The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

I've never listened to internet radio and it sounds like the fees being setup are stupid, but if that is what they want to charge, more power to them.

Internet radio won't go away, it'll just move conglomerate, off shore, or underground.

[Ghoulish Delight]

KCRW is talking about it a lot. Heard today that a bill was just proposed to counteract it.

[Prudence]

That would be Inslee-Manzullo Internet Radio Equality Act, H.R. 2060. The Inslee being my own congressperson, Jay Inslee.

[Prudence]

Did you know that today is Loyalty Day? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html)

[Matterhorn Fan]

Did you know that today is Loyalty Day? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html)Translation: Fly a flag today and show your loyalty to the current president and the war in Iraq.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, our flag is out. Of course, it's been out since the Fourth of July. One of these days we'll remember to bring it in. Nothing worse than slovenly patriotism.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I hate that the flag has come to represent, "I support what our leaders are doing," rather than, "I support the ideals of this country."

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I wasn't aware of that transition.


The last time I had my flag out were the days following 9/11.



I'm not a flag-putting-out type of guy, so my failure to put out my flag since then does not reflect the distaste I have for ... hmmm, lemme see, every single one of our government's policies and laws and illegal actions since that date.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not a flag-putting-out type of guy, so my failure to put out my flag since then does not reflect the distaste I have for ... hmmm, lemme see, every single one of our government's policies and laws and illegal actions since that date.
Nor mine, but there is a pervasive mentality growing in this country (as evidenced by the linked proclamation) that NOT displaying the flag is only one small step below treason. I don't let it affect my habits, but it's an attitude that bugs the snot out of me.

[Morrigoon]

Get one of those annoyingly cutesy "garden" flags, preferably one with mushrooms on it ;)

[Alex]

I don't ever fly a flag because I believe in neither religious nor political idolatry.

But Loyalty Day is an anti-communist holiday (that's why it has been on May 1 since 1921). Just wanted to mention that in case anybody things this is a new thing Bush thought of.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't ever fly a flag because I believe in neither religious nor political idolatry.

But Loyalty Day is an anti-communist holiday (that's why it has been on May 1 since 1921). Just wanted to mention that in case anybody things this is a new thing Bush thought of.Thanks for clearing that up. I figured it might have been, considering the timing, but nothing in that linked document gave any indication whether it was new or old.

[Prudence]

It alludes to being an older law, as it talks about "this loyalty day" (as opposed to prior loyalty days). I'm merely amused, in a cynical way, by the not-so-subtle connection in this particular proclamation of loyalty, patriotism, and support for military actions.

[JWBear]

Maybe this explains why I've had Deutschland über Alles going trough my head all day....

[Alex]

It was originally called Americanization Day. If the celebrants are already Americans in America, I'm not sure what was supposed to be accomplished. But I imagine that that name also exposes some anti-immigrant (or at least non-integrating immigrant) feeling while the date selection was anti-communist.

[Alex]

So, on a procedural vote yesterday to move forward in the Senate with the immigration compromise bill the vote was 69-23. That is 8 abstentions.

7 were Democrats, and one was a Republican.

I'm sure they were just busy and, after all, it was just a procedural motion. There is an interesting common thread among most of the abstentions (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/173/):

Joseph Biden
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Dodd
John Kerry
Barak Obama
John McCain

That's six of the eight. Number 7 is Tim Johnson of South Dakota who is still recovering from a brain hemorrhage last year, so he probably actually was otherwise occupied. The eighth it Bill Nelson from Miami-Dade and I would guess he honestly doesn't know what to do since his Cuban constituents can't, almost by definition, be illegal immigrants.

So, six of the seven real abstentions just happen to be people heavily involved in the run for the White House (or, in Kerry's case, flying in those circles on some kind of political inertia). I could be wrong, but when everybody running for president suddenly develops prior obligations preventing them from getting to the floor for a vote I would have to argue that the issue isn't a popular one.

[wendybeth]

I would agree, Alex- and the make-up of that list is not at all surprising.

I am really hating politics of late. Is there no one out there who has conviction and the courage to stand for....something?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I am really hating politics of late. Is there no one out there who has conviction and the courage to stand for....something?

I would say that, no, there isn't. I've yet to see one candidate that I would feel comfortable voting for, on either side of the fence. Republicans suffer a lack of integrity and Democrats, lack of any noticeable spine. Neither side has one idea that is remotely progressive or even hints at having an imagination. All of it sickens me,

Of course, if the press actually did their job any more, rather than letting both sides get away with their crap all the time, we might have a better chance of seeing things change.

[innerSpaceman]

And yet, popular or not - - frankly, I'm glad to see the Legislature proceed with a compromise that pleases no-one. I think it's the essense of represenative government - i.e., no winner takes all, but a compromise that addresses concerns of either side, but - of necessity - none addressed fully.


Nothing's perfect. But I prefer flawed action to no action, compromise to gridlock.

[BarTopDancer]

I am really hating politics of late. Is there no one out there who has conviction and the courage to stand for....something?

And if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

[Alex]

Does it hold true that any compromise is inherently better than inaction?

To me it doesn't. For even if the compromise itself it not inherently bad it will leach momentum away from efforts to achieve the ideal. "Let's just get this bit done and then we'll work on the rest" has a very bad habit of morphing into "well, we did that bit, so lets just move on."

[Ghoulish Delight]

I am really hating politics of late. Is there no one out there who has conviction and the courage to stand for....something?

He hasn't exactly gone out of his way to take any bold stands, but so far I'm respecting Obama simply because more often than not I've heard him saying, "I'm the right candidate because..." rather than, "The other candidates [on either side of the aisle] suck because..." I appreciate that. I'm sure people will be happy to find counter examples, I'm just saying I've heard it less from him than anyone. I hope he continues in that vein.

That, and while it may hurt his electibility, I consider his relative lack of political experience a huge bonus to his qualifications.

[sleepyjeff]

Bill Richardson is running and Newt is thinking about it:)

[scaeagles]

And yet, popular or not - - frankly, I'm glad to see the Legislature proceed with a compromise that pleases no-one. I think it's the essense of represenative government - i.e., no winner takes all, but a compromise that addresses concerns of either side, but - of necessity - none addressed fully.

Isn't this the best way of assuring that nothing works well?

I'm a too many cooks spoil the broth kind of guy.

[scaeagles]

7 were Democrats, and one was a Republican....John McCain.

There is a movement in AZ (and I doubt it will go anywhere) to get McCain to resign. It isn't because of his position on this bill per se (thought I'm sure that comes into play), but because in this session of Congress he has missed 50% of the votes.

I don't care if you're running for President....fulfill the responsibility of the office you hold. His argument is that the votes he has missed hasn't mattered because they were one sided anyway. I say they matter because he can successfully take himself off the record on 50% of recent votes.

[scaeagles]

To change the subject a bit, here's another reason I am hating all politicians at the moment....

House votes to sue OPEC (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy_1)

What the hell? These people have no concept. What gets me is the vote tally.

We can't drill for our own oil. We can't increase our refinery capacity. But by golly, we can sue OPEC for cutting their production. Doing this not only accomplishes nothing, but it will most likely have the opposite effect with China and India importing more and more oil to feed their growing economies.

At least those tough legislators can tell their constitutents they stood up to OPEC for lower gas prices. A$$holes.

[Alex]

Interesting, since we're the primary controllers of the oil production in one of the OPEC member countries (Iraq). (Just for the record, I know that Iraq oil is excluded from the OPEC production quotas and therefore has nothing to do with the effects of OPEC manipulating production.)

I'm not clear where exactly we'd be suing them? In American courts? And then seizing assets?

[scaeagles]

This would lead me to believe that it will be in American courts (should it ever happen) -

His measure would change antitrust laws so that the Justice Department can sue OPEC member countries for price-fixing, and would remove the immunity given a sovereign state against such lawsuits.


If it is going to change our antitrust laws, that must mean it would apply to our courts, correct?

[Gemini Cricket]

On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings. Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.
That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_en_ot/ap_on_tv_fox_s_war_3)
Interesting article about our media.

[Not Afraid]

In comparison, how much time was spent on Paris Hilton?

[Gemini Cricket]

In comparison, how much time was spent on Paris Hilton?
Exactly.
The shuttle launch managed to bump Paris off the CNN.com top story for about 5 minutes and then she was back up again.
Sad.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Tony Snow is a big fat liar (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18415/1/TDS-TonySnow-lying.wmv).

[JWBear]

Tony Snow is a big fat liar (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18415/1/TDS-TonySnow-lying.wmv).

This is news?

[Alex]

That link redirects to the site's front page and I am not finding and obvious way to it. There is no mention of Tony Snow in the body of that page.

[cirquelover]

Strange I was seeing video of one of those late night guys but my sound has disappeared on my computer so I have no idea what he's saying.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oops, wanted to link directly to the vid, guess they're smart enough to protect it. Here's the page with the vid (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/15/the-daily-show-catches-tony-snow-lying/).

Summary:
The Daily Show shows two clips. One of Tony Snow saying, when the Alberto Gonzalez thing first broke, that the firings were based on performance. The second, Tony Snow, this week, saying that he never said that the firings were based on performance.

[cirquelover]

I love it when they put clips like that back to back! It shows it in a truer light, huh. He does a lot of ones like that with Bush too.
My husband has been watching that show lately, sorry I thought it was late night tv.

[blueerica]

You know, I love being in school, I love learning so much... and while it's good to have doses of reality, it's a bit painful to realize that Bush was an even bigger douche than I could have imagined. Most politicians are tools, but man... without having anyone trying to convince me of any opinion, it's amazing to see how many of us (Americans, that is) have had the wool pulled over our eyes about so much of it.

Man, I gotta stop reading the Constitution n' sh*t... it's f*cking with my mind.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hmmm...
Hillary just posted a video on her website parodying the series finale of The Sopranos. Hills is portraying Tony in the clip. Although it was worth a chuckle or two, I think it was a poor choice for 2 reasons. 1. Tony is a horrible character. A mafioso who killed a ton of people or had them whacked. 2. Popular belief is that Tony was whacked in the finale. She doesn't need to give people ideas.

