click on image
Thanks, Greystoke, for taking on this task.
2. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:04:43 PM
Welcome to the Daily News thread. I see this as a free wheeling discussion of interesting and unusual news stories. Read the Rules of Engagement for the Mote. I hope no additional rules are needed for this thread. But I will make some, if there is bad behavior.
It was the pattern in the Fray that many, many links and quotes from news stories were posted for every one that actually generated a discussion. So don't be discouraged if you post something that you think is provocative and no-one responds. Just try again with a different topic.
Once there is an on-going discussion, please don't try to change the subject even if the current one doesn't interest you. Wait until there is a lull, then post your proposed subject changer.
3. CalGal - 9/12/1999 6:06:23 PM
Grey,
Excellent intro. I hope you save that off so when we get a permanent place for stuff like that, you repost it.
4. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:11:18 PM
robertjayb
Welcome! I hope you will be a frequent poster here. In the Fray you always had interesting links for us.
Any suggestions you have for conducting this thread would be appreciated.
My hope is to never have to delete a post or chide a poster (Motician? Moterhead?), but perhaps that is an unrealistic expectation.
5. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 6:12:39 PM
CalGal
Thanks.
Good idea. I will do that.
6. robertjayb - 9/12/1999 7:11:08 PM
Suggestions?
How about a ban on information from The Washington Times, The New York Post, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Strictly in the interest of hygiene, of course; I abhor censorship.
Interesting links?
Well, not to make light of the horrors of Indonesia and East Timor,
but here's a way odd (to me) bit of reporting.
General Wiranto sings "Feelings"
A way odd happening as well...
7. CalGal - 9/12/1999 7:16:52 PM
Ban on the Times? The Post? The Journal?
Gawd-dam liberals.
8. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 7:19:56 PM
My god, that's like some sick dystopic parody. General Wiranto sang 'Feelings' to indicate how much his army loves East Timor? That would be funny if it weren't so incredibly offensive.
9. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:20:42 PM
robertjayb
That's bizarre. One would think that the good General could do something more concrete to help the situation.
Sorry, I don't think we can limit where posters get their cites. Feel free to say something like: "The Wall Street Journal???? LOL!", though.
10. joezan - 9/12/1999 7:21:08 PM
Paul Williams?
11. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:25:44 PM
CalGal
"Gawd-dam liberals."
I hope I don't have to delete anyone's post or chide them.
(Man, I love having all this power.)
12. Greystoke - 9/12/1999 7:40:24 PM
There are three articles in the Salt Lake Tribune about how Utah conducts its concealed carry permitting process for handguns.
(Since we beat the gun issue to death in our old forum, I won't be hurt if this discussion doesn't fly.)
13. Au Naturel - 9/12/1999 9:56:09 PM
Sigh! But it's so fun making prohibitionists squirm!
Re. the Utah concealed carry permit process.
All it means is that a guild of firearms instructors haven't yet scraped together the moolah that the hair dressers did so they could "cut down" the level of competition. To wit:
"to qualify for a state license to style hair, an applicant must pass a written exam and prove at least 1,000 hours of applied schooling or 4,000 hours of experience"
If Utah sets up a requirement and then doesn't go about enforcing it, of course it's going to be ignored. The class is a merely sop to liberals anyhow. Vermont doesn't have any reqirements for CCW. There don't seem to be a lot of problems there.
The Nanny State marches on.
14. God - 9/12/1999 11:58:27 PM
Damn those liberals.
15. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 9:33:51 AM
CATEGORY 5?
click on image
16. ScottLoar - 9/13/1999 10:17:47 AM
Jesus, PP, are you an amateur hurricane hunter or just morbidly curious? Any projections on deaths and damage?
17. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 10:21:15 AM
Scott...as we post I am calculating possible outcomes, and I will forward such to my many fans as soon as they are available.
18. ScottLoar - 9/13/1999 10:24:02 AM
Seriously, we could take gentlemen's bets up to, say, a day before landfall on the US mainland, as to where the hurricane hits the coast. One must be accurate to within 50 miles.
19. JJBiener - 9/13/1999 10:49:19 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest in Floyd is more than betting on landfall. My father lives on the Florida coast and is directly in the path of the storm. I am hoping for a strong shift to the north.
20. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:00:16 AM
JJ...I have a son in Wilmington NC, and family throughout Florida...plus, I am empathic with anyone in harms way.
21. God - 9/13/1999 11:00:46 AM
You got it.
22. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:01:56 AM
I have?
23. God - 9/13/1999 11:03:23 AM
21-19
24. PsychProf - 9/13/1999 11:05:30 AM
Final score God...
25. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 2:03:08 PM
BRYAN, Texas (AP) - Dragging death murder defendant Lawrence Russell Brewer, labeled a leader of a white supremacist group while in prison, wrote he was proud that killed a black man last year by dragging him behind a pickup truck, prosecutors said today.
``This man has written how he sees himself after this murder,'' Jasper County District Attorney Guy James Gray said as Brewer's trial got under way.
``He seems himself as a hero, a star, that he's really accomplished. It's really a kind of weird mindset.''
Brewer is the second of three white men charged with dragging James Byrd Jr. to death 15 months ago.
His attorney, Doug Barlow, entered an innocent plea after the capital murder indictment against him was read this morning. Brewer did not speak.
Barlow declined to make an opening statement to the jury today.
Brewer, along with John William King and Shawn Allen Berry, both 24, are accused of killing Byrd, 49.
King, the first to go to trial, was convicted and sentenced to death in February by a Jasper County jury. This time, a jury of 12 whites and two Hispanics is hearing the case against Brewer, 32. Two of the jurors are alternates.
26. Wild Bill - 9/13/1999 2:36:12 PM
Just signed onto The Mote, but one upon a life time I spent more than a few years forecasting typhoons in the Pacific. I wouldn't bet on a hurricane or typhoon track with anyone, but the vicinity of Jacksonville looks very likely for "Floyd"
Glad I live on the left coast.
27. Mr.Right-O - 9/13/1999 2:49:31 PM
One never knows with hurricanes especially because the Gulf Stream is so warm right now.
That's why so many of them get caught up in it and move toward North Carolina.
28. JJBiener - 9/13/1999 2:56:02 PM
Pat Robertson isn't busy these days. Maybe we can get him to pray Floyd out to sea.
HAHAHAHA!
(sorry)
29. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 3:21:55 PM
JJB,
As long as Floyd has even the slightest chance of taking out Disney World I suspect that Pat will decline to intervene.
30. Mr.Right-O - 9/13/1999 3:48:29 PM
Praying is for losers.
31. vonKreedon - 9/13/1999 4:43:17 PM
Grey - Two things:
1) the CCW link above links to the SLTrib, but not at this time to a CCW article.
2) I have this near irresitable urge to refer to you as Tarzan, do you mind?
32. Greystoke - 9/13/1999 6:52:59 PM
Mr. President
Here is a link to the archived Salt Lake Tribune from yesterday.
Call me whatever you like.
33. ranheim - 9/13/1999 7:36:59 PM
Hey! Y'all.
My son's in-laws own a small place on Bar Harbor. They have had enough trouble lately! Don't even mention the fact that Floyd could bend north.
34. alistairconnor - 9/13/1999 7:54:22 PM
Why are you people so afraid of Mr Ridenour anyway?
35. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:00:29 PM
BRYAN, Texas (AP) - Murder defendant and white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer was so proud of his participation in the gruesome dragging death of a black East Texas man last year that he wrote about it weeks later, prosecutors said Monday as Brewer's trial got under way.
``I'm the goddamned hero of the day,'' he wrote to another inmate while being held at the Jasper County Jail for the June 1998 Byrd slaying.
...more grisly stuff here...
36. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:09:19 PM
37. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:36:44 PM
38. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 8:37:48 PM
Not a new frame, but it worked...
39. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 9:37:40 PM
Atlantic City, New Jersey, Sept 13 - In a stunning departure from tradition, the Miss America pageant has decided to let women who have been married or had abortions compete, The Associated Press has learned.
The board of the Miss America Organization voted last month to drop the 49-year-old requirement that contestants be women who have never been married and never been pregnant. The change takes effect next year.
Fear of violating New Jersey's discrimination laws spurred the change, according to court documents obtained today.
40. scabby ho - 9/13/1999 10:08:15 PM
How did the officials know whether a contestant had ever been pregnant before?
Looks like I can compete for the Miss America title now. Do they have any rules against venereal disease?
41. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 10:37:23 PM
ho,
Here is most of the rest of the story. Good luck!
...Since 1950, contestants have had to swear they had never been married and never been pregnant in order to vie for the rhinestone crown and thousands of dollars in scholarship money.
The new rules would require simply that they sign a document saying 'I am unmarried' and 'I am not pregnant and I am not the natural or adoptive parent of any child'.
That would open the door to divorced women, women who had had abortions and women who had children who later died.
Pageant chief executive Robert Beck sent new contracts to state pageant directors in August notifying them of the change. Beck and other pageant officials declined requests for comment.
Beck, who took over the top job last spring, told the state pageants to have contestants in this year's pageant - scheduled for Saturday at Convention Hall -sign the new contracts as a condition of competing for the title of Miss America 2000.
The state pageants went to court to fight the change, and the Miss America Organization agreed to back off for this year. But the board approved the change for next year.
The state pageants are expected to continue fighting it.
"Miss America has a long history of high moral standards and traditions, and I'm opposed to anything that changes that," said Libby Taylor, executive director of the Miss Kentucky Pageant and president of the National Association of Miss America State Pageants.
Leonard Horn, the longtime CEO of the pageant who stepped down last year after 30 years with the organisation, said the rule change was a mistake.
"It is totally unnecessary and will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Miss America program," he said.
42. scabby ho - 9/13/1999 10:38:31 PM
I guess this means I'll have to off the kids.
43. robertjayb - 9/13/1999 11:18:17 PM
An excerpt from Salon's must-read debunking of the China-spy pseudo-scandal:
One of the most telling ironies is that perhaps the best article written to date on this whole complex subject was by William Broad in the New York Times Sept. 7. What makes this ironic, and not simply praiseworthy, is that Broad covered much of the same ground Times reporter Jeff Gerth did in "breaking" the Trulock-Wen Ho Lee story earlier this year -- but without all the breathless detail and implication of scandal and national-security disaster.
Broad's article reported that experts are not at all certain whether the Chinese achieved their success in warhead miniaturization by espionage, hard work or some mix of the two; that the common wisdom of a few months ago alleging "espionage" probably placed far too much emphasis on the Los Alamos Laboratory and on Wen Ho Lee in particular; and that even the extent of the damage to national security may have been greatly overstated. It put the Times in the odd position of correcting the mistakes, rushes-to-judgment and misapprehensions that the paper itself disseminated in the first place.
That hasn't been missed by observers who questioned Gerth's reporting on the Trulock story from the outset. "Broad reinterviewed all of [Gerth's] sources," New York Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson says. "You don't do that to a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter unless you have real doubts, unless you think he's made a major mistake."
The unraveling Chinese spy scandal has revealed once again that too many members of our elite political press have ferocity and doggedness in abundance without the historical consciousness or political acumen to make sense of what they report.
The Real China Scandal
44. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 12:23:59 AM
The heartwarming story of a family reunited.
45. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 6:32:44 PM
A $50,000 dollar windfall. But why should the government get to keep 60%?
46. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:05:06 PM
Slow news day, I guess.
47. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 7:12:26 PM
Hi marshame. Yes, its been slow here. Most people are talking about Censorship in the so-named thread, with spillover into the Playpen and Suggestions threads. Its quite interesting at times.
I'm hoping for more activity here once that debate winds down.
48. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:17:59 PM
Grey
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News this weekend about the Edinburgh, Texas school board banning the saying of the Pledge of Alligiance, because it contains the word "God" and the school attorney advised them to ban it in order to avoid possible litigation!
20th century validation of Shakespeare's opinion of lawyers!
49. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 7:52:12 PM
marshame
Ever since elementary school I've thought that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is quite silly. It sounds like a loyalty oath that would be more appropriate in an authoritarian nation. And why do we pledge allegiance to a flag? Its just a piece of cloth.
If someone is bothering to pledging allegiance, wouldn't it make more sense to pledge it to the nation, or to the President, or maybe to the Constitution?
Even so, I find it odd that a school board would ban the Pledge given its long tradition. How could anyone successfully sue simply because the Pledge contains the word "God"? I bet the school board will get lots of flack.
50. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 7:53:19 PM
"A $50,000 dollar windfall. But why should the government get to keep 60%?"
Income insurance for risk averse people
51. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 8:01:32 PM
Gruesome report from the second day of the "dragging death" trial in Texas.
52. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:04:18 PM
Spence
"Income insurance for risk averse people."
I don't understand.
53. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:09:43 PM
robertjayb
msg #51
Gruesome indeed. Why were the defendants tried separately?
54. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 8:16:09 PM
That's kind of tongue in cheek. Why 60%, and not 34.234%? I have no idea.
But for a general idea, imagine two risk averse people deciding on an income redistribution scheme, before they know their life situations --their families, their intelligence, etc. They are "behind the veil of ignorance" so to speak.
As far as they both know, their lifetime income is, at the time of this bargain behind the veil of ignorance, at least partially random. Some people will be born with less earning potential, for one reason or another, and behind the veil, nobody knows who if anyone it will be.
Since the bargainers are risk averse, they will want to accept a lower average lifetime income in exchange for less variance in their lifetime income. Behind the veil, they can and will want to reach an agreemnt wherein a high income person, whoever it may be, transfers some of his income to a low income person, whoever it may be. That way, everyone's variance in income is reduced, but they had to trade some of their average income (the amount they get when they are high-income weighted by the probability of being high income) to do it. That's life.
Now, when people learn their identities (are no longer behind the veil), and know more about their earning potentials, they will naturally want to renegotiate the deal. In particular, high-income types will know who they are now, and will want to renege on their scheme to compensate low income types.
This is one reason why, behind the veil of ignorance, the parties must agree to the artifice of a government. The government is useful because it makes it possible to commit to the agreement reached behind the veil -- government reduces the ability of high types to chip away at their committment to the low types.
Hypothetical in the extreme, yes. But still compelling from an ethical point of view.
55. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 8:17:18 PM
And since that has nothing to do with news of the day, I'll repost it in the econ thread, where it is more relevant. Please, take it up here or there if it interests you.
56. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:29:27 PM
Spence
"That's kind of tongue in cheek. Why 60%, and not 34.234%? I have no idea."
Why not 0% ?
I read your post #54 several times, and found it quite interesting. But I'm still not making the connection between your post and the woman who found the money.
57. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 8:41:24 PM
Spence
From the Economics thread:
"I have posted on progressive taxation as income insurance before -- at least 1.5 years ago in the Fray, in fact. But, I posted about it again just now in the News thread, and am copying the post here in the name of relevance to a thread's charge."
OK. Taxation as income insurance. Now I get it.
However, the 60% that the government took in the story I linked wasn't for taxes. The couple was taxed on the 40% they got to keep. I am unclear as to the rationalization for the government keeping 60% off the top.
58. Greystoke - 9/14/1999 9:26:29 PM
More about the $279,000 that a woman from Ringgold, Georgia found, from the Chattanooga Free Press.
An excerpt:
The money, placed in an interest-bearing account that had grown to $321,000 over two years, was split three ways: 40 percent went to Catoosa County, 40 percent was given to the Fultons and the federal government keeps 20 percent.
59. SpenceMirrlees - 9/14/1999 10:04:02 PM
Greystoke, these particular numbers highlight the limitations of simple toy models. Why them rather than some other numbers? Lots of touchy issues involving incomplete information and the need to eliminate the incentive for people to lie about their earning potential in their reports to the government, perhaps. Those constraints in a reasonably complex economy would make for a very complex tax code indeed, and could take ages to get a good handle on. (Of course, it does not mean that we owe our particular complicated tax code to these constraints rather than some other ones.)
60. robertjayb - 9/14/1999 11:12:49 PM
Greystoke,
There was talk early on about trying two of the guys together but the defense attorneys eventually asked for the trials to be separate.
Langiappe:
Molly Ivins Alerts Political Junkies
61. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:23:08 AM
The last sentence in the Chatanooga Free Press article gives the reason for the feds' getting a cut: it was deemed confiscated drug money (the next door neighbor might do well to assume a new identity, if he can). Of course, if the Tennessee "finder's keepers" law mentioned earlier applies, they were confiscating it from someone prima facie not the drug criminals from whom the confiscation statute doubtless stipulates it should be confiscated from. I think they should have had a better lawyer. (Presumably the county's cut is similarly rationalized.) There can be no doubt that it is sometimes true, the law is a ass.
Speaking of such laws and their relationship to the sterile offspring of horses and donkeys, can someone explain to me why such confiscatory laws as the RICO one, and NYC's seizure of a drunken driver's car on the spot, ie before arraignment, let alone trial and conviction, are not on the face of it unconstitutional?
(If you do this soon, I won't be here to thank you. I must to bed. But I will be tomorrow.)
62. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:23:43 AM
63. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:24:35 AM
Did I get it?
(Yes, per preview)
64. cmboyce - 9/15/1999 2:25:03 AM
And it's so. Good night, all.
65. CalGal - 9/15/1999 2:29:51 AM
66. CalGal - 9/15/1999 2:30:26 AM
Testing.
And if he means it's so it didn't show up as italic, that's something else I have to write up.
67. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 12:24:28 PM
68. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 1:54:52 PM
Thanks, Robert, for that excellent article...I especially liked the "textual exegetes" remark! I think that holds true for many political writers with axes to grind.
69. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 5:11:16 PM
Gene therapy reverses brain cell loss in aged monkeys
70. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:34:11 PM
ElliottRW,
That's wonderful news. I hope they hurry right along with the research.
A serious threat to brain cells during hurricane season:
Overexposure to callow news-twits stumbling about on beaches and piers while screaming unintelligible and unneeded information into the wind and rain.
Dan Rather has a lot to answer for...
71. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:36:19 PM
And he's still at it...
72. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 6:40:56 PM
robert:
Yes, I'm sure safety is served well by our local-yokel TV station sending a "Storm Team" to Florida. Imagine if every city the size of Dallas sent a team of reporters to cover a hurricane; well, hell, they probably DO. L'idiot! (Woody Allen-speak)
73. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:44:58 PM
Judith -- we're getting "hurricane" rains in DC. They say it may end our drought. We've already gotten some rains from Dennis, the previous hurricane.
That's what it was like in Central Texas when I was growing up. A good hurricane on the Gulf coast meant a source for rains in August and September in Waco. (Of course, one always hopes that the hurricane crashes into a county with only 500 people like the one that hit the Gulf below Corpus earlier this summer).
74. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 6:50:03 PM
glendajean:
I think Floyd is a breeze compared to what's going on a few threads over...
75. glendajean - 9/15/1999 6:50:52 PM
As in hurricanes, this, too, shall pass.
76. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 6:52:38 PM
Chuckle.
An ill wind?
77. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:21:21 PM
I had logged off for the evening and we turned on the TV to see that there has been another mass shooting about an hour ago...in a church here in Fort Worth. Early reports say 6 are dead, including the shooter (self-inflicted). Many people are being taken to the hospital.
This happened 6 blocks from my sons house and 2 blocks from our friends house. Our friends son is there now looking for his girlfriend, who was attending what was basically a prayer rally for young people.
The kids who have talked to the reporters keep saying they thought it was a joke at first; they say this every time one of these insane shootings happens.
78. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:22:26 PM
Judith:
You're kidding?! I haven't heard a peep on the news or on the Internet.
79. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:23:47 PM
Here it is, from AP:
Several Shot in Texas Baptist Church
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A man dressed in black walked into a teen-age church service Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting, injuring several, witnesses said.
Authorities said the man was believed to be dead, and local television reported that the man shot himself.
No other fatalities were immediately reported.
Five ambulances were sent to Wedgwood Baptist Church after the 7 p.m. shooting. Medical helicopters also went to the scene in the southwest corner of Fort Worth.
Witness Christy Martin said she thought about 15 people had been shot.
``He was very calm and looked normal and was smoking a cigarette,'' Martin, 17, told KDFW-TV.
The man walked into the sanctuary, pulled a gun and began firing, she said. ``I just saw him point the gun and shoot.''
AP-NY-09-15-99 2100EDT
80. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:24:46 PM
Ace:
I am not kidding...they just broke in on the local news. You'll be seeing it soon enough. Check the NBC station; we have an NBC affiliate here that is very aggressive.
81. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:24:50 PM
No one except the shooter is reported dead, though. Some injuries, but no other deaths.
82. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:27:26 PM
Well, they are saying it here that 6 are dead but they did say it was unofficial.
83. glendajean - 9/15/1999 9:27:35 PM
I hope you're right about the killer being the only dead person.
84. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:28:51 PM
The wire report is obviously more dated than a contemporaneous television report, so some might have died in the interim.
85. JudithAtHome - 9/15/1999 9:30:17 PM
They are also saying he tossed an bomb in there before he started shooting.
We're going to our friends house, they just called and need someone to stay around while they go to the hospital to check on their sons girlfriend....hope for the best.
86. Ace of Spades - 9/15/1999 9:32:58 PM
Oh, boy, Judith. I only skimmed your post originally. I didn't realize you knew someone who feared his girlfriend might have been shot.
I hope for the best, obviously.
87. glendajean - 9/15/1999 9:33:57 PM
Judith, I hope your friends are ok.
88. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 9:43:08 PM
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - A man dressed in black walked into a church service filled with teen-agers Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting, witnesses said.
Fire department spokesman Tony Rodriguez said some people died inside the church in the city's southwest corner. He said he received early reports that six people were dead, but could not confirm that number.
Rodriguez said eight victims went to three area hospitals.
``Everybody that needed to be transported has already been taken away,'' Rodriguez said. ``Only those eight people needed medical attention.''
Five wounded were taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, one to Harris Methodist Hospital and one 12-year-old went to Cook Childrens' Medical Center, fire officials said.
Authorities said the shooter was believed to be dead, and local television reported that he shot himself.
The shooting took place shortly after 7 p.m.
89. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 9:57:16 PM
Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 15, 1999 at 20:49 CDT
Several shot in Fort Worth church sanctuary
By Chris Vaughn
Star-Telegram
FORT WORTH -- A gunman walked into a sanctuary full of young people at a southwest Fort Worth Baptist church Wednesday evening and commenced firing, killing seven, including himself.
The shooting occurred at the Wedgwood Baptist Church about 7 p.m. during a rally related to "See You at The Pole," which attracted hundreds of teen-agers from a number of area churches.
When the gunman entered the church, a number of teens thought it was a skit, witnesses said. But the band playing, a group called Forty Days, reportedly started ducking behind amplifiers.
Initial reports also indicated that a pipe bomb exploded, sending shrapnel all the way into the balcony.
"There's cartridges, shrapnel and empty cart boxes and blood splattered all over the wall," said Lt. David Ellis, a police spokesman at the scene.
The gunman was wearing black leather jacket, blue jeans and a bandanna when he walked into the church. But a number of church members said they did not recognize the man.
An off-duty police officer who lives near the church heard the shots and called 911.
One man was reportedly taken into custody by police for questioning, but it was unclear what they hoped to gain from questioning.
90. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:03:14 PM
Man kills 6, self at FW church
09/15/99
By Jason Sickles / The Dallas Morning News
FORT WORTH - A gunman opened fire on children and adults gathered in the sanctuary of a Fort Worth church Wednesday, killing at least six people and then fatally shooting himself, police said.
The man entered from the back of Wedgwood Baptist Church in South Fort Worth, where people were gathered for a youth rally Wednesday night about 7 p.m. At least one bomb went off, sending people fleeing for cover, police said.
Eight people were injured and taken to hospitals, some of them in critical condition. Children and parents wept outside the church on Whitman Street. Parents were taken to a nearby elementary school.
Lt. David Ellis of the Fort Worth Police Department said officers were searching the church for more bombs. ATF officials were on the scene and had evacuated a two-block area around the church. He said bodies were inside and outside the sanctuary.
"Some of them look fairly young," Lt. Ellis said. "It is not secure of bombs yet. There's a lot of evidence scattered around the church. It does appear that they were fleeing. There are shoes in the hallway."
Lt. Ellis said evidence is throughout the church. The call came in from an off-duty officer who lives nearby and heard the gunshots.
"There's evidence in the balcony. There's shell casings and bodies everywhere. It's tragic. . . . It's obviously the worst scene that has ever happened in Fort Worth."
Witnesses said the church has a large youth population, and many attend a regular Wednesday night service. About 60 to 70 attended Wednesday for a special celebration of the "See You at the Pole Day" rally Wednesday.
91. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:41:11 PM
more from the Star-Telegram:
Kevin Rutledge and wife, Sundi, 22 both, were in the fellowship hall attending prayer meeting when they heard a commotion elsewhere in the church.
"We thought it was hammering," said Kevin, a ministerial student at Dallas Baptist University. But minutes later, he heard someone saying, "I'm not joking, I'm shot."
The church's pastor, Al Meredith, was at home when the shooting occurred and found out when a reporter called him.
A woman in the lobby of John Peter Smith Hospital, her clothes splattered with blood, said her 17-year-old daughter, Heather MacDonald, was saved by her best friend who was sitting next to her.
As the gunman approached, the woman said that her daughter's friend "laid on top of my daughter to protect her, and she got shot."
The injured teen-ager, believed to be 17, was not immediately identified.
Steve Brown said his wife, Jaynanne, was shot, but only grazed in the head. His wife was supposed to pick him up from work last night, but instead decided to take their children to a prayer meeting and concert at the church.
He said his wife was taken to Harris Methodist Hospital with a graze wound to the head, but that his children were alright.
"I thank the Lord somebody protected her," Brown said. "But it's just a shame you can't go to church without something like this happening."
92. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 10:45:57 PM
more from the Star-Telegram:
Dax Hughes, the church's college minister, said at least 150 young people were inside the sanctuary.
"He hits the door real hard to make his presence known and he just immediately started firing," Hughes said.
When the gunfire was over, Hughes said, the man "sat in the back pew and put a gun (to his head) and shot himself and fell over."
Chris Applegate, a seventh grader, said he was in choir practice when the gunman burst into the room.
"We were singing a song and then in the middle of the song this guy opened the door and fired one shot," he said. "He just kept telling us to stay still.
"We all just jumped under the benches and he fired about 10 more shots. . . . Somebody said, 'Run, run," and we all started running."
The man reloaded several times during the rampage, which some first thought was a skit or prank.
"I was wondering . . . whether it was real or not," Chris said.
Shortly after 8 p.m., police told reporters and bystanders to get inside an elementary school across the street from the church because "secondary devices" -- believed to be explosives -- had been found by the bomb squad.
Wedgwood Baptist Church is located at 5522 Whitman.
93. robertjayb - 9/15/1999 11:25:16 PM
AP says eight dead
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Eight people died and seven others were injured after a man dressed in black walked into a church service filled with teen-agers Wednesday night, pulled a gun and began shooting before fatally shooting himself, police said.
Fort Worth police Lt. David Ellis said three teen-agers and three adults were shot to death inside the church in the city's southwest corner. Another victim died at a hospital. The shooter appears to have been in his 30s.
Seven others went to hospitals with injuries, some of which appeared extremely critical, Ellis said.
94. joezan - 9/16/1999 12:20:24 AM
A young couple, both 24 years old, were in court today for an abuse and neglect hearing. My office is directly across the lobby from the main courtroom and, looking out the little window in my door I could tell there was something up, because shortly after the couple entered the courtroom 3 deputies entered the lobby and stood outside the courtroom, peeking through the window on the door.
Curious, I went out there and asked one of them what was going on. (I already knew about the charges - the younger of the two boys involved, 2 y.o., had been brought to the E.R. by his gramma with a spiral fracture of his arm, and the x-rays showed another, old fracture of the same arm. The father was facing several charges). The deputy explained that the husband had told his mother-in-law that if his two kids were taken away, "people were gonna die." They had run him through the metal detector and he was clean, but they wanted to be handy in case he rushed the bench or something.
As the Judge announced his decision to remove both children from the home, we could hear loud thuds from inside the courtroom. As the deputies opened the doors to run in, I saw the father smashing his head on the wooden table he was sitting at. At that moment, I recognized him.
9 years ago, he was in court for snatching the neighbor's dog, duct-taping it to a table, shaving its entire underside and melting hot wax all over it.
At that hearing, the same Judge he sat in front of today told him, "I pray you never have children."
95. glendajean - 9/16/1999 7:00:18 AM
NPR reported this morning that the Fort Worth killer has bulges in his clothes and authoritities are wary that it may be some kind of bomb or explosive device. So his body is on a church pew and they haven't approached it yet.
96. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:02:52 AM
We were unable to make it to our friends house...the girl is okay, just in shock. That entire neighborhood was closed off; no one getting in or out. My son was on his way to work and was stuck in front of the church for hours...he saw kids running out screaming and he helped calm several down; he was on site for about 3 hours and said it was the most incredible scene, that TV didn't show half of what was happening.
They've identified the shooter...a 47 year old man who was disturbed by the recent death of his father.
Reports from local news say the ATF is doing forensic tracking inside the church...I don't know if they've moved the bodies or not.
97. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:05:05 AM
Local FW/Dallas news this morning reports the bulges were full gun magazines.
98. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:07:25 AM
Holy Mother of God. Please tell me whether there's anywhere left in the world where you can feel safe. My heart is broken.
99. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 10:27:51 AM
Another day, another mass shooting, Deev.
Of course, guns don;t kill -- only people kill. The guns are merely innocent bystanders.
100. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:32:12 AM
Yes, Cellar...if this guy had only had sticks or stones, he could've wounded just as many. You bet...
I can hear it now: if a criminal wants a gun, laws won't prevent him from getting one, yada yada yada. Tell that to the parents of those kids.
101. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:38:11 AM
I have been feeling a sort of exhausted sadness ever since the news broke last night.
<:o(
102. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:46:11 AM
Cellar, I know you weren't in my bedroom last night, but that's exactly what I said to Sweetie when this item came on the news. When are people going to wake up?
103. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 10:50:33 AM
ChristiP:
My son was really shaken by this; he is a very personable guy but a loner by choice and I was surprised that he would stop and get involved with what was an extremely emotional situation. But he did and he said it was absolutely gut-wrenching.
He has in the past been somewhat anti-authority but he was really impressed with the way the police and rescue people handled the situation. He said it was like they had done this all their lives, which of course, they sort of have but still...this was the worst massacre in Fort Worth history.
Unfortunately, it may become an all too routine drill. Some one goes mad today and society pays.
104. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 11:15:15 AM
Judith -
Yes, I can empathize with your son.
I know that being there, supervisor in charge, when a guy went nuts and started shooting (USAF) was a life-changing experience for me.
I knew this guy. Prior to this I had thought of him as a mild sweet over-achiever. So the shock of what he did was big. It could have completely destroyed my already tenuous ability to trust people. However, there was the counterpoint of how well everyone in the situation pulled together and handled it - all of us in the shop, the SPs, and the base authorities higher up.
105. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 11:22:56 AM
You know, part of me is glad the guy shot himself as now we don't have to go through a long trial, etc. (and I feel guilty about feeling that way)
Another part of me is sorry he's dead because I would like to be able to ask him why he did it - not because any reason he had could possibly ever justify what he did, but because I have a small hope that if we can figure out why some people do these things, maybe we can prevent it from happening.
I know in the case of the guy who did the shooting in the USAF, we found out later that he had already tried to kill himself and he had been under psychiatric care. They told us that this is the way some people commit suicide - "suicide by cop" even though this guy, like the shooter last night, eventually shot himself.
Still, if it is a form of suicide...
WHY do some people feel the need to kill a bunch of other people when they kill themselves??
You know, I KNOW that there is a whole lot of life that doesn't make sense and never will, but I keep trying to make sense of it anyway...STOOOOPID!
106. DocBrown - 9/16/1999 12:19:10 PM
Bill Gates Gives a $ Billion in Minority Technology Scholarships.
The gift, to be announced in Seattle on Thursday, would be the Gateses' largest philanthropic contribution.
The scholarships in education, engineering, math and science will be called the Gates Millennium Scholarships and will seek to help at least of 1,000 high school students a year, The News Tribune of Tacoma and The New York Times reported Thursday editions.
A billion dollars is a lot of money to spend philanthropically. Interesting to see where Gates put it, hmmm?
107. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 12:32:26 PM
Doc
I think it's an excellent idea -- and something that state and federal government can no longer do due to various court decisions.
108. Macnas - 9/16/1999 12:47:42 PM
Message to all those who plan on shooting people and then shooting themselves....shoot yourself first.
What the fuck is going on over there? Here all gun owners must first register with the police, and every year are reviwed against police records. You can own only one rifle, and handguns are totally illegal.
Even air powered weapons are classed, by law, as firearms.
It might sound draconian, but if you are a law abiding citizen, you can still own a gun. Just a few more rules and checks to abide by, thats all.
109. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 12:54:13 PM
Macnas
"Here all gun owners must first register with the police, and every year are reviwed against police records."
Where is "here"?
110. Macnas - 9/16/1999 12:56:35 PM
Rep. of Ireland.
111. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/16/1999 1:15:30 PM
112. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 1:29:58 PM
Macnas
"You can own only one rifle, and handguns are totally illegal.
Even air powered weapons are classed, by law, as firearms."
I don't see those kinds of restrictions ever being imposed here in the US. There are millions of hunters. Most, at minimum, have a shotgun for birds and other small game, a .22 for small game, and a high powered rifle for deer.
I don't forsee a nationwide requirement for registration of handguns ever becoming law, let alone a ban.
Restrictions like those you mentioned would require a major confiscation effort by the government. We would have a civil war.
Do you know what the penalties are in Ireland for having more than one rifle, or for having an illegal handgun?
113. ranheim - 9/16/1999 1:46:06 PM
This is, very likely, not the proper thread for this; I don't know where it should belong.
Should you read the following, keep in mind that I am one who totally dis-likes the USA govt. at all three levels. Furthermore I have almost no trust in the govt.
Those of you who wish to control/ban weapons, how would you go about it?
I watched a very short piece on TV about a year ago. The scene was England just after they passed a law banning hand guns. I, in particular, noted all the very fancy dueling pistols that were confiscated. Some of them were works of art! Had they been in my family for several hundred years, I would have found a way to hide them from the State. Would your new proposed law make exception for this category of weapon? The dueling pistols that I saw on that TV program were good for 1 shot and had to be hand loaded (powder; the ball; tamping down; that whole bit) prior to the next use.
Would you include in your ban rifles and shotguns? Not military rifles! There must be some way to legally define the typical rifle used for hunting. I am on record as being an opponent of military, semi-automatic, and fully automatic weapons in the hand of civilians.
I have mentioned previously that the best hunter that I know uses, primarily, a bow and arrow. He feels that the usual hunting rifle does not utilize fully his skills. However, this same man must own at least a dozen weapons of various types. Some are extremely valuable.
We have never talked about a possible ban of guns.
BTW I do not own a weapon of any kind.
114. PsychProf - 9/16/1999 1:50:41 PM
SOME STORM 
115. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 1:53:53 PM
PP
Va Beach and the Eastern Shore are still getting hammered, but it looks like the worst has passed here.
Ranheim
How about controlling ammunition?
116. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 1:54:43 PM
ranhiem
"This is, very likely, not the proper thread for this; I don't know where it should belong."
Posts such as your #113 are entirely appropriate for this thread.
(BTW, I do not wish to control or ban firearms, so I cannot respond to your question.)
118. ranheim - 9/16/1999 1:57:17 PM
bubba
Same question "How would you do it?
After Waco, I am loathe to give the BATF more power!
119. CalGal - 9/16/1999 1:59:56 PM
Grey--a suggestion for the future. Not a complaint, either, just something to think about.
In the case of breaking big stories, you could put a few links in on the side so that people can easily catch up with what's happening. You could label the links as "Breaking News".
It might take a bit more maintenance, but it would avoid all the stories being posted in the thread, and seems in keeping with your thread.
I like your links--may I suggest the Merc?
And this next is a minor complaint--could people link more and post full text less?
120. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:01:06 PM
Ranheim
Many would argue that there is so much ammunition available now, that making any effort to institute controls is futile. The same reasoning might apply to the folks in Floyd's path who have 2 feet of water in their basement -- why bother to takes steps to control it?
It seems that by tagging explosive types (available technology) and registering ammunition purchases, we should be able to at least trace ammunition used illegally even if it is impossible or unreasonable to confiscate firearms already in circulation.
121. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:02:06 PM
I swear I didn't post in italics. I didn't do it, I'm not responsible.
122. CalGal - 9/16/1999 2:02:20 PM
Heavens. Sorry about that.
123. CalGal - 9/16/1999 2:02:35 PM
No, it was me. Sorry, bubba.
124. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:02:35 PM
can i fix it?
125. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 2:03:39 PM
Cal
sawright. I just seem so likely to be responsible for errant toys today.
126. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 2:08:24 PM
from The Dallas Morning News:
Church shooting victims
09/16/99
The gunman killed three teenagers and three adults before fatally shooting himself. A seventh victim died later at a hospital.
People killed:
Four youths
Kristi Beckel, 14, white female - wounded victim who died at John Peter Smith Hospital overnight
Joseph D. Ennis, 14, white male
Cassandra Griffin, 14, white female
Justin M. Ray, 17, white male
Three adults
Sydney R. Browning, 36, white female
Shawn C. Brown, 23, white male
Susan Kimberly Jones, 23, white female
The Gunman
Larry Gene Ashbrook, 47, shot self in head after shooting others
People taken to area hospitals
Harris Methodist hospital
Kevin Galey of Fort Worth, 38-year-old church counselor, good condition but in surgery
Jaynanne Brown of Crowley, 41-year-old choir member, superficial scalp wound, released
Cook Children’s Medical Center
12-year-old boy, shot in back, fair condition
John Peter Smith Hospital
Robert DeBord, 17, gunshot wound to chest, critical condition
Justin Laird, 16, gunshot wound to back, critical condition
Mary Beth Talley, 14, gunshot wound to torso, fair condition
Jeff Laster, 36, gunshot wound to abdomen, critical condition
Died overnight: Kristy Beckel, 14, gunshot wound to head, entered hospital in critical condition
127. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 2:10:58 PM
CalGal
Thanks for the suggestions. Both are good ideas.
Yesterday, I could only get 13 links to display. Today, all 16 that I input showed up. So, fortunately, I wouldn't have to bump something as important as the Drudge link in order to display a "breaking news" link.
What's the "Merc"?
129. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 2:19:35 PM
I have to grab a chainsaw and head for my mother-in-law's house. See you all later.
I have to trim her trees.
Really.
130. ranheim - 9/16/1999 2:26:20 PM
bubba #120
I am going to post and run. Wife insists that I must go shopping with her! God, how I hate the need for new clothes!!
In this poor and rural portion of Louisiana there remain a few families who supplement their tables with game and fish.
Would your proposition increase the cost of ammunition to them? I realize that this is very, very tiny amount of ammunition used.
131. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 2:32:15 PM
Greystoke,
Got room for Mother on the list of links?
MoJo Wire
132. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 3:02:48 PM
Will the "concealed carry" issue return for Shrub?
133. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:08:55 PM
Greystoke's #129 was funny as hell.
134. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 3:40:05 PM
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said Thursday that ``a wave of evil'' - not a lack of gun control laws - is the cause of rampant gun violence in America.
When in doubt, go Metaphysical.
135. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:48:18 PM
that George Dubya. Whatta card.
136. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:48:36 PM
Toys, dear.
137. Fraaankster - 9/16/1999 4:04:38 PM
Is post # 111 courtesy of Robert Dente ? It's his style.
I'm still laughing...Throw in Ted Nugent while you're at it also.
138. JudithAtHome - 9/16/1999 4:14:37 PM
Whimsy Wizard: Nice job...love your style.
139. joezan - 9/16/1999 5:50:31 PM
Fraaaaank:
You beat me to it...I immediately thought the same thing...
140. Greystoke - 9/16/1999 7:06:23 PM
141. Cellar Door - 9/16/1999 7:13:53 PM
What's shocking about this story, greaystoke, is that it's actually made the papers. None of this is new, you know.
142. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 7:25:53 PM
Another glorious victory in the war on drugs.
143. robertjayb - 9/16/1999 9:09:07 PM
Prosecution rests in dragging death trial...grim stuff
144. Cygnus X-1 - 9/16/1999 10:58:06 PM
This just in:
A new study reveals that kids (with both a mother and a father) that don't get along with their fathers are more likely to abuse drugs. Suprisingly, however, there was no study on what effects there would be if the kids didn't get along with the mother.
145. ranheim - 9/16/1999 11:04:05 PM
FEMA
This is a highly relevant organization. Federal Emergency M ...A. . .
What is the group's feelings or actual contact with this federal bureaucracy. FEMA had some very bad press early in its existanc; is its performance improving?
Should there be such an agency to begin with?
I'm headed for bed. See you in the morning.
146. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 11:16:00 PM
Today the Missouri Legislature voted to override Governor Carnahan's veto of a bill banning partial birth abortions. This was in spite of a well funded disinformation campaigned waged by the pro-abortion lobby. This demonstrates that lies and scare tactics no longer have the political power they once had.
147. JJBiener - 9/16/1999 11:26:34 PM
Ranheim - FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is one of those political third rails no one dares criticize no matter what they do. How can you possibly disagree with a government agency that helps people who have survived a disaster. It doesn't matter how badly FEMA mismanages their funding or whether they ignore regulation and reason when distributing money like a rich uncle at Christmas. The intention is good, so the actual execution is irrelevant.
148. Macnas - 9/17/1999 3:40:00 AM
Ranheim/Greystoke
I dont propose that the federal authorities confiscate all handguns. I was outlining the controls in my country. Its different in others, a lot of european countries have liberal gun laws. Most, however, do involve the police regulating the issuance of firearm certificates.
Guns are dangerous, so are some people. Try not to let the dangerous people have easy access to guns.
I know its a sore point, and one which gets a lot of backs up in America, but you folk should have more control over who has guns. You have had multiple "multiple" shootings, when we hear it over here we just cant fucking understand it! It sounds like a huge problem.
When it happened in the UK in Hungerford, they banned fullbore semiautos. When it happened in Dunblain, they banned handguns.
I know its different in the states, you love your guns, you love the right to own as many guns as you can fit in your house and the waistband of your pants. I know I'm generalising, but thats how it sounds to us all watching it on the nightly news.
As for the question I was was posed about penalties in Ireland for illegal firearms use/ownership, maximum is 25 years in Prison.
149. CalGal - 9/17/1999 3:43:46 AM
When it happened in Hungerford, they had incredibly strict gun control. Didn't do any good. When it happened in Dunblain, it sure hadn't helped, either. And I sincerely doubt you all are safe from the next nutjob who comes along.
My concern about these people is that they used to be naturally occurring phenomena. Now they are manufactured.
150. Macnas - 9/17/1999 3:52:07 AM
I'm afraid the Uk did not have incredibly strict gun laws at the time of Hungerford, at least by our standards anyway. You could own whatever you liked, even, in certain circumstances, full autos.
The Dunblain murders were carried out with pistols. It might tend to suggest that the next (God forbid) incident will be carried out with a shotgun, then a knife, then a club, then a rock, I dont know. I do know that you folk, in the US, have a big problem with guns.
151. CalGal - 9/17/1999 3:58:59 AM
In comparison to the US, the UK had incredibly strict gun laws. As did Scotland. There were strict licensing requirements.
And yet, I imagine until recently the occurrence of mass murders in both countries was pretty similar. Recently, in the US, it's become a fad. But until then I think you'd notice a pattern throughout our history (and probably England's as well) of random wacko multiple murders.
And as you know, nearly all armed crime in England is committed with illegal guns. So it's not like they're doing any good at keeping guns out of the hands of anyone who wants one.
Finally, armed crime in England is going up, despite all that increased control.
Face it--ain't no correlation between gun control and crime drops. So I'm not sure what you mean by the US having "a problem" with guns.
We are a violent people. Nothing's changing that.
And, of course, there is that pesky 2nd Amendment. I mean, in the end, we can't ban guns the way England did, even if we were silly enough to want to.
152. Macnas - 9/17/1999 4:13:50 AM
Have to agree with you on the tenuous connection between gun control and gun crime.
By the way, just about all the armed crime anywhere, is carried out with illegal guns, not just the UK. I dont recall hearing that armed crime has increased in the UK, you might point me to your source on that one.
But what are ye going to do about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns?
And for Christs sake! :
"We are a violent people. Nothing's changing that.
And, of course, there is that pesky 2nd Amendment. I mean, in the end, we can't ban guns the way England did, even if we were silly enough to want to."
You sound almost gleeful.
153. CalGal - 9/17/1999 4:36:24 AM
I'm zonked tonight, but if you do a search on Dunblaine, you'll find the Chief HooHaw's report online. The back of the report has a lot of data on crime in England.
If you can't find it, I'll look for it on the weekend.
Agreed about armed crime being generally committed with illegal arms. Of course, this particular crime was not done with illegal arms. Neither were at least two of the guns used in the Atlanta day trading catastrophe.
I'm not gleeful. We have a second amendment. Which I personally think is a good thing. And it's certainly arguable that Americans are just more violent.
154. ranheim - 9/17/1999 7:50:16 AM
FEMA
I vaguely recall a local newspaper making fun of FEMA a year (or so) ago. The source of the local report was the CATO Institute and the subject was snow removal - which we in LA don't have to worry about.
The local report was anti-FEMA as they believed that northern communities were taking advantage of a routine, yearly occurrence : snow fall. And we taxpayers in the south were picking up the tab for what should be a locally budgeted item.
155. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:46:31 AM
ranheim,
That argument is silly, because FEMA does not get involved in each snowfall, or even each major one. I can recall FEMA being involved in only 3 winter conditions in Eastern Pennsylvania in the 90's, a 15" snowfall in '94, a 25+" snowfall in '96 and a situation where we had a 2" coating of ice on all roads and the temperature stayed below the point where normal salt is useful in '93 (and FEMA provided nearly no help then). By the same token, FEMA is involved in earthquakes in California, and hurricanes in the South far more regularly.
156. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 12:31:48 PM
Fort Worth shooter said to have ties to Phineas Priests:
article
157. ranheim - 9/17/1999 7:01:55 PM
Dan
I'm not surprized that you consider #154 silly. It was a southern newspaper making fun of both the government and the north. That it too much fun for most local newspapers to pass up.
My purpose in asking about FEMA is twofold : it is going to be instructive, possibly, to see how it operates with the floods as a result of the recent hurricane + should that organization exist at all. I'm interested in comments about both.
158. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:27:51 PM
Macnas
"But what are ye going to do about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns? "
Nothing. We are going to do precisely nothing of consequence "about people shooting lots of other people with legally held guns." That is one of the prices we pay for a free society. We will not follow the example of the oppressed sheep of the UK.
What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission. Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York.
159. Cellar Door - 9/17/1999 7:38:43 PM
"That is one of the prices we pay for a free society."
MUCH too expensive.
"We will not follow the example of the oppressed sheep of the UK."
BAAAAA! BAAAAA! We've got our own oppressed shepp.
"What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission."
Dream on, dream on.
Or more to the point -- Wet Dream On, Wet Dream on!
"Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York."
They see the "wisdom" in it already. They're already personally owned and operated by the NRA.
160. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:45:33 PM
"We've got our own oppressed shepp."
And Curly, Moe, and Larry.
161. Greystoke - 9/17/1999 7:58:18 PM
Ooops. I guess that would be Shemp.
162. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 9:01:40 PM
What will turn this debate around is when an armed citizen blows away a prospective mass murderer before he can complete his suicide mission. Then, politicians will suddenly see the wisdom in concealed carry laws for handguns, and every state will have one, even New York.
Greystoke is certainly more right than wrong on this point. The concealed carry issue gained great momentum in Texas following
a 1991 horror at Killeen where the shooter crashed a pickup truck into a crowded cafeteria at lunchtime and started blasting away. Twenty-three people died.
The gunman was 35, lived with his mother and was described as being bitter, disgruntled, and deranged in the months before the shooting. He killed himself when the cops showed up.
Sound familiar?
When I first heard of this I was amazed that in central Texas,among the 200 or so diners, someone wasn't packing. But there was a woman who had left her piece in the car. I don't remember if any of her friends or family members were hurt. But she was motivated to run and win a seat in the legislature where she became a champion of a concealed carry law.
The law went into effect in 1996 and as of last July there were about 200,000 permit holders.
163. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 9:14:16 PM
164. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/1999 10:18:11 PM
165. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 10:57:35 PM
But there was a woman who had left her piece in the car. I don't remember if any of her friends or family members were hurt. But she was motivated to run and win a seat in the legislature where she became a champion of a concealed carry law.
She was Dr. Suzanna Gratia Delisi, a chiropractor. The following is from her legislative biography:
"Suzanna is recognized worldwide as one of the leading advocates for an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon. In 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. As a survivor of this tragedy, her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to self-defense have thrust her into the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Since the Killeen massacre, she has testified numerous times across the country for the restoration of the Second Amendment. She has been quoted in US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Texas Monthly, People, and many others. Suzanna's tireless efforts in this arena were recently recognized when she was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award by the National Rifle Association."
166. robertjayb - 9/17/1999 11:17:44 PM
Correction:
The name of the gun-toting legislator-chiropractor mentioned above is Suzanna Gratia Hupp, not Delisi.
167. TrialShark - 9/18/1999 3:45:03 AM
My favorite bit from the article about the dragging-death trial:
"[Brewer] also denied testimony from a fellow inmate that after his arrest in the Byrd case he said all black people should be shot in the head.
"'I never made that statement,' he said. 'I can't see myself making that statement, because I knew I was being watched because of the crime that occurred.'"
How much better his testimony would have been had Brewer said, "I can't see myself making that statement because I don't think that."
168. CalGal - 9/18/1999 4:54:12 AM
TrialShark! Hi.
Actually, I think the honesty makes it more believable. But send him to jail for eternity anyway.
169. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 4:58:50 AM
Cal:
I was going to say that, too. There's really no point in him claiming he's not a racist. If you lie, tell plausible lies. Say you'd never do it because of self-interest.
170. CalGal - 9/18/1999 5:02:34 AM
Exactly. If he was the kind of guy who'd never make that statement, then he'd probably not have done what he did.
171. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 5:07:38 AM
Cal:
"I might be a Murderer, but damnit, I certainly am not a racist!!!!"
Yeahp.
172. ranheim - 9/18/1999 12:17:33 PM
Is anyone paying any attention to the fact that Clinton is allowing limited status to N.Korea : non-military trade; air & sea transport; banking; communication. In return, they are delaying (possibly cancelling) a proposed launch of a longer range missile. N.Korea is "softening"?
Millions must be starving!
173. CalGal - 9/18/1999 1:33:41 PM
Ran--I could swear someone mentioned it in International.
Grey--Ace mentioned somewhere that News of the Day is a Fray remnant. Truth, and you might want to consider renaming the thread?
Ace suggested Current Events, which is a good one. But in keeping with CoralReef's plaint that our thread titles are boring, maybe you want to make it something fun or quirky?
I am now becoming very Valley Girl? Everything ends in question marks?
174. coralreef - 9/18/1999 1:59:31 PM
Current Events is fine with me, for what that's worth. Not to stand in the way of any other change though, if people want it. Changing the titles somewhat from the old place might be a good general idea, in cases where it is a practical, workable thing to do.
175. TrialShark - 9/18/1999 3:07:26 PM
Cal --
Hi! back at you.
I've seen a lot of variations on that approach: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client may be a [insert socially-unacceptable adjective here], but he's no criminal!"
Oddly enough, it never seems to work. Counterintuitive, maybe, but there it is.
Here, you can count on the prosecutor to argue that the defendant conceded by implication that he does believe all blacks should be shot in the head. Call me a cynic, but I don't think that display of candor will advance the defendant's cause in this particular instance.
176. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:11:36 PM
Actually, I suggested "Current Affairs," which might sound stodgy, but "Current Events" sounds like a fourth-grade Weekly Reader thing.
177. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:12:09 PM
"In the News"?
"Headlines"?
178. God - 9/18/1999 3:12:37 PM
How 'bout just: Shit Happens
179. God - 9/18/1999 3:12:53 PM
or Shit Happening
180. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 3:14:24 PM
Some Happenin' Shit
181. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:41:57 PM
Excrement that was ordained to happen and has.
182. dusty - 9/18/1999 7:49:39 PM
ranheim
My purpose in asking about FEMA is twofold : it is going to be instructive, possibly, to see how it operates with the floods as a result of the recent hurricane + should that organization exist at all. I'm interested in comments about both.
I confess I haven't followed FEMA too closely, but I'd vote to eliminate it. I'm nervous about getting into too much of a discussion, becuase it seems to be a favorite subject of some of the whacked out right.
183. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 8:36:28 PM
184. CalGal - 9/18/1999 8:54:59 PM
Quite apart from the content, that is a gorgeous looking page.
185. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 9:08:39 PM
Molly Ivins' tips on mass killings: What to do while waiting for "more love in society." 186. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 9:13:22 PM From The Salt Lake Tribune: 187. joezan - 9/18/1999 9:18:24 PM Cal: 188. CalGal - 9/18/1999 9:21:23 PM
Molly
Besides protesting police crackdowns on Liberty Park drum circlers and State Street cruisers, Salt Lake City mayoral candidate Ken Larsen founded the Church of the Hemp Goddess.
Larsen says he formed the religion five years ago to "dramatize . . . that the drug war is a war of religious persecution, where the majority is enforcing their religious views on the minority."
Although Larsen says he has "never touched, much less inhaled" marijuana, he insists pot is no more harmful than wine, peyote or kava juice, all stimulants that are used in religious ceremonies. Larsen says marijuana should not be treated as an illegal drug.
Larsen has performed several marriages, two recorded, in his role as "mouth" of the Church of the Hemp Goddess. He also is an ordained minister with the Church of Universal Life.
Born and reared in Provo, Larsen graduated from Brigham Young University in 1974 with a degree in herpetology, the study of reptiles. Now he works as a researcher at the University of Utah, studying the effect of jet lag on rats.
Yea, but how the heck did this happen?
and IÕm donating my time and effort to oppose this bullshit!"
...and this: at the meeting: "You donÕt...
189. Greystoke - 9/18/1999 9:22:57 PM
Toys.
190. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 9:27:44 PM
Did I do that?
Sorry.
191. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 10:17:42 PM
I'm so embarrassed!
192. robertjayb - 9/18/1999 10:18:06 PM
Okay?
193. CalGal - 9/18/1999 10:22:43 PM
Robert--do you use the Check for Dust option? If you check the "did you put your toys away" question at the bottom, it will show whether or not you cleaned everything up.
Although I sometimes am convinced I put everything away and so don't bother to check, too.
195. JudithAtHome - 9/19/1999 12:19:06 PM
I'm watching a local program on the Mass Murder which happened here last week; one man has charged the media with "emotional vampirism", a nice turn of phrase, I think. The local stations were very intrusive and sensationalistic through this entire ordeal. I guess there is no way to handle this well but common decency toward the victims families might be a good place to start.
There were cameras following the families into the hospitals and the vultures were interviewing anyone caught standing around, whether they had anything to say or not. One teenage girl was obviously in shock; her delivery was monotone and unemotional and her eyes were clearly fixed...the reporter was completely oblivious to her condition and kept the microphone shoved in her face and the tape rolling. It was over the line of "news".
196. CalGal - 9/19/1999 12:49:34 PM
one man has charged the media with "emotional vampirism",
Very nice turn of phrase. Of course, the appalling thing is that we watch them suck the blood. ("we" in the generic sense; I refuse to watch coverage any more and I'm sure I'm not alone.)
If you look throughout US history, you will see a reasonably steady occurrence of the random wacko murderer angry at the world, taking out some people before he kills himself. It seemed to be a "naturally occurring" phenomenon (quotes because, of course, there isn't anything natural about it).
Sometime around Jonesboro, though, the coverage made the act attractive. At this point, I no longer think of it as a "natural" occurrence. It's a trend, a fad, a public-validated means of self-expression. Nauseating, isn't it?
I am hopeful that the rapidly decreasing coverage of each successive event will cause the fad to pass quickly.
197. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 1:56:16 PM
Some of the people who were involved in the Jonesboro crisis conducted a workshop at our school and their biggest emphasis after dealing with the initial crisis was on the media and how to help the victims and community while reporters and photographers are absolutely everywhere. Some of the stories they told about media tactics were thoroughly disgusting, and people didn't know how to deal with it because they were all over the place, listening to cell phone calls, calling victims' families at home, taking up hotel rooms (not a lot available in that town) that families and others who needed to be there could have used. They said most were reasonable, but the huge numbers made the few who weren't much harder to deal with.
198. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 5:06:46 PM
What happens to the old guns when the police buy new ones?
199. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 5:21:04 PM
Free speech versus the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division.
( I found it amusing. )
200. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 7:34:19 AM
Reasons to Not Live in the Ramparts
201. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 7:40:57 AM
Reasons to Not Live in the Ramparts
202. robertjayb - 9/20/1999 4:19:00 PM
....
Brewer Guilty in Dragging Death
203. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:15:13 PM
As I said last week, Mr. Brewer's display of "candor" wasn't especially helpful to his cause.
204. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:25:13 PM
Cal --
You wrote, re mass killings: "Sometime around Jonesboro, though, the coverage made the act attractive. At this point, I no longer think of it as a 'natural' occurrence. It's a trend, a fad, a public-validated means of self-expression."
Isn't that just a nuanced way of saying "Guns don't kill people -- the six o'clock news kills people?"
205. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 5:33:43 PM
Guns don't kill people, Charleton Heston kills people....
206. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 5:37:59 PM
Hey Jonesy!
I don't think Chucky H. has actually killed anyone, though he probably could qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
Did you see his performance in "True Lies?" Anything that stinks up a theatre that bad has to violate the Geneva Convention.
207. JonesAtLaw - 9/20/1999 5:54:01 PM
Trial- agreed. Hey, I just saw Drudge on TV the other night between late night informercials. Why is he dressed like an extra for His Girl Friday? He really sees himself as a 90's Walter Winchell doesn't he?
208. CalGal - 9/20/1999 7:11:33 PM
TS,
For that particular category of wacko, yeah. That is what I'm saying.
209. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 7:11:49 PM
Another frivolous lawsuit.
( Getting castrated the hard way. )
210. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 7:29:39 PM
211. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 8:47:01 PM
Grey (re MSG NUM 209)
There is no easy way to be castrated. Although the guy at Luke AFB who did it to himself -- using the sawtooth edge of a fish-filleting knife -- still sort of stands out in my mind.
212. Greystoke - 9/20/1999 9:00:34 PM
Trialshark
"the guy at Luke AFB who did it to himself -- using the sawtooth edge of a fish-filleting knife"
Do you know why he did it?
213. TrialShark - 9/20/1999 9:06:03 PM
Grey --
He was about to be charged with molesting one of the young ladies in his church congregation. Apparently he recalled the Biblical passage "if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off," but realized that his hand wasn't the source of his troubles.
214. PsychProf - 9/20/1999 9:10:41 PM
TAIWAN EARTHQUAKE
Click on photo 
215. robertjayb - 9/20/1999 9:32:32 PM
...
I feel sorry for the Taiwanians.
216. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 1:26:52 AM
"I feel sorry for the Taiwanians."
Welcome to the Mote, Governor Bush.
217. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:07:13 AM
Virginia Governor Gilmore, ever the original thinker, feels that we haven't gotten tough enough on drugs and has made an unheard-of proposal -- a "War on Drug Kingpins"! Among his earth-shaking proposals are:
Requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for drug "kingpins", defined as anyone convicted of making a $100,000 profit in the previous 12 months, Selling 1 kg of heroin, 10 kg cocaine, 1 kg crack cocaine, 100 grams methamphetimine, or 260 lbs/50 plants of marijuana.
Why hasn't anyone every thought of having a "War on Drugs" before?
218. theDiva - 9/21/1999 11:13:04 AM
oh, as if drug kingpins pass out bidness cards and keep their books according to the accrual method.
God, I love the Commonwealth.
219. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:19:51 AM
I think most drug kingpins use double-entry bookkeeping. Wouldn't the prosecution need to know expenditures as well as receipts? And are the kingpins allowed standard deductions for business expenses?
220. theDiva - 9/21/1999 11:25:35 AM
Yeah, and you gotta watch 'em, because they can get real slippery on those bidness deductions. I mean, how can you determine when a hooker has been hired for bidness purposes? And then there's all that cheap champagne.
221. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 11:26:22 AM
Actually, the substantive terms of Governor Gilmore's proposal aren't that far-fetched. Ten kilos is a lot of cocaine.
And even if he is a latecomer to the war on drugs, at least it gives him something to do with his spare time. Everyone needs a hobby. His old one -- filing frivolous suits against prospective widows -- wasn't all that interesting.
222. bubbaette - 9/21/1999 11:28:07 AM
Trailshark
I especially like the "let's try this -- it's failed in the past" mentality.
223. JonesAtLaw - 9/21/1999 12:15:28 PM
I stick by my old TT tag line- "We still have a war on drugs because there are no good protest songs." Probably they keep forgetting the lyrics.
224. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 12:22:44 PM
bubba --
If at first you don't succeed, pass tougher sentencing guidelines.
225. ElliottRW - 9/21/1999 1:13:50 PM
Re: prospective widow
trialshark
What exactly is a "prospective widow" and what sorts of lawsuits might one file against one?
226. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 1:28:17 PM
ElliotRW --
Check out this link.
227. robertjayb - 9/21/1999 2:40:23 PM
.
slow news day...
HowdyDuty (the actual slug)
DALLAS (AP) - Big Tex's voice is changing this year.
Jim Lowe, 73, says his health is forcing him to give up the job of announcing greetings, announcements and commentary as the voice of the State Fair of Texas' famous 52-foot-tall cowboy.
``I won't be in any shape to take it on,'' Lowe said Monday, a week after doctors removed his gallbladder. ``I'll miss it like crazy.''
Booming out ``Howdy, pardner'' when the fair begins at 10 a.m. Friday will be Dan Alexander of Dallas, who has been singing advertising jingles since 1957.
``I'm kind of awestruck right now,'' Alexander, 64, told The Dallas Morning News. ``Those are big shoes to fill.''
228. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 2:45:37 PM
And here I thought a howdy duty was a tax on greeting cards...
229. ChristinO - 9/21/1999 2:54:52 PM
That's a nostalgia trip for me. Whenever our family would split up at the State Fair we'd agree to meet back up at the left boot of Big Tex.
230. TrialShark - 9/21/1999 7:47:21 PM
Grey --
I like the colorful links on the right-hand side of the page. Is it just a coincidence that the Washington Post is pink?
231. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 7:53:30 PM
The yellow CNN sucks, the pink post sucks, and the white fox is almost illegible.
232. JudithAtHome - 9/21/1999 7:56:24 PM
Well, they got the Dallas link the right color...just like the money over there.
233. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 7:57:49 PM
And why aren't they all the same size? Some kinda Mormon/Chinese moderator or something?
234. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 7:57:59 PM
Trialshark
Yes, its coincidence. I didn't mean to imply that the esteemed publication has a Commie pinko ideology.
I would attempt to get fancier, but there is a limitation of 40 characters per link name, including the html tags.
235. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 8:03:12 PM
Spiderman
Octo Octavius helped me do that just to confound you.
236. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 8:04:25 PM
Hi Tarzan,
Are Tonto and Frankenstein around here too?
237. robertjayb - 9/22/1999 12:23:47 AM
.
Maureen Dowd on the Forrest Gump biography of Ronald Reagan
238. JudithAtHome - 9/22/1999 11:19:58 AM
Did anyone see Politically Incorrect last night? Ann Coulter was put in her place by a young man who was a guest panelist; she tossed off the phrase "you people" to him and he jumped right on her. He asked, "Did you just say 'you people' to me? Do you mean blacks or fat people?" He was both and was holding his own in an argument with her over the founding fathers owning slaves and in one about obese people learning to accept themselves. I was cheering him on because I can't stand Ann Coulter but also because he was a good guest panelist, unlike many who are cowed by Mahr and the other panelists.
239. Thoughtful - 9/22/1999 12:38:30 PM
240. Thoughtful - 9/22/1999 12:38:53 PM
This is the current events page, no?
241. robertjayb - 9/22/1999 5:04:28 PM
Wm. F. Buckley,Jr., reviews articles on Bush and Buchanan
242. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 5:05:46 PM
thoughtful
An electrifyingly funny pair of posts.
243. dusty - 9/22/1999 8:57:53 PM
Anyone else ashamed of the brazen hypocrisy of the administration's decision to sue the tobacco companies?
I say the tobacco companies should counter-sue for all the money they've saved the government in reduced SS payments. I'd be willing to bet that the savings far exceed the claimed costs.
I'd also ask for a refund of all excise (not income) taxes paid over the years.
244. Cygnus X-1 - 9/22/1999 10:27:55 PM
dusty, Re Message #243
I'm ashamed - ashamed that they're not going after Hostess & Tasty Cake, too. I mean come on! The stuff they make is so good yet so fattening. I'm sure they knew that the more fat & sugar they put into their products, the more people would eat. Just think of all of the shame and humiliation - not to mention health problems - suffered by obese people who eat their admittedly legal products. Why I'd be willing to say that they're responsible for the epidemic of obesity among our nation's youth!
Let's face it. Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
245. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 2:17:34 AM
I say the tobacco companies should counter-sue for all the money they've saved the government in reduced SS payments.
Sure they should, dusty. I can almost hear closing arguments now:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client deserves to be compensated for its unselfish contribution to the public good, which consists of killing worthless scum like you before you have a chance to suck at the teat of FDR's socialist abomination, the Social Security system."
Yessir. That'd be a real winner.
246. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:34:13 AM
dusty
I posted on the Political thread my thoughts on this. It won't be long before the Feds. go after the bear, wine and wiskey makers. Of course, they will have their little simp backers, as we see above, defending such outrageous behavior. They will lose this suit, because it has no basis in fact or in law. Now there are a lot of posters on the MOTe that claim to be lawyers. Let's hear them sefend this kind of nonsense. they have become expert at it over the last coubple of years.
247. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:00:43 AM
Hey al --
Aside from your personality issues, you seem to be a pretty bright guy: do you think a jury would buy dusty's argument that the cigarette industry deserves compensation for all the Social Security payments its products have saved over the years?
And if you don't think that's likely to be an especially-successful argument, why are you busting my chops for pointing it out?
248. Macnas - 9/23/1999 3:37:52 AM
It'll be very interesting to see how the US go about this, I find it hard to believe that after many years of taxing a product, thereby gaining from its sales as the manufacturer does, that they can turn around and sue 'em!
249. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 7:15:46 AM
Macnas
Everytime the taxes increase on cigs, the leveying entity says that the tax is justified by the increased health and productivity taxes for smokers. I don't know if the Feds take a cut of that or not.
They're probably thinking, "we taxed the end user, maybe we can tax the manufacturer as well."
In our state, rather than using the proceeds from the states suit for things like stop-smoking programs or buying back farm tobacco allotments, they're currently talking about using the money to build roads and other projects usually provided from the general fund.
250. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:16:30 AM
TrialShark
That. Of course, is why they cannot do it. Not because their argument has no merit, but because it wouldn't play well.
251. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:19:06 AM
Aldavis
Why do you assume they will lose this suit? The attorneys general won similar suits with similarly weak arguments. (Ok, technically, they reached a settlement, but the industry was scared enough of the potential for loss to agree to fork over billions.)
252. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:21:01 AM
Macnas
Not just collecting billions in taxes, but actively promoting the industry through massive subsidies.
253. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 8:31:20 AM
Dusty
" Not because their argument
has no merit, but because it wouldn't play well. "
Also because their argument not only has no merit, but because it doesn't seem the tobacco companies would have any standing to sue. Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives? If anyone would be compensated or have the standing to sue based on shorter lives, it would be the smokers.
254. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:45:35 AM
Bubbaette
Also because their argument not only has no merit,
What is your reasoning for saying that the argument has no merit?
but because it doesn't seem the tobacco companies would have any standing to sue.
If the government argues that tobacco companies owe them money when tobacco causes an increase in costs, why wouldn't the tobacco companies get credit when their product causes a decrease in costs?
Please understand. I am not arguing that the tobacco companies should prevail in such a counter-suit. I am using it to point out the idiocy of the government suit. If the government wants to make their case, they should be forced to live with the consequences, and the argument that tobacco reduces SS payments is as valid as the argument that tobacco increases medial costs (actually, it is far more valid, but that's a different subject.)
Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives? If anyone would be compensated or have the standing to sue based on shorter lives, it would be the smokers.
Smokers have already made this case. Courts are dealing with it. Separate issue.
255. Dusty - 9/23/1999 8:47:51 AM
Bubbaette
Why should the tobacco companies be compensated because smokers tend to live shorter lives?
I may have misunderstood your question. Are you saying you don't understand how tobacco saves the government money, or are you questioning why the tobacco companies should reap any such benefits?
256. Dusty - 9/23/1999 9:00:54 AM
As the Microsoft trial heads into the home stretch, anyone interested in a prediction contest? Informal, of course, because I don't know how to objectively "grade" answers, but make a prediction as to what the judge will rule, and we will see who does the best at predicting the outcome.
257. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:16:58 AM
Their argument has no merit: Imagine an airline sued for wrongful death in the case of a pilot error or equipment failure. Would the airline be justified if, to offset their losses, they sued the gubmint for future S.S. payments not made to the dead? I don't think so.
Similarly, in a product liability case for infant deaths caused by faulty spacing in the crib bars, could the company counter-sue local goverment to offset payouts because now local government will be spared the cost of educating the now-dead children?
258. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 9:36:49 AM
Dusty,
Microsoft's lawyers made such a hash of their case that I cannot see how the judge will rule for them. That said, I have difficulty figuring out the right remedy. My best guess is that the judge's order will provide that Microsoft must not install its internet software, but must sell it separately. I think breaking up Microsoft will not happen here.
259. ranheim - 9/23/1999 9:57:51 AM
As you know, I have no use for government at any level.
The three levels of USA government take approximately 50% of all of our incomes in taxes; yet they are hungry for still more money to waste! Government is finding it difficult to raise taxes; bond issues; any other obvious source of money. Thus, the suit against tobacco. (As government knows no shame.)
If this suit wins, what is next? Booze? Twinkies?
In the "good ole days" a tithe went to the church. And another 10% went to the king. Should this % approach 25 - 33 1/3, the king was in danger. And more than one lost his head by becoming too greedy. How can we hold our current rulers accountable?
Recently there have been a whole host of rules and regulations designed to prevent any action against any government employee. Do these new regulations restrict speech? Or only action/s?
260. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 10:32:54 AM
ranheim --
"As you know, I have no use for government at any level."
Is this completely true, or are you engaging in maybe a little bit of hyperbole? I want to know because I'm thinking of going into a life of crime, and I want to know whose homes to rob when the owners are away. Folks who won't call the police -- because the have no use for government at any level -- seem like excellent candidates.
261. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 10:39:15 AM
ranheim,
And if I hit you with my car, are you going to sue me in a court the government provides? Or wouldn't you be driving on a government provided road?
262. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 10:39:24 AM
The problem with "having no use" for government is deciding which parts of government one has no use for. Are you against Air Traffic Control? the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration? The police, firefighters, teachers? How about the Interstate highway system? Building Code inspectors? Social Security and Medicare? Public health in general?
263. ranheim - 9/23/1999 11:43:40 AM
I want the following from government - after all, I should expect something for all my tax dollars!
From feds : protect the borders from invasion -I'm not really sure where I stand on immigration. But, our border with Mexico is a scandal no matter how I resolve in my own mind the immigration issue. Domestic traquility is also in there. But, I don't trust the FBI. Social Security was a Depression program started by one of slimiest politicians of all time. Only Clinton has the potential of being as slimy as FDR.
From state : I don't drive very much. But, road up-keep for my wife.
I dis-trust all law enforcement : the old saw about giving a man/woman a uniform, a badge, and a gun. Ruins most people that wear them.
From local : don't bother me! Get out of my way!
Horace Mann was wrong. I don't think school should be compulsory.
The lame, the halt, and the blind can expect better care at the hands of the church than the government. I have read figures that Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing delivers 90 - 95 cents on the dollar to recipients. The government? I have read both 60 - 40 & 40 - 60. Bureaucrats squander about 50%!
264. DocBrown - 9/23/1999 12:00:33 PM
This morning NASA lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter.
First the Mars Observer and now this? The Angry Red Planet must be hiding something . . .
>;-)
265. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 12:06:25 PM
Ranheim...absolute crap from you today. Two members of my family are wheel-chair bound. The recent disability legislation has opened up the world for them. Falwell that. Where were you religious guys 20 years ago...
266. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 12:07:28 PM
Ranheim
I think that the amount spent on the bureaucracy itself varies according to the specific program and level of government. Medicare, last time I looked at the figures, delivers 98 cents on the dollar while Medigap policies deliver about 40 cents on the dollar. Medicare doesn't have to advertise or provide a profit for shareholders.
Local schools are often pointed out as spending too much of their funding on administration. Depending on the type of school board your locality has, their policies may be the easiest for most folks to influence (if they try) because the officials are close to home and very tuned in to the local political process.
267. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 12:11:57 PM
I was under the impression that smokers are, approximately, 25% of the population and the percentage is in decline. Does anyone know what the percentage of the obese is? Does obesity, which is linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and, depending on one's diet, certain cancers, ultimately cost the government more than cigarettes?
268. ranheim - 9/23/1999 12:15:56 PM
PP
It is impossible to argue with anecdotes like yours in #265.
But, how much have we spent, as a nation, to make curbs wheelchair friendly? Commercial buildings in general? Rest rooms? Bus systems?
etc.
Only a nation awash is cash as is the USA could afford such a law.
269. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 12:21:15 PM
Ranheim...if we take back the money spent, are we a better place? Chrissakes, you should hope for good health with that opine. Where would you spend the money? We are a wealthy place, and I am glad to have my tax dollars spent in this way. Perhaps some of the teenagers you suggest don't have to go to school will have some input here.
270. Uzmakk - 9/23/1999 12:26:30 PM
A bike rider was knocked off a highway overpass onto the highway below and was repeatedly run over by automobiles. No one stopped until a fellow with a flat tire decided to stop..
This in Florida.
271. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 12:37:08 PM
I have no use for government at any level.
I want the following from government ...
Both positions espoused by the same person. To me, they look a trifle contradictory. But maybe that's just me.
272. janjon - 9/23/1999 12:42:03 PM
The stuff posted by Ranheim just up above is not just contradictory, it is fatuous crap. Gives neanderthal a new meaning.
I assume he was going for effect and is into pulling legs a bit.
273. JudithAtHome - 9/23/1999 12:44:36 PM
George C. Scott....RIP.
274. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 12:50:51 PM
.
Jury hints at deadlock in dragging death trial
275. ranheim - 9/23/1999 1:00:40 PM
Believing in a minimalist government is neandertahl?
O.K. I plead guilty.
276. ElliottRW - 9/23/1999 1:08:28 PM
Thrakkorzog,
I'm not sure about obesity. Hope the following helps:
Tuesday March 2 5:19 PM ET
Starchy Foods May Be Fattening After All -US Study
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Starchy and sugary foods may deserve their bad
reputation, sparking overeating in some people, researchers reported
Tuesday.
(snip)
More than 50 percent of U.S. adults and one-fifth of U.S. children are
overweight.
U.S. guidelines use body mass index (BMI) to determine who weighs too
much. That is figured by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by
height in meters squared. For example, someone 5 feet 9 inches (1.75
meters) tall and weighing 155 pounds (70.5 kilograms) has a BMI of 23
-- considered healthy. At 169 pounds (76 kilograms), such a person has
a BMI of 25 and is considered overweight.
(From Yahoo news)
277. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 1:13:01 PM
.
Brewer gets death in dragging death trial
278. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 1:14:52 PM
279. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:24:40 PM
Bubbaette
Yes,yes,no,maybe,generally yes with exceptions,no(for defense reasons),yes,yes,yes,not sure
280. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:30:05 PM
Thrakkorzog
Smokers probably do not represent a net cost to government spending. Even excluding that fact that a sensible government (is that an oxymoron) should have considered reduced or eliminated payments for problems caused by voluntary idiocy.
The government spending on medical costs is probably close to a wash, and the savings from reduced SS are probably in the trillions.
I haven't looked into what the obese cost, but if it is over $1, then it is far greater than smokers net costs.
281. Dusty - 9/23/1999 1:38:11 PM
Bubbaette
Their argument has no merit: Imagine an airline sued for wrongful death in the case of a pilot error or equipment failure. Would the airline be justified if, to offset their losses, they sued the gubmint for future S.S. payments not made to the dead? I don't think so.
::sigh:: Let me repeat. I'm not making an agument that the countersuit has a lot of merit. It is weak. But it is probably stronger than the argument that the government should collect for payments to smokers.
People killed in aircraft accidents tend to be younger than those killed by smoking. While there is obviously a broad distribution, the "typical" airline death occurs to someone in their 30's or 40's while the typical smoker death is probably in the 60's (I'm guessing, but reasonably intelligent guesses). Thus, the person killed ina plane crash would have paid into the SS system for years, while the typical smoker who dies has been paying SS for many years and is now, or is about to start collecting. So an airline wouldn't want to make the arguemnt, because it would cost them more than they saved.
282. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 1:42:00 PM
It seems to me that the only thing Liberals do not like about government is that it is not quite big and powerful enough. It is obvious that ranheim is using hyperbole and I'm guess the reat of you have never done such a thing for effect.
bubbaette
You do mention some things that govevernment does that I don't like and the most obvious is S.S. It is a disaster, IMHO. Many zoning lawa and building code laws are needlessly oppresive. How cold does it get in Martinez, Calif.? Is it really necessary to have double paned windowns? Or R-30 insulation roof and floor? Or gaskets on every exterior socket? How much interaction have you had with building inspectors? Are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything? How much were the permits to build the pyrimids?
Unfortunately for me, I have a golf appoinment and cannot stay for all the fireworks. But I'll agitate as much as possible.
283. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 2:00:18 PM
Aldavis,
"How much were the permits to build the pyramids?"
How many workers died in their construction?
284. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 2:00:24 PM
Davis....if Ranheim really doesn't believe what he says, then I suggest he say what he means...
285. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 2:02:01 PM
.
AP reports dragging trial result
286. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:39:21 PM
Dantheman
17,645
287. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 2:43:20 PM
Aldavis,
I'll accept your number as correct, since I wasn't around back then. Do you believe that not having to pay a governmental entity to review the plans justifies this loss of life? (this is a moot point anyway, since the pyramids were built _by_ the government and the plans were surely internally reviewed, so it would necessitate one arm of the government of ancient Egypt paying another)
288. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:50:16 PM
HYPERBOLE PRESS, 9/23/99
"The Federal Govenment has just filed suit againt the Harley Davidson Co. in an attempt to recover the costs of caring for all persons injured in motorcycle accidents. A spokesman for the Justice Department pointed out that the Harley Davidson Co. should have, in manufacturing their product, the possibility of road accidents, and endevored to make their product more user friendly. When questioned how they might have done this he replied, "One thing they could have done is to provided their bikes with four wheels. Also, had they encased them in a protective covering, such a a steel housing, while accidents would have still occured, injuries would not have been as severe.
When a spokesman of the Harley Davidson Co. was asked to comment on the Government's action his only response was that they werte making an attempt to start negotiations, using a group of their main users, the Hells Angels. "It is our feeling," he continued, "that a meeting of that group and the members of the Justice Department would result in a satisfactory settlement.
When the spokesman for the Justice Department was told this, he seemed too shaken to respond.(30)
289. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 2:50:38 PM
"Are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything?"
No. I want everything for free. I'm mature enough to recognize that isn't the way the world works, however, which is why I pay my taxes and the various user fees charged by state and local governments without whining. Much.
290. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:58:01 PM
Dantheman
What in the world does your posts have to do with the legitimate questions I have raised? Why not speak to them. Have you had any experience with building department or building inspectors? Do you have any knowledge as to how much all the buearacracy has added to the cost of a home? Do you think homes are underpriced in America today and as easy to purchase for a young family as they were in past years?
I purchased my first home in San Mateo.in 1954 for $13,000. That home could not be built today, but it still exists and would sell today for over $300,000. At the time I was driving a bread truck. Can a bread truck driver today buy a house that costs over $300,000?
Those who seem to think that government is the be all and end all of existance amuse me.
291. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 3:10:44 PM
TrialShark
You also seem incapable of dealing with the questions I raised. Of course, that's nothing new.
292. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:13:39 PM
Aldavis,
I was speaking to your questions. You seem to ignore the fact that something of value is actually gained by having building inspectors do their job, that the building is actually better built (if you don't believe it, ask the people of Turkey or Taiwan where the builders paid off the inspectors and the buildings collapsed in recent earthquakes).
I have no idea why you believe that the fact that the market for existing housing has increased so tremendously in the last 45 years is evidence that building inspectors do not do legitimate work. Please explain.
P.S. I have considerable experience with building inspectors (both representing them and opposing them on behalf of builders). The cost they add to the price of new housing is a very small amount. The value that they add can be considerable.
293. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:18:15 PM
I'm pleased to announce that contestant number 2 in the Texas dragging case has received a sentence of death.
294. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:21:53 PM
Niner:
Please, that's old news. See post #285.
295. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 3:22:33 PM
Did I say that building inspectors added to the cost of housing? I did not. Can building inspectors be unreasonable and add to the cost of a job? Of course. Were the things I was required to do when i built a house in Martinez, Calif., unreasonable and costly? I think so. Has governemnt regulations been a cause of higher home cost? If you don't think so,... well that's what makes horse races. I have a friend who built a home just outside of Santa Cruz who incurred $30,000 in costs, all government related, before he put a shovel in the ground. I must leave now to play golf, but I will return and speak to you again.
296. 109109 - 9/23/1999 3:22:48 PM
Rosetta
It is not old news that I am pleased.
297. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 3:27:28 PM
When people talk about how much they hate the government and how government is a waste of resources and can't do anything right, I'm reminded of two situations that have made the news in my area in recent years.
1) A nursing home burnt down and many of the residents died. The hue and cry? "Why didn't the government do something!" "We need regulations to require sprinkler systems in nursing homes!" So all regulations are bad til your granny burns up in the nursing home.
2) Homeowners in certain areas of the state were finding that parts of their foundation -- porches, chimny's, etc., were separating from their houses. The culprit? Shrink-swell soil. The hue and cry --"Why didn't the buiding inspector/builder tell me about this?" "We need regulations to warn people if they're builing in a shrink/swell soil area. Upshot -- regulations are terrible until they're protecting *your* property value.
Before the advent of Social Security, 1/3 of all elderly people lived in poverty. Since then, the poverty rate has declined to that of the population in general. Don't like SS? Give it back.
298. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:31:20 PM
Aldavis,
You previously asked "are you really happy with how much permits cost to construct anything?" That is where you said that building inspectors add to the cost of housing.
For your friend with the $30,000 pre-construction costs, how much of it dealt with soil studies for wetlands demarcation (so that the new construction did not harm the neighboring environment), flood plain demarcation (so that the building did not get flooded), steep slope demarcation (so that the house was not destroyed in the next mudslide), etc? How much of it was caused by the owner asking to avoid the local zoning regulations?
299. Bubbaette - 9/23/1999 3:34:50 PM
Zoning! I hate god-damned zoning! The government should NOT be able to tell me what I can do with my own property. Unless someone wants to build a burger king next door to my $400,000 house, in which case, by gum, the gummint should DO something!
300. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 3:41:46 PM
Actually, I find private homeowner regulations generally sillier than government ones. The government at least does not try to tell you what color you shades must be, nor what color you can paint your house, nor whether you can park a camper in your driveway, nor whether you can have in your driveway an unregistered car, nor ...
(I've seen all of these and more in homeowner's association regulations).
301. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 3:42:01 PM
302. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:46:11 PM
Al --
"You also seem incapable of dealing with the questions I raised."
You mean like the one about how much the construction permits cost for the pyramids?
You seem to like fuming and sputtering and calling names, pal, and that's your right; but if you expect anyone to take your questions seriously when you toss in such obvious nonsense, you're likely to be disappointed.
303. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:50:51 PM
This argument over whether government is good or evil is really quite silly.
Of course we need a certain amount of regulation and wealth redistribution in a civilized society. Pure capitalism has many negative side effects, one of which is that if you don't work, you don't eat. The vast majority of Americans rightly find that unacceptable.
Of course it's fair to complain when government (as is its nature) starts to intrude into areas in which it has no business. For instance, Social security is a sham and should be phased out as soon as practicable. If you want to replace it with some sort of mandatory retirement account, in which the individual gets to decide how his investment funds are to be invested, that certainly makes sense.
As far as nursing homes burning down or mandatory property inspections, those are 2 more excellent examples of areas where government has no business. Because in both cases, the property owner already has a strong incentive to protect his own property as he or she sees fit and the government regulation is a burdensome redundancy.
304. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:52:37 PM
It's fun to read all these government workers, logging on to mote during "business" hours, telling the rest of us that we need more regulations and taxes.
305. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:55:20 PM
Good point, Rosetta. If any of the people arguing with Al are currently employed by the government and are at work while we speak, you have proven Al's point for him. Move on.
306. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 3:55:37 PM
Rosie --
There are government workers in the Mote? I thought we all agreed they wouldn't be given the URL or taught the secret handshake.
307. JonesAtLaw - 9/23/1999 3:56:56 PM
Aldavis- I appreciate your viewpoint. I don't agree with it, heavans knows, but I agree that you could use some more meat to the arguments. It may not get cold in California, but how about cooling? I would imagine that your local code requirements for insulation are aimed at that. Less electricity demand etc.
If you want to hear an outside view, I think that Calfornia is too damn lax on a lot of its codes. How ofter do we hear of houses burned in the chaperal in canyons where they have shake shingles on the roof, or asphalt. Why not straw or kindling for godsake?
308. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 3:58:11 PM
Where's boomerjeff when I need him?
309. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 3:59:42 PM
Yes, and let's outlaw cars while we're at it.
310. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:01:43 PM
Let's outlaw smoking and fat people (they would get sent to the fat farm) and motorcycles and knives and guns and teeth. Everyone please remove your teeth.
311. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:03:07 PM
Oh, we must outlaw wood as well, anything flammable, in fact.
It's called FREEDOM, folks, look into it.
312. Ronski - 9/23/1999 4:05:58 PM
We don't have to outlaw teeth. We already subsidize sugar growers.
313. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 4:12:01 PM
Bubbaette,
In the case of the shrink swell soils, the inspectors did not do their job. Therefore, the home owners bought houses assuming good faith in the inspectors who failed to do what the state required them to do. Of course, the value of the properties was significantly decreased, since few people want to buy houses with huge cracks in them.
Had Virginia not required inspections at the time that those houses were constructed (I believe those houses were built in the 1980's) and then the home owners complained, then your analogy would make more sense. In that case, the home owners would have bought at their own risk.
314. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:19:13 PM
I'm sure that Bubbaette will be pleased to hear that her line of reasoning almost made sense. She's probably enjoying a nice after-donut nap, however. Then, her hard day's work at the government done, back home. Tough life.
315. ranheim - 9/23/1999 4:24:54 PM
Since I work for myself, may I log on at any time?
#297 Bubba
I spent 9 years as an USAF Flight Surgeon. I was a part of the regulation making process. And since then, I have never said "There aught to be a law" for I know, first hand, how they can be made. Seems to me that if my mother, who lives in assisted living at 87, gets burned up in a fire, my siblings and I would have recourse with laws already on the books. I would assume those laws would be civil in nature and would have nothing to do with govt regulation/s.
Someone mentioned that prior to Social Security 1/3 of those USA citizens 65 or older were living in poverty. 2 or 3 years ago I had the unfortunate experience of listening to David Bonior. This Democratic Party stalwart was saying that, currently, 1/3 of senior citizens were living in poverty and that the majority party in congress was being pinchpenny in not granting them more benefits. Seems, according to Bonior, we haven't made any headway with poverty despite the huge amount of Social Security taxes collected since its inception.
I firmly believe in Mr. Jefferson's "The government that governs least governs best." IMO the government is a very poor and very expensive "do-gooder".
316. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 4:27:07 PM
ranheim --
"I spent 9 years as an USAF Flight Surgeon."
Welcome, fellow wing-nut! Where were you stationed?
317. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:28:04 PM
Anyway, if you want fewer old people living in poverty, give them money. But call it what it is: Welfare for Old People. Don't pretend they've earned it.
318. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 4:28:58 PM
Regarding the nursing homes, I am not familiar with that actual case. However, I assume that Virginia does license nursing homes, and I would assume that sprinklers would be a normal fire code requirement. If the government does not license nursing homes, then I assume the burden of picking a safe one. However, if the government is going to have licensing, I don't see why I can't assume that the state will do its job correctly.
319. Uzmakk - 9/23/1999 4:33:17 PM
re:#270 posted by Uzmakk the Magnificent
If the government was smaller, would that increase or decrease the chance that Floridians would drive over the body of a man in the highway without stopping?
320. ranheim - 9/23/1999 4:38:18 PM
TS
I interned at Madigan General Hospital between Seattle and Tacoma. It rained/misted all the damn time!
2 1/2 years at Naha Air Base on Okinawa. My wife and I saw much of the Orient. Thank you taxpayers of the 60s!
1+ year loosely attached to the Surgeon Genneral's Office in Washington D.C. I was, supposedly, learning Russian and how to be a spy. I failed at both. I have never been more broke. On a Capt. pay in D.C.!
2 1/2 years at our embassy in Moscow. My wife and I saw all the former "Soviet Bloc" countries, some of Germany and Scandanavia. Again, thank you taxpayers of the 60s.
1 year as dispensary commander at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque. I learned that I was not boss material in that year. Very useful information!
What was your job? where?
321. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 4:53:04 PM
Nostradamus
I agree that there are featherbeders in government who do not earn their keep. There are also lazy brainless twits in private industry, charities, churches, and every other profession you can mention. I've logged more than 200 hours of overtime this year -- all uncompensated. If I had wished to, instead of leaving Washington to work at the state government -- closer to where the rubber meets the road, IMO -- I could easily have become a lobbyist, making 3 times the salary I currently make. Instead, I went back to school for a master's degree and work at a job that I truly love. Part of the reason why I didn't become a lobbyist (I had offers of short term projects doing "grass roots" lobbying while I was in school) is I have a very difficult time lying for the highest bidder. Instead, I feel that I have a responsibility to weigh policy questions among the various stakeholders, seek and incorporate comment, mediate between competing interests and try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. Moreover, I feel that I should strive to do the best job for each individual that I can, regardless of their party. I don't participate in party politics at all since I started working for the state since I feel strongly about non-partisan service and accountability. I am still allowed, as a citizen, to vote.
You may think that you're an all-seeing all-knowing kind of guy, I differ in my opinion.
322. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 4:57:38 PM
Haha...Ranheim...you were a GovEmployee!!!!!
323. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:00:22 PM
PP
Have you ever heard of the draft?
The Berry Plan was the draft for doctors.
324. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 5:00:22 PM
Don't forget to mention your criminal record in trashing your DNC opponents, bubba
325. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 5:03:31 PM
Look Ran...I did all I could to avoid VN...you just seem to be all over the place on this Gov issue. Did you suck at the tit longer than your draft would require.
326. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:05:18 PM
Thrakkorzog
Nursing homes are liscensed. However not all nursing homes are created equal. There are large nursing homes and "assisted living" communities and there are very small rural nursing homes. Prior to the fire there was no requirement for sprinkler systems in nursing homes of the type that burned down in Petersburg. Up to two years ago, there were no sprinkler systems in the high-rise dormatories of Virginia's public colleges.
