactly the general rifling characteristics of the gun used to kill Officer Faulkner, Mr. Jamal’s 5 shot Carter Arms handgun contained 5 spent casings from .38 caliber high velocity Special +P ammunition. Of the shells found in Jamal’s gun, all were +P ammunition and 4 out of 5 were manufactured by Federal Arms. In 1981, Federal Arms was the only brand of +P ammunition that had a hollow base. Additionally, Anthony Paul acknowledged that the +P bullet was rarely seen in 1981. It is a unique bullet with an extra heavy load of gunpowder that is so devastating when it hits its target, that police departments are restricted from using it.
Ballistics tests, which have never been refuted, verify that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was .38 caliber Federal Arms brand +P ammunition, with a hollow base. This fact, combined with the fact that this same bullet had the identical general rifling characteristics found in the barrel of Jamal’s gun (8 lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist), is evidence that devastates the argument that another gun was used to kill Officer Faulkner.
20/20 report, Transcript:
20/20 has looked at the arguments both she and the free Mumia movement make on the key points. First, ballistics. Jamal's supporters say the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was .44-caliber, not a .38, like the gun found at the scene.
CLAUDE PUJOL: The bullet is not the size of the gun, first thing. They never did any tests.
ED ASNER: The fact that no ballistics tests were done, which is pretty stupid.
SAM DONALDSON (voice-over): But ballistics tests were done and proved the bullet was fired by a .38-caliber revolver. The claim that the bullet was a.44 rests solely on a hasty note scribbled by a pathologist at the autopsy. However, the pathologist later testified that he had no expertise in ballistics, that he had only been guessing. But Weinglass refuses to believe that.
(on camera) You don't think it was a guess?
LEONARD WEINGLASS: I don't think he would guess.
SAM DONALDSON: The police say that that slug has the lands and grooves consistent with being a .38 slug.
LEONARD WEINGLASS: It does.
SAM DONALDSON: But if it's a .38, then your contention that it was a .44 is wrong.
LEONARD WEINGLASS: Well, I think that issue is very much something that should be played out in front of a jury.
I'm starting to miss Jade.
According to KGO, Jamal's court appointed attorney Anthony Jackson was an expert in the field. "The trial attorney had 20 capital cases under his belt in 1982 and came highly recommended." Jackson was actually practicing civil law at the time he was appointed to Jamal's case. He had not been a member of the bar long enough to have handled 20 capital cases (death penalty cases that actually went to the penalty phase). When asked on the stand to identify these cases, he could recall only one capital case and couldn't remember the name of that one. [26]
Jackson had neither an office nor a secretary at the time he was appointed by the court to take Jamal's case. He told Judge Sabo that he did not have enough time to prepare for the trial, and he asked repeatedly to be removed from the case. Three weeks before the trial he asked to have a second counsel appointed because he could not prepare for the trial in the time remaining. Jackson put the defense witnesses on the stand cold, without talking to them in advance. And Jackson, by his own admission, made no preparations nor did he call any witnesses in mitigation for the penalty phase of the trial, at which Jamal was given the death sentence. Jackson was subsequently suspended from the practice of law for unrelated reasons.
All of these facts could have been ascertained by KGO by examining the transcripts. Failing that, KGO could have at least asked Hugh Burns to identify the 20 capital cases Jackson is supposed to have conducted.
Billy Cook was charged with a single misdemeanor and given a suspended sentence. His wooden street newsstand was then burned down. Billy took the hint, and got lost. He was not subpoenaed by the prosecution at the trial. He was the closest witness to the events, yet the prosecution didn't want to hear from him. It was Jamal whom police wanted to get.
Billy was asked to testify in a hearing on Jamal's motion for a new trial, and he agreed. However, the prosecution announced that there was an old outstanding misdemeanor warrant for Billy, and if he showed up to testify he would be arrested.{31}
This was no idle threat, because when Veronica Jones came forward to testify in Jamal's defense in 1996, she was arrested as soon as she stepped off the witness stand. Some people have called this conduct Pennsylvania's "witness persecution program." Given the threat of arrest, Billy did not show up in court. Billy was in fear of his life, feeling that if he were put in jail he would not come out again alive. Subsequently police have not attempted to arrest him. It seems that his only danger of arrest comes if he testifies to what happened the night Jamal and Faulkner were shot.
As to the content of the testimony he would have given, attorney Rachel Wolkenstein read into the record her affidavit of what Billy Cook had told her and had planned to say in court. [32] So it is simply not true that Billy Cook has refused to tell his story.
The Phony Confession Story
According to KGO: "In fact, a hospital security guard reported hearing Jamal boast of shooting the officer outside the emergency room the next day. Two police officers later claimed to have heard the same confession." Here we must confess a little glee over KGO taking up the phony confession story - a canard that other pro-prosecution media now prudently avoid.
If Jamal had made a loud public confession the night of the shootings, as the prosecution was later to claim, it would have been front page news the next morning. Nothing is more damning in a murder case than a public confession by the suspect. Given that the victim in this case was a police officer, and the police have both the training to recognize the importance of a confession as well as the motive to take full advantage of it, why is it then that the widely touted confession did not surface until two months after the night of the shootings?
The sequence of events is very instructive. First, Jamal has always maintained that he was innocent and was a victim in the situation. Thus, when he regained enough strength, Jamal filed police brutality charges against the arresting officers. This naturally outraged the prosecution, and it was soon after Jamal filed his charges that police officers began to "remember" that Jamal had confessed that first night.
The problem with the newly remembered confession was that none of the officers had recorded any such confession in their written reports. Officer Wakshul had even reported that "the Negro male made no statements." [33]
The only other "evidence" of a confession is a claim (also two months after the fact) by hospital guard Priscilla Durham that she heard the confession and told it the next day to her supervisor who took handwritten notes. But the hand-written notes have never been produced. In addition, Durham also failed to mention the confession when she was interviewed by the police. [34]
Thus we are asked to believe that an experienced trial reporter like Jamal (who certainly knew his Miranda rights) foolishly made a public confession, then none of the many police officers present (including Faulkner's partner) thought it significant enough to mention until two months later when prodded by the D.A., and we are to ignore the fact that the attending physician has also stated that Jamal made no statements. [35]
FACTS- The Medical Examiner was never asked by the defense to account for any "missing bullet fragments" at the 1995 PCRA hearing. The defense had their chance to prove for the record that a bullet fragment was actually missing and then verify that it had been lost by the police. However, no attempt was made to do so. Despite their many out-of-court assertions, the defense failed to introduce any such evidence at all in the 1995 hearing. To this day there is still no proof that any fragment is, in fact, "missing".
This is one of the cutest, stupidest myths of the Pro-Mumia Faction.
First they insist that the bullet which killed Faulkner was a .44 rather than .38, based upon a crude initial measurement made with an standard English-measurement ruler (rather than a ballistics-quality millimeter ruler).
When a subsequent measurement and all ballistics reports (including the testimony of Mumia's OWN Ballistics Expert) show that the bullet was a .38, not a .44, they propose...
...that the bullet WAS a .44, but the bullet fragmented in the body (no problem, that DOES happen) and so a .44 appears to be a .38, because parts of it were missing.
And then they claim that Mumia's expert was never allowed to examine the fragments. Furthermore, they suggest, the police either "lost" or deliberately destroyed the fragments.
One problem:
There ARE no fragments. Never were.
The "fragment theory" was proposed to rescure the old .44 caliber bullet myth which was demolished by Mumia's own hired lawyer. The fragments are THEORIZED to have existed; that's why, the theory goes, what was actually a .44 APPEARED to be a .38-- parts of the bullet were missing.
But no tests have ever shown that the bullet was actually a .44 with missing fragments. Not even Mumia's expert said that. He said, flat-out, that the bullet was a .38.
So Mumia wants the police to let him examine bullet fragments which don't, and never have, existed.
And then he suggests the magical fragments' non-existence is evidence of a cover-up.
It's sort of like this:
I stab a man with a dagger. I suggest that the man has not been stabbed with a dagger, but rather was stabbed with a cavalry sabre. An autopsy proves the man was, indeed, stabbed by a dagger. So I propose that the man was stabbed with a non-standard cavalry sabre that leaves a wound JUST LIKE the wound made by a knife. And then I insist the police produce this special cavalry sabre so I can inspect it and run tests on it. When they fail to do so, I claim cover-up, racism, and bias.
One problem:
There is, and never was, a "special cavalry sabre." And yet by first suggesting there was, and then demanding access to the phantom sabre to run tests, I've concocted a defense. A stupid defense, but a defense nonetheless.
Cart:
BRIEF REBUTTAL
Besides the two police officers who came forward several weeks after the shooting to report that they heard Mr. Jamal’s statement, a hospital security guard reported to her supervisor in writing that she too had heard the same confession the day after the shooting. A copy of a hospital report was produced at the 1982 trial verifying her testimony. Her report reconfirms the security guards testimony and corroborates what the officers heard that morning and reported later. Mr. Jamal's supporters rarely mention the testimony of this security guard because her testimony corroborates the testimony of Officer Bell and Wakschul.
The attending physician did NOT state that Mumia made no statements. She said he made no statements in her presence. And she was only with him sporadically.
R
Here's the testimony in which this "explosive fact" is revealed:
Mr. Williams: "Prior to the trial, did you met with any persons from the District Attorney’s Office?"
Officer Wakshul: "I believe either in January or February of 1982, having a prep meeting with Mr. McGill in reference to this case." (8-1-95, T.R.78) So much for the meeting being secret.
Mr. Williams: "What do you mean by prep meeting?"
Officer Wakshul: "I believe he [McGill] was the assigned prosecutor and he was going over different facets of the case with a large group of parties. Police Officers I believe were the only ones, and detectives, who were present."
Mr. Williams: "So he was prepping several people at the same time?"
Officer Wakshul: "It was basically a large round-table discussion of events. I don’t recall specifics of it. I believe that there were, there were some preliminary reports that he was going over, but I don’t really recall in depth what happened."
Mr. Williams: "Did McGill explain to you at all that the reason to have a group meeting is to make sure that all the testimony conforms to each other?"
Officer Wakshul: " No, I don’t recall any such--"
Mr. Williams: "You don’t recall him explaining that to you?"
Officer Wakshul replies, "No."
Mr. Williams: "Did the subject of a confession ever come up?"
Officer Wakshul: "I believe it did."
Mr. Williams: "Was there any inquiry directed at you personally about the troubling fact that you had not mentioned the confession on December 9th or December 16th or thereafter until February?"
Officer Wakshul: "No, I believe what happened was Mr. McGill said did anybody hear his statement. I know I raised my hand, but I don’t recall any further discussion about it."
Compare Cartman's cite.
Cartman's cite CLAIMS the "secret meeting" discussed by Wakshul (not really so secret, if he's testifying about it, but whatever) was intented to SUGGEST to the cops that they invent a confession story.
Trouble is:
They had already told their supervisors about Mumia's confession. Note the question:
Mr. Williams: "Was there any inquiry directed at you personally about the troubling fact that you had not mentioned the confession on December 9th or December 16th or thereafter until February?"
In other words, the "explosive testimony" regarded the a meeting which took place AFTER they'd reported the confession, NOT BEFORE AS Cartman's pot-smokin, coke-totin' cite suggests. His cite states the meeting was a "hint" to concoct a confession story, whereas this meeting took place AFTER the story had been "concocted."
If Cartman's idiotic source can't read a simply-worded trial record, or has trouble understanding BEFORE and AFTER, or feels the need to lie about the facts, I don't think we need to discuss it much further.
PS: Cartman's cite is obviously, I think, a Weinglass or Mumia cite. Straight from the source, baby.
Please re-read the following relevant passage:
The problem with the newly remembered confession was that none of the officers had recorded any such confession in their written reports. Officer Wakshul had even reported that "the Negro male made no statements." [33]
The only other "evidence" of a confession is a claim (also two months after the fact) by hospital guard Priscilla Durham that she heard the confession and told it the next day to her supervisor who took handwritten notes. But the hand-written notes have never been produced. In addition, Durham also failed to mention the confession when she was interviewed by the police. [34]
Now, am I saying that all of these little discrepancies absolve Mumia of guilt in shooting Officer Faulkner? Not at all. But I think they do concur with my earlier point, that some of the evidence was suspect, and the trial not exactly a model of comportment. Check out the link I posted earlier; I'll even re-post it to make it easy on you. Take a look at all the various details and data on the witnesses. The ballistics evidence is about the best thing the prosecution had going for it; the witness data and discrepancies about the "confession" make it seem like a shade less than a slam-dunk, which is what death penalty cases are supposed to be.
But the hand-written notes have never been produced.
And you should read:
A copy of a hospital report was produced at the 1982 trial verifying her testimony.
That report, I have since learned, is a TYPEWRITTEN summary of her notes. So yes, your cite may be correct that the handwritten notes were never produced; just the typewritten report made minutes after was produced.
Before you invest much more time in this, I'd ask yourself: Why does this cite feel the need to conceal the fact that the typewritten report was produced? WHy does it imply that no report was produced at all? Why doesn't it even MENTION the typewritten report?
And why would handwritten notes be kept in a fucking hospital's records? The typewritten report is kept in records; notes are discarded.
Your cite is lying to you. You haven't cast any doubt whatsoever on the case.
And the site does not say that the meeting was "secret". It says, parenthetically, "(This meeting had never before been disclosed to the defense.)" Speaking of pot smokin' and coke totin', where the fuck did you learn to read, Chief?
If Cartman's idiotic source can't read a simply-worded trial record, or has trouble understanding BEFORE and AFTER, or feels the need to lie about the facts, I don't think we need to discuss it much further.
And if you can't read a directly-worded analysis of the case without misrepresenting nearly everything in there, I'd have to agree.
How about some more misrepsentation:
In fact, the hospital failed to produce the audio-tape from a bedside recorder which would certainly have contained Mr. Mumia's confession, had such a confession been made at all.
That's true. The hospital DID fail to produce audio-tape from "A" bedside recorder. Note the "A." I didn't say there WAS a bedside recorder; but they did indeed fail to produce auido tape from a bedside recorder had one been there.
Similarly,
"Ms Durham's hand-written notes have never been produced."
No, they haven't. Will the official typewritten hospital report suffice?
I know. They just forgot in all the excitement.
Cartman:
Durham did.
Your cite is making shit up left right and center. I've caught them on several clear misrepresentations (Pretending the DA meeting occurred before, and directly impelled, the confession stories, whereas it occurred AFTER; making hay of the "Handwritten" notes never being produced, when the typewritten notes WERE, and failing to mention that; calling a HANDWRITTEN scribble by the autopsy doc re: a .44 cal bullet a "MEDICAL EXAMINER'S REPORT," when it WAS NOT a report, but a scribble) and you keep believing it.
I've caught them in three lies. Does that mean everything else they say is true, or does it mean that in all likelihood they're lying about most of everything else?
From your cite:
Second, the jury that sentenced Jamal to death never saw the medical examiner's report that described the bullet taken from Faulkner's body as being .44 caliber.
True, they never saw the "Medical examiner's report" which so described the bullet, since no such report has ever existed. What they're referring to of course is the handwritten note, "44 cal," which was NOT a "Medical Examiner's Report."
That, Cartman, is a lie, in case you're still capable of telling truth from lie.
"So let's look at one such witness: Veronica Jones. Jones testified as a defense witness at the original trial. Interviewed by police after the shootings, she maintained that after she heard the shots she saw two men running from the scene. She signed a written statement of what she had seen. At the trial, Veronica testified that the police had offered her a deal if she would testify that Mumia was the shooter (she had several criminal charges pending at the time), and that a similar deal had been offered to Cynthia White. [37] But she did repudiate her signed statement [38] that she had seen two men jogging away from the scene. It was very important to the prosecution to deny that there were other potential perpetrators at the scene who successfully fled.
"In 1996, during Jamal's legal effort to win a new trial, Jones came forward and told Jamal's legal team that she had lied at the 1982 trial and she had indeed seen two men flee the scene. She then testified [39] that police officers had threatened her with a long jail term and the legal removal of her children from her custody if she did not support the prosecution. When she brought her full story into the courtroom in 1996, she was threatened with perjury charges by Judge Sabo, and then arrested as soon as she stepped off the witness stand as mentioned above.
"The interesting point here is that Veronica did not contradict what she had told police years before, as KGO alleges. She reaffirmed it."
-------------------------------
So, is the crack-whore's word good only if she supports the prosecutorial allegations, or can we also take her word seriously wrt deals offered for the "correct" testimony, or leverage applied by law enforcement when she later refuted her testimony and refused to cooperate?
Cartman:
Respond to the three clear lies of your cite before we go any further.
You keep citing from a source which has lied three times, and you keep expecting me to believe a fucking word it says.
And Cartman:
Fine. The whore is a liar. Now explain one out of town business man, another guy, and two taxi drivers.
Incidentally, the whore who testified against Mumia was arrested twice the week after she testified.
Some deal.
And Re: "Secret meeting"
From MY cite:
"According to the HBO documentary, Mr. Jamal, himself, has evidence verifying that a "secret meeting" was held between the District Attorney and Police Officials prior to the trial."
Ah. According to your cite? Don't worry, I realize that the cite I linked, being a hardcore advocacy site, might play fast and loose with a few of the details. No doubts there. Some of the stuff on there is common knowledge, though, and has been reported by other sources. Some of it was in the 1996 HBO documentary about the case.
It's a moot point. I've already said repeatedly that I think ultimately Mumia is guilty. So if I bought every single line in the cite I linked, there'd be a bit of a conflict there, no? But as I said, some of this stuff has been reported elsewhere, in mainstream media as well. All I'm saying is that there are enough discrepancies to invite speculation as to whether Mumia received a truly fair and impartial trial.
Cartman, my fucking cite includes the Trial Record which quotes the question posed to Officer Wakschul-- A question which SPECIFICALLY asks if the "secret meeting" dealt with the ALREADY "concocted" confession story.
MY Cite includes the 20/20 transcript with Sam Donaldson which states that the ".44 cal" note was a HANDWRITTEN NOTATION and NOT a "medical examiner's report."
Do you really imagine that my source has INVENTED parts of the 20/20 transcript and Trial Record? Or do you think they're presenting these transcripts accurately?
Do you think 20/20 fucked up regarding the "medical examiner's report"? Do you consider 20/20 "hard-core advocacy"?
Do you consider your cite to be on equal footing with ABC News and Sam Donaldson?
No offense, but if you want to play 1) stupid or 2) games, I'm not really in the mood.
SAM DONALDSON (voice-over): But ballistics tests were done and proved the bullet was fired by a .38-caliber revolver. The claim that the bullet was a .44 rests solely on a hasty note scribbled by a pathologist at the autopsy.
Yeah. "My cite" of Sam Donaldson and 20/20 is the equivalent of your half-baked bullshit cite.
Three lies is three lies. Three strikes, out.
My cite, meanwhile, hasn't yet been shown to be untruthful. It advocates, but doesn't misrepresent the facts.
It is amazing to me that three LIES are enough to convince you of the possibility that Mumia didn't get a fair trial.
Me? I'd want three facts. But if three lies suffices for you, well and good.
Lie #1 --"Pretending the DA meeting occurred before, and directly impelled, the confession stories, whereas it occurred AFTER".
Immediately after the passage which mentions that the prep meeting hadn't been disclosed to the defense, the cite says, "The problem with the newly remembered confession was that none of the officers had recorded any such confession in their written reports." That's it. It's just saying that the confession had not been formally mentioned by any of the cops until after the prep meeting. Do you have anything refuting that, that the cops had reported it in writing before then?
Lie #2 -- "...making hay of the "Handwritten" notes never being produced, when the typewritten notes WERE, and failing to mention that..."
Well, when was the copy of the typewritten report produced? Supposedly, Durham told her supervisor the next day [after Mumia was brought into the hospital], and the supe took handwritten notes. Actually, I don't think it's too big of a deal that the handwritten notes never surfaced. I'll grant you the typewritten notes, provided they weren't post-dated. I found this statement about Durham a bit more odd: "Durham also failed to mention the confession when she was interviewed by the police." Do you dispute that?
Lie #3 -- "...calling a HANDWRITTEN scribble by the autopsy doc re: a .44 cal bullet a "MEDICAL EXAMINER'S REPORT," when it WAS NOT a report, but a scribble) and you keep believing it."
That was in one of the excerpts I posted, but I have made no mention of it at all in my commentary, so the "you keep believing it" part is pure bullshit. Actually, I'm satisfied with your explanation of the ME not having enough ballistics expertise to tell slugs apart on sight.
That's because that simply isn't true. There's plenty more, especially on the witness data, that raies a small doubt. It's simply too long to excerpt here. I've posted the link to the page twice; if you want to read it yourself and contest what they're saying, fine.
Again, I don't pretend every single word here is gospel, nor should you on your site. People put these things up because they have an agenda, or they buy into someone else's agenda. At any rate, the things I have heard about before, that are on this site, I'm a bit more inclined to accept as possible.
None taken, but I don't really care if you're in the mood or not. I quite easily found a cite that raises a bit of doubt wrt police and prosecutorial conduct in this case. I'm sure if I cared enough to waste a lot of time I could find more. I don't see how that's playing stupid.
As for playing games, that's what I have a Playstation for. I ain't jerking your chain here, Clarice. I think there is reasonable evidence that Mumia's trial was not quite a completely fair one. Having said that, I also think he's guilty, so I'm not terribly concerned about his execution. There is no contradiction here, merely pointing out that maybe all these celebrities, none of whom are exactly Van Damme-esque morons, may have a valid point.
A guilty man got railroaded. Not a real surprise there. I don't see what all the fuss is, but I do enjoy watching the veins pop out on your neck.
[Ace, in his inimitable Jason Alexander impersonation]:
George is getting angry! George doesn't like this!
Though I know the kid is a murderer, still it seems a bit over the top to try the actions of an 11-year-old as those of an adult. He looked so skinny and scared last night that it's easy to forget about his victim. All the same, the juvenile detention centers are no day at the park, but would at least give the kid a chance.
Over the top, to say the least.
Anyone with half a brain knows that kids his age rarely think about the consequences of their actions....I am continually having to remind Gracie to think about how her words and deeds affect those around her - and she is a child who has had every advantage.
Yes, what he did was wrong, but damn. Give the kid a chance to get some guidance and maybe he'll turn out okay.
Sheesh, I sound like a fuzzy-headed liberal.
Not necessarily, Diva, and I doubt he will be. He'll probably be sent to a juvenile facility until 18 (or is it 21 in MI?).
From what I understand, the judge has options on sentencing at this point. He can 1) sentence to adult prison (not likely) 2)sentence to a juvenile facility with re-evaluation at 19 or 21 at which point he can be released (not likely, imo), be transfered to an adult prison, or be transfered to an incarcerating adult treatment facility (most likely, imo).
There is almost 0 chance he'll be going to an adult prison anytime soon. The reason he was tried and convicted as an adult was because the prosecutors didn't want release at 19/21 with the killing only marked on sealed records - which would have happened had he been convicted as a juvenile.
Ahhhh....makes sense.
Is this the case where the kid took the rifle and was randomly shooting from his window?
I am guilty of trying to ignore stories of violence by and against children. I've grown tired of weeping at the breakfast table.
So what if a witness was a prostitute. They got eyes, don't they?
Shall we discuss how one rehabilates a mentally challenged child.
No, I didn't....that makes it all the more shocking. God have mercy on this poor child. What a heartbreaker.
1. He has very little support among those who actually learn the facts. Public opinion in Philly is nearly unanimously against him.
2. His case is a cause celebre because he is articulate and had a public forum which was taken away. He had been a commentator on a local talk radio program prior to the murder, and had been an occasional commentator on the local NPR station while in prison. Local protests caused the station to stop airing his reports from prison, which led to silly protests that the "system" was censoring him.
3. Mumia's supporters are a strange mix of anti-death penalty advocates (who whould be better off choosing a different poster boy) and people who blind themselves to the facts of the case. Many anti-death penalty people are drawn in by misinformation like the site posted above, and stay even when they learn the facts because they are opposed to the death penalty.
I personally oppose the death penalty and hope his sentence is reduced to life in prison. I am saving my one instance of hypocracy on this subject for Ira Einhorn, another favorite of the French.
When Nat got on the stand he was told to raise his right hand. He put up his left hand. Someone said to him, "no your right hand, your right hand".
My God.
Did the defense have anyone testify as to Nat's abilities? How could the jury have gotten the full picture otherwise?
You say "we have all failed" with him but somewhere along the line, responsibility must rest with his family and with him. Would you say we should just forgive him for all the other things he's done AND for the murder and be done with it?
"I made a booboo. I addressed my posts only to Diva when Bubba and others were discussing the case. I apologize for my rudeness. I shouldn't have done that."
We have a shortage of facilities for juveniles and for the developmentally disabled with severe behavioral disorders. There are many victims of sexual abuse who pose a great risk for offending against others. Many of these people are placed in programs which give them opportunities to widen the circle of victimization. We have "saved" money in the eyes of the budget people without looking to the long term financial and human cost of cutting services.
"When Nat got on the stand he was told to raise his right hand. He put up his left hand. Someone said to him, "no your right hand, your right hand"."
I've had witnesses do that on a number of occasions. In most instances, I attribute it to nervousness.
In one case, the witness raised her left hand, and then, when told to raise her other hand, slowly raised her right -- while still leaving the left hand in the air. She looked like she was surrendering.
Stop me before I pun again!
CNN reports Egyptian officials have listened to the black box as well as the voice recorder. No statement is being made when or if this will be turned over to the FBI.
This is a copy of Nat's rap sheet:
Here's the best marital advice I've read in years.
I read an article on that recently, but can't find it. It might have been at the Post, which doesn't keep an archive handy. Couldn't find it at the NY Times.
other than not getting the quote exactly correct, what did MsG report that is incorrect?