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, that is not the "popular" idea of what happened. With no offense meant to anyone for their views, a study reported in the L.A. Times this week concluded opinion was pretty evenly split about whether cut-to-black meant Tony whack.


And I don't think Hillary was equating herself with the likes of Tony Soprano by the parody; merely spoofing something in the popular culture that had prominence in the news for a little while.

[Gemini Cricket]

I still think it's awkward. The number of news stories on GoogleNews that surfaced that surmised that Tony was whacked was in the hundreds so I figured it was the theory of a lot of people.

But this could be fodder for nicknaming Hills, too. Hillary Soprano, The Godmother...

[scaeagles]

Some random thoughts....

I typically do not like governance by polls. However, when such a vast majority of Americans want true border enforcement prior to any discussion of what to do with the existing 12 million illegals, I do not understnd why there is such a push on the stupid amnesty bill once again.

If it were not for Jimmy Carter, I would now have to agree that GWB is the worst President of my lifetime, no doubt, and perhaps one of the worst in history. If it weren't for his tax cuts (and maybe a couple of other things as well), I'd have no love for the man at all.

Two recent articles provide some of the reasons I do not subscribe to man made global warming....
This one.... (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.


And this one... (http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html)
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total.


I hate non smoking laws. Private property is private property. Even though I hate being around smoke.

Trent Lott is an a$$. Now that talk radio isn't supporting something he wants (immigration reform bill), we must "do something" about how talk radio is "running the country". He seems to forget who came to his defense during the whole Strom Thurmond uproad. Putz.

It brings me great joy to see support for McCain falling. I don't know anything about Fred Thompson. I so desperately want someone in the image of Reagan....could he be the man? No one else in the field is, but I don't know about him.

That is all I can find to rant about at present.

[Strangler Lewis]

George Will on Fred Thompson.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/page/2/

[Alex]

I almost didn't notice since Page 2 starts in an ok spot, but here is the link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/)that starts at the beginning of his column.

[Strangler Lewis]

Whoops.

[innerSpaceman]

I believe polls indicate a vast majority of Americans want the U.S. military out of Iraq.





Thoughts, Mr. scaeagles?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not that I'd go to Warren Buffet for advice on Constitutional law anyway, but perhaps he should read the whole thing, including, say, the 12th amendment.

Read the last paragraph (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1632736-3,00.html)

Meanwhile, the quip qoted in [/URL][url=http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/06/arnold_and_mike.html]this post (http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/06/arnold_and_mike.html) might indicate that Bloomberg himself stopped short of the 12th. Geniuses.

[sleepyjeff]

Not that I'd go to Warren Buffet for advice on Constitutional law anyway, but perhaps he should read the whole thing, including, say, the 12th amendment.

Read the last paragraph (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1632736-3,00.html)

Meanwhile, the quip qoted in [/URL][url=http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/06/arnold_and_mike.html]this post (http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/06/arnold_and_mike.html) might indicate that Bloomberg himself stopped short of the 12th. Geniuses.


Never mind the Constitution...I'd like to see these gentleman enrolled into a logic 101 class as per this statement: "I know he(Arnold) can't be President but...he can be Vice-President"

:rolleyes:

[Ghoulish Delight]

Never mind the Constitution...I'd like to see these gentleman enrolled into a logic 101 class as per this statement: "I know he(Arnold) can't be President but...he can be Vice-President"

:rolleyes:Actually, until the 12th Amendment, that would have been a true statement.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not sure about that since before the Twelfth Amendment, the guy who came in second in the race for president became vice president. I would think that if a controversy arose, the votes of any non-native type would have been invalidated rather than counted to see if he came in second.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not sure about that since before the Twelfth Amendment, the guy who came in second in the race for president became vice president. I would think that if a controversy arose, the votes of any non-native type would have been invalidated rather than counted to see if he came in second.
Ah yes true. Rather I should have said, "If not for the last paragraph of the 12th amendment."

[Alex]

Not because of Arnold, but it is time to dump the natural born citizen requirement for qualification.

[scaeagles]

I believe polls indicate a vast majority of Americans want the U.S. military out of Iraq.

Thoughts, Mr. scaeagles?

From an NBC?WSJ poll on 6/8-11 of 2007
"More specifically, do you think that we should have an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, or not?"

Should Should Not Depends Unsure
37 58 2 3

That doesn't seem like a vast majority. It seems like a good sized minority. I will fully agree that the war is being mishandled, and would be one of those in the 70% that says that.

The polling numbers are a bit vague on the specifics of the immigration bill, however, I did find this link which gives a wide breakdown of what the US public seems to want.

Polling report on immigration (http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm)

Again, I don't believe in governing by polls. I am just shocked that the politicians are puching so hard for this particular brand of immigration reform when the populace is so much against amnesty in general and want real border enforcement.

[€uroMeinke]

Now that I'm driving and listening to NPR, I'm starting to hear more of the candidates. As a result I've come to realize that Hillary's voice really bothers me. I'm not sure what it is, but there's this strident monotone that sounds like she's trying project, or emote, or something - but it just drives me crazy. Not that hearing George Bush is all that great, and she still is way better than Nancy Polosie (sp?). But shoulldn't these candidates be more media-genic? Don't they have voice coaches? Since most of my news these days comes over the radio, I wish the candidates just sounded better when the spoke. More News anchors should run for President.

[Kevy Baby]

Not that I'd go to Warren Buffet for advice on Constitutional law anyway, but perhaps he should read the whole thing, including, say, the 12th amendment.

Read the last paragraph (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1632736-3,00.html)

Meanwhile, the quip qoted in this post (http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/06/arnold_and_mike.html) might indicate that Bloomberg himself stopped short of the 12th. Geniuses.

Never mind the Constitution...I'd like to see these gentleman enrolled into a logic 101 class as per this statement: "I know he(Arnold) can't be President but...he can be Vice-President"

:rolleyes:If you read either link in GD's post, the statement "It states that the President must be native born, but it's silent on the Vice President." was NOT a Buffett quote.

Buffett thinks it's a great idea, and when he first heard it, he turned to the Constitution. "I wanted to see if Schwarzenegger could be his Vice President," Buffett said. "I think he could." It states that the President must be native born, but it's silent on the Vice President. "That would be one hell of a team, wouldn't it?"

"I wanted to see if Schwarzenegger could be his Vice President," Buffett said. "I think he could." It states that the President must be native born, but it's silent on the Vice President. "That would be one hell of a team, wouldn't it?"

[SacTown Chronic]

Why should the veep have to be a native born citizen? It's not as if the office of the Vice President is even part of the executive branch.



/Dick "Yes, my nuts are that big" Cheney

[innerSpaceman]

Fvck impeachment: I wanna know why some of these guys (Cheney amongst 'em) aren't charged with treason.






and then, ya know, hung by the neck until dead

[JWBear]

Now that I'm driving and listening to NPR, I'm starting to hear more of the candidates. As a result I've come to realize that Hillary's voice really bothers me. I'm not sure what it is, but there's this strident monotone that sounds like she's trying project, or emote, or something - but it just drives me crazy. Not that hearing George Bush is all that great, and she still is way better than Nancy Polosie (sp?). But shoulldn't these candidates be more media-genic? Don't they have voice coaches? Since most of my news these days comes over the radio, I wish the candidates just sounded better when the spoke. More News anchors should run for President.

Stephanie Miller (who I listen to religiously every morning on my way to work) likens her voice to the Martians in Mars Attacks!.... "Ack, ack, ack"

It cracks me up every time.

[Alex]

Conversationally her voice doesn't bother me but something about her tone and diction when giving speeches does.

Another point for Obama (and, if it comes to it, Thompson): I can actually enjoy just listening to them talk.

[innerSpaceman]

I just don't like it when Obama talks during movies. :p

[Ghoulish Delight]

Why should the veep have to be a native born citizen? It's not as if the office of the Vice President is even part of the executive branch.



/Dick "Yes, my nuts are that big" CheneyWait, you think that's cajones?

How about this.

The office of the President isn't part of the executive branch either (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,0,863839.story?coll=la-home-center).

I, for one, do NOT welcome our Texan overlord. :mad:

[scaeagles]

More reasons I do not buy into the whole man made global warming stuff.

Interesting info refuting many claims from Gore made in an inconvenient truth from a wide variety of sources. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

[mousepod]

Reasons that I'm skeptical of the op-ed piece that scaeagles linked to:

Some interesting information about the institute that the author of the piece works for, from a wide variety of sources. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute)

[scaeagles]

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

[wendybeth]

I think anyone who seriously believes that there is no negative impact by mankind on the Earth and it's environment is in a place beyond denial. I believe that persons such as the one in your link, Scaeagles, are motivated by profit, or they are too stupid to live. I suppose it's all a moot point- we'll probably destroy ourselves in other creative ways long before the Earth ceases to be a habitable place for us, but it still irritates the hell out of me.

[wendybeth]

Since when do you consider the UN to be a credible source of anything, btw?;)

[scaeagles]

It isn't that I hold the UN in such high esteem (obviously), it is that I don't understand how anyone who cites a UN report should be considered someone who just recites right wing mantra...is mantra the plural of mantra, or it is mantras? I learned the other day that the singular of confetti is confetto. Not that it matters at all, I just found it odd that there was a singular of confetti. Anyway.....

I don't think anyone claims there is not some negative impact on the earth by mankind, I just don't think that man is responsible for global warming.

[mousepod]

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

Absolutely not. I know that both sides of the global warming argument use hyperbole and shortcuts, so I'm sure that there are nits to pick in Gore's powerpoint presentation. By the same token, I'm also fairly certain that the articles that Taylor cites are not saying exactly what he says they say.

I'm a skeptic. Part of being a good skeptic is to examine the motivation behind any pedagogue. The Heartland Institute? I question their motives.

