Uzmakk - It is a legitimate function of government to protect the rights of those living within its borders. If the government can't protect the rights of individuals, what point is there in having a government?
Those who want to ship Elian back are keen on his father's rights, but they ignore Elian's rights. An individual's rights trump anyone else's claim to him, even his father's.
10013. Wombat - 4/5/2000 3:14:46 PM
Were the best interests of Elian represented when his mother and her ne'er do well boyfriend decided to subject Elian to a dangerous sea voyage in a manifestly unsafe "vessel?" Are Elian's best interests being represented by his Miami relatives displaying him like an animal in a zoo?
10014. Ronski - 4/5/2000 3:16:13 PM
Why JJ, don't you know that the government is supposed to:
Protect you from yourself;
Prevent you from protecting yourself;
And give you other people's money?
10015. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2000 3:16:48 PM
JJ:
Please disabuse yourself of the notion that I know nothing about the fundamental differences between Cuba and this country. I not only know the difference, I have friends who have gone to Cuba and I know people who have come FROM Cuba to live here.
And yes, I do think the mother was following her boyfriend..he was the one who provided the boat and he was the one who asked her to come. Or do you not believe any of the things the family of the mother has said? If you don't, why do you believe what the Miami Cubans say so completely...do you not think HER family might have had an inkling of her feelings?
I am a mother and I say the boy belongs with his father....
10016. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:18:42 PM
Wombat
"Were the best interests of Elian represented when his mother and her ne'er do well boyfriend decided to subject Elian to a dangerous sea voyage in a manifestly unsafe "vessel?" Are Elian's best interests being represented by his Miami relatives displaying him like an animal in a zoo?"
Let the family court decide. That is where free societies determine the best interests of a child.
10017. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:20:02 PM
BTW, I was watching Jose Serrano (D-NY) on Chris Matthews and he could not bring himself to say that Cuba was not free. He kept lamely saying it was "different".
I know Puerto Ricans hate Cubans, and vice versa, but what is up with that?
10018. Wombat - 4/5/2000 3:20:33 PM
The INS has jurisdiction. Or would you just as soon skip the rule of law?
10019. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:21:09 PM
Let the family court decide. That is where free societies determine the best interests of a child.
SHouldn't you finish the sentence? That is where free societies determine the best interests of a child when it suits them to do so for political reasons--otherwise, send the kid back to a repressive regime without even considering the question?
Besides, how do you square this against the efforts of US citizens to get their children back from parents living in other countries? How will the US look if they seem to be determining who is fit to be parents based on the country they live in?
10020. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:21:55 PM
Wombat
Agreed. So, let the appeal be heard.
And if the Graham/Smith bill passes, the family court would have jurisdiction.
Or do I have that wrong?
10021. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:22:00 PM
Besides, Niner, it's the INS who determines this. Why on earth this push for family court? Since when do they have jurisdiction?
10022. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:22:16 PM
Oops--didn't see Wombat's post.
10023. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:22:19 PM
Cal
I got. Inconsistency.
10024. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:23:13 PM
Niner,
Apparently not, or you wouldn't answer questions as if it didn't exist.
10025. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 3:25:17 PM
Cal - You are merely incapable of understanding my disgust with an inconsistent policy.
Repression in Cuba is irrelevant, but an inconsistent policy here is not? The issue here is Elian and what is best for him. He should not be made a victim because we don't have our act together. I am disgusted as well, but I can't see taking it out on Elian.
When children's rights matter only because they come from a country whose leader we've decided to disapprove of, things are getting pretty dicey.
First, we didn't just decide to disapprove of Castro. There was a little incident called the Cuban Missle Crisis, and his alliance wtih a country that had sworn to destroy us, among other things. I believe the rights of all children matter (even unborn children), and they trump his parents' rights. I would like to see a more consistent policy, but I see no reason to sacrifice Elian to that end.
10026. AceofSpades - 4/5/2000 3:26:46 PM
"Were the best interests of Elian represented when his mother and her ne'er do well boyfriend decided to subject Elian to a dangerous sea voyage in a manifestly unsafe "vessel?"
Hm. And it just so happens the Father called the Miami relatives to let them know she was on her way. Looks like pops knew about her plans and approved of him. Though you won't catch him saying so with Fidel's Goon Squad with a gun to his back.
10027. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:27:27 PM
Indeed, the Smith-Graham bill would transfer jurisdiction from the INS to state family court - the traditional venue for determining what is in the best interest of a child.
Moreover, disposition in the state family court would be quicker than disposition before the 11th Circuit.
And parental rights are extremely difficult to divest under Florida family law.
Sounds like a plan.
10028. Wombat - 4/5/2000 3:29:13 PM
Assuming it is passed and not vetoed.
10029. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:29:52 PM
Repression in Cuba is irrelevant, but an inconsistent policy here is not?
You got it.
The issue here is Elian and what is best for him.
No, it's really not. The issue here is that a kid came to the country on a boat and he has to go back to his father. It's not our job, really, to determine what's best for him. Once we established that he was a primary caregiver, our task should have been finished.
First, we didn't just decide to disapprove of Castro.
I didn't say, "just". I said "decided to disapprove of". I was not ignoring history. Given our welcoming behavior to other repressive regimes, I am disinclined to gasp in horror at Castro, or accept it as justification for the nonsense that is going on.
10030. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:32:01 PM
Indeed, the Smith-Graham bill would transfer jurisdiction from the INS to state family court - the traditional venue for determining what is in the best interest of a child.
Ah. Did they transfer jurisidiction for all children in this situation, or just Elian? I mean, being as it's "traditional" and all.
Besides, I hear they don't even have votes among the Republicans, do they?
10031. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:32:48 PM
Wombat
25 electoral votes that it won't be vetoed. Of course, it may require Gore on his knees before the President.
Still, if paramount to you is the best interests of the child, I assume you agree that a family court -as opposed to an administrative agency vested with power to determine immigration issues - is the best place for that determination.
And it also has speed on its side.
10032. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 3:33:17 PM
Wombat - Were the best interests of Elian represented when his mother and her ne'er do well boyfriend decided to subject Elian to a dangerous sea voyage in a manifestly unsafe "vessel?"
Many people have endured hardships and taken tremendous risks to gain freedom. It is hard for us who have always lived in freedom to judge life without it. Considering the experiences of others throughout history, I would have to say it was in Elian's best interests.
Are Elian's best interests being represented by his Miami relatives displaying him like an animal in a zoo?
Yes. Without the publicity, Elian would have been disposed of in short order.
10033. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 3:33:58 PM
Ronski - Why JJ, don't you know that the government is supposed to. ..
LOL!
10034. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:34:23 PM
Cal
As I understand the Graham-Smith bill, it covers only Elian Gonzales, and not all other children who are washed up on shore with a surviving parent in another repressive country demanding their return.
10035. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:34:40 PM
Still, if paramount to you is the best interests of the child, I assume you agree that a family court - as opposed to an administrative agency vested with power to determine immigration issues - is the best place for that determination.
Try not to be absurd. The issue is whether or not there needs to be any discussion of "best interests of the child", given that a father exists and wants the child.
10036. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:35:24 PM
As I understand the Graham-Smith bill, it covers only Elian Gonzales, and not all other children who are washed up on shore with a surviving parent in another repressive country demanding their return.
Exactly. So why on earth would you refer to it as "traditional", as if we are finally reverting poor Elian to the norm that all children everywhere are allowed?
10037. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:36:31 PM
Cal
Thank you for explication of your issue. I was conversing with Wombat on something he had posted, another issue, in 10013.
10038. Wombat - 4/5/2000 3:37:47 PM
And that the only reason the father is considered "unfit" is that he lives in a country that is deemed unsuitable for a child to return to. Unlike Haiti.
10039. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:38:10 PM
Family court is the "traditional" venue for determining the best interests of a child when there is a legal dispute.
The Smith-Graham bill is not a traditional piece of legislation.
10040. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:38:33 PM
Yes, I know. But "I was talking to so and so" never works, and I was objecting to your use of the word "traditional"--as if Elian's case is some singular situation that all the other children in these cases have access to.
10041. 109109 - 4/5/2000 3:39:45 PM
Cal
The field is yours.
10042. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:40:32 PM
Family court is the "traditional" venue for determining the best interests of a child when there is a legal dispute.
Only when everyone is agreed to have standing, Niner. The relatives don't have standing.
And then, of course, there is the fact that it is only "traditional" when dealing with children who are living in this country--something that isn't true here, either. So it's not "traditional" at all, no matter how hard you try to finesse it.
You can't make this a legitimate custody issue, Niner. That's the problem.
10043. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 3:41:38 PM
Judith - I do think the mother was following her boyfriend..he was the one who provided the boat and he was the one who asked her to come
Do you really think that was the sole reason? I have trouble believing that she was happy as a clam in Cuba and still decided to risk death and the death of her child just to follow her boyfriend.
Or do you not believe any of the things the family of the mother has said? If you don't, why do you believe what the Miami Cubans say so completely
You should know by now that I don't take anyone's word. I look at the situation and decide what is reasonable. It is not reasonable that a mother would risk her life and the life of her child to simply follow her boyfriend.
10044. CalGal - 4/5/2000 3:42:22 PM
Niner,
I don't want "the field", for heaven's sake. It's not personal, so quit leaving in a huff.
10045. dusty - 4/5/2000 3:43:10 PM
109109
Of course, it may require Gore on his knees before the President.
Eeeeewwww!
10046. Ronski - 4/5/2000 3:45:34 PM
I still would prefer to see the father and his wife and kids stay here on American soil, not at the Cuban interests section of another's country's embassy, and probably including the two grannies for safe measure, letting the father then decide.
Since Castro has agreed to let the father come here, which he had not done earlier, I don't see why the above cannot be accomplished.
My guess is it is entirely possible the father would want to go back to Cuba, in which case there is no question he should be free to take the boy back with him, being the boy's closest relative. I wouldn't like the boy going back to a country where he is the property of the state and where he has no hope of self-determination, but I still think the father's relationship comes first.
Where parents rights do not come first are in cases of clear abuse or neglect. What Castro promises is pyschological and spiritual abuse, but that still happens a lot of places, unfortunately.
10047. Wombat - 4/5/2000 3:51:39 PM
How much longer is Castro going to be around? And once he dies, how much longer will his system last? Not long, and not long.
10048. Ronski - 4/5/2000 3:54:10 PM
I agree the system is doomed, but it may take a bit longer than we might like. There are other authoritarians in the wings.
10049. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 4:00:40 PM
Wombat - How much longer is Castro going to be around? And once he dies, how much longer will his system last? Not long, and not long.
And this is relevant how?
10050. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 4:03:12 PM
Cal - It's not personal
You certainly seem to be taking it personally. The level of anger and vitriol in your posts seem to indicate that you are not looking at the issue objectively.
10051. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 4:04:59 PM
I see no reason why communism in Cuba will end with Castro. Kim pere's death in North Korea didn't result in the predicted collapse. Do Fidel or Raoul have any kids?
10052. Wombat - 4/5/2000 4:07:42 PM
Ronski:
Yes. And many of them are in Miami. (I wouldn't want to be Elian's father when the exiles return to Cuba in the aftermath of Castro's demise. Of course, they might decide to stay here, which would put a bit of a crimp in their claims to be political refugees.)
10053. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 4:10:50 PM
toys. sorry.
10054. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 4:12:49 PM
toys again.
10055. CalGal - 4/5/2000 4:15:56 PM
The level of anger and vitriol in your posts seem to indicate that you are not looking at the issue objectively.
I'm not angry about it. I just express my loathings with passion.
10056. Ronski - 4/5/2000 4:17:43 PM
Wombat,
If history is any judge, some will stay and some will return. Many Baltic-Americans who had been here for four decades or who had been born and raised here returned after the Commie Russky overlords were gone.
10057. Ronski - 4/5/2000 4:18:56 PM
And I think the Miami version is a much milder form of authoritarianism.
10058. Wombat - 4/5/2000 4:37:13 PM
I think that many of the older exiles fit into the "learned nothing, forgotten nothing" category (a la post-Napoleon Bourbons).
10059. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2000 4:40:03 PM
JJ:
I don't know how well you know women but they will do many strange things that defy explanation in order to follow a man. I don't know that it was her sole reason for coming here but then, YOU don't know that it wasn't.
10060. robertjayb - 4/5/2000 4:56:32 PM
.
Be Careful Judith!
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Tarrant County was added Wednesday to the state quarantine that restricts the movement of commercial bee operations after killer bees were found.
10061. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 4:57:54 PM
Judith - I, too, have known women to do strange things to keep a boyfriend. I just think it is unlikely that a woman would risk her life and more importantly her son's life. It is not impossible, just unlikely. I object to those who choose to demonize her for political purposes. It is true I don't know her motives, but I am not going to believe what someone said someone said when it defies reason.
10062. Ronski - 4/5/2000 5:00:13 PM
Wombat,
I'm sure that many of those who saw everything that was wrong with Fidel did not see the shortcomings of Fulgencio, but then their oxen were not being gored by the latter.
10063. SnowOwl - 4/5/2000 5:04:16 PM
I don't see how the mother's motivations, even assuming we could know them, are relevant. She died. The child has a father who is capable of caring for his son and who wants him.
10064. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2000 5:04:42 PM
JJ:
Object to those who try to demonize her for political purposes ? You may well do so but how is it any different than those who are holding Elian up above the crowds and using his name and picture in literature asking for money to elect Republicans who support their cause?
10065. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:10:22 PM
SnowOwl - The argument has been made that the mother gave her life so her son could be free. Granted this is an appeal to emotionalism, but as emotional appeals go, it is pretty good. To counter this, the other side has tried to claim that she wasn't really seeking freedom, she was just following her boyfriend.
Yes, the boy has a father as well as several other relatives who are able and willing to care for him. The US has to determine what is best for the child, return him to his father in Cuba or allow him to stay with relatives in the US.
10066. SnowOwl - 4/5/2000 5:14:13 PM
I thought the US had made that determination, and that determination was being appealed by the Miami relatives.
10067. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:16:33 PM
Snow, you're not going to let pesky facts get in the way, are you?
10068. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:18:02 PM
Judith - It was necessary for the relatives to get Elian's face before the public. It is too easy for a faceless boy to get lost in the INS machine. They had to show that this boy was not just another statistic but was in fact a real, live child. The publicity is all that has kept Elian in this country.
I agree it is cheesy to use his image for fundraising.
10069. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:19:23 PM
Actually, I love Lance Morrow's essay title: "What if Elian were Ugly?"
10070. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:20:08 PM
Oh, wait. It was "What if Elian were Pug Ugly? Or Black?"
10071. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:22:42 PM
SnowOwl - No case is complete until the appeals are exhausted.
10072. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:23:53 PM
Actually, it's not true. The US government has the right at any time--and always had the right--to take Elian away and send him back to Cuba.
10073. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2000 5:24:08 PM
On PI the other night, someone said what if he were a 40 year old gardner with back pain..
Yeah yeah yeah, JJ, they had to show he is not some faceless boy. What about the thousands of other boys who get sent back? The ones not lucky enough to have zealots for relatives? You are amazing...do you honestly believe this garbage?
10074. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:25:22 PM
Cal - That may be technically true, but it would look bad politically.
10075. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:26:25 PM
It is technically true, which means that your statement: "No case is complete until the appeals are exhausted" sounds good, but is, er, "technically" untrue.
10076. ChristinO - 4/5/2000 5:26:52 PM
What if his mother died in a car accident smuggling him over the border from Mexico? You can guarandamntee he'd be back in Mexico city within 24 hours.
10077. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:27:44 PM
Morrow also makes the point that if it had been Elian's father who died on the raft and his mother waiting in Cuba, all this discussion would be moot--he'd be back home with Mom.
10078. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:29:01 PM
Judith - On PI the other night, someone said what if he were a 40 year old gardner with back pain..
Then it wouldn't be a question. As a Cuban refugee, he would have been granted immediate residency. The only reason Elian hasn't is because he is child.
What about the thousands of other boys who get sent back?
Cuban refugees do not get sent back. If his mother had lived, this would never have made the news.
10079. marshame - 4/5/2000 5:30:34 PM
What is the law with regard to Cubans who flee Cuba and make it to the US? Do they have any special status compared to Mexicans, for example, who enter the US by means other than proper INS procedures? I am thinking of the boat people from Haiti who were turned away bu the Coast Guard only a few feet from the shore. I remember hearing that supposedly if they made it to land they could claim political asylum. Is that true for Cubans? If so, then obviously we have the question of who speaks for a minor child.
10080. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:30:43 PM
Children from other countries get sent back. And children with parents in other countries get sent back.
10081. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:31:41 PM
Marsha,
Yes, Cubans have special status.
It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if Elian's lasting legacy was that we revisit this bullshit exemption and turn Cubans back into illegal immigrants like the rest of the boat people?
10082. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2000 5:33:23 PM
And those were the ones I was referring to...not Cubans.
10083. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:39:31 PM
Cal - It is technically true, which means that your statement: "No case is complete until the appeals are exhausted" sounds good, but is, er, "technically" untrue.
It means that the government can act without resorting to the courts. The INS can claim jurisdiction and deport the child without a court order. Unless the courts issue a restraining order, there is nothing to stop them. However, it would look bad politically do so since it would deny the child due process.
10084. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:45:13 PM
No, it doesn't deny the child due process. The child's legal guardian is not asking for it.
And I'm not denying it would look bad politically. Happily, more people think the Cuban immigrants look bad at this point than disapprove of the US government's handling. With enough stupidity on their part, no doubt Castro's numbers will go up, too.
10085. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 5:55:20 PM
Cal - His de facto guardians asked for it.
10086. CalGal - 4/5/2000 5:56:01 PM
They had no standing, JJ. That's the whole problem.
10087. JJBiener - 4/5/2000 6:42:10 PM
Cal - It is not quite so clear as you would like it to be.
10088. CalGal - 4/5/2000 7:07:57 PM
JJ,
It is, actually, much clearer than you would like to be, and the US's legal position has proven that from the start. That being said, you are incorrect in your assumption that I think the resolution of the issue is "clear".
What I am certain of is that I have no patience with any objection to his returning to his father that can't be applied to any other child whose mother brings him to this country illegally. And I have no patience with anyone who decides that they are better for a child than his father is, just because they live in a country with more freedom.
But don't confuse my impatience with the reasons with a certainty that the issue itself will be resolved any other way. Just because I don't think your objections are irrelevant doesn't mean that I think political reaction to the Bogeyman Cuba might cause him to stay here, that the father might want to defect, that the whinings of the Miami relatives might assist them in stealing the kid from his father. It could all happen. It wouldn't make it any more the right thing to do.
So it's not that I'm sure how it will turn out--although lately, things are looking up. It's just that I'm quite sure how I feel about it. Don't confuse the two.
10089. wonkers2 - 4/5/2000 9:08:23 PM
The Elian Gonzalez affair serves both the interests of the Gusanos in Miami and the interests of Fidel Castro very well. Both may be expected to prolong it as long as possible. A pox on them both, and on the cheesy politicians in Washington!
10090. Cellar Door - 4/6/2000 12:52:08 AM
10091. CalGal - 4/6/2000 1:02:12 AM
Neato, dude.
10092. robertjayb - 4/6/2000 1:05:46 AM
.
A vivid, sprightly, and informative review. I can't believe I read the whole thing.
Well done, Cellar Door.
10093. Cellar Door - 4/6/2000 1:12:28 AM
Merci! I'm so glad they included the phot. That's the REAL David Geffen: Cher to one side of him as he nuzzles Steve Antin's ear. Steve's quite a pistol. If he plays his cards right he could be the male Louise Brooks.
10094. JJBiener - 4/6/2000 10:55:04 AM
Cellar - Good job. I love the title.
10095. Cellar Door - 4/6/2000 12:15:14 PM
Merci!
10096. Ronski - 4/6/2000 3:07:06 PM
Lesbian Visitation Rights March On (temp. link)
10097. Ronski - 4/6/2000 3:10:21 PM
10098. Diogenes - 4/6/2000 4:57:16 PM
It must be terribly comforting for that boy to have hundreds of screaming partisans and dozens of camera crews in front of his house at all times. Kinda makes me proud.
10099. Greystoke - 4/6/2000 6:15:46 PM
10100. Greystoke - 4/6/2000 6:36:54 PM
16 year sentence for candy bar thief was no April Fool's joke.
Prosecutor explains harsh sentence: perp had a previous conviction for stealing a bag of Oreos.
10101. robertjayb - 4/7/2000 1:53:27 PM
.
Boy Takes Four Pistols to School
SANTA FE, Texas (AP) -- An eighth-grade boy was arrested after a teacher received a tip that he had hidden four handguns in a gym bag he brought into his junior high school classroom. Three of the guns were loaded.
....
This is the community where the prayer at football games case now before the supreme court originated. Maybe they should pray for metal detectors.
10102. JudithAtHome - 4/7/2000 4:49:12 PM
They probably already pray to Charlton Heston...
10103. sakonige - 4/7/2000 10:43:36 PM
Greystoke
Message # 10099
Here is a nice illustration for your article about Yakamas banning alcohol.
10104. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 11:38:22 AM
Police are going to ask every man in an Australian town to submit to a DNA test in order to solve a rape.
Is this the way crimes will be investigated in the future?
10105. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 11:41:46 AM
As I understand it, the 91 yesr old rape victim was dressed very provocatively.
10106. joezan - 4/8/2000 11:45:04 AM
Grey:
They already do that in England. I remember (vaguely) a case which was solved a couple of years ago (rape-murder), where the police did the same thing. One guy acted very suspiciously - don't remember the exact details - but he did have someone else, or asked someone else, to submit a sample in his name.
He was, of course, nailed good.
10107. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 11:48:28 AM
Moslem women receive settlement after being arrested in Virginia for wearing veils in public.
Maybe the officer mistook them for Klansmen.
10108. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 11:50:28 AM
joe
What is your opinion of mass DNA screenings?
10109. Absensia - 4/8/2000 11:50:33 AM
Grey,
It's a pleasure to read your comments to the "news." I enjoy them very much!
10110. Absensia - 4/8/2000 11:51:07 AM
Though sometimes they are sad, because they are so true.
10111. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 11:56:24 AM
Absensia
Thanks for the kind words.
10112. joezan - 4/8/2000 12:05:23 PM
What is your opinion of mass DNA screenings?
Well, normally I'd say no - definitely not. But in some towns, Mass is the only time you'd be able to get all the people together at one time.
I would, though, wait till communion is over.
10113. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 12:12:25 PM
Utah's Negro Bill Canyon will keep its name.
10114. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 12:16:50 PM
joe
I throw 'em up there and you hit 'em out of the park. You're the Joe Dimaggio of Current Events.
10115. OhioSTOPAS - 4/8/2000 1:15:04 PM
Who? Joe Dimaggio? Is he related to Dom?
10116. Greystoke - 4/8/2000 1:18:56 PM
Dom DeLouise? No, I don't think so. Though the physical resemblance is striking.
10117. EricCartman - 4/8/2000 11:44:06 PM
More Idiocy From Tobacco Lawsuit Juries
10118. Greystoke - 4/9/2000 11:48:36 AM
Utah teen charged with kidnapping and rape.
An excerpt:
"She wasn't [being held] against her will," Faulkner said. "But again, she is not old enough to make those types of decisions."
10119. Greystoke - 4/9/2000 11:58:17 AM
Cartman
Tens of billions of dollars in punitive damages on behalf of 500,000 Florida citizens who got sick because of cigarettes? Absurd. How much do you suppose will go to the lawyers and how much to the "victims"?
10120. Greystoke - 4/9/2000 12:05:59 PM
I find these underage sex cases interesting. If it was my daughter, I'd want the cops to throw the book at the boy. On the other hand, if it was my son, I'd be focusing on the fact that the girl consented.
If it was my son and my daughter, then I'd be mighty perplexed.
10121. CalGal - 4/9/2000 12:36:04 PM
That's one of those marginal cases. 17-13? When does he turn 18 and she turn 14?
But felony rape? Shouldn't it be statutory rape?
10122. joezan - 4/9/2000 3:08:35 PM
My court is dealing with a case right now involving an adult male (17) who is accused of date-raping 4 under-aged girls 14 - 16. The judge threw the case out of adult court - he found that there was not enough evidence of coersion. None of the girls put up a fight, none had been drugged or given alcohol by the defendant, although all claim to have said "no" a number of times.
How'd we end up with the case in Family court? Well, the guy was 16 when the incidents occurred - the prosecutor had been pressing for a waiver to the adult system, and she now gets to try him as a juvenile.
The kid could still be in for a world of hurt - he could be locked up in a state juvenile facility till he's 21. But it seems to me he just got caught up in a snowball of adolescent vindictiveness and head games.
All the more reason kids need to be actively, strongly discouraged from having sex - and not told that it's their "choice".
10123. CalGal - 4/9/2000 3:27:50 PM
I don't see how you reach that conclusion. I've always thought "date rape" was an idiotic concept. It's either rape or it's not. If the kid raped them, then he got lucky. If the girls are just being shitty and vindictive, then it's further indication that girls really have to be held to the consequences of their actions.
10124. EricCartman - 4/9/2000 3:31:24 PM
Greystoke Message # 10119:
Yeah, the whole thing is just a big cash cow for the trial lawyers. I'd like to know just what the hell these moron juries are thinking, though. Stupid, as well as dangerous, in all seriousness.
If juries are just going to stand by and allow what is basically the judicial version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, then we might just as well hang it up and walk away.
OTOH, since I currently have two close relatives slowly dying after lifetimes of using tobacco and alcohol, perhaps I should just say "fuck principle", and hop that gravy train.
Message # 10120:
If it was my son and my daughter, then I'd be mighty perplexed.
Or an Alabaman.
10125. joezan - 4/9/2000 3:54:22 PM
Cal:
How do you hold them accountable? They didn't do anything wrong except get into a car with this kid, who, it turns out, is apparently the John Holmes of the school. The fact that they didn't do anything right can never even be considered.
10126. joezan - 4/9/2000 3:55:48 PM
[on edit]...The fact that they didn't do anything right can never be held against them, legally.
10127. Greystoke - 4/9/2000 5:47:03 PM
Pennsylvania state cops routinely conduct random searches of bus riders.
10128. CalGal - 4/9/2000 9:29:55 PM
Joe,
"Accountable" and "wrong" are two different things. They can be held accountable in the sense that they got in the car, they apparently said yes, and there's really nothing more to be said.
If they said "No", fought, and ran out of the car screaming at the time, fine. It'd be rape. None of this "date rape" shit.
10129. joezan - 4/9/2000 10:43:10 PM
Cal:
Well - yea. If it's that simple. It's not, though. And I suspect that now, there are many more kids getting caught up in the same kind of thing.
And it's not as if it was ever right. Not that long ago, no one would ever have known anything at all had happened (unless the boy bragged) because no girl would subject herself to the shame such an accusation would bring on her.
Now, the tables are turned. But things are no better than they ever were.
But what do you think of this?:
A friend was telling me recently about a situation with his 19 y.o. son. The kid has always been extremely shy, and to top it off he's had some terrible, scarring acne. Consequently, he's never had a girlfriend, till now. Unfortunately, the girl is 15.
The son is well aware of the legal implications, and has his dad convinced that they have no intentions of having sex. The guy told me that he believes his son, and in any case the girl's mom approves of the relationship. My reply was, Bullshit - if you believed him you wouldn't be telling me about it. The girl is feeling real special right now, because she's got this 19 y.o. college kid with a nice car and a good job. But what happens when the relationship goes south? What if he pisses her off really bad. What better revenge than to scream rape?
Now I know that this is where your opinion on date rape comes in. But the fact is that there are many, many cases of actual rapes committed by teenaged boyfriends, and a rape accusation made against a boyfriend is treated just as seriously as if it were against a stranger. Whether or not she actually fought or said no really doesn't matter. All that matters is what she says on the stand, and who the judge or jury believes.
10130. joezan - 4/9/2000 10:44:42 PM
[...cont'd]
Coincidentally, the trial of the unlucky HS kid was just getting underway when my friend approached me with his story, and it made the perfect example for my opinion. Because that is almost exactly what happened to him. For some reason, this kid fell out of favor with his regular clique (all the girls are former friends, and the girl who made the first accusation was his ex-gf), and that's all she wrote. He's most likely toast, one way or another.
Thus, my statement that this is one more reason kids need to be discouraged from having sex.
BTW (and I know this will make your day), your views on date rape align nicely with those of the Old Testament - read Deuteronomy 22: 22-27.
10131. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 9:06:19 AM
8 Students in Danville suspended
Danville, Virginia -- Eight middle-school students were suspended for a week for using Kool-Aid in a way that imitated the use of illegal drugs, school officials said.
"Some of the kids, at least five or six of them, were actually sniffing" the Kool-Aid, Said Superintendent Andy Overstreet.
The students, seventh- and eight-graders at O.T. Bonner Middle School, chould have been suspended for a full year for using a look-alike drug, Overstreet said. Instead, they received a lesser punishment under a statute that forbids the possession of contraband on school grounds.
Contraband can apply to anything being used "in a manner that's disruptive to the educational process," Overstreet said.
10132. theDiva - 4/11/2000 9:09:32 AM
Remember the good old days when kids would just use Kool-Aid to color their hair?
10133. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 9:15:35 AM
I think the school's reaction is a bit hysterical. I would think that having kool-aid in one's sinuses would be punishment enough.
10134. theDiva - 4/11/2000 9:18:39 AM
For real.
10135. theDiva - 4/11/2000 9:20:04 AM
"10112. joezan - 4/8/00 12:05:23 PM
What is your opinion of mass DNA screenings?
Well, normally I'd say no - definitely not. But in some towns, Mass is the only time you'd be able to get all the people together at one time.
I would, though, wait till communion is over."
What, in your parish they stay that long?
(Catholic joke!)
10136. Wombat - 4/11/2000 11:03:27 AM
God thing the kids didn't crush some Fizzies and snort that. Whatta rush! When I was in middle school, I used to put Good 'n' Plentys into a prescription drug container and share them with my friends on the way home.
10137. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 11:06:54 AM
Or Pop Rocks!! great gracious, what is this world coming to!?
It seems to me that these sorts of stunts by kids can be expected -- as a joke or a test of limits. To react the way the school did is just stupid.
10138. JudithAtHome - 4/11/2000 11:11:28 AM
Hope no one takes candy cigarettes to school; wonder if they'd be whipped for sucking on a white pencil like a ciggie? The eraser could be the lit ash end....
10139. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 11:13:29 AM
Or pretending to give a shot while playing "doctor" in nursery school?
10140. JudithAtHome - 4/11/2000 11:15:21 AM
Yes, must nip those pre-K junkies in the bud...
10141. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 11:18:27 AM
Truth -- my grandmother disapproved of children drinking soft drinks out of the bottle because it encouraged them to become alcoholics later in life. I guess infants should be expelled from day care if they insist on drinking from bottles.
10142. Wombat - 4/11/2000 11:19:30 AM
Only if they spitback.
10143. Ronski - 4/11/2000 11:23:00 AM
My Cesky grandmother used to be appalled seeing us drink orange soda. She contended that there had to be something wrong with something of that color, which as you all know is not normally found in nature. This was in the 50s, long before many artificial colors were banned from the marketplace.
10144. JudithAtHome - 4/11/2000 11:25:55 AM
She must've lost it when Tang came along...
10145. Wombat - 4/11/2000 11:31:41 AM
Snort Tang, not Koolaid.
10146. bubbaette - 4/11/2000 11:41:33 AM
The official breakfast snort of astronauts.
10147. Ronski - 4/11/2000 4:33:12 PM
Silicon Gorilla
(temp. link)
10148. Ronski - 4/11/2000 4:48:10 PM
There's Always Austria
(temp. link)
10149. Greystoke - 4/11/2000 4:57:27 PM
Clinton is expected to sign a bill that would make it slightly harder for the federal government to seize assets connected to crime.
An excerpt:
The legislation would shift the burden of proof in asset forfeiture cases from the property owner, where it now lies, to the government.
10150. Wombat - 4/11/2000 4:59:36 PM
Ronski:
Sad how a brilliant researcher can so comprehensively lose his marbles.
10151. Greystoke - 4/11/2000 5:26:03 PM
More consensual sex between an adult and a teenager.
This time its a 46 year old high school librarian and a sixteen year old student doing the naked pretzel in a Mormon Church parking lot.
10152. Wombat - 4/11/2000 5:29:34 PM
If the van's a rockin', don't come a knockin'.
10153. Absensia - 4/11/2000 5:35:25 PM
Hey, she was in there alone. She doesn't have any idea how that naked guy, hiding behind the seats, go in there. Aliens, probably.
10154. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2000 5:41:07 PM
What a pervert! He should behave like an upstanding Utah man and marry the girl . . or two . . or five . . or ten . . .
10155. Greystoke - 4/11/2000 5:52:41 PM
Arkansas stores are selling convict style clothing.
I'm guessing that we will soon be reading the sequel to this story -- Rookie sheriff's deputy mistakes teenagers for escaped convicts; shoots them dead.
10156. Greystoke - 4/11/2000 6:11:25 PM
Heathen teachers oppose God's will.
The Rutherford Institute supports the teachers. Strange bedfellows.
10157. JJBiener - 4/11/2000 6:51:25 PM
Grey - I guess Arkansas teens are anticipating the apparel their favorite son will be wearing a year from now.
10158. Greystoke - 4/11/2000 7:06:00 PM
JJ
Ouch. Republicans can turn any news article into a Clinton slam.
You get extra bonus points for creativity.
10159. JJBiener - 4/11/2000 8:00:41 PM
Grey - (grin)!
10160. Cellar Door - 4/11/2000 11:56:16 PM
So, J.J. do you think they'll get Clinton a cell next to Robert Downey Jr.?
10161. JJBiener - 4/12/2000 11:12:02 AM
Cellar - I doubt it. Downey would demand to be in with a better class of criminal.
10162. Cellar Door - 4/12/2000 11:43:24 AM
You mean like Charles Keating or Michael Milikin?
10163. JJBiener - 4/12/2000 11:51:10 AM
Cellar - No, like Manson or Lecter.
10164. Ronski - 4/12/2000 12:00:11 PM
I was glad yesterday to hear Peggy Noonan on the radio (despite the sickening saccharin quality of that delivery of hers) keeping the issue of Willey's missing cat alive. We want answers!
10165. greystoke - 4/12/2000 12:08:49 PM
Clinton did not touch Kathleen Willey's pussy.
10166. Thoughtful - 4/12/2000 12:15:47 PM
What is it with Microsoft getting involved with Ralph Reed?
I also wonder what kinds of payments candidate advisors get on a regular basis from firms, eh?
10167. Thoughtful - 4/12/2000 12:16:42 PM
I mean, it's not like they count as political contributions or anything --just probably far more effective than your standard soft money.
10168. Ronski - 4/12/2000 12:25:00 PM
I believe MS has decided to start lobbying. Reed knows lots of Republicans and southern Democrats, many potentially friendly to business interests.
10169. Thoughtful - 4/12/2000 12:37:14 PM
Actually according to this a.m.'s NY Times, Reed is apologizing and promising not to do it again. See here.
10170. janjon - 4/12/2000 3:30:57 PM
Peggy Noonan's a has been. Its been a long time since Reagan, baby. (well, not long enough from some perspectives).
10171. Ronski - 4/12/2000 3:45:37 PM
janjon,
I think Noonan (whom I also dislike for being a bit of a homophobe when it was fashionable in Washington to do so) will pretty much retire from the field once her book on Hillary is remaindered, and Hillary and Bill are private citizens fighting subpoenas.
10172. uzmakk - 4/12/2000 3:52:53 PM
Ronski:
Did I hear you say that you wanted to speak to a homophobe?
10173. Ronski - 4/12/2000 4:03:37 PM
Uzmakk,
No, I don't think so, but I'd be happy to help such a person recover from their ignorance and moral error, if the person is ready for it.
10174. uzmakk - 4/12/2000 4:05:06 PM
Oh, I suppose I'm ready. Go ahead.
10175. Ronski - 4/12/2000 4:13:09 PM
Uzmakk,
Actually, could it wait til tomorrow?
Unless, of course, there is some kind of crisis.
10176. uzmakk - 4/12/2000 4:17:01 PM
Tomorrow will be fine, Ronski. I think I'll be all right until then. I should really get back to work anyway.
10177. Ronski - 4/12/2000 4:22:19 PM
Good. In the meantime, think about what it is that makes gay people different from straight people, beyond the one obvious characteristic.
Which is not, incidentally, being able to mouth all the dialogue in All About Eve.
10178. Cellar Door - 4/12/2000 4:33:09 PM
Actually that's central, Ronski.
10179. Cellar Door - 4/12/2000 4:36:25 PM
You also might trying reading my review of the laurents book which is still linked in "Books," Uz.
10180. Greystoke - 4/12/2000 4:58:01 PM
10181. Ronski - 4/12/2000 5:01:21 PM
I know which side I'm rooting for.
10182. Ronski - 4/12/2000 5:16:58 PM
Cellar,
BTW, I liked your review.
Larry, who lived down the block from me in the Village, worked on that walk. He also ended up with one of the sweetest guys imaginable.
Sorry he's gone.
10183. Cellar Door - 4/12/2000 5:26:20 PM
Merci, ronski. Sorry about your friend Larry.
I've been asked to appear on a panel discussion held by the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, here in Los Angeles on May 1. The subject will be how gay journalists cover the news. So far, the other panelists include Greg Kilday of "Entertainment Weekly" and Tom King of the "Wall Street Journal," who wrote the David Geffen bio,"The Operator." I'll keep y'all posted as things develop.
10184. RosettaStone - 4/12/2000 3:48:21 PM
30 DRUNK AMERICAN "PEACEKEEPERS" ARE IN A MACEDONIA JAIL AND NO ONE CARES
REALLY!
10184. RosettaStone - 4/12/2000 3:55:00 PM
Well, maybe we should call the NAziTO troops "troublemakers" and send in the Rev. Jesse Jackson to get them out.
10184. PelleNilsson - 4/12/2000 4:27:01 PM
I would like everybody to take note of "NAziTO troops". RS uses that consistently in his sordid little thread.
NATO troops are Nazis.
Perhaps you have relatives or friends who serve in the US Armed Forces. Don't forget to tell them they are Nazis. Just like the Danes and the Swedes and every nationality that serves in Kosovo.
What a disgusting little mind he has.
10186. robertjayb - 4/12/2000 6:06:53 PM
.
Insanity Rules!
CNN is airing live shots of Janet Reno's aircraft landing in Miami where she is to meet the kidnappers of Elian Gonzales. She is wearing
yellow.
Good Grief!
10187. CalGal - 4/12/2000 6:06:54 PM
Has anyone been reading the Times special on mass murderers? Turns out that they are all nuts (big surprise) and that whatever reason they give at the time they do the actual killing has nothing to do with anything--they're just nuts. It also turns out that the single biggest obstacle to preventing them from getting the guns they use to do the crime is not gun control laws, but rather the fact that the mental health lobbies object to the mentally ill being so labeled. Another big surprise, I know.
10188. Cellar Door - 4/12/2000 6:27:15 PM
That means that Hinckly can apply for a position as Jodie Foster's personal assistant tomorrow.
10189. CalGal - 4/12/2000 6:29:40 PM
Man, that's spooky that they're thinking of letting him out. I really wonder about the folks who work in mental hospitals. Do they have no concept of what they are saying? "No, no, really, he's much better now."
10190. RosettaStone - 4/12/2000 6:33:37 PM
It must be the helmets. And don't forget the Germans, fascist Italians and the other "neutral" power in WWII, Pelle.
You wouldn't even protect your own ambassadors after the war when comrade Stalin said "nyet."
10191. AceofSpades - 4/12/2000 6:33:43 PM
I wonder how seriously they're "thinking" about it. Seems to me that these high-profile loons are never released. They have to pretend there's the possibility of release (a hospital implies some possibility of successful treatment), but I really wonder whether they're serious about it.
10192. AceofSpades - 4/12/2000 6:41:42 PM
I think maybe the mental health professions have to become more comfortable with the notion of "Terminal Lunacy." I mean, medical doctors will not bullshit around or jerk themselves off about the possibility of treating a terminally ill patient. They will simply deliver the bad news.
And I don't know of any seriously-insane people who have ever been cured of their lunacy. If someone knows of such cases, please inform me.
But to me, when a guy shoots a President based on the belief that this will impress Jodie Foster (a notion he got from a *movie*, by the way), I say you diagnose him "Terminally Insane." Insane until death, no possibility of cure. And close the book, and close the cell, forever.
10193. CalGal - 4/12/2000 6:50:05 PM
Yeah, there are a few things that just pretty much do it. You hear voices? You're nuts. You have to show up every day to take your meds, and if you don't want to do that, then we have to lock you up. Sorry, and all. But that's how it goes.
You get caught standing on a street corner, shouting loudly at people who aren't there? You're nuts. Meds don't help? Well, we have this nice facility for you.
Shouldn't be too difficult.
Of course, we didn't help matters much by throwing all the crazies out on the street some twenty years ago.
I don't know if you read the Times article, but it turns out that you can only be flagged for being mentally ill and ineligible for guns if your time in a mental health institution was involuntary. Consquently, prosecutors of people who go temporarily wacko hold out voluntary confinement as a bargaining chip. This way, the wacko who gets picked up by the system for violently accosting a stranger on the street can escape notice and buy the weapons of his choice later, when he's ready for prime time.
10194. joezan - 4/12/2000 11:15:16 PM
Did I ever mention that my first job in my field (sort of) was at a huge mental hospital (20,000 patients at it's height) on Long Island? And, having worked on almost every type of unit there - chronic and acute, young, old, and in between, I say in all assuredness that the medications that have been developed since the early 70's made de-institutionalization the only choice. The nightmare scenarios propagated before and during the process of de-inst. simply never came to be.
In an ideal world, the out-patients -those who were released from institutions as well as the new generation who never were institutionalized - would always take their meds. Most of them don't always, but the vast majority do take them most of the time. But more significant is the fact that the rates of violent crime committed by those diagnosed with "traditional" mental illnesses - bi-polar disorder, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. - and not the behavior disorders prevalent in criminals (for which people never were locked up in the loony bin anyway), is no higher than that of the rest of society.
There are 100's of 1000's of people right now holding down jobs at every level in every field, raising families, doing all kinds of normal things, who just a generation ago would have been locked up for life in an institution. I once had a boss who would occasionally schiz out, become unbearably impatient, paranoid and surly -even talk to herself - around her period. But we were all aware of her problem, and would alert her when she needed to "take a few days off". No problem. This woman went on to become head trainer for a pro sports team, and her studies and articles have been published in many professional journals.
10195. jonesatlaw - 4/12/2000 11:22:54 PM
Joezan- I agree. There are cases of people who do things which would otherwise be criminal during acute mental illness who can be cured or treated for their mental illness such that they would not pose a serious threat of repeating the behavior. They are the exception rather than the rule. I would emphasize what Joezan mentioned before, the mental illnesses associated with serial killing and multiple homicides are not the sort that we associate with mental health treatment. Serial killers are far more likely to be personality disordered, and are poor candidates for treatment. Pedophiles are also likely to act criminally and are equally poor candidates for treatment.
10196. CalGal - 4/12/2000 11:41:39 PM
The Times did a survey of every single "rampage" homicide (murders are multiple and public) they could find--and overwhelmingly, the people were whack jobs (generally schizophrenics).
I agree that serial killers are a whole different ballgame; I thought "mass murderers" was specific enough in my original post, but it might not have been clear.
The entire point of the series is that these people are treatable--but that in many cases they are either undiagnosed or have gone off medication. And yes, obviously, not all schizophrenics are like this.
10197. joezan - 4/12/2000 11:49:59 PM
[...continued]
The price we pay for de-institutionalization is an increase in homelessness, which, imo, could be relieved to a great extent with better outpatient and monitoring services.
Of course, there will always be some who are just too far gone, or who just refuse to take their meds. And if these folks present a threat to themselves or others, they need to be locked up. But believe me - you do not want to go back to institutionalizing every nut standing around yelling at people.
That said, my favorite nut-on-the-street anecdote, illustrative of nothing save the idiocy of the ACLU, is the Billy Boggs story from mid-80's NY.
Billy Boggs was a homeless woman who was extremely territorial and protective of her little square of Manhattan sidewalk, and would yell at and threaten anyone who dared walk by. She took her name from a news anchor, Bill Boggs, at a local NY TV station, WNEW.
Around 1985, after a couple of homeless people froze to death during a cold snap, Mayor Koch (bless his heart) ordered police and EMS workers to scoop up all the homeless people once the temp dropped below freezing, and bring them to homeless shelters.
Well, Billy Boggs, who had been off her meds for about a month at that point, refused to go. The ACLU, of course, rushed in to defend Ms. Boggs' right to freeze to death. They made her a celebrity and, lucky for them, she reciprocated by taking her meds and behaving herself while in the limelight. She was actually very well-spoken and intelligent, and subsequently received lots of support, and a brand new apartment. She even got a job.