I should have said what piece of your quote I was disagreeing with--namely, that there had been no statement about turning it over to the FBI. I wasn't faulting you, in any event.
I still can't find the article, but I believe there was some question over who had responsibility for it. Egypt turned jurisdiction over to the U.S. voluntarily, and the U.S. has stated that they will keep jurisdiction.
click on photo 
Assuming the co-pilot did intentionally down the plane, I wonder if it was a "conventional" suicide (stemming from depression or some other mental disorder), or was motivated by money or politics?
Niner Message # 4077:
So what if a witness was a prostitute. They got eyes, don't they?
The least of Veronica Jones' problems is that she's a crack whore. The real problems are 1)she changed her story, and has stuck to her new one, which varies from the prosecutorial account; 2)she insists that the cops offered her a deal on her outstanding criminal charges if she gave the "correct" testimony. This may or may not be true, but you can't really pick and choose what to believe from her. Either she is credible, or she's full of shit all the way around. If she is credible, then there's some serious shit going on there.
Chances are, she's full of shit all the way around. But according to the site I linked, she got nailed with a perjury charge after refusing to reiterate her original testimony. She also says the cops threatened to take her kids away if she didn't cooperate, which is just fine by me actually -- the phrase "crack whore" itself gives you a couple of damned good reasons to take her kids away from her.
I don't think anyone in here is a Mumia "supporter", or even thinks he's innocent. There's an awful lot of stuff on that site I linked though (some of which is undoubtedly skewed, some which has been reported elsewhere), which raises the possibility that the man got railroaded. No one likes a cop-killer, and no one really cares if the trial isn't a model of fairness. But the argument between Ace and myself was strictly over whether it was possible that police and prosecution cut a few corners to make sure they had Mumia nailed. I think that possibility exists. That's all. Doesn't exonerate him, doesn't mean I think his sentence should be commuted.
There's an awful lot of stuff on that site I linked though (some of which is undoubtedly skewed, some which has been reported elsewhere), which raises the possibility that the man got railroaded.
Like what? You keep parroting this bullshit, but three "facts" presented by your cite are lies. I have no idea what "raises the possibility" that Mumia got railroaded.
When I earlier said "you keep believing this shit," I meant that Proposition A, B, and C from the cite were proven to be deliberate lies, and yet you go on to happily burble about Propisition D, accepting it as true, not even imaginging, it seems, that Proposition D is probably also a lie.
In any event. NTSB did decide to turn it over to the FBI, and announced same, but reneged under pressure from the Egyptians. While it looks likely that it will get turned over, and it is correct to say the decision and timing have not yet been made, a more complete account talks about yesterdays news.
I already responded to your "three lies". Go back about 50 posts and find a nit to pick from it.
Read it. "I expect a hard-core advocacy to play fast and loose with the facts."
In other words, you expect them to lie, which they did, but their lies have swayed you.
"If they're lying this much, there MUST be SOMETHING there!!!"
Okay, Cart. Whatever.
No, it was decided. Then they changed their mind out of courtesy to the Egyptians.
No, jackass. I told you that I considered the facts that had also been reported elsewhere (to my knowledge) to be worth consideration. Do you understand this distinction, or are you just hell-bent on getting off a good riff by misrepresenting what I said?
Ha! My boss came in too, right before I posted. I was held up and didn't refresh. Sorry for repeating your info.
TS,
The way it looks now, it was a suicide due to depression. But I wouldn't entirely rule out the other possibility.
For those of you interested, here are links to past conversations on this:
Message # 3627 and following
Message # 3689 and one or two following
Message # 3710 ""
Message # 3854 ""
Message # 3883 ""
Should we? I'll feel guilty; I get paid by the hour. On the plus side, I deliver and my clients are happy.
Shouldn't we have it later, after work
(Just kidding, i know what you mean)
Anybody else said this, I'd have to do a lame Domino's joke (or worse). See what a nice guy I am, once in a great while?
No, jackass. I told you that I considered the facts that had also been reported elsewhere (to my knowledge) to be worth consideration.
Yeah? Then cite these reputable sources rather than the bullshit you've been citing.
I know of ZERO reputable reports which give any credence to Mumia's various claims. You claim you know of them-- quote them.
Considering you were just discussing crack whores, you showed remarkable restraint :)
This subject is off-topic for this thread, but maybe in "Mote Cafe" or a "Workplace" thread.
I would guess that damn near 80% of us use the Internet at work.
The pilot's daughter had lupus and was being treated in California. There were a number of senior Egyptian military officers on the plane.
He might have been paid large chunks of cash to take out the plane by any organization who benefitted from the resultant Egyptian military chaos.
Yes, but we've already discussed UConn's stumble. I saw him bemoaning an OSU football setback, I just assumed he was also a roundball fan. Perhaps I assume too much.
Cal --
Those were the possibilities I was referring to when I mentioned money and politics.
BTW, Cal, you've got mail.
Duh. Sorry, I missed that. Anyway, that sounds quite feasible.
Just read that the guy normally took his daughter on flights to and from America--but not this time.
I do. The guy was canned for using business e-mail to run a business he had going on the side.
I see no real difference between Internet usage, playing solitaire, and talking on the phone. All are ways in which employees are wasting company time, and all of them generally only become an issue if the employee's performance isn't up to par.
"Does anyone know of anyone who's been "busted" for improper internet use?"
Yes, but ... the Internet use involved downloading pictures of naked kids.
Qualitatively different from spending too much time on message boards.
Nothing exclusive to Internet use.
Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.
Really?
Note to self:
Remove Mama Honey's Whorehouse from autodial.
Today, the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson Sr., president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, released the following statement regarding Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge’s decision to sign the death warrant of death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Abu-Jamal is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Thursday, December 2, 1999 for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
Kill him.
December 2-- is it too late to get tickets?
Good evening everybody: Check out the NY Post poll above--lots of laughs. The Top 25 Most Evil People of the Millennium
Bubba made #2 after Hitler and Hill placed 6th just ahead of Saddam, both on a write in.
Damn!
Yeah, THAT's the ticket!
Hmmm. I figured this was Fox's way of dumping Drudge. Instead, it looks like it's Drudge's way to get out of his contract.
Or is that Drudge spin?
Greystoke:
It's not much of a secret that Drudge's only real sources were a couple of people close to Linda Tripp. Now that that story's over, he doesn't really have any sources left.
Greystoke:
It's not much of a secret that Drudge's only real sources were a couple of people close to Linda Tripp. Now that that story's over, he doesn't really have any sources left.
Nazzy.
Racist.
Reverend Jackson's picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. School violence -- of any sort -- isn't likely to be viewed as lightly as it would have been a year or two ago.
Ahem.
Mr. Jackson focuses only on half of the equation. He fails to recognize that dealing lightly with offenders sentences many other students--the inevitable future victims of beatings and disruption-- to punishments worse than expulsion.
But as long as he can focus on that one half of the problem while pretending the other doesn't exist, he can pat himself on the back and tell himself he done good.
I'm assuming it was a crack-turfwar of some sort.
(oh, man, I am in rare form tonight.)
I gotta say, though: If this was simply a fight-- and apparently it was--Jackson's right. If these kids were striking random people or anything like that, then expel them. But a simple fight isn't something you get expelled for.
Drudge meets reality
Monday, November 15, 1999
Matt Drudge ran head on into the harsh realities of the television business Saturday night.
Drudge wanted to show a photo of a 21-week-old fetus on his Saturday night Fox television gig to dramatize his opposition to abortion.
But John Moody, Fox's vice president of News, said no.
...
Drudge says he was censored. Fox says the photo was pulled because it had nothing to do with abortion (the photo was in fact from the National Enquirer feature about spinal bifida).
"It was a picture of one surgical procedure and Drudge was talking about another, and we thought that was a misrepresentation," Fox spokesman Brian Lewis says. "It was an editorial decision."
Does that make a lick of sense to any of you?
If Drudge intended-- as the article states later-- to say here's what a fetus in the xth month looks like, see, it's a baby-- then where's the "misrepresentation"?
He didn't intend to claim "here's a baby during an abortion." He intended to say here's what a baby, which COULD be aborted, looks like in the xth month.
How the hell is that a misrepresentation? I don't get it.
Jones,
Yeah, it was a riot-- a real brawl, melee-- and I guess that changes things.
Still, you know, when you're in a fight, you can't control what happens around you. If you get into a fight, and then ten other people get into fights around you, it is a "riot"; but all you did was get into a fight.
I don't think AP search articles link properly, but here's the story on the Rev.'s arrest.
Excerpt:
"At issue is whether school board officials overreacted in handing down two-year suspensions to enforce a strict policy. The suspensions have since been reduced to a year, but that's not enough for Jackson, who insists that the students be judged on a case-by-case basis.
"Ronald Walters, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, said Jackson is reacting to the 'Columbine syndrome' — a tendency for schools to institute strict behavior policies in the wake of school shootings in Littleton, Colo., and elsewhere.
"'You've got a general phenomenon occurring — but you use blacks as the example. That happens very often,' Walters said.
"That would fit into Jackson's longtime agenda — 'protecting the poor from the powerful,' as Watkins puts it. By focusing attention on the punishment of young black men, Jackson also echoes concerns about the growing number of black men in the nation's prisons.
Erring on the side of the pro-choice sensibility, Jones.
15 all.
"'The issue of education is going to be probably the most important in this coming presidential election,' he said. 'Many of the sub-issues around it have to do with race and achievement and dealing with the issues of left-behind institutions in urban areas.'
"Still, Walters and others wonder whether Jackson's efforts will engage Americans the way voting rights and desegregation did.
"'I don't think it has the sort of galvanizing potential ... (of the civil rights movement) because it's not clear that the lines are drawn as starkly in this case,' said Kenneth Warren, an English professor and co-chairman of the committee on African and African American studies at the University of Chicago.
In fact, he wonders whether Jackson's effort might backfire."
------------------------------------
Jesus. Is this what qualifies as civil rights activism these days, defending a bunch of punks?
Is this what qualifies as civil rights activism these days, defending a bunch of punks?
That's what it's always been, Cart.
Sort of a joke. But a disproportionate amount of liberals' time has gone into trying to defend murderers, rapists, and such in the name of civil rights.
That's precisely why these kids have to get punished for an offense greater than your standard exchange of punches over yo' mama jokes
Racist stereotype.
30 - 15.
I don't know. If all I do is get into a fight, I should be punished for getting into a fight-- not for my incidental, accidental participation in a riot which occurs around me.
(Ace takes Jackson's position, proving how good and wonderful he is)
40 -15.
As you pointed out earlier, Drudge has nothing to offer Fox anymore. Nobody cares what Lucianne Goldberg and her son have to say, so he's screwed. And he served up a golden opportunity for Fox to cut bait, rather than keep fishing a dry hole.
If Drudge wants to make an anti-abortion statement, perhaps he could be a little creative. Just display a poster of Pam Anderson or Yasmine Bleeth or whoever, and say, "Hey! See what we would have missed out on if her parents had gotten an abortion?".
I know it's tacky, but fuck it. Attempting to influence people's personal lives and decisions is tacky anyway; might as well do it right.
Cart:
You're a bit misinformed, as I was before someone linked an article. Drudge's ratings have slipped (but so have the ratings for ALL cable news since Impeachment Fever ended) and Drudge remains Fox's biggest rated show on weekends.
I assumed that Fox was trying to get out of its contract, but apparently it's Drudge who wants out. He's apparently asked to be released before. Fox told him they expected him to honor his contract.
So I don't get what Fox's reasoning is here, unless they're just afraid they'll get negative press from the picture from the rest of the liberal-left media.
Jones:
I am not referring to criminal defense work per se. I am referring to attempts to liberalize/lighten sentences, push "prisoner's rights," give convicts back the right to vote, etc.
Of course defendants need attorneys. There's nothing wrong with defending them.
I am talking about attempts to change the laws in favor of criminals.
Ace- yo' mama jokes are popular with kids of all ethnic backrounds.
And that's why it was such a casually vicious bit of racial predjudice.
Game to Ace.
It depends. If you're leading your half-dozen homies into a full-on melee with some homies from the other side of town, you might end up responsible for some of the damages caused buy your homies as well as yourself. For the most part, though, I don't by the "inciting a riot" theory. If people are sheep-like enough to fall into mob mentality, then fuck 'em -- they can take personal responsibility for it.
There was an L&O rerun on A&E the other night on that very issue -- the NYC case where a Jewish guy ran over a black kid in Harlem, got off scot-free, and a mob formed and yanked the first white guy they saw out of his car and beat him to death. The defense proposed the noxious theory that the main killer was not responsible because the mob had gotten his juices going, and he just couldn't help himself.
Yes, yes, I know, TV show, but people do get away with that sort of thing in riots. The attack on Denny in the King riots is perfect example.
I used to do mamma jokes too. But me and my friends did them different than black guys. Black guys-- from what I see on tv-- tell odd jokes like "yo mama got her mouth in the back of her neck and the bitch chew like this."
I don't get that.
My momma jokes were only about the billions of men a momma screwed or the ridiculous size of her genetalia (yo mama's p--- is so big that when she goes to the gynecologist she puts her legs up on the Twin Towers).
Stupid, but in a different way. A more limited palette.
I see. Where would Drudge be going then? Did ABC Radio offer him a contract or show recently, or am I imagining things?
Please tell me Matt's not hanging up his cool-guy hat. That would break my damn heart.
Cartman:
The distinction is between "intending to participate in a riot" and "incidentally participating in a riot."
The first should be punished harshly; the second, not. It's an accident of circumstance.
Yeah, I know. As my Driver's Ed teacher said: There are no accidents in life or on the road.
Cart:
I don't believe this, but here's what the article says: Drudge makes much more money from his radio show and web-page advertisements than from Fox News, and he wants to dump the extra committment.
Yo mama's an astronaut.
That's your idea of a yo mamma joke? Where's the payoff?
Yo mama's an accountant.
You're lame. And so were your friends, and so's your fucking mother.
Your mama's an astronaut-- the bitch wears a shiny silver suit and trains in a zero-g simulator.
Needs work.
Your mama went to the gynacologist and he says
"Damn, your pussy's big
Damn your pussy's big."
"You didn't have to say it twice" your mama said.
Its an echo, an echo, an echo..... says the doc.
Jones:
"Help me find my car keys and we'll drive out."
Go here for yo mama jokes.
Yo mama's so stupid, she told me to meet her at the corner of "Walk" and "Don't Walk."
Yo mama's so big, her belly button's got an echo.
Yo mama's so hairy, Bigfoot took a picture of her.
Yo mama's so big, when you climb on top of her your ears pop.
Yo mama's so stupid, she put on her glasses to watch 20/20.
Yo mama's so stupid, when the computer said "Press any key to continue", she couldn't find the 'Any' key.
Yo mama's so big, she thought Barnum & Bailey were clothing designers
Yo mama's so stupid, she thought Tupac Shakur was a Jewish holiday.
And so on.
Cart,
See, I don't get those mama jokes. They just don't make sense to me.
"Your mama's pussy is so big Evil Keneval tried to jump it on his rocket-cycle and they still haven't found the fucker."
That's the kind of mama joke I get.
Yeah, taking Rupert Murdoch's money and getting face time (which is why he does what he does, no?) must be a real bitch. And having to work with all those ugly Fox News chicks. Give me a fucking break. But hell, what's he supposed to say?
Your mother's like a whore, because men pay her for sexual favors.
Other "off-beat" mama jokes:
Yo mama wear a leather wig with a Nike tag, and muthafuckas call her "Hair Jordan". (Chris Rock on SNL -- "I'm Chillin'")
Yo mama got one arm, and the bitch swim in circles. (old one)
Yo mama got one ear and a burnt potato chip. (old and really weird one)
Yo mama got a wooden leg with a kickstand. (Eddie Murphy -- "Delirious")
Eh, let's get off mamas -- 'cause I just got off yours.
Oh, man, that's the oldest, tiredest line.
One guy got me with this: "I can't believe you said that. My mother just died two months ago."
I began to apologize, but then he cracked a grin and called me a fucking idiot and told me how he fucked my mother.
Three more people tried that on me in subsequent years. But by then I was prepared:
"Dead? I thought she just needed to douche."
The douche line is pretty good though, if only for a single possible use. I've never had someone say that "she's dead" line to me when doing the dozens.
"Keep my mama outta this, and maybe I'll keep this outta yo mama."
That's a great one. I've never heard that one before.
That to me is more of a "black" one, which is probably why my lilly white buddies never used it on me.
The douche line is pretty good though, if only for a single possible use.
Duhhhh. Someone can only pull the "my mom is dead" defense ONCE, Cartman.
Well, I've got a lot of black relatives. I picked up a lot of stuff from my stepbrothers when I was a kid. That's probably where I heard that one.
Message # 4206:
No, I mean it only has one possible application. You can only say it when someone else decides to fuck with you by saying his mama just died.
(one side) 
(other side) 
"Computers are hard!"
Sad thing is that it's a better computer than my current desktop.
JASPER, Texas (AP) - A third man, Shawn Berry,
has been found guilty of capital murder in the fatal
dragging of a black East Texas man.
JASPER, Texas (AP) -- A white man who insisted he was too afraid of his racist companions to help James Byrd Jr. was convicted today of capital murder in the black man's dragging death.
Shawn Allen Berry will either spend life in prison or join his two co-defendants on death row.
Berry, 24, declined an invitation to comment after the verdict was read.
The jury, which began deliberating at midday Wednesday, must next decide on a punishment for the grisly killing.
Let the healing begin.
(BTW, the healing is complete when the plunger reaches the bottom of the syringe)
Jonesy --
Sorry. I forgot to put the [i] at the end of that message.
JJ --
Well, they're not going to be chained to the back of a truck and dragged, so I suppose they are being "treated unfairly."
But it can't hurt.
Certainly, not as much as knowing they are living, breathing, jello eating, TV watching, website building wards of the state.
For once you and I agree. However, as with all vermin the idea is to exterminate them as quickly and efficiently as possible. To put it another way, they are a boil on the buttocks of humanity, and they need to be removed before they infect the rest of the body.
Yes, vous. RAILROAD, does that ring a bell?
Hold the Aggie jokes...
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) - A 40-foot pyramid of logs assembled for Texas A&M University's traditional pregame bonfire collapsed early today, killing at least six students and injuring 28.
The government of the USA is so incompetant that I don't believe that the judicial arm of that government should be in the business of killing people.
Many of you know that I spent 9 wonderful years in the USAF. I know that wars will always exist. I have never been interested in Philosophy or philosophers. Have any of them presented an arguement for a just war? Who?
BTW, on a totally different subject, Jay's article on secrecy in the Sun's Eye was very interesting to me.
AUSTIN, Nov. 18— At least nine students at Texas A&M University were killed today and 25 others were hurt in the collapse of a 40-foot-high pile of logs that was to have been set afire on Thanksgiving eve before the school’s annual football showdown with rival University of Texas.
In a tragedy marring a nearly century-old tradition at Texas A&M, the huge bonfire pile, under construction by trained students and others since mid-October, suddenly collapsed about 2:45 a.m. while dozens of students were standing atop it, officials said.
JJB,
They were attaching additional logs at, I believe,
the penultimate level. The pyramid would have been
about 55-feet at completion. In years past, they have
been up around a hundred feet.
Meriam Webster:
Entry Word: battle
Function: noun
Text: a hostile meeting between opposing military forces
oops. Wrong thread.
too easy. in my suggestion he gets a slow and painful life to think about his behavior
Texas A&M Bonfire Accident Kills 11
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) -- A towering, 40-foot pyramid of logs erected for Texas A&M's traditional football bonfire trembled and then came roaring down early Thursday, crushing at least 11 students to death and injuring 28 others.
Two people who had been seen trapped in the rubble Thursday afternoon were confirmed dead later during the night. At least four of the injured were in critical condition
Texas is a little different
The National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged a highly
secret plan they had funded with the U.S. auto makers for the past
five-years.
The NTSB covertly funded a project whereby the auto makers were
installing black boxes in four wheel drive pick-up trucks in an effort
to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15
seconds before the crash.
They were surprised to find in 49 of the 50 states the last words of
drivers in 61.2% of fatal crashes were, "Oh, Sh*t!" Only the state of
Texas was different, where 89.3% of the final words were, "Hey Y'all,
watch this!"
Of course, in California, the final words in 70.3% of all car crashes is "Get out of my way, you stupid motherf--" CRASH
Yes, why? Don't tell me she died. I had a friend who was a big fan of "women's music"--Olivia Records, for example--so I know a lot about Cris, Margie Adam, Meg Christian, and Holly Near. I know some of the second string as well (Teresa Trull comes to mind).
Meg Christian is one of my favorite folk singers. I have every one of her albums and should probably look to see if they're available in CD yet. She quit recording after her fourth album, back in 1984, I think. Unless she's done something recently; I haven't followed this stuff in a while.
Holly Near has an awesome voice and crafts some gorgeous songs. Her politics are more likely to get in the way, though.
I've never been as much of a fan of Cris--obviously, Waterfall is a good song. I've always liked her "Hurts Like The Devil" ("the cheerfullest song I ever wrote about depression.")
PBS ran the filming of the demo a while back; I taped it. How odd to think you were there. The album was "The Changer and the Changed", a phrase from "Waterfall". The other songs are "Sweet Woman", "Shooting Star", "Wild Thing", "Having Been Touched", "Dreamchild" and "One of the Light".
Top 25 Most Evil People of the Millennium According to the NYPost Poll Conducted from 9/30/99-11/1/99
Among NYPost.com Users Poll Statistics
TOTAL Number of Votes Received - 19184
Name #ofVotes %ofVotes
1. Adolf Hitler 1664 (8.67),
2. Bill Clinton 1625 <--Write in (8.47),
3. Josef Stalin 1284 (6.69),
4. Pol Pot 919 (4.79),
5. Dr. Josef Mengele 783 (4.08),
6. Hillary Clinton 765 <--Write in (3.99),
7. Saddam Hussein 710 (3.70),
8. Adolf Eichmann 641 (3.34),
9. Charles Manson 548 (2.86),
10. Idi Amin 514 (2.68),
11. Genghis Khan 441 (2.30),
12. Jeffrey Dahmer 428 (2.23),
13. Benito Mussolini 386 (2.01),
14. Ayatollah Khomeini 365 (1.90),
15. Ted Bundy 327 (1.70),
16. John Wayne Gacy 312 (1.63),
17. Ivan the Terrible 305 (1.59),
18. Fidel Castro 283 (1.48),
19. Jim Jones 279 (1.45),
20. Vlad the Impaler 276 (1.44),
21. Timothy McVeigh 275 (1.43),
22. Slobodan Milosevic 242 (1.26),
23. Marquis de Sade 222 (1.16),
24. Mommar Khadafy 218 (1.14),
25. Jack the Ripper 203 (1.06)
Seems like nobody has such descriptive names anymore, at least not like Vlad's. "Hillary the investor" or "Bill the Adulterer" just doesn't have the same cachet.
Yeahp....we're just wannabes, Bubb.
You think it's redirected hatred? You mean they have a hate budget that must be satisfied? The principle of the conservation of hatred.
Most of my extended family are hateful conservatives and their ears emit noxious fumes when they're 'discussing' Hillary, which they do a lot. "Mr Hillary' is beyond redemption as he's actually the AntiChrist.
Al Gore is the antichrist. Niner says so.
I don't recall Jimmy Carter bearing the brunt of so much hatred either -- it was more like ridicule.
But I could be wrong.
Much of Hillary hatred is just anti-feminist.
No doubt, but many thinking feminists aren't exactly holding Hillary up as a role model.
1. He is like the little boy who gets out of all manner of trouble because he's so cute. Therefore, those who can't get out of trouble in that way resent him. While this has some appeal (i.e., he probably has a better coating of teflon than even Reagan did), I am not sure it is enough to explain the we-need-to-do-anything-possible-to-kill-him mentality we see.
2. It comes down to his waffling on the draft. This seems to be the prime example given for why he is so hated, in that he flouted the ideals that the haters had and got away with it. This suggests we are not as over Viet Nam as we like to think.
Any other ideas?
I doubt it's limited to Vietnam vets. Primarily I think it applies to people who weren't of the right age to serve in Vietnam. I think the way he avoided the draft means more to Clinton haters than the way people like Newt or Phil Gramm avoided it by simple student deferments or how Quayle or Bush, Jr. or Bradley served in the reserves.
On the other hand, the comments seen recently in this and other threads about Gore's non-combatant service suggests that there may be another explanation, such as it's just Republicans doing whatever they can to mouth off at Democrats.
Seriously, saying someone is just jealous seems to be the retort du jour lately. I see it in all sorts of circumstance, not simply among high schoolers, as one would assume.
What's particularly galled me is that the Clintons became the object of so much utterly irrational loathing that it was impossible to criticize them on any serious level for their many deeds and non-deeds. Truth got swallowed by fiction, and serious issues by hysterical frivolity. That's why Christopher Hitchens revolts me so much. He's a good writer. He's far from stupid. But instead of pulling back and allowing serious and intelligent people the opportunity to examine the entire situation in full, and tell the stories that NEED to be told (as Gary Webb has done) he just piles on with the rest of them. No suprise that he ends up hawking his book (as verbally anorexic as the other Monica tomes) at Freeper rallies.
Pathetic.
It will be some time before the real history of this period will be written. And when and if it is, we're ALL going to be very surprised by the conclusions serious historians will come to.
Well said...I hope I live that long.
While it is true that feminists do not regard Hillary as a leading feminist, I think that the haters regard her as too uppity and powerful for a woman; definitely an anti-feminist view.
I've heard the "too powerful" claim ad nauseum, but I don't ever recall hearing it from someone who disapproved of her, only from those sympathetic to her, attributing it to unnamed people. Are there any actual quotes from anti-Hillary people making this claim? Or is it an urban legend?
Interesting perspective.
