Bayosphere

Damnit! I’m tired of others appropriating my identity. I have such a common name it’s frustrating to try and find something that is my own. Now! I know that even my obfuscated rendition has been pilfered. It’s an outrage!

An outrage I’ve learned to be comfortable with (somewhat) however.

Sigh. Do you realize what a pain it is to explain to someone your e-mail address when you can’t get an ordinary one?

Absolutely. If one elected government official can disobey the law as blatantly as Newsom – even for the best of reasons – what check is there on the actions of other elected luminaries or their appointees who might have other motivations?

As to the issue…why not define marriage as a religious ceremony subject to the church and have a civil contract for all couples? We have to have a state license anyway, and it is the state that vests power in a clergyman. We can combine the ceremony if the church accepts gay marriages or marriage involving divorced persons, but do the civil union if it doesn’t.

This may seem like half a loaf to some people, but it acknowledges the personal relationships and establishes the legal relationships currently denied to gays. In any case, the legal rights of the participants are based on the civil license, not the vagaries of the diocese, synod, denomination or congregation…or the political concerns about the “sanctity of marriage”.

OK Dan, so you believe that Gay Marriage should be “legal”.

(Or, put differently, that state officials should be compelled to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples).

How do you suggest that we get there from here?

Do you believe that unelected judges, reinterpreting century-old provisions of existing state (or the federal) constitutions should apply “contemporary morality” (or the “forward looking” morality of liberal elites) to general language about “equal protection” and impose Gay Marriage?

Or do you believe that the people should have an opportunity to vote, and that their judgment should resolve the question?

If judges do act as suggested above, do you believe that a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage is an appropriate avenue for the people to respond?

As usual, Dan Gillmor is saying much, without really saying anything of substance at all.

I too believe Gay marriage should be legal and the rights of marriage should be extended but this is for the people to decide. We live in a Democracy and the will of the people should be the final determining factor. Or an armed militia has the right to take the will of the people and remove those that don’t follow the law and impose the peoples will if a tyranical goverment (judges, executives) won’t.

I think Newsom feels he is above the law and can over rule due process. This sounds to me just like President Bush and the detainee issue’s. They are the same type of personality. Two sides of the SAME coin!!!

Well,
Quite frankly, I’m sure that a majority of people with ballot access in the 1950’s in the south would not have voted to allow blacks the vote. The reason we have a system of checks and balances is to disallow the tyranny of the majority against the minority.
And,
Before Howard Dean’s candidacy, and his support for civil unions (which was not a majority opinion when he started in VT but is now) got the issue in the national press I hadn’t given gay marriage one whit of thought to know whether I was against it or for it. (So bully for dean even if he isn’t the candidate)
It takes people doing outrageous things to make you think about something you’ve never thought about before, to change your ingrained habits.
So despite having gay friends, and even a cousin who is gay, and a minister, I hadn’t given it one thought to think that it was even an issue. I dunno though, I tend to think that there should be a separation – civil unions that confer all the legal incidents of what we now call marriage upon same sex marriage, same as if a hetero couple has a judge preside over them, with the option that it can also be used as a marriage license. But let individual churches decide whether they will sanctify the marriage of a same sex couple. There will be plenty that do, specially in san francisco and new york.

However, there are many traditions that have this thing about the union of the divine masculine and feminine represented by the individuals, and under this system, two people of the same sex really just can’t be married. I’m sure a creed and theology could be transformed so that makes sense, but not in just a few years, it’ll take a generation at least to make the change. And someone needs to publish a book or something making the theology explicable.

Owen: when you have two contradictory laws, which one do you follow?

(I’m not saying Newsom was right — although I do applaud his effort — but that is the justification he claimed.)

Sean – that’s why we have courts…to resolve questions of law and especially of constitutionality. Newsom just didn’t give the court the opportunity to rule before he challenged the law.

Joe, and Question – at one time not so long ago in this country, marriage between the races was illegal in most states, and farther back marriage for blacks was illegal and bigamy wasn’t. Go ‘way back and homosexual love was seen as just another manifestation of love, or an acceptable sexual diversion.

The point is that the law is not static or moribund…for better or worse,it changes and grows — and sometimes regresses — with changes in society. And it isn’t enough to rely on a supposedly democratic process…tyranny of the majority against an unpopular minority is terrible in its effect on both the minorities and on society at large. To ensure those rights, the courts have held many times that minorities have rights even if a majority doesn’t want to extend those rights. The exceptions to that rule are among the blackest parts of our history.

Churches have the right to set the rules of worship and membership, but equal protection of the law shouldn’t be denied on the basis that some arbitrary and transitory determination of “sin” exists. God can judge sinners without our guidance, and we all see sin differently; the law should deal with rights, and only dip into “sin” when it harms others. Neither the civil institution of heterosexual marriage nor the religious one are threatened by gay lovers making commitments; to the contrary, maybe our marriages need to learn from the experiences of gay couples who have committed to one another in spite of societal disapproval.

“what check is there on the actions of other elected luminaries or their appointees who might have other motivations?”

Well, there’s getting sued, jailed, or voted out of office. Works for me

Newsom’s net gain/loss of votes on the gay marriage issue probably won’t affect his chances for re-election. But, let’s say he decided to order the cops not to enforce drunk-driving laws. Everybody who had a child, parent, or even a mailbox mowed down by a drunk driver would have a cause of action against the city (and possibly even him, personally: is there a lawyer in the house?). I believe it’s also possible for anyone living in the city to ask the courts for an injunction requiring him to enforce the law (iirc, there was such a lawsuit filed over the gay marriage license issue), which could land him in jail for contempt if he didn’t.

If the issue is prominent enough, you may even find Federal marshals, or the National Guard, knocking on your door to persuade you to enforce/follow the law.

Not to mention that there are a _lot_ of guns in this country, and quite a few of them are in the hands of people capable of convincing themselves that $DEITY wants them to smite “unbelievers”.

All in all, I think there are enough dissincentives out there to avert a wave of official civil disobedience that would drag us down into anarchy.

Well folks, let’s remember that the California Supreme Court has NOT YET ruled on Gay Marriage. It ONLY ruled on the Mayor’s method.

As far as activist Judges, I’m a strict constructionist. Therefore, Marbury v Madison MUST be overturned. And, Louisiana is NOT part of the United States. It’s French Territory.

[Ooh, look! I can see smoke coming out of somebody's ears.]

But, returning to the thread, marriage.

Historically (going back a few Millenia), marriage is a contract – that’s Civil Law. That’s where dowry’s come from.

Religion got into the act several centuries later.

As far as the Gumint is concerned, a marriage license is simply, and ONLY, a way for the Gumint to collect some money when a couple negotiate and finalize a contract (anybody remember the Stamp Act?).