I'm also not defending Al Gore, by the way, so I'm not disturbed by the conservative "attack the messenger" moves that call him a hypocrite.

You have the right to doubt global warming, scaeagles, but I certainly have the right to question Exxon's Heartland's unbiased opinion too.

[scaeagles]

I'm a skeptic.


This is a good thing. The major thing that scares me is that there seems to be little tolerance of skeptics on the issue of man caused global warming.

We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.

It would seem as if he would consider anyone who disagrees with his science as someone who distorts.

[sleepyjeff]

This is a good thing. The major thing that scares me is that there seems to be little tolerance of skeptics on the issue of man caused global warming.






Some say it's a religon:eek:

[wendybeth]

There are accusations on both sides of the fence regarding distortions. I think skepticism is healthy, but a distrust of big business is healthier. I work from a distrusting viewpoint, and I have less reason to distrust Gore than I do persons such as the author of the article cited by Scaeagles. This is not to say I completely trust Gore, but I have less reason to question his motivation than some mouthpiece for the energy companies.

[wendybeth]

Well, well- what a surprise: Bush commutes Libby's sentence (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html).

I guess this would be an example of compassionate conservatism. Just think- Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter.:rolleyes:

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yeah, Tony Snow is definitely a work of art. Or, a lying sack of ...

It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?

[sleepyjeff]

It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?


Won't matter.....as soon as an Administration ends the next one is not allowed to use recoreds of the previous one in defense of its' actions or proposing action it wishes to take.

So I've been told anyway;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Random political thought.

When a person running for public office stands and says "any questions?" then goes on to sidestep the question asked of him, everyone who is witness to such an action should be horrified to their core. This person is supposed to want to represent the public. He needs to be perfectly clear in his intentions. He needs to speak squarely with the people he wants to represent. If he changes the subject, the whole press conference should come to a standstill until he does address the question, and if he refuses to do so, he needs to be booed off stage and never heard from again. How can people do something so obviously detrimental to the process of elections and governance itself and still be taken seriously?

I saw a clip of such action recently and I became extremely embarrassed of our political system and the fact that our society allows it to exist. It is intolerable.

To take a page out of another thread - I am seriously sick of this sht.

[blueerica]

The business law class that I'll be wrapping up next week has forced me to take a different look into laws, government, Constitution, etc. While at one turn, it's almost painful to do - on the other side, particularly from a business perspective - we've got a sea change happening right now, one that will last for at least a couple of decades before we see much different. Just take a look at our fairly young 5/4 split Supreme Court.

Now is not the time IMO to be testing certain rights, lest we want precedence to be set by what this set of judges says. Sure, things can be overturned, but... I'd just rather wait. When "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," off campus, non-school event isn't even protected as political speech - well... frankly, that's frightening. Not to mention the many other decisions in recent history that point... well. Screw it.

All in all, Bush wasn't kidding when he said he wasn't going to be a footnote in America's history. He was going to write a chapter. And that, my friends, he has done.

But hey, I'm a business student. I'm not out to change the world or fix any problems. I'm just here to try and see what's happening and make the best decisions based on what the present and future look like.

[scaeagles]

What if he was displaying "Give your life to Jesus" in the same spot? Would his openly religious statement, when being fought by the ACLU, be a problem? There was also a case where a student was either suspended or expelled because a security guard spotted a large knife in his car. The knife fell out of a box while he was helping his grandmother move and he didn't know it was there. Zero tolerance takes over.

There are many reasons we have our kids in private school.

It is a scary thing, indeed, when rights are restricted by government. The entire campaign finance crap that Bush signed into law (good Lord I don't know why I didn't jump ship at that point in time, but that's hindsight, I suppose) tells people they can't say anything negative on the airwaves about an incumbant within...30 days? 60 days? I forget off the top of my head....of an election.

I will say I don't see how "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is political speech, but that's beside the point I guess.

[scaeagles]

Or, better yet (well, not better, but a better scenario) - how about a sign that said "Eat pork 4 Muhammed" or "If your Islamic, hug a Jew" or "God hates homosexuality"? If those signs were hung by someone in the same spot as the sign in question, should they be taken down because they are considered to be offensive or "hate speech"?

I believe that most everyone has a point at which they believe free speech ends. There are exceptions, of course, but I would figure a huge majority of the citizenry has a beaking point where something crosses their imaginary line and should not be allowed to be displayed in public.

[Alex]

Either it is political speech, in which John Roberts was right on its intent but still wrong (IMO) on what could be done about it or it isn't political speech in which case the majority was not only wrong in whether the school has the authority to proscribe such speech but about whether such speech even happened.

Now, my only complaint about the defendant side in that case is that the kid didn't have the balls to say "Yes, it was a pro-pot message. So what."

[Alex]

No, I can't think of a single written phrase that is not a specific threat of violence, that when displayed on public property would justify punishment by government authority (which includes, in my view, public schools).

And according to the opinion written, the examples you gave scaeagles, would almost certainly have been protected by the court because they are purely political in nature. The quibble the majority got to hind behind is that the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign was supposedly an encouragement to illegal activity.

So, interestingly, apparently a sign saying "Everybody do smack" is punishable but a sign saying "Legalize smack so everybody can do it" is
not.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Or, better yet (well, not better, but a better scenario) - how about a sign that said "Eat pork 4 Muhammed" or "If your Islamic, hug a Jew" or "God hates homosexuality?I think the problem here is that we're so scared of letting natural consequences take hold. If you want to hold up the sign, fine by me, but I just might help beat your ass up. Instead, our society wants to stop people from dealing directly with each other on things like this, and wants the government to either do their own version of beating up the sign holder, or punish anyone who beats them up because saying things that piss people off is protected.

IMHO, people just don't understand that freedom is a two way street. You should be free to say stupid things, I should be free to react. When any authority gets involved, it destroys natural human interaction.

[Alex]

Well, if you beat someone up because of something a sign says then I hope you enjoy the time in jail.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Well, if you beat someone up because of something a sign says then I hope you enjoy the time in jail.That's what I'm trying to say - if something like that went to court and you said "look, the guy was saying that God hates me because I'm gay, so I kicked his ass", the court should, in my obviously out of favor opinion, rule that "hey, that guy was being an asshole and had it coming to him."

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's what I'm trying to say - if something like that went to court and you said "look, the guy was saying that God hates me because I'm gay, so I kicked his ass", the court should, in my obviously out of favor opinion, rule that "hey, that guy was being an asshole and had it coming to him."
You seriously think that inflicting bodily injury on someone else shouldn't be punished?

[Alex]

That's what I'm trying to say - if something like that went to court and you said "look, the guy was saying that God hates me because I'm gay, so I kicked his ass", the court should, in my obviously out of favor opinion, rule that "hey, that guy was being an asshole and had it coming to him."

Interesting view. Who gets to decide which expressed points of view are worth an ass kicking?

[innerSpaceman]

Let's leave it to the capricious whim of the Supreme Kourt.

[Alex]

Methinks that with this court most of us would not be pleased with their tilt in deciding which viewpoints are sufficiently egregious to justify violence.

Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.

[Strangler Lewis]

When any authority gets involved, it destroys natural human interaction.

I gather you'd take most sex offenses off the books.

[blueerica]

Let's leave it to the capricious whim of the Supreme Kourt.

Oh, the USSC is hardly capricious these days, IMO - especially when you've got (what I'm going to start calling) the Roberts 5, 'cuz that's how they roll.

Regarding the Bong Hits 4 Jesus, if school was open, if he was on campus, if this was a school event, I could see the school's jurisdiction over the student. But it was not. I hardly think students consent to losing their rights off-campus. Though I think what he said was nonsensical and at best was a message to lighten up on the War on Drugs - it hardly matter what he says. (And seriously, a statement like that isn't going to convince anyone that wasn't already into smoking weed to just light up... leave that to peer pressure, not big stupid banners).

In previous eras, this wouldn't have gone this far, IMO. You could have stronger statements, and they would be protected, now - we can't even hold up ridiculous signs about bongs.

And as for the other possible slogans... sure, I've seen similar. They have their rights, too. If I want mine, I must protect theirs.

[innerSpaceman]

So forgive me for not having read the ruling, but did it declare that any student of public schools has lost their free speech rights so long as they remain a public school student?

[Morrigoon]

Methinks that with this court most of us would not be pleased with their tilt in deciding which viewpoints are sufficiently egregious to justify violence.

Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.
Well said. And it reminds me very much of classifying any behavior you don't like as being "terrorist".

[Alex]

No it essentially said that the school has a compelling interest in limiting speech when students are advocating illegal behavior.

This requires:

1. The interpretation that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is an exhortation to do drugs
2. That since the school gave permission for kids to leave the school to attend this event that the school somehow maintains that interest.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. Tinker (the 1969 case that allowed anti-war speech) isn't explicitly overruled. Not only was it 5-4 but the 5 had some splits.

Thomas felt that Tinker should have been overrruled. Alito and Kennedy limited their finding to the very narrow instance of advocating drug use but said that they still view political and social speech as protected.

Breyer, assented but disagreed with the grounds. He simply viewed the principal as having official immunity and therefore the other issues were moot.

So, nothing other than this specific case was really settled and a very similar case with slightly different wording could have a different result ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus if the Government Legalizes That")

[Morrigoon]

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

Cites can be taken out of context... just look at Michael Moore's body of work ;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yeah, yeah, took my opinion to an nth degree. Yeah, we shouldn't have free reign to kick the sht out of each other for things said. But I still feel that there's something to the idea of personal responsibility, and personal consequences. I think Alex said it better:Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.

[Alex]

I'm all for personal responsibility for the things you say. And I certainly agree that there are things that if said in certain places or ways you should not be surprised if someone kicks your ass.

But that doesn't mean the ass kicker is off the hook for their actions either. And in that exchange only one of the two people has committed a crime.

I'm can't quite tell if you think I'm endorsing the idea behind hate speech regulations, so I want to be clear that I don't.