10198. jonesatlaw - 4/12/2000 11:50:25 PM
Cal- I agree with you that rampage killers and serial killers tend to be entirely different populations. I don't have any hard numbers at hand, but I generally understand that the subpopulation of schizophrenics who kill are usually paranoid schizophrenics, and are a fairly small portion of that population. I believe that they are also more prone to be non-compliant with regard to their medicine.
10199. joezan - 4/12/2000 11:51:45 PM
[...continued]
The ACLU exploited Boggs for all she was worth, and it was soon apparent that their real agenda, with Boggs as their poster child, was to get the City of NY to provide permanent housing for all its homeless. See what happens when you clean these people up, get them back on their meds and give 'em a medicine cabinet to keep them in? Why, they become instant model citizens!
Koch took a lot of flack over this. But by summer he was vindicated, when Boggs was filmed at her old cardboard box house on her old square of sidewalk, taking a crap in the gutter while yelling at everyone who walked by. The rent for her new apartment had been paid for the next few months, and there was a full prescription, months old, in her medicine cabinet.
10200. CalGal - 4/12/2000 11:53:50 PM
But believe me - you do not want to go back to institutionalizing every nut standing around yelling at people.
No, but I tell you, I wouldn't have trouble with making them check in every day to take their meds--and institutionalize them if they don't.
10201. jonesatlaw - 4/12/2000 11:57:43 PM
Assisted living is not just for old folk. If it were available and affordable, we could have a lot fewer people living on the street. Some people are not going to successful at leaving transitional housing. If we would just leave some patients in what we normally think of as "transitional housing" we and they would be better off.
10202. joezan - 4/13/2000 12:04:41 AM
Cal:
As I said, most people on drugs for mental illness take "drug vacations" now and then - some obviously more than others. I agree with you to an extent - they should be locked up. But only when/if they become a threat to themselves or others.
This is not to say that we wait for something bad to happen before doing something. But given the fact that your average paranoid schizophrenic is no more likely than you or I to hurt anyone, I don't see that there are any grounds, moral or legal, to lock them up simply for not taking their meds.
10203. Max Macks - 4/13/2000 12:19:44 AM
What about those Batista Cubans abusing that kid in
Florida... I wish they could be locked up somewhere or better yet
kicked out of the USA.
They are terrible , but of course I suppose the Press/media show
them and not those that disagree with how they have messed up that kid.
10204. CalGal - 4/13/2000 12:20:36 AM
Joe--if you note, I've said that they should be required to come in daily to take their drugs. If they refuse to do that, they can be institutionalized.
And frankly, I'm not really worried about them becoming a threat to themselves. Manic-depressives, for example, are more harmful to themselves than anyone else when they go off their meds. But schizophrenics (particularly the paranoid kind) can be extremely harmful to others.
Besides, a huge percentage of folks on the street are wackjobs off their meds. Who cares whether or not they are harmful to themselves? I see no reason why the rest of the community should have to tolerate the problems that come along with a host of homeless unmedicated folk.
Provided the community is willing to foot the bill, of course.
10205. joezan - 4/13/2000 12:34:32 AM
Well, there's the rub.
But let's do eliminate the "hurt themselves" requirement. They (the mentally ill) are still no more likely to hurt others than anyone else.
You know what's an even better guage of potential for violence? Stress. You'd be much more successful in decreasing random violence if you, even independently, applied a stress inventory to everyone, and then took measures - however extreme - with those who fail.
Hell - you wouldn't even need to apply it to everyone. Just those who live in poor neighborhoods, for example. You could check off six or seven stressors from the get-go.
I'm not being facetious here - statistically, as a demographic and regardless of any underlying psychological causes, people who live in low-income areas are much more prone to hurt others than are the mentally ill.
Or would that be insensitive?
10206. CalGal - 4/13/2000 12:47:55 AM
Joe,
Oh, please. I'm not arguing that the number of rampage murderers is statistically significant. Besides, I'm not suggesting institutionalizing people who refuse to take their meds only because of violence. That's just one of many by-products that can be avoided by ensuring that people who are mentally ill take the medication that will keep them stabilized.
And it is this absurd concern about stigma and unfairness that stops us from taking reasonable measures to ensure that these people aren't allowed to let their illness take over their lives.
10207. joezan - 4/13/2000 1:11:43 AM
The last thing I'd want to sound like is a civil libertarian. But how can you argue for forcing people to take their meds when there is no greater chance that they'll hurt anyone.
I could more easily accept your rationale if you would agree that, since people who live in low-income areas are many times more likely to hurt someone, they should be subjected to greater scrutiny and forced to attend stress reduction classes, and check in with their therapist once a week, and locked up when they don't.
What do you say?
10208. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:21:37 AM
But how can you argue for forcing people to take their meds when there is no greater chance that they'll hurt anyone.
Because they aren't capable for caring for themselves when they don't take their meds. Because if they are at the point of being noticed by the state (by babbling on the street, accosting people, living on the street due to their refusal to take meds and the resulting paranoia) then their health problems are a burden to the community and there is no real reason why the community should tolerate it.
I don't see the purpose of analogizing it to stress. No comparison at all. People who are stressed out aren't degrading the quality of the community as a whole (to a greater degree to anyone else), they aren't a danger to the community as a whole, and they are able to understand not only right from wrong, but reality as most of us know it. So drop the straw man until you can find one that makes sense.
Want one? I'll give you one, free. Addiction. There you go.
10209. jonesatlaw - 4/13/2000 1:33:22 AM
Cal- are you advocating a kind of "broken window" approach to the mentally ill on the street? IOW the effect on the community is greater than the individual incident because of the ripple effect on those who may be disturbed by being accosted or inconvienced by someone off their meds?
10210. joezan - 4/13/2000 1:34:49 AM
We're talking outcomes, chief. Not individuals. Ignore the nuts -the corner-babblers, the conspiracy-theorists - and they're still no more likely to hurt anyone.
But let those damn poor people stew in their misery, unchecked and untreated - and watch out!
10211. joezan - 4/13/2000 1:38:16 AM
IOW the effect on the community is greater than the individual incident because of the ripple effect on those who may be disturbed by being accosted or inconvienced by someone off their meds?
Which, of course, is much more annoying and has much longer-lasting side-effects than getting shot for your $5, or conked over the head with a tire iron for wearing the wrong color shirt.
10212. joezan - 4/13/2000 1:44:17 AM
CalGal:
Message # 10204 -Besides, a huge percentage of folks on the street are wackjobs off their meds. Who cares whether or not they are harmful to themselves?
Message # 10208 -Because they aren't capable for caring for themselves when they don't take their meds.
10213. jonesatlaw - 4/13/2000 1:44:27 AM
Joezan, I think that many of the people who end up on the streets are not the willful non compliant. Some of them are so short on coping skills that little problems that the average citizen would handly without trouble push them into bad situations where they don't compy with their meds. They simply fuck up somewhere in the bureaucratic process and go without meds for a short while and rapidly spiral downward.
10214. jonesatlaw - 4/13/2000 1:46:38 AM
compy=comply
10215. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:47:49 AM
That, too, is just a by-product. Although not a bad one.
If you have a condition that can cause you to be a serious inconvenience or even danger to the community (as well as to yourself) and that condition also causes you to reject the medication that will keep you stabilized, it is in everyone's best interest that you be required to take the medication. If you do so yourself and don't attract societal notice, then no problem. If you can't do so yourself, then society can make sure you take it.
All the problems we discuss (rampage murders, babbling and attacking strangers, freezing on the streets) are downstream of their refusal to take meds. So why not go to the source of the problem? I'm really not sure why it's considered a civil rights violation to do so, but I'm sure there is an argument to be made.
There is, of course, another group of folk who can't be medicated--but they're a different problem.
10216. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:48:51 AM
We're talking outcomes, chief.
No, you might be. I'm not. I'm talking problems, ma'am. (g)
10217. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:51:04 AM
10215 is in response to 10209.
10218. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:52:00 AM
Joe--I don't understand 10212.
10219. jonesatlaw - 4/13/2000 1:53:06 AM
There is something rather different about the mentally ill. If I refuse to have my cancer treated, and rely on the healing hands of Rev. Bob Tilden, the government is pretty much powerless to intervene. If I rely on Rev. Bob to treat my schizophrenia, the state steps in, relying on some form of substituted judgment.
Another aspect of the problem is that of class. Howard Hughes was pretty far out there towards the end, but he did his shtick in some Vegas hotel, out of the public eye. If you can't afford your legion of faithful Mormon retainers, off you go...
10220. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:57:03 AM
If you refuse to treat your cancer, that's just a form of suicide. Society can interfere to a certain extent, in the same way they can if someone tries to commit suicide some other way. Whether or not they should or not being a different issue.
And as long as you are rich enough or dedicated enough that your mental illness doesn't come to societal notice as a problem, then that's fine. I don't think a diagnosis of schizophrenia should automatically make you eligible for state monitoring. But if you can't or won't be responsible for it, I believe that the state ought to be allowed to do it for you.
As I mentioned in a post to Joe, I think that addicts are an analogous population. Not quite the same, but close enough. The problem there is that we can't medicate addicts back to normal behavior.
10221. joezan - 4/13/2000 1:57:05 AM
jones:
Absolutely true. But the vast majority do not ever fit that scenario. Even a past history of violence in a paranoid schizophrenic is no more indicative of future violence than it is for you or I.
On the other hand, using a stress inventory, or any number of "at risk" inventories, we can nail down to a fairly reasonable certainty who, in a low-income area, is likely to become a criminal.
My argument is not, as CalGal suggests, borne of any concern over stigmatization. Rather, it is that CalGal would sooner compromise the freedoms of a segment of society, based solely on her personal prejudices, and contrary to the facts.
10222. CalGal - 4/13/2000 1:59:49 AM
Rather, it is that CalGal would sooner compromise the freedoms of a segment of society, based solely on her personal prejudices, and contrary to the facts.
Not at all. The segment of society is completely free provided that they don't come to societal notice in a way that demonstrates they aren't taking their meds.
10223. CalGal - 4/13/2000 2:00:46 AM
And even then, I'm only "compromising" their freedom to the extent that they would have to take their meds every day. It's only if they refused to do this that their freedoms would be compromised.
10224. jonesatlaw - 4/13/2000 2:04:17 AM
Joe-I recognize the difficulty in predicting future dangerousness in the mentally ill. I do think that there are some things which would reasonably cause concern, but there is damn little evidence that clinicians as a whole are much better than chance at predicting dangerousness, especially in the scenario you describe. I don't think that it is impossible to predict future dangerousness with accuracy significantly better than chance for the mentally ill as a whole if we include personality disorders etc.
10225. OhioSTOPAS - 4/13/2000 6:20:16 AM
Regarding the story linked by Greystoke in 10226. OhioSTOPAS - 4/13/2000 6:21:15 AM Greystoke's post is at Message # 10180. (If at first I screw up, try, try again.) 10227. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 7:57:50 AM Ronski, Cellar: 10228. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 8:02:12 AM btw Cellar, I did read your review. 10229. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 8:03:17 AM I didn't have time to review All About Eve, however. 10230. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 9:37:50 AM Gentlemen! The Cultural Deprogramming, Please! 10231. Ronski - 4/13/2000 10:52:40 AM uzmakk, 10232. PsychProf - 4/13/2000 11:15:24 AM VIDEOTAPE OF ELIAN IS NEW LOW FOR THE MIAMI RELATIVES 10233. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 11:29:06 AM Mornin' all. Have the "Miami Family" killed Elian yet? Cause as we all know, death is preferable to life under the demon Castro. 10234. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 11:34:05 AM Ronski, you seem like such a reasonable fellow. Cellar, on the other hand, is not only part of the Hollywood scene, but part of the gay Hollywood scene. Now I have absolutely nothing to learn from 95% of the hollywood beat,heterosexual or homosexual. Honestly, what a culture. 10235. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 11:35:34 AM Oh sure you do, Uz. 10236. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 11:36:14 AM btw Cellar, I did read your review. 10237. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 12:08:35 PM Nonsense, Cellar, Hollywood is cutting edge. 10238. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 12:10:31 PM Ronski: 10239. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 12:14:12 PM 10236 Cellar: 10240. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 12:15:35 PM btw, cellar, everywhere else ain't so hot either. 10241. Ronski - 4/13/2000 12:23:55 PM 10242. bubbaette - 4/13/2000 12:25:15 PM The CNN article said that Elian was one of three survivors. Anyone know what happened to the other two? 10243. Wombat - 4/13/2000 1:19:29 PM They are holding off on telling their story until they get paid for it. 10244. bubbaette - 4/13/2000 1:30:46 PM Oh. I thought they were well and living at Disney World. 10245. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 1:38:14 PM "I will add that I see a respect for liberty to be a natural consequence of reasonableness." 10246. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 1:44:36 PM A frontal assault? Oh goodie! 10247. uzmakk - 4/13/2000 1:57:10 PM chuckle, chuckle. You're such a wit, cellar. Perhaps, tomorrow, Cellar. I am blowing off work tomorrow and should have some time to Mote. 10248. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 2:04:28 PM Uz, I'm trembling with antici- 10249. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 2:04:41 PM pation! 10250. LadyChaos - 4/13/2000 2:10:08 PM Greetings from Miami. 10251. Cellar Door - 4/13/2000 2:13:31 PM OK people, I have fucking had it! Now we've got GLORIA ESTEFAN on CNN as a spokesperson for "Elian's Miami family." What is this shit? Do we all need celebrities to speak for us? 10252. OhioSTOPAS - 4/13/2000 4:18:07 PM So you're for applying "the rule of Law"? 10253. CalGal - 4/13/2000 4:19:10 PM Lady, see the Cafe. I'm going to be in Miami in July. Aren't you there? 10254. CalGal - 4/13/2000 4:20:04 PM Duh. Just read your post. That'd be a yes, I'm thinking. 10255. EricCartman - 4/13/2000 4:28:59 PM M*A*S*H* star Larry Linville dies....Presidential hopefuls eulogize rhapsodically 10256. JJBiener - 4/13/2000 5:34:36 PM Eric - You did see the little "satire" label by the title, didn't you? 10257. Diogenes - 4/13/2000 9:12:46 PM Tonight's modest proposal: If they can't respect our laws, maybe we should send the lot of them back to Cuba. How long is this child abuse going to continue - until the little object of their admiration is hospitalized with a nervous breakdown? 10258. Absensia - 4/13/2000 9:21:08 PM Diogenes, 10259. Max Macks - 4/13/2000 10:17:41 PM I get so pissed off at those Baptistas in Little Havanna and their 10260. Ubiquitous - 4/13/2000 11:07:11 PM re :10259. Max Macks 10261. AceofSpades - 4/13/2000 11:18:34 PM 10262. EricCartman - 4/14/2000 1:56:57 AM Biener Message # 10256: 10263. EricCartman - 4/14/2000 2:03:39 AM South Postpones Rising Again For Another Year 10264. EricCartman - 4/14/2000 2:13:23 AM See, technically the above article is "satire". But look at the amount of unrepentant yahoos who still make the news from down there. There's a chunk of truth to it. 10265. EricCartman - 4/14/2000 2:20:36 AM From the sidebar of HoleCity's NewsHole: 10266. bubbaette - 4/14/2000 8:31:17 AM Damn. What am I gonna do with all these Dixie cups again for another year? 10267. Wombat - 4/14/2000 9:37:05 AM Ubiquitous: 10268. Cellar Door - 4/14/2000 10:13:34 AM O.J, the "Nanny" trial, "Die, Die My Diana" (featuring Tom Cruise and George Clooney), Monicamania, Impeachment-O-Rama, and now "No, Papi, No," starring Elian Gonzales as Haley Joel Osment. 10269. Wombat - 4/14/2000 11:02:35 AM Msg. 10267: 10270. theDiva - 4/14/2000 11:06:00 AM 10271. theDiva - 4/14/2000 11:06:30 AM hm. 10272. jonesatlaw - 4/14/2000 12:26:25 PM Elian will lead a march to the sea, where he will part the Carribean to Cuba. Cubans will flow out of the country, and then be pursued by Castro's army. Once all the Cubans have come to Florida, Elian will wave his power ranger sword and the sea will swallow the Cuban army. 10273. Max Macks - 4/14/2000 1:04:48 PM Great stuff here, nice to read this after another round of the 10274. Wombat - 4/14/2000 1:04:58 PM Then he would not be Elian, he would be Moises. 10275. bubbaette - 4/14/2000 1:13:09 PM Let my people go!!! 10276. robertjayb - 4/14/2000 1:40:12 PM . 10277. Wombat - 4/14/2000 2:37:55 PM David Plotz in Slate (yeah, I know, boo!) describes a grotesque invitation to Juan Miguel Gonzalez from Tom DeLay and the Republican Cuban-American congressional delegation to meet with them, under the protection of the Capitol Police. This is to give him the freedom of expression that he apparently has lacked before. I guess he could use his new-found freedom to suggest that they get the fuck out of his business and tell their lunatic pals in Miami to give him his kid back. 10278. Indiana Jones - 4/14/2000 3:52:10 PM Another miserable day at the market... 10279. Cellar Door - 4/14/2000 3:57:29 PM THE STOCK MARKET IS CRASHING! 10280. Indiana Jones - 4/14/2000 4:11:18 PM Cellar: Politics aside, I try not to use the same material over and over. You've used the Kate Smith line at least three times now. Moreover, it's a bit of a kneejerk to see everything through the prism of Clinton (though apparently his enablers do). 10281. robertjayb - 4/14/2000 5:58:03 PM . 10282. Cellar Door - 4/14/2000 6:40:16 PM Moreover, it's a bit of a kneejerk to see everything through the prism of Clinton (though apparently his enablers do). 10283. Cellar Door - 4/14/2000 6:41:11 PM You've used the Kate Smith line at least three times now. 10284. Cellar Door - 4/14/2000 6:42:31 PM "Clinton enabler," is -- I'm sure we all recall -- a term coined by everybody's favorite fag-hag, Arianna Huffington. 10285. Max Macks - 4/14/2000 6:48:24 PM Katherine Jones ? 10286. Indiana Jones - 4/14/2000 9:26:32 PM "YOU do!" 10287. Max Macks - 4/15/2000 12:17:27 AM Indiana J--never seen ya in TT. Where do you visit there? 10288. joezan - 4/15/2000 12:44:16 PM Comments? 10289. joezan - 4/15/2000 12:45:56 PM School officials told the couple that because of Derek's comments he should be separated from the other students and forced to enter the school's "Mentor" program, where he would be studied by an adult supervisor who would monitor Derek's thought processes. 10290. joezan - 4/15/2000 12:49:57 PM 10291. joezan - 4/15/2000 12:50:27 PM 10292. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 12:56:53 PM 10293. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 12:59:07 PM 10294. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 12:59:44 PM 10295. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:02:49 PM "The letter, which was written by the principal," 10296. Greystoke - 4/15/2000 1:03:49 PM joe 10297. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:05:30 PM Grey, 10298. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 1:07:01 PM 10299. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 1:07:47 PM 10300. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:08:33 PM What? McCarthy was a Soviet? OMG, where's Roy Cohn when you need him? 10301. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:09:28 PM The Axis loved informants and since when have the Soviets = liberal? 10302. AceofSpades - 4/15/2000 1:15:41 PM 10303. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:17:37 PM Well, at least that isn't a generalization! 10304. Absensia - 4/15/2000 1:19:01 PM Uh oh..the Goon Squad's at the door! BRB, I'm gonna put them to work..do those windows! weed that garden! 10305. Greystoke - 4/15/2000 1:37:42 PM Joe 10306. Indiana Jones - 4/15/2000 2:17:35 PM Max: I post at TT most frequently on the Cato Institute and Crash of 2000 threads. To oblige the TableTalk staff, I do so under a nom de plume. 10307. Max Macks - 4/15/2000 11:24:34 PM Indian...Cato Institute??!! 10308. joezan - 4/16/2000 12:31:47 AM 10309. joezan - 4/16/2000 1:17:34 AM 10310. Cellar Door - 4/16/2000 11:02:29 AM No wierder that separating Elian Gonzales from his father. Children are property. And political props. LIVE WITH IT! 10311. Diogenes - 4/16/2000 2:09:54 PM My son had the perfect solution to the Elian case. Forget the Supreme Court and go straight to the top - Judge Judy. Fast, simple, and the dad gets the boy back quicker than you can say buenas dias. The law is the law, sports fans. More after this word from our sponsor. 10312. EricCartman - 4/16/2000 6:32:49 PM Message # 10292: 10313. JJBiener - 4/17/2000 1:07:45 PM Diogenes - The law is the law, sports fans. 10314. JJBiener - 4/17/2000 1:13:30 PM Unfortunately there are people in positions of influence who are trying to turn this country into the Soviet Union. Here is an article showing how far people in universities are willing to go. 10315. jonesatlaw - 4/17/2000 2:10:25 PM JJB- there are also folk who would change the country into a theocracy- or an eat the poor plutocracy or tree hugging green eden. Pick your extreme view, there are profs, proselytizing for it. Conservative voices are far from stilled at UN-Omaha, or its sister campuses. The reason article is overblown. At the same time these sensitivity sessions are conducted there are Frats who are enthusiastically promoting the status quo ante. 10316. joezan - 4/17/2000 8:37:08 PM 10317. Greystoke - 4/17/2000 9:15:26 PM 10318. Greystoke - 4/17/2000 9:23:23 PM Woman gives birth on a sidewalk while her husband watches from a nearby jail cell. 10319. Greystoke - 4/17/2000 9:26:26 PM Makah tribe authorizes another whale hunt. 10320. Greystoke - 4/17/2000 9:32:49 PM Woman held in jail for seven months as a material witness. 10321. Greystoke - 4/18/2000 5:44:36 PM 10322. Greystoke - 4/19/2000 12:02:50 AM Providence grand jury recommends no criminal charges against cops for shooting fellow officer. 10323. greysTOKE - 4/19/2000 11:56:23 AM Wimpy New Zealanders are afraid of a seal. 10324. robertjayb - 4/19/2000 12:51:09 PM 10325. robertjayb - 4/19/2000 8:36:17 PM . 10326. JudithAtHome - 4/20/2000 11:34:02 AM robertjayb: 10327. robertjayb - 4/20/2000 3:30:19 PM . 10328. PsychProf - 4/20/2000 4:34:19 PM 10329. Cellar Door - 4/20/2000 6:49:52 PM "Mass Murder -- It's Not Just For Teenagers Anymore" 10330. Diogenes - 4/22/2000 10:01:22 AM The child has now been rescued from his well-meaning kidnappers. Good job! 10331. Ubiquitous - 4/22/2000 11:42:59 AM 10332. Ronski - 4/24/2000 12:29:15 PM 10333. robertjayb - 4/24/2000 4:06:12 PM . 10334. robertjayb - 4/25/2000 12:04:28 AM A do-it-yourself poll in The Miami Herald... 10335. joezan - 4/25/2000 7:16:50 AM Hey - I've just discovered I'm a Fast Eddie fan, RJB. 10336. PsychProf - 4/25/2000 11:29:24 AM 10337. JudithAtHome - 4/25/2000 12:57:08 PM Wonder what brand of funiture that dresser was...seems ready made for a killer TV commercial! 10338. janjon - 4/25/2000 1:01:30 PM "Mrs. Donovan said a statue of the Virgin Mary standing on the dresser ``helped create a miracle.''" 10339. OhioSTOPAS - 4/25/2000 1:02:31 PM The best part is how Mrs. Donovan slept through the car crashing through their bedroom roof. 10340. JudithAtHome - 4/25/2000 1:09:16 PM And cursing Viagra all the while... 10341. Wombat - 4/25/2000 1:26:11 PM There was as scene in the movie "Freebie and the Bean" where a car chase on an elevated expressway ended with one of the cars going off the road and into an apartment. 10342. Greystoke - 4/25/2000 4:49:55 PM Germans protest a proposed ban on certain dog breeds. 10343. robertjayb - 4/25/2000 4:55:02 PM . 10344. Greystoke - 4/25/2000 4:56:55 PM Louisville jury flips a coin to find a man guilty of murder. 10345. robertjayb - 4/25/2000 5:10:10 PM . 10346. Greystoke - 4/25/2000 5:16:47 PM robertjayb 10347. Greystoke - 4/25/2000 5:41:52 PM Court of Appeals finds Ohio's motto to be unconstitutional. 10348. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 12:20:14 AM I don't know all the rules of what goes where but this seems to me like a current event since I heard it on the radio today. And it was all about what happened yesterday in Washington, D.C., at the Zoo. I was listening to this show called the "Phil Henry Show" and he was talking to this lady named Mavis Leonard, a retired Negro school teacher. She was explaining why that shooting had occured. 10349. EricCartman - 4/26/2000 12:27:49 AM I'm assuming Mavis Leonard was forced into retirement, due to severe psychological problems. 10350. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 12:29:58 AM Now don't go getting all pissed off at me, if you are still up that is, because I am just giving up the stright skinny on what this old Negro lady was laying out there. It seems that all this vine swinging and spear chucking is caused by a racial memory from when these, as she called them, "new negroes" got too close to the monkey cage. 10351. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 12:34:55 AM Eric old boy 10352. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 12:37:58 AM Please excuse the terrible typing as I have had several wiskeys, which I felt I needed after a hour or so of Mavis. 10353. robertjayb - 4/26/2000 12:46:34 AM . 10354. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 12:58:08 AM robertjayb 10355. Jimbo - 4/26/2000 1:51:42 AM Hey robertjaybird 10356. ArtVandelay - 4/26/2000 3:45:06 AM Jimbo. 10357. OhioSTOPAS - 4/26/2000 6:00:15 AM Greystoke (Message # 10356): I support the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Ohio motto is a verse from the Bible, with obvious religious significance. 10358. OhioSTOPAS - 4/26/2000 6:06:23 AM By the way, it's interesting that Ohio's Republican governor and legislators picked Matthew 19:26. That's just two verses away from a passage that GOP leaders ignore (while preaching to us, among other things, that homosexuality is a sin): "It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." (Matthew 19:24) 10359. OhioSTOPAS - 4/26/2000 6:08:55 AM Jimbo: I didn't know the KKK had a creative writing workshop, but take your homework out of here. 10360. theDiva - 4/26/2000 8:32:26 AM Is that shit supposed to be funny? 10361. bubbaette - 4/26/2000 8:47:33 AM Diva 10362. OhioSTOPAS - 4/26/2000 8:54:00 AM Or an existing stupid fuck with a new screen name. 10363. rubberducky7 - 4/26/2000 9:14:47 AM Isn't it sad that this is news? 10364. theDiva - 4/26/2000 9:18:54 AM Here is information on the DC zoo shooting. 10365. robertjayb - 4/26/2000 10:34:58 AM . 10366. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2000 11:35:54 AM The state of Iowa is going to bring charges against Dan Savage for his little foray into undercover reporting. They are charging him with ...get this...making a mockery of the Primary election process. 10367. ChristiPeters - 4/26/2000 12:20:05 PM How can you make a mockery of the Primary election process? The Primary election process is a mockery. 10368. bubbaette - 4/26/2000 12:39:37 PM I think that who ever brought the suit is humor-impaired and has no grasp of the concept of a free press. Seems like one of those political moves destined to backfire on the pinhead who thought it up. 10369. PsychProf - 4/26/2000 2:47:02 PM I HATED THAT BAND 10370. robertjayb - 4/26/2000 3:14:44 PM . 10371. Greystoke - 4/26/2000 5:11:47 PM Florida man, shot 20 years ago, becomes Baltimore's 95th homocide this year. 10372. Greystoke - 4/26/2000 5:36:32 PM Nebraska man shot dead while trying to save woman from burning car. 10373. Diogenes - 4/26/2000 5:54:13 PM Ohio, 10374. JJBiener - 4/26/2000 6:18:43 PM Diogenes - Why would that make Republican's squirm? It sounds more appropriate for the President who made a big deal about being seen at church when he was also playing sex games with a girl young enough to be his daughter. 10375. dusty - 4/26/2000 7:45:33 PM Vermont governor signs bill creating marriage-like 'civil unions' 10376. ChristiPeters - 4/26/2000 11:55:06 PM Yes. 10377. EricCartman - 4/27/2000 4:10:33 AM Biener: 10378. OhioSTOPAS - 4/27/2000 6:45:38 AM Diogenes: Our Ohio state motto, "With God, all things are possible" (from Matthew 19:26) may have special meaning to Republicans. (Quotes below are from the "Good News Bible", a modern-English translation.) 10379. OhioSTOPAS - 4/27/2000 6:50:04 AM In Matthew 19:26, Jesus replies, "This is impossible for human beings, but for God everything is possible." In other words, God is so all-powerful, all-loving, and all-forgiving, He can even make it possible for a rich person to enter Heaven. 10380. theDiva - 4/27/2000 8:40:20 AM Diogenes 10381. robertjayb - 4/27/2000 11:44:20 AM . 10382. jonesatlaw - 4/27/2000 3:07:03 PM Grey- re10372- I hear that Blum was suspected of having a relationship with the shooter's husband. The good samaritan was just that, he responded to the fire, and was shot by the suspect who objected to removing the victim from the car. 10383. Ronski - 4/27/2000 4:13:49 PM 10384. ScottLoar - 4/27/2000 4:22:37 PM The Kaw tribe. If they followed the usual pattern for plains tribes they probably never numbered more than 2500 people and at a high of 20 million acres they enjoyed 8000 acres per person. 10385. PsychProf - 4/27/2000 4:50:19 PM NO MORE OLD COWS 10386. robertjayb - 4/27/2000 4:53:31 PM . 10387. Greystoke - 4/27/2000 6:39:44 PM Jones 10388. Diogenes - 4/27/2000 6:43:22 PM Thanks for the correction, Diva. Scary what ideas you can run across in the Bible. 10389. robertjayb - 4/27/2000 7:33:36 PM . 10390. Jimbo - 4/27/2000 8:06:58 PM I guess there is something wrong with my computer since I can't get anything from all those red links. I tried both the right and left click. 10391. robertjayb - 4/27/2000 9:44:32 PM . 10392. Jimbo - 4/28/2000 1:26:07 AM robertjayb 10393. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 2:58:12 PM Jimbo, 10394. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:01:21 PM I have not heard Rush Limbaugh in months, but I heard his subsitute for the day get his ass kicked by somebody from Chicago this afternoon. His simple question, " Where is the evidence that allows you to make these statements?" 10395. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:04:55 PM . 10396. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:04:56 PM Fred Williams, People Power Radio, or, the World According to Fred? 10397. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:05:28 PM Dissenting opinions, especially when they are well expressed and deserve either rebuttal or acceptance, are disposed of as quickly as the highly trained radio broadcaster is able to drop them. Fred will often accept a point made by a caller, and immediately discard it, and then continue with his standard line of dogma as if the point had never been made. Fred does not like criticism of any kind because it interferes with his image as local demigod. Other rhetorical techniques are used by the master of jingo demagogues, Rush Limbaugh. When Limbaugh comes up against an opponent, who has made it through the thought filtering device the Maharushi says, "Oh, no, I shall not follow the argument down that path you silver-tongued devil. You are trying to trick me, the holder of the sacred flame of conservative truth, no matter how reasonable your argument may seem, you must be a liar and a deceiver for you are a liberal". He then goes into a one minute rebuttal ending with a comment disparaging the caller's point and even calling into question the caller's ability to think. The caller has vanished from the airwaves, Rush has had the last word, and the shakey viewpoint of the talk show host is triumphant. Another technique used by radio talk show hosts, when the argument is not going their way, is to jump off the track and demand an answer to a yes or no question which may or may not be related to the corner into which the host found himself being forced. People cluster around the ideas that they find attractive, but to believe that the perspectives espoused by any of these radio talk shows can stand up to scrutiny is ridiculous. Imagine the naivete of a large part of Limbaugh's audience who believe that there is a man on the radio who is telling them the truth everyday: a daily dose of self-induced schizophrenia. 10398. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:08:22 PM Dissenting opinions, especially when they are well expressed and deserve either rebuttal or acceptance, are disposed of as quickly as the highly trained radio broadcaster is able to drop them. Fred will often accept a point made by a caller, and immediately discard it, and then continue with his standard line of dogma as if the point had never been made. Fred does not like criticism of any kind because it interferes with his image as local demigod. Other rhetorical techniques are used by the master of jingo demagogues, Rush Limbaugh. When Limbaugh comes up against an opponent, who has made it through the thought filtering device the Maharushi says, "Oh, no, I shall not follow the argument down that path you silver-tongued devil. You are trying to trick me, the holder of the sacred flame of conservative truth, no matter how reasonable your argument may seem, you must be a liar and a deceiver for you are a liberal". He then goes into a one minute rebuttal ending with a comment disparaging the caller's point and even calling into question the caller's ability to think. The caller has vanished from the airwaves, Rush has had the last word, and the shakey viewpoint of the talk show host is triumphant. Another technique used by radio talk show hosts, when the argument is not going their way, is to jump off the track and demand an answer to a yes or no question which may or may not be related to the corner into which the host found himself being forced. People cluster around the ideas that they find attractive, but to believe that the perspectives espoused by any of these radio talk shows can stand up to scrutiny is ridiculous. Imagine the naivete of a large part of Limbaugh's audience who believe that there is a man on the radio who is telling them the truth everyday: a daily dose of self-induced schizophrenia. 10399. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:09:40 PM Damn it, if I already posted the thing what he hell was it still there for? 10400. Wombat - 4/28/2000 3:12:08 PM Very nice, Uz. But why listen to it all? 10401. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:14:38 PM What, then, is the effect of talk radio. After all, there is white racist talk radio, in the form of Bob Grant, the full conservative array which we get locally on WILK, various black talk radio shows, NPR etc. each attracting those with a certain perspective and set of beliefs. In this way the prejudices of various groups are reinforced and their world view becomes more stridently held because it is validated, not by the test of open debate and the demonstrable validity of one perspective over another, but by a chant of reinforcing cliches, disguised as reason, that the like-minded bestow upon each other. There is much opinion and much blather abroad in the land, but there is little rigorous debate. Or, to use a phrase that has been used twice in the recent past on the Fred Williams show, there is no critical thinking or dialectic thought. And if there is little debate, one can make the argument that there is little genuine thought going on in the heads of the citizenry. Belief and opinion, yes, we are awash in the standard diametric cliches.. We have taken our positions in the Coke-Pepsi, Democrat-Republican, Impeach-not impeacxh Arguments, wehave chosen our mental corrals. Thus the herding aspect of talk radio, mental activity, but no thought. .The recent histories of Rwanda and Yugoslavia come to mind where talk radio played a significant role in events: The disembodied radio voice explains the world in a few comfortable well- worn cliches, expounds a questionable version of history, and convinces listeners that it is they who think and that it is the others who are sheep, lessor men, or are lacking in moral character... 10402. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:17:30 PM In this great wide land , this bastion of democracy, crucible of innovation I know of no talk show with a format that resembles rigorous debate. One must ask, "Why not?" I can think of several reasons. 10403. Ronski - 4/28/2000 3:18:11 PM One of the worse closed-minded conservatives is Sean Hannity on WABC in New York. He hurls names at his callers if they challenge him on anything. And sometimes, he's plain wrong on the facts. 10404. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:18:47 PM Last of all there is the possibility that we are not so fragile at all, that people might find that they like thinking once they become familiar with the process. and that a thinking population is a danger to the regime. Imagine a large group of independent thinkers who discover that what they think and have to say is far more insightful than anything currently coming down from our political parties on the television or radio. Such a group might demand that democracy be reinstituted in this country. They may realize that they are more competent at their own governance than the oligarchy of professional politicians that now rules America in its own interest. They may begin to conceive of, devise and demand mechanisms of a more direct democracy made possible by our new computer and communications technology. They may begin take a passionate interest in their own affairs, their own best interests, the health of their republican institutions, posterity, and the possible mechanisms by which they can strengthen the self- regulating and self-governing nature of the American Republic. 10405. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:20:17 PM . 10406. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:21:03 PM . 10407. Ronski - 4/28/2000 3:22:27 PM That is true, of course. Even Bob Grant has called what he does, shtick, Yiddish showbiz slang for an act. 10408. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:25:02 PM Wombat: 10409. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:26:32 PM 10410. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:31:10 PM Hannity is the guy who got his ass kicked. Funny thing is that 95% of the audience doesn't realize it. 10411. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:34:16 PM Anyway, our local guy is pretty good. Any of the local mayors can get on the show one Friday a month. Uzmakk is allowed to speak twice a week. 10412. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:35:20 PM fix? 10413. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:36:22 PM test 10414. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:36:58 PM Help 10415. Wombat - 4/28/2000 3:37:23 PM toys 10416. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:37:46 PM Somebody else is going to have to fix it. I dun all I can. 10416. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:37:46 PM 10417. uzmakk - 4/28/2000 3:38:29 PM I fix. 10418. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:40:43 PM sorry 10419. robertjayb - 4/28/2000 3:42:04 PM . 10420. OhioSTOPAS - 4/28/2000 3:53:27 PM Seeing Robertjayb and Uzmakk fumbling with the "toys" function reminds me of Laurel and Hardy with the piano. 10421. Ronski - 4/28/2000 3:55:50 PM 10422. Ronski - 4/28/2000 3:57:00 PM Unless you were thinking of the piano scene is Swiss Miss, with the footbridge, and the gorilla. 10423. Ronski - 4/28/2000 3:57:25 PM 10424. OhioSTOPAS - 4/28/2000 4:06:50 PM No, I had "The Music Box" in mind. Like you say, a classic. 10425. Greystoke - 4/28/2000 6:51:31 PM Kansas police hold five high school students for two months based on a false accusation. 10426. Greystoke - 4/28/2000 6:55:35 PM Massachusetts boy suspended for three days after writing a story about a chainsaw attack. 10427. Greystoke - 4/28/2000 10:41:54 PM Colorado legislature passes pro-gun bills. 10428. Greystoke - 4/28/2000 10:55:22 PM Federal court rules that MP3.com violated the copyright laws. 10429. Greystoke - 4/28/2000 11:01:28 PM Microsoft and Xerox have created a company that will develop new technologies to protect copyrighted material on the Internet. 10430. robertjayb - 4/29/2000 12:28:34 AM . 10431. JudithAtHome - 4/29/2000 7:38:04 AM I heard the 911 tape just now on the news and thought how true it is that the relatives have gotten used to the limelight; granted they were stressed at the time but to identify the location as "the Elian House" seems strange. "We need help at the Elian House!" No address, no identification...but then asgain, who in America doesn't know where the Elian house is? I guess they had a point... 10432. JudithAtHome - 4/29/2000 7:39:02 AM again, not "asgain". 10433. Greystoke - 4/29/2000 9:05:30 AM Anglo and Indian lobster fishermen are feuding in Nova Scotia. 10434. Greystoke - 4/29/2000 10:16:13 AM 10435. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 1:57:37 PM Greystoke, me Jane. 10436. EricCartman - 5/1/2000 4:46:35 PM Lady Chaos posted this link the other day, and as we were in the height of Elianmania (because, after all, it Affects Our Very Way of Life you know) it was completely overlooked. 10437. JJBiener - 5/1/2000 5:12:43 PM Cartman - I'd love to listen to Clinton and McCaffrey's explanation for this. Clearly there are two sets of rules, depending on whom one knows 10438. janjon - 5/1/2000 5:41:07 PM "I happen to think that one major party far exceeds the other in this matter, but opinions may vary." 10439. EricCartman - 5/1/2000 6:12:12 PM Biener: 10440. uzmakk - 5/1/2000 6:15:44 PM Cartman: 10441. DaveM - 5/1/2000 6:19:27 PM The double standard is more likely class-based than party-based. 10442. EricCartman - 5/1/2000 7:10:12 PM Uzi: 10443. robertjayb - 5/2/2000 1:34:46 PM . 10444. CalGal - 5/2/2000 1:38:26 PM Grey--I posted on the MP3 ruling in Arts; didn't think of looking here. That's big news. ALthough good news for the people at LiquidAudio. Their stock doubled. 10445. robertjayb - 5/2/2000 1:38:35 PM . 10447. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 4:41:48 PM Ronski, 10448. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 4:50:20 PM CalGal 10449. CalGal - 5/2/2000 4:55:03 PM Grey, 10450. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:00:22 PM CalGal 10451. CalGal - 5/2/2000 5:07:28 PM No, it will be figured out. Alternately, the method of producing music will radically change. Frankly, there are enough proprietary methods out there that will probably prevail as long as the music companies determinedly sue the shit out of fuckers like MP3. This was a win for teh good guys. 10452. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:11:40 PM CalGal 10453. PsychProf - 5/2/2000 5:12:04 PM 10454. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:16:53 PM An Oregon girl is denied the valedictorian award because of her behavior. 10455. CalGal - 5/2/2000 5:18:28 PM In what way? MP3 was making money by providing other people with the ability to steal. They were warned, they didn't stop. 10456. uzmakk - 5/2/2000 5:20:22 PM You know, Cal, as we all get sucked into this capitalist thing our conversation will become as boring as that of the truly wealthy. 10457. Ronski - 5/2/2000 5:21:00 PM Greystoke, 10458. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:23:07 PM CalGal 10459. PsychProf - 5/2/2000 5:23:16 PM Here is what I think...muscians have to pay for a class I teach, and I have to pay(them) to use their music. 10460. CalGal - 5/2/2000 5:24:08 PM Grey, 10461. PsychProf - 5/2/2000 5:25:04 PM If she was assaulted, the school would be held responsible...if she is not assaulted, it is a prank. 10462. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:27:31 PM Ronski 10463. uzmakk - 5/2/2000 5:29:33 PM I seen some pretty bad stuff go on in locker rooms. Guess you just have to get used to it. A naked girl is not among the worst things I could imagine. She is lucky though. Wiseass little bitch running naked into a locker room full of hard-ons. Showering? Ho, ho. 10464. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:32:02 PM CalGal 10465. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:35:10 PM PP 10466. robertjayb - 5/2/2000 5:35:50 PM . 10467. CalGal - 5/2/2000 5:37:06 PM I didn't say I disagreed with you--although I do. But you are basically arguing that the musicians are bad guys because you want free stuff. And that there are lots of people like you. 10468. PsychProf - 5/2/2000 5:39:17 PM I assumed that the sharing was covered in the cost of the first purchase... 10469. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 5:46:09 PM CalGal 10470. CalGal - 5/2/2000 5:52:46 PM I'm not taking anything that (in my opinion) belongs to anyone else, like I would if I stole a tape from the music store. 10471. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 6:00:48 PM CalGal 10472. CalGal - 5/2/2000 6:10:19 PM Musicians will continue to be paid for their live performances. 10473. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 6:25:55 PM CalGal 10474. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 6:55:01 PM And yes, I am simultaneously arguing two points: 10475. CalGal - 5/2/2000 7:19:02 PM At this point in time, MP3.com is guilty. It remains to be seen what the appeal will do for them. And it was a summary judgment, which is never a good sign. 10476. CalGal - 5/2/2000 7:20:26 PM the govenment should repeal the copyright laws so everyone can have free music, videos, and Windows 2000 without fear of prosecution. 10477. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:09:36 PM 10478. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:13:37 PM 10479. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:15:21 PM 10480. CalGal - 5/2/2000 8:16:54 PM Well, thanks. But I think he should be kicked, dammit. 10481. CalGal - 5/2/2000 8:23:12 PM Though I don't know if end-users are covered under piracy laws. 10482. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:24:46 PM 10483. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 8:26:00 PM CalGal 10484. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:27:38 PM 10485. CalGal - 5/2/2000 8:28:39 PM But there's no argument here. It's just plain idiocy. 10486. CalGal - 5/2/2000 8:29:30 PM So, as we said earlier, not a single person has been arrested for downloading MP3 music, but you say its a crime? 10487. AceofSpades - 5/2/2000 8:31:55 PM 10488. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 8:40:24 PM Ace 10489. EricCartman - 5/2/2000 8:45:16 PM I think music is overpriced and star musicians are overpaid for what they do. 10490. EricCartman - 5/2/2000 8:53:43 PM I like to think that when I was playing music, I made a lot of money. And I did -- I also had a day job, and I rarely had less than five or six hundred bucks in my pocket at any given time. But if I calculated all the time put in learning new songs, rehearsing them, setting up and tearing down for performances, etc., we were probably working for minimum wage. Maybe. 10491. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 8:54:05 PM CalGal 10492. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 8:56:41 PM Cartman 10493. EricCartman - 5/2/2000 9:21:51 PM Greystoke: 10494. Greystoke - 5/2/2000 11:10:04 PM CalGal 10495. robertjayb - 5/2/2000 11:28:56 PM . 10496. LadyChaos - 5/3/2000 12:57:31 AM 10497. CalGal - 5/3/2000 12:58:05 AM Grey, 10498. greystoke - 5/3/2000 11:53:10 AM CalGal 10499. janjon - 5/3/2000 12:23:30 PM That was an interesting link. It was to Slate, not Salon, however. 10500. rubberducky7 - 5/3/2000 12:37:39 PM the myth of the entire MP3 debacle is that it really takes money from the artists. not the case 98% of the time, imo, b/c of a couple things: 10501. robertjayb - 5/3/2000 3:43:07 PM . 10502. EricCartman - 5/3/2000 4:38:07 PM More on Metallica vs. Napster 10503. EricCartman - 5/3/2000 4:40:49 PM Something else I was discussing with a friend recently, about how the music biz is nowadays: back in the '70s, record companies allowed bands time to develop. You got a three-to-five-album option, and that gave your band time to build a following. Now it's a one-plus-one (the second one being the company's option), and you either break big on the first go-round or get the fuck out. 10504. rubberducky7 - 5/3/2000 4:54:53 PM Eric: 10505. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 5:06:57 PM Cartman 10506. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 5:14:04 PM "They fail to connect the dots, and realize that their actions as end-users, collectively, affect the livelihoods of the people that make the art that they treasure so." 10507. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 5:20:18 PM And furthermore, why shouldn't a new band bypass the traditional record companies altogether and market their music directly to Internet users through services like MP3 and Napster? The first step is to get a following. If that is accomplished, then its time to go after a record deal. 10508. Raskolnikov - 5/3/2000 5:20:25 PM I think it is almost a given that the record companies are going to take a huge hit from this. The Internet isn't shrinking folks, and bandwidth isn't decreasing. Fewer and fewer people are going to be willing to pay for a CD when they can download it for free, in less time it takes to buy it. 10509. Raskolnikov - 5/3/2000 5:22:35 PM I think musicians will survive by distributing music for free over the Internet, and making money off of live performances and merchandizing. Or else they may develop a shareware model of marketing. Modern musicians, except for huge bands, don't make much off CDs anyway. 10510. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 5:25:37 PM Rask 10511. Raskolnikov - 5/3/2000 5:35:14 PM >What is your take on the morality and legality of downloading music for free? 10512. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 5:42:28 PM Rask 10513. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 7:51:45 PM Rapper Chuck D supports Napster. 10514. Greystoke - 5/3/2000 7:54:34 PM An excerpt from the article about Chuck D: 10515. EricCartman - 5/3/2000 9:20:56 PM Greystoke Message # 10505: 10516. EricCartman - 5/3/2000 9:23:22 PM Message # 10506: 10517. EricCartman - 5/3/2000 9:24:24 PM I think eventually some sort of compromise or licensing agreement will be reached. Unfortunately Metallica has taken on the bad guy role for now, but someone had to, to get Napster to pay attention. An indie band can afford to give their stuff away to build a following. Every move Metallica makes costs them $$$. 10518. uzmakk - 5/3/2000 9:49:28 PM Cartman: 10519. jonesatlaw - 5/4/2000 2:45:41 AM Cart- there is no doubt that the bulk of the wealth in the music industry is sucked up by the "industry" part of the equation. Even if we don't consider the costs of tours, there is a hell of a rake on the artist for the expenses associated with record production. I would love to see how many times artists have paid for the same shit at the record company- compare the write offs of all the artists to the actual expense to the company. 10520. EricCartman - 5/4/2000 10:57:48 AM Jones: 10521. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 11:22:33 AM Since I think musicians will be able to come up with a viable business model, and in general will probably be helped by the Internet (I think only marquee bands and those relying on heavy studio promotion will be hurt), I am not too worried about the future of music. 10522. EricCartman - 5/4/2000 11:50:17 AM Well, Rask, what did the TV networks do when cable and DSS channels starting eating into their profits? That's right, "reality" programming. World's Wildest Police Chases. When Pets Attack. Dateline, every fuckin' night. Low budget, clipped-together, cheeseball "human-interest" stories. Bart's People, ad nauseam. 10523. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 11:59:05 AM The Hong Kong movie industry has already been almost completely destroyed by piracy. Fifty cent VCD's appear in Mong Kok within days (maybe hours) of any movies release. Even 5 years ago, Hong Kong movies dominated local theaters; now, Hollywood movies are the top grossers because no one can afford to shoot a good movie if they can only get revenues in China. 10524. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 12:18:32 PM But that is just competition for content. *All* content will have the same problem. There are only three solutions that I see: 10525. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 12:26:38 PM "The Hong Kong movie industry has already been almost completely destroyed by piracy. Fifty cent VCD's appear in Mong Kok within days (maybe hours) of any movies release. Even 5 years ago, Hong Kong movies dominated local theaters; now, Hollywood movies are the top grossers because no one can afford to shoot a good movie if they can only get revenues in China." 