So, why is the Gumint slowing down it’s own tax collection activities? I’m still waiting for an answer on that one.

My view is to eliminate marriage licenses altogether. Contract law can handle the whole situation very nicely.

Owen: that still leaves the question, when you have two contradictory laws, which one do you follow?

By your reasoning, the only thing Newsom could have done was had San Francisco completely stop issuing marriage licenses: the state constitution disallows sexual discrimination, and also disallows same-sex marriages, and therefore no marriages can be granted (again, using Newsom’s reasoning).

In other words: in that situation, the fact is you do end up going against one of the laws. It is inevietable. For other examples: quite a few states have laws on the book outlawing abortions. The laws ARE THERE. They have not been stricken. They have, in some cases, even been passed after Roe v Wade. By your reasoning, no abortions can be allowed in those states, because even though there are two contradictory laws, it’s not allowed to break either of them.

Right?

Dan won’t address the substantive question with a ten foot pole. (Even if he had one himself).

If you support “Gay Marriage” Dan, *how* do you propose we get there from here? Is there any path you would consider more legitimate than any other? Is there any path you would reject as illegitimate?

Or is it another leftist cause for which “the ends justify the means”, and “by any means necessary”?

When Dan is cornered, he goes quiet.

Newsom didn’t decide “to order the cops not to enforce drunk-driving laws”; he chose to make marriage an equal right in San Francisco. He did overstep his bounds, which is often how change comes about. Through his overstepping, he gave me and my partner access to a right we believe we are already entitled to.

Newsom’s actions also contributed and gave momentum to an important national discussion. A lot of people in this country were surprised by how important this was to gay and lesbian couples, and it humanized this issue for many. Think about the articles, the commentary, and the discussion. It was very heartening to read so many editorials supporting gay marriage.

Some of us are far more empowered on gay issues now. I’ve noticed that I’m appreciably cooler about candidates who are opposed to gay marriage. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Boxer, but I pity the campaign volunteer who calls asking for my vote.

Two steps forward, one step back. I appreciate Mabel Tang’s comment after the decision that SF will keep the certificates. Someday we’ll be back to claim them.

“We live in a Democracy”

No, we live in a constitutional republic. One fundamental element of which is a codified set of principles and limitations to help prevent “the will of the people” from turning into a tyrrany of the majority. They haven’t always worked well in the short term, but they definitely beat the alternative: just ask Socrates

“I think Newsom feels he is above the law and can over rule due process.”

Why? His position from the very beginning has been that he is following the law as he understands it. And, when the court said “Stop doing that until we decide whether your interpretation is right”, he did. You can argue with whether his interpretation is valid, but he’s clearly following that interpretation, rather than rejecting the authority of the law (Keep in mind that “the law”, in this context, includes both the statutes and the Constitution).

.

Ran, you’re *way* out of your league.

Newsom’s proper role, if any, was to *deny* a gay couple a marriage license — and use the full power of his office to get their case reviewed by the courts.

Executive usurpation, as here, is utterly at odds with 200 years plus of constitutional jurisprudence, and the English common law.

Far from our operating under a “codified set of principles and limitations”, we live under a malleable constitution of general language being modified beyond reason by activist judges drunken on power.

Codification — if you’d crawl out from under your desk and engage in a little learning — is a feature of civil law, not common law.

But then, it’s long been obvious you’d be more comfortable in France, Ran.

“Executive usurpation, as here, is utterly at odds with 200 years plus of constitutional jurisprudence, and the English common law.”

Unless it’s Snippy doing it, right? In which case he is beyond the courts, because he is the Executive branch personifi
ed, right?

I have to agree that Newsom was *technically* wrong in issuing the licenses but was morally right. The analogy of interracial marriage is most apt–both prohibitions were based on irrational hate and nothing else. History will treat both issues the same: as shameful mistakes.

Owen, I greatly admire you but have to gently disagree: churches don’t own marriage–people do. My wife and I are atheists and our marriage has nothing to do with being blessed by god. How could it, being that god doesn’t exist?

“Far from our operating under a “codified set of principles and limitations”, we live under a malleable constitution of general language being modified beyond reason by activist judges drunken on power.”
Posted by: question on August 14, 2004 06:35 PM

question, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that you see the light. THANK YOU for agreeing with me that Marbury v Madison MUST be overturned. These activist Judges must be stopped.

The very idea that the Courts interpret The Constitution! How dare they usurp power like that!

How would I approach it? I’d challenge the constitutionality of the laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. Given the increasingly rightward tilt of the judciary, it’s difficult to imagine that making too much headway.

Medium term, I’d push for strong laws granting civil unions, in which partners would have all of the legal rights automatically granted to married people, such as the right to be next of kin.

Long-term, I’d work to persuade the public that denying basic liberty to one group of people is a threat to everyone’s liberty — and that if two people love each other and want to be together they should be encouraged to marry. It’ll take a while, but society is changing on this issue.

There it is, folks. “I’d challenge the constitutionality of the laws that prohibit same-sex marriages”.

Dan thinks that this is a matter for the judges, not the people.

He believes that unelected plutocrats and philosopher kings should impose “Gay Marriage” on their lessers.

It’s antithetical to democracy, and it’s corrupting of the basic mores that have held this country together for generations.

Amazing, that Dan didn’t duck when asked this question. He has established himself forthrightly as an extreme Leftist, far outside the mainstream of the American public, and even with the People of the State of California.

Nice distortion. Going back only one recent, and relevant, case: Democracy kept up a regime of segregation in public schools. Were the judges wrong to find it unconstitutional? I don’t believe so.

We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. And we live in a republic that has judicial review, in part to to prevent mob rule that violates basic liberties.

OH MY GOD!

Dan actually thinks THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND OBEYED!

What an unbelievable fascist he is! What an anarchist! How dast The Powers That Be allow ANYONE SO RADICAL to OPEN HIS MOUTH AND STATE AN OPINION!

Distortion? LOL.

The constitutional language you’re hanging your hat on is over 100 years old.

You, indeed, support the imposition of “Gay Marriage” by plutocrats and unelected philosopher kings, whom you believe ought to be the arbiters of the rights of the minority, because the majority cannot be trusted.

In no way, shape or form has this role been granted to Dan’s preferred extreme Leftist brand of activist judges by the consent of the governed.

And, remarkably, and in your face obviously, Dan does not care.

So now, who is the fascist?

With uniformity, Civil Rights leaders denounce any comparison between “Gay Marriage” and the breakdown of prohibitions on racial intermarriage, as cheapening the movement for racial equality in this country.

So now, Dan reveals himself as a racist! Is there any disgraceful position he won’t adopt, in pursuit of his radical pro-Gay agenda?