[scaeagles]

Let's leave it to the capricious whim of the Supreme Kourt.

Obviously society in general has decided that there are certain things that shouldn't be allowed. If there are to be restrictions (and I'm certain there always will be), who else should decide?

I don't mean the rhetorically in the least. Assuming there will always be limitations, who should decide? It's so vastly complex I don't know if there is an answer.

[Morrigoon]

Here's a juicy tidbit of Capitol Hill gossip/news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675580/

[Moonliner]

The happy (man) is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr," added bin Laden, who was shown outdoors wearing army fatigues and looking tired.

Is it just me or does this guy sound just a wee bit desperate?

Here's to hoping we make Binnie a "Happy Man" :cheers:

[scaeagles]

I hope so.

It is interesting, though, the conflicting information out there. Some reports say the surge in Iraq is working, some say al Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength, so it's very tough to tell. It does seem like it is a call to his followers to die for their cause, though.

I envision the half Romulan child of Tasha Yar assisting Ursa and Betor (spelling?) in the Klingon civil war. Once caught red handed, they had to cease their assistance. I think Iran has been caught a few times now and may be forced to stop their support of those fighting in Iraq because of their own nuclear ambitions. The last thing Iran wants is an attack against their facilities because of their assistance to al Qaeda related groups in Iraq.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It is interesting, though, the conflicting information out there. Some reports say the surge in Iraq is working, some say al Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength, so it's very tough to tell. It does seem like it is a call to his followers to die for their cause, though.It also seems like it's old video recompiled or clipped from pre-9/11 recordings.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I have no doubt that you will) but the only people I have heard say that the surge is working are from this administration or their pundits, and even then, they had to move the goalposts to show any progress whatsoever.

I do find it interesting that Iraq's Prime Minister is telling us that we can leave anytime we want. Didn't Bush say that we would stand down when they were ready to stand up?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

If we are really just there to help the Iraqis and they say they don't need it anymore, I see no reason to continue to keep our troops in harm's way.

[wendybeth]

That's exactly what I thought when I read the Iraqi PM's comments yesterday.

[Moonliner]

I envision the half Romulan child of Tasha Yar assisting Ursa and Betor (spelling?) in the Klingon civil war.

Geek.

[scaeagles]

I do find it interesting that Iraq's Prime Minister is telling us that we can leave anytime we want. Didn't Bush say that we would stand down when they were ready to stand up?

Wouldn't that mean that the surge has done something positive, considering her hasn't said anything like that before?

[wendybeth]

Wouldn't that mean that the surge has done something positive, considering her hasn't said anything like that before?

I'm sure it has had an entirely positive effect, so much so that they now want us to leave. I wonder if we will do so before or after the planned aerial bombing surge? Maybe we can blow up their police headquarters so we don't get attacked by uniformed insurgents again.

[innerSpaceman]

I believe most of the recent progress is due to the Sunnis getting fed up with al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia (a terrorist group completely unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that our illustrious president feels free to lie about, owing to their confusing name choice).

In any event, the Sunnis have taken a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach in now cooperating with U.S. troops against a-QofM. It's got little to do with any "surge" and everything to do with the ghastly deeds of al-QofM having worn out their welcome.


I will grant that, whatever the cause, "progress" has been made. Of course, none of the Iraqi government benchmarks have been met. Clearly, not enough progress has been made by the administration's definition of progress for October. It is only by now re-definining what October progress means that the president will be able to claim progress come October.


This continues to be a frelling sham.

[scaeagles]

I will say that the surge was supposed to be given until September to work. That was the original plan, and why a report is due then.

I would say the problem from the outset was that we wanted to fight a "humane" war, and war isn't humane. We should have had the "surge" the whole time, and in this way I completely agree that the war has been wholely mishandled.

And look at the quote -
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

This is a man trying to express confidence in his troops and forces. What the hell is supposed to say? "We're completely inept and my men are nothing without US guidance and assistance"????? That would have the effect of completely demoralizing the men trying to do their job as Iraqi soldiers.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I agree that al-Maliki's statements are balderdash. I even agree that, since we were occupying the country, we should have brought the military resources to bear to quell all violence and chaos in Iraq.

I'm not sure such resources are available to the U.S. or ever were. At what point do we determine we do not have those resources and, yes, end our occupation of that country? Is it September?

If not, when? 2008? 2012? 2030? When exactly??

[scaeagles]

When will we leave South Korea? Germany? Wherever the heck else we are?

I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation, but we will probably always have a presence there, and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, just as it isn't a bad thing to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia or Japan.

I believe we certainly had all the resources necessary to to quell all violence and chos in Iraq, but (as I mentioned before) we didn't have the juevos to do it. War is ugly and to expect it not to be so is unrealistic, which was the main faltering of the war.

[wendybeth]

Are we occupying those countries? We maintain a presence, but it's (mostly) one of mutual consent, and I believe it's been some time since we've bombed either of them.

[sleepyjeff]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tPrL-SsB8U

Steve knows....

[scaeagles]

WB, you certainly need your AC fixed. Read my post again - "I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation....".

Mutual consent? Are you saying that the current government of Iraq doesn't want us there? Because they do. There are plenty of Japanese that don't want our bases there. Same with South Korea. We talked about pulling bases out of Germany and they threw a little hissy fit and so did many of the same Americans that want want us out of Iraq. Yeah, you said "mostly" mutual consent.

[scaeagles]

Steve knows....

I would like to point out that I voted for Forbes in the 2000 AZ primary.

[JWBear]

WB, you certainly need your AC fixed. Read my post again - "I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation....".

Mutual consent? Are you saying that the current government of Iraq doesn't want us there? Because they do. There are plenty of Japanese that don't want our bases there. Same with South Korea. We talked about pulling bases out of Germany and they threw a little hissy fit and so did many of the same Americans that want want us out of Iraq. Yeah, you said "mostly" mutual consent.

Didn't the Iraqi President (or was it the Prime Minister? I forget) just tell us we can leave now?

[wendybeth]

WB, you certainly need your AC fixed. Read my post again - "I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation....".

Mutual consent? Are you saying that the current government of Iraq doesn't want us there? Because they do. There are plenty of Japanese that don't want our bases there. Same with South Korea. We talked about pulling bases out of Germany and they threw a little hissy fit and so did many of the same Americans that want want us out of Iraq. Yeah, you said "mostly" mutual consent.

I believe they don't want us there. Why would they? To keep them safe?

While I do need to get that damned AC fixed, your "I realize" wasn't enough to cover your comment, much as my "mostly" comment didn't seem to work for you.:p

I also believe that if we were doing to our NATO allies what we are doing to Iraq, they'd probably be interested in seeing us move on.

[sleepyjeff]

I would like to point out that I voted for Forbes in the 2000 AZ primary.


Me too....I even threw him a few bucks.

[scaeagles]

Didn't the Iraqi President (or was it the Prime Minister? I forget) just tell us we can leave now?

I believe I offered an explanation earlier - what is he supposed to say to such a question? My guys suck and we need the US to stay forever, or should he express confidence in those Iraqis willing to place their lives on the line?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I believe I offered an explanation earlier - what is he supposed to say to such a question? My guys suck and we need the US to stay forever, or should he express confidence in those Iraqis willing to place their lives on the line?Ah yes, the Bush mold of leadership. "Acknowledging reality is tantamount to admitting defeat. Never acknowledge that anything is going wrong. Lie until everyone forgets the question."

[Alex]

If they make the request official and not just a response to a reporter's question then I hope we leave with all appropriate haste.

[sleepyjeff]

Why did Saddam act like he had WMD's when he didn't? Why didn't he just open up the doors and say "look all you want, I've nothing to hide"?

Why did he choose the path that led to his son's being killed and himself being captured and executed??? When he had NOTHING to hide?

Before when I've asked this question I got the "he didn't want to look weak and lose his power"............

The current Iraqi President lives in the same culture as did Saddam. He can't be seen begging the US to stay....especially if it looks like we might leave soon.

[Prudence]

I was going to post this in the Sicko thread, but it’s got a broader reach so in here it goes.

Generally speaking, an organism that doesn’t adapt to changing conditions will die out. This is true whether you’re a large scaly reptile, a Fortune 500 corporation, or a superpower state. You can’t keep acting the way you always have when the conditions are no longer the way they were and expect to stay ahead. But the bigger, more established you are, the harder that change is.

Change is difficult because organizations – whether economic or political - that are accustomed to being successful begin to make the “best” the enemy of the “good”. There is no such thing as “better”. After all, why make a change if there will still be problems after the change?

And that is where we find ourselves all too often in politics now. Our systems may be held together with chewing gum and baling wire, but we can pretend that everything’s fine. If a proposed change has any defects, it’s shot down, dismissed, and nothing happens.

And any change will have some drawbacks. There is no perfect solution that will do only what we want and nothing that we don’t. (And that’s assuming we can even agree on what we want.) If we make it easier to send people to jail, fewer criminals might go free, but more innocent people might be imprisoned. If we make it harder to qualify for welfare, perhaps fewer people will defraud the government, but perhaps more people who just need a temporary assist will land in permanent poverty. If we keep healthcare private, we may be able to stave off tax increases and benefit from the innovation that comes with competition, but there may be a significant number of people for whom healthcare remains unattainable.

There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo. We gobble up sound bites suggesting that our sewers will be clogged with the dead bodies of starving orphans with skin cancer and asbestos poisoning, or that we’ll be taxed so heavily that we’ll all have to work 37 hours a day just to afford a cardboard box to sleep in.

And what happens to political candidates who suggest a change? There sure aren’t many who suggest any actual change that consists of details, not just a string of empty superlatives. And who can blame them? As soon as news breaks that Candidate Smith has proposed such-and-such a change, the airwaves are full of people denouncing that change as the worst idea ever in the history of all mankind, and what a stupid cow Candidate Smith must be for even suggesting it, and why would anyone vote for Stupid Cow Smith and his Worst Idea Ever?

