406. Ronski - 9/21/1999 5:52:06 PM

Cal,

The exceptions being Atlantic City, and Nevada, and, due to quasi-sovereignty, those clever Native Americans (payback time).

407. Ronski - 9/21/1999 5:53:09 PM

I think I know how that double post happened and I will never do it again.

408. JonesAtLaw - 9/21/1999 5:54:49 PM

Casino gambling is the real danger in gambling. Yes, you can lose a ton of money at the track, but the average Joe could spend the whole day on $50 and have a ball. How long would that money last in the average casino? The pace of the game is everything.

409. Amaxen@work - 9/21/1999 6:03:47 PM

CristinO:

"We have laws here that protect the worker because they have tended throughout history to be abused by the employer. We have decided that there are certain things that are wrong----child labor, hazardous working conditions. Why are they suddenly not wrong outside the US? Because those workers are less important that Americans? Because they can't really cause us any problems and they're glad to have the jobs anyway? That doesn't make it right. "

I originally pointed out that it is this sort of thinking --that frames the issue in a way that lets unions justify their existence and wrap it up in a neat moral package is just insulting to the intelligence. Wrong and not wrong? How do you justify letting one human being with no other options starve so that a relatively rich one with options can keep the job he has? And then the frame says that this is the only moral decision to make? No, I don't think so.

Even if you accept the logic that a job that moves to another shore is one less job that is available in this country (not true, BTW) you still cannot justify that moral accounting to me. Perhaps you can base your argument to me in realist terms (e.g. American unions have the power to enforce their own interests, thus it is natural that they do so). However, I do not accept the argument that it is some how more moral to let people starve rather than give them jobs that pay less than the legal minimum of the wealthiest country in the world.

To reiterate. I'll accept the moral burden of being pro-slave wages. Will you accept the burden of being pro-starvation?

410. Amaxen@work - 9/21/1999 6:04:53 PM

CristinO:

"We have laws here that protect the worker because they have tended throughout history to be abused by the employer. We have decided that there are certain things that are wrong----child labor, hazardous working conditions. Why are they suddenly not wrong outside the US? Because those workers are less important that Americans? Because they can't really cause us any problems and they're glad to have the jobs anyway? That doesn't make it right. "

I originally pointed out that it is this sort of thinking --that frames the issue in a way that lets unions justify their existence and wrap it up in a neat moral package is just insulting to the intelligence. Wrong and not wrong? How do you justify letting one human being with no other options starve so that a relatively rich one with options can keep the job he has? And then the frame says that this is the only moral decision to make? No, I don't think so.

Even if you accept the logic that a job that moves to another shore is one less job that is available in this country (not true, BTW) you still cannot justify that moral accounting to me. Perhaps you can base your argument to me in realist terms (e.g. American unions have the power to enforce their own interests, thus it is natural that they do so). However, I do not accept the argument that it is some how more moral to let people starve rather than give them jobs that pay less than the legal minimum of the wealthiest country in the world.

To reiterate. I'll accept the moral burden of being pro-slave wages. Will you accept the burden of being pro-starvation?

411. vonKreedon - 9/21/1999 6:08:28 PM

Axe - It's not an issue of Pro-Slave wages vs. Pro-Starvation; I would argue for paying non-slave wages.

412. CalGal - 9/21/1999 6:11:40 PM

Jones,

Yes, but I bet casino gambling doesn't hit the poor disproportionately. You have to have money to gamble at casinos. Casinos do a great job on getting the working class and retired in their clutches. But not the poor.

BTW--in most states, aren't lotteries voted in by proposition, as opposed to legislative act of some sort?

413. ElliottRW - 9/21/1999 6:19:24 PM

JonesAtLaw

So what we really need is slow gambling!

How about an "investment" lottery where people buy bonds, the interest of which is raffled off?

Or maybe we could have an exercise lottery where people have to climb a flight of stairs for each ticket they buy?

Perhaps we should force people to eat a brussels sprout for each ticket they buy?

Recite an amendment to the constitution?

Correctly answer a science, math, or history question?

Suggestions, anyone?

414. ranheim - 9/21/1999 6:30:10 PM

#383

Gambling has been a staple in Louisiana for years. The 1892 governor's election hinged on the very corrupt LA lottery. As the anti-lottery candidate won the election, the lottery was banned.

The Catholic Church has been in the bingo business for a great many years.

I am not aware of any formal studies on the various forms of gambling in this state but, all one hears about is video poker. In some fashion, the number of video poker machines allowed at one establishment it tied to the number of gallons of diesel pumped. (I have to assume that someone with great political influence - not to talk about under-the-table cash - owned a truck stop/s.)

The local consensus is that video poker is bad; casinos are slightly less bad. The lottery and bingo, while not beneficial, are not really problems.

415. Aldavis - 9/21/1999 7:17:02 PM

There would be no quicker way to end the evil of gambleing than to make the poor sucker eat a brussel sprout unless it would be a stalk of broccoli.

Calif. has allowed gambleing for ages, either at the track or in Poker Clubs, which are all over the State. they tax it just like they tax everything else.

It is naive to suppose that the clubs will get the addict faster than the track or for that matter the lottery. Why man gambles is a very complex question but it seems to be pervasive in most cultures if not all.

416. Aldavis - 9/21/1999 7:22:57 PM

I came accross an ad in our daily paper, "the Garden Island". Ii is a HUD ad letting us know that has Section 8 funds for Rental Assistance for the impovrished. Under "Vey Low Income"; Family of 4, $32,300 annual. Now if rents were high on Kauai that might make a little sense, but there are 2 and three bedroom homes from $600-$800.

what is really being reflected I feel sure is that much public housing was constructed on Kauai and they are having trouble filling it. Is $32,300 poverty to most pf you?

417. Amaxen@work - 9/21/1999 7:54:00 PM

VonK:

Ah, but that is not usually an option: Companies would not normally send high wage, high skill work abroad, productivity in 3d & 4th world countries would not support it. Besides, then the unions would really have somthing to complain about.

I don't know of any real way to make them do so either. If you mandate that these companies pay US wages in the third world, that is the same as forbidding them to do so outright, and the result is the same: starving kids (and adults). In point of fact, Foreign MNCs pay very high wages by local standards. It is only in comparison to the rich countries that the wages are 'slave'.

418. JudithAtHome - 9/21/1999 8:03:41 PM

Amaxen@work...I like your handle.

419. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 8:05:35 PM

I'd like it better if it was Avixen@work

420. Dusty - 9/21/1999 8:23:36 PM

ChristinO

It's simply a "Wouldn't it be great if...."

But it would not be great if…

It sounds to me like a recipe for hell.

421. SpenceMirrlees - 9/21/1999 8:23:46 PM

Chris,

I would rather that American businesses employ Americans before taking those jobs out of the country.

And would you rather Canadian firms do the same, and French firms, and Dutch firms?

If not, what is your statement but unabashed nationalism? If so, how do you expect the developing world to develop? In looking out for the welfare of laborers in the third world you will have effectively sealed their fate.

422. Amaxen@work - 9/21/1999 8:58:56 PM

Thanks,

Judith@Home!

423. Aldavis - 9/21/1999 9:48:31 PM

Would some one like to define poor for me? I was in a poker game one time, and one guy after he had lost all his money, wanted to get back in the game with food stamps at $.50 on the $1.00. I know he was a poor poker player, that's for sure.

424. Amaxen@work - 9/21/1999 11:27:42 PM

Re the Marxist debate;
Was reading through the economist this week and found its special section to be even more fascinating than usual. Also very relevant to what we are discussing. An excerpt:


IF YOU look at the past 100 years in the 40-50 countries that are now considered rich, what trend do you see? Bradford De Long, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes it in the title of his forthcoming book on the 20th century as “Slouching towards Utopia”. Slouching, because despite huge material and scientific progress, people are grudging about it all. Utopia, not because perfection has been reached or is attainable, but because the state of wealth and knowledge in 1999 would have more than satisfied the Utopias envisaged by many previous crystal-gazers and proselytisers .....

.... Commentators in the early 1900s would have been surprised by all that money being spent on leisure, and especially by the idea that time off is being enjoyed by the poor as well as the rich: no work at weekends, holidays at all, let alone abroad. But they would have been most surprised that, once ordinary folks’ basic needs were covered, they carried on working hard.
In his book “In Praise of Idleness”, Bertrand Russell wrote in 1935: “The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich.” But he went on to argue that: “Only a foolish asceticism...makes us continue to...work in excessive quantities now that the need no longer exists.”

425. ChristinO - 9/22/1999 1:08:55 AM

Spence,

I fully support feeding the kids who are starving next door so long as my own children are fed first. It's no more and no less than that.

Dusty,

It's hell if everybody works and everybody eats? Does that mean that it's better if only some people work and some people eat or should everyone work and no one eat or what? What is wrong with everyone contributing and everyone reaping the benefits?



crap, gotta go.

Not ignoring you Amaxen

426. SpenceMirrlees - 9/22/1999 2:13:36 AM

So Chris, does that mean that American labor alone should have the benefit of American firms hiring American labor first, or should labor in all rich countries get the same privelege?

Don't really care, just wondering. Arbitrary is fine, after all, and amounts to a declaration of preference, like, "I hate shrimp."

What is puzzling is how one argues against some policy on ethical grounds that are obviously arbitrary. Isn't the other arbitrary stance just as fine? It is like arguing that one should say "ugggh" rather than "oooff" when punched in the gut.

427. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:24:52 AM

POW!


BAM!


OOF!

AAAGGHH!< font>

428. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:25:36 AM

Really, Spence. It's "aaaaaggghhh". None of this "ugggh" nonsense.

429. SpenceMirrlees - 9/22/1999 2:40:14 AM

heh.

Nononono. One obviously says "ugggh," as one doesn't have the wind left to say "aaaaagggghhhh."

430. CalGal - 9/22/1999 3:04:41 AM

Well, one doesn't have his stomach muscles properly toned, then.

A truly tough tummy can take a Pow! and a Bam! and still have wind left for "aaaaaaaggggghhh".

431. SpenceMirrlees - 9/22/1999 3:17:02 AM

No, it's just that I make a habit of getting in fights with boxing champions. Quite withering blows they can land.

432. CalGal - 9/22/1999 3:20:51 AM

Well, I'm sure they give it their best shot. But you kick their asses anyway, yes?

433. SpenceMirrlees - 9/22/1999 3:39:35 AM

oh, of course. Do you have to ask?

434. CalGal - 9/22/1999 3:57:16 AM

Well, only because my tiniest scintilla of doubt expressed in that "yes?" is the only crumb of comfort the boxing champs can cling to, and you never know who might be lurking. I'm just a softie; I hate to hurt their feelings.

435. JonesAtLaw - 9/22/1999 11:20:29 AM

The point I was trying to make was that casinos with their fast pace tend to accelerate the process of addiction. At least that's my belief. While everyone who's ever been to a track has seen some poor sod spending their last nickel on the next sure thing, I think that casinos tend to create problem gamblers faster than other slower forms of gambling. Every time I go to a casino, I think of skinner boxes when I see the folks sitting at the slots, bar pressing like mad. There is a certain portion of the population predisposed to gambling problems, just as some are predisposed to alcoholism or drug addiction. I suppose that trying to reduce gambling addiction through slower forms of gambling may be like only selling 3.2% beer to prevent alcoholism, so perhaps centering our attention on treatment for affected individuals is best. It would be nice if the "gaming" industry was forced to bear the costs of treatment before the government got its loot.

436. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 12:36:15 PM

Christin - "It's hell if everybody works and everybody eats?"

That is not what "From each according to his ability. . ." implies. It implies that those with ability must work longer and harder than those without. It also implies that the rewards of that labor do not go to those who produce it, but rather they go to those who need it more.

Let's look at an example. Two boys are born on the same day in the same hospital and grow up next to each other. Boy 1 excersizes regularly, eats right, studies hard and grows to be a strong, healthy, intelligent adult. Boy 2 spends his childhood in front of the television, eats junk food, and neglects his studies. He grows up to have chronic health problems, and is overweight, neurotic and almost illiterate. It would be expected of Boy 1 to go out work to the best of his ability 60-80 hours a week. His reward would be the bare minimum because his needs are small. Boy 2 would not be required to work since he has no marketable ability and his chronic illness would entitle him additional benefits and comforts not available to Boy 1.

I don't see how you can look at this perverse situation and see anything good in it. It seems you want to see "From each. . . " as nothing more than the strong helping the weak, but that is neither stated nor implied in that statement. The statement implies that the strong are punished and the weak are rewarded, and no system can operate that way.

437. Spudboy - 9/22/1999 1:19:22 PM

The GOP steps on its own dick again, compliments of Hayley Barbour.

438. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 1:31:51 PM

Spudboy - That just goes to show that in Washington 1 + 1 does not necessarily equal 2. It is equal to whatever is most politically expedient.

439. Dusty - 9/22/1999 1:59:03 PM

Amaxen@work

yes it was interesting. In fact, I was going to excerpt some of it in here, but ended up hitting the hay early last night.

440. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:01:49 PM

ChristinO

I was going to respond, but JJ did a better job than I could have.

441. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:05:57 PM

ChristinO

I may regret posting this, as the cognoscenti love to peer down their nose at Ayn Rand, but there is a long selection in Atlas Shrugged about a town in Wisconsin that implemented from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

I cannot hear that phrase without thinking of the hell on earth created in that Wisconsin town.

442. Bubbaette - 9/22/1999 2:12:33 PM

The Repubs should pay up. Shame on them for suing the people who responded to their advertising.

443. Ronski - 9/22/1999 2:18:58 PM

The Libertarian Party would never find itself in the muddle Haley Barbour created.

Not that the Libertarian Party has a million dollars to throw around lightly.

444. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:24:21 PM

Spudboy


I missing why the GOP is hurt by this, unless they underestimated the number of math-challenged people who will swallow the bogus argument that an increase is a cut.

445. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:25:12 PM

Is anyone here willing to support the argument that a 62% increase is a cut, even if someone else wanted a bigger increase?

446. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:25:58 PM

Bubbaette


Why should they pay up?

Are you saying you believe those who claim an increase is a cut?

447. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 2:26:37 PM

Bubbaette - Suing the people who responded is indeed a silly idea, but paying them off is equally silly. Saying that Medicare was cut because Republicans were not going to spend as much as Democrats might have spent is intellectually dishonest. The Republicans' spending proposal increased the amount spent on Medicare in real dollars. It is not accurate or honest to call it a cut.

448. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 2:28:39 PM

Dusty - I think they must be using Bistro mathmatics. (obscure reference of the day)

449. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 2:31:56 PM

Nonetheless, it _was_ a cut in the sense that in real dollars per recipient the benefits were decreased. The increases were largely the function of increased costs and increased number of beneficiaries.

450. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:32:56 PM

JJBiener


If the proposed increase had been an increase in aggregate spending, but a reduction in spending per person, there might be an argument.

If spending had gone up in nominal terms, but not in real terms there would be an argument if the challenge had been made to economists (as opposed to ordinary people) but it wasn't made to that group, nor did it go down in real terms.

I'm puzzled if someone really thinks an increase is a decrease. I guess I'm not puzzled, that with a million dollars at stake, some people would be willing to compromise their intellectual integrity and claim they believe it. Hell, I might be tempted for 100 million, but not for a lousy million.

451. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:34:26 PM

I think they must be using Bistro mathmatics.

Obscure? Bite your tongue. I myself rely on the improbability drive daily.

452. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:35:55 PM

Dantheman


I'm not sure that your statement is correct, but even if true, it shouldn't qualify.

When one economist talks to another economist, the convention is that dollars are in real dollars. This is not the convention in ordinary parlance.

We could discuss whether one can infer "per person" if not stated, but I can't believe a court will accept that convnetion.

453. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:36:09 PM

err, convention

454. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 2:40:10 PM

Dusty,
Read the link again. "Health costs and the number of people receiving Medicare were projected to rise dramatically, meaning that under the Republican plan, each patient, doctor and hospitalwould get less than before." Sounds like a cut to me.

455. Bubbaette - 9/22/1999 2:41:09 PM

Dusty, JJ

Depends on whether the republicans projected spending keeps up with inflation. If not, then it's a decrease in real terms.

456. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 2:44:52 PM

Dantheman - The problem with your statement is that there was no decrease in real dollars per person either. The only difference between the GOP and the Dem plan is that the Dems promised ever increasing benefits at a higher rate than the GOP. The only way the GOP plan could be considered a cut is if you use the Dem plan as a baseline, and to do so would be dishonest.

457. Ronski - 9/22/1999 2:44:53 PM

To add to the confusion:

The Supreme Court has ruled that entitlements (such as Social Security) are in no way contracts, and that citizens have no rights to promised monies that the Congress cannot rescind legislatively. This ruling would seem to strengthen the GOP's position in the ad dispute, seeing as no one was truly assured the projected monies.

458. Dusty - 9/22/1999 2:46:10 PM

Spudboy

Is this your first post in the new Mote?