A very perceptive prophecy. I think that historians will write much about the depth of the irrational hatred and its wide ranging effects. One particularly dangerous effect is the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Historians will chronicle many others.
Remember the flap about wether or not Hillary bakes cookies? I think that qualifies. Who would look down their noses at a man who doesn't bake cookies, for heaven's sake.
For a sexist bigot to come right out and say that Hillary is too powerful for a woman would directly betray their sexism. Such a direct approach would be regarded as uncivilized. I am of course speculating when I suggest with Bubbaette that a root of Hillary hatred is sexism. I don't know. I'm as baffled as everyone else who doesn't share the hatred.
Of course that gets in the way of the Vince-Foster-Died-From-Rough-Sex-with-Hillary bit, but who needs logic?
Remember the flap about wether or not Hillary bakes cookies?
I do. Is complaining that she looks down her nose at cookie-baking equivalent to a fear that she is too powerful? Sounds like a major leap to me.
I think that qualifies. Who would look down their noses at a man who doesn't bake cookies, for heaven's sake.
No one, I certainly hope. I'm guessing I've baked more cookies than 90% of Moties. (Can I count brownies? I think I still have the recipe memorized.)
Has anybody posited that Nancy Regan is bi?
Judging the first woman by her cookie-baking skills implies to me that you are trying to smash her into a mold of what women "ought" to be. Same with trivializing her about which hairdo she sports.
Yeah, let's characterize males as whether or not they can fix a motor in a car or whether or not they can replace a broken window.
I don't recall disagreeing with you on that point. Did you think I was?
Yokes, I asked my spouse this morning to change the oil in my car. Am I in trouble?
perhaps I misunderstood the following:
"Is complaining that she looks down her nose at cookie-baking
equivalent to a fear that she is too powerful? Sounds like a major leap to me."
You're only in trouble with conservatives who insist that guys do guy things and gals do gal things and never the twain shall meet. You're not in trouble with me.
Long before any possible "logical" rationale in the form of missing Whitewater files, the Lewinsky Affair, or her current carpetbagging Senate run, there was an awful lot of controversy around her, and she was the subject of many "pushy broad" jokes (I remember one where she dies, shows up in Heaven, and tells God to get out of her chair). Hell, when she started calling herself Hillary "Rodham" Clinton there were people who were taking her to task for it. The "Stand by your man" and cookie-baking scandals were similar.
I fully agree that the complaints about cookie baking were idiotic. (Although I partially blame the press for being too willing to engage in frippery.) However, I think the fact that some silly gooses tut-tutted over her cookie comments is hardly proof that they fear her as a powerful woman.
Yeah... I hate Hillary because she has too much "power." She's the FIRST LADY, after all, and she wields influence BEHIND THE SCENES.
Unfuckingprecedented. Why, I wish Hillary could be like Nancy Reagan, who wasn't First Lady and who didn't have power behind the scenes.
Wait a minute... Liberals were always yammering about the "undue power" Nancy had over Reagan. Could it be that their hatred of Nancy was rooted in sexual bigotry...? Of course not. You idiots are all ANGELS. Every thought you have comes directly from the Ghost of Plato and Archangel Gabriel.
And let's look at all the other powerful, "pushy broads" we conservatives HATE due to their power... Ann Coulter, Laura Ingrahm, Jennifer Dunn, even Martha Stewart... We HATE them due to the intersection of gender and power. We FEAR them, fear them all.
Uh huh.
Dantheman:
I found Candidate Clinton troubling, but I voted for him anyway. (Big mistake.) I was sort of happy he won the election, though I was a bit put off by the fawning press ("These YOUNG men... their YOUNG wives... Princes and Princesses, Camelot Reborn...")
And then came Filegate, and Travelgate. Then came Coffeegate. Then came a thousand ridiculous lies to cover up venal and illegal behavior. Still, I just shook my head and clucked, along with the New York Times editorial page.
Lewinsky was the last straw for me. And that's where I separated from the NYT editorial page, which was happy to merely state "Mr. Clinton owes an honest accounting to the American People..."
So I really don't know what you're talking about.
I am mortified to admit that I agree to a great extent with Ace's post here. Except I didn't vote for BC in '92; I didn't care for him then, either. He didn't seem to have a vision of his own so much as he kept sniping at Bush (not one of my favorite presidents) and just emphasizing that he wouldn't be that.
By '96, it was clear that two of his '92 campaign cornerstones, ethics and a tougher China policy, were just so much "I'm not Bush" bullshit. Well, to a large extent, he has been Bush. He capitulated on gays in the military. He sucks up to the Chinese as shamelessly as Bush ever did, and takes their shit with a smile on his face. And his fund-raising shenanigans, when added up, are comparable to the corruption Bush was widely assumed to have in Iran-Contra.
But Lewinsky was it for me. The arrogant finger-wagging. Like most, I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I couldn't imagine that anyone in that office could be that fucking stupid. To risk the most important job in the world over a blowjob from a fat chick? No way. And before he finally parsed his way into a mealy-mouthed admission, he made his friends and supporters walk the plank in public for him.
No guts. No honor. No integrity. Just bullshit. I found the Post poll very silly, he's not an evil man, just a spoiled, venal brat. But I have absolutely zero respect for him. And that's a harsh thing to say about the President.
Of course, Nancy exerted too much influence over Reagan. Hell, the guy was a turnip then. Liberals weren't upset that Nancy was an uppity woman trying to wrest her hubby's power; we were upset that our President had the mental acuity of a doorstop.
Then there was the whole astrology voodoo thing.
As for conservative women like Ingraham and Coulter, don't be a pissant. There entire careers have been formed around attacking Clinton. Let them step out and endorse issues such as wage equality or the like and the GOP will snap their pantyhose.
You're such an unrepentent MORON, Cazart. It's unbelievable.
OF COURSE we would turn on Ingraham and Coulter if they spouted the kindergarten nonsensities that you do. But we would be turning on them becuase they had become IDIOTS, not because they're women.
You see-- if we're afraid of "powerful, pushy, opinionated women," we should be afraid of Ingrahm and Coulter NOW, moron.
On the other hand, if we judge women as we judge men, by their ideas and character, then we'd appreciate Coulter and Ingrahm while despising Shillary. As we do.
You're SUCH an idiot. Did you go to college? I hate to be so classist, but you really are remarkably stupid.
Matalin is an experienced campaign pro. She is virulently conservative. She also happens to be married to James Carville.
Anyway, Matalin volunteers for Bob Dole's Presidential campaign. Dole wants her, she brings experience and visibility to the campaign.
But wait.
The GOP puts the kibosh on the arrangement. She is literally sleeping with the enemy. Matalin is told thanks, but no thanks.
Then there was the whole astrology voodoo thing.
Which is certainly different from "channeling the spirit of First Lesbian Eleanor Roosevelt" during a SEANCE.
Astrology = weird
Channeling ghosts of dikes = RAD!!!
Don't be a shithead.
Coulter and Ingraham are one-trick ponies. They serve their masters with but one function: attack Clinton. They have no other purpose in life.
That's how the GOP likes it.
It's so unbelievable. I am shocked.
You are literally unable to understand an argument. You just don't understand what anybody is saying. You don't comprehend what statements can help your argument, or what statements --like the one you just made -- will hurt you and prove your opponents' point for you.
Coulter and Ingraham are one-trick ponies. They serve their masters with but one function: attack Clinton. They have no other purpose in life.
Irrrelevant. They have "power" and are "pushy" (Coulter is INCREDIBLY pushy; why, I've even heard Angelic Liberals call her a "bitch"--they must hate women) and are very, very opinionated.
Why don't I hate them, Vo-Tech Boy?
Join the 21st Century. Virtually all politicians are corrupt. The election rules make them so. That's why I'm so worried about GW Bush. Anybody who can effortlessly smash all previous fundraising efforts is not good for the country.
Yup, that proves it. Mary was dumped because they finally realized she was a powerful woman.
Wait, that isn't what you said.
Logic according to cazart:
I think you have earned today's cazart award.
==):-)
On the other hand, Reagan's own Chief of Staff complained that this country's direction was being guided by some kook who worried if the Moon was in Saturn's orbit or some other such nonsense. Defend that, pinhead. Maybe we can just buy a National Ouija Board and save on the expense of elected a President.
Nostradamus:
I was going to call you an "idiot," but I stopped.
Let's say this:
Your pose is one of uninformed detatchment. You like to pretend to be informed, stating "all politicians are corrupt," which frees you from the obligation of finding out which politicians really are corrupt.
And re: campaign fundraising, your pose of uninformed detatchment allows you to pretend an equivalence between legal and illegal fundraising and campaign spending.
When you know very little, it's very hard to differentiate; and when you don't WISH to differentiate, it's helpful to know very little.
Maybe my mind is alone in the gutter today.
Was it really during a seance? I thought Hillary just liked to pretend to ask ER for advice in times of crisis. Sort of like the "invisible friend" lots of 5-year-olds have, but usually drop by the time they're 6 or 7. Or maybe the giant rabbit that Jimmy Stewart talked to in "Harvey".
Now that I think of it, considering the "is" defense so masterfully employed by BC, I'm a bit surprised he didn't blame it on an invisible friend while he was at it. No doubt he rolled deep with "Larry Lampbreaker" as a kid. So why not "Tommy Titgrabber" or "Harry Hummergetter" as an adult? I think it would have worked, maybe well enough to avoid the million $$$ worth of fines Hillary's had to pony up out of her trust fund for Puffy's glandular exploits.
Dusty:
It really is too easy.
As I said a long time ago, when I first posted here (which of course endeared me to so many):
Nobody has a right to be this stupid.
Eric:
It WAS a seance.
b
Thanks, I was trying to get a gutter reference from " Although there are certain exceptions... " and failing.
Cite? Sure, right after you provide a cite for Nancy Reagan's astrology.
Before you say "But everybody knows that!!!", everybody also knows about the ER seance. It was well reported at the time; I can't help it that you're an idiot who apparently spends long swaths of his life in a coma.
I knew it was you.
Diva Message # 4339:
Exactly. Hillary brought that little episode on herself, with a rather snide tone. Middle America doesn't care for that high-falutin tone, 'specially when it comes from one of their own. Who does she think she is, the US Senator from New Yawk or somethin'? BTW, "Jennifer" is derived from "Guinevere", so, y'know, go easy on that poor bimbo Flowers.
It's true. I don't follow U.S. Politics nearly as closely as I did back in '92. I used to be a political junkie, watching Nightline, Washington Week, McLaughlin, Evans & Novak, Brinkley, Crossfire, Buckley, etc. religiously. But I don't think politics have changed that much in 7 years. Or in 70 years, for that matter. Nor do I think that because certain fundraising is 'legal' that when it smashes all previous fundraising records the signal it sends is significantly less ominous. Only time will tell if I'm right.
Her entire message was that the group's name was "PromiseKeepers" and what on earth was wrong with a group whose name implied they'd keep promises.
Good thing she didn't do a piece on the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
OK, if you're sure about the seance. I prefer the "invisible friend" theory myself. You can kind of imagine her cutting the check for 850K to Paula Jones, and muttering to "Eleanor", "OK, remind me why I'm still with this prick."
And actually expecting an answer.
Nostradamus:
There's a rather large and important difference between obtaining ten thousand dollars through theft and obtaining that money by working at a job, no?
I didn't go out of my way to make it difficult to figure out. Res guessed in Religion. I just wasn't about to confirm the suspicions if that was going to get me booted. Luckily, wabbit seems to have a pretty level head on her.
eric:
She may have done both. She may have had her "invisible friend" previously, and then tried to contact her in the seance.
It was a stupid, arrogant and impolitic thing to say. I couldn't believe that I'd heard it.
True, it was an incredibly sordid situation. And the Starr Chamber certainly bears its share of the blame. But BC had to know what was at stake there. He's obviously been chasing tail for so long he's just on auto-pilot.
Plus, it explains some things. Knowing that he was getting a hummer while discussing Balkans polcy, well, kinda explains his Balkans policy, don't it?
How to Succeed in Media by Being a Clueless Right-Wing Babe in a Leopard Miniskirt
People are giving GW unprecedent sums of money and they expect something in return. Either they're all nuts, or the GW Bush administration is going to be the most unethical, slimy administration in history.
For a politician, I'd be more comfortable if he'd stolen the money because in that case he wouldn't be beholden to anyone. Anyway, this isn't an argument either one of us can win or lose. It deals with human nature. I think Bush stinks and I've said why. You think that if it's legal, it's wonderful. Not much more needs to be said, methinks.
Here's a cite on Hillary's seance:
What seance?
Oh, I'm sorry I said it. It certainly wasn't directed at you.
Wait. You mean Hillary and the cookies. Never mind. My bad. Yes, I think that's actually where much of her reputation as icy and ball-busting stems from, an episode where she was seen as denigrating certain American values. And her efforts to change that image have been consistently artificial and stiffly contrived, much like Algore's recent discovery of movement and tonal inflection.
Dumbass:
I'd assumed it a long time ago; I figure wabbit didn't care because you hadn't made an issue of it.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when those idiotic conservatives talk about a woman and they have to talk about what they are wearing?
Oh wait, you mean Eric isn't an idiotic conservative?
Nostradamus:
You couldn't be more wrong. "Hard money"-- the kind Bush has raised-- comes in maximum amounts of $1,000 bucks. No one can own a President for a $1,000, or even $10,000.
The dangerous money is unlimited-maximum SOFT MONEY, given to the party, not the candidate, for "party building activities." This is where you get checks of $350,000 coming in from a corporation. That's the kind of money that almost certainly comes with strings attatched.
Bush has, of course, also raised some soft money for the party, I'm guessing. But when you hear about his fundraising, they're talking about his hard-money fundraising, and that comes in maximum amounts of $1,000 per donor. He just as a fuck-lot of donors. The AVERAGE donation is somewhere over $400. Do you think people donating $400 expect favors from him, buddy?
Incidentally, did I mention the Democrats THRIVE on Soft Money and will never vote to get rid of it because they'd be dead in the water? Witness Torricelli taking the modified McCain-Feingold bill a few months ago.
"much like Algore's recent discovery of movement and tonal inflection."
And don't forget that he was the inspiration for Rambo.
I gather your eyes glazed over on all those paragraphs enumerating things Ingraham said.
hahaha! Cute.
I saw it as her ridiculing the life choices certain women had made; I found it hypocritical coming from one who claimed to be a feminist. That's been my problem with her from the beginning.
"I was misunderstood, Hillary replied, her eyes still shut, speaking as Mrs. Roosevelt. You have to do what you think is right. It was crucial to set a course and hold to it."
You people are fucking amazing. She's "Speaking as Mrs. Roosevelt," SEEING her ghost, and then you play definition games yet again:
"It's not a seance if they're aren't CANDLES."
hahhahahahhahahhahahhhahaha
and will never vote to get rid of it because they'd be dead in the
water?
Gosh, McConnell's a Democrat?
Good link. I've watched Ingraham before, never for her political insight though. She doesn't know what the hell she's talking about most of the time. But she looks damned good saying it.
there aren't, I meant.
Vo-Tech Boy:
McConnel and Torricelli, D-NJ, teamed up to tank the modified McCain-Feingold, yes. Read a newspaper once in a while, dumbass.
Among many reasons I find her reprehensible.
Unsophisticated like the bumpkin, 109109.
Try reading the piece.
And in case you don't recognize the name "Jeanie Houston":
The first was Jean Houston, co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, which studies psychic experience and altered and expanded consciousness. Houston, then 55, the author of 14 books, was one of the most high-energy seminar leaders in the country. She was a believer in spirits, mythic and other connections to history and other worlds. Houston believed that her personal archetypal predecessor was Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom. She conducted extensive dialogues with Athena on her computer that she called "docking with one's angel." Houston wore an ancient Hellenistic coin of Athena set in a medallion around her neck all the time.
It was from Salon. I didn't read it. Life's too short.
(Ok , OK, I did read the advice article, that was good. And I read a paragraph of this one, that was more than enought.)
Vo-Tech Boy:
Jeanie Houston is a famous psychic who believes, of course, in ghosts, who helped Hillary Talk to Eleanor, see Eleanor, and helped Eleanor SPEAK THROUGH hillary.
Hillary also talked to Mahatmha Ghandi, and ALMOST talked to Jesus Christ, except that would have been "too personal."
You tell me what I should be reading, dope. Seems to me I'm reading about a seance. A New-Age seance rather than an Old World seance-- no Tarot cards, no moustached Italian woman leading the seance, no black candles-- but a seance nonetheless.
Apparently not as much as the GOP.
Judith:
Do you know who Jeanie Houston is, yes or no?
Is she a "psychic"? Yes or no?
Did Jeanie Houston Help Hillary talk to, hear, and see Dead People? Yes or no?
Good god. You people are delusional. Your minds simply cannot accept any facts you don't like.
Hell, you read me like a book. Looks is the only reason to talk about Ingraham. That she's a dingbat is so obvious it doesn't need to be discussed. But that leopard miniskirt....
Message # 4374:
Rambo, Love Story, Kentucky Fried Movie, take your pick.
Diva Message # 4377:
I agree. I don't see homemaking as something to be denigrated by feminists. Anybody can go out and get a 9 to 5. I have my doubts as to whether I would have the patience to stay home and be Mr. Mom, and maintain a house and deal with kids. It's hard work, and it shouldn't be put down. Moms can make or break a happy family, there's more to it than "having teas" and "baking cookies".
Really, though, when you get down to it, aren't there plenty of other reasons to dislike her as well?
And what happens if she decides she'd get her butt kicked all the way to Elmira by Giuliani, and decides not to run? What happens to her campaign contributions thus far? Does she get to keep the money? Does she have to use it to reimburse the cost of having security and travel funded by the taxpayers?
Cazart:
Yes, dope, the GOP raises more soft money. But soft money is more important to the Democrats, as they're CLOSE on soft money, and not close at all on hard money.
You really ought to know more before you go spouting off.
Oh wait...
have I touched a nerve...?
Do Vo-Tech Boy and Judith believe in this crap? Is that why they're so defensive?
I remember hearing about that. Disgusting. I also seem to recall Cellar pointing out that Ingraham's own brother is gay. I wonder how she sleeps at night....in the nude, I trust.
Ace:
I once went to Jeanie Houston and channeled Shirley MacLaine.
"What happens to her campaign contributions thus far? Does she get to keep the money?"
Yes, but she can only use it for a political purpose, I think. So, she could use it to fund an Illinois bid, but couldn't buy a house with it.
"Does she have to use it to reimburse the cost of having security and travel funded by the taxpayers? "
Uhhhhh... Shillary, of course, thinks not.
He's vying for the coveted twin cazart award, but he won't get it. One per day.
You said it was a seance. The word's not used. HRC was asked to speak as Eleanor R. This is a touchy-feely exercise, nothing much different than what's being foisted in most major corporations. It's Covey training stuff.
Have you ever asked yourself how someone you admired might respond in
certain situations you faced? Everyone has. Is that a seance? Hardly.
Nancy Reagan's voodoo stuff had Reagan's own Chief of Staff concerned.
Spud:
Ohhhh.. Eric ALTERMAN... I see! I do in fact see!!!
Maybe you and Eric AltarBoy don't like her because she's a woman and she's smarter than you.
Cazart:
Is that the criterion? That people on the staff were "worried" about such activities?
Yes or No?
Answer quickly.
Deal, shmeal. She's campaigning in the Middle East now, I assume to drum up more Jewish support for her Senate run. But ever the cynic, I trust in her innate cynicism also, and can easily see her taking her toys back home if the prospects don't look good enough. The only way she'd stay to fight a losing battle is if the Dems promise her something in the future.
"It was afternoon and they all sat around a circular table with several members of the first lady's staff. "
Nah. No Seance ever featured a bunch of women sitting around a circular table.
Just doesn't happen like that.
Cazart:
Or does it?
Cazart, do "seances" usually feature a gaggle of dippy broads sitting around a circular table, talking to dead people, and having dead people talk through them? Yes or no?
Reagan was a vegetable. His actions were being dictated by Libras over Pisces risings or some other happy horseshit.
Don Regan was very, very concerned.
Good lord. Please tell me you're kidding. Do major corporations really bring in aromatherapists and crystal healers and have their executives pretend to be dead people? Give me a fucking break.
Marianne Gingrich: 'I found out with the rest of the country'
"Most people in the White House did not know about Hillary's sessions with Houston and Bateson. To some of those who did, the meetings could trigger politically damaging comparisons to Nancy Reagan's use of astrology, which had heavily influenced if not determined the schedule of her husband, President Ronald Reagan. Astrology only changed timing, and it was a kind of pseudoscience that could be fun or worth a laugh. Yet the Reagans had been ridiculed. Hillary's sessions with Houston reflected a serious inner turmoil that she had not resolved."
Eric:
Remember how sticking a cigar up someone's chooch and getting a hummer wasn't necessarily "sexual relations"? Well, sitting around a table with a bunch of dopey, psychic-believing chicks and talking to spirits of dead people and seeing ghosts is likewise not necessarily a "seance."
And while Nancy was actually using astrology to make decisions, as I remember, I don't recall it being anything more serious than some incidental travel arrangements.
I view all such touchy-feely stuff as suspect. That includes Robbins, Covey, Williamson, or whatever. It is a waste of time, but is benign.
On the other hand, you had the President's actions being dictated by the moon and the stars. Note the difference.
I could care less if a person worships a rock or feels the need to sleep under a pyramid or a crystal. It's harmless.
What is harmful is when you stop making decisions for yourself and turn your decision-making over to the color of your tea leaves or the position of the planets.
Call it a "seance", call it a "touchy-feely" exercise, it's pretty darn silly. Except when I channeled Shirley MacLaine. That changed my life.
So you concede that dead people talked THROUGH Hillary? Do you really believe this, Ace? I guess you have more experience with seances than I.
Jusith:
What Would YOU call it then? You don't like the word "seance"?
What do you call it when a bunch of people, led by a famous psychic, sit quietly around a circular table and summon spirits of dead people?
Please tell me. I always call that a "seance," but if you've got a better term, I'm all ears.
"Note the difference"
There is no difference. That much is noted.
Main Entry: sé·ance
Pronunciation: 'sA-"än(t)s, -"äns, sA-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from seoir to sit, from Latin sedEre -- more at SIT
Date: 1803
1 : SESSION, SITTING
2 : a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications
Judith:
Let's look at that definition again:
1 : SESSION, SITTING -- obviously, they were sitting in a session
2 : a spiritualist (Famous Psychic Jeanie Houston) meeting to receive spirit communications (Eleanor Roosevelt speaking through Hillary)
Tell me, Judith: What does YOUR dictionary say?
You win. It was a seance. Jeez.
It's not a SEANCE, for god's sake... it's just a bunch of dopey yentas locking hands, closing their eyes, and being led by a famous psychic in chats with Joan of Arc and Elanor Roosevelt and Mahatmha Ghandhi... But not a SEANCE, for crying out loud!!!
Sort of like "I was never in BATTLE, but sure, I was in COMBAT all the time!!!!"
Hell, I'll fess up to using a Ouija board, having tarot cards read for me, and on rare occasions reading an astrology column. And I think my skeptic credentials are strong as anyone's here.
I don't know about major corporations. But a lot of smaller ones do goofy stuff along these lines, sure.
Remember how sticking a cigar up someone's chooch and getting a hummer wasn't necessarily "sexual relations"?
Yup. Amazing. I defy any guy in here who has a girlfriend or wife to try running that one past her. If you have any fucking teeth left afterwards, congratulations. If she stays with you, why, you must be the President or some such. To me, that may be the most telling thing about Mrs. C -- after all the sordid details, after all the public humiliation, after the million dollars she's had to pull out of her own pocket to pay for these bimbo eruptions, she still puts on a happy face for this guy. What a trooper.
As over the top as Primary Colors was, one line of dialogue rings true, at the end, when Kathy Bates threatens the "Stantons" with substantiated allegations of "Jack's" cheating: "It's never the cheater who goes through hell, it's always the one who gets cheated on. Look at her, Jack. She's already past the fact that you fucked your 17-year-old babysitter!"
Compartmentalization, ladies and germs.
I just love it when you bring out the dictionary!!
And I just love when you try to redefine words in order to paint a shade of reality that you find more agreeable.
But a lot of smaller ones do goofy stuff along these lines, sure.
Not quite. They will do teamwork exercises, exercises designed to make you more courageous, and the like, but there are no spirits of dead people involved.
I have never seen aromatherapists brought in, but I was at a session once where we were all supposed to be beat drums in some sort of Robert Bligh ceremony. I abstained.
...and least not that I've ever been involved in, or heard about, and I've heard about some goofy shit.
Newt Gingrich's attorneys have said he and Marianne were separated when the relationship with Bisek began.
But Marianne Gingrich says she and her husband were living together in a Marietta, Ga., condo. And while he was in Washington, she was traveling between Ohio, where her mother was recovering from a diabetes-related illness, and Florida, where her brother was fighting cancer.
"In general, my family was in medical crisis," she said. Her brother later died of lymphoma.
Jeez, I sure hope Newt didn't make the claim WRT the beginnings of the affair in any kind of a legal deposition or anything.
Also, I'm wondering what it is about Newtie timing his divorces right around medical crises involving terminal illnesses. This is the guy who described himself as the defender/teacher of civilization?
Sure, if your idea of civilization is Las Vegas.
Yeah, I've been in startups where they give free massages when getting near deadlines. I had a friend in one company--admittedly an odd one--where aromatherapists came by with wafts of energizing smells. I am quite sure that, like Rask's Bly sessions, there are companies that encourage you to channel your favorite dead hero or something.
Rask, Cal:
I said nothing about pleasant smells or massages. I am saying that I have heard about several corporate/management happyfucks, and have been in a couple myself, and spirits of dead world leaders were not on the menu.
Your mileage may differ. You may go back to minimizing the nuttiness of Hillary's seance, while simultaneously excortiating the nuttiness of Nancy's astrology, at your leisure.