Thanks for your latest rants, “question” — you reveal your inner self. Amazing…

Paul, I understand that marriage isn’t uniquely religious historically, but it is more commonly associated with churches in our history. May be a copout, but I guess I naturally gravitate towards solutions that, like Dan’s suggestion, allow us to live and work in peace and protect our rights while we find a balance point. Extremists on either pole won’t like that, but they’ve got that right, as I do ( at least I think I still have, unless the rightwing thought police are out in force.)

As to the last few posts, it feels like the twilight zone again. Dan, I don’t think it matters what you say about the constitutional foundations or court decisions, you can’t possibly give an answer that Question would either read or understand. When your view of the world is so distorted by homophobia, is it any wonder he doesn’t get it?

BTW – a minor ongoing gripe about the “So now, who is the fascist?” comment: you just answered your own question, albeit not in the fashion I expect you intended.

Dan is unlikely to on be of them. “Fascist” is not just a general label for extremists. It has a very specific meaning relating to right wing, reactionary groups. Check it out…if you’re going to try to insult somebody, at least do it right!

What the F*CK’s happened to smog? They used to have this really cool illustrated copy of that old CIA manual on all the really cool sh*t you pull to totally f*ck up an entire country.

And who winnows your chaff?

I like J Orlin Grabbe, Infoshop, Dan of course, Also not found in nature, The floating world, News max liners,antiwar . com – thats the short list after all the usual news suspects.

California spends $400M per year for K-12 textbooks, yet many districts still suffer textbook shortages. Other states find themselves facing similar scenarios. In addition, K-12 books in English are in high demand abroad, but often too expensive to purchase.

Since 1992, commercial K-12 textbook publishers have raised their prices at a rate that’s three times the rate of inflation. I decided to do something about the situation by creating a solution that will reduce the cost of *printed* K-12 textbooks by 40-50%.

Take a look at the California Open Source Textbook Project here http://ww.opensourcetext.org (COSTP), a not-for-profit organization created to prove that open source can work in the K-12 sector.

COSTP is working in tandem with Creative Commons and Wikipedia (thanks to Jimmy Wales); we have a very small pilot recently started on Wikipedia (go to the links page on the COSTP site for more).

COSTP has been lobbied to the highest levels of our current California state government, and is beginning to gather steam.

I’d love to hear comments and ideas on how we might move forward faster. Any other ideas would be appreciated.

Everyone wish us luck down here in SW Florida (Punta Gorda myself) while we ready ourselves for Hurricane Charley to rip inland on Friday. Are Blogs powerful enough to change weather patterns yet?

I went to my first training class Tuesday to be a “Ballot Activator” at my precinct on primary and general election days. We have ESS systems and I’m doing everything I can to get the word out about these things. It’s so amazing how the people that have worked the polss twice previously with these units are CLUELESS to the insecurities noted in the press.

Sanford, I have developed four textbooks for my courses at a post-secondary level. In fact, I took my first look at the Web in June, 1996, and I had my first course fully operational in May, 1997. I went hard because I expected all sorts of competition from publishers and other teachers. But it never happened. Why? Publishers can only do things the most expensive way, I guess, and other teachers are spuds in this area.

I’m sure you know you can beat the publishers no problem, but you still have the spud factor in “Who is going to write the texts?” I think you need to get a few (two or three) good people who will do a text as a pilot project to demonstrate that it can be done. Committees and large groups won’t cut it. Most teachers won’t cut it. Focus on those who say, “I like this. It’s neat. I’ll do it.” They are the ones who will really do it. If someone starts the great lie of all teachers, “My desk is just piled up with work”, then smile and run. Those people never do anything, period. They just waste your time.

So my advice is find those who will just say a quick OK, the quicker, the better. But they have to produce fast, i.e., in weeks. If it is not done at top speed, it won’t get done. That’s my rule.

Teachers and educational admins don’t like this type of stuff, you should know. They like to be seconded to write documents such as “World History Project – California Content Standard” and “History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools.” Those are just over the top, right? All meta talk and nothing real.

You want the real thing and they want to talk about how once they get to the real thing, it is going to be so good, so great, that by God, every Grade 12 student will talk like a history Ph.D. Yikes!

So get few people to whip through the text, and definitely be political with those who write and support documents such as the above standards. They are scary people and must be handled with real finesse. Use the term, “pilot project.” It calms them down.

You have the American can-do attitude down there, so maybe my gloomy Canadian advice is off the mark. If so, let me know what you want to know. I like this. It’s neat.

The Islamist extremists want to kill all gay people, Americans, and infidels, and make women cover up from head to toe and not leave their homes. Straight from most of their websites….Scary

Wow, the day gay and lesbians get handed a setback (we will win in the end) from the CA Supreme Court the New Jersey governer admits to an affair and proclaims he is a ‘Gay American’.

I hope the deception to the voters, his wife, children, community isn’t what being a gay American is all about. Shameful!

if you want grim faces, waste your time like these bored couples:
http://noctos.blogspot.com/2004/08/bored-couples-versus-boring-profiles.html

Paul, I wondered what happened to that study. Thanks for pointing me in its direction.

It was the basis for some of the Restorative Justice initiatives and seemed very sound when it came out. (For those who aren’t familiar with it, restorative, or compensatory, justice is one of the more progressive alternatives to punitive justice). It’s demonized by some hardline DA’s, but it’s a creative alternative that benefits victims and is arguably a better, more effective deterrent for youthful and first-time offenders than incarceration.

Simple, cynical reason for punitive laws that unnecessarily encarcerate people: it’s a convenient way to disenfranchise minorities. Felons in prison, and in many states ex-felons, can’t vote.

A freedom of information request might extract the report from the DOJ, or at least elicit some fascinating info by watching which individuals move to block its release.

I found this quote particularly amusing:

“You could almost see the establishment journalists petting bloggers like poodles and cooing, “Oh, good bloggers, aren’t you cute!” (Apart from the ones who put on body armor and said, “Omigod, these pit bulls are dangerous!”)”

Great minds think alike

Blogging, Democratic Convention, and Reaction
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000669.html
“When people speak of “bloggers as the new pamphleteers” or some such, that almost always has a patronizing undertone to me. I hear an unvoiced aspect of “Aren’t they C-U-T-E!”. Like what you would say to a child doing finger-painting. “That’s such a gorgeous picture, err, blog-post. Maybe someday you’ll be a famous artist, err, pundit”.

I measure in many ways the impact of things by the ecomomic value. Dan’s book is wonderful but his impact is measured by those willing to exchange something (ie money) for it. People use their ecomomic power to vote for goods and services. So the day a blogger is a millionaire made from blogging (subscriptions to his/her blog because people will pay for the great enlightning information etc) is the day I see a successful blogger.