Welcome!!!!!

459. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 2:49:00 PM

JJBiener,
No, the link makes it clear that the comparison is to continuing the current law as is, not accepting the Democratic proposal.

460. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 2:50:36 PM

Re: JonesAtLaw, post #435

Your point is well taken. I have, anecdotally noticed the relationship between immediacy of positive feedback and the potential for addiction. Examples include drugs such as nicotine, caffeine (on which I have been dependent), and activities such as video gaming and online chat (no comment).

We can also see that slow positive feedback is negatively correllated with addiction; after all, there is no possibility of addiction to:

461. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 4:54:23 PM

Dantheman - Who do you think had written the current law of the time? The point was that according to CBO numbers spending per individual would go from $1800 to $2900 per person under the Republican plan. This contradicts your claim that individuals would receive less. The law written by the Democrats projected spending even more, but that was all it was, a projection. The only claim you have is that Republican projections were lower than Democratic projections. You can make no claim about Republicans cutting expenditures or benefits.

462. OhioSTOPAS - 9/22/1999 5:06:02 PM

The Republicans proposed to change existing law to increase what Medicare recipients would have to pay for the same benefits. It's fair to describe this as a "cut" in benefits.

(However, the particular sentence that Haley Barbour challenged readers to prove wrong looks accurate to me.)

463. Raskolnikov - 9/22/1999 5:14:11 PM

JJ: I think you confuse the money spent with the service that the money is buying. Money is a commonly used measure for the value of a benefit, but it is *not* the benefit itself. To most people, if you cut the services paid for by medicare, you are cutting their benefits, even if the dollar value of that service is going up.

464. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 5:53:34 PM

Rask - Care to document the services that were to be cut? Care to document any of dollar figures Democrats bandied about in '95 about supposed cuts? Or are you willing to admit that the whole thing was an exercise in scare tactics used by Democrats to terrorize old people.

465. ChristinO - 9/22/1999 6:57:27 PM

JJ & Dusty,

You have very obviously confused "can't" with "won't" and you are still talking about the problem of implementation.

I don't know how to explain it any better than that so I guess I'll just agree with you and say "Sure, if you can't work then too bad for you. If you can't take care of yourself that's just the breaks. Better luck next life."

466. Amaxen@work - 9/22/1999 8:15:49 PM

As Joseph of Aramathea chronicled: "Auuuugh"

This post is the continuation of post 424.
Been trying to post it since last night.




John Maynard Keynes would also have been surprised. In Economic Possibilities for our grandchildren, written to brighten up the gloomy days of 1930, he forecast that 100 years from then we would be eight times better off in economic terms (which has already happened), and that this would mean the long struggle to produce enough to meet basic needs would at last be over. The majority would then work for only 15 hours or so a week. A few would work harder, in pursuit of wealth. But most would not, seeing the love of money as “one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities”.
He was wrong, and most do not see money in that way. Why not?


You can find the full article & survey Here

467. Amaxen@work - 9/22/1999 8:17:02 PM

Yesss!!

It posted!

468. AuNaturel - 9/22/1999 9:12:55 PM

"I have, anecdotally noticed the relationship between immediacy of positive feedback and the potential for addiction"

This is not always so true. There are quite a few things than can get you addicted without any immediate feedback of any kind. Effexor and some of the other anti-depressants come to mind immediately. I think it is important to remember that addiction is a chemical dependency and to use the terms "obsession' and "habituation" where they are more appropriate.

469. AuNaturel - 9/22/1999 9:24:55 PM

"To most people, if you cut the services paid for by medicare, you are cutting their benefits, even if the dollar value of that service is going up."

You are forgeting that increases in Medicare benefits also increase the demand for covered services and increase the amount available to spend on those services. In effect you gain very little. When you increase the money benefit the cost of the services it goes for will tend to increase to compensate.

470. AuNaturel - 9/22/1999 9:30:53 PM

"But most would not, seeing the love of money as “one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities”. He was wrong, and most do not see money in that way. Why not?"

Because Keynes was a genius who swallowed the Marxist line that acquistiveness was an evil engendered by scarcity, not a fundamental human drive shared by all in varying degrees. Proving that even a genius can be an idiot once they surrender to dogma.

471. AceofSpades - 9/22/1999 9:55:21 PM

FBI Faults Justice Over Fund Probe
By Larry Margasak
AP


WASHINGTON –– In a rare public airing of friction between the FBI and its parent Justice Department, bureau agents testified Wednesday that prosecutors impeded their campaign fund-raising inquiry. The former lead prosecutor countered by criticizing the agents' work.

The testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee spotlighted the bitter internal disagreements in the investigation of donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Disagreement over the investigation caused friction between Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh. Reno eventually rejected the director's conclusion that an independent counsel should be appointed.

Disputing Reno's oft-quoted assertions of a vigorous investigation, FBI agent Daniel Wehr told the committee that the initial lead attorney in the inquiry, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.' I was scandalized by that."
...

The four contended that Ms. Ingersoll – who eventually was replaced as lead attorney – prevented the FBI from executing search warrants to stop destruction of evidence and micromanaged the case beyond all reason.

But Ms. Ingersoll testified there was "no smoking gun" in documents the FBI discovered in the trash of Trie and a business associate – records which, the agents concluded, should have been the basis for search warrants of the subjects' residences.
...

"We're not talking about trying to electrocute someone," Thompson said. "We're talking about getting ... to an independent magistrate. It does not have to be a smoking gun."

472. AceofSpades - 9/22/1999 9:55:34 PM

FBI agent Parker, also an attorney, testified that Ms. Ingersoll told the agents the department "would not take into consideration" evidence involving President Clinton's legal defense fund and obstruction of the Senate's investigation.

Smith, the retired FBI supervisor, told the committee he was "quite astounded at the type of documents being destroyed."

The committee released a memo by Smith, dated Aug. 4, 1997, to Freeh that bitterly complained about the prosecutors. He expressed "a lack of confidence" in department attorneys, adding, "I am convinced the team at DOJ leading this investigation is, at best, simply not up to the task."
...

Republicans have been extremely critical of Reno's decision not to appoint an independent counsel in the fund-raising inquiry and of her insistence that a vigorous investigation was being conducted by the Justice Department.

Agent Parker testified that there were 27 pages missing from her spiral notebook recounting the agents' disagreements with the prosecutors. She said she had turned over the notes to FBI superiors because Congress sought information about the disagreements, adding that the pages must have been ripped out.

Thompson threatened to hold hearings on the disappearance, now the subject of an internal FBI investigation.

A missing eighteen minutes... a missing twenty-seven pages...

473. Aldavis - 9/22/1999 9:57:42 PM

The Federal Government is sueing the Tobacco Co. and going after, as the Attorney General puts it "their enormous profits." Never mind that the governments, State and Federal, make more on a pack than the tobacco companies do. Clinton wants to be reimbursed for all the G.I's who suffered from smoking and were treated in Veterans Hospitals. Let's forget that the Feds. gave cigs. to G.I.'s as if they were medicine. If there is a person alive that has not known all their life that cigs. were addictive and dangerous, they are just plain stupid.

Citizens ought to sue the Federal Government who permitted the sale of such a dangerous product and taken the major share of the profits.

I wish the tobacco companies had the balls to step up to the plate and say they were refusing to sell cigs. in the U.S.A. Clinton and the justice department would be lynched, for sure.

474. AceofSpades - 9/22/1999 10:01:01 PM

And what's Janet Reno's response?

Despite allegations of obstruction by the Justice Department itself made by career FBI agents, Reno still insists that there is no reason to appoint a special counsel to investigate.

Huh? This is THE PARADIGMATIC SITUATION in which a special (or independent) counsel is required.

But no. Reno insists that the Justice Department can dispassionately, objectively investigate its own malfeasance.

Okay.

"No controlling legal authority..."

475. Thrakkorzog - 9/22/1999 10:19:07 PM

Reading tea leaves would probably give one a more accurate picture of Justice Department operations than attempting to find the logic in Ms. Reno's statements.

476. alistairconnor - 9/22/1999 10:23:30 PM

He was wrong, and most do not see money in that way. Why not?

What on earth are you doing posting stuff like that in here? it's far too interesting to be wasted on these hacks. Put it in the Economics thread.

My view is that it happened too quickly, society hasn't had time to mature.

477. Thrakkorzog - 9/22/1999 10:50:55 PM

Amaxen,

"He was wrong, and most do not see money in that way. Why not?"

Okay, I am rapidly trolling outside of my area of knowledge, so feel free to correct me. Is the answer that wealth is comparative and, in a more prosperous society, basic necessities are defined upwards to include items either not in existence in 1930 or not deemed a necessity at that time? In other words, you can't just stop at what was considered basic in the 1930's because the standard has changed?

478. CalGal - 9/22/1999 11:35:24 PM

Why on earth would Keynes think that people would fundamentally change? What silliness.

Besides, I'm unconvinced that satisfaction is better than striving.

479. CalGal - 9/22/1999 11:39:24 PM

Before someone pounces on me:

Obviously, some satisfaction is desirable. But I can't think of any invention, idea, creation, or innovation that was produced by a person who didn't want anything.

Money is just one of the obvious motivations. There are others, of course. But money has to be one of the top three. I don't see it changing, and I'm nearly sure I don't want it to. These utopias always sound tedious.

480. JonesAtLaw - 9/23/1999 12:18:51 AM

Ace- I'm not impressed that some retired FBI agent is shooting his mouth off about how he didn't blow the big case, it was evil attorneys who wouldn't do what was needed. That's the whine for every screw up, or dry well hit by the FBI. We never make mistakes, and if we can't find enough solid evidence, its because our hands were tied.

481. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 12:52:46 AM

Well, I guess we'll all end up positing a different reason why Keynes's vision didn't come to pass.

Personally, I think it's because economists in particular ignore the importance of relative wealth. Not necessarily in the changing-standard-of-living sense Thrakkorzog meant, but rather as an indicator of status. Status is always relative to one's own population, not one's grandparents -- so people want to have higher status than their neighbors, the average member of a population, etc. There is a good evolutionary reason to believe that status is important to human beings, and it just doesn't play much role in the standard economic view of things.

If money is a proxy for status, the implication for the tendency to grub the stuff over time is obvious.

And in that respect, one would expect cultures where status is measured in other ways, like birthright, to be less money grubbing as time wears on than cultures with a more egalitarian attitude toward status. My bet is that humans will always find a way to make status count, and if it's not through some non-pecuniary institution, then money will do the trick just fine.

482. CalGal - 9/23/1999 1:10:45 AM

Hey, didn't I just say that? Of course, I spose I didn't say why it was that people never change.

483. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 1:24:35 AM

Christin - "Sure, if you can't work then too bad for you. If you can't take care of yourself that's just the breaks. Better luck next life."

Please show where either Dusty or I have ever made this or any similar statement. All we have done is show the implications inherent in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I am sorry if you don't like the conclusions, but you have obviously not thought it through. You think it implies a warm, fuzzy world where everyone pitches in and everyone benefits. It doesn't.

You also seem to think that the only alternative is to allow people to starve in the streets. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who would allow that to happen. There is nothing in capitalism that discourages charity and benevolence to those less fortunate. You want to posit a system where everyone voluntarily contributes as much as they are able to society but they only take the bare minimum they need to survive. By your posts, you seem to think that this is the only way the less fortunate can be cared for. I posit a system where everyone works to benefit themselves and their families and voluntarily contirbutes enough to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Which system should we strive for? Why is your system morally superior?

484. alistairconnor - 9/23/1999 1:54:54 AM

I think it's too early to say that Keynes's vision didn't come to pass. In Europe, for example, working hours are falling. A 35-hour week (with all sorts of loopholes and exceptions) is now mandated in France, and it is not as uncommon as you all seem to think for people to choose to work less and earn less.

BUT I think that the key element may be perceptions of what constitutes quality-of-life: for many people, even though they earn more than enough to live in comfort, they are psychologically unable to get off the treadmill. Or just like it like that. Another $100 is worth more to them than an hour of free time.


On the other hand, maybe it's just you Americans feeling insecure about your retirement income.

485. alistairconnor - 9/23/1999 1:58:53 AM

481. Spence, what if we posit the existence of societies where status is not such a big deal? In your model, they are necessarily degenerate and doomed to extinction.

486. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:10:03 AM

Oh, is that what you meant Cal? I didn't know.

484

Are European cultures perhaps more likely to use non-percuniary measures of status? I am inclined to say yes. And then the last paragraph of 481 kicks in.

485

Nonsense. Status is one important drive to keep making more money, but not the only one, nor have I said otherwise. One also is faced with subsistence, for example, which will always motivate, even if status does not.

However, I am willing to go on record saying that in any advanced economy your supposition is counterfactual.

487. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:11:54 AM

AlistairConnor, your explanation in 484, that some societies are that way because the people in them like it that way, is somewhat unsatisfying. Given me any behavior and some freedom to play around with preferences, and it's not too hard to rationalize the behavior.

488. CalGal - 9/23/1999 2:14:19 AM

Well, for example: were people working 35 hour weeks before it was mandated? If they were that enamored with free time, surely you would have seen an increase in part-time work.

I'm assuming that everyone is being paid less for that 35 hour week? Or is the "government mandate" the part where the employers pay a 40 hour wage for a 35 hour week?

489. alistairconnor - 9/23/1999 2:20:37 AM

Well, Spence, counterfactual is a big word.
Are you calling me a counterfactualizer? Come outside and say that.

490. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:23:39 AM

Does man struggles just to fulfill needs? Then the struggle would be easy if he would lower his needs. That is not what happens in any society. Needs are created in order to increase the striving. When is enough, enough? Probably never, for some.

491. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 2:28:03 AM

Enough, already.

492. alistairconnor - 9/23/1999 2:30:19 AM

Spence, if people don't need extra money, and they don't need the status that money may, or may not, bring, then they may well choose to work less. I am positing a society where NEITHER subsistence NOR status are forcing people to work more than they want. Where is the nonsense, and where are the counterfacts?

Cal, I can tell you that there is a genuine aspiration to working less in the French middle class, and increasingly people are just doing it. Yes, lots of people are working part time, but often for reasons of scarcity of work rather than choice. Because the whole model is fucked up by high unemployment, as it happens.

493. CalGal - 9/23/1999 2:39:13 AM

Which might be another reason for that mandated 35-hour work week, no? More employment for others?

Were they paid less, btw? For the 35 hours?

I am a bit confused, though. You first cited France as an example of people who have bowed out of the rat race by choice. Now you are saying it's complicated by high unemployment?

And, I'll wager a guess, their unemployment is exacerbated by the 5-week vacations and 35-hour work week the government mandates. Although I'll strike the last if it turns out they are getting paid less for that shorter week.

494. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:40:18 AM

The counterfactual is that any society where subsistence really isn't an issue is one where status matters.

Of course, even if status and subsistence are both non-issues, one is still faced with the possibility of working just to get more stuff, of the non-subsistence good variety. In other words, there are any number of motivations, not ruled out by saying that status counts for a lot, that could keep people working, and a society from collapsing, in the chimerical world where neither status nor subsistence matter.

495. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:40:57 AM

And the "nonsense" part is covered by the second paragraph of my previous post.

496. CalGal - 9/23/1999 2:44:02 AM

I need more stuff!

(punchline to an actual US commercial. Yay, us. Or "US".)

497. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:46:37 AM

well in that case, stuff it.

498. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:47:40 AM

Is there a society where susistance is not an issue? Is there a society where status is not an issue. Status is always an issue. It is an issue in any human interaction, and we fight for it with all we have.

499. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 2:53:33 AM

almost forgot...

ISH

500. Dusty - 9/23/1999 10:49:58 AM

Amaxen@work

You beat me to it. I was going to post that link this morning.

To all: The 20th century survey is very interesting reading. It's long, but worth the effort.

501. Dusty - 9/23/1999 11:02:11 AM

Thrakkorzog

I see that this is your first post in Politics. Are you new? if so, Welcome!!!


Is the answer that wealth is comparative and, in a more prosperous society, basic necessities are defined upwards to include items either not in existence in 1930 or not deemed a necessity at that time? In other words, you can't just stop at what was considered basic in the 1930's because the standard has changed?

That's part of the answer. Spence also touched on this issue, but the concept of relative wealth, and the redefining of basic is discussed in the Economist article, relinked here for convenience. Check out section 3 Freedom from want? for the specific discussion of relative wealth.

502. Dusty - 9/23/1999 11:04:02 AM

AuNaturel

Welcome, nice to see you here.

503. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 11:44:12 AM

Hello, Dusty,

Yes, I am a newbie and those are my first posts. Although my posting in these ungentle waters does seem to show a fool's confidence. :-)

I can't link to any articles, but I seem to remember that the mandated 35 hour work week in France did generate some protest and was not universally welcomed. In fact, I recall that employers ended up having to drive through the parking lots to ensure that no one was working surreptiously because compliance was required.