I wasn't commenting on either.
Let's look into our crystal ball, shall we. After the divorce, Newt picks himself up, takes one of those cushy board-of-directors posts he's ben offered over the years, marries Calista --
and moves on to the next babe.
I wasn't commenting on either.
No, you weren't. That's the problem with addressing a post to two different people.
Actually, it probably shouldn't have been addressed to Rask, either.
To my even greater surprise, the NYT editorial today agrees with my position.
An excerpt:
Banning surcharges will have three economic reverberations, none good. Some banks will close down machines in underpopulated regions because, in the absence of surcharges, they will generate too little revenue. Other banks will block depositors from other institutions from using their machines. ... But the odd result is that bans designed to protect depositors may wind up preserving surcharges even as they make finding A.T.M.'s more difficult.
Fox and Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University also cited the growth of community policing, expanded incarceration, crime prevention and anti-gun efforts by the federal and local authorities.
Here's a novel argument: a Marine claims he can't stay in the military because his mother is literally worried sick he might be hurt by the anthrax vaccination he received.
Wonder if she's seen "Saving Private Ryan?"
***
Marine Seeks Discharge Over Anthrax
The Associated Press
Monday, Nov. 22, 1999; 3:44 a.m. EST
PITTSBURGH –– A Marine is hoping to persuade a federal judge to let him out of the military to help quell his mother's anxiety over the required anthrax vaccine he received in January.
Pfc. James M. O'Neil, 21, hasn't had any adverse reactions to the vaccine, but says his mother has suffered severe anxiety, panic attacks and depression and has lost 61 pounds and clumps of hair since he told her he had been vaccinated.
***
Read the entire article here.
I especially liked the bit about legislation to make taking the anthrax shots voluntary.
Can't he take unpaid leave under the FLA to take care of her?
Dusty --
Interesting question. I believe the military is exempt from the provisions of the FLA, but I'm not certain. Do you believe otherwise?
Swear to God, I had a LAMPS brownshoe put in for an early out because he had a fear of heights.
Of course, he also had an offer to attend an NFL training camp which would have coincided nicely with his early out.
"My son took the shot, and now I can get into these Jordache jeans."
Don't know.
My cynical side knows that the government tells others what to do, but often exempts itself, so I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't covered. Perhaps some of our other participants can tell us.
caz --
Breathtaking coincidence, that.
Niner --
Shame about the clumps of hair, though.
Dusty --
I don't believe the government is per se exempt from the FLA, but the rules regarding showing up to work have always been a tad more strict in the military.
Still, if anyone deals with FLA issues, I'd be interested in hearing their experience.
A Newsweek piece on EgyptAir 990
Even so, air travel and safety are regulated by a rickety and uneven system of government bureaucrats working with private airlines and manufacturers-sometimes too closely, sometimes not closely enough. It's not clear how much more strain the system can take.
Today (22nd) OSHA up-dated regulations on ergonomics. I have heard that a test case has been proposed against the proprietor of a 'phone sex operation. The women who complained said the she had to masturbate up to seven (7) times daily to please customers. Thus, she sustained a "repetitive stress injury"; thus this is a workplace injury and she is covered under OSHA regs.
Hopefully, someone can tell me that this is something made up by someone with a weird thinking process; that there is nothing to it.
. The women who complained said the she had to masturbate up to seven (7) times daily to please customers.
Ha, ha. That's funny.
If those women are actually masturbating, rather than oohing and ahhing while occasionally wriggling finger against the inside of a cheek, they're rather dimwitted.
ranheim --
"Hopefully, someone can tell me that this is something made up by someone with a weird thinking process; that there is nothing to it."
I'm sure it's God's honest truth, just like the news about how "Mikey" from the Life cereal commercials died from eating Pop Rocks and drinking soda. [g]
Seriously ... no lawsuit surprises me. But that one sounds especially unlikely.
Republicans are expected to be unhappy.
Why does he even feel he has to sneak around congress on these matters... oh wait... he wants to leave an environmental legacy... talk about a bad reason.
Why be sneaky when he could lean... why hasn't he pressed this in congress, and then suddenly sneak this stuff through.
I'm all for wilderness areas, but Clinton is taking forest management out of the hands of people actually educated to manage forests. All so he can feel like he's doing something...
You watch what happens when these forests start having troubles with fires, insects, and disease... and nothing can be done to get in there and do something proactive.
just wait...
Preservation is not protection... it's stagnation. Look what happened in the Yellowstone fires because of the Park Service's preservationist straegies... wood loads built to a point that it burned all at once.
If you want Forest Service lands protected try to change the management strategies... have congress lower the annual cuts.. they control that sort of thing... have congress designate more wilderness... that's their purvue...
Don't undermine the system...
this is bad resource management... top down is not the way to do this...
"Clinton bypasses congress by creating defacto wilderness... it's an abuse of power."
Not true. Everything he is doing (that I have read about) is within the purview of the executive branch. And its not defacto Wilderness either. Activities on lands managed under the Wilderness Act are significantly more restrictive than what Clinton is proposing. If Congress doesn't like it, they can pass a law to overturn.
"Clinton is taking forest management out of the hands of people actually educated to manage forests."
Who are your referring to? Congress? Yea, they know a lot about forest management.
If you are referring to the Forest Service, then I don't understand. The Forest Service will continue to manage these forests, and they are people who have been educated to do so.
"You watch what happens when these forests start having troubles with fires, insects, and disease... and nothing can be done to get in there and do something proactive."
Not true. Forest management can still take place. Clinton is only prohibiting permanent roads. And these areas are currently roadless, or nearly so. So, let's see, these forests have been around for thousands of years, yet they will suddenly be destroyed by fire, insects, and disease if we can't build roads. Is that the point you are trying to make?
"Having clinton cordon off 40 million acres without doing an environmental impact statement or even coveying the slightest consideration of the impacts to the ecology as a result of this arbitrary decision.."
It is my understanding that there will indeed be an environmental impact statement for the 40 million acres.
The story I linked in msg #4455 is about federal land that Clinton plans to protect as National Monuments, like what he did to the Grand Staircase in Utah. That is in addition to the 40 million acres he has already pledged to protect. I am unsure if he will do an EIS on the proposed Monuments.
"This act is breaking so many environmental laws it isn't even funny."
Please name one such law and explain specifically how Clinton is breaking it.
"Look what happened in the Yellowstone fires because of the Park Service's preservationist straegies... "
And today Yellowstone has a healthy ecosystem. Fire is not always bad. Some tree, shrub, and grass species need fire to help with new growth. The new growth in Yellowstone as a result of the fires was a net benefit to wildlife. The park superintendent has said so repeatedly.
"If you want Forest Service lands protected try to change the management strategies... have congress lower the annual cuts.. they control that sort of thing... have congress designate more wilderness... that's their purvue..."
As long as either chamber of Congress is controlled by Republicans there will be no laws to lower annual cuts or designate more wilderness. As I said before, Clinton is merely exercising the authority of the executive branch. His actions will protect the land to a certain extent, but the new restrictions do not constitute wilderness designation.
You can't write an environmental impact statement that covers an entire 40 million acres... it is beyond the scope of an EIS and an inappropriate use... 40 million acres does not constitute a single land management unit... so doing this already violates the principles of NEPA among other things.
I'm a forester and I do ecological research. The importance of natural processes are not lost on me. It can be managed... to just lock it away with out any efforts to manage ecosystems properly, even in minimal ways... creates unecessary harm to the forests.
The fires in Yellowstone were far more severe than they had to be. The Park Sevices' policies disallowed controlled burns which would have spread the impact out over longer periods of time on smaller acreages. There was no need to have such vast acrages of forest get knocked back down the successional sere simultaniously. Sure, nature will bounce back... but does it have to be dropped so far down due to mis-management in the first place?
Let people trained in the science of environmental management do their jobs. I'm not saying cut the whole damn forest down. I'm a conservationist and I believe in protecting the long term quality of our public lands, and I admit, things have been done wrong in the past... however, what i call hands-off preservation is not good for the environment. No matter how good it might make you feel.
I'd be much more supportive of this initiative if he'd gone through the approriate channels... introduced bills to congress... But he just plopped this stuff down out of nowhere. All becuase he wants his 'environmental legacy'... that's an ego trip if I've ever seen one. In my opinion he's abusing his executive powers.
So let me get this straight: only you can prevent forest fires.
By voting Republican.
Right?
JJ --
Thanks for showing me how it's done.
There's also the difficulty of assigning responsibility in many of the cases. I worked in factories for a while and developed some symptoms there. However, certain things that I do outside of work also exacerbate the symptoms -- washing windows, needlepoint, canning, surfing the internet, walking the dog, etc. How to assign what proportion of the damage is attributable to which employer and the proportion attributable to personal activities and hobbies?
I heard a report on NPR discussing an incident involving phone sex, although I thought I heard that it was the man on the other end of the phone with the claim (I confess I wasn't listening all that closely, so I'm not sure of the details.). I'm searching the site to find the reference, but so far, unsuccessfully.
So let me get this straight: only you can prevent forest fires.
By voting Republican.
Right?
No... and that's just a snipe on your part.
I didn't say that republicans are the God's gift to the environment. I said if you think the republicans promote irresponsible environmental stewardship... vote them out... write your congressman... that's how our system works.
For Clinton to force this down the throats of resource managers... it's like HMO accountants telling a Dr what treatment he's to use on his patients.
This is a non-partisan issue for me. What is proposed for these 40 million acres is just as irresponsible as overharvesting.
Doing nothing in these lands can cause as much damage as doing too much. The real unfortunate part of this is you aren't going to see the problems this proposal is going to cause for 30-100 yrs in some cases. So everyone is going to feel all great about this at first. Just wait though. Just look to Yellowstone to see one example of how hands-off management regime will bite you in the butt.
That's the hard part about kiving with forestry management prescriptions... the results often outlive the decision maker. That's why decisions for individual management units needs to be based in the best available science... not delivered from Washington in some sweeping all encompassing prescription.
His own press release says he's doing this to leave a legacy... that's is not stewardship.
nave a nice day...
iiibbb --
Sorry. I misinterpreted your posts.
"Doing nothing in these lands can cause as much damage as doing too much ... Just look to Yellowstone to see one example of how hands-off management regime will bite you in the butt."
Agreed to the first. I don't see how we made things worse in Yellowstone, so I'm not sure why you think it's a problem.
Management plans need to be written at a scale appropriate to the action taken. Sweeping designations are not going to allow for informed management at the local level becuase the possible treatments become so limited by a politically based prescribed... and basically the treatment are going to be.. "don't do anything".
Our ecosystems are being challenged by a miriad of pressures from fire, to insects, to disease... many of them exotics... they can take over a forest... you wind up with a system that is not what you started with. Chestnut blight, an exotic disease in the early 1900's, changed everything about our Eastern Forests... Gypsy Moth... Africanized bees...
By taking away the tools of forest management, you prevent ecosystem managers attempt to try to stop new threats before they get started. We don't live in an isolated ecosystem of yor... exotics abound, and need to be controlled.
By not allowing management practices to be applied to these areas, you could see entire populations of native species slowly displaced over time. The whole structure of these systems could change to something entirely different than they once were. So if you lock up an entire 40 million acres, covering a miriad of different ecotypes, how are you going to attack a problem in an individual system, if you aren't even allowed to enter.
I don't really worry too much about Clinton moving forward on some of these monuments and the like. Many of them have already been proposed for designation in the past, and just don't have momentum to move forward.
40 million acres on the other hand... it's too broad a prescription... it bypasses the normal political process for wilderness designation, which is effectivly what these areas become through this proposal. It's not based in ecological science and takes the decisions out of the hands of the people trained to deal with ecosystem management.
The fundamental problem with the proposal, is it isn't based on science... it has not fully considered
Agreed to the first. I don't see how we made things worse in Yellowstone, so I'm not sure why you think it's a problem.
In yellowstone, the park service opted for fire suppression efforts for years. All fires, including natural ones were put out as quickly as possible. The park service then proceeded to also not conduct any controlled burning (burning to keep fuel loads down).
They set up a situation where fuel loads were allowed to build to the point that the fires that resulted, were not 'natural'. They were intense, consuming fires. They knocked the ecosystem back to ground zero. Many species thrive on fire, especially out West where fire is part of life. However, in some of those areas the forests were taken to virtually ground zero on the successional stages. When controlled burning, or a more liberal let-burn police... instead of the preservation policy adopted by the park service... would have had smaller, less intesnse, and more beneficial fires occur over a longer period of time.
Instead... we had preservation practices that eventually let it burn all at once...
If it's for real the woman should be laughed out of court at the very least. I'd rather they lock her up so she can't breed or fine her into bankruptcy. That's just wrong on so many levels.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First, you claim that Clinton is doing a bad thing by circumventing the political process in the management of these resources. Then you argue that Clinton hasn't fully considered the science involved with his proposal.
Your argument that permitting Congress to do whatever it pleases to these resources is unconvincing and not supported by recent experience.
I am arguing that politicians rightly should work to set the management objectives for the forests through the mechanism of congress and laws. However, politicians should not be able to administer specific prescriptions for broad areas, particularly if said proposal has not gone through the crucible of political and scientific debate... which is what this proposal is effectivly trying to do.
The proposal is doing a doubly bad thing by circumventing the political process and on top of that totally neglects scientific input.
So I don't see how I'm contradicting myself.
"You can't write an environmental impact statement that covers an entire 40 million acres"
Well, the Forest Service is doing it. I just received a letter about it in the mail today:
The Forest Service has begun to implement the President's initiative to study roadless areas within National Forests by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for roadless areas in the Federal Register on October 19, 1999. The public is invited to submit written comments to the Forest Service in Salt Lake City about issues and concerns they feel should be analyzed in depth in the EIS.
So its a proposal and the Forest Service is going to study it by preparing and EIS and by soliciting and evaluating public comments.
Gosh, that sounds like a rash, irresponsible, power grab by Bill Clinton, doesn't it?
"By not allowing management practices to be applied to these areas, you could see entire populations of native species slowly displaced over time. The whole structure of these systems could change to something entirely different than they once were."
Yes, that could happen. But management by foresters doesn't guarantee, or even make it likely, that it won't happen if management practices are applied.
I hear foresters spout this bullshit all the time. They say that if we don't allow roads to be built everywhere, then the forest cannot be managed and will decline due to ________________. Fill in the blank with fire, insects, disease, exotics, and/or regeneration failure.
The problem with this argument is that the managed forests suffer from the same maladies that are being predicted for the roadless forests.
When foresters talk about management, they are merely using a euphemism for logging and road building. What is a forester's answer to everything? Have a timber sale, maybe spray some herbicide for good measure. Foresters aren't conservationists, they are lackeys for the timber industry.
I agree with your msg #4486.
My previous comments were in reference to foresters who work for the govenment as well as those who have privately owned forest consulting businesses.
When foresters talk about management, they are merely using a euphemism for logging and road building. What is a forester's answer to everything? Have a timber sale, maybe spray some herbicide for good measure. Foresters aren't conservationists, they are lackeys for the timber industry.
That is a slur on my professional ethics my man... not cool.
You will notice I'm not saying roadless areas are a bad idea... I am outlining reasons why banning all roads no matter what is a bad idea.
It's the mechanism chosen to enact this proposal that I object to. The implications of this proposal are not being discussed in an open forum.
Of course forest management is no guarantee that everything works out perfect, but tieing our hands doesn't help anything. My God, I've got 9 yrs of education under my belt and 4 years of professional experience, and I still regard myself as a relative beginner. Ecology is incredibly complex... another reason why simplistic prescriptions such as this proposal are ill-suited and improper. Decisions made based on science may not be perfect, but it's better than basing a management decision on nothing but 'feelings' and self centered attempts to leave a "legacy".
Like I said... it's unfortunately going to take 30-100 years for the damage a proposal like this is going to cause to fully express itself. Doctors get to bury their mistakes... foresters have to live with them
You claim that management is ineffective, however, in my professional experience I've seen a number of successes... for one... the establishment of the National Forests to beign with is a success in and of itself. Do you realize how depleted our timber resources were between the civil war and the turn of the century? The Eastern seaboard was like a frigging prairie.
Again... if the public wants government to manage for recreation, or wilderness, or fields of lilacs... fine, whatever... it's the public's land after all... but that doesn't mean you can bypass the public process for the sake of one's "legacy". It has to be a public process, and then you have to let the managers make the nuts and bolts decisions based on their expertise.
You say we're evil. You still have to live with the fact that you use forest products.
You say I don't care about what I do, and don't take it seriously?
Whatever...
"You say we're evil."
I didn't say you are evil. I'm saying that most foresters aren't the conservationists they claim to be. I admit that my previous slur on foresters ("lackeys for the timber industry") was stated too broadly.
"You say I don't care about what I do, and don't take it seriously?"
I care about what you do because I don't want my public forests to be poorly managed. However, I believe that most foresters overestimate the benefits of their management practices. I live near a National Forest and I know many public and private foresters.
"but that doesn't mean you can bypass the public process for the sake of one's "legacy". It has to be a public process."
There is going to be an EIS with public comments. It is going to be a public process.
Well, the Forest Service is doing it. I just received a letter about it in the mail today:
And I said I don't agree an EIS for a proposal that impacts 40 million acres can possibly be thorough enough to address all possible negative effects of this proposed action.
Why should this proposal be treated any different? It covers a much broader area and is arguably going to have a more profound an impact on the ecosystem?
Personally, I believe the most appropriate scale for management is at a watershed level. This is the level that I belive land management EIS's should be written.
The areas on "my" National Forest that will be affected by Clinton's proposal are already designated as roadless (though not as wilderness) by the current Forest Plan. Most of the proposed acreage in my NF is in National Recreation Areas.
So, my point is, these areas were analyzed in the Forest Plan EIS as roadless, will continue to be roadless areas under Clinton's proposal, and will be re-analyzed in the new EIS (admittedly on a broad scale). So what's the problem?
Lucky for Milgaard he wasn't convicted in Texas. He'd likely be dead.
I agree.
But did you follow the death penalty debate in this thread from several days ago? The claim was made that an inmate is better off on death row than he is with a long prison sentence.
That's what I've been told by some... dunno how accurate it is.
Again... it's a non-partisan issue to me... I hear equally ignorant statements from both sides _all_ the time. I hear ignorant comments from land managers too. Foresters are not unified in what the _right_ thing to do always is. What profession is?
I'm the first to say it's a complex issue... very complex... exceedingly complex. Mistakes are going to be made, but advances are made as well. Because the science evolves, things that are seen as mistakes today, where sound science yesterday. You still have to let the science evolve.
Foresters, unfortunately, still have to live with their mistakes... unlike the majority of other professions which have the luxury of throwing theirs out or burying them.
No I didn't see it, but I can agree that if one must spend 23 years in prison it is better to do it on death row than in general lockup....provided that one doesn't actually have to be executed at the end of it.
I didn't say you are evil. I'm saying that most foresters aren't the conservationists they claim to be.
most stock traders are greed mongers.
most politicians are crooks.
most lawyers are sharks.
most accountants are boring.
most milkmen sleep with your wives.
most people from WV are illiterate hillbillies.
...still a sterotype...
I think _most_ foresters are not incognazent of what they're doing... and that it's important to preserve the quality of the land. It's our bread and butter.
Do you think farmers don't care about their land too?
iiibbb --
"most lawyers are sharks"
What's your point, bub?
well... in my haste I mispelled incognizant...
but you must mean the other point about how stereotyping is supposed to be wrong... stuff like that...
iiibbb --
"you must mean the other point about how stereotyping is supposed to be wrong..."
I must?
iiibbb --
Damn. As a lawyer with the monicker "TrialShark," I thought I was endorsing that particular stereotype.
Actually, I said that it was arguably better for an innocent person to be given the death penalty than a life sentence. I don't think any life sentences get the attention that the average death penalty case does.
iiibbb --
"I suppose there are a few West Virginians out there who are proud to be illiterate hillbillies too..."
Only "a few?"
Not that we would ever catch you stereotyping anyone, right JJ?
A bone marrow transplant is a highly traumatic procedure because it seriously weakens the body's immune system. European doctors have stated that, once having undergone the procedure, one must remain in hospital for a minimum of 45 days. But Blue Cross would only pay for about 20 days, and Lux was forced to leave the hospital after that. In his weakened condition, he contracted pneumonia and died a couple of days ago.
The first part of the Hippocratic Oath says, "Do no harm." Lux would still be alive if he had been allowed to stay the whole 45 days in hospital; indeed, he would yet be alive if he had not had the surgery at all. H.M.O.'s don't give a shit about the Hippocratic oath; it's all about the almighty $$. Too bad that a formerly socialist country with a problem-riddled health care system had to learn this particular lesson about health care in capitalist America, where we have the best health care in the world, yet no one can afford it.
He has been on a book tour for the past month; many of the locations he visited were on military bases. Most active duty troops know the name Hackworth and what he represents. His comments in the editorial page of the Baton Rouge Advocate this morning :
1) Hundreds/possibly thousands of senior NCOs (they run the Army) and many junior officers are getting out. Overall reason is that senior officers and the Administration do not know of their problems; nor do they care.
2) Common comment from a military wife : "He came home from Kuwait; kissed me; patted the kids on the head; and left for Bosnia." 65% of the military is married! When you have an un-happy wife, your existence is not too smooth.
3) They would not mind this if the fate of the nation were at stake. They do not like the fact that they are being used as policemen; particularly since the reasoning for their deployment/s is never explained. The military has changed less than society as a whole. However, in this day, one does not order "Charge"; and everyone rises up out of their foxhole and charges. A little preliminary explanation should by given.
4) Mandatory anthrax shots have caused great anger. Again poor preliminary planning.
5) The up-coming pay raise will mean about $10 monthly for a Sgt. - $10 grand a year to 4 star generals.
6) The role of women in combat continues to be contentious issue. As I have mentioned previously in the Mote, the Navy reported following the Gulf War that 12% of the women on board ship had to be relieved of their duties due to a pregnancy. Obviously, this reduced combat readiness.
An entire division at Ft. Drum, NY was recently declared to be 'unfit to fight'. It was not the only reason; but, the fact that 142 women were pregnant was not the least of the reasons.
Hackworth's overall assessment of the mood of the military is that all the good feelings that came out of the Gulf War have been wasted away by this president. The morale is almost as bad as back in the worst days of the Viet Nam war.
ranheim --
I don't recall the elements of treason. The Air Force did, however, court-martial and convict an officer for conduct unbecoming based on his public criticism of the Vietnam war.
Colonel Hackworth's opinions aren't in the on line version of the Advocate, so I can't comment directly on what he said. If he really said that morale is as bad as "the worst days of the Viet Nam war," I'd be surprised. Our troops aren't coming home by the thousands in body bags.
As for the anthrax program -- I'll lose all respect for the Hack if he's taking up the cause of the wide-eyed whiners all panicky about getting their shots.
FYI -- base pay for an E-5 over four goes up $72.60/month under the new pay scale. Allowances go up, too, but there are too many variables to give a global figure.
Hackworth had one sentence on the anthrax vaccine. Quoting multiple complaints voiced by others to him.
That was my mis-print : it should have read $50 monthly.
ranheim --
Don't worry about the typo.
After taxes, $50/month is still probably a little low, but close. It's a 4.8% increase across the board, so folks who don't make much to begin with aren't going to see a big bump up. Still, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Military pay increases since 1990 have been capped at 0.5% below private sector pay growth, unless specifically exempted by Congress. Under the new DoD appropriations bill, pay increases through FY 2006 will be 0.5% greater than private sector increases. There is, of course, no end of ways to cook the books, but that's always been true.
I'm still surprised the Hack didn't give the anthrax hysterics the back of his hand. He must be getting soft.
Sadly, no one gets their stars from morale boosting projects, medical benefits to the personel or dependants, better benefits, or for that matter better boots and everyday stuff that the military needs. They all want to shepard weapons instead of transport, or communications or housing. If you wanted to change things, we should go looking for guys that improved morale, readiness and retention once in awhile.
Jonesy --
"Sadly, no one gets their stars from morale boosting projects, medical benefits to the personel or dependants, better benefits, or for that matter better boots and everyday stuff that the military needs."
Untrue. Taking care of your troops is essential to getting promoted.
"If you wanted to change things, we should go looking for guys that improved morale, readiness and retention once in awhile."
Not to put too fine a point on it, Jonesy, but I think you're buying into some unfair and inaccurate stereotypes. The senior officers I worked with spent an enormous amount of time worrying about quality of life issues and working to better the morale in their units.
Now, keeping troop morale up may not help you get re-elected if you're a member of Congress in the same way that, say, keeping open a shipyard or an aircraft production line might. But that's a different matter.
Had their been a sea-change in policy between our times of service in the USAF? Because the USAF Surgreon General at my time in service was also a graduate of Baylor, I was asked to contribute my feelings and the feelings of my peers to his office.
My "report" disappeared in the midst of the bowels of the Pentagon and never again saw the light of day. Of course, I expected nothing else; I was a junior Captain at that time.
Best as I could tell in my 9 years, neither the USAF in general or the Surgeon General's office gave a damn about us. There was the Berry Plan and the draft back then! They could always get more bodies should they be unhappy with us.
ranheim --
"There was the Berry Plan and the draft back then! They could always get more bodies should they be unhappy with us."
What can I tell you except: that was then, this is now?
Jonesy --
"I understood that the way to a star was to manage a weapons acquisition project."
I worked for a number of general officers who never did that. I don't believe there's any one way to a star; but having your unit fall apart due to poor morale and readiness is a sure way not to get one.
"The Bradly as an example. I remember a rather preachy movie on the subject which I disregarded as hyperbole."
That was "The Pentagon Wars," a film I thoroughly enjoyed while meanwhile disbelieving 75% of it.
Tom Clancy discusses the Bradley in one of his nonfiction hardware books (maybe Armored Cav) and the troops seem to like it, or at least the troops he quotes.