Everyone should buy Dan’s book if they are interested in this because it is insightful, but measuring the idea’s impact on society is different. I only look to Dan Brown’s (Da Vinci Code) or JK Rowling’s (Harry Potter), pocket books because that to me determines whos ideas and comentary carry weight. The more economic value (money/property) people are willing to part with to engage in the discussion the more powerful the material. Very much like Dan’s mention of patronage. Rich people willing to comission ideas and art by spending money.

One thing jumped out at me from this article and that was the unchallenged assertion that the internet is used to spread lies – of course it is and the lie is half way around the world before the truth has had time to pull on it’s pant’s, as they say, but I’ve often been impressed by how quickly lies can be quashed and how hard it must be in the Foolish Bungling Idiot’s ( FBI) trying to spread CoinTelPro in this day and age.
I’d like to see a longer article and in Salon or at Slate not Wired.

The problem isn’t just Congress and the California legislature — it’s that many citizens simply don’t make the association between taxing and spending. People on the right complain about the government “stealing” their money without considering the services it provides, while those on the left seem to think that there is an endless supply of government money available to address whatever causes they identify, without considering where that money comes from.

I agree with Moose’s first sentence, but not his characterization of left vs. right…lately it’s been the right wing thinking that they can spend what they want without having the money and without consequences. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the GOP that “conservative” no longer means fiscal prudence, limited government power, and respect for the law.

It’s not just that “many citizens simply don’t make the association between taxing and spending”. It’s that citizens don’t see what Government is really doing. Government (espically good government) is largely invisible. A lot of people seem to believe that Government is a money sink — they take our taxes and waste all of it except the little sliver that they actually see.

Just a Quibble Dan… but what exactly are you talking about when you reference “America and it’s largest state”? Last time I checked CA wasn’t even in the top two. Or are you refering to population alone. Even then I’m not sure that label applies CA, but I’ll admit I don’t have the population numbers to back that up. The problem is you make that kind of statement and I know rationally that at least Texas and Alaska are bigger states, maybe not more populous, but bigger. So I start to wonder about the quality of the rest of the story.

This is a problem I have with news reports of all mediums. Maybe I’m deluding myself but I expect that those who report the news to do some basic fact checking. If it’s information that a six year old could find on the internet in a reasonably short amount of time, I have an expectation that at a minimum the editors/producers of news do some fact checking, to ensure the reporters aren’t going to stick their foot in their mouth.

This rant isn’t entirely aimed at you Dan. More a condemnation of the news media as a whole. TV stations, newspapers, and magazines want to win our eyeballs and be our source for information, but if they allow mistakes to slip through they are diminishing their editorial statement. Of course this is just my opinion… your mileage may vary.

Is it too cynical to suggest that the massive federal deficit might be part of a long-term plan to push the Republican agenda of reducing government and government services? Eventually the deficit will be so big that something has to be done – and gosh, since no one wants to pay more taxes, they will have to cut government services.

IMO it is precisely as Bill puts it: Bush is running up a deficit to force a later confrontation over government services. It worked in Texas, where he pulled the same trick when he was governor. A $1.7 billion tax cut had to be covered by a $1 billion surplus…but in 2004 TX faces a $3.7 billion shortfall and service cuts.

The URL cited points to a report on effects. Some of the critics contend that there were other problems with service expenditures in TX (like unexpected drug costs). Still, in the face of rising expenses there is little motivation to reduce income. The tax cut is creating problems in public policy years after it was enacted.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/071400wh-bush-texas.html

Peter (not Peter G), California is the biggest state by far in population, and in size of economy, and in size of state budget, all of which are the most relevant to discussing budget deficits.

Do you see the irony in ranting about media lack of fact checking when you couldn’t bother to do it yourself? Or was it, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. If you’re trolling, well, you got me.

Bill,
If you take a look at Grover Norquist, you’ll see that your hunch is correct. He is the Republican anti-tax crusader who is quite influential at the White House.

some definitions related to this discussion:

Democrat: Someone who wishes the government would provide welfare for poor people.
Republican: Someone who wishes the government would provide welfare for rich people.

Conservative: Someone who wishes the government would provide welfare for LESS people.

=================================

Near as I can tell based on results, we haven’t had conservatives in any positions of real power in the government in the last 40 years.

Bush is the biggest spender in US history, liberals should love the idiot. He has spent more on social programs than any President ever. The problem is when the day of reckoning comes and the bills are due and Americans can’t pay half their paycheck to the government the only people that will be hurt are the poor and middle class, people who depend on others (ie business, government) for wages…I have a rich friend who has half his assets spread around the world so even if the US sinks into the sea he will be rich in any country he goes to. I wish I was that lucky. Ironic thing is he has made millions in governent contracts for section 8 housing.

Peter G: As I conceeded I didn’t have the facts handy. But the point remains.. if you lead with a statement that CA is the largest state you make an assumption that all your readers will have the same thought process that you the author have. With as vagaue a statement as that is, that’s a pretty wild assumption. Let’s put it in perspective… If “W” were up in Alaska for some reason talking about the ecomony and made the same statement about CA being the largest state, because in his mind (or his speechwriters minds) they’re talking the economy. You don’t think people would jump all over the mistake.

In my opinion newscasters and journalists are getting sloppier and sloppier in their reporting and coverage of stories, on both sides of issues. And I’m willing to allow for personal bias in the reporting. But when it comes to actual verifiable facts that’s why these people have editors and producers. To keep them from making themselves look like fools.

My take on these situations is that once I’ve been handed one area where the author is vague or incorrect, it reduces the value of the rest of the statement. Maybe I have an unrealisticly high standard for journalists, but obviously I didn’t see where Dan was headed with the statement, and it causes me to question the whole piece. I would think as an author/journalist Dan would want to avoid confusing/misleading his readers as much as possible. Problem is easily solved by throwing one word in there that he’s referring to the economy.

Joe:

Bush’s maintenance of the social program spending of the past several decades (originating with Democrat dominance of Congress) proves, beyond a doubt, his “compassionate conservative” credentials.

Liberals failure to concede this is a deep, sweeping hypocrisy. For the Left, it’s all about POWER, and at the moment, they don’t have it.

Part of the problem is also that corporations are paying near the lowest level of taxes that they have in the last 70 years. So where are all the new jobs they are supposed to be creating with their tax savings????

Anyone see this today? This really takes the cake! Insert foot into mouth and take a BIG bite…

=======================
President Accepts ‘Really Rich People’ Cheating On Taxes
August 10, 2004

President Bush claimed yesterday that rolling back tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 per year is unnecessary because “the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway.”

Rather than suggesting ways to close tax loopholes, increase penalties for tax cheaters, beef-up IRS enforcement, and make the tax system more progressive, President Bush blithely accepts a world where the “really rich” swindle the system while everyone else picks up the tab for important government services.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=83323
=============================

I think they should do away with withholding. Everyone should get their money and a monthly bill from the Federal Government. The system of withholding is a sneaky way to do business and it hides the costs.