I would also think that these mandates, along with mandated wages and vacations as mentioned by CalGal, would cause the least efficient and skilled workers to be priced out of the workplace.

504. glendajean - 9/23/1999 1:10:11 PM

Sen. Moynihan endorsed Bill Bradley today.

Al Hunt had a column the WSJ today saying that Bradley was pandering too much (mentioned ethanol and gay rights) and losing his quality of being independent.

505. ChristinO - 9/23/1999 1:41:13 PM

JJ,

This is long so bear with me. Your stuff is in blue italics and my replies are in black.


483. JJBiener - 9/22/99 10:24:35 PM
Christin - "Sure, if you can't work then too bad for you. If you can't take care of yourself that's just the breaks. Better luck next life."

Please show where either Dusty or I have ever made this or any similar statement.

If Betty can't provide for herself and I don't provide for her how does she survive?

All we have done is show the implications inherent in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Please point out to me exactly where in the text it insists that we live at subsistence levels while contributing to a huge surplus or where it describes the exact amount that is to be produced and consumed. Next I’d like to know exactly where in the text it discusses that people who are perfectly able to contribute won’t contribute and what should be done about it.

If it’s not in the text then I’m not talking about it because to go beyond the text is to talk about implementation which I have stated repeatedly that I’m not discussing.

cont.

506. ChristinO - 9/23/1999 1:42:04 PM

cont. to JJ

You also seem to think that the only alternative is to allow people to starve in the streets. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who would allow that to happen.


Oh really? So there are no destitute here in the US? Nobody goes hungry or homeless except through his or her own choice, right? I have not stated that starvation is the only alternative, but we do have starvation so why argue as if it doesn’t exist?

There is nothing in capitalism that discourages charity and benevolence to those less fortunate.

What exactly about Capitalism encourages charity? Actually you can skip that because I wasn’t talking about Capitalism v Communism. I wasn’t talking about Communism at all. I was talking about a simple phrase that people can’t seem to dissociate from all the things that it was historically attached to regardless of what the actual bare bones meaning of the words themselves is.

You want to posit a system where everyone voluntarily contributes as much as they are able to society but they only take the bare minimum they need to survive.

See above. That is not at all what I have said. I have repeatedly stated that this is not what the statement “from each…to each…” means and I am stating again that there is no system. I haven’t promoted a system.

By your posts, you seem to think that this is the only way the less fortunate can be cared for.

I have not said so and I do not believe so. I have only been discussing this one phrase.

cont.

507. ChristinO - 9/23/1999 1:42:16 PM

cont. to JJ

I posit a system where everyone works to benefit themselves and their families and voluntarily contributes enough to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

I'm trying to figure out why you think such a situation is not embraced by "From each to each".

Which system should we strive for? Why is your system morally superior?

I haven’t proposed a system. The phrase is not a system. A system involves implementation, which----yet again ----I am not talking about. I wasn’t trying to get on a moral high horse. I wanted to know how in the world Cygnus arrived at the idea that because the water is foul the baby out to be tossed out the window.

508. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 1:46:26 PM

What did Bradley say about ethanol?

509. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 1:56:19 PM

Drinking it is bad for your health.

510. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 1:58:22 PM

Raskalnikov,
When in the Senate, Bradley opposed ethanol subsidies. In Iowa, he is talking about expanding them.

511. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 1:59:54 PM

Ack. that's the first sign of a sell out that I have seen in him (although I haven't looked all that closely). Its a minor quibble in the great scheme of things, but it is a disappointment.

512. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:01:42 PM

That's a burning issue.











Har. Har. Har.

513. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:04:21 PM

Rask

You are doomed to disappointment. Bradley's position has "evolved" on many things (see his prodigious fundraising from PACs). Still, in the pantheon of flip-floppers (Bush Sr. "Read My Lips"/Clinton-everything/Gephardt-abortion/Gore-tobacco), he is strictly minor league and he merits some respect.

Indeed, it is a testament that the first salvo is on ethanol.

514. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:05:11 PM

Thrakkorzog

Here's one article:

35 hour work week

Excerpt:
The government insists that the shorter working week will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, thus helping to reduce record high unemployment, currently running at 12.4 percent.

The employers counter that cutting hours alone is no way to create jobs, and that even if it were the reduction should be carried out by negotiation between employers and workers, and not be forced on them by law.

515. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:06:13 PM

109109

Welcome back. You've been missed (and much gossiped about)

516. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:11:32 PM

Dusty

Me, Affleck and Damon. I tell you, it never stops.

517. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:20:45 PM

well, I can't even fault PAC fundraising, given the current campaign finance system. Refusing PAC money is just shooting yourself in the foot.

But Bradley has always struck me as my kind of Democrat, not wedded to the party line, or free market dogma - willing to stand up for free trade one minute, and universal access to health care the next.

And the Ethanol subsidies are just such a cheap pork barrel stunt. Its like finding out your little sister has had sex. You knew it had to happen, but you wished you didn't know.

518. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:23:05 PM

Rask

"But Bradley has always struck me as my kind of Democrat, not wedded to the party line, or free market dogma - willing to stand up for free trade one minute, and universal access to health care the next."

And, for the most part, your impression is correct.

"And the Ethanol subsidies are just such a cheap pork barrel stunt. Its like finding out your little sister has had sex. You knew it had to happen, but you wished you didn't know."

I loathe truisms, but here it is: you gotta' break some eggs to get an omelette. Even Tsongas was sucking on the ethanol subsidy train.

519. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:27:50 PM

What I like about Bradely, having seen him several times in give-and-take situations, is what I like about Bush Jr. and McCain. In very different manners, they each give off an aura of not needing to sacrifice their first born for the top job. Sweaters like Gore and Forbes and Dole . . . they scare me, from a lot to a little. They do not strike me as people at ease with themselves, and Bradley looks pretty damn comfortable in his own skin.

Such comfort fulfills 50% of my presidential requirement.

520. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 2:36:17 PM

Niner - I agree, and find it interesting that you see that quality in Bush the Younger.

521. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:41:03 PM

Vk

He is much like his father. Stilted and awkward. But he has the confidence of a guy who was blessed with good grace and decent sense. Life has been easy, and he's succeeded in an easy and uncomplicated life. Most people find this existence minor and they sneer at it. But the ones I am comfortable with (FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush), they don't lead with their egos. And the bad ones (Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton), they are all sculpted from lesser beginnings. I'm proud of what they accomplished, but it makes them a) stupid and b) reckless.

522. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:41:22 PM

I have found myself tilting more and more toward Bradley lately. I do like Gore, but I see in him a lot of the same "token gesture tax incentive" solutions that I faulted in Clinton.

The fact that Bradley would kick Bush's ass in a game of one and one doesn't hurt either.

523. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:43:02 PM

My dream debate for October

Buchanan
Beatty
Bush
Bradley

524. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:43:33 PM

Raskolnikov


If that's a criterion, I trust you'll be voting for Barkely?

525. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:44:17 PM

Niner: you are the first person I have seen who has tried to turn Bush's privileged existence into an advantage. I completely disagree with you, but I will give you today's chutzpah award.

526. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:44:22 PM

109109

We'll call it the debate of the killers bees.

527. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:44:56 PM

Barkley needs to season as the GOP Governor of Alabama.

528. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:45:08 PM

or maybe we'll spell it correctly, since Quayleeee isn't there.

529. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:45:24 PM

Dusty: you missed my double meaning. I was simultaneously implying that Bradley has a better chance of beating Bush in an election.

530. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:46:14 PM

Rask

As I said, most people sneer at privileged existences. I have repeatedly maintained that the best leaders come from the ranks of the mildly ambitious privileged.

531. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:47:09 PM

I wasn't thinking Barkley in 2000, more like 2008, but if 2000 is the year of the B-man, maybe he'll have to run.

532. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:47:24 PM

Indeed, I never could understand why Gore is such a hopping jack rabbitt of a politician. His upbringing should have afforded him a little more moxie and a lot less of the supplicant.

533. Dusty - 9/23/1999 2:48:13 PM

Raskolnikov

I understood that, although I don't believe it.

534. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:51:04 PM

Bradley does not have a better chance of beating Bush. If he beats Gore, it will have been my dint of a grueling and vicious primary fight. Gore has been eating grisly chicken for 8 years, and if you think he's not going to tear as much flesh from Bradley in the process, you're mistaken. But if Gore bests Bradley, it will have been expected, and then Gore can rightly hammer home the stringest themes for the Democrats - prosperity. Bradley was on the sidelines during that prosperity.

535. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:51:15 PM

I am not going to sneer at his existence. Gore and FDR are certainly privileged, and I don't fault them for it. I just see it as largely irrelevant to merit. I disagree strongly with many of your presidential assessments that you use to draw your conclusions. Truman, Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson were also "sculpted from lesser begginings". Aside from FDR and TR, the 20th century record of privilaged presidents has largely been negative or inconsequential, in my opinion.

536. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:52:29 PM

Rask

It is by no means an exact science. But name me a rich 'un who was a fucked up psycho like Johnson or Nixon or Clinton.

537. glendajean - 9/23/1999 2:55:11 PM

George Bush (the elder) always had an air of desparation about him. In fact, publicly, he never seemed content to live in his own skin.

538. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 2:57:51 PM

109109

...psycho like Johnson or Nixon or Clinton

Now, I think that this is a bit over-the-top. The behavior of all three of these guys is well within the bounds of human nature.

539. glendajean - 9/23/1999 2:57:59 PM

Eisenhower wasn't priviledged and he seemed quite comfortable with himself. As Rask said, Truman, ditto.

Reagan didn't come from a priviledged background, but he seemed fairly comfortable starring as president.

Carter came from the richest family in town, but the town was pretty poor.

Pre-FDR, I can't remember judging any president along such a personality trait.

540. 109109 - 9/23/1999 2:58:27 PM

glenda

You confuse his goofy and awkward manner with psychoses.

My postulate is rather elementary. You can get good leaders from the rich classes and from the poor classes. All will be skilled. But, on average, the ones with the healthiest egos, and the ones with the most personal stability, will emanate from the monied classes. because rich folk care less whether people "accept" or "like" them (a major psychological factor in the presidencies of Johnson, Nixon and Clinton).

There are exceptions. See Forbes.

541. glendajean - 9/23/1999 2:58:29 PM

10109 -- it's a different Elliot.

542. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 3:00:25 PM

Christin - "Please point out to me exactly where in the text it insists that we live at subsistence levels while contributing to a huge surplus or where it describes the exact amount that is to be produced and consumed."

Let's disect the text. From each according to his ability

This seems pretty clear to me. Each person must give whatever and as much as they are able. I don't see any other way to interpret this. It doesn't say "as much as he wants" or "as much as he is comfortable with". It states ability as its sole criteria for determining what one should contribute.

The next line is "to each according to his needs."

This is clear as well. Each person only gets what he needs. He has no claim to what he has produced. He only has claim to what he needs. There is no mention of wants, desires, or the contribution made. The only criteria for distributing goods, services, etc, is need. Those with the greatest needs will therefore get the greatest rewards.

This is what the text says. It is independent of any proposed implementation.

cont.

543. Cellar Door - 9/23/1999 3:01:04 PM

And the same air of desperation circles round the younger. Just give the man a chance to speak and the empty suit will make its presence known.

Not that the Dems are anything to write home about exactly, but Shrub Bush?!?!

Honestly, Niner, I wish you'd run. True you'd come across as ever-so-slightly arrogant. But it would be an arrogance born of experience rather than conferred as a birthright.

Besides, we need younger men in the White House.

544. glendajean - 9/23/1999 3:02:08 PM

No, 109109. I was referring to his begging J Carter to keep him on as CIA Director. His begging Gerald Ford to appoint him vp. His whole relationship with Reagan (which can't be held against him, because in that case, being desparate seems to be an occupational hazard of the office of vp).

And then there was his whole relationship with the conservative wing of his party. His need to make a speech like "read my lips" (a girly man sort of line) or to ask for a splash of coffee at a New Hampshire diner. Was he a Texan or an Easterner? He didn't seem being completely comfortable with himself. Again, this was a public image. Maybe he's different with Bar sitting around the den.

545. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:05:06 PM

glenda

As I said, it is not an exact science. But 4 out of 10 up-from-the-bootstraps types are psychos. Only 1 out 10 scions of wealth are.

Elliot

Psycho is over-the-top. Delete and insert "weird fuck."

546. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:07:53 PM

Cllrdr

I cannot run for several reason.

1. I would have to stand on a box during debates.
2. I am a Hispanic who cannot speak Spanish.
3. I apparently lied to Jade and told her I was on my high school basketball team (I was not) and I cannot subject my family to the wave of terror that will result in the wake of my revelation.

547. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 3:08:46 PM

Niner - In what ways was LBJ a weird fuck, given that he was successful national politician?

548. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 3:09:16 PM

Christin - So there are no destitute here in the US?

Effectively, no. There are no destitute in the US.

Nobody goes hungry or homeless except through his or her own choice, right?

There are sufficient resources and programs in the US to care for every man, woman and child. If someone is hungry or homeless, it is because of their actions.

I have not stated that starvation is the only alternative, but we do have starvation so why argue as if it doesn’t exist?

How many people die of starvation in the US per year? Check out the various web sites that campaign against hunger around the world. The US is not even mentioned. Real hunger doesn't exist in the US.

549. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:10:39 PM

glenda

Bush Sr. was a bad politician, but I am not talking about flip-flops or gaffes or even carrying the water of your president for 8 years. The comfy rich and the wacko poor do both in even fashion. I'm talking about one factor.

Who are the ones that plot and scheme and moan and Hamlet their ass around the Oval Office?

550. glendajean - 9/23/1999 3:12:03 PM

VonK -- his need to bring in staff for meetings while he sat on the toilet; his almost bi-polar sucking up and the turning viciously on people, depending on how they responded to him. His stupid battles with Walter Lippman, and Bobby Kennedy, to name two.

And his inability to go with his own instincts (and those of his friends in the Senate) when the privledged class boys in the National Security Department and the Defense Department told him that he had to defend Vietnam.

551. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 3:13:16 PM

Christin - I'm trying to figure out why you think such a situation is not embraced by "From each to each".

Because From each. . . does not allow for people keeping what they produce. It only allows for keeping what one needs. I don't see how you can look at the two and see anything remotely similar.

This isn't a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The very concept itself is fundamentally flawed.

552. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:13:32 PM

VK

I recommed to you Michael Beschloss' recent book on LBJ (the one on the tapes) and though I don't believe it was well-written, "Mutual Contempt" by Jeff Sheshol. Both will sate your query as to LBJ being weird. In a nutshell, he bugged everyone and tried to please everyone and eventually reached political paralysis because the Kennedys laughed at him and it hurt his dirt root feelings.

553. glendajean - 9/23/1999 3:13:35 PM

109109, our sample begins with FDR. It's a modern question that doesn't seem to me to be applicable to presidents prior to 1932. An odd consideration, in my book, but hey, run with it.

554. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:15:19 PM

glenda

I start with FDR only because I assume most of the presidents before him were loaded. (g)

555. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 3:15:32 PM

JJ - Let me dissect the text:

From each according to his ability,...
Each person in society is expected and encouraged to find what they love, what talents they have, and contribute that to society. There is no mention hear of amount, just ability.
Ability: 1:a: the quality or state of being able b: competence in doing 2 natural talent or acquire proficiency.

...to each according to his needs.
Society guarantees that no member will live without all that is necessary to fully participate in society. This includes such obvious needs as food, water, shelter, but also includes other needs such as education, information, free time.

556. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 3:15:57 PM

Oops, picking up toys.

557. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 3:16:20 PM

That didn't seem to do it!

558. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 3:21:04 PM

Because From each. . . does not allow for people keeping what they produce.

Of course it doesn't. The what the "from" is going for is not specified.

If we determine need, and whatever else the collective will spend money on, we can require contributions proportional to ability, with the constant of proportionality determined so as to balance the collective's budget.

This does not in any way imply that people have nothing of what they produce left over, yet it certainly satisfies the conditions of the precept.

559. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 3:21:39 PM

um, the first sentence of that post should read, "of course it does."

560. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:42:24 PM

SENATE UPDATE

GOP

Good chance to pick up NY (Moynihan retiring) in Giuliani-Clinton race.

Big blow in the withdrawal of Todd-Whitman for the NJ seat (Lautenberg retiring)

Picked up NV (Bryan retiring) and Robb (versus George Allen). You heard it here first.

No other vulnerable Democrats: GOP +2.

GOP-held seats that are vulnerable

DE - Gov. Carper (D) v. Senator Roth (R)
MI - Rep. Stabenow (D) v. Senator Abraham (R)
MO - Gov. Carnahan (D) v. Senator Ashcroft (R)
PA -unknown v. Senator Santorum (R)
MN - unknown v. Senator Grams (R)
FL -unknown v. unknown (Senator Mack (R) retiring)
WA - Deb Senn (D) v. Senator Gorton (R)
RI - unknown v. May. Lincoln Chafee (R) (John Chafee (R) resigning)

561. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 3:42:40 PM

VonK - Each person in society is expected and encouraged to find what they love

I don't see this mentioned or implied.