Furthermore, the Bradley is purchased by foreign countries, and the Brits more or less imitated its design for their AFV. One of the biggest gripes of the Pentagon Wars movie-- that the Bradley only carries seven troops--apparently doesn't seem to phase the Brits, for their AFV carries only seven as well.
It also gets decent marks from "Directory of the World's Weapons," a nice little book I own.
"while meanwhile"?
That was a very bad sentence, and "while meanwhile" is one of the worst parts of it.
You get my drift though. I hope.
Hmmm... The Russian BMD APC carries only SIX troops.
And the Russian BMP-1 and BMP-2 only carry eight.
I must conclude that "The Pentagon Wars" had no idea what it was talking about on this point, as it tried to make so much of the fact that the old APC carried 11 men. It seems ALL modern IFV carry seven or eight men, trading carrying capacity for speed, armor, and firepower.
Ace --
Have no fear regarding your typos: we disregard them regardless.
...and that doesn't say anything about the Bradley's development or unit costs, which I suppose were/are high, but I have no idea how that compares to other weapons programs.
One last point though:
"The Pentagon Wars," inaccurate or not, was a terrific entertainment. Just accept the premise that Cary Elwes is right and good, and Kelsey Grammer is wrong and evil, and it's lots of fun.
Grammer is wrong and evil, btw. Everyone knows that. He's Sideshow Bob.
Cart:
"We need sheep specs."
"What?"
"Sheep specifications. We can't procure the sheep without specifications. Shorn or unshorn? Male or female?"
"I just want some sheep."
"Well, we've got to research the ideal kind of sheep for your test. We need to run experiments to determine the correct specs."
"Just go out and buy some goddamn sheep."
"Sure. As soon as we have the specs."
"And how long will that take?"
"Oh, not long. Just a year to eighteen months."
"Cary Elwes is right and good, and Kelsey Grammer is wrong and evil"
That was the premise of The Crush, right?
No, wait ... that was Alicia Silverstone, not Kelsey Grammer. Sorry, my bad.
Easy mistake, though.
"Office of Ruminant Procuremnet"
Hah hah hah.
"Ummm, what's 'Ruminant Procurement'?"
"Ruminants are sheep. You said you wanted sheep, so the General asked us to set up an Office of Ruminant Procurement."
Logging and overfishing blamed for salmon decline.
Pulled this off of Free Republic, which claims it came from the Houston Chronicle.
It seems genuine, but who knows. Read it yourself:
Phone sex operator wins workers' compensation case
Houston Chronicle
MIAMI - A Florida phone sex operator has won a workers ' compensation settlement claiming that she was injured after regularly masturbating at work, her lawyer said.
Attorney Steven Slootsky said he was not sure whether the Fort Lauderdale woman's claim was the first of its kind, but it certainly was out of the ordinary.
Slootsky said his client agreed to a "minimal settlement" earlier this month. He declined to disclose the amount.
During the course of her claim for workers ' compensation benefits, the now 40-year-old employee of Fort Lauderdale's CFP Enterprises Inc. said she developed carpal tunnel syndrome - also known as repetitive motion injury - in both hands from masturbating as many as seven times a day while speaking with callers, said Slootsky, who spoke about the case this week on the condition that his client's name not be revealed.
The woman used one hand to answer the telephone and the other to note customers' names and fetishes and to give herself an orgasm during the verbal exchanges.
The calls usually lasted about 15 minutes, although callers who asked for the woman by name were given 30 minutes of talk time, Slootsky said.
In her petition for workers ' compensation benefits, filed with Florida's Department of Labor and Employment Security in April, the woman claimed that she received her injury from "repetitive use of the phone."
She claimed weekly benefits of $267 a week and also asked to be reimbursed for $30,000 in medical bills after a neurosurgeon operated on her hands to relieve her pain.
If you can win a lawsuit just for masturbating, then I'm owed a bloody fucking fortune.
What am I saying, of course you do.
Indeed. If they didn't want me to masturbate at work, why did they give me a door?
For that matter, why do they build desks so that they're just high enough to obscure the genitals? Ergonomics, baby-- the science of working motion.
Duh. It's probably your screen saver.
reimbursed for $30,000 in medical bills after a neurosurgeon operated on her hands to relieve her pain.
Wait, isn't a neurosurgeon a brain surgeon?
Phillip:
Maybe neurosurgeons are brains AND nerves, thus explaining his involvement.
Let us hope that this case - if true - is appealed!
"Trial Lawyers Full Entitlement Act" indeed!
$30,000 dollars for carpal tunnel surgery? Both of my hands were done on an out-patient basis for $5,000 each. Even that was a nice sum for the doc considering that the operation took about 10 minutes.
Although carpal tunnel is a problem with pressure on a nerve, the pressure is relieved by cutting through muscle binding the nerve, not operating on the nerve itself. My surgery was performed by a hand surgeon, not a neurosurgeon.
bubba --
Even if it's not true, it makes a nice addition to the Urban Legend Hall of Fame.
And really ... it can be used as a slam at the legal profession, so it doesn't have to be true.
In my state, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome wasn't even compensable under worker's compensation until last year, and even that took an act of the General Assembly that took years to pass. Before that, some people did receive compensation depending on how they framed their claims, but it took on average of 1.5 years in court and appeals -- not much of an option once you've lost the use of your hands.
Now my local paper is belly-aching about proposed OSHA regulations that would require employers to provide ergonomic workstations to those in industries with high rates of repetative stress injuries. Again, not waiting for the law to catch up with reality, I bought my own ergonomic keyboard with touchpad instead of mouse for work.
BOISE COUNTY— Three public hearings have been scheduled for the coming week by the Boise County Commission on a proposal designed to curb the reckless use of firearms within the County.
The proposal is in response to a number of complaints heard by the
Commission regarding persons discharging firearms in a reckless manner, and endangering the lives and property of others, according to
Commissioner John Foard.
"There were allegations of individuals under the influence of alcohol
discharging semi- and fully automatic high powered rifles between 2 and 4 AM in the morning. The neighbors would call the sheriff, but there is little that the Sheriff can do without a change in the law."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You can take my fully automatic high powered rifle when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Or you can just wait and grab it when I fall into a drunken stupor.
Here is an Albuquerque Tribune article about Gov. Johnson's proposal.
U.S. Criticized on Border Issues
MEXICO CITY (AP) -- The United States is endangering the lives of illegal immigrants by forcing them to use more dangerous border crossings, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson said Saturday.
This is insane!
Robinson criticized the U.S. policy, which involves heavy patrolling of traditional immigration routes, forcing illegal immigrants to cross through deserts or mountains.
You seem to think that because it is illegal, it is wrong. That is circular reasoning.
If I sold somebody a bunch of pot and laced it with cyanide, would that be okay, since buying pot is illegal, anyway?
You seem to think that because it is illegal, it is wrong.
Nope.
The U.S. has much to answer for with its cockamamie on-again,
off-again Mexican immigration policies. It can be fairly
criticized for doing a lousy job of patrolling the border, but
not for trying.
There are perfectly legal ways for them to emigrate here, and eventually become citizens. Hell, most counties in CA have social workers that show them how to get all the necessary paperwork to be resident aliens, and sign up for social programs. Or they can have a kid while here illegally, and collect welfare and send the kid to school. Not a bad deal.
The intent of the Border Patrol program is not to kill people, it's an unfortunate consequence. And there's probably better ways for them to go about this, but I think they underestimated the lengths these people will go to get here.
Look, if people want to emigrate to America, be part of American society, learn English, and contribute to the team and be a productive citizen, great. Welcome aboard. But if they just want to make a few extra bucks to take back home with them, well, you pays your money and you takes your chances. They know what they're getting into.
Keep in mind that we've got more people crammed into this one state than you have in your entire country. And it sucks. And we'll be close to 50 million in another 20-25 years. So a lot of Californians aren't terribly eager to take on even more immigrants, unless they're going to do it right and pay their fucking taxes like the rest of us.
Part of me is an isolationist, shut the borders to any non-millionaire. Another part is a freedom-lover, open the borders to any and all. Immigration, health care, the environment, 3 issues that just don't seem to have any 'perfect' solution. (I'm sure there are other such issues.)
Anyway, bedtime for me. And we seem to agree that Ms. Robinson's statement is not insane. Wrong? Maybe so, maybe no, but not insane.
Nite, Beefcake.
I agree with that. I don't necessarily want to shut everyone out altogether, but I'm aware that our system has a lot of perks in it which enable people to tkae advantage. As I say, if people want to come here because they like the way we do things, and want to contribute to the team, fine. If it's just because they know they can collect free money, unlike at home, I'm less hospitable.
Anecdotal example: I don't make enough money to afford decent medical insurance of any kind, yet I make too much to collect MediCal. So if something happens to me, I'm fucked. But if I decided I didn't want to work anymore, I'd qualify. I know people who work in the medical profession who see people every single day who do not work and do not speak English, yet have their medical bills covered by Uncle Sucker. I find this a bit odd, to say the least.
I believe in the "good guest" theory -- if you're at someone else's place, behave yourself, and try to set a good example of your countrymen. If you're vacationing in France or Germany, learn a little French or German before you go, don't assume everyone there has nothing better to do than wipe your ass. Same here; people live here for decades without making even a token effort to learn the fucking language. How much does a community college class cost, $40?
It's all their fault for sending us Bryan Adams and Alanis Morrisette.
This is not true anymore. The child born here is entitled to stay, the parents are not. They have a choice, give up the child so it can stay here, or take it home with them.
Now I find that remarkable. A child? A baby born in these United States is to be abandoned to the care of the state and the parents deported as illegal immigrants? Could you cite the law mandating this? And is this now common policy?
She had an editorial in the Sunday Advocate stating that various groups (she used the word : Luddite) are threatening the up-coming World Trade Organization in Seattle.
One group only was singled out by name : Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.; their spokesman being one Mike Dolan.
Johanek wrote that computer hackers would try to disrupt communications in the Northwest; confrontations on the street in an attempt to intimidate delegates; spray painting and/or egg and pie throwing at speakers; chaining themselves to delegate's hotel room doors and doors at the convention center; slogans on the space needle and other Seattle buildings are all possibilities.
I had thought that we had outgrown the 60s and the 70s; but, evidently not!
Can any of you confirm these antics from another source.
Ranheim,
You may find some useful links here at this Progressive Populist
WTO site.
You might enjoy reading some of their other material as well...
heh-heh-heh.
Just kidding.
There are numerous Mexican nationals around here. Picking Salal brush or doing Cedar salvage. They line up at Post Office and Western Union to send money home. The Salal is a cash deal. No taxes paid. To do Cedar they need identification, which many got in the amnesty programs. It is young males for the most part. The weekly police and court reports are full of Hispanic names coughing up dough. They acted as individuals in coming here and could care less about politics or borders. They are just trying to get by.
I bookmarked The Progressive Populist. Reading through about 3 back issues (table of contents), the titles of the articles looked more interesting to me than Time, Newsweek, USNews & World Report.
As you know, I am way to the right in today's parlance; which means that I have no love for either party. I have tried to vote None Of The Above for about 20 years. Lyndon Larouche; the congressman from Houston (Paul?); Harry Browne. Anyone who appears to be anti-establishment.
But, is this proposed "attack" on the WTO real? As best as I can tell, free trade as it is currently understood, is of benefit only the multi-national corps. And I have very little use for them. However, a violent demostration like those of the 60s & 70s would seem, to me, to be counter-productive. 
Molly Ivins
WTO: What'll They Order?
AUSTIN -- Sorry to interrupt the weekend with a thumb-sucker on a serious topic, but this is important. The World Trade Organization meets in Seattle this week, and the results will affect your life. If you don't want to be in the position of demanding in a few years, "Who decided this?" or "Since when has that been the rule?," now is the time to pay attention.
Molly
Another champion of family values. I wonder if Mr. Roche will be teaming up with Speaker Gingrich and almost-Speaker Livingstone on the lecture circuit?
***
A Family Secret Kept In the Ivory Tower?
George Roche III was a conservative hero.
Then came the accusations.
By Nichole Christian/Hillsdale, Michigan
November 22, 1999
Web posted at: 1:25 p.m. EST (1825 GMT)
... Hillsdale started to turn upside down last month, after [Hillsdale College president] Roche's daughter-in-law Lissa, 41, shot herself to death in a gazebo in the school's arboretum. In the days that followed, her grieving husband George Roche IV, 44, a lecturer in history and exercise physiology at the school, publicly accused his father of having had an affair with Lissa
... just hours before she shot herself, Lissa, editor of the school's monthly journal of conservative thought, had gone to the hospital room where his diabetic father was being treated for an insulin reaction. Before the assembled family--George Roche IV, Roche and his new wife--Lissa allegedly announced that she had been sleeping with the elder Roche for most of her 21-year marriage to his son. Hillsdale officials say Roche denied the affair to the board, "invoking God as my witness." Then two weeks ago, he abruptly retired ...
After Roche's resignation, former Secretary of Education William Bennett became head of its presidential search committee. But last week Bennett, who loudly denounced Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair, stepped down, accusing the Hillsdale board of refusing to ferret out the truth. "First it was represented to me that the allegations were true. Then this week people said she may have been lying," he says. "The school can't just move on. A woman is dead."
***
Read the entire article here.
I had a client who came within the act, and was deported following a short sentence for an offense committed here. The fact that his daughter was born here was not enough for his wife to gain residency status, (she was illegally in the country as well) according to the immigration attorney I consulted with.
I anticipated your hesitation at the word "abandon". However, if the alien parents are not willing to take the American child with them and cannot arrange for its care with a legal resident or American citizen then, what alternative is there but that they abandon the child to the care of the state? In other words, deportation of alien parents takes precedence over care of the American child by his natural parents?
It is indeed a deterrent, but is one at the cost of native born american citizens, namely the child.
18 years is necessary, for at that age the citizen becomes liable for military service and may vote.
A figment of liberal imagination
Is Chuck Hagel a liberal?
Did you ever find that quote of the reporter asking Bush W. about kids' books?
I say it was a trick question.
In fact, a core of Senate Republicans are known by their colleagues to hate--the word their colleagues use--McCain
Who are these "colleagues"? Are they Republicans or Democrats? Do they have an agenda they are trying to further? We get no facts from Drew.
Then there is this quote for balance.
President Clinton, we know, indulges himself in screaming at his aides.
We do?
Drew is reporting rumor and innuendo as fact. It should be seen for what it is.
I'm quoting you directly: No reporter has come forward to say they have actually heard one of these disparaging remarks.
Elizabeth Drew is a reporter. She is clearly saying she has heard the remarks.
She also quotes an anonymous senator who describes the whispering campaign. Is she lying? Is the senator?
And again: Is Chuck Hagel a liberal?
Elizabeth Drew is a reporter. She is clearly saying she has heard the remarks.
No she isn't. Unless I missed it, she never claims to have actually heard these statements. She provides no quotes direct or otherwise. Clearly she is reporting what she has heard from others. She even admits that the Senators in question will deny it. She has lowered herself to the role of gossip columnist.
It is all rumor and innuendo. It shouldn't be taken seriously let alone believed as fact.
Elizabeth Drew's reporter's credentials go back to Watergate days, when she was writing for the Post.
Of course it's all rumor. That's what the bloody story is about -- the spread of vicious rumors. She's reporting the existence of these rumors as fact. She cites "a number of McCain's colleagues." Do you have any facts that might disprove her? Didn't think so.
Try harder next time.
Or at least try forgoing your customary reflexive response that any charge laid against conservatives is merely part of a "liberal" smear. The sources on this one are all Republicans. And the last liberal Republican in Congress (John Chafee) just died.
Any news on the quote of the reporter who wanted to know what Georgy Porky's favorite children's book is?
(JJ's been having a really hard day what with TrialShark on his case and all.)
Cellar --
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
It seems fairly obvious that the Republican leadership loathes McCain and is sending a clear signal in their willingness to go on record.
So maybe John McCain is more suitable? No. McCain's harrowing and heroic Vietnam experience, whispers the Republican leadership, gave him a "bad temper". He's no good either.
The GOP: Sneering at Vietnam veterans.
I dunno about Ace, but Niner has made it perfectly clear that he is contemptuous about Gore's misrepresentation of his Vietnam experience, not his lack of action.
Jones,
I know that Kerry, a Democrat, is livid about this garbage.
Starbucks sued over alleged crushed penis
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Canadian tourist who claims that his penis was crushed by a faulty toilet seat at a Starbucks Corp restaurant has sued the giant coffee retailer for $1.5 million, his attorney said Monday.
But she doesn't have them on record, and she says as much.
They have let it be known that they won't come forward and say these things openly, out of deference to McCain. How thoughtful of them. (This will of course be met with denials.)
If they are on record, why doesn't she provide quotes. What exactly did Lott say? Or Bennett? If this is really going on, why is no one willing to go on record?
It seems fairly obvious that the Republican leadership loathes McCain and is sending a clear signal in their willingness to go on record.
Obvious to whom? This whole story is as substantial as a fart in the wind. I think the Democrats wanted to float the story that McCain is unstable but they knew they would look mean spirited if they did. So they passed it off as coming from the Republicans.
Jonesy --
Senator Hagel is not part of the whispering campaign. He's one of Senator McCain's campaign chairmen and mad as hell about the crap his man's been subjected to.
JJ --
"I think the Democrats wanted to float the story that McCain is unstable ..."
Of course you think that.
Are you assuming Fuentes León is guilty just because he has been accused of a crime by the Mexican government?
Sounds like he's skirted dangerously close to being accused of several very serious crimes. A better question to ask might be why W. saw fit to step in ask for Poppy's help for such a seemingly disreputable fellow. I mean, we all know W. is a compassionate guy, but normally, political favors are done on a quid pro quo basis. Shall we just assume that W.'s thirst for justice and fair play extends into Mexico's justice system? Wow, he is a sweetheart!
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Well, that question might be answered if only Fuentes would allow himself to stand trial. So far, it sounds as if he's quite content to bribe judges and attempt to flee the country. Is that what innocent people do?
Clinton has been accused of many things. Should we assume he is guilty?
Well, he is guilty of some of them. He almost certainly is guilty of some others. And he's not above cronyism and corruption any more than anyone else. But he's also been accused of some pretty outlandish shit. Fuentes, OTOH, is not being accused of anything that isn't de rigueur in a place like Mexico -- bribery, drug trafficking, money laundering, murder. You know, those things also sound quite a lot like Poppy's good buddy Noriega, now that I think of it.
Nope, nobody here but us chickens.
It depends. We are talking about Mexico, not the USA. If the charges are politically motivated, then it is reasonable to flee the country since actual guilt or innocence will have little effect on the outcome of the trial. It is also reasonable to do everything in your power to keep from going back.
We are talking about Mexico, not the USA.
Indeed we are, a country not terribly unlike our own Wild West of 150 years ago --corrupt, frequently lawless, political offices based on money and nepotism.
If the charges are politically motivated, then it is reasonable to flee the country since actual guilt or innocence will have little effect on the outcome of the trial. It is also reasonable to do everything in your power to keep from going back.
Well, I admit I didn't exactly scour the article for details, but I'm pretty sure I didn't see any indication that Fuentes was a victim of political persecution. He's a hot-shot lawyer. He tried to bribe a couple of judges to spring a convict (the article implies, but didn't flat-out say, it was a client of his).
Mexico tried to extradite him. W asked Poppy to pull a few strings. Poppy forwarded a letter. Implicit in this is a favor, unless you postulate that every Mexican with a visa problem and an arrest warrant gets this kind of kid-glove treatment.
The only question I'm wondering about -- assuming it's true, of course -- is what the quid pro quo was. Why did W help out this fugitive, what was in it for him? Did Fuentes bamboozle W into thinking that he was a victim of political persecution, even though he was a millionaire lawyer in a Third World country?
I dunno, JJ. You gotta admit, it's a bit hinky. You must be at least curious as to the whys and wherefores. Forget about Clinton for a second. What's in it for W to pull strings for Fuentes?
JJ --
"I know you have rushed to judgement ..."
Actually, I have arrived at a judgment: that you are emotionally incapable of admitting that any Republican could ever do anything bad. You are as politically reliable as the most slavish Soviet zampolit.
"... but unlike you I am waiting for someone to actually present a fact or two."
Let's see -- you said that four posts after you blamed the Democrats.
Oh, yeah. You're waiting, all right.
Suuuuuuure you are.
My impression is that both he and the judges were in trouble and all denied the bribe ever happened. A hot shot lawyer in Mexico can easily get into trouble if the government begins to see him as an rival instead of an ally.
Is it hinky? Maybe. But considering the stuff that has become SOP in Washington in recent years, this is strictly small potatoes.
- I can't explain why Democrats do what they do,
but whenever a Republican starts looking like a serious
candidate the trash starts. It is a bit of early character
assassination in case they have to face him in the fall.
or two? You aren't rushing to judgment? Come on. It's predictable stuff like this that has earned you the title of Hack, JJ.
think they were sitting around the Rangers luxury box
watching the game. Fuentes told a good story and W
bought it. He makes a quick call to Pop and promptly
forgets it ever happened. It was 5 minutes to help out a
guy who seemed to be in trouble not of his own making.
Probably the whole thing with W and Fuentes is a tempest in a teapot. W wasn't yet a pol, and Poppy didn't get Fuentes off the hook in the end anyway. If anything, W probably did it as a favor to Durán, the newspaper publisher. Obviously, even though W wasn't yet governor, it was on the horizon, and W certainly would have valued Durán's support for him with the Hispanic community in Texas.
A relatively innocuous quid pro quo, I suppose. However, I submit that much of W's platform, and the source of much of his support, is that W is Not Clinton. But waffling on drug rumors, and evidence of rather questionable associates are indubitably (in-dubya-tably?) Clintonian. Supposedly W's appeal is that he is not just another pol. Maybe not. A minor chink in the armor, perhaps.
rjb - Message # 4601:
$1.5 million? Only $1.5 million???!!!
...couldn't have been much of a penis, imo.
VADM James Stockdale wrote an op-ed in Nov. 26's NY Times in which he describes being approached by the Bush campaign for dirt on McCain's mental stability.
Of course, Stockdale's probably a liberal who is imagining things, right?
You stated something about "knowing the outcome of the trial before it started" was grounds for skipping the country. I guess you admire Bill Clinton for sticking around then, huh?
The whispering campaign has actually been a full blown discussion for some time, having little to do with McCain's war experience and everything to do with the fact that he is blunt, iconoclastic (on occasion), gets hot, and jumps down a throat or two. He has alienated the GOP in his own state, and they do not say, "McCain is an asshole. It must be his wartime experience." They suffice to say, as many do in the Senate, that "McCain is an asshole." Hagel and other McCain supporters are expertly putting those who want to make McCain's temper an issue back on their heels by cloaking their guy in his wartime experience. It is the equivalent of when a big city black mayor gets indicted, and, in his own defense, he decries the indignities heaped on black men for the last 200 years. It is a tried and true, expert move.
McCain has a hot temper, and Marion Barry was caught on video smoking crack. Criticisms of both have little to do with POW or African-American status.
"VADM James Stockdale wrote an op-ed in Nov. 26's NY Times in which he describes being approached by the Bush campaign for dirt on McCain's mental stability."
Stockdale
"In fact, a few weeks ago I received a call from an old friend who is also close to the George W. Bush campaign soliciting comments on Mr. McCain's ''weaknesses.'' As I told that caller, I think John McCain is solid as a rock."
You make the call.
Fred Astaire
I have seen it all.
We don't know if McCain is unstable or not. We don't know if his POW experience damaged him psychologically. What we do know is that John McCain, despite his extremist conservative record, is being smeared by those in his party who have quite similar, if not identical, views. The question is why?
As for Barry. We have the videotape. To paraphrase Barry, who're you gonna believe? Him or the videotape.
Senator Hagel is not part of the whispering campaign. He's one of Senator McCain's campaign chairmen and mad as hell about the crap his man's been subjected to.
This explains why I've heard nothing locally about it. It also shows how out of touch I am with my GOP senator's doings.
Actually, a more sophisticated view is that GOP political opponents brought up McCain's temper and his ability to get along, McCain smartly innoculated himself with his war record, and the Democrats are smartly jumping to McCain's defense - using his innoculation - to be on the side of the angels.
Or, we could have it your way, which has Bush lieutenants whispering "The war hero is a nut bag. The V.C. screwed him up bad. But pssssssst, don't say I told you so."
Oh, be silly. By that standard, we don't know if Clinton was psychologically damaged by the Lewinsky situation and Whitewater. We don't know if Bradley was psychologically damaged by all his years on the road. We don't know if Gore was damaged by the traumatic accident his son suffered.
Or we look at behavior on the job and then we do, indeed, know that McCain was not psychologically damaged by his time in prison camp, based on his performance as a Senator.
But Niner, Drew's column seemed to make it pretty clear that Lott and others are questioning his fitness because of his prison camp time, not because he's an asshole.
It's a very dicey strategy and one that is fraught with much danger and little political reward.
The question remains, why are very conservative GOPers engaging in this very risky ploy? Especially when their target shares a near-mirror image of their own views?
We all know McCain has a temper. Many Congressmen do. That's why Arlen Spector has a revolving door for his staffers. Hell, the GOP defends Merrill Cook, denying any rumor that he has a problem.
Yet, they go after McCain. War hero. Extreme conservative. Why?
Drew's column states: "Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons . . . . The Bush campaign has told reporters that it has heard that McCain's temper is a real problem, and that they're trying to find out more, and may use the issue. This is hardly a hands-off approach . . .. In fact, a core of Senate Republicans are known by their colleagues to hate--the word their colleagues use--McCain. He doesn't always observe the punctilities of Capitol Hill. He calls things as he sees them; he tells people off when he thinks he's been crossed; he points to pork-barrel projects in appropriations and other bills and names names. As a senator friendly to McCain--and there are several--put it, "He gets in their face."