10526. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 12:37:01 PM "Aren't those VCD's just camcorder recorder knock-offs off the 10527. rubberducky7 - 5/4/2000 12:38:04 PM rask: 10528. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 12:44:59 PM I was just watching "The Corruptor" tonight. I had the feeling it would have been better if either Mark Wahlberg or Chow Yun Fat spoke English as a native language. 10529. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 12:57:23 PM "Yes, apparently it takes about 72 hours to get commercial quality films into the shops. But, if bad quality pirate films destroyed the HK film industry, wouldn't good quality so whats your point" 10530. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 12:58:42 PM "I was just watching "The Corruptor" tonight. I had the feeling it would have been better if either Mark Wahlberg or Chow Yun Fat spoke English as a native language." 10531. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 12:59:45 PM "It's probably fair to point out that there really isn't a film industry left anywhere outside of Hollywood that isn't government subsidized no-talent hacks." 10532. RustlerPike - 5/4/2000 1:03:19 PM 10533. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 1:12:30 PM Bollywood is to Hollywood as the WWF is to the NFL. As a middle class American, you might think that no matter how high or low you went in the class structure that you could always find something to talk about with your fellow male American, if you follow football. However, believe it or not, if you go low enough you'll find many people for whom NFL football is confusingly complicated, overly strategic and lacking in visceral punch. It is for these people that professional wrestling was invented. 10534. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 1:18:28 PM I have now seen one Bollywood film, "Sholay". I actually quite enjoyed it, and didn't find it any dumber than your typical mass- market Hollywood fare. The music was catchy, but unfortunately the lyrics weren't translated on my DVD. 10535. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 1:19:51 PM But I knew that Bollywood was mass market entertainment, having been lectured on this point by Pseudo a couple of months ago. However, I did think that it was popular enough to be self-supporting, and not require government subsidies. 10536. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:25:55 PM Buttersfield, what a silly thing to say about the Indian masses being impervious to Hollywood. They're not at all. It's just that they prefer the formula movies of Bollywood to stuff they can't relate to from the USA. I mean, what relevance would a When harry Met sally have to Indian peasants. Please note, however, that Jurassic Park was a massive hit in translation. And contrary to what you're saying, all the Arnold and Stallone movies are popular - like with almost every other country on the planet. Also the Home Alone movies. For some reason all Indians really like those. 10537. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:27:38 PM There are no government subsidies for film affecting Bollywood. Some regional governments do give money to have local-language movies made - but in general the film industry in India is entirely self-supporting. 10538. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 1:27:56 PM Well, the audience for Bollywood is too poor to pay for individual CD's much less CD players, so probably its not really relevant for thinking about piracy. 10539. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:30:21 PM More silliness, BSW, there are vast international audiences for Bollywood movies believe it or not. 10540. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 1:31:14 PM Not. 10541. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:31:16 PM You're DaveCook aren't you? 10542. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 1:31:48 PM Marj, I was hoping you would show up: 10543. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:32:22 PM Rask, tell the man how many Bollywood DVD's are available at NetFlix. 10544. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:35:37 PM The answer, BSW: many. 10545. Raskolnikov - 5/4/2000 1:36:25 PM I would estimate it at a third or a fourth of their inventory. There is certainly an International market for Bollywood films, but I wonder what percentage of their grosses comes from abroad. The average Hollywood film gets something like 1/2 to 2/3 of its grosses from International distribution. 10546. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:40:58 PM From BusinessWeek: 10547. ButterfieldSwire - 5/4/2000 1:50:14 PM marjoribanks - No, I'm ButterfieldSwire (though Dave is short for Butterfield). I believe everything you say. But, regardless, my argument is that the reason that there is an independent cinema left in India is that there is a significant audience for whom Hollywood is too sophisticated and who can't afford the equipment necessary to pirate local content. 10548. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 1:56:52 PM BSW, 10549. AceofSpades - 5/4/2000 1:59:55 PM 10550. marjoribanks - 5/4/2000 2:02:51 PM Ace, 10551. AceofSpades - 5/4/2000 2:04:33 PM 10552. Greystoke - 5/4/2000 8:12:07 PM I was browsing the Yahoo message boards for Mettalica and encountered some interesting comments: 10553. Greystoke - 5/4/2000 8:59:38 PM A post from a Dr. Dre board: 10554. Greystoke - 5/4/2000 9:13:50 PM Here is Chuck D's editorial about Internet music. 10555. joezan - 5/5/2000 12:04:21 AM 10556. EricCartman - 5/5/2000 1:44:43 AM I disagree, Joezan. Chuck D is one of the few coherent people in rap. In print and TV appearances he has always seemed razor-sharp and keenly aware of his responsibilities to his community. (Which philosophy I don't necessarily agree with, because I'm a selfish asshole, but he articulates it quite well.) 10557. Raskolnikov - 5/5/2000 10:23:55 AM Chuck D has been my favorite rapper ever since he did some vocals on Sonic Youth's "Kool Thing", still one of my all-time favorite songs. 10558. PsychProf - 5/5/2000 2:10:34 PM TEFLON GOV 10559. PsychProf - 5/5/2000 3:34:28 PM CANDY AT SCHOOL 10560. jonesatlaw - 5/5/2000 3:43:30 PM Looks like the DEA needs to whip up some new drug hysteria. I am sure that there is abuse of Ritalin; that some kids are misprescribed it, and others are giving it or selling it to their friends. However, my experience is that meth is as available as Ritalin, meth is more dangerous both by itself by reason of its greater effects, and as used because of the cutting agents used and the poor conditions in which it is manufactured. Meth is made by grown-ups who are harder to catch and more dangerous than kiddies, so I can imagine that we'll see the DEA take a breather from work that is tought and turn to some high profile kiddie busts to capture yet more federal funding and press. 10561. PsychProf - 5/5/2000 3:52:57 PM Jones...ritalin and ecstacy are readily available on the college campus, and, indeed, in our public schools. Your term "mild" depends on the dosage taken. I meant the link from the perspective of a concerned adult, not fron the view of any particular ideology or political stance. 10562. PsychProf - 5/5/2000 4:03:44 PM WHEN RITALIN HAS GREATER EFFECTS 10563. robertjayb - 5/5/2000 4:12:50 PM . 10564. joezan - 5/5/2000 4:57:22 PM 10565. robertjayb - 5/5/2000 5:21:10 PM . 10566. Dantheman - 5/5/2000 5:26:30 PM rjb 10565, 10567. joezan - 5/5/2000 8:46:34 PM 10568. joezan - 5/6/2000 8:02:44 AM 10569. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 8:15:15 AM Joe 10570. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 9:02:15 AM LAPD officers' homes are searched. 10571. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 9:13:04 AM Utah court rules that public crotch grabbing is legal. 10572. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 9:29:29 AM Washington Supreme Court upholds the limited liability of software companies. 10573. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 9:42:18 AM Other ways to get free music. 10574. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 9:44:08 AM Ooops. I forgot to say that the italicized paragraph in the previous post was an excerpt from the linked article. 10575. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 3:50:49 PM Napster's impact may go way beyond music. 10576. joezan - 5/6/2000 3:52:50 PM 10577. LadyChaos - 5/6/2000 3:55:51 PM Greystoke, 10578. Cellar Door - 5/6/2000 4:32:21 PM Oh those poor scarred children! It must have been so TRAUMATIC for them! 10579. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 5:38:34 PM Joe 10580. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 6:02:51 PM LadyChaos 10581. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 7:58:13 PM The Chuck D I remember had pretensions to earnest and intelligent debate on issues that matter (which always came down to a parroting of Louis Farrakhan's extreme anti-Semitism).... 10582. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 8:01:44 PM ....and had, ever at his side, this pet babboon named "Flavah Flav", next to whom even an N-Stink-er would seem a genius. 10583. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 8:19:28 PM Greystoke Message # 10570: 10584. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 8:23:52 PM Message # 10579: 10585. Greystoke - 5/6/2000 8:46:50 PM Cartman 10586. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 8:59:53 PM Greystoke: 10587. EricCartman - 5/6/2000 9:22:02 PM I should also point out, Greystoke, that if copyright and intellectual property laws are to be rethought for some reason or other, this would be about the worst possible reason, imho. Rewriting copyright laws because people will violate them and steal music anyway is a terrible idea, and would only serve to kill off what creativity is left in rock music. 10588. joezan - 5/7/2000 8:54:40 AM 10589. joezan - 5/7/2000 9:00:48 AM 10590. JJBiener - 5/7/2000 2:25:09 PM There is a trend that has been going on for the past few years, and I think the free music movement is a part of it. For years artists had to tour to promote sales of their music. It was music sales that were the bread and butter for the artist. Artists have come to realize that there is real money to be made from performing and the related merchandising. As a result I think we will see the percentage of artist income from music sales fall as performing revenues continue to increase. CD's, MP3's, etc. will be used to promote live shows rather than the other way around. 10591. robertjayb - 5/7/2000 2:39:21 PM . 10592. EricCartman - 5/7/2000 8:15:30 PM Joezan: 10593. EricCartman - 5/7/2000 8:18:57 PM 10594. joezan - 5/7/2000 11:36:31 PM 10595. EricCartman - 5/8/2000 12:46:30 AM Joezan: 10596. EricCartman - 5/8/2000 12:47:41 AM I mean, Chuck D has never come across to me as any more intelligent than your average highschooler. 10597. PsychProf - 5/8/2000 2:53:35 PM IMPORTANT RESEARCH 10598. robertjayb - 5/9/2000 2:08:59 PM . 10599. robertjayb - 5/9/2000 2:22:27 PM . 10600. PsychProf - 5/9/2000 3:27:44 PM WE WANT TNE ANSWER TO BE YES 10601. Wombat - 5/9/2000 5:06:08 PM Cyprus??? 10602. EricCartman - 5/9/2000 5:20:51 PM RJB Message # 10598: 10603. AceofSpades - 5/9/2000 5:24:22 PM 10604. EricCartman - 5/10/2000 3:51:02 AM But a lot of white dudes get to feel "black" and get to practice a little patronization by swearing on a stack of Bibles that he's a genius prophet. 10605. EricCartman - 5/10/2000 3:53:21 AM Like a lot of rock stars and celebrities, Chuck D confuses a microphone for actually having something to say. 10606. Indiana Jones - 5/10/2000 10:30:58 AM PP (10597): Good link. 10607. PsychProf - 5/10/2000 2:48:07 PM SANDWICH GENERATION: CARING FOR ONES KIDS AND PARENTS 10608. PsychProf - 5/10/2000 6:11:54 PM "THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES" 10609. robertjayb - 5/10/2000 6:21:44 PM . 10610. PsychProf - 5/10/2000 6:48:38 PM 10611. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 11:48:25 AM PP: 10612. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 12:01:58 PM ``There are no moral absolutes on this given topic,'' Plecki told The Associated Press on Wednesday in his first interview since the 1995 Illinois Academic Decathlon scandal broke. 10613. janjon - 5/11/2000 12:10:11 PM My God. An opportunity for Biener to hit at two bugaboos at one time. 10614. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 12:34:44 PM ``There are no moral absolutes on this given topic,'' Plecki told The Associated Press on Wednesday...." 10615. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 12:42:21 PM 10616. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 12:54:40 PM Other Infamous Democrats 10617. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 12:55:49 PM Adrianne - Can you ever learn to take a joke? The joke works because there is a good chance it is true. Teachers belong to the teachers unions. The teachers unions support Democrats. Therefore it is likely that as a teacher he was both a member of a teachers union and a Democrat. It was close enough to the truth to make you squirm. 10618. janjon - 5/11/2000 12:57:13 PM How about Mr. Chips? Gotta get that teacher bit in there too. We'll just assume that Chips would have been pro-union, ok? 10619. janjon - 5/11/2000 12:58:14 PM likely? 10620. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 12:58:40 PM Bubbaette - Other Infamous Democrats 10621. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 12:59:19 PM janjon - Bite me. 10622. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:01:06 PM Biener. Nah. Even though I do like cotton candy. And jello. Especially with persimmons or prunes in it. 10623. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:03:57 PM For a joke to work, it has to be funny. 10624. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:04:06 PM Oh, right, I forgote about Jeffrey Dahmer. Better add him to the list. 10625. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 1:04:12 PM Re: Message # 10614, ChristiPeters. 10626. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 1:04:39 PM toys? 10627. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:04:55 PM toys 10628. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 1:05:56 PM 10629. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:07:30 PM 10630. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:08:38 PM The mention of Richard Nixon still tends to do that. Amongst the good folk, at least. 10631. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:08:51 PM Bubb 10632. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:09:23 PM "In Plecki's case there is a plausible link. For a joke to work, there has to be some connection to reality. 10633. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:10:20 PM WHICH of his obsessions, bub? There are so many from which to pick. Of course, there is a common thread. 10634. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 1:10:35 PM rubberducky - 10635. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:11:19 PM Well, if Goliath goes on the list, I would vote for the Jolly Green Giant, too. He's always looked "funny" to me and thats gotta mean he's a Dem, right? 10636. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:11:26 PM Judith - For a joke to work, it has to be funny. 10637. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:12:26 PM My God, he digs his hole even deeper. 10638. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:12:36 PM And them damned Keebler elves, while we're at it. 10639. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:13:56 PM JJ: 10640. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:13:59 PM 10641. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:14:03 PM Ad - Yes, JJ, it is I who like like a fool. 10642. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:14:57 PM 10643. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:15:52 PM Lex Luther 10644. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:17:01 PM Toulouse-Lautrec 10645. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:17:14 PM LOL! You guys are a riot. And sooo predictable. 10646. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:17:41 PM Fred Flintstone 10647. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:17:47 PM 10648. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:18:35 PM Ernie but not Bert 10649. DaveM - 5/11/2000 1:19:30 PM I tried to think of some really bad people to add to the list, but could only come up with Republicans. 10650. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:19:55 PM My mother was a German. 10651. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:20:18 PM 10652. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:20:33 PM All dogs are Democrats? Well, the yellow dogs, anyway. 10653. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:21:22 PM That stuff you get in your grout when you forget to clean the tub 10654. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:22:05 PM Diva 10655. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 1:22:05 PM Re: Message # 10634, ChristiPeters. 10656. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:22:36 PM yellow dogs. 10657. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:22:41 PM 10658. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:22:46 PM oh, okay. 10659. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:23:25 PM Termites are definately Democrats. 10660. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 1:23:45 PM oh ... 10661. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:23:47 PM Praying mantises are, of course, Republicans. 10662. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:24:21 PM 10663. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:24:25 PM Are we ganging up on JJ? I thought we were listing Democrats. I came late to the discussion. 10664. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:25:02 PM Pasties you put on with Krazy Glue 10665. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:25:35 PM Kitty litter 10666. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:25:43 PM The 6' Tall Payless Bandit lady must be a Democrat. 10667. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:25:55 PM Yellow Waxy Buildup on your floors -- democrat 10668. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:26:36 PM Ah ha! I got the SOS! 10669. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:26:37 PM This &*!@U($!! agenda item I'm supposed to be writing. 10670. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:27:29 PM That love bug computer virus HAD to be a democrat. 10671. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:27:58 PM The lackwit in front of you at the drive thru bank who forgot his pen....Democrat. 10672. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:28:22 PM 10673. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:29:12 PM RD7 - Ganging up on me? I provoked this. They are responding better than I could have hoped. I am laughing my ass off. It is like knocking over that first domino and watching all the rest tumble in perfect order. It is absolutely inspiring. 10674. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:30:00 PM Darva Conger 10675. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:30:52 PM .....JJ, you can't recover. No way. Just sit back and enjoy. 10676. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:31:14 PM yeast infections -- democrat 10677. DaveM - 5/11/2000 1:31:43 PM I thought saline breast implants were the good ones? They would have to be republican... 10678. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:31:57 PM It is never a gang-up when it comes to Biener. 10679. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:32:46 PM The only good breast implant is a Republican breast implant, huh Dave? 10680. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:33:18 PM (Bubba, that time, is it? LOL) 10681. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 1:33:30 PM rubberducky - 10682. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:33:40 PM Judith - The only thing I need to recover from is excessive laughter. My sides are beginning to hurt. 10683. DaveM - 5/11/2000 1:34:11 PM I guess you're right. Republicans value women for their minds... 10684. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:34:35 PM JJ: 10685. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:34:54 PM You know when the phone rings and you race through the house to pick it up severly stubbing your toe in the process but there's nobody on the line when you finally pick up? It was a Democrat calling. 10686. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:36:58 PM Bubba. WRONG. That person on the phone was one of those telmarketing souls and we all know that they work for BIG BUSINESS and NO WAY that BIG BUSINESS (except for those California types and a few of the Silicon Valley boys who will grow out of it) is Dem. 10687. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:37:56 PM Tornados.....democrat 10688. janjon - 5/11/2000 1:38:07 PM um, California types was supposed to be movie industry types. But, the ones that are Dem. are gay too, so they don't count. 10689. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:41:14 PM Janjon 10690. DaveM - 5/11/2000 1:43:50 PM A quarter can't be a democrat - George Washington wouldn't stand for it. 10691. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:44:35 PM Wilted lettuce....democrat 10692. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 1:45:32 PM CP: 10693. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 1:47:20 PM Unless you're a commodities trader and then it becomes a crime. 10694. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 1:48:31 PM janjon - It is never a gang-up when it comes to Biener. 10695. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:49:37 PM jock itch = democrat 10696. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:50:11 PM John Tesh, Kenny G, Yanni, Michael Bolton - ALL Democrats 10697. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:50:20 PM hahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10698. Adrianne - 5/11/2000 1:51:44 PM 10699. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:51:55 PM Gypsy moths, cutworms, dutch elm blight = democrats 10700. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 1:55:08 PM the little piece of rock that gets in your shoe on a hike -- Democrat 10701. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:57:27 PM Those last 5 pounds that won't go away so you can put on that really cute dress that makes you look like Sophia Loren - DEMOCRAT 10702. theDiva - 5/11/2000 1:57:59 PM Tummy tucks - Republican 10703. PsychProf - 5/11/2000 2:00:11 PM Biener-Democrat 10704. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:00:31 PM BWAHAHAHAHAHA 10705. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 2:01:04 PM All your "fat clothes".....democrat 10706. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:01:17 PM Chitlins = democrat 10707. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:01:47 PM (what if the size 8s are your fat clothes?) 10708. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 2:08:07 PM Well, Diva....we go with what we know. 10709. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:08:48 PM Oh, okay. 10710. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 2:09:26 PM "real" jewelry -- republican 10711. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:10:44 PM Republicans must have orgasms, there are so many of them. 10712. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 2:11:44 PM Well, the end had to come sooner or later. 10713. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 2:12:34 PM Diva: 10714. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:14:03 PM Men can fake it? How? 10715. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 2:14:19 PM rubberducky - I hear what you are saying, I just think you are worng. However, I see you are thinking of cheating in terms of cheating on tests (I think). I wasn't. The kind of cheating I hear the most about is cheating on homework assignments. However, I was not just referring to that either, but cheating in general - of any kind. 10716. ChristiPeters - 5/11/2000 2:15:01 PM ooops, while worng is an interesting sounding word, I meant wrong. 10717. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 2:15:21 PM Diva 10718. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:17:52 PM All the Bushes look alike. 10719. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2000 2:18:52 PM Yeah, I'm sure thay agreed to raise at least half the unwanted kids out there in the country and just welcomed them in with open arms... 10720. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 2:19:12 PM But were they ALWAYS republicans? 10721. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 2:24:56 PM Re: Message # 10714, theDiva. 10722. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 2:38:21 PM cheating = Democrat 10723. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 2:40:11 PM bubb or diva 10724. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 2:43:20 PM Ducky 10725. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 2:47:14 PM Bubbaette - How can I make it any clearer -- anything that has gone wrong or will go wrong in the course of human history -- everything bad in the world that has been, is, or will ever be is Democrat. 10726. theDiva - 5/11/2000 2:55:53 PM Ducky 10727. rubberducky7 - 5/11/2000 3:00:12 PM thanks, bubb, i think i'm getting the idea now. 10728. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:00:55 PM okay. 10729. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:01:28 PM Did we mention Caligula? He was definitely a Democrat. 10730. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:06:10 PM I was thinking about Caligula, but I couldn't remember his name. The best I could come up with is "Little Boots" and that just doesn't carry the same OOMPH. 10731. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:07:14 PM Ya know what? Caligula was a Libertinearian. 10732. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:12:51 PM You're absolutely right, Diva. How could I have made that mistake. After all, I myself am a liberaltarian. 10733. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:16:54 PM Bubb, will you come finish this agenda item for me? I'm tired. 10734. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:19:17 PM What it is? 10735. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:21:50 PM some bullshit with transferring money from an economic development fund into a capital projects fund and why our pols should approve it. bla bla bla 10736. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:27:37 PM Why Diva, capital projects ARE economic development! What kinda business wants to locate to an area with run-down buildings, crappy sewers, bad water, and poor roads. The very BEST thing you could do is to transfer those funds so as to make PWC even MORE attractive to business and industry and thus continue the trend of developing stable, good-paying, high-tech, non-polluting jobs to serve the economy and employ the good citizens of PWC as you boldly lead the New Dominion into the new millenium. 10737. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:28:42 PM That'll work. Now all I need is 250 more pages. 10738. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:29:50 PM what's another word for fund? 10739. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:31:13 PM Use alot of pictures demonstrating the county's inadequate or crumbling infrastructure, then pad it out with letters of endorsement from local civic and business letter. If that doesn't work, double space the copy. 10740. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:31:55 PM finance. 10741. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:34:35 PM fund=resources=budget line=source? 10742. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:35:50 PM Good ones. Thanks. 10743. bubbaette - 5/11/2000 3:37:07 PM Good luck. It's time for me to go dig in my garden now on this glorious afternoon. 10744. theDiva - 5/11/2000 3:37:26 PM thanks, babe. Have fun! 10745. Greystoke - 5/11/2000 4:41:43 PM I don't intend to continue beating the dead horse on free music, but I thought this e-mail that I received today was interesting: 10746. Greystoke - 5/11/2000 5:28:21 PM People with brain injuries know a liar when they see one. 10748. Greystoke - 5/11/2000 5:41:24 PM Kentucky bourbon flows. 10749. JJBiener - 5/11/2000 5:59:22 PM The flaming river of liquor scorched trees on the riverbank, but no other serious environmental damage was evident, officials said. 10750. robertjayb - 5/11/2000 6:01:18 PM . 10751. robertjayb - 5/11/2000 6:22:28 PM . 10752. jonesatlaw - 5/11/2000 6:22:46 PM Cue Randy Newman-"Burn on, big river, burn on.." 10753. Planet 9 - 5/11/2000 7:02:42 PM It must be heaven! Bourbon and branch water flowing by. 10754. DaveM - 5/11/2000 10:04:37 PM I hope that little incident doesn't make Bourbon rates go up. The Heaven Hill distillery in Louisville had a similar incident in 95 or 96 and kids would drive from all the local colleges to watch. 10755. Greystoke - 5/11/2000 11:26:35 PM Burger King employees tamper with the food. 10756. Greystoke - 5/11/2000 11:38:33 PM 10757. joezan - 5/12/2000 7:08:44 AM 10758. rubberducky7 - 5/12/2000 8:44:57 AM The next best thing to free music? 10759. JudithAtHome - 5/12/2000 12:04:54 PM Just read a howler in NY Post: Susan Carpenter-McMillin is begging Paula Jones not to pose for Penthouse because it will "undo all the good work Paula has done over the past years." Yeah, what it will do is finally show Paula for what she is: a money grubbing little bimbo who craves attention and who will do anything to make a buck. 10760. bubbaette - 5/12/2000 12:11:01 PM Har! 10761. jonesatlaw - 5/12/2000 1:28:13 PM Paula could make the "I just read the articles" whopper a true statemetn for me. Will the fold out be her nose or her hair? Will there be a lesbian shoot with Linda Tripp? Gawd, how would that fold out? 10762. JudithAtHome - 5/12/2000 1:40:12 PM Quite gingerly, I would imagine. 10763. Raskolnikov - 5/12/2000 1:54:05 PM I would beg her not to do it for purely aethetic reasons. 10764. Raskolnikov - 5/12/2000 1:54:43 PM "Will there be a lesbian shoot with Linda Tripp?" 10765. JJBiener - 5/12/2000 3:39:03 PM Rask - Damn you to hell for all eternity for putting that image into my head. 10766. Jack Vincennes - 5/12/2000 3:59:39 PM The condemnation of Jones for cashing in is a little much. It smacks of elitism akin to the nasty snobbery directed at those shabby Cubans who housed Elian Gonzales in their grotesque house. 10767. Cellar Door - 5/12/2000 4:06:06 PM Oh stop, Niner. You'd be the first in line to buy X-rated Lesbo pics. 10768. Jack Vincennes - 5/12/2000 4:08:06 PM Cellar 10769. Wombat - 5/12/2000 4:11:21 PM The nadir would be if Clinton agrees to pose nude for Playgirl (is it still published?). Once out of office, he may need a quick hundred thou or two. The world could then see the angle of his dangle. 10770. Cellar Door - 5/12/2000 4:11:48 PM Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! 10771. Cellar Door - 5/12/2000 4:13:31 PM Love it, Wombat. "The Angle of his Dangle" -- like "The Shadow of Her Smile" only more explicit. 10772. Jack Vincennes - 5/12/2000 4:20:04 PM Oh Lord. 10773. marshame - 5/12/2000 4:32:24 PM In the words of Wombat: "the angle of his dangle." 10774. marshame - 5/12/2000 4:33:19 PM Jack V are you the former 109109? 10775. arkymalarky - 5/13/2000 5:53:15 PM Good guess, Marsha, but he makes it pretty easy with that eloquent defense of such a pitiful specimen of humanity. Yes, Jack, PJ and Elian both have a lot in common. The Republican party, who wouldn't give a rat's patootie about them were they among the anonymous masses of ignorant and pitiful, have adopted them as poster children--not as an example of the need for changes in sexual harassment and immigration laws, but as beacons illuminating the depravity and impersonal humanity of all that is Bill Clinton. I'll have to remember to keep a box of Kleenix by my monitor before I start to read your posts next time. 10776. Greystoke - 5/13/2000 11:15:44 PM 10777. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 9:03:04 AM arky 10778. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 9:03:35 AM arky 10779. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 9:04:00 AM And your goofy rendition of history makes my point precisely. The governor summons a state employee to his hotel room, they are alone, something happens, she sues, the president lies in defense of this garden-variety sexual harassment suit, under oath and with a wagged-finger to the American public, the president asks others to lie for him (they do), he lies to his cabinet, he lies, apparently, to everyone he can find, he fights and fights and fights to the brink of impeachment . . . and the verdict of cheerleaders like you? 10780. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 9:04:07 AM The telling aspects of your comments, however, are two-fold. First, your Reader's Digest version of history - simplistic, ignorant of nuance, long on moral condemnation, and unencumbered by the facts - is common. It speaks in a loud single sentence, "Bill Clinton was a victim, a good man done wrong by trash and conspiracies, trash and conspiracies. Praise the lord!" Yes, yes. Amen. 10781. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 9:11:26 AM Test your integrity on a Current Event. 10782. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:14:25 AM Jack- all very well and good, but you gloss over the meat of the matter. Paula Jones suffered no loss as the result of the alleged weiner wagging, no loss in pay, not loss of opportunity, no retribution for not accepting the invitation of the governor, and no psychological injury. Remember what summary judgment is- there was no issues of material fact at issue and there was no legal basis for judgment in Jones' favor. If you sued your doctor because you lost your psychic ability after a CAT scan, the court's response would be the same. In short, Jones claim had no merit. The settlement was for political expediency, nothing more. The best Jones outcome from an 8th Cir decision would have been a remand to the trial court for more preliminary motions/hearings and trial. 10783. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 10:23:01 AM Jones 10784. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 10:26:01 AM This all could have been avoided if Paula had simply followed Nancy Reagans advice and just said no...to going up to his room in the first place. 10785. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:36:34 AM Jack- if she had credible evidence of pyschological injury, she could have survived summary judgment, right? Have you ever got an offer from an insurance company where you lost on summary judgment? 10786. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 10:37:36 AM jones: 10787. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 11:06:41 AM jones 10788. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 11:08:38 AM Jack- I forgot which side of the money bags you stand on. 10789. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 12:56:15 PM Juditha 10790. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 1:11:12 PM Jack: 10791. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:16:58 PM Juditha 10792. Ronski - 5/15/2000 1:17:00 PM 10793. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:20:36 PM Ronksi 10794. Raskolnikov - 5/15/2000 1:25:17 PM As a Democrat, and a general supporter of Clinton, I will say that one of the things out of this mess which truly makes me ill is the inevitability with which women who accused him had their reputations trashed and had the blame shifted to them. I think that a few decades from now, feminists and a lot of other left-leaning folk are going to be looking back on their actions with horror. 10795. Ronski - 5/15/2000 1:26:04 PM 10796. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:43:51 PM Rask 10797. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 1:47:49 PM Oh, you don't think he'll be forgiven....like Nixon? 10798. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:51:18 PM Judith 10799. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:51:48 PM 10800. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:53:19 PM And to top it off-what really seals this as a museum-quality Clinton answer-is that it turns out not to be true! When the president says he decided a while back to decline to answer "all future questions," he implies that he had been answering all previous questions up to that moment. But in fact the president had been declining to answer any questions for close to a year, always with the implication that he would be overjoyed to answer the questions at some future date. The untruth, in other words, is both prospective and retrospective, extending through time, comprehending the past and the future and folding over on itself like an M.C. Escher fantasy. One can only marvel. Is it any wonder that so many of Clinton's opponents have gone insane? 10801. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:53:46 PM The White House press corps likes to think of itself as a kennel of pit bulls, but really most of the reporters there are quite domesticated, a bunch of pussycats. They much prefer asking questions like-well, like these, from that same press conference in March 1999, when the reporters confronted the president for the first time since the century's only presidential impeachment, with accusations of rape and Chinese espionage hovering over him and his administration: "Do you think your wife would be a good senator?" "How are the two of you doing in trying to strengthen your relationship, given everything you and she have been through over this past year?" "Do you consider it a betrayal for former aides to write books on the history of your administration while you're still in office?" "Sir, will you tell us why you think people have been so mean to you?" (This last was from the octogenarian Sarah McClendon. After the laughter died down, the president said: "Let me give you a serious answer," and then actually did.) 10802. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:54:31 PM "On impeachment," the president said, "I am proud of what we did there, because I think we saved the Constitution of the United States." The transcript of the president's appearance is sketchy, but I have closely read contemporaneous news accounts, and astonishingly there is no evidence that following this remark any of the editors fell to the floor in a dead faint, clawed the air in a grotesque pantomime of terror, or even ran gasping from the room to the hotel bar. Apparently the president felt sufficiently encouraged by this to continue, which he did, saying, "I'm not ashamed of the fact that they impeached me. That was their decision, not mine, and it was wrong. As a matter of law, Constitution, and history, it was wrong." 10803. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:54:59 PM The mistake, further, is always a "personal mistake," a "self-inflicted" mistake in "private conduct." And what was that personal mistake, specifically? Was it the nailing of the intern, or was it the public denial of the nailing? Was it mobilizing his wife, the Office of the President, and several cabinet secretaries in furtherance of that denial for the better part of a year? Was it getting caught? We cannot know, and of course no one has dared to ask. In the president's account of impeachment there's just a nameless mistake, stark and naked and alone, unconnected to anything before or after. 10804. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:55:23 PM His impeachment was thus a persecution whose roots lie exclusively in the perfidy of others-Republicans, actually. "They knew that the American people agreed with my ideas," he said last March, "and the direction in which I was taking the country." They were driven to extra-constitutional measures by his political success. "They did not agree with what I had done and they were furious that it had worked and that the country was doing well." Crazed by the unemployment figures, the lowered crime rates, and the soaring Dow Jones Industrial Average, Republicans saw impeachment as their only recourse. "They attempted to use what should have been a constitutional and legal process for political ends." 10805. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 1:55:33 PM No one should be surprised, in light of this, that the president believes his own interests and the interests of the Constitution are essentially the same; the president has an outsized view of impeachment because he has an outsized view of himself. He has always been a master of inversions-of turning the meaning of things inside out to his advantage. But here, as his presidency draws to a close, he has pulled off the grandest inversion of all. By his own telling he has emerged from the ordeal of impeachment not as a perjurer, not as an abuser of power, not even as a cad-but as a molder of character, a forgiver of sins, a saint. 10806. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:05:04 PM Ferguson hits it on point. 10807. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 2:06:08 PM Didn't we have several months of this stuff back in 98/99? 10808. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:19:22 PM bubber 10809. PsychProf - 5/15/2000 2:24:12 PM 10810. PelleNilsson - 5/15/2000 2:29:30 PM This new Vincennes fellow is quite preachy is he not? One misses the sharp analysis of the fellow he is supposed to have replaced. 10811. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:35:36 PM he is.....oddly compelling..... 10812. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:35:49 PM The new Pelle still uses the word "quite" and "fellow" (twice). 10813. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:37:16 PM Diva 10814. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:38:34 PM hmmm.....tempting. Still, what will people think? 10815. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 2:38:41 PM Jack: It's old news when you nail it, but these are the same Democrats who keep saying "we will remember." 10816. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:39:29 PM Diva 10817. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:40:45 PM Such a commanding presence! 10818. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 2:40:54 PM I'll put the closed sign up at the Cafe for you, Deev. 10819. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:42:34 PM Not so fast. I can't be had for the price of a steak, you know, and this character did put my Niner through a wood chipper. 10820. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:45:44 PM You should have heard him. 10821. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 2:46:21 PM I'll let you two crazy kids work this out in private. 10822. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:47:38 PM Oh, bullshit. His last words were of me, you said so yourself. 10823. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:48:21 PM Diva 10824. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 2:48:46 PM Diva 10825. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 2:48:47 PM And watch your mouth. 10826. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:49:29 PM YOUR women? Hahahahahahahahaha! 10827. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 2:50:34 PM well, not neccessarily. After all, a fiery car wreck can also be oddly compelling. 10828. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:52:22 PM And I do so miss that compact adorable guy in the porkpie hat, and his big shit-eating grin. 10829. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 2:53:35 PM He did have quite the fashion sense, didn't he? Not to mention a large supply of wine coolers. 10830. theDiva - 5/15/2000 2:54:03 PM He could wear some bib overalls, couldn't he? 10831. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 2:59:43 PM Yes indeed. And remember the way his Spanglish would turn your knees to jelly? 10832. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:00:21 PM I have to go see some people. 10833. theDiva - 5/15/2000 3:02:21 PM sigh 10834. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:02:32 PM Given the obvious elasticity of what constitutes a current event around here (my oh my, that Jones stuff is vividly implanted in at least one part of jack's anatomy), I feel not badly in commenting a bit about the Million Mom March. 10835. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:02:59 PM And lose the friend. 10836. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:03:33 PM oh, sorry. I didn't realize that the mindless palaver had oozed over. 10837. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:06:31 PM janjon 10838. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 3:10:16 PM Yes, and that senseless jerkoff who shot your child and is cooling his heels in a jail cell was armed with a GUN, not a beachball. 10839. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:14:34 PM Juditha 10840. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:14:35 PM Call it what you like, jack, but the times they are a'changin. Sure, I know a lot of "victims". But, I also know a lot more people in various parts of the movement who are involved just because they know it is the right thing to do for a cause that is right. The politics flow out of that. 10841. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:16:31 PM janjon 10842. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:19:20 PM It is akin to the bastardization of the AIDS quilt, a beautiful and stunning memorial to the toll of the disease. 10843. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 3:20:10 PM Jack: 10844. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:20:28 PM jack - that is pathetic and you know it. 10845. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 3:23:40 PM janjon: What do you think of the tactic of abortion opponents publicizing photos of aborted fetuses? 10846. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:24:18 PM jan 10847. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 3:26:34 PM Janjon 10848. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 3:27:20 PM If you ask me, the pathetic people were the NRA flacks on the Sunday morning gasbag circuit. 10849. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2000 3:28:19 PM the=they 10850. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:35:14 PM Juditha 10851. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:35:27 PM bubbaette. It was a wonderful day and in large measure because it was so extraordinarily civil. And, the pictures of dead kids and the survivors' stories (and, trust me, it is more than just therapeutic for them to tell those stories again and again and to show pictures of their loved ones again and again. It is a need and it is one that the movement respects.) notwithstanding (obviously, as demonstrated from the comments above, they make some people uncomfortable), what made the day so moving in many respects was its understatement. There was a minimum of hyperbole from the stage, a maximum of serious, calm talk. The people listening were more than just intent, they were involved. And, no question that the "movement" has now become augmented. As I mentioned, I've been to a number of mall events. This one was just staggering in terms of the masses of people -all the way back to almost where the little (but loud) counter demonstration was (near the Washington Monument.) People waiting in LINES to sign up to get more literature from various groups, to join groups, etc. 10852. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:40:41 PM Where janjon is correct, however, is in the effect of these massive, maudlin extended wakes. 10853. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:44:21 PM jack - you're missing the point. 10854. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 3:47:14 PM It seems to me that ALL of politics, on both sides, runs on anecdotes. As much sense as it would make to base policy on empirical analysis, it just doesn't get anyone's juices flowing. To have an event like the Million Mom March and NOT use examples of the impact on the families involved would be dry and sterile. 10855. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 3:48:48 PM I thought this was an interesting perspective on the march. 10856. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 3:50:33 PM Sounds like a crock of shit to me, JJ. How the hell is this a civil rights issue? 10857. PsychProf - 5/15/2000 3:51:46 PM Beiner...you use every opportunity to advance your own political advantage, regardless of the manipulation or spin you put on others. Many of those women had their children killed by firearms...please let me know when you reach your limit for personal shame. 10858. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:53:41 PM Bubb, Jan 10858. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:53:42 PM bubbaette. You are, as usual, dead on correct. Change occurs because people don't like/are uncomfortable with whatever the particular or given state of facts are. Sometimes they have to be made aware of what is going on for them to get uncomfortable. Some of the "philosophy" of what was driving the Million Mom March was derived from M.A.D.D. The changes that group effected weren't done by engaging in analytical discussions with politicians about the physiological effects of alcohol. They got the public's attention and then the politicians by hammering home on the human waste caused by killings/maimings/etc. by drunken drivers. By golly, that included putting names and likenesses on the statistics. 10859. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:54:16 PM 1996=1976 10860. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:57:15 PM And nothing can overcome taste, decorum and honesty quicker than blood on the street, because the messagegiver has an impregnable loss as force field, and the zealotry of anyone who has lost a loved one due to senseless acts. 10861. janjon - 5/15/2000 3:57:18 PM um, Jack, taste is one of my middle names, and yesterday had it. Impeccable taste. 10862. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 3:57:38 PM Janjon 10863. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 3:57:47 PM Judith - Go ahead and make fun of these people. At least they were doing something 10864. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 3:58:47 PM janjon 10865. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:01:15 PM bubber 10866. janjon - 5/15/2000 4:01:32 PM jack. you would have had to have been there. you obviously weren't. 10867. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 4:02:04 PM Bubbaette - How the hell is this a civil rights issue? 10868. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 4:02:36 PM Jack 10869. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 4:06:10 PM Psych - you use every opportunity to advance your own political advantage, regardless of the manipulation or spin you put on others. 10870. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:06:52 PM bubber 10871. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 4:07:44 PM JJ 10872. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:12:49 PM Bubb 10873. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:17:18 PM Another example that might strike a chord. 10874. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 4:17:31 PM Jack 10875. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 4:17:58 PM Bubbaette - I am concerned with everyone's civil rights. I am also concerned about how those parents feel. The problem is that none of the proposals touted at the MMM, would have made the slightest difference in the criminal's behavior. If the proposed laws had been in force, their children would be just as dead as they are now. If the restaurant manager had a gun in his desk, the kids might still be alive. That is a difference worth pursuing. 10876. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:19:00 PM bubba 10877. bubbaette - 5/15/2000 4:20:39 PM Reckon we should just issue bullet-proof jackets and pistols at birth and we'd all be safe in a society in which everyone can defend himself or herself with the weapon of his or her choice. 10878. janjon - 5/15/2000 4:23:06 PM jack - what exactly is your point? even if you weren't there, you obviously paid a lot (well, perhaps selectively) of attention to what was going on, being said and shown. Sure, you saw photographs (and yes, they were big ones because they were big screens to allow the huge crowd to see them) of kids who had been killed by guns. Prom picture, snaphots. Any blood? I know how a number of those dead kids were killed. I've actually seen some gruesome police pictures. There are some parents out there who want to throw all of that stuff up and into the public view, to make SURE that the public REALLY knows what happens and how horrible it is. 10879. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 4:25:20 PM 10880. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 4:25:49 PM Bubbaette - If you think you can take guns out of the hands of criminals, you are dreaming. The worst thing you can do disarm law abiding citizens and leave them to be victimized. 10881. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 4:26:25 PM 10882. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 4:28:14 PM janjon 10883. janjon - 5/15/2000 4:30:39 PM Biener. I doubt you have a very clear idea of just what the Million Mom March is proposing in terms of sensible gun legislation. But, leaving that aside, for you to (granted, typically) just cavalierly sweep it all away as just being totally ineffectual and that it would have just absolutely no effect on criminal activity is just mindless bombast. 10884. janjon - 5/15/2000 4:33:39 PM jack - you started off by making one point and one point only - ridiculing the MMM, deriding its use of the dead for emotional, political purposes. Buying votes on the backs of the dead, so to speak. Continue to deride away. At least you are being consistent. 10885. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 4:35:41 PM 10886. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 4:40:18 PM 10887. janjon - 5/15/2000 4:46:57 PM Ace - let me go through it again. The mantra one hears constantly from "the right" is that people like me are out to take the guns away from "law abiding" folk or not let them buy them. Well, they are wrong but lets let that drop for an instant or two. 10888. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 4:55:34 PM Friend, if you're "Waiting for the gun show" to buy your gun, you're waiting a hell of a lot longer than three days. You're waiting months already. It's only a convenient place to buy guns one or two days every season. 