Because if there’s anything at all wrong with the suggested change, it is bad and should be thrown away. Not pondered. Not compared honestly to the status quo to evaluate whether the overall effect would be a better outcome with fewer drawbacks. Not analyzed to see whether there are alterations that could be made to the suggested change to make it better. Not considered, but rebutted by a difference suggested change with perhaps fewer drawbacks.

None of this happens. If there are any flaws, the whole plan is bad, the person who thought it up is bad, the university they went to is bad, the part of the country they’re from is full of complete morons, and we wrap some more baling wire around the status quo.

So here we sit. Waiting for the perfect, the best solution. Who knows how many good ideas have washed by while we sit here waiting for the “best”?

There's my random thought of the day - worth every penny you paid for it, I'm sure.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yeah, that just about sums it up. Great post.

[sleepyjeff]

There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo.


I agree. In the last 20 years over 1 million Americans have been killed in automobile accidents(that's more than have been killed in all the Wars we have fought in the last 230 years). Nearly all of these deaths could have been prevented had our leaders been bold enoough to make going over the speed of 20mph illegal...and enforce it.

But instead we go around making laws against drunk driving(a good start, but not good enough), seat belt laws, helmet laws, cell phone laws, and bouncing back and forth between good gas milage and bigger safer cars.......

....all so we can get there 3 times as fast. :(

[JWBear]

Prudence for President!!!

[SacTown Chronic]

Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.

[JWBear]

Well... Since my evening commute is effectively that speed anyway, I don’t see a problem..... :rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.

:D

[BunnyTravolta]

Isn't "insanity" defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time? I don't believe there has been an administration in my lifetime that hasn't been insane, and I myself am guilty of it, because whenever I go to the ballot box, I think, "Oh, maybe things'll be different this time".
Can I have some Moderate-ation, pliz? :argghh:
Pru has a good point, we let our >elected< officials toss pretty good ideas out, just because they weren't A-1 solid fixes. I'd accept something that's 85% there, as long as it was viable and could be improved on.

My thought of the day, take it as you may.

[scaeagles]

Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news.

It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways.

The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood.

And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets.

So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution.

I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless.

When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.

[SacTown Chronic]

...hung by the neck until dead.


watch (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/)

[SacTown Chronic]

For Leo (http://www.thoseshirts.com/oldschool.html)

[Gemini Cricket]

You know, I have never been so unconnected to the news and politics as I am right now. I honestly couldn't give a flying fart about any politician or political figure right now.

And you know what? I'm okay with that.
:)

[BarTopDancer]

You know, I have never been so unconnected to the news and politics as I am right now. I honestly couldn't give a flying fart about any politician or political figure right now.

And you know what? I'm okay with that.
:)

Welcome to my world. I turned off the news shortly after we started bombing Iraq - however long ago that was. It is nice.

Don't worry. Your friends will tell you if something important happens.

[Gemini Cricket]

Welcome to my world. I turned off the news shortly after we started bombing Iraq - however long ago that was. It is nice.

Don't worry. Your friends will tell you if something important happens.
Totally.
Besides, I don't want to worry right now about some election that's happening in November 2008. Sheesh!
:D

[JWBear]

Totally.
Besides, I don't want to worry right now about some election that's happening in November 2008. Sheesh!
:D

If it happens....

[Ol' Bill]

Totally.
Besides, I don't want to worry right now about some election that's happening in November 2008. Sheesh!
:D

Ugh, I can't stand it. I need to look into the independent parties right now to see who I'm going to vote for which means more internet than any news channel.

[scaeagles]

For Leo (http://www.thoseshirts.com/oldschool.html)

OK, that seriously rocks. I am probably going to buy one.

[blueerica]

Those shirts do rock, in a hard core kind of way. I love the Goldwater best.

[scaeagles]

I want to say that the very sight of Edwards (speaking of the dem running for President) makes me ill.

I have to say I was quite amused that he has been demading Hillary return around 200,000 from Murdoch and his interests, while he has taken some 800,000K in same. I do not begrudge the man his wealth - he has earned every penny of it (though I can't stand the way he's done it), but I don't understand how he considers himself to be the authority on poverty. I don't really know much about him, and admit I just don't like him.

I think Obama is looking like an inexperienced fool in foreign policy at present. The unfortunate part is he's making Hillary look good in that area because he gives her the chance to say he's an idiot. I think he's proving he's just too inexperienced for the office.

[wendybeth]

See, whenever I start worrying about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, I just put him next to Dubya and suddenly I feel a lot better about it. I cannot see how he could possibly screw things up any more than they are now.

[innerSpaceman]

My cat could do better.

[scaeagles]

Yeah - Obama just wants to invade a country with an unstable government that's trying to help in the war on terror and they already have nukes. Makes sense.

He also said he wouldn't ever use nukes. That's a great way to have a nuclear deterence against states that might sponsor terrorists by giving them a nuke.

Makes great sense. I'm sure if Bush said those things you'd be right with him (well, maybe on the nukes, but not on the invasion of Pakistan).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah - Obama just wants to invade a country with an unstable government that's trying to help in the war on terror and they already have nukes. Makes sense.Oh dear, yes, we wouldn't want to jeopardize our relationship with a country that's preventing us from going after the enemy that actually attacked us. Much more important to invade countries that have nothing to do with the only tangible threat we've faced in the last 40 years or so.

[innerSpaceman]

Ditto what he said. Oh, and I'm for invading the area-undeservedly-known-as-Pakistan right now.

[scaeagles]

I find it amusing that one argument against the invasion of Iraq was that the power vacuum would create a breeding ground for terrorists and most likely an Islam state with Islamic law.

What do you suppose just might happen there if the US invaded? Much more likely there than in Iraq, IMO.

If we're going to go after terrorists where they are, I suppose we should invade Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria. Isn't that what he's saying? Go where they are? At least Pakistan is attempting to work with us, unlike the other countries I've listed, two of which clearly sponsor terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

Let me know when you're in support of the invasion of those two countries as well.

[SacTown Chronic]

Doesn't Bush want to arm the Saudis?

[scaeagles]

Just to add a bit...at one point in time they Pakistan had around 90 thousand troops in those mountains fighting terrorists village to village.

What they came under criticism for is adopting a different strategy of reducing troop levels and trying to work with the villagers. Umm....isn't that what some want us to do in Iraq? Reduce troop levels immensely and go with a more diplomatic strategy?

Personally, I don't think this strategy is good. But they are sovereign and are working against terrorism. So if I don't like the way their doing it, I should invade them????

[Ghoulish Delight]

I find it amusing that one argument against the invasion of Iraq was that the power vacuum would create a breeding ground for terrorists and most likely an Islam state with Islamic law. Did Obama say he would overthrown the Pakistani government? Nope.

[Scrooge McSam]

Personally, I don't think this strategy is good. But they are sovereign and are working against terrorism. So if I don't like the way their doing it, I should invade them????

I appreciate your zeal, but your argument is a bit much, don't ya think?

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Musharraf has to refuse to help us first, right? He hasn't done that.

I don't appreciate Obama's words either. I think it was a foolish statement.

But I'd come closer to agreeing to attack a country actually harboring our enemy than one who wasn't.

[Alex]

Isn't the hypothetical Obama answered for being willing to to go into Pakistan exactly the same reason we went into Afghanistan?

[Scrooge McSam]

Who's ready for the new Attorney General?

Who do you think it might be?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Response from Obama's campaign. I find this to be an excellent response and spot on target. Too bad no one wants to hear it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/03/303197.aspx

[Gemini Cricket]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.Source (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html)

[SacTown Chronic]

Exhume John Ashcroft.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Begin the thawing of Jim Nabors.

[sleepyjeff]

Who's ready for the new Attorney General?

Who do you think it might be?

Neil Bush:evil:

[€uroMeinke]

I think we've invaded enough countries - I hate it when the Dems pretend to be tough guys

[scaeagles]

Response from Obama's campaign. I find this to be an excellent response and spot on target. Too bad no one wants to hear it.

I happen to disagree with a lot of it.

He didn't say he wouldn't use nukes specifically against Pakistan, he said he wouldn't ever use nukes period.

He immediately began to modify his statement about meeting with leaders of "rogue states", and said that he meant they would have high level meetings in which certain conditions would have to be met prior to the President meeting with them.

You may subscribe to what he has to offer. I don't. I see this simply as spin trying to modify what he said because the things he said weren't very smart.
Believe me, I take no pleasure agreeing with Hillary.

[sleepyjeff]

Believe me, I take no pleasure agreeing with Hillary.

What is it they say about broken clocks;)

[Scrooge McSam]

Hehehe

Sleepyjeff, check your quotes!

[scaeagles]

If only you would say that, Scrooge, the world would be a better place.:)

[Scrooge McSam]

I take no pleasure agreeing with Hillary.

There

Let's hug ;)

[scaeagles]

Dissent is cool. I get dissent and I'm fine with it.

What I don't understand is why certain Hollywood types (Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte), who are certainly free to call the US government and Bush whatever they want, go to Venzuela in support of solidarity where all media is being taken under government control, private property is being seized, and political opponents are being imprisoned.

I wonder what any of those who praise Chavez would do if the US government seized all of their wealth in an effort to redistribute it to the poor, or imprisoned them for speaking out against the leadership in power.

I don't get it.

[scaeagles]

Isn't the hypothetical Obama answered for being willing to to go into Pakistan exactly the same reason we went into Afghanistan?

I missed this earlier....I don't think so. In Afghanistan, there was direct government control by the Taliban and they were providing safe harbor for them. The government supported what the Taliban and terrorists were doing. Not so in Pakistan, where efforts are being made (though I don't necessrily agree with the methodology).

[scaeagles]

Let's hug ;)

You want me, don't you?

[Scrooge McSam]

LOL

If pork just wasn't so salty...

Hehe No worries, you're safe.