There is no mention hear of amount, just ability.

Ability implies amount. If X has the ability to work 60 hours per week, he is expected to do so. If Y is only able to work 20 hours per week, this is what is expected of him.

Society guarantees that no member will live without all that is necessary to fully participate in society.

Society would guarantee nothing of the kind. Society would only guarantee the bare minimum necessary for survival. Anything else in not a need, and it is not addressed.

This includes such obvious needs as food, water, shelter, but also includes other needs such as education, information, free time.

Sorry, education, information and free time are not needs. You do not need them to survive. The only way you would receive them is if in doing so it benefited society.

562. JJBiener - 9/23/1999 3:46:18 PM

Niner, Ashcroft is not vulnerable. Carnahan's negative are very high. After two terms as Governor, most Missourians are ready for him to retire. The don't want him in the Senate.

563. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:52:13 PM

OTHER NEWS

NARAL to launch attack ads against GWB Jr.

Cybill Shepherd has advised Gloria Allred that she is "very, very serious" about running for President.

Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone stated that Trump was "deadly serious" about running.

The Reform Party has gained ballot access in 21 states.

CBS News
9/7-11
Nationwide
Democratic primary Vote

Gore 50%
Bradely 32%

Generic Congressional Ballot
Democrats 40%
Republicans 31%

564. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:54:01 PM

JJ

It will be a close race, but I think Carnahan is cooked on his grant of clemency to the death row murderer at the behest of the Pope.

565. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:58:17 PM

Niner,
I strongly suspect that the PA Democratic Senate nominee will be Rep. Klink (unrelated to the colonel). As far as I have heard, he is the only person from west of the Susquehanna who is running, so Pittsburgh will be strong for him, while Schwartz, Margolies-Mezvinsky, Rovner, et al will divide Philly's vote. Moreover, there is a sense that this is Western Pennsylvania's seat (don't laugh, it was a significant factor in why Harris "Waffle" lost), so Klink has a better chance of unseating the Sanitorium

566. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:01:56 PM

I would like to close the From each...,to each... discussion with closing statements. I'll go first:

Those against the vision statement take a strictly materialistic and alienated view of the statement. JJ for instance argues that ability means amount rather than skill/quality and that the statement thus means that anyone capable of working 20 hour days, to expand on his view, would be required to work 20 hour days.

Those of us in favor of the statement see it as an anti-alienation vision; that society would ask people to become fulfilled, to find and utilize their personal abilities to make society a richer place to live.

Those opposed to the statement interpret the ...to each... segment to be an incentive to be needy, and strictly interpret needs to be food, water, shelter. Those of us in favor of the statement interpret need to mean those basice biologic needs plus societal needs such as education, information, free time, and a level of material use (what we would think of as consumer goods) that society comes to expect its members to have access too in order to fully participate in society. As the wealth of society increases the societal needs would change.

(cont.)

567. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:02:08 PM

Now, a society operating under the vision statement would not materially progress at the rate that our current western capitalist society does/has, but it also would not suffer the disconnect between the extremely wealthy and the poor that our society does. I believe that this disparity in wealth is a dangerous thing for society. I futher believe that the focus on material acquisition, versus personal fulfillment, to be dangerous for the individual. I believe that a society that operated from the vision of From each according to ability, to each according to need would be much healthier both for the society and for the individuals.

Of course, I have no idea how to get from here to there without ending up somewhere less attractive, but if we accepted the vision that would be a step.

568. Ronski - 9/23/1999 4:02:17 PM

Would I be compelled to give some of my free time to anyone the State determines needs it more than I in the system referenced above?

569. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:06:00 PM

Ron - The vision statment does not even include a necessary government. The statement is accepted as much by Anarchists as by Communists.

570. 109109 - 9/23/1999 4:06:20 PM

Dan

I agree that Klink would be the strongest nominee, but there are scads of interested folks, and that will favor Santorum. The Democrats have done great recruiting for tough races (DE, MO) but have dropped the ball for some pretty vulnerable GOP seats (MN, PA). In fact, freshman Senator DeWine (R-OH) has basically been given his seat a year early.

571. ChristinO - 9/23/1999 4:06:25 PM

JJ,

So what you see is millions of people working 14 hour days to produce vast amounts of surplus that just sit and rot somewhere because we're all just going to live at subsistence levels?

No wonder you think it makes no sense, but that's not dictated by the phrase. If there is surplus there are three choices: let it accumulate and rot somewhere, reduce labor to eliminate it or distribute the surplus to the citizenry. Why do you insist that it must be choice number one?

I'm not sure why you believe that "need" cannot easily encompass education, free time, entertainment and comfort.

572. 109109 - 9/23/1999 4:09:57 PM

Okay.

Quiz.

What is the one thing that would the Democrats most prior to November 2000?

a. A rise in unemployment of 2%
b. A rise in interest rates of 1%
c. A rise in inflation of 3%
d. The FALN blows someone or something up

573. 109109 - 9/23/1999 4:10:24 PM

correction

that would "harm" the Democrats most . . .

574. ChristinO - 9/23/1999 4:11:48 PM

Gaaah! I'm behind.

Yes, vonK, I think it a good idea to bring this to a close and having read your closing statement I can't think of what I would add to it except that I would temper "would be much healthier " with "could be much healthier" because of the difficulty of implementation.

575. CalGal - 9/23/1999 4:12:13 PM

None of the above.

576. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:15:32 PM

Niner - This hardly qualifies as a quiz as it is supposition about a potential future event, rather than a verifiable item of information. That being said I would guess a rise in inflation, C, assuming that it happened in the summer of '00. A rise in inflation of 3% would likely lead to both A and B.

577. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 4:20:15 PM

Niner,
I didn't say Klink would be the strongest nominee, only the most likely. I actually know very little about him, other than he was a reporter for a Pittsburgh TV station before running for Congress.
I suspect the rise in unemployment would hurt most, because people still don't understand how higher inflation hurts them, whereas an extra 2 million out of work and fear of more coming would take its toll. The FALN bomb will have little effect, especially if Bradley is the nominee.

578. 109109 - 9/23/1999 4:20:37 PM

You people need a vacation.

I was asking. (g)

I think the bomb would pretty much cook Gore goose.

579. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 4:21:20 PM

vonKreedon

I have, so far, kept out of this debate. If it is to be closed, I have one thing to add:

People are motivated by desires for food, sex, honor, order, social contact, prestige, power, independence, vengeance, citizenship, physical exercise, learning, time with family, avoidance of rejection, and avoidance of pain.^¥

In my opinion, meeting some of these needs--say for food and learning--will not diminish the other needs. That is, people will not, as a whole, become couch potatoes.

^¥Reiss and Havercamp, Psychological Assessment 1998; 10.

580. CalGal - 9/23/1999 4:22:04 PM

Well, that seriously was my second pick, after None of the above. But I don't think that would hurt Gore too badly. The most damage that can be done to Gore will be done by the man himself.

581. 109109 - 9/23/1999 4:27:34 PM

The FALN thing would cement Gore to Clinton in all of the worst ways. It would lend itself to political advertising like nothing since Dukakis was bobbing around in that tank. The options are delectable even without an FALN bombing. With one, and in the right hands, in and of itself, the ad could doom Gore.

None of the economic stuff means a whit.

582. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:34:20 PM

Niner - The question you asked was What is the one thing that would [harm] the Democrats most prior to November 2000? While a FALN bombing might well be worse for Gore, I don't know that it would be as big a problem for the Democrats as a 3% increase in inflation. Remember, the Dems are trying to win the House/Senate as well as the WH. Also, Gore is certainly not a lock for the nomination.

583. glendajean - 9/23/1999 4:36:41 PM

In the short term, none of the economic stuff listed would be that dramatic, given the current economy. That's from a political standpoint, not economic.

The bomb would kill Gore (metaphorically speaking).

What would destroy Bush?

a) verbal gaffe on foreign policy.

b) lackluster debate showing.

c) discovery of the naked picture.

d) local problem in Texas government.

584. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:38:25 PM

B) particularly against either Gore or Bradley as they are both popularly seen as negatively-charismatic.

585. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 4:54:38 PM

Niner, I think of the things you listed, unemployment would hurt the most. People are least happy when they are worried about their jobs.

vK: unemployment and inflation are generally inversely proportional to each other. It is unlikely that high inflation and high unemployment would exist at the same time (the 70s notwithstanding, macroeconomists are smarter now).

586. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 4:56:38 PM

Rashkolnikov

Are you suggesting that supply shocks, are less likely now?

587. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 4:56:58 PM

niner, by the way, there is a question about the constitutionality of a campaign finance reform idea waiting for you in the economics thread. I don't know if you have been following the discussion, but I would like your opinion as well. I don't think you are a con law person, but you sure as hell are more informed than I am.

588. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:58:32 PM

Rask - I know that classically inflation and employment are inversely proportional, but I think that things are different now. For instance, currently unemployment and inflation are low. I think that if inflation increased, then the Fed would seriously up the interest rate, the stock market would depress, money for corporate expansion would dry up and companies would go out of business, we'd experience a recession and unemployment would go up.

589. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:01:17 PM

elliot: stagflation was not caused by the oil shortage.

590. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:03:37 PM

VK

"Rask - I know that classically inflation and employment are inversely proportional, but I think that things are different now. For instance, currently unemployment and inflation are low. I think that if inflation increased, then the Fed would seriously up the interest rate, the stock market would depress, money for corporate expansion would dry up and companies would go out of business, we'd experience a recession and unemployment would go up."

well, this is correct, but then inflation would probably drop at the same time. It was the concurrence of the two events that I was disagreeing with.

591. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 5:07:52 PM

Rask - What I was refering to in my initial post was, "What would harm the Democrats most in 2000?" I asserted that a 3% increase in inflation would because it would lead to an increase in interest rates AND unemployment. I don't think that inflation by itself is a problem.

592. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 5:08:00 PM

Ras:

I'm not a historian. Still, I do believe that stagflation can be caused by global competition for scarce resources. If the price of material inputs to production rises it is likely to lower marginal demand for labor and increase consumer prices, at least in the short term.

Arguably, that is what is happening now, as Asia recovers from the financial crisis.

593. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:16:41 PM

elliot: inflation is measured by changes in overall price levels, but it is a monetary phenomenon. Unless wages increase as well (which would have other inflationary causes), or if people start dis-saving, any hike in the price of oil would have to be offset by decreased spending elsewhere in the economy, which would lead to lower price levels in those economic sectors.

Inflation is monetary. In the 70s, the Fed thought it could tolerate high inflation in exchange for lower unemployment. But inflationary expectations adjusted and inflation accelerated.

594. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 5:21:55 PM

Ras:

OK. The jist of your argument is that the Fed will not tolerate inflation, since it doesn't (collectively) believe that doing so has any benefit. Thus, instead of stagflation we just have stag.

This is what you mean by smarter economists.

595. pseudoerasmus - 9/23/1999 5:29:07 PM

#589
"stagflation was not caused by the oil shortage."

Nonsense. Of course it was.

596. ProfEmeritus - 9/23/1999 5:33:53 PM

How does all of this economics discussion get into the Politics Thread?

597. glendajean - 9/23/1999 5:37:58 PM

Prof -- this is the non-policy wonk thread. :)

598. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:39:27 PM

Pseudo: huh? where did I go wrong? I thought it was pretty much accepted by economists that stagflation was caused by the route I described. I have read this in a few different popular sources, such as Krugman's Peddling Prosperity, and the logic seems sound. I would appreciate a more detailed explanation than "nonsense".

599. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:40:10 PM

sorry, if you don't give me a policy wonk thread, I have to take them where I can find them.

600. Dusty - 9/23/1999 5:41:19 PM

pseudoerasmus


I'd like to see more elaboration.

Possibly in the economics thread, if that is where it belongs.

For some time, I took it as obvious that a material increase in the price of oil could contribute to overall inflation. More recently I have seen an argument similar to the one proposed by Rask (for all I know, that is where I saw it), arguing that an increase in the price of one good, absent an increase in the money supply, will be transmitted as a decrease in the demand for the good, plus decreases (to a lesser extent) in demand for other goods (due to less remaining money for purchases). This would contribute to lower prices for the other goods, leaving the overall market basket prices the same, on average (Yes, I am aware I piled lots of assumptions in there)

Can an arbitrary price increase in one good transmit an overall inflation increase absent monetary expansion, if so, how?

601. pseudoerasmus - 9/23/1999 5:43:19 PM

"any hike in the price of oil would have to be offset by decreased spending elsewhere in the economy, which would lead to lower price levels in those economic sectors."

This assumes a namby-pamby-fantasy classical world of perfect automatic adjustment. Raskolnikov, you're regurgitating unreconstructed classical econ ideas left and right these days. I read your stuff at GabbleGawk's thread on the WTO or whatever. I, a globalisation advocate, was embarassed to read some of your ultra-neo-liberal party line stuff.

602. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 5:52:17 PM

"This assumes a namby-pamby-fantasy classical world of perfect automatic adjustment. Raskolnikov, you're regurgitating unreconstructed classical econ ideas left and right these days. I read your stuff at GabbleGawk's thread on the WTO or whatever. I, a globalisation advocate, was embarassed to read some of your ultra-neo-liberal party line stuff."

I think we do need to take this to the econ thread. I would again appreciate a more detailed explanation than a criticism that I am assuming a "namby-pamby-fantasy" classical world. Where does the assumption fall apart that allows inflation to creep in?

Also, on the WTO thread, I would appreciate more detailed explanation of where I was ultra-neo-liberal. You must be aware that the accusation cuts me to the quick. I again thought I was arguing standard stuff.

I know that you have a much better understanding of econ than I do (my knowledge is fairly introductory, with a bit of more advanced knowledge in game theory, environmental economics, and public finance), and I am always willing to improve my understanding of the subject, but your comments aren't helping. And please be understanding that I took on the role in the WTO thread because I thought I could do defend globalization better than the advocates who were posting on the thread, and I thought I did.

603. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 5:58:24 PM

To the econ thread. All of you.

604. pseudoerasmus - 9/23/1999 5:58:59 PM

Sorry, Raskolnikov, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. Where I thought you sounded excessively neoliberal in the WTO thread was your attributing the economic development of Taiwan, South Korea etc. to international trade. This ignores the mounting evidence that domestic factors possibly played a larger role. There were other comments I took exception to, but I can't remember what they are. But since you were defending the position I would have defended against neanderthals, I decided not to say anything.

As for this stagflation thing, what you said is perfectly true, but in the long run. In the short run, it doesn't hold. In an eocnomy-wide supply shock, suppliers don't --can't -- adjust prices so quickly.

Similar nonsense is often spewed about Say's Law, the proposition that, in essence, aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand. Again, this is true only in the long run. People always forget there is an often painful adjustment process.

605. SpenceMirrlees - 9/23/1999 6:07:35 PM

I have copied the relevant posts to the econ thread...their rightful home.

606. Stumbo - 9/24/1999 1:33:21 AM

Hi, all.

A propos of nothing, here's my smirk of the day -- from a Weekly Standard interview with Gloria Allred, about Cybill Shepherd's possible presidential campaign:

While Allred freely admits that if Shepherd were to run, abortion "would be her number one issue," Shepherd is far from being a one-issue candidate. When I ask what other issues are dear to Shepherd, Allred says she'd be extremely vigilant in appointing Supreme Court justices who would protect Roe v. Wade. "Then, of course," Allred continues, "there's the issue of terrorism against the clinics." Shepherd would also ensure there were enough abortion providers. "So she has many, many issues," promises Allred.

607. CalGal - 9/24/1999 1:39:54 AM

No. That's not real, is it?

608. Stumbo - 9/24/1999 2:06:01 AM

Well, it wasn't billed as a parody, at any rate.

609. Stumbo - 9/24/1999 2:19:38 AM

I dunno if I've mentioned this before -- there was a Forbes '96 web site which had links to his positions on various issues: flat tax, education, unemployment, etc. However, all those links led to the same page, which went something like, "A flat tax will improve the economy and put more money in the pockets of average Americans, which will solve all our problems in the areas of education, unemployment, etc."

(That, of course, was a parody. The address was forbes96.com, while the official site was forbes96.org, or vice versa, or something. I hear that, these days, people who run any major sites --esp. political ones -- usually buy up all similar domain names, just to guard against this kind of thing.)

610. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 9:06:39 AM

Stumbo,
They try but it doesn't work. E.g. George W. bought up Bushsucks.com, but there is a Bushsuckz.com site out there. People are too creative.

611. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 11:46:25 AM

vonK - I am not arguing with your utopian view. I am arguing that your view is neither stated nor implied in From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

JJ for instance argues that ability means amount rather than skill/quality and that the statement thus means that anyone capable of working 20 hour days, to expand on his view, would be required to work 20 hour days.