Then people get refund and they think they received a gift from the government when it was their money all along!!!

<
p>Dan, you’re completely right – who do we have to blame? ourselves, we vote these people in, year after year after year.

Here’s the rub: people don’t understand the truth, the tough choices, so consequently they vote for the politicians who promise them all these social services and programs, lower taxes, etc and then can’t deliver them. How do we get them to understand the trade-offs? there’s no free lunch, these programs cost money and money is generated through taxes. It’s not complicated.

I’m a Libertarian and they have solutions to many of these issues…for example, they’d stop prosecuting “victimless” crimes (eg. prostitution). They’d privatize health care. In virtually all cases, the government is the worst entity to deliver services, the private sector does it better.

I always appreciate an article that, after pointing out the problems, suggests solutions, they’re out there. John Burton comes off the wrong way: he is forever criticizing the Governor, opposing the budget, yet does he ever offer an alternative? a solution? maybe he does but it doesn’t feel like it.

We pay enough taxes, we just don’t deliver efficiently.

Our analysis shows that taxes might go up as early as next year. We have based our analysis on the rising federal deficit, continually higher federal spending (particularly defense and homeland security), and falling income of Americans (leading to lower tax collection). We expect that this will further impede our growth (and recovery from the slow growth period since 2000).

iProceed.com

Oh geeze…here we go again with the ignorant comments.

Dan Gillmor writes, “When it comes to fiscal sanity, John Kerry gets it”

Kerry has never seen a tax hike that he didn’t like. That’s “fiscal sanity” in your world? What are you? A government drone? Kerry also wants to raise spending more than Bush has already done. Isn’t that one of your complaints against Bush? Yeah…thought so. You’re a partisan Dan.

“But there was a time, quite recently, when the American economy grew in large part as a result of financial markets’ confidence in federal fiscal probity — a time that started with a tax increase and ended with record surpluses.”

Wow! You can’t get any more ignorant than this statement! Let’s start with the facts: Clinton gave us the highest tax increase in history in 1993 which resulted in an economic recession. We didn’t start getting out of said recession until the Republican Congressional tax cut of 1995. (look it up..this is all easily available for people who search for the truth)

“pad-the-rich Bush tax cuts” and “At least Kerry would roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the highest income group.”

I suggest that Dan Gillmor look up what the “Chapter Sub S” IRS tax filing includes (hint: $200,000 a year isn’t “rich”, it’s a small business who shows that much money coming in; it isn’t profit). Maybe he’ll stop his class envy tax beliefs. Then again, I don’t have much hope. (He’s on the right track being against high government spending, but then again he thinks Kerry is “fiscal sanity.)

entertainment news writes, “Everyone wants affordable health care, better schools, and more jobs, but the same people will vehemently oppose a tax increase.”

Lest you think that only the government can provide these services. Here’s a hint for you: the government is not a business and doesn’t create jobs or affordable health care for that matter. (and no, I’m not counting government bureaucratic jobs either) It doesn’t even provide quality schooling even though we pay out the nose for it. <<ended a sentence with “it”; government schooled

Jojo writes, “Part of the problem is also that corporations are paying near the lowest level of taxes that they have in the last 70 years. So where are all the new jobs they are supposed to be creating with their tax savings????

Anyone see this today? This really takes the cake! Insert foot into mouth and take a BIG bite…”

Well Jojo, if you stray away from sites like americanprogressaction.org and into some real news sites, you’d see that the economic indicators are up across the board as much as you could expect from the small tax cut that Bush passed.

“Rather than suggesting ways to close tax loopholes, increase penalties for tax cheaters, beef-up IRS enforcement, and make the tax system more progressive, President Bush blithely accepts a world where the “really rich” swindle the system while everyone else picks up the tab for important government services.”

Uh yeah. Reality shows us that people will run away from excessive taxation. And the people who can run away easily and legally are the “really rich” that you seem to despise. And why would you want to make the system more “progressive”? Don’t you really mean regressive? You penalize success. That’s regressive, isn’t it? Not to mention socialistic redistribution.

After reading an old George Orwell essay called, ‘ You and the atomic bomb,’ ‘ War by assassination,’ by John Filis and this …

HOWARD MORLAND RECALLS THE PROGRESSIVE CASE

In the late 1970s, activist and freelance writer Howard Morland decided to investigate “the secret of the H-Bomb” and wrote an article about his findings in The Progressive magazine. In a
landmark case, the government moved to block publication of his article, claiming that it contained classified information. It was
eventually published anyway.

Morland’s quest was not universally admired, even outside of government. FAS opposed the frontal challenge to the Atomic Energy Act, concerned that it would set an adverse precedent, which it
did.

But the case also raised fundamental issues about the boundaries of government control of information, the nature of nuclear secrecy,
and the ability of individual citizens to challenge authority.

Morland recalled his experience in a March 2004 symposium at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University marking the 25th anniversary of the The Progressive case. See the text of his lecture, abundantly illustrated, here:

( Illustrated plans for a H-bomb URL snipped )

I feel that the time has come for an NGO atomic device ( or three) Heavy water seems to be the key for this and I’d be interested in others opinions on this. Nuclear non proliferation is just a joke when Uranium is so easy to pick up in Africa.

Have you seen the ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Eyewitness accounts among the fellow officers of John Kerry’s unit opposing his re-election.

See the damning ad at:

http://swiftvets.com

Please contribute money, at:

https://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets

It begins with a clip from one of KERRY’S OWN COMMERCIALS.

Edwards suggests that you “spend 3 minutes with the men who served with John Kerry”, and up on the screen – again, in KERRY’S OWN AD – is a picture with a number of Veterans.

So, here now comes several testimonials from the VERY SAME MEN in the VERY SAME PICTURE in KERRY’S OWN AD !!!

What is the Kerry campaign’s objection? It’s just exactly what his own commercial suggested! Talk about who raised this issue first!

Here is the photograph from Kerry’s commercial, in which John Edwards asks viewers to “spend three minutes with the men who served with him”.

http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_after.jpg

This is a copy in which those supporting Kerry are highlighted.

Um, that’s Kerry and ONE OTHER GUY!

In other words, if you were to spend three minutes with any “men” (i.e., more than one man) who served with him, according to the picture Kerry himself offered up, you’d get *opposition* to Kerry. And in several cases, tales of sordid lies and acts of dishonor.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot … in pursuit of a purple heart perhaps?

Hi Dan,

While I was away at OSCON a week ago, I tried to pick up your book at Powell’s in Portland on the night of the 30th (couldn’t go to your signing at Powell’s on the 27th). It was sold out! After I returned home from OSCON, I went by Borders, and you’re sold out too! I live in Puerto Rico, and there’s only two local Borders stores, and the other booksellers suck, so …

I finally managed to order a copy from Barnes and Noble online … and I have to wait a week before it ships!