[Alex]

I missed this earlier....I don't think so. In Afghanistan, there was direct government control by the Taliban and they were providing safe harbor for them. The government supported what the Taliban and terrorists were doing. Not so in Pakistan, where efforts are being made (though I don't necessrily agree with the methodology).

But a fundamental part of the Obama quote was that we have "high value" intelligence about specific Al Qaeda targets and the government of Pakistan is not doing anything about it.

Sounds like the same thing to me. If Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda we'll go in.

[Scrooge McSam]

There are no words (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3966415&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1).

A fiction writer couldn't come up with this stuff.

State Representative Bob Allen says he was feeling nervous and offered sex to get away from a man he didn't trust.

Allen chairs the House Energy Committee and co-chairs Senator John McCain's presidential campaign in Florida. He is the Police Union's 2007 Lawmaker of the Year, and he recently sponsored a bill to crack down on soliciting sex in public parks.

[SacTown Chronic]

^ "You wouldn't hit a guy with a c**k in his mouth, would ya?" ~ Jon Stewart

[scaeagles]

OK....I'm no Obama fan, but I found this to be amusing. Elizabeth Edwards thinks Obama behaves in a holier-than-thou sort of way. For the Edwards to be critical of anyone behving in that fashion (whether they are or not) I just find to be humorous, because of all the dem candidates, he is the one that certain ats that way more than any of them.

The story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/elizabeth-edwar.html)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Here's an interesting clip of Dick Cheney's views on an Iraq invasion in 1994.

http://influks.com/post1525.html

[wendybeth]

Well, well, well.......looky what Idaho Republican and Romney man Larry Craiggot caught doing in June: Foot-tapping Craig busted in men's room (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294810,00.html).

I am surprised I haven't heard of this until now.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not familiar with Larry Craiggot. Does the last name rhyme with "faggot" or "Lego"??










Obviously, I'm rooting for the ironic answer. :cheers:

[wendybeth]

How do these creeps live with themselves? It's like that New Jersey asshole and our former mayor- they deny rights and are openly hostile to homosexuals, and sure as **** they wind up being thusly inclined. What makes a person so ****ed up that they obviously get off on hurting others for doing the same thing they do. I know it's nothing new, but I just don't get it.

[SacTown Chronic]

"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions" He was simply asking - using Morse Code - if the guy in the next stall could "spare a square".

[Moonliner]

Wait a second, are you saying he tapped his foot and waved his hand around? That's what he was arrested for?

Did he drop trow in public? Did he jerk the flag pole openly? Did he try to book a room for two guys at Disneyland?

[innerSpaceman]

He pleaded GUILTY to lewd conduct. If he wasn't guilty, and he's a public official, that was about the most bone-headed thing to do. Now, no matter what he says or even what really happened, he's on record about being the worst kind of hypocrit about homosexuality.

[wendybeth]

Moon, the guy's been doing this **** for a long time now- looks like it finally caught up with him. The bigger question is how this story went almost three months without being published: Craig almost got away with it... (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003632075).

[Alex]

It isn't good that he was doing what he was doing considering his position on other people doing it.

But the fact that what he did is illegal is pretty stupid too.

I found Slate publishing this conversation (http://www.slate.com/id/2172966/) among their editors about the story to be an interesting behind-the-scenes look at editorial decision making. Also, ignoring the question of hypocrisy by Craig I pretty much agree with Dickerson.

[Alex]

I like this line from the report. I need to remember to leave my luggage outside the stall where thieves can have at it rather than take it in with me.

Craig entered the stall and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door. My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall.

I'm sure that is the case, but my experience is that people who don't want to take a **** with their luggage on their lap do the same thing.

I have no doubt that Craig was signaling his willingness to get lewd (and that the cop was showing responsive indications) but I'm surprised they would do the arrest before some more overt act to actually be lewd (say entering the stall with another) actually happens.

[Scrooge McSam]

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cQ3Y4OIhgU).

[scaeagles]

I love politics....

Castro would like to see a Hillary - Obama ticket. Now there's an endorsement.

I'm so glad we have campaign finance reform so that dity money is out of politics and candidates cant' get money in an accidental way (I'm sure) from people like Hsu.

And Edwards already makes me squirm, but he says Americans need to give up their SUVs while having some sort of big one himself (he doesn't drive it that much...really!).

Makes me laugh.

[SacTown Chronic]

I'd rather listen to Castro than 99% of America's politicians. And I'm no fan of Castro. Or Hillary for that matter. She can take her surge and shove it wear Bill lost interest 25 years ago.

[SacTown Chronic]

She can take her surge and shove it where Bill lost interest 25 years ago.Fixed, idiot.



(Edit isn't working)

[innerSpaceman]

I think "were" was correct in any event, since Sac was clearly posting about Bill's interest being in the past tense.

[SacTown Chronic]

This (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6572728) isn't America....it's not even Mexico.

A Catholic priest faces an indecent exposure charge after police said he went jogging in the nude about an hour before sunrise.
The Rev. Robert Whipkey told officers he had been running naked at a high school track and didn't think anyone would be around at that time of day, a police report said.

He told officers he sweats profusely if he wears clothing while jogging. "I know what I did was wrong," he said in the report.

If convicted of indecent exposure, a misdemeanor, he would have to register as a sex offender, prosecutors said. I'm not so sure I want to live in a country where a man can't run around with his exposed balls bouncing off his thighs.

[Alex]

It's all about location and timing. Sometime this week approximately 200 women will strip down, hop on their bikes and ride around an impromptu town of about 30,000 people for a couple hours with nary a peep and most people no longer even noticing such things.

[Gemini Cricket]

Snow resigned today, too.

[SacTown Chronic]

Awww, too bad. I had hopes of one day seeing Tony Snow on an episode of Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe.

[Gemini Cricket]

Craig to resign today, too, apparently.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, we're on a roll. Let's get some more Republican scumbags to resign. Don't stop now!

[SacTown Chronic]

I genuinely feel bad about Craig. The homophobic Republican party coldy turned their back on him without offering the slightest bit of support. And a self-loathing gay man has lost his career and his friends. Seems a steep price indeed.


I hope he just says "screw it", goes <ock crazy, and has a ball with the rest of his life.

[Gemini Cricket]

The part that bothers me about the whole Craig thing is that would he be asked to leave if he were engaging in an opposite sex encounter? I'm thinking maybe, maybe not. But there seems to be an overwhelming support for him to leave and it seems like the "gay thing" is driving that.

[Snowflake]

The part that bothers me about the whole Craig thing is that would he be asked to leave if he were engaging in an opposite sex encounter? I'm thinking maybe, maybe not. But there seems to be an overwhelming support for him to leave and it seems like the "gay thing" is driving that.

It's the GOP version of "Don't ask, don't tell."

[Snowflake]

So Tony Snow is retiring so he can earn more money. That's a more honest answer than the usual "want to spend more time with familly" party line. This is certainly validating all the more Bush's lame duck status (to me always lame). In any case, wonder who will bail out next?

[innerSpaceman]

I don't care about the reasons for Craig's ouster. Seems most of his constituents are pissed about him being a fag ... but he's still a hypocrite getting his just desserts served up by the angels, no matter what the stupid people of Idaho think of it.


As for him simply putting his bag down inside the stall ... um, no. I heard his taped police interview today and, in his own voice, he talks about putting his hand under the partition to the next-stall a few times.

So none of this innocent foot-tapping to the music being mistaken for gay men's room come-ons. Putting your hand over to the guy next door is not something you do accidentally.


Even if it were not the for hypocritical faggotry, the stupidity of pleading guilty should be enough to have him hounded from office.

[Strangler Lewis]

. . .I heard his taped police interview today and, in his own voice, he talks about putting his hand under the partition to the next-stall a few times.


He's a politician. They always have their hand out. They're as bad as clergymen in that respect.

[SacTown Chronic]

Surely there's room in your heart for a fag who lost his way, innerSpaceman.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I'll let him blow me if he wants to. I'll even hug him afterwards. But I won't stand idly by while he serves in the U.S. Senate to undermine gay rights while, at the same time, longing to suck my <o<k.

[wendybeth]

The part that bothers me about the whole Craig thing is that would he be asked to leave if he were engaging in an opposite sex encounter? I'm thinking maybe, maybe not. But there seems to be an overwhelming support for him to leave and it seems like the "gay thing" is driving that.
Read Craig's voting record with regards to gay issues. Realize who his constituency is- a very conservative community that elected him to uphold the 'family values' of the Republican party. He has been exposed as a hypocrite and has plead guilty to breaking the law. Idaho is not known for it's liberalism; were Mr. Craig to run for office in that state as a gay or bi-sexual man chances are a bit slim that he would have been elected, particularly back in the Seventies. Since he couldn't, or wouldn't come out then he chose a life of deception and is reaping the consequences of his actions. Of course this is upsetting to the people who represented him- I would be pissed if I discovered someone I voted for had been misrepresenting himself in such a manner, not to mention being such a sleaze bucket in thinking that his position of power entitled him to break the law.

A comment was made about how, if this involved a female, that this would be a non-issue. I disagree; while it wouldn't be quite as scandalous it would still be news. He admitted to public lewdness, and he plead guilty. Clinton didn't break any laws while he was messing around with Lewinsky, and look what happened to him

[innerSpaceman]

Um, in all fairness ... Clinton was legitimately accused of commiting perjury, a crime. He did not admit to doing so, and never came close to pleading guilty of such in a court of law.

It's the lame thread all the Republicans hang onto, when we all know they hounded him for being sucked off under the Oral Office desk while on the phone with some of them.

We Dems were not happy with him for prevaricating under oath, but we're reasonable enough to realise it's the kind of thing Joe Blow would prevaricate about. We generally held the PotUS to a higher standard than Mr. Blow (oh wait, bad choose of anonymous name), but defended him when it became a hypocritical witch hunt.

[wendybeth]

I realize the perjury charge, which is why I phrased the post as I did. While he was messing around with Lewinsky, I don't think he was breaking any laws*, excluding the biblical ones. His lying about it is what got him in trouble from a legal standpoint, and rightly so.