Either she has provided her own subtext or the Bush campaign is hopelessly inept. I'm guessing his opponents and others think he is a wild asshole, and they talk about it, and McCain has expertly repelled the attack behind his war record.
As for cazart's strategy, it is actually pretty funny. Distilled, it means: NOW, the charge is scandalous. LATER, however (should McCain be the nominee), the charge may be legitimate.
Other senators have been accused of not working and playing well with others. What has McCain done that is irrational or truly beyond the pale?
"What remains to be seen is evidence that he has continuing mental health problems."
Lord, he's now relegated to Tom Eagleton status.
In the second place, I don't know that Drew would either make it up or allow a complete spin from McCain's team without checking for a reaction from Lott, etc.
McCain has a hot temper, and Marion Barry was caught on video smoking crack.
Virtually the smae thing, doncha know.
I'll throw that out and still make my bet.
The article only mentions "colleagues" without identifying them. If they were Republicans, it would lend credibility to her story. If they were Democrats, her story could easily be dismissed as partisan mudslinging. Since I assume she is acting in her own self-interest, she would not make the accusers anonymous unless it helped her story. Therefore the accusers are likely Democrats.
I mean, why would the Democrats attack now? A year before the election? It makes no sense.
Of course it does. Right now the GOP has the lead and the momentum in the Presidential polls. The Democrats know they have to reverse this trend soon or it will be too late next fall.
This is also a minor smear. If it was released next fall, it would have little impact. However, a series of little smears over the course of a year can have a cumulative effect.
I think the truth about this is that a group from the GOP leadership was sitting around the Senate dining room complaining about McCain. Someone overheard them and reported it as a whispering campain out to smear McCain. I think what is being reported only has the slightest resemblence to actual events.
I do wonder how any man could keep his sanity after that kind of prolonged and horrifying experience. Certainly, he would have to be an extremely tough, insensitive man to begin with. Over five years in that kind of hell-hole is difficult for me to fathom. By year three, I wonder if even McCain could believe that he had a life before Vietnam.
Give it another spin and see what comes up.
McCain was not psychologically damaged by his time in prison camp,
based on his performance as a Senator.
Excuse me, but you're positively streaming horseshit.
Wilbur Mills didn't suddenly develop a drinking problem overnight and end up with a stripper in the reflecting pool. It was likely a problem for years and years.
If you're expecting McCain to show up on the Senate floor wearing his skivvies on his head as "proof" of mental instability, you're setting the bar far too high. Signs of mental illness include explosive ourtbursts, an inability to get along, and erratic behavior.
I suggest there's ample evidence that McCain has displayed these signs during his public service. This is not to say that McCain is nuts--he may well be the most mentally healthy individual of all time. You cannot, however, say with any certainty that he isn't unstable or that his experiences didn't damage him.
This describes some of our best Presidents.
I'm certain the Democrats like cazart are giving the story more legs than the Republicans ever did. Either way, what have they got to lose?
Whatever happened about Hatfield, eh?
My point--since you seem unable to grasp it--is that you can not say that with certainty about anyone.
Oh, please. Get a grip. Really, I can't believe that any Dem would be stupid enough to try this nonsense.
caz --
If proving the negative "with certainty" is the standard you're applying, then no, we don't know about Senator McCain's stability. Nor, using the same standard, can we confidently say anything about Vice President Gore, Senator Bradley, or Governor Bush.
Pat Buchanan is certifiably nuts, of course.
So far the only evidence (if you can call it that) we have is Drew's article where she refers to statements by anonymous "colleagues". The burden of proof has not been met that there even is a ploy.
Since you seem to think that this article is enough to establish the truth, do you believe Clinton should be prosecuted for sexual assault against Kathleen Willey or for raping Juanita Broaddrick?
Signs of mental illness include explosive ourtbursts, an inability to get along, and erratic behavior.
This describes some of our best Presidents. "
Hell, it describes most of the people here.
The issue is whether or not the individual is "unstable" with these "mental health problems". I don't think anyone could manage to serve as a Senator if they had a severe personality disorder--i.e., schizophrenia, bi-polar--and most of those aren't kicked off by bad experiences anyway, but are genetic.
I beg to differ. One of the characteristics of elected officials in high office that I've noted is a detachment from reality.
True enough.
But you keep missing the point. Why are McCain's ideological bretheren engaging in this type of campaign against him? As I said earlier, it is an extremely risky ploy with little potential payoff.
One of two possible reasons: (1) The GOP is completely stupid, or (2) there is a real concern regarding McCain's mental health.
caz --
"... two possible reasons: (1) The GOP is completely stupid, or (2) there is a real concern regarding McCain's mental health.
Never underestimate the stupidity of GOP partisans. Look at JJ, for example.
I agree. In my mind, McCain's service is a strong qualification in his favor. I also like his general crankiness, and I think it would do the country good to have such a personality in the White House, or, if not good, it would at least be a refreshing change.
My earlier post was somewhat provocative, but I stand by it. The sort of experience McCain had is probably more likely to destroy a man than it is to build his character. I don't believe Nietzche's dictum that what does not kill you will make you stronger. Sometimes -- perhaps even most of the time -- it will cripple you. Only certain rare types can take such a horrible experience and make themselves better because of it. John McCain appears to be such a man. To most (and I include myself in this group), five years in a Vietnamese prison would take away far more than it gives.
Hell, it describes most of the people here.
Yes, but except for the charming Niner, who is tempermentally suited to politics, I would not want to see any of the Moters in the White House.
Don't be absurd. 3) The people involved want Bush, not McCain, to be President.
Jones,
It is very possible that they have mood disorders, etc. This is equally true of the population at large--I would bet that 60% has some sort of mood disorder if we were all diagnosed. But the possibility of McCain suddenly developing a mood disorder that would impair his ability to be president is no more or less likely than the possibility of any other candidate developing a similar problem.
I don't know the "type" for I doubt it's been yet catalogued, but I do know that these men now rushing for office have little to distinguish them as men above the very ordinary. Connections, yes; character, no.
The front runner is a target. Who suggested to the media that they should dig into the possibility of Bush's past drug use?
But McCain is far from the front runner,
McCain may not be the front runner, but he is starting to become a factor in the election.
and Democrats seem to be attacking the whipsering campaign
Again you are assuming the "whispering campaign" actually exists. What has happened is that accusations of McCain's instability are now public, and Democrats don't have to take the heat for making them. They have passed it off on the GOP leadership. In other words, the only ones who benefit from this are the Democrats which should make you suspicious.
Must I?
I make no judgements as to McCain's mental health. I knew him, albeit briefly, when he was in the RAG (note: before the military warriors jump on me, I know that it is known as the FRG, today). I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.
I just find it very curious that the GOP would use this type of campaign against someone who is quite conservative and probably has more in common with the GOP than GW.
Haha! Nice to see you back, btw.
It is no secret that McCain is disliked by his fellow Republicans.
Pincher,
McCain had the chance to get out of prison early, and didn't. That doesn't suggest the sort of person who would be broken by this experience. BTW, I think you're wrong. I think anyone who is capable of surviving a POW experience is capable of doing so without too much damage.
Keep your eye on the ball, CalGal.
(3) is invalid because there are tons of issues that they could legitimately hammer McCain with. His many infidelities. Keating Five. Campaign finance reform. Pillhead wife. The list goes on.
Why should we assume that the GOP leadership is engaged in this whispering campaign and not assume Clinton is guilty of rape and sexual assault?
I don't know the "type" for I doubt it's been yet catalogued, but I do know that these men now rushing for office have little to distinguish them as men above the very ordinary. Connections, yes; character, no.
I don't know the type either, and I would be surprised if anyone does. Most take a general look at a man's character, experiences, and stands on the issues, and then decide which candidate they want to see in the White House. It's shoot and miss usually. But I would argue against the notion that some list of painful, but supposedly ennobling experiences in life should be the standard by which we judge candidates. In my experience and reading, good candidates can come through a variety of life experiences.
Because GOPers like Chuck Hagel confirm that certain members of the GOP leadership is behind the whispering campaign. VADM Stockdale claims to have been approached by the GW campaign seeking dirt on this issue.
Cazart
You're missing it.
1) Campaign finance reform is one BIG reason they ARE blasting McCain, the Congressional GOP is furious about it. They know very well that the Dems can and will use the death of reform against all incumbent GOPers as a campaign issue next year. McCain didn't play ball with the party, and he's going to get punished. Hard.
2) Infidelities? Please. Didn't the Clinton extravaganza and the resultant fallout for Gingrich/Hyde/Barr/Livingston et al teach you ANYTHING? Not enough clean hands in either party to make that major issue. Probably never will be again.
3) Pillhead wife? That'll be used if he gets the nomination, but using it now would have an ugly, ugly backlash.
4) Keating five? Will definitely be in play during the next few months if McCain really starts to threaten Bush.
I don't dispute this. There is a long way between dislike and the hatred and sabotage described by the Drew article. I believe whoever started this rumor was counting on that dislike to give it credibility. It has certainly worked. Why would the GOP start this knowing it would make them look bad? The answer is they wouldn't. If you want to know the source, look at who benefits from it.
None of those issues give any purchase. McCain came out of the Keating incident better than anyone else, he has pretty much confirmed that he behaved like an asshole after he came back from Vietnam, screwing every woman who said yes, and woe betide the first Republican who makes an issue of a pillpopping wife.
But the temper issue can do a bit of damage, as can the notion that his Republican compadres don't like him. So they link it together.
legitimately hammer McCain with. His many infidelities. Keating Five.
Campaign finance reform. Pillhead wife. The list goes on."
These issues are old and often expose the opponent to the same kind of vulnerability. The POW move is political jiujitsu--turning your opponent's strength against him.
"two possible reasons: (1) The GOP is completely stupid, or
(2) there is a real concern regarding McCain's mental health."
O for cazart's simplistic lefty view of the world. If the GOP is so stupid, why do they control the House and Senate, most governorships, most state legislatures, and have a candidate running well up in the latest polls? Answer: Democrats are even more stupid? As for number 2, do you really think any of these pols have "concerns" about the things they express? He's been serving merrily along in the senate with nairy a whimper afore now, but their great civic concern has suddenly sprung to the fore at the prospect of McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Riiiiggghhht.
Hagel was responding to the same rumors you are. He is a part of McCain's campaign and had to provide a response.
From what I hear, McCain is hated. And, as I keep saying, the real issue is not his "mental stability", but the fact that Lott and others are willing to have it known that they don't really support him.
And you are higher than a kite if you think that the Dems benefit from McCain's problems at this stage of the game. This is a Republican spat. The only people who would feel safe enough to bring up McCain's POW experience as a negative would be those who think they have an electable frontrunner--and don't think using it would come back to haunt them. No Dems qualify.
Exactly. Except it's "nary".
I have lttle doubt that certain GOPers may bring up these issues. I'd add two things: McCain's campaign finance reform really accomplishes nothing, the GOP isn't all that exercised about it. It's only a minor irritant on the same level as term limits.
With regard to philandering, it's still a hot button issue.
assume she is acting in her own self-interest, she would
not make the accusers anonymous unless it helped her
story. Therefore the accusers are likely Democrats.
McCain had the chance to get out of prison early, and didn't. That doesn't suggest the sort of person who would be broken by this experience. BTW, I think you're wrong. I think anyone who is capable of surviving a POW experience is capable of doing so without too much damage.
Thanks for reminding me of McCain's refusal to leave early, but I'm not arguing that the POW stint warped his mind. I'm simply saying that I'm amazed it didn't. I think to any objective viewer, these innuendos against Presidential candidate McCain are ridiculous. But to take the opposite tack, and simply romanticize the experience as some sort of barrier overcome as if the experience didn't come without some huge emotional cost is naive, in my opinion.
John McCain spends over five years in a shithole, endures torture, and witnesses the suffering of his friends, and comes out none the worse for wear? It might be possible, but as I said in one of my opening posts, he's a damn tough bird if he can do it, probably tough to the point of callousness. And, yes, toughness, even callousness, is probably a fine trait for a President.
4683
Nope.
I mean, you probably right that finance reform means nothing, but it won't mean nothing when the campaign ads hit. All JoeBlow knows about finance reform will be that Congressman X was "against" it and that JoeBlow thinks the system is corrupt anyway.
McCain gave a great campaign issue to the Dems, and the GOP is enraged. They hate his guts.
This is such utter bullshit I don't know where to begin.
Or maybe I do, as I was going on about this back in the days of "The Fray."
There is no reason in the world not to name sources, EXCEPT IF YOU ARE BEING PLAYED BY THEM.
And that's the name of the Media Game: Who's Playing Who.
Add to that the fact that Media Whores love to disavow their complicityin anything they report. it's as if it just flew in the window and fell on their desks by chance. And because the Media is far more closely-knit than the Mafia, reporters aren't about to ask hard questions of other reporters.
In fact, they don't ask each other questions AT ALL.
My connections tell a different story. There is no love lost, but it is a long way from hatred. The GOP leadership would much rather have McCain in the White House than either Gore or Bradley.
And you are higher than a kite if you think that the Dems benefit from McCain's problems at this stage of the game.
The Dems would benefit if McCain becomes the nominee. They benefit more from the perception that the GOP is trying to destroy one of its own. Look at the discussion in this thread if you don't believe me.
The only people who would feel safe enough to bring up McCain's POW experience as a negative would be those who think they have an electable frontrunner--and don't think using it would come back to haunt them. No Dems qualify
This is my point. Republicans are not confident enough in their front runner to risk the potential backlash. The Democrats can't float the issue either. However if the Demcrats accuse the Republicans of using the issue, then they can get it out and blame the Republicans. The Demcrats then claim their hands are clean.
I'll be shocked if campaign finance reform will be on the radar screen in 2000, given that all four of the viable candidates are or will be awash in soft money, that one of the four was investigated by the Senate for improper meeting with a contributor and that another of the four skated on "no controlling legal authority" and visits to fund-giving Buddhists. My guess is that the less said, the better for these folks, though McCain will ride the horse until the polls positively scream that Joe Sixpack doesn't give a crap about soft money, hard money, ad restrictions and the like.
What the issues does do, it only does for McCain, which is to place him in a murky yet noticeable position as the maverick, the bucker of both parties, the lone, proud warrior against the system (who, by the way, raised $2.4 million for his last Senate race to his challenger's $370,000). It is a nice stance, it allows for loftier heights.
McCain is clearly tested, bona fide and at ease with who he is. Bradley is very easy with himself. Bush also projects great comfort with himself. The joke of it is, I'm comfortable with 3 out of 4, guaranteeing a Gore presideny in 2000.
Are those the alligator clips attached to your nipples?
The fact remains that the GOP is engaging in a whispering campaign against McCain that transcends ordinary campaign fare. This campaign is either extraordinarily misguided or there exists some basis for concern.
And so it has always been. The line of American presidents is a long line of mediocrity briefly punctuated by greatness or originality. Only by accident does a great man like Lincoln or TR make it to the White House. Greatness is usually marked by a busyness of body, restlessness of mind, and distinctiveness of character (and the age) that most Americans instinctively distrust. Probably rightly so.
Not talking about the Presidential race.
Cellar
Please stop. Your position is absurd. Let me give you a hypothetical, ok?
Large Corportation X is in the late stages of developing a device that can kill homosexuals without a trace. Like a neutron bomb that only takes out gays. Richie Rich, the secretary of the President of LCX finds out about the sinister plan, and spills to Lois Lane. Only thing is, he's not sure he can get the documentation in time to foil the plan.
Should Lois Lane investigate and report on the story - while keeping her source, Richie Rich, confidential in hopes that he'll be able to supply her with further information/documentation? Or should Lois refuse to keep his confidentiality and "out" Richie, who then meets with a mysterious boating accident, just in time to miss the gay-only rapture (as it becomes known later in tales told to children).
Really.
You think campaign finance reform will resonate in the congressional elections?
A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed that 4 percent of respondents were more inclined to support candidates who favored campaign finance reform, 1 percent are less inclined, and 95% don't care.
Brain scans suggest damage in veterans with Gulf War illness
CHICAGO (AP) - Brain scans of soldiers who believe they suffer from Gulf War illness indicate their brains were damaged by chemical exposure during the 1991 conflict, researchers reported today.
``This is the first time ever we have proof of brain damage in sick Gulf War veterans,'' said the lead researcher, Dr. James Fleckenstein, a professor of radiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
It's the game.
McCain preaches the gospel of (meaningless) campaign finance reform, yet had no problem being Charles Keating's personal assistant. He's also big on crime and getting tough on the druggies, except when it happens to involve his wife. It depends what day of the week it is as to his stance on abortion rights.
Every politician sucks up. Failure to do so means that you're unelectable.
I'm on a losing streak after going 2-0.
Becuz the ads aren't out yet.
IMO, of course.
Every politician sucks up. Failure to do so means that you're unelectable.
No, some politicians do it more than others.
At least you know what it's like to win a game.
Not all of them undergo the personal transmogrification and the public whoring of Gore, replete with pleas and whimpers to "Just let me roll my sleeves up! Please!"
Prepare for an inauguration speech beginning with "You like me! You really like me!"
I don't disagree.
But all politicians suck up. You cannot name one elected officeholder who has run on a specific agenda and adhered 100% to that agenda. Hell, we can't get most candidates to remain consistent on one issue from day to day.
Has Gore sucked up? Without question. If you got elected, you sucked up somewhere at sometime.
Reminds me of the kids.
"But Billy started it."
It is a difficult thing to be reminded of intellectual betters. The playground is a harsh place.
With a little scholarship and some luck, you might move up out the ranks of political neophytes. That is, once you abandon your hyperpatriotism.
Indy --
"The POW move is political jiujitsu--turning your opponent's strength against him."
Interesting analysis. From now on, any time someone mentions McCain's wartime experience, a portion of the listeners will wonder about his stability.
I've said before that the best thing for Governor Bush to do is to loudly and angrily denounce the whispering campaign while simultaneously denying that he or any of his staff or supporters had anything to do with it. That way he can be seen to be doing "the right thing" -- and at the same time give the story a wider audience and a few more days of air time just because he denounced it. In fact, I believe he's begun making noises along those lines. Who knows, it might even be true.
If the issue comes up in the debates, he needs to be forceful and indignant that anyone would say such mean-spirited and vicious things about his good friend the senior senator from Arizona. Being half-hearted will make it look like he tacitly approves of the smear.
Then it is a fact that Clinton is a rapist, a sexual predator, a murder, and a traitor. It seems the only burden of proof you require is that a reporter says that an annonymous source claims something is true. As I posted before, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
I agree
Agreed. I would advise him further. When it comes up, he says the following:
"I read about this whispering campaign about Senator McCain. It disgusted me and moved me to action. No one in my campaign has spread these rumors, and if I find out different, they are gone, that day. I want this job. So does John McCain. We have differences and we are vying for the same nomination, and occasionally, we will throw some elbows.
But no job -not even President of the United States - is worth trashing the dedicated sacrifice of Senator McCain. He and I have more in common than a desire to see the Republican Party go forward into the next century. We are in many ways blood. John was shot down in Vietnam. My father was shot down in World War II.
I'll make this pledge. If I hear any whispering, you will never again read another story about John McCain's temper, because mine will be off the charts."
I agreed with him first. Nyahh nyahh
Niner, Dusty --
I propose we quit our day jobs and form a political consulting firm. We could run JJ as our first candidate for office.
I'm interested, but I'm more intrigued by the person who claimed Niner was the only one suited for President. It's starting to grow on me. I'll join you if we can run Niner as a candidate.
Nonsense. We'll get you in a pool, wearing a Speedo and swimming laps. Ala' Tsongas.
Oh ... and just to make it challenging, let's run JJ as a Democrat.
I've got a big "Beatty" problem.
Yep. You guessed it.
I dated Madonna.
Niner --
"I dated Madonna."
There's strength in numbers, amigo.
JJ --
"I could run as a Democrat but I would have to get a lobotomy first."
Oh, damn, then we can't do it.
To get a lobotomy, you would have to have a brain.
You two have some "issues."
Are you trying to get Niner's campaign into trouble already? The last thing he needs on his first day is a Bimbo Eruption (g).
Niner --
Issues? We don't need no steeeenking issues!
You need to wait 20 years before you allege rape. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from reading the news?
In fact, I do not know the english language so I cnanot answer any more of your impertinent questions. Good day.
Memo to: Niner
From: DustyShark Consultants
Subject: Bubbaette
The "no habla ingles" approach, while appealing to many in the limousine liberal set, will alienate certain core constituents who believe that if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it should be spoken by everyone. Also it will make the upcoming debates surreal. Recommend you reconsider.
Suggested alternate approach: refer to your relationship with bubbaette as a "youthful indiscretion." Deny committing criminal acts of any sort since at least 1974. Remind the voters of your tragic childhood as an orphan fought over by two domineering women in a Vietnamese POW camp.
What's your beef? Aren't you willing to stand by your man?
Memo to: Niner
From: DustyShark Consultants
Subject: Bubbaette
Initial polls show your confessional well received. Some lingering discontent over the personal hygiene issues -- recommend you drop the reference to posterior boils. Bladder control issue not a problem -- actually wins votes in Florida, Arizona.
Play up boilermakers during campaign swing through Indiana.
I smell a coup.
But that could be my bladder control problem.
Oh wait, I've got the timing reversed, haven't I?
Three Networks Walk Out on NAACP
The Washington Post; November 30, 1999
EXCERPTED
"LOS ANGELES, Nov. 29 – Representatives from three of four networks walked out today on a hearing called by the NAACP to investigate the lack of diversity on the small screen. Vice presidents from NBC, ABC and Fox showed up prepared to defend their networks' records but stewed in the back of the room at the Century Plaza Hotel as Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, regretted the non-attendance of those three networks' presidents, who were listed on the event's agenda as "absent." The executives said they'd been told they could make their statements at the beginning of the program. They left after 2½ hours, saying they couldn't wait any longer. Only CBS President Leslie Moonves, who had flown in from Rome to attend, got to address efforts to increase the multicultural presence in front of and behind his network's cameras and promise to "do what is right and necessary" to improve its overall record on diversity . . . . Finally the other network executives left in unison and held a mini-news conference outside the hearing room to register their dismay at being put on the back burner.
"I think this is a worthy exercise, but we were given assurances about the time, date and location" of the hearing, said Donald Gadsden, NBC's senior vice president of business affairs. "We're disappointed."
"We believe our record is absolutely as good as CBS's," said Chris Hikawa, ABC's vice president of broadcast standards and practices. "Some of the initiatives that Les [Moonves] announced today we were also planning to announce," she added, citing her network's contribution to a fund called Prism that helps minorities acquire media properties.
But Mfume confessed to being "befuddled" when he heard, belatedly, that the executives had left and held a news conference. "These are not drive-by hearings," he said. "This is a very serious matter. If it's not worth three hours for some people who have waited 300 years for some sense of fairness and equal treatment, then it says something about the kind of commitment you came here with."
Memo to: Niner
From: DustyShark Consultants
Subject: Campaign slogan
Recommend you consider immediate adoption of theDiva's proposed slogan: "Niner -- plenty of arrogance and posturing to go around." Will appeal to our core campaign contributors.
"Um, we'd like to talk to you about diversity in programming, but we have a flight. Can we make this quick? How 'bout we extend 'Moesha' and re-release 'Sanford and Son'? Good? Well, you guys mull it over. I have to get back pronto."
I dunno. Niner's arrogance plays well, but emphasizing his posture?
Mi peludo toro esta muy, muy humble and sweet, just like a nice gooey flan.
Dan --
Did you understand that last post from theDiva? It had something to do with her lawnmower getting stuck in something gooey, I think.
While it's _way_ too easy to make jokes about Deev's lawn being mowed by Niner, I think she was objecting to our use of the word "arrogance" to describe him.
And have a hot virtual babe? No thanks, I'll keep my live Squirrel.
Dan --
But ... but wasn't that what she said ... oh, wait. I get it. She wants non-attribution on the slogan.
Good call. Preserves her credibility as an independent source. That way she can shill believably when it really counts.
God, she's a natural campaigner.
Have you guys noticed that Niner posts a lot less these days, ever since I linked that Britney Spears picture for him?
Not a bad slogan, although it doesn't have the pithy pizazz of George Dubya's "I'm plenty smart!"
We run Niner as Dr. Evil.
Or
"General. General. I don't know."
Please. Just say "Burning hot magma", once. I beg of you.
Remember, don't actually answer any questions at the debate. Just press buttons and cause Bush and McCain to drop into fiery chutes and whatnot, and say things like 'Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots?'
It won't get weird.
Too late.
(sorry, I was called away for a birthday cake for one of our paralegals)
Never is a question directly answered.
Most hilarious is when the candidates declare that they will abolish the IRS without offering any alternative to fund the Government and/or a demonstrated unwillingness to explain why they have never proposed such an abolition despite being a Senator or chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Of course Alan Keyes, alone, is worth the price of admission.
Now we have to find a running mate.
Stockdale is the only cadidate in the last 30 years to answer a question directly in a debate and look where he ended up.
My VP does the hanky-panky
I swoon whenever Niner speaks Spanglish.
A5
Nonono....theDiva is my stage name.
Stockdale wasn't in his element. He's a great man. He got a bad rap for his "Who am I, Where am I?" spiel.
Plus, he had the disadvantage of being a lunatic's running mate.
Plus, he had the disadvantage of being a lunatic's running mate.
For once I agree with you. Stockdale did not deserve the treatment he received.
Memo to: Niner
From: DustyShark Consulting
Re: VP
Recommend you seriously consider selection of theDiva as your VP nominee. Would allow zippy slogans like "Niner/Diva 2000 -- they'll be too busy to screw you."
Also recommend you schedule appearance at Spring Break bash in Fort Lauderdale. Could get guest shot as Richard, the Giant Walking Condom. Will show you as a free spirit and appeal to the MTV vote. Although, given your height, may only appeal to insecure MTV voters.