10889. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 5:21:15 PM Message # 10885: 10890. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 5:22:40 PM (help. I put this bucket on my head and now I'm confused. And a little frightened) 10891. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 5:25:34 PM Easy there, son. You just let Eric Cartman-Dees-Thomases take care of things. I'm going to organize a Million Bucket March, just for you buddy. Already I am pumping my media connections (which can be painful, if not done slowly). 10892. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 5:26:40 PM janjon - I doubt you have a very clear idea of just what the Million Mom March is proposing in terms of sensible gun legislation 10893. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 5:29:45 PM I like Virginia's Exile program. 10894. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 5:30:12 PM Commit a crime with a bucket on your head, three years. 10895. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 5:35:20 PM JJB- why does the black market argument only work for conservatives with guns and not drugs? I mean, when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. 10896. Ronski - 5/15/2000 5:40:12 PM 10897. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 5:41:37 PM I know it is barbaric, but maybe we should remove the trigger finger from people convicted of commiting a violent offense with a gun. If they persist, we continue removing fingers until they are unable to hold a gun. I would act as a serious deterrent, and it would limit their ability to be a repeat offender. 10898. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 5:43:22 PM Jones - I don't know. I support legalizing drugs. Why don't more Democrats support drug legalization? 10899. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 5:46:25 PM 10900. Ronski - 5/15/2000 5:51:16 PM Ace, 10901. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 5:56:48 PM 10902. Ronski - 5/15/2000 5:58:08 PM 10903. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 5:58:16 PM Ace - It is easier than going to Virginia. Go to a pawn shop in a poor neighborhood. Tell the person behind the counter that you want a gun. When they ask to do the background check, tell him that you would like to avoid the check and your willing to pay cash. Either he will be able to help you directly or he can point you to someone who will. Do not try to dress the part or pretend to be something you not. Just go as yourself. You should have a gun in a matter of hours. 10904. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:03:21 PM 10905. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:06:14 PM Ace: 10906. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:08:01 PM I was in this gun shop and I tried Beiner's trick but the owner put a 5 gallon bucket over my head and I suffered many emotional and physical injuries. 10907. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:12:42 PM Jack: 10908. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:14:55 PM 10909. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 6:17:53 PM Someone please refresh my memory. What was the purpose of the Million Man March a few years ago? 10910. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:21:30 PM Ace: 10911. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:22:36 PM What was the purpose of the Million Man March a few years ago? 10912. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:24:05 PM It is a cool number. 10913. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 6:24:11 PM Grey - The purpose of the Million Man March was to call on black men to take care of their families and live up to their responsibilities. It was also supposed to highlight the status of black men as an oppressed minority, but when most of the men who showed up were comfortably middle class, that aspect didn't really have much of an impact. 10914. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:25:41 PM 10915. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 6:27:47 PM Cart and JJ 10916. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:29:48 PM I don't see the big deal about outright banning gun shows. Fireworks are illegal in most states, for Christ's sake. 10917. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:31:08 PM DaveM 10918. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:33:48 PM I grew up in a dry county. It's the same people that banned alcohol that bitch about their gun "rights." 10919. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:34:30 PM 10920. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:35:52 PM The availability of alcohol should be protected as necessary to the exercise of first amendment rights. 10921. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:35:53 PM DaveM is of the newest breed. 10922. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:37:04 PM Ace - 10923. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:37:21 PM 10924. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:38:00 PM 10925. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 6:38:26 PM Dave 10926. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:38:32 PM 10927. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:38:44 PM DaveM 10928. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:39:43 PM 10929. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 6:39:45 PM I don't see the big deal about outright banning gun shows. Fireworks are illegal in most states, for Christ's sake. 10930. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:41:26 PM Ace - 10931. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:41:55 PM 10932. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 6:42:42 PM Ace - DaveM nicely fills the old Elliot-Fascist-Utopian slot. 10933. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:43:11 PM 10934. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:43:36 PM Dave 10935. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:43:39 PM Ace - 10936. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:43:50 PM A roving moonshine distributor might be handy for some folks. I didn't think "dry counties" were still around. Sounds illegal to me; the repeal of Prohibition implies that adult citizens have the right to get hammered. 10937. JJBiener - 5/15/2000 6:44:09 PM Ace - You wouldn't ban the girl-girl stuff, would you? 10938. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:44:32 PM Bargain, Exchange and Liability (My combined contracts/torts class). 10939. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:45:09 PM 10940. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:45:57 PM Dave M 10941. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:46:11 PM Eric - 10942. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 6:46:52 PM Contracts cum Torts. 10943. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:46:57 PM Ace - 10944. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:47:46 PM 10945. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:48:54 PM 10946. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:49:40 PM A roving moonshine distributor might be handy for some folks. I didn't think "dry counties" were still around. Sounds illegal to me; the repeal of Prohibition implies that adult citizens have the right to get hammered. 10947. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:51:42 PM Jack - 10948. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 6:53:30 PM Oops. Sorry about the rerun there. Fucking server. 10949. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:53:32 PM Sorry, that should say "motel" room. 10950. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:54:43 PM 10951. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 6:56:51 PM 10952. DaveM - 5/15/2000 6:57:59 PM Ace - 10953. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 7:01:10 PM 10954. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 7:01:26 PM Dave: 10955. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 7:02:01 PM cp 10956. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 7:03:16 PM 10957. DaveM - 5/15/2000 7:09:06 PM Ace - 10958. AceofSpades - 5/15/2000 7:11:23 PM 10959. arkymalarky - 5/15/2000 7:12:33 PM Sorry, Jack, but I only had a few minutes to skim your windy... I mean elaborately well-developed... response to my post. Your characterization of it as "pom-pomitis" is lame in the extreme, and calling it "blame the victim mentality" is flat wrong. There would have to be a victim for that to be the case, and I'm highly doubtful there was an incident and dead certain that the victim was not the one who brought the charges. 10960. spudboy - 5/15/2000 7:19:27 PM Ah, it's always good to see Larry Klayman improving on his already stellar track record in court ... 10961. spudboy - 5/15/2000 7:19:39 PM Even if the family did have a privacy interest, it would be outweighed by the public interest in finding out whether the government properly investigated Foster’s death, the appeal said. 10962. EricCartman - 5/15/2000 7:27:30 PM Dave: 10963. spudboy - 5/15/2000 7:38:38 PM So, Ace and Gary, er, Ace and Jack, I’m curious … 10964. wonkers2 - 5/15/2000 8:02:20 PM Rudy Giuliani is a fraud. The NYPD cops are pussies, not ruthless killers. Detroit is actually the champ in police shootings with a score nearly 2.5 times higher than NYPD. Moreover, several Detroit citizens were shot in the back in contrast to NYC where most were shot in the front. One police victim was chased into a dead end alley and shot 12 to 14 times in the back and the hand. Police began the chase when he was observed squealing his tires on the street. One of Detroit's finest has 5 notches in his belt. In one case a pistol was found next to the shootee, but the only fingerprints on it were those of an officer accompanying the police officer doing the shooting. No charges were brought against either officer. In another case a 78 year old great grandmother was shot to death by police when she hobbled into her own living room with a knife in her hand as six cops arrived when her home had been shot up and dashed inside chasing a man with a gun. The investigations of most of the cases resulted in exoneration of the police who did the shooting. Meantime, the city is paying out millions to settle civil suits from the surviving relatives. 10965. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 8:11:02 PM spud 10966. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 8:13:22 PM wonkers 10967. spudboy - 5/15/2000 8:24:09 PM JackV: 10968. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 8:29:42 PM spud 10969. Jack Vincennes - 5/15/2000 8:35:36 PM Or Elian Gonzales? 10970. spudboy - 5/15/2000 8:40:01 PM Yeah, I'm sure you're right. It's a tradition as old as kissing babies. But you don't have to worry about the kid upchucking on you. 10971. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 9:15:38 PM Supreme Court decision to striking down a law that allows rape victims to sue in federal court. 10972. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 9:18:55 PM I can't resist a recap- We can't have more effective gun control becuase: 10973. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 9:21:19 PM Supreme Court unanimously upholds the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to set grazing policy. 10974. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 9:34:45 PM We can't have (bans on handguns, armour piercing bullets, waiting periods, registration of firearms, ballistic fingerprinting etc) because the second amendment gives me a right to BEAR ARMS! 10975. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 9:38:41 PM In other idiotic conservative news, the "non-judicialy activist" supreme court has found that there isn't sufficient conection between violence against women and interstate commerce to allow federal jurisdiction. Hmm, when was the last time they upheld a Mann Act case? What about kiddie porn? What bullshit! 10976. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 9:38:59 PM Jones 10977. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 9:40:51 PM Jones 10978. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 9:42:12 PM In the previous posts the italics were used to set off paraphrases of conservative argument, not to quote anyone directly. My bad. 10979. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 9:49:58 PM Greystroke- interstate commerce has been pushed radically out of shape in the last 75 years in american law. Even a tangetial effect on interstate commerce has been enough to justify congressional action and federal law on a myriad of subjects. Sales of grain by a farmer in one state to an elevator in that same state for consumption in the same state has been held to effect the overall price of grain sufficient to permit federal legislation. Whether one agrees with this or not, it has been settled law for at least 50 years. Now, in the name of judicial conservatism, the principle of stare decisis is chucked and a hodgepdge of exceptions is being carved out by Billy R. and the Supremes. Last time it was guns- now its women. Drugs near schools, that's OK. You tell me how that works. I'm Herb Stoner, sitting in my high school parking lot, smoking dope, and I affect commerce? 10980. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:00:37 PM In short, the court is having its revenge on FDR and modern federalism. 10981. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:03:01 PM Greystroke, re 10976, if its a handgun, I hope you can throw it pretty well, because the average person is better of throwing a pistole than firing it. Witness the NYPD's recent sucess with handguns. 10982. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 10:07:03 PM jones 10983. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:16:08 PM Greystroke- when one shoots at a king, one must kill him. If Rhenqueist and Co are attempting to set a new federalism standard, they should have the gonads to set up a cohesive and principled alternative to the expansive view of federalism we've operated on for half a century. So far, they've nibbled at the edges in an outcome determinative way. I need to read this decision carefully, I think that I'll be challenging every federal drug case I get that doesn't cross state lines. Meth cases just got more interesting. 10984. Greystoke - 5/15/2000 10:50:28 PM jones 10985. jonesatlaw - 5/15/2000 10:57:06 PM Grey- want to bet that the deep and abiding concern of the Rhenquist court for federalism is nowhere to be seen in the next drug case? 10986. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2000 5:02:59 AM Would conservatives consider the Brzonkala (Message # 10971) decision to be "judicial activism" (boo!) or "strict constructionism" (yay!)? 10987. rubberducky7 - 5/16/2000 9:42:18 AM PROCTER & GAMBLE QUICKLY QUITS ON "DR. LAURA" TV SHOW 10988. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 10:06:36 AM jones 10989. Cellar Door - 5/16/2000 10:22:23 AM Thanks for the link, Ducky. The "Dr." is presently touring to promote her new book, "Parents Who Put Their Children in Daycare Are Going to Hell," and she doesn't want to talk about the gay flap. 10990. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 11:09:48 AM Jack- thanks for refreshing my memory regarding Weld. Did I have a memory lapse in thinking you justified CP in part on the social need for vengence as well? 10991. Ronski - 5/16/2000 11:55:15 AM 10992. Ronski - 5/16/2000 12:01:04 PM jones, 10993. janjon - 5/16/2000 12:11:55 PM I wouldn't exactly call what Rehnquist and his are "nibbling". And, certainly if W is elected and gets to appoint a couple of good ol' litmus paper approved "c"onservatives to the Court, we will be in for a really long ride. 10994. Cellar Door - 5/16/2000 12:30:03 PM I wish that were true, Ronski, but she can't. 10995. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 1:21:57 PM Thanks for the link, Cellar. I submitted a question for Chomsky; we'll see if he gets to it. 10996. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 1:44:25 PM Jeez, Chomsky must be doing his own typing and everything....it's pretty slow going in there. 10997. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 1:53:49 PM Chomsky just had a very good riff on the vertical integration of the media, and of the corporatization of that entity that was once referred to as the "information superhighway" (remember that term?): 10998. JudithAtHome - 5/16/2000 1:58:47 PM So who feels safer about their SocSecurity today? Not SOCIAL but SOC. 10999. JudithAtHome - 5/16/2000 1:59:09 PM Well.... 11000. JudithAtHome - 5/16/2000 1:59:28 PM That looks wrong. 11001. JudithAtHome - 5/16/2000 2:00:38 PM ....but that's how GW pronounces it. SoschSecurity. 11002. bubbaette - 5/16/2000 2:06:03 PM I wonder if Mr. Chomsky could advise me on trading in my current set of Corell for a set of china? 11003. Wombat - 5/16/2000 2:11:47 PM When the Internet was under "public" (what Chomsky calls government) control it was was known as DARPAnet, and was in no way available to the public. 11004. janjon - 5/16/2000 2:27:43 PM jake - I've been mulling over your various pronouncements over the past couple of days, trying to make them make sense. The only way I can figure it is that you indeed are a "purist" in Politics - you seem to want a system where ideas are debated and assessed in terms of their good (or bad) in society and decisions made based on those debates and assessments. "Personalization" of issues bothers you, nay, make that upsets you if some line in the sand where it all becomes "demonization" or whatever occurs. Accordingly, activism (well, at least the type this country has been used to for the past 200 years) is seen as a negative. To be dismissed, derided, what have you. 11005. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 2:48:14 PM janjon 11006. JudithAtHome - 5/16/2000 2:51:44 PM Reagan probably has no choice in the matter. I doubt he knows he's there, much less ill. 11007. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 2:52:33 PM Juditha 11008. janjon - 5/16/2000 3:12:06 PM jake. Just a few comments, reflections and reactions. 11009. janjon - 5/16/2000 3:17:50 PM Incidentally, you may not know that it was not what happened to Jim that really turned Sarah (and Jim for that matter) into anti-gun violence advocates. A couple years after Jim's "incident", Sarah and their then young son were driving around in a relative's pickup truck. The kid picked up a handgun that was on the seat and started waving it about, pointing it at himself, at her, etc. She told him to put the toy down. Guess what, tweren't a toy. Loaded too. It all came into focus at that moment. 11010. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:37:11 PM janjon 11011. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:39:17 PM "Boiling it all down - politics at its core is a matter of assessing cause and effect of various policies or lack thereof. Issues then get redressed or they don't. But, they get addressed more often than not in terms of what's happening, to whom, how, why, cause and effect and countereffect. Guns obviously kill or injure. Talking about that and making people aware of the senseless human waste that occurs is at the core of the politics. If you think that using school photos, prom pictures or snapshots of those who've been killed or having a leading spokesman who happens to be a victim appear on a stage in a wheelchair is beyond the pale on this issue, then indeed you are either a purist or just using characterizations of grotesque etc. as tools to another end." 11012. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:39:44 PM "Incidentally, you may not know that it was not what happened to Jim that really turned Sarah (and Jim for that matter) into anti-gun violence advocates. A couple years after Jim's "incident", Sarah and their then young son were driving around in a relative's pickup truck. The kid picked up a handgun that was on the seat and started waving it about, pointing it at himself, at her, etc. She told him to put the toy down. Guess what, weren't a toy. Loaded too. It all came into focus at that moment." 11013. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:45:48 PM And no one ever answers a direct question: 11014. CalGal - 5/16/2000 3:50:35 PM But Jack--this is what works. It gets the masses all worked up, it makes people feel like they're doing something. And I imagine legislators don't mind it much--this consumes a lot of public energy and accomplishes very little. What more could they ask for? 11015. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:51:38 PM Take Mothers Against Unfenced Swimming Pools, which obviously "kill and injure." Let's say Mother A lobbied for a zoning ordinance to fence all pools. Councilman B voted against it on the theory that fencing 4700 unfenced city swimming pools would be too great a burden on the taxpaying public. 11016. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:52:50 PM Cal 11017. Indiana Jones - 5/16/2000 3:53:10 PM What I think Jack is trying to say is that all this emotionalism leads to very little room for compromise, as you've demonized your opponent. 11018. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:59:04 PM Full confession. 11019. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:59:13 PM Full confession. 11020. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 3:59:30 PM Full confession. 11021. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:01:54 PM Jack, 11022. theDiva - 5/16/2000 4:02:37 PM Jack 11023. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:04:47 PM Jack, 11024. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 4:05:02 PM Diva 11025. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 4:05:43 PM Cal 11026. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:15:11 PM You sure it's just not your Jim Webb worship kicking in? 11027. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:16:19 PM But Jack--this is what works. It gets the masses all worked up, it makes people feel like they're doing something. And I imagine legislators don't mind it much--this consumes a lot of public energy and accomplishes very little. What more could they ask for? 11028. Jack Vincennes - 5/16/2000 4:20:32 PM janjon 11029. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:25:05 PM ???? 11030. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:26:15 PM oops, this was posted elsewhere by mistake: 11031. Ronski - 5/16/2000 4:27:34 PM 11032. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:30:27 PM hahahahahaha. 11033. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:38:59 PM I'm just pointing out that the people who are moved by the sort of nonsense spewed by the MOM are also the sort who have the attention span of a three year old. It's a happy pairing of attributes. 11034. CalGal - 5/16/2000 4:43:50 PM Janjon, 11035. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:44:23 PM Two-Million Mammary March is funny. 11036. rubberducky7 - 5/16/2000 4:45:01 PM janjon: 11037. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:50:29 PM CalGal. Forget guns for a moment. Make it any "cause" or political issue. Just how do you see change occurring? Simply through the grace of the politicians? Who else, other than the "masses" (using your extremely peculiar definition of same) will bring it about? 11038. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 4:53:39 PM Our gun laws are ridiculous. We allow private possession of military weapons and the attempts to regulate firearms are nonsensical. We ban imported assault weapons, but American made ones are just fine thank you. We ban new 20 round magazines, but old ones still flood the market. Congress tells us it can't tell an assault rifle from Granddad's Winchester and throws its hands up in failure. 11039. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:54:04 PM ducky - yeah, I think they do in a general way. (Witness the current polls which show that people really don't have much of a clue as to what W and Gore stand for at this point in the game). But, occasionally, an issue comes along and it galvanizes at least a segment of the public (and, usually on both sides) and it has or can have tremendous political impact over time. The Civil Rights movement. The Vietnam war protests. And, in my humble opinion, the anti-gun violence movement will be similar (but not as broad based or as intense) in terms of, ultimately, effecting meaningful political change. 11040. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 4:54:17 PM janjon #11033. 11041. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 4:55:31 PM Hyperbole reigns, whether its shocking statistics or Heston's ravings that Congress is ready to take away every weapon more powerful than a Daisy Red Ryder when we propose to stop sales of MAC-10's. 11042. janjon - 5/16/2000 4:56:39 PM Art - nah. Much more sophisticated than that. The bumper sticker crowd is a welcome and helpful component, but this is gonna be realpolitiks. 11043. JJBiener - 5/16/2000 5:15:06 PM janjon - the anti-gun violence movement 11044. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:18:31 PM (sidebar. Jack - I was really surprised to read about your reactions to the Vietnam Memorial. I cannot myself imagine a more subdued, tasteful, appropriate way of honoring those who died in a war. They were individuals, after all. To me, it is both the simplest and most complex of memorials. On one level, it has demonstrated therapeutic value to the surviving families who, somehow, take some comfort from just reading the name (or pencilling it onto paper, etc.) of their deceased family member. On another, it evokes the strongest anti-war statement that I think could be made. All those names. All that waste. Simple. Elegant. 11045. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 5:18:55 PM JJB- like pro-life, and pro-choice? 11046. JJBiener - 5/16/2000 5:20:45 PM Jones - Only more so. 11047. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:22:43 PM Biener. No, I won't. "Anti-Gun Violence" is a phrase that has been carefully chosen by a lot of groups in the movement PRECISELY to rebut the so-called point (scare tactic) made by the NRA that the ultimate goal is to take away "your" gun. "Anti-Gun Violence" encompasses the wide range of objectives - trigger locks, safe storage, appropriate manufacturing safety standards - that go straight to trying to prevent violence and have nothing - nothing - to do with gun "control". 11048. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:28:09 PM Incidentally, Biener, I was surprised to see your take on trying to imply that the other side supports gun violence. Nope. Not the intent. No one I know really believes that either (leaving aside those real nut cases who want to start an insurrection etc.). We just differ with them on what we feel reasonable constraints on the manufacture, sale and storage of guns should be. 11049. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 5:28:49 PM jonesatlaw #11041. 11050. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:31:06 PM A bit more. "Violence" means a lot more than trying to prevent deliberate carnage, like crime-related shootings or suicides. It goes to trying to curb the accidental shootings too (all those kids who find loaded guns when locks would prevent such devastation, etc.) 11051. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 5:34:12 PM janjon #11048. 11052. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:36:12 PM Art. Yes, most political movements end up involving all sorts of types of people with all sorts of levels or degrees of involvement. The bumper sticker crowd may just sort of "feel good" about it, and that won't drive things very far. But, it is all incremental. 11053. Greystoke - 5/16/2000 5:42:18 PM janjon 11054. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:42:20 PM What would be one of those "constraints" on storage? I think that is interesting, and relevent point, because you hear alot about kids being killed with a loaded gun found in their house, or their friends house. But you never hear a thing about the owner of that gun being prosecuted, not until the recent school shooting in MIchigan. I bet establishing and enforcing penalties for unsafe storage would go along ways to preventing those types of gun deaths anyways. 11055. Wombat - 5/16/2000 5:44:57 PM I would add that the NRA, from the earliest murmurings of the gun control debate in the 1960s, always demonized the opposition, and adopted an unswervingly uncompromising position. I think that this strategy is starting to come back and bite them in a big way (and I couldn't be happier about it). 11056. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:45:08 PM greystoke. I didn't mention registration nor did I mention licensure, because I was trying to point out the number of objectives that can't in their wildest dreams be called gun "control". I for one don't think that registration or licensure equates to "control", either. But, even if one were to say that it does, my point was that the anti-gun violence movement indeed is much more than just objectives which might be seen by some as being "control". 11057. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 5:45:30 PM janjon, No, Rosey was talking about the evils of guns before then, when she chewed Tom Sellek out on her show. That was before Columbine. I didn't hear that she didn't do Kmart commercials any more, but maybe she gave them up because her hypocracy got pointed out in public. At any rate, I think it shows how some of these celebritys that showed up at the Mom March aren't really thinking things through. Wasn't Susie Sarandon a gun-totin mama in "Thelma and Louise"? 11058. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 5:50:35 PM janjon. 11059. Greystoke - 5/16/2000 5:53:00 PM janjon 11060. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:56:04 PM Art - Congress is well aware of the goals of the various groups that made up the Million Mom March. And, they already receive a lot of mail/emails etc. On both sides. And, they discount a lot of it because of the organized nature of it. 11061. Greystoke - 5/16/2000 5:57:57 PM Art 11062. janjon - 5/16/2000 5:59:51 PM "Just as gun registration, and ultimately confiscation, is at the core of the "anti-gun violence" movement. The other positions are just window dressings. Something to shoot for in the short term. 11063. ArtVandelay - 5/16/2000 6:21:09 PM Greystoke #11061. 11064. JJBiener - 5/16/2000 6:22:03 PM janjon - "I was surprised to see your take on trying to imply that the other side supports gun violence. Nope. Not the intent. 11065. JJBiener - 5/16/2000 6:27:25 PM janjon - Are there a few groups out there who believe that all handguns should be abolished? Yes. Are they anywhere near being in the mainstream of the anti-gun violence movement? Absolutely not. 11066. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 8:21:15 PM If you store dynamite and a kid gets into it and kills/injures someone- you are liable-Period. If we extend strict liability to gun ownership, we might change some behaviors. This requires no new bureaucracy. 11067. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 8:48:08 PM Wombat Message # 11003: 11068. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 8:50:21 PM And of course [Chomsky's] hackneyed take on consumerism as social control. 11069. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 8:52:32 PM So, if you are a vertically-integrated multinational conglomerate, and you're trying to pass a treaty which will enable you to transcend national sovereignties and bypass popular sentiments in the name of "free trade", what is the natural thing to do? Well, if you didn't use the media outlets you own to make your opposition look like absolute morons, you'd be a moron yourself. And that is an important element of the "social control" Chomsky mentions. Talk about the cheaper doo-dads Joe Sixpack will be able to buy, don't talk about the various reason how said doo-dads happen to become cheaper. Setting the agenda for what is discussed is of prime importance. 11070. jonesatlaw - 5/16/2000 9:37:37 PM Eric- you're sounding remarkably like Devo's "Freedom from Choice" there. 11071. EricCartman - 5/16/2000 10:10:13 PM Jonesy: 11072. wonkers2 - 5/16/2000 10:19:33 PM What makes the gun issue hard to resolve in addition to the "hyperbole on both sides" is the NRA pac money that has bought the anti-regulation votes of Congressmen despite the fact that the majority of their constituents favor more stringent handgun regulation. My Congressman, Joe Knollenberg, has taken big bucks from NRA and opposed every gun regulation proposal despite the fact that (my unscientific impression based on conversations with friends and neighbors) the majority of his suburban Republican constituents support gun control. 11073. bubbaette - 5/17/2000 7:51:02 AM I'm just pointing out that the people who are moved by the sort 11074. Adrianne - 5/17/2000 9:06:06 AM 11075. rubberducky7 - 5/17/2000 9:18:02 AM bubb 11076. JudithAtHome - 5/17/2000 9:21:20 AM But Bubbaette, it's only the leftist loonies who are out of touch! 11077. bubbaette - 5/17/2000 10:07:22 AM Actually, Rubberducky is right. I've gone back through the thread and I don't see the italicized language that I thought was a quote uttered by anyone but Janjon. 11078. Wombat - 5/17/2000 10:34:47 AM Greystoke: 11079. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 10:56:55 AM I agree with Wombat. Obviously, reasonable restrictions can be debated, and folks may have a different view as to what is "reasonable" but fears of confiscation are both unfounded and illogical. 11080. janjon - 5/17/2000 11:12:21 AM Bubbaette. That quote about nonsense spewing from the MMM and being suited for people with the mind of a three year old was from a post from CalGal. 11081. Ronski - 5/17/2000 11:13:58 AM Jack, Wombat, 11082. CalGal - 5/17/2000 11:18:26 AM Bubba, 11083. janjon - 5/17/2000 11:19:48 AM janjon - Are there a few groups out there who believe that all handguns should be abolished? Yes. Are they anywhere near being in the mainstream of the anti-gun violence movement? Absolutely not. 11084. Wombat - 5/17/2000 11:26:08 AM For what it was worth, Cal Gal, there were few dilettants in the group of MMM attendees that I was with. Given my extreme dislike of mob scenes and general cynicism toward mass rallies of any kind, it says a lot that I bothered to attend (particularly after taking the little Wombats to the Mall the week before to meet their mother upon her completion of the 3-day Breast Cancer Walk. Now that was a horrific experience). 11085. CalGal - 5/17/2000 11:27:35 AM Ronski, 11086. bubbaette - 5/17/2000 11:27:51 AM Cal 11087. janjon - 5/17/2000 11:32:38 AM Cartman. You made reference to the efforts to close what is called the gun show loophole, and the practical problems (also cited by Ace) of the 3 day waiting period. 11088. jonesatlaw - 5/17/2000 11:37:57 AM Most of the good that can be done with gun legislation can be done with relatively minor impositions on gun owners. The anti-regulation advocates are right in saying that career criminals are unlikely to change their behavior due to legislation- they are risk takers by nature. However, we can change their behavior through the actions of others. If we require that gun owners keep their weapons in a secure place, and limit military style weapons in general, access to such weapons by criminals will decrease. A piddling amount of crack gets a mandatory minimum sentence, while any significant amount will have you facing a lifetime in prison. Firearms offenses receive far less punishment. 11089. CalGal - 5/17/2000 11:44:21 AM For what it was worth, Cal Gal, there were few dilettants in the group of MMM attendees that I was with. 11090. jonesatlaw - 5/17/2000 12:03:40 PM An example of current firearms sentencing- A is arrested for possessing $20,000 worth of crack for sale. B is arrested for possesing $20,000 worth of stolen machine guns at $1,000 a piece for black market sale. Both are first time felons. A gets a sentence of 235-293 months (20-24 5/12 years), no parole, no good time. B gets 51-63 months (4 1/3 years - 6 1/3 years). 11091. jonesatlaw - 5/17/2000 12:05:20 PM In fact, possession of a nuclear bomb is a lower offense level than 1.5 or more keys of cocaine base. 11092. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:05:47 PM "money-grubbing whores" and "nasty grief-whoring" are strong terms, indeed. 11093. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:12:40 PM Bubba, 11094. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:13:59 PM I'm actually coming around to the view that the NRA is, um, tepid about taking a Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court not so much because they think the Court will reject private ownership rights per se, but because they will come out with a reasoned check-and-balance approach which, among other things, will take into account the absurdities of saying that individuals should have unfettered rights to own weapons like bazookas etc. They really don't want to lose their wonderfully effective boogie man that "they" want to take your guns away, and then have more people begin to focus on realistic and sensible gun laws. 11095. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:17:23 PM As for the rest of your post, Bubba, what on earth makes you think I was referring to you? You certainly are a true believer on this issue. I don't think it took a March or Rosie O'Donnell to get you all worked up--hell, it didn't take Columbine to set your views. So why you take it personally is more than I can figure. 11096. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:18:24 PM They really don't want to lose their wonderfully effective boogie man that "they" want to take your guns away, and then have more people begin to focus on realistic and sensible gun laws. 11097. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:18:42 PM But the March certainly won't be what makes that happen--it's the polls that will do that. 11098. greystoke - 5/17/2000 12:19:41 PM Jack 11099. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:21:35 PM um, that parenthetical was supposed to include "hopefully a lot". It didn't. 11100. Adrianne - 5/17/2000 12:25:16 PM "But there aren't enough of them to create a meaningful March, anyway." 11101. jonesatlaw - 5/17/2000 12:27:52 PM When nuclear weapons are outlawed only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. 11102. Ronski - 5/17/2000 12:30:03 PM 11103. bubbaette - 5/17/2000 12:31:48 PM Cal 11104. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:39:24 PM I doubt very much that many people knew that Rosie O'Donnell was even going to be there, let alone be the m.c., so to speak. As for the so called grief-mongers, I mentioned yesterday that it indeed is true that many "victims" (which as used in the parlance of the movement includes close surviving family members) have a desire if not a need to tell "their" stories time and time again. And, sure, there were scattered around the crowd a number of victims who would be wearing t-shirts which printed photos of their killed son or daughter, etc., a couple who were holding petitions seeking help to prevent their child's killer from being released on parole, etc. Quiet, calm, but dedicated to whatever aspect of the cause they have taken for themselves. What else would one expect? As I said yesterday, the "grief" could have been laid on a lot thicker. Jack says, why not. Well, the answer is that it would immediately lead to even more vocal remonstrations about grief-whoring, playing on emotions, etc. 11105. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:41:09 PM Bubba, 11106. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:41:33 PM ouch. "is apt" was supposed to be at the end of my prior post. It wasn't. 11107. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:42:39 PM But events like the March help build the polls. 11108. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:45:18 PM Janjon, 11109. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 12:46:28 PM bubba, Ad 11110. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:48:12 PM CalGal. Based on having spent about two hours walking from front to back of the march and sort of making a mental calculation about the makeup of the crowd, I would estimate that (not counting the extraordinary number of little kids there in strollers) at least 80-85% of the people there were registered voters. A tremendous number of younger parents. One of the tents had about forty computers lined up to help people with various aspects relating to voting -(getting printouts showing the voting records of given representatives, etc.) There were LINES of people waiting to get access to those computers. 11111. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:53:43 PM It is the manner that offends, not the goal. 11112. CalGal - 5/17/2000 12:56:17 PM Janjon, 11113. janjon - 5/17/2000 12:56:21 PM jake. You are hilarious. It is the manner that offends, not the goal. Just too much. I would never call you effete, but that nose really is a bit ultra sensitive. I mean, you were even poo-pooing the fact that there were a couple of kids' slides around (there were a lot of toddlers and slightly older kids there.) By the way, there were at least 400 hunder toilets there too. What would you expect? 11114. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:01:22 PM CalGal. Of course, it isn't the numbers of people or voters there, per se. We've learned that on many issues it takes relatively few active constituents for any given representative to perk up and take notice. It is an incremental process, but if we can build the number of such voters who "go after" their given representative/Senator on gun legislation by even 10% it will have impact. Targeting given districts will be even more meaningful. 11115. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 1:02:22 PM janjon 11116. bubbaette - 5/17/2000 1:03:16 PM Jack 11117. rubberducky7 - 5/17/2000 1:05:37 PM man, janjon, you do the best impersonation of labarjare i've ever seen. 11118. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:07:18 PM ""Mothers, we have shed tears for our children," Patricia Anderson of Albuquerque, N.M., whose son was a victim of gun violence and survived, told the crowd. "Let's make our tears a raging river of votes to get our legislators out of office if they do not want stricter gun controls." 11119. jonesatlaw - 5/17/2000 1:10:14 PM No pathos for Jack, just logos logos logos. 11120. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 1:10:21 PM bubba 11121. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 1:12:28 PM Jan 11122. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:12:38 PM jake - remember, trivialization doesn't work here. Diversionary attacks don't either. 11123. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 1:14:27 PM jan 11124. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:15:25 PM no, jake. Twasn't I who resorted to ridicule and absurd analogies (remember the unattended swimming pool bit?) If you find it uncomfortable to respond, just say so. 11125. Jack Vincennes - 5/17/2000 1:16:44 PM janjon 11126. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:19:24 PM jake. well, none of that took. Want to try again? Just what is the problem with responding instead of attempting to deflect? 11127. CalGal - 5/17/2000 1:21:03 PM Do you really believe that building public awareness through things like the MMM with one objective being to build positive public opinion for certain legislative objectives is somehow...wrong? 11128. janjon - 5/17/2000 1:31:51 PM Well, actually, I don't change my opinion of an organization based on its having political objectives. I may disagree with those objectives but the fact that it is politically driven wouldn't cause me to change my opinion of it. The NRA is an extremely effective political organization. I don't like a lot of its tactics and I do think that at this point they will begin to backfire, but only a naive fool would think of them as not having been effective in pursuing and achieving their objectives. 11129. Ronski - 5/17/2000 1:50:30 PM Do We Need Right-to-Drive Laws? 11130. rubberducky7 - 5/17/2000 2:14:13 PM excellent article, Ronski. thanks for posting it! 11131. JJBiener - 5/17/2000 2:43:19 PM Ronski - Good article. Here are some excerpts I found interesting. 11132. janjon - 5/17/2000 2:54:48 PM Surprise of surprise. In my humble opinion, that article is filled with fallacious and misleading analogies. No, gun registration should NOT be comparable to cars (and that silly private property example). Licensure should be more comparable (in that there should be age minimums but not sixteen, certainly not for handguns, and there should be demonstration of proficiency, but with more training required than we (unfortunately) do for cars. Interstate commerce considerations notwithstanding, I was surprised to see such an article cut down states' rights by advocating that concealed carry permission in one should cover all, but hey the author had a point of view to make. And, of course, the same old slippery slope arguments about confiscation. The people who make such arguments may not be paranoid but they play to that feeling. 11133. JJBiener - 5/17/2000 3:22:08 PM janjon - In my humble opinion, that article is filled with fallacious and misleading analogies. 11134. EricCartman - 5/17/2000 3:24:31 PM Janjon Message # 11087: 11135. EricCartman - 5/17/2000 4:08:45 PM Message # 11109:
If it is ever held that the Second Amendment confers a personal right to own guns, would it likewise protect gun sellers from disclosing records of gun purchases?
Uzmakk reporting for cultural reorientation, sirs. Please direct me to the room where the mind cleansing is to take place.
I cannot speak for Cellar, of course, but libertarians like me are opposed to any form of cultural programming. You are free to hold any attitudes and notions you like.
On the other hand, if you really want to review facts and misconceptions about gays and engage in a simple discussion of how government and civil society should respects everyone's rights, we can talk. (Though today is likely to be very busy for me.)
click on photo 
5 will get you 10 they're gonna Jon-Benet him!
Hollywood is just like everywhere else.
Only with better hair.
And?
I say that you seem like a reasonable fellow, but ofcourse you are part of that American Cult of Freedom. Libertarianism, Ha!
I found it odd. I find homosexuality odd.
uzmakk,
Thank you for your kind words. I, too, have problems with the values of Hollywood. And not only the Hollywood of today.
I will add that I see a respect for liberty to be a natural consequence of reasonableness.
Well, I would have to agree with you, Ronski. I like the sound of the words. But we will have to get much more specific. I also am not going to have as much time as I would like today.
Cellar:
What did I think of your review? I am preparing a frontal assault.
The funniest thing I've heard regarding the Elian case was from a local radio commentator (English-language, obviously) who called Marisleysis "Mary-lazy-ass."
If that's the case, I want Jude Law.
I've never subscribed to the "love us or leave us" theory, but I think you're on to something! It seems to me that the "Miami family" is using the child for their own purposes and his welfare is not a prime consideration. Witness the "let's send daddy a video saying you don't want to go back to Cuba." Now that was spontaneous and so keeping with what a 6 year old child would do and say.
Let's really fix the relatives and condemn them to a life locked in a room with Orrin Hatch doing is Ricky Ricardo "Babbalo" imitation.
abusing that poor kid. What hypocracy.
Of course the media loves it all , and probably there are many in
Miami and many Cubans there who feel the anger I do at these assholes, but are never shown on TV
I wonder if the press pays those kidnappers to do all the continuous filming?
At this point I actually have a fantasy of the US Marshals tear gassing that crowd and arresting the relatives of the poor kid and
putting them in the slammer.
BTW whats with the so called NUN...who is living in that mansion behind an iron gate. ? If she had the kid why didn't they just
taken him then.??
You might want to check out my post (24913) in politics, complete with typos and followed by reprimands. We share sentiments on this issue.
btw: watch your spelling or it will be used as a "rebuttal" in place of a valid argument.
Oh, goody. Two people share the same opinion, which is in turn shared by perhaps a hundred million people. What are the odds of that.
Satire is in the eye of the beholder, buddy. Most of what appears on the "real" news amply qualifies as satire.
You there. Do you, sitting there in your nice sterile office, or your nice matte-black apartment, do you realize that 20,000 people gathered in the Little Havana district of Miami last week for a prayer vigil to Elian Gonzalez? DO YOU REALIZE THIS?
This is how out-of-touch you are with America: there are Cubans and non-Cubans alike, strolling the streets near Elian's house, claiming that the boy is a miracle, that he is the Second Coming, that he is Jesus Christ incarnate. "I believe he will return to Cuba someday as a liberator," said Francisco Mendez, some doofus on the street. "He is another Moses."
Oh. My. God. Our lives, as a country, are so without meaning, that we tote six-foot portraits of the Biblical Jesus back and forth in front of some orphaned refugee's house.We mandate police barricades. We chant until the kid's great-uncle totes him onto the front lawn, and lifts him up like a "Best Buns" trophy procured at the latest Shriner's convention.
No, you don't care about Elian, and thus consider yourself sane. Better hope the kid isn't Jesus. Or you're screwed.
Since you appear not to read posts other than those that refer to yours, let me tell you that my sentiments--as expressed in the Mote--toward the Elian situation are the same as yours. However, since I assume most people who particiate in the Mote read the occasional newspaper and own a television, I see no need to present trite, barely grammatical re-hashes of events as portentiously as you do.
Have a nice day.
Do we see a pattern here people?
All togehter noe: Keep the Morons marching!
"Participate," not "particiate."
latest media gives us more entertainment .
Ubiquitous, thanks for your message, but WTF, Ding bag ,or womb bat has this thread
turned into a spelling bee ????
Has anyone seen the kid throw a baseball?
This goes beyond any Fidelista caricature of the United States.
Surely the evil Clintons are behind it! When will it all end? When will Elian be old enough to return to Cuba and slay the evil Castro with his mighty sword? When will the Ramseys cop to killing their kid?
Oh, the humanity!
(cue Kate Smith.)
When I post a simple fact about the market and it sends you into throes of hysteria, it makes you look...well...wing-nuttish.
BTW, in contrast I suppose to some, I think the economy (jobs, stocks, inflation, etc.) is more significant than the alleged difference between Gore and Bush.
Ranger Bill is on the job!
PORTERVILLE, Calif. (AP) -- President Clinton is extending greater protection to more than 30 groves of giant sequoia trees across California, employing his executive authority to add to his environmental legacy in his final year in office.
The declaration Saturday would add to the 2.8 million acres of national monuments Clinton already has created, giving him perhaps the best conservation record in the Lower 48 states since Teddy Roosevelt.
No, Indy -- YOU do!
More like 103, actually.
Quaint, but inaccurate, Cellar. You brought up Clinton, not I. I rarely mention him on this forum, and both here and at TableTalk, when I do address our soon-to-be-ex-President, it's to refute the delusion (thankfully less common here) that he is anything extraordinary or significant except to those who consider him so.
If you think he has anything to do either with the recent downturn in equities or their long runup, I hope you've given over your queen's ransom in book royalties to an honest investment counselor.
Lest you swap them to the next lip-biting elocutionist who offers you a bulging pouch of...brightly colored magic beans.
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Sixth grader targeted for 'pro-gun' remarks.
'A' student defends 2nd Amendment, flagged as violence risk
By Jon E. Dougherty © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
School officials at Harbor Lights Middle School flagged a Holland, Michigan boy as potentially dangerous because the 12-year-old suggested to a teacher that one way to prevent school shootings would be to arm instructors.
Derek Loutzenheiser, a model student who had such good grades that some teachers recommended he be tested early for a popular standardized pre-college performance test, made his comments in early March, after being asked by a social studies teacher what he thought might make kids safer in school.
Derek had been asked to participate in a classroom discussion about "school shootings and safety," said the sixth grader's father, Tim Loutzenheiser.
"My son simply stated that his opinion was that he would feel safer if some of the adults at the school were trained and allowed to carry firearms," Mr. Loutzenheiser told WorldNetDaily.
His reply caused him to be "flagged" as a potential violence risk by teachers and school administrators, who then contacted his parents to suggest they meet with the school's "Hazard and Risk Assessment Team."
"My wife and I were in disbelief when they (school officials) telephoned us and told us that's what they wanted to do," Loutzenheiser said. "We asked, 'Do you have the right kid?'" In resulting talks with school officials, Loutzenheiser said he learned that his son "often spoke favorably about the First and Second Amendments, but the comment he made to his Social Studies teacher was the one that triggered this action."
"We were told that this would be in the best interest of my son, and by doing this the school would not have to involve Social Services," Loutzenheiser said. "We refused."
Of the meeting with "team" members, Loutzenheiser said, "We got right to the point and determined that the charges against my son are without merit. They all assured me that he is a wonderful student, gets straight A's, and because he is a little more advanced academically (at their suggestion he took the ACT test and scored very well) they feel he may need an 'adult' to talk to about issues." Loutzenheiser admitted he didn't know what team members were implying about having Derek "talk to an adult about issues." He added, "We were able to determine that because my son knows and understands political and Constitutional issues so well, that he often speaks in terms not typical of a 12-year-old, and we should be assured they have no issues with this."