Not true. I am arguing that it means both. You would be expected apply your skills as much as you are able.

Those of us in favor of the statement see it as an anti-alienation vision; that society would ask people to become fulfilled

This is a wonderful sentiment, but there is nothing about fulfillment mentioned. Considering the world that Marx lived in, personal fulfillment was likely the farthest thing from his mind. Christin insisted that I work strictly from the text and I will insist the same. The words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.

strictly interpret needs to be food, water, shelter.

In the world Marx was writing in, those needs were often in short supply. It was those needs, he was referring to.

Those of us in favor of the statement interpret need to mean those basice biologic needs plus societal needs such as education, information, free time, and a level of material use (what we would think of as consumer goods)

Societal needs? There is no such thing as societal needs. Needs are individual. What you have done is coin a term to disguise wants as needs in order to twist the meaning of a phrase into something it is not. You remind me of the rabbit in the Alice stories. You want words to mean whatever you want them to. Unfortunately you can't talk to the rest of society if you do that.

612. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 12:00:12 PM

Christin - So what you see is millions of people working 14 hour days to produce vast amounts of surplus that just sit and rot somewhere because we're all just going to live at subsistence levels?

No. I see millions of people working 14 hour days to support the millions of people who have found a way to avoid working. In this scenario need would always increase to absorb any temporary surplus.

I'm not sure why you believe that "need" cannot easily encompass education, free time, entertainment and comfort

Because that is not what "need" means. Education, free time, entertainment, etc. are wants. If we substitute "wants" for "needs" in the statement, we come up with new problems. Wants are effectively infinite so they can't all be satisfied. Whose wants get satisfied? Who decides? I know that is implementation, and you are only interested in pure thought.

The bottom line is that you can't change the meaning of words to suit your own purposes. From each . . . doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Of what it does mean, you would want no part.

613. TrialShark - 9/24/1999 12:56:03 PM

Dantheman --

The Bush campaign bought a whole bunch of derogatory domain names to keep them from being used by critics: www.bushsucks.com and www.bushblows.com are only two. They redirect you to his main campaign site, which is kind of amusing when you want to tell someone how to access the Governor's web site.

No word on whether they bought www.bushsnortstonsofcoke.com, though.

614. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:03:20 PM

Ooooo WEEEEE... this joint is really 'jumpin'...

Hmmm... I wonder what pseuds andy/Spamual and 'Saint George' are posting under here...

615. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:05:17 PM

Education, free time, entertainment, etc. are wants.

Ummm... unless you want the US to turn into a 3rd world country inside of 30 years, the first part of your statement is bunk.

616. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:05:25 PM

Hi DH 100. Am I married to you?

617. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 1:06:33 PM

Bub - Different DH, this one's from TT. This should be interesting.

618. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:07:46 PM

Good 'ol vonKreedon... found a cooler kitchen, eh?

619. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:08:35 PM

Well, welcome anyhow. I was hoping maybe DH got off work early.

620. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:11:36 PM

No. I see millions of people working 14 hour days to support the millions of people who have found a way to avoid working

Really...? Wow... with the unemployment rate at historical lows, this is an unfortunate time to making an assertion like this.

621. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:11:59 PM

Thanks, Bubbaette.

622. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 1:18:40 PM

Everyone knows the first quote that Senator Patrick Moynihan gave yesterday about Al Gore when he endorsed Dollar Bill Bradley:

"Nothing is the matter with Mr. Gore except he can't be elected president."

But the second is also gold.

According to the Washington Post, the assembled New York press corps made sure to ask the retiring senator why Gore might be unelectable. "You want a list of reasons."

623. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:19:52 PM

And, as Rosey knows, Moynihan is EVERY Democrat voter, yessirree...

624. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:21:26 PM

Please, Rosey, keep displaying the right's desperation that you get Bradley and NOT Gore in 11/2000...

Don't worry, you'll get your way... you will get Bradley... as Gore's VP nominee.

625. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:23:16 PM

DH

Don't pay any attention to Rosie -- he was hired by the DNC to make Repubs look especially clueless.

626. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 1:24:13 PM

Well, the old man did endorce Sister Hillary.

BWT, thanks for coming over from TT, Ryan. I was trying to get Doug, but you'll do.

Remember, most meltdowns take place in the "playpen" thread.

627. 109109 - 9/24/1999 1:25:38 PM

Bradley would be a horrific pick for Gore for three reasons.

1) He is boring.

2) He will have been the only Democratic critic of Gore in the primaries (not one of 5 vying for the nod) which means the criticism between the two will be nasty, focused and intense.

3) He lacks a vagina.

628. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:25:47 PM

BWT, thanks for coming over from TT, Ryan.

BZZZZTTTT!!! Wrong, but thank you for playing...

629. D H100 - 9/24/1999 1:26:54 PM

Don't pay any attention to Rosie -- he was hired by the DNC to make Repubs look especially clueless.

And what a fine job he does at it, too...

630. TrialShark - 9/24/1999 1:33:19 PM

Niner --

Based on your three criteria above, it would appear that you might be an excellent VP candidate for Al Gore. [g]

631. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 1:37:29 PM

Niner:

2) is no big deal. Reagan picked Bush, after all.

But I doubt that Gore will win, anyway.

632. 109109 - 9/24/1999 1:37:41 PM

Trial

Now that was very funny.

633. 109109 - 9/24/1999 1:38:49 PM

Ace

Bush was one of a bunch of pygmies. Kennedy picked Johnson, who was also one of a few entrants. But it is the Gore-Bradley show. And when the consultants say, we need to move some numbers, they will get very nasty.

634. Dusty - 9/24/1999 1:42:01 PM

D H100

Please, Rosey, keep displaying the right's desperation that you get Bradley and NOT Gore in 11/2000...


Why on earth would they want that??


BTW Welcome

635. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 1:45:41 PM

Dusty: That what the Clinton enablers all say over at TT--That Gore will pick Bradley to be his number #2.

It gives them hope.

636. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 1:46:04 PM

And when the consultants say, we need to move some numbers, they will get very nasty.

Everyone keeps saying this, but both the Republicans and Democrats have managed to keep it fairly nice so far.

Except for Buchanan, of course.

I don't see how Gore can help himself by "getting nasty" against Bradley. What, precisely, can he say?

637. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 1:48:27 PM

Algore's operatives have already said the Bradley was a light weight as senator and didn't push through any big legislation.

638. 109109 - 9/24/1999 1:48:58 PM

Gore will say the following about Bradley

1) flip-flop hypocrite
2) bad Democrat
3) anti-union
4) anti-education/pro-voucher

Bradley, of course, has a wider variety of things to say about Gore.

As for things getting nasty, if a Dole or mcCain or Forbes gets in striking distance, you will see it get nasty fast.

639. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 1:50:00 PM

Rosetta:

Nah. Just the little, tiny tax cut/tax simplification of 1986.

Just that little thing. Sure it got sabotaged almost immediately, but for a few brief months we had something approximating a rational tax code.

640. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 1:51:12 PM

Niner:

None of that stuff strikes me as "nasty." Maybe I'm just jaded after eight years of Clinton.

641. Thrakkorzog - 9/24/1999 1:55:46 PM

The latest spin that I have read is that Gore is pinning his hopes on the Southern primaries to knock Bradley out of the running. So perhaps he figures that there is no need to get bloody over Bradley, yet.

642. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 1:56:01 PM

Bradley did support Hillary's health care legislation in 1993. Right?

He didn't seem to make very many waves as a senator and he certainly wasn't a "photo pig."

643. 109109 - 9/24/1999 1:56:43 PM

Ace

In fact, that will be the more incendiary stuff precisely because of the Clinton legacy. His abuses have made sex and drugs and personal integrity issues passe'. Accordingly, the "nasty" stuff (the stuff that may move voters) will be more weighty and thematic, i.e., Bradley is a poacher, a bad Democrat, a hypocrite.

For Bradley, the attacks on Gore are indeed nastier because of Gore's ties to Clinton.

In fact, if I were Bradley, last weekedn, I would have said: 'Look. The future of the Democratic Party is between me and Al Gore. And the offer I make to the Democratic Party is that I won't sell our souls and ideals for campaign contributions. I won't put stocking the Lincoln Bedroom with visitors up over our core issues. And I won't release terrorists for political reasons. That is what we've become. Players, not doers. And you'll notice, Al Gore hasn't denounced the President's release of terrorists, and act denounced by 98 members of the Senate as "deplorable." Do you want to know why? Because Al Gore wants to be a player, not a doer."

644. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 1:58:32 PM

Niner:

Yeah, you would have said that crap, because you're a Republican, dorkwad. Bradley's seeking the Democratic nomination, in case you haven't heard.

645. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:00:33 PM

Prediction:

Bradley will never make direct reference to the Clinton financing scandals. He might allude to it obliquely, his operatives may push it without attribution... but he won't make an issue of it himself.

Clinton's scandals are, fundamentally, Democratic scandals. And 80% of Democrats don't care what inconvenient laws Clinton broke; they just care that he won. They think the ends justify the means.

646. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:00:55 PM

hahahaha

647. D H100 - 9/24/1999 2:04:45 PM

To help Rosey with his 'Gore will lose to Bradley' wet dream fetish...

In July, Gore was leading Bradley in New Hampshire by 16 points but Bradley has gained ground in the Granite State, which sometimes likes upstart challengers in presidential politics. But outside of the Northeast, the news is not as good.

The 2000 Democratic contest kicks off in Iowa, with the caucuses expected to be held January 31. Gore is ahead there by 40 points in the latest state poll and has the support of Iowa's top Democrats. The New Hampshire primary is scheduled to follow a week later.

March 7 is the first major multistate primary. Fifteen states hold contests on this day, including most of the Northeast and electoral vote-rich California, where 20 percent of the election convention delegates will come from.

...

But head west and it's apparent why Bradley is still a long-shot despite recent gains. In powerhouse California, Gore leads Bradley by 20 points or more in state polls.

... A recent state poll in Utah shows Gore ahead there by 32 points. ...In Michigan, Gore is up by 25 points.

Then comes March 14, the Super Tuesday primary of Southern states and more evidence of just how much ground Bradley needs to make up in the next six months. In Texas, Gore is ahead by 44 points.

There is no recent polling data from the other Super Tuesday states, but Gore has some significant advantages in the South.

...

In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, a regional breakdown shows that Gore would beat Bradley in the Super Tuesday states by 52 points.

<http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/21/president.2000/gore.bradley/>

648. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:05:22 PM

Ace

"Yeah, you would have said that crap, because you're a Republican, dorkwad. Bradley's seeking the Democratic nomination, in case you haven't heard."

Absurd. Bradley needs to run to the left of Gore. He does that by defining a strategy. It paints Gore as a faux liberal, an opportunist, a quivering appendage to the rudderless Clinton. He has started on some of this. He needs to start to develop it more. Better, it is not incongruous for some GOP attacks to be of service to Bradley. After all, the FALN thing will be gold for the GOP next year if handled correctly . . . but only if Gore is the nominee. Bradley should seize this.

649. D H100 - 9/24/1999 2:10:16 PM

After all, the FALN thing will be gold for the GOP next year if handled correctly . . . but only if Gore is the nominee. Bradley should seize this.

Because, after all, the GOP believes Machiavellian manuevering is good for everyone... why, look what it did for them when Buchanan wormed his way into primetime at the '92 GOP convention...

650. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:10:21 PM

If Bradley wants to run to the Left of Gore, he should propose we issue the FALN terrorists Congressional Medals of Honor. And let them do a song-and-dance at the Kennedy Center Award show.

Bradley and Gore are not ideologically dissimilar. Both are running to the other's right and left, depending on the issue. But Bradley is not really a paleoliberal, and so far, I haven't seen him running as one.

651. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:15:11 PM

Ace

No. The left of which you speak is not even represented by Tom Harkin or Paul Wellstone. The vote was 98 to 2. Bradley could use the FALN thing effectively, he could smoke Gore out, and he could cause friction between Gore and Clinton (if Gore deviates from support) or make Gore exactly what Bradely wants him to be, a shill.

652. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:16:48 PM

Dershowitz on Buchanan

"You cannot live with yourself and vote for a man as evil and as bigoted and as anti-Semitic . . . "

Buchanan on Dershowitz

"What does he do for a living? He defends guys who murder their wives."

653. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:19:08 PM

Niner:

How come none of the Democrats here seem too upset by the FALN clemency? Oh, sure, they say they'd have "preferred" if no clemency was offered, but they're not particularly bothered by it.

I think Bradley will probably make a statement about this scandal, but I doubt it will get him very far. It'll help him in the general election, should he be the nominee, but in the Democratic Primaries?

Democrats believe in letting criminals and terrorists back on to the streets to shoot and blow up more citizens. They view it as a public service of some kind.

Come on, man.

654. D H100 - 9/24/1999 2:19:38 PM

"What does he do for a living? He defends guys who murder their wives."

Yeah, he just makes the promises of that pesky Bill of Rights a reality.

But then, that document is just a complete mystery to Pitchfork Pat anyway.

655. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:22:42 PM

Ace

Many of the Democrats here are Democrats first, so they view the attack as a GOP attack, and many, naturally, defend their party reflexively.

But 98 to 2 suggests that their would be a different outcome if the attack came from an option, not an adversary.

656. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:23:27 PM

D H

Okay. We got it. Buchanan is a bad man. Dershowitz is a good man. Received.

657. TrialShark - 9/24/1999 2:23:59 PM

"Democrats believe in letting criminals and terrorists back on to the streets to shoot and blow up more citizens. They view it as a public service of some kind."

Actually, that was part of the 1996 Democratic Platform. I'm surprised no one has linked to it yet.

658. Dusty - 9/24/1999 2:24:01 PM

D H100

If you get a chance, there's a question pending in post 634

659. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:27:52 PM

Okay. We got it. Buchanan is a bad man. Dershowitz is a good man. Received.

Is that what he was getting at? I couldn't tell. It was a bit too subtle for my tastes.

660. D H100 - 9/24/1999 2:28:26 PM

Why on earth would they want that??

It's apparent that wingnuts believe Bradley can be more easily defeated than Gore.

661. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:30:13 PM

Ace

It was a shot in the dark. But I got the drift and took a leap.

662. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:30:58 PM

Rasmussen Research
9/22/99

Bush 45%
Gore 33%
Buchanan 8%

663. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:34:11 PM

DH:

Jesus Christ. You're about to be ignored. Please knock it off with the constant idiocy.

NO ONE believes that Bradley is easier to beat than Gore. Bradley does ten points better than Gore against Bush in national polls, and beats Bush in NY whereas Gore loses by ten points to Bush.

I think Bradley is a better candidate. I'd prefer Bush running against Gore.

OTOH, I'd also like the complete repudiation of Clinton that a Bradley candidacy would represent.

Stop looking for hidden motives, Little Hack. We're all reasonably up-front here. Unlike the hacks in Table Talk, none of us believe that we're actually capable of changing public thought with our posts, so there's hardly any need of TT-style posturing.

664. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:35:51 PM

But don't listen to me. Listen to Sen. Pat Moynihan.

"There's nothing wrong with Al Gore, except he can't be elected President."

665. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:40:01 PM

By the way:

I think Buchanan is being misrepresented a bit re: his Hitler statements.

OTOH, I sort of like the misrepresentation. I hate Alan Dershowitcz, but I was cheering him on as he (sometimes disingenously, sometimes not) skewered Buchanan on Geraldo last week.

If Derschowitcz and Chris Matthews can convince the country that Buchanan actually said that Hitler was a good man, and that World War Two veterans died in an ignoble war, more power to them.

Maybe Buchanan THINKS these things, but he sure the hell wasn't damn-fool enough to write them.

666. D H100 - 9/24/1999 2:40:33 PM

To help 'Ace' with his 'Gore will lose to Bradley' wet dream fetish...

In July, Gore was leading Bradley in New Hampshire by 16 points but Bradley has gained ground in the Granite State, which sometimes likes upstart challengers in presidential politics. But outside of the Northeast, the news is not as good.

The 2000 Democratic contest kicks off in Iowa, with the caucuses expected to be held January 31. Gore is ahead there by 40 points in the latest state poll and has the support of Iowa's top Democrats. The New Hampshire primary is scheduled to follow a week later.

March 7 is the first major multistate primary. Fifteen states hold contests on this day, including most of the Northeast and electoral vote-rich California, where 20 percent of the election convention delegates will come from.

...

But head west and it's apparent why Bradley is still a long-shot despite recent gains. In powerhouse California, Gore leads Bradley by 20 points or more in state polls.

... A recent state poll in Utah shows Gore ahead there by 32 points. ...In Michigan, Gore is up by 25 points.

Then comes March 14, the Super Tuesday primary of Southern states and more evidence of just how much ground Bradley needs to make up in the next six months. In Texas, Gore is ahead by 44 points.