Apparently, the word around Bob Dole's law firm is that Liddy Dole had no real intention of running for President but merely wanted her name to move to the top of any list of possible VP candidates. This explains Bob Dole's rather tepid support of her campaign. GW Bush won't consider Liddy, but apparently McCain's campaign is up for a dance.
Ah, politics.
caz --
Say it ain't so.
Do you realize that we haven't had a GOP ticket without a Bush or Dole on it since back before the Governor of Texas stopped snorting coke?
Allegedly, I mean.
I just get the sense that Bob Dole doesn't want the little lady to run...period.
election at that age.
Aside from the fact that she couldn't get more than 10% of the vote.
On the other hand, first woman VP is nothing to sneeze at. She'd wind up with a bigger place in history than Quayle, Hillary, Bob, or Gore.
JJ --
"Can you also walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead?"
No.
Only Republicans can do all that.
Glory be!
I know. I was just aasking.
No.
However, Liddy is all done. She's not going to be VP, she'll likely not catch on a ticket.
It's just as well. Liddy is wound so tightly and has accomplished so little. All her power emanates from her hubby who has since passed into political obscurity.
Here's the cake...take it.
For you to state that any woman could run for Pres at the age of 72 makes me doubt your sanity. But an hilarous remark like that also makes me recognize you are a true comedian.
72 year old female....jeez!
hahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHA
Biener. I've suspected that your marbles roll around a bit more than is good for you, but....hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
After all, the GOP runs symbols, figureheads. They never run anyone of substance.
Wendell Willkie. I did forget.
For 15 of the last 19 years, the White House was occupied first by an actor and most recently by a criminal. At this point I believe anything can happen. Think about it. A professional wrestler is Governor of Minnesota. And he is from the Reform Party no less. Donald Trump is running for President. Liddy running at 72 might be far fetched, but after Clinton's reelection I am not willing to rule out any possibility.
Happy Days Are Here Again!
I mean - how many others could have taken a 90% plus approval rating (after the bizarre Gulf stuff) and.and.and....not been re-elected only about a year and a half later.
And they say that W. is but a shadow of his father.
Happy Days Are Here Again.
When Clinton and Gore are out of office and relegated to the dustbin of history, I will agree with you.
It is amazing what the power of propaganda can accomplish.
Fuck you buddy! (g)
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
Is AIDS a disaster inadvertently brought on by humans that arose from early testing of a polio vaccine in Africa in the 1950's?
In ``The River,'' Edward Hooper finds disturbing links between an experimental oral polio vaccine _ being given here in L eopoldville (now Kinshasa, Congo) in 1959 _ and the beginnings of the AIDS virus. The virus, he says, could have originated in chimpanzee tissues that he suggests were used to make the vaccine.
This provocative theory seemed far-fetched when it first came to public attention in an article in Rolling Stone in 1992. Most AIDS experts dismissed it after a scientific committee reviewed the theory and deemed the probability very low.
But that panel based its conclusion in part on a published finding that was later shown to be in error. And now a remarkable new book by a British journalist offers tantalizing clues to revive and expand the polio vaccine theory.
In "The River" (Little, Brown, $35), Edward Hooper suggests that an experimental oral polio vaccine might have been made with chimpanzee tissue contaminated with an ancestor of the virus that was to cause AIDS. Although he has no medical expertise, Hooper, 48, has done a prodigious amount of research since 1990. In 1,070 pages, including extensive footnotes, he builds a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence that he accumulated in hundreds of interviews and exhaustive library research.
He finds close coincidence in both time and place between the earliest cases of AIDS and the testing of an oral vaccine developed at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia and, later, in two laboratories in Belgium. From 1957 to 1960, the vaccine was given to a million people in what are now Rwanda, Burundi and Congo.
Sure, son.
Watch the GOP debates and keep telling yourself that these guys are 'leaders.'
You'll see an annuated frat boy who had his daddy the President's buddies fund his life. You'll see another guy who never accomplished a thing except for outliving his daddy. You'll see an extremist who was Charles Keating's personal assistant. You'll see a couple of bigots and racists.
The best of the GOP.
If the experimental vaccine was contaminated, nothing could have been done about it because tests for the ancestor virus did not exist then. And it would have been a one-time event because standard polio vaccines were not made from chimpanzee tissues. Of 28 cases of AIDS acquired in specified towns in Africa through 1980, 23 were from the same towns where the experimental vaccine was given or within 175 miles of them. The area is the epicenter of the African epidemic, which is the worst in the world.
And there is precedent for a simian virus's lurking in polio vaccine: millions of Americans were inadvertently infected with such a virus, SV-40, in the 1950's and early 1960's. (Fortunately, it was not harmful.) But in 1967, several laboratory workers in Germany died from the newly discovered Marburg virus after it had been imported in African green monkeys. The virus is harmless for the monkeys but lethal for humans.
The similarities Hooper describes could be coincidence. "The River" does not prove his extraordinary theory, nor does it claim to. But it builds a sufficiently detailed case to require serious examination of his theory.
Attempts to find answers require extensive research, and in the book and in subsequent interviews Hooper has offered a long list of suggestions, including laboratory testing of the small amounts of vaccine that still exist after having been stored for more than 40 years. Because the vaccine may have degraded over the decades, performing all the proposed research might still not determine whether it accidentally touched off the AIDS epidemic. And even if a simian virus turned up in the stored samples, it would not prove that it started the epidemic.
Despite a diligent search, Hooper could turn up no records of what primate tissues were used to prepare the first experimental polio vaccines, which were tested mostly in Africa but also in the United States and Europe. Though the government requires more record keeping today, scientists say there is ample room for improvement.
With the exception of a negative review in the journal Nature, experts writing in scientific journals have praised Hooper's diligence and scholarship and the plausibility of the thesis, even if they are skeptical of it. In the journal Science, Dr. Robin A. Weiss, a leading virologist in London, wrote that Hooper had written the most exhaustive history of polio vaccine trials and early AIDS cases.
The Wistar Institute, the first independent medical research center in the United States, appointed the 1992 panel to examine the theory that its vaccine might have touched off the AIDS epidemic. Now it says it is trying to find independent experts to do what they were unwilling to do seven years ago, when the panel recommended testing the remaining stocks of the experimental polio vaccine. One aim is to detect evidence of simian cousins of H.I.V.-1, the virus responsible for the overwhelming majority of AIDS cases in the world. A second is to determine the primate species from which the vaccine was prepared.
Ever since American doctors first recognized AIDS in 1981, the origin of the viral disease has been a mystery. Scientists have dismissed many theories, including those that held that the Central Intelligence Agency or K.G.B. concocted it, because they lacked evidence or did not fit the facts.
Scientists generally agree that H.I.V.-1 derives from a simian virus in chimpanzees. But the unanswered question is how the virus jumped to humans. The usual view is that passage must have occurred in blood-to-blood contact, like a bite or cut during the slaughter of chimpanzees.
But humans have killed chimpanzees for centuries. So why did transmission not occur until the late 1950's? The conventional explanation cites the vast social changes that occurred after World War II: mass migration, urbanization and sexual freedom.
Monkey cells were routinely used to make polio vaccines then and now. But Hooper theorizes that chimpanzees were also used to prepare the experimental polio vaccine. As circumstantial evidence, he points to a large colony of chimpanzees at the Lindi River in central Congo, where the primates were caught for research. (The river of the book's title is a metaphor for the search for the source of AIDS.) Only a small percentage of chimpanzees are believed to carry the H.I.V.-1 ancestor virus. But if chimpanzee tissues sent to a laboratory in Philadelphia or Belgium were infected, they might have found their way into one or more batches of experimental polio vaccine, particularly the strain known as CHAT, prepared at the Wistar Institute.
In such an event, H.I.V.'s simian ancestor might have grown in the batches of polio vaccine used in experimental trials only. When the vaccine was squirted into human mouths, the simian virus could have passed through a sore or ulcer and entered the bloodstream, subsequently to evolve into H.I.V.-1. From there it would have been transmitted through sexual or blood-to-blood contact.
Whether chimpanzee tissue was used should be easily confirmed or refuted by checking laboratory records and scientific journals. But Hooper said he could not find out precisely how the vaccine was made, and neither could the committee that the Wistar Institute appointed in 1992 to examine the theory.
The committee was justifiably skeptical of the theory, in part because British scientists had reported that a seaman from Manchester died of AIDS in 1959 and probably was infected for about 10 years, thus placing the origin of H.I.V.-1 before the development of polio vaccines. Also, the experimental Wistar vaccine had been given in Poland and Sweden, and AIDS was not reported there in the critical years.
Despite the committee's skepticism, it recommended that two independent laboratories test the remaining vaccine. In seeking such cooperation, Wistar officials found only one lab, at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, willing to do the work, so it was dropped because it would have been impossible to obtain confirmation, Dr. Clayton Buck, Wistar's deputy director, said in an interview.
The testing has taken on new urgency because further research has shown that the Manchester man did not die of AIDS: that the H.I.V. thought to have been isolated from his body was actually from someone else infected more recently.
Nevertheless, the misdiagnosis of AIDS in the seaman does not alter any of the committee's other conclusions. Even if chimpanzee tissue was used, the vaccine theory remains a long shot, the head of the committee, Dr. Claudio Basilico of New York University, said in an interview.
Dr. Basilico says his committee may be reactivated to oversee the preparation of the stored vaccine for testing. And the Wistar Institute has pledged to find two or three independent laboratories to do the tests.
"It ought to be done because it can be done," Dr. Basilico said, though he added that the testing might not provide a conclusive answer, in part because of the difficulty of disproving a theory.
In preparing the material for the independent laboratories, the Wistar Institute will include samples other than polio vaccine for purposes of scientific controls. The committee will code all the material to keep the testing laboratory from knowing which is which, Dr. Basilico said.
The Wistar polio vaccine was also given to a small number of Swedes. When some of the remaining vaccine was tested in 1995 as a result of Hooper's work, Swedish scientists found no evidence of simian viruses in it. But the findings do not refute the theory, because different vaccine batches may have been used in Africa and Sweden. Nor did the Swedish scientists try to determine the source of the primate species for the vaccine. Dr. Hans Wigzell, the director of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said in an interview that he was skeptical of the vaccine theory but assumed the Swedish government would be willing to do more laboratory testing to try to find out.
Hooper's recommendations go beyond such testing.
A second recommendation is to conduct a vast search of blood and tissues for evidence of H.I.V. in blood or tissue taken before the polio vaccine era; detecting the virus would strongly challenge the vaccine thesis.
A third proposal is to find out whether another early case of H.I.V., in a baby born in 1973 to a teenager in New Jersey, could have been linked to the testing of the experimental vaccine at a women's prison in Clinton, N.J.
With 16 million people dead and 33 million more infected, AIDS is among the worst epidemics in history. A seriously researched theory about something so devastating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the theory is unlikely and chances of proving or disproving it are slim. Since the credo of science is to seek the truth, science should assure the public of its integrity.
Vaccines are unquestionably one of medicine's great triumphs, and they have nearly eradicated polio from the world. But if experimental batches of polio vaccine were inadvertently contaminated with an ancestor of the AIDS virus when immunizations were made by much cruder techniques than those used today, then scientists and government officials would have to accept responsibility for a historic blunder.
But that attitude is surely shortsighted. As Dr. Peter Piot, the head of the United Nations AIDS program, said in a recent interview, "If it were possible to determine where AIDS came from, that would be important for science and the world to know."
um, that's another way of saying that whatever you are trying to say gets more than a bit diluted by your saturate them to death approach.
Sad.
I suspect you are more than a bit chagrined by the weaknesses of the candidates your party has decided to field.
Still can't link huh? Thanks for the article though. Very interesting!
What is Clinton's mission on such an asinine request (asinine because the Playboy Channel is already edited for content -- no penetration/oral/money shots)?
In your opinion, of course. I thought BC was supposed to be a big believer in the First Amendment. Is he caving in to this "what about the children?" nonsense yet again? Or is he just trying to make it look like he's actually doing something?
Niner:
Potential presidential candidates oughta should know how to link. And as far as running for President, do I (and probably your sidekick Ace) have to take your chalupa-folding ass to school again? Remember the negative ads? Yo quiero electomundo!
Linking, as Samuel Calhoun once said, is for pussies.
As for the Clinton administration's position on smut, it comports with GWB's position on renegade websites.
If the GOP candidates are so weak, why do you feel it necessary to spread lies and distortions about them? I am still waiting for you to extoll the virtues of Gore and/or Bradley. Of course that would require some actual thought on your part. It is much easier to attack Republicans than it is to defend Democrats.
Linking, as Samuel Calhoun once said, is for pussies.
Aha. And macho Catholic-schoolgirl-nailing jungle-studs cut and paste, then? Tell the truth, Niner, I know you do it to try to impress Britney Spears. Which is also why you hammer on Algore's lack of character.
Which is a good enough reason for me.
As for the Clinton administration's position on smut, it comports with GWB's position on renegade websites.
That wasn't the angle I was going for, but it works pretty well, as far as I can tell. Both of them are utterly shameless. If Clinton wants to go after TV crap that is harmful to children, let him go after Shasta McNasty or Providence. Or those awful millionaire quiz shows that are cropping up like extra Jackson (as in Michael and Tito) siblings.
Now we need a platform. Er, besides the shoes.
I don't get as exercised over these things as you. I have no problem if a politician wants to shake down a website or make points off the Spice channel. It is when you act all friendly to it, and then flush it down the shitter, that shamelessness enters the equation.
Sorry, Gore already has claim to this one.
A shorter podium would also be key, along with the shoes. One that would look, alongside a normal-height podium, comparable to a kiddie urinal next to an adult one.
Just like Shasta McNasty.
Do you suppose it has to do with America's rising trade deficit? Loss of mfg jobs? or the fact that Bill Gates is its current poster boy?
I'm seeing an angle here.
We need more Jake Busey vehicles.
Oh yeah. Either that, or we need more Buseys, period. Gary still walks that fine line of scary-silly, a province normally inhabited by people like Terry Bradshaw and Steve Carlton. Loads of extra entertainment value in those chromosomes.
I don't get as exercised over these things as you. I have no problem if a politician wants to shake down a website or make points off the Spice channel.
Well, of course you don't. You enjoy watching the game being played out, with all the baroque little moves and counter-moves. Me, I look at what they're actually doing and think, "Jesus H. Christ. These guys have nothing at all better to do than fret about some dipshit kids accidentally seeing a scrambled visual of a pair of fake titties?" There's nothing wrong with seeing a pair of knockers on TV, not a damned thing, especially considering how much graphic violence is far more easily available to them.
Nor is there anything wrong with some cheesedick slandering Texas' favorite son (next to Hank Hill, that is). That's what's fun about democracy, as opposed to, say, China.
It is when you act all friendly to it, and then flush it down the shitter, that shamelessness enters the equation.
Not really. Just a more obvious display of shamelessness.
Okay, okay. We get the Hollywood people who manage to shoot Michael J Fox, Tom Cruise, and Richard Gere in movies alongside tall leading ladies without making them look abysmally short. We have a basketball in his hands at all times except when he's busy cupping something else. We hire Spud Webb and Mugsy Bogues, and maybe that short guy who plays for the Cowboys, and have the four of them do Nike commercials where they're all dunking. We stage at least one WWF bout where Niner beats the living crap out of some tall wrestler. And we get the boy to drink as much milk as we can before the debate.
I recommend you go retro, and get some Huggy Bear-style platforms, maybe the glass-bottom ones with the goldfish in 'em.
Now that's pimpin'.
Message # 4858:
Clinton's position is eminently reasonable and certainly in keeping with mainstream thought.
OK, Elliot. Millions of people think so, therefore it's a good idea. Bullshit. It's a total waste of time and money. Wouldn't the Justice Dept.'s time maybe be better spent finding cultists to knock off or something? Is the Playboy Channel that much of a threat to the children?
We all should learn to accept the legislation and squint through the flickering horizontal images as best we can during this vicious and unprecedented assault on our most cherished amendment, the right to see Shannon Tweed get dry-humped by some gay car parker hoping to make it big in cable.
Oh, did you see that one too? But all the Shannon Tweed movies are now on Cinemax and Showtime and HBO. I mean, what if the children accidentally see something on those channels too? Chaos could ensue, dogs screwing cats in the streets, newspapers being delivered late, that sort of thing.
We should really think about the permanent mental scarring that a child gets after squinting at titties for too long. When he finally sees a real pair, and finds out the hard way that they're not really greenish-orange and blurry, the psychological damage could be severe.
I say make 'em easier to see. Notice they don't have these moronic nervous Nellies in Europe, nor do they have such sexual dysfunctions.
But people have decidedly mixed opinions on things such as obscenity and "proper for public consumption" et al. So, it is all you can do to ask for consistency. Asking for them to meet your standards (or mine) is asking them to see the genius of the Buseys.
I am not, as you intimate, smitten with the process, countermoves and so forth. Rather, I understand that the process simply cannot hang its hat on beaver shots as testament to First Amendment efficacy. So, rather than demanding that politicians share my penchant for porn, I merely demand that they remain somewhat reliable in outlook.
You say, "There's nothing wrong with seeing a pair of knockers on TV, not a damned thing, especially considering how much graphic violence is far more easily available to them." I am inclined to agree, but then I'll get Rosie O'Donnell topless on the tube and it will engender violence.
I agree with the first sentence of the last paragraph of 4866.
"OK, Elliot. Millions of people think so, therefore it's a good idea. Bullshit. It's a total waste of time and money. Wouldn't the Justice Dept.'s time maybe be better spent finding cultists to knock off or something? Is the Playboy Channel that much of a threat to the children?"
I am capable of recognizing the position as reasonable and still disagreeing with it.
I won't be able to get that image of a topless Rosie out of my mind all day. GACK!
Just don't go buying a gun today and you'll be alright.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect politicians to suddenly stand up and protect the rights of guys like you and me (and Ace, of course) to see beaver shots whenever and wherever we please. I do question the wisdom of bothering with the nonsense such as was in Cazart's link. It's very silly; first of all, the Playboy Channel is already edited, and while a bit more prurient in nature than Showtime After Hours, it's hardly any more graphic. Ergo, these people are wasting our time and money, and needlessly chipping at the commercial rights of a company which is cooperating far more than it should have to.
Why not make the cable companies/satellite providers fully scramble the signal, instead of threatening PC's right to broadcast when it wants? Keep in mind that PC is a premium cable/satellite network; you can't receive it if you don't want it. Plus all satellite systems come with "lock-out" pages to block the evil hooters from the kids' virgin eyes.
More than the waste of money, though, what gets me is this hoary notion that seeing depictions of sex is more harmful than violence for kids, or even that seeing sex is all that harmful to begin with. Must every single thing that is transmitted over the airwaves be cleansed and sanitized according to this odd dichotomy, in the naive hope that it will actually help anybody? I mean, I don't expect the FCC to clear NBC to show Anal Intruders 6 or anything, but how come these nervous Nellies never go after the Halloween or Friday the 13th marathons that run incessantly on movie channels? It's very silly reasoning on their part, that kids are better off watching teenagers get skewered with knitting needles, or carved up with chain saws, than to see blurry tits on a partially-scrambled porn channel.
Oh God. Fucker. I'm going to be troubled by the visual of a naked, squawking Michelin tire woman now. Bad enough that troll is on the cover of TV Guide this week (which, as you know, is the most widely-read publication in the USA -- aren't we lucky?).
"Why not make the cable companies/satellite providers fully scramble the signal, instead of threatening PC's right to broadcast when it wants? Keep in mind that PC is a premium cable/satellite network; you can't receive it if you don't want it. Plus all satellite systems come with "lock-out" pages to block the evil hooters from the kids' virgin eyes."
I think this is the position of the Clinton Administration. From today's Washington Post:
"In 1996, worried about graphic adult programming that was seeping into the homes of non-subscribers, Congress adopted a provision requiring cable operators to "fully scramble" their signal or to only show their sexually oriented fare between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Cable operators argued that because it is virtually impossible to completely scramble the signal at all times, they would be forced to keep their programs off until 10 p.m.
A special district court ruled that the provision violated the First Amendment, focusing on the fact that the government could have adopted a less restrictive alternative and required cable operators to offer parents lockboxes that prevent signal bleed. The court also noted that because between 30 and 50 percent of all adult programming is watched before 10 at night, the time restrictions impinge on adult viewers' rights."
I think you're thinking of Exit to Eden, with Dan Aykroyd. Yes, Rosie is in dominatrix get-up much of the film. By the time you get to see Dana Delany nekkid, it just don't matter anymore. Rosie is like saltpeter.
"More than the waste of money, though, what gets me is this hoary notion that seeing depictions of sex is more harmful than violence for kids, or even that seeing sex is all that harmful to begin with. Must every single thing that is transmitted over the airwaves be cleansed and sanitized according to this odd dichotomy, in the naive hope that it will actually help anybody? I mean, I don't expect the FCC to clear NBC to show Anal Intruders 6 or anything, but how come these nervous Nellies never go after the Halloween or Friday the 13th marathons that run incessantly on movie channels? It's very silly reasoning on their part, that kids are better off watching teenagers get skewered with knitting needles, or carved up with chain saws, than to see blurry tits on a partially-scrambled porn channel."
I could not agree more (except with your elevation of violence as more damaging than sex - they are both probably fine). But our mores are not the issue. The mores of the nation find a tit more insidious than Mr. T. I guess because when junior sees Mr. T blowing up a tank squadron, and junior wants to do same, Mom and Dad can say,'Oh, that's just television." But when T is humping Shannon Tweed ("I pity the fool!"), and junior wants to do same, Mom and Dad are a little more infringed.
Exactly. The argument really is over who has to bear the brunt of the cost of "protecting" the children -- Playboy or the cable operators. And I don't buy the cable companies' excuse that it's "virtually impossible to completely scramble the signal at all times". Even if it is, as you say, they can offer lock-out boxes that accomplish the same thing. But that costs them money, obviously.
[wringing hands, whining plaintively] But what about the children? Why can't the cable companies step in and protect them? Are their profits more important than The Very Well-Being Of This Country's Future?
Hey! How about some consideration for us folks that have to get up early in the a.m.? My sweetie has to be at work by 5:30 a.m., so it's not like he can stay up all night waiting for the unscrambled titties. How about some concern for worker safety? 
In Seattle, the police are throwing teargas into anti-corporate demonstrators AGAIN. I lost an eye to teargas after being clubbed on the head (for the same basic reasons) in Chicago '68. Hard to believe it can still happen. So the protesters were blocking the street... what's the deal here? Do cops still just live for this or what?
Well, then they're just plain goofy. I agree with your assessment there, you're absolutely right about the state of the nation's mores, but that is immensely silly, and sensible people should actively reject it as such. It is even more silly to be wasting the nation's time and taxpayer dollars on such foolishness.
It will be a fine day when "the majority" (whoever they are -- I've met very few people who think tits are more insidious than violence, but I know they're out there) finally grows up and admits it -- they like tits. They like sex. Those things don't hurt anyone, unless you're tremendously careless. At this rate, that day of realization won't come until long after we're pushing up daisies.
I guess because when junior sees Mr. T blowing up a tank squadron, and junior wants to do same, Mom and Dad can say,'Oh, that's just television." But when T is humping Shannon Tweed ("I pity the fool!"), and junior wants to do same, Mom and Dad are a little more infringed.
Yes, but Junior is much more easily capable of emulating the sort of violence he sees on WWF. All you need is some poles and ropes to make a "ring", a high place to jump off of, and a double-digit IQ.
What I think we have here is an egregious case of scrambled tittie discrimination. A class-action suit is in order.
Great. No surprise there. Can't wait until the Gestapo pulls out the Q-Tips and liquid pepper spray, just like they did up in Humboldt County a few years back. Bastards.
Your right to peacably assemble is conditional, folks. Just remember that next time you might weant to protest. You can be tortured by the cops for expressing your political views in a peaceful manner. It ain't just the Chinese that do that shit, it's just that they have it down to a science.
I guess the Clinton Administration didn't just get money from the Chinese in return for our nuclear secrets. They also learned crowd control tactics.
Or maybe that was before your time. (I keep forgetting that most of you people are in your thirties.)
The protesters were gassed only briefly, when they attempted to break through a static police line that kept them from invading the convention center where the WTO conference was being held. No injuries have been reported yet.
Meanwhile, delegates to the WTO have been physically assaulted as they attempted to get into the convention. Bands of protesters have been breaking windows out of businesses and cars parked on the streets, as well as vandalizing them.
Whatever sympathy I might have had for their cause (not much, considering that I believe their protests to be superstitious nonsense that plays into the hands of demagogues like Pat Buchanan, and I also think that they actually harm, not help, the cause of improving the lot of the world's poor) has vanished. A bunch of deluded, self-righteous assholes, you ask me.
Abolish marriage altogeher as well as sex and nudity.
Obviously Americans aren't grown up enough to handle any of it. Why else would we ever presume to make laws that treat us all like five year olds?
Would someone local comment on the WTO and the demonstators; and how this is being played out?
Buchanan Praises WTO Protesters
SEATTLE (AP) -- Conservative presidential candidate Pat Buchanan praised the thousands of demonstrators marching against the World Trade Organization, calling the Geneva-based organization that sets the rules of global trade an ``embryonic monster.''
Um, well ... I live in Seattle. (ProfE actually lives on the other side of the lake.)
ranheim,
Spudboy is on the job in Seattle.
Spudboy,
Yep. I was also clubbed and gassed only briefly (in 1968) while protesting against the system because I believed that things were screwed up and needed public protests to draw attention to that fact. At that time, we were hoping to wake up a portion of the populace from their peaceful open-eyed sleep.
Obviously, it didn't work too well.
I have a blind eye, a scarred-up face, massive migraines, huge skull knots that will never go away, and the knowledge that a majority of people still feel the way that you do. Peaceful open-eyed sleep is a safe and reassuring place to stay, no?