At that point, the couple contacted an attorney in nearby Grand Rapids, Michigan -- one referred to them through the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. The couple has also been told by a representative from the Rutherford Institute, an international legal and educational civil liberties organization, that "they would be willing to take on this issue."
Loutzenheiser said when he and his wife, Shelly, arrived for the Hazard Team meeting Mar. 8, "We were outnumbered 7 to 2." He told WorldNetDaily that he wanted to make a good first impression with the members, so he shook each member's hand and introduced himself. He also told them he had brought along a tape recorder and would be taping the proceedings since none of the legal organizations that said they would represent him could not send a representative to the meeting on such short notice.
"My wife and I both saw a transformation from 'smugness' ... to looks of great concern on some of their faces," he said.
"What was odd about the purpose of this whole meeting," said Loutzenheiser, "was that three of the team members were Derek's teachers, and each of them said they didn't know there was any 'situation' with him. That got me to thinking, 'Then why are we here?'"
However, and though "team" members denied it, the elder Loutzenheiser said he believes teachers and school administrative personnel began to form a bad impression of his son when, in January of this year, the sixth grader refused to sign a "Red Letter" vow of peace to celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday.
"The letter, which was written by the principal," Loutzenheiser said, "asked the students to take an oath to turn in their friends for suspicious activity, to vow to never defend themselves if attacked, and something to the effect of never to use a gun or other weapons. Derek simply told the principal, 'I'm not signing that.' "I think that's what got him 'noticed' by some of the administrative staff at least," he said.
Maybe Cartman's right. We are no different from Cuba or the Soviet Union.
Step over the PC-liberal line and they "monitor your thought processes." You are obviously crazy and dangerous, because you do not support the NEA's position on the Second Amendment.
"Derek simply told the principal, 'I'm not signing that.'"
Ha, ha, ha. Some kid has the confidence and intellectual maturity to simply refuse to sign the Principal's "Let's all be happy friends and hug and love" letter, so of course that kid is fucking DANGEROUS.
Principal: "Now, signing my little PC experiment letter is nice and voluntary. It's SOOOOOO voluntary, in fact, that if you refuse, you will be 'noticed' by our crack Mental Health Team."
Amazing story, Joe.
Loutzenheiser said, "asked the students to take an oath to
turn in their friends for suspicious activity..."
That's hardly a PC-liberal line. Sounds like Joe McCarthy is alive and well.
If the article accurately characterizes the principal's oath, then he should be fired.
Why would anyone in authority in a free society be encouraging kids to sign something like that? Turn in your friends? Don't defend yourself if attacked? Never use a gun? Its Michigan for heavens sake! Aren't kids allowed to hunt?
It probably only applied to "kids," not adults! Too many principals don't think kids have rights.
"That's hardly a PC-liberal line."
Hmmmm... seems to me the Soviets demanded informants.
And PC goonsquad tactics are a direct descendant of the Marxist Vanguard, patrolling the hoi polloi for Thought Crimes and Speech Crimes.
"since when have the Soviets = liberal?"
Since always?
"Liberal" equals "leftist" in today's parlance. Real liberals --classical liberals-- would be considered near-fascists by today's putatative liberals.
Real liberals -- classical liberals -- wouldn't support such goonsquad tactics. But what we call "liberals" today are leftists, and they, of course, would.
Because they know better.
Because they care.
Because, in order to create the perfect society, imperfections must be reeducated.
Those you call "liberals" always seem right wing to me! They "care" just as Pat Robertson's folks "care."
Is their any way to get Ted Nugent to mediate the dispute? Using his empathy and tactfulness, the whole thing could be resolved in no time.
You are talking about SAlon mag aint cha.
I guess i just go to Books, Cats in Private life and once in while
White house. So Cato sounds most unfamiliar.
BTW...do you sometimes or even often write a post on Salon TT
and then not get it posted?
It happens to me a lot . Most frustrating.
Salon tends to tell me something wrong with my ISP.
But I am told the problem is with Salon's servers.
Grey:
Sorry - left for the day right after I posted that article.
Yes, this is Michigan, dammit, and this is BIGTIME hunting territory, and I hate to see the PC thought police worm their way into this side of the state, despite the fact that gun violence stats here are relatively very low.
And speaking of Uncle Ted, I'd like to see him escorting the kid around as his self-appointed "mentor", compound bow in hand, quiver full of arrows on his back, dressed only in his loincloth, Stranglehold blaring in the background....
BTW - if anyone's interested, here's the complete article.
I've just read the complete article myself myself, and it's even weirder than I'd thought.
Maybe Cartman's right. We are no different from Cuba or the Soviet Union.
Maybe Ace is right. It's fun and educational to download, read, and deconstruct gay porn on the Internet.
Asswipe.
FWIW, I remember reading about this Loutzenheiser kid, and marvelling at the PC hysteria inflicted on this poor kid. It's bullshit, but it's to be expected. People expected results after Columbine, guess what -- you got results.
When public schools are largely expected to subsume the role of imparting values and morals to kids, this is what happens. So either motherfuckers step up and assume a responsible role in child-rearing and education, or they can leave it to a faceless gov't bureaucracy.
But this kid is getting a raw deal. It's up to people to turn off the Columbine hysteria and take a more active role in these things.
Yes the law is the law, but the law is not as clear as you would like to believe. The law says that any Cuban citizen who reaches these shores get political asylum. The law does not say that a biological father has an absolute right to his child. If a court determines that it is not in the child's best interest to be returned to his father, the child is not returned. If the former is enforced, Elian stays here. If the latter is enforce, Elian still might stay.
Thought Reform
Anyone see the Susan & Tim show on C-Span?
Yup - the International Frustrated Because We Were Not Old Enough To Protest The Really Important Stuff Association, in Washington to protest the evil WTO, invited Mrs. & Mr. Sarandon to add their uninformed voices and studiedly bookish visages to the fray.
"We are not experts", both of them began their "speeches" -which was entirely unnecessary, as this became apparent within seconds of them opening their yaps.
"It is wrong to expect repayment from countries after 20 years - why, that's like expecting payment from a child for his father's gambling debts....uh, addiction!", declared Mr. Sarandon.
REPORTER: "Could one of you studiedly bookish yet stylish Hollywood luminaries please comment on the effects globalization is having on the indigenous cultures of the world?"
SARANDON: "Yes - if globalization continues at its current pace, there are several cultures "down south...uh, in, like, the Amazon" (her actual words), that are in danger of being completely exploited by these huge corporations, before Hollywood will be able to get crews down there to exploit them for some shitty documentary..."
...or something like that.
What a joke.
Hey, I couldn't make this stuff up even if I wanted to.
An excerpt:
The 20-year-old is a single mother of three young children, including a daughter born two months ago.
Snow was separated from the infant after the birth and back in jail the next day. Relatives are raising the baby, along with her two older siblings.
"I don't think it's fair for them to keep me in here when I haven't committed a crime," Snow said in a jailhouse interview.
Where is Rumpole when you need him?
Farmer Jailed For Life For Murdering Burglar
A farmer who killed a burglar who broke into his isolated farmhouse has been jailed for life.
Tony Martin, 55, was found guilty of murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at Norwich Crown Court. He was also found guilty of wounding with intent and sentenced to 10 years to run concurrently. He was sentenced to a further 12 months after he admitted possessing a shotgun without a certificate.
When you check back in here, please consider yourself invited to join us on Saturday for the Mini-Mote Texas Get-together. And this goes for anyone in Texas who wants to participate. E-mail either ChristinO or me at our e-mail addresses posted in Notices...
The Duct Tape Chronicles (continued):
Man Fearing Gators Tapes Himself to Tree 
If anyone tried to keep my child from me,
it would be me holding that gun !
Who's child is he anyway ?
That family brought this on itself !
Have the feds nailed Fast Eddy at last...or will he skate once again?
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- After hearing hours of instructions, jurors in former Gov. Edwin Edwards' racketeering trial were handed the task today of deciding the fate of the former four-term governor.
Edwards and his six co-defendants are accused of trying to rig riverboat casino licenses and extort money from people who wanted the licenses.
..............................
Do you think the goverment's raid on the Gonzalez's Miami home was handled properly?
Yes: 60%
No: 39%
Undecided: 0%
Total votes: 61753
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This is not a scientific poll. It merely reflects the opinion of our on-line readers who chose to participate.
From last week's Time:
Edwards....once said the only way he'd lose an election was if he "got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
[From his trial:]
JIM LETTEN (Prosecutor): Are you perjuring yourself?
EDWARDS: No. And if I were, you've got to assume I wouldn't be telling you."
"Asked if he recalled a soiree at which he approached someone who was angling for a riverboat license and asked his name, Edwards sniffed that no such thing would ever happen. I'm a politician, he said. I would have asked someone else who he was and then gone up and acted like I knew him."
Refreshingly honest. Too bad he didn't have the good sense to run for the Presidency...at which point his increased political capital would no doubt engender such comments from many of his current detractors as, Hey - 'dis heah' is Loosian! We got ow' own ways o' keepin' da' wheels greased, unnastan'?
Mrs. Donovan could probably make a buck or two by selling that statue to some of those rabblerousers down in Miami.
(However, I suspect that's not true. I'll bet Mr. Donovan was "hot to trot", and she was PRETENDING to be asleep. No doubt she was wondering what the hell he was doing making all that noise.)
An internet murder mystery in Texas...the Rangers are booting up!
Melton, the jury foreman, said in an interview that the jury had decided to convict, but couldn't agree on the charge. They wanted to avoid a mistrial, so they decided to flip a coin. Because all agreed on the coin toss, they thought it was legal and didn't know it was wrong, he said.
"Realistically, I didn't think we had anything to lose," Melton said. "We were going to be hung without it."
Certainly makes you confident about facing a jury of your peers...
But its not quite as bad as the headline makes it sound:
The jury was deadlocked 11-1 for murder and 11-1 for manslaughter. Melton said 10 jurors were willing to compromise. But one was unwilling to budge on manslaughter and another was steadfast for murder.
Then came the toss of a silver dollar.
Deciding guilt or innocence based on a coin flip would have been much worse, IMO.
I am all for separation of church and state, but isn't this just a wee bit silly? How can something as passive as a motto be unconstitutional?
Well, obviously, the New Orleans Saints are also unconstitutional. By both name and behavior, they promote Christianity, showing extreme charity to the other teams in the NFL. They play in a stadium funded by the government. Most of their players attended state owned universities. Their games are broadcast across the electromagnetic spectrum, which is owned and licensed by the government. And they play in a monopolistic league that is sanctioned by the government. The Governor of Louisiana used his government salary to bet on their games.
They must be immediately renamed lest we are all forcibly indoctrinated into the Christian faith by an out of control, crusading government.
It seemed that the Negroes got too close to the Monkey cage at the smell of the monkeys trigered a racial memory that caused them to want to do some vine swinging and some spear chucking and they just sort of went ape shit crazy and tore up the place which is sort of what happens when Negroes get gtoo close to monkeys and apes.
Now, she claimed that white people have a different racial memory which is trigered by seeing cows and sheep which makes them horney and reminds them of their first sexual experience. She claimed that the sight of a cow or sheep made them hot for their sister. She warned those white women who had brothers to cross their legs if their brothers were close to sheep.
Now I just don't know what to think, but I know this is dangerous stuff, because I was driving on a country road when old Mavis was going on and I damned near drove off the road when I saw all those sheep.
She sure seemed to know all about Negroes and why they tear things up the way they do. I have to give up some credit since she was as graduate of some school down in Florida. She read all this about white boys beinhg turned on by cows and sheep in the National Archives, so she is well read. White women are turned on by horses, she insisted. Now what is a guy to thinbk of that?
Goodbye, Jimbo.
"Goodbye, Jimbo."
Goodbye to you Mr. Jay Bird! And hello at the same time. What do you think of Mavis's analysis of what makes those Negroes run amuck? Now I would say African Americans, but she sort of took umbrage with that. She insisted they be called new Negores. Just why that was I can't say, and I don't know how to get hold of Mavis to find out.
Now you have to realize, I am just the mesenger for all this, so don't go thinking I I fully accept Mavis's reasoning. But I do like to keep an open mind. Are you turned on by the sight of sheep?
Shove it up your chicken!
Is that a joke, or do you think that's a belivable thing to say about negroes? It sure sounds pretty nasty to me. But maybe that's the whisky talking (for you I mean -- I usually stick to cheap wine for a nightcap).
Welcome, and don't be too discouraged by the seeming lack of response so far. It can slow down a little on some nights. I think everyone stops to watch "Shasta McNasty" or something like that.
The Ohio motto is a minor matter in isolation, but I think the process of politicians using public money and public works to show constituents how religious they are should be nipped in the bud. Going down that road will lead to religious divisions in society, and discrimination against worshipers whose religions are in the minority.
Just another stupid fuck crawling out from under his rock.
Ugh.
A troubadour of troubles: Whatever happened to Tom Lehrer?
click on image 
Jury misconduct means new trial for Snickers thief
What's up with this Jones?
...and then there's Matthew 5:6 which might make a Republican politician squirm:
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men.
Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."
Good news.
Good news.
Let's hope for some other states to copy this.
It sounds more appropriate for the President who made a big deal about being seen at church when he was also playing sex games with a girl young enough to be his daughter.
Yes. Or for the sacred sidewalk surfers of Our Lady of Little Havana. Public piety is always a tacky thing to behold, imho.
As I mentioned above, Matthew 19:24 is the well-known statement by Jesus that a rich person will not enter Heaven, "harder . . . than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle". (Somehow this explicit passage has not persuaded Trent Lott to denounce accumulation of wealth as a sin, but I digress.)
In Matthew 19:25, the disciples to whom Jesus made this statement express astonishment that rich people will go to Hell: "When the disciples heard this, they were completely amazed. 'Who then, can be saved?' they asked."
(continued)
If that's not the quintessential Republican statement of faith, I don't know what is.
That's Matthew 6:5. And the rest of that is:
But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.
Last Pure-Blooded Kaw Indian Dies
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) --The last pure-blooded member of the Kaw Nation, the tribe that gave the state of Kansas its name, has died at age 82.
William Mehojah, who died Sunday, was one of only about 2,500 people on Kaw Nation tribal rolls. Most have only a fraction of Kaw blood.
The tribe -- previously known as the Konza, Kanza or Kansa -- at one time stretched over 20 million acres across northern Kansas into Nebraska and Missouri. By 1825, westward expansion reduced that land to 2 million acres. The tribe moved to what is now the Kansas, or Kaw, River valley in the early 1800s.
robertjayb,
Speaking for my Kansan partner and myself, thank you for posting that. We'd seen the story earlier today. Very sad.
click on photo 
So, a mother's love has limits after all
BROKEN ARROW, Okla. (AP)--When her son told her drug dealers were after him for $10,000, Denise Six gave him the money. But when a ransom note for the young man appeared on her door five days later, she got suspicious and called police.
Thanks for the additional info. Rather bizarre for Nebraska.
Arrest in mysterious internet murder
License violations cannot be based on unjustified stops
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- (AP) -- Motorists stopped without justification cannot be prosecuted for driving with a suspended license or other violations requiring proof of identity, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The 6-1 opinion threw out a suspended license charge against Will Perkins who had been stopped by a police officer in Palm Beach County on July 13, 1997. Perkins pleaded no contest but reserved his right to appeal.
The 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach sided with Perkins. The Supreme Court let that decision stand but disapproved conflicting rulings in similar cases by the 3rd and 2nd district courts of appeal in Miami and Lakeland.
The state conceded the officer had stopped Perkins solely to check the status of his driver's license and had not seen him commit any traffic or other violations to justify a stop, the high court wrote in an unsigned opinion.
Evidence obtained during unlawful stops must be suppressed, including the officer's observation of who was behind the wheel, the majority wrote.
Justice Peggy Quince dissented, citing a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ``the body or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest.''
The majority, however, found that case inapplicable because the defendant had not sought to suppress evidence, but objected to being compelled to appear at a deportation proceeding.
Now what do you think of that. It seems that once again the power of the police to keep law and order has been hampered. But they will find a way around this, because they have all the power, which is as it should be, don't you think?
For the moment I will assume it is positive development.
I found a letter that I wrote to our local newspaper concerning talk radio. I'm gonna post it.
Girl, "Kelly," is guy, "Kenney," in internet chat room murder...
Dear Times-Leader,
Fred Williams bills his show as people power radio. Though I am a regular caller and like his show, I consider it and the entire lineup on WVIA to be more of a political herding operation than anything else. The technique of the conservative radio shepherd is as follows -A piper, be he Williams, Limbaugh , Laura or Liddy, plays a simple variation on an appealing theme: high moral standards, adherence to the constitution, the virtue of strong religious beliefs, the hope that good will triumph over evil, the corruption of local politicians, something to which we all know the words and to which we can all sing along . The message is attractive, it appeals to our better nature, it sometimes gives the illusion of reasoned argument and we join in with our hosannas, hallelujahs , amens, and "sing it again brother Freds". But let us not forget that Maestro Fred controls the show: harmonizing and variations on the theme are the responses preferred by the host, which allow him to develop a momentum and reinforce his perspective, which is decidedly dogmatic, one sided, and fits well enough with the views expressed by the conservative punditocracy nationwide..
Sorry.
The first has to do with the nature of the audience. Althought listeners to talk radio may consider themselves thinkers it turns out that thought, argument and debate can a painful sometimes disorienting process. "We must follow the argument whereever it leads." according to Socrates. Unfortunately it often goes to places we don't want to go. Such a show would not draw the typical American audience interested in the fantasy of certain knowledge. I.e. the average American is a far less noble and intelligent creature than he conceives himself to be.
Second, is that our corporate masters who might sponsor such a show would have a hard time selling the audience soap or automobiles what with audience in a state of exhausting cogitation. Or perhaps that such a show would be too dangerous what with the strong emotions we attach to our fragile, brittle beliefs. The slightest jostling of a delicately balanced belief system in a debate could cause an emotional explosion or implosion in a large percentage of the population to who knows what end.
It's a shame, because he is good on some economic matters. But in the end, he's just a political hack shilling for the GOP.
I rarely listen anymore to any of these guys for more than a few minutes, even though I have lots of drive time to kill.
Yours truly,
< a href="http://www.houston-press.com/issues/2000-04-27/news2.html" target="new">Following uzmakk's post above, here is "Secrets of talk radio revealed," from the current Houston Press
"...On interaction between guests and callers, Hobbs advises hosts to "ask questions that are inherently unfair." "An unbiased and fair view of the world," he suggests, "is boring, uninteresting, and uninspiring. Leave fairness and balance to the newsroom." In KPRC's case, they don't have one anymore..."
Mein Gott!!!
Why listen? I think its important to know what is going on out there.
When I listen to my local talk radio station I say to myself, " God is in heaven and things are precisely as they should be." Fun is another reason--
I was going to send a stat in to Harper's Index--
Number of successive times a caller can derail a conservative talkshow host's program before he is told to take a vacation for a couple of weeks - 4.
My work here is done for now...
A classic, especially at the end when they discover the entrance without the steps.
in, not is...
Post-Columbine hysteria is still rearing its ugly head.
Screw the copyright laws. Free music for everyone.
This is the right way to protect copyrighted material. Do it with technology, not court orders.
So I'm re-posting it, with a question for the few proponents of the drug war in this forum -- Ace -- to consider: if we blithely sentence average citizens to dozens of years in prison just for conspiring to grow pot, how do we permit a mere 18-month sentence for this corrupt fuck?
I mean, this is the main guy on the battlefront in Colombia, our primary representative of this corrupt joke of a war, and he knows his wife is smuggling coke and heroin into the US, and he helps her try to hide the money? How do we deal with someone like this?
Surely 18 months is a slap in the face to the operative "principles" of the War on Some Drugs, and if we truly care about the children, a message must be sent. Otherwise the children will think it's cool to move to Colombia and smuggle dope through the mail.
Too bad this story got buried under the Elian mess; I'd love to listen to Clinton and McCaffrey's explanation for this. Clearly there are two sets of rules, depending on whom one knows; we all know that already. I'd just like to see these cocksuckers admit it for once, and explain why this fuck Hiett doesn't have all his shit auctioned while he pushes ass out of federal prison for the next 15-20 years.
You are just now beginning to realize this? Unfortunately it extends far beyond the drug war. Politics in America has devolved into ongoing, no-holds-barred, tag-team, death-cage, grudge match. Each side in the battle holds its opponent to different standards than they hold themselves or their allies. It is pointless to point out hypocrisy since hypocrisy has become the stock in trade. I happen to think that one major party far exceeds the other in this matter, but opinions may vary. I have to laugh whenever I see a politician stand up and condemn his opponent for behavior he was engaged in the very recent past. It is especially funny on the rare occasions when he is actually called on his hipocrisy and he sputters about how when he did it, it was alright or he completely denies that the past ever really occured. Politicians depend on the short memory of the public and the public's willingness to be led.
True, Biener, true.
You are just now beginning to realize this?
Heh. It's my raison d'être, buddy. Believe me, I know I'm preaching to the choir. I'd just like to see one of the drug war proponents defend this bullshit, in light of how common peons get treated by the judicial meat-grinder for lesser crimes. I mean, don't man-min laws apply to this animal Hiett too?
I happen to think that one major party far exceeds the other in this matter, but opinions may vary.
Well, that's another big scam -- that there's a substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans. The difference is purely theoretical. It exists only on paper. In practice, except for a handful of "social" issues, they're the same beasts.
Politicians depend on the short memory of the public and the public's willingness to be led.
Yes indeedy. Say, I wonder if anything's happened in the Elian saga today.
I think you are me.
It's possible. And as the song says, the walrus is Cart.
Dave:
I'm not sure if you're referring to my thesis or Biener's, so I'll assume mine. Usually such a judicial discrepancy is class-based, true. But in this case, it may be more policy-based; that is, the policy of the drug war is already under scrutiny and criticism by the public -- at least that significant portion that resents the erosion of their rights and the waste of their money.
It would look very bad if one of the key figures in the War on Some Drugs got sent away for years in a standard hellhole prison. Solution: give him a year-and-a-half in Club Fed, and say nothing to the media. Hell, they're all pre-occupied with the soap opera du jour anyway; it's not like they want to do some actual investimagating.
Excerpt:
Why Hiett was not charged with a more serious felony is not clear.
"I can't comment on what the charging options were," assistant U.S. Attorney Lee G. Dunst said in a telephone interview from his New York City office.
Yes indeed, folks. Your tax dollars at work. "Sorry folks, I know I'm a public servant wasting your money for you, but you really don't have a right to inquire about our venality and hypocrisy." Nice, real nice.
from "The Gods must be Crazy" department:
Metal Balls Fall on South Africa
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) -- For a while, it seemed as if some strange meteorological phenomenon was hitting South Africa.
A metal ball fell from the sky Thursday onto a farm near Worcester, 45 miles east of Cape Town, leaving an 8-inch dent in the ground. On Friday, another ball a yard wide plummeted from the sky onto a farm in Durbanville, just outside Cape Town.
''We heard the sound of crackling thunder, yet there were no clouds,'' said Philip Schew, a tenant farmer near Worcester.
NASA scientists said the balls were garbage from a Delta rocket launched in 1996. The balls had been expected to land somewhere in southern Africa.
Nick Johnson, who is in charge of orbital debris for NASA, said space garbage re-enters the Earth's atmosphere almost every day, landing mostly in the ocean.
''Although no one had been hurt by these objects in the last 40 years, the U.S. government would compensate anyone who is struck by the objects,'' Johnson was quoted as telling South Africa's 702 radio station.
BobbyJay,
Space garbage makes me very nervous.
Falling Balls! 
10446. Ronski - 5/2/2000 3:40:29 PM
That's an interesting article about computer security. I'm all for the government beefing up security on their own systems. However I am opposed to Rep. Andrews Cyberterrorism Prevention Act of 2000. It sounds like the nose under the tent for government intrusion into Internet activity by private citizens and businesses.
Of course everyone is opposed to cyberterrorism. But government tactics to fight perceived acts of terrorism could diminish the freedom of everyone.
Letting the Defense Department investigate domestic Internet activity? Financial incentives to help businesses with their security? I say no. The government has a big enough job securing its own systems without worrying about what private industry is doing.
If the lights go off and the telephone quits working due to cyberterrorism, oh well. I'm sure we will all survive the "attack."
RE: MP3 decision.
I agree with this quote from the editorial I linked in Message # 10434.
"The music industry will have to learn to live with these kinds of services,'' said Mark Mooradian, analyst at Jupiter Communications in New York. "They can litigate against that kind of service and they may succeed in shutting it down, but others will continue to exist.''
Free music is here to stay, even though MP3 is getting screwed.
I doubt it. My guess? These providers will have to start paying royalties on every song sold. It will become something like radio.
What happens when the "provider" is everyone with an Internet connection and the appropriate software? Only technology will be able to slow the phenomenon down. But for every tech fix, there is a way around it waiting to be discovered.
There are a lot of companies out there who can sell music affordably without stealing.
"This was a win for teh good guys."
In what way?
LET THE ASS COVERING BEGIN
click on photo 
What, they don't want their valedictorian to be clean and fresh?
Sorry, but I think of the musicians who are getting ripped off as "the good guys".
And how much supervision do you think there should be in high school locker rooms, anyway?
"MP3 was making money by providing other people with the ability to steal."
I prefer to call it "sharing."
"Sorry, but I think of the musicians who are getting ripped off as "the good guys"."
I doubt many of the musicians whose music is being exchanged via MP3 are of the starving variety. They can afford to "share".
Sorry, but that entire post of yours was too idiotic to be worthy of comment.
Apart from the above comment, that is.
"And how much supervision do you think there should be in high school locker rooms, anyway?"
What goes on in the shower is between a boy and his valedictorian is no-one else's business.
"Sorry, but that entire post of yours was too idiotic to be worthy of comment."
You may not agree with me, but my opinion is shared by many, many other idiots. We like free stuff.
"Here is what I think...muscians have to pay for a class I teach, and I have to pay(them) to use their music."
But if you have a friend who already paid for it, then he can share it with you for free.
When cops become combat troops...a useful piece in Salon
"...all over the country, in small and midsize cities, police departments are adopting militaristic, SWAT-like approaches to crime. And thanks to an expanded mandate to combat illegal immigration, INS raids like the one in Miami are now fairly routine in neighborhoods populated by recent arrivals to the U.S"
........
"The tactics used in Miami to extract Elián were shocking to mainstream America, but they have long been commonplace in areas that serve as the battleground for the seemingly never-ending war on drugs. The educated and affluent seem to view policing like making sausage --better not look too closely or you risk losing your appetite for the end product."
I fail to see anything approaching a reasoned argument there. So why bother?
"I fail to see anything approaching a reasoned argument there. So why bother?"
I think music is overpriced and star musicians are overpaid for what they do. In the past, there were few alternatives. Pay the full, exorbitant price for the music I like, steal it from the store, refuse to buy it, or have a friend record some of his albums for me.
Now I can strike back. I can get all the music I want for free, and I'm not taking anything that (in my opinion) belongs to anyone else, like I would if I stole a tape from the music store. Why shouldn't I do it?
Were the cops to catch you, they'd call it theft. So would the judge. So you be sure and tell them that, in your opinion, you didn't think it was really stealing. They'll enjoy a good giggle.
I mean hell, Grey. You're not even being original. You're being a fucking liberal--it's okay to steal from the rich! They deserve it!
Do tell me, though--how will future musicians become rich enough for you to feel justified in stealing from them?
"Were the cops to catch you, they'd call it theft."
Have any Internet users who downloaded from MP3 been prosecuted for theft? If so, I haven't heard about it.
"They'll enjoy a good giggle."
I giggle every time I listen to my free music. No cops have come knocking yet. In fact no-one has complained that I stole their music. Black Sabbath, Led Zepplin, Neil Young, AC/DC, they haven't even reported that some of their music is missing.
"Do tell me, though--how will future musicians become rich enough for you to feel justified in stealing from them?"
Musicians will continue to be paid for their live performances.
Oh, I see. So you are now going to determine how they make their living? You'll determine the way that they'll get paid?
Have any Internet users who downloaded from MP3 been prosecuted for theft? If so, I haven't heard about it.
No, they haven't. But they could. Instead, they've just charged MP3 with the task of covering up your "crimes"--to what might be millions of dollars, depending on how much the court decides to smack them per purchase (minimum of $200, max of $20,000, I think).
And yes, it is a crime. They just don't bother going after you, and go after the middlemen. But if they found you, or came up with a way to make it worth their while to pursue it, it would be a crime. The same is true of all the other piracy.
Black Sabbath, Led Zepplin, Neil Young, AC/DC, they haven't even reported that some of their music is missing.
You haven't been paying attention. The majority of musicians have said that their royalties are missing.
On the upside, you'll never be able to make a civil lib argument in this thread as long as I'm around, o hypocritical one.
"Oh, I see. So you are now going to determine how they make their living? You'll determine the way that they'll get paid?"
You seem to think that the copyright laws are deserving of special respect and reverence. I don't. I think the copyright laws should be repealed. I'm practicing civil disobedience. Its a very principled position.
"And yes, it is a crime. "
Its not even clear that MP3's actions are a crime. They lost round #1 in the courts. Appeals will follow. What makes you so sure that downloading from MP3 is a crime?
"You haven't been paying attention. The majority of musicians have said that their royalties are missing."
Some musicians think MP3 owes them royalties. MP3 no doubt disagrees. Let's see how it all plays out in the courts.
"On the upside, you'll never be able to make a civil lib argument in this thread as long as I'm around, o hypocritical one."
Say what? I don't think the govenment should have or enforce copyright laws. How is that an anti-civil-lib (i.e. hypocritical) position?
1. Its not crystal clear that MP3 has committed any crimes, even though a court decision went against them and thier prospects don't look good. And it is even less clear that MP3 users have committed any crimes.
2. Regradless of whether the actions of MP3 and its users are a crime or not, the govenment should repeal the copyright laws so everyone can have free music, videos, and Windows 2000 without fear of prosecution. "Owning" music is like owning the air, or the ocean, or the sky.
The labels are going after MP3.com on one thing--uploading copies of 40,000 CDs. They've been found guilty of copyright infringement, and every sale of every title carries its own penalty.
But even if MP3.com is found innocent, anyone who downloads music from their site and copies it for other than their own personal use is guilty. Those are two different issues. You are guilty whether or not they are, if you reproduce the music as described, or if you download without actually having purchased the CD. Now, if you did purchase the CD and just used one copy, you are unlikely to be guilty of anything regardless of what happens with MP3.
The reason the labels are going after MP3.com is because they've just made it ridiculously easy for thiefs like you to get away with bootlegging. They are being hit with the penalties for the thefts that they've made possible.
Oh, they should. Well, you just go tell them. What a dick.
Ace, would you kick him? You're much better at this sort of thing than I am.
Cal,
I think you said it best earlier-- he thinks he has a right to steal, he thinks musicians are overpaid, he likes pirating. There's no "argument" here. There's just a punk with an MP3 machine.
Though I don't know if end-users are covered under piracy laws.
Obviously, though, those who distribute pirated material can get into serious trouble.
"the govenment should repeal the copyright laws so everyone can have free music, videos, and Windows 2000 without fear of prosecution."
What about free love & free dope? Why stop here?
If you can steal intangible property, why don't you go next door, kick in your neighbor's window, and take his television?
Make sure you tell him you think entertainment should be "free."
Well, I said copying the CD for other than your own personal use, which assumes distribution.
I'm assuming it's illegal to knowingly purchase bootleg copies, although if it is, I doubt anyone ever prosecutse. I wonder if it's illegal to accept a bootleg copy and play it, enjoying it for free?
But there's no argument here. It's just plain idiocy.
Of course Greystoke doesn't really support a repeal of copyright laws. Such a repeal would result in the immediate end of all writing, movie-making, and music making.
Artists only get paid by licensing or selling the right (called a "copyright") to reproduce their works. Without such a right, they have nothing, and no way to be paid. Any printer could publish an author's books, paying him zero royalties. Any computer geek could burn hundreds of CD's, cutting out the artist who created the music entirely.
Greystoke doesn't want *that*, of course.
Greystoke wants to be a free-rider-- he wants to keep musicians & c. paid by the general public, while a limited number of pirates ride for free.
Sort of like your average hobo. If trains were free, there'd be no trains. So hobos don't actually want free train trips; they want everyone else to pay while they freeload.
"anyone who downloads music from their site and copies it for other than their own personal use is guilty. Those are two different issues. "
No kidding they are two different issues. I didn't say otherwise.
So, as we said earlier, not a single person has been arrested for downloading MP3 music, but you say its a crime? Hmmmmmmm. I'm guessing that if anyone is ever actually prosecuted for it, the courts will be struggling with the issue in a succession of appeals.
Cal:
I don't know the answer to your question. It may very well be legal to knowingly purchase, or use, pirated tapes.
Or it may be illegal. Probably a very minor misdemeanor, if anything.
I just don't know. I have no idea. It may be illegal; or it might be legal, as all laws might concern producers & distributors.
Well, that's what I thought. That's why I didn't bring up the fact that no one would bother. It's just a bit chilling to see.
No. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't a crime, unless you copy it for other than personal use.
Greystoke:
Earlier you claimed, stupidly, "Musicians would still get paid for performances."
What about non-touring bands? There are plenty of studio-only groups. Shall they be bankrupted just so you can have free music?
And what about writers? Should printers be allowed to copy & sell books and charge only 1 cent profit per page, cutting out the writer entirely?
If so, dude, why on earth would someone write a book? Just for the pleasure of knowing that coooool duuuuuudes like you are reading it gratis?
And FORGET about movies. No one's going to make a $50 million movie when he has no exclusive right to sell the film.
"What about free love & free dope? Why stop here?"
Right on, brother. Now you're talkin'. You can join my commune.
"If you can steal intangible property, why don't you go next door, kick in your neighbor's window, and take his television?"
The obvious difference here is that my neighbor would be deprived of his window and his television by my act of breaking in and taking it. Almost everyone would agree that is wrong.
By downloading music from the Internet, I am not depriving anyone of anything tangible, only royalties that the greedy artists and record companies do not deserve. This is a much more muddled area of morality than the TV scenario. Those who make their living from writing or music or cinema are outraged by "piracy". Most people are not. That alone doesn't make it right or wrong, but the interesting question is why many (or most) people don't view it as stealing.
And, since I do not believe in the ownership of intangible property, I am a revolutionary acting on my principles. Sort of like the Patrick Henry of free music.
Do you know that the top royalty rate is around 25%, Greystoke? That's for people like Aerosmith, Metallica, or Michael Jackson. Typically it's more like 15%, from which the musicians get to pay their managers, agents, and assorted hangers-on. If you think music is overpriced, take it up with the record companies. Musicians provide a product, just like you do at your job. Do you work for free?
Now I can strike back. I can get all the music I want for free, and I'm not taking anything that (in my opinion) belongs to anyone else, like I would if I stole a tape from the music store. Why shouldn't I do it?
I don't think there's a huge problem with end-user piracy, and I don't think that's what the companies and artists are going after. They're going after assholes who download a bunch of MP3s, and try to figure out a way to make money distributing it to other people. That is piracy, and that is why we have copyright laws (which, despite your contention, are good things).
Musicians would still get paid for performances.
If you had any idea how much money musicians lose touring, you wouldn't say something this dumb. Only headliners make any real money, and even then a lot of it gets eaten up in production and crew overhead.
Even studio-only bands lose money hand over fist at first, and if they don't recoup enough to pay back the record company for studio costs, then they get to go out and tour for pocket money, essentially.
When we did our tape (didn't have enough dough to do a CD), we got deals on everything -- studio time, packaging, duping, etc. We knocked out 8 songs in two days, top to bottom, which is pretty fucking fast, at $30/hour studio time (which is cheap). Each of us got to take 10 tapes off the top for friends and relatives, and we sold the other 470. And we barely made our money back. You really don't make any fucking money as a musician unless you break big, Greystoke. Anyone going into the music biz because they think they'll make bank is hallucinating. You'd have better odds playing the lottery. You do it because you enjoy it.
And, of course, for the pussy.
"No. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't a crime, unless you copy it for other than personal use."
Well, in Message # 10475 you said the following:
"You are guilty whether or not they are, if you reproduce the music as described, or if you download without actually having purchased the CD."
I took "you are guilty ... or if you download without ..." as meaning the simple act of downloading is a crime. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
"You really don't make any fucking money as a musician unless you break big."
"You do it because you enjoy it."
Exactly. So why do you care about the copyright laws?
Well, I'm trying to disabuse you of the notion that musicians make too much money. They don't. You mentioned Black Sabbath earlier. Do you know that Sabbath got cleaned out of millions by their former manager, back in the '70s? And he got away with it, too -- pencil-pushers frequently do; some of them know how to fuck you without giving a reach-around, and walk away from the whole thing.
So it's not like Sabbath is sitting on a huge pile of cash, and that means it's OK for people to take their product for free (or worse, to take it for free and then sell it to other people).
I won't pretend that I'm Simon pure here. I happen to have acquired, over the years, a fair collection of bootlegs, one of which I even managed to get autographed by the band themselves (Tesla). But I do it because I love the music, and I like to archive rarities, and I have spent lots of money buying legitimate products from those bands also.
And I am cognizant of how the music biz really works -- the musicians are at the low end of the food chain in that industry. So rationalizing it by that reasoning is wholly off-base.
Why do I care about copyright laws? Are you serious? If I spend dozens of hours creating something, and people like it, I want to at least recoup some of the time I put into it. Realistically, that would be impossible for me -- even a minimum wage of the literally tens of thousands of hours I've spent developing my skills over the years will never be recouped. And that's fine. But you need to take into account that musicians don't make a dime until recording costs are recouped by the company. So just because it's out there in the ether, it ain't free.
Again, I'm not calling you a thief. I recognize the difference between real pirates and end-users. It's just that your "justification" is specious.
you said:
"The reason the labels are going after MP3.com is because they've just made it ridiculously easy for thiefs like you to get away with bootlegging." (bold added)
Then you said:
"In fact, I specifically said it wasn't a crime, unless you copy it for other than personal use."
So why are you calling me a thief if what I did isn't a crime?
The Spat-Upon Veteran...
Was it you? Someone you know? Your father? Your brother, your cousin, or the guy across the street? Did you see it? Do you have a first-person account? Exactly when and where did it happen? Under what circumstances? What were the consequences (a fight, an arrest, a riot)?
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets,...by Jack Shafer in Salon
Interesting link, robert. It's amazing how such things become an accepted part of our historical fabric, unscrutinized.
You've said you don't think you should have to pay musicians. You said you now get your music for free. That's theft, of one sort or the other.
In order to download a CD from MP3, you are supposed to show proof of purchase. I assumed that you were getting free music from a friend who paid once for the CD and then made copies for all his or her friends.
But in general, I was calling you a thief because of your attitude and willingness to steal if there weren't any cops looking.
"That's theft, of one sort or the other."
Ahhhh. And that's simply because you say so?
"I assumed that you were getting free music from a friend who paid once for the CD and then made copies for all his or her friends."
And how does that make me a thief?
"But in general, I was calling you a thief because of your attitude and willingness to steal if there weren't any cops looking."
There aren't any cops looking because what I am doing isn't a crime. My "attitude" is that the copyright laws should be repealed, or at least not enforced. Holding such an opinion is not a crime either. Or perhaps it is if you say so.
Unfortunately, since we agree that downloading MP3 music isn't a crime, I cannot claim that my actions constitute civil disobedience. That takes some of the fun out of it.
Spoilsport.
this is the same bullshit that artists like that pompous ass Garth Brooks pulled about 5 or so years ago with stores selling second hand records / tapes / CDs to the public on the basis he didn't get any royalties. well, this, imo, is equally as stupid. mp3s allow ppl to sample the cd before buying it. ppl will buy the CD if they like it and as for used media i have followed several artists after buying 2nd hand media - and by followed i mean buying their new stuff new.
secondly, in the same manner that coping a rented VHS tape isn't against the law (for personal use, natch) and said recording has hardly hurt Hollywood or Blockbuster - bands like Metalica - who have 300,00 Napster names - and Dr Dre - who will sue 5 Napster user names - are using a argument that is silly.
lastly, if you don't care enough about the artists you really like to support them in the open market with your $, then you probably wouldn't regardless of getting the music for free. if i don't like Britney Spears, for example, but like a song of hers, like that stupid uh-oh song; then i might get the mp3 to listen to (even tho the thought of it makes me nauseous) but i'd never ever waste my money on it. thus, the "pop-queen" bitch isn't out anything either way.
The spat-upon veteran article Message # 10495 in Slate (not Salon...thanks janjon) is producing amazing response (Slate). Perhaps such incidents occurred more frequently than I thought. Must have happened somewhere. But I continue to suspect that it is largely a myth useful in supporting the view that had it not been for war protesters at home the good guys would have won.
Again, no one's going after end-users like Greystoke. They're going after the middlemen; the people who think they can distribute copyrighted music for free.
Here's the deal --many people look at this like "well, Metallica can afford it if I download their files for free". And they can. But that ain't the point. What happens if the record company takes an actual financial hit from this? Well, first they'll take a little extra out of the promotion budget to attempt to artificially boost Metallica's legit sales, because if Metallica don't feel like Elektra is pushing them hard enough to generate good sales, they can jump ship. That budget is of course finite, which means some other band takes the hit in their advertising/promotion budget. And if you're on a major label, lack of promotion is financial death, because any band on a major is deep in hock to the company for the first album or two. We're talking high five to low six figures here, usually.
So no, Metallica (Sabbath, AC/DC, whomever) doesn't get hurt by it, because they have enough juice that the record company will try to keep them happy. Chances are that a younger band on the label, who don't have any pull, will end up taking the fall for it.
Put in terms of Greystoke's favored bands, that means Rush gets dropped after Fly By Night; no 2112, no Moving Pictures, the latter of which is indisputably one of the all-time great rock albums. Similarly, AC/DC would have been dropped after Powerage, so no Highway to Hell or Back in Black, another all-time classic.
Music fans like to think that Internet technology has "democratized" music, by allowing more access to it, and enabling easier copying methods. And to an extent, that's true. But they forget the big picture, that the record companies' bottom line, especially nowadays, dictates that the musicians get the axe if there's a profit shortfall to be absorbed.
This should be obvious to all, but many seem blissfully ignorant about one simple truth -- record companies do not care about music. Period. Record companies care about sales, and advertising, and cross-over promotion. They are looking for something which can be useful in selling other things.
This is not exactly a secret. But many fans, in their blissful fetishism, are either ignorant or indifferent to how the sausage is really made. They fail to connect the dots, and realize that their actions as end-users, collectively, affect the livelihoods of the people that make the art that they treasure so.
"What happens if the record company takes an actual financial hit from this?"
But, that is a BIG "what if...?" they make money hand over fist. it wouldn't affect the bottom line anymore than me copying my copy of Pulp Fiction and giving it to people. If they want the real thing, they can get it. If not, then giving them the tape didn't hurt the movie company because the wouldn't have bought it anyway.
From your link:
In an event staged for the media, Ulrich plans to show up at noon today at Napster headquarters on Fourth Avenue with the 60,000-page list contained in 30 cardboard boxes. Metallica sent invitations to media organizations saying that ``all coverage is welcome and questions will be taken.''
Napster spokesman Dan Wool said the company would accept Ulrich's list and review it to determine if any users needed to be booted off the service.
That's pretty funny. Napster is going to "review" a 60,000 page printout to look for misbehaving users.
---------------------------------------------------------
Your posts are very informative, Cartman. It never occurred to me that reduced sales for the big name bands would hurt the less known bands because of cutbacks at the record company.
However, that is purely hypothetical, right? Is there any evidence to date that services like MP3 and Napster are actually having any significant impact on the record companies' bottom lines?
Also, aren't the record companies going to have to pursue a technological solution? Going to court every time someone on the Internet distributes free music would seem to be colossally expensive and inefficient.
Now I'm getting all teary eyed.
I realize I am being hopelessly naive, but it seems to make sense.
Killing Napster and Mp3 won't do much. There is already a program called Gnutella which does much the same thing as Napster, but doesn't have a entity associated with it that can be sued.
What is your take on the morality and legality of downloading music for free? Are you a musician? Are you a downloader of free music?
That it is illegal is, I think, indisputable. Morally, I think it is wrong, but its a pretty minor sin. It isn't even directly comparable to shoplifting, which not only deprives someone of a sale, but also reduces their inventory. Copying files doesn't reduce anyone's inventory.
"Are you a musician?"
Not since high school band.
"Are you a downloader of free music?"
No. I barely listen to music anymore. But back in my college days, I constantly copied friends CDs, records, and tapes, which is certainly the equivalent of downloading free music.
"It isn't even directly comparable to shoplifting, which not only deprives someone of a sale, but also reduces their inventory. Copying files doesn't reduce anyone's inventory. "
I agree. And per RubberDucky's point, most of the time it doesn't deprive someone of a sale either. Of course, as you stated, that may change with increased bandwidth and Internet usage.
