A new start for the Politics thread for the new millennium. I'll move the posts starting 1/1/01 from the old Politics thread into this thread. The retired Politics thread can be found in the Mote Archives.
2. robertjayb - 1/1/2001 12:19:03 AM
.
R.I.P., Alan Cranston
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Former Sen. Alan Cranston of California, a nuclear arms control activist who ended a 24-year Senate career in 1993 under the cloud of the savings and loan industry scandal, died Sunday at 86.
3. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 9:58:58 AM
Rehnquist says courts should stay out of election disputes.
Only weeks after legal experts questioned whether the Supreme Court's Florida recount ruling might be political, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said he hoped the U.S. court system ``will seldom, if ever'' become embroiled in another presidential election.
Rehnquist's annual report to Congress on the U.S. judiciary did not mention the criticism leveled against the high court. Nor did the chief justice, who was in the majority, attempt to defend the 5-4 ruling that rejected a recount of Florida presidential election votes and handed the election to George W. Bush.
Rather, he expressed hope that the courts would never again have to decide a presidential election.
Rehnquist got to the point immediately, addressing the election in the opening paragraph of his 15th year-end report to Congress since becoming chief justice.
...
This was not the first time that Rehnquist defended the court against allegations that the recount ruling was political. He did so after Justice Clarence Thomas denied -- the day after the decision -- that political views counted in this or any other decision.
Thomas told high school students the court was a nonpartisan, deliberative body that focuses only on the law.
``Don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution,'' Thomas said. ``I have yet to hear any discussion in nine years of partisan politics among members of the court.''
4. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 10:01:26 AM
Autodaffy
"Are you a whore to your ideology? "
?????
"Which Watt are you quoting?"
I believe the article is quoting James Watt. Follow the link and see for yourself.
5. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:46:32 PM
The Supreme Court banned statistical sampling to determine apportionment of representatives among states. The ruling did not prohibit using sampling-adjusted census numbers for other purposes including revenue sharing and apportionment within states.
Thus Concerned, concerned that a fair and accurate apportionment based on statistical sampling will hurt the Republicans, exalts his political sophistry over statistical science.
The following two experts comment on such dissembling.
6. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 12:48:05 PM
In this week's New Republic there is an article about the serious deficiencies of Bush's pick for Secretary of State. He is super cautious about using U.S. military force in anything but the most compelling cases involving vital American interests. He opposed U.S. intervention in Kuwait and was an advocate of premature termination of the operation. He also opposed U.S. military involvement in the Balkans. If left up to Powell there will be no involvement outside the U.S. on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, he was one of the main saboteurs of Clinton's attempt to introduce humane treatment of gays in the military. Moreover, several examples of Powell's dishonesty were cited in the article. As I recall, one of them was letting Les Aspin take the spears for the fiasco in Somalia when Powell was equally if not more to blame. He is apparently quite a smart and coldly calculating politician and not one who has much loyalty to those who appoint him.
7. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:54:51 PM
Wonkers,
I'm really looking forward to Powell being forced to deliver, for once. I agree that he is very much a calculating politician, and a clever one at that. However, this has been known about him for a long time. For all that there are many who lionize him, his media coverage has always included the reality.
8. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:01 PM
The issue is NOT whether statistical sampling should be used to produce a more accurate count. The Census has used sampling corrections since 1970.
The scientific issue is which statistical methods will produce the most accurate results, especially in a society that is more mobile than ever with an higher proportion of foreign born than ever.
Jonathan Caulkins, Carnegie Mellon's Heinz School of Public Policy and Managemen:
It is often said that "the Devil is in the details" but with census sampling the Devil may be in the debates over the details. Even if essentially every statistician agreed that some form of sampling would be preferred to direct enumeration, we cannot expect unanimous consensus concerning exactly how that sampling should be done.
It seems possible that two equally or nearly equally valid sampling
approaches might lead to population estimates different enough to matter for political or budgetary purposes. For example, one approach might assign one more congressional seat to one state than another does. If so, then it is not hard to imagine acrimonious court cases pitting dueling statistical experts against each other in a way that makes the lay observer mistrustful of sample-based estimates, statisticians, and perhaps even science and mathematics more generally.
9. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:14 PM
Ed Kaplan, professor of Management Sciences and Public Health at the Yale School of Management:
If the goal is to estimate the population of the country as well as the distribution of various features of that population — race, income, employment, etc. there is no question that properly employed, statistical sampling can be used to improve the accuracy of the existing approach. The objections raised, of course, are more due to the anticipated consequences of such statistical corrections than due to the 'science' underlying sampling itself.
If it was demonstrated that the employment of sampling would not change greatly the results of the census — on the apportionment of congressional seats, for example — then the opposition would not be nearly so strong.
There will always be those who take the word enumeration'[constituton] literally, but this argument is of course a joke, as the 'enumeration' currently invoked is itself an imperfect sample.
Importantly, this cuts two ways — if it was demonstrated that the
employment of sampling would not change the consequences of the exercise, I suspect many proponents of sampling would also disappear.
Proponents might disappear, but politicians won't. When votes, political power and money are at stake, politicians will go to the mat. Count on it.
Until I finish the next 3 semesters of statistics and Econometrics that I've scheduled, I'll have to take these guys words for it or those of Rask and Slackjaw.
10. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:59:50 PM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on stupid people to keep their numbers up. But still, what with the bad voting and hiding from the census coming up at the same time, it feels very rubbed in.
Did anyone read that Slate article about how it appears that the overvotes, legitimate in nature, will be what puts Gore over the top? Now that's pretty funny.
11. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:00:08 PM
Gee I missed that. I liked Alan Cranston. Though he didn't know my name I am sure, though he never did actually, he did know me by site when I worked in the Senate for a dear friend of his. He was a giant in the Senate
12. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:04:01 PM
Cal...ask concerned....WRT the so-called "overvotes", that article refers to the punch and write-in votes for the same candidate as opposed to two votes for different candidates.
And yes, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, in a conservative county, using scanners not Votomatics, Gore's net gain was 130 votes. I believe the correct count is now Bush +27 or thereabouts.
13. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:06:17 PM
But anyone who seriously contends that Bush won Florida should seek professional help anyway.
14. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:09:28 PM
Cranston even came to me for vote briefs a couple of times when he couldn't find his LA outside the Senate Chamber. That was before Senate Offices had C-SPAN.
A gentleman and Senator of the highest caliber.
15. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:24:14 PM
Cal, True. Of course Gore whom I supported is even more of a calculating politician than Powell. But, aside from a few issues like capital punishment and the war on drugs and crime, I agree more with Gore on the issues than Powell. I think Gore is more willing to project U.S. influence for good in the world than Powell. However, I recognize that it is easy to go overboard on this as in Vietnam. Clinton did the right thing in Yugoslavia. His only mistake was in not acting decisively sooner (maybe not possible). And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities. Maybe it was a purely political calculation. But I have difficulty with political calculations on that kind of an issue. It's more basic even than how many redwoods are we going to allow Pacific Lumber to murder.
16. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:29:45 PM
This one's for EricC...
WASHINGTON (AP) - After they are sworn into office this week, the congressional Class of 2001, mostly upper middle class, faces votes that could affect their stock holdings, from high-tech companies to health insurance firms.
Fifteen of the 52 newly minted lawmakers own stock in high-technology
companies such as Intel and Microsoft, according to an Associated Press review of financial disclosure forms filed by the candidates during the campaign etc etc...
17. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:36:31 PM
Wonkers,
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
18. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 1:39:09 PM
"And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities."
And considering the fact that one of his daughters is a lesbian!
19. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:42:01 PM
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on
stupid people to keep their numbers up.
If THAT is a "tad alarming".....
"I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
20. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:43:16 PM
Cellar,
I have a feeling that slowly, over time, the culture of acceptance of that sort of hypocrisy is going to fade.
21. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:43:40 PM
At least the semi-literate dems the wingnuts around here love to chuckle over know the office in question!
22. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:44:43 PM
Jex,
There is no connection between the two, you do realize. Just doing my bit to keep you focused.
I frankly don't think that any of the picks are really going to hurt the country, although I'm looking forward to the Ashcroft fight. That'll be fun.
23. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:47:08 PM
CD, I didn't know that. That makes him even more of an evil person. I find it easier to forgive a Jesse Helms than a Powell.
24. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:47:27 PM
Well I think there is Cal....more than a connection in fact.
If voters should be required to have enough intelligence to cast an unmistakable vote for the candidate of their choice for a particular office, I, for one, think it only right and proper that a president should be required to have enough intelligence to know the office he is choosing a candidate for...
25. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:52:42 PM
The problem is not in the picks per se. The problem is in the unprecedented pick of Cheney as de facto president.
Each of the picks, save Norton and Ashcroft, is thoroughly undistinguished. There is a good reason for that. Cheney, has no political base, yet he is the firewall between Bush and the real world. The scheme, as I have said, is transparent. The picks themselves present little risk of independent action, gray automotons mostly who owe all to Nanny Warbucks. Yet, the scheme, is cabinet based. Its a political-organizational disaster waiting to happen
Cheney is the achilles heal of the administration, a defacto president without portfolio, without a political base, without pulpit bully or otherwise, not especially admired even by his admirers
26. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:54:25 PM
Jex,
Oh, I see where you are going, then.
But it's not so much that voters have to have intelligence. It's the disconcerting notion that the ones who don't are disproportionately Dem.
Also, the fact that the candidate might not be all that bright is irrelevant, since we don't have intelligence requirements for elected officials.
27. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:57:09 PM
Sorry I wasn't clear. Actually I had just answered an e-mail from one of the two republican friends I have where he made light of the name of the UnInaugural Committee, "Trust The People"...it was a cross post of sorts thus the confusion
28. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:11:51 PM
Cal...have some fun
Ashcroft's 1999 Tactics Against Judge White Under Microscope
Even if Biener doesn't like it!
29. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:20:19 PM
RD - Delete this....its a repost. But I think it topical and funny so sue me, delete me, or eat me, as you will.
30. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 2:32:17 PM
Here are some interesting quotes from the article Jex linked to:
In reality, a review of White's nomination – the first defeated on the Senate floor since Robert H. Bork's – provides no evidence of racism by the man who would be America's top law enforcement officer
he has supported 90 percent of the black nominees who have come up for a vote. He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site. "I will continue to support African Americans for the federal bench because America needs their strong minds," he said in a statement in October.
Of course I am sure mere facts are not enough to derail Jex once he is on the attack.
31. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:53:34 PM
As you said JJB, its "political"
Look Biener, Its A HORSIE!!! Font
32. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:55:47 PM
southern-fried racism
33. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:57:53 PM
"This could be a bloodbath," a Democratic Senate aide said.
34. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:02:35 PM
Gee, I guess I called that one, didn't I?
35. jexster - 1/1/2001 3:03:32 PM
JJB, this must sound familiar
Ashcroft is taking heat for some seemingly pro-Confederate comments he made in the magazine Southern Partisan; he was also one of two members of a federal
commission to refuse to sign a report on the plight of minorities. (He thought it was too negative.) But no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White. And in the heat of a close election, there was a much more obvious explanation.
"Pure politics," a GOP Senate aide said. "I guess it turned out to be bad politics."
BushShit...pure BushShit...please chew with mouth closed!
36. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:12 PM
Jex - no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White.
So in your world no proof of racism is in fact proof of racism. I pity you. I really do.
37. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:56 PM
48K?
38. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:58 PM
48K?
39. PelleNilsson - 1/1/2001 3:31:55 PM
48K+1
40. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 3:40:06 PM
Speaking at Bob Jones U and speaking in support of the Confederacy is racist. Period. End of story.
41. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:04:24 PM
It's true that Ashcroft needed to get White derailed as a political necessity, and that his behavior wasn't racist. But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party, and it puts a nice tidy package together. At this point in time, "critics" don't see much possibility of his nomination being derailed, but I dunno. Either way, it will be fun. I don't think Bush realized he'd have this sort of problem when he screwed the Montana guy over.
42. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:24:30 PM
Cellar - End of story.
Pure fiction.
43. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:26:13 PM
Cal - But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party
You are far too intelligent to make statements this ignorant.
44. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 4:28:17 PM
You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy, J.J. ?
45. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:35:51 PM
JJ,
Hey, I'm one of those Dems that doens't know how to punch chads or fill out census forms.
But don't be silly yourself. Of course the Republicans have a racist faction; it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action. The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
46. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:14:49 PM
Cellar - You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy
Speaking at Bob Jones U doesn't make Ashcroft a racist any more than it makes the dozens of Democrats who have spoken there and received honorary degrees racists. I have yet to see any statements by Ashcroft in praise of the Confederacy or in favor of racism. I see lots of accusation, but no substance to back them up.
47. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:24:18 PM
Cal - Of course the Republicans have a racist faction
Bullshit. There may be racists who call themselves Republicans, but so do the Democrats. The GOP has never had an organized faction of racists unlike the Democrats who had one for decades.
it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is. Democrats claim they oppose discrimination, but the fact is they only oppose discrimination against their constituents. They actively promote discrimination if it will help their constituents.
The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
48. OhioSTOPAS - 1/1/2001 5:38:32 PM
"Willie" Horton . . . Jesse Helms . . . "a little too much diversity" . . .
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
49. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 5:38:33 PM
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
So I'm not going to bother.
50. CalGal - 1/1/2001 5:45:22 PM
JJ,
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is.
I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action. The Dems' inconsistency is not the point; I was neither denying or excusing it, but stating a fact. The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp. Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point: this is politics, it doesn't have to be fair. The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage. The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent and also because, alas, times have changed. But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action, so when the racists moved over to that side, they were expected to deliver.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ. It doesn't have to be fair. But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists, and they need them for the numbers. The fact that you and in fact most Republican politicians personally dislike racists is completely irrelevant. I personally loathe a good 50 or more percent of the idiots who wear the Dem label; but I'd really rather they keep voting for Dems until the Republicans get their act together and I can switch hit occasionally.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue. Sentence #2 is true for both parties.
51. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:03:01 PM
Cellar - "Willie" Horton
Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television.
Jesse Helms
Fritz Hollings, Robert Byrd, . . .
"a little too much diversity"
I have no idea who said this or in what context. It is not representative of the GOP now or ever.
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
I am not responsible for your delusions.
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
Your bullshit has been coming through loud and clear.
So I'm not going to bother.
That will be a first.
52. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:19:26 PM
Oh let's change the subject. Sort of.
53. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:15 PM
CalGal - I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action.
Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory.
The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp.
There are white racists in both camps. Neither camp is responsible for those who claim membership while holding beliefs antithetical to the party.
Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
The GOP does nothing to keep them happy or encourage them. In fact they have done enough to discourage them that Duke joined the Reform Party.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point
It is not beside the point. Democrats were the party of racism and segregation. In order to distance themselves from their past and to attrack black voters, they have engaged in a campaign for 30 years to accuse Republicans of the crimes the Democrats were guilty of.
The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage.
This is still not true. A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats.
54. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:29 PM
Cal - (cont)The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent
But the Republicans have never had a racist faction, so they should not be vulnerable. That is why Democrats have had to lie and distort the record to escape their past.
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action
Ending preferences is not racist whether that policy appeals to racists or not. Republicans do not oppose preferences to appeal to racists. Republicans strongly support the enforcement of civil rights laws which racists oppose.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ.
I hate to disappoint you but the truth doesn't come from the DNC or Jesse Jackson. In fact if you find the truth in either place, it is purely accidental.
But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists
The Democrats have a platform which encourages the likes of the PETA and the ALF. Should the Democrats have their feet held to fire for every thing those groups do?
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue.
We've seen a dozen example of Democrats using race as a weapon in the last month. Provide some examples of Republicans doing the same thing.
55. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:34:59 PM
Just in case
56. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:39:32 PM
"Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory."
And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, and didn't have any porch monkeys at their last convention.
57. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:40:33 PM
"Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television. "
LOL!
58. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:41:34 PM
JJ, Give us a break. You have a fantasy view of the GOP. You belong in the Democratic party.
59. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:42:08 PM
"A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats."
So Nixon's Southern Strategy didn't work, eh?
News to millions, J.J.
60. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:43:54 PM
Wonkers - I hardly have a fantasy view. It is just that I can see it free of the influence of Democratic propaganda.
61. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:44:35 PM
Cellar - You are a dupe.
62. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:45:14 PM
Whether Ashcroft's motive in helping block White's appointment, racial or political, his conduct was shameful and he got what he deserved. He lied about White's record on capital cases. Whatever happened to the GOP's pious bleating about the importance of telling the truth?
63. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:48:11 PM
Cellar - And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell
If the GOP had opposed eminently qualified individuals for these positions based on their race, that would be racism. That kind of mentality remains the province of Democrats.
64. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:40:22 PM
So the GOP supports unqualified lawn jockeys instead. Brilliant!
65. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:03 PM
And don't forget that Great Moral Bellweather of Our Time, J.C. Watts.
66. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:56 PM
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats/
Republicans drive their wives to the abortion clinics. Democrats call them a cab.
67. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:11:11 PM
Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs.
68. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:12:21 PM
Hahahahaha!!!! JJ, do you have a wind-up key in your back?
69. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:19:37 PM
Arky - No, but I think Cellar does.
70. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:21:16 PM
But Cellar's a communist, not a Democrat!
71. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:31:22 PM
Make that an Anarchist, arky.
72. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:32:18 PM
"Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs."
You've got that precisely backwards.
73. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:34:18 PM
Uh-oh. This Bush election has radicalized the radical. At least you didn't say Nihilist.
True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
74. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:44:14 PM
Cellar - You've got that precisely backwards.
Sorry, #48026 proves otherwise.
Arky - True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
Dare to dream, Arky. Dare to dream.
76. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:57:58 PM
Pas de tout, J.J. I stand by #48026 -- especially in light of the Supremes recent decision re the "election," and Uncle Clarence's performance the next day before a group ofvery carefully chosen high school kids on C-Span.
77. joezan - 1/1/2001 11:47:39 PM
Cal:
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action...
A platform many, many Democrats signed onto, you might add.
And no Republican needs to apologize for promoting the end of AA.
AA is wrong. It is discriminatory, demoralizing, and it promotes mediocrity - which the US can ill afford in a global economy.
78. CalGal - 1/1/2001 11:57:38 PM
Lord, when will someone see my point? I am not saying that the Republicans are baaaaad for wanting to end AA, I am saying that it's what drew the ignorant white racists to their side and added the requirement to subtly cater to them in order to win key elections.
79. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:01:53 AM
"He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site."
Scott Joplin? Oooh. Well, I'm convinced.
80. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:04:12 AM
Cal:
But you offer this as one of the reasons you can't see yourself voting for a Republican.
If it's not bad, then what's the deal?
Are you worried about your image?
81. robertjayb - 1/2/2001 12:05:55 AM
.
TIME magazine? Who needs it?
Lagos, Nigeria...