There is no recent polling data from the other Super Tuesday states, but Gore has some significant advantages in the South.

...

In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, a regional breakdown shows that Gore would beat Bradley in the Super Tuesday states by 52 points.

<http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/21/president.2000/gore.bradley/>

667. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:42:26 PM

DH:

Thanks for reposting that and fucking up the margins a second time.

Your posts are truly helping Al Gore win the primary and general election. Have no doubts about that. Everything you say here is crucially important to shaping public opinion.

668. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:43:07 PM

And thanks for fucking up the type-face, too.

669. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:43:29 PM

Still fucked up. Good job.

670. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:44:01 PM

Fixed yet?

671. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:45:09 PM

Fixed yet?

672. 109109 - 9/24/1999 2:46:08 PM

Ha ha.

673. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:47:27 PM

674. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:47:39 PM

hello?

675. theDiva - 9/24/1999 2:48:09 PM

Hmm.

676. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:48:20 PM

Niner

Shall I run on over to Suggestions and nominate you as the thread host?

677. PsychProf - 9/24/1999 2:50:22 PM

Delete all posts from 647 on....might work...

678. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:52:03 PM

You only have to delte #666. That's the post with the funky command. The other posts are all /font posts.

Besides, #666 is just a repost of a post from the last page.

679. theDiva - 9/24/1999 2:52:49 PM

Now?

680. theDiva - 9/24/1999 2:53:01 PM

FINALLY!

681. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:53:13 PM

Nice. I think that worked.

What was it?

682. theDiva - 9/24/1999 2:54:27 PM

You make that dorky-looking font by preceding the passage with a {tt}, which stands for teletype. To turn it off, you follow the passage with {/tt}.

683. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:55:17 PM

Thanks. I have a feeling that Goober's going to be screwing up our fonts quite a bit.

684. theDiva - 9/24/1999 2:57:30 PM

And then there's the whole margin issue.

685. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:59:11 PM

Well, other than deleting his post (which was a verbatim reprint from fifteen posts ago), we can't do anything about that.

686. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 2:59:32 PM

Or... can we?

687. theDiva - 9/24/1999 3:00:24 PM

Set your posts per page to 10.

688. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:00:25 PM

Now Ace

I didn't notice D H100 saying anything all that out-of-line or even rude. We should be more welcoming to people, or this thread will just be a Hoke/Ace/Rosieathon.

689. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:02:26 PM

Bubbaette:

Well, reposting the exact same post is, I think, "out of line."

But no, he's not being very rude, except for accusing me of being a "wingnut" for supporting Bradley over Gore, and accusing me of lying about my motives for doing so.

Other than that, no, absolutely nothing rude in anything he's said.

690. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:03:03 PM

DH was not rude. And there is always a certain leeway for a newcomer. But standards must be maintained, and blowhards who aggressively post Ivinesque or Limbaughesque pablum (and disinteresting pablem at that) can only be carried for so long.

691. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:04:35 PM

niner

Awright -- but Molly Ivans is much funnier than Limbaugh and better looking, too, even for a woman.

692. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:13:02 PM

Bubber

It's a tough call, but given an igloo and sub-zero temps, I'd probably hav to go with Ivins.

693. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:15:01 PM

Think it through, Niner. There's more blubber on Rush.

694. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:15:42 PM

We should be more welcoming to people, or this thread will just be a Hoke/Ace/Rosieathon.

Unfortunately, Bubbaette, that's the general idea.

695. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:16:13 PM

696. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:16:46 PM

But standards must be maintained, and blowhards who aggressively post Ivinesque or Limbaughesque pablum (and disinteresting pablem at that) can only be carried for so long.

I posted a CNN article, NOT a Rush or Lefty screed. There is a difference, you know.

697. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:16:50 PM

D H

All you need do is bring your game up a bit.

Bubber

I didn't think about the issue of a meal.

698. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:17:30 PM

Yeah, 'Ace', obviously you're not a righty/conservative at all...

699. Dusty - 9/24/1999 3:17:39 PM

D H100

It's apparent that wingnuts believe Bradley can be more easily defeated than Gore.

That's just silly. But I thought you were talking about the right, not just the wacko's. Now I understand.

700. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:17:43 PM

DH100:

No. We'd just like you to say something which isn't entirely predictable, avoid the use of the perjorative term "winguts," and stop assigning false motives to people you don't know.

701. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:18:00 PM

D H

I was not talking about your article excerpt, which I enjoyed both times around. I was talking about your original, pedestrian commentary.

702. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:18:29 PM

All you need do is bring your game up a bit.

Hey, opinions are like anal orfices... everybody's got one...

Knock yourself out.

703. TrialShark - 9/24/1999 3:19:46 PM

" ... stop assigning false motives to people you don't know."

Words to live by, from one who practices what he preaches.

704. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:20:06 PM

We'd just like you to say something which isn't entirely predictable, avoid the use of the perjorative term "winguts," and stop assigning false motives to people you don't know.

Guy, I've watched you use pejoratives and assign motives to others.

705. Dusty - 9/24/1999 3:20:29 PM

Bubbaette

hey I welcomed D H100

Although I'd be happier if he or she learned how to do a link so as not to mess up the margins. And put away toys.

706. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:21:14 PM

Besides, I have a soft spot for DH 100, seeing as he's got the same name as my hubby.

707. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:21:21 PM

Algore is a goddamned Communist who wants to reverse the industrial evolution and send us all back to living in lean-tos and his wife is old and fat and ugly and had plastic surgery and is still old and fat and ugly.

DH, is this the kind of "exchange of ideas" you're accustomed to? If so, I can accomodate you. Although I'd prefer not to.

708. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:21:29 PM

I welcome D H as well. I just don't think he needs to be patronized.

709. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:22:03 PM

Sigh. Industrial REvolution.

710. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 3:22:07 PM

I want him out. He doesn't have the quads.

711. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:22:43 PM

Problem with the Demoncrats is that they all suck off the tit of the government and they support that scumbag in the Oval Office.

Better?

712. Dusty - 9/24/1999 3:22:47 PM

Quads?

713. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:22:57 PM

Tipper may be old, but she's not fat or particularly ugly. She just lacks the ability to hold her head up.

714. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:23:09 PM

Although I'd be happier if he or she learned how to do a link so as not to mess up the margins.

'Mess up the margins'??? Hey, I can't help it if 'tha' Mote' can't learn to properly design HTML pages.

715. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:24:07 PM

Bubbaette:

I actually think Tipper is fairly good-looking. But I don't have to admit that, do I?

716. RosettaSTONE - 9/24/1999 3:24:23 PM

bubba: Tipper is fat as a horse but that;s okay because she has great puppies.

717. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:24:45 PM

'Ace' and 109 both have it wrong... hey, include some cites and SUBSTANCE in your post. If all you saw was 'the attacks', then that says more about you than the contents of my posts.

718. Dusty - 9/24/1999 3:24:57 PM

D H100

We assumed that people would learn how to make links, so we wouldn't have to add the code to clean up after you.

Want some help, or would you prefer that we just disable your html?

719. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:25:22 PM

Ace

I just wish she wouldn't flop her head around from side-to-side. She gives us southern wimmin a bad image -- one might think she has no spine above the shoulders.

720. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:25:26 PM

I find Hillary vastly more attractive than Tipper, who has that pale doughy quality that gives me the creeps.

721. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:25:29 PM

I welcome D H as well. I just don't think he needs to be patronized.

None asked for and none given.

722. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:26:20 PM

We assumed that people would learn how to make links, so we wouldn't have to add the code to clean up after you.

This good enough for you?

723. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:27:13 PM

OK. If the election were held today based on who had the best-looking spouse, who would win the election?

724. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:27:55 PM

Bubber

Good question.

I'd have to say Liddy Dole, what with Bob walking around proud with that pole of his.

725. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:29:20 PM

I'd have to say Liddy Dole, what with Bob walking around proud with that pole of his.

Unfortunately, that's a result of chemical help, not Liddy's looks.

726. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 3:29:59 PM

bubbaette,
Last place Liddy dole.

727. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:30:10 PM

Yeesh, Niner. I didn't know you were a narcoleptic.

Dan Quayle is definately out of the running.

728. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:30:40 PM

D H

Liddy's looks?

I'm talking about Rockin' Bob. Even if he is popping boner pills like chicklets, he's a looker.

729. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:31:24 PM

Good one, DH. Niner had the chance to explicitly make the viagra joke, but he chose to make it obliquely. Thanks for making it obvious.

Obvious = Funny

730. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:31:29 PM

He's not too bad looking for a cadaver.

731. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:34:43 PM

Hey, stop me if you've heard this one before:

Bob Dole's penis is all hard and shit because he takes Viagra.

I got a million of them.

732. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:35:43 PM

Yes. But he's really mean and he has a withered arm and he's a Repug. So there.

733. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:35:58 PM

Obvious = Funny

Whereas, in the 'Ace' universe, 'humor' is produced by doing a junior high level sketch about the beauty levels of the various candidates...

Stop... you're killing us... really...

734. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:37:02 PM

Ha, ha. I always giggle at that crippled arm. Nice one!

735. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:37:25 PM

I know... 'Ace' is really Mike Judge trying out new schticks for a 'Beavis and Butthead' retrospective show...

736. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:37:53 PM

Niner:

You know what else is funny? Paul Tsongas died of cancer.

Bah-dum-dum.

737. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:38:39 PM

Tsongas dead?

Yeah how about the lisp and the Speedo?

Killer.

738. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:40:23 PM

Ohmigosh... making fun of a dead Demo... whatever shall I do?

I'm a broken man... stop... really...

739. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:40:42 PM

Hoo boy.

740. Phoenix Rising - 9/24/1999 3:43:16 PM

They just ripped FC in TT.

Hi ya'all. Seen any interesting politices lately?

741. theDiva - 9/24/1999 3:43:50 PM

My God, you guys are easily distracted. Could we please get back to the 2000 Presidential race? Sheesh.

742. Phoenix Rising - 9/24/1999 3:44:04 PM

*sigh* I miss the edit function already.

743. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:44:05 PM

Gone?

It's a pogrom, I tell you. A pogrom.

744. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:45:30 PM

Now that your boys have that out of your system, making we can get back around to that which you have assiduously avoided thus far: actual issues.

Maybe you can wrap your heads around what I posted earlier with the link to the CNN article, instead of Miss Manners style carping about the evils of my HTML coding.

745. Phoenix Rising - 9/24/1999 3:47:45 PM

Yep. Gone With The Wind.

Being a former Kansan, I actually had the priviledge of voting against Bob Dole on more than one occassion. (he said, smugly)

746. theDiva - 9/24/1999 3:47:55 PM

Phoenix

It's okay....I've just created a thread which old-timers are sure to recognize. Let's see how long it lasts.

747. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:48:48 PM

Wrap your head around this:

Everywhere Bradley campaigns, he quickly cuts the lead into a dead heat.

Bradley will have more cash-on-hand by next month.

Gore can no longer count on the SuperDelegates pulling the levers for him.

The California money-men love Bradley. Can the voters be far behind?

If Bradley wins NH, or even comes in a close second, the Democratic party will take a hard look at him, and will stop assuming a Gore candidacy is inevitable.

Gore is banking on that assumption. Once it doesn't look quite so inevitable, Bradley has a better than even shot at winning.

748. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:51:51 PM

Speaking of carping, especially about 'pejoratives' and what not...

Thanks for reposting that and f****** up the margins a second time.

...

Your posts are truly helping Al Gore win the primary and general election. Have no doubts about that. Everything you say here is crucially important to shaping public opinion.

...

And thanks for f****** up the type-face, too.

Recognize your work, 'Ace'? Oh, I did clean up the potty mouth a bit.

Next time, maybe you can save the sanctimony and grade school sarcasm for someone who cares.

749. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:53:03 PM

Oh, Daphne, don't get your panties in such a bunch.

750. Ronski - 9/24/1999 3:53:07 PM

Gore remains toast as a Y2K+1 White House occupant. Probably won't even get his party's nomination, if the Dems have any brains.

751. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:53:44 PM

Wingnut.

752. 109109 - 9/24/1999 3:55:42 PM

I still think Gore will beat Bradley, and the GOP would prefer to meet Gore over Bradley. The problem for Gore, however, is two-fold. First, he scared the pygmies away from the primaries, and in doing so, he created a mammoth, single opponent. It makes him less of a natural, consensus candidate. Second, I question whether Gore can differentiate himself from Bradley. As Bush was a lapdog to Reagan, Gore has been a concubine to Clinton. Bush survived by meeting the two worst politicians of the 20th century (Dole and then Dukakis). Gore must meet a canny Bradley and, in all likelihood, an inexplicably strong Bush Jr.

753. D H100 - 9/24/1999 3:56:39 PM

Everywhere Bradley campaigns, he quickly cuts the lead into a dead heat.

Read again...

The 2000 Democratic contest kicks off in Iowa, with the caucuses expected to be held January 31. Gore is ahead there by 40 points in the latest state poll and has the support of Iowa's top Democrats.

...

But head west and it's apparent why Bradley is still a long-shot despite recent gains. In powerhouse California, Gore leads Bradley by 20 points or more in state polls.

...

In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, a regional breakdown shows that Gore would beat Bradley in the Super Tuesday states by 52 points.

Clear enough for you? I can post the link for you again...

Bradley will have more cash-on-hand by next month.

Because, after all, that stuff they said in school about 'one man, one vote' was WRONG... it's one DOLLAR, one vote.

More to come...

754. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:58:33 PM

I don't think Gore is "toast," but I think Bradley is the stronger candidate.

Gore will hold the party faithful. He has huge negatives among independents and Republicans.

Bradley would, of course, also hold the party faithful, but polling shows that Independents and even Republicans would strongly consider voting for Bradley.

The claim is made that Bradley is "too liberal." But he's 3% more liberal than Gore, at most, and depending on the issue. The only two big disagreements are about guns (Bradley says register) and welfare reform (Bradley says we should have had a jobs program in-place before we reformed welfare).

OTOH, Bradley is to the right of Gore on vouchers (he once indicated some support).

I don't know. Not an awful lot of difference.

755. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:58:50 PM

Shoot -- you can't buy a vote for a dollar. Even back in the 50's it cost a half pint of bourbon and a two dollar bill.

756. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:01:46 PM

DH:

I said everywhere Bradley CAMPAIGNS he cuts the lead to a dead heat. Perhaps you missed that, Cynthia. Please post an article which indicates extensive Bradley campaigning in a state which has yet to embrace him.

Toodle-oo.

757. Dusty - 9/24/1999 4:02:20 PM

D H100 Looks great. Thanks.

Now. Do you think Bradley or Gore will do better against the GOP?

758. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:02:39 PM

The California money-men love Bradley. Can the voters be far behind?

Because, after all, MONEY COUNTS, voters don't. I guess GOP'ers must have blank minds whose contents are filled by 'money men', and therefore assume others are the same.

By the way, California's Governor Endorses Gore. It was in all the papers and everything... honest...

Gore is banking on that assumption. Once it doesn't look quite so inevitable, Bradley has a better than even shot at winning.

Take a look at the numbers, slick. Outside of New England, your arithmetic is shoddy. Besides, as a GOP'er, WHY do you have such a vested interest in Bradley?

759. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:04:14 PM

I said everywhere Bradley CAMPAIGNS he cuts the lead to a dead heat.

Uhh huh.... that's why his campaigning in Iowa has yet to put a dent in Gore's lead.

Again, why the Bradley rooting?

760. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:06:15 PM

"Why the Bradley rooting?"

Asked and answered, Clarice.

761. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:07:04 PM

Do you think Bradley or Gore will do better against the GOP?

Gore. More experience, less waffling on legislation, better leadership. Besides, he'll bait the GOP into playing the 'Monica Card' which worked GREAT (for Dems) in '98.

He can also out debate the entire GOP field with one cerebrial hemisphere tied behind his skull.

762. 109109 - 9/24/1999 4:07:28 PM

DH

Why the Bradley rotting?

What a peculiar question, as if the sentiments of individuals can bring about political change to their liking. I agree that Bradley is formidable. I think your polls can be eviscerated if Bradley scores a coup in New Hampshire. And I firmly believe that the GOP would prefer a match-up against Gore over Bradley.

And no matter the polls now, I consider Gore the favorite over Bush in the general.

763. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:10:03 PM

Gladys:

Oh, I don't doubt it at all. Gore is a reg'lar Reed Richards SuperGenius. He "reinvented government," you know.

764. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:12:13 PM

Niner:

At this point, Gore is still the favorite. But the trend is with Bradley, as Elliot likes to say.

Gore has had zero good news for a month. You might think he's due. Then again, you might have thought the Giants were due for a touchdown in the second quarter against the 'Skins. As it turned out, they threw an interception for a touchdown when they were threatening to score.

765. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 4:12:37 PM

DH - I would assume that some GOPers see the nomination of Bradley as a repudiation of Clinton as much as a defeat for Gore. It would show that the public is validating their complaints against Clinton and it strengthen their position.

766. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:13:45 PM

Gore has had zero good news for a month. You might think he's due. Then again, you might have thought the Giants were due for a touchdown in the second quarter against the 'Skins. As it turned out, they threw an interception for a touchdown when they were threatening to score.

Because, after all, politics is just a giant sports metaphor...

767. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:15:20 PM

DH - I would assume that some GOPers see the nomination of Bradley as a repudiation of Clinton as much as a defeat for Gore. It would show that the public is validating their complaints against Clinton and it strengthen their position.

Exactamundo... they're hoping that would show 'we were right about impeachment' and give them a fresh body to drag around the field for 2000.

Too bad it's a pipe dream...

768. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:16:33 PM

Is that why Kerry and Moynihan have both endorsed Bradley? Just curious.

769. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 4:17:46 PM

DH - He can also out debate the entire GOP field with one cerebrial hemisphere tied behind his skull.

You mean he can recite the DNC talking points endlessly without blinking or twitching? That is a remarkable skill. I can't read them without breaking into fits of laughter.

770. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:20:25 PM

Bradley, who is generally considered more butch than Gore, has had the courage to court us mouthy homosexuals with a denunciation of the failed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

It is not enough to get me to vote for him, of course.

And that neck.

What happened to him?

771. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:21:10 PM

Is that why Kerry and Moynihan have both endorsed Bradley? Just curious.

The day Moynihan announced, Gore announced NINE hill endorsements. Prior to Moynihan, Bradley had a total of THREE. Gore has a list of hill, governor and municipal endorsements that fills over 5 pages (and that was weeks ago).

What part of this do you not understand?

772. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:22:11 PM

JJ:

He also "reinvented government." Don't forget that.

Niner tells me Gore actually lost the debate to Dan Quayle. I believe most of what Niner says. And that says to me that Gore isn't a terribly effective debater.

Of course, I hear that Bush isn't a good debater either. He gets angry and a bit sharp, and that turns people off. He's also only done it once or twice, and I hear he lost.

OTOH, debates aren't too important to elections. Reagan, for all his strengths, was horrible at it, and seemed senile during the first debate against Mondale. Didn't hurt him too much.

In addition, the candidate leading in the polls ALWAYS refuses to debate at all until weeks before the election, when opinion has more or less solidified.

Plus, Gore is dumb.

773. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:24:17 PM

From the day of the Moynihan endorsement...

FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP POLL: Good morning, Leon.

In fact, this sense of momentum for Bill Bradley has come about from that New York State poll you just mentioned and some polling in New Hampshire, which shows Bradley pulling close to Al Gore. And those polls are important because the primaries are state-by-state.

But we've been watching the national race because, of course, ultimately, the election is a national election. And here, we have not seen this kind of movement on the part of Bill Bradley.

This simply tracks Democrats' preferences nationwide for their first choice to the nomination. That top line is Al Gore, down there is Bill Bradley, and you can see all the way through this past month, it's been like railroad tracks; we just haven't seen any national signs of Bill Bradley making a major move up on Al Gore, he's significantly ahead in terms of Democratics -- Democrats' preference to the nomination.

So much for the 'momentum' 'Ace' was talking about.

Read more here.

774. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:26:24 PM

Niner tells me Gore actually lost the debate to Dan Quayle. I believe most of what Niner says. And that says to me that Gore isn't a terribly effective debater.

Niner is not terribly reliable then. Gore made hay of debate opponents in both 92 and 96. Post debate polls clearly showed virtually all viewers felt that way too. I saw those debates personally... if you didn't, I suggest you check some other sources.

775. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:27:37 PM

Oh good. Let's argue about Niner's and your opinion about the 92 and 96 debates. That should be interesting.

776. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:30:52 PM

Ace,

A flash CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 408 viewers conducted in the half hour following the debate showed Gore as the clear winner, 57-28 percent. Other polls showed similar results.

Read about it here.

This is too easy...

777. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:31:39 PM

And that debate was against Kemp, who is not nearly the bubble headed frat boy GWB is.

778. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:32:41 PM

Now we don't have to argue Niner's view...a hard news source is a little better, don'tcha think?

779. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:33:14 PM

Oh god... once again, I am talking about one issue (Gore v. Quayle) and you provide information on an entirely irrelevant issue (Gore v. Kemp) and declare yourself victorious...

780. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:34:00 PM

So will Bush fils self-destruct under the hot lights or not? I've got to think Republicans are wondering whether their boy is really up to the task.

781. ElliottRW - 9/24/1999 4:34:25 PM

IMO, Bradley's success is largely because Gore has not shown himself to be electable. If Gore can close the gap between his numbers and Republican candidates, support for Bradley will evaporate.

It's that simple. Gore knows this, and that's why he's not actively campaigning against Bradley.

Conversely, if Gore slips further against Republicans, he could be in real jeopardy of losing the nomination to Bradley.

782. D H100 - 9/24/1999 4:35:59 PM

Oh god... once again, I am talking about one issue (Gore v. Quayle) and you provide information on an entirely irrelevant issue (Gore v. Kemp) and declare yourself victorious...

Do you HONESTLY think Gore could best Kemp by nearly 30 points in polls after a debate and not do the same to QUAYLE???

If so, you're obviously grasping at straws, and casting your intellectual capacity in a POOR light.

783. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:36:54 PM

Ronski:

We're all wondering about that, obviously. And praying.

I sure the hell didn't want the primaries to go this way. But, when the country (for some baffling reason) demands Bush as President, I guess you have to give it to them.

784. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:38:37 PM

DH:

Yes I HONESTLY think whatever you were ASKING me about. And if that casts my INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES in a POOR LIGHT, so BE it. Sometimes I GRASP AT STRAWS, because, you know, I LIKE straws.

If GRASPING AT STRAWS is WRONG, well, damnit, then that's MY kind of WRONG.

785. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 4:39:47 PM

Gore kicked Quayle's ass. I remember the flash polls after the debate. However, since Quayle didn't drool, pick his nose, or stick a fork in his eye, a few talking heads proclaimed that he was a winner based on expectations of his performance.

Gore also mopped the floor with Perot, in a debate that he was widely expected to lose.

786. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:42:11 PM

Rask:

NINER says OTHERWISE. NINER tells me THINGS and I BELIEVE him, because he's my little COMPUTER BUDDY.

787. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:44:43 PM

if NINER told me I was a BUG, I would BELIEVE HIM, because NINER doesn't lie. Like SUPERMAN.

788. ElliottRW - 9/24/1999 4:45:10 PM

Re: Debates

I think Gore is a fine debater. He understands the issues, knows his and his opponents positions, and can argue clearly and extemporaneously. His "boring" demeanor--and command of supporting facts--lends him an air of credibility. As long as the debate is on the issues, I see Gore prevailing (gaining support amongst undecided voters) against every other candidate.

789. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:47:03 PM

Ace,

Are you going to start getting ambiguous about your relationship with Niner, again?

'Cause if so, I'll hang around longer.

790. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 4:47:08 PM

Ace: give me the name of your crack dealer. I will kill him and make sure you get proper treatment, my friend. I promise.

791. 109109 - 9/24/1999 4:51:11 PM

USA TODAY, October 19, 1992

"ABC News' poll had them in the same order, but the numbers were a statistical tie between Gore, 38%, and Quayle, 35% - a difference well within the margin of error."

792. 109109 - 9/24/1999 4:54:10 PM

MR. GERMOND: Well, not yet. I don't think the vice presidential debate is going to affect much of anything. Gore was very effective in the sense that he got out the message they were trying to get out. He kept talking about change, economic issues, that kind of thing. But I also think that for his own purposes Dan Quayle did a very effective thing because his support is on the far right of the Republican Party. He showed them he can be tough and he showed them he's a lot better than he was four years ago. I think for his purposes it was very valuable.

793. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:58:28 PM

A New Yorker cartoon I liked had a dog on a telephone telling a pollster, "Well, I think all of those candidates would make a good president."

The cartoon was a joke about the nature of a dog's fidelity, of course, but I think it is operative in a sense for this coming election: I don't think most people particularly care who the next president is.

794. 109109 - 9/24/1999 4:58:36 PM

The Associated Press

October 14, 1992

"Al Gore won 118 points, Dan Quayle 106 and James Stockdale 88 from five debate coaches who judged Tuesday's vice presidential debate for The Associated Press. The best possible score was 150."

795. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 5:05:51 PM

Weekly World News

"Among cybernetic androids, Gore was judged the winner by a margin of 64% to 31%. Among plant life, Gore did even better, eclipsing Quayle by a 45% margin among higher-order plants and by a commanding 62% margin among single-celled plant life like Euglena."

796. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:12:05 PM

DH - I saw the Gore-Kemp debate. It was obvious that Kemp was unprepared for the kind of debate Gore engaged in. Kemp had prepared for a debate on the issues based on facts. Gore's entire debate consisted of lies, distortions and baseless attacks. Kemp was unprepared to deal with overwhelming flood of excrement coming from Gore. I don't know why Kemp wasn't prepared since Gore had been spouting this same line for months. He may have assumed that the moderator or someone else would call Gore on these points, but no one did. The facts provided little protection when Gore hit the fan.

797. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:12:45 PM

And that's only in this galaxy.

798. 109109 - 9/24/1999 5:13:38 PM

Kemp was massacred by Gore.

799. D H100 - 9/24/1999 5:22:53 PM

Gore's entire debate consisted of lies, distortions and baseless attacks.

It should be easy to point them out then.

800. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:27:12 PM

Niner - As I said. Kemp was completely unprepared. It was painful to watch. It was as if Gore had said, "The Republicans are all sinister, green aliens who want to suck your brains out through your eye sockets."

And the moderator says, "How do you justify sucking people's brains out through their eye sockets, Mr. Kemp?"

801. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:28:06 PM

DH - It is very easy. Any statement after he said his name.

802. D H100 - 9/24/1999 5:29:12 PM

DH - It is very easy. Any statement after he said his name.

My... how objective and logical of you...

803. Thrakkorzog - 9/24/1999 5:32:04 PM

I forced myself to watch Gore on Larry King a couple of weekends ago. He does seem to have gotten some coaching and did better than my, admittedly low, expectations. Same old rhetoric, but lots of gestures and eye twitches that connoted Concern for the People and why, in the wake of the Fort Worth shootings, he did not want to Politicize the gun issue, nosireebob, but, golly gee, something Has to be Done (about guns that is).

804. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:33:48 PM

DH - What's the matter. Don't people from TT have a sense of humor? Besides, you aren't going to claim that Gore came close to sticking to the truth are you?

805. Thrakkorzog - 9/24/1999 5:34:54 PM

Hmmmmm, yummy braaaaiiins.

806. OhioSTOPAS - 9/24/1999 5:37:37 PM

As I remember the 1996 debate, one reason Kemp lost so badly to Gore was the intellectual unsoundness of conservatism.

One example was Kemp's unwillingness, despite campaign sloganeering about "getting the government off our backs" and the like, to cite one example of a federal law that he would repeal. Kemp wouldn't even criticize the Family and Medical Leave Act (which, even though it works well, is arguably a fine-tuning of the details of the employer-employee contractual relationship that does not belong in federal legislation). Gore showed up Kemp as an empty sloganeer.

807. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:38:02 PM

Thrak - It is that "Something Has To Be Done" attitude that bothers me. It assumes that any action is better than no action. Personally, I prefer no action to the wrong action. That statement also has a tinge of desperation, and like many other things laws should not be the result of desperation.

808. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 5:38:34 PM

All:

There is now a separate NFL pool subthread in PP's Sports Bar. Note that we'll have winners week to week, and we'll determine the season's winner by win-loss ratio (not gross number of wins), so late-comers are not predjudiced due to not picking Week 2's winners.

Message: I care. Other Message: Make your picks. It's not too late to win the season.

809. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:50:17 PM

Ohio - Unfortunately that is a common dodge for Democrats. They understand that it is not the law that is usually the problem, but it is the regulations written from the law or the wording in a piece of the law that allows government abuse. They never ask what Republicans would change about how government operates. They always ask which laws (not regulations) Republicans would repeal (not modify). If Republicans complain about Clean Water regulations, Democrats will claim that Republicans want repeal the Clean Water act and poison our rivers and lakes. It is clearly dishonest, but it is the Democrats' modus operandi.

810. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 6:11:01 PM

Time Magazine poll:

NH primary:

Bradley 44%
Gore 41%

That's right. He's ahead.

Margin of error is 4%. But it's right there, baby.

811. dusty - 9/24/1999 6:12:24 PM

D H100

Dusty: Do you think Bradley or Gore will do better against the GOP?

DH100: Gore. More experience, less waffling on legislation, better leadership.


Explaining, of course, why Dole whupped Clinton.

812. OhioSTOPAS - 9/24/1999 6:16:01 PM

You're hyperventilating, JJ. I'm not aware of Democrats making statements like that about Republicans. Certainly Gore didn't do that in his debate with Kemp. (By the way, a transcript appears at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/debate/vp_10-9.html)
Gore said, accurately, that the Republicans proposed to rewrite the Clean Water Act. Kemp responded by saying that existing environmental regulations were a "reign of terror". (No hyperbole there!) A "flood of excrement" from Gore? Right.

813. ranheim - 9/24/1999 6:32:06 PM

Do people actually watch these debates?

I'm amazed!

814. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 6:47:28 PM

Ohio - Some notes from the debate:

Gore: Bob Dole's plan would have already imposed an extra $268 on the average Medicare-receiving couple, and his plan would have doubled deductibles, it would have cost an extra $1,700 over the lifetime of his plan

This is a distortion. Dole's plan would impose the increase only on the wealthiest Medicare recipients. The "average" recipient would not have been affected at all. Gore averaged the increase across all recipients to scare voters.

Gore: the Dole-Gingrich plan on Medicare would have led to deep cuts, possibly set up a two-tiered system, and would have ended the kind of Medicare system that we have.

Flat out lie.

Gore: We will save Medicare. We will stop efforts to hurt Medicare

Another lie.

Gore: They invited the lobbyists for the biggest polluters in America to come into the Congress and literally rewrite the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

Another lie on several fronts. To refer to representatives industry as "biggest polluters in America" is inflammatory at best. Second, the lobbyists did not rewrite the bills. It is standard procedure (or at least it should be) to determine how a bill will affect those who will be most affected by it. To exclude industry from the debate as Democrats did for years is criminal.

Ohio, do you know what is involved in complying with the Clean Air and Clean Water acts? "Reign of Terror" is pretty accurate.

815. Thrakkorzog - 9/24/1999 7:03:02 PM

"Republicans always have more money -- a lot more money -- than Democrats do, and because the constituency is very different, the interests they represent, generally speaking, are different. I don't want to pigeonhole them just on that. But that's just a fact."

Profound thoughts from Gore.

816. Spudboy - 9/25/1999 1:12:35 AM

JJ: Hate to break the news to you, but there was nothing untruthful in Gore's statement regarding the rewrites of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts (I agree, the reference to "biggest polluters" is mostly rhetorical, but can be defended from a partisan POV in the same way the NRA and conservatives get away with talking about "gun grabbers"). It has been a point of astonishment among journalists covering conservation to observe GOP behavior in recent years -- not merely seeking industry advice, as you suggest, but literally turning over the writing of entire pieces of legislation to industry lobbyists. This occurred with not just these two acts but also with Slade Gorton's attempted rewrite of the Endangered Species Act in 1996 and the 1995 Salvage Logging rider as well. You are grossly mistaken if you believe the process was merely one of "consultation." We have debated this before and you know that I've established that you are mistaken about this.

And since your response will be predictable -- "Democrats do it too" -- I will head it off at the pass by pointing out that, no, at no point have environmental activists actually been responsible for creating the text of any piece of legislation presented to either house of Congress. They obviously have been able to effect and affect legislation, but the GOP behavior in this regard is, by the reckoning of every journalist I know covering this matter, unprecedented.

Also, your contention that Democrats have shut out industry when writing environmental legislation is simply laughable. I have observed the legislation and policy produced by the likes of Frank Church, Max Baucus, Cecil Andrus, Warren Magnuson, Tom Daschle, and a host of other Western Democrats, over the years, and without fail their legislation was written after consultation with both industry and environmental interests. Indeed, they are frequently criticized by ultra-greens for being too sensitive to industry interests.

817. Stumbo - 9/25/1999 1:24:55 AM

Yes, I'm sure the ultra-greens objected to the removal of the Federal Funding For Tree-Spiking As Performance Art clause.

818. Spudboy - 9/25/1999 2:04:18 AM

Ha ha ha. Nice retort, Stumbo.

Good to see you! More reasons to return here. You been well, old friend?

FWIW, I'm as compelled by the ultra-greens' rants as I am by the silver and gold mining companies who whine that being charged a fee higher than the one established in 1872 (never adjusted since for inflation) is an egregious burden. But if you're suggesting that Democrats' concessions to industry mostly are comprised of dropping the ridiculously radical stuff from the left, think again. In the West, at least, these same Democrats have largely resource-extractive constituencies, and they typically make damned sure that industry interests are thoroughly addressed.