I wanted to link Chuck D's editorial from last Saturday's New York Times, but the greedy bastards wanted to charge me $2.50 to access it via their "premium" archives.
Chuck D is quickly taking on the same role for Napster that he played in the early days of the MP3 debates. The rapper left his longtime record label after disputes regarding digital distribution and has since been a prominent advocate of artists' ability to release music online independently and retain control of their careers.
"We should think of (Napster) as a new kind of radio--a promotional tool that can help artists who don't have the opportunity to get their music played on mainstream radio or on MTV," Chuck D wrote in an opinion article published in The New York Times this weekend.
Is there any evidence to date that services like MP3 and Napster are actually having any significant impact on the record companies' bottom lines?
Not that I know of. I imagine it's too early to tell. But if Metallica's sales slip, and Elektra thinks it's due to digital downloading, someone further down the food chain will take the hit in the belt-tightening. That's how record companies work -- Elektra won't dare piss off their marquee artist, and they damned sure won't take it in the shorts themselves. No, if any money's lost, it'll come out of another band's promo budget or contract re-option, most likely.
Also, aren't the record companies going to have to pursue a technological solution? Going to court every time someone on the Internet distributes free music would seem to be colossally expensive and inefficient.
I agree. Ultimately, they will have to figure something out. Realize also that record companies live with a certain amount of piracy anyway. No one else in the world has the kinds of copyright laws we have. Europe is notorious for bootlegging anything and everything. And it's totally legal -- they just can't ship 'em over here. The record companies hate that shit, but they know there isn't much they can do about it. They have lobbied Congress to lean on China over their state-owned pirate factories, with some success. But that's about it, AFAIK.
Now I'm getting all teary eyed.
Heh. I guess that might have been a bit melodramatic on my part, eh? What can I tell you --writing is not my strong suit, guitar-playing is. But I've heard music fans say some damned peculiar things before, as if they think the entire process involves a couple guys sitting on their porch with guitars and a few beers. Like the Keebler Elves come in and do all the legwork and promo pro bono for the musicians or something.
I mean, it's true that there's lots of fun stuff -- plenty of drugs and pussy for the rock musician to have fun with, if one is so inclined. But there's lots of actual work involved, too.
Message # 10507:
And furthermore, why shouldn't a new band bypass the traditional record companies altogether and market their music directly to Internet users through services like MP3 and Napster? The first step is to get a following. If that is accomplished, then its time to go after a record deal.
I agree with this 100%. In fact, I should have mentioned earlier, that while I understand why Metallica is taking umbrage with these guys, I hope they don't just kill 'em off. I think this sort of technology has enormous potential to expose folks to all sorts of great music, outside of the narrow demographic confines and rotation lists of commercial radio. Chuck D is right on the money with his comments, as usual. I don't know why more people don't interview this guy; he's very intelligent, and funny as well.
However, that is separate from the issue of unlicensed copying. The decision of whether to sell or give the intellectual property is the sole prerogative of the copyright holder and publisher. If Chuck D wants to give his music away, that's his choice.
I had a buddy who was James Hetfield's guitar tech, on the North American leg of the Monsters of Rock tour in 1992-93, which Metallica co-headlined with Guns N' Roses (remember them?). When I found out how much Aidan made, I just about shit.
Two grand per week. For keeping a half-dozen or so guitars in tune. Plus comped hotel rooms and food, of course. I think he even got a travel allowance to boot.
Now factor in the rest of the crew -- sound guys, lighting techs, the other guys' instrument techs, probably a 50-man crew at least. We're talking about a lot of fuckin' money being shelled out here. And recording has its own expenses of course, especially at that level of the game. Rehearsal facilities, recording studios, engineers, a name producer, all your aforementioned instrument techs -- lotsa dough, once again.
So while I'm a bit put off by Lars Ulrich's sudden preciousness about His Art -- especially since the only decent thing they've done in the last 8 or 9 years is, ironically, a compendium of cover tunes -- I can see why he might be pissed that over 330,000 people are offering his product for free. Even if they each are only nickel-and-dime deals, it adds up.
Our public radio has a show called Mixed Bag where they play all that alternative stuff that ain't on commercial radio, and it ain't the usual NPR stuff either. Mostly its not very good.
The debate here touches on an interesting issue. Do we really need a million A&R guys, endless mass marketing etc. IOW, would artists be better off if they might not sell a gazillion units, but instead sold a gazillion-x and kept a far greater percentage of the smaller pie? Why should we preserve an old centralized distribution system?
Sure, most musicians would love to scrap or circumvent the standard distribution/promo system. Trouble is, no one's really come up with a better way yet to secure all the publishing rights and guarantee all the radio play necessary to get a hit. It's pretty easy to forecast such a new system springing up before long; it's just that all this tech is so new.
The advantages of a band being on a major label, slowly but surely, are declining. Commercial radio is becoming more open to indie bands. A band can set up their own club tours and make some money (like mine did) if they just pay attention and don't waste money. And digital recording equipment is getting cheaper all the time. Five grand will get you more than enough equipment to record a high-quality CD, where ten years ago it was more like five to ten times that.
That was the main appeal of majors then -- they're like a bank. They front you the money to rehearse and record, and set you up with the organization to go out on tour. But all that's recoupable -- you don't see any money until your recording profits have first paid off your initial debts. About the only thing non-recoupable in a major contract is promo and advertising. And that's why the top royalty rate is only about 25% or so. The record company can easily absorb it at that rate.
But now, if the guys in the band work day jobs and buy a few pieces of equipment, and pool their resources, they can beat the labels at their own game. Which is the way it should be. Now it's just a matter of figuring out a way of distribution, and securing publishing rights, so that all the profits don't get lost to piracy.
What worries me is what this signifies for the movie industry, which will probably have to face very similar threats several years from now. Once bandwidth is wide enough, TVs are good enough, and digital versions of film are everywhere, I can see movie profits getting massively eaten into. But unlike the music industry, almost all film-makers *need* sales of their products to make money and to be able to produce the product in the first place. I really do hope a technological solution presents itself, but I don't see one on the horizon.
Really makes ya think.
So maybe the movie studios will have to get into documentary-style pictures. Amateur actors, low budget sets, a series of MTV's Real World films.
1) different business model, such as relying on advertisements built into the movie. Think "Truman Show".
2) Adopt a technology more sophisticated than that which is available at home - this is what they did when faced by competition from TV. IMAX and decent 3D may constitute the bulk of new movies in the future.
3) Find a way to prevent making copies. Someone cracked the code for DVDs, and since the key to the encryption has to be contained somewhere on equipment owned by the user, I don't know how you can permanently prevent cracking of any improved codes.
3)
Aren't those VCD's just camcorder recorder knock-offs off the theatrical versions? I also thought that part of the problem was that a lot of HK talent emigrated out of fear of artistic restrictions by the Chinese. Jackie Chan, Jet Li, John Woo, Tsui Hark, Sammo Hung, and Woo-ping Yuen do all of their work in Hollywood now.
theatrical versions?" Yes, apparently it takes about 72 hours to get commercial quality films into the shops. But, if bad quality pirate films destroyed the HK film industry, wouldn't good quality so whats your point.
"I also thought that part of the problem was that a lot of HK talent emigrated out of fear of artistic restrictions by the Chinese. Jackie Chan, Jet Li, John Woo, Tsui Hark, Sammo Hung, and Woo-ping Yuen do all of their work in Hollywood now." There are no restrictions on any HK films (with the exception of porno). No one has left Hong Kong because of restrictions on expression. All of the above mentioned work in Hollywood because they earn more money there. It's probably fair to point out that there really isn't a film industry left anywhere outside of Hollywood that isn't government subsidized no-talent hacks. But the drop seems especially precipitous in Hong Kong.
what about Chow Yun Fat?
haven't seen much of him other than that movie i don't even wanna talk about with Foster as of late
is he in the US?
I was just expressing surprise that this happened with bad quality copies.
"There are no restrictions on any HK films (with the exception of porno). No one has left Hong Kong because of restrictions on expression."
That wasn't what I meant. Most left HK *before* the Chinese took over. Expectations of future restrictions can affect people's behavior as much as real restrictions. I am not being definitive on this point, but I recall reading that it was a partial motivation in the decisions of several Hong Kong film-makers.
Ducky: Yes, Chow Yun-Fat is also now in the US. He hasn't made an HK film since 95, and his next two films are in Hollywood (with Asian directors - Woo, and Ang Lee, who stopped making films in his native Taiwan 6 years ago).
Bwah ha!
I successfully avoided that one.
I know this is the case in most of Europe, but I had thought Bollywood was self-supporting.
I'm teaching a class about ICQ and I would like to converse with someone online. Is anyone game? (about 1 hr. from now). My PIN is 33656219.
Bollywood is the same thing. You would think that it would be impossible to go low enough such that you couldn't understand "The Terminator". But, in fact, the vast peasantry of India is completely impervious to Hollywood simply because its too deep and complex. Besides, they are so involved in there own strange little universe that the first thing that comes into their heads is "But what caste is the Terminator."
On the other hand, the music really rocks. Its only a matter of time until Indian movie music rules the American pop airwaves.
But what was the most disconcerting was the way it just completely switched gears frequently, from fast-paced action, to song, to horrific tragedy, to slapstick comedy, back to song, to screwball comedy, back to tragedy, and another song.
Rask, the rapid switching is a feature of the earlier movies mostly. Now, you get solid romance or drama, but with dance sequences interspersed of course. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about 'Bombay' when/if you see it.
"Rask, the rapid switching is a feature of the earlier movies mostly. Now, you get solid romance or drama, but with dance sequences interspersed of course. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about 'Bombay' when/if you see it."
"Bombay" is on my list, although I may not get to it for awhile.
Bollywood movies are also extremely popular throughout the Middle East, Russia, the Central Asian countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and in pockets of the UK and the US.
"The 20 million-strong expatriate Indian community can never get enough of these Indian pix. Non-Indian audiences in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and even Japan have also acquired a taste for Bollywood's zesty menu of dramas, thrillers, and musicals. In all, says Amit Khanna of India's Film Producers' Guild, India earns $100 million in film exports annually, a figure that's growing by 50% a year."
Low figures right now, granted. But rising. I provided a link a while ago which showed that if you rank movies by per-screen takings, Indian movies are routinely in the top 10-15 even in the USA and UK.
The music is good though. The initial "Swinging London" scene in Austin Powers II seemed to be a straight cop from Bollywood.
Amusing as your theory is:
1) Piracy is a huge problem for Bollywood in India and out. The estimates of lost earnings occasionally surpass actual earnings. The VCR has dramatically altered audience rates for theatres and believe me, Indians both can afford them and are competent enough to manipulate them.
2) Hollywood is not "too sophisticated" for Indian audiences. If more Hollywood movies featured lengthy song-and-dance and lurid costumage, more Hollywood movies would be watched in India. That's what the audience wants, that's what the audience likes.
3) Lots of movies now seem to nab stuff from Bollywood. When not nabbing the directors themselves -see 'Elizabeth', which had a decidedly Bollywood aspect to it.
"The music is good though. The initial "Swinging London" scene in Austin Powers II seemed to be a straight cop from Bollywood."
"3) Lots of movies now seem to nab stuff from Bollywood."
Oh, please. The Swinging London scene was copped from dozens of American musicals which had come long before Bollywood.
This is like claiming that Matt Helm was a rip-off of the Italian "Double Oh Agent." But the Italian Double-Oh agent was just a rip-off of the Anglo-American James Bond.
You may be right about Austin Powers. But there are directors who openly state that they've gotten ideas from Bollywood, the guy who did Romeo and Juliet is one. And in the case of Elizabeth, Shekhar Kapoor happens to be from Bollywood.
His wife is EXTREMELY hot, by the way. Not that it's relevant.
"You may be right about Austin Powers."
That's all I was really talking about. That, and your taking that as evidence of Bollywood-homages.
I'm sick and tired of spending my money on a CD that only has one good song. If the artists want to prevent "pirating" then maybe they should try to produce consistent quality music throughout the entire CD rather than one or two commercially viable songs and eight throw-aways. If I like all (or most) of the songs on a CD, I will buy it. If a CD has only a couple of songs that are good, screw buying the CD; I'll just copy them from someplace else. I'm not going to spend $20 for crap.
And another one:
I LAUGH MY ASS OFF at the groups who try to take down Napster. Big deal if they do, they will be replaced by 50 others who are located in Iraq, Russia, and Taiwan (where there is no recognition of author's rights) and the wanna be American government has no stroke. Out with the old and in with the new boys.....the big companies will no longer control consumers....the Microsofts, the Electras, the Disneys are all going to get left because they want to continue business as usual and make everything new conform to that instead of conforming their business to everything new.
As far as small struggling bands, well, don't see many of them on Napster....and maybe a little FREE exposure would help their cause.
By the way, laws change, and what is legal and illegal today will be different tomorrow. I for one am going to make sure that it is the PEOPLE that decide what the law is tomorrow and NOT BIG BUSINESS.
I like Dre and all...matter of fact I think 2001 was probably the best hip-hop album of last year. But, this whole suing Napster thing is just plain fucking retarded. So let's say Dre and Metallica win and the Napster creator has to pay some ungodly sum of money and is forced to stop making the program...so fucking what? People are still going to use Napster, and since it is basically a distributed-network FTP program, there is *absolutely no way* to stop people from distributing MP3s via it's use. The files are all on private computers which can be connected virtually anonymously! Not only that, but people are still going to be distributing Napster even if the creator of it isn't. Nothing can stop the distribution of digital music illegally. The fact, though, which Dre apparently doesn't realize is that most people end up buying CDs based on MP3s they download. And, any *real* audiophile also knows MP3s are not as good as a CD despite what people say. MPEG compression ALWAYS means you will lose some data, by the nature of the standard. The bottom line, though, is that Dre will have to sue the whole world to win this...and that ain't happenin. As a computer engineer I just have to sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Maybe Dre should've cracked open a few books about computers and the internet before he started suing people.
I finally found it for free. Screw The New York Times and their "premium" archives.
An excerpt:
First I like to get directly to the points…
1. The day of the one –dimensional naïve artist is over…
2. 95% of all music will be free, at least for a period…
3. The whole financial structure of the entertainment business is in the process of getting redefined
4. NAPSTER has turned music into baseball cards and the consumer base of kids are leading the pack, ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT MUSIC.
5. With a million artists joining a new way of getting music across the world via the MP-3 & internet, new ways of artists making money will eventually be discovered or rediscovered
6. As in kindergarten everyone will be re-taught how to share…
7. NAPSTER, MP3, downloaded music and sharing is the ‘new radio for the O-DEC’…old school artists, get over the fact and adapt…
Wow - Chuck D! There's an unimpeachable authority for you.
...nevermind the fact that he made his living adding a beat and some incoherent babbling to samples of other artists' music.
Interesting link and quotes, Greystoke. Again, though, that's Chuck D's prerogative if he wants to give his music away. More established bands with more weighty organizations simply cannot afford to do that. Is the solution for Metallica to scrap what they've built up, and go back to playing clubs, so that they don't go broke letting people pirate their shit?
As for buying an album that turns out to only have one or two good songs on it, that's life. You win some, you lose some. I've certainly bought my share of lemons, but that doesn't give me license to steal. Plus most hit singles get released as CD singles for 3 or 4 bucks.
Hopefully, most of Metallica's bluster turns out to be just that. I don't want to see them kill Napster, and it won't do any good even if they do. Napster, when not used for stealing copyrighted material, has the potential to help break and promote indie bands, without those bands having to sell their souls to cut a disc.
Returning the music to the musicians, taking it away from the lawyers and accountants and marketing weasels -- that is Napster's real benefit. Not making it easy to get an illicit copy of "Nothing Else Matters".
click on edwards 
click on photo 
Get a life, scientists tell extinct Tasmanian tiger
"DNA has been extracted from a Tasmanian tiger pup bottled in alcohol 134 years ago, allowing scientists to embark on an $80 million project to bring the extinct marsupial predators back to life." Sydney Morning Herald
A therapist friend of mine recently informed me that this area of Michigan (SW Lower Penninsula) is tops in the country for ritalin prescriptions.
We don't have a huge illegal use problem. But I have noticed that it's gotten easier and easier to pick the ritalin kids out in a crowd.
Young Danes' sperm count dips 
Almost half of 700 Danish army recruits have been found to have sperm counts low enough to make it hard for them to father children.
OhMyGod! We may be facing a shortage of Danes...
Surely enough fertile Finns, studly Swedes, and naughty Norwegians will volunteer to deal with this crisis.
I dunno. Do you think all those herrings are able to spawn in a different part of Herringstan?
Cartman - Message # 10556:
I disagree, Joezan. Chuck D is one of the few coherent people in rap. In print and TV appearances he has always seemed razor-sharp and keenly aware of his responsibilities to his community. (Which philosophy I don't necessarily agree with, because I'm a selfish asshole, but he articulates it quite well.)
This must be some new Chuck D - maybe he was cloned from an MP3 file. The Chuck D I remember had pretensions to earnest and intelligent debate on issues that matter (which always came down to a parroting of Louis Farrakhan's extreme anti-Semitism), and had, ever at his side, this pet babboon named "Flavah Flav", next to whom even an N-Stink-er would seem a genius.
Around the mid 80's, these two idiots even took to toting around two "bodyguards", who would hold plastic machine guns while standing guard on stage at all their concerts, unmoving except for their heads, which continually scanned the crowds with a determined scowl, FOI-style. One of these idiots "Terminator X", went on to make some extremely vile and hateful anti-Jewish remarks, ostensibly without the say-so of the boss (Mr. D), and PE was subsequently "forced by the White Power machine", or some such, to cut Mr. X loose. The fact that the whole thing was a carefully planned scam (it happened just after Farrakhan cut whatsisname loose for his extreme anti-Semitic remarks), or that the only publicity the matter received was the wild conspiracy theories Chuck D built around his own farce) mattered little. The persecution of Terminator X is still legend in the minds of many of PE's fans.
Mr. D is a carbunkle on the ass of humanity, and I fully expect that one day he and Rev. Fatass will share a ticket.
Oh...and it's very nice that Mr.D, with millions in the bank from his Public Enemy days, now feels that music should be free for the taking. As is the case, btw, with all the music industry people I've heard speak in support of MP3. I wonder (and I know you disagree with them, Cartman) how these dopes would feel about giving their music away if they were in a struggling new band, or if they were session musicians just waiting for their next gig?
Presumably, struggling new bands would like to reach as wide an audience as possible, even if that means giving their music away for free. For well known bands, much of their music is changing hands for free right now, and the pace is likely to increase in the future.
Yes, the Mettalica and Dr. Dre lawsuits may slow it down a bit for a while, but the trend towards free music appears to be inevitable. Either the bands and the record companies find a way to ride the wave or they can sink to the bottom using their lawyers and the copyright laws as an anchor.
An excerpt:
Ted Hunt, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, condemned the searches and the manner in which they were conducted. He said prosecutors served the warrants at about 7 a.m. and conducted searches in front of officers' children and neighbors.
No rulings yet on butt picking and booger eating.
The music industry will be keeping a close eye on what happens to Napster. Many are betting that the law will favor technology and the will of the music-sharing public. But even if Napster loses this time around, new tools and models are sure to emerge again, challenging labels and artists to rethink their strategy.
Excerpts:
While they would never admit it, Napster is doing the record industry a huge favor. Napster is demonstrating that the only way to control copyright violations is to protect their content before they release it to the public. The technology to do so, called Digital Rights Management, is new but rapidly maturing.
...
Taking the idea of Napster a step further, what's to prevent someone from creating the Napster of consumer auctions. If the Napster approach hit auctions, how could the existing auction players such as eBay, Amazon.com or Yahoo! hope to compete? For that matter, what's to prevent someone from creating Napster-like programs that take on the numerous players currently creating business-to-business exchanges?
The short answer is nothing. There's nothing to stop programmers from adapting Napster to a wide variety of applications, each of which will challenge the site-centric thinking that predominates on the Internet today.
Greystoke:
Presumably, struggling new bands would like to reach as wide an audience as possible, even if that means giving their music away for free.
What am I missing here, Grey?
I mean, I know that you know the only reason a new, struggling band would be willing to give away their music - in whatever manner - is so the music would then be heard by a much larger audience than, say, their neighbors or the people who go to see them at the bar. And that then, hopefully, all these new listeners would BUY their subsequent releases.
Right?
Ted Hunt, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, condemned the searches and the manner in which they were conducted. He said prosecutors served the warrants at about 7 a.m. and conducted searches in front of officers' children and neighbors.
Hahahahaha! Ouch, my aching sides!
"And that then, hopefully, all these new listeners would BUY their subsequent releases.
Right?"
Well, obviously, you are right. I was pointing out that such services as Napster and MP3 might be helpful for new bands to become well known. But, if the band achieves stardom, it will probably no longer want its songs distributed for free. On the other hand the band can remain anonymous and not have to worry about anyone wanting to copy their music for free. In other words, if you achieve stardom, the unauthorized distribution of your music is something you are probably going to have to put up with.
As I said before, the trend toward free music appears to be inevitable. Perhaps the bands will be able to find a way to use Internet distribution systems to their advantage. Even if they do, maybe rock stars and record companies will never again make the kind of money they do today. Or, alternatively, maybe they will be able to use technology successfully to protect their music from unauthorized duplication. However, for every security measure, someone will figure out a countermeasure eventually.
Attempting to stop free Internet distribution of music by going to court is not a winning strategy in the long term, IMO.
"Ouch, my aching sides."
I'm sure that Mr. Hunt has the same compassion for the homeowner and his children when its an LAPD drug raid.
Seeing as how Public Enemy's biggest hit ("Bring The Noise") and most lucrative tour was with NYC metal band Anthrax, whose leader is in fact Jewish, I don't see how anti-Semitic Chuck could be. Though you're right, he has referred to Farrakhan as a "prophet", which I agree is ludicrous. However, Chuck has also spoken voluminously on the basic principle of bringing up urban black communities. What other figure in music speaks up for the disenfranchised urban black? Drug-addled punching bag Whitney Houston? Creepy pederast Michael Jackson? Cock-crazy skeezers TLC? Nope, it's those darned rappers.
I have always loved how conservatives can expound at length on the manifold evils of Farrakhan and Sharpton, who are really only influential to a dwindling cadre of black militants. Yet conservatives are completely silent on Poppy Bush's business dealings with cult leader/media entrepreneur/creepy mass-marriage weirdo Sun Myung Moon, whose anti-Americanism and anti-Catholicism are well-documented, and whose media and corporate holdings are not insignificant. Nope, nothing about that. Nobody here but us chickens. It's all Farrakhan's fault.
Umm, Joe, Flavor Flav's persona is supposed to be that of a buffoon, a clown. You're taking the clock he wears around his neck entirely too seriously. For further comic relief, I'm pretty sure Flav even intentionally sets it to the wrong time of day. Can you dig?
Flav's RL alter-ego, Willie Drayton, is not exactly a role model. He's had numerous brushes with the law for a variety of personal reasons (drugs, domestic disputes). But his involvement in Public Enemy's songwriting and philosophy is, in my understanding, marginal. His main task is to say, "Yeah, boyeeeeee!" at the proper moment, which may or may not be tougher than it looks.
As for the Terminator X controversy, oh dear, a ham-handed publicity stunt. To paraphrase Hendrix, 'scuse me while I feign surprise. Again, that all happened at around the time, or earlier, that PE hooked up with Anthrax. So if Scott Ian (Rosenfeld), a Diamond District Jew, can get past that, anyone can.
Or is Chuck D condemned to perpetual condemnation for his own private "Hymietown", and all good is destined to be undone by one ancient bad? Again, see Bob Jones University, or Poppy shilling for the Moonie newspaper in Argentina, for a cool mil (plus other business associations with Moon, also in S. America). Apparently radicalism and racism are only bad things when a brutha is doing it.
Too cool. Maybe they should have their homes & cars seized and auctioned before trial, too, get a little taste of what "the law" does these days "for the children". No such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" these days, just "guilty until you die".
BTW, some handy stats not mentioned in the article, that I read in a short blurb in today's SF Chronicle -- because of the Rampart scandal, 84 cases are being thrown out so far, and 234 defendants are being reviewed, and will likely be processed and released.
LA will most likely spend every dime of its tobacco largesse paying out for civil lawsuits. Too bad; they ought to take it out of these fuckers' paychecks and pensions. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for institutionalized corruption?
Where's Mr. Law Enforcement when I need someone to kick? Ace, who can scarcely imagine any cop coercing a confession from a retarded kid, undoubtedly would characterize the Rampart scandal as a mere aberration, a blip on the otherwise pristine nature of The System. Guess again, Chief. It's not a complete anomaly, especially for the LAPD.
In other words, if you achieve stardom, the unauthorized distribution of your music is something you are probably going to have to put up with.
Why? Businesses give away free or discounted merchandise all the time to get started. Then they mark up the price as the business gets more popular. That's the way capitalism works. A band is no different; they are under no obligation to keep giving shit away just because people don't feel like paying for it.
If Home Base gave away complimentary widgets back when they needed to attract customers, but now they charge five bucks for them, is it my right to take them, just because they used to be free?
I'm not picking on you personally, Greystoke, but some of the folks posting on the chat boards that you've quoted are simply lost in space. They seem shocked and betrayed to find that art is a commodity, a good which is produced for mass consumption. They are part of the game, and seem not to realize it.
We'll see how much they like giving shit away for free if they become businessmen.
"Businesses give away free or discounted merchandise all the time to get started. Then they mark up the price as the business gets more popular. That's the way capitalism works."
I didn't mean that because a band gave away some of their music when they started out they are somehow obligated to continue doing so when they achieved stardom.
I meant that it could be to a new band's advantage to give away music when they are starting out. If and when they achieve stardom they will have to put up with unauthorized distribution because there's no way to stop it on the Internet. Or at least there won't any way to stop it in the very near future when a central entity like MP3 or Napster is no longer needed. Lacking a company to sue, copyright lawsuits will no longer be effective.
"We'll see how much they like giving shit away for free if they become businessmen."
I undestand where you are coming from on this. A musician naturally sees free distribution of his songs as money coming out of his pocket. But its a reality and its probably here to stay. The question is how are musicians and record companies going to adapt to it?
No, I see what your position is (at least I think I do). But it seems that some of these other folks who are pissed off at Dr. Dre and Metallica for their stance are delusional. They seem to feel that free music is an entitlement.
As for what will eventually happen, right now I would guess two possibilities:
(Again, I submit that had the number of free downloads not been so damned high, Metallica would never have cared. But you can't ignore 335,000 people giving your product away.)
Now, I'd like to see something like option #2 come out; that seems more like an "everyone wins" scenario. So I'd put my money on #1, if I were a betting man (and I am, but only on pro football). The battle has already gotten too high-pitched; Metallica has turned it into a series of photo-opps, and the goofier fans have already stoked the fire. It's gonna be a bloodbath.
Really, any intelligent musician (I know, sounds like an oxymoron) would take a look at his opportunities in that circumstance and just say "fuck it", go to law school and just use his guitar for dicking around once in a while.
Without protection and enforcement, intellectual property laws are worthless. And then we all might as well either just listen to our back catalogs of cool music, or get used to hearing nothing but Ricky Martin and Britney Spears. 'Cause no one else in their right mind would bother.
Cartman - Message # 10582
...and had, ever at his side, this pet babboon named "Flavah Flav", next to whom even an N-Stink-er would seem a genius.
Umm, Joe, Flavor Flav's persona is supposed to be that of a buffoon, a clown. You're taking the clock he wears around his neck entirely too seriously...
Umm, Eric? In case you missed my point, it was that anyone sharing the limelight with Mr. Flav would seem intelligent. Kinda like Abbott & Costello - someone asks, Who's the smart one?, and you immediately answer, Bud Abbott, of course!.
Because Lou Costello is an obvious buffoon.
But then, you watch their movies without first smoking a joint, and you realize, Hey - Abbott's a pretty dim bulb himself!.
See? Same difference. And as for Mr. D's razor sharpness - I've heard his spiel on Black self-determination, 40 acres and a mule at 3% annual interest over 130 years, etc., etc. Straight from the NOI homepage, dude. The guy parrots Farrakhan to this day, and has never retracted what he's said about Jews, and White people in general in the past.
About the only thing I can see giving him credit for is that now he has the sense to keep his racist, anti-Semitic views to himself.
...ooops.
Seeing as how Public Enemy's biggest hit ("Bring The Noise") and most lucrative tour was with NYC metal band Anthrax, whose leader is in fact Jewish, I don't see how anti-Semitic Chuck could be.
Oh - that's rich!
Hey - I made a whole bundle of cash sharing a stage with a Jew who didn't even care that I'd dissed his people. How can you call me anti-Semitic?
Dude, even Farrakhan has shared the stage with Jews.
Love Bug hacker suspect is a chick...(I said this liberation business would get out of hand...)
In case you missed my point, it was that anyone sharing the limelight with Mr. Flav would seem intelligent.
Ah. Okay, I guess I had indeed missed your point there. My bad.
And as for Mr. D's razor sharpness - I've heard his spiel on Black self-determination, 40 acres and a mule at 3% annual interest over 130 years....
I don't know what Chuck D has said about Jews in the past, but I'm not terribly surprised. I already said I think he hurts his cause by hanging with a creature like Farrakhan.
As for his opinions on reparations, I don't agree with his extremism, but I don't have any problem with some form of reparations to blacks. Not giving each of them a million bucks cash, mind you, but educational scholarships and infrastructure rebuilding might be a decent start.
We can take it out of the toy money we earmark for General Dynamics. After all, $60 billion is only 1% of our annual military budget, as has been repeated here voluminously. That's a lot of money -- perhaps we can do something useful with it. And the other 99% is still there to build planes the Pentagon doesn't want. Everyone wins.
Or we could make the inner cities "sovereign nations" and let them run their own casinos. Then Whitey can waste his paycheck on crooked slot and poker machines, and watch the remaining members of Foreigner belly-bounce each other onstage through their greatest hits.
Seriously, though, reparations deserves to at least be discussed. If I were black, I sure as fuck wouldn't feel like everything was even just because of affirmative action. So again, I don't have a problem with Chuck D, or even Farrakhan, at least floating the idea.
>> Black guy: "Let's see, so you lynched my grandfathers, raped my grandmothers, worked my entire family like dogs for no money, treated them like subhumans for centuries, deprived them of every possible basic human right up until a few decades ago, and now I get a few sympathy points on my college exams and civil service tests? Gosh, thanks! That makes everything all better!"
It is our sheer arrogance in completely dodging accountability that enables militants like Farrakhan, Sharpton, or Chuck D to peddle a harder message. Apparently they feel like if they don't yell, they'll be entirely ignored, and I can't say as I blame them for assuming that. If blacks just kept taking shit from white people, they'd still be drinking out of separate fountains.
You can't just treat an entire race of people like animals for 300 years, then expect them to feel right because you allowed them to have equal rights, plus a slight advantage on test scores. (And even then, such "advantage" is met with no small amount of kicking and screaming.)
Cartman:
Well, without getting into my views on reparations, my point there was that Mr. D, in his seeming articulateness and intelligence, cannot buy an original idea, and now spouts only the less outwardly racist/anti-Semitic Farrakhanisms.
And, seriously, why is it that whenever a Black guy comes along and speaks in words of more than one syllable, without throwing in a bunch of mf's, knawtImean's, and a dumb rhyme every few sentences, he gets tagged with the old "articulate" label? If I were black, that would be a whole lot more degrading than someone calling me "nigger". I mean, Chuck D has never come across to me as any more intelligent than your average highschooler.
In any case, as interested as Mr. D was in spreading his message about "Fighting The Power", he never gave away any albums when they were selling like hot cakes and he could well afford to.
Well, without getting into my views on reparations, my point there was that Mr. D, in his seeming articulateness and intelligence, cannot buy an original idea, and now spouts only the less outwardly racist/anti-Semitic Farrakhanisms.
Few people, if any, display much original thought in their political philosophies. Chuck would do himself good to broaden his scope a bit, and see that Farrakhan's myopic view will never be more than a sideshow for the marginalized. And I read a few of his "commentaries" on the PE site. They're not terribly well-written or -edited, and he "streets" his lingo a bit much, considering I've heard him speak numerous times and he doesn't use much homeboy vernacular. Still, regardless of the particular philosophy, it's nice to hear a musician, especially a rapper, concerned with something besides blings and Benzos and how big his dick is. Knowwhatimsayin? If he can encourage the lot of them to pull their IQs into triple digits, that's better than nothing.
And, seriously, why is it that whenever a Black guy comes along and speaks in words of more than one syllable, without throwing in a bunch of mf's, knawtImean's, and a dumb rhyme every few sentences, he gets tagged with the old "articulate" label? If I were black, that would be a whole lot more degrading than someone calling me "nigger".
I know what you mean, and I cringe when I hear some limo liberal condescend to black people, talk to them like they're children. That's not where I'm coming from at all --there are a multitude of inarticulate white people as well, and they all seem to have their own shows on TNN. "Y'all come back now, y'heah?" Shit like that. Watch a NASCAR driver speak sometime; some of 'em are straight out of Hee-Haw. No, my assessment of Chuck as "articulate" has more to do with his profession than his race.
For one, Chuck seems to be able to read and write pretty well, so right there he's ahead of that pack. For another, since most of his colleagues seem to operate at the cognitive level of a slow fifth-grader, high school ain't bad.
In any case, as interested as Mr. D was in spreading his message about "Fighting The Power", he never gave away any albums when they were selling like hot cakes and he could well afford to.
Well, he still has money, and he seems to want to start giving some product away. Most likely he sees the promotional potential in digital distribution, not just for himself, but rappers he'll sign up to his label in the future. It's dollars and cents, pure and simple. If he can simultaneously do something for his community, so much the better.
click on progress map 
Cartman,
Isn't this your pal?
Ruling Against Reporter Overturned
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- An appellate court has overturned a contempt-of-court ruling against a reporter who refused to testify about unpublished material in a murder case.
Dan Fost, now a media columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle, had been ordered to pay $1,000 per day for every day he refused to answer certain questions about a murder case he wrote about when he was a reporter for the Marin Independent-Journal.
Fost answered defense questions but refused to answer cross-examination questions about unpublished material. He claimed protection under the state reporters' shield law, designed to prevent journalists from having to disclose secret sources.
California's 1st District Court of Appeal said Monday the contempt order was not properly applied by the lower court judge.
The appeals court said the contempt penalty is supposed to be applied when a reporter's refusal to answer questions puts at risk a defendant's right to due process. But in this case, it said, the defendant received the testimony he wanted. The defendant was eventually convicted.
Countries Ranked on Moms, Children
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ranking the status and well-being of mothers in 106 countries, a leading child development organization cited a clear link Tuesday between the health, literacy and economic opportunity of mothers and the fate of the world's coming generation of children."
...
"The 10 top-rated countries in which the studies show mothers fare the best are, in order, Norway, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the United States, Netherlands, Britain, Finland, France and Cyprus."
...
"The 10 countries at the bottom of the 106 are, in descending order, Niger, Mali, Guinea, Burundi, Ethiopia, Chad, Burkina Faso, Nepal, Gambia and Angola."
click on image 
No, you're thinking of Tim Crews, who recently served five days in county jail for refusing to reveal sources, and was my next-door neighbor for a few years.
I forgot to mention that last month, Crews was unanimously named the 2000 winner of the Hofstra University/Francis Frost Wood Courage in Journalism Award. It sounds fairly prestigious; past winners include Veronica Guerin, the Irish reporter who was assassinated for her coverage of the drug underworld in that country; and Nate Phayer for his interview with Pol Pot.
Crews will be summoned back to court in a few weeks, and will go through the same motions, most likely. Meanwhile, he's gone back to running the Valley Mirror. I'll provide updates as they become available.
I am familiar with Dan Fost's case too, though, as a regular reader of the Chronicle. Fost is in the same boat as Crews, it sounds like --victim of a judge who has forgotten exactly what "free press" means.
Chuck D is a freaking moron. Well, not a moron, but a man blessed with perfectly mediocre intelligence. But a lot of white dudes get to feel "black" and get to practice a little patronization by swearing on a stack of Bibles that he's a genius prophet.
Hey-- the man has some good songs. You know what? So do the fucking Thomspon Twins. So does fucking Alanis Morissette. So does fucking Courtney Love.
"Still, regardless of the particular philosophy, it's nice to hear a musician, especially a rapper, concerned with something besides blings and Benzos and how big his dick is."
A man of above average, but humble, intelligence knows his limitations. RunDMC had more, and better, songs than PE, and they weren't deluded into fancying themselves intellectuals just because wannabe-Gangsta nice jewish boys and the French feted them.
Like a lot of rock stars and celebrities, Chuck D confuses a microphone for actually having something to say.
If Chuck D is a genius, so's Ted Danson, and so's Tim Robbins. And John Lennon's political pronouncements were just as "profound."
Well, that's just silly. I haven't heard any of that sort of thing, white guys praising Chuck D as a genius or a prophet or an intellectual. He's a bright guy who does some pretty good music, and articulates his message pretty well outside of the musical arena. For any musician, much less a rapper, that is notable in itself, regardless of the philosophy.
You want to see patronizing, try sitting through more than 30 seconds of VH1's nauseating Men Strike Back show, in which Sting sings "Don't Stand So Close to Me" with one of the Backstreet Boys. Maybe it was one of the girls from N*Stink, who the fuck cares? Who the fuck can tell the difference? Anyway, that's patronizing, a sterile graybeard trying to pass himself off as fresh by lamely trotting through a cheesy song with a current poster dork. That is just so ugly and so wrong, on so many levels.
The condescension that the entertainment industry displays every day towards the average American's intelligence is pretty damned bad. It rivals the occasional Vanilla Ice trying be down wif da bruvvas, yo. Knowhutimsayin?
I dunno. I think he does have something to say. Some of it is merely revolutionary jargon, but most of it revolves around perfectly sensible issues like black self-empowerment, and encouraging black men to act more like men and less like boys, wrt their responsibilities to women and kids. (His words, not mine)
If Chuck D is a genius, so's Ted Danson, and so's Tim Robbins. And John Lennon's political pronouncements were just as "profound."
None of 'em are geniuses. And Chuck's loyal radicalism doesn't quite smack of Danson's or Lennon's tiresome dilettantism. Robbins cuts close to that latter category too, but for some reason, I have always quite liked Bob Roberts, so I cut him some slack. Plus he's banging Susan Sarandon. The man clearly is not entirely stupid.
Anyway, I like the way Chuck states his case, and I like his dedication. I don't agree with everything he says, but that is true of everybody.
click on photo 
``I don't regret what I did. I learned a lot from it,'' Fitch said. ``If I had to do it all over again, the only thing I would change is getting caught.''
Now that's the good old American spirit!
Lemons for Mel and Ron, too.....
A proud representative of teachers union and a loyal Democrat.
Go to it, Biener!
(Maybe he's anti-guns too, eh?)
I sure as hell hope this man is not teaching anyone, anywhere. I have taught my daughter that cheating is absolutely wrong. I have also taught her that it is stupid, too, as the person ultimately cheated is the cheater. Sure, you may get through that test/assignment, but if you haven't learned the material you are just delaying your troubles, which only will get worse and worse. If you're talking about competitions, as in this guy's case, what good is a trophy you didn't earn? What possible meaning can it have? Why don't you just go to a trophy shop and buy one, fergodsakes?
Umm, how do you know he's a loyal Democrat? And a proud representative of the teachers' union?
Ah, I get it, he's "baaaaaad" so he must be a Democrat, right? And a union rep, right?
Do you ever get tired of being a buffoon?
Attilla the Hun
Nero
Hitler
Vlad the Impaler
Lucretia Borgia
Pontius Pilate
Benedict Arnold
The entire church during the Spanish Inquisition
Stalin
The Big Bad Wolf
Gollum in the "The Hobbit"
The Penguine, Mr. Freeze, the Joker, and the Riddler
Darth Vader
If I had accused someone like Jeffery Dahmer of being a Democrat, the joke wouldn't have worked. There is no possible connection. This joke worked because there is a plausible connection.
Ah, I get it, he's "baaaaaad" so he must be a Democrat, right? And a union rep, right?
If you don't understand, just ask. Guessing makes you look foolish.
squirm?
Biener, you really ARE a fool.
As I explained in 10617, none of those examples work as a joke. They have no connection. In Plecki's case there is a plausible link. For a joke to work, there has to be some connection to reality.
also:
The cossacks -- all were democrats
Marie Antoinette (sounds like a republican with that "let em eat cake schtick, but she's a Dem. allright)
John Wayne Gacey (the Clowns should be a dead giveaway.)
The Donner Party
Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier
Idi Amin
Richard Nixon (of course he said he was a repub.)
the Witch in Hanzel and Gretel, megadittos for the witch in Snow White and the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.
"I have also taught her that it is stupid, too, as the person ultimately cheated is the cheater."
You know, i hear that a lot, i know ppl really, truly want to believe that this is so. But, if just isn't. I cheated off & on during HS and suffered no ill effects. I admit i was lazy and all that and just didn't wanna put in the effort, but one thing that has always stuck with me is how i was lied to as a kid by, most often but certainly not exclusively, my parents.
"make good grades and study, it'll pay off."
well, aside from graduating, it didn't college or HS. right after HS i was accepted into the college i wanted to get into and after college got the job i wanted.
not once - one single time - has anyone asked for a transcript or, hell, even a copy of the diploma.
i understand there are other benefits to learning and all that jazz, and agree. but, "cheated"? my paycheck says otherwise.
as an aside, rereading this i probably shouldn't address this to CP as this is, really, a general post, but what the hell.
cleanup of someone else's toys!
Yes, JJ, it is I who like like a fool.
>snerk<
You fergot Macchiavelli. And Goliath.
Actually, the "joke" was appropos of nothing, except your obsession, JJ.
If you don't actually learn something in school, you will have a hard time keeping a job. If you cheat all the time, as a matter of course, in place of actually reading and studying, you won't learn.
(BTW, my daughter is in 6th grade. So far, what she's been learning are the important tools she will need to continue learning - like basic math, reading, logic and reasoning. Kids cheating at this level - and they do - really are cheating themselves)
I don't tell my daughter, study hard and get good grades and you will be guaranteed to get what you want in life.
I tell my daughter, study hard and learn and you will have the tools to make it through the tough times life might throw at you. Not only learn stuff, learn how to learn, and learn how to fail and recover from failure and keep on going.
It is funny, unless you happen to be the target. Then it just stings a bit.
If there is any question about the connection, this is from the CTU website.
Chicago public schools (CPS) are union schools. One union, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), represents all CPS teachers and support personnel. We have more than 33,700 members - approximately 27,200 teachers and 6,500 paraprofessionals. The CTU is an AFL/CIO union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT), the Chicago Federation of Labor (CFL) and the Illinois Federation of Labor (ISFL).
As a teacher, Plecki belonged to the CTU. The CTU is AFL/CIO, AFT, IFT and ISFL, all loyal constituents of the Democratic Party. It therefore likely that Plecki is a Democrat as well.
You rate your wit far to highly; it wasn't funny because it wasn't funny, not because it stung. It STUNK.
(boggling)
Yep. Especially when you don't proofread your posts.
(booooooogling)
Machiavelli
Goliath
Marvin the Martian
Wile E Cayote
Goldfinger
Dr. No
all the men from CHAOS (anyone remember Get Smart?)
Uriah Heep
the Tutsi's and the Hutu's (depending on who's killing whom)
St. Thomas Aquinas
Ed Norton
Godzilla
Barney from the Simpsons
Hirohito
Camilla Parker-Bowles
Snuffleupagus
Mr. Hooper
The Nazi's were German.
Therefore my mother is a Nazi.
(Add my mother to the list)
Pitbulls sometimes bite people
Pitbulls are Dogs
Therefore all dogs bite people
(add dogs to the list)
The guy who cut me off this morning
All DMV employees
The slushy machine at 7-11
Athlete's foot
No, no, no
Dogs are independent until they bite someone. When they bite someone, then they are Democrats.
"If you don't actually learn something in school, you will have a hard time keeping a job. If you cheat all the time, as a matter of course, in place of actually reading and studying, you won't learn."
Well, yes, cheating "all the time" certainly doesn't lend itself to learning. I said, tho, "off and on".
"Kids cheating at this level - and they do - really are cheating themselves."
Well, i disagree in that i think you're falling for the old trap that schools currently find themselves. That is, if you don't memorize a bunch of shit to spit back out at the teacher, you haven't "learned". Well, i think i learned quite a bit in & out of school. Take ACTs for example, i never did well on them. Ever. I just didn't "get" it. It doesn't measure the way my brain works. Tests, in general, are like that. They favor the child who learns the way in which the test is given (orally, visually, tacitly, etc). So, you can still learn and still cheat.
Someone called?
Diaper rash
mushy tofu
decaf coffee
Anyway, to continue the list:
Cellulite
Root canal
pardon me
i didn't realize we were still ganging up on JJ.
i can wait til it is done.
pudding scum
mealy flour
milk that's just "off"
runny noses
eye gook
Tattoos
My neighbor's idiot 19 year old son
Saline breast implants.
Newt Gingrich...ooooh, wait! That was supposed to be a secret!
Ring around the collar -- democrat
The idiot who's in front of you in the grocery checkout paying for his purchase in nickles -- definately a democrat.
Rudolph (why IS his nose so bright? HUH?!?!)
Monica
Paula Jones
Linda Tripp (honorary)
Susan Carpenter McMillian
We ARE making a list of sleazy people, right?
pollen -- democrat
water retention? --democrat
mosquitoes? -- every last one of em's a Democrat
Biener posts and shit then happens.
It is an immutable and correct principle.
Although, even I will admit that this current guilt-by-association so-called logic trip he is on is much more of a gasser than most. (Incidentally, Biener, it matters not if you are in fact able to determine whether that asshole of a teacher is in fact a Dem. From your point of view, it was just the logic of the affiliations that made that likely. AND, that is what is "funny" as in both hahaha and sad.)
Morning breath
hangnails
camel-toe pants
sigh
I wasn't saying that YOU cheated all the time, I was clarifying the type of cheating I was referring to.
That is, if you don't memorize a bunch of shit to spit back out at the teacher, you haven't "learned".
And I specifically stated I was talking about kids who are at the learning basic skills level. If you didn't get it, I mean copying off their classmates papers because they have not mastered basic reading and math skills. The only thing my daughter has thus far, in 7 years of school, has been required to memorize and spit back out, is spelling.
Anyway, there is no point in discussing it any more. You got away with cheating and are doing ok, so you don't see it as wrong.
I disagree. In my opinion, whether you get away with it or not, it is wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong.
You won't change my mind on that and I probably won't change yours.
shrug
Good...NOW you know what a real joke is like!!!
Get your act back in order!!
Dog poop on the sidewalk....democrat
Bird poop on the clean clothes you hung out to dry....democrat
Carpenter ants....democrat
Killer bees....democrat
Well how about when you're pulling up to the tollbooth and go to pick up the two quarters in the console and one of them slips out and rolls under the car seat? And you don't have another cent on you? The quarter that got away has got to be a Democrat.
Hell, ICEBURG lettuce....democrat
Turnips....democrat
Headcheese....democrat
Menudo, the soup, not the band....democrat
"You got away with cheating and are doing ok, so you don't see it as wrong."
Well, that's not it exactly. i don't see it as wrong b/c, in part, tests didn't measure what kids know the majority of the time. That and the tests themselves are geared towards children who learn in a certain fashion over kids who do not.
But, you're right, we probably won't convince each other - more to the point, tho, i was trying to show you that cheating isn't bad / wrong / stupid. just that, in cases, it is just a method to get by as any other.
Of course not. I welcome all contributors.
Biener posts and shit then happens.
And it isn't by accident either. As one the founders of this place, I hate to see threads sit idle. Anything I can do to stimulate conversation (or even abuse) I gladly contribute. Come on, you've seen me do this far too many times to think it's unintentional.
tennis elbow = republican
Good one, Bubba.
Only, if it's a republican (JJ) who stubs his toe, he proclaims loudly and long: "I MEANT TO DO THAT!"
(boggling)
tobacco mosaic virus = republican
The damned pen that runs out of ink when you're writing your last check at the store -- Democrat
Hemerroids -- democrat
Prostate Cancer --Republican
Girdles - Democrat
Those size 8 Escada jeans you splurged on as a treat for losing weight....republican
Foie gras = republican
Fat clothes = Democrats
er.....
"real" orgasms -- Democrat
I was about to list my sinuses as democrat and my sinus PILLS as republican because the pills are putting me to sleep BUT: they are also working so that analogy doesn't work....
Republicans don't have orgasms...it's too much fun.
Ok, I'll stop now.
Just because there may be republican families, how do you know that the children were fathered by republicans?
"Men can fake it? How?"
ummmm. without getting too much detail, if there is a condom involved, you may need to, er.., check it to verify .. you know, if you were so inclined.
paying others to cheat for you = repub
would a condom that breaks during the act be a democrat? i mean, since that's helping the welfare moms and everything.
How can I make it any clearer -- anything that has gone wrong or will go wrong in the course of human history -- everything bad in the world that has been, is, or will ever be is Democrat. Just ask JJ.
Well, now that is settled.
Condoms?
diva - umm, must be a "gay thing", never mind ....
How's that?
Aw, we gotta follow this asinine outline and underline format because our pols gotta have everrthang spelt out.
Dear My.MP3.com member,
As you may already be aware, MP3.com has been engaged in
an ongoing legal process with the five major record
labels in regard to their recordings stored in My.MP3.com.
While we have been working to settle these matters with
the labels, MP3.com has voluntarily agreed to disable
their content in the My.MP3.com database while negotiations
continue apace. As a result, you will, at this time, be
unable to access the major labels' content through your
My.MP3.com account. We will continue our efforts to restore
your music as soon as possible, and we hope that you will
continue to enjoy the remainder of the My.MP3.com content,
including all indie label content, the more than 350 albums
in the Classical Music Channel and the 400,000-plus songs
available to you for free on MP3.com.
Michael Robertson
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
An excerpt:
An estimated 20 percent of the nearly 1 million gallons of bourbon in the warehouse flowed into the Kentucky River just upstream of the water-treatment plant. The flaming river of liquor scorched trees on the riverbank, but no other serious environmental damage was evident, officials said.
I guess it depends on your point of view. School fights are up 20%, fish delinquency is up 40% and swimming accidents among bass, trout and catfish have nearly doubled.
It's a blessing my brother is not alive to see this news. It would have killed him.
He liked his Wild Turkey, he did.
Father says alleged internet killer had violent temper
"If the river was whiskey and I were a duck
I'd swim to the bottom and drink my way up."
An excerpt:
Three teen-age Burger King employees were charged with putting urine, spit and caustic products like Easy-Off oven cleaner in the food for eight months.
Come to think of it, my Whoppers have tasted a bit salty lately.
Beware! Copycat tampering may soon be coming to a fast food joint near you.
[From Grey's BK story linked above]:
Scott B. Savino, 19, an 18-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl were arrested this week and charged with tampering with a consumer product. The two younger defendants were not identified because of their ages.
Absurd.
All 3 of these idiots need to have their names and pictures posted in every fast food joint east of the Mississippi.
There is not even a legal reason for the NYT to be withholding their names. I'd like to know who it is withholding the names, or if it's just the NYT exercising its idiotic liberalism - gotta protect the kids, ya know.
"The agreement puts a halt to the industry practice of "minimum pricing," whereby distributors force retailers to sell CDs at or above a fixed price, and in return, the industry underwrites a substantial amount of retailers' advertising. The Federal Trade Commission estimated the practice cost consumers $480 million over the last three years."
Damn you to hell for all eternity for putting that image into my head.
That one even turned my stomach.
People pose nude. People are house cleaners and people are arrested for DWI. That they become embroiled in public disputes does not change the facts or pink flamingos, linoleum floors and homes accessorized by Wal-mart.
At bottom, Paula Jones brought a claim like any of the thousands brought every year. It survived a motion to dismiss, was defeated on summary judgment, and for reasons that continue to defy my understanding, it forced an American preisdent to self-destruct in conduct that charitably can be considered close to perjury and close to obstruction of justice, but most certainly grievously wrongful.
The strange dynamics of the situation are as follows:
Since a president basically acted like a grungy, slimy polecat who lied, abused friendships, humiliated his family, and debased his office, somehow that raised the bar for the likes of the little people who were but supporting players in the drama. They somehow should prove themselves better.
Given the lengths the President and his cronies traversed to smear and destroy Ms. Jones, I'm glad she received a couple hundred thousand, I'm glad she got a new nose, and I hope she can seal the deal with Penthouse for a couple hundred thousand more.
I do agree with those who have protested the suggestion of a lesbian tryst with Tripp.
As for nudity, you've got a standing offer to drop trou for my ever eager camera.
The next time you are this way or I'm out your way, I want at least 10 snaps of the camera. I want to be on your glamorous page in black and white. I want to be nuanced and timeless, introspective yet open, inviting yet cagey.
Flashes of Burt Reynolds.
I wonder if Clinton will have a similar post-Deliverance career?
In the words of Raskolnikov: "Damn you to hell for all eternity for putting that image into my head." Especially in the Bert Reynolds Playgirl pose!
"Given the lengths the President and his cronies traversed to smear and destroy Ms. Jones, I'm glad she received a couple hundred thousand, I'm glad she got a new nose, and I hope she can seal the deal with Penthouse for a couple hundred thousand more."
Hahahaha! She trumps up a charge that is laughed at, along with her and her benefactors' ridiculous antics, for years, wastes the nation's time and money to get someone she shouldn't have been fool enough to think wouldn't fight back, and in a situation she shouldn't have been fool enough to believe would have left her little closet full of skeletons intact, then when no one's noticing her any more she does what she knows is a sure thing for any two-bit slut who's used up her fifteen minutes of fame before she's ready--she poses for Penthouse. Yeah, You Go Girl!
"The Republican party, who wouldn't give a rat's patootie about them were they among the anonymous masses of ignorant and pitiful, have adopted them as poster children--not as an example of the need for changes in sexual harassment and immigration laws, but as beacons illuminating the depravity and impersonal humanity of all that is Bill Clinton. I'll have to remember to keep a box of Kleenix by my monitor before I start to read your posts next time."
The GOP has been virulenty anti-Castro and anti-Communist since the bearded fastballer was feted in the most liberal and posh of New York City salons. The position of keeping Elian in the country is a natural to the party, which values both Cuban American voters and sympathizes with their antipathy to Castro. Moreover, the GOP's position squares up solidly with that of prominent Democrats, including Senator Bob Graham and Vice-President Gore (as
opposed to such luminaries as Maxine Waters and Jose Serrano). Additionally, Clinton has basically left the stage with regard to Elian Gonzales. This particular drama is a production of Janet Reno. Finally, immigration law, whether for the anonymous masses or the pitiful, is largely a bipartisan effort.
As for sexual harassment, it is actually judge-made as part of gender
discrimination under Title VII, and trust me, it is a curse upon Democrats and Republicans alike (see Packwood and Clinton, Thomas and Baucus), and not particularly popular with either party at this time.
In short, you can be emotional, but try to make some sense in the process.
"Hahahaha! She trumps up a charge that is laughed at, along with her and her benefactors' ridiculous antics, for years, wastes the nation's time and money to get someone she shouldn't have been fool enough to think wouldn't fight back, and in a situation she shouldn't have been fool enough to believe would have left her little closet full of skeletons intact, then when no one's noticing her any more she does what she knows is a sure thing for any two-bit slut who's used up her fifteen minutes of fame before she's ready--she poses
for Penthouse. Yeah, You Go Girl!"
I don't recall anyone laughing when Ms. Jones' case survived a motion to dismiss. I don't recall a barrell of chortles when the president was so concerned over this trumped up charge that he lied under oath in defense against it. I recall no titters as Bill Clinton paid Williams & Connolly's Bob Bennett $400 plus per hour to extricate him from this matter. I missed the snorts when he needed to set up a legal defense fund in part as a result of this little made-up tale. I never heard the knee-slappers as co-defendant Danny Ferguson told one story in an affidavit, and another story to the Los Angeles Times. I did not enjoy the ribaldry as the president was sanctioned
by the judge who oversaw the case for lying in deposition and in responses to interrogatories. And there has been little tomfoolery as Mr. Clinton's law license stands at issue for his behavior in the Jones matter.
I did hear some guffaws when the president doled out high six figures to make the whole thing go away, in especially abject terror that the 8th Circuit might reverse Judge Wright's grant of summary judgment. They were of a different character than the laughs you describe.
You not only blame Paula Jones, but when she cashes in, you harumph with moral indignation that could make any Bakker or Swaggart proud, "See. I told you she was a hussy!"
Okay, she's a hussy.
Feel better?
Paula Jones is extracting money from her situation (indeed, for future reference, you might want to recall that lawsuits are filed for monetary damages). She is performing the unfortunate dance of Americans when they get their 15 minutes (see Donato Dalrymple). Making a buck and/or being someone. A good thing? No. But given the abuse she's received by the likes of hysterical political groupies and paid hatchet men, both of whom have invested so much of their own constitution into the never-paying Clinton keno game, I confess to being a little glad she's received some cash, and
surgery, out of the deal. If men want to pay more to see what the
then-governor was hoping to see in the flesh, fine and dandy. I will wait until I am scheduled to receive yet another juvenile haircut from my barber to view the photos (or until one of my letters to Forum is printed).
Second, note that when Clinton pulled his dong out in the Excelsior Hotel, he cagily assumed Ms. Jones was a big-haired slut who would blow him then and there. He took a horny man's gamble and lost. But Clinton knows The House. So he gets the perks of frequent players. Thus, when the allegations were revealed, James Carville weighed in to deem Ms. Jones trailer-trash, and assumed that a legion of Clintonophiles would follow his lead and similarly denigrate her as cheap and beneath the grandeur and wonder of the then-gubernatorial, now-presidential penis. And when the whole thing went south (not the penis, which I understand trends east) and it was the president revealed as low and grotesque, there was still no problem.
Because Clinton just assumed that his supporters would and will do for him what Ms. Jones apparently would not on that day in the Excelsior. In historical perpetuity.
And it appears they will.
Major General Claudia Kennedy has accused Brigadier General Larry Smith of forcing his tongue down her throat during a private meeting in 1996.
She made this allegation four years after the alleged fact.
She is due to retire shortly, with new-found celebrity.
She says she raised the issue because she was concerned that General Smith would become the Army's deputy inspector gneeral.
Well, you know what arky says.
"Drag a $20 bill through the Pentagon and you don't know what kind of white trash you'll attract."
Of course, if and when Kennedy cashes in, it will be more fitting to her station.
Paid speeches to wide-eyed college girls preparing for frigidity.
And if Paula Jones could make cash giving speeches, she probably would, to the eternal danger of every window in the auditorium.
I have always maintained that the grant of summary judgment was proper.
But to deem an affrimance by the 8th Circuit as "in the bag" is simply wrong.
Many district courts have deemed a single instance of harassment so egregious as to warrant going to trial.
And a remand for trial - something you deem possible - is exactly what any defendant fears. Moreover, an element of sexual harassment damages is emotional distress and punitives, apart and away from loss of pay or opportunity. And expert testimony is not required to prove the distress, and valuation of the distress is the sole province of the jury.
What does it matter? She's going to Hefnerland!
"Jack- if she had credible evidence of pyschological injury, she could have survived summary judgment, right? Have you ever got an offer from an insurance company where you lost on summary judgment?"
It is a rare occurrence to pay anything significant on a claim after being granted summary judgment. I have done it once, however, in the rare circumstance of a high profile defendant and a grave concern of error below on a legal question.
As for psychological injury, most psychological injuries/emotional distress are demonstrated by a weeping plaintiff, and if you get a boo-hoo jury that thinks your guy is the big, bad man and plaintiff is a meek victim, you can be in trouble.
"This all could have been avoided if Paula had simply followed Nancy Reagans advice and just said no...to going up to his room in the first place."
You suffer from arky's tacit pom pom-itis, with a dollop of "boys will be boys."
This could all have been avoided at several exits on the road to impeachment. First stop: the then-governor could have decided not to summon Ms. Jones to his room. Remmeber, Danny Ferguson told reporters for the Los Angeles Times that Clinton pointed out Jones and asked him to arrange for a hotel room and to bring the young lady to it. Ferguson confirmed that he took Jones to the room, where Clinton was waiting. Clinton apparently told Ferguson that Jones possessed a "come hither" look.
But your instinct, as they say, is to "blame the victim" and baby the harasser.
This is not to rehash the case.
Rather, it serves to underscore the weird exoneration of a governor turned president, with all resposnibility and scrutiny reserved for a $4.50 none-too-bright state worker.
The first instinct is to blame Jones for heeding the call of the governor.
Is your first instinct to blame Major General Claudia Kennedy?
After all, what is one tongue down the throat? Why is she putting us all through this?
There's plenty of room for blame here; why not spread it around? I think Clinton was an utter fool to ask; he obviously has a screw loose when it comes to job security. He was stupid beyond belief to mess around with Monica, too. But I DO think, as any decently brought up Southern lady has been taught to do, that Paula was risking the outcome she got for agreeing to go up there. She knew he was married, she knew it was dumb, and she has to live with the consequences, just as he does.
And as for her Playboy spread, I guess Ladies Home Journal just didn't offer her enough to bare her "soul" to them, huh?
"But I DO think, as any decently brought up Southern lady has been taught to do, that Paula was risking the outcome she got for agreeing to go up there. She knew he was married, she knew it was dumb, and she has to live with the consequences, just as he does."
I agree. I don't need to purify the interesting Ms. Jones in order to assign blame for a situation. That said, many actually start with the premise that all that befell Mr. Clinton can be linked to her, when in fact, it can all be linked to him, presumably the master of his own domain.
Or, at a minimum, they immediately assign blame to the countless lying women with whom he has dallied.
And the common denominator - him - always manages to remain a figure of empathy and tragedy, goodness and light, beseiged by Conason's conspiracies and the wrath of cheap women.
A minimum-wage state worker might have thought twice about harrassing the woman, not having the I-am-above-the-law mentality that some politicians in high office seem to fall victim to.
Had a minimum wage co-worker approached Jones in a fashion similar to that of then-Governor Clinton, the governor would have feted Ms. Jones as a brave symbol of his administration's fight against sexual harassment. And the same folks who exonerate his behavior would have clapped thunderously whilst condemning the low-class molestor who was fired for his egregious conduct.
And Clinton would have grabbed Jones' ass as he handed her the plaque.
Jack,
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
They will negate the horror of his actions and their silence because Mr. Clinton, to their mind, was "good." Thus, his excesses will be minimized, and all efforts to challenge his actions will be deemed "bad." They will be what Indiana alums have been so long for Bobby Knight. The behavior will become folksy and just plain silly over time, and the things that last (possible disbarment, impeachment, sanctions)will be whisked away as the work of evil no-goodniks.
Courage is withdrawing support from the offender at the pinnacle of his strength and when he is best able to represent your interests and take on your enemies.
Forgiveness is unnecessary. Read the following from The Weekly Standard to see why:
Impeached--and Proud of It
Bill Clinton's History of Himself
by Andrew Ferguson
President Clinton isn't often asked about his impeachment these days, for many reasons-the main one being, of course, that nobody cares about it. Another reason has to do with the president's own way of answering questions about unpleasant subjects, on those rare occasions when such questions arise. A little over a year ago, for instance, holding his first press conference in 12 months, the president was asked by Sam Donaldson about Juanita Broaddrick. News junkies and trivia enthusiasts may remember Mrs. Broaddrick. She says the president raped her in a hotel room, and nobody cares much about her, either, since the economy is performing so marvelously, and even to whisper her name nowadays, among journalists as elsewhere, is considered a gross violation of taste.
Taste is no big deal to Donaldson, as we know, and in this press conference, in March 1999, he made a remarkable discovery: The quickest way to get the president to talk about impeachment is to ask him about rape. At least I think that's what happened.
Q: Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges against you of rape in a nationally televised interview, your attorney David Kendall issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak directly on this matter and reassure the public? And if they are not true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if any?
A: Well, five weeks ago today, five weeks ago today, I stood in the Rose Garden after the Senate voted [in the impeachment trial], and I told you that I thought I owed it to the American people to give them 100 percent of my time and to focus on their business, and that I would leave it to others to decide whether they would follow that lead. And that is why I have decided, as soon as that vote was over, that I-would allow all future questions to be answered by my attorneys. And I think I made the right decision. I hope you can understand it. I think the American people do understand it and support it, and I think it was the right decision.
It is a lovely answer, encapsulating all the twists and back-bends and half-steps and evasions and assertions of rectitude that we expect from a genuine, meticulously formulated Clinton response. First of all, and most crucially, it doesn't answer the question. The question is simply blown back by a blast-furnace of hot air. Second, the ambiguity is impenetrable. "All future questions" about what? About everything? We know he doesn't want David Kendall answering questions about targeted tax credits and whatnot. About impeachment, then? Surely he isn't referring to "all future questions" about rape, since Mrs. Broaddrick's claim hadn't been publicly made at the time of his Rose Garden statement, when the president says he made this fateful decision. Then again, maybe he means to imply that he's expecting more rape accusations-there are a lot of women in Arkansas, after all-and that he doesn't want to answer them. Who knows? We can only hazard a guess. And here's mine: The president is saying that all future questions about impeachment will be answered by his lawyers.
In the end, however, even the pledge not to answer questions was rescinded. After his March 1999 press conference, the president began, when asked, to comment on impeachment. As I say, he hasn't been asked terribly often.
Even so, President Clinton has been asked a sufficient number of impeachment questions over the last year to begin to piece together how he sees this interesting chapter of his public life. Most recently he went before a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, who were permitted, following his address, to ask him three questions. The first two questions touched on impeachment.
(That's how clueless these out-of-town editors are. They haven't figured out yet that nobody cares anymore.) One editor asked whether the president would "accept" a pardon from the next president. The next question was whether, or how, the Clinton presidential library will treat the subject of impeachment, and this allowed the president to reflect on the episode in all its historical grandeur. For the episode fairly drips with historical grandeur, in the president's view.
It was, in fact, one in a series of wrongs that the president has had to take it upon himself to right. "I consider impeachment one of the major chapters in my defeat of the revolution Mr. Gingrich led, that would have taken this country in a very different direction than it's going today," the president went on. "And it also would have changed the Constitution forever . . ."
In its grandiosity, in its sheer ostentation, this view seems to have startled some people, but it conforms generally with the president's other pronouncements about impeachment. The pronouncements follow a format. When asked about the subject-or indeed whenever a questioner ventures into the general neighborhood of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey (not a high-rent neighborhood)-the president first acknowledges, for the record, a mistake, and notes that he has apologized for it, although when precisely this apology took place is unclear.
The mistake marks a boundary, in other words, the point at which the president's culpability ends and beyond which the president stands blameless. Why then was there an impeachment? By his own account, as it happens, the impeachment was not a consequence of the president's misconduct but of his virtue. "In our country's history," he told a press conference last June, "the people who are progressive, the people who try to change things, people who keep pushing the envelope, have generally elicited very strong, sometimes personally hostile negative reactions. You read some of the things people said about President Roosevelt."
The president has discoursed frequently on Franklin Roosevelt since the impeachment, as another man whose greatness shines undimmed by his enemies' hostility. ("You say people say I parse words too close," he told Dan Rather last year. "That's what they said about President Roosevelt, too. And he made a pretty good president.") In describing his tribulations he has also invoked the experience of several biblical figures as well as Nelson Mandela-although he agrees that Mandela's 27 years at hard labor make his own year of discomfort seem like "peanuts." The president has his own kind of modesty.
Now, this is a pretty serious charge-sedition, when you get right down to it-and you or I might think that the people who were guilty of it should face some kind of penalty. Many on the White House staff feel that way, according to the president. But he is a bigger man than you or I, bigger even than those on his staff. He has encouraged them in the art of forgiveness. "I keep telling everybody that works for me that we have no right to harbor anger," he said last June. "I have no lingering animosity. . . . I realized that if I wanted forgiveness, I had to extend forgiveness. If I wanted to be free to be the best president and the best husband and father and the best person I could be, I had to free myself of bitterness. And I've worked very hard at it."
End
Clinton is faultless.
Opponents are guilty of sedition because they just couldn't handle his resolve to extend FMLA rights to all employers, rather than those employing 50 or more individuals.
Real Aaron Burr stuff.
Old news regarding the lasting legacy of one of the more fascinating politicians in American history, revived by a current event of a centerspread none of us wants to see.
To which the cable crowd responds, "Boring. Get me Donato Dalrymple in skivvies!" 
This makes him every bit as fey as the old Pelle, and disqualifies him from judging the sharpness of any analysis.
And if he uses the term "old boy" he gets an ass-kicking and relegation to the janjon old folks home.
What's say you and I get out of here. I'll buy the drinks and throw in a steak. Let me deal with this Swedish fish.
They even have a page entitled "we will remember" on a Web site called "www.moveon.org."
Hahaha!
People don't think. They do as I say. You look great, by the way. Get your coat
"Ohhhh. Owwwwwwww. Ewwwwww."
And then he calms down a bit, leans over to me, and says "Tell my love I thought of her in my last moment."
Some broad named Lucinda.
Besides, just got a call about a Brownie troop cornered by a grizzly bear.
Hell, it took the guy a few hours to die. He was working down the alphabet.
Does the memory of 109109 mean so very little to you that you would go cavorting with his killer at the first opportunity -- before the blood's even dry on his fridge box for heaven's sake.
I don't like my women to swear.
Bubb, does this look like cavorting to you?
I'll be back.
Wear something nice.
We're going out.
Especially when he'd burst into poetry.
sniffle
Not at all surprised to read your putdown of same, Jack. All of those dead kids are a bit hard to take, and yes by golly they and all the other senseless gun tragedies can be and are "used" for political purposes. Why in hell not.
As for the day itself, certainly the most civil and well-intended large gathering I've ever been at (and I've been to more than a few Big Time Mall events.) Determined, too.
Make no mistake - these people were not just out in what turned out to be a beautiful day having a "feel good" experience. There has for some time been real determination and grit among the anti-gun violence movement, but it now clearly is reaching a new level of involvement and participation. I suspect that ten years from now this will be seen as having been a defining moment. Certainly a lot more people than to date are going to be working very hard (and spending lots and lots of money) to try to make that happen.
She's got a smart mouth.
It is a freak show, like most rallies centering on tragedy. Politicians piggy back upon the mourning, who have suffered an incomprehensible loss and in an effort to make sense of it all, become unwitting pamphleteers.
Yes, a lack of gun control killed your children. Not fate. Not God. Not bad luck. Not the tides. Not even some senseless dimwit who is cooling his heels in a jail cell and valued your kid at about $5.34.
A good cause, and if we can get votes out of it, where's the harm?
Lobby. Vote. Go hog wild. I may even vote with you and support your image of an America where people don't shoot each other because Nita Lowey championed trigger locks.
Just respect the dead. And try not to take advantage of the mourning by inflicting upon them big pictures of their dead children, games for the kids, Rosie O'Donnell, and Anna Quindlen.
They are fragile and tractable.
Freak show? People who survived gun shots talking about it? Survivors talking about the deaths of those who they loved and showing pictures of them? Personalizing what is a very personal event?
Nah.
It is barter and displacement, a salve for a gaping wound.
It is telling the man whose gut is shot out that he's gonna' make it.
It is fishing about for votes from the cemetary.
It is the lowest form of democratic action.
Before it became a politiucal commodity.
And on that day, the vagaries of an awful and insidious malady did not kill your child by way of sex, needle or transfusion.
Politics did.
Nice Clinton stuff. The man is priceless, ain't he? Who else could behave like such a shitheel, and turn around and say it was everyone else's fault because he's such a great guy? Pathetic.
I liked this bit from Message # 10778:
I did hear some guffaws when the president doled out high six figures to make the whole thing go away, in especially abject terror that the 8th Circuit might reverse Judge Wright's grant of summary judgment.
Oh well, it's just the old lady's trust fund, eh? If she doesn't mind ponying up the money for his sorry ass, what's the fuss?
He'll make it all back tenfold in a couple of years, hitting the late-night infomercial circuit. "I can make you a better liar in just 10 short minutes a day, and people will love you for it".
All major credit cards will be accepted.
As for the Couple Hundred Thousand Mom March, oh boy. A Clinton minion by marriage organizes a posse, presumably for later endorsement of Our Boy Al. Inveighing against guns in principle, rather than the idiots and criminals who misuse them. This is roughly akin to people insisting that cars not be sold anymore because drunk drivers kill people.
Hey, can I attract a big following like that if I append "-Thomases" to my name? "Eric Cartman-Thomases", huh?
Nah, too clunky and pretentious.
Incidentally, the cover of the current Life magazine has a baby born at 25 weeks who survived. It was very small, the doctor could cup it in his hands, but it was a child.
I know it is pathetic. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying.
I thought it was a great idea to have a million mom march. I read that the crowds had exceeded the organizers hopes at 500,000. My oldest sister is not at all politically active, but has become so after the highschool shootings.
Go ahead and make fun of these people. At least they were doing something...if the HAD been up there ranting about the criminals, you'd still be bringing up that tired old chestnut, "let's make cars illegal, blah blah blah..." because "cars are used by criminals", too.
Flacks are flacks, whether they are named LaPierre or Schumer.
I've haven't made an argument against gun control. My one comment on it was that I might support same.
My position deals solely with the trading-in of tragedy for political action, and I'd be as dismissive and caustic if some chucklehead was on the mall flashing photos of flight crash victims in his touching and gutsy effort to tighten up FAA regulations. It is a gruesome and disgusting approach, and Indy is correct - it is akin to fetuses in jars.
After all, this is what abortion does? Right?
I mean, imagine if a vice-presidential candidate was selling his sister's death at the hands of Marlboro for votes.
Oops.
Make no mistake, jack and those who think like him, this was far from a feel-good Kodak moment. Deadly serious (pun intended). Wait and see.
The thirst for anguish is great, and the orders for scapegoats are piling up. To the extent politicians can bring votes from the dead, these tragedy mills will be more effective than anything Mayor Daley utilized.
t'wasn't maudlin at all. Not one bit.
Deadly serious intents. Will to win. Growing power to be able to do it.
Not scapegoats. Ultimate losers.
There was a letter to the editor in today's paper from someone who blamed all the gun violence on parents not monitoring their children. I'm sure the parents who lost their children in a couple of raids in Richmond restaurants in which all of the staff were executed will be enlightened that if only they'd supervised their children 24/7, so psycopath wouldn't have blown them away.
million moms for muggers
An except:
If all goes according to plan this Mother's Day, the organizers of the "Million Mom March" will stage a series of rallies across the country demanding new and severe limits on self-defense and the right to bear arms. Together, these marches constitute the largest mass protests against civil rights since millions of Ku Klux Klanners grabbed white hoods and rope and filled the nation's boulevards back in the 1920s.
The issue is not anecdotes. It is taste.
Remember when Bob Dole was Ford's running mate in 1996 and he talked about all the dead from the Democrat's wars?
And everyone winced.
Same theory. Here, you have people taking the extra step, at the instigation of ambitious and slimy politicians and hacks, and in that step, they are laying bodies at the feet of their political enemies.
And the people providing the bodies are groef-stricken and vulnerable, and so, they are almost by definition being used.
But no one winces anymore.
It is encouraged.
It is only one aspect of the anti-gun violence movement. But, it is an effective part of it. Because numbers count. And, money counts. The NRA has known that for years. Too bad that it will now be tit for tat.
Remember when William Weld had a plant in his debate with John Kerry -and she was the mother of a slain police officer - and Weld demanded that Kerry tell her why the death penalty was wrong.
Equally disgusting and atrocious.
Same kettle of fish.
Biener. hahahahahaha.
No shit. Evidently it's ok for the NRA to sensationalize jack booted thugs and anecdotes about someone who blew away their attacker, but show pictures of children killed by gun violence? Hell no, that's beyond the pale.
It is this attitude that I find most disturbing about the anti-gun lobby. It is the idea that any action, even the wrong action, is better than no action. I would rather see no action rather than have the government make the situation worse. Any action that potentially removes guns from the law-abiding instead of the criminals will result in more gun violence.
A lot of folks think they have taste. My experience is that those who proclaim same as a "middle name" may need to reevaluate their taste bank.
It is not okay when the NRA likens law enforcement to Nazis. Nor is it okay when one group's extremism and bad taste acts as justification for your own.
But likening yesterday's rally to the excesses of the militia movement certainly aids my point.
The right to defend one's self is the ultimate civil right.
In every single Congressional hearing, both sides trot out witnesses with personal experience in the issues at hand -- these people and their stories are what is remember. But somehow when your family member is killed it's just too goulish to try to do something about the problem? They should stick to facts and figures and not point out that every senseless killing leaves a grieving family and repercussions that are felt by the entire community -- that's somehow tacky?
I posted a differing opinion that I thought was interesting. What manipulation or spin am I guilty of?
Many of those women had their children killed by firearms...please let me know when you reach your limit for personal shame
What the fuck are you talking about?
They should do what they want to. This is America. I'm merely pointing out that when Weld shops a mother who lost her son, or Henry Waxman wheels in a kid with complicated asthma to ask questions of tobacco executives regarding second-hand smoke, or mothers prop their dead children up as political totems on big-screen TV, it is equally grotesque.
Certainly as grotesque as the man with the fetus in a jar.
I'm sure that the parents of the four kids who were shot execution style in the back of the head in the fridge of a burger joint during a robbery would be touched beyond belief that you're concerned for their dead kids' civil rights.
Are you sure that inveighing against gun violence is the reasoned response to an execution-style killing?
As I understand them, when the victims are placed on their knees, you can also use a samurai sowrd.
Which points up the madness of the death-selling process. The people at the burger joint were killed by criminals willing to do what was necessary for money and to avoid detection (i.e., dispatching witnesses).
And the macabre politicization now centers on a weapon.
For whose benefit?
Certainly not for the benefit of the next foursome to be dispatched execution-style.
But they might help a congressman in a swing district.
Just as pointing out that the killers were black might help another congressman in another swing district.
When the GOP trotted out people who were jailed for perjury during the impeachment hearings.
Or when Cheryl Mills referred to her own race, the struggles of her people, and Clinton's civil rights record in defense of the president on the Senate floor.
Or when George Bush, Sr. barked at Dan Rather that he had lost a child -as an element of his toughness.
The stooping for the emotional grabber is so low these days, it is sewer-level.
It's hard to carry a concealed samuri sword. It's more difficult to take out a bunch of people with a sword before being overpowered. Reckon those kids in Columbine would have killed and injured as many with a knife or sword?
Nope.
Do you reckon that gun control would have stopped two sickos willing to enter a school kamikaze-style to kill as many as they could?
You don't, and selling gun control as a salve for that wound is like selling sand to a camel.
Time for me to go.
That is the kind of stuff that would have been, um, bad taste. Really manipulative, etc.
Jack - this taste angle you are using is just a red herring, and you know it.
I think people shouldn't be allowed to commit acts of violence, and if they do, then their victims shouldn't be allowed to die.
That's what I think.
Is it so crazy to speak the truth?
I think leukimia and birth defects and automobile accidents should be outlawed as well.
It's for the children. Can't we come together to do what's right?
That's what I think.
If it helps to rebut my points by working the ulterior motive angle, feel free. Most people realize it as the gambit of someone who doesn't have a whole lot to say. As such, they impugn the motives of the person with whom they disagree, and suggest a shadowy, unseen agenda.
If, in the end, your defense of this carnival of death is "Well, at least we aren't showing dead bodies!" my response is simple.
Why not?
If the point, as you, bubba and Juditha have argued, is to give those who don't support gun control a good dose of the reality of gun violence, why not blood and flesh and bone?
No one expects any of the laws being advocated (the usual litany - registration, licensure, close the gun show loophole - which incidentally would NOT stop your "law-abiding" souls who just have to have that handgun the day they say they want to buy it from having it, it would only cause a further two day delay for those for whom the instant-check doesn't say ok to - to be a panacea. But, they would all help cut down on gun violence. That is the goal - not to take your precious guns away from you.
Incidentally:
Patriotism was once the last refuge of the scoundrel.
But no more.
Now "It's for the children" is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
No matter what you don't like -- drunk driving, head injuries do to bicycle accidents, drugs, guns, Howard Stern, violent movies, dirty movies, Heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons -- just trot out the poor, poor children and start your little Crusade of the Innocents marching.
Fuck "the children." I live in this world, too. If little Timmy is going to be psychologically damaged by hearing Howard Stern, well, fuck little Timmy. He'll just have to deal. I'm an adult, and I'm not going to tolerate Barney the Dinosaur on tv twenty four hours a day just so little Timmy won't hear the word "queef."
And if little Timmy has to be exposed to guns so that I can protect my family in the dead at night-- well, then, little Timmy will just have to bear the risk. I might like to own a gun someday, for sport, for home defense, or just for fucking around at the range.
My car has a greater chance of killing little Timmy than a gun.
I am willing to accomodate little Timmy, but not capitulate my every freedom just so he can live in a little utopian child-friendly world.
Jan:
The only thing wrong with killing the gun-whole loophole --I have no objection to closing the loophole in principle -- is reality.
The reality is that gun shows are only around for two days. A three day wait means you can't buy a gun at the show. Ergo, it outlaws the shows for no particularly good reason.
Except that "gun shows" are some kind of boogeyman to you.
What's wrong with Insta-check? The three day waiting period is a nice, liberal-friendly and wholly ineffectual idea; you've already got that for permanent dealers. You can't let travelling gun-shows, who only show up in a town for two or three weekends a year, have an exception?
Friend, if you're "Waiting for the gun show" to buy your gun, you're waiting a hell of a lot longer than three days. You're waiting months already. It's only a convenient place to buy guns one or two days every season.
Presumably, we are ALL in agreement that we DON'T want guns to end up in the hands of those who are NOT law abiding (or mentally ill or perhaps another "dangerous" category or so).
The gun show loophole that we are trying to close is addressed ONLY to those latter groups. People who DON'T pass the instant check. Therefore, people who it appears MIGHT NOT BE law abiding, like felons.
So, it is a three day wait (to allow paper checks etc.) for that group. But, if the end result is keeping guns out of the hands of people whose histories clearly indicate they shouldn't be allowed to have them, isn't that a greater good than the loss of a few sales by the gun show dealers?
If you can't find a gun show within 50 miles of any major city within 3 days of any given date, you're not looking very hard.
Now "It's for the children" is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
No matter what you don't like....just trot out the poor, poor children and start your little Crusade of the Innocents marching.
Fuck "the children." I live in this world, too. If little Timmy is going to be psychologically damaged by hearing Howard Stern, well, fuck little Timmy. He'll just have to deal. I'm an adult, and I'm not going to tolerate Barney the Dinosaur on tv twenty four hours a day just so little Timmy won't hear the word "queef."
Fuckin' A. Damned straight. That's why little Timmy has parents -- to make sure he isn't watching Howard Stern. If they can't be bothered to monitor Timmy's viewing habits, I sure as hell can't.
Most of the media coverage I've seen/read wrt the MMM, as well as the Columbine anniversary/sheriff's report, has indeed revolved around anecdotes of the personal tragedies. Many of the women at the MMM had kids who had been killed not in a fast-food holdup by a random criminal, but shot by friends, fooling around with Dad's loaded gun.
So whom do these women blame for these shootings? The friend, who should have known better than to fuck around with a gun he didn't know how to use or check? The friend's dad, who was dumb enough to leave the loaded gun where Junior could find it?
Nope, it's the manufacturer's fault, for not sufficiently wiping their customers' asses for them. It's this sort of refusal to accept any personal responsibility that leads to goofy shit like warning labels on five-gallon buckets. Because sure as hell, if that label wasn't there, the bucket company would get sued by someone somewhere.
You can only go so far in trying to protect people from themselves.
Don't say I never do you a solid every once in a while.
You are wrong as usual.
No one expects any of the laws being advocated . . . to be a panacea. But, they would all help cut down on gun violence.
How? I don't believe they will do a thing to reduce gun violence, because they do nothing to address the cause of gun violence.
Registration will have no effect on illegal guns. Criminals will not get licenses. Closing the gun show loophole will send criminals to black market dealers. Black market dealers will charge more for the weapons so the criminal will have to commit more crimes to pay for it. Crime doesn't go down, it goes up.
That is the goal - not to take your precious guns away from you.
The goal is fine. No one disagrees with the goal. It is the tactics that are in question. If someone comes up with a plan that will actually take guns out of the hands of criminals, I will support it. I will not support these ineffectual proposals that won't help and may potentially harm.
I am curious. What do you think will happen when licensing and registration don't work? How long do you think it will be before the same voices we heard this weekend are demanding confiscation?
For the record, I do not own a gun and will never own a gun. This isn't personal for me.
Commit a crime with a gun, five years.
jones,
Beats me why conservatives do that.
"If you can't find a gun show within 50 miles of any major city within 3 days of any given date, you're not looking very hard. "
Oh, please. I've never even *heard* of such a show in my area. I'd have no idea where to begin "looking" for a gun-show.
The sorts of people who will frequent gun-shows are the sort of people who already own a gun and are "into" guns. For the rest of us: Where these places are is a mystery.
It is not very likely that the sort of person the 3-day law is meant to "protect" us from --the man who doesn't own a gun, who's provoked or suicidal, and runs out to get a gun while he's emotional enough to shoot it -- will know where to find a gun show.
He'll do what I'd do: He'll look in the Yellow Pages for a gun dealer, who will have an advertisement.
Now, there will be a small number of the hot-blood, no-previous-gun-purchase dudes who are just lucky enough to know where and when a gun show is. But this is going to be fairly uncommon, and no reason to outlaw a perfectly legal operation. (And that's what a 3-day check would do to gun shows: Outlaw a legal business for no reason except "We have to do *something.*")
For the rest of us potential Gunshot-Murderers...
Who the fuck knows when or where a gun show is? I don't. I'm sure this sort of thing is publicized in gun-enthusiast magazines; I'm also quite sure that the sort of person who subscribes to gun-newsletters already has a gun.
And, PS, Jones:
Fifty miles away is not "convenient." If that's "convenient," then it's also "convenient" to just fucking drive to Virginia and get me all the guns I needs.
White Plains, which is twenty miles away. At least that used to be the case until the Democrat County Executive banned them from the Westchester County Center, a year or so ago. I suspect Nassau County has 'em, though.
"White Plains, which is twenty miles away."
And that's not really convenient. (Shit, Brooklyn ain't convenient enough for me.) And I'm sure the gun shows are only there once a season or so.
So...
"The hot-blooded would-be killer or suicide" is already hit with a waiting period imposed by simple economics and logisitics.
As for Nassau County...
Why bother? I can just go to New Jersey and buy a shotgun from K-mart. And I can also pick up a hack-saw and saw it down so I can carry it under my coat.
This is all such silliness.
Granted.
And I'd just like to point out, once again, that handguns are the most restricted sort of weapon (after machine-guns) and yet are the wimpiest and least accurate.
If I want to hurt somebody, I can buy a shotgun. They're cheaper, they're easier to get, and they can seriously kill people dead.
Portability? Concealability? Shit. I can saw a shotgun down and stick it in my briefcase or gym bag. No one's going to search them.
Puh-fricking-leeze.
I imagine it might be more difficult to find a gun show in your area, but in Northern CA they're fairly common. They go hand-in-hand with the myriad boat shows, demolition derbies, and goat-roping contests that make livin' in redneck country such a durn hoot.
I don't own a gun, but I might in the future. But if I wanted one right now, I wouldn't bother with a gun show or even a dealer. Everyone around here has guns; I could have an AK-47, an AR-15, or an ATA (Chinese version of Kalashnikov) in my hands in an hour, easy. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll find one, rest assured.
This does not mean that there shouldn't be some measure of gun controls/laws, but the GC advocates really need to look at some of the root causes of these things. People are rarely "born" evil or violent. There are generally environmental factors; the Columbine murderers did not become that way in a vacuum. If the MMM people want to make this a parent's issue, then they need to face up to those facts also -- some people are simply the products of half-assed (or non-assed) parenting.
This is not the fault of gun owners. Maybe it's desensitization to violence from movies, maybe it's bullying at school, maybe the parents ignored Junior's hobby of torturing the neighborhood cats until it was too late, and Junior decided to take it to the next level (as happened with Kip Kinkel). But there's a lot more to this than just trigger locks and gun show regulations, and the moms need to be cognizant of those things as well before they take out their grief on one segment of people.
Hey, I'm working on the Million Bucket March thing for you. We can do it, if we all just pull together and wish real hard and remember we're all just one big family in this crazy world and everything is sunshine and rainbows and happy little elves and....
Aw, fuck it, who am I kidding? I got nothing. Just look for that warning label on the bucket, reminding you not to leave it containing water where there might be little kids around.
It's the next Dateline special -- Five-Gallon Buckets: Silent But Deadly.
"but in Northern CA they're fairly common."
You're missing the point. Unless they're so ubiquitous that they are reliably within a half-hour drive every day of the year--
-- then the fact that they are only around once every coulple of months is, of itself, a de facto "waiting period." *Unless* you fight with your girlfriend on the right weekend, when the gun show is around.
The whole idea of the "cooling off" period is dopey, anyway. If I am possessed of the need to kill someone RIGHT NOW, I'm not going to go buy a gun. I will take care of business in a more direct, and more hands-on, fashion. I've got a baseball bat. And a baseball bat in the hands of a man determined to kill is a very deadly weapon.
I guarantee everyone here: No matter how tough you think you are, if a man surprises you with a baseball bat, you're going to die.
Now, on the other hand:
If I am determined to kill -- and this isn't merely just a red-hot passion -- then I can certainly wait three fricking days for a gun. In fact, I'll probably wait a good long time for that gun.