Nigeria's foremost Independent newspaper, The Guardian, has named outgoing US President Bill Clinton its Man-Of-The-Year 2000 for his support for Africa and his quest for peace around the world.
"He struck such a chemistry with Africa that he was once labelled the first black president," the paper's Managing Director/Editor-in Chief, Eluem Izeze, said in a front page piece explaining the choice Monday.
"Whether being patted on the back by the great man Nelson Mandela, or swinging in Babanriga (Nigeria's traditional attire) in the dusty village of Ushaffa, near Abuja (Nigeria's capital city), or championing the African Growth and Opportunity Act in Washington, he stands in full length as a friend of Africa," he wrote.
82. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:09:17 AM
...and Africa still starves.
83. CalGal - 1/2/2001 12:15:40 AM
Joe,
?????
AA? No. The only thing that has kept me from voting Republican for a long time now is the power that the religious right held, which was well out of proportion. It is nearly at the point of being just another special interest group, rather like feminists and unions on the left. Irritating, but nothing to get much fussed about.
I am far less concerned about the RR than I was even a few years ago. I don't see myself voting Republican for a while, though, because any party that goes for a dolt like Bush over McCain is one that values status quo a little too much for me. But that is a philosophical, rather than political, objection. Much like my objection to Bush himself.
So I don't know where you got the idea that I voted against the Republicans because of AA, but 'tain't so. I was just correcting some of JJ's statements.
84. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:16:37 AM
Perhaps if Bubba had shared some of his fries.
85. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:14:13 PM
Talkin' 'Bout Good and Bad Hair !
86. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 12:20:17 PM
I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin.
87. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:55:17 PM
Talkin' 'bout Good and Bad Hair,
Don' matter if you're dark or you're fair,
Go on and swear,
See if I care,
Good and Bad Hair!"
Ah yes -- back when Spike was still talking to his father, and before he lost his mind.
"I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin."
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
88. ranheim - 1/2/2001 12:58:34 PM
Cal
And Gore was not status quo in the Democratic Party?
Remember! I voted Harry Browne. And am registered as a Democrat in Louisiana. But, I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt". He has an MBA from Harvard. Gore is the one who dropped out of law school. And wasn't there an attempt at Divinity School as well?
Due to the fact that the Washington press claims that Gore is a policy wonk, he is brilliant?!
89. Electric Slide - 1/2/2001 12:59:51 PM
Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool.
90. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:02:34 PM
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
Does having straight hair make you a lawn jockey?
Best not tell James Brown!
91. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 1:16:06 PM
Is James Brown a Republican?
"Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool."
I'm the King of Uncool.
92. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:35:10 PM
As a white guy I really don't know what to think about Bill Clinton as a "Black President." I have heard the claim made by many blacks, and having no basis in experience or data to debate it, I guess I accept it. However, he did pick up where Carter left off in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is overwhelmingly a good thing.
Yes, Africa still faces huge problems. Their governments are still not stable mature democracies, their economies are still being plundered by klepotocracies in far too many instances, and the strong man will continue to dominate the continent for some time to come. However, South Africa has undergone a tremendous change for the better. If it continues the current trends, it can be a strong leader for change on the continent.
Africa faded from the American radar screen with the end of the cold war and the transition in South Africa. It may yet re-emerge.
93. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:46:40 PM
I hope that Bush continues to be engaged in Africa, supporting the efforts of the most democratic nations to answer the problems they face with regional action instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
94. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:59:12 PM
instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
Lawyerin' Cuz: What would you give as an example of the US imposing solutions there?
From the little I've read, I think Bush's policy will be very hands off (in Africa).
95. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:00:43 PM
Also, which nations in Africa qualify as the "most democratic"? (This might be better answered in International.)
96. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:01:35 PM
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party
people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
- He's all but given the job of Chief Executive to Cheney before he's even sworn in[sic]
- He abdicated the most important decision of his post-election political life, the decision whether or not to file a federal lawsuit for injunctive relief against the
recounts to James Baker
- "I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
97. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:04:53 PM
Would You Go To A Doctor Who Calls An "Appendectomy" a "Tonsilectomy"?
In other words, who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?
98. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:07:17 PM
99. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:07:26 PM
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."—From a 1994 interview
100. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:09:20 PM
Since the policy recommendations that come out of Heritage, or the Cato Institute, or even the American Enterprise Institute are so predictable, what purpose do these organizations serve? Good question.
101. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:12:11 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
102. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:13:44 PM
Ronski: Apparently New Hampshire has elected a libertarian representative (he ran as a Republican to get in, but says he's really a libertarian).
Some Republicans are calling for him to resign the office for comments he made about the killing of police.
If he switched parties instead, would that make him the highest elected libertarian official?
103. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:23:48 PM
Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster? Clowntoon offloads work to Bore='good'? Bush may or may not do same with Cheney='bad'?
104. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:26:38 PM
Ranheim:
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
Have you never listened to the man? I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read. Remember, someone always has to graduate last in their class.
And it isn't just "anti-Republican Party" people who think Bush is all hat and no cattle.
105. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:28:07 PM
Concerned - Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster?
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
106. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:28:48 PM
Bush has you lefties right where he wants you. Underestimating him.
107. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:30:20 PM
Judith - I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read.
Where exactly did Bush brag that he doesn't like to read?
108. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:30:37 PM
I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
109. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:32:06 PM
Judith - I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
110. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:33:45 PM
JJ:
In interviews. Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
He said he hates to read...he said he has his people read all that "policy stuff" and break it down for him. He likes to relax by playing video games; Clinton was a voracious reader...Bush is not. I can live with that. But I don't have to think Bush is smart. Do I?
111. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:35:20 PM
JJ:
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration.
Well, surprise, I am...they run everything by me first.
112. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:38:33 PM
Indy,
It's news to me, but if the fellow made bizarre remarks about harming police officers, I'm sure the LP wouldn't want him. And yes, he would be the highest elected official, as a Vermont House libertarian was this past election banished to the VT GOP for anti-gay (and thus anti-libertarian sounding) remarks.
Alaska's legislature has also had Libertarians, but I don't think one serves there presently. I'll check to make sure, but I think there are about a thousand elected Libertarians, usually on town councils and the like, nationwide.
Libertarians are occasionally elected to the New Hampshire assembly because it has about as many members as the U.S. House. There's a district every ten farms or so, it seems.
113. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:40:07 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites) will gather an array of experts to ponder the economy's health this week, but an aide said Tuesday his nominees to head the Treasury and Commerce departments will not attend
114. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:41:04 PM
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
115. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:43:00 PM
116. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:43:04 PM
Ronski: I haven't seen the actual quotations so I don't know what they were. The Rep (wish I could remember his name) said they were "barroom talk"--actually, they were letters to the editor--and distanced himself from them.
117. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:45:07 PM
Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker who just signed his own death warrant?
118. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:46:59 PM
WRT "fall of dotcoms"
Picked this up in this month's issue of The California Lawyer
FuckedCompany.com
119. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:49:17 PM
Free ISP NetZero wasn't making any money. The execs sat around in their board room one day scratching thier heads trying to figure out just why they weren't making any money. The result of that meeting? They now charge actual *money* to their customers. Woohoo!
When: 12/29/2000
Company: NetZero.com
Severity: 75
Points: 171
Comment/view this fuck in the Happy Fun Slander Corner!
120. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:49:37 PM
Indy,
I should add that the LP is the only political party in the U.S. requiring its members to sign a pledge NOT to advocate violence against the government, ever.
Still, people with distinctly unlibertarian ideas about one thing or another wrest an LP nomination for office from time to time, as wresting these things is not particularly difficult in most jurisdictions, not being all that hotly contested to say the least.
121. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:54:59 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
Ronksi-
And THAT was PRECISELY Krugman's point. Cato isn't a reputable policy analysis organization, its an ideological hack shop
122. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:56:34 PM
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
Perhaps public statements reported in the Post, The Economist and the NYT?
Just a guess
123. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:57:39 PM
124. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:58:59 PM
What is their purpose?
Mainly they have become waiting rooms for the conservative nomen klatura — a class of intellectuals among whom talent is much less important than political reliability.
125. glendajean - 1/2/2001 3:00:03 PM
New York Times article about Bush judicial appointments. Have they been reading the remarks of the late Jack Vincenes? (Jack, we hardly knew ye)
Mr. Bolick said that one tactic Mr. Bush might use to deal with any Democratic opposition would be to name people "whose conservative credentials are enhanced by some other feature so it would be hard for the liberals to defeat them." For example, Mr. Bush might fill the first Supreme Court vacancy he has with the first Hispanic person to sit on the court. Such an event might overwhelm any debate over philosophy.
In fact, lawyers close to Mr. Bush have suggested he might do that and he has two ready-made candidates, Emilio Garza, a conservative federal appeals court judge in Texas and Alberto R. Gonzales, a longtime aide who was recently named to be Mr. Bush's White House counsel.
126. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 3:00:29 PM
Ronski:
Here's the article. My mistake...the statements in question were actually Internet posts.
LOL. Guess we should all keep that in mind should we ever decide to run for office.
He also wrote a letter but it wasn't published.
127. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 3:05:04 PM
Judith - Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
I am sure you heard it from somewhere. I was just curious if you actually heard Bush saying this, or if you are merely repeating what others claim. Since you are so sure of his disinterest in reading, I figured you had a reliable source for the information. It would seem that you are just repeating the "conventional wisdom." Not exactly wise when you are crticizing someone else for their lack of intellectual curiosity.
I find it curious that Bush would say he doesn't like to read considering the fact that he was reading some of Jefferson's writings during the election battle.
128. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:08:56 PM
Speaking of trite, that was about the thinnest bowl of gruel I've ever seen from Krugman. He usually vents with a lot more style.
129. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:12:38 PM
Indy,
I think the fellow's political career will be a brief one, whatever party he chooses.
130. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:16:18 PM
For the Esteemed Cellar, Who Recently Declared Himself an Anarchist
131. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 3:29:13 PM
JJ:
Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect. I don't care. I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to...I cannot cite chapter and verse, where or when he said this but I heard the man say it and it was probably while he was Governor. I know he was interviewed about his daily routine late last year and he stated he liked to play video games evey day to relax.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do...why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
And by the way, Bush said he was reading Jeffersons writings during the election battle? Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them? Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...he was too enthralled by reading Jefferson to involve himself.
132. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:33:25 PM
thinnest bowl of gruel
loutishness
the Cold War....
Nice turns of phrase with so little content!
Against Krugman's charge that conservative "think-tanks" have become little more than waiting rooms for policy hacks what?
a thin bowl of gruel
133. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 3:34:12 PM
Ronski: Krugman has a long track record of supporting academics of the expense of researchers who don't do peer-reviewed work. He has praised right wing economists on many occasions, and has said a lot of nice things about Milton Friedman. So I don't think you can dismiss his concerns that easily.
134. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:36:04 PM
Biener quit while you're ahead. The man doesn't watch news programs. ESPN, that's about all the Moron can handle.
Which is fine, if you're Managing Partner of the Rangers.
By the way, look what he did for the Rangers!
And that's why the bastard-president select has a Nanny.
135. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:40:23 PM
Whether you agree with Krugman's judgement or not, Rask is right, you cannot dismiss them out of hand.
The man's been on a crusade against polich quackery for nearly 20 years.
And Cato is, if its anything, trite and predictable. That's fine for the chairpersons of political parties, but not for an outfit that lays claim to intellectual respectability.
136. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:31 PM
Judith - Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect.
I didn't say he was a towering intellect, did I? Are you unable to accept that the man is reasonably intelligent without him having to be at the either extreme?
I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to
I heard him say that he doesn't do much recreational reading. Is that what you are referring to? I take that to mean he doesn't read much John Grisham. That is far different from what you implied.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do
I comment on what you say because you have the tendency to make sweeping statements condemning Bush that have no basis in fact. It is kind of like when you take Tommy to task for calling Clinton a rapist.
why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
What have I ever said that makes you think I am angry? I am just disappointed that an intelligent woman like yourself can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them?
It was mentioned on MSNBC. I can't prove he was actually reading Jefferson, but I can think of no reason why MSNBC would lie about something like that.
137. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:53 PM
Judith (cont) - Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...
Bush called the shots. He spent several hours each day on the phone with Baker and others discussing strategy. This was also reported on MSNBC and the other news outlets. I thought Bush staying away from the cameras was far more dignified than Gore's numerous appearances where he claimed he wanted to count every vote while his people worked diligently to only count Democratic votes.
138. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 5:05:40 PM
JJ:
....can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
These "accusations" have foundation. Bush has said he doesn't like to read. How is stating that fact an accusation? Must you have MSNBC documemnt it before you will believe it?
I don't mean reading recreationaly, either...I consider John Grisham to be no better than a video game as recreation, personally. I mean reading history because you want to improve your mind; I mean bbiographies because you wish to learn more about people; I mean comparative religion because you want to see how people come to believe as they do; I mean having an innate curiosity about the world and the people in it. He doesn't have that...or at least, he has shown in the past that he has less of that than what I would wish a President to have. Sorry if you can't see this could be a disappointment for me rather than thinking I have some sort of vendetta against the man.
He's enough for you....he's not, for me.
139. Ronski - 1/2/2001 5:14:28 PM
I'm familiar with Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization, and his critiques of the looney left. But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian.
140. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:37:49 PM
Ronski:
What is this "Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization" that you are referring to? I'd love to read it. Friedman spent about a third of his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree slamming globalization, so a defense of both Friedman and globalization could make for some interesting reading.
141. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:39:18 PM
Fielding: *Milton* Friedman.
142. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:44:28 PM
"But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian."
I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration.
143. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:47:00 PM
Oh, that guy.
Did Krugman really defend Milton Friedman's current views? That is almost as surprising as what I thought Ronski had said.
144. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 5:50:18 PM
Rask - *Milton* Friedman
That's a relief. I thought you meant Kinky Friedman.
145. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:50:39 PM
He has defended Friedman's work as an economist back in the late 60s and 70s, when Friedman's macroeconomic analysis anticipated the stagflation of the 70s. I haven't much heard him comment on Friedman's political views, but Krugman would easily separate Friedman the economist from Friedman the libertarian ideologue anyway.
146. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:55:28 PM
"I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration."
As a separate point regarding "think tanks", Krugman has also complained that think tanks who are funded by partisans of a particular ideology (irrespective of which ideology) tend to produce product that is more like "advocacy" than "research", and less able to withstand academic scrutiny.
147. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 6:06:06 PM
That dovetails with why he doesn't want them managing economic policy, but it is certainly worth noting when critically evaluating think tank research.
And I *do* think that being consistently libertarian is a legitimate criticism in itself, as is being consistently Marxist.
148. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 12:36:23 AM
.
A plum for Kathy...
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 3, 2001
Katherine Harris, the controversial secretary of state of Florida and a staunch supporter of President-elect George W. Bush is being considered for the post of the president's special envoy for the Americas, according to sources in the White House and in both Republican and Democratic circles. Sources said she is interested in the position, currently held by another Floridian, Kenneth H. "Buddy" McKay Jr.
Following her role at the center of the Florida vote recount, the sources said it was unlikely she could be rewarded with a top job requiring a Senate confirmation process. The special envoy job does not require confirmation. Several Latin American ambassadors, who got to know Harris through her involvement in the Summit for the Americas held in Miami three years ago and her efforts to promote trade with Florida, have said they would be pleased if the reports are confirmed. The job was created under President Clinton for Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty. When McLarty opted to go to the private sector, he was replaced by McKay, who had lost the Florida gubernatorial race to Jeb Bush.
149. concerned - 1/3/2001 2:32:15 AM
Hey, how 'bout Katherine Harris for AG? Talk about 'riffing' off of Stooge Reno. The differences are that Harris isn't corrupt, cataleptic or compromisable, as the DNC and Lefty media have already discovered.
150. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 2:56:58 AM
Matlock would be a good AG too .He always seems to figure out whodunnit, which is what you want in a crimnial lawyer. Or the guy from "Law & Order", Chris Waterston ; who has moved on to play Mr. Big in that naugthy HBO show "Real Sex in the City".
Book em, Danno.
151. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:01:12 AM
I'm not corrupt or compromisiable either. But i might be persuaded to throw a monkey wrench into things, if someone offered me a ambasador-thingy to Jamaica or Costa Rica or somewhere nice. Special envoy to St. Bart's, Bikini Inspector with-Portfolio.
Everybody has his price, and that is a true fact.
152. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:08:37 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
153. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:09:38 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
154. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:13:21 AM
Oopps, sorry., my forearm muscles still have the post-Festivus shakes. At least this year I was finally abel to beat Elaine 2 out of3, in Feats of Strength.
Airing of Greivances did'nt go so well thoguh. This year I was on everyones shit list [pardon my español].
155. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:33 AM
1. JJ's "recreational reading" comment pertained to Condeleeza Rice:
The New York Times, 12/18/2000
As a high school student in Denver, she became both a competitive ice skater (getting up at 4:30 a.m. for lessons) and an accomplished pianist (sometimes staying up until 3 a.m. to practice). She did her senior year of high school and her freshman year in college at the same time. Her parents piled up so many books by her bedside table that she stopped reading for pleasure, and still does not.
"I grew up in a family in which my parents put me into every book club," she recalled. "So I never developed the fine art of recreational reading."
As Mr. Bush's top national security adviser during the campaign, Ms. Rice played a variety of roles. She was his private foreign policy tutor, the person, Mr. Bush once said, who "can explain to me foreign policy matters in a way I can understand." She was his intellectual quarterback, "both a good manager and an honest broker of ideas," he said in an interview. And she was his trusted friend, "a close confidante and a good soul," he added.
156. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:46 AM
2. There have been quite a few reports which question Bush's intellectual curiosity. An example:
The New York Times, May 21, 2000
No one has ever accused Mr. Bush of being an intellectual, and the indifference to books started early. Childhood friends recall Mr. Bush reading only two sets of books for pleasure -- the Hardy boys and a series of mystery books about baseball. As one asks about his reading habits, there are a few snickers.
"Did we sit around in those days reading books?" asked Mr. McCleskey, smiling broadly. "No."
George and Barbara Bush led a drive to build a school library (the school did not previously have one), but books were not a major part of a boy's childhood in Midland. Erstwhile acquaintances, while deeply admiring of the Bushes' goodness and decency, have trouble recalling early signs of greatness in the son.
"Well, no, I never did think about what he might do in life," said Austine Crosby, his third-grade teacher. "He was just a good, well-rounded young man, and he did his work."
And academically? "He was O.K.," Mrs. Crosby said, a bit defensively. "He was O.K."
So was he in the top quarter of his class academically?
"Well, in the upper half, anyway."
157. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 8:53:01 AM
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
158. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:43:05 AM
One of the arguments CERTAIN people sucessfully used to lobby a CERTAIN former Senator from a CERTAIN southern state to dissuade him from taking the job of Energy Secretary was that Bush was going to get WATTED as in James Watt II
Now he's got two James Watts!
Loser Abrahams An Energy Zero
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
159. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:47:56 AM
Big W. Lookin Good!
160. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:57:35 AM
Dave -
Lookin good!
161. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:58:45 AM
So the school library wasn't one of the inebriating experiences that Duhbya was referring to in his 1994 interview?
162. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:02 AM
MORON!
163. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:17 AM
moron
164. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:04:45 AM
Yarafat Accepts Clinton Peace Proposals - LOOKIN GOOD!
165. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 10:09:20 AM
Great pic! (The Whiz is to be congratulated.)
166. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:12:11 AM
Yea sorry Wiz for failing to attribute (where's your TM on this pic?)
and thanks CM for pointing that out (such artistry is TOTALLY beyond me!)
167. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:13:02 AM
The Wiz -
LOOKIN GOOD!
168. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:15:32 AM
Chavez, Ashcroft, Abrahams, Norton - on the hit list, "Good Morning America"
Corporations sloppin at the public trough
169. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 10:32:51 AM
170. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 10:33:59 AM
so - any commentary on Mineta as Bush's Transportation Sec? does it matter? is he just an excuse to say Bush fulfilled his pledge to nominate a Democrat?
171. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 10:48:32 AM
What Cellar forgot to mention is that the web site he linked above contains the following disclaimer:
All content on The New York Slime web site is intended solely as political satire and social commentary protected under the First Amendment. Quotes attributed to celebreties, living or dead, are fictional and strictly for laughs.
172. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 11:04:30 AM
Why the House May Not Go Demo In 2002
if nothing else, this just goes to show my theory of Congress seats being decided on local issues and that there really aren't any national issues, as a whole, a deciding factor.
173. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 11:47:56 AM
Re the Wiz's picture -- it isn't doctored much... I have the original on my desk, from the Financial Times and the caption reads "Junior partners: Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush and six-year-old Kadeja McElmuray look equally perplexed during his visit to her school in Peoria, Illinois." Actually, W looks more confused than Kadeja.
174. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 11:53:30 AM
Message # 48135
Well, she's perplexed at him; he's just perplexed.
The doctoring seems to include only a) the placard on the easel, and b) Prince Charles' eyes. (Right, Wiz?)
175. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 12:02:02 PM
Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention before our previous discussion was swept away by the holidays and other posts...because of the way the NBER calculates recessions, its marking the start of the 1990 recession as July isn't particularly relevant to the point of whether the recession was caused by a war that began in the first week of August.
If you look at the column headings, you'll see that NBER measures a recession from the peak of business activity. Ergo, business activity in fact reached its highest point in July and had started to decline by the end of August. That certainly doesn't weaken the thesis that the war precipitated the recession.
176. concerned - 1/3/2001 1:25:47 PM
177. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 1:29:46 PM
con
Haha...that guy in the white tee-shirt seems prepared to go beyond glove deep.
178. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 1:30:45 PM
LOL!
Meanwhile, in other "recession" news
179. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:36:56 PM
.
Wednesday, January 3, 2001; 1:32 PM
Fed Cuts Interest Rate...WashPost...
The Federal Reserve, faced with a rapidly slowing economy, unexpectedly cut a key interest rate Wednesday by one-half point in an effort to avert a serious downturn. It was the first decrease in rates in two years.
The rate cut was unusual in that it occurred between meetings of the central bank's interest-rate committee. The last time the Fed changed rates between meetings was a quarter-point cut in October 1998, when the central bank was moving aggressively to counter worldwide financial turmoil caused by the Asian currency crisis.
The Federal Open Market Committee, which includes Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fed governors and five of the 12 presidents of Federal Reserve banks, is scheduled to meet Jan. 30-31 to review interest rates.
The Fed said it was cutting its target for the federal funds rate – the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans – to 6 percent from 6.5 percent, a nine-year high.
It also cut its mostly symbolic discount rate by a quarter point to 5.75. The Fed said it stands ready to cut the discount rate by another quarter point to 5.50 percent on the request of Federal Reserve banks.
180. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:38:41 PM
.
x-post
181. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:43:45 PM
.
Shazam!
NEW YORK (AP) - Stock prices surged higher Wednesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials more than 300 points higher and the Nasdaq composite up more than 100, after the Federal Reserve unexpectedly lowered interest rates by a half percentage point.
The rate cut, the first in two years by the Fed, was larger and sooner than expected, and gave a depressed stock market its first real good news in months.
182. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:44:38 PM
IJ, I have little desire to continue this discussion with you as I strongly suspect that whatever data I use, you will dismiss/ignore it. However, call me stupid (if you haven't already) 'cause here I go again.
Below I'm listing a number of economic indicators that are considered to be cyclical in nature. I'm looking on a quarterly basis, selecting the peak prior to the recession and comparing it to the data as of 90:Q2, prior to the NBER economic peak and prior to the invasion of kuwait:
Housing Starts, 88:Q4, 1.55 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 1.21 mil units AR
Car Sales, 88:Q2, 10.6 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 9.3 mil units AR
Industrial Production in Manufacturing, 89:Q1, 82.3; 90:Q2, 81.5
Employment Growth, 88:Q2, 3.5%; 90:Q2 0.6%
Consumer Sentiment, 88:Q3, 96.0; 90:Q2, 90.9
Fed Funds Rate 89:Q2, 9.7%; 90:Q2, 8.2%
The point of this being, as I've said before, there were signs that the economy was heading south before the invasion of kuwait, before the resulting run up in oil prices. Falling consumer sentiment, housing starts and car sales and the resulting impact on employment and industrial production all provided sufficient signals of a weak economy prompting the Fed to cut interest rates by 150 basis points in the year prior to the economic peak and prior to the august invasion.
One could easily argue that the Fed erred in raising rates as high as it did in 89 and failed again in not cutting them fast enough thereafter to prevent the economy from slipping into recession.
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
183. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:52:14 PM
Thank you robertjayb, I missed the announcement. How exciting! and what a surprise!
184. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:59:10 PM
.
All in the family...
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Kathleen Shanahan, who was Vice
President-elect Dick Cheney's top staffer during the presidential
campaign, will be Gov. Jeb Bush's new chief of staff, Bush said Wednesday.
Shanahan, 41, worked as a special assistant to the governor's
father, former President Bush, from 1985 to 1989, during the time
he was vice president.
185. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:25:23 PM
Keeping it close, huh? Nothing like being rewarded for loyalty and hard work...
186. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 2:28:10 PM
Or, as George Bush once said: "Don't squat with your spurs on."
187. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 2:35:26 PM
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you (as I've stated in the past) because I consider you unreasoning, and worse, pricklish and rude. Pricklish would be okay, rude would be okay, but the two in combination make for little entertainment and less communication. You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Now when your own previously much-touted source demonstrably supports your position not at all, you reply with a grab bag of economic data to buttress further hand-waving arguments by you. Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
As for oil, prices, I marvel that someone who claims to be an economist continues to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
What the invasion did to oil
See #42-43 on the chart.
It's also not surprising that prior to the invasion oil was relatively cheap. If you recall, Saddam used the low price as an excuse for the invasion, saying that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraq by over-producing.
188. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:51:25 PM
Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon:
Jan. 3, 2001 | George W. Bush constantly assured us during the election that he was a new breed of Republican -- a "compassionate conservative." He promised to reach across party lines to work with Democrats, just as he had in Texas. There would be no manifestos and tantrums à la Newt Gingrich, no secret Reagan-like plots to prop up "freedom fighters." The Bush years, he and his handlers soothingly insinuated, would be kind of like the Clinton years, but without the sleaze --genial, charming, reassuringly centrist.
After Bush's dubious "victory," there was reason to think he would in fact move to the center. After all, he had lost the popular vote by more than 500,000, and likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too; it took the timely intervention of five conservative Supreme Court justices to install him in the White House. Immediately afterwards, he at least sounded like a chastened man; his victory speech dutifully struck the chords of reconciliation and humility. And with a large percentage of Americans unconvinced of the legitimacy of his election, it seemed quite possible that Bush would reach across the aisle.
He did -- but only to flip Democrats the bird.
And this is the rest of the story.
189. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 3:16:48 PM
Judith - Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon
I now understand why Salon is taking on water and sinking fast. They don't seem to understand the difference between a news article and an uninformed opinion piece.
190. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:20:39 PM
I suppose MSNBC never does anything in the opinion area? Is Salon supposed to just do hard news? What's wrong with opinion? We all have one.
191. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:22:35 PM
...and I never said it was a NEWS piece; it was an interesting article.
192. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:28:09 PM
The silliest part of the article is the "likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too" part.
Bush won Florida and the electoral college based on the simple fact that the rules in place at the time of the election objectively disallowed spoiled ballots that may have or may not have tipped the scales in the other direction.
I didn't vote for Bush, but it is certainly getting tiresome hearing from Democrat partisans that the GOP stole the election or the Supreme Court stole it for them. The fact that you don't hear this from Democrats in the House or Senate is a credit to them.
193. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:35:21 PM
Ronski:
I don't think the election was stolen. But I'm dissatisfied with the outcome and, like 9/10s of the Republicans have done for the last 8 years, intend to gripe about the "winner" whenever I feel the urge. Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining about the Republicans acting as though we should be rejoicing in the outcome of an election we didn't win. They haven't let up about Clinton for 8 years...why do they think we would react any differently?
194. Wombat - 1/3/2001 3:37:32 PM
The Dems in the Senate and House won't have to say anything about it. If Bush doesn't do a consistantly superb job as "President," you will be hearing a great deal of comment on his electoral illegitimacy. Better steel yourself.
195. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:44:20 PM
I don't mind the griping over Bush's policies and appointments, only this nonsense about stolen elections and the idea that somehow Bush is forbidden to appoint anyone but centrists.
I'm not happy with Ashcroft, for example. But I will give him and Bush the benefit of the doubt for the moment, since they aren't actually running anything yet. I suspect that Bush felt he could not avoid giving the religious right an important appointment, what with the number they did on the socially moderate Racicot, and Ashcroft was a suitable replacement, given that it's unlikely the Senate would reject a former colleague.
As for Ashcroft himself, while I'm sure he has some genuine core beliefs, I've heard it said he is a politician first, with all the opportunism such a description implies. We'll see. Perhaps he will change some of his spots.
196. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:57:50 PM
Well, if he doesn't change some of his spots, we'll all suffer from it. But we'll live, regardless.
197. EricCartman - 1/3/2001 4:02:42 PM
Naw, Bush didn't steal the election -- it was given to him by Poppy and his henchmen as a graduation present.
Hell, all I got for graduation was a '71 Dodge Coronet, and I had to pay for half of it.
Think I'm lying? Where the hell else could two -- not one, but two -- clearly conflicted Supreme Court justices who should have recused themselves have the fucking nerve to make a ruling? And then go party with the winner that same evening? Nope, nobody here but us chickens.
What's really pathetic is how easily people are accepting this chicanery. Oh well, at least with oil people running the country we can all fill our gas guzzlers more cheaply, which is all that matters.
We'll see what happens when all the votes are finally counted thoroughly and the presumptive winner turns out to be the loser. Nothing.
198. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 4:03:55 PM
.
Ronski,
Here's a Gene Lyons column for you:
Q. and A. Inside George W. Bush...
Dubya, as the Texas dauphin likes to be called, lost the popular vote by 539,897 votes. Both Kennedy and Nixon became president with smaller margins than Al Gore's. But thanks to an intellectually incoherent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush will soon occupy the White House. Meanwhile, it's also clear that separate recounts of the Florida ballots by the Miami Herald and a media consortium including the New York Times, Washington Post and others will ultimately show
that Gore also won Florida, and hence the Electoral College, and by all rights ought to be taking the oath of office come Jan. 20.
199. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:25 PM
IJ,
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you ...You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Huh? Are you two different people? Or did you misaddress post #48137 which begins, Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention ... As I told you before, if you think I'm going to sit silently by and accept everything you say as gospel like a good little woman, you've got another thing coming.
Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
I have not voided a "traditional definition of recession." I have said all along that the NBER looks at a wide variety of economic indicators including monthly ones like auto and housing to determine when a recession begins and ends. You however cling desperately to this notion of "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline." If there is someone else around here who is willing to explain that "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline" is only a rule of thumb, I wish he would speak up. Perhaps then IJ will accept it. He certainly seems unwilling to accept it from me or the NBER.
I will say it again...even the Fed saw sufficient weakness in the economy to ease interest rates a year before the invasion of kuwait. It was not the potential of an Iraqi invasion they were reacting to ... it was the potential of an economic slowdown. I have given you the data which demonstrate that the cyclically sensitive sectors of the economy were giving off distress signals before Kuwait was invaded & before oil prices shot up. Are you really suggesting that housing was weakening in 1988 in anticipation of a potential iraqi invasion and a subsequent run up in oil prices?
200. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:59 PM
(cont.)
...to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
Again, using your own chart, do you not see a difference between these two cases:
201. Ronski - 1/3/2001 5:49:23 PM
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
202. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 6:02:09 PM
Hayes-Tilden was well beyond the margin of error, as I recall. But I agree with you here.
203. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 7:58:45 PM
204. CalGal - 1/3/2001 9:04:54 PM
Final Pre - election Polls Accurate
The final pre-election polls in the presidential race were more accurate than in any presidential elections except 1976 and 1960, a study released Wednesday found.
The year's final polls had an average error of just 1.1 percentage points on the estimates for George W. Bush and Al Gore, slightly higher for Ralph Nader.
205. concerned - 1/3/2001 9:27:06 PM
I hope Nader goes for the Federal matching funds in 2004.
206. Fielding - 1/3/2001 9:59:23 PM
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
207. Fielding - 1/3/2001 10:03:23 PM
Can anybody explain why Hillary is 97th in seniority? It would make more sense to me if she were tied with all of the newcomers.
208. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:07:31 PM
Maybe it's because she's insisting on being 'a little more' equal.
209. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:08:00 PM
Judith:
Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining...
This is about the 35th time you've mentioned this, and I don't blame you one bit for not wanting to be associated with the loser.
But before you left for the holidays, you said "Don't blame me - I voted Democrat".
Now, there are lots of ways around this -you might say, for instance, that the majority of candidates you voted for were demos, etc.
But your post was in response to something specifically regarding Bush.
Come on now - fess up...
210. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:15:53 PM
I've already stated that I did a write-in vote for Bill Bradley.
211. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:21:30 PM
...like I said - lots of ways around it.
Come on, Judith....I swear - I won't make fun of you.
You voted for Gore, didn't you?
212. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:27:20 PM
joezan:
I don't know what it is about you Conservatives but you have such a hard time believing anything someone other than your ilk says. I have no reason to lie to you. I supported Bradley in the Primaries and was very disappointed when he wasn't chosen to run for President. My vote in the election was for whom I wished to be President. That man was Bradley. There was a space on the ballot for a write-in vote and I wrote in Bradley.
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
213. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:37:41 PM
I wish more Democrat voters had the independence to do what Judith at Home did here.
214. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:40:03 PM
Thanks...
215. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 10:42:28 PM
George Mitchell
is who I voted for.
No bones about it. I didn't think I had much conscience left, but it reared its dormant head for this play.
216. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 10:56:43 PM
.
Yes, Jim, it's personal...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Rep. James Traficant of Ohio broke party ranks on Wednesday and was effectively kicked out of the U.S. House of Representatives' Democratic Caucus.
On the opening day of the 107th Congress, Traficant, a Democrat, voted with the chamber's majority in giving Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois a second, two-year term as House speaker.
Democratic leaders promptly said the party caucus would give Traficant no committee assignments in the new Congress and he would no longer be welcome to caucus meetings.
"If he wants a committee assignment, he is going to have to go the Republicans," said Laura Nichols, a spokesman for House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
217. concerned - 1/3/2001 11:03:11 PM
Re. 48178 -
Bet they wouldn't've done that if he was Senator Traficant.
218. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 11:05:52 PM
Is this the guy with the bad wig?
219. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:34:48 PM
Bio of James Traficant.
While sheriff Traficant was indicted and tried on charges of accepting bribes from organized crime to overlook their activities in the county. In his 1983 trial Traficant defended himself of the charges, telling the jury that he was actually running his own sting operation on the criminals at the time. He was acquitted.
In 1984 Traficant took on incumbent GOP Rep. Lyle Williams. The combative tone of that campaign has continued throughout Traficant's House career. He drew large crowds and enthusiastic support for his portrayal of corporate America, the banking industry and the federal government, particularly the IRS, as sinister enemies of ordinary Americans. He beat Williams, 53 percent to 46 percent.
Traficant is notorious for tirades from the House floor in which he denounces government waste and intrusion into the lives of its citizens. He often rails against international trade pacts such as NAFTA and GATT and against foreign aid, particularly to Israel.
220. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:37:07 PM
Traficant is a doofus. He would make a good Republican.
221. CalGal - 1/3/2001 11:38:47 PM
I just read a piece on that--was it in the New Yorker? I can't imagine the Republicans are all that thrilled to see him.
222. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:49:37 PM
More on the moron.
Following through on a months-long threat, Democratic Ohio Rep. James Traficant defected from his party and voted to re-elect Republican Dennis Hastert as House speaker.
Republicans gave a standing ovation Wednesday after Traficant cast the vote. Some Democrats stood and applauded, too, apparently glad the unpredictable congressman now is aligned with the GOP.
...
Traficant is a well-known free sprit on Capitol Hill. Sporting unruly hair and polyester suits, he often takes to the House floor for one-minute rants, which he usually ends by saying, ``Beam me up.''
During a floor speech last March, Traficant pledged to ``fight like a junkyard dog'' against a Justice Department corruption investigation. Federal authorities have not said whether Traficant is a target of the investigation in his hometown of Youngstown. The investigation has produced about 50 convictions, including a guilty plea from one of Traficant's longtime aides.
...
Despite the investigation, Traficant easily won election to a ninth term in November.
Traficant rarely attended Democratic caucus meetings over the years, and he distanced himself almost completely from his Democratic colleagues after a bitter primary battle last March. Traficant claimed Democratic Party leaders sided with a rival in that race, though party officials denied that.
Meanwhile, he was forging relationships with Republicans and even injected himself into a thorny partisan debate, crashing a meeting of Republicans last June to deliver his opinion that if GOP members killed a minimum wage bill they would be more likely to lose their majority in the upcoming election.
223. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:53:38 PM
Reporting from Ground Zero, Enemy Territory, Tom DeLay's hometown
"She is a member of a labor union at one point."--Announcing his nomination of Linda Chavez as secretary of labor, Austin, Texas, Jan. 2, 2000
And the view from here is the same for no matter where you find yourself, there you are and he's
Still A MORON!
224. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:55:43 PM
Trafficante isn't a Moron....
Just Mental
225. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:21:20 AM
Ronski Message # 48163:
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
It's not preposterous at all. Scalia's son works for the firm that represented Bush. Thomas' wife works for an organization that was vetting Bush cabinet prospects at that very moment (and undoubtedly still is). Sounds like conflicts of interest to me. And yes, I'd say the same damned thing were it Souter's son working for Gore's firm or whatever.
Anecdotal case in point: Last summer, a friend of mine got sued in small claims court for $3000 in damages. As it happens, the local judge is a friend of his. So, just to err on the side of caution, the judge recused himself from hearing the case. Keep in mind, this was a dispute over $3K, in a podunk county in Northern CA. Lot smaller than, say, a presidential election.
Now tell me again that it's cool that Scalia rules on a case in which one of his sons is closely affiliated with one of the petitioners. Bullshit.
As for Thomas' wife working "somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement", I believe that technically, the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. But I may be wrong -- past a certain point, it's all shit to me. Still, I don't just ignore the fact that the guy's wife was involved in scouting for Bush cabinet posts. If you do, okey fine.
226. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:24:00 AM
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
True. Maybe some sort of "respectable institution" should have devised a "reasonable standard" some time ago. Just a thought.
Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas.
The point is, there's an awful lot of high-handedness and sanctimony about the purity of all things electoral, and the fact is that nobody's hands are totally clean.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal. That doesn't make it right, not by a long shot.
227. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:25:36 AM
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
Fine. Substitute "attrition and opportunity" for "malfeasance" then. Add a little bias and judicial fiat. Simmer until tepid. Serves almost half the population.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
If you think the loser bulling his way to victory with muscle and gall (and better lawyers) is "no great consequence", then I guess you're right.
228. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:27:09 AM
Fielding Message # 48168:
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
Oh, come on, Fielding. Like Al, they're fighting for us. Or something.
Seriously, conserve your energy. Once again, Nader was a symptom, not the problem. Ask yourself how many people defected to Bush, as opposed to Nader. Ask yourself why that is. Then ask yourself which is the worse of the two, and you will be on the right track. For a change.
Good luck, Grasshopper.
229. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:15:39 AM
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
Lighten up, Judith. I know you said you wrote someone in (although I'd thought it was Nader).
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
230. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:34:28 AM
Join People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL and others to STOP JOHN ASHCROFT!
Send the Moron a message.
Human Rights Campaign (1999) Rating: 0%
Ending Workplace Discrimination: Ashcroft is not a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and voted against the measure on the Senate floor in 1996.
Combating Hate Crimes: Ashcroft does not support Hate Crimes Prevention Act, never cosponsored the measure, and voted against it on the Senate floor in June, 2000.
Fighting HIV/AIDS: Ashcroft has not cosponsored the Ryan White CARE Act despite the bill having 51 cosponsors.
Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose: Ashcroft has scored 0% from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood in 1999.
While 65 senators have adopted a non-discrimination policy for their office indicating that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment decisions, Senator Ashcroft has not.
He supported in 1999 a conference report that would prohibit organizations in San Francisco and other cities from receiving federal funds if they conduct needle exchange programs, and prohibit The City from implementing its domestic partner program for City employees.
Contact Your Senator Today!
Senators' Websites Here
231. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:35:58 AM
Why thank you JoeZ!
I cannot abide that Mental Defective bastard-president.
{in case anyone missed it}
232. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:47:37 AM
Another Bush Wingnut Worthy of Obloquy
"When one of George W. Bush's "Victory 2000" buses pulled into Tucson five days before Election Day, more than 100 demonstrators picketed the campaign stop. They weren't protesting Bush. They were after Linda Chavez, the firebrand opponent of affirmative action, who was appearing on his behalf."
Chavez, A Bush Bitch
233. jexster - 1/4/2001 9:05:29 AM
Linda Chavez's 1987-88 stint heading an organization that promoted English as the official language was dropped from her biography released by President-elect[sic] Bush.
234. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 9:22:24 AM
joezan:
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
I guess if I dislike Brussels Sprouts, I'm automatically supporting cabbage, right?
235. iiibbb - 1/4/2001 10:01:07 AM
Message # 226
"Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas"
Did anyone see that article the LA times did breaking down each county in the US and their method of counting? The vast preponderance of counties in Texas use op-scans or paper ballots. In Florida about half use op-scans and the other half punch cards. In both states there was a sprinkling of other methods.
So it seems reasonable to me to promote handcounting of op-scans or paper ballots because I can easily visualize how to discern "true intent". But it still seems to me there are a lot of problems hand-counting punch cards. I don't think a dimpled chad should count anywhere Fl or otherwise. If Texas, or some other state, has a law/policy that says count dimples I say get rid of that policy or law rather than lower the whole standard.
236. greystoke - 1/4/2001 11:45:09 AM
"the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. "
That is a wonderfully fitting and evocative metaphor you came up with there, Cartman.
Did you have to pay Ronski to set you up with the "deep in the bowels" line?
237. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:49:17 AM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I doubt your assertion, quite strongly. Statistical sampling, wrongly applied, can allow abuse that may favor either party, depending on who is setting the parameters. Republicans don't want to open that unconstitutional can of worms for the obvious reason of its illegality as well as the abuses that sampling techniques open the door to.
238. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:52:34 AM
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
Not more calculating? Then perhaps he is just stupid mean, as evidenced by his knife work on Bill Bradley and his constant low road campaigning and lies such as implying Republicans were racists and that Bush was a 'pirate'. Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
239. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:59:04 AM
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal.
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes. Are the Demorats really that incompetent that we have to give them five or six strikes before they're called out? Talk about using the spoiled self-centered brat argument for extra chances - that exactly fits the excerpt above.....
240. Ronski - 1/4/2001 12:01:49 PM
greystoke,
Let me answer your question.
I required no remuneration as I enjoy playing the straight man from time to time, so to speak. (It goes back to my old theater training.)
241. rubberducky - 1/4/2001 12:11:47 PM
it's fun to play 'What If'... 
242. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:12:24 PM
concerned:
Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
I think Bush maintained a more bored tone during the campaign. Neither one was elevated. And face it, any tone that Bush maintained was set there by Rove so it's just amusing to claim Bush had much to do with it, elevated or no.
243. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:14:05 PM
Gore just won't let it go.
A blaze on a motor boat owned by President-elect George W. Bush and his choice for commerce secretary resulted from arson, fire investigators say.
The state fire marshal's office said Wednesday that last month's blaze at Yacht Harbor Marina, previously considered an accident, was set on board the 22-foot HarrisKayot deck boat.
...
The 300-horsepower boat, which can accommodate up to 14 people, sells for $30,000 to $40,000, according to dealers.
"The president-elect and Mr. Evans are anxious to learn of the findings of the investigation," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett said that Evans, who had registered the boat, and Bush, a water enthusiast, shared an insurance policy on the craft.
"Both families used the boat," said Bartlett.
Hanna said the boat's burnt remains are in the custody of State Farm Insurance.
"It was charred, ruined and destroyed," he said.
244. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:16:05 PM
I hope Bush gets better treatment from State Farm than most of their customers do...
245. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:16:43 PM
Ronski,
I'm glad to hear that it was spontaneous.
I'm still chuckling about it.
246. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:18:51 PM
rubberducky
I hope someone has e-mailed that one to Scalia himself.
247. concerned - 1/4/2001 12:59:23 PM
Where Democrat Partisans can feel at home
248. Cellar Door - 1/4/2001 1:23:24 PM
Stanley Crouch suddenly remembers that he's black!
249. concerned - 1/4/2001 1:28:20 PM
Cllrdr -
Tell you what, the Democrats should lose Gephardt - who gave speeches to racist organizations and Robert Byrd - former KKK member. Then maybe Bush should consider 'cutting loose' Ashcroft?
Sounds like a plan to me. Fair's fair.
250. Electric Slide - 1/4/2001 3:59:46 PM
I just checked a mailbox on my son's computer and found one from Katherine Harris that was sent to me in December. Classy lady.
I had used his computer when I wrote her an e-mail in November.
Dear J... T........:
Thank you for your encouragement and support. I am deeply humbled by the compassionate communications we have received.
Your kind words and generous advice have been an inspiration to the employees of the Florida Department of State and to me. We have worked diligently to execute our responsibilities for the citizens of our state with independence, deliberation and integrity.
It is my sincerest hope that this great nation will unite under the rule of law. Thank you again for your support and may God bless America.
Your truly,
Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
The Capitol
Tallahasse, Florida 32399-0250
251. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:02:55 PM
Oh please, I just ate my lunch.
252. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:03:35 PM
Maybe she'll send you some Cuban cigars.
253. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:30:51 PM
Greystoke Message # 236:
Thanks. I guess I owe Ronski a solid; that was such a choice set-up, I had to triple-check it because it just seemed too damned easy.
I would have added some gratuitous enema imagery as well, but it is part of my resolve in the [cheesy dramatic pause] New Millennium to be a kinder, gentler, cleaner Cartman.
(And if you believe that, I have some lovely oceanfront property in New Mexico you might be interested in.)
Message # 243:
So W and his Commerce appointee co-own a yacht? Isn't that just super-special? The family that water-skis together, something something something.
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
In honor of Parsdent Gump, I'll be changing the name on my yacht from "Seafood" to "He Fucking Won?!?"
254. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:31:49 PM
Concerned Message # 239:
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes.
I actually agree with you there. Recall though, the first recount was mandatory, and Florida is such a clusterfuck they don't have any real statewide standards for handling chads and such.
But you just keep on keepin' on there, Champ. Keep polishing them knobs and you might eventually get to sit at the big boys' table in Freeperland.
In the real world, however, when GOP party members whine and moan constantly about hand counts and chads in one state, while endorsing those things in other states, that is what rational people recognize as situational ethics. No doubt gleaned from those evil, evil Demorats.