* Unless that cigar was a Cuban one.:D

[Alex]

Three consecutive Republican sex scandals, none of which contained any information on actual sex, resulting in three resignations.

Republicans don't even having exciting sex scandals. Democrats at least actually get some and then ride out the storm (generally successfully, has any other than Gary Hart really fallen to one in the last 30 years?) keeping the story alive for many extra news cycles.

Say what you will about the hypocrisy of the Republican perpetrators, they do seem to suffer the consequences when that hypocrisy is revealed.

Even more boring since two of the sexless sex scandals involved things that shouldn't be problematic anyway (calling prostitutes and subtly signaling an interest in bathroom sex).

[innerSpaceman]

did i miss some Republican sex scandals? Oh fine.


Who was calling prostitutes? And what was the third?

[Gemini Cricket]

For the record, I would not let Craig blow me.

:D

[Alex]

Mark Foley hassling the congressional pages (that's the closest I come to finding something inherently objectionable in the three cases) was the first.

The second was the guy who resigned after it became known his phone number was on that Washington madams phone logs ("I just had them over for massages.")



Thinking about it a bit more Democrat Gary Condit did suffer the end of his career because of his affair with Shandra Levy but then that also moved way beyond just being a sex scandal.

[scaeagles]

The worst congressional sex scandal of all, though, was Gary Studds - a sexual relationship with a 17 year old male page.

[scaeagles]

Edwards wants to force preventative care. Everyone must go to the doctor.

I think everyone should have to submit to drug tests while at the doctor as well. And mandatory dentist visits with mandatory cleaning. And mandatory exercise programs. Mandatory vegetables servings daily. Re-education programs for those who choose to eat too much McDonalds or pizza.

[Scrooge McSam]

Edwards wants to force preventative care.

Link, please.

[Moonliner]

Link, please.

Sure...


On what he plans to do for the thousands of Americans who die each year because they do not have health insurance or money for treatment:

“There is an easy answer to that. I am proud that I came out with a truly universal health care plan that requires every single man and woman in America to have health care coverage. I actually think that is a question that should be put to every candidate, Democratic or Republican: If your health care plan doesn't cover everybody, then you should have to explain what this particular woman or child is not entitled to health care? Because my view is every single one of us have equal value and equal worth, and everybody's life is precious… Every single man and woman in this country should have health care coverage.”

The link (http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070827-livestrong-forum-universal-health-care/)

[Moonliner]

Of course the web site just says you are required to have health care, I don't see where he says you are required to have checkups. The only place I see that is on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295555,00.html)

[Scrooge McSam]

Thanks, Moon... I was familiar with that, but after further looking, I think Leo's concern is that Edwards' plan will require citizens to see a doctor according to some undetermined schedule. FWIW, it sounds to me that Edwards' is saying you won't be able to ignore your health for years and then expect the gov to swoop in provide emergency care when preventive care could have avoided the problem altogether.

[Scrooge McSam]

The only place I see that is on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295555,00.html)

Ah... well ;)

[Moonliner]

Thanks, Moon... I was familiar with that, but after further looking, I think Leo's concern is that Edwards' plan will require citizens to see a doctor according to some undetermined schedule. FWIW, it sounds to me that Edwards' is saying you won't be able to ignore your health for years and then expect the gov to swoop in provide emergency care when preventive care could have avoided the problem altogether.

If the fox quotes are accurate, I have trouble with your interpretation. His comments seem fairly cut and dry...

If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

[Alex]

Your link may be on Fox News, but they didn't write it. It is an Associated Press story. Here's the same story through Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2).

It includes this direct quote of Edwards:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

Can't vouch for the quote being correct, but if it is it doesn't sound like a very good plan on his part. If just the idea that maybe you wouldn't be able to pick your own doctor bothered a lot of people in 1993, the thought that you don't even get to choose whether you see the doctor is going to bother a lot more.

Of course, I'm not sure what enforcement would be like and how it would work.

[scaeagles]

FWIW, it sounds to me that Edwards' is saying you won't be able to ignore your health for years and then expect the gov to swoop in provide emergency care when preventive care could have avoided the problem altogether.

That's really not the issue. Frankly, I wish more of society was indeed like that, in terms of accepting responsibility for a situation they created. If you smoke for 20 years, don't sue the tobacco companies because you got lung cancer - take responsibility because you knew the risk.

For me, the issue is more a fear of "well, if you had eaten more fiber, you wouldn't have this colon cancer, so we won't treat you" or "if you had taken calcium when you were younger you wouldn't have osteoporosis, so we won't replace that hip" or "if you had exercised more you wouldn't have heart disease" or any number of excuses that could be used in a no opt-out system that could be used to deny care.

Or, another step further - say your government doctor tells you to exercise more and you don't, so then you are denied care because you didn't follow the orders of the government doctor.

Or, another step further - the government wants to make sure you exercise, so there are mandatory exercise programs that you must go to.

These scenarios are not as far fetched as they seem, really. I would even say I don't think that Edwards necessarily wants those things to take place. But they will. Just as those who lobbied for warning labels and non smoking flights really didn't expect/want there to be the ridiculous laws against using a legal substance in public, and in some cases, in private (and I say that as a non-smoker).

[scaeagles]

Holy Cow! It's already happening in England.

Yikes! (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410977-details/'NHS+should+not+treat+those+with+unhealthy+lifesty les'+say+Tories/article.do)

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Um, you might want to re-read the article. It isn't happening there, it was merely suggested. And at least according to the comments posted below, it isn't a very popular suggestion.

[Strangler Lewis]

If these were industry-wide mandates among private health insurers or large employers who paid for insurance--so that choice/opting out wouldn't really be an option--would you be as upset? It would still be the all-powerful impinging on our freedom to destroy ourselves in the name of saving a buck.

[Alex]

At least with private, choice/opting out is always a choice even if a horribly expensive one. And it already happens to a large extent in private insurance and is the cause of much of the hue and cry over the evils of the letting the profit motive be involved in the health equation.

As I argued in our last go 'round, a government run system doesn't get rid of the profit motive, just shifts it to a different type of profit. Instead of balancing service against profit, you end up balancing service against not inciting a tax revolt. So eventually both health care managers eventually try to do the same thing: control the risk profiles of the covered pools.

And once the government is involved in pretty much every health expense in society they will use that that as the thin wedge to controlling every personal behavior than can be shown to have ties to those expenses.

So to me, it is pretty much inherent to whatever system is instituted but I'd still prefer that it be in the private sector where at least the issue of force isn't present. (As one of the comments on the story notes, people denied coverage for "unsafe" behaviors are surely going to still be required to pay into the system.) At least in teh private sector I at least either pay for and get service (though Moore's film rightly points out breaks in this) or I don't get service and don't pay for it.

[scaeagles]

Um, you might want to re-read the article. It isn't happening there, it was merely suggested. And at least according to the comments posted below, it isn't a very popular suggestion.

Right - I should have said that's it's been suggested there. I understand it isn't happening now.

[scaeagles]

If these were industry-wide mandates among private health insurers or large employers who paid for insurance--so that choice/opting out wouldn't really be an option--would you be as upset? It would still be the all-powerful impinging on our freedom to destroy ourselves in the name of saving a buck.

The beauty of the free market is that any industry wide mandate is either 1) forced upon the industry by the government or 2) disallowed by the government. Being that this is the case, I would be outraged, because it would be the government allowing it. So I suppose I answered it, but I disagree with the premise of the question.

The government has already done several good things in terms of portability of insurance. This was a fix I believe was prudent and necessary in a system where the primary source of health insurance is from employment. Only made sense to mandate that if an employee with a health difficulty changed jobs they couldn't be denied coverage at their new employ because of a pre existing condition.

I would not object if the private insurance system had programs that allowed discounts for healthy lifestyles or penalties for unhelthy ones....in fact, we already have it, but not to any extreme. Smokers may have to pay more for health and life insurance, and this is fine. I get a company discount on my employee portion of my health insurance costs by filling out a "health analysis" survey.

I don't have anyone forcing me to do anything.

I exercise daily because I see it as something that's beneficial. I don't eat many veggies. We all have things we do that aren't good for us. I don't want the government deciding that I can't be covered because of that. If I have a private company tell me that I must do something or pay more, than I have a choice.

[scaeagles]

Here's a shocker. The democrat fundraiser Hsu, recently jailed for all sorts of campaign fundraising violations and fraud, failed to show up for his court date. No one knows where he is. I'm almost as shocked as Bill Clinton was when he said he was shocked to find out Hsu was doing (gasp!) illegal things!

Hsu fails to show (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RFF79G0&show_article=1)

[Moonliner]

God Damn fear mongers.

Has anyone else seen the commercials for "freedoms watch (http://www.freedomswatch.org)"?

Ohh no the boogie man will get us! Ohh no! If we don't let our soldiers die in Iraq the bad men will come after us in our bedrooms!

Freedom lovers my ass, more like traitors if you ask me, even afraid to show who they really are. Hiding behind anonymous domain names and a generic hosting company.

Cowards.

[JWBear]

God Damn fear mongers.

Has anyone else seen the commercials for "freedoms watch (http://www.freedomswatch.org)"?

Ohh no the boogie man will get us! Ohh no! If we don't let our soldiers die in Iraq the bad men will come after us in our bedrooms!

Freedom lovers my ass, more like traitors if you ask me, even afraid to show who they really are. Hiding behind anonymous domain names and a generic hosting company.

Cowards.

Their commercials make my physically ill.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I find it ironic that they use the word "Freedom" and "Watch" togeather. We're "watching your freedom!" Watch out!!

Retards...

[BarTopDancer]

Their watching your freedom disappear.

[Moonliner]

Their watching your freedom disappear.

They are not watching, they are doing their best to take your freedom for their very own play toy.

Does anyone know a way to pierce their veil and find out who they are?

[scaeagles]

All the mor reason not to believe in the whole man made global warming hype -

Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml)

More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

Scientific consensus on mad made warming? Hardly.