P.S. Many people will probably be asking the same question about the Million Mom March in about six months. That is, those who have any recollection of it at all.
No, I understand your point, and to an extent, I agree. I'm just saying that they're fairly common, and fifty miles is not far to drive if you're plotting to take someone out.
The whole idea of the "cooling off" period is dopey, anyway.
Yes, I think it's mostly a placebo effect, but I'm not opposed to it in principle. But yeah, if you're determined to kill, waiting three days or even a week is probably not a huge deal. But it doesn't hurt to allow for the possibility that you might come to your senses.
For Louis Farrakhan to make an ass out of himself ranting about the mystic properties of the number 19.
Johnny U.
"But it doesn't hurt to allow for the possibility that you might come to your senses."
It doesn't hurt a permanent gun-dealer, no. It will drive gun-show dealers out of business, since they cannot conclude any sales during their two or three day visit.
I don't care about the three-day period in *general.* If so mush-headed liberal is going to shriek until she gets it, fine. I got better things to worry about. If she also wants to make herself a pretty Magic Crystal making her impervious to gunfire, she can do that to.
But I draw the line when a mollifying, ineffectual, placebo law is used to drive a legal trade out of business.
If gun-show dealers are breaking the law, arrest them. If they are not, keep your harridan liberal claws off.
Thanks for the refresh. You guys have good memories.
I bet that most people don't remember the purpose of the Million Man March. Likewise, I predict that the Million Mom March will have no lasting impact, contrary to Janjon's assertion that it will be looked back upon as some sort of defining moment in the anti-gun movement.
As long as you don't see the big deal.
Some folks don't see what the big deal is outlawing pornography or the sale of liquor.
It too is illegal in many states and counties.
"I don't see the big deal about outright banning gun shows."
Well, I don't see "the big deal" about banning abortion clinics, either.
How come liberals love the "If you ban abortions, women will just have illegal abortions" argument, but they don't seem to like the "if you ban guns, criminals will just procure guns illegally" argument?
Totalitarian Libertarians.
Gun shows.
I don't think there should be roving abortion clinics either.
"It's the same people that banned alcohol that bitch about their gun "rights.""
Oh-- is it the "Same people," Dave?
By the way: The right to bear arms is a named right in the constitution. Alcohol doesn't have such a pedigree. However, back when this country operated according to the Constitution, the Prohibitionists *were* nice enough to actually seek a Constititutional amendment to ban alcohol.
Nowadays, of course, we could just pass a federal law. After all-- alcohol "significantly affects interstate commerce."
Jack:
New Breed, same as the Old Breed.
"The availability of alcohol should be protected as necessary to the exercise of first amendment rights."
Second amendment rights, too. Gunpowder and alcohol make for a real blast.
"Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory."
You don't think a roving abortion doctor is a good idea for rural areas? Some women in need of the services of an abortionist cannot travel hundreds of miles for the procedure.
DaveM nicely fills the old Elliot-Fascist-Utopian slot.
It doesn't matter if several thousand law abiding citizens are deprived of their businesses. They are only gun dealers. It's not like they matter.
Who's banning guns?
I don't feel like arguing about the content of the "right" to bear arms right now; my last exam is tomorrow and it would take more time and effort than I have.
Alcohol sales are commerce. Of course the federal government could ban the interstate sale or transportation of alcohol.
JJ:
I don't like the Franklin Mint. Can we ban them too, just so long as we're banning businesses we don't care for?
I'm also not a big fan of gay pornography. Ban it. Straight pornography is an important marital aid which significantly, and positively, affects interstate commerce, but gay porn is just nasty. It "chills" my ability to cross state borders freely.
I think DaveM is just misguided. Eliot was malignant.
NOTE: "Gay porn" most emphatically does *not* include lesbian porn.
Lesbian porn is a cherished First Amendment right.
No in talking "could"?
We are discussing your blase, insular sweeping away of gun shows because you don't see the big deal.
What is your exam in?
You have it wrong. My actual belief is:
"Everything which is not prohibited is privileged."
I just don't understand: We accept time, place, and manner restrictions on our first amendment rights, why not our second?
JJ:
I think you're quite wrong. DaveM respects no external principle -- no *objective* principle -- other than his own internal "What's Hot, What's Not" list.
Someone who will caim that alcohol is protected by the first Amendment, but that guns, curiously, are not protected by the Second, has unmoored himself from Law and Principle and is, definitely, malignant.
Then banning the sale of porno videos and porno magazines while allowing porno theaters to continue to run feature films is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on a first amendment right?
Where does the "big deal" factor enter the analysis?
Almost half the counties in KY are dry. Makers Mark is produced in a dry county. I think Bourbon county (you know, the one they named "bourbon" after...) is dry.
Ugh.
No wonder you sound so unreasonable.
The alcohol comment was a joke. My speech becomes less restricted when I drink...
"Sounds illegal to me; the repeal of Prohibition implies that adult citizens have the right to get hammered."
Nope. The Amendment merely repealed the previous amendment giving the Congress the power to ban alcohol.
Any state could ban alcohol if it wished-- within its borders, so long as no federal Constitutional interest was implicated.
And, um....
I'm not counting DaveM's suggestion of First Amendment protection. That's just silly. That's simply claiming that everything you "like" is protected by the First Amendment. Which is childish.
DaveM:
Sorry, I took your joke seriously. I've heard shit just as stupid said in all seriousness.
So, I am sorry about my misinterpretation.
You don't think a roving abortion doctor is a good idea for rural areas? Some women in need of the services of an abortionist cannot travel hundreds of miles for the procedure.
Are 24 hour waiting periods unconstitutional? Didn't Casey say that they were acceptable since they don't impose an "undue burden?" In Kentucky, federally funded abortions are only provided in two cities: Lexington and Louisville. The twenty-four hour waiting period imposes a substantial burden on poor hill-folk who have to drive to the big city and get a hotel room so that they can have an abortion.
Nope. The Amendment merely repealed the previous amendment giving the Congress the power to ban alcohol.
I know. I was half-joking. Dave has a good point, though -- the folks who impose their Prohibition morals on everyone else in their dry county are frequently the most ardent gun owners, who righteously decry the foul intervention of the evil government in their sacrosanct private lives.
Talk about inconsistency....
"The twenty-four hour waiting period imposes a substantial burden on poor hill-folk who have to drive to the big city and get a hotel room so that they can have an abortion."
Nonsense. A motel room in the surrounding areas costs $60 or $70 bucks.
"Substantial" burden?
Please. "Substantial" means just what it says in the dictionary. It doesn't mean "any burden, no matter how trivial."
I think 24 hour waiting periods are bad law, myself. But simply because a law is bad does not make it unconstitutional.
"Dave has a good point, though -- the folks who impose their Prohibition morals on everyone else in their dry county are frequently the most ardent gun owners, who righteously decry the foul intervention of the evil government in their sacrosanct private lives.
"
Dave has an irrelevant point, which isn't correct in any meaniful way anyway.
Busybodys and blue-noses come in all political persuasions.
I wasn't saying that it is unconstitutional. A 24 hour wait for an abortion is probably more of a burden on someone who wants an abortion than the elimination of gun shows would be on someone who wants a gun.
". A 24 hour wait for an abortion is probably more of a burden on someone who wants an abortion than the elimination of gun shows would be on someone who wants a gun."
A three-day wait is quite a burden on gun-show DEALERS, who will have a perfectly legal trade made effectively illegal.
It's much like requiring all cars sold to run not on gasoline, but on the power of love. Cars cannot run on love; two-day duration gun shows cannot conclude a sale with a three-day waiting period.
It's effectively outlawing car sales. For no particular reason. Just for shits and giggles. Just to show our "outrage."
For the children, of course.
A 24 hour wait for an abortion is probably more of a burden on someone who wants an abortion than the elimination of gun shows would be on someone who wants a gun.
That's true, but as Ace pointed out, it would seriously affect the dealers at the gun shows, since the proposed 3-day waiting period would exceed the usual length of the show. Now, if these are legitimately licensed dealers, dealing legally, this would be an unfair restraint of trade, no?
Perhaps GC advocates would be better served by re-examining the licensing requirements to be a gun dealer in the first place.
"Perhaps GC advocates would be better served by re-examining the licensing requirements to be a gun dealer in the first place."
Hee hee hee. No, we can't do that. That would actually be *effective.*
I saw a piece on Dateline. Turns out that that the same five or six gun dealers in any city are responsible for 90% of all illegal gun sales traced back to a dealer. And yet the Feds do not shut them down. Ever.
What the fuck? I want to give abortions on demand. Oh no! My trade is being outlawed!
Everything is "perfectly legal" before it is made "effectively illegal."
Eric -
Is the state's licensing of liquor stores an "unfair restraint of trade?" Is the state's prohibition of porn shops within 1000 feet of schools an "unfair restraint of trade?" Gun dealers can sell their guns at gun shops. No government regulation has been found to be an "unfair restraint of trade" since the New Deal.
"Everything is "perfectly legal" before it is made "effectively illegal.""
In your perfect world, I'm sure it is.
But seriously--
Generally we require that a business be mala per se before we outlaw it.
I don't like that one person with virtually no evidence, physical or otherwise, can ruin a man and his family with an accusation, and people like Jack can work from the premise that the original incident occurred. Clinton's behavior with women has been despicable, and as an Arkansan I've been aware of rumors for a long time and have heard more since he became president. FWIW, none of them involved force, coercion, intimidation, bribery, etc. All I've ever heard were consensual, and I don't think he was very discreet. I've met people who saw him in public social settings with women.
Bottom line: PJ didn't even come close to proving anything about her story, and she managed, rightfully, to get very little as a consequence, much of which went to her lawyers. Nothing I said spins history, or sexual harassment issues, or anything related to either. The post simply addresses PJ's character and the odd obsession certain people have with villifying and picking apart Clinton, and some criticism of Reno is related to that. Not that he hasn't helped matters a lot or isn't guilty of a lot of things regarding women that will never be proven, and more that will never be known. But no amount of development, detail, analysis, etc, changes the truth of what I posted. PJ managed to cost Clinton money, humiliation and inconvenience, and did absolutely nothing to the benefit of anyone except her lawyers, and of all the stories that came out on Clinton hers is the only one that I'm certain is untrue.
PM-Scotus-Vince Foster,400
Supreme Court declines to let Vince Foster photos be released
WASHINGTON (AP) — A group seeking to force the government to release photographs taken of White House lawyer Vince Foster’s body after his 1993 suicide lost a Supreme Court appeal today.
The court, without comment, turned away Accuracy in Media’s argument that Foster’s family has no privacy interest in avoiding public release of the photos.
Accuracy in Media, a media watchdog group, contends the public has a “substantial interest” in the photos because they might show whether the government properly investigated Foster’s death.
Foster, the deputy White House counsel, was found in a suburban Virginia park on July 20, 1993, with a gunshot wound to the head.
Four investigations — including one by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr — have concluded that Foster committed suicide, but some conservatives have speculated that Foster may have been murdered.
Accuracy in Media invoked the federal Freedom of Information Act in asking the National Park Service to release photos taken of Foster’s body at the scene of his death and during his autopsy.
The Park Service refused, citing an exemption for cases in which releasing information would create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Accuracy in Media sued, and a federal judge ruled for the government. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that ruling last October, saying, “AIM cannot deny the powerful sense of invasion bound to be aroused in close survivors by wanton publication of gruesome details of death by violence.”
In the appeal acted on today, Accuracy in Media’s lawyers said Foster’s relatives have no privacy interest in the photos because they are not depicted in them.
Accuracy in Media was represented by attorney Larry Klayman, whose Judicial Watch group has filed numerous lawsuits against the Clinton administration.
The case is Accuracy in Media vs. National Park Service, 99-1578.
Is the state's licensing of liquor stores an "unfair restraint of trade?" Is the state's prohibition of porn shops within 1000 feet of schools an "unfair restraint of trade?"
I don't think so.
Gun dealers can sell their guns at gun shops.
Yes, and as of now, they are also allowed to sell at gun shows. If that is a problem, then it should be addressed directly. Maybe licensing requirements for gun dealers should be a permanent place for business.
But imposing a 3-day period will either drive heretofore legal dealers out of business, or merely encourage the gun show promoters to extend the lengths of the shows.
If enforcing existing regulations and lessening gun violence is the actual goal, I think addressing licensing requirements is the way to go. Allowing people to sell guns out of the trunk of their damned car is part of the problem.
Ultimately though, gun control advocates are going to have to realize -- gun owners will not voluntarily give up their guns, so it's basically a war of attrition. Examining the root causes of violence, and assessing how mainstream culture affects one's propensity for violence would probably do more good in the long run. Demanding trigger locks and suing gun manufacturers for what perpetrators do is just half-assed.
Are you going to go running for the barf bags, as the rest of us do, the next time we hear some weenie from the House GOP – or better yet, some weenie who’s the GOP presidential nominee – decrying Bill Clinton’s behavior because he’s setting a bad example for our children, or claiming that he wants to make the White House a place that parents can point out to their children without being “ashamed”?
Speaking of the last refuge of scoundrels …
NYPD ranked only 8th of major cities in the US for the period 1990-98 with Detroit in first place (.92 per 1000 population), Houston (.68), Phoenix (.63), San Diego (.61), Los Angeles (.56), Philadelphia (.49), Chicago (.46), New York City (.39), Dallas ((.32) U.S. average (.50). Source: Detroit Free Press evaluation of FBI statistics.
If the word gets back to NYC, in addition to his other problems, Rudy will lose his credibility as a law and order candidate.
Thin connection.
I yakked with Weld's use of the mother of a slain police officer in debate, I urped when George Bush, Sr. brought up the death of his infant son as an element of his toughness, I had digestive problems when McCain answered any question of his politics with "Hey! I was in a tiger cage getting poked by gooks with sharp sticks, so I don't need you to question my stance on MTV," I headed to the can when Gore utilized his son's car accident and his sister's cancer death for applause and sympathy, I roiled when Clinton's "A Man from Hope" waxed on about his drunk Daddy and his Mommy's breast cancer, I can squeeze out a nasty bile when some goober shakes a fetus in a jar on television, I got very hinky when they wheeled Jim Brady out to hawk gun control, I heaved when Waxman used the kid with asthma in the tobacco hearings, I was sick for as many days as CNN ran the Columbine funerals, and I even had the presence to be ill by Dole's comments about Democratic wars in 1976 (though that may have been Slurpee, Pop Rocks and a Slim Jim talking).
In this environment, if Gore or Bush blather on about the vague generalities of "our future" and "our most precious commodity" etcetera, etcetera, I have to manage to keep lunch down because the choices I have for president do not include Norm MacDonald. Or even Bob Kerrey, for that matter.
D.C is making it way up the charges in questionable police shootings.
That doesn't really work into the "Rudy Guiliani just likes to see innocent black men shot" theme that is being developed.
Well, the connection really isn't so thin. This particular bleat just strikes me as yet another variation on the "for the children" theme. I'm sure my perspective is tainted by having spent most of my life in a state in which Democrats are viewed as roughly equivalent to jackrabbits (better to whack 'em on the head with a club and put them out of their misery than to let them breed), but it seems to me that Republicans really invented this genre. You know. We have to protect our children against the influences of godless communism. Or homosexuality. Or pernicious drugs. Or pornography. Or that strip joint around the corner. Etc., etc.
Now it's obvious that liberals have learned how to deploy that particular line of attack; no doubt it's part of the "soccer mom" strategy. I have to agree that my gag reflex kicks in when they do. But then, it's been conditioned by years of GOP pandering, so it's not so bad.
Try this, though I'm sure it will work.
Candidate Vincennes: "We need to enact gun control because it will make our children safer and our street safer and safe streets and safe children is what I'm all about."
Candidate spuds: "My child got shot last year. At that moment, when I saw the blood oozing from the .45 caliber slug in his back, and he looked up at me and said 'Daddy, why did the bad man shoot me in the back? How did he get the gun? Don't we have background checks?' I made a vow to fight for gun control until my dying breath."
Bush has been rather straightforward and firm, with a minimum of hysteria on the issue. Gore has tried the same, and apart from being more halting and confusing, he has been statesmanlike as well.
Bob Graham has been angry, yet somewhat statesmanlike.
Bob Smith makes me puke.
Lumping it all into one kettle of fish, with the broad generality of "Oh, the GOP did it in the past and now the Democrats are doing it" is not really true, nor does it lend itself to honest assessment. As I've pointed out with examples, Democrats and Republicans have done it.
The audience, on the other hand, might be a different story.
Excerpts:
from Rehnquist's majority opinion:
Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity... thus far in our nation's history our cases have upheld commerce clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature.
from Souter's minority opinion:
Gender-based violence in the 1990s was shown to operate in a manner similar to racial discrimination in the 1960s in reducing the mobility of employees and their production and consumption of goods shipped in interstate commerce... Violence against women may be found to affect interstate commerce and affect it substantially...
To this untrained observer, Rehnquist's opinion makes a lot of sense, and Souter' argument is absurd. Raping women affects interstate commerce "substantially"?
1.Criminals will get guns anyway-
a. they won't get licences to carry or go through backround checks they'll buy them on the black market or steal them
IMHO you overestimate the intelligence and judgment of the average felon. There have been a number of arrests or stopped sales because of checks so far. And we make a number of things illegal knowing that this creates the opportunity for a black market- drugs, endangered animals,alcohol for minors, untaxed cigarettes, machine guns, nuclear materials, bombs, explosives, commerical blow jobs.
Jack, you should blush, given your death penalty stance. How many murder victims have been pimped endlessly to justify the howling mobs outside prisons on execution days? "we need to recognize societies need for vengence" etc. Since it isn't Sgt Studanko out there pimping some survivors for "closure" and a more free hand for law enforcement, you're a vestal virgin.
An excerpt:
In 1995, the Interior Department announced revised rules intended to improve management and protection of federally owned land.
Among other changes, the new rules amended the permit process to conform with land-use plans, dropped the requirement that permit applicants be in the livestock business, and gave the government title to new fences and other permanent improvements built by permit-holders.
The rules were challenged in federal court by the Public Lands Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other groups.
Score: Bruce Babbitt 1, Welfare Ranchers 0
I have a right to vote, but hate to do it in November and Tuesdays are generally bad for me- move the election cause I said so. Huh, not buying that, too simple right? Okay, how about I want a jury trial in any trial in America. Law, equity, traffic infraction makes no difference. It explicitly says so in the bill of rights. But wait, the courts have never read it so, they have always interpreted the amendment to memorialize the common law of the time of the constitution.
Finally, Even if there aren't guns, people will kill one another with knives etc. If we are ever mugged together with one guy with a gun and one with a knife, I hope yours has the gun.
If we are ever mugged together and one of us has a knife and the other has a gun, guess which one I hope I am?
Please explain the connection between rape and interstate commerce because dolts like me just don't get it.
Ahhhhhhh. So past decisions by the Supreme Court that have twisted the commerce clause to absurd interpretations mean that that pattern must continue in perpetuity?
Perhaps the Supremes are getting some backbone and will reshape the commerce clause interpretations into something that makes sense. Screw stare decisis if it leads to more bad law.
Herb Stoner shouldn't do federal time. Chester the Molester should be pursued by the state police, not the FBI. Old MacDonald's intrastate transactions shouldn't be regulated by the Feds. Maybe some of these decisions will be revisited by Billy R and his gang, too.
"I'll be challenging every federal drug case I get that doesn't cross state lines."
Good. I hope you win.
i just love it when companies realize that supporting this stupid quack bitch would end up costing them more than they could make in revenues.
"Jack, you should blush, given your death penalty stance. How many murder victims have been pimped endlessly to justify the howling mobs outside prisons on execution days? "we need to recognize societies need for vengence" etc. Since it isn't Sgt Studanko out there pimping some survivors for "closure" and a more free hand for law enforcement, you're a vestal virgin."
This comparison really makes no sense. You needlessly confuse my support for a position (the death penalty) with my support for excesses of some of its proponents, even though I specifically derided one such excess - Weld's use of the mother of a slain police officer as a prop in a debate on the death penalty.
News flash. I support gun control, yet I don not support the grotesque excesses of some of its proponents. In a less statist world, this is possible.
Again, we lapse into the inability to make distinction, instead grasping for the cheap political point.
Cellar,
Perhaps Dr. Laura will never discuss gays again, which would be a big improvement.
While the Rehnquist nibbling is another indication of how timid they all are on the SC, at least it's another movement in the right direction. And let me add my warmest personal wishes of success regarding your future drug cases.
Ohio,
You ask a good question.
One thing for sure - the doctoral thesis market in Government departments in universities in, say, 2030, will be glutted with learned discourses about what is going on now, comparisons with the Court's activities in the mid-30s, etc.
Yes, Ohio, it certainly will be most interesting to see how "principled" this gaggle of five is.
Talk about China Trade online with Noam Chomsky
There are shifts in control over information, some quite significant. One example is the increasing concentration of media control, quite startling over the past 20 years (that includes not just press, but what is often called "popular culture" generally). There are also serious questions about the future of the internet. Like most dynamic sectors of the economy, this is largely the product of the vast state sector, meaning that the public bore the costs and risks for several decades, until it was handed over to private power, as a huge gift from the public (which was unaware), just a few years ago. What the future of this system will be is now a terrain of struggle. When it was under public control, it was commonly called an "information superhighway." Now the catchword is "e-commerce". Something else we should remember is that for centuries, and particularly in the 20th century, creating "artificial wants" and stimulating wild and harmful consumerism has been quite consciously regarded as an effective device of social control.
And of course his hackneyed take on consumerism as social control.
Either that or you are at the core nothing more than an arm chair conservative.
If I were an armchair conservative, I would hardly lump Weld with Waxman, fetus' in jars with wide-screen TV dead kids, or George Bush Sr.'s invocation of his lost infant to Gore's use of son/daughter for political advantage.
Look, when Swaggart and Bakker cried like babies, every smart set member laughed and said, "How can those rubes buy that?" as if there were some huge gulf between the grotesque self-interested emotionalism of disgraced televangelists and the deft appeals to emotionalism employed by those with a finer touch.
If the Million Mom March were not accompanied by the craven machinations of political hacks and hangers-on, as well as the disturbing use of imagery to establish a tenuous link of tragedy and legislation, I'd be all for it.
As it stand, though, how is it to be distinguished from The O Ring March, where speakers rail against the slipshod work of government contractors while a never-ending loop of the shuttle disaster plays on and on and on.
It is the difference between mourning tragedy and capitalizing on same. It is not an exact science in the identification.
Am I a purist? Probably not. Emotion happens. Issues have connections to flesh and blood. Clinton charms me most when he is pissed off. Partial birth abortion can hardly be discussed without discussion of the gruesome.
It is, however, the practiced appeal to the emotional that makes me ill, whether it is McCain's reliance on sympathy for his Vietnam-era plight or Sarah Brady wheeling her husband out for her cause.
I've always felt the country could learn the most from Reagan in the non-political arena. I think his response to his disease, and that of his wife, has been a model of decorum.
By contrast, however, some of their children represent the newer, more accepted, "get on television and talk about how Dad's illness affects me" line.
He made his choices early in the process, and his wife has made them late.
I find it hard to see what you would have had the MMM use as imagry instead of the pictures of the various people (mostly children or teenagers). No blood, no videotapes showing the bodies being turned over by the police, no sobs, no crying scenes (videotapes like these exist, incidentally. They are numbing.). Are you suggesting that when what you are trying to do is to convince Congress to take reasonable acts intended to help curb gun violence that it is improper to point to/discuss/use imagry and symbols to do so? No "imagry" at all?
As for the Bradys. Well, Jim is just as determined as his wife to see change. He of course has his limitations but he wants to be involved. Not his fault that he has to do so from a wheelchair and with an impaired voice and speech pattern. I guess he is a living image of what can happen when you are shot.
Boiling it all down - politics at its core is a matter of assessing cause and effect of various policies or lack thereof. Issues then get redressed or they don't. But, they get addressed more often than not in terms of what's happening, to whom, how, why, cause and effect and countereffect. Guns obviously kill or injure. Talking about that and making people aware of the senseless human waste that occurs is at the core of the politics. If you think that using school photos, prom pictures or snapshots of those who've been killed or having a leading spokesman who happens to be a victim appear on a stage in a wheelchair is beyond the pale on this issue, then indeed you are either a purist or just using characterizations of grotesque etc. as tools to another end.
I will agree with you about Reagan and the way he and now she are handling it. Much more preferable to LBJ's pointing to his scars etc. Of course, not totally comparable. Just like treating one's alzheimers isn't comparable to how you look and have to be transported around if you were shot but not killed.
"I find it hard to see what you would have had the MMM use as imagry instead of the pictures of the various people (mostly children or teenagers). No blood, no videotapes showing the bodies being turned over by the police, no sobs, no crying scenes (videotapes like these exist, incidentally. They are numbing.). Are you suggesting that when what you are trying to do is to convince Congress to take reasonable acts intended to help curb gun violence that it is improper to point to/discuss/use imagry and symbols to do so? No "imagry" at all?"
I am suggesting that it is beneath contempt to lay the death of your children at the feet of legislators. Just as contemptibel as when Clinton derided the NRA as complict in murder, and LaPierre rejoined that Clinton had blood on his hands, this is yet another step in the personalization of politics by use of tragedy. I am also saying that mothers who have lost children are disraught and thus, the lion's share of blame for this disgusting ritual falls on those who would use them - political hacks.
"As for the Bradys. Well, Jim is just as determined as his wife to see change. He of course has his limitations but he wants to be involved. Not his fault that he has to do so from a wheelchair and with an impaired voice and speech pattern. I guess he is a living image of what can happen when you are shot."
Jim Brady needs to determine when he is being a man speaking his mind and when he is being a prop.
What it does is much more insidious than you suggest. It makes the legislator who thinks, "Hmmm, I favor abortion rights" a baby-killer, and there is no more direct harm than forcep or saline to fetus.
It makes the legislator who opposes a certain form of gun control complicit in murder even if the chain is gun to thief to buyer to thief to bank robber. It makes Les Aspin - who failed to grant a request for armor in Somalia - an accomplice to manslaughter no matter the various decisions made in the process. It makes the legislator who voted against .04 as legally intoxicated level partially responsible for drunk-driving injuries and death no matter his or her thought process. It is what excites the rabble. It is an appeal to the basest fears and emotions, and it is usually employed by the righteous, who, when exorcised, are the most dangerous of people.
Perhaps Ms. Brady should have become the president of Stupid Relatives Control, Inc.
Why not death scene photos?
I mean, if "Guns obviously kill or injure" and "Talking about that and making people aware of the senseless human waste that occurs is at the core of the politics", why not show the blood flowing in the streets, the death masks, the splattered brains?
Why not pass about flyers during election time, showing son of Mother A floating dead in a pool to make "people aware of the senseless human waste that occurs" when you have pools with no fences?
The one thing that janjon and I agreed upon instantly was the efficacy of the practice, and its very strong future.
I'll throw this in to the mix FWIW. A real-life friend of mine mentioned the Million Mom March was the kind of thing she would have liked to have participated in. She is generally a conservative on economic issues (welfare, government mandates), liberal on personal freedom (sex, drugs, rock and roll). I pooh-poohed it, and she got pretty hot.
So I tried the approach Jack is using of very carefully explaining what it was that I didn't like and stating that it has nothing to do with gun control, but rather tactics. (Gun control is something I'm interested in only as it pertains to a general erosion of individual liberty. I haven't fired a gun in many years, though I do own one.)
Things got hotter. She wound up crying and saying I never agree with her about anything.
Moral #1: janjon may be right that even if these people are using emotion more than argumentation they are serious; moral #2: Carville rarely gets any after a joint TV appearance with Maitlain.
I cannot stand the Vietnam Memorial.
Is it affecring? Yes. Is it emotional? Yes.
Is it tawdry and cheap to memorialize a nation's armed struggle - even a failed one - by its individual parts? Yes.
I cannot stand the Vietnam Memorial.
Is it affecting? Yes. Is it emotional? Yes.
Is it tawdry and cheap to memorialize a nation's armed struggle - even a failed one - by its individual parts? Yes.
I posted twice.
Efficacy? You think this will lead to anything meaningful as far as new gun control?
Of course it gets the masses worked up--which is the part you always forget in your scorn for those who uses this method. But the nice thing about a public that gets all worked up about a particular cause is that they have a very short memory.
So sure, there might be increased public support for some other meaningless gun control law in the short term. Eh. It will pass.
And if it doesn't pass, it doesn't mean that this little hoohah had anything to do with it--it just means that there is a real desire for meaningless gun control. Oh, well.
Take the bucket off your head next time.
You mean the listing of the names is what bothers you? Or the sculpture?
(the bucket is now a symbol of who I am)
Cal
Maybe, maybe not. I think that the envelope is just getting pushed as we write, and soon, the great weight of piled up corpses will so degrade the debate that the mommy mob will have us all in rubber pants, non-contact sports, and sensitivity training.
The lsiting of names = 65%. The dark, drab, soulless, and empty sculpture = 35%.
I suppose we need to determine what you mean by "effective". Is it true that this orgy of serving private grief up for public consumption has a big market? Sure. But that alone suggests that it's the market driving it, not the whores who sell it. Besides, the public loves the comics that skewer the whores, too. They are a fickle crowd.
The ornery Southern chick who had about 2000 people there in opposition received quite a bit of air time, despite her lesser numbers.
masses? Well, yes, a large number of people have become involved in the anti-gun violence movement and certainly a very large number attended and hence were involved in the MMM. Of those, some (hopefully a lot) will get more involved. Are you suggesting that large numbers of people shouldn't get involved in the political process? Actually, you probably are, since I get the feeling that your activism starts and ends with deciding which tv to use on any given day and thus which remote control is the right one to use.
By the way, I can't help but just say that I find it...astounding...that you would waste as much of your vacation on the Mote as you clearly are. I can only surmise that it is raining to beat the band currently.
Most everyone is astounded about something here. That said, astound me, and try not to be an insufferable prick. Some of us will never get to Hawaii, and some others of us won't be lucky enough to have folks who drop in to post great photos and the like.
On that note.
Hasta tortilla.
I've been out for three days, travelling extensively around the island. I had to check in and get some work done today, and am loading pictures on my website. To say nothing of the fact that I'm a bit tired from hiking up to Waimoku Falls yesterday. So I'm lounging around the morning in my well-appointed condo. I plan on heading north this afternoon. Do let me know if you require further review of my itinerary for approval.
I also note that you threw in two--not one, but two--personal comments. Try not to be cranky, and stay on topic. I'm sure you can manage, if you focus hard.
Are you suggesting that large numbers of people shouldn't get involved in the political process?
I don't worship the voice of the people the way some of you do. That being said, I think it's fine for the people to do whatever they want. I'm just pointing out that the people who are moved by the sort of nonsense spewed by the MOM are also the sort who have the attention span of a three year old. It's a happy pairing of attributes.
jack - trivialization is a time-honored technique, but it don't fly on this one. And, you know it.
incidentally, old boy, I wouldn't push too hard on the word "insufferable".
Joan Rivers called it the Two-Million Mammary March, last night.
Every so often, she comes close to justifying her existence.
Not that it will do any good, since you have made your own determination and we all know that that accordingly is now irrefutable fact, but the real political power in the anti-gun violence movement is going to come from the fact that it is increasingly attracting well-educated middle/upper middle class urban/suburban types. People who vote. People who give $$$ to support causes. People who follow up to see what their representatives think about issues and let them know their views.
Unless you don't believe that even those types have more than three year old attention spans.
What on earth makes you think that the people you describe aren't the ones I'm talking about? What the hell else drives it, other than the junkies with the bucks to support the cause du jour?
"Unless you don't believe that even those types have more than three year old attention spans."
i'm sorry, but doesn't the majority of the electorate, not to even bring up the general american population, have a minuscule attention span?
Let me put it another way. Is there any type of political "cause" where people get involved/stay involved/try to effect change that you would find either worthy and/or effective?
....the real political power in the anti-gun violence movement is going to come from the fact that it is increasingly attracting well-educated middle/upper middle class urban/suburban types. People who vote. People who give $$$ to support causes. People who follow up to see what their representatives think about issues and let them know their views.
People who have "Save the Rainforest" bumper stickers plastered all over their SUVs. They are missing the forest for the trees, in their effort to Oprah-ize their political movement.
Will you please stop using this expression and call them what they are, gun control advocates. Refering to them as "the anti-gun violence" movement implies that their opponents support gun violence and it is deliberately deceptive.
I indeed am curious about your take on this type of thing. How does the horse without rider in the JFK funeral film strike you? Any public monument out there that you find appropriate?
At any rate, different strokes for different people.)
I agree with you, that there is much hyperbole on both sides. As with most other isues, that is what makes this so difficult to resolve.
janjon #11042.
Much more sophisticated than that.
Maybe I missed out on the sophistication part of it. I did catch Susan Sarandon kveching about the evils of guns in general. All I have to say about Susie is "hubba-hubba", because her actual opinion is the same PC stuff Rosey O-Donnel spews about guns, meanwhile Rosey still does commercials for KMart, who still sells hunting rifles, if I am not mistaken.
The bumper sticker crowd is a welcome and helpful component....
Does that mean that you think that someone like I described, someone who drives a polluting gas-guzzler emblazeoned with environmental stickers, would have a relevant opinion on this? I doubt that, if their vehicle is any indication of their ability to reason clearly.
Someone who's opinions express such accute internal conflict would probably fit in well with the "Ya-Ya Sisterhood" mentality on display Sunday, but are probably unable to find any nuance on the subject. They lost their kid to gun violence, they need to tell everyone about their tradgedy repeatedly, and they make their decisions colored by there grief. That doesn't sound like a way to reach a sound conclusion on much of anything.
But I agree that it will eventually boil down to realpolitik. Politicians always take notice of an angry mob, whether or not they know what they;re talking about. Plus all those celebritys are big doners, are'nt they?
....reasonable constraints on the manufacture, sale and storage of guns should be.
What would be one of those "constraints" on storage? I think that is interesting, and relevent point, because you hear alot about kids being killed with a loaded gun found in their house, or their friends house. But you never hear a thing about the owner of that gun being prosecuted, not until the recent school shooting in MIchigan. I bet establishing and enforcing penalties for unsafe storage would go along ways to preventing those types of gun deaths anyways.
Yes, the real $ is starting to come in. Yes, Rosie O'Donnell used to be on TV promoting K-Mart. She stopped doing that after Columbine which is when she initially got involved in the anti-gun violence movement. Only a year ago.
""Anti-Gun Violence" encompasses the wide range of objectives - trigger locks, safe storage, appropriate manufacturing safety standards - that go straight to trying to prevent violence and have nothing - nothing - to do with gun "control"."
You conveniently left out registration, which is one of the stated aims of the Million Mom March. Registration is gun "control."
Art - one of the laws that people are working for on both the Federal and the State levels (and a number of states now have one) is what is known as the CAPS law (Child Access Prevention Statute). Although they differ somewhat state to state, such a law would impose penalties (monetary and jail) on adults who don't store both their guns AND ammo "safely" (as defined -usually a locked container) and separately, IF a child gets ahold of either and then uses them and someone is injured/killed. I don't think Michigan has that kind of law yet, and the prosecution there is under other more general laws (endangerment of a minor etc.) I believe.
Also, maybe it was the media's fault, it usually is, but there didn't seem to be a really coherant agenda to the march, or definate goals. Just alot of rhetoric about how guns are bad. But that's silly. Guns aren't "good" or "bad", anymore than cars or drugs are "good" or "bad". They are all inanamite(sp?) objects. It's the person using them, and his/her intent, that is good or bad. At any rate, lots of talk about trigger locks and gun shows, but not much more than that. They could have saved them selves the travel time and just written those things to their COngressman or senator.
....such a law would impose penalties (monetary and jail) on adults who don't store both their guns AND ammo "safely" (as defined -usually a locked container) and separately, IF a child gets ahold of either and then uses them and someone is injured/killed.
Such laws should have been on the books long ago, I think. There is no excuse for someone leaving a loaded gun where a little kid can get access to it.
As for registration, I suggest one look at the bureaucratic wasteland of the DMV should be enough to explain why gun owners would rather not deal with that. It turns into a bureaucracy charging huge fees to stay in business.
"But, even if one were to say that it does, my point was that the anti-gun violence movement indeed is much more than just objectives which might be seen by some as being "control"."
I'm not sure that I get your point.
Anti-abortion advocates also oppose partial birth abortions and favor parental consent laws. Does that make them "much more" than simply anti-abortion. I think not. The anti-abortionism is the crux of their beliefs. The other positions are issues to get the true believers fired up about in order to achieve incremental progress towards their goal.
Just as gun registration, and ultimately confiscation, is at the core of the "anti-gun violence" movement. The other positions are just window dressings. Something to shoot for in the short term.
What they don't discount is the power of $$$ in terms of their reelection bids (a fact that the NRA has mastered and one which the anti-gun violence groups are now catching up on). They also don't discount the power of public opinion, and thus they also don't dismiss out of hand the sheer mass of numbers like those who showed up in D.C. and other places around the country. Anti-gun violence is a hot button issue and it WILL get hotter. Sunday was the time to make the general types of statements that were made and to show the pros who were watching carefully how complex this movement has now become in terms of its constituents (the various groups) and their growing power.
"As for registration, I suggest one look at the bureaucratic wasteland of the DMV should be enough to explain why gun owners would rather not deal with that."
The bureaucracy, per se, is not what gun owners object to. We simply don't want the government to know whether or not we have guns, and what kind of guns they are. First comes registration, then confiscation. See recent events in Australia.
Greystoke. No. You are incorrect. Are there a few groups out there who believe that all handguns should be abolished? Yes. Are they anywhere near being in the mainstream of the anti-gun violence movement? Absolutely not.
As I said, I would argue strenuously that registration/licensure are not anywhere near being control, but leaving that aside, there can be no real argument that trigger locks, safe storage, etc. have nothing to do with control.
No, I realize that the potential bureaucracy would be the least of gun owner's concerns. Still, that alone is a pretty good reason to object to it, I think. Especially since it won't do much good int he first place, because crooks aren't going to bother to register.
Bullshit. Groups choose names to distinguish themselves from their opponents. The name was carefully chosen to paint their opponents as supporters of gun violence. Everyone opposes gun violence on both sides of the issue, so the point of choosing that name is to confuse the issue and demonize the opposition.
No one I know really believes that either.
I didn't say they believed it. They just want others to believe it.
We just differ with them on what we feel reasonable constraints on the manufacture, sale and storage of guns should be.
This may be true. But the rhetoric coming from the gun control advocates about the evil of guns doesn't sound like they will stop with the relatively innocuous measure they are promoting today. I don't believe for a minute that they will throw up their hands in defeat if their current proposals don't have the desired results. They will come back again and again each time demanding more and more controls until our right to defend ourselves vanishes.
Think about it. Do you really think they will stop when their proposals fail to significantly curb violence? Do you think they will get up on national television and "Gee, guys, we were wrong. We're sorry"? Or is it more likely that in a few years they will pushing for more legislation and more restrictions? Look at their record. They don't just give up and walk away.
Please tell me you really aren't this naive.
When the Internet was under "public" (what Chomsky calls government) control it was known as DARPAnet, and was in no way available to the public.
I believe the context of Chomsky's statement about the Internet was more along the line of his "public subsidy, private profit" mantra, which he usually reserves for defense contractors and similar creatures. In this context, he is correct -- the taxpayers footed the bill in creating and establishing the Internet, Gore especially touted its educational benefits and lauded the promise of the "information superhighway", and it is well on its way to becoming a money machine for corporations looking to peddle their wares tax-free. You don't hear much about the educational benefits anymore (though they are certainly there), just a lot of hoo-ha over hyperinflated cyberstocks.
I'm certainly not against some sort of commercialization of the Internet, but I fail to see why the cost of developing the medium for commercial use should come out of the public's pocket, as well as at the expense of small brick-and-mortar businesses who have to pay taxes to do business.
The actual quote (in part) was, "....creating 'artificial wants' and stimulating wild and harmful consumerism has been quite consciously regarded as an effective device of social control."
With resources, material, financial, and informational increasingly coming under the parameter of fewer and fewer multi-national conglomerates, that seems to be a perfectly natural result. Not in the sinister They Live connotation, but in the sense that as merged monopolies and oligopolies are formed, their ability to jerk consumers around almost at will is markedly increased. Witness what oil companies do every year to consumers; despite the oil companies' lame excuses, I've no doubt that Chevron's profits are well into nine or ten digits.
That is to be expected. Businesses want your money, that's why they're in business. But the things they are able to do to get your money is another matter. And that is what Chomsky is addressing, in that brief context.
The folks who are protesting the WTO meetings, who happen to be less than sanguine about allowing a few dozen transnational merchant princes to have enormous control over what they eat, drink, and read, are invariably painted as Luddites. And of course there is much more to it than that, but it is never addressed in the mainstream media. And why should it be? They're owned by the selfsame conglomerates who are bulling this thing through.
This is not unique to Chomsky, nor to any "radical" ideology -- Neil Postman disserts quite ably on this in an absolutely non-partisan fashion in Amusing Ourselves to Death. Sound-bite technology has seriously lowered the standard and depth of public affairs discussion, and the devolution of informational sources is concomitant with this. The operative "bias" is money. This is not exactly a secret.
Let's face it, much of what passes for "information" is really either commerce or distraction. How many stories have there been on WTO policy (for example), as opposed to Eliàn or Pokemon or SUVs or some other such meaningless fluff? It's a big game, presented by the same guys who have a vested interest in the mechanics of actual policy.
Maybe it's the public's own fault that they'd rather bitch about the artificial crisis du jour than pay attention to things that actually affect their lives, but the media has a natural symbiosis with this problem. They are enablers, and since their owners are the people that the gov't tries the hardest to keep happy, the onus is on them, not the public. IMHO, of course.
Close. More like Dead Kennedys' California Über Alles, seasoned with a healthy dose of Zappa's Absolutely Free.
of nonsense spewed by the MOM are also the sort who have the
attention span of a three year old. It's a happy pairing of
attributes.
This is a perfect demonstration of why the Republicans just don't get it when it comes to the gender gap. It's completely condescending, assumes that the concerns of the proponents -- gun violence -- are silly, and that they should just run along and let the men figure it out. Fuck you. Women vote more than men and this kind of rhetoric has the opposite of it's intended effect.
(Shhhh, Bubb, don't tell them. It's a goooood thing).
perhaps i'm wrong, but i don't believe a "Republican" said that originally in this thread.
Second, to say that this is a Repub v. Dem issue is also wrong. It's more like a men v. women issue. Here in the south you can count on your elected official, regardless of party, voting the NRA party line. The only time this isn't the case is in large metropolitan areas. This had been a safe move because the Gun Rights folks are single issue voters that deliver a large vote. Even if the majority of the population in that district or state do not buy the NRA line, gun control was not high enough on the agenda to vote against a pro-NRA candidate. This is especially true in areas in which you really don't have a choice -- both candidates are in the pocket of the NRA.
This is what is changing, I hope. The people who tend to be most concerned about the issue of gun violence are women -- mothers who had not been vocal in politics or issues before, but are beginning to feel strongly about this issue. Since women are a majority of the population now and tend to vote in greater numbers than men, the time will come when politicians blindly supporting the NRA and ignoring the majority of the population will do so at their peril. To put down these voters and their concerns as triflin little ol gals who'll soon forget about this and leave the policy-makin to the big boys will be seen as patronizing arrogance.
The point you miss by parroting the NRA line on the slippery slope toward confiscation is that unlike, say Australia, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, and any attempt to confiscate the general population's guns would run straight into that.
I do not see registration of firearms, licensing of gun owners, and (this is my idea) requiring them to take out liability insurance for their guns, as leading inevitably to confiscation.
The Second Amendment does have exceptions already: sawed-off shotguns and working artillery pieces are not protected by it, and convicted felons do not have the right to bear arms.
The illogic is evident in the fact that many opponents of gun control argue that in a world with 200 million firearms, restrictions will disproportionately affect the law-abiding citizen who wants a gun, as opposed to the criminal. Implicit in this argument is recognition that the saturation of society with weapons makes the concept of confiscation unlikely.
Additionally, Wombat's point on the Second Amendment is well-taken. When push comes to shove, any Supreme Court might sanction restrictions as reasonable limits to any constitutional freedom, but it would be damn difficult to make the amendment consonant with disarmament and confiscation.
I would find your arguments about the 2nd Amendment compelling if I didn't regularly read and hear comments from gun control advocates claiming the amendment pertains only to a well-armed militia, and not to private citizens. But I do, so I don't.
Actually, I said it. And I meant it. There are plenty of true believers on both sides, but the March was specifically geared towards the dilettantes.
I didn't mention gender. But since you did, I will point out that it is a perfect example of a "feminine" approach to an issue: focus on the minor points to assure a touchy feely consensus, rather than take anything approaching a real stand.
I didn't mention party politics. As Ducky mentioned, I am nominally a Democrat.
Please tell me you really aren't this naive.
Biener. I don't