My point is that many people hate the government until they want something from it, and then they hate the government for not foreseeing their wants and desires.
Ranheim
You might have recourse if your mom burns up in a nursing home fire. But maybe not -- if there were no negligence on the part of the nursing home. You'd have a much better case if the state required fire suppresion sufficient to get the residents out.
I happen to think that much of state professional licensure is little more than restraint of trade --how many people are killed by bad hairdo's -- but we still license hairdressers. Why do we liscense hairdressers? Because the ones who went to school don't want just anybody to be able to call themselves hairdressers. Same with docs, dentists, dental hygienists, geologists, nurses, contractors, electricians.....
So you think doctors should be unliscensed?
327. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:09:34 PM
Yes, Rosetta, I've noticed you. Run along now.
328. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:09:44 PM
With taxpayers footing the transportation bill (C-130s)in the Orient and giving me access to the Bloc countries, I would have been a fool not to remain in the USAF. As soon as they gave me a regular job, I resinged my commission.
Now sucking tit? How does an USAF officer's pay, even with flight pay, compare to what a civilian doctor makes? My wife and I had an opportunity for travel and we took it. That experience was more important to us than the money issue.
329. PsychProf - 9/23/1999 5:13:44 PM
Ran...the military was lucky to have you. I am glad physicians serve... I am glad to have a Fed Gov indeed. YOU are the one who seems to not be so. In any case, I am off to a meeting...
330. Thrakkorzog - 9/23/1999 5:29:03 PM
Dusty,
Thanks for the info you looked up on a couple of topics. By the way, I believe the article on the French that I read was after implementation, since it mentioned the parking lot patrol. I suspect the Wall Street Journal was the source, but, not having access to their site, I don't think I can do a search.
331. ranheim - 9/23/1999 5:33:29 PM
Bubba
Shots may have been fired in E. Timor!
For at least the past 15 years I have wondered why medicine/s in the USA are available only by Rx. It was back then that I realized that some of my patients vacationed in Mexico and brought back medications.
I'm not sure what is NOT available over-the-counter in Mexico.
A portion of my job is doing physicals on truck drivers; beauticians; giving hepatitis shots to funeral home employees; dentists and their assistants; etc. All of this regulation adds to the cost of doing business. I doubt very seriously that any of this expense is warranted.
In my old age I am beginning to wonder about licenses for doctors and all others. I am becoming more and more angry with lawyers and bureaucrats insisting that all of us leave "paper trails".
332. JudithAtHome - 9/23/1999 5:38:58 PM
ranheim:
I don't see your service in the military as any sort of sucking at anything because I know how hard flight surgeons work. I also know how hard many in the military work and can't understand it when people make snide remarks about them taking more than they deserve from Uncle Sam. It is a JOB, for which they are paid.
I'm also driven to chuckles by these calls for doing away with programs like Welfare with the assurance that personal charity will take up the slack if people are in "need": look at how people in "need" are seen now and how some rididcule them; just a few posts ago, Nost. was saying "give old people money but call it what it is, Welfare for Old People. Don't pretend they've earned it." Right, and don't pretend they've led productive lives and contributed anything to society, just sweep 'em under the rug. How charitable.
333. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:42:38 PM
Ranheim
And yet, every year our state legislature gets requests from one or two professions to be liscensed or certified.
I also have issues with zoning. I had a local government professor who talked about moving out to the far suburbs to escape city life and danged if they didn't give a zoning variance to build a shopping center right next to his property. He was all gung ho for development til he got there, and then he thought his locality had too many people and no more development should be allowed.
But on the other hand, the folks you see getting flooded out last week will rebuild right on the floodplain. The people who build there houses in fire hazard or mudslide areas will rebuild with slate roofs right on a fault line. Try telling them they can't.
334. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 5:44:38 PM
I meant cedar shake roofs, not slate roofs.
335. robertjayb - 9/23/1999 6:42:45 PM
NEW YORK (AP) - The 400 richest Americans for the first time have collectively amassed a total net worth of $1 trillion, a figure greater than the gross domestic product of China, according to Forbes magazine, which issued its annual ranking of the nation's wealthiest people on Thursday.
Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates once again led the list with a net worth of $85 billion, up from last year's $59 billion. The total number of billionaires on the annual list increased by 79 to 268, making 1999 the first time billionaires made up more than half the list, Forbes said in its issued dated Oct. 11.
336. Greystoke - 9/23/1999 8:05:00 PM
Uzmakk the Magnificent
Here is an acticle from the Orlando Sentinel about the bicyclist.
337. Greystoke - 9/23/1999 8:06:32 PM
acticle = article
338. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 8:24:46 PM
ranheim --
I had assignments as an intel officer at Wright-Patt and in DC, and assignments as a JAG at Luke, Vandenberg, Randolph, Kadena (just up Highway 58 from your old haunts), and back at Wright-Patt.
My job at Randolph entailed being on the road 270 days/year, prosecuting courts-martial at all the bases between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, so I got to see the (ahem) garden spots: Cannon, Altus, Laughlin, Goodfellow, Ellsworth, Whiteman, and so on. My job at Wright-Patt entailed defending the service in breach of contract cases at all the bases west of the Rockies.
I learned to hate traveling. Oddly enough, Mrs Shark misses it.
Kirtland was always one of my favorite bases: I wouldn't have killed to go there, but I would have inflicted superficial wounds on people I didn't like. I was never stationed there, alas.
Don't let 'em razz you about "sucking at the government teat." You did your bit to defend your country, which is more than a lot of folks -- on both sides of the fence -- can say.
339. RosettaSTONE - 9/23/1999 9:02:57 PM
Now here's a stupid bit of political correctness, writes Alex Goroff from NPR Community.
The Appalachian Mountain Club is building a new hiker's hut on Mount Washington in New Hampshire. Mt Washington is the highest mountain east of the Rockies and is noted for having the highest winds and worst weather in the world.
The new hut is at 3,500 feet, and is over five miles from the nearest dirt road. It is the most remote hikers hut they've put up.
Work on the hut is now been stopped, because the hut is not HANDICAPED ACCESSABLE, and does not comply with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT!
340. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:15:34 PM
Why in these discussions does it almost always come down to "hate the government." And the rant that "sure, you hate the government until it's something you want." I don't hate anybody. Are you people really saying that you do not think those who feel government is too much with us have a point?
bubbaette
Do you really believe that S.S. keeps people out of poverty? My dear, please do a better job of providing for your retirement that S.S. But I guess if you don't, there is always rent subsidy, food stamps, and other government relief available. Believe me, I have no quarrel with all of society paying some tax to help the really needy.
It seems to me that government, Federal, State, and Local is too large and burdensome.
341. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:20:53 PM
TS
I don't remember calling names but the fuming and sputtering, no comment.
Jonesat Law
Yes, I realize my points could stand more meat, and I will try in future posts to do just that. That we don't agree, well, as I said, that's what makes horse races. One of the problems is that most of my ideas and opinions are not so much theoritical but based on my experience. If I mention these experience and draw conclusions from them, that is just my way.
342. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:31:16 PM
AlDAVis
As a baby boomer, I'm not really counting on S.S. to be around when I retire. I am certainly making other plans, but I'm fortunate to be able to do so. My employers offers a good pension plan, I contribute to a tax-deferred savings plan and invest a little on the side.
There are people who work their whole lives living on the margins and never qualify for or receive an employer-provided pension. When you're living from hand to mouth and trying to provide for a family, it's hard to put money aside. It's easy for those of us who have the wherewithal to put some money aside to say the hell with those who don't, but it's not as easy as all that for a significant proportion of the population.
As for means-testing Social Security, I have no problem with it myself. But then I look at the way people treat and talk about others who are on Welfare and how those people have come to be seen as the scum of the earth and not worth the air they breathe, and I wonder just how supportive the general populace would be of supporting the impoverished elderly if they're not getting a little piece of the action themselves.
343. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 9:50:44 PM
I have nothing against public assistance, but perhaps those recieving it could be specially marked so that if we saw one walking down the street, we could ask him/her to cut the grass or wash the dishes or something. This would give the person a sense of pride in that they would be helping the elderly. And neighborhoods would look better with all those lawns mowed. The only meat in the above is baloney.
344. bubbaette - 9/23/1999 9:53:17 PM
I kinda figured as much ;-)
345. TrialShark - 9/23/1999 10:13:50 PM
Al --
"I don't remember calling names but ..."
Does "little simp" ring a bell?
346. PoolShark - 9/23/1999 10:18:44 PM
A follow up on the hiker's hut on Mt. Washington.
They've changed the design, moving the bunkroom, taking out some stairs and expanding the bathroom, putting in a ramp to the newly added porch. The changes in design will add between $30,000 and $50,000 to the cost.
Says a civil rights program manager with the U.S. forest service "If someone wants to carry his child and a wheelchair to Galehead {a 4 mile, three hour hike gaining 2200 feet in elevation}he expects that the child will be able to push around there. The ADA does not make any exceptions for new construction, no matter where it is located".
The closing line on NPR which RosettaSTONE didn't copy was
"Does someone have their ass up their head?"
347. ranheim - 9/23/1999 10:27:31 PM
Its funny how we of my age group in medical school really didn't consider it a burden or in any way strange to go into the military. When I came of draft age, the draft was still in existance from WW II and Korea. So one was exempted to go to college; then, again, for med school. But, all of us - including the two women - knew that we would have to go into the military should they want us. I had a schoolteacher for a father so I had to make a salary right away : thus the USAF. And it was fortunate because I was in my first year in the USAF (internship year) when JFK screwed up and we had the Cuban Missile Crisis(CMC). Those of us already in the military had some choice in our assignments. Those drafted following the CMC were sent to choice places like Korea. And in 1962 Korea was no bargain. While I was permitted to go to Flight Surgeon's School; and then to Okinawa.
Let me stress this : that is just the way it was back then. We didn't feel oppressed or put upon. That was just the way it ways in the early 60s. ALL MALES KNEW THAT THEY COULD BE DRAFTED! Just the way it was! We didn't think in terms of defending the country. We knew better. The huge majority of us had fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins who had been killed or wounded in WW II. Those are the ones who defended their country! Not us.
I suppose that is just so different a brand thinking that you younger ones can't imagine it!?
348. Cygnus X-1 - 9/23/1999 11:37:09 PM
bubbaette, Re Message #342
Before your heart bleeds too much, you should ask yourself, "What is the definition of poor?"
349. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 11:59:42 PM
Cygnus X-1
This is a great link. It is a shame that it comes late in the day when most posters have left their offices. Will it have any effect on those who eat up the nonsense that people are starving in America? I doubt it.
350. bahama280 - 9/24/1999 6:27:47 AM
"While we might be number two in size, we are already number one in member satisfaction." -- MindSpring President Mike McQuary
A new way of saying, "it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it?" ;-)
351. Adrianne - 9/24/1999 6:52:44 AM
Cygnus - Nice strawman.
Aldavis
Has anyone disputed that the majority of the poor in America are better off than the majority of the poor in Calcutta? Does it afford you comfort and pride in yourself as an American to be able to say "well, we do better for the poor than India does, so what's your beef?"
It's impossible to take that story, btw, even if you agree with it and its conclusions 100%, and extrapolate: [it's] "nonsense that people are starving in America?" - or at least to do so with any semblance of intellectual honesty.
Which is it - are we to believe you duplicitous, or dim-witted?
352. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 7:49:21 AM
Cygnus
I do know what poor is, at least in America. Back in the 1970's I worked full time in a rural furniture factory making $2.10 an hour --25 cents above minimum wage. I lived in a mobile home renting for $65/month and made a $100/month car payment. It took more than half my salary to pay for transportation and rent. At that time, I could eat on $15 per week -- $60 per month. Electricity was $25 per month, unless I heated with the oven, and then it was between $45 and $60/month, depending on how cold it got. If I heated with oil, it actually cost more -- about $60 per month during the winter. That left me $10 per week for doctor bills, clothing, gas, tires, haircuts,vacations, entertainment, laundrymat, auto maintenance.
And I didn't have it bad --I wasn't supporting children on that salary.
Now I can hear JJ saying --yeah, but you didn't always make that little. No, I moved, got an education, and eventually got better jobs. But I had the freedom to do so -- I didn't have children and I avoided all forms of consumer debt. Many of my co-workers didn't have those advantages.
So it's possible to work full time, not qualify for any type of assistance and still live hand-to-mouth and always in debt even with a very meager lifestyle. A simple thing like a trip to the dentist can put you back for months.
353. Adrianne - 9/24/1999 8:18:21 AM
Bubba, catch up. Unless you're wallowing a pool of your own filth, crouching on a streetcorner with a distended belly and open, running, sores, chewing the skin from your fingers and drinking your own urine, you're not poor.
354. PsychProf - 9/24/1999 8:47:15 AM
Good grief Judith et al...the "sucking at the tit" was meant to satirize Ranheim's view of Federal Gov...like he's aginem, and he worked for em...
355. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 9:12:58 AM
Adrienne
I'm not poor now, but I can still see that there, but for the grace of god, go I.
And what would constitute poor in the estimations of Cygnet and Al? Starving refugee status?
I suppose that I'm just an old softy to feel that given the blessings and resources our nation has, a person who works full time should be able to afford both heat AND groceries.
356. Uzmakk - 9/24/1999 10:34:49 AM
336#Greystoke:
Thank you. Well, I guess it really means nothing and does't bear discussion. Thanks again.
357. PsychProf - 9/24/1999 11:08:29 AM
358. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 1:41:24 PM
PsychProf
I'm a little surprised they left my name off the list.
TrialShark
No, "little simp" does not ring a bell. I am not usualy given to name calling of individuals, but f I have insulted you in any way I am sorry.
359. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 1:46:18 PM
JudithatHome, bubbaette, ChristinO,
Do you really believe that people in America are starving? Are they dying of starvation with no means of obtaining support? If I knew that to be true, I think I would do something about it. If you can direct me to these people, let us start a group of doners from the MOTE to help these starving people. I will match any donation people care to make up to $1000. God has been good to me. Of course, I have tried to help him along.
360. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:52:34 PM
AlDavis
You appear to suffer from impaired reading comprehension. I did not say that working people are starving, I said that people can work regular full-time jobs and still have to choose between necessities like heat and food, much less being able to afford such luxuries as a telephone.
You seem to think that anyone who is not living the lush life with employer-provided insurance and retirement is a slug or a waste of human flesh. It aint so.
361. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 1:54:13 PM
Bubbaette - Many of my co-workers didn't have those advantages.
Many of your co-workers made other choices.
So it's possible to work full time, not qualify for any type of assistance and still live hand-to-mouth and always in debt even with a very meager lifestyle
And you have shown that if you make other choices, you don't have to live like that forever. If you had chosen to spend $40 a month on cigarettes and alcohol and run up a bunch of credit cards instead of pursuing an education, you would likely still be living in that trailer. Fortunately you chose not to.
I'm not poor now, but I can still see that there, but for the grace of god, go I.
God had little to do with it. There, but for the grace of you. . . It wasn't luck. It was choice.
362. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 1:58:59 PM
yep, JJ, I suppose those women at the furniture factory supporting kids by themselves should have aborted their kids so they'd have the freedom to go to college.
Believe it or not, not everyone is college material. Some people are not blessed with a great deal of native ability or parents to act as role models. I would think that, with the antipathy you have towards welfare, you would think it worthwhile to see to it that even those in disadvantaged areas or backgrounds could still make a living wage by working full time. Guess not -- instead it's I've got mine.
363. Aldavis - 9/24/1999 2:01:20 PM
Last Post from the dim bulb. (I saw a boat once named Last Boat III)
I contend that goverment regulations have had a significant effect on thecost of construction. As I said in an earlier post, I as a bread truck driver bought a house in 1954in San Mateo, Calif., for $13,000, with $1000. down. My payments were, as I remember, $87, PITI. I made around that a week, sometimes a little more. My hours were 6am-6pm, 5 days a week. If that house were built today with all the added government costs, I probably could not have afforded it. I would have been keep out of the Real Estate game.
I have learned from a reliable sourse, a bread truck driver in the same area today earns between $45,000-$55,000. Let's use $50,000, or $961 gross or $773 net a week, or $3,350 a month.
That $13,000 house nows sells (conservative estimate) for $325,000. With 20%down and a loan of $260,000 his monthly payment would be over $2000 PITI, or around 60% of monthly. Are there any loan officers out there that would like this loan? No chance.
Now I already realize that the S.F. Bay area in out of control on home prices, and there are areas where the ratios are better, but the point is, I at 22 could buy a home. Is that true today?
Most Moties would want to solve this problem, if it is one, with more government. A few would like to solve it with less.
See you later aligator.
364. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:03:37 PM
Home prices (as all prices) have definately risen since you drove a bread truck. But how do you link that to regulations rather than inflation?
365. Dusty - 9/24/1999 2:15:19 PM
RosettaSTONE
I tend to agree with the bottom line in your account of the AMC hut, namely, that Handicapped accessibility is silly at that location. However, I'm troubled when people overreach to make a point, because then people can focus on misleading bits instead of the central facts.
Yes, Mt. Washington has some of the most severe weather in the world, but that weather occurs above near the summit. The weather at 3500 feet, while potentially severe, it not in the same league. The mountain is famous for the highest wind speed ever recorded, despite the fact that it no longer holds the record. While wind speeds in excess of 100 mph are common at the summit (and 233, if I recall correctly, is possible), those wind speeds won't occur at 3500 feet. I'm surprised it is referred to as the most remote hut. That takes some creative definitions. Mt. Washington is one of the, if not the most traveled mountain in the Northeast. Still, unless the hut is next to the Auto road, or the Cog railway, it isn't accessible by wheelchair, so they shouldn't be applying that law. (I mean "shouldn't" in the sense of reasonableness, as opposed to legally.)
366. CalGal - 9/24/1999 2:15:34 PM
I suppose those women at the furniture factory supporting kids by themselves should have aborted their kids so they'd have the freedom to go to college.
Well, they shouldn't have had children until they could support them.
Some people are not blessed with a great deal of native ability or parents to act as role models.
And they should *not* be having children, ideally. In any event, they shouldn't be encouraged by subsidization.
367. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 2:23:52 PM
yes, we all know of your preference for eugenics, Cal -- only the rich , talented and beautiful should be permitted to breed. But pregancies happen, even despite birth control. To hell with both mother and kids?
368. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 2:27:33 PM
Regarding working poor women with children and the moral injunctions from JJ and Cal that they should not have kids until they can guarantee enough income to reasonably support the kids I ask you to consider the following: divorce/abandonment/death.
369. PoolShark - 9/24/1999 2:56:55 PM
Dusty,
RosettaSTONE just copied the post.
The hut in question is the most remote hut established and maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club on Mount Washington. It is the Galehead hut, on the Galehead trail. It is over 5 miles from the trailhead, which has a rise of 2200 feet to the hut. It is the last hut between the trailhead and the summit. It takes a healthy, experienced hiker at least 3 hours to reach.
370. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 3:33:08 PM
Bubbette & VonK - Do want me to believe that all or at least most of the women at the furniture factory are in the situation they are in though no fault of their own? Do you want me to believe that they had no choice in determining the life they lead? I have known far too many women in that position to believe it. I know there may be a handful who had no choice. They are the same women who in five years will have moved on to a better life. The women who stay in that situation are those whose choices have put them there.
There are amazing resources in this country from private organizations if you want to make a better life for yourself. No one has to spend their entire life in poverty unless they choose to. This is neither cold nor heartless, it is fact.
Bubbaette, think carefully about the women you worked with. How many of their problems were self-induced? How many were really unavoidable.
371. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:39:05 PM
Can we discuss the "Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore" issue?
372. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:40:17 PM
Let's do.
373. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 3:41:36 PM
All right. What's up with the garish blue font fucking up our nice home page, and the obscenely large GREYSTOKE by-line?
374. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 3:42:20 PM
Keep in mind that it is damn difficult to get social assistance if you are a childless adult with no job. And that most social assistance for parents disappears once kids reach a certain age. Why is this?
Because welfare programs are for the *kids*, not the parents . The kids can hardly be faulted for the choices of their parents, so all of this moralizing completely misses the points of the programs.
375. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:43:05 PM
And adjusting the place of "Current Events" in the thread list on the right?
This place is going to look like an elementary school fun fair soon.
Greystoke, please restore the settings.
376. Bubbaette - 9/24/1999 3:43:38 PM
JJ
"Do want me to believe that all or at least most of
the women at the furniture factory are in the situation they are in
though no fault of their own?"
First of all, you make it sound like they're in prison being punished for their sins rather than working regular full-time jobs. I thought the 40-hour workweek was supposed to be uplifting and ennobling -- not a punishment for having children too young.
Now back to my original point -- what is so hideous about the notion of a living wage for people working full time regular jobs?
377. Ronski - 9/24/1999 3:45:04 PM
I must point out here (since there is no skiing thread) regarding Mt. Washington, the summit received its first snow of the season almost three weeks ago (a trace). Timberline Ski Area on Oregon's Mt. Hood has reopened (it's the U.S.'s only real glacier skiing) and Loveland in Colorado is just about to. Killington, in Vermont, has had skiing as early as late September (for a day or two, as a gimmick), but that does not look likely this year. More probably mid October.
378. JudithAtHome - 9/24/1999 3:46:05 PM
And Al, I have heard of cases where children died of starvation in this country because their parents were too poor, or too stupid, or too whacked out on drugs, or just plain MEAN to feed them. So technically, people die of starvation here.
You may believe in less government but I don't notice government shrinking any when your guys run show...
379. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 3:48:59 PM
Ace
"Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore"
Jealousy doesn't become you.
Spence
See the technical thread. I may have fucked something up because now I can't change the thread characteristics.
380. Ronski - 9/24/1999 3:50:11 PM
The value of a worker is primarily determined by the marketplace. If you inflate labor's cost, there are consequences. In the case of small, regular increases in the minimum wage, it is questionable how hideous the consequences are (probably not very), but undoubtedly some on the lowest rung of the skills ladder are denied jobs whenever the minimum wage is increased.
381. SpenceMirrlees - 9/24/1999 3:50:50 PM
yes, you changed the name of the host. I'm pretty sure the login screen recognizes the HTML tags as part of your name, and you're still trying to login with "Greystoke."
382. Raskolnikov - 9/24/1999 4:10:16 PM
Ronski: there are other ways to aid workers aside from mandating changes in their market wages.
383. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:13:19 PM
Greystoke is an HTLM Painted-Faced Whore
384. Ronski - 9/24/1999 4:16:50 PM
Rask,
True. But there are consequences with that, as well.
385. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 4:21:20 PM
Ace
(shakes fist) Take that back, you hoodlum.
I'd delete your post if I still had the capability.
386. AceofSpades - 9/24/1999 4:31:20 PM
You shouldn't wear so much eyeshadow. It makes you look slutty.
387. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 4:43:59 PM
Ace
Behave yourself, Buster. I have my super powers back now.
388. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 4:46:45 PM
Bubbaette - First of all, you make it sound like they're in prison being punished for their sins rather than working regular full-time jobs.
I wasn't the one bemoaning their fate. I was the one pointing out that their lives are the result of their choices.
I thought the 40-hour workweek was supposed to be uplifting and ennobling -- not a punishment for having children too young.
I wasn't the one complaining about it. I never mentioned pubishment, nor do I think it is appropriate to the discussion. I am making no judgment about them. I am just saying that they are living with the decisions they make.
"what is so hideous about the notion of a living wage for people working full time regular jobs?"
There is nothing hideous about it. Workers are free to negotiate their wages with their employer. If the employer does not want to negotiate, then workers are free to bring in a union to negotiate for them. That is what unions are for.
Labor is a commodity just like any other good or service. The value of that labor is set by the market. I would love to be a singer. Unfortunately, the market has set value of that labor at just about $0. Should I be able to demand that someone pay me a living wage to be a singer? I don't think so. If an employer doesn't want to pay a living wage, don't work for him. If someone else is willing to work for what is offered, that is their choice. You have been underbid. If you don't like this situation, your problem is with the underbidder. Not me, and not the government.
389. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:09:43 PM
JJ,
The government did pay people to be singers. Also artists, dancers, and actors. It was called CETA grants.
I have a friend who was enticed into a career in dance by the money floating around in those days. Today, things are very hard for him.
390. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:11:15 PM
P.S.: I sing too. My better half listens to it. But only for free.
391. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:18:05 PM
Ronski - Even the NEA would not support my singing. Nor should it.
My wife listens. She says lots of encouraging things like "You're flat," and "When are you going to start taking lessons again?"
392. Ronski - 9/24/1999 5:21:12 PM
I view all comments along those lines from my beloved as constructive criticism.
393. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:29:42 PM
Ronski - Of course. They are said with love.
394. JJBiener - 9/24/1999 5:31:35 PM
Ace - You shouldn't wear so much eyeshadow. It makes you look slutty.
Words of wisdom from a man who know what it takes to look slutty.
395. robertjayb - 9/24/1999 6:32:51 PM
. 396. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 8:26:15 PM The Dutch consider legal euthanasia. 397. Greystoke - 9/24/1999 9:12:42 PM Man stumbles out of Canadian wilderness after being lost for two months. 398. CalGal - 9/24/1999 9:27:38 PM Bubba, 399. Sebastian Tombs - 9/25/1999 12:07:35 AM Sounds good to me. Glad a woman posted it though. 400. CalGal - 9/25/1999 12:12:46 AM Sebastian, 401. RosettaSTONE - 9/25/1999 11:46:47 AM from the Washington Post 9/25/99 402. robertjayb - 9/25/1999 1:39:09 PM . 403. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 1:39:59 PM RosettaStone 404. JudithAtHome - 9/25/1999 1:47:43 PM Depraved indifference toward children, again.... 405. Greystoke - 9/25/1999 1:50:22 PM Here is an article about the microwaved baby from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. 406. robertjayb - 9/25/1999 3:23:18 PM 407. dusty - 9/26/1999 5:13:06 PM I am writing a short article and would appreciate feedback. No thread seems perfect, but as Floyd was a recent current event, I place it here. Suggestions for improvement? 408. dusty - 9/26/1999 5:13:19 PM Continued 409. Greystoke - 9/26/1999 7:28:41 PM Dusty 410. Dusty - 9/27/1999 1:30:52 PM Thanks 411. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 4:32:16 PM Gold prices surged today, causing many gold stocks to increase in value by 20% to 30%. 412. JJBiener - 9/27/1999 4:45:06 PM Greystoke - A fucking lot of good it does me now. 413. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 4:57:04 PM JJ 414. JJBiener - 9/27/1999 5:15:21 PM Greystoke - Now you get it. 415. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:08:26 PM post? 416. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:19:37 PM . 417. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 7:39:21 PM . 418. Dusty - 9/27/1999 7:58:06 PM Greystoke 419. TrialShark - 9/27/1999 8:11:55 PM 420. robertjayb - 9/27/1999 8:29:17 PM Third dragging death defendant says the others did it......."I wet my pants." 421. Cygnus X-1 - 9/27/1999 9:12:29 PM TrialShark, Re Message #419 422. Greystoke - 9/27/1999 9:20:39 PM Dusty 423. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:11:30 AM 424. Bubbaette - 9/28/1999 8:10:51 AM Why Cygnus... 425. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 10:56:13 AM robert: 426. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:33:29 PM Oh come on now, people. First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose. Then, Bubbaette tries to make me out to argue that "everyone does it" is why Gingrich is being treated unfairly. Please stop trying to weasel into other tangential arguments so that you seem to win. No, they're not even tangential. They're just plain concocted. 427. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:34:49 PM JudithAtHome, Re Message #425 428. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 12:46:13 PM 429. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 12:56:21 PM Oh, I get it. You're playing tennis and I'm playing football. Forget I said anything. 430. Bubbaette - 9/28/1999 12:58:53 PM Cygnus 431. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 1:13:49 PM 432. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 1:19:35 PM 433. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 1:24:54 PM 434. robertjayb - 9/28/1999 1:43:52 PM JudithAtHome, here is some of The Houston Chronicle's take on the drugs story: 435. Dusty - 9/28/1999 2:00:16 PM robertjayb 436. PoolShark - 9/28/1999 2:02:17 PM >These invasions of privacy are wrong and conservatives have always believed that. 437. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:04:40 PM 438. 109109 - 9/28/1999 2:05:18 PM Ace 439. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:13:42 PM 440. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:26:09 PM 441. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 2:31:08 PM I just came home from running errands and found this cryptic message on my machine from a friend who was leaving to go to the dentist (so I can't call her back to ask for her source): "Which Republican candidate is having an affair with a 20 year old?" Did I miss something on the noon news? 442. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:37:04 PM 443. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:40:35 PM 444. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 2:40:57 PM 445. JudithAtHome - 9/28/1999 2:42:51 PM TS: 446. Dantheman - 9/28/1999 2:48:39 PM I'm hoping it's Steve Forbes -- the interplanetary "I seduced a space alien" aspect will keep the tabloids happy for years! 447. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 2:49:25 PM 448. janjon - 9/28/1999 3:03:41 PM The affair with a 20 year old? The most delicious would be if it turned out to be Liddy. 449. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:19:38 PM 450. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 3:31:06 PM You know, TrialShark, you're a real prick. It's bad enough that you can't simply defend a side, but you have to make up shit so that you can wallow in your delusional superiority. You post the article only because you think it's amusing. OK, assume we accept your spin. Why did you find it amusing? Was it ironic? Why was it ironic? 451. AceofSpades - 9/28/1999 3:32:38 PM 452. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:38:11 PM 453. janjon - 9/28/1999 3:38:15 PM Trialshark - I must admit I used "droop" in a premeditated way. (Surely just like the stock market, Viagra's stock in trade must go both up and down.) 454. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:39:51 PM 455. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 3:41:08 PM Gee, TrialShark, what statement did I make up and attribute to someone? 456. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 3:56:46 PM 457. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 4:50:39 PM 458. robertjayb - 9/28/1999 5:14:23 PM #435 (Dusty); #437 (AceofSpades) 459. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 5:42:45 PM 460. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 6:03:20 PM Uh, Mr Bauer? Shouldn't you wait until there is an accusation before you start denials? I mean, this way you, uh, look, you know, guilty. 461. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 6:09:01 PM 462. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 6:18:46 PM TS - I wonder who the first person in the media will be who will refer to Bauer as Bakker. If this follows form the GOP might be able to rid itself of the Religious Right once and for all. This would give us the lion's share of the Reagan Democrats and the next few elections would be smooth sailing. 463. Thoughtful - 9/28/1999 6:38:44 PM A...er... I don't think so JJ, not when the rest of America discovers that GW Bush is about as bright as Quayle. Tell me why he didn't denounce Buchanan who now makes the Nazis look left of center? 464. TrialShark - 9/28/1999 6:53:52 PM 465. ranheim - 9/28/1999 8:01:27 PM Thoughtful in #463 466. Cygnus X-1 - 9/28/1999 10:22:54 PM I guess now we know why the press is so easy on Clinton. If you're not a household name and you ask him tough questions, you're banned from the White House. 467. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 10:58:42 PM Thoughtful - I don't think so JJ, not when the rest of America discovers that GW Bush is about as bright as Quayle. 468. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 11:02:24 PM Cyggie - I guess the Democrats love of a free press extends only so far as to cover those who agree with them. If you make them too uncomfortable, and they turn the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Suggestions 469. JJBiener - 9/28/1999 11:06:14 PM TS - Personally I think that Bauer wasn't the target. If I were guessing, it would have been Bush or McCain as the target. Bauer isn't causing enough of a stir to worry anyone in either party. 470. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 12:22:43 AM 471. Stumbo - 9/29/1999 1:08:48 AM TS: 472. EricCartman - 9/29/1999 1:21:34 AM JJ: 473. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:42:06 AM 474. Stumbo - 9/29/1999 2:19:34 AM TS: 475. SpenceMirrlees - 9/29/1999 2:54:29 AM I was going to say what Cartman said about the business success of Bush and Quayle, but, well, he said it. 476. moonflower - 9/29/1999 8:25:04 AM On many issues, I don't like McCain at all, but I do like his attempt to gut the money machine that elects these bores. George Jr. had 3 failed businesses by the time he was 40. But he also had the family name. It's rather sad that Bush Jr-Gore is the best we can hope for? No wonder people don't vote. The big money corporations will roll on no matter what. 477. Ronski - 9/29/1999 8:43:44 AM I'm beginning to think that Bush fils will collapse, if not before the Convention, then before the national election. He's an airhead, and people will eventually catch on to that. 478. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 8:58:26 AM 479. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:04:25 AM 480. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:12:21 AM 481. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:12:22 AM One of the things that made Clinton such a strong candidate was that, unlike recent previous Democrats, he played hardball (so much so that it adds to these rumours of having had people offed). You have to go back to JFK to find a Dem who so played to win. 482. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:15:40 AM 483. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:18:35 AM It's not a tough sell because Gore or Bradley won't do the selling. Their myrmidons will. And the issue largely stays alive because while the former two admitted it, Bush won't admit he used cocaine, though he probably did use it. 484. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:20:41 AM Ranheim, jj, as others have posted, the "successful" careers of Quayle and WBush have had a lot more to do with family name than being "self-made men". WBush's failed business enterprises prior to the baseball team (with which politics played a big role) are well known. Why won't WBush allow his Yale transcript to be released? 485. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:23:14 AM 486. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:24:32 AM 487. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:26:27 AM I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't counter-attack. I'm sure he will. My point is that if the Dems don't play this game, they haven't a prayer. They need to raise Bush's negatives. If they say, "Well, doing this sort of thing wouldn't be sporting," they're screwed. 488. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:27:22 AM 489. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:28:17 AM 490. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:28:37 AM More recently, Buchanan's book suggests that we should not have even gotten involved with Germany in WWII. As George Will asked on Sunday's TV show, is he aware that they declared war on us first? 491. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 9:29:04 AM Ace...her "undergrad" thesis? God forbid any of us think new thoughts, then or now... 492. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:30:07 AM 493. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:31:29 AM 494. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 9:37:37 AM Ace, I didn't say Gore's family name didn't have anything to do with his success -- of course it did. But one shouldn't support WBush & Quayle because they are self-made men because they aren't. (For the record, Forbes isn't either.) 495. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:43:04 AM 496. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:44:45 AM Pat is obsessed with Jews, gays, and sex (he's agin' it). Now, he also obsesssed over Communism, but given that they had missiles pointed at us for a very long time, that is somewhat more understandable. 497. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 9:49:22 AM 498. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:53:21 AM I agree that the Holocaust did not get us into the War. Pat uses that fact and the reality of what happened to Eastern Europe to rationalize his soft-on-Hitler views. 499. Ronski - 9/29/1999 9:57:39 AM Incidentally, while the scope of the Holocaust was not widely known, perhaps not even in Germany, until the War ended, the general mistreatment of Jews by the Nazis was widely known by the mid 30s. Jews were virtually stripped of their citizenship in Germany by the end of 1936. 500. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 10:18:38 AM Awhile back the New Yorker ran a nice piece summarizing Bush's career in the "private sector". If it was the "private" sector, it was the side of it that was very much involved in politics including favorable contracts from the Kuwaitis to Bush's employer post Desert Storm. (The business deal failed anyway.) Of course we know that baseball stadiums have absolutely nothing to do with the public sector. Just like Neil Bush was in the private sector on the Silverado Bank Board because of his brilliant career in finance. Yup. 501. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 10:19:34 AM Ace...no I don't support concealment. I also don't support witch hunts investigating undergrad term papers. Somewhere in between these two is where I rest. 502. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:25:32 AM 503. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 10:25:44 AM 504. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:26:46 AM 505. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 10:29:33 AM I was under the impression that Bill Clinton has also refused to release school records, certainly with regard to his scholastic activities in Oxford. 506. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 10:45:56 AM Thoughtful: 507. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 10:52:15 AM I have not read Buchanan's book not have I any plans to (since I really have no inclination to vote for him). My knowledge of the book's contents comes solely from newspaper accounts, mainly a column by Chris Matthews on the book. 508. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 10:56:35 AM Buchanan seemed to be genuinely surprised at the reaction to the book. I know his surprise was genuine because he isn't very good at covering his true feelings. He told Tim Russert he thought the book tour would've lasted a week or so and then he could get back to campaigning...is he clueless or what? Surely he had to know this would be "news". 509. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 10:58:50 AM 510. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:01:06 AM 511. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 11:03:20 AM For all the Big Brothers out there...I am not at liberty to release any form of academic performance by any student I teach w/o their permission...the ability of students to freely explore(w/o constraint) intellectual options is a cornerstone of academia...sorry ACE, but any attempt by you or yours to access such is a witch hunt to me, and I'm sure to the student(eg Hillary) being hunted. 512. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:03:58 AM 513. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:05:50 AM 514. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 11:06:50 AM Judith - Buchanan seemed to be genuinely surprised at the reaction to the book. 515. 109109 - 9/29/1999 11:09:33 AM I think the candidate can keep secret whatever the candidate wishes to keep secret. It is the job of enterprising reporters to wangle secret information into the public sphere, and to the extent the voting public feels that Hillary is hiding something of value, they will punish her for it at the polls. This is no different than tax returns or the Bush decision to keep mum on his drug uses prior to a certain year. Some candidates reveal more than others. 516. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 11:09:46 AM JudithatHome#508, 517. PsychProf - 9/29/1999 11:13:45 AM Ace...baloney...I never require students to "believe" their Senior Thesis...what they must do is intellectually explore a topic, with a central point in mind. Why do you confuse thought with truth( in this case "belief")? How do we know she wrote with truth in mind? The paper was not written for us...she was a student...it was written for her own personal growth. Should we now have University Deans judge the political correctness(and obviously future implications) of student work? In case some "might" look...I guess enquiring minds! want to know. 518. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:18:04 AM Ace- What relevance does an undergrad thesis have to her views decades later. The very idea of post secondary education is to stretch the minds of young persons beyond the experiences and values they have when they arrive. It is supposed to be a time of intellectual trial and error. My views of the world are different twenty years later, are yours? 519. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 11:20:28 AM Ace: 520. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:22:44 AM PP makes a very good point. The paper was written with a particular audience in mind- the professor. What do we know of her/his slant on the subject? Do you suppose that Hillary may have "played the game" and written a thesis that she hoped demostrated here knowledge of the material, while insuring that it did not run afoul of the prof's pre-conceived notions of the subject? 521. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:27:00 AM 522. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 11:28:28 AM Jones: 523. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:30:15 AM I am certainly a different person than I was as an undergraduate student --some of my beliefs have changed as they're tempered by everyday experience. 524. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 11:36:07 AM thrakk, if you are looking for objective analysis of Buchanan's book, I certainly wouldn't go to Chris Matthews who is far right of center. 525. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 11:42:11 AM Is this the same Chris Matthews who hosts Hardball? I confess that I assumed it was. If these Matthews are the same, then he is a Democrat who worked for Tip O'Neill and now seems to be all over the board ideology wise. 526. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:46:27 AM 527. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:49:24 AM Matthews is simply a loud-mouthed devil's advocate. He has no discernible ideology. And no discernible principles except self-preservation, a trait which did at least lead him to give up drinking, apparently saving his marriage in the process. He's a bore. 528. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:49:48 AM Ace- If you wouldn't be chagrined at the release of your college term papers, I think at least one of the folowing would be true: 529. Cellar Door - 9/29/1999 11:49:48 AM I wish I'd never heard of Chris Matthews. 530. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:51:20 AM By the Academy, if you are referring to the University -- those professors who receive public funds for research might be required to make the results public (unless the research is for the Military or otherwise for limited distribution. But like most students, I suspect that Hillary paid tuition for the privilege of learning and should not be required to turn over her papers and notebooks for public inspection. 531. Ronski - 9/29/1999 11:52:25 AM 532. Buck Mulligan - 9/29/1999 11:56:08 AM Yes, Ace, you are confusing the role of professors with the roles of students. If you were to ask to look at my students' homework, I would naturally refuse. 533. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:56:53 AM 534. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 11:57:26 AM I assume that Matthews can be either far right of center as Thoughtful stated or he can have no discernible ideology, but I rather doubt that he can be both. 535. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 11:57:46 AM Ace- undergrad thesis are academic exercises. They are not intended to further the scope of human knowledge. If you want her to release a Master's thesis, or a Doctoral dissertation, your point is stronger, as they are intended to be public additions to the academic literature. Universities maintain collections of sucessful theses and dissertations, at least mine did. They are supposed to be disseminated, and are supposed to advance an academic argument personally supported by the author. Term papers are another thing. 536. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:58:15 AM 537. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 11:59:11 AM 538. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 11:59:48 AM I don't know anyone who got a stipend or compensation of any kind for an undergrad thesis. 539. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:01:38 PM I assume that Matthews can be either far right of center as Thoughtful stated or he can have no discernible ideology, but I rather doubt that he can be both. 540. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 12:02:02 PM If Hillary's senior thesis was made under the same conditions as yours and included in the library collection, I concede the point to you, if it has been removed from the shelves. If a relase is needed, I doubt that is the case. Surely some enterprising reporter would have made her/his way to the stacks and obtained a copy by now. 541. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:02:16 PM 542. Buck Mulligan - 9/29/1999 12:02:24 PM At some schools senior theses are published and maintained in the school library, and you're free to go look at them. But in general, a student must give her consent, either at the time of writing in the case of a thesis to be published or after the fact. 543. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:03:02 PM Whoops, sorry about the double post. 544. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:03:44 PM 545. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:06:38 PM 546. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:08:56 PM I wrote not one but two Honors theses. Didn't get any money for them, wrote them as an exercise on how to get Honors with a minimum of effort, and would be deeply disappointed if either saw the light of day again. I don't know what Ace is talking about with this "add to the accumulated store of information/analysis available." No one who did an Honors thesis at my college was attempting any such thing, or had any inkling that this was what was required of us. 547. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:09:51 PM So, Ace, may we ask on which pirate you model yourself? 548. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:10:53 PM 549. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:11:40 PM Ace 550. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:11:43 PM 551. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:13:35 PM Ace, there is a genuine difference between an undergraduate thesis and a graduate thesis. The first is an academic exercise more than anything, the second is meant to contribute to the available published work. You are needlessly blurring the line between the two, a line that absolutely does exist. 551. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:13:35 PM 552. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:15:07 PM 553. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:16:20 PM My Military Politics professor used my term paper in his reserved readings for the course, but he got my permission first. I didn't receive or ask for any compensation. 554. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:17:11 PM Now, perhaps someone can explain to me why GW Bush is considered a viable or worthy candidate for anything other than the Board of Governors of Andover? Yes, I know he's raised money, and been anointed Republican frontrunner. 555. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:19:28 PM You folks must have been diligent undergrads, or attendees at prestigious universities. As a Pol SCI/HIS major, my undergrad thesis covered the confluence of Marxist-Leninist dogma, methamphetamine and Red White and Blue beer. 556. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:21:04 PM marjor 557. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:21:50 PM Marj 558. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 12:23:20 PM Niner, 559. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:27:51 PM GWBush is a complete weenie compared to Clinton in 1992. 560. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 12:29:42 PM Niner - GW is better qualified than the Dem 1992 candidate because he has at least some experience in business. The Dem 1992 candidate had none (and still has none). Having to make a payroll is an experience every cheif executive should have. 561. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 12:32:45 PM I am enternally greatful that my thesis in Jurisprudence is not on the stacks at the library. Very fuzzy stuff on Natural Law, that was right up my prof's alley, and earned a decent grade, but I wouldn't want to stand on it now. 562. Ronski - 9/29/1999 12:33:12 PM Even Reagan had considerably more experience than Bush, and had been tested in many more ways. 563. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:34:51 PM "Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar, and went to Yale Law School." 564. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:36:16 PM Ronski, 565. thrakkorzog - 9/29/1999 12:36:47 PM Well, I certainly think Hillary's thesis would be of great interest to historians of American politics if the thesis was related to political theory (as opposed to economic theory in Tudor England). It doesn't seem a huge stretch to say informed voters would like to know as well. I don't think anyone would vote for or against her based on her Senior Thesis, but it might give an insight into the evolution of her thinking. 566. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:38:54 PM Niner, 567. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:43:32 PM 568. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:46:12 PM Ace, 569. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:46:12 PM marjori 570. AceofSpades - 9/29/1999 12:47:32 PM 571. JJBiener - 9/29/1999 12:48:16 PM Banks - Give me a break! Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar Kris Kristofferson was also a Rhodes scholar. That hardly makes him presidential material. 572. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 12:49:44 PM I remember when the critics were picking on Clinton for his anti-Vietnam letter he wrote in his college days which was finally published. It proved to be a well thought out, well written piece which expressed the sentiment of many people at that time -- one which many undergrads* would be hard-pressed to match today. 573. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 12:50:15 PM 574. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:50:34 PM JJ 575. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:52:19 PM Thoughtful 576. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:52:39 PM Bush Sr. ran against Clinton. Bush jr. will presumably be running against Gore or Bradley. So why compare Bush Jr. with Clinton? 577. 109109 - 9/29/1999 12:56:00 PM Bubber 578. Bubbaette - 9/29/1999 12:56:22 PM Seeing as Bush Jr. is not running against Clinton, I don't see that the comparisons btwn the 2 are appropriate. How about comparing Bush jr. with Bradley and Gore? 579. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 12:56:58 PM First of all, I do not have any party allegiance, whether you consider this risible or not. I have voted for Republicans, notably twice for Rudy Giuliani. In the right circumstance, I would be happy to vote Republican in a presidential election. 580. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 12:57:52 PM Bubbaette: 581. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:00:05 PM marj 582. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:00:57 PM Was I "smitten" with Clinton in 1992? Yes, and so were a lot of people. I specially went to the US consulate in Paris to cast an absentee ballot because I had great hopes for a man of such visible capability. Was I disappointed after that? Sure, so were a lot of people. 583. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:00:57 PM 13 months prior to the election, no one is my candidate as of yet, though certain people have been ruled out in the winnowing process. 584. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:02:01 PM What demonstrated expertise and experience did he have? He was governor of a very trouble Southern state. 585. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:04:48 PM Niner, I agree with you. I agree that the Clintons were stupid about a lot of things and continue to be stupid about things like this PR terrorist early release and Hillary's bringing up WJC's zipper problem after it had all died down. There's certainly enough out there to dislike the Clintons for, not the least of which has been bungling of many issues. 586. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 1:05:03 PM Tomorrow on NPRs (radio) Fresh Air, Terry Gross is going to interview the author of the new Reagan biography. I mention this because she is a very good interviewer. 587. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:10:10 PM Thoughtful 588. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:11:49 PM Niner, 589. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:12:32 PM 590. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:13:14 PM As for comparing Bush Jr. to Gore or Bradley, my rule of thumb is that all other things being equal, governor trumps senator, and representative or businessman should be avoided at all cost. 591. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:15:49 PM 592. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:18:41 PM marjori 593. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:19:30 PM Ronski 594. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:22:07 PM 595. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:23:03 PM What were their relative offices again? 596. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 1:25:37 PM Niner, 597. 109109 - 9/29/1999 1:26:38 PM FDR. 598. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:28:07 PM Niner, fine. 599. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:28:26 PM Ronski, my concerns about McCain include the fact that in this election he seems to be a one-note samba, he voted to remove the pres from office, and I think he's crooked -- some of us remember the Keating-5 -- more than can be considered a "youthful indiscretion". 600. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:28:35 PM 601. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:31:05 PM 602. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:32:34 PM 603. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 1:32:56 PM Thoughtful #599, 604. marjoribanks - 9/29/1999 1:34:13 PM Given some broad ad detailed campaign statements, and a couple of good debates, I would certainly vote Powell and Republican in a Presidential election. 605. CalGal - 9/29/1999 1:34:27 PM Banks, 606. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:38:33 PM 607. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 1:44:47 PM 608. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:46:56 PM Lets examine the hypothesis that if Buchanan bolts it will free up Bush to evince the requisite degree of moderation, the implied conclusion being that Bush will then win handily. 609. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:49:21 PM 610. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:50:15 PM Ronski, being Gov of TX in the buckle of the bible belt, it doesn't take any backbone to say you're anti-gay. And do you really think that he wouldn't fudge on that position if it served his needs? Like Clinton fudged on the military/gay issue? Any more so than Gore's switch from anti- to pro-choice to get the VPship? 611. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:50:45 PM I suspect you are not a soccor mom, Ronski. 612. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:51:08 PM e for o, please. 613. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:52:28 PM 614. Ronski - 9/29/1999 1:55:05 PM 615. janjon - 9/29/1999 1:55:15 PM As for the prosperity issue, um, I suspect we will be reminded a bit about Poppa Bush's less than sterling performance on that front. And, um, there will be a few nice things for the Dems. to point to regarding the last six years or so. Gore will certainly tell us that. 616. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:55:52 PM Ronski, I agree with #609 -- and why WJC won vs. Bush in '92. He correctly had his finger on the pulse of the populace with his "It's the economy, stupid," as it was and shall be. Problem is, Gore is so weak a candidate that it's questionable that even the strongest economy in 30 years will carry him into office. 617. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 1:58:16 PM What scares me more than anything is that, even though everyone dismisses the religious right as fringe to the election, all the candidates (Bradley an exception?) are tripping over themselves to prove how religious they are. Shudder. 618. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:00:35 PM janjon, 619. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:03:50 PM Ronski. Admirable traits you have there. But when it comes to voting the soccer moms have you and yours outnumbered (even as to the Great New American Pastime - watching football). And, they take the gun control and abortion issues most seriously. 620. Thoughtful - 9/29/1999 2:04:05 PM Sorry, Ronski -- I missed the wink'n'nod -- I tend to do that in this medium, especially when I'm talking politics. 621. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:04:09 PM janjon, 622. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:09:33 PM janjon, 623. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:09:58 PM Ronski - anybody who could go from an over 90% approval to less than 40% in slightly more than a year, without any dramatic reason for the cause, wasn't a victim. Just inept. Actually it was his READ MY LIPS that finally did him in. 624. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 2:11:24 PM 625. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:14:03 PM Yes. Bush's bewilderment and sense of awe at seeing how a supermarket checkout line worked really said it all to a lot of people. He did, of course, feel very comfortable in boat showrooms. Big boats, like Cigarettes. (Actually, I have always been a bit surprised that he wasn't a sailboat man. Much more in keeping with his background.) 626. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:15:00 PM 627. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:18:24 PM Trial, janjon, 628. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:19:48 PM Clinton has done little for the economy except not wreck it.... 629. Dantheman - 9/29/1999 2:20:40 PM Ronski, 630. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:21:22 PM 631. janjon - 9/29/1999 2:22:31 PM Greenspan cheats at tennis. I know that from unimpeachable sources. 632. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:24:38 PM 633. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:25:55 PM Bub- perhaps for the same reason that Reagan ran against Carter in his second term. Attack the record you don't like, not the candidate whose arguments you find difficult to make appealing sound bites out of. 634. Ronski - 9/29/1999 2:26:11 PM 635. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:26:43 PM errrr, first term.... 636. JonesAtLaw - 9/29/1999 2:27:33 PM Man, that was a good lunch, and I'm sleepy. Back to lurking... 637. ranheim - 9/29/1999 3:01:43 PM This may not be apropos here; BUT . . . 638. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:05:35 PM 639. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 3:06:32 PM ranheim: 640. Ronski - 9/29/1999 3:07:22 PM 641. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 3:09:16 PM Ronski: 642. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 3:13:16 PM County gives employees a ``living wage'' increase 643. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:31:44 PM 644. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 3:41:39 PM My one and only snorkelling experience was on Okinawa. 645. CalGal - 9/29/1999 3:59:14 PM I snorkelled in Saudi Arabia, and while I lived there I went to school with two girls who were born in Okinawa. 646. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 3:59:43 PM 647. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:06:00 PM Jimmy Breslin on the art flap in New York... 648. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:12:14 PM maybe this will be a working link to Breslin 649. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 4:13:34 PM Trialshark: Yes, the Terama Islands. I've been as far south as the Ishigaki Islands also, which are practically Taiwan. 650. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 4:26:17 PM Jacob Weisberg on Bush's complaint against a parody website 651. JudithAtHome - 9/29/1999 4:39:00 PM It would be so funny if this guy were the late Fredrick Exleys son... 652. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 5:14:40 PM 653. ranheim - 9/29/1999 6:23:14 PM Judith; TrialShark; pe 654. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 6:42:25 PM 655. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/1999 6:44:48 PM I don't know what the Ernie Pyle Memorial is. 656. CalGal - 9/29/1999 6:49:46 PM Ernie Pyle was a WWII war correspondent--in fact, he probably still has the most name recognition of any war correspondent. He was killed by sniper fire on Okinawa. 657. CalGal - 9/29/1999 6:54:45 PM Oops--I just realized you mentioned the memorial, not the grave site--which makes sense given your discussion. He's buried at the Punch Bowl in Hawaii, which is where the picture in the above link was taken. 658. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 7:01:49 PM 659. ranheim - 9/29/1999 7:18:30 PM TrialShark #254 660. ranheim - 9/29/1999 7:19:05 PM #654 661. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 7:22:21 PM 662. robertjayb - 9/29/1999 7:22:48 PM ? 663. TrialShark - 9/29/1999 7:40:15 PM 664. ranheim - 9/29/1999 9:19:38 PM TrialShark 665. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:45:27 AM 666. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 2:07:10 AM 667. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:42:08 PM 668. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 12:50:04 PM 669. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 12:59:22 PM Trialshark, ranheim: 670. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 1:10:56 PM 671. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 1:21:25 PM Trial: 672. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 1:25:39 PM Trial: 673. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 1:35:12 PM 674. janjon - 9/30/1999 2:29:00 PM But unfortunately they just aren't in a position to take advantage of it, to make a killing so to speak, eh? 675. janjon - 9/30/1999 2:46:43 PM Japanese officials are being quoted as saying "abnormal reactions" could be continuing. 676. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 2:58:16 PM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN JAPAN 677. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 3:06:29 PM Does anyone else get annoyed when Clinton shows his compassion and empathy for poor countries by giving them other people's money? Since when are the poor in other countries more important than the poor in the United States? He just wants people to liken him to FDR. He should know, though, that a lot of people do - not that that's a good thing. 678. janjon - 9/30/1999 3:10:16 PM Cygnus. No. 679. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:15:49 PM CY...interesting response to 666...do you care or are you saying scew em they're not Americans...or were you simply ignoring the story and/or my post? 680. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:21:49 PM Trialshark: 681. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:25:27 PM I swear those typos weren't there when I posted that!!! 682. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:26:10 PM Interesting. It's only minutes old, and there has already been more coverage in this thread on the Japanese accident than on the Taiwan earthquake, despite the fact that the latter is orders of magnitude more serious. Anyone care to discuss why this is? 683. ranheim - 9/30/1999 3:26:38 PM Judith;Trial 684. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 3:27:49 PM PsychProf, Re Message #679 685. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:28:14 PM Dusty...I believe i posted on both...in any case, what is your point? 686. ranheim - 9/30/1999 3:30:27 PM The Teahouse of the August Moon was off limits for most of my tour on Okinawa. We got there only once. I believe it was off limits because the locals wanted a place to go where there wouldn't be "round eyes" and their money. 687. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:37:03 PM Cygnus X-1 688. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:39:14 PM PsychProf 689. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:39:46 PM Dusty: 690. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:42:25 PM 691. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:42:28 PM JudithAtHome 692. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:43:11 PM Dusty...hope the fear is irrational. 693. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:44:36 PM 694. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:44:36 PM JudithAtHome 695. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 3:46:19 PM 696. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:48:47 PM I found it of particlar interest because of the posts(eg TS, Ranheim Judith) that recounted such splendid memories...I was not trying to compete stories... 697. Dusty - 9/30/1999 3:53:44 PM TrialShark 698. CalGal - 9/30/1999 3:57:17 PM Can't do anything about earthquakes--except build better. Nuclear accidents are not only man made, there is always the risk of permanent damage that affects everyone. In other words, the potential downside is longer and more severe. 699. PsychProf - 9/30/1999 3:57:23 PM FOR DUSTY...THE MEXICAN QUAKE 700. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 3:57:47 PM Sorry, Dusty, that we didn't gnash our teeth enough over these things; I guess we got a little carried away with talking about events in the past rather than current ones. 701. CalGal - 9/30/1999 3:57:56 PM As for shooting sprees--perhaps you haven't noticed, but the coverage level has subsided dramatically. Compare the April Littleton coverage to the Dallas coverage of a couple weeks ago. 702. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 4:00:48 PM CalGal: 703. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:02:37 PM Judith, 704. JudithAtHome - 9/30/1999 4:05:15 PM Cal: 705. JonesAtLaw - 9/30/1999 4:08:29 PM "Fly over country" eh, CalGal? 706. Cygnus X-1 - 9/30/1999 4:09:31 PM To be fair, some would claim that the covereage of the shooting sprees depends on the ethnicity or religion of the victims. 707. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:09:50 PM Ah, yes. The charm of a provincial Californian. 708. ranheim - 9/30/1999 4:10:40 PM Now Cal! 709. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:11:26 PM Ran, 710. ranheim - 9/30/1999 4:13:28 PM Cal 711. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 4:18:33 PM 712. CalGal - 9/30/1999 4:22:53 PM TS, 713. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 4:37:09 PM 714. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:01:32 PM TrialShark 715. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 5:14:13 PM 716. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:18:29 PM TS 717. CalGal - 9/30/1999 5:20:22 PM Really? I think Chernobyl would have more coverage, overall. Taken from time of incident to present day. 718. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:21:55 PM TS 719. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:22:45 PM Wow, that some thread list. 720. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:23:23 PM Grey, forget to close a font size tag? 721. Greystoke - 9/30/1999 5:30:44 PM Hey, I'm experimenting. I only have 40 characters to work with for each link, counting both the link name and html tags. 722. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:32:09 PM Much better, thanks. 723. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 5:41:50 PM 724. Dusty - 9/30/1999 5:47:57 PM TS, I agree, I'll try to elaborate later, but I'm out the door. 725. robertjayb - 9/30/1999 7:08:23 PM . 726. TrialShark - 9/30/1999 7:57:27 PM 727. Thoughtful - 10/1/1999 8:36:05 AM Interesting juxtaposition in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster. My quote-a-day calendar today was by Einstein from 8/2/64: 728. Thoughtful - 10/1/1999 8:36:36 AM ..er..power not powr. 729. Ronski - 10/1/1999 9:38:48 AM 730. Amaxen@work - 10/1/1999 4:55:58 PM Does anyone know if any figures are kept in terms of, say number of Megawatts produced per human death by industry? I don't know if there are any, but I suspect that Nuclear would be way down on the list. If you look world-wide at the coal industry, for example, I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds of deaths per year in coal mining accidents alone, especially in the former Soviet Union/E.Europe. 731. robertjayb - 10/1/1999 5:25:29 PM DEA Drug Hawks Swoop Down on Birdseed 732. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:30:09 PM Amaxen@work 733. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:31:18 PM robertjayb 734. dusty - 10/1/1999 5:33:34 PM CNN announced that Gore has changed pollsters. Anyone think we'll see an improvment in his poll results? 735. TrialShark - 10/1/1999 5:38:10 PM 736. moonflower - 10/2/1999 4:13:41 PM No, changing pollsters won't help Big Al. But he's no more "stiff" than that Bush person. I don't understand all the nasty epithets ladeled onto Gore. But then again, I didn't understand why the movie star who became prez was the "great communicator." 737. TrialShark - 10/2/1999 4:48:20 PM 738. joezan - 10/2/1999 5:16:31 PM 739. moonflower - 10/2/1999 8:01:54 PM Joezan, I'm not convinced he should work to overcome them if these labels really describe who he is. He ought to be himself, which is dangerous in politics. But I suppose I've just contradicted myself: 740. Cellar Door - 10/2/1999 10:01:54 PM Regan was a spokesman for General Electric with considerable social skills and personal charm. They served him well. Even those opposed to his politics found him impossible to dislike personally. And when his deterioration began to show, they liked him all the more. No reason not to. His the wisdom of his political beliefs and the actions undertaken by his administration are still subject to debate -- though you wouldn't expect they would be to hear it from the Conservabot Media and their standard party line. 741. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 2:42:32 AM Cellar is absolutely correct. If there were truly such a thing as a "liberal media", Reagan would still be getting raked over the coals for the concrete, actual effects of his administration, which was probably the most crooked since Harding's. As it is, Ronnie has been given a pass all the way around, because of his deteriorating mental status. Maybe that's the right thing to do. But a truly objective media would at least attempt to pinpoint when in his administration Reagan became truly incapacitated, because it's nearly indisputable that the Alzheimer's kicked in well before he finally fessed up to it. This tends to debunk the mantra from the Limbaugh wing of the Conservative side of The Party, which is pretty much the entire fucking face of that coin these days. 742. CalGal - 10/3/1999 2:43:28 AM As it is, Ronnie has been given a pass all the way around, because of his deteriorating mental status. 743. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 3:12:48 AM Cal: 744. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 3:14:40 AM Goddammit, I hate when I dyslexically type "teh" instead of "the". Yet another paean to my anal-retentive nature. Argh! 745. TrialShark - 10/3/1999 4:23:28 AM 746. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 4:57:23 AM TS: 747. moonflower - 10/3/1999 8:49:44 AM Hi all--I agree with all these posts regarding Reagan (who I personally, as a prez, did not like at all). Gorbechev, in that new "bio" of Reagan said he was "sunlight and blue skies" when they met. He did have that kind of optimistic quality. Maybe he was tagged "the great communicator" because many Americans needed to feel some "sunlight and blue skies" after Viet Nam and Watergate, and they saw that in Reagan. 748. ranheim - 10/3/1999 9:54:17 AM Cartman 749. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 10:23:38 AM etal, 750. Cellar Door - 10/3/1999 10:54:40 AM I'm entranced by the prospect of a Nina Hartley Presidential bid. 751. moonflower - 10/3/1999 1:00:12 PM A funny story regarding Mr. Reagan. Asked if she regretted divorcing RR and not being First Lady, Jane Wyman replied, "I divorced him because he was boring." You go, girl! Even in the new bio where he concludes RR is a "great" prez, he says RR was boring, telling the same stories again and again. In some ways, though, I feel the Bush presidency was even worse than Reagan's. I don't see Reagan as a faker; he was what he was, a blank slate written on by Republican and business operatives. Bush suddenly saw the light and became anti-choice to be the veep. His son too will probably do as he's told and it'll be Meese-land all over again. 752. TrialShark - 10/3/1999 2:50:52 PM 753. Cellar Door - 10/3/1999 3:14:09 PM He also believes in amassing enormous amounts of money for his campaign. So do all the other candidates but Bush is apparently "better" at it. 754. EricCartman - 10/3/1999 6:46:03 PM Ranheim, Cellar: 755. moonflower - 10/3/1999 8:51:16 PM Cellar Door & Trial: yup, agree completely. It is ironic, though, that as much I dislike the Texas guv, I defend him when it comes to dull questions about his coke use in the past and possible affairs. 756. ranheim - 10/3/1999 8:53:34 PM Cartman 757. Cygnus X-1 - 10/3/1999 9:53:11 PM Why don't you all ask yourself this question: Were you better off after Reagan's tenure than you were before it? 758. Aldavis - 10/3/1999 10:25:01 PM Cygnus X-1 759. bubbaette - 10/3/1999 11:34:20 PM Actually, I don't think my situation improved at all under Reagan -- it seemed that I was spinning my wheels economically most of those years. I think that one of the worst aspect about Reagan's years was the decline in morale in public service. It used to be that working for the government was respectable --you would never get rich that way, but you could feel that you were of service. Now it seems that the only thing lower than public employees in public opinion, are felons. On the state level, this has contributed to an exodus of some of the best and brightest employees. 760. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 11:48:25 PM Cygnus X-1, 761. RickNelson - 10/3/1999 11:52:47 PM Cygnus X-1, 762. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:22:36 AM 763. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:25:49 AM No offense, but I think both Bubba and Joe are off. 764. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:31:37 AM 765. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:37:18 AM Anecdotes won't getcha anywhere, dude. 766. joezan - 10/4/1999 12:45:37 AM Seem's I've heard that before... 767. ee - 10/4/1999 12:48:27 AM One thing about RR, he stirs people up. 11 years from now no one will think a thing about Clinton except Monica Lewinski. 768. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:49:16 AM Joe, 769. CalGal - 10/4/1999 12:51:21 AM Oh, I disagree. I think Clinton is just as capable of stirring up the populace as Ronnie. As is evidenced both by the dedicated effort to get him, the dedication of those who stuck up for him, and the interest his goings ons stirred in the public. 770. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 12:55:40 AM C-Span has played Warren's speech twice so far tonight. 771. joezan - 10/4/1999 1:04:13 AM 772. joezan - 10/4/1999 1:06:38 AM 773. EricCartman - 10/4/1999 1:46:36 AM Cygnus X-1 (Message #757): 774. EricCartman - 10/4/1999 1:46:59 AM Then, while you're enjoying our prosperity despite your contempt for the administration primarily responsible for it, consider this quote: "If you pick up a starving dog...and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between a dog...and a man." - Mark Twain 775. Amaxen@work - 10/4/1999 2:01:57 AM Mmmm, 776. Stumbo - 10/4/1999 4:18:30 AM "But Reagan created that Cold War hysteria during his tenure..." 777. RickNelson - 10/4/1999 7:13:28 AM You don't think Star Wars was cold war hysteria? 778. Dusty - 10/4/1999 8:22:03 AM RickNelson 779. Dusty - 10/4/1999 8:28:11 AM RickNelson 780. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:25:05 PM If the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" isn't increasing, then we're most likely in a recession or are being taxed too much. As long as we are continuously acquiring wealth, the difference between the richest and poorest will always be increasing. That is, the difference between and ever-increasing number an zero is always itself increasing. 781. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:27:56 PM EricCartman, Re Message #774 782. Cygnus X-1 - 10/4/1999 12:33:24 PM EricCartman, Re Message #773 783. TrialShark - 10/4/1999 1:36:54 PM 784. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 1:43:15 PM Here's an interesting little bit of dreck: Monica Lewinsky will get $10,000.00 for every pound she loses from Jenny Craig, Inc. Their goal for her is to slim down from 223 to 123...she's already lost 60 lbs. Wonder if she has to give back any money if she regains the tonnage? 785. JJBiener - 10/4/1999 2:00:53 PM Rick - again I can't prove this 786. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 5:22:38 PM Well let's "detroy" the "reputation" of this man FOR IGNORING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC! That unutterably stupid "Dutch" book gives AIDS barely a paragraph. 787. 109109 - 10/4/1999 5:25:22 PM Cellar 788. Cellar Door - 10/4/1999 5:29:49 PM Naw. "Dutch" would have said "Well I knew Adrian and Janet Gaynor, and I don;t care what you say -- they had a REAL marriage." 789. 109109 - 10/4/1999 5:30:28 PM Ha ha ha ha ha. Well said. 790. Greystoke - 10/4/1999 5:54:01 PM An article about one of my pet peeves, running red lights. 791. JRoth - 10/4/1999 5:59:50 PM Just posting here for the first time. I was brought back to DC for a few months, and upon my return to Slate I found a weird and barren cyberspace. Good to see old acquaintances on these fora. 792. moonflower - 10/4/1999 6:06:39 PM Evidently most Americans disagree with me, but RR did NOTHING to "restore my confidence." If anything, his blank-it-out vision of 793. Amaxen@work - 10/4/1999 6:08:26 PM Um, Rick: 794. JRoth - 10/4/1999 6:38:22 PM Cabrini Green is the notorious group of high-rise public housing projects in Chicago. They remain the example, par excellence, of what M. Foucault called our intentionally penal method of housing 'undeserving' people. Needless to say life there is 'nasty, brutish and short'. 795. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 6:45:42 PM Welcome, JRoth...you sound as tho you're a thoughtful person...a thinking person, I mean. 796. Greystoke - 10/4/1999 6:47:49 PM The War on Drugs 797. ranheim - 10/4/1999 6:48:20 PM Judith 798. JudithAtHome - 10/4/1999 6:51:18 PM ranheim: 799. JRoth - 10/4/1999 7:04:55 PM One can actually eat well in England these days (Ireland and Scotland remain abysmal). Of course the Americanization of London proceeds apace so Lewinsky probably found all her favorite foods- and was travelling with expenses reimbursed. Actually it's a good trade for us; the Brits send over a plump Duchess of York and we send a plump ...... 800. RickNelson - 10/4/1999 7:29:03 PM JJ, Come on, I clearly said, this is all opinion. I have no time nor resource to find exact facts. And time blends as it goes by. 801. concerned - 10/4/1999 10:45:35 PM Re 786 - 802. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 2:47:44 AM Cygnus: 803. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 2:48:14 AM That is, the difference between and ever-increasing number and zero is always itself increasing. 804. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:01:41 AM Of course the overextension of the SU during those years helped create the economic catastrophe still evident in Russia. 805. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:06:25 AM #782 806. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:26:44 AM Didn't we talk about this before? Reagan didn't scare Gorbachev at all, but he probably provided Gorbachev with a convenient boogie-man to scare the hardliners with. I believe that Gorbachev himself says so. But to give Reagan any more credit than that is silliness. 807. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 3:28:22 AM Pseudo: 808. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 3:34:53 AM CG: 809. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 3:40:11 AM Stumbo, I think your #807 is sophistical. As far as I can tell, you're saying: given the slow decline of the Soviet Union, it might have lumbered on in existence for another half-century. I think that's debateable but plausible. But what's implausible is the contention that the external pressure applied in the years 1981-86 is what brought about the (allegedly) hastened collapse. This, logically, requires Reagan to be responsible for bringing to power Gorbachev, the proximate cause of the dissolution of the USSR. And that just doesn't fit the history. Gorbachev was in a reformist minority in the late 1970s. 810. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:41:50 AM I thought Gorbachev was just continuing on with Andropov's ideas, for some reason. 811. CalGal - 10/5/1999 3:46:30 AM . But what's implausible is the contention that the external pressure applied in the years 1981-86 is what brought about the (allegedly) hastened collapse. 812. Stumbo - 10/5/1999 4:05:53 AM Pseudo: 813. msgreer - 10/5/1999 9:35:58 AM CNN REPORTING A nuclear accident occured in S. Korea some 14 hours ago or 7pm EST. 814. Ronski - 10/5/1999 9:53:31 AM Do these nuclear ineptitude events come in threes? I don't live too far from a plant. 815. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 9:54:40 AM Ronski: 816. Dusty - 10/5/1999 9:56:17 AM RickNelson 817. JRoth - 10/5/1999 10:28:21 AM Pseudo, 818. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:31:39 AM Reagan - The Man Who let Gorbachev Be Gorbachev 819. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:32:14 AM Of course, all of this is in the vacuum of a "crumbling" Soviet economy. So, naturally, diplomacy becomes secondary. After all, superpowers crumble similarly, in the same time frame, in a very predictable pattern. All Reagan had to do, if a certain line is accepted, is wait, smile and take the credit. 820. 109109 - 10/5/1999 10:37:47 AM And the other contributory strand of this nonsense is the view that economies and economies alone dictate history. Of course, I am much more accepting of this brand of nonsense, because economists should have something to talk about. They are equivelent to the punter who speaks of his contribution after a team has won the Super Bowl. 821. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 10:43:54 AM JRoth (#817): I have not toured Magnitorsk or the Urals. I don't see why having done so gives one a privileged understanding of the Russian economy. I also have no idea what you're talking about in #817. 822. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 10:54:46 AM EricCartman, Re Message #802 823. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 10:56:38 AM JRoth, I'm not even sure what your argument is. 824. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:04:26 AM EricCartman, Re Message #803 825. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:09:41 AM And if the poor are getting poorer then something's right? 826. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:09:43 AM pseudoerasmus, Re Message #805 827. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:10:25 AM Cygnus: Your #822 assumes that the market is paying what the worker is worth, which is not necessarily true (unless of course you operate under the tautology that whatever the worker gets paid is what he's worth). 828. JRoth - 10/5/1999 11:10:28 AM Pseudo, 829. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:12:13 AM #826 830. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 11:12:32 AM Cygnus: 831. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:12:46 AM Let's give Bill Clinton the credit for "winning" the Cold War. 832. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:13:04 AM Cyngus- I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean if the rich are not accumulating more wealth or if they are not increasing their percentage of total wealth? 833. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:13:33 AM Cellar Door, Re Message #825 834. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:14:05 AM Hey -- let's kill the poor! They're just taking up space, aren't they? 835. Bubbaette - 10/5/1999 11:15:43 AM Yeah, they're taking up valuable jail space that could be rented out. And they look seedy hanging out in doorways. 836. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:21:17 AM #828 837. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:28:43 AM pseudoerasmus, Re Message #829 838. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:29:45 AM Cygnus, I will not work with your silly analogy. 839. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:37:39 AM JudithAtHome, Re Message #830 840. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:40:31 AM Debating over which is the more essential to a free market sucess, labor, management or capital is akin to debating what is more essential to sugar cookies, butter, sugar or flour. 841. Cygnus X-1 - 10/5/1999 11:42:14 AM JonesAtLaw, Re Message #832 842. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:46:07 AM If bakers have no money, they can't buy ovens, flour etc. They need others with know-how to expand their business. If you break the triangle, the venture is crippled. Creating wealth requires co-ordination of all three. 843. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 11:46:46 AM JRoth: Here is how I would summarise our respective positions. You seem to think that Russia is suffering today because the physical legacy of communism --those mammoth factories in the Urals and in Siberia -- are not fit for producing real goods for real people. I agree that Russia would be better off today had the Soviets not created that warped economic structure. However, where I disagree is, it does NOT follow that just because the Soviets bequeathed this structure, Russia today must be suffering. For there were alternative paths available -- one taken by many other previously transitional economies -- the primary one being the construction of new productive capacity from scratch. 844. JonesAtLaw - 10/5/1999 11:47:13 AM In other words, a baker without labor or capital is a guy on the street with an idea and an empty belly. 845. JudithAtHome - 10/5/1999 11:49:18 AM Cygnus: 846. JRoth - 10/5/1999 2:23:58 PM Pseudo, 847. robertjayb - 10/5/1999 2:32:07 PM . 848. Dusty - 10/5/1999 2:47:29 PM robertjayb 849. ranheim - 10/5/1999 3:03:23 PM I got out of the USAF in 1972 and have lived in LA since. As Texas is right next door, I soon became acquainted with the name, Molly Ivins. She claims not to be a Democrat - at times. Occasionally, the uses the word Progressive to describe her political beliefs. 850. Ronski - 10/5/1999 3:06:11 PM 851. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 3:07:59 PM She loves big government and its big programs. 852. Dantheman - 10/5/1999 3:08:12 PM Can anyone explain the stock market's thought processes? All day, the market was up significantly, reaching 1% gains about a hour age. Now that the Fed decided not to raise rates (supposedly good news for the market) it falls quickly and is down over 1/2%. 853. Ronski - 10/5/1999 3:09:23 PM 854. Bubbaette - 10/5/1999 3:11:17 PM I think what Molly is trying to say resonates im my state too: 855. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:14:03 PM Pseudo, 856. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:27:33 PM Pseudo, 857. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 4:32:07 PM Jones - In other words, a baker without labor or capital is a guy on the street with an idea and an empty belly. 858. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 4:34:21 PM Pseudo: 859. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:39:20 PM Pseudo, 860. JRoth - 10/5/1999 4:41:45 PM Apologies to all; I have no idea why I am posting multiple copies. Any advice on this particular problem? 861. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 4:55:11 PM Jroth #859 862. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 4:55:51 PM "...Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins." 863. Dusty - 10/5/1999 5:02:05 PM Dantheman 864. Dantheman - 10/5/1999 5:04:35 PM Dusty, 865. Dusty - 10/5/1999 5:05:40 PM EricCartman 866. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 5:17:52 PM By the way, in bickering over who was responsible for the death of the Soviet Union, we tend to overlook the possibility that its death was not the unequivocally good thing that people take for granted. I don't see why it would have been such a bad thing for a kind of USSR to survive -- a Soviet Union which had withdrawn from Eastern Europe and the Baltics, which was beginning to retreat from international expansion & adventurism in general, which could have undertaken gradual reform under the aegis of the Communist Party -- in short the Soviet Union that might have been emerging in 1990-91. 867. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 5:24:20 PM That the USSR shrink to the size of the Duchy of Muscovy would not have been a bad thing, for the parts of that Union together could not equal the monstrosity that was the USSR. 868. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:26:03 PM Cartman - I read what you wrote to Cygnus. Are you serious, or are you just spouting plattitudes? If you really don't know the answers to those questions, I could explain them to you. I think perhaps you already know the answers and you are just tormenting Cyggie. Which is it? 869. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:31:24 PM PE - It would have been far better for the world in general if the USSR could have moved away from a command economy without first going through economic collapse. I just don't think it was ever a political possibility. BTW, I agree with you that Reagan did not cause the collapse of the USSR. The collapse was inevitable. Reagan's policies just moved the date up by about 10 years. 870. janjon - 10/5/1999 5:36:22 PM The collapse was inevitable. Reagan's policies just moved the date up by about 10 years. 871. ElliottRW - 10/5/1999 5:39:59 PM pseudoerasmus 872. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:49:26 PM janjon - Your grasp of recent history astounding. And utterly predictable. 873. janjon - 10/5/1999 5:54:16 PM JJBiener. I wouldn't be tossing around the word predictable as a epithet, if I were you. Or introspection for that matter. 874. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 5:58:49 PM janjon - You are welcome to your beliefs, predictable as they are. You do know that even Gorbachev credits Reagan with hastening the end of the USSR, but I guess you are better informed than he is. 875. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 5:59:10 PM #867 876. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:04:45 PM Biener. I understand that Gorbachev used Reagan's "policies" as a bogeyman to help win support for his political purposes. Much in the same vein as how the US military for years used the Russian Bear as a bogeyman to help get superinflated military budgets. 877. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:08:10 PM And who was Reagan being used by (if I correctly 878. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:10:34 PM PE - What relationship do you see between the USSR's inability to defeat the mujahadeen in Afganistan, and its eventual political and economic collapse? 879. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:10:52 PM ScottLoar. I will assume that 877 was addressed to me and refers to my 876. Gorbachev, for his own internal politica purposes. 880. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:12:58 PM janjon - If I am reading you correctly, you giving Gorbachev credit (or blame) for using Reagan to destroy his own country. Are you serious? 881. ranheim - 10/5/1999 6:16:15 PM I am not an economist. 882. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:17:00 PM Janjon, you may assume that JJBeiner's #880 also stands as my rejoinder. 883. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:17:55 PM Biener. Yes. But blow what I am saying out of proportion. Using big bad bogeymen to further political purposes isn't exactly new. 884. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:18:33 PM Um, that was supposed to say but DON'T blow etc. 885. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:19:59 PM Ranheim, I am not an economist. No. Nascent industrialization by one of the poorest albeit largest European country in the early 20th century could not translate into anything other than that country had a long way to go to match industrialized Europe and the US. 886. janjon - 10/5/1999 6:22:03 PM The fact that Gorbachev's policies didn't exactly turn out the way he intended has nothing to do with the techniques (such as the use of bogeymen) he used to further his policies. I am simply saying that Reagan's posturing notwithstanding, it had no material impact on what actually happened to the USSR during the years of the Reagan presidency. 887. ScottLoar - 10/5/1999 6:23:00 PM In fact Communism as evidenced in the USSR by the 20's was seen worldwide as the shortcut to modernity and social justice as opposed to capitalism or Christianity. 888. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 6:25:57 PM #878 889. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/1999 6:27:08 PM Ranheim: Economic historians followed Alexander Gerschenkron long ago in agreeing that Russia in 1914 had already begun industrial takeoff. It's very apparent in brute numbers. 890. JJBiener - 10/5/1999 6:38:24 PM Janjon - You missed the point. In interviews recently, not while he was in office, Gorbachev gives credit to Reagan. Specifically, Reagan's commitment to a missle defense system and Reagan's stand at Reykevic among others. You will excuse me if I take Gorby's word over yours. 891. Aldavis - 10/5/1999 10:40:26 PM celler 892. proudnerd - 10/5/1999 11:06:21 PM In interviews recently, not while he was in office, Gorbachev gives credit to Reagan. 893. Cellar Door - 10/5/1999 11:35:24 PM I've never stopped being an anarchist. 894. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 11:49:22 PM Dusty (#865): 895. EricCartman - 10/5/1999 11:55:58 PM Biener (#868): 896. Aldavis - 10/5/1999 11:59:35 PM celler 897. JRoth - 10/6/1999 8:02:10 AM Apologies to all; I have no idea why I am posting multiple copies. Any advice on this particular problem? 898. Uzmakk - 10/6/1999 8:09:44 AM jroth: 899. JRoth - 10/6/1999 8:23:15 AM Pseudo, 900. Dusty - 10/6/1999 8:29:41 AM A sad day. 901. JRoth - 10/6/1999 9:35:12 AM Dusty, 902. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:39:36 AM JRoth, #899 903. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:45:57 AM Jroth, sorry, 904. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:47:08 AM 905. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/1999 9:47:32 AM is it fixed? 906. JRoth - 10/6/1999 10:23:25 AM Pseudo, 907. JRoth - 10/6/1999 10:33:02 AM Pseudo, 908. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:26:44 AM JRoth 909. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:26:48 AM JRoth 910. Dusty - 10/6/1999 11:27:53 AM Oops, sorry about the double post. I got an error, and tried again. I got an error the second time, but apparently it posted each time. 911. robertjayb - 10/6/1999 12:18:16 PM . 912. Cellar Door - 10/6/1999 12:29:43 PM Kids -- they sure keep ya' hoppin'! 913. pellenilsson - 10/6/1999 4:26:01 PM For you Californians a quote from The Economist on water management: 914. Cygnus X-1 - 10/6/1999 6:19:49 PM Guess who is quoted as saying the following: 915. Cellar Door - 10/6/1999 6:59:51 PM What -- no three-ways in the White House? How rude! 916. concerned - 10/6/1999 10:31:31 PM Re. 914 - 917. concerned - 10/6/1999 10:37:37 PM Oops! My error. That was *another* forum in which I mentioned Brazile, after somebody had brought up the fact that Bore had also ganged up with another part-time criminal: Tony Coelho. 918. EricCartman - 10/7/1999 2:02:40 AM Concerned: 919. CalGal - 10/7/1999 3:39:43 AM Pelle, 920. Amaxen@work - 10/7/1999 3:59:00 AM The Soviet Bureaucrats knew that their economy was going into decline and were constantly experimenting with means to achieve increased efficiency. Unfortunately, they found that whenever they developed a means to do so they inevitably had decreased economic equality. This was socially unacceptable and violated the implicit contract that the Soviet people had made with the apparatchik. 921. EricCartman - 10/7/1999 4:02:17 AM I don't see how something will be figured out that will satisfy all the regions here, Cal. Most likely, as SoCal just keeps taking more and more and more people in, we'll get fucked up here in the north. More peripheral canal proposals and such. We simply won't have enough votes to offset the Angelenos. 922. SpenceMirrlees - 10/7/1999 4:23:23 AM Pelle, there is a book on the topic, called Cadillac Desert. It's not a very good book, frankly, as it is written with what is evidently a journalist's standard of proof, not very high. But there are plenty of interesting stories. 923. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 5:50:56 AM Spence 924. JRoth - 10/7/1999 8:58:35 AM Pelle, 925. Dusty - 10/7/1999 9:20:12 AM At yesterday's press conference, Joe Lockhart discussed the machinations surrounding the vote (or lack thereof) on the so-called "Patients Rights" bill. He characterized the Republicans as "thwarting the will of the American people". 926. Ronski - 10/7/1999 9:42:46 AM Perhaps it is worth remembering that the 1973 law which created the HMO mess in the first place, and which forbade enrollees from suing their HMO, was passed by a Democratic Congress. And now it is the Democrats who, their spined no doubt stiffened by the attentions of the Trial Lawyers Association (no offense to the Mote's many fine barristers), today want a bill to enable such lawsuits. 927. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 10:07:14 AM Ah yes, the "free" market. 928. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 10:11:40 AM "The goal is to 929. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 10:13:47 AM Socialized medicine cannot work and will itself eventually collapse. 930. Ronski - 10/7/1999 10:17:41 AM 931. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 10:18:05 AM NPR had a nice commentary yesterday about the HMO's and the Patient's Bill of Rights by a law professor. The thesis was that the real problem is that everyone pussyfoots around the real nature of HMO's- they ration health care and necessarily deny medially useful, and sometimes life saving treatment to their members. This is not some vicious or callous disregard for their members, it is an economic reality. We have greater medical capabilities than we have financial resources. But for HMO's to be sucessful, they need to market their provision of services rather than their restriction. 932. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 10:23:39 AM Proudnerd - Yeah right. Gorbachev also claims that Reagan is (maybe was) an extremely intelligent man. 933. Dantheman - 10/7/1999 10:28:29 AM bubbaette #928, 934. Dusty - 10/7/1999 10:29:35 AM JonesAtLaw 935. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 12:28:13 PM Ronski 936. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 12:38:09 PM Pelle - There are many more factors than just quality of health care that contribute to things like infant mortality and life expectancy. Neither of those indicators gives an accurate view of the quality of health care that is available to Americans compared to the rest of the world. 937. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 1:17:33 PM JJ 938. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:25:50 PM Pelle - Drug use and inadequate prenatal care among expectant mothers are major causes of infant mortality in the US. Help is available to all expectant mothers for these, but many choose not to take advantage of it. 939. janjon - 10/7/1999 1:32:51 PM Gorbachev. We should take at face value his purported assessment of Reagan's intelligence? This being the guy who made such sound assessments and managed things SOOOO well in the USSR? 940. CalGal - 10/7/1999 1:33:31 PM The goal is to make health care collapse so that the government can come in and "rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine. 941. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 1:37:37 PM The US probably does have the best health care available over all. I would note that there are exceptions to this, as many of our European friends will point out. Cutting edge medical techniques are developed in places other than the US, after all. However, the existence of high tech care is meaningless without access to it. Who cares if the guys at Mayo or the Cleveland Clinic can cure you, if you can't even get in to your local bones and body shop? 942. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:39:41 PM janjon - Gorbachev. We should take at face value his purported assessment of Reagan's intelligence? 943. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 1:41:17 PM Jones - How many people in the US have no access to health care? I am not asking about health insurance. I am asking about access. 944. janjon - 10/7/1999 1:44:35 PM I read a lot, Biener. Even Reagan's most ardent admirers can't get beyond assertions that he had the BIG PICTURE down pat, while leaving all of those pesky DETAILS to others. 945. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 1:44:47 PM #935 946. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 1:47:56 PM JJBiener- Uninsured Americans without independent wealth, and more than poverty level income would be one group with little or no access to high tech care. The chronical mentally ill who can manage to work would also be included. 947. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:11:15 PM JJ 948. CalGal - 10/7/1999 2:12:03 PM Actually, the U.S. does have socialized medicine. Everyone who has employer-provided health coverage is subsidized extensively by the government. We provide health care to the poor. 949. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:28:27 PM janjon - Even Reagan's most ardent admirers can't get beyond assertions that he had the BIG PICTURE down pat, while leaving all of those pesky DETAILS to others. 950. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 2:33:46 PM Trees cause pollution, ketchup is a vegatable, We will cut taxes, raise defense spending, and eliminate the deficit- Ronald Reagan. Enough said. 951. Thoughtful - 10/7/1999 2:33:59 PM PseuE, gini coefficients by country here in zip file format. 952. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:39:12 PM Bubbaette - It is available, it just may not be convenient. There is a big difference. OB-GYN's are not the only ones who are capable of providing adequate prenatal care. Any doctor can provide prenatal care for all but the most extreme cases. I never claimed that access in the US was perfect, nor do I believe it necessaarily has to be. What I claimed was that with very few exception, everyone in the US has access to at least minimal health care. Some may have to rely on emergency rooms, public hospitals, free clinics, etc., but that is not the same as having no access. 953. JonesAtLaw - 10/7/1999 2:43:14 PM JJBiener- When you go the E room and are diagnosed with cancer- and are medically stable- you can be dismissed without care unless you have insurance or pre-pay for your treatment. That is not access. 954. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 2:48:35 PM Thoughtful, I have that already. What do Gini coefficients have to do with what I was talking about? 955. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:49:33 PM Nor is it access if you live in the middle of nowhere, are unemployed, and to qualify for assistance, must sell your car. (this used to be the case in Va. --how are people supposed to look for a job to get off assistance if they have no transportation?) 956. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:53:21 PM Another charming example of disincentives to healthcare -- used to be that for elderly people in Va. who needed foodstamps or SSI, the money they paid for their Medicare Part B premium was counted as money that could be used to buy groceries or pay rent, thus encouraging them to forego health care coverage for (at the time) $15 worth of groceries. 957. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:54:43 PM Jones - Some forms of pollution do come from trees, ketchup is made from a vegetable, and cutting taxes and raising defense spending did result in eventually balancing the budget. 958. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 2:57:33 PM I think JJ's given to exaggeration. Disagree with hime an you're a (dare I say this in mixed company?) *Liberal*. And as we all know, "liberal" is worse than any four letter word you could mention. 959. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 2:58:12 PM Bubbaette - used to be that for elderly people in Va. who needed foodstamps or SSI, the money they paid for their Medicare Part B premium was counted as money that could be used to buy groceries or pay rent, 960. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 3:00:22 PM JJ 961. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 3:02:38 PM Bubbaette - Why are liberals so afraid of being called liberals? 962. JudithAtHome - 10/7/1999 3:07:48 PM For gods sake, JJ, ketchup is not a vegetable! It may come from tomatoes but mustard also comes from plants so is mustard a vegetable, too? If you think ketchup is even marginally as nutritious as vegetables, then I don't want to eat at your house. 963. ChristiPeters - 10/7/1999 3:36:00 PM ummmm... JJ, tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables and Judith is right, ketchup is a condiment. 964. JJBiener - 10/7/1999 3:55:47 PM Judith, Christi - I swear sometimes you guys have no sense of humor. 965. janjon - 10/7/1999 3:58:26 PM Well, while we're in the kitchen so to speak, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Biener. 966. JudithAtHome - 10/7/1999 3:59:06 PM Thanks, janjon..... 967. pellenilsson - 10/7/1999 4:01:43 PM PE -- 945 968. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 4:02:50 PM JJ 969. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/1999 4:03:27 PM I don't know what your argument on healthcare is. I suspect I agree with it. I was only taking issue with your ridiculous Sri Lanka comparison for which you offered no proof. 