Sounds like it’s selling! Good job!

PS – I grabbed the CC-licensed PDFs to read on my PDA while I wait for the dead-tree royalty-paying version. Good stuff.

PPS – Why did I buy a copy when I knew beforehand that the book would be available online under a CC license? Same reason I own dead-tree royalty-paying copies of Cory’s books. I make decent money and don’t lack anything. And I believe there is no moral and ethical reason I should deny a good writer his due. In fact, I consider NOT paying for something I enjoy to be immoral and unethical. You can quote me on that.

PPPS I’m an gainfully employeed open source developer too, btw. I’ve tripled my salary in the last three years working with free software. Go figure!

So the number of new employed last month is 32,000 instead of the 240,000 predicted and the market falls and economists express concern. And Bush continues his bragging about the improvments he’s made in the economy without missing a beat. It’s as if he’s programmed and just doesn’t get it or understand that he’s making a fool of himself. If he can’t recognize a problem, what hope is there? Where is the critical thinking?

phil, Bush knows about no employment growth. But bringing up the “jobless recovery” is Kerry’s job, not Bush’s. Kerry has to address it properly, too, or it will blow up even on him. After all, it is deeper than the Democrat/Republican divide. It goes to the heart of the American economy itself. So a certain amount of tiptoing around it is in order for both as they position themselves.

The problem itself must be fascinating for economists.

Clinton was just in Toronto for a book signing. What a star! The people I talked to were stunned at his amazing communication skills. I bring it up because I think he could summarize the problem intelligently and sympathetically for all of us, i.e., give us a handle on dealing with it in our own minds. I hope Kerry learns fast from him.

Not according to the military. And if you are going to line by line examine Bush’s service, then by all means tell me why Kerry’s service is beyond the pale?

I respect his military service for this country, but my respect ended with his war crimes testimony smearing all those who served, based almost completely on hearsay and word-for-word from a book on the subject. Not to mention throwing his medals at the white house would seem to me to be effectively seperating himself from the honors his country placed upon him.

Oh, but those were not his medals.

Nice to see Al Jazeera not only air fake footage of an American beheading, but also being banned by the Iraqi government for 30 days, and now they are airing statements by Sadr spokesman which Micael Moore would not even touch.

Sistani was forced out of the country by Sadr’s followers, the Americans only killed 9 Sadr mehdi terrorits, the Iraqi government is bowing to the A
mericans trying to kill all Muslims, the Americans broke the truce, the Mehidi army did not kidnap or attack Iraqi police last week, it was a rumor…

Who was the moron on here that compared Al Jazeera to Fox News again? Pardon my french.

“Have you seen the ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?”

Nope: I don’t have Flash installed because of its poor security record and the tendency of web developers who use it to squander bandwidth.

Otoh, I _have_ seen the whois results for “introspectiononlinetoday.com”. It’s wonderfully ironic to see an “xxxx for Truth” group being promoted by someone who not only lies, but does it poorly.

I guess evil help is hard to find, too…

Ran –

Perhaps you could share the whois info with us all–introspectiononlinetoday.com appears to be no longer registered. That was quick.

Last night I went to Kerry/Edwards campain stop. I was surprised that Kerry had a better speach than Edwards!

Silicon Valley’s slump eroding optimism

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Silicon Valley’s optimistic entrepreneurs and venture capitalists insist an economic rebound is around the corner, despite all the shuttered office parks and business plans that anticipate hiring more employees in India, Russia or China than in California.
They point to nebulous indicators: Traffic jams are returning. Office vacancy rates have stabilized at about 17%. The moneyed crowd has to wait for seats again at posh Palo Alto restaurants.

But others are skeptical. Workers in the Bay Area are the most pessimistic in the nation, with 27% worried about losing their job, according to a July survey by staffing firm Hudson Highland Group. Only 18% of workers nationwide share that fear.

Santa Clara County — which comprises San Jose and the corporate hubs of Cupertino and Palo Alto — has lost 231,000 jobs since the peak of the dot-com bubble in December 2000, according to a recent report from San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales.

By contrast, the entire state of Ohio has lost about 200,000 jobs in the same period.

Some say that unlike Midwestern manufacturing jobs, Silicon Valley’s lost positions were little more than “bubble jobs” — superfluous titles given to caffeinated college grads and programmers during the dot-com boom. But restaurants and retailers still miss the ripple effect of those high-tech paychecks.

Full article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-07-silicon-valley-economy_x.htm

Not only were there only 32,000 jobs created, but did you see Ah-Nuld on Leno? He bragged about the 30,000 jobs created in Col-e-forn-ee-a over the last TWO months. Now why on earth would he brag about two months worth of gain instead of just the last? Gee, maybe there wasn’t any growth in the last month!

Now as to something completely trivial: I see Jenna caught a fish. I wonder how many Secret Service agents were in scuba gear underwater with fish just waiting so they could attach the fish to her hook?

“introspectiononlinetoday.com appears to be no longer registered”

Never was, afaik. Actually, it might have been a mistake to attribute the bogus domain to incompetence: perhaps our faker ascribes to the code of the Bene Tleilax, and was merely offering the required warning of deception…

“Now why on earth would he brag about two months worth of gain instead of just the last?”

Maybe it comes from his background in sports: reporters and commentators are always coming up with bizarre statistics like “The Tadpoles have only won 7 of their last 17 games” when the team is 30, or even 130, games into the season. And they never explain why they picked 17, instead of 13, or 18, or 22. I keeep wondering whether there’s a requirement that all members of the Benevolent Brotherhood of American Sports Writers keep a dartboard for selecting the denominators of their stats…

A more serious possibility is that he wanted the longest “recovery-ette” possible to brag about, but the _earlier_ months were too negative.

Will Ferrel does Bush. Pretty funny!
http://whitehousewest.com/

Time to start thinking about the Bush memorial libray!
==============================
Crayons ready? It’s the G.W. Bush Liberry
His malaprops will be chiseled in marble walls
- Jaime O’Neill
SF Chronicle
Sunday, August 8, 2004

In anticipation of the day when George W. Bush is no longer in office, it is perhaps appropriate to give some thought to the prospect of a George W. Bush Presidential Library. The concept may seem oxymoronic to some. After all, how do we go about building a library for a man who appears so proud of his alienation from printed matter? He boasts of not reading newspapers, and there is little to be found in any of his public statements to suggest a familiarity with any book whatsoever. The thought of our current president reading, say, Shakespeare, defies imagining. It is difficult to think of him reading Danielle Steele, or John Grisham, let alone the Bard of Avon.

But if the Bush presidency has been about anything, it’s been about breaking free of the fetters of the traditional past. It was the Bush presidency, after all, that did away with the fussy old notion about the U.S. not engaging in unilateral acts of first-strike aggression against sovereign nations. It was George Bush, after all, who redefined a “conservative” as someone who believed in enormous deficits. And it was the Bush administration that accelerated the separation of language from action by constantly saying one thing while meaning another; i.e. “Clear Skies” initiatives, and “No Child Left Behind.”

Given all that, it may turn out that the George W. Bush Presidential Library (or, perhaps, “Liberry”) will be equally surprising in the ways it breaks with tradition, and with meaning.

Full article here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/08/INGI882MQB1.DTL

“Will Ferrel does Bush. Pretty funny!”

Yes, saying Republicans don’
t want you to vote or to watch the news is hilarious.

“Who was the moron on here that compared Al Jazeera to Fox News again?”

Um, that moron was you Cog. I just made a joke about it and you went nuts. Now it has become one of your “facts”.

What I wonder about are the people who *anonymously* post statements questioning Kerry’s bravery. Especially after Kerry’s comanding officer recanted his statements in the ad. If the Bush administration asked that PAC to pull the ads, they would. Those ads are just another example of the sleaze in the Administration and it’s followers.

For those that don’t know what Kerry got the Silver Star for, here is the “Readers Digest version” of what his boatmates said in an interview. Kerry will not talk about the incident: The patrol boat that he commanded spotted a enemy soldier with a shoulder launched missile on the river bank. They shot at the guy. If the guy got away with his weapon, someday soon, he’d be back and hiding in the bushes and Kerry and his crew would be dead. Kerry steered toward the bank in hopes of closing the distance where the one launching the missile would be taken out by the explosion too, keeping him from firing. Kerry jumped off the boat, ran the guy down and killed him.

The Republicans distill this down to: “He shot a wounded soldier in the back.”

“Not to mention throwing his medals at the white house…”

Not that same stupid argument again and please, please, please get some fact right at least occasionally. It was the *Capitol Steps*, not the Whitehouse. I was there (really), and you know, I can’t remember exactly what he threw and you’d have to be an idiot to believe that anyone else (including him) would remember either. Besides, the were his to trough anyway, symbolic or not.

So you are saying there is no comparison between Al Jazeera and Fox News? Just so we get our “facts” straight.

“Besides, the were his to trough anyway, symbolic or not.”

Pardon my error with the exact location of where Kerry threw the medals. I think you also know he said was given someone elses medals to throw, but then again everyone makes a mistake, right? Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I respect John Kerry’s serice, but my main problem with him was his statements made after the war. Either he needs to prove them or rescind them if he has a chance for my vote.

[American troops] “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam…” [The US military committed war crimes] “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” – John Kerry

“I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.” – John Kerry

First Cog, tell us who you are. You attack Kerry’s bravery and hide behind a pseudonym?

“I respect John Kerry’s serice”
You should. He was a hero of the war and then a hero of the anti-war. I was at that demonstration in the supporters group (I’m not a vet) and thousands of Korean War, WW2 and even a few WW1 veterans were marching with the thousands of Vietnam vets.

“… if he has a chance for my vote.”
Yeah, right, you’d vote for him? Modifying your statements like that, after your other posts adds nothing to your crediblity. You’re just trying to fool people into thinking that your ideas are balanced.

Second, Pardon your error about the location????
How much of the rest of your posts are erroneous. Basic facts are important. In this case, the point of the demonstration was to lobby Congress about stopping The War. For days before the Vietnam Veterans Against the War demonstration, Kerry and other vets lobbied congress. We just marched past the White House, the important stuff happened on the stage in front of the Capitol Building. Calling someone a moron when you’ve gotten your facts wrong is, well, somewhat moronic.

Third, don’t try to rewrite history. Those kinds of things happened all the time during the Vietnam war. I’ve seen enough pictures of atrocities there to make me sick. It took guts to stand up and say it. He was not the only one to say it, to show pictures of it. You can dislike those facts, but to try to deny them is unpatriotic. The patriotic thing, as an American, is to stand up to tyrany whether it comes from inside or outside. AND THEN FIX IT. Not just where there’s oil and a dictator who tried to kill your daddy. To fix it in Bosnia and Kosovo, like Clinton did (without losing a single soldier in combat) and then do it in Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea and 50 other places until Tinhorn dictators stop stealing and murdering.

“Calling someone a moron when you’ve gotten your facts wrong is, well, somewhat moronic.” – Ted

[American troops] “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam…” [The US military committed war crimes] “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” – John Kerry

“I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.” – John Kerry

Kind of speaks for itself, doesnt it? Almost like the rest of your post.

Cog – So what is your point? Who *ARE* you?

Cog’s looking pretty pointless to me too. He has a right to his pseudonymity, though. I just don’t get his pseudonym. Cog? As in “just another in the machine”? Talk about low self-esteem.
Anywhoo…Kerry standing up and speaking out
against something he believes to be wrong, something that was known to be happening, only speaks FOR his integrity. Oh and by the way, President Bush spoke against the atrocities in Abu Graib which were far less obscene. I kinda doubt the sincerity though, since the reaction was to ban the method by which it was reported, i.e digicams.

One question, how often did he raise attrocities committed by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong?

Do either of you know anyone who had to live in Vietnam after the war? Have either of you ever met a Hmong or ethnic Chinese who were slaughtered by the North after the war, or a south Vietnamese who was forced into a re-education camp?

I did not think so.

Um, actually I do. I know several of the above. We have a large community of exiles from Vietnam here. One who’s Father went back to visit and was thrown into a “Re-Education Camp” for years. Yes, another example of the mess that we left behind. Kerry was reporting about what some of the people on our side did and how the commanders, whose job it is to see that atrocities aren’t committed encouraged that kind of behavior. CIA types used to take groups of suspects up in a helecopter and question them. One by one they threw them out the side. If nobody knew anything, the helecopter came back empty. Everybody knows about the atrocities that the Viet Cong committed. It was on the TV news every night.

Again, what is your point? Other than to try to smear a hero like Kerry, that is.

“Yes, another example of the mess that we left behind.”

So the re-education camps are OUR fault? Is there anything that you do not hold the US accountable for?

“Everybody knows about the atrocities that the Viet Cong committed. It was on the TV news every night.”

Ah, this everybody knows about what they did argument, so it does not need to be quantified, examined, or even discussed. I worked with someone who was tortured in a re-education camp and eventually he left his family and fled to a refugee camp on a boat. I would like you to tell him that his torture was our fault.

My x-girlfriends family lived near Hue. Her parents talked about the war maybe 2 or 3 times in the few years I knew them. It would be interesting to see you actually talk to them and blame the US for the tens of thousands of people the North slaughtered on their march southward.

The reason I brought up the Hmongs should be obvious. The North Vietnamese slaughtered them to almost the point of extinction in Vietnam. As were many different ethnic Chinese who the Vietnamese looked down upon.

But those are problems created by us, which we left behind. Right. I am well aware of many cases of American attrocities, and the damage much of the military actions have wrecked on the countryside. But they pale in comparison to the toll the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong took on the Vietnamese people.

And the torture dates back fifty years. How many soldiers captured at Dien Bien Phu were treated according to the Geneva convention Ted? Scratch that, how many soldiers taken captive lived? Was that America’s fault as well?

I get ya Cog. It’s OK by you to commit attrocities as long as you aren’t as bad as the other guys and you do your best to cover it up.

First you demand that Kerry to prove the allegations he made 25 years ago (before you’d vote for him) and now you say: “Right. I am well aware of many cases of American attrocities.”

So, were you lying then or are you lying now? You can’t have it both ways.

And for your information, the French didn’t follow the Geneva convention either. They were a colonial power. If you treat people bad enough, long enough, they turn into monsters. Then people like you turn around and say, “Look, they’re monsters.” The French didn’t belong there and we didn’t either. Some “Dommino Effect”! *They* won the war and nobody’s heard from them again in 25 years.

BTW, the first Geneva convention took place because of the attrocities committed by the North and the South in the American Civil War. Like I said before, admit your faults and then fix them. We did. That’s what separates “Us from Them”. Or used to.

Off to more important things.

You get more embarassing by the post.

“It’s OK by you to commit attrocities as long as you aren’t as bad as the other guys and you do your best to cover it up.” – TF

What part of this made up statement is based on any of my comments? Not to mention it is an affirmative defense [answering the accusastion with another instead of addressing the point made]. Both sides should be held accountable for their actions. Not just one side, as you profess endlessly.

“First you demand that Kerry to prove the allegations he made 25 years ago (before you’d vote for him) and now you say: ‘Right. I am well aware of many cases of American attrocities.’” – TD

Yes, and the cases I am aware of have been documented publicly. The most definative account was the Kansas City Blade article, although I could have the name of the paper wrong. Each charge was not neccessarily proved, but the evidence for each was given fully.

Kerry made heinous accusations in front of congress based for the most part on hearsay. He should either back up his accusations with proof, cite the specific instances he is refering to, or he should rescind them.

What exactly do you not understand? He should either back up his accusations or he should rescind them.

“BTW, the first Geneva convention took place because of the attrocities committed by the North and the South in the American Civil War. Like I said before, admit your faults and then fix them. We did. That’s what separates “Us from Them”. Or used to.”

Yes, feel free to detail how exactly the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong followed the Geneva Conventions in the Vietnam war. [crickets chirping...]

Oh wait, only attrocities that Americans commit are worthy of discussion. I am sorry. My bad.

Make that the Toledo Blade.

“how often did he raise attrocities committed by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong?”

About as often as it was relevant to the discussion of (alleged) atrocities and war crimes committed by Americans, probably.

Which is to say: not at all.

So you are saying attrocities committed by the Vietnamese are not relevant at all when examining those committed by Americans?

“He should either back up his accusations or he should rescind them.” – cog

What part of this do you not understand?

Dan what is especially outrageous is that Enron is at least proximately responsible for the California budget crisis. Price gouging and long term power contracts that resulted from price gouging significantly contributed to the CA budget overrun. There were the lawsuits to recover the windfall profits, but remember how those settled for pennies on the dollar? Greg Palast alleges that Gov. Schwarzenegger aranged with Ken Lay and co. before the election to settle those lawsuits for pennies on the dollar.

Palast has written about this pretty extensively over on his site, although he does depend on some anonymous sources. Not sure if all of his allegations have been substantiated by other independent research, but I think it’s worth examining.

Some fun contemplation: getting the money back, and renegotiating the existing contracts, was a big part of Gray Davis’ agenda.

How big a part of Ahnuld’s is it?

You know I don’t think the Repugnant flying monkees are just in Kansas anymore Toto.

You piker Dan! What about the famous ‘ Donkee punch!’

On Aug. 5, 2000, two unidentified traders discuss how a wildfire in California has reduced the ability of a transmission line to carry electricity, boosting the value of power and the profits on their electricity trades.

PERSON 2: The magical word of the day is ”Burn, Baby, Burn” —

PERSON 1: What’s happening?

PERSON 2: There’s a fire under the core line. It’s been de-rated from 45 to 2,100.

PERSON 1: Really?

PERSON 2: Yup.

TOGETHER: Burn, baby, burn.

PERSON 1: That’s a beautiful saying.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) today called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to thoroughly review its web site and remove pornographic emails written by Enron employees. Federal rules ban employees from even looking at the kind of material that FERC has published on the internet.

“It’s just another example that FERC is not reviewing the Enron documents they have in their possession to build a case against Enron,” said Cantwell. “Instead, FERC is posting pornographic email from Enron employees describing various lewd acts that are the inspiration for the codes names of their schemes to gouge ratepayers.”

Evidence provided by Senator Cantwell and the Snohomish County PUD Monday revealed that Enron used an energy market manipulation scheme code named “Donkey Punch” – a crude pornographic term –
Meaning?

Something a stalking troll might want to do to you?

“Instead of helping California and the other states that got screwed by the bandits at Enron and other energy companies, FERC has consistently stiffed the victims, offering a tidbit here and there but essentially doing nothing serious.”

Let’s see, FERC and the DOJ have no teeth. It’s not hard to fathom where they’re getting their marching orders from.

Another question is “Where will the key FERC personnel be in six months, assuming a Kerry victory?”

My guess is they’ll acting as energy lobbyists or consultants, or taking sinecure positions with energy companies. They helped deliver a 40 billion dollar payoff, and they’ll be compensated.

I found that /. comment pretty darn amusing, myself. I was going to say something witty about it, but I figured as soon as I tried, someone would go through my blog and find instances in which I’ve said or done things in that silly/spacewasting vein…on a bad day, of course, when I hadn’t had coffee yet, and wasn’t thinking like a grown-up.

Orlowski does skewer the often self-important culture quite nicely – and in fine Reg fashion – as does that comedic gem posted on Slashdot (which I’d have modded up if I had any more points), but it shouldn’t obscure the reality that blogs do have value. Their very simplicity is their greatest virtue. Once people get over the novelty and become more accustomed to the experience of speaking to a larger audience than an email list, I think we’ll see that.

I hate to break it to youse but blogs just got born into an open grave for mine.

Why slave, carve and whittle a rod for your own back?

Jesus F KKKrist.

The trend for the last two years has been to glom onto a popular blog with comments and ‘blog’ like that when you feel like it. Sure beats working.