The most striking feature of the protesters is their lack of real conviction. Protesting the WTO seems to be more of a fashion statement than anything else. The most common sight among them is the presence of video cameras, which they are telling our reporters are mainly for the purpose of showing to their friends when they return to their hippie hovels in Oregon and California.
When I talk to them, all they can do is parrot the Naderite line. If I ask them how they expect to improve life for people in the Third World without business investment, they give me a blank look. It's obvious that the only reason they're here is that they are here is because it's a cool thing to do. They barely understand the issues they're protesting about.
I initially had a certain sympathy for their positions, since the protests actually provide the U.S. a certain amount of leverage for their positions in the trade talks, especially in the area of environmental protections and wages/worker conditions. I even considered letting some of them use my garage for sleeping quarters. Instead, there's been a steady stream of stories from the streets of people getting ripped off, their cars broken into, their bushes used for crappers, because probably some 10,000 of them showed up here with no place to stay, and they've made it clear they have no respect for other people's property or privacy.
My garage remains empty.
Anyway, I'm not exactly looking forward to trying to get home tonight. They have been occupying the local freeways as well.
I protested the war in Vietnam too, though I came away with no scars, and protested the Gulf War too. I think most people here will tell you I've done more in the real world for the causes of social justice and civil rights than the entire collection of hippies here in Seattle will do in their lifetimes. If my perspective is "peaceful open-eyed sleep," I'll only suggest that it probably beats addled, paranoid hallucinations.
I still think, however, that the WTO is carving up worldwide and environmental and child-labor laws and standards in the guise of beneficial world trade agreements. Profits seem to be the bottom line. I think that there are more important values.
I probably would have thirty years ago, but times (and people) change.
Profits rule the world...here and everywhere. Surely there are better and more important values but unfortunately, those take second place to the almighty profit margin.
That is indeed grounds for an interesting conversation. Unfortunately, I really must go now and can't be back for some time.
I'll offer this quick rejoinder: I agree that the WTO is essentially amoral. It has no sense of business ethics whatsoever.
I'm not so sure it should, either. It's a trade organization. Were it to gain an ethical component, whose ethics would they be? Ours? Isn't that just more cultural imperialism?
I really don't have a problem with focusing on trade and profits as the bottom line. I believe in the old adage, "A rising tide lifts all boats." In my work with Mayan Indians in Mexico, it's been quite clear that the best thing we can do is help create work opportunities for them and get out of the way. *They* will handle the charge for sociocultural change on their own just fine, thank you.
The police have behaved with admirable resraint. They have used gas to maintain some order. A curfew has been declared from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM throughout the downtown area. The demonstrators will be forced to leave the area. The work of the WTO conference has been delayed, but is now proceeding.
I am new to the Mote, and don't know anything about you. However, the line "In my work with Mayan Indians in Mexico" sounds very intriguing. So you're probably the person to ask:
What do you think of the Rigoberta Menchu controversy?
I suspect the the WTO powers-that-be will hire spinmeisters that will make the entire anti-WTO crowd look like thugs.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that I had hoped we were past the confrontations of the 60s and 70s that ended up accomplishing very little. It seems that we are not.
The demonstrators, however, billed this as "The Battle in Seattle," and have been meeting, planning, and training this demonstration for months. The gleefully destructive element within this group that has decided to kick in windows of storefronts and such has given the powers that be an excuse to come out with violence against the protestors.
This has happened for the last thirty-some odd years pretty much whenever mass street protests against the power structure have been attempted. Even if in agreement with many of the countercultural beliefs, I didn't go there -- partly because I'm old and putting a kid through college, and perhaps because I already knew that any demonstration billed as a "Battle in Seattle" would indeed become one; complete with batons, teargas, concussion canisters, and people dragged off to jail after being injured.
Sigh.
Unfortunately that's true. All it takes is one person to escape the karma cops and ruin it and endanger everyone.
The most common sight among [WTO protesters] is the presence of video cameras, which they are telling our reporters are mainly for the purpose of showing to their friends when they return to their hippie hovels in Oregon and California.
Probably, but the video cameras will also come in handy should the gendarmes decide to counter peaceful protestors by swabbing pepper spray directly onto their eyelids, as was done in Humboldt a few years ago. As for all the protestors being hippies, of course they are. Who else has time to get off the hamster wheel and attend to such matters?
When I talk to them, all they can do is parrot the Naderite line. If I ask them how they expect to improve life for people in the Third World without business investment, they give me a blank look.
Message # 4909:
....the WTO is essentially amoral. It has no sense of business ethics whatsoever....I'm not so sure it should, either. It's a trade organization.
I don't think the WTO necessarily should be based on ethics either. But if that's the case, the smart attitude for citizens to take is to be ethically neutral as well. We should be asking "What's in this for me? How will this benefit me?"
And let's face it -- the most likely beneficiaries will be the corporations and the dirt-poor peasants who will be making many fine products for us Yanquis to consume. I seriously doubt that NAFTA has put any money in your pocket or mine, Spuds, and I doubt WTO/GATT will either, not for a long time, and certainly not in any direct fashion. At any rate, the two above italicized comments seem almost at odds. Why should we, as individual citizens, concern ourselves with developing countries, while letting the corporations off the hook, by presuming them to be non-ethical (differentiated from unethical)?
Were it to gain an ethical component, whose ethics would they be? Ours? Isn't that just more cultural imperialism?
Maybe. So what? Maybe other countries should be told to think about the ethical ramifications of using child labor, prison slave labor, or heedlessly decimating the environment. That's part of assuming a leadership role, is it not?
It's not like we'll be telling the Chinese they can't eat cats anymore, just that it'd be nice if maybe they made an effort to shut down all the factories making illegal CDs and movies. They can still go on merrily squashing any sign of dissent or open expression of thought, we obviously don't give a damn about that. Freedom is nice, but hey, there's a billion consumers over there. That seems to be the prevailing attitude in our foreign economic policy, wrt China, and frankly I find it disturbing.
Certainly I realize that I'm radically oversimplifying rather complex issues in the above posts. And I'm no isolationist/protectionist; I'd like to see developing countries get the opportunity to further develop.
The question is, who will pay for this development? Will it come out of my pocket? We know it won't come out of the corporations' pockets; they are, after all, drawing up the rules for the game. But the pros are presenting this as way for corporations to keep their costs down, help out the Third World, and pass the savings on to Joe Six-Pack. Sorry, but I believe that about as much I believe that the Spice Girls write their own songs and play all the instruments.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. WTO/GATT is neither wholly benign, nor is it the hell-spawn the Naderites are making it out to be. But it will affect billions of lives, and questions need to be asked and answered clearly about what the real benefits and problems will be, and specifically to whom they will accrue. And the WTO's secrecy about itself does not help its perception with the public. Rightly or wrongly, lots of people feel like they're getting greased up for a cornholing by a bunch of trans-national merchant princes. NAFTA hasn't exactly produced results to assuage fears of downsizing and sudden forced career changes. People are afraid that they'll have their lives upended so someone else can make a million-dollar bonus, and not without some justification, imho.
So while I think it's too bad the protests have attracted a bunch of idiot hooligans, there must be some real protesters there, and I'm glad they are. It seems to be the only way to get the issues even partially discussed in the public arena, before it gets rubber-stamped anyway.
"... the most likely beneficiaries will be the corporations and the dirt-poor peasants who will be making many fine products for us Yanquis to consume."
They won't make a single penny, unless you and I actually buy their stuff. But if and when we do, the only possible reason is that we're deriving a benefit from buying that, as opposed to buying something else from someone else.
"I still can't get used to this no editing after ya post stuff."
The ability to edit (or even delete) after you post is just about the worst feature a forum like this can have. Thank your, um, stars for finding one that sensibly disallows it.
Maybe, maybe not. Possibly widgets from Honduras or China will be much less expensive than union-made American widgets, and of equal quality. Also possible that they'll be the same price, and of inferior quality. Most likely they'll be cheaper in cost and quality. That's the way the world works.
However, if you lose your widget job to the guy in Honduras or China, and you're 50 years old, and have a bit of a problem instantly retraining for a new career, you get to take whatever job you can find. So you won't have to worry about buying widgets anymore, but how to make ends meet on what will most likely be a lower-paying job.
I understand that many folks who get downsized land on their feet more or less, otherwise no one would be able to buy all those darn widgets. But many do not land on their feet with the requisite grace to maintain their lifestyle. Again, that's the way the world works. But I hate to see a little guy take it in the shorts so an executive can get a fat downsizing bonus.
Yesterday's Chronicle had some decent pro/con open forum pieces. Check 'em out:
Pro #1
Con #1
Pro #2
Con #2
"Possibly widgets from Honduras or China will be much less expensive than union-made American widgets, and of equal quality."
In which case, I'll buy them, and thereby gain a benefit.
"Also possible that they'll be the same price, and of inferior quality."
In which case, I won't. And then the Hondurans and Chinese won't gain any benefit.
"Most likely they'll be cheaper in cost and quality."
In which case, I'll buy them if and only if I decide the decrease in price is worth the decrease in quality. (And, once again, the Hondurans and Chinese will benefit if and only if I do.)
In which case, I'll buy them if and only if I decide the decrease in price is worth the decrease in quality.
Of course. But that's not the point. The point is that this likely direct result is not exactly a boon to mankind. So you can get cheaper, crappier VCRs -- big fuckin' deal.
(And, once again, the Hondurans and Chinese will benefit if and only if I do.)
Depends on if it's your job that went over there or not, and how quickly and easily you're able to find another comparable job --something I noticed that neither Krugman's nor DeLong's analysis addressed.
I don't pretend to have the answers, I'm just saying that these are the sorts of concerns that, rightly or wrongly, people here and in Europe have, and that the WTO ought to take an active role in addressing. Let's face it --corporations are selfish, and so are people. So people want to know, how will this affect their lives and livelihoods? Will they have to pound the pavement looking for another fuckin' job? Will the food they buy suddenly be subject to intellectual property royalties?
Some folks will win on this deal, and some will lose. The right thing to do (and thus far, we keep hearing that this is the right thing to do) would be to figure out exactly who will lose, and try to make it a bit better for them.
As for the much-touted role of the WTO in encouraging civilized behavior on the part of the Chinese gov't, I can only offer up some ocean-front property in New Mexico to anyone who really buys into that one, at least in the short term. We've bent over every which way for them for years, and they're still tyrants. So that dog don't hunt.
Well, that's fine too, in which case, why bother with the WTO at all? We'll all just keep doing our jobs, and fuck the rest of the world.
You might have to subsidize the "crematorium bait" with a couple of extra bucks for your widget, or you might have to subsidize Paco with your job so you can get cheaper widgets. Some choice, and really, you won't even get to make the choice. Someone else will make it for you.
For your own good of course, because we just want to pass the savings on to you, the consumer.
"So you can get cheaper, crappier VCRs -- big fuckin' deal."
It is, if they're sufficiently less crappier than cheaper, from the buyers' point of view. And if they're not, they'll just stay on the shelves.
"Depends on if it's your job that went over there or not..."
Well, if some guy over in, say, India can write better code for the same money, or equally-good code for less money, etc., than I can -- then that might be a loss for me, but it's a gain for the consumers of said code. So I have no reason to complain, other than pure selfishness. The economy still benefits.
by Terence Hunt
AP White House Correspondent
Tuesday, Nov. 30, 1999; 11:04 a.m. EST
"I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner," said the WH Rapist.
Clowntoon, who has until now denied that the Chinese were to take control of the strategic canal, admitted it publicly.
And, as if to underline his admission and seemingly to ensure there could be no misunderstanding of his words, Moron-boy elaborated. According to the AP story, he compared the operation of the canal to China's campaign to win admission to the World Trade Organization, which sets the rules for global trade.
"They'll want to demonstrate to a distant part of the world that they can be a responsible partner," the president said. "And I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal."
There you have it. At least we haven't given Long Beach to the Chinese yet, unless Shithead is lying to us once again. What a surprise *that'd* be.
Is it correct to call Buchanan 'conservative', especially now that he's hooked up with a crypto-Marxist like Lenora Fulani? I look at Buchanan as being much more a power grabbing opportunist with populist leanings.
You referred to having to "subsidize some 50 year old crematorium bait" by paying more for a product. I'm saying that even if you get that product cheaper elsewhere, the consequence could be you subsidizing the guy making the cheaper product -- with your job, rather than just a few extra bucks. If that's OK by you, fine.
Believe me, I'm not anti-free trade, or anti-competition. But I don't think it's been very well-discussed as to who specifically will reap the most tangible benefits from the WTO agreements. If it's all about "I got mine, and the hell with the other guy", OK -- I want to know what benefits I will see. Because if it's just cheaper VCRs, then I'd rather not bother.
If it will genuinely benefit the citizens of poor, developed countries, and not significantly harm too many American workers, great. I'm all for it. If, OTOH, it merely enables multi-national corporations to 1) make sweetheart deals with rapacious Third World governments to get dirt-cheap labor, 2) fire American workers, and 3) pocket all the profits, then the hell with it. I'm not interested in furthering the spread between the haves and have-nots, or giving the top quintile an extra few percent of all the wealth, as if 84% is not quite enough.
Either way, more details from the WTO as to the specific advantages or disadvantages provided to the average American worker would be nice. So far, it sounds largely like lectures on "how can you be so stupid as to even consider not passing this?". Paternalism from the people holding the purse strings is not enlightenment.
Buchanan's social policies are certainly conservative, though he is also a meat-and-potatoes populist.
Referring to any politician as a "power grabbing opportunist" is merely redundant, imho.
But hey, who cares about that shit, Ricky Martin's on tour and he is just sooooo muy caliente!
How Many Atrocities Does It Take To Get Into USA Today?
"Some folks will win on this deal, and some will lose. The right thing
to do (and thus far, we keep hearing that this is the right thing to
do) would be to figure out exactly who will lose, and try to make it a bit better for them."
The Indian novelist Arundhati Roy said (I've quoted this before) that although an egalitarian society is i9mpossible and doesn't exist, the decent societies constantly strive towards the creation of an egalitarian society.
Re the WTO riots: As mayor I would order all Starbucks closed until these java junkies came down from their caffeine-induced rampage. Let 'em riot in Seattle in December without Mr. Joe for a while and they'll be begging for the pepper spray.
penetration/oral/money shots)?
Beats me. It's embarrassing to me that the President would take such a conservative stance on this issue.
What's doubly frightening is that many on the SC agree with him.
It's pretty simple: if you don't want your kids watching T&A on the tube, downloading porn off the internet, or listening to bad language on their stereos---supervise your kids. I really have no objection if TV networks wish to broadcast hardcore videos all day; it does not diminish the responsibility of parents to keep their kids in line.
Not a comment on the relative worth of the two philosophies, just an observation.
A spirited and mostly coherent rant on the media and the WTO from DRUDGE. Yes, DRUDGE
No, I see this as an infringement on first amendment rights. Contrary to Indiana Jones' ridiculous spin, I think Clinton's motivation was to 'protect' the kids. However, in doing so, he managed to trample on the rights of others. As for being labeled 'pro-pornography'--bullshit. This is akin to those flag burning amendment kooks who believe that if you don't support the amendment, you're 'pro-flag burning.' It's Clinton's job to stand up to this kind of hyperbole.
I note with smug satisfaction that Indiana Jones is willing to take Clinton to task for a measure that is wholly supported by his own political bretheren. That is hypocrisy.
It is hypocrisy if Indiana agrees with the Clinton Administration's position yet takes it to task for taking same. Indiana's post, however, criticizes the President on a separate level: for subordinating his own assumed pro-First Amendment beliefs (which would include siding with cable operators and the Playboy Channel) to political expedience (taking the posistion the administration has now taken).
I disagree with Indiana. I'm confident Clinton is in consonance with the position his administration has taken. But his post is not hypocritical.
2) I'm glad I'm not in charge in Seattle. It amazes me that the WTO meeting was allowed to be shut down.
By Joan Biskupic
Washington Post
December 1, 1999
"Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens yesterday blocked the enforcement of Illinois and Wisconsin laws that ban a type of late-term abortion, as the controversy over what opponents call "partial birth" abortion moved closer to an ultimate resolution at the high court.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the late-term abortion bans in October and, after weeks of vacillating actions, refused yesterday to temporarily suspend the statutes pending appeals to the Supreme Court.
Stevens's short order in the cases, which were directed to him as the justice who oversees emergency business in the midwestern 7th Circuit, said that the laws would be halted until the Supreme Court acts on the appeals, which could take more than a year.
Bans on partial-birth abortion have become the focal point of today's abortion wars, roiling Congress, state legislatures and now the courts. While the 7th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of such laws in Wisconsin and Illinois, the 8th Circuit only a few weeks earlier had struck down similar bans in Arkansas, Iowa and Nebraska.
Those who have challenged the Wisconsin and Illinois bans contend that the statutes are vaguely written and could be interpreted to prevent women from undergoing procedures that the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional. The Wisconsin law calls for life in prison for anyone performing the late-term procedure except to save the mother's life, and physicians who are seeking to have that law suspended argue that they would have to worry about going to jail even for abortions that the Supreme Court might eventually allow.
It is difficult to predict what the justices will do with a given appeal, and most are rejected without explanation. But because lower courts are split on the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion laws, there is a good chance the justices will take up the issue. If they agree to hear the case, it will be the first time the justices will address a woman's right to end a pregnancy since 1992, when they narrowly upheld Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide.
The state of Nebraska has already appealed the 8th Circuit ruling to the high court. Appeals in the Wisconsin and Illinois cases are due in January. The court will likely decide this spring whether to take the appeals. Oral arguments would be scheduled for later in the year, with a probable ruling in 2001.
Indicative of the passions that swirl around the abortion issue, the 7th Circuit was bitterly divided in its discussions of whether to suspend the laws temporarily until the appeals could be resolved. The court twice refused to halt enforcement of the laws but then reconsidered. When it ultimately declined to suspend the laws yesterday, it was by a 5 to 5 vote.
The dissenting judges said the decision showed a "regrettable disregard for the importance of the issues." Judge Diane P. Wood wrote, "We are dealing, after all, with matters of life and death, as they relate to a woman's exercise of a constitutional right the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized."
No, my intellectually obtuse friend, the gist of my post was that in general the Democrats seem to have become the more Machiavellian party in the late 1990s, irrespective of this one issue or Clinton--though he has certainly shown them the path to elective righteousness. I think in the future you should stick to arguing whether David Robinson is taller than 6' 6''. Anything more subtle exceeds the cognitive capabilities of the perceptron you call a brain.
By the way, only some pornography is bad.
This all seems too well orchestrated to me.
For another view of WTO, I'd suggest Tom Friedman in today's NY Times, 4953. cazart - 12/1/1999 10:13:10 AM
I disagree.
Indiana Jones' post is hypocritical for criticizing the motivation. After all, I'm sure that the GOP professes a great belief in the First Amendment. However, their interpretation is just a tad different.
Of course, if you're arguing that the GOP doesn't believe in the First Amendment or believes that the First should be severely limited, then I might agree with you.
You don't think his motive makes no difference?
Senseless in Seattle.
Nobody claimed that pornography is 'good' or 'bad.' That's not an issue.
Your post was simple hypocrisy.
Now, be a good boy and return to your Pet of the Year videos.
"Indiana Jones' post is hypocritical for criticizing the motivation. After all, I'm sure that the GOP professes a great belief in the First Amendment. However, their interpretation is just a tad different. Of course, if you're arguing that the GOP doesn't believe in the First Amendment or believes that the First should be severely limited, then I might agree with you."
I'm not arguing the First Amendment. I'm merely assesing Indiana's post and I would not more leaden him down with the responsibility of defending GOP hypocrisy than criticize him for pointing out that of Clinton.
Cazart can question Senator Bob Smith's (R-NH) motivation for leaving the GOP with an excoriating speech, only to return after Senator Chafee's untimely death and receive a committee chairmanship. It is absurdist in the extreme for me to then retort: "Oh yeah. Well what about Clinton's (fill in the blank)." None of us comes with an (R) or (D) by our name (though our sympathies can sometimes show), and Indiana's rumination that Clinton's position on cable porn is more political than heartfelt may be wrong, and it may be right, but it cannot be mutated to "hypocritical" by mere dint of the fact that he may agree with Clinton's position.
Just saying "hypocrite" over and over don't mean a damn thing, queasy. You've as much evidence to support that as your claim I's hustlin yo bitches or bogartin yo snuff films.
I believe your post was intended for me.
Who cares about Bob Smith? He's an irrelevant pustule on the ass of the GOP. Hell, even most Republicans must wonder why they have to carry water for him.
You have the ear of a Doberman.
Someone says "One must spot the issue and treat it with equanimity in order to discern whether in fact the post was hypocritical or something altogether different."
You hear: "zzzzzzzzzzzzz SPOT blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah TREAT zzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
You're wrong and you know it.
Keep your eye on the ball, son.
The issue was Indiana Jones' hypocritical post regarding Clinton's ill-advised attack on what is clearly a First Amendment issue. You defend Indiana Jones by stating that it has nothing to do with the First Amendment, then you introduce some blather about Bob Smith. Unless ol' Bob is appearing in drag on the Playboy Channel, he really has no place in this discussion.
Your initial defense of Indiana Jones' hypocritical post was better, though seriously flawed.
Sorry. I didn't know it was loaded.
"The WTO gives rights and powers to corporations and takes power away from people," argued 19-year-old Adam Fargason, a University of Alabama student who credits his political awakening to linguist-writer Noam Chomsky and Dead Kennedies rocker Jello Biafra. "It violates democracy." Salon
WTO protesters go to the Web
Guerrilla journalists and webcams bring you all the tear-gassed excitement of Seattle's street protests.
Salon
"The WTO gives rights and powers to corporations and takes power away from people," argued 19-year-old Adam Fargason, a University of Alabama student who credits his political awakening to linguist-writer Noam Chomsky and Dead Kennedies rocker Jello Biafra. "It violates democracy."
I know you have the habit of linking without comment, but why do you think that this 19 year-old idiot is worth quoting here?
The poor are still here, even if we don't know their names
AUSTIN -- The poor are still with us. Just thought I'd point that out, in case you were under the impression that all was tickety-boo here in the land of milk and honey. In fact, there are more of them than ever as a consequence of an economy that has entirely bypassed those at the bottom. Molly Ivins
I think RobertJ was giving us a small taste of the article he linked to in Salon. It worked for me; made me want to read the rest of it.
It should be noted that the President is in town, staying in the middle of that zone. Also, there have been many complaints from foreign delegates on the lack of security offered them yesterday.
PM,
Well, gee. To me the statement illustrates the surreal
aspect of the whole business. Of course, Chomsky makes
my head hurt and I've never heard of Jello Biafra.
I suspect the young man is having us on and that he
was delighted to be quoted.
. Banners and radio communication devices are being seized from all protesters near the zone.
Must be the capitalist exception to the constitution- the majority of the soft money wins.
I'm especially in favor of abortions in the cases of poor people and other mental defectives.
This is an example of the crude social Darwinism that was in vogue in the period between the wars but which apparently survives here and there. It was thought then that the poor were poor because of mental inferiority. The solution to "improving the human stock", as it was called, was then to prevent these people from breeding. Abortion was not on the cards then so the method of choice was forced sterilisation of women. I know little about the American programme but I know it was there. For the Swedish one look out for the next instalment of the Concise History, due in one or two weeks.
Don't you think the police dealing with these fanatics are a little less concerned with rights and a little more concerned with the safety of the residents? On the news, it looked to me as though this crowd, which admittedly is from out of state and has planned this mayhem for weeks, is very out of control.
The civil disobedience was very well organized. Groups would chain themselves to manhole covers in intersections. Other support groups with full face gas masks would hover around the intersection, kick away gas cannisters, and administer eye washes, from large bottles of lime/water, to those affected. On video clips of delegates attempting to get into the conference you can hear people yelling to each other to not touch the delegates and to stick to non-violent obstruction.
All in all it warms the cockles of my heart to see such action.
Well, I've never understood how someone can argue it's legal to terminate a 9-month old fetus in any way, whether by putting it to sleep or sucking its brains out.
I wish the PBA ban would stop focusing on method--that's why the constitutionality is in question. Why not just focus on fetal age?
Cal --
Because PBA lends itself to particularly gruesome copy.
Niner --
"It is a comforting falsehood that somehow Clinton takes conservative social positions because he has been "forced" to by those mean ole' Republicans ..."
It's comforting on both sides of the aisle. Those "mean ole Republicans" can go back to their core constituencies and tell them that no, they didn't get a tax cut, and yes, they voted to increase the budget for the Department of Education, and gee, somehow that ole debbil Clinton survived in office but -- hey! -- if it wasn't for the GOP, the country would be Gomorrah, as opposed to merely slouching toward it.
Yeah, I know. But the reason for the popularity of PBA bans is the late term issue. Surely they could figure out a way to "market" the horror of the age, not the method.
Cal --
"Surely they could figure out a way to "market" the horror of the age, not the method."
Sure. But that requires more effort and the distinction between an unborn child at five months as opposed to six, or six to seven, or seven to nine, is subtle. PBA is graphic and easy to understand and requires almost no effort to market.
Leading off with pictures of PBA corpses gets you a wider audience. And since they'll have no appetites, you can save on refreshments at the pro-life rallies.
BTW, Cal, you've got mail.
Just lucky, I guess.
Agree. It's a wedge issue.
It is such a horrific procedure that it is hard to defend.
Untrue. Most so-called PBAs are performed for perfectly legitimate reasons involving the health of the mother.
Most medical procedures are 'horrific' if you detail the minutiae of what is being done. Sausage is pretty 'horrific' if you see how it's made.
Once it has been successfully banned, then other procedures will become the target.
That is the hope and true objective of the anti-choicers.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