You should probably pull your kids out of public school too -- no doubt some atheist Demorat union teacher is turning Concerned, Jr. into a flaming homo, even as we speak.
255. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:38:31 PM
Eric:
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
I laughed so hard at this I now have a migraine.
256. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:44:33 PM
I aim to please, Juditha.
257. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:46:40 PM
'Course, for all I know, the boat may share the same inspired moniker as Gump's yappy ranch mutt -- Spot. Without Laura's intervention, the twins might have shared in that glory as well.
258. joezan - 1/4/2001 6:55:16 PM
Cartman:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
259. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:14:24 PM
Well, as Hemingway said, the rich are different from you and me...maybe the boat was only "valued" at that amount. That doesn't mean it cost that amount or would even bring that little in a sale.
260. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:15:52 PM
Besides, I'm amazed it wasn't a bass boat...which are pretty pricey to those who are serious recreators, as I'm sure GW is.
261. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:24:26 PM
Judith:
It was a friggin' deck boat - 22 ft.
262. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:46:26 PM
WoooooOOOwwwwWWWeeeeeee!
Check out Dubya's yacht! I can just imagine babes in bikinis lounging around all over this monster, can't you? 
263. joezan - 1/4/2001 8:08:30 PM
Oh, wait...
I'm sorry.
It was the yot in Kayot that fooled you.
Common mistake, I'm sure.
264. Fielding - 1/4/2001 9:56:44 PM
EC:
Saying that Gore alienated voters doesn't take Nader and his Sancho's off the hook for giving us Ashcroft. You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
265. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 10:27:35 PM
Fielding - the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
And if not for Perot, Bush would have won over Clinton. You play what-ifs forever.
266. Fielding - 1/4/2001 10:47:59 PM
Biener:
You said this a month ago. You were wrong then. Why repeat it?
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton. The polls show over 95% of Nader supporters favoring Gore over Bush.
In any case, even if you were right (which you never are), the argument with EC only relates to Nader, so stop obfuscating.
267. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 11:03:12 PM
Joezan:
I wasn't claiming the doofus had a big boat; as a former boat owner myself, I know it's not the size of the boat that makes the man. :-)
268. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:18:07 PM
Fielding - You said this a month ago.
You must be thinking of someone else.
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton.
No, the polls showed them supporting Bush over Clinton by 2 to 1. More than enough to overcome Clinton's 5.6 point lead. Of course you could resort to Leinsdorf's analysis to show Clinton would still win, but then that would completely discredit your position.
269. jexster - 1/4/2001 11:22:14 PM
"The person who runs FEMA is someone who must have the trust of the president. Because the person who runs FEMA is the first voice, often times, of someone who's life has been turned upside down hears from."—Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2000
270. robertjayb - 1/4/2001 11:23:10 PM
.
Linda Chavez seems an apt candidate for borking.
Chavez's Writings Arming Critics...
-Chavez argued against the ``glass ceiling'' blocking women from
advancing at work, saying women make different job choices from
men, often putting their families first.
-Wrote that ``discriminating against employees who won't work
overtime or who will put in fewer hours per week in a salaried
position isn't irrational, it may be good business.''
-Ridiculed the Americans With Disabilities Act as ``special
treatment in the name of accommodating the disabled.''
-Called raising the minimum wage ``bad policy'' and suggested
that ``the folks at the Clinton Labor Department'' who disagree
think that wage policy should be based on Marxism.
-Suggested the increase in sexual harassment lawsuits is making
the United States ``a nation of crybabies.'' She added: ``With men
so often the targets of such witch hunts, it's no surprise that a
few strike back.'' (Associated Press)
271. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:32:01 PM
RJB - What exactly is your problem with those statements?
272. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:55:17 PM
273. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:58:29 PM
And please, Lefties, don't conflate the DoJ and Commerce on me.
274. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:07:38 AM
In 16 days George Walker Bush will restore honor to the White House, by making the Presidency of the United States an honorary postion.
275. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:08:57 AM
And now the death watch can begin; let's see who flys when the next world leader dies.
276. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:36:33 AM
Joezan Message # 258:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
Okay, my bad. Doesn't matter to me either way; it wasn't a classist swipe, so much as a brief riff on the chumminess of all the players. Lord knows when I get elected, I want to be able to drag all my fishin' buddies with me to DC.
Perhaps W also has a time-share with the Rumsfelds in Boca. Who's to say? Nonetheless, I shall retreat forthwith and say 40 Hail Lauras and 10 Our Spots as penance for my snarkiness.
So let it be mumbled; so let it be dumb.
277. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:39:56 AM
Fielding Message # 264:
You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
Yeah. So? If not for Bush, Gore would have won Florida and the election. If not for a partisan court making weird decisions, Gore would have won. If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. What's your fucking point?
Look, Fielding, you usually seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so maybe this is just a huge brain fart on your part, but what exactly makes you single out Nader for all this?
Is it Nader's fault that eleven states defected to Bush? Just carrying AR and TN would have made FL's outcome irrelevant. Is it Nader's fault that so many people voted for a $100 million jackass? Is it Nader's fault that said jackass has to throw the Falwell Reich wing a bone every time the fat fuck clears his throat?
No, no, and no. The margin in FL was what, 150? About 100 really, if we count the 52 that got tossed in Nassau County. You gonna sit there and tell me 100 people in FL didn't vote Libertarian, or Peace & Freedom, or Socialist or whatever? Fuck, I bet more than 100 people wrote in "Seymour Cox" or "Harry Butts". But nooooo -- it's all Big Bad Ralph's fault.
278. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:41:12 AM
This is so fucking dumb, I'm amazed you even have the balls to keep running this rag up the flagpole. Fine then -- it's all Ralph Nader's fault, that Gore lost eleven states, that he fumbled a cakewalk to a moron who can't even say "subliminal", that senile codgers in Boca don't pay attention to what the fuck they're doing, that ChoicePoint "mistakenly" categorized 8,000 registered voters as felons, thereby disenfranchising them.
Yep. All Ralph's fault. I understand he's also the culprit responsible for the heartbreak of psoriasis, as well as the pain and embarrassing swelling of hemorrhoid flare-ups. Now the truth can finally be told.
In all seriousness, Fielding, I'll tell you something straight up -- it's this sort of mindless, babbling, selective myopia, crying about Nader costing Gore the election (as if it were his by divine right) that is your (meaning Dems in general) real problem. Once again, your biggest problem is not the 90,000 in FL who defected to Nader, but the 11 states that defected to Bush.
279. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:02:59 AM
Fielding:
An answer to your why-is-Hillary-ranked-97th question appeared in Slate's "Explainer" column, the other day.
280. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:05:09 AM
Lest I come off as being, well, a bit testy on the subject of Nader, let me clear a little something up here.
Nader, bless his pointy little head, was not a very good candidate. A couple of parts of this were inherent --for one, he has all the charm and personality of a shit sandwich, and for another, his very platform obviated his ability to generate the funds required to run a truly competitive campaign. And God knows, to have any hope at all of Getting Your Message Across to people who are simply too gosh-darned busy to actually inform themselves, charisma and money are the left and right hands of any successful pol.
Now, we all knew this going in. But here's the dirty little secret about the Nader voters -- everyone mistakenly believes we're hidebound cynics. We're not. Hell, if we were cynics, we would've voted for Gush or Bore, both of whom ran the most mindlessly cynical and platitudinous campaigns. Nonsense catchphrases and buzzwords and alliterative doodads, designed to catch the slowest common denominator like some cheap semantic flypaper.
One guy says, "Look ev-ery-body! I am kissing my wife very forcefully! I may even be using some tongue! You can bet I won't be getting blowjobs from husky interns!". The other guy campaigns on the strategy that if he sticks to the script and doesn't sound too stupid, people will vote for him and his oil cronies on the basis that he didn't seem quite as stupid as the know-it-alls in the media kept saying.
Talk about your lowered expectations. Really, why even bother going through the motions?
281. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:06:04 AM
No, we voted for Nader because for all his faults, he means what he says. He wants to push the balance of power back towards the citizens a bit. And he means it. You can say otherwise, but if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send the guy a fucking thank-you card.
Anyway, we're tired of people like Gush and Bore. Most of us wouldn't have voted for either of them anyway. And we just thought that for once, we'd pretend that our vote was a mode of expressing our political opinion. We just didn't think about the notion that Al Gore was entitled to our votes.
Do you see? My impatience with the Nader haters is not that they don't like who I like, it's that they're so fucking willing to put up with bullshit, and pretend that they're really working for change on an incremental basis. Well, great -- but it's like standing in front of a funhouse mirror with your pants down, and telling yourself that your dick really is two feet long.
Shame on us Naderites. Back in line, bad little sheep.
282. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:11:00 AM
Cartman - I see you're in rare form tonight.
283. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:14:21 AM
Biener:
Yeah. I ate my Wheaties today, and have been working my guitar chops back to snuff lately, which always gets me in an aggressive mood.
284. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:18:12 AM
Cartman - I have been learning how to use my new computer/recording equipment, so I haven't been practicing as much as I should. The band has two shows in January so I won't get too rusty.
285. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:25:50 AM
EC:
"... if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send [Nader] a fucking thank-you card."
Regardless of the worthiness of that claim (as in, surely a very cheap device that greatly increases one's life-and-limb safety would've become popular in any case, esp. in a highly-competitive market) -- this isn't much of a reason to vote for someone for president.
And when he says "towards the citizens," he really means "towards the State." With him, prefe