[sleepyjeff]

All the mor reason not to believe in the whole man made global warming hype -

Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml)



Scientific consensus on mad made warming? Hardly.


Doesn't matter.....only a scientist who accepts the "fact" of global warming can truly call him or herself a scientist: therefore the consensus is clear; global warming is a fact;)

[JWBear]

Almost all scientists agree that the climate is warming - The evidence is substantial. Whether or not it is caused by human actions is what is still not clear.

[scaeagles]

Agreed, JW. The climate is warming. What Gore and his ilk try to scam America (and the world) with is that it is caused by humans. On this there is simply no consensus, and the evidence is iirefutable that there have been repeated warming periods far before humans started any sort industrial revolution.

[sleepyjeff]

A few interesting facts from the World Almanac:

The highest temp ever recorded in Africa occured in 1922.
The lowest ....1935.
The highest temp ever recorded in Asia occured in 1942.
The lowest....1933.
The highest temp ever recorded in Europe occured in 1881.
The lowest.....na(but within last 20 years)
The highest temp ever recorded in Australia occured in 1889.
The lowest.....1994.
The higest temp ever recorded in Oceania occured in 1912.
The lowest.....1979.
The highest temp ever recorded in North America occured in 1913.
The lowest.....1947.
The highest temp ever recorded in Antartica occured in 1974.
The lowest ....1983.
All save for Asia have had their most recent temperature extremes a cold one. Two high temperatures pre-date the automobile and only one high temp has occured since the Interstate Highway system was built.

No continent wide high temps are found in our current warm crisis but there are 3 low records since the start of said crisis.

[innerSpaceman]

What's the difference if it's caused by man or not? The question is: What the fuk are we going to do about it?

Because, man-caused or not, man is royally SCREWED if we let global climate change follow its current course.


So if there are things man can do to shift the climate toward man's desired direction, he had better do so.



Of course, if there's anything man can do about shifting it, that in itself is evidence that man's already had a hand in shifting it so far. Whether man is going along with a trend-in-progress or not is hardly important. If our activities can "help" the climate, they can hurt it.


We'd better hope they can help it. (if you want to deny they have hurt it, enjoy your righteousness.)

[scaeagles]

Did the planet and the inhabitants of said planet survive the other periods of warming? Other periods of warming have been far more extreme than this one.

Can I deny that humans hurt the climate? Can you state with certainty that they do hurt it? I would agree that humans have polluted the environment, but I am not even one small bit convinced that we, short of nuclear armageddon, can change the climate.

I look at the current warming on Mars, where the polar ice caps have all but disappeared, and wonder how it is that all of our human caused warming has spread that far.

[wendybeth]

Living in the asphalt jungle that you do, Scaeagles, I'm really surprised that you think this is not man made, or at least being hastened and made worse by our contributions. The periodic spike or lowering of temps in times past has nearly always had an explanation- volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa, or meteor collisions that sent clouds of dust into the atmosphere for decades. I know the temps in Phoenix are much worse than they used to be, and the reason is the astounding amount of asphalt and lack of greenery. The air in many major cities is toxic, and untold rivers, coastal shorelines and bodies of water have been poisoned by heavy metals, crude oil, etc. We are ruining our environment, and it stands to reason that the atmosphere will follow. You can point to the "hundreds' of scientists (never mind who they may be working for) but thousands more refute their finds. I only have to fly into LA to be reminded of what we are doing to the very air we breathe, and I am thankful there are still a few places left that have clear air and clean water.

[JWBear]

A few interesting facts from the World Almanac:

The highest temp ever recorded in Africa occured in 1922.
The lowest ....1935.
The highest temp ever recorded in Asia occured in 1942.
The lowest....1933.
The highest temp ever recorded in Europe occured in 1881.
The lowest.....na(but within last 20 years)
The highest temp ever recorded in Australia occured in 1889.
The lowest.....1994.
The higest temp ever recorded in Oceania occured in 1912.
The lowest.....1979.
The highest temp ever recorded in North America occured in 1913.
The lowest.....1947.
The highest temp ever recorded in Antartica occured in 1974.
The lowest ....1983.
All save for Asia have had their most recent temperature extremes a cold one. Two high temperatures pre-date the automobile and only one high temp has occured since the Interstate Highway system was built.

No continent wide high temps are found in our current warm crisis but there are 3 low records since the start of said crisis.

Meaningless data. It is the average global temperature that is rising.

[scaeagles]

WB, I clearly said that humans have polluted the planet. I am all for air quality standards and certain common sense regulations to prevent making rivers toxic, etc. I also do completely understand the concept of the "heat island", which is what Phoenix has become. However, adding greenery to a desert that never had any major greenery isn't much of an option.

Climate science is so overwhelmingly complex I do not think it is possible for us to predict it well, much less influence it.

And in terms of who the scientists work for....I'm sure there's some dishonest and those with a particular agenda on ALL sides. I don't think for a moment that just because a scientist says there is man made global warming that they are free from political or capitalistic influences, and I find it insulting, really, that only the common belief is that scientists who dispute man made global warming must be crooked or paid shills of the oil industry. Hell, one major one is one of the founders of greenpeace (who now is for the elimination of old growth forests because of positive impacts on the environment).

[sleepyjeff]

Meaningless data. It is the average global temperature that is rising.

True enough.....but how come every time it's really, really hot we hear about how it must be global warming?

Nevertheless, I find the stats.....interesting; even though they don't really disprove anything:)

[sleepyjeff]

I look at the current warming on Mars, where the polar ice caps have all but disappeared, and wonder how it is that all of our human caused warming has spread that far.


Must be all those probes we sent to the Red Planet;)

[JWBear]

True enough.....but how come every time it's really, really hot we hear about how it must be global warming?

Because soundbites are easier than thinking... Or learning.

[Alex]

Same reason that every time it is snowy or rainy somewhere this is trotted out as evidence against global warming even though most models predicts increased snow and rain in some places.

[scaeagles]

OK....once again, Hillary scares the hell out of me....

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6)

So she can envision a day when, to get a job, you have to prove you are insured - and I presume that to mean you have the government controlled health insurance plan?

Thank you, no.

[innerSpaceman]

Really? Why do I need a social security card to get a job?

Do you think it's fine to have to be enrolled in a government pension plan to qualify for employment?

What's the difference between that and having to be enrolled in a either a government or privately-run health insurance plan?

[scaeagles]

There is none. I despise the whole concept of social security. It is a government sponsored pyramid scheme. However, the existance of social security does not mean I should accept further intrusion, does it?

[Alex]

Well, if it is private insurance not provided by the employer, what business is it of the government to mandate you do it before you can be employed?

If the government wants to mandate that I have insurance, it makes no sense to make employers the gatekeeper for the governments enforcement. Create an Internal Insurance Service and require that we file annual paperwork with the government proving coverage and creating criminal liabilities if we don't. Otherwise it is feels like saying I can't get a job (that doesn't involve a car) without me providing my employer with evidence that I have car insurance.

Social security presentation is a requirement for employment because all legal citizens are automatically enrolled and the employers are required to withhold payroll taxes (regardless of your actual status) and provide detailed reporting on who gets credit for that contribution. That is, the employer has a vital role in the government program. Since all legal residences are enrolled automatically, it is also secondarily evidence that you are legally eligible for employment. If the employer is not involved in the insurance, I fail to see what role the employer has in it; it strikes me as a personal matter.

If health coverage would be a requirement for employment that is a pretty startling shift from the move towards health insurance being a obligation of employment to being an obligation for employment.

If it is government run and provided health insurance, then again, I wonder what the necessity would be in making the employer the middle man of enforcement?

If it is somewhere in between then I'll wait and see what actual proposals she makes. Her interview on NPR today still had most insurance being provided by employers and creating incentives and tax breaks to encourage increasingly small business to offer insurance.

[wendybeth]

There is none. I despise the whole concept of social security. It is a government sponsored pyramid scheme. However, the existance of social security does not mean I should accept further intrusion, does it?

What I love is that elected officials do not have to pay either SS or for their own medical benefits, at least from what I understand. I'm with Alex as to waiting to see what sorts of proposals she actually makes before making any judgments.

[innerSpaceman]

If health coverage would be a requirement for employment that is a pretty startling shift from the move towards health insurance being a obligation of employment to being an obligation for employment.

I believe the whole point of this is that employers are claiming they can no longer afford to be the providers of health insurance. And that may very well be true.

scaeagles' opinion notwithstanding, social security is routinely considered the best thing the federal government has ever done. I daresay a requirement that everyone be health insured which resulted in everyone having health insurance would be similarly popular, and similarly devised by the people FOR the people.


If it became a legal requirement for every working citizen to have such health insurance, employers would no more be the "gatekeeper" for that than they are now for social security.

I haven't heard any details of Hillary's plan ... but if part of the health insurance premium were to be paid by the citizen and part by their employer ... then the situation would be quite similar to social security vis-a-vis an employer's current right to require a social security number for prospective employees.

[MouseWife]

Hmm. I wonder what the costs of this 'mandatory' insurance would be? Seems that a lot of people who make a certain amount of money {more than the average people, but, still with the costs of living, never seems to be enough to cover everything} they get no breaks. Meaning, would the part the employer covered be according to what the person makes? And, it sounds like the person has to come to the table with said insurance.

And, does this punish the person who can't afford insurance at their income level? Or encourage others not to work hard enough to be at a certain level to keep them at low income status, etc.?

Insurance is expensive. When the Hubster was laid off for four months, we had Cobra. It was almost/over $800. a month. I think that was also not the normal price, but, what his company would be paying {minus his portion}. And remember, he was unemployed.

And, what type of insurance would be offered? I reached enough hours/length at my part time job to qualify for insurance. But, it was pretty darn lame. It was something, but, really, if I saved the premiums myself I could probably, if I got sick, go to a doctor and then ask for generic prescriptions. It didn't cover any major illnesses.