819. Stumbo - 9/25/1999 2:26:16 AM

Spuds:

Yes, I've been more or less OK. Y'self at least likewise, I hope.

But -- why do you care who writes the bill? It still has to come up for a vote. If side A has exactly enough current Congressional clout over side B to gain legislation that is X units biased in its favor, then that's what will pass, and nothing more. It doesn't matter whether the bill is actually written by A and B in concert, or only by A, or only by B -- because even in the latter cases, neither side will be stupid enough to propose a bill that is more biased in its favor than the situation will allow. (And if they try, it'll be defeated.) So what's the big deal about authorship?

820. Spudboy - 9/25/1999 3:36:10 AM

Stumbo: I'm busy as hell -- will post more as we go along, but I can only pop in now and then right now. But doing very well. My book is chugging along.

About authorship: It's simply revealing WRT the extent to which the varied interests are in charge of the legislation.

Most legislators, particularly in Congress, let lobbyists hand them ideas about what legislation would be helpful, and sometimes you'll see specific language that came from industry lawyers popping up in legislation. But almost always you'll see the congressmen's or senators' staffs do the actual writing, since they typically are the best equipped to make sure that it meshes with currently enacted law. Staffs also tend to be the people best connected to constituency interests and can spot potential conflicts. Moreover, as I suggested before, most legislators like to tailor their bills to meet the needs of their respective constituencies, instead of simply servicing a singular band of them (in this case, industry).

Handing the writing over to lobbyists of a particular segment of interests essentially tosses this kind of balancing process out the window. It makes for legislation that becomes so narrow and ill-devised that it usually dies in committee (like the ESA rewrite) or barely makes it onto the floor. Occasionally it actually becomes law, and the real-life consequences are startling. Best example of this is the broadly disparaged Salvage Logging Rider; even Republicans like to pretend they didn't author that puppy now.

Mind you, there's nothing particularly scandalous or disturbing about this practice. But it certainly raised some eyebrows among the people who understand how the system is supposed to work. If nothing else, it smacks of a certain abdication of responsibility.

821. Spudboy - 9/25/1999 3:47:23 AM

And, of course, it's legitimate rhetorical fodder for presidential debates.

822. Cellar Door - 9/25/1999 10:12:36 AM

Bush Declares Nazi Vote Essential to His Winning Election!

823. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 2:28:18 PM

stumbo

"neither side will be stupid enough to propose a bill that is more biased in its favor than the situation will allow."

I disagree. How often do members of Congress actually read and understand all the details of the bills that they vote on? I bet its damn seldom. Allowing special interests to write legislation that they benefit from is an insidious practice that borders on corruption. I am surprised at Spudboy's tepid response to your assertion.

Here is an old article from Salon about legislation that benefits special interests.

Note how GE stood to benefit from some innocuously worded legislation.

(I realize that the article doesn't specifically mention which riders were authored by industry.)

824. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 3:04:10 PM

Here is a 1995 article fromThe American Prospect about industry authored legislation.

An excerpt:

When 58 House Republicans bucked their party leadership in November and voted down 17 budget riders designed to give particular industries special dispensation from environmental laws, it seemed like the corporate lobbyists had finally been beaten back. Until then, the story of environmental legislation in the 104th Congress was of unprecedented industry influence--corporate lawyers for well-known polluters ghostwriting amendments, even whole bills.

Another excerpt:

The story of regulatory reform in the 104th Congress is perhaps the most egregious example of Big Business literally setting the agenda, writing the legislation, and then guiding it through the legislative process with the full cooperation of the House and Senate leadership.

825. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 3:17:46 PM

My link in message #823 starts on page two of the article. Once you get there, please click on the "page 1" icon in the middle right of the screen.


And my link in message #824 doesn't open a new window.


Sorry about that.

826. Stumbo - 9/25/1999 4:54:47 PM

Grey:

"How often do members of Congress actually read and understand all the details of the bills that they vote on? I bet its damn seldom."

And that's why each side has its experts, activists, lobbyists, etc. --not to mention, the media -- to alert the congressfolk and prevent them from inadvertently voting for something they wouldn't knowingly support. If they fail in that task, tough.

The rest of your post misses my point completely. The fact that one side was able to "set[] the agenda, writ[e] the legislation, and then guid[e] it through the legislative process with the full cooperation of the House and Senate leadership" is simply a measure of what the current situation allows, as per #819. I mean, what would you expect (or want) to happen -- that a majority in Congress, while supporting one side of a debate, write and vote for a bill more favorable to the other?

Incidentally, I loved how Salon breathlessly led off with the $7,000 GE campaign contribution. Coming from a multi-billion-dollar corporation, that seems a tad on the itty-bitty side.

827. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 5:21:54 PM

Greystoke, that article in 824 is a series of empty assertions, which probably sounds right to you because it supports your preconceptions.

It takes more to prove industry influence on the content of legislation than pointing out that lobbyists sometimes write pieces of bills. For the same reasons Stumbo mentioned, it is possible that lobbyists write pieces that they know (or believe in their best estimate) can garner support from legislators with a multitude of concerns.

Ha, probably this sounds like Polyanna talking, because "everyone knows" about industry influence and backroom deals. But that's a pretty feeble standard of proof.

828. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 5:23:53 PM

I mean, it's fairly simple. Agency budgets often get rubber stamped by Congress. Does this mean that agencies wield some sort of power over Congress?

Or that Congress wields it over agencies, and the threat of rejection and budget paring induces agencies to make proposals that are acceptable the first time around?

One simply cannot tell based only on the observation that individual agency budget proposals are often accepted on the first try.

829. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 5:54:01 PM

stumbo

"And that's why each side has its experts, activists, lobbyists, etc. -- not to mention, the media -- to alert the congressfolk and prevent them from inadvertently voting for something they wouldn't knowingly support. If they fail in that task, tough. "

In the case of a high profile bill, you are right that the opposing interests will shine a bright light on the potential impacts. However, in the case of riders, particularly 11th hour riders attached to appropriations bills, the opportunity for such scrutiny is frequently lacking.

How about one of the examples from The American Prospect article:

Little noticed at first, cloaked in technical language, the rider would have prevented the EPA from issuing or enforcing strict standards to control air pollution created by cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. Because the EPA is currently developing combustion rules intended to limit public exposure to the emission of dioxin, mercury, and other pollutants from these facilities, the rider would effectively have cut off the EPA at the knees while saving the cement industry tens of millions of dollars.



continued

830. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 5:55:16 PM

Chapman's suggestion got a warm reception from the House Republican leadership, including Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston of Louisiana and the relevant subcommittee chairman, Jerry Lewis of California. Livingston and Lewis, in turn, shipped a copy of the cement industry rider over to Barton, for his approval, and of course, they got it. The rider became one of the infamous 17 that made it into the House appropriations bill.

How is it possible that the cement industry managed to win such an explicit, narrowly focused favor buried deep inside a multibillion-dollar appropriations bill? The flow of campaign money provides a good hint. The cement industry had raised enormous sums of money for the Republican Party. On May 16, 1995, Richard Creighton, president of the American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA), took his place at the head table as one of three cochairs of the "1995 Republican Senate-House Dinner," a fundraising gala that pulled in millions of dollars for the Republican Party's campaigns.


Do you suppose that most of the Congressmen who voted on this bill knew about the sweetheart deal for the cement industry? Was it a consensus among House Republicans that this rider was good public policy?


My guess is no on both counts.

831. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 6:00:06 PM

And again, it appears that this cement rider was authored by a law firm representing the industry"

Creighton says the work on this particular rider was handled not by his group but by a related cement industry group, the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC), though the two cement groups have members in common. Remarkably, unusual technical language used in a July 1995 petition to the EPA by a law firm paid by CKRC appears, word for word, in the cement kiln rider that was attached to the appropriations bill just a few weeks later. According to an EPA paper, "It is hard to draw any other conclusion than that the bill language came directly from a downtown law firm."

832. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 7:37:17 PM

Spence

"It takes more to prove industry influence on the content of legislation than pointing out that lobbyists sometimes write pieces of bills."

The fact that industry lobbyists write pieces of bills at all demonstrates that they have undo influence over the legislative process.


"it is possible that lobbyists write pieces that they know (or believe in their best estimate) can garner support from legislators with a multitude of concerns."

Ahhhh. So lobbyists are selflessly performing a public service when they write legislation. They do some logrolling, reach some compromises, cash in a few chits, ... But I thought that's what we are paying our elected representatives to do.

"I mean, it's fairly simple. Agency budgets often get rubber stamped by Congress. Does this mean that agencies wield some sort of power over Congress?"

I fail to see the similarity between legislation written by lobbyists and budgets submitted by the administrative branch. The agencies are public servants who are implementing laws passed by Congress. Lobbyists are seeking to maintain or increase the profits of their industry through the legislative process, nothing more, nothing less. The agencies are looking out for the public interest and the lobbyists are looking out for their own, very narrow interests.

Of course there is nothing wrong with lobbyists telling legislators what they want (unless it constitutes a quid pro quo for a campaign contribution). But lobbyists should not be allowed to write legislation. That's the job of a Congressmen, his staff, and the committee staff.

833. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 7:48:57 PM

You missed the point completely.

The fact that industry lobbyists write pieces of bills at all demonstrates that they have undo influence over the legislative process.

No it doesn't, not by itself -- and here's why. You cannot determine solely from who types a bill how tight the constraints are on the writers. It is possible that non-legislative authors know legislators' desires, and what legislators will tolerate, and adjust their demands accordingly.

It may simply be that legislators, in having lobbyists write text, are simply farming out the job of a typing pool to people with the time to do it. The lobbyists know what they can get away with, know their creations will be scrutinized, and don't bother writing things they know will be rejected anyway.

I fail to see the similarity between legislation written by lobbyists and budgets submitted by the administrative branch. The agencies are public servants who are implementing laws passed by Congress.

Well, first, if you think administrators don't have their own preferences about public policy, and that they wouldn't want things done differently than the way Congress might want them done, you are deluded. The direction of public policy, admissible regulatory and policy instruments, agency budgets -- these are all possible issues of conflict between administrators and legislators.

But the similarity is this: in both cases, someone authors something and submits it to Congress for approval. That author may have different preferences about the content of the document than Congress. Congress, nevertheless, has final approval, and can examine (or have allied staff examine) the content of the document. What is unacceptable can be rejected.

So in neither case can you infer that the author of the document has any control or "power" over its content. Authorship does not by itself prove what was taken into account when the authoring was done.

834. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 7:51:50 PM

The agencies are public servants who are implementing laws passed by Congress.

I mean, that's absurd. Right, administrators are always faithful to what Congress wants, and would never try to use discretion to implement what they think is a better policy, if slightly different from "legislative intent."

They are public servants to be sure, desiring to serve what they think is the public interest -- whether or not it is codified in legislation.

835. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 8:50:54 PM

Spence

"You missed the point completely."

No. I didn't. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I missed your point.

"You cannot determine solely from who types a bill how tight the constraints are on the writers. It is possible that non-legislative authors know legislators' desires, and what legislators will tolerate, and adjust their demands accordingly."

Per the articles I linked, the industry lobbyists contributed large sums of money to the Republican Party and to influential Republican legislators. That constituted the "legislators' desires." You seem to be implying that such situations are simply a happy convergence between the policies that the legislators want to institute and the needs of the industry.


I understand that there are some constraints on the "non-legislative authors." There probably are some regulations that even the Republicans would be embarrassed to gut in order to help their favored lobbyists/campaign contributors. But the bottom line is that the lobbyists are paying the Republicans in exchange for the opportunity to write legislation that is favorable to their industry. That is unethical.

continued

836. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 8:52:01 PM

"It may simply be that legislators, in having lobbyists write text, are simply farming out the job of a typing pool to people with the time to do it. "

Congress has thousands of people in office and committee staff positions.


"The lobbyists know what they can get away with"

They certainly do.


"So in neither case can you infer that the author of the document has any control or "power" over its content. "

I disagree.

Yes, the lobbyist legislation would have to fit into the overall ideology of the political party. (For the examples I cited, Republicans don't like regulations on business.) The legislation cannot cause grief for some other favored constituency. The campaign contributions would have to be of a sufficient level. So yes, there are constraints.

But if lobbyists write the legislation, of course they have "power over its content." What do you think they are paying for?

837. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 9:08:20 PM

Well, in response to my initial posts, you claimed that the fact that lobbyists type legislation indicates undue influence. The point was, no it doesn't, by itself. There must be some corroborating summary evidence, which you have yet to present. Why? Again, there are several different explanations for what is observed -- that lobbyists somtimes write documents. That observation alone does not distinguish between the various explanations consistent with it. That you say it does means that you missed the point.

Congress has thousands of people in office and committee staff positions.

Well now let's see. This might mean that there is a superabundance of free time on Capitol Hill waiting to be used up. Or it could mean that there is a mindboggling amount of work to do, and even thousands of aids are not enough to do it. Enter lobbyists. Once again, there are several explanations consistent with the observed fact: that a lot of support staff works for Congress. That you select one of these over all others reveals only prejudice.

They certainly do...I disagree.

Well, probably this doesn't bother you but you contradict yourself. You do not know how tight the constraints are on lobbyist-writers, and you need some evidence besides anecdotes to answer the question.

Doubtless there are cracks in this system for designing legislation. So what? Is that your complaint? There are cracks in any system. The only relevant questions are, How regularly does this happen? and, Does another feasible system reduce these problems without introducing new, worse problems?

838. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 9:08:56 PM

What are donors paying for? Maybe they are paying to play a particular lottery: They may not know how effective their contributions are, but they believe there's a chance that they are effective. So, multimillion dollar corporations plunk down a few grand to take that gamble. That doesn't mean their contributions are effective.

For every observable you have given about the political process, there are several, reasonably plausible explanations consistent with it. Why do you rule out some and take others? Ostensibly, you already know the answer, without needing any real evidence. In other words, simple prejudice.

839. SpenceMirrlees - 9/25/1999 9:09:34 PM

"That doesn't mean their contributions are effective."

...not even in any particular instance, and certainly not as a general matter that's worth doing something about.

840. Cellar Door - 9/26/1999 12:55:43 AM

Andrew Sullivan Faces Life:

"What would our modern view of hate do with Mencken? Probably ignore him, or change the subject. But, with regard to hate, I know lots of people like Mencken. He reminds me of conservative friends who oppose almost every measure for homosexual equality yet genuinely delight in the company of their gay friends. It would be easier for me to think of them as haters, and on paper, perhaps, there is a good case that they are. But in real life, I know they are not. Some of them clearly harbor no real malice toward me or other homosexuals whatsoever.

They are as hard to figure out as those liberal friends who support every gay rights measure they have ever heard of but do anything to avoid going into a gay bar with me. I have to ask myself in the same, frustrating kind of way: are they liberal bigots or bigoted liberals? Or are they neither bigots nor liberals, but merely people?"

(from his Sunday NYT magazine piece.)

Oh will somebody PLEASE get the hook!

841. Cellar Door - 9/26/1999 12:58:08 AM

And here's the whole bloody thing

842. Spudboy - 9/26/1999 2:50:51 AM

Cllrdr: The only question I have is: Is 109109 really Sullivan? Their argument against hate-crimes statutes is nearly identical.

I particularly noted this in his conclusion:

"The racial epithet only strikes at someone's core if he lets it, if he allows the bigot's definition of him to be the final description of his life and his person -— if somewhere in his heart of hearts, he believes the hateful slur to be true."

What utter tripe. When a skinhead arsons a synagogue, or a Klansman burns a cross on a black family's lawn, the fear that is felt -- not only by the nominal victims but by the entire communities of which they are part -- has nothing to do with latent self-loathing. It has to do with the realization that the hate isn't merely an abstract threat; that the perpetrators' willingness to act on it violently is manifest. Merely wishing or ignoring it away won't reduce the substantial reality of the physical threat.

Otherwise, after reading this, I felt that I just endured an hour or so of contorted mumbling that went nowhere, largely due to Sullivan's relatively poor grasp of the facts. Perhaps it would help if he understood that "hate crimes laws" aren't meant to stop hate -- they're meant to protect citizens from it. That'd be a good starting point.

843. Stumbo - 9/26/1999 3:19:44 AM

Quick question, Spuds: (sorry to be picking on you again...)

Let's say that a Klansman sets fire to a black person's house (leaving some graffiti to indicate his motive), thus striking fear into the town's black population.

Next week, a pyromaniac sets fire to a random house, thus striking fear into the town's entire population.

Which one of the two should be punished more severely, and why?

844. Stumbo - 9/26/1999 3:26:02 AM

(Please just answer this question, without addressing any other types of hate-related crimes. I'll get to those afterwards.)

845. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/26/1999 3:39:55 AM

Really intelligent question!