970. Bubbaette - 10/7/1999 4:04:35 PM Whoops posted too soon. 971. janjon - 10/7/1999 4:06:16 PM Biener. I just saw your 949. Getting a little huffy and sanctimonius with all that stuff about this discussion being closed, don't you think? 972. Amaxen - 10/7/1999 7:07:28 PM Re the ketchup thing; 973. thrakkorzog - 10/7/1999 8:02:09 PM Yeah, Amaxen, I remember that. And while some fresh made salsa is pretty wholesome looking, I assume that schools will be serving the stuff that comes out of a can and looks more like spaghetti sauce than veggie. 974. concerned - 10/7/1999 11:19:25 PM Re. 950 - 975. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:46:51 PM Reagan treated ketchup as a main course. 976. TabouliJones - 10/7/1999 11:48:16 PM 977. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:52:14 PM It's what's known as Cartesian Publicity: I think therefore I am whatever I'm able ot get away with in the press. 978. TabouliJones - 10/7/1999 11:57:07 PM 979. Cellar Door - 10/7/1999 11:59:59 PM Tell it to his "enabler" -- Michael Fleming of "Daily Variety." 980. moonflower - 10/8/1999 8:19:11 AM Kevin should come out when he's good and ready. That he doesn't, if indeed he is gay, is more of a comment on our hate-based society 981. Cellar Door - 10/8/1999 10:06:38 AM And until he's "good and ready" we should allow him to lie? 982. Bubbaette - 10/8/1999 10:11:13 AM Cllrdr 983. 109109 - 10/8/1999 10:48:08 AM By accepting his lies, the argument goes that homosexuals contribute to a presumption that who they are, their inner core, is something to lie about. 984. Bubbaette - 10/8/1999 10:53:28 AM 109109 985. JonesAtLaw - 10/8/1999 11:18:03 AM I like Kevin Spacy as an actor. I've enjoyed his films when I presumed he was hetrosexual, and still did when I thought he was homosexual. Now, I don't know, and don't care. That is the only thing good I can say about his swinging on the closet door. 986. moonflower - 10/8/1999 12:20:44 PM Cellar Door, who is this "we" who has the power to "allow" him to lie? 987. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 1:14:06 PM Just read that Ron Reagan, son of Ronnie, thinks the latest biography of his dad is right on the money. He'll be on 60 Minutes Sunday night expounding on this subject. And before everyone starts trashing the boy, he was in a better position than we to judge the man. 988. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 1:16:03 PM Judith, 989. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 1:33:06 PM Hmmmmm....Maureen was Janes daughter, not Nancys. This seems kind of odd to me.... 990. robertjayb - 10/8/1999 3:30:01 PM . 991. Lou - 10/8/1999 4:00:35 PM Re: Spacey 992. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:10:53 PM Lou: 993. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:20:06 PM I can't believe no one is going for the millennial on this thread. 994. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:20:57 PM I think no one wants to start it and look silly making 5-10 posts and not get it. 995. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:22:30 PM I think everyone had a huge lunch and is snoozing right now. 996. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:40:18 PM Judith, Dan - It could be that no really want a current events millennial. Some threads are more prone to that than others. The social threads especially. 997. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:40:54 PM Of course if you guys want to make a run. There is nothing stopping you. 998. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:28 PM JJ, 999. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:43 PM Can we try? 1000. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:41:49 PM I mean, I wouldn't want you to feel awkward or out of place because you decided you wanted this millennial and went for it. 1001. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:41:53 PM ? 1002. JJBiener - 10/8/1999 4:42:52 PM Oh, Gee, imagine that. My first millennial in the Mote and I wasn't even trying (snicker, snicker). 1003. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:45:05 PM JJ: 1004. AceofSpades - 10/8/1999 4:46:19 PM 1005. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:46:28 PM Cute, JJ. Congrats. 1006. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:47:10 PM Ace, 1007. JudithAtHome - 10/8/1999 4:49:05 PM Dan: 1008. Dantheman - 10/8/1999 4:51:51 PM Judith, 1009. Cellar Door - 10/8/1999 8:08:03 PM Yep, Debbie and Jocko are Reno-vating. 1010. concerned - 10/9/1999 4:44:49 AM Here's something for haters of the right to cheer about: 1011. pellenilsson - 10/9/1999 5:58:38 AM concerned 1012. moonflower - 10/9/1999 8:00:32 AM When it comes to death threats, there's more than enough to go around from either side of the spectrum. 1013. Greystoke - 10/9/1999 12:03:32 PM Clinton plans to protect 40 million acres of National Forest land. 1014. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 12:22:33 PM Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas, as was Kenneth Starr last year. 1015. JudithAtHome - 10/9/1999 1:03:37 PM concerned: 1016. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 1:09:22 PM 1017. robertjayb - 10/9/1999 2:52:37 PM 1018. Cellar Door - 10/9/1999 7:40:53 PM "the lives of five homosexuals"? That's what this play comes down to? Pathetic! These people don't know how to read. 1019. moonflower - 10/9/1999 9:51:01 PM Oh they know how to read alright--the sad thing is they read selectively. Hate only need apply. The censors can rail and throw tantrums all they want, but there are more writers dealing with gay issues now than ever before (imho). They will not be able to stop it but they will make for more bloodshed. 1020. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 1:36:12 AM Moonflower - You need to stop your knees from jerking. According to the article, no one was censoring the play. All they were doing is withdrawing financial support. Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1021. TrialShark - 10/11/1999 3:11:57 AM 1022. Cellar Door - 10/11/1999 9:38:33 AM Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1023. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 10:18:45 AM Cellar - I have no "voice" in how my tax money is used on anything else. 1024. Dantheman - 10/11/1999 10:31:01 AM JJ, 1025. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 10:41:42 AM Dan - I am saying the exact opposite. Funding should be determined by elected officials just like all other funding. Funding for the arts should not be treated as a sacred cow where only an appointed elite determine what should be supported. Guiliani as the duly elected Mayor has every right to influence how city funds are spent. I am surprised by those who want to deny him this voice and by extension the voice of the majority who elected him. 1026. JudithAtHome - 10/11/1999 11:14:01 AM JJ: 1027. JJBiener - 10/11/1999 11:47:13 AM Judith - My original comments were to moonflower. Moonflower was equating the withdrawal of funding with censorship, and I was pointing out the difference. The complaint seemed to be that public officials had no right to decide where public arts funding should be spent. Any exercise of discretion immediately became censorship. My question was, Do the voices of freedom want to deny the people a voice in how arts funding is used? 1028. JudithAtHome - 10/11/1999 4:57:12 PM Can someone please tell me if a magazine (or is it a newsletter?) called The Washington Spectator is any good? Has anyone read it or heard of it? 1029. moonflower - 10/11/1999 7:30:08 PM I'm not sure my "vote" = my "voice". They'll spend wads on defense no matter who wins. I agree with Cellar Door. If I have to pay for bombers no matter who wins, my vote is wasted. I hope the Brooklyn Museum does "Sensations 2." 1030. Cellar Door - 10/11/1999 7:35:23 PM Yes you do. It is called your vote. Like the rest of us, you speak through your elected officials. 1031. RosettaSTONE - 10/11/1999 7:47:20 PM David: Isn't your congresswoman Maxine Waters? She surely reflects your thinking. 1032. alistairconnor - 10/11/1999 8:06:28 PM Interesting debate about arts funding... Is cutting off funding "censorship" or not? 1033. EricCartman - 10/12/1999 4:22:46 AM Today, according to UN estimates, the Earth's six billionth inhabitant will be born. But is the problem of overpopulation merely too many people, or is it overconsumption, or is it distribution? 1034. Nostradamus - 10/12/1999 4:39:48 AM No, the problem is not too many people, it's too many people like you, Cartman. :) 1035. Stumbo - 10/12/1999 4:45:59 AM AC: 1036. alistairConnor - 10/12/1999 6:29:21 AM Stumbo, all over the civilised world, there are artistic events of various natures which rely on public funding. That is part of the definition of "civilised", in my opinion. Such events are not geared to making money, or to breaking even : they rely on some sort of patronage, whether it be public or private money. 1037. ranheim - 10/12/1999 8:37:41 AM #1033 1038. moonflower - 10/12/1999 8:41:50 AM Patronage itself is as old as the arts. For writers, schools are now a kind of patron (one with big THORNS, sometimes). Whether this has beren "good" for poetry/fiction is unclear. I agree with Stumbo. Without grants, I can still write and send out to journals. This is not the case for many musicians and painters. I', not convinced that politicians give a shit about "controversial" art as much as inspiring their constituencies to keep following them. 1039. JRoth - 10/12/1999 9:00:29 AM Watched Sen. McCain on GMA this morning. I'm pretty cynical about election year politics, but his views on campaign finance certainly resonated. Wish the guy had a chance in a party which has already annointed its Chosen One with the oil of 'contributions'. 1040. Schehezarade - 10/12/1999 9:12:34 AM Very interesting article, EricCartman. I wonder though, what is the average life expectancy for persons in Uttar Pradesh? Secondly, I didn't see any mentioning of the expected population decrease from the dying baby-boomers. My flatmates and I had a discussion regarding over-population just yesterday. One in particular stated that she believed that essentially all of the world's problems stemmed from over-population. She just returned from a two year stay in Thailand and Cambodia, so I can see why she would think this way, but I don't think that our problems can be reduced that simply. What's your opinion? 1041. Lou - 10/12/1999 5:54:44 PM A few days ago, there were a few posts on the "outing" of Kevin Spacey. One of the comments made was that it couldn't hurt his Hollywood career, I assume b/c of the liberal nature of Hollywood. Here's an excerpt of an article I just saw. I can post the link if anyone is interested: 1042. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 6:24:29 PM Stumbo 1043. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:35:53 PM Check out this Y2K story. Surely it is a hoax, but I've never seen AP do such a thing before. 1044. ranheim - 10/12/1999 7:37:49 PM I have a brother-in-law who is from Wales out of London and Oxford. 1045. CalGal - 10/12/1999 7:40:23 PM Grey, 1046. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:44:12 PM Clinton works on his legacy as The Conservationist President. 1047. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 7:49:08 PM CalGal 1048. CalGal - 10/12/1999 8:08:28 PM Oh. And here I thought you were pulling my leg, in pretending you thought this story was a hoax. 1049. Cellar Door - 10/12/1999 8:48:05 PM The only thing that can hurt Kevin Spacey's career is Kevin Spacey. He's quite the reckless boy, and at the moment he appears to be in the midst of a meltdown. 1050. Greystoke - 10/12/1999 8:59:16 PM CalGal 1051. moonflower - 10/12/1999 10:22:37 PM If Kevin S is in the midst of a meltdown because he can't handle telling lies anymore, so be it. Maybe it will inspire him to stop lying and be himself. I hope so, that is, if he's gay and all of this talk about him isn't just the National Enquirer thread. 1052. Cellar Door - 10/12/1999 11:04:58 PM He's gay. 1053. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 12:14:10 AM AC: 1054. alistairconnor - 10/13/1999 12:43:38 AM Obviously, Saint Umbo, cutting funding for political motives is OK with me, and equally obviously, the intent of cutting funding in such cases is censorship. As it happens, I have absolutely no problem with censoring your oratorio version of The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion. 1055. alistairconnor - 10/13/1999 12:46:12 AM And if the elected officials campaigned explicitly on an anti-gay platform, and were elected, then I suppose they have a mandate to lead their electors back towards the dark ages. If they did not campaign on such a platform, they are taking a pretty big liberty. 1056. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:10:58 AM AC: 1057. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:11:41 AM My take on public arts funding: I doubt that there's very many people who rate high enough on the Cro-Magnon scale so as to find no public value in artwork. Whether you enjoy artwork for pure aesthetic reasons, or you enjoy artwork because you believe it mirrors the spiritual development of the age, or you (as so many people before you) have found artwork to inspire you in your life or work, you probably place some kind of value on art. The problem with all of this is simple, really -- the art which comes to influence an entire generation, inspiring whole new artistic schools, is often far enough ahead of its time that it never really catches on in the artist's lifetime. This art, which later generations will cherish -- and wonder why the lot of us didn't see how excellent it was -- will be seen in our lifetime as having little to no value. People do not understand it -- it doesn't do anything for them. If we take some kind of populist approach to what art does or does not get funded, we run the risk of turning American art into a dead end, if not worse. We have so very many people who are prepared to say what art has merit and what art is self-indulgent crap that I think a populist approach to funding the arts is self-defeating and shallow. Who is to say what art would have never flourished in, say, Renaissance Florence or Impressionist Paris if only the artists with a popular appeal would have been supported? 1058. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:24:17 AM Which government agency funded the Impressionists, A5? 1059. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:33:58 AM That's not the point. If some forms of art are popularly privileged in some way above others, Stumbo -- say, if you can make a living doing PC art but not art which will go over poorly in the Baptist Belt -- then those artists who aren't disposed to pimp themselves for the populist appeal will be at a real disadvantage to produce their art. There is public art funding in the US, which is absolutely fine with me -- I happen to think, like AC, that it's to the overall betterment of the American people to have subsidized art. Chopping out public art funding is like tossing the baby with the bathwater. All you have to do is prevent the political power plays which sacrifice art for votes -- you don't cut it all out altogether. 1060. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:37:15 AM To phrase this another way: who knows how much MORE excellent art would have come out of Impressionist France if there had been equitable government funding of the arts? And, once again, who knows what kind of art would have been drowned out if the French government had, instead, chosen to subsidize bland, inoffensive, vanilla artwork but not subsidized the (at the time) shocking and insulting art of the Impressionists? 1061. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 1:47:18 AM Alas, A5, that is the point. You culminate your passionate speech in favor of apples by producing an orange as Exhibit A, and expect to be taken seriously? 1062. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:48:18 AM There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some No, no, this isn't the way it works. A lot more organisms die than just Y-X, and a lot of other species exhibit die-back as well as the resources they require are consumed as well. The final death toll puts the population at well below X -- and the damage to the ecosystem (caused by the intense competition among starving organisms for limited resources causes a lot of screwy things to happen). The above characterization shows little acquaintance with real-life population mechanics. It wouldn't be this simple and anaesthetic even IF that were the way populations were controlled by limiting resources, because we're talking about humans. Humans possessed of technology can do a lot of senseless harm in the process of starvation and resultant destabilization, and others who aren't starving can use the destabilization for their own nefarious purposes. It's just nowhere near that simple, Stumbo. 1063. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 1:49:52 AM 1061: See 1060. 1064. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:07:25 AM The "let's subsidize everything now, and maybe some of it will turn out to be good in a generation or two" argument doesn't persuade me in the least. It's too much of a crapshoot, and the prospect of a few gems that my grandchildren might appreciate doesn't justify paying for all the, well, crap. 1065. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:17:20 AM The "let's subsidize everything now, and maybe some of it That's nice, Stumbo. Who's made that argument? Bottom line: if it's a good bet, private investors will Oh, really? If anything, the history of art has shown that immediate demand for art has little to do with the final perceived value of that art. As far as your 'Well, they're spending MY money and I think they're wasting it on all this art nonsense' -- well, the government spends everyone's money, and few people agree that all of it is well spent. But fewer are in absolute agreement about what monetary practices are worthwhile. For every person you can find who would, say, insist that NEA funds are robbery but, say, tax cuts to the rich are worthwhile, I can find someone who will argue the opposite. 1066. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:19:52 AM #1062: 1067. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:27:47 AM "Who's made that argument?" 1068. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 2:38:53 AM "If anything, the history of art has shown that immediate demand for art has little to do with the final perceived value of that art." 1069. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:41:59 AM 1067: But I never argued for funding all art because we can't tell which will be good and which will not. I'm not willing to go to that extreme, and in any case that's certainly not what we do now. What I did argue against was cutting funding based upon our oh-so-sophisticated notions of what is art and what is crap. Equitable art funding is good. I think the art funding we have now is sustainable. Cutting that funding isn't necessary. Funding ALL art won't be feasible. Do you see the difference between what I say and what you say I said? 1066: A decent first approximation model? I'm not at all sure what you mean, but what you said, facetious or not, doesn't even approximate an approximation of die-back in nature. Would you be so kind as to tell me what good things have come out of, say, starvation in Ethiopia? This idealist 'necessity is the mother of invention' outlook overlooks the fact that people rarely take the necessary time to implement inventions in the midst of crisis, especially crises as pressing and destabilizing as massive starvation. 1070. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 2:50:11 AM The main problem is not overpopulation, but I don't think this is a meaningful thing to say. The inherent problem with overpopulation is not just resource based. The fragility of the system is one serious consequence of overpopulation -- ie. finding new ways to exploit the resources almost always makes those resources more vulnerable to a single change, such as a mild climate change doing great damage to the breadbaskets of the world. The crash of the human ecosystem becomes less recoverable with invreasing overpopulation. This 'well, overpopulation will just keep us on our toes and will straighten itself out eventually' notion is heedless of the very real dangers of overpopulation in humanity. The damage that humans could do to the planet -- and themselves -- in an attempt to support more and more people on the planet is something that you aren't taking into effect, if you see the only problem with overpopulation being an efficiency of resource extraction and allocation. 1071. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:22:36 AM "But I never argued for funding all art because we can't tell which will be good and which will not. I'm not willing to go to that extreme, and in any case that's certainly not what we do now. What I did argue against was cutting funding based upon our oh-so-sophisticated notions of what is art and what is crap." 1072. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:27:33 AM "Would you be so kind as to tell me what good things have come out of, say, starvation in Ethiopia?" 1073. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 3:32:37 AM Oh, wait, you asked for good things. Silly me. 1074. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 4:23:02 AM Heh. Geldof. As far as the 'bet' -- well, if we stop supporting art based upon popularity, given the disjunction between what is popular and what is often accepted to be great art, we're definitely making the bet worse. There's a common antipathy towards some rarefied kinds of art that results from a lack of understanding of some of that art's principles. (That doesn't mean that, in the end, the disliked art is any good per se -- it just means that many people aren't prepared to judge that art on its own merit.) I don't think popularity should be an index for the above and other reasons. FWIW, I'm perfectly content to let the index be rather amorphous -- just not politically or popularly defined. I think that once you let politicians start whoring for votes by exploiting misunderstood art, you're setting a bad trend. And, for me, the answer isn't to cut arts funding any more than mishaps in military acquisitions are grounds to end all military funding. The answer is to let the policy people determine what can be spent, and then let the experts figure out the best way to spend it. 1075. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 4:28:16 AM Oh, yeah, and the Ethiopian example is still solid in this case. While there may have been other factors involved in the starvation, you are still looking at a process where (if your surmise is correct) scarce availability of resources ought to have led to some improvement in resource efficiency. All it did lead to was increased violent competition for the available resources, which is usually going to be the case. 1076. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 4:58:29 AM Scheherezade (#1040): 1077. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 5:01:06 AM (cont. to Scheherezade): 1078. Stumbo - 10/13/1999 5:03:09 AM "As far as the 'bet' -- well, if we stop supporting art based upon popularity, given the disjunction between what is popular and what is often accepted to be great art, we're definitely making the bet worse." 1079. Angel-Five - 10/13/1999 5:23:37 AM The salient point to take here is that the monetary value of art does not necessarily reflect its artistic worth. When we speak of 'valued' art, I strongly sense that you and I assign different meanings to 'value'. 1080. Schehezarade - 10/13/1999 9:29:59 AM EricCartman 1081. Dantheman - 10/13/1999 9:40:40 AM Schehezarade #1080, 1082. Cellar Door - 10/13/1999 10:09:18 AM From Army Archerd's column in today's"Daily Variety": "In DreamWorks' "American Beauty," the martinet ex-Marine Col. Fitts, played (multi-emotionally) by Chris Cooper, keeps a Nazi dinner plate in his trophy cabinet. His son (played equally magnificently by Wes Bentley) shows the plate to his girlfriend. And — you can buy that same Nazi plate — along with 2,650 other Nazi items — on Ebay by just typing in the word "Nazi" on your screen! The disgusting items range from those plates, Nazi uniforms, helmets, daggers, bayonets, yeah, even Nazi films. Better it all should have been burned at Dachau." 1083. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 12:28:46 PM 1084. Cellar Door - 10/13/1999 12:30:33 PM Bay, actually. 1085. JRoth - 10/13/1999 12:43:36 PM Cartman, 1086. OhioSTOPAS - 10/13/1999 1:19:21 PM (responding to Ranheim's msg 1585 in "PP's Sports Bar") 1087. PelleNilsson - 10/13/1999 1:26:57 PM Is there really overpopulation? Make the thought experiment of assembling all the six billion people in a large field giving them, say, 10 sq ft standing room each. Convert that into square miles (I would if I could) and compare to some of the smaller states in the US. 1088. Cygnus X-1 - 10/13/1999 1:30:25 PM EricCartman, Re Message #1077 1089. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 1:57:26 PM 1090. TrialShark - 10/13/1999 2:41:32 PM 1091. ranheim - 10/13/1999 6:27:03 PM #1086 1092. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 9:32:14 PM 1093. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 9:34:26 PM Police officer threatens to blow up department, gets fired, then sues to get job back. 1094. EricCartman - 10/13/1999 9:36:02 PM Scheherezade (#1080): 1095. Greystoke - 10/13/1999 10:04:50 PM 1096. Aldavis - 10/13/1999 10:05:30 PM Trial Shark 1097. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:29:38 AM 1098. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:33:57 AM 1099. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:08:12 AM Re. 1095 - 1100. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:14:43 AM Re. 1092 - 1101. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 1:17:33 AM Trial Shark 1102. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:22:37 AM Whoever posted: 1103. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 1:23:51 AM Concerned- I would like to know more details of the "harassment" before I would subscribe to your fear of facism or of Greystrokes posted article of the new improved BLM. The BLM has a rather cooperative history and ranchers have come to view their rental of BLM lands as almost a right. 1104. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 1:27:33 AM Concerned- re "the man with a moustache" and art- Stalin definitely knew art that he liked when he saw it, and subsidized only that art. Art that he didn't like earned the artist an all expense trip to view the more rustic parts of the USSR. 1105. concerned - 10/14/1999 1:56:19 AM Re. 1104 : 1106. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 2:02:13 AM concerned 1107. Stumbo - 10/14/1999 2:17:25 AM Concerned: 1108. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:20:41 AM Re. 1105 - 1109. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:26:11 AM Re. 1107 : 1110. Amaxen@work - 10/14/1999 2:34:54 AM Cartman, Scheherezade, Cy, 1111. Amaxen@work - 10/14/1999 2:35:04 AM 1112. concerned - 10/14/1999 2:59:33 AM Regarding (over)population: I haven't scanned many of the recent posts here on the subject, but the ones I have seen have done little to indicate that they are taking into account the differing characteristics and relative amounts of overpopulation in different parts of the world. 1113. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:15:28 AM 1114. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:35:49 AM Trial Shark 1115. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 4:28:54 AM Trial Shark 1116. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 11:30:25 AM I think that "nazi" and "Hitler" are used too casually today. People seem to have no recollection or understanding of how vile, disgusting, and damnable Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party were. Anyone who trivializes or uses those terms for simple effect need to be exposed (through film, literature, eye-witness account, or museum) to what the words really stand for. 1117. Cellar Door - 10/14/1999 12:09:38 PM Buchanan was the one who brought Hitler into the campaign, dear. None of us knew he was on the ballot 'til then. 1118. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 12:49:20 PM 1119. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 1:03:13 PM Regarding overpopulation, it is important to note that it is under control in rich countries, many of whom would be having negative population growth if not for immigration (and I think some are having population shrinkage anyway). Also, some of the lowest growth rates are occuring in predominantly Catholic countries like Italy, Ireland, and France. Hence, despite complaints about religious encouragement of population growth, there is pretty good evidence that it isn't nearly as important as other factors. 1120. Dantheman - 10/14/1999 1:05:38 PM Raskolnikov, 1121. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 1:16:30 PM Dan: I'm not sure what the relative factors are, but that makes sense. The strength of a social security-type program is another big factor since the elderly otherwise rely on their children for support. I seem to recall that subsistance agriculture is a factor as well. 1122. Cygnus X-1 - 10/14/1999 1:52:10 PM TrialShark, Re Message #1118 1123. Cygnus X-1 - 10/14/1999 1:59:02 PM Amaxen@work, Re Message #1111 1124. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 2:03:50 PM Trial Shark 1125. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:15:27 PM 1126. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:19:26 PM 1127. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:22:59 PM 1128. Raskolnikov - 10/14/1999 2:25:09 PM Go Pat Go, and take the rest of the religious right with you! 1129. SpenceMirrlees - 10/14/1999 2:32:59 PM I would think the impact of women's education on population growth is obvious and strong, as it increases the value of womens' opportunities outside the home, and therefore, the value of what they give up by having another child. In other words, it's nothing but the law of demand. 1130. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 2:34:37 PM 1131. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 3:24:31 PM TrialShark 1132. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:38:33 PM Trial Shark 1133. Aldavis - 10/14/1999 3:39:41 PM (cont.) 1134. PelleNilsson - 10/14/1999 3:43:51 PM Cygnus X-1 1135. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:46:59 PM 1136. Schehezarade - 10/14/1999 3:56:35 PM TrialShark 1137. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 3:58:33 PM 1138. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:02:35 PM 1139. JJBiener - 10/14/1999 4:15:14 PM In 1991, David Duke was campaigning against Affirmative Action and in favor of trade and immigration restrictions. He used mainstream political issues in an attempt to disassociate himself from the KKK and other racist organizations. This did not last very long as Duke's true reptillian nature soon shone through. 1140. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:20:29 PM 1141. JJBiener - 10/14/1999 4:28:35 PM TS - Calling someone a "racist", an "Anti-Semite", and a "man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide" doesn't sound like much of an apologist. An apologist would say something like, "I don't care if he cheats on his wife and forces himself on women. What he does in his personal life is his own business." 1142. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:31:38 PM 1143. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:32:32 PM 1144. JudithAtHome - 10/14/1999 4:40:43 PM Like creating the Autobahns. 1145. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 4:46:42 PM 1146. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 4:49:36 PM Mussolini (he's a safer target and doesn't create the immediate visceral reaction that his pal Hitler does) made the trains run on time too. If a candidate or pundit held him up as an example of a strong effective leader, and mentioned his economic success, would you question his choice of examples. I think other, better examples would be abundant. 1147. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 5:01:47 PM 1148. TrialShark - 10/14/1999 5:09:13 PM 1149. JonesAtLaw - 10/14/1999 5:13:54 PM Buchanan-
Reuters picks up Salon scoop on Columbine:
Columbine martyr story in doubt
Salon: Everything you know about Columbine is wrong
Can the US be far behind?
yes, we all know of your preference for eugenics, Cal --only the rich , talented and beautiful should be permitted to breed.
Oh, cut your high dudgeon off before it chokes you. I've said no such thing.
vK,
I ask you to consider the following: divorce/abandonment/death.
Anyone who has a child is only ever a beertruck or a blond(e) away from being a single parent. Bad planning and stupidity is no excuse.
That being said, my response to Bubba was based on welfare for women who had no means of support when they got knocked up. Temporary assistance for women with children is silly, but bearable. Better would be a consistent program to help all poor.
Rask,
Because welfare programs are for the *kids*, not the parents .
Not if you look at it the other way around. If a girl is 16 and gets pregnant, we give her money. If she doesn't get pregnant, we give her nothing.
Take someone who is essentially incompetent (which is pretty much the case for the small number of long-term recipients) and you've just told her that the only way she can get any money is to have kids.
So we have a program that provides money for basically useless women to raise children in poverty--who'll grow up just like Mom.
Do tell--what good are we doing those children? Who will, by and large, grow up to have more children or become criminals or die, killed by other children of these women.
Short-term assistance for anyone who needs it is a fine idea. Assistance that encourages useless women to have babies is not.
Fully fund abortions for women who have no means of supporting themselves. Free birth control. Minimal amount of money as long as they don't have kids. And if she has one anyway, take it away from her.
That's a welfare program for kids.
Worse than that, I'm a divorced single mother. Takes away much of the ability to say "well, wait until you've walked a mile in their shoes."
And you are new? Welcome.
MOTHER OF BABY FOUND DEAD IN OVEN MAY HAVE HAD A SEIZURE
Lanexa, Va--Authorities are investigating whether a severe epileptic seizure could have caused a young mother in this rural Virginia town to become so disoriented that she put her 1-month-old baby into a microwave oven, killing it Thursday morning.
The death of infant, Joseph Lewis Martinez, has stunned this tight-knit community 35 miles east of Richmond.
The state medical examiner, who said the baby had burns resembling what a microwave oven would produce, performed an autopsy Thursday but has not released a cause of death pending further tests.
Elizabeth Renee Otte, 19, the mother of the child, was taking medication for epilepsy, friends and authorities say.
What happened at Waco?
a lengthy but useful AP review
"Authorities are investigating whether a severe epileptic seizure could have caused a young mother in this rural Virginia town to become so disoriented that she put her 1-month-old baby into a microwave oven"
I find that explanation hard to believe. A seizure so severe that she put her baby in the microwave and then turned it on?
The insurance industry doesn't exactly occupy an exalted position in the minds of many consumers. There is definitely room for improvement in the public perception of our industry. One area where we often get plaudits is the claims handling during and after hurricanes. The industry has done a decent job of getting people in quickly, and delivering money to recipients promptly. (The recent hurricane Floyd hasn't generated that same kind of positive press because so much of the damage was due to flooding, often uninsured.)
I think that the insurance industry could use hurricanes to do an even better job of putting their best foot forward. If implemented correctly, I think it would provide a happy coincidence of helping consumers, cutting costs for insurers, as well as positive public relations. At the end, I'll try to tie this in to an actuarial subject.
Media coverage of impending hurricanes wouldn't seem compete without the ubiquitous images of storeowners nailing sheets of plywood over store windows. A common story is the shortage of plywood, occasionally accompanied by reports of price increases. While some can be sympathetic to the inexorable economic forces of supply and demand, increases in prices for disaster supplies understandable rankles some.
My proposal is simple to state, although the logistics could take time to sort out. The insurance industry should stockpile plywood, oil lamps, and other supplies at strategic locations, and make them available for free or reduced prices in the event of an impending hurricane.
Timely provision of plywood and osb sheathing could reduce the losses to policyholders as well as insurers. As a result, the industry might find itself "purchasing" advertising with a negative net cost. A good marketing expert can figure out how to get the most mileage out of the potential public relations. I would suggest creating some industry association with a catchy name. Until the experts take over, I'll suggest iHELP-insurance Hurricane Emergency Loan Program. Instead of television shots of drab brown plywood sheets, we would see tastefully colored sheets of plywood emblazoned with an iHELP logo. Plywood intended for a single use is not coated, and will warp when wet. If this organization loans the plywood sheets and collects them after a storm it would make sense to go with coated material suitable for multiple uses. With proper planning, the industry could stockpile sufficient material to provide the necessary supplies for a major hurricane, and we would stop seeing the pictures of empty store shelves.
Detractors might argue that supplies such as drinking water or oil lamps cannot mitigate insured losses. However, as the industry looks for federal legislation relating to tax benefits for cat reserves and protected cells, it can only help the passage of such legislation if the legislators see the industry taking steps to help out people in the event of a hurricane.
So how does this relate to an actuarial issue? As I think about how to stockpile materials-whether there should be a few large locations or more numerous, smaller locations-whether one moves material to a storm area by train or truck, it seems that we need good models. Models of storm tracks as well as transportation logistics. And I'm convinced that actuaries can build good models.
It's a great idea and a well written article.
I hope you all bought some gold stocks last week.
Oh, you would prefer that I report the news before it happens? I'll see what I can do.
We're Number One!
WASHINGTON (AP) - With three months remaining, 1999 already is the deadliest year on America's death row in almost half a century. Eighteen states have executed 76 killers, and the total could reach 100 by year's end.
``There has been this stairway upward since the death penalty was reinstituted'' in 1976, said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group critical of how capital punishment is administered. ``It hasn't peaked yet: ... 150 is probably where things may max out over the next three to four years.''
Executions last Friday in Delaware and North Carolina raised the year's total to 76, the most since 1954, when 81 people were put to death in U.S. prisons. If the year-end toll reaches 100, as Dieter said could happen, it would be the first time since 105 people were executed in 1951.
There were 68 executions last year, 74 in 1997.
States have executed 576 convicted killers since the Supreme Court ended in 1976 a four-year nationwide ban on capital punishment. Currently, about 3,565 people are on death rows across the nation.
Many countries have abolished the death penalty, including Canada, Australia, France and Germany. Amnesty International said it received reports of 1,067 executions in China in 1998, more than 100 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 66 in Iran. The organization said it also has unconfirmed reports of hundreds of executions in Iraq.
Eighteen of the 38 American states with death penalty laws have imposed capital punishment this year, and once again Texas is first with 25 executions.
I didn't know nuthin' about it. Really!
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives acknowledged Monday that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot slot during the Vietnam War.
But Ben Barnes, who later was lieutenant governor, said the request for his help came from a Bush family friend -- not Bush or his father, who then was a congressman.
The Texas governor and Republican presidential front-runner, meanwhile, insisted again that neither he nor his father sought such assistance when he joined the Guard.
Actually, I was contemplating buying some gold, but the price was around $300 when I was thinking about it, so I would still be (ignoring portfolio reasons) worse off than I am.
Taking the f----ing Fifth:
***
Gingrich Avoiding Divorce Queries
By David Pace
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Sept. 27, 1999; 6:26 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and a congressional aide named in his divorce proceeding are trying to avoid answering questions about their relationship from lawyers for Gingrich's wife.
... In asking a District of Columbia judge to block her testimony, Ms. Bisek argued that it would violate her constitutional right to privacy by allowing Mrs. Gingrich's attorneys "to rummage through every aspect of her personal life without any meaningful restrictions or limitations of any nature."
She also argued that she cannot be required to testify about her relationship with Gingrich under the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination because adultery is a crime in the District of Columbia ...
***
Read the entire story here.
I see. Now it's important to tell the truth under oath about sex. It's a private citizen who's involved now. Only the president is exempt.
You have absolutely no right to complain. What's good for the president is good for Gingrich. More importantly, though, no one has lied under oath yet in this case. You see, they're taking the rule of law seriously and are taking legal steps to avoid testifying. There's a difference there. I know your blinders prevent you from seeing it. But, it's those same blinders that make you support Clinton, too.
I bought some gold and gold stocks when the price was around $255 an ounce. I was expecting the price to go up because of increased demand due to Y2K paranoia. For the past couple months the price was staying in the $253 to $260 range, the gold stocks were slowly losing value, and I was starting to have second thoughts.
There were moderate increases in gold prices last Thursday and Friday. Based on recent trends, I expected a quick retreat this week. Today's huge price increase due to European banks deciding not to sell their gold reserves really shocked me.
Of course, tomorrow the entire gain could be wiped out.
A footnote: It could be perceived as hypocritical for me to own gold and gold stocks because I am very much opposed to cyanide heap leach gold mining techniques. Modern gold mining can cause severe environmental impacts. I console myself by thinking that my paltry gold assets constitute an insignificant contributution to those greedy, polluting, multi-national gold mining corporations. Still, the conscience nags. All the way to the bank.
Cygnus X-1:
"You have absolutely no right to complain."
Who complained?
"There's a difference there. I know your blinders prevent you from seeing it."
What blinders? What complaint? How do you know? What are you smoking, son?
You just finished telling me over in Politicss that "everybody does it" is no defense. Please try to be consistant.
Did you read in yesterdays Star-Telegram about the 2 convicted drug offenders asking Georgie Boy for pardons?
You're claiming (albeit indirectly) Gingrich is a hypocrite for stooping to a tactic that you support. So I’m pointing out that the “everyone does it” argument is why you have no right to complain; but, I still do because I don’t adhere to that principle – if you can call it that. These invasions of privacy are wrong and conservatives have always believed that. But, when there is no other recourse, the truth must be told. In this case, however, Gingrich hasn’t exhausted all possibilities, so shut up.
Yeah, but I hear Clinton beat him to the punch.
Cygnus --
"First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose."
Two questions, sonny:
1) Where did I claim I posted the article "for no intended purpose?"
2) How many suns are there in the sky on the planet where you live?
You're spinning so fast I'm getting dizzy just reading your posts. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Cygnus --
"Oh, I get it."
I doubt very seriously that you do.
"You're playing tennis and I'm playing football."
Your strained use of sports metaphors does not demonstrate any deep comprehension. You are not merely playing football; you have invented the ball, the playing field, and the stadium from your fevered imagination.
You said that I made a specific claim. When challenged to find where I said it, you tucked tail and ran. While I'm pleased you didn't try to stand by your false statement, I'm bitterly disappointed that you didn't have the intellectual honesty or the courage to admit you were wrong.
"Forget I said anything."
Since you said nothing worth remembering, forgetting it will be a real pleasure.
ummmmmm... Clinton also broke the law in DC, then. But no one made an issue of that.
And no one would blame Clinton for having avoided perjury by lawful means, such as simply paying PJ $25,000 to drop the case, or demanding an interlocutory appeal regarding the Monica Lewinsky questions.
TrialShark apparently sees no difference between making a withdrawl from a bank and robbing it. Yes, both are manners of extracting money from a bank. But the first is legal and the second is a felony.
A tiny distinction which is lost on TrialShark.
Let's review:
"I refuse to answer that question on the basis of a valid priviledge" = LEGAL
"I didn't do it." = ILLEGAL if a lie.
Both are methods to prevent the truth from coming out. But the first is a legally sanctioned method, and the second is a felony.
Another distinction:
George Bush says, "I refuse to answer the cocaine question" = TRUTHFUL, even if nonresponsive
Bill Clinton says, "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" = a LIE
You people seem incapable of making such distinctions. Or rather, unwilling to do so, when it serves your partisan goals.
AUSTIN -- A handful of groups hoping to decriminalize some drug offenses asked Gov. George W. Bush on Monday to examine the cases of an estimated 28,000 people imprisoned in Texas for nonviolent drug offenses with an eye toward commuting some sentences or granting pardons.
"Warehousing the nonviolent (inmates) in Texas prisons does not increase the safety or security of Texans, nor does it do anything to help the inmate," said Alan Robison, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas.
Citing Bush's references to unspecified "mistakes" in refusing to answer questions about whether he used illegal drugs more than 25 years ago, the groups said Bush is proof that young people can overcome poor choices to experiment with illicit substances and become productive citizens.
If unsubstantiated allegations that Bush used drugs are true, then a "terrible double standard" exists, Robison added.
"Governor Bush thinks that if he did it, it should be regarded as a youthful indiscretion," Robison said. "Whereas if we do it, or at least if we get caught doing it, we should be punished for it by being sent to prison."
.
In a letter to former first lady Barbara Bush, a Dallas woman who has three sons in prisons on drug conspiracy charges, asked for her help in convincing the governor that drug policies should be changed.
"Youthful drug use, an issue that you and your son both claim is `irrelevant' to the governor's personal history, has been made permanently relevant to us by drug policies of the federal government and the 50 states, including Texas," wrote Virginia Traylor. "Our sons will have no second chances."
Maybe the groups should petition the President.
If being a part of an organization dedicated to killing people invites clemency because the prison sentences exceeded fairness, surely a bunch of tokers in for life will be even more deserving.
Whatcha think?
Except when conservatives do it.
Robert:
Clinton and Gore both smoked pot as part of their own "youthful indiscretions."
And yet I do not hear any clamor by Clinton or Gore for reducing the stiff penalties pot-smokers now face.
Why not? If your point applies to Bush, it applies with equal vigor to Clinton and Gore.
Well, yes, but er blub blub pssssssst.
"TrialShark apparently sees no difference between making a withdrawl [sic] from a bank and robbing it."
That would be "apparent" only in your imagination, Ace.
Truly, your power to read the minds of others never ceases to amaze me. I would be even more impressed if you were right.
Damn. Lesser-than, slash-i, greater-than.
Sorry 'bout that.
Judith --
"Which Republican candidate is having an affair with a 20 year old?"
I'm hoping it's Senator Hatch. He looks like he could use a little loosening up.
Trivial:
If you went something else by your "Taking the F-----g Fifth" post, please share with the group.
You're so, so cute. You clearly imply something, and when somebody calls you on how stupid your implication is, you whine that you meant something else entirely, without bothering to say precisely what that alternate meaning was.
"went" = meant
I'm holding out for Gary Bauer...it has a certain "old fashioned" bibical eye-for-an-eye ring to it if it's him.
Ace --
To borrow your pet phrase: you're an idiot.
I found the article amusing -- nothing more, nothing less. At this point, I couldn't care less if Mr. Gingrich nailed his alleged paramour on each and every desk on the floor of the House. While the House was in session.
Though it would have done wonders for C-SPAN's ratings.
The phrase "F---ing Fifth" was a play on words: adultery involves intercourse. If that was too subtle for you, I'll try being more obvious next time.
Obvious=funny.
Would cause Viagra's interest in Bob to droop, though.
janjon --
"...if it turned out to be Liddy [it] would cause Viagra's interest in Bob to droop ..."
In deference to Ace's plaintive cry for non-subtle humor: That's not all that would droop!
Or can it droop if you're on the big V?
Hmmm.
You know, it's a small mind indeed that takes pleasure in what you do. We infer meaning from what people post so that we don't have to write a book to get across our point. But, you find that catching people on these inferences is amusing. To each his hown. But, I don't care if you claim to have implied nothing. If it looks like shit and it smells like shit, it's shit as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder why he threw "because adultery is a crime in DC" in boldface.
Just more "amusement," I suppose.
Cygnus --
"You know, TrialShark, you're a real prick."
Guilty. And you have an unpleasant penchant for making up statements and attributing them to other people. Everyone has his flaws, I guess.
Ace --
Precisely. The "adultery" part is what made the "F---ing Fifth" a play on words.
janjon --
Badda-boomp!
Ahh... Ahh... Ahh.. AhhPrick.
Phew! Excuse me.
Cygnus --
"Gee, TrialShark, what statement did I make up and attribute to someone?"
In Message 426, you wrote: "First, TrialShark posts an article about Newt Gingrich's divorce proceedings and now claims that it was for no intended purpose."
When I asked you where I had said my post was "for no intended purpose," you begged off. Not surprising, since I hadn't said that. In fact, I said nothing at all about my "intended purpose" in posting the article.
I found the article amusing -- nothing more, nothing less. My "purpose" in posting it was the obvious one: to share something I found amusing with other people.
Of course, I did rather expect it would make some of the less-thoughtful conservatives in here twitch reflexively. You and Ace have amply fulfilled my expectations. But that was just a delightful side benefit. I would have posted the article even if you weren't here ... or were less easily annoyed.
Hmmm. Apparently, you can't believe everything you read.
***
Girl Says She Is 'Columbine Martyr'
The Associated Press
Tuesday, Sept. 28, 1999; 4:33 p.m. EDT
LITTLETON, Colo. –– Cassie Bernall, the young woman held up as a martyr after the Columbine High bloodbath, may not have been the student who said yes when asked by one of the gunmen if she believed in God.
Val Schnurr, 18, said in Tuesday's Denver Post that it was she who uttered that response after a shotgun blast knocked her out from under a library table where she had been hiding during the attack in April ...
***
Read the entire article here.
I agree these groups should be petition the President. They probably do, all the time. And yes, of course their points apply to Clinton and Gore.
But Clinton and Gore, tagged as liberal Democrats, cannot go to China.
Bush, a compassionate and conservative Republican, can. If he is courageous as well as compassionate and conservative, he could call for eliminating the most egregious faults of our futile "war" on drugs.
And if the blatant hypocrisy of his present situation makes him squirm a bit...good!
And the winner of the "who gets slimed next for adultery" prize is ... Gary Bauer!
Read the entire article here. Please note that Mr. Bauer denies the rumors, even though he hasn't been explicitly named by anyone, calling them the work of his political opponents.
Maybe that's the real story: which campaign is so concerned about Gary Bauer that they'd sling this kind of mud?
Hmmm ...
Oh, and I think Judithathome had Bauer in the pool, no? Congratulations! I still think Orrin Hatch would have been a more amusing candidate, but maybe he's next.
JJ --
It's never too early to say "I did not have sex with that woman."
JJ --
It's too soon to say how the Bauer deal will play out. If it comes off like a hatchet job (and there are those in the Republican Party not noted for their deft touch), relious right may abandon the GOP and that may give the party a chance to reach out to more moderate conservatives, independents, and the "Reagan Democrats."
On the other hand, after last year's splash through the sewer -- which, rightly or wrongly, a significant part of the public blames on overzealous partisans in the GOP -- this kind of attack could easily taint the whole party ... especially if it's linked to the eventual nominee.
BTW ... I admittedly am assuming that the attack is coming from within the GOP. It seems unlikely to me at this point that anyone in the Democratic Party sees Bauer as a credible threat, and so there's probably been little opposition research done on him by Gore or Bradley. There's also the possibility of an apolitical attacker. Still, Bauer seems to think it's one of his political opponents, and I suspect that means someone he's running against now, not a Democrat or an independent.
I have a very low opinion of our government. Is yours even worse?
Qualye was not only a represntative, but, a senator from Indiana. And a graduate from law school. What is his golf handicap?
Bush was part owner of a professional baseball team; I have no idea what he did prior to this and don't particularly care. Additionaly, he is governor of Texas.
Were this a resume, would you conclude from that partial list of "accomplishments" that both come up a least one short in the attic.
Both Quayle and GW have had successful careers in business and politics. They have earned more on their own than either you or I can hope to. Both men are far brighter than you seem willing to give them credit for. BTW, with Gore as frontrunner in the Dem party, you have no room for making claims about relative intelligence.
Tell me why he didn't denounce Buchanan who now makes the Nazis look left of center?
Why did you feel compelled to post bullshit like this? I am no fan of Buchanan, but this is completely unnecessary. This puts you on the same level as some of our most obnoxious posters. You are certainly capable of better.
JJ --
"I am no fan of Buchanan, but ... "
No "buts," JJ: Governor Bush had a fabulous opportunity to follow Senator McCain's lead and bid adieu to one of his party's less-savory figures. It was the "Sistah Souljah moment" we've all been waiting for.
Instead, he made a public appeal for Mr. Buchanan to stay in the party. And why? Was it because he thinks Mr. Buchanan is a patriot? Because he thinks he's an innovator? Because he believes Mr. Buchanan stands for all that's good and just in America?
Naw.
"I need every vote I can get," is what he said.
Fifty million bucks in the bank, way ahead in the polls, and Governor Bush is afraid to risk offending Pat Buchanan. Now, that's a profile in courage.
Give me McCain any day, JJ. You can keep the lightweight.
Buchanan (to my knowledge) is hardly more unsavory than, say, Jesse Jackson or Ted Kennedy. I haven't seen you (or any Dem. luminary) invite either of them to leave the party.
Or, for that matter, let's take a further step on the unsavoriness scale: compare how the GOP establishment has treated David Duke, with how the Dem. establishment has treated Ron Dellums and Tom Hayden.
You now have a fabulous opportunity to risk offending any or all of those four, if you like. Go for it.
Both Quayle and GW have had successful careers in business and politics. They have earned more on their own than either you or I can hope to.
Hahaha! You or I could have easily been as successful, if our names were JJ Quayle and Eric Bush. Come on, who are we kidding here? Give me those guys' money and familial connections and I can gather additional wealth & power too. Anybody could.
Stumbo --
Hmmmm. Seems to me you're deliberately ducking the point, which is: as compared to Senator McCain, Governor Bush is a wimp.
Perhaps you disagree. If so, tell us why.
My opinion on Senator Kennedy, et. al. hardly changes anything. Since you asked, however, I think Senator Kennedy is an embarassment to his party who should have retired years ago. Why the people of Massachusetts keep reelecting him is a mystery to me ... roughly on a par with the mystery of why the folks in North Carolina keep reelecting Senator Helms. I find Congressman Dellums distasteful, though more for his ideological bent than his personal conduct; still, if he were to threaten to quit his party, as Pat Buchanan did, I certainly wouldn't beg him to stay.
Thank you for sharing your opinions on Kennedy and Dellums. My apologies for expecting them to be different.
As for the wimp thing: given his biography, I thought McCain already had the least-wimpy title sewn up, the day he hinted he might enter the race. And, of course, yes, he has been generally taking more controversial positions (within his party) than the rest. Were it not for the fact that a couple of those positions are dead wrong, he'd be my dream candidate (or, at least, as much of one as either of the major parties could possibly offer).
If the Cold War were still on, I'd instantly choose McCain over Bush. As it is, personal courage is somewhat less crucial. I guess I'll wait and see till some more-substantial debate takes place (if it ever does).
Duh. McCain, as the distant second or third runner, is fighting the battle for the nomination, and therefore can and must take risky, attention-getting, principled stands like telling Pat to fuck off.
Bush is not looking at the nomination-- he's looking at the general election, and his decision with regard to Pat reflect that fact.
Pat's defection will probably cost the Republicans the Presidency. Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Bradley will be decided by five or six percent, and Pat will probably take five or six percent from the Republicans (if not more). So it hardly shocks me that the man who will almost certainly be the Republican candidate is more cautious with regard to Buchanan.
McCain, on the other hand, still has to break out in the primaries before the general election even becomes an issue at all.
Do I like McCain's stance? Yes. Do I like yammering righteously about "principle over politics"? Sure I do. Do I think McCain is a great candidate? Of course. He's always been my first preference, before the Juggernaut Dubya blew into town.
But McCain can afford to take this stance at this point. It's dicey for Bush.
Combine that with the fact that Buchanan is just dying to tear into Bush... Bush is probably making the smart play by being "nice" to Buchanan.
McCain's also making a smart play. But the smart play for each of them is different due to their relative standings in the polls.
A good analysis.
Remember second place Tsongas versus first place, virtually "annoited" Clinton?
Do you remember who took principled stances and told the truth, and who was the Pander Bear?
If Gore or Bradley is not stupid, they will take that page out of Clinton's book and hammer Bush, should he get the GOP nod, with the hypocrisy part of the alleged past drug-use issue (why do you now throw people in jail for what may have just been "youthful indiscretions"). They wouldn't have to do it themselves, of course, because Clinton never did. He had people do it for him. If, on the other hand, Gore or Bradley play nice like Mondale or Dukakis, it's toast time.
, with the hypocrisy part of the alleged past drug-use issue (why do you now throw people in jail for what may have just been "youthful indiscretions")
Since Gore and Bradley (and Clinton) have all admitted smoking pot (Gore while in the Army!), and yet have not urged lower penalties for possession of marijuana, this is sort of a tough sell, don't you think?
Do you think Gore will propose that the Army stop Court Martialing drug users?
I don't.
JJ, if you think what I've posted was among the most obnoxious in these threads, then your scale is very different from mine. Check this out:
"In a 1990 newspaper column, Buchanan didn't hesitate to say that people who survived the Nazi death camps suffer from "group fantasies of martyrdom." He even tried his hand at Holocaust revisionism, arguing that diesel-engine exhaust could not have killed so many Jews at Treblinka. Hitler? A mass murderer, Buchanan admits in a 1977 piece, but a man of "great courage" and "a soldier's soldier." If it matters to you that you don't leave the impression that you are carrying a torch for the Fuhrer, that's a judgment you frame in such a way as to leave no doubt about your feelings.
From CNN -- full article here.
Ronski:
And Bill Bradley was a superstar athlete in New York during the coke-fueled seventies.
What do you figure the odds on that are?
Everytime one of Gore's flacks mention coke/hypocrisy, one of Bush's flacks should mention Army/pot/court martial/Gore...?
Why won't WBush allow his Yale transcript to be released?
Why won't Hillary Clinton allow her Wellesey senior thesis --apparently extolling a sixties revolutionary/radical-- to be released?
Release everything. Is Hillary a Commie? We New Yorkers want to know!
as others have posted, the "successful" careers of Quayle and WBush have had a lot more to do with family name than being "self-made men".
And I suppose that the fact that Gore's father was a longtime Senator had nothing to do with his career.
And I suppose Gore's money didn't get him a comfy spot in the Journalism Corps in Vietnam, "in the rear with the gear."
"In his new book Pat Buchanan tells us what he would have done if he'd been President when Nazi Germany was waging war on England and France: Nothing. Adolf Hitler, he insists, was somewhat misunderstood. The Nazis only wanted to move east into Russia and Eastern Europe--which posed no threat to U.S. interests--until we got them all riled up. The Holocaust? A bad thing, certainly, but not the kind of problem that should drag a nation into war."
Also from CNN, full article here.
Ronski:
They're trying to. Witness the deposition by Barnes, stating that a dead man asked him to call another dead man to help Bush get into the National Guard.
Barnes, to avoid libel, notes that no one in the Bush family talked to him about this, and that he has no information that the Bush family knew about it at all. But the story has been put out.
Psych:
She can think whatever "new thoughts" she likes (and certainly radical chic was a "new thought" in the early seventies! What a trendsetter Hillary was!).
I'd just appreciate it if she didn't try to conceal her "new thoughts" from the electorate. Or do you support concealment?
Thoughtful:
I have never heard Bush or Quayle (or Gore) referred to as a "self made man." I have read it noted that Bush spent most of his life in the private sector, which of course he did, and which of course Gore did not.
Your advice is similar to this: "Don't support McCain thinking he's pro-choice, because he's not." Well, thanks for the info.
Pat used to look at the map of Europe and sigh, "If only Hitler had attacked Russia and not the West, the Reds would be long gone." He rationalizes that the Holocaust did not actually get us into the war and happened in spite of our having fought Germany. Pat also rationalizes that Poles, Czechs, Balts, et alia were blasted by Hitler anyway, and then fell to the Russkies, so they were not particarly helped by our having fought in WW2.
I think his anti-Semitism is based mostly on the belief that somehow the "Jewish lobby" or "world Jewry" robbed the world of the chance to snuff out the Reds in the 40s. It's a ridiculous position, to say the least. And the man is clearly erotophobic to boot. I'm sure he's unstable.
He rationalizes that the Holocaust did not actually get us into the war and happened in spite of our having fought Germany.
The Holocaust didn't get us into the war. FDR & Co. kept it as sort of an Open Secret until '45.
A "witchhunt"? Asking someone to release their senior thesis?
Laugh. That's akin to the definition of "Demomonization" that was floated during the Lani Guinnear hearings. Demonization = using someone's own words, as printed in law review articles, against her.
(i>"Bush is probably making the smart play by being 'nice' to Buchanan."
Smart, maybe; craven, without a doubt.
Trial:
I don't hear Gore denouncing Buchanan, matie.
Because, of course, Gore wants Buchanan to bolt and get big votes.
I really don't see why it matters whether Bush's transcripts are larded with 'gentleman's C's' or not. It seems that he has been out of school long enough for people to base the decision of whether to vote for him or not on better criteria than his grade point average.
You are beating your head against a wall; no one will admit that Bushlite is just that...he has been packaged in an attractive bundle and tricked out to look like the White Knight sailing in to save the GOP and that is what people are buying. He was a lame business man but very good at politicking his way upward and he had the Name to trade on, ergo: he's our man!
The same people defending their right to support this guy are the same people who would ridicule our right to support an equally unsavory choice for the job. It's all cut from the same cloth.
According to Matthews, Buchanan is attempting to make an argument against US interventionism abroad today with an analogy to England in the 1930's. Specifically, that England ultimately lost her empire because she got involved in a war in which she had no interest (specifically, in Buchanan's view, going to the mat for Poland).
His point apparently is that Germany only overran France and attempted to conquer England because these countries declared war on Germany after Hitler (and Stalin) invaded Poland. Hitler had, in Buchanan's view, no interest in Europe to the west of Germany and was merely trying to prevent himself from getting entangled in a two front war before he went back to conquering his main interest, the East.
Again, not having read the book, I can't judge the quality of his argument. It seems to me that Buchanan's analysis is mainly based on the accuracy hindsight and fails to take into account the reality of the times. I certainly suspect that Buchanan is shoehorning select facts into an argument to fit his worldview. However, I question whether this is quite the apostacy that George Will is breathlessly describing it as.
Judith:
Please explain what makes Bush an "unsavory character." That he may have used drugs twenty years ago? My goodness, when did we become so judgemental about such a thing? The Clinton pot admission and coke allegations never gave you any particular pause.
And let's talk about Bush's accomplishments... no, let's talk about Gore's. His Daddy got him a cushy berth in the Army ("It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no Senator's son...") and then got him elected to Congress. And from that point on, he... well, he voted on things.
But he voted with great courage.
Ronski:
Not really. He got a reputation as a moderate. How? Because he voted for everyfuckingthing. Liberal social welfare initiatives? He voted for them. More defense spending? He voted for it.
He was named as one of the lowest-ranking Congressmen by some taxpayer thinktank. At least Teddy Kennedy voted AGAINST some costly programs.
Gore just said YES! to everything.
And earned a reputation as a "moderate" for it.
Psych:
1) Hillary can, and should, agree to release the thesis.
2) If Hillary didn't believe what she was writing, she shouldn't have written it at all. If she DID believe what she was writing, it's an important document upon which to evaluate her.
I can understand his surprise since nothing he says in his book is either new or particularly interesting. It is pretty much a repeat of what some historians have previously written and received no fanfare. The reason the book has caused a stir is because some reporters were able to quotes passages out of context and make Buchanan look like a Nazi sympathizer.
Given that we are talking bout a thesis, I do not believe she will be punished at the polls, especially in light of the fact that Bush will not be ounished for keeping mum on his drug use 25 years ago..
Be serious. Pat knew this would create headlines and wanted the free publicity. It gets him on the Sunday talk shows and sure beats spending money to place ads.
The day you start demanding George W. Bushs business history, you will see why I feel he is a rather unsavory character. He is a somewhat inept businessman. If that's your idea of a President, fine...looks as tho you'll be getting what you want. All you Frat Boys stick together. :-)
Dan:
Yeah, you're probably right. If that was his aim, he seems pretty crafty, huh? Maybe he's good fodder for public office; saves money, works the media, can articulate positions...hell, HAS positions. He's looking better and better.
Oh, listen to the nonsense...
As to Bush's business history:
Sorry, Judith, but the WP and NYT have both combed his business history for improprieties and found NOTHING. Funny how you excuse the Clintons' various improprieties, for which plenty of evidence exists, and yet damn Bush, when there is neither evidence nor credible ALLEGATION of wrongdoing.
As for him being an "inept" businessman:
Well, no, he can't turn $1,000 into $100,000 by reading the Wall Street Journal and playing cattle futures. But then, who can, absent a stockbroker in the employ of your political patron recording positive moves under YOUR account and negative moves under his bosses' account?
Of course not...in Acespeak, she laid out her future plans for world domination and the New World Order.
But even as a graduate student one of the things that I particularly treasured about the experience was the ability to explore various subjects that are important in day-to-day workings of government, but that we may not have the time to consider in depth at the time issues arise. It was a delight to me to be able to write in a manner unencumbered by the politics of my job or boss. Certainly if I were writing for an audience other than the professor, I might have written very different papers.
Search the candidates' public writings, absolutely. But to delve back several decades into undergraduate papers is misleading and a betrayal of academic freedom.
If they are different, then I have no idea what the ideological leanings of Chris Matthews the Columnist are, because I have never otherwise heard of him.
An interesting interpretation of the Academy.
Apparently the Academy doesn't exist to create and disseminate information and analysis to the public at large. Apparently it works in secret, and has only personal, therapeutic value.
1. You didn't put much thought into your paper then,
2. You haven't done much thinking since then,
3. You have no shame.
But then the list of people I wish I'd never heard of is quite lengthy as it is.
Ace,
The Academy does both, in a sense. It furthers knowledge, but it also takes part in exercises that train the mind. In both instances it fails sometimes, and succeeds sometimes.
This isn't a "term paper" or "notebook." It's a Senior Thesis.
I don't know where you guys went to school, but in some schools this is serious business, requiring a year's worth of research, a junior league version of a Graduate school thesis.
I wrote one. They keep all of them in a sub-sub-sub-basement at the Univerity library.
The notion of a "Senior Thesis" is to ADD to the accumulated store of information/analysis available. It isn't some stupid quiz. It's a paper you usually get money for (to spend on research).
This isn't a "term paper." It's the undergraduate equivalent of a Master's Thesis.
Where the hell did you all go to school?
Bubbaette:
I lowballed it and only got $600, with which I paid rent and bought beer.
One of my classmates-- a fucking GENIUS-- said she wanted to research Ireland and the EC, and got full freight to Ireland for six fucking months.
Genius. Pure Genius. Who the hell knew you could go over the top like that?
I'm getting waves of jealousy about that Ireland trip.
What fucking balls that chick had. Unbelievable. I give her major quals for her audacity.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have done my thesis on my favorite historical topic-- Pirates in the Golden Age-- and gone full-freight to the Carribean for six goddamn months. Swilling rum, diving to photograph pirate wrecks, getting a tan, checking out sixteenth century fortresses.
No one who did an Honors thesis at my college was attempting any such thing
The theory is that this is precisely what you were supposed to be doing.
In reality, of course, you were doing no such thing.
Where did you go to school? I had to pay tuition and then pay my own way for an unpaid internship my senior year. Hell, I even had to pay the student health and student activities fees even though I was all the way across state and could use neither.
Thrakk:
I don't know. Captain Kidd seems okay. Even though he mostly worked the Indian Ocean routes, which I've never been that interested in.
Bubbaette:
I don't want to get into detail, but the thesis option I'm talking about was only offered to a limited number of students. Most seniors didn't write a thesis, and most of those who did didn't get a stipend.
Doesn't that blow your mind about Ireland, though? I was shocked. Floored. Jealous that I hadn't thought of it.
Thrakk:
NO! I just thought of my favorite pirate: John Paul Jones, the only Revolutionary War Captain to win a victory on English soil (he sacked an English town).
Okay. You say he was a privateeer. Tomato, toemahto.
But he's dead now and I doubt that my paper is still in the stacks.
He is viable because he has money and is governor of Texas. He is worthy because he has approximately the same credentials as possessed by the 1992 Democratic nominee.
My guess about GW bush is that he gets the considerable name recognition that his pappy built up free of charge.
"My undergraduate thesis covered the confluence of Marxist-Leninist dogma, methamphetamine and Red White and Blue beer."
Well, now we know what substances were lying on Niner's college desk. I guess when his parents came to visit, he spread his thesis to cover it.
Clinton had a distinguished academic record, was a Rhodes scholar, and went to Yale Law School. He was a multiple-term governor. He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues. He had an excellent record of leadership within his party, particularly among his fellow Dem governors. He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime.
Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale. And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad. And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas.
Please don't bother comparing the two. Tell me what is attractive about Bush other than his war-chest and connections.
How the GOP can be falling down in front of this guy still perplexes me. Or would, if I didn't know what politics was all about: power and money, not principle.
Ha ha ha. God forbid we don't have a law school grad in the White House.
"He was a multiple-term governor."
Ha ha ha. Bush too. And Clinton ran a state that was essentially two pigs and a goat.
"He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues."
Great. He's qualified for a talk show.
"He had an excellent record of leadership within his party, particularly among his fellow Dem governors. He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime."
This public fellatio is unseemly.
"Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale."
So college grades and theses do matter?
"And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad. And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas."
New requirement. A candidate must be controversial.
I have no party allegiances. However, I am mystified by this GW Bush phenomenon. It appears that he is "frontrunner" precisely because his party thinks that "this is a guy who can win." Ideology, experience, expertise, competence, these factors apparently are not very important at all.
Out of curiosity, if G. Dubbya were rumored to have written a Senior Thesis on Chaucerian English, would anyone think it relevant to his quest for the presidency? What if he were rumored to have written a Senior Thesis stating that Jim Crow laws were perfectly reasonable? Would voters have a right to know what he was thinking and whether he had repudiated such thought?
Forget the comparison, it's a fools game. The kind of game you like a bit too much.
Answer my question properly and in a non-evasive manner - what is there attractive about GW Bush that makes you want to vote him into the highest office this country offers?
Ideology, experience, expertise, competence, these factors apparently are not very important at all.
They haven't been before. Why start now?
I place my valuable vote based on precisely these things. I think a lot of people do. I have yet to hear from GW Bush any compelling reason to vote for him. I'm curious as to whether anyone has. Saying he's as demonstrably qualified as Clinton was in 1992, which I dispute, is not a good enough reason.
The comparison is apt. One was more glib than the other. They had and have the same foreign policy experience at the time of their candidacies. They were and are Southern governors, one of a small state, one of a large state. They are Ivy League. They are and were respected by fellow governors. One did college, law school, and run for office. The other did college, Air Reserve, run for office (or campaign for others), business. As for the wives, I'll leave to you the relative import of that nugget, but it seems relative to me in one sense: one had a wife willing to pull her husband's balls out of the fire on 60 Minutes. The other has not as yet had to call upon his spouse for that duty.
In the end, your loving pronouncements notwithstanding, the main difference is that you appear to be in love with one, and not the other.
As for your question, I answered it. He has money, he has momentum, and he looks like a winner. You may not know this, but these are the minimal qualifications - the attraction - of any party's nominee.
Clinton wasn't qualified for the job, Majori. Your claim of "no party allegiance" is laughable.
From Zogby.com:
Opinion of Bill Clinton continues to fall
The overall opinion of Bill Clinton continued its downward trend, a new Zogby America survey reveals.
The survey, taken September 21-23 of 1,005 likely voters throughout the nation, shows that Clinton's overall favorable rating dropped to 44.7% from the 46.8% rating taken in May. Both ratings represent yearly lows since he received a 46.7% rating in September 1998.
The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/-3.2%.
The survey also shows Clinton's positive job performance rating leveling out at 48.4%, a slight increase over the 47.4% rating in May, but a dramatic decline from the 60.5% positive rating for job performance in January.
He was a multiple-term governor.
Of a backwater state which he ran as his personal fiefdom with the help of organized crime. The only thing it qualified him for is running a Banana Republic.
Bush is governor of one of the largest states in the union which our performs Arkansas in every measure.
He could and did speak highly intelligently about any number of issues, and had a clearly superior grasp of policy issues.
Translation: He could repeat the party line without laughing.
He had a super-bright wife, clearly committed to being a player in his regime.
This was not a good thing. His wife was not a candidate and had no business imposing herself into the government.
Bush had a mediocre record as a legacy at Yale.
Have you seen his transcripts? Do you have a link perhaps?
And had a visibly poor record as a businessman with cronies of his Dad.
His record is far from poor as a businessman. While he has suffered some downturns as all successful businessmen have, his successes far outweighed his failures.
And has been relatively uncontroversial in his brief period as Governor of Texas.
I didn't realize that controversy was the hallmark of a great leader. I thought leaders avoided controversy in order to accomplish their goals.
One final note. Clinton didn't earn the name Slick Willie because he slicked his hair back.
I coulda said presidential candidates, but I restrained myself.
Ace --
"I don't hear Gore denouncing Buchanan, matie."
Yawn.
In case you missed it, Ace, the issue was a comparison of the GOP candidates' response to the threat by another GOP candidate to bolt the party. Senator McCain took a principled position; Governor Bush wimped out. I'm not surprised you want to change the subject.
The problem for Governor Bush, of course, isn't that he's been silent about Buchanan; I could settle for that. The problem is the Governor's craven plea for Buchanan to stay in the GOP because the Governor thinks he needs the votes. If, despite a commanding lead in the polls and a war chest unparalleled by his opponents, the Governor still can't summon up the courage to tell Pat Buchanan to get lost -- well, he's not much of a man, is he?
Gee, but maybe he'll do better when he's really under pressure. We should vote for him and then we'll find out.
Yeah.
It's no use. The man is positively smitten.
I agree. What was vomit-inducing was his attempt to state that he didn't mean what he said, or he didn't quite write it, or he didn't do the things the letter said he did, etc . . . There is honor to opposition to the war, honor that Clinton pitched for political expedience.
Because individuals who squawk about Bush Jr.'s credentials are made to look blinded by ardor when it is demonstrated that Bush Jr. has credentials strikingly similar to the 1992 Democratic nominee.
Like many voters, I look for displayed competence in the substantive issues that accompany a Presidential election. Again, this may be humorous to you. Clinton in 1992 was one of the finest political campaigners I have ever witnessed precisely because his grasp of and insight into the substantive issues was so demonstrably solid. In all honesty, both Bradley and Gore have shown their capabilities in this regard. Bush most decidedly has not. I'm wondering why he is your candidate.
Because one wants to be President and one already is....because Ace would rather throw up anything unfavorable about Clinton to bolster neoBush.
Were you so captured by Clinton 13 months prior to his election?
Does this mean that substance, and demonstrated expertise and experience, have nothing valuable to do with the way we choose a President? Are you fucking kidding?
That suggests to me that the Repubs only need to run a reasonably moderate, thinking candidate with demonstrated backbone to win the next election....but there are none on the slate.
If Buchanan bolts, it can give the GOP candidate the foil to approximate moderation. I have no evidence that Bush Jr., Dole, or McCain lack backbone.
I have politely asked you at least twice to stop with the comparisons, and give me some good reasons why Bush should be elected to the highest office in the country.
If you wish to focus exclusively on comparisons between Clinton 1992 and Bush 1999, I think you will be proven to hold a shallow argument. Maybe we can leave that for later. First make anything resembling a decent case for Bush. Please.
Thoughtful,
You would not consider McCain to be a moderate and thinking candidate?
Niner,
Would you have voted FDR over Wilkie?
I have politely declined your request with regard to comparison because your initial proposition was specious. I have since revealed it to be so, so I will move on.
You asked me why he was the frontrunner? I answered. Again, money, momentum, big state, a good chance, family name, and the aura of invincibility and moderation (we shall see how that aura holds up).
Now you now ask me to make a case for his election? As it is 13 months prior to the election and I am not a supporter of Bush, I am an inappropriate choice for this task.
All things being equal?
As equal as can be.
FDR was 2 term incumbent President. Willkie had never held office and was the head of one of the large brokerage houses, I think.
Can anyone else here please tell me why George Bush Jr. is a worthy candidate for President of the USA?
Niner, I have yet to see GWB (er that's not the George Washington Bridge) demonstrate any backbone. I have yet to see him take a stand on much of anything.
Majori, my last statement is to what I attribute his popularity. Remember how popular Colin Powell was until he started taking stands on issues? BTW, where is he now? He would certainly be a more attractive candidate than anyone the GOP is running now.
Not prone to changing horses in midstream, as the expression of the time went.
But Thoughtful, how can you say that?
Bush has said he wants to keep the sodomy laws on the books in the State of Texas as an expression of society's disapproval of homosexuality, that gay people should not be permitted to adopt, and there should be no civil rights laws for gays.
He's taken a whole lot of stands.
Bush also had a ton of gay friends at college and is a sniveling, deceitful opportunist. A lot like Forbes, actually.
I tend to agree with you on McCain. As to Bush, Jr., that is why we should be have candidate debates. As I recall from '88 (the last time there was no incumbent) we had several debates in the fall before. I have yet to hear of any this year, although Gore is today proposing some.
There is a factor of fatigue which builds in with one party which has held office for a long time. Also, since I tend to trust and distrust both parties equally, I'm inclined to vote in "new" goons whenever possible. But there must be at least a decent show of addressing the issues and matters of substance. It is astonishing to me that one of the huge political behemoths in this country is apparently throwing its weight behind a cipher, when a half-way decent candidate could definitely win with some comfort.
I don't see why Bush Jr. is de facto any less qualified than Clinton was. He's a governor. Do I want him to be President? Shrug. Not particularly. The country won't fall into a decline if he wins, though.
And now for something completely different ...
***
Bauer Denies Affair Rumors
By Douglas Kiker
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, Sept. 29, 1999; 1:12 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– Gary Bauer, surrounded by his family, denied speculation today that he had an extramarital affair.
"These rumors and character assassinations are disgusting, outrageous and sick," Bauer said at a press conference. "They are trash-can politics at its worst."
... Charlie Jarvis, Bauer's former national campaign chairman, told The Associated Press today he had warned Bauer "in the clearest terms" that he was spending too much time with a female campaign aide and it created a bad appearance. Jarvis, who now works for rival candidate Steve Forbes, did not say Bauer and the aide had an affair.
The Forbes campaign was adamant that it had nothing to do with Jarvis' assertion ...
***
Are the Republicans poised to bolster their public image as the gynecologically-obssessed party? Read the entire article here.
Cal --
"I don't see why Bush Jr. is de facto any less qualified than Clinton was."
Maybe so, but -- and you know I worship you in all things, so this cannot be a criticism -- so what?
The first question is whether Bush is more or less qualified than Dole, McCain, Forbes, or the other GOP candidates; and assuming he's the Republican nominee, whether he's better qualified than the Democratic nominee. When folks argue that the Governor is as qualified as the incumbent who's not on the ballot, it leads me to believe that they aren't comfortable comparing him with the candidates who are on the ballot.
Nonsense. The GOP needs its far right votes. And, they will follow Buchanan.
As for stances on issues that will attract the great mostly washed moderate American middle, the two issues that will ultimately decide the 2000 election will be gun control and abortion. Bush loses on both.
Neither gun control (agin' it) nor abortion (keep it legal) will decide the election, imo.
I think the election will be decided by who is seen as the more likely (given that only two candidates will matter, neither of whom I will vote for) to continue prosperity. The next factor will be the strength of Clinton fatigue. I suspect the latter will start to wain towards Nov., '00, tightening up a race between Gore and Bush. Bradley would have far less of a problem in that regard.
Thoughtful,
I was teasing. Yours is my point exactly. Bush is a coward on gay rights. He knows he's wrong, as does Forbes. It's a major reason why I can't stand either.
Actually, I prefer football, a man's game.
I'm also not a Mom. A mother, perhaps.
I should check out Ace's pool, though I'm not much into team sports anymore. I ski, and during the summer, think about skiing.
Bush pere, whom I voted against gleefully, was a victim of circumstance with the economy, at least to an extent. The recovery did in fact occur while he was still in office, just not early enough for the voting public to notice the improvement.
I know they do outnumber me (hard not to outnumber gay libertarian skiers, actually), but gun control does not have quite the steam as an issue that some people think. And abortion is not going to be outlawed, ever. It is not threatened, and many people understand that; that's why they went ahead and voted for Reagan, an alleged abortion foe.
I happen to agree with you that there had been a start to recovery of the economy shortly before the 1992 election and that it came too late for Bush. However, the kudos for the remarkable economic record of the past six years really must go to Clinton and Rubin and Greenspan.
Ronski --
President Bush was a victim of economic circumstance to some extent, true: but he was entirely responsible for the public perception that he did not understand -- or care about -- the discomfort felt by average voters when the economy took a dive. Governor Clinton's line about "feeling our pain" was a direct shot at Bush's seeming disengagement.
janjon,
I didn't say Bush wasn't inept. He ran the worst campaign imaginable. Clinton has done little for the economy except not wreck it, thanks, in part, to the GOP who stopped Hillary Care.
Greenspan, who remains something of a libertarian, deserves some admiration, mostly for restoring confidence by keeping a steady hand.
I agree about Bush's societal tin ear. I knew he would lose in early October of that year, when a country song was being played a lot with the refrain, "The president has a job, but I don't." Can't remember the singer.
Remember, Bush's family dressed for dinner all during the Depression.
Well, let me just say that I respectfully disagree and let it go at that. He started by listening to "experts" even before he took office (granted, he wanted to be sure to run the economy in a way to help insure his reelection) and he stuck with that "expert" advice in his various economic policies. He deserves praise for his economic performance.
Greenspan is something of a libertarian? This is the same person who warned of the need to take action to rein in the stockmarket's "irrational exuberance"? The same person who organized the bailout of the hedge fund, Long Term Capital?
janjon,
We agree to disagree. It is my philosophy in life that more people should do that.
So there.
Dantheman,
Yes. I did say something of. He was a follower of Rand in his youth. He is certainly no socialist.
janjon,
Doesn't suprise me. I like his wife, though.
The year was late in 1963 or early in 1964. My wife and I were on vacation : we flew from Okinawa to Clark AB in the Phillipines (now under volcanic ash). We were in Manila and took a taxi to the cemetary honoring the American dead form WW II (if you think Arlington is impressive, you should see this place!) They were in the midst of an election. Our taxi driver spoke very good English. I asked about the election and he said he didn't mind talking about it. At the end, we agreed that USA politics and Phillipine politics had a lot in common. We came to that conclusion after I asked him if he would mind telling us who he was going to vote for. His reply : "I am told that the new man is going to be for the little people. However, I am going to vote to return Mr. Magsaysay to office. It is my hope that he has stolen enough already and won't have to steal quite so much in his next term. If we elect the new guy, he will be at the beginning of his stealing!" The "new guy" was Ferdinand Marcos!
Of all the current candidates, do we know who has already stolen enough?
ranheim --
Man, your level of cynicism and despair have pretty much been pegged when you get to comparing U.S. and Filipino corruption.
I visited the Phillipines (from Kadina) long after Marcos had first been elected; he still hadn't stolen enough to suit his wife and himself. The country was the worst I'd ever seen.....
My father used to say he voted Republican because they had more money than the Democrats and would steal less. I'm not sure if it was a joke or not.
It's a nice theory, anyhow.
McALLEN, Texas (AP) - Hidalgo County commissioners have voted to implement a ``living wage'' increase for county employees over the next two years.
It might be the first Texas county to vote for such a policy -one that guarantees a wage higher than the federally set minimum wage.
The pay increases will go into effect in January 2000, raising the minimum wage for county workers from $5.15 an hour to $6.75 an hour. In 2001, the hourly wage will increase to $7.50 an hour.
Valley Interfaith is a community advocacy organization that spearheaded the push for wages high enough to allow workers to live without government assistance.
``It wasn't an overnight panacea, but a big victory,'' said the Rev. Jerry Frank, a Valley Interfaith leader who originally had hoped the $7.50 wage increase would happen on January 2000 instead of over a two-year period. ``The Valley is cheap labor market U.S.A. We are on the road to changing that.'
.......................
A big deal for Texas. County judges and commissioners throughout
the state must be clutching their chests.
Judith --
Let's see ... that's you, me, and ranheim. I wonder how many other Moties have spent time on Okinawa?
PE --
Okinawa proper, or the Kerama Islands off the western coast? I heard the reefs around Keramas, especially Tokashiki-jima, were pretty spectacular. I never cared for snorkelling, but the shallow-water reefs looked awfully pretty when you flew over them at low altitude.
"The real attacks on the Catholic religion are poverty, ignorance, hopelessness, blind fear and the lack of loving communication between human beings. The values which sustain the religion are trust, compassion, honesty, dignity, love. Those are not things found on a wall someplace. They reside in the heart."
...more of Breslin
PE --
Never made it down to Ishigaki, though Mrs Shark did when she was doing her fellowship. Did you ever get out to see the Ernie Pyle memorial on Ie-jima?
I don't recall (in 1962 - 1965) any way to get to the Ernie Pyle Memorial from Okinawa. Neither my wife nor I are into fishing; swimming; diving; snorkeling; etc. So we never rented a boat in our
2 1/2 years there. I wonder if that was possible then?
Was a side trip like that available when y'all were there?
ranheim --
There was a marina in Chatan-cho, a short way up Highway 58 from Kadena AB, that had boats available for rent. I say there was such a place because it was pretty much destroyed in a typhoon in 1992, and I don't know if it's been rebuilt. You could also rent boats at White Beach, on the Pacific side of the island, or at the Okuma recreation center north of Nago.
If you were conversant in Japanese, I'm sure you could hire a boat at a number of other places, too; but Mrs Shark suffers from dreadful seasickness, so it really never occurred to me to ask her about getting a boat. She'd have slugged me. For a girl, she hits pretty hard.
When you were on Okinawa, the Air Force had a communications station on the western end of Ie-jima. It's pretty much closed now, though I think there's still some relay equipment there. Ie-jima had a small airstrip, but it was most easily accessible through a regular ferry service; the ride took about 30-45 minutes.
The Ernie Pyle memorial is in a small field (a rice paddy, I think, but I'm not sure) just south of Ie-yama. It's built on the spot where Mr. Pyle was killed.
Ernie Pyle's grave site.
A quick search revealed this picture of his memorial site, but it's not very good.
Cal --
Not bad for a quick search.
I had my wife read your post to see if we could jog each others memories. Both of us remember the name Nago; none of the rest. In our time on the island, we would go up to the hospital on some occasions; rarely as far as Kadena.
Going north of Kadena in the 60s was not encouraged. God knows what the Marines were doing at their 3 camps up there. We never saw them in our dispensary or socially. If it was not forbidden, it was certainly discouraged.
We Naha Flight Surgeons were never made to feel welcombe at Kadena. I have always thought that was because of the U 2s. They were over-flying China/Taiwan/Vladivostak while we were there. It was a deep dark secret; but, we, at least, knew that.
I really dis-like our government. I see nothing redeeming about a democracy. We were founded as a republic. I believe in a republic; not a democracy.
Burning cross shocks residents of small town
SPUR, Texas (AP) - Moments after hearing several gunshots, followed by cackling laughter and the roaring of an unmuffled engine, Ronald Johnson crept out on his front porch in the early morning hours to find a horror he never thought he would see again.
In the intersection between several homes in the predominantly black neighborhood lay an 8-foot tall cross, covered in cloth, doused in gasoline and set on fire.
........
more on cross burning
ranheim --
Chatan-cho is the town immediately west of Kadena. It's largely reclaimed land, behind a seawall that may not have been built when you were there. Mrs Shark and I lived in Chatan-cho for about a year and a half before we moved on base prior to Little Shark's birth.
White Beach is pretty much due east of Kadena. It's a Navy facility, and not very big. I only got out there a couple of times.
Okuma recreation center is one of the few plots of land in Japan that the U.S. Department of Defense owns in fee simple, rather than occupying as a tenant under a lease. It's on a small peninsula on the west side of the island, located north of Nago. It's not a very elaborate place, but it books up pretty solidly throughout the year. If you never ventured north of Kadena, though, I'm sure you never saw it.
You mentioned "the hospital" -- did you mean the USAF facility at Kadena or the USN hospital on Camp Lester? It may amuse you to know that USNH Lester is still there, pretty much as it would have been in the early 60s, though I hear the Japanese have agreed to build a new hospital to replace it.
In our time, the hospital was mainly AS Army. It was south of Kadena.
What in hell were the Marines doing north of Kadena? We, at Naha, never once got an inkling! Did you?
What did having a baby on Okinawa cost you? My wife and I had 2 sons (she was 5 months pregnant when she joined my on the island) while there. Each C section cost us $2 a day : officer's food!
ranheim --
The Northern Training Area is still there. Periodically the Marines attack it. Other Marines defend it. They appear to have a good time.
The Joint Forces Brig is at Camp Hansen, in Kinville; I used to go up there periodically for pretrial confinement hearings. Never made it to the NTA, though. I understand it's pretty rugged terrain.
I think you're referring to the same hospital; USNH Lester is just south of Kadena and just north of Camp Foster. I didn't realize it once belonged to the Army. Little Shark's birth there was free of charge -- must be because of some damn Great Society welfare program or something. [g]
Well, if no one else wants it ...
Not quite as good as a millenial, but more sinister.
Whoops. This looks ugly:
***
Japanese nuclear accident injures workers
Thousands warned to stay indoors
TOKYO (CNN) -- At least 14 workers were exposed to radiation Thursday when a leak developed at a Japanese nuclear processing plant. Three of the workers were hospitalized and thousands of nearby residents were warned to stay indoors.
The Japanese government asked the U.S. military to help deal with the accident that may not be under control. The United States turned down Japan's request, saying U.S. forces were not equipped to handle the situation ... Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka said late Thursday that there was "strong possibility" of a "criticality incident" -- meaning the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining.
***
Read the entire article here.
More on the Japanese nuclear accident:
It took place in Tokaimura, a town of 34,000 people located 70 miles northeast of Tokyo. There have been at least two incidents there in the past two and a half years: an explosion and fire in March 1997 which injured over 30 workers, and leakage of radioactive waste, reported in August 1997.
Read about the explosion here.
Read about the leak here.
We lived very near Kadena about 2 blocks from Koza 4 Corners in a guest hotel (Japanese) that had 7 apartments for rent and 14 guest apartments for businessmen. It was really nice and we could hear the hyena from the zoo every night...we were a few blocks from there.
We traveled everywhere on the island and rented boats and visited outer islands but I don't think we saw the Ernie Pyle memorial. Did you ever visit the Peace Garden, with the memorials of every nation spread out over the park?
We had friends who lived in Naha, Ishikawa, at the Marine bases, and elsewhere. We were there in the early 80s and it was my first exposure to the rest of the "world"; I'd never been anywhere before. My husband had lived there before and had Okinawan friends; we spent several holidays with locals and loved their generosity. My favorite Okinawan holiday was Oban. I'll never forget my 4 years there...I loved the food and the gracious way of life. It was idyllic for me; my husband was pleased that I adapted so well.
Judith --
I'm trying to remember where Koza 4 Corners is located -- was it outside Gate One (on the western side of Kadena) or Gate Two (on the east)?
The Peace Park sounds familiar, but I'll have to ask Mrs Shark when we visited it. Our favorite tourist spot was Nakagusuku Castle, the ruins of which are located west of Kadena on a ridge at one of the highest elevations on the island. It's one of the few places where you can see both the Pacific and the East China Sea at the same time, and it's a great picnic spot.
Was Kanda's art gallery open when you were there? Mrs Shark and I dropped a lot of yen there during out 3-1/2 years on the island.
Koza 4 Corners was outside....hmmmmm....god, I can't remember which gate! I think it was Gate 1. It was on the side where China Petes was...
One of the most unusual things we did while there was accompany my husbands cousins wife to an island burial site that contained her parents remains. It was on this tiny island and she and her daughter went there to clean the bones and wrap them and place them in a "turtle back grave". They do this one year after the death. It was not something you're likely to experience very often. It was very moving.
Judith --
China Pete's was located across the street from Gate Two when I was there. It was a fairly new building, though, so I don't know if it used to be elsewhere. Gate One was the one next to the golf course; Gate Two was the one near the USO. I think Koza 4 Corners was the out Gate Two; when you hit the intersection, a right-hand turn would lead you down to Camp Foster. Does that sound right?
We never went to a funeral --fortunately, none of our friends or relatives died while we were there -- but Mrs Shark learned a lot about Okinawan burial traditions during her fellowship. Fascinating stuff. I'd almost forgotten the turtle back tombs -- some of the best real estate on the island belongs to the ancestors of the current residents.
Click on photo 
Yes, it was Gate 2..."I'll always remember my wonderful years on Okinawa, blah blah blah" but I can't seem to remember a thing about the actual location of my HOME there! Jeez...I can't believe I forgot the USO, scene of my Trivial Pursuit Chanpionship!
Did yo ever go to on a pottery tour or to see they way they made the Bengata cloth? Or the glass blowing factory, where they took recycled saki and beer bottles and turned them into beautiful utile objects?
At approximately the halfway point between Naha and Kadena there was a dance hall & bar. I don't recall if it was locally owned or not. However, my single colleagues could go there and talk to oriental females. Any other arrangement/s between the two were over-looked by my wife and I. As best as I recall, we got to the Officer's Club at Kadena only once. My wife served as older sister/mother to most of the M.D. staff of the Naha Dispensary. For a time, I was the only married M.D. on the staff. So between feeding them at our house and them reciprocating at the Naha O Club, we had little time to head north.
At Naha, the civilian Ryukyu's airline was located. About once a week 2 or 3 of us M.D.s would head to the civilian terminal to eat Yake Soba(spelling). Consisted of the meat left over from the day previous + fresh cooked vegetables and pasta. It was wonderful stuff.
We got out of the USAF because of me; not my wife. She had maid help; she traveled widely; had disposable income; was the queen bee for a group of very compatible doctors. What was not to like?
The handwriting following Albuquerque was on the wall for me, though. More and more time at a desk. Patient care would slowly, slowly disappear. LtCol Flight Surgeons were to consider themselves candidates for the job of THE Flight Surgeon of the USAF. "Flying a desk" was not for me.
But, both of us look back at our USAF days - particularly Okinawa - fondly.
I hope the three of us have not bored you others too greatly.
Hold on there, Chester. I wasn't responding to your post. I was referring to the recent news item (for which I couldn't find any links of my own) that Clinton is proposing to forgive the debt of the "poorest" countries. Disaster aid is one thing. Forgiving debt is another.
I'm in favor of loan forgiveness (if this is what you are referring to).
However:
Now I know part of the answer, but doesn't it send an incongruous message to the citizens to have the IMF defending their program on the basis that almost all debts are current, while simultaneously the administration is proposing debt forgiveness because countries are so badly in arrears that they can never repay?
I'm fascinated by the fact that so many people have (IMHO) an irrational fear of nuclear accidents as compared to other types of disasters. This fear has contributed to the deaths of thousands.
I counted 4 posts and maybe 3 links about the accident in Japan...does that seem excessive to you?
Judith --
Never got to a Bengata factory (if that's the right word), but we did go to a glass-blower's place down near Naha -- as I recall, it was a short distance from the limestone caves, though I don't think we hit both spots on the same trip.
yep, I'm sure there will be no more said on this issue. Uh-huh.
Dusty --
Actually, the nuclear accident happened several hours ago. I think it's getting attention because (a) it's a man-made disaster (if calling it a "disaster" at this point is appropriate) and (b) it's novel. Don't forget, the Taiwanese earthquake was the third in about a month.
More people have been killed by an earthquake in Mexico today. How many posts discussing that?
ranheim --
There was nothing boring about your posts, buddy.
Don't forget, the Taiwanese earthquake was the third in about a month.
I guess that's why the press stopped covering shooting sprees.
Click on photo 
I had a letter from a friend in Athens yesterday and he said the Athenians ae in a blind panic about another earthquake coming; some scientists are there now releasing prognostications about the next one being in 4 days or 18 days or whenever and my friend said people try to leave town in a rush every time one of these guys talks on TV. He said there have been more people killed in traffic accidents while people are running away from Athens than in any earthquake that has hit the city.
That was Fort Worth...not to be picky but we are a big city that is always being described as "30 miles west of Dallas".
Not to be a snob, but you're lucky I remembered that it was in Texas. (g)
I mean, oftentimes it's "one of those large, unattractive states in the middle somewhere".
Ha Ha Ha.......
Anyway, the point is that earthquakes are becoming old news and the gun-shooting spree in Fort Worth received ho hum coverage.
If we started having a lot of nuclear accidents, one of two things would happen: 1) people would start to get very nervous about how these places manage safety or 2) they, too, would start to become ho hum.
Unattractive states in the middle?!
I won't say a thing about LA'S TRAFFIC and/or SMOG if you can find a word other than unattractive.
You may say anything you like about the heathen southland.
I am comforted!
Dusty --
You focused on the habituation factor while ignoring the factor I listed first: that nuclear accidents are man-made disasters. Both factors affect how much attention a disaster gets.
For someone who worships me, you were dreadfully inattentive to the other factor I mentioned: the potential long-term and universal nature of serious nuclear accidents.
Cal --
[genuflecting]
How right you are. I most humbly apologize for failing to instantly hail the undeniable accuracy of your observation and abjectly note that I was, after all, responding only to Dusty's commentary on my earlier post. Still, I recognize should have acknowledged your wisdom forthwith.
I grovel for your forgiveness.
I'm still mulling over your point (as distinct from ignoring it).
It is an intriguing possibility, not the least of which is the fact that it is testable. Anyone have a Nexis account and some spare budget?
Dusty --
Well if you're mulling over my point, how can I complain? I'm not sure a NEXIS account would help you with what I took to be your initial point -- the comparative excess of posts in The Mote on the accident -- but you might want to look at the media coverage of this event and the ones at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. So far I think the media has been quite restrained.
I suspect at least two of the workers at the plant in Japan are going to die, but no one has opened a betting line on it or anything. Yet. Maybe Fox News will pick up on that, though ...
Actually, there is a large American air base near Tokyo, I believe in the same general direction as the site of the accident. I wonder if/when the U.S. news media will pick up on the potential local interest side of the story. That might generate some interesting coverage.
I thought it was clear that my observation re Mote posts was a proxy for similar weighting in the press in general. I'll bet that Three Mile Island had more press than other incidents involving as much actual or potential damage by a factor of ten. Even if we carefully select man-made incidents.
Any thoughts on why the press should care more about man causing distress to man, than nature causing the same amount of distress?
The first thought that leaps to mind is the potential to blame someone, but this may be bias at work.
I can't help but observe that press coverage of man's potential contribution to global warming exceeds the press coverage of a more likely candidate by a factor of probably 100. But who knows, maybe this is laziness and inertia.
Dusty --
"Any thoughts on why the press should care more about man causing distress to man, than nature causing the same amount of distress?"
People die of natural causes in great numbers every day. The occasional shooting spree is hardly a statistical blip by comparison; but the shooting spree gets the headline. Man-made disasters are by their nature avoidable; natural disasters less so. I suspect people are more engaged by things they think they can do something about than by things they must passively react to.
"The first thought that leaps to mind is the potential to blame someone, but this may be bias at work."
Cynical, but probably pretty close to the truth. [g]
Japan declares halt to critical nuclear reaction
Source: AFP | Published: Friday October 1 8:28:09 AM
TOKYO, Oct 1 -Japan's government today declared that a critical self-sustaining nuclear reaction at a uranium processing plant had stopped, Jiji Press said.
"A member of the government's atomic power safety commission has confirmed a halt to criticality on the spot at 6.15am (0715 AEST)" said the news agency.
An official of the regional Ibaraki government told AFP a neutron monitor at the site of the accident "plunged to zero", indicating the reaction at Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo, may have ended.
Okay, the nuke problem in Japan looks to be subsiding. Here's another disaster, this one posted by request from Dusty ...
***
Earthquake Rocks Southern Mexico
By Niko Price
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, September 30, 1999; 3:45 p.m. EDT
MEXICO CITY -- A strong earthquake rocked southern Mexico on Thursday, toppling church towers and old homes in Oaxaca and shaking buildings in the capital. At least seven people were killed and an unknown number injured.
The quake had a preliminary magnitude of 7.5 and it was centered 275 miles southeast of Mexico City, the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colo. said. It hit at about 11:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. EDT) ...
***
Read the entire story here.
The unleashed powr of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
Someone I worked for once (20 years ago) was a writer with the Paris Herald Tribune when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Presciently, he wrote a headline that went something like: "Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan: Face of War Changes Forever."
DETROIT, Michigan, September 30, 1999 (ENS) - The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has seized a tractor trailer of sterilized Canadian hemp seed on its way to a large U.S. company that has been selling hemp birdseed blends legally for years.
Following the August 9 seizure, U.S. Customs and the DEA demanded that Kenex, Canada's largest producer and processor of industrial hemp products, recall previous shipments of other hemp products such as oil, granola bars, horse bedding and animal feed. Kenex is based in Paincourt, Ontario, 60 miles from Detroit.
More on commercial hemp and the asinine war on drugs
I don't have the figures, but my recollection is that coal is hundreds, if not thousands of times more dangerous in terms of deaths per megawatt. Injuries will have a different ratio, but it is still orders of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear.
Our tax dollars at work.
Amaxen --
" ... I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds of deaths per year in coal mining accidents alone, especially in the former Soviet Union/E.Europe."
Neither would I.
Of course, if you're going to include Ivanland in the figures for coal, you've got to do the same for nuclear; and if you're going to count coal mining accidents (as opposed to coal-burning power plant accidents), you've got to count accidents in the uranium mines, as well.
Not to be discouraging but ... good luck getting those figures.
It's the liberal media.
moonflower:
What epithets? That he's wooden and wonky? These are always presented, from what I've seen, as hindrances to the popular appeal he's going to need in his run for the presidency - and not as any indication of some moral or character flaw. Even he acknowledges and jokes about these shortcomings, and works hard to try to overcome them.
Reagan, evidently, WAS himself, whatever it was. Who knows? Maybe "wooden" is a lot easier to live with than "charismatic."
At any rate, this "Zelig" approach to Reagan's hagiography is shamelessly lame; the average ten-year-old moron can come up with situations in which he interacts with famous historical figures. At least the ten-year-old has enough class to not attempt to pass such bullshit off as actual history.
Ronnie has been given a pass because--as difficult as it is for some of us to comprehend--most people like the man.
I find Reagan to be extremely likable, on the basis of personality. I always got a grandfatherly vibe from the man while he was president. That is immaterial to who would make a good president though; if we picked by who gave me the best vibe, we'd either have President Lemmy or President Nina Hartley.
I understand the concrete reasons Reagan has gotten an easy deal out of the media, but they are mainly the same reasons Clinton has gotten teh same deal -- most of 'em are supremely lazy, living on their reputations, waiting for the next parcel of journalistic meat to be tossed their way. They know their market is easy to please, and do not expend any effort in servicing them.
"Yet another paean to my anal-retentive nature. Argh!"
Sounds like a real paean in the ass, Cartman.
Yeah, it's my cross to bear. Suffice to say that there's a reason I was once the fourth-best speller in the entire state of CA -- because I'm uptight about that stupid shit.
If only I could figure out a way to get paid for such nonsense, I'd be one happy Cartman.
President Nina Hartley!
Now THAT is a thought.
I also agree with most of what I've read wrt Ronnie Raygun. I have no grandfatherly feelings for the putz however. I wholely loathe his presidency. I will seperate the current man, from those loathesome eight years and the four Bushwacked years that followed. As a liberal at heart, with realist attitudes, the administrations that controlled this countries future during the eighties and early nineties were military expanssionist, empirist, good ol'boy back door money takers(just a shot, don' know nothin concrete), star wars fucked in the head idiots. Damn BushII for having the stupidity to bring it up as a focus of his military platform. I hate star wars, who needs some f'in laser to shoot down some f'in bomb. Those bombs will not be harmless when detenated in space. What will happen isn't something I know, I don't want to know at this point. If nuclear missles can legitamately be shot down with lasers in space, the consequences will not be benign. Let alone the waste of resources which are only a smoke screen for military contract greed and misuse. There is no way in hell that those lasers will shoot down enough missiles to make the targeted locations "safe" it's ludicrous! I don't care what computer generated models tell us, those are only as good as the input they're given! Damn!
I'm done I suppose. More later if the topic contiues.
Bad news for Warren.
moon --
Unfair. Governor Bush has many strongly-held beliefs.
For example, he believes he wants to be President. And he believes that he shouldn't have to tell us about certain portions of his past. He may even believe that if he does, he won't get elected.
Yeah, Nina Hartley for President. Just imagine what the "inaugural ball" would be like....
If this country weren't so weird about sex, we wouldn't be having these "ohmygodhefux" concerns.
I like the way you think.
A . . . ball with Nina Hartley!
Then ask yourself this question: Was the country better off after Reagan's tenure than before it?
Then, while you're enjoying our prosperity despite your contempt for the administration primarily responsible for it, consider this quote:
"If you pick up a starving dog...and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between a dog...and a man." - Mark Twain
If you are broken hearted over the fall of the U.S.S.R., as most Liberals are, then the answer to your questions is a resounding "no!" There is no rationality behind the above posts, just rant
And though many of them have gone to "private" industry, they've been employed in position where their years of experience are put to use primarily in lobbying. Excuse me if I don't think that an improvement.
Your comments/question beg questions of their own. They will also require polling, and empirical study to prove a point. Neither of which I have time for. So, I will give off the cuff opinion instead.
Since you suggest we are better off after the Reagan administration I will believe that must be true for a portion of people. However, with my own experiences proving the opposite until many years after those strained years with Ronnie and his pals, I must say I am not benefitted from many of the economic policies of that time.
The sweeping generalization that we are better off, has always spurred contempt from me. Yet, I don't doubt the admisitration benefitted some. What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day. I'm just sick of Iraq! Who the hell cares anymore. Let Insane have his dictatorship back. Let him kill his people without us.
Ronnie Raygun was to me a figure head of the evil empire, that was his U.S. expanssionist regime. He was also a trickle down fuck head who can shove that bit of crapola right up his ass.
Your comments/question beg questions of their own. They will also require polling, and empirical study to prove a point. Neither of which I have time for. So, I will give off the cuff opinion instead.
Since you suggest we are better off after the Reagan administration I will believe that must be true for a portion of people. However, with my own experiences proving the opposite until many years after those strained years with Ronnie and his pals, I must say I am not benefitted from many of the economic policies of that time.
The sweeping generalization that we are better off, has always spurred contempt from me. Yet, I don't doubt the admisitration benefitted some. What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day. I'm just sick of Iraq! Who the hell cares anymore. Let Insane have his dictatorship back. Let him kill his people without us.
Ronnie Raygun was to me a figure head of the evil empire, that was his U.S. expanssionist regime. He was also a trickle down head who can shove that bit of crapola right up his .
Bubb:
It used to be that working for the government was respectable -- you would never get rich that way, but you could feel that you were of service. Now it seems that the only thing lower than public employees in public opinion, are felons.
Maybe it was the state you work/ed in. My older sister worked for the federal government for 5 years before Reagan took office. During that time (during and just after HS), I developed a very warped sense of the work-a-day world. Because I would always hear her talking about what she had accomplished on any given work day - got her hair done, did her taxes, renewed her license (a 4 - 6 hour process, in NY), went to the doctor, talked to 5 or 10 friends on the phone...
Probably my most frequently asked question of her during that time was, "Whadja, have the day off?" The answer, of course, was always "no".
She hated Reagan. Shortly after he started, she had to start working, and worrying about her job.
I can't think of a time in history when government workers have been well regarded. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Just giving the facts, ma'am.
Actually my point was not that civil servants gained any more respect when Reagan took office, although he did sort of say what everyone knew all along. And when the jobs are being cut right and left, and the new supervisors start asking for an accounting of your time, it's time to start producing or get the hell out.
On the other hand, I worked for NY State all through the Reagan years (which also happened to be the Cuomo years), and I can tell you that its workforce was full of drunkards, sluggards, slackers and embezzlers when I started, and they were all fatter, lazier and richer when I left.
And when the jobs are being cut right and left, and the new supervisors start asking for an accounting of your time, it's time to start producing or get the hell out.
Well, I've never seen any sign of it. Government workers have a low reputation. I don't even know (or much care) whether it's deserved or not. I was merely commenting on the relationship of Reagan to this perception.
No, Clinton inspires strong feelings. Carter and Bush are the big yawns.
Cal:
Oh, I agree. And that reputation is well deserved, for the most part. And apparently (obviously) the smaller the gov't entity, the less shenanigans.
I work for county gov't now, and it's bliss, because I like to work and I hate seeing people milking the taxpayers. But I doubt that many counties are as rigorous or dedicated about in its insistence on production as this one is.
In self-auditing our compliance with national standards, one of the stickiest things I've come across is a standard which requires that no employee can be dismissed without just cause. Well, I have HR fax over their Presonnel P&P, and lo and behold, we have a problem. It says, and I'm not kidding:
****** County reserves the right to dismiss any employee at any time, with or without just cause.
Likewise, any employee is free to leave employment with ****** County of his/her own will, for any reason, without cause or prior notification.
strike about in the 2nd paragraph...
Were you better off after Reagan's tenure than you were before it?
Not really. Maybe if I had worked for a defense contractor, I would have been.
Was the country better off after Reagan's tenure than before it?
Militarily, sure. Financially, no. Realisitically, Gorbachev bears some responsibility for us winning the Cold War too -- he realized that Reagan could and would outspend the Soviet Union by far, and the USSR just couldn't compete with us anymore. But Reagan created that Cold War hysteria during his tenure by using the cooked numbers that Robert Gates and the rest of Team B put out. How much money did we piss directly down the drain on Star Wars, $30-60 billion, depending on who you ask. That's a lot of money for nothing, but it's exemplary of the level of cronyism that went on between Reagan's administration, the Pentagon, and the defense contractors.
In the end, Reagan's administration was reflective of the man himself -- seemingly good-natured, fraught with platitudes and homilies, but with no real substance. He made us feel very good about taking money from the poor and using it to build weapons of questionable utility, and about fighting vicious proxy wars in banana republics, but he did not save us from ourselves, despite what his fans would like to believe. He spouted bullshit about "fighting terrorism" and "protecting democracy", while simultaneously dealing with terrorists and thwarting democracy.
I don't see how Reagan's Administration is responsible for our current prosperity. But here's a quote in return: "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken
I think that Reagan left the country in better condition than the found it. Keeping in mind that there is very little real power that the president actually has to control the economy. What he is able to do is mainly legalistic things like getting the DOJ off of companies backs. Most of what happens economically (i.e. monetary policy) is controlled by the Fed. In theory, Congress has control over fiscal policy, but in practice it's only allowed by the voters to choose between spending too much and spending too much. Militarism? Two factoids: 1. In real dollars, JFK presided over the biggest peacetime buildup of our military - that at a time when the SU was badly behind us in Strategic weapons and not showing any particular desire to catch up. 2. The Reagan increased military budgets were actually Carter policy when he was in office: both presidents were responding to overwhelming public opinion that spending on the military was too low.
Gawd, what tripe, EC.
I'm eagerly awaiting your follow-up post about how FDR created anti-Nazi hysteria.
Amexan@work,
Wrt your opening blurb in post 775. Reagan left this country far deeper in debt than any president in its history. He raised taxes and then how about Bushwacker's "read my lips", HA! Reagan, consumated deals with greedy military contractors. Oh, and the invisible Stealth that the Serbs shot down, Gee maybe they should cost 200 million apiece instead of 100, yah think? He created hysteria in the DEA so now we have a war on drugs and a huge prison system. We've increased the gap between the have nots and the haves(again I can't prove this) But, look how big our city projects and subsidized housing still are. It is in the Clinton era that Cabrini Green came down, sheesh Reagan would probably have had his cronies goose step on in and insist it just get some new paint and keep the place. Not that we should not have these, we should. But, they do explicitly show that there are needy peoples. (sidetrack)Here in Minnesota, we've absorbed a lot of those from other states. Especially Illinois' Chicago and Michigans' Detroit.
We've had huge influxes of refugees. My point is, from Reagan to now America's Militirism, has led us to new responsibilities with our tax dollars. It had stopped with Vietnam. But started up again.
Oh, and gun policy issues. Those years the entrenched gun lobby stayed real strong. They still are, yet we don't listen so keenly I hope. Schools saw a loss in dollars I think, I know my college tuition went up every year, sometimes twice. My book prices went up too. Inflation you say. Yeah I suppose something has to replace the government grant dry up. We didn't have anything left after Star Wars.
What I particularly recall with contempt is the S&L scandal. I still think the managers, CEO's and owners/board of directors that approved frivilous loans during the 80's should be prosecuted. The contempt they showed for the depositors money is deplorable. I blame Ronnie's people for that fiasco and then Bushwacker for the cover it up war he has us into to this day.
It is hardly surprising that you have these feelings for Reagan if you hold him responsible for the S&L mess. Have you missed the extensive discussion of this issue in these threads? While the decision to deregulate the S&L's was a part of the puzzle, the actions of Democrats, particularly Fernand St. Germain, were substantially responsible for the debacle. While reasonable people can assign different weights to the relative contributions, I don't know any knowledgeable person who ascribes total blame to Republicans. And I doubt you could find many other than pure partisans who place the majority of the blame on Republican actions.
So if your antipathy for Reagan was induced by his involvement in the S&L mess, time to re-evaluate him.
We've increased the gap between the have nots and the haves(again I can't prove this)
The gap was narrowing under Reagan and Bush, but began widening again when Clinton became President. Causal? Probably not. But tell me again who you blame and why?
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" - H.L. Mencken
Mr. Mencken may have a point there. I for one am ashamed of the socialism we are endeavoring to create.
Realisitically, Gorbachev bears some responsibility for us winning the Cold War too
I hope the operative word here is some. Because to claim that Gorbachev beares more responsibility than the Reagain administration is utterly absurd.
Stumbo --
"I'm eagerly awaiting your follow-up post about how FDR created anti-Nazi hysteria."
You might check with Pat Buchanan for that.
Of course not. But don't let that stop you from trying to destroy the reputation of a man spent many years in the service of his country and who nearly gave his life in that service.
Perhaps Morris could have created a Larry Kramer character to scream and yell at Dutch. In turn, Dutch could have said something like, "Oh, it is just a bunch of fags."
Sure pumps up the narrative.
I'm out of here.
I was serving the US Empire during the Reagan years and was doing a fair amount of work on, and in, the former SU. IMO Gorbachev had little wiggle room given his domestic and international constraints. I give him credit for trying to do a very difficult thing; reduce and rationalise Imperial boundaries without losing the core security position. It took 60+ years and four of Rome's best Emporers to accomplish the same task.
In the end the 'correlation of forces' went overwhelmingly against the SU except in ICBMs. To Reagan I give credit for, among other accomplishments, the restoration of American confidence.
poverty, AIDS, and basic human rights made me feel only profound sadness. And still does. Cellar Door, I'm with you!
You were aware that the Stealth fighter and the B2 bomber were both projects started under the Carter Administration, weren't you?
Also,
last time I checked, Congress is responsible for Fiscal policy (i.e. the increased expenditures on the military you were foaming about)
The president doesn't really have much more power over the economy than the head cheerleader has over the outcome of a foot ball game.
About the only notable exception I can think of is the executive's ability to negotiate trade treaties, altho since the current administration has lost its fast track negotiating authority, even that power looks like it is gone.
Mmm, you have a point there on the DEA, but as for guns, well, keep in mind that there are not too many lobbying groups on the hill that have their very own constitutional ammendment to back them up. I don't think the NRA needed Reagan, just as they don't need him today.
BTW, what is Cabrini Green?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Reagan years brought vastly improved morale in the DOD and other agencies in the national security community. He also funded projects which had roots in the administrations of the 1970's. I still maintain he changed the zeitgeist of America.
Put it this way: In the 1970's NATO would have lost a war in Central Europe. By 1985-87 Nato would have won. Since the war never occurred (thank God) we run the risk of forgetting that the SU posed a real threat during the Brezhnev years. Of course the overextension of the SU during those years helped create the economic catastrophe still evident in Russia. But at the time it was vitally important that the West be prepared to man the ramparts. We, collectively, did that during the 80's and I, for one, submit that the results were good.
News From the Front Lines:
Supreme Court upholds drug testing for teachers.
New Mexico Governor: "I hate to say it, but the majority of people who use drugs use them responsibly."
Ohio Senator knows better than 70% of DC voters.
Lewinsky did not look that big during her minutes of fame.
But, 223 lbs! That is a lot of her.
I know...I was shocked to hear she'd gotten up there. Guess it was all that yummy food in England on her book tour. :-)
Dusty, read the above for the answer to the S&L opinions I gave. I see your point, sure the mess should be born on more shoulders than Republicans. Sure the legislation is part of it. But, do you think the ultimate responsibility does NOT lay with the chief/s? Reagan and Bush?
Does the chief of this land not have veto power? Can he/she not lead and say NO? The years of deregulation must have had many concerns? I'm sure the learned people here made many an essay as to those concerns. However, I was not a participant. I cannot be responsible for knowing the vast array of data out here.
I will always state the information I am giving is opinion or I will find it's source and cite it. All of the previous is opinion. Ok?
How can the content of a rather poorly written *book* about Reagan possibly have any effect on his administration's actions re AIDS over a decade after the fact?
Before the end of his second term, over half a billion dollars a year was being spent on AIDS research, and Reagan had appointed an AG that was far more AIDS conscious than anyone during the WH Rapist's administration, which is most notable for not having any AG whatsoever for 3 years!
As long as we are continuously acquiring wealth, the difference between the richest and poorest will always be increasing.
No, as long as those who already have wealth, and ownership of resources to produce more wealth, continue accumulating apace, the gap will and does increase. Not that I advocate socialism, mind you, but consider: the average worker makes about what he did in 1974. At that time, the CEO of the worker's company made an average of 100 times more than the worker. Today, the CEO makes over 350 times as much as the worker. Once they're in a position to more easily accumulate wealth, the "haves" do just that. That's just human nature. I don't know what the right solution to this serious inequity is, but you're basing your premise on a false assumption -- that the playing field is level for rich and poor alike.
Another hoary "conservative" premise --that poor people are poor entirely of their own making. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. There are a lot of folks out there who bust their asses at a 9-to-5 (or an 8-to-6 or 7-to-7, for that matter), just so they can survive, while others who do less real work in the same organization may make far more money. Many many workers live paycheck to paycheck, and are often one missed paycheck away from living on the street.
A rising tide may eventually raise most boats, but in the meantime, some of those boats have transmogrified into yachts, while many are still in canoes, despite rowing furiously. (Gee, let's see if I can drag that metaphor out a little more!)
But, seriously, since most modern conservatives seem to be acolytes of Ayn Rand, I wonder: Rand was enamored of the notion that productivity is sacred, a noble act of creation. So why are her paramours so quick to defend management at the expense of the noble Randian worker, who actually makes the wares to be hawked? Is the pencil-pusher more valuable to society than the producer?
Nonsense. Balderdash. The economic problems of the 1970s and 1980s have little to do with the economic problems of today. In fact there was no catastrophe in the 1970s and 1980s, just a very slow and slowly felt decline of economic output and efficiency.
Because to claim that Gorbachev beares more responsibility than the Reagain administration is utterly absurd.
Not absurd at all. In fact, I would attribute to the events in 1981-86 very little role in the eventual collapse of the USSR.
Yes, the decline was very slow; had no external pressure been applied, the USSR could've easily creaked on for another 20, 50, or whatever years. And, of course, there was no guarantee at all that applying said pressure would work.
This, however, doesn't change the fact that the Reagan adm. was right to do what it did. And I do believe it had a large impact.
(Gorbachev may well deserve more personal credit than Reagan, because he seemingly did his part virtually all by himself. I am, to this day, surprised that he managed to walk the tightrope as long as he did, and that things turned out in such a relatively benign fashion.)
No, Reagan scared the FSC's in the Politburo to the point where they became willing to try something new -- such as putting someone like Gorbachev in charge, rather than someone more like themselves. Of course, they were hoping he would come up with new ways to prop the regime up, not tear it down.
I have no problem with attributing the eventual rise of Gorbachev to the 40 years of accumulated containment and external pressure brought bear by the USA.
As for the actual mechanics of the collapse, I have pontificated on the subject over at Salon. See here. (My moniker over there is "Toshimitsu-Jahangir Lyapunov".
There were a number of ways that the Soviet Union could have collapsed. Some much messier than others. I think it's certainly arguable that Reagan gave Gorbachev maneuvering room, which helped bring about a relatively neat and tidy collapse.
I don't think this was deliberate on Reagan's part. The man wasn't the brightest bulb in the bouquet.
"I have no problem with attributing the eventual rise of Gorbachev to the 40 years of accumulated containment and external pressure brought bear by the USA."
Right; and the more containment / pressure, the better, i.e. the higher the likelihood of bringing about the rise of a Gorbachev, and so forth. Reagan (or the people advising him) understood that (and acted accordingly) -- while, say, the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (or the people advising them) did not. That's the extent of my claim. (And this still earns RR & Company a lot of credit, IMHO.)
And, no, my real name isn't Simpson.
Ha ha ha ha........
Sure the legislation is part of it. But, do you think the ultimate responsibility does NOT lay with the chief/s? Reagan and Bush?
Does the chief of this land not have veto power?
The offending legislation was a tiny piece of more sweeping legislation, much of which had a laudable purpose. The President does not have a line-item veto. Would you have the President veto the entire financial bill because of a single piece increasing the federal government "insurance" limits?
Hardly.
He did sign it, so he takes some responsibility. But bad legislation ought to reflect more on those who drafted it, than those who signed it.
I must disagree. The militarization of the Soviet economy-guided by Gosplan- resulted in distortions of economic allocation that directly affected the trajectory of the Soviet economy with results still evident today. When was the last time you toured Magnitorsk? Or the Urals?
Beginning with a smaller base of GDP, the SU could only match the West by devoting an inordinate % of ALL economic resources (factor inputs) to the military. Couple the resultant distortions with the restrictions on information flow engendered by a national paranoia of the West and you get the lack of innovation and over-specialization that characterised 'the years of stagnation'.
To suggest that the effects have not persisted is to confuse various epiphenomena (tank factories making cars?) with the reality of current Russian economic structure.
Good laugh. Gorbachev himself has stated that Reagan's diplomacy at Reykjavik and elsewhere that turned the tide on the arms race. The Reagan administration was faced with a weakened Soviet Union. The peacenik influence in the United States was simultaneously on the rise. Reagan stood firm, discarded detente, embarked on a dizzying arms buildup that the Sovierts felt compelled to match (thereby draining their resources further), ignored the frightened wails of the left (and middle), stood his ground (with Kohl) in deployment of Pershings in West Germany, and pressed the Soviet Union and its satellites at every turn (from Central America to Angola to Afghanistan).
It was the Strobe Talbotts of the world - in his historically awry "Deadly Gambits" - who represented the diplomacy of fear and pointless arms "reductions." Of course, in 1987, Gorbachev credited Reagan with the zero option, which resulted in a removal of SS-20s.
Take the word of a Russian other than Gorbachev: Anatoly Dobrynin has stated that "opponents and experts alike clearly underestimated [Reagan]"; he "proved to be a much deeper person than he first appeared"; he "was endowed with natural instinct, flair, and optimism"; "[h]is imagination supported big ideas like SDI"; and, finally and most significantly considering the source, "Reagan's
achievements in dealing with the Soviet Union could certainly compare favorably with, and perhaps even surpass, those of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger."
This from one of Reagan's harshest critics.
A great deal of this revisionist nonsense emanates from the sad fact that Reagan was villified as some neanderthal when he took office, he used simplistic terms in denouncing the barbarity of the Soviet Union, and while the nation was tuning into "The Day After," he continued to hound the Soviet Union through its succession of 1980s leaders. When, in fact, history bore Reagan's diplomacy as largely on the mark and substantively contributory to the Soviet fall, Gorbachev - theretofore a marginal company man - was transformed into the greatest peacemaker of our time.
The determinants of Soviet economic growth to the 1970s are well known: it was driven by input accumulation and zero total factor productivity growth. Once returns to capital diminished, resources (inputs) in ever greater quantities had to be thrown at production in order just to churn out the same level of output. This explanation is at a much deeper level than talking about the militarisation of the Soviet economy.
But today's problems in Russia have little to do with such things. They are multifarious -- related to mismanagement of the currency, a botched privatisation process, stalled liberalisation of investment rules and property rights, a kleptocratic political arrangement.
The history of economic restructuring around the world shows that in many cases privatisation and restructuring of the old state industries fail in a corrupt political system, but under successful transitions new industries and new firms emerge to make the stagnation of the old irrelevant. But Russia has not yet created the political & institutional framework where that can happen.
In fact I daresay those who see Russia's problems in 1999 as transitional in nature, as vestiges of communism, don't know what they're talking about.
You are making my point. An average worker may indeed be making the same in real wages as he did in 1974. If that is the case, what should be the alternative? Should a worker be paid more than what he's worth? I certainly don't want a country ruled by rich snobs who don't want to work. But, I even more don't want an economy crippled by mandatory wage increases that only increase inflation.
The fact of the matter is that wealth is continuously created and it goes to the people who know how to acquire it. I don't mean to be elitist, but workers are really the tools to acquire wealth. They aren't the producers.
Virtually every factory in the Urals or around Krasnoyarsk-## or Omsk-## can disappear overnight from Russia and it would not make the least difference. They are not relevant. The factories can be replaced by completely new ones. Economic prosperity doesn't depend so much on the preexisting stock of factories, but on a combination of human capital (which Russia has in droves), institutional incentives (property rights, predictable domestic & foreign investment rules) and sound monetary policy.
Actually, the autonomous republic of Tatarstan (based in Kazan) has all of these things, what most of the rest of the Russian Federation hasn't got. What Tatarstan can't get is a sound monetary policy, which is the responsibility of the centre.
I think you're reading too far into what I wrote. I'm not assigning blame to anyone for being poor. I'm merely pointing out the meaninglessness of phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Like I said, if the rich aren't constantly getting richer, then something's wrong.
First, I'll attack the logic of your post. If you indeed attribute a very little role to the events of 1981-86, then not only must you include the Reagan administration, you also must include Gorbachev's role too. So, giving Gorbachev more credit for winning us the Cold War is indeed utterly absurd.
Second, I'll defend my premise. Who deserves credit for when a hostage taker gives himself up thus ending a police siege, the police or the hostage taker?
Mandatory wage increases, as long as they are of reasonable magnitude, need not "cripple an economy" and they certainly won't produce inflation. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. But there have been so many libertarians and market religionists that I've taken on, I'm no longer interested in doing so. I just wanted to let Cartman my opinion of this Cygnus fellow.
Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy. In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day. Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today. But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?
All of this is not to ignore the traditional Russian ails of drunkeness, falling demographics, authoritarian traditions, etc. All these worsen the problem. But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there.
By "events of 1981-86" I meant the entirely reasonable behaviour of the Reagan Administration toward the Soviet Union.
My premise is that Gorbachev is the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the secondary premise is that Reagan had little to do with the rise of Gorbachev.
For someone who doesn't want to be an elitist, you sound remarkably close to one.
How can on produce wealth without the workers?
After all, he's responsible for everything isn't he? All theose White House "Spin Doctors" toiling away night and day and all.
Lucky the Russians didn't get to Monica Lewinsky.
Or did they?
Oh, the humanity!
Nice try at righteous indignation, but my point is that the poor aren't getting poorer.
"Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy."
"But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there."
No, that was not my point. My point was that the physical legacy of those factories for Russia is not important. You're in this rut of thinking that if the communists had just left better factories in more diversified fields, Russia would be better off today. That may be true, but that's just not the fundamental problem in Russia today. The old productive capacity could have been scrapped in toto and a brand new one installed.
"Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today."
I disagree. Incentives are a question of institutions, and under the right institutions, Russia could have developed a more varied economic structure from scratch.
"In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day."
Frankly I don't see how the independent clause follows from your prepositional clause.
"But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?"
They could have been left to rot. Who cares?
So if one of the hostage takers decides his plight is hopeless, starts negotiating with the police, and is thrown out of his group by the members, then the police who have been diligently laying seige deserve less credit than the booted hostage taker? This, even though the police increased their efforts despite some of the public condemning the police because hostage taking isn't so bad?
Now I understand why it's so difficult for politicians to vote on principle...
If I start a home construction business because I know how to build houses well, I am the one "producing" the houses. Yes, I have workers doing labor and much of it may be skilled. But, I still know how to build houses well. If I have to, I'll do it myself. The workers save time. Eventually, machines may replace or reduce the need for the workers. I still know how to build the house well.
I'm not saying the workers have no value and are expendable, but they are not the ones "producing" the house (or at least they're not primarily responsible for producing the house). That's the way it works. Labor is not nearly as valuable as "know-how".
Now, why can't I understand this in principle without being thought of as elitist even though I may be one of the laborers?
I don't think it matters. If your buying power isn't decreasing, then you aren't getting poorer.
As for the sugar cookies, what is most essential is the baker.
Tell that to the baker with empty cupboards.
Precisely the point: Magnitorsk and the Urals are completely irrelevant to the world economy because they were created for the purposes of empire and provide no legacy for those wishing to reform the Russian economy. In the absence of a differentiated economic structure, capable of producing real products with real market value, it is no surprise that corruption, crime and kleptocracy rule the day. Had Russia possessed a more varied economic structure there would be greater opportunities and greater economic incentives today. But what rational person (apparatchik) would invest time and money converting an arms plant when he can 'dip his beak'?
All of this is not to ignore the traditional Russian ails of drunkeness, falling demographics, authoritarian traditions, etc. All these worsen the problem. But the instant issue is that when assesing the area for productive capacity and potential one soon finds there is no there there.
We're Number Fifty!
Health insurance: Texas being Texas once again
AUSTIN -- So here's Texas yet again at the bottom of the barrel, worst in the nation, No. 50 in health insurance. This is not a consequence of accident or socioeconomic conditions in the state -- it's the result of deliberate policy and lack of policy both.
According to the Census Bureau, 24.5 percent of Texans have no health insurance, the highest rate of any state -- compared to, say, Hawaii, with a respectable 8.8 percent uninsured.
Molly Ivins
Why is this a bad thing? I noted that you did not compare access to health care, the ability of state residents to get minimal, average, or superb health care, or any health index of the residents. Why is the existence of a piece of paper more important than actual health care? Are you imputing a correlation?
In the past 25 years, I can think of very few programs that she did not support. And, usually, she wanted to throw more money at these programs. Privitization is not an option, best as I can tell, for Ivins.
She is for larger and larger government; makes no diference should she call herself liberal, progressive, or some other term of the left. She loves big government and its big programs.
She is funny, though.
Hey -- so do I!!!
Cellar,
And you're funny, too.
Dare to be Average!
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
The baker can obtain capital from any investor and he can obtain the labor from anyone with minimal skills and a willingness to work. It is the unique skills of baker that make the operation work. The individual investors can be replaced. The individual workers can be replaced. The baker cannot be replaced. It is his knowledge and experience that make it possible.
Mandatory wage increases, as long as they are of reasonable magnitude, need not "cripple an economy" and they certainly won't produce inflation. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. But there have been so many libertarians and market religionists that I've taken on, I'm no longer interested in doing so. I just wanted to let Cartman my opinion of this Cygnus fellow.
Thanks, Pseudo. I had a feeling that you would see the issue in that light. But you made the point quite ably in the above paragraph.
Cygnus:
Forget the analogies. Look at the hard reality. Who is doing the actual work of production? You imply that maybe workers are getting paid more than they're worth, but what about management? Many of these CEOs get their bonuses from "trimming the fat", axing workers, cutting corners on safety, cutting health benefits, and splitting the difference between themselves and their stockholders. Meanwhile, the company is no more productive than it was before; in fact, it's frequently less because the remaining workers are not as well-trained and morale is down.
So what tangible wealth has been created? None; it's merely a transference from those who work to survive to those who struggle to acquire that second vacation house (or fourth SUV). So when these guys start crying about "redistribution", I say fuck 'em. They have been redistributing quite a bit themselves; payback is a bitch.
I don't buy the company line. Their attitude about downsizing and the like is always, "Well, why can't they just invent lint-rollers or something?".
Clearly the reasons for Russia's current malaise are many, some very recent in origin, others so traditional they form part of the Russian character.
Where we disagree is the extent to which Russia is (or should be) capable of bootstrapping itself into the world economy as something other than a commodities producer. You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan. But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy- with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain. Can you really argue that 70 years of mis-management and distortion leave no deleterious effects?
The original discussion was whether the collapse of the SU was due in any part to the military/economic pressures engendered by the West's rearmnament during the 80's. I say it was and that Russia today still is affected by the legacies of decades of command management and economic mis-allocation.
George Kennan advocated a policy that came to be known as Containment. That the actual application of that policy featured a greater emphasis on military force does not obviate the fact that Kennan's essential thesis was borne out: The West had to maintain the pressure until such time as the internal contradictions of the Soviet system caused it to self-destruct. Of course it is the Russians who must now exist among the ruins.
"You seem to believe that a tabula rasa approach is possible; I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the examples of post war FRG and Japan."
I had thought of that, but those aren't really good examples, because they took place in a political context totally unlike the Russian one. Much more germane to Russian reform is the PRC. There you've got a bipartite industrial structure: mammoth, bloated, decaying, inefficient, unreformable state enterprises co-existing side-by-side with a thriving private economy financed by overseas Chinese from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Many in the West raise alarums that the Chinese aren't reforming their state enteprises, but in my opinion what they're trying to do is wean them into death in order to avoid economic dislocation. Believe it or not Taiwan did something very similar between the 1950s and 1970s.
"But I'm surprised to see someone of your intelligence unwilling to concede the commonsensical point that a differentiated economy-with productive assets- would provide Russia and Russians with greater opportunities than those which now obtain."
I thought I was willing in #843 and the previous post. But you keep missing my point, perhaps because of my failure to express myself adequately. You seem to think that the economic structure the Soviets created doomed today's Russians to having the problems that they do. I disagree violently. I agree that it would have been wonderful had the Soviets bequeathed the Russians a more varied industrial structure, but my point is that that did not condemn Russian efforts at reform. Not at all. The cause of the botching of Russian reform lies elsewhere.
I only objected to giving Reagan the lion's share of the credit. Of course, as I said earlier if external pressure is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, then it was the accumulation of 40 years of presure & containment, not Reagan's beating around a near-cadaver.
The market already knew that he wasn't going to raise the rate, so that "good news" was already factored into the thinking. However, they changed their bias to a tightening bias. This was new information. While not as significant as an actual increase, it is interpreted as bad news.
I heard that later. CNNfn didn't report it at first.
Many of these CEOs get their bonuses from "trimming the fat", axing workers, cutting corners on safety, cutting health benefits, and splitting the difference between themselves and their stockholders.
I don't recall any stories of companies cutting corners on safety. Do you?
Utter tripe. Reagan just happened to be in office when the collapse occurred.
...we tend to overlook the possibility that [the Soviet Union's] death was not the unequivocally good thing that people take for granted.
Are you suggesting that some kind of "counter-reformation" was taking place in 1990-91 that could have prevented the kind of kleptocratic corruption that exists today? Would this have included a real political choices for the average citizen, comparitively free capital and labor markets, an internationally traded currency?
I must admit that I have a hard time believing that any Soviet Union would be free from the constraints of Marxist dogma. (Not that the Russia of today is).
Whatever. I am much more correct about Reagan and the impact his, um, policies had on the collapse of the USSR than you.
Well, when I say the USSR, I mean a state centred on Russia ruled by the Communist Party, not necessarily the full-fledged multinational state that was dissolved in 1991. A Soviet Union shorn of the Baltics, Central Asia and some of the Caucasus, and continued to be ruled by a kind of reformist Communist Party à la chinoise, would have been viable and far from implausible.
#869
Biener: Gorbachev actively chose to reform the polity before the economy. That didn't need to happen. It wasn't inevitable. Moreover, even after the USSR dissolved, the economic collapse was not inevitable.
#871
ElliotRW: The kleptocracy didn't get truly entrenched til 1995-96. Before that, there was still hope for Russia. I don't see much now. What I'm saying is that if I had been Gorbachev in 1986, I would have embarked on Chinese-style reforms -- gradual freeing up parts of the economy, while leaving the dinosaurs intact; inviting foreign investment; eschewing political reform while loosening some of the political rigours of the Soviet Union.
Doesn't mean that Reagan's "policies" had any real impact. Just meant that he was being used by someone for the someone's own purposes.
understand your post)?
I agree that had Gorby been able to implement economic changes before the political reforms, he may have had a better chance at success. I just don't think those economic changes were possible without the political changes. Too many of the entrenched powers had staked their careers on hard-line communism. They would never have permitted the move toward capitalism.
I am not trying to bait anyone.
Would it be instuctive to look upon the last years of the Tsars? I know only several things : they were exporting wheat. They were exporting kerosene (the auto industry was in its infancy then. Had they begun to export gasoline as well?) Small potatoes I am sure : did they export caviar? Vodka? Faberge? ballet?
Would any of this translate 80 years later?
Re: your first paragraph. Very little.
Re: your second paragraph. I don't think that's necessarily true. After all, many entrenched communists themselves have been economic reformers elsewhere. Again, you can give the apparatchiks free rein to do what they will with their industrial enterprises, while at the same time encouraging new businesses & investments to emerge in the context of a market economy parallel to the command one.
#851
When did you stop being an anarchist?
Yeah right. Gorbachev also claims that Reagan is (maybe was) an extremely intelligent man.
I've never stopped wanting to annoy Conservative either.
I don't recall any stories of companies cutting corners on safety. Do you?
I've worked for two national companies that did just that, to save a few bucks. Happens all the time.
Cartman - I read what you wrote to Cygnus. Are you serious, or are you just spouting platitudes?
I'm quite serious. That you could ignore Cygnus' lame analogies and say that I'm "spouting platitudes" is odd, to say the least. Maybe you should re-read our entire exchange.
If you really don't know the answers to those questions, I could explain them to you.
I know the answers, but if you feel the need to take me to school, go for it. The entertainment value alone should be priceless.
I think perhaps you already know the answers and you are just tormenting Cyggie. Which is it?
I'm not trying to "torment" Cygnus, rather to point out the flawed assumptions in his premise.
I consider you an equal oppertunity annoyer.
Good to know that you are about.
Your #866 raises a good point. The dissolution of the SU has increased the probability of further nasty little wars between former subject peoples and/or against the center. We also forget that the current Russian Federation is composed of 140+ 'nationalities'; some quite restive.
Can Russia, recast as a regional power, rationalise its borders and sphere of influence? The partial occupation of Chechnya is clearly one attempt to do so. Still, there is far from any elite or mass consensus as to what the future role(s) should be.
The Russians- with a much reduced population, declining standards of health and an aging arsenal- will find it difficult to be a force for stability in the region.
Alex Lowe Feared Dead in Avalanche
Expedition Home Page
I didn't know Alex personally, but certainly by reputation. And I spent a few weeks on Shishapangma (shown below), so I feel a connection to the tragedy. 
My condolences to you and the international community of climbers. I do have one question which I hope is not in poor taste. I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
I think the restiveness of the non-Russian population within the Russian Federation is a bit exaggerated. In fact, outside the Caucasus, only Tuva is considered an ethnic trouble spot.
I think you should read the Russia thread over at Salon. I pontificate at quite length on this issue. See here.
Rather, here.
Thanks for the link, looks like I need to join Salon since the Russia thread on the NYT has been taken over by the crazies and malcontents.
Vous avez raison. I fail to understand how M. Howard(?) could ignore the evidences of poverty, dissolution and despair evident in the streets of the very cities he claimed to have visited. I wonder if he saw any of the grim Stalinist housing projects? Not to mention, as you correctly point out, the rural and more remote areas.
FTR, I am fully aware of the historical liabilities which predate the Communist period, and am under no illusion that there are any quick fixes. What must be changed and challenged are not simply laws and processes but cultural attitudes which have long endured and which were remarked upon by the earliest travellers to the region.
As one small example, there is the legacy of cdyelat' pokazyky- creating the false face- which was the job description of aspiring apparatchiki. C'est plus la change.....
It's a mess, and for those of us who both love and hate the place these are difficult times.
regards,
Post scriptum.
"The current state of the former Soviet Union is the greatest empirical refutation of libertarianism in all of history: a thriving market economy requires not a weak state, but a strong one."
I largely agree; not only contra Robert Nozick but because 'weight' in international affairs is useful for participation in the world economy. But doesn't the ethnic problem complicate the re-establishment of a strong central state?
I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
First, thanks for your thoughts.
There are two distinct climbing "seasons" in the Himalayas: the spring season, a period of relative calm following the winter and preceding the summer monsoon season, and the fall season, after the end of the summer monsoons, but preceding winter. Of course, there are a few hardy souls who have attempted some of the peaks in winter.
Were you suggesting that the fall season is more prone to avalanches? I have some stats at home on Everest expeditions; I'll check to see how the numbers break down between spring and fall. I think there has been a shift over time, but I didn't recall that the fall season was more prone to avalanches.
But you have me intrigued. Where have you climbed? (This is probably straying from Current Events, so perhaps you should answer in the Café).
I seem to remember that climbing those peaks at this time of year is even more dangerous than usual; our guides explained that uneven patterns of melting and refreezing create ideal conditions for avalanche.
First, thanks for your thoughts.
There are two distinct climbing "seasons" in the Himalayas: the spring season, a period of relative calm following the winter and preceding the summer monsoon season, and the fall season, after the end of the summer monsoons, but preceding winter. Of course, there are a few hardy souls who have attempted some of the peaks in winter.
Were you suggesting that the fall season is more prone to avalanches? I have some stats at home on Everest expeditions; I'll check to see how the numbers break down between spring and fall. I think there has been a shift over time, but I didn't recall that the fall season was more prone to avalanches.
But you have me intrigued. Where have you climbed? (This is probably straying from Current Events, so perhaps you should answer in the Café).
School Shooting Survivor Killed
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) -- One of the two dozen students wounded in a 1998 shooting attack in a school cafeteria has been killed in a hunting accident, struck by a shot from his brother's rifle.
Richard Peek Jr., 19, who was wounded in one arm in the bloodshed at Thurston High School, was shot in the head Tuesday while hunting deer with his 17-year-old brother, Robert, said Lane County sheriff's Sgt. Byron Trapp.
The brothers were hunting near Vida when Robert's rifle discharged, Trapp said.
Robert was not charged but the shooting remains under investigation, Trapp said.
Both of the brothers were in the Thurston cafeteria in Springfield when Kip Kinkel opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle, killing two and wounded others. Kinkel, who had also killed his parents, pleaded guilty last month to four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder.
"There are black spots, of course. Southern California is one. Both Tinseltown and the state's central valley should, by rights, be deserts. But thanks to wholesale abuse of the Colorado river, the theft of water from upland California and massive federal subsidies, it is blooming. This cannot last. At some point irrigated land will become salt-ridden; the dams will silt up; the subsidies will prove unsupportable. The commercial consequences could be grim; the political fallout and ensuing lawsuits could be colossal (water has long been a prime source of sustenance to both politicians and lawyers). And yet the richest part of the world's richest country refuses to do anything about it."
"The American people have every right to know if [the prospective first lady] will share that bed with [the presidential candidate] in the White House."
"Is [the candidate] going to the White House with somebody other than [his wife]? It's important, we're not just voting for a man. We're voting for a family. The first family is very important."
Give up? It was Donna Brazile speaking about George & Barbara Bush. She has, by the way, just been hired as Al Gore's new campaign manager according to The Druge Report.
I just recently noted that Al 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore had taken on Brazile in this forum. With minions like that at one's command, I think it's easy enough to see what sort of vicious slime assault the Demorats have in store for us captive voters if Bore makes it to the general campaign.
Hey, hold up there a minute, pilgrim! Big Tony earned that $18,000 a month apartment in Lisbon (I was just surprised to hear that such a thing existed in the first place). How did he earn it you ask? By working his connects to scare up some taxpayer dough for the World's Fair.
[in Andy Rooney voice] And why is there a World's Fair anymore anyway? Do people still go to fairs? Does the World's Fair have the world's largest Ferris wheel, or the longest rolly-coaster? I doubt it. And why do they call it "taking a dump", instead of "leaving a dump"? I mean, you're not "taking" it anywhere....
I don't know if you followed our Movie conversation on Chinatown a few months ago. If you had, you would have seen me post the following:
A background note, of sorts: you can tell when a movie about California graft is made by those who don't understand, because they will make it about cars and freeways and the plot to do away with public transportation. Anyone who *really* knows what California politics are about goes for the jugular--water. The geopolitics of California are split into Northern, Southern, and Central and at the base of each bloc's interest is water--how much and How Much. Californians never forget that we are only a low rainy season or three away from each other's throats on the subject. Ask anyone who lived here in 1975-78.
That being said, I think that we'll probably figure something out in time. We usually do.
The bit about public transportation does have some validity. Last month, when I was down there, even in the bedroom town of Temecula (or as true Angelenos would say, "Bumfuck, Egypt") it was a madhouse -- took half an hour to get off 15 and drive about 2 miles. And this is in a small city of 60,000 at the latest estimate, though the way we heard it, Temecula has nearly doubled in size just in the past two years, because of its proximity to San Diego.
So even in a small (by LA standards) city, traffic is as bad as in LA itself. But there's no other way to get around. The bus system is a joke, and you'd have to be fucking nuts to ride a bike, or even a motorcycle.
It oughta be real peachy down there in about 20 years, when this state supposedly will have close to 50 million(!) people. Hopefully I'll have my dream house built in New Mexico by then.
Can this struggle for water be described in the terms of game theory? I'm thinking about Governing the Commons (which I have started but by no means finished). I'm not joking this time. If you care to comment we should perhaps take it to your thread.
Understand you are travelling, but the marvelous movies (two versions) *Chinatown* are about the California water issue. Of course Chandler was a Red.....
I missed the press conference following the Presidential veto of the tax cut bill, favored by a majority of Americans, and passed by a majority of their representatives in Congress, but I'll bet he didn't characterize the veto as "thwarting the will of the American people".
Can anyone explain the difference to me, so I will understand how one is "thwarting the will" and the other is not? Or is this just politics?
Well, I think people should pretty much have the right to sue anybody they want at any time.
But what is really happening here is that every new intervention in health care raises its cost and lowers its efficiency. The goal is to make health care collapse so that the government can come in and "rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine. Socialized medicine cannot work and will itself eventually collapse. Then we will finally get what we should have kept in the first place, fee-for-service medicine operating in the free market.
make health care collapse so that the government can come in and
"rescue" it and voila, establish socialized medicine."
Perhaps another or entirely different goal is to ensure that HMO don't deliver substandard care and arbitrarily deny necessary medical procedures in order to improve their bottom line. Did you see on the news last night where Humana has been providing financial incentives to docs. to deny treatment?
Prove.
Wait.
Or read von Mises.
Gorbachev is correct. Only a partisan extremist would not be able to see it.
I didn't see the piece, but it hardly surprising. consider it from Humana's point of view: their revenues are fixed in the short term, based on the amount of premiums they charge. To create greater profits, they need to reduce costs. By reducing the amount of treatment provided, they can reduce costs by a)reducing the number of doctors they employ to provide the treatment, b)reducing wear and tear on machinery, prolonging its life and c)reducing the amount of supplies consumed. It's an argument for why there should not be a profit-making middleman, but no surprise.
Yes, I heard that segment. Unfortunately, many people want to hide from this economic reality.
It is common knowledge that
Sure. The high murder rate, in particular among young black men, must have an impact on life expectancy. But I would think that infant mortality is almost exclusively a matter of access to adequate care.
But what I really took issue with was Ronski's assertion that socialised medicine must inevitably collapse. That is demonstrably not so.
I do not deny that the best American health care is the best anywhere. But how about access? And how about the average quality?
But I guess this belongs in the Health thread.
Hahahahaha.
Heavens, no. Nothing that organized. It is politicians responding to pissed off consumers.
BTW, guys, this is being hashed out in Health Issues right now.
Another interesting tidbit. Pregnancies of black women have a higher mortality rate (for, I believe, both infant and mother) even after income and education is factored out. Or in. Whatever. In other words, rich black women have a higher rate of pregnancy death than middle-class white women.
By all means, let's ignore the views of a former head of state who actually spent a great deal of time with Reagan, and accept your judgement of the man. Let's see, what were your qualifications again?
Dig just a little and it becomes obvious that what they call details is what most of us would call grasp of the substance of a matter.
Wait and see what comes out the woodwork about Reagan over the years. Especially after the ever vigilent Nancy goes to the Bloomingdales in the sky or whatever.
Your claim that the human development indicators of the poorest Americans is on par with those of Sri Lanka is unbelievable. I can't find any figures on the income distribution of social indicators. The fact that the USA has a higher level of income inequality than in Western Europe does not tell us very much about the conditon of the bottom rung of American society. In fact, according to the OECD Economic Outlook, December 1996, "when measured at purchasing power parity, the average labour income of the lowest quintile of working households is higher in the United States than in any other country studied except the Netherlands". Moreover, black Americans, the poorest segment of American society, have a higher average income than Swedes.
As for socialised medicine, please note that it doesn't necessarily mean "single-payer system". I've elaborated on this, and on the error of supposing that most European countries have single-payer systems, in the Health thread.
Prenatal care is NOT available to all expectant mothers --especially low income mothers in rural areas. About 10 years ago when I was in working in D.C., we had a problem in our district in that there was a 7-county area that had not a single OB-GYN that would accept Medicaid. Of those, four counties didn't have an OB-GYN at all.
Transportation can be a huge problem for the rural poor, so it wasn't really an option to drive 50 or 60 miles to the nearest OB. Instead, we cut and pasted for a less-than-satisfactory solution -- once or twice a month, the Social Services offices would use the senior center van, round up all the expectant mothers, and drive them to the one Rural Health Clinic that served the entire area. Rather than spend all day on the bus to see the doc., many mothers decided to forego pre-natal care.
Not everybody lives in a world like yours.
The problem is that their method of subsidization doesn't work. I am amazed more people don't realize this--particularly in the insurance industry.
We can still subsidize health care, but do it at the individual level. The people who will take the biggest hit are the middle-class employed. But the contract market is growing as more and more people are laid off, and they'll start figuring out the advantages. Besides, the upper income folks would welcome it, since the approach would also involve dropping the medical deduction limit from 7.5 to 1 or no percent.
No one denies that Reagan left the details to subordinates. All good managers do. No one wants a cheif executive micromanaging every detail.
Dig just a little and it becomes obvious that what they call details is what most of us would call grasp of the substance of a matter.
This is a nice little fantasy dreamed up by liberals like you for sole purpose of discrediting Reagan. When you have heads of state like Gorbachev, Thatcher and Mitterand who have no vested interest in the matter contradicting you, when you have members of the press like Stahl, Wallace and others who have no vested interest contradicting you, it doesn't give your assertions much credit. When the only people who make such statements had little or no contact with Reagan and have a history of animosity toward Reagan, it becomes obvious that all you are about is political character assassination.
Now unless you have some actual evidence to substantiate your claim, I will assume this discussion is finished.
I don't know whether this is still the case since I no longer follow those issues.
That is not access
I forgot I was dealing with a liberal. Liberals can redefine words as they see fit. According to the liberal definition, unless a person can have any medical procedure or treatment at anytime free of charge, they don't have access.
Before we go on, do we have to define what is is?
You mean the Democrats created a ridiculous, unworkable welfare system? Imagine that.
you are becoming a characature.
I think JJ's given to exaggeration
I am given to exaggeration? I'll remember this the next time Buchanan is accused of being a nazi or Barr is accused of being a klansman. No, we mustn't use exaggeration to make a point here. Strictly out of bounds.
Get this: ketchup is a condiment.
(grin)
Your claim that the human development indicators of the poorest
Americans is on par with those of Sri Lanka is unbelievable,
I claimed nothing of that. I discussed two specific indicators: life expectancy and infant mortality and I said that, for the latter, low-income groups in the US are on par with Sri Lanka.
And I don't like this harping about Swedes. OK, so blacks have higher income than Swedes. What is your point? If I were a Somalian you could have stated that the poorest of the poor in the US are better off than the average Somalian (statistically that is). Would that make my arguments about health care invalid in any way?
I don't mind being called a liberal, it's just not a very descriptive label. Unlike many folks
Unlike many folks, I don't think that "liberal" or "right wing" says everything about one's political philosophy. Instead, it's a very sloppy shorthand that keeps the lazy from having to think.
At any rate, out of many cogent responses, I'll just use one:
Iran Contra.
Was it just me, or did no one else see that "
In point of fact, some budget guy over at the department of Education is always trying to increase the number of veggies available so that he can feed the federally mandated X number of veggies in school lunches. I always thought it quite pathetic that lefties even made an issue over that the first time. The salsa thing was the same bureaucratic interest trying to address the same federally created problem.
Actually, no. Btw, it's 'vegetable' and Reagan never made any such assertion re. ketchup. The only thing you've established with this post is your bigoted attitude wrt Reagan.
Hey Cellar,
I heard Kevin Spacey came out as a hetero. . . . snicker, snicker.
I know someone who was in "The Iceman Cometh." He tells me Kevin took quite a shine to one of the members of the cast.
Cellar,
Spacey's current state of public denial reminds me of an old Kids in the Hall Skit, and that is just very sad.
that is good at blowing things up but utterly blank when it comes to
getting along with each other.
Why not accept his lies? It's not like he's a closeted elected or political figure who scores political points by gay-bashing.
After seeing a show on t.v. last night about violence against gays and perceived gays, it's understandable that some might want to downplay their sexuality to avoid the very real repercussions -- both in terms of discrimination and being a target of violence. It's a difficult question --which comes first -- everyone out of the closet, or changing laws and/or attitudes about gays.
It's awfully easy for someone like me to say he ought to stand up and be honest with everyone about his sexuality, I don't have to face any of the consequences he would. Though, being in the business he's in, and with the money he has, I can't imagine they'd be too terrible. It is a dilemma, stay in the closet and be complict in society's repression of gays, or be out and face the music.
People come out in their own ways and times, and sometimes it takes longer for some than for others. I do, however, feel it's sad when
someone is so scared that they can't make the leap. I would rather help them make the leap than push them. I didn't want to be pushed, did it my own way (sorry, Frank Sinatra)and am glad I did.
I've read that 3 of his 4 kids agree with the portrayal. It's only Maureen (as self-appointed keeper of his legacy) and the conservative commentators who object.
Moving on up!
"High ozone readings here Thursday pushed Houston ahead of Los Angeles in the dubious race for the nation's 1999 smog championship.
"The latest violations of the national health standard for ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient, increased the likelihood that Houston will finish the year as the U.S. smog leader for the first time.
"Never before has any U.S. metropolitan area but Los Angeles registered the most days with at least one ozone violation --the traditional yardstick for comparing smog severity.
"With readings above the ozone standard's maximum permissible level at at least four monitoring stations Thursday, Houston has now had 44 violation days this year."
...Houston Chronicle
I don't get it. Whether he is or he isn't shouldn't it be his choice when, if and what to tell the world? I understand the argument, that by lying or hiding, he makes it look likebeing gay is something to hide or to lie about, but does that mean that if he is gay, that he MUST become a crusader or poster boy. If he's happy or complacent as is, or just scared to come out in the open, why not leave the guy alone? As to it not hurting his career, don't be too sure. DeGeneres' show went downhill after she came out. Maybe that's b/c it was stale/had run its course/or some other reason, but maybe not. It's true that Heche got some publicity/parts afterwards, but that looks like it was a blip doesn't it? Has she done anything recently?
I'm sure people will say both Ellen and Anne have decided to take "time off from Hollywood" but as neither has been heard from or of lately, I'm wondering if that time-off thing they announced wasn't some sort of preemptive strike on their part because scripts weren't exactly hurtling their way...
NaaaaaH. Millennials are millennials, it seems.
You only "stumbled" into it because Dan and I were too polite to grab it hours ago! :-)
" LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pop star Michael Jackson and his second wife, former nurse Debbie Rowe Jackson, are divorcing after nearly three years of marriage and two children, according to court papers filed Friday in Los Angeles. Rowe filed for divorce in Los Angeles Superior Court, saying the couple had been separated since July 15 and citing "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for ending the marriage.
If those two kids can't make it, what hope do the rest of us have?
These alien love trysts never seem to work out...
Sure they do; haven't you seen "Roswell"?
Fortunately, I haven't seen it -- my brain hasn't entirely turned to mush. However, we're still in the first month of the show, so don't know whether this is true love or just the series version of Earth Girls Are Easy.
But here's some Good News: I GET CUSTODY OF THE TEST TUBE BABIES!
Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas, as was Kenneth Starr last year.
The TV and print press have all but ignored the development, but WCBS News Radio reported the Giuliani death threat news Wednesday, with City Hall correspondent Vicki Allen adding:
"The mayor's office refused to comment about the actual death threats. Mayor Giuliani said it's his personal choice not to discuss security issues."
Any high-profile public figure expects to get threats, but the CBS report indicates that concerns for Giuliani's security are greater than ever before.
Death threats: 'Democracy in action' the Leftists' way.
No, no, no. The proper cite is "Direct action" which I believe is Bakunin or possibly Proudhon, otherwise best known for another fine leftist slogan: "Property is theft".
Could you be more specific, concerned? Who are these "Clintonistas"?
How is antipathy to Starr connected to antipathy to Rudy? Do they want to kill all Republicans, or just maim them? And most important of all -- where do I sign up?
Why are death threats to Rudy necessairly Clintonistas; couldn't a crazed art lover from Brooklyn be at the bottom of this? How about some goon wearing a tin foil hat who's lost his squeegee? Maybe it's a Reform party devotee or a Libertarian or maybe it's all a ploy put out by Rudys own office to make him seem more sympathetic; you've no idea and neither do we.
"Rudy Guiliani is now receiving death threats from Clintonistas..."
I was going to respond with a smart comment to the effect that with the tens of millions of "Clintonistas" who proved their fealty to the Evil One in 1992 and 1996, Da Mayor hasn't got a chance ... but then I realized that connie probably hasn't got a sense of humor. It doesn't seem fair to contribute to his/her hysteria.
So be of good cheer, connie -- they got Vince Foster and Ron Brown and Kathy Willie's kitty, but Mayor Giuliani is made of sterner stuff. He's more than a match for those bloodthirsty Clintonistas. Really.
Uh-huh.
Well gee whiz, J.J., I have no "voice" in how my tax money is used on anything else. Want to institute a line-item veto so voters can direct their money towards what they want and away from what they don't --like the Brooklyn Museum or in my case the so-called "defense budget"? If so, I'm all for it.
Yes you do. It is called your vote. Like the rest of us, you speak through your elected officials. It would seem that there are some who deny us this voice when it comes to arts funding.
Do you think that art funding should be unique, that the decisions of officials to determine what should be funded and what should not should be overturned by a vocal minority? We don't do this for defense, or Medicare or the National Park Service or any other government expenditure. Why art?
Surely those people (the minority) still HAVE a voice; my "elected official" is someone I voted against . Ergo, he is not voting for me, he is voting for a majority (very slim one) who don't think as I do. So am I not allowed to voice my opinion? Should I meekly becaome the Silent Minority?
Would that that were true. I don;t have enough money to buy an elected official. Votes meaning nothing. Money talks and bullshit walks.
It would seem that there are some who deny us this voice when it comes to arts funding.
Then you should start attending more corproate board meetings and complain to the owners of culture about those things to which you object.
Depends. Perhaps the elected officials who supervised this arts budget were sensitive, knowledgeable theatre lovers who judged that the (Pulitzer prize winning) play in question just didn't have enough artistic merit to justify lavishing public money on it. In that case, it's not a matter of censorship at all. Nobody is expected to fund crap.
On the other hand, perhaps the officials in question were elected on a platform of wiping out degenerate influences who are corrupting young people, and are intent on indoctrinating their constituency with sound moral values, à la Maoist China or Nazi Germany. In that case, sure, it's political censorship, but er that's democracy, right?
This article from the SF Chronicle examines the situation.
I shouldn't have to point this out, given how you yourself phrased the question, but: "not funding at the taxpayers' expense" != "wiping out." Maoist China and Nazi Germany went a leeeettle bit beyond the former, so why bring them up at all?
EC:
There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger number, Y, happen to be alive -- then Y-X of them will fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any inconvenience to the rest. (The great variance among the situations in different regions and countries makes the likelihood of a sudden, global dying-out pretty much negligible.)
Cutting funding to such events is indeed equivalent to wiping them out. In this particular case, was this done for political motives or not?
As someone who is economically challenged, I thought Martin's article in the SFChronicle quite good.
In medical articles dealing with world population I first came across the words "zero sum game" about 20 years ago. The general thrust was that Ehrlich had the population explosion wrong. Is that the prevailing view?
Martin tried to be even handed, but, his article tended slightly toward pessimism IMO.
Ellen and Anne "Quitting" Hollywood?
by Bridget Byrne
December 1, 1998, 1:25 p.m. PT
Ellen DeGeneres says she and partner Anne Heche are never going to have lunch in this town again.
But does that really mean the two are really getting out of Dodge, er, Hollywood?
On Sunday, an interview appeared in the Los Angeles Times in which the high-profile lovers both vociferously complained once again about how coming out had shut them out in Hollywood.
Then on Monday, DeGeneres told journalist Hilary de Vries, who conducted the earlier interview, "We've quit our agents, let go of our publicist, we're selling our home and leaving town."
"There is no "problem of overpopulation." If, at some point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger number, Y, happen to be alive -- then Y-X of them will fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any inconvenience to the rest."
But you make it sound so sanitary and painless. As the Y-X people die out, don't you think that many of the surviving X people will be doing some serious suffering as well?
Sure the Earth could support several times the present population, if we all are willing to accept mass extinction of plant and animal species, a heavily polluted environment, and a greatly reduced quality of life.
His take on the "lousy Brits" is that most of their wars had to do with too many people living on a small island with limited resources.
I don't know enough English History to even comment on his statement. Is he even close to being right?
Why would it be a hoax? Sounds perfectly plausible to me.
"Sounds perfectly plausible to me."
Pulling the host's leg is strictly forbidden in this thread.
Ellen and Anne say they'll move to Vermont if same-sex marriage goes through there.
OK. I re-read the article. The first time I didn't comprehend that Maine still calls antique cars made before 1916 "horseless carriages".
It sounded so ridiculous I thought for sure it was a hoax.
Some people would be so embarrassed by such a mistake that they wouldn't post for the rest of the evening. Not me. I have no shame.
"... all over the civilised world, there are artistic events of various natures which rely on public funding. That is part of the definition of 'civilised', in my opinion."
Well, needless to say, my opinion differs.
"Cutting funding to such events is indeed equivalent to wiping them out."
Not if they can find private patronage (either from a few large donors, or many small ones, or some combination.) They shouldn't have any problem with that, if the event is truly worthwhile and beneficial to enough people. But if something costs $X to put on, and the total benefit to society (as measured by people's willingness to pay) is less than $X -- then it's a waste of money, time, and energy, and I'm not sorry to see it go.
I should also add that publicly-subsidized art is usually a form of regressive taxation (as opposed to publicly-subsidized strip joints, say). Are you sure you're fine with that?
However, if we postulate that the government should fund the arts, then making sure that those arts don't offend anybody is the least we can do -- so as not to add insult to injury.
"In this particular case, was this done for political motives or not?"
Just wondering -- do you automatically consider it bad if public funding is cut for political reasons, or not? Suppose that you are an elected official part of whose job is supervising some public festival. Some guy has written a musically-brilliant oratorio based on The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion, and would like to perform it at your festival -- will you approve it or not? If you won't, is it because you don't want to fund "crap," or because you want to uphold "sound moral values"?
Grey:
It might not be painless, but it's sure as hell self-regulating...
(An aside: Would such a show, in fact, be tolerated, if privately funded, in the USA? It would be banned outright anywhere in Europe).
The only problem I have is with hypocrisy. Those who defend the cutting of funding for the play mentioned earlier, are apparently happy that the elected officials can cut off funds if they don't like gays, and/or don't want people to see theatre in which gay people are depicted, for fear that someone might be offended. In other words, they are happy for censorship to apply in this case. However, they don't want to admit that the intent is censorship.
You yourself are apparently putting this play on a par with your anti-semitic oratorio : by which you mean to imply, I suppose, that the play in question would be as offensive to you (or perhaps only to the officials involved), as the oratorio would be to me.
In either case, that is pretty worrying.
As long as you refuse to acknowledge the crucial difference between "public" and "private" censorship (i.e. denying the use of public money to pay for something, and banning it completely), there isn't much we can agree on. Exercizing the former is a totally proper function of elected officials who, after all, are entrusted with the money in the first place; the latter should only be used in extreme cases. (And neither the play, nor even the oratorio, qualify.)
There will always be the problem of those officials inserting their personal tastes and biases. The solutions to that are a) vote them out of office if you disagree with them; b) promote a general policy of only funding the least-controversial stuff; c) get the state out of the art business altogether. I would like to give c) a try.
BTW, no, I wasn't putting anything "on par" with anything else. (But if I were, you'd have no standing to criticize me for it, after much more explicitly putting the US "on par" with Maoist China and Nazi Germany...)
point, the Earth can only support X people, while a larger
number, Y, happen to be alive --then Y-X of them will
fairly promptly die out, thereby alleviating any
inconvenience to the rest.
However, if this argument is correct (or is believed to be correct by enough people), then -- at least when it comes to material art forms such as painting and sculpture -- you have not only private philanthropy, but also private greed working in your favor. If I believe that I can buy 1000 paintings at $1000 each, and be sure that one of them, due to increasingly-enlightened tastes, will in 30 years be worth more than $1 million (correcting for inflation and interest rates) --then, hell, I'll do it.
(Something similar could be arranged for, say, music and literature; e.g., an eternal, resellable copyright.)
Bottom line: if it's a good bet, private investors will pounce on it. If it's not, then it's a waste of money, regardless of whether that money is spent by private investors or by the government -- except that the government would be wasting my money, and I don't like that.
will turn out to be good in a generation or two" argument
doesn't persuade me in the least.
pounce on it.
No, of course it's nowhere near that simple; I was being facetious. But it's nonetheless a decent first-approximation model, heh. The main problem is not overpopulation, but inefficient use of resources (such as, for instance, all those people).
"... the intense competition among starving organisms for limited resources causes a lot of screwy things to happen..."
A lot of them being good, BTW.
Probably the same person who wrote, in #1057,
"... the art which comes to influence an entire generation, inspiring whole new artistic schools, is often far enough ahead of its time that it never really catches on in the artist's lifetime. This art, which later generations will cherish -- and wonder why the lot of us didn't see how excellent it was -- will be seen in our lifetime as having little to no value."
In other words, if we want to subsidize the art produced today that will be cherished by later generations, the only thing we can do is subsidize just about all art produced today -- since our ability to foresee what later generations will cherish is next to nil.
Just like the early value of a start-up's stock often has "little to do" with the value 10 or 20 years later. (BTW, what's a "final perceived value," anyway?) That doesn't prevent venture capitalists from investing in those start-ups, using their best judgement and the best information available at the time, and -- overall --making money out of it.
inefficient use of resources (such as, for instance, all those
people).
OK, so then you're suggesting we fund not all art, but x% of it, for some x -- and, mind you, a random x%, since we still can't tell what those later generations will like and what they won't. It's a smaller bet, but no better or worse than the funding-just-about-all-art one.
(Of course, the more art we fund, the more will be produced -- and an argument can be made that the marginal quality will be decreasing, since people who create art for art's sake are more likely to be better at it than those who only do it if it's funded. But the flip side of that argument is that perhaps we should not subsidize the arts at all, if we want to maximize the average quality. Again, remember all those starving Impressionists.)
A temporary boost to Bob Geldof's career?
Well, let's just say that good things are a bit harder to come by with a Mengistu type breathing down your neck. Overpopulation certainly wasn't the main cause of the problem, in that case.
I wonder though, what is the average life expectancy for persons in Uttar Pradesh?
Don't know, but India is a developing country, so I'm sure it's steadily increasing. Another question might be, what does 1 billion Indians do to the surrounding ecosystem. Example: the optimistic estimate is that there are maybe 4000 tigers left in the India-China frontier, and at the rate both nations accumulate more warm bodies (and poach tigers for their reputed aphrodisiac properties), they'll probably be extinct before too long. I dunno, I think 1 billion of any people is quite enough. I'd rather have more tigers, quite frankly.
Secondly, I didn't see any mentioning of the expected population decrease from the dying baby-boomers.
I'm sure we can expect greater life expectancy in Europe and North America as well, so the Boomers will live longer on average.
My flatmates and I had a discussion regarding over-population just yesterday. One in particular stated that she believed that essentially all of the world's problems stemmed from over-population. She just returned from a two year stay in Thailand and Cambodia, so I can see why she would think this way, but I don't think that our problems can be reduced that simply. What's your opinion?
The easy answer is that your flatmate is on to something there. It's the old rats-in-a-cage experiment: you have a certain amount of rats in a cage, they get along fine, and socialize peacefully. Too many rats in confined quarters, and they start killing each other, as though the concept of finite, crowded space made them "stir crazy".
Part of the problem is disproportionate consumption. The relatively underpopulated Western countries consume far more resources than the "overcrowded" developing nations. A one-child family in the US undoubtedly consumes more resources, and produces more landfill waste, than a seven-child family in Calcutta.
The problem arises though, as developing countries will acquire more wealth, they too will consume more resources. This will eventually obliterate surrounding ecosystems, if not sensibly monitored. It is unfair to say, but the simple fact is, if the entire world consumed at the rate Americans do, we'd probably be screwed, ecologically. So the rich countries need to get more serious about renewable resources, and help the developing countries adopt such technologies early on. At present rates of growth, we'll be at around 9 billion people in 50 years. Consumption, and especially disposal, of resources will be of paramount concern.
As for social unrest caused by overpopulation, I'm the wrong person to address that issue. I live in a town of 6000 people, and it's too fucking crowded for my taste.
If you're postulating a negative correlation between popularity today and popularity 30 years from now -- as opposed to no correlation at all -- then that's an even further boon (and therefore a further enticement) to the private investors, since this gives them additional information to base their picks on.
"I think that once you let politicians start whoring for votes by exploiting misunderstood art, you're setting a bad trend."
I agree, so far...
"And, for me, the answer isn't to cut arts funding any more than mishaps in military acquisitions are grounds to end all military funding. The answer is to let the policy people determine what can be spent, and then let the experts figure out the best way to spend it."
The problem is that I don't trust those "experts." (After all, if they could predict what art will be valued 30 years hence and what won't, they could make lots more money as consultants to private investors -- or, for that matter, as private investors, themselves -- than as NEA bureaucrats. Since they can't, they are more likely to favor their buddies, or art that makes political statements they agree with, etc.) Therefore, I would rather get the state out of the art game entirely, and leave it to the market.
(If I could come up with a similar solution for military funding, I might perhaps be tempted to try it, too.)
Thank you for your reply. When my flatmate said that she felt the world's problems stemmed from over population, I asked her what she believed the solution to be, and her immediate reply was "More effective family planning" (her polite way of saying population control via the Chinese method.) Thinking about that and what you said about disproportionate consumption, I wonder what would happen if say everything went on as it has been, but pollution was mostly eradicated. Of course I'm speaking in what-ifs here, but if pollution was more internationally addressed, don't you think that many of "the world's problems" could be solved?
Not really. Most of the world's problems stem not from pollution, but from distribution issues. We have plenty of food to feed everyone, but much of it goes to waste in storage. We can cure many of the diseases that keep lifespans short in the third world, but those who own the medications won't sell at prices the third world can pay.
I am curious what the people out there think of South Africa's intent to force the AIDS drug manufacturers to license the drugs at cost of production (and not include any recapture of research costs). I think it is a bad idea, which if it catches on will lead to drug companies having less incentive to perform research. I can see South Africa's point, that the cost that AIDS treatment is sold at exceeds the average person's income.
Oh lighten up, Arm. I'm sure Laura Ingraham would be delighted to pitch them on QVC.
Cellar --
You mean she's not? Don't tell me Pat Buchanan's still got that gig.
I largely agree but would add one more issue:
America's phenomenal success in exporting its mass culture via films and TV have helped ensure that people in developing nations have an increased appetite for what they view as the American life. While this might be a positive for America in that it encourages immigration of hardworking individuals, it certainly has a downside in that encourages more consumption.
It will be very difficult for America and Americans to preach a lower impact lifestyle to developing nations while we promulgate visions of materialist bliss.
What I know about the U.S. Justice Department/Columbus police department matter is that Justice has sued, or is threatening to sue, to enjoin an alleged "pattern or practice" of the police department that deprives persons of Constitutional rights. (42 U.S. 14141 authorizes such a lawsuit.) I don't know what the alleged deprivation of rights consists of - suburbanite that I am, I don't pay enough attention to the city I work in.
The Justice Department and the City have been negotiating a consent decree, but the police department from the Chief on down deny wrongdoing and oppose the proposed consent decree.
You can probably find out more at the Columbus Dispatch's website, www.dispatch.com.
The problem of overpopulation has much to do with the fact that we, as a whole, are living longer. So it would seem that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking.
"... that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking."
No, no, no. Smoking doesn't kill people -- people kill people. Ask Phillip Morris.
Interesting, if true:
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999; 2:21 p.m. EDT
Special prosecutor declines to indict Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt or anyone else in Indian casino deal, sources say.
Thanks ohio
The Chinese method of enforced family planning would work, certainly, but would be unacceptable in democratic societies, obviously. In undeveloped and developing countries, the most efficient way to curb high birth rates would be to strengthen their economies. The more money and opportunities people have, the fewer kids they have, in general.
Many industrialized nations actually have negative birth rates, such as Japan and Italy. The US has a higher birth rate in part because of immigration, particularly from societies where having a lot of kids is the cultural norm.
At any rate, as poorer nations develop, even though their birth rates decline, they will likely consume proportionally greater amounts of goods and resources. JRoth makes a great point in #1085, that America exports its way of life rather effectively to many other cultures, and they learn our materialism. I think this will be as much, if not more of a problem than actual overcrowding, because acquiring more resources with which to manufacture more goods will encroach upon and destroy natural habitats.
I don't really want to soapbox against the role organized religions play in this, but I do find it irresponsible that many adherents are still being exhorted to "be fruitful and multiply". It's just not necessary anymore. There are quite enough of us. That doesn't mean that no one should have any kids, but maybe three or four max might be a good place to stop nowadays, especially in industrialized countries.
You have made a number of cracks about Pat Buchanan being a Nazi or lover of Nazism, or an admirer of Hitler. Since you are the smartest person on the MOTE, could you tell from what Pat has written that brings you to that conclusion? You can quote from Pat's new book, just the page numbers, and I will go to the trouble of looking it up and reading it so I can understand just why you make the cracks, other than just being a knee jerk Liberal. Now please don't think I am calling you a jerk; it's just a figure of speech.
Al --
"You can quote from Pat's new book, just the page numbers, and I will go to the trouble of looking it up and reading it ..."
Sure.
Right after you cite the section of the Constitution you were discussing last night.
This is unfortunate (the injury, not the prognosis):
Nancy Reagan Breaks Rib at Home
The Associated Press
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999; 10:48 p.m. EDT
LOS ANGELES –– Former first lady Nancy Reagan was described by her spokeswoman Wednesday as being in pain but otherwise doing fine after breaking a rib in a fall at her Bel-Air home last week.
Mrs. Reagan, 78, was looking through a box of old photos when she slipped, said spokeswoman Joanne Drake.
"She's in pain, but she's doing OK," Drake said.
Greystoke provides the world with yet another illustration of the fact that Lefties constitutionally love to nose through and capitalize on any negative sounding personal matters of those whom they hate. I call this the Donna Brazile complex.
The BLM harassing ranchers is 'good land stewardship'? The fascists are on the rise, IMO.
Is that a promise? All I have to do is cite the section of the Contitution that makes me believe "hate crime laws" violate the Constitution and you will give me the cites that convice you Pat is a Nazi sympathiser? If so, say so and I will gladly comply with your request.
"In other words, if we want to subsidize the art produced today that will be cherished by later generations, the only thing we can do is subsidize just about all art produced today -- since our ability to foresee what later generations will cherish is next to nil."
..probably thinks Joe Stalin is his kinda guy. The above proposal is little different than the state control of art that the Soviet Union practiced.
That being said, I'm not real comfortable with requiring Ma, Pa and Slim to prep a enviromental impact statement for the wet meadow and the summer range etc. Too many forms, too much paperwork etc. Now if one is prepared at Gov't expense for an entire area, and the ranchers get a real hearing from the feds, ok. If not, we're into overkill.
It wasn't quite so simple as that. Socialist Realist Paintings, for instance, as Soviet Communists termed it, were encouraged by the government to include ideologically significant messages, which are also surprisingly common in the current genre of Federally subsidized art.
What you have just said is very perceptive, and has profound consequences.
The passage in question was my rephrasing of A5's position (which rephrasing, for the record, he criticized as inaccurate). Neither of us was advocating anything even remotely Stalinist. So, please, don't be silly.
grammar!: substitute "...termed *them*...". & the *artists* were encouraged, of course.
So, then Stalin isn't your or A5's type, so feel free to disregard my (qualified, of course) prefatory statement. The rest stands.
Re: overpopulation/consumption of resources.
I must dissent. The view that overpopulation leading to resource consumption - and then running out of resources is, to my view, looking at the wrong problem.
There are several specific points that you made that I would like to address, but I don't really have the time for them all, so I will pick and choose.
For the first post of the evening I'll start with a little history.
In the early-60's, a group of computer scientists and economists collaborated on a project that used complex mathmatics and (for the time) high- speed computers to model how resource consumption, population, industrialization, etc. would interact over time. The group called themselves the Club of Rome. Their results were quite depressing. No matter what policies were taken (even quite draconian ones like mandating a 50% decline in world population) their models showed that increasing consumption of resources and increasing population would lead up to a point where all resources were consumed, and world population would crash to about 2-5% of 1960 levels. Their best case scenario claimed that even if world consumption and population growth were to be frozen, the crash would come no later than 1980. Why they were wrong is something I'll address after I fix the procedure I'm working on, but before I do, I wanted to toss this brickbat:
The problem of overpopulation has much to do with the fact that we, as a whole, are living longer. So it would seem that a quick solution would be to kill a few people here and there. Or, we could all take up smoking.
We already have a simple solution to this problem, if you think it is one. AIDS is killing an significant fraction of the population in Africa -- some estimates put it as high as half the population from it and its indirect consequences. Simply put, all we need to do is deny any therapies the first world develops to treat AIDS to Africa. Or perhaps just as effectively, insist on maintaining first-world prices for any treatments we sell there. Anyone think we should adopt this as policy for the 'good of world society'?
Human beings living their entire lives in close physical proximity to each other are an evolutionary fact of life. The establishment of urban centers 10,000 or more years was possible because of human beings' social tendencies, and the worst case examples of human crowding have been with us ever since.
The argument in this forum seems to devolve largely into the question of the availability of the necessary resources to sustain an expanding human population. This is more productively followed up in a regional manner and only secondarily from a global perspective. For instance, Mainland China adequately provides for the nutritional (and other) needs of its 1.2+ billion citizens with a locally sustainable environmental impact with a small fraction of the arable land of the US. For the entire world to approach this intensity of resource utilization would require a global population in excess of 30 billion. The fact is that overall global population trends are leveling off asymptotically to a level in the 10 billion range late in the 21st Century.
Global warming, while it exists, will level off within the next few generations, and the average global temperature will probably not attain the levels it reached during Medieval Warm Period.
Al --
"All I have to do is cite the section of the Contitution that makes me believe "hate crime laws" violate the Constitution ..."
Not quite. Let's see you cite the statuory language you object to and then the provision of the Constitution you contend is violated by that language. Who knows -- you might even persuade me that you're right.
I think I owe you an apology. When you so politely asked me to say where in the Contitution I gained the opinion that "hate crime laws" violated said Constitution, I sarcasticaly said, "Do the work yourself" or some some arrogant thing. Now, not being an attorney, nor as wise and smart as you, let me tell you what I meant. I cannot site chapter and verse of said "hate crime laws" nor would you expect a mere ignorant layment to do so.
Now, Amendment XIV, Section 1, All persons born or naturalized...;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As you can see from your copy of the Contitution, I have omitted some in order to get at the meaningful part.
I realize that I am only expressing my opinion of what is meant here, and that many would not see it my way.
realize that I abhor Nazism as much as I do Communism (are you with me on that), so if Pat Buchanan is truely a Nazi as you seem to indicate, I want to know about it. So please oblige me and inform me of just where in Mr. Buchanan's writings I might find that evidence.
Evidently you are abed, which makes good sense. Now, I will soon join you, in dreamland that is. Of course, I may not sleep easily having to worry just how it is that after reading "A Republic Not an Empire" I missed the part where Buchanan expressed his love for Hitler. You know, Trial Shark, to we old fogies who actually lived through the Hitler years and suffered real pain from WWII, accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathiser is serious business indeed. It is sort of like that terrible scoundral McCarthy did accusing people of being commies. The fact that he turned out to be right is no excuse.
Now please don't tell me that you are one of those who still believes that Hiss was just a good Liberal falsely accused. By the way, Trial Shark, just when was it that the Federal Government learned that Alger was in the pay of the KGB? Maybe that question belongs in the Quiz Thread. Good night all.
He says our entry into WWII was a mistake as Hitler was an Anti-Communist.
Al –
Good morning.
"When you so politely asked me to say where in the Contitution I gained the opinion that "hate crime laws" violated said Constitution, I sarcasticaly said, "Do the work yourself" or some some arrogant thing."
Now that you mention it, that did seem a little snippy.
"I think I owe you an apology."
It's big of you to say so. I accept.
Still, I can't agree with your position unless you cite language in a statute which violates the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment you cited. I assume from your edits you were referring to the Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What you haven't cited is a statute which denies any person the equal protection of the laws.
Rather than just leave the question open, though, let me cite to you a recent "hate crime" enactment, signed into being by the favorite conservative bogeyman, President William J. Clinton. It deals with matters which may be considered by the sentencing authority: "Evidence in aggravation ... may include evidence that the accused intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
Does that provision raise the Fourteenth Amendment concerns you cited earlier? If so, why?
FYI, I'm not blowing you off re our friend, Pat Buchanan. There's just a lot of stuff to gather.
The obvious conclusion of this, is that the best way to stop overpopulation, and a host of other problems, is to help third world countries get rich.
I remember an Economist article from a few years back suggesting it correlated better with level of education for women, but similar concept.
"Evidence in aggravation ... may include evidence..."
It depends on what the meaning of the word "may" is. Does this sentence list criteria for determining if aggravation is present? Or, does it mean that if the circumstances are right, the law could be interpreted in such a way that you could cite one of these criteria to make your case?
By "circumstances being right" I mean that a member of a favored minority was a victim.
I think the favored solution these days is to throw off the shackles of modern life and "return to the earth". As Al Gore would have us believe, it is the 1st world's consumption of resources that is killing the planet. For example, pesticides, while providing for much cheaper and more plentiful food, kill the environment. So, we should stop using them. True, we'll have to accept increases in food price along with decreases in food quality. But, we could "return to the earth" and start growing our own food. But, then we'd have problems with and agrarian society not being able to produce the energy to build, light, and heat our homes, so we'd have to live in huts with no toilets. At that point, water quality would be bad enough to wipe out a few million people.
If I admit that I don't know shit from shinola about hate crime laws, that I was just spouting off, will you then educate me further as to where in Buchanan's writings he indicates a liking for Hitler and Nazism? O.K., I admit to the above, Mr. Attorney. Please don't deprive me of knowledge on a technicality.
Al --
I wouldn't dream of depriving you of the full benefit of Pat Buchanan's wit and wisdom.
A note of clarification: it's not the man's latest work that convinces me a Nazi apologist; it's his accumulated record of public remarks which have led me to that conclusion. His book is just the latest brick in the oven, as it were.
Here are some of Pat Buchanan's comments over the years which give me pause:
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
"The school prayer crusade, then, is the first great counteroffensive of a badly routed Christian community to recapture their occupied public schools and re-establish their beliefs as the legitimate moral foundation of American society."
San Diego Union, February 25, 1984 (emphasis added)
[About claims that Jews were killed with, among other things, carbon monoxide at Treblinka] "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
NY Post March 17, 1990
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
On The McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990 (note the similarity to the term "Zionist Occupation Government," in vogue with groups such as Aryan Nation)
continued ...
More gems from Pat Buchanan ...
"The Negroes of the ‘50s became the blacks of the ‘60’s; now, the ‘African-Americans’ of the 90’s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along … Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the U.S.A.? …Is it not time to take America back?"
NY Post, June 20, 1990
"Whatever Rudolph did during World War II, his quarter century of service to the United States entitles the old man to a public hearing before he goes to his grave."
-NY Post, July 14, 1990 (emphasis added)
"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
On The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinal as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always-irate Elie Wiesel... he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith."
The New Republic, October 22, 1990
"David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
Manchester Union Leader, December 15, 1991
"After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."
A Republic, Not an Empire, p. 336
continued ...
Some concluding thoughts ...
Lest you attribute my assement of Pat Buchanan to the "knee jerk liberalism" you so often complain of, Al, let me leave you with the comments of a few distinguished non-liberals:
"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism…"
William F. Buckley
National Review, December 30, 1991
NEW YORK -- Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City accused GOP presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan Wednesday of having a "history of protecting Nazis," and he called the prospect of Buchanan becoming his party's nominee "frightening." Buchanan "did everything he could to prevent a commandant of a Nazi concentration camp from going back to the Soviet Union and being punished as he should," Giuliani said.
CNN Interactive, February 22, 1996
"Fascism is not a doctrine. It’s a sensibility, and you’re seeing it here. Tribalism in social policy, autarchy (ph) in economic policy. We’ve seen it before. Franco — it came in many flavors in the 1930s. One of them is on display right now in Pat Buchanan."
George F. Will
On ABC This Week, September 26, 1999
Cygnus --
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "may" is."
What a positively ... Clintonian ... observation. [g]
I'm not sure I understand your question. Aggravating evidence is the converse of mitigating evidence: evidence in mitigation may be considered in determining whether to lessen the accused's sentence following conviction, while evidence in aggravation may form a basis for increasing the sentence.
The "hate crime" provision I quoted is permissive: evidence of intentional selection of the victim on the basis of an enumerated characteristic may be considered as evidence in aggravation. The weight to be given to evidence in mitigation or in aggravation, if any, lies with the sentencing authority.
I'm still not convinced. Having just read portions of _Mein Kampf_, Buchanan doesn't seem to be a nazi sympathizer at all.
I *would* like to know more about this comment, though:
"David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
Manchester Union Leader, December 15, 1991
Like, who was he speaking to and what was said before and after this snippet.
You certainly have done a fine job. I take my hat off to you. Now, I will not at this time debate the question of Pat's anti-semetic, or some might say seeemingly anti-semetic. I would like to deal with this
"Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man
who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he
was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great
War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed
oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But
Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His
genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the
weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the
statesmen who stood in his path."
St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
I agree with the above. Does that meke me partial to Hitler and Nazism? A reading of Mein Kampf should have shown western leaders, Roosevelt among them, what he was up to. Did they prepare their countries to stand up to this tyrant, or did they shine him on, making in many cases favorable statements about him? I could make the argument that Roosevelt only became a hawk after Russia was attacked. Certainly he had many in his administration giving him good advise, good for the USSR that is. If you read Pat's book his point seems to be that if we are to tsake on tyrants, we should be prepared to do so.
What was more foolish in the '30's than a mutual defense agreement between Russia and France? I lost a brother because of WWII, and yet I have to read by some here that America contributed little to Gewrmany's defeat. The real credit goes to Uncle Joe.
Symbols are very powerful things, and nothing brings up my hackles more than a swastica. It puzzles me, however, that the Hammer and Scycle don't arouse the same feelings. What forces made me hate the Nazis but just love old Uncle Joe.
I have to leave now to go shopping, my least favorite activity. I do respect the work you have done in the above, and will take a vow not to be so sarcastic. I also take vows to quit golf, but a break it several times a week.
Admittedly there are still two weeks to go, but your #1123 has a very good chance at the coveted award of Most Shallow Post of The Month.
'zarade --
"I'm still not convinced."
I am.
The David Duke comment was reported during one of Mr. Buchanan's early campaign speeches. I have no idea what Pat said before or after.
I suppose it's possible Mr. Buchanan was complaining that Mr. Duke was infringing on a patent for multitexturing graphics chips.
Go to:
http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/index.htm#experiments
Look around at the Holocaust and what it stood for, and tell me you think Buchanan is a nazi sympathizer.
Al --
" Hitler ... was also an individual of great courage..."
Having toured some concentration camps in Europe, I'd demur. The mass slaughter or innocents -- including children -- knocks a couple of points off of your score for "courageousness" in my book.
But that's just me.
"Symbols are very powerful things, and nothing brings up my hackles more than a swastica. It puzzles me, however, that the Hammer and Scycle don't arouse the same feelings. What forces made me hate the Nazis but just love old Uncle Joe."
Beats the heck out of me. I put them on a par with each other.
'zerade --
Thanks for the link. Right as I was getting ready to go out for lunch, too.
BTW: Are you suggesting that those were the ideas Mr. Buchanan accused Mr. Duke of stealing? 'Cause I don't think that's what he was talking about, but you never know ...
Ok, the 'reptillian' crack was unfair. . . . . to the reptiles.
'zerade --
BTW, please remember that I used the term "apologist." If you mean to use the term "sympathizer" synonymously, then we're on the same wavelength.
JJ --
Sure he's a murderer and a racist, but let's not forget his good qualities ...
Nah. Sounds like an apologist to me.
And the Volkswagen. And let's not forget the advancement of rocketry and jet engine technology. Or techniques for mass burial.
Jonesy --
Works for me: "Sure, he sucked up to Hitler, but he made the trains run on time."
Hey, we could apply that now: "Sure, he sucked up to Buchanan, but he's been drug-free since 1974. Probably."
Nah. Too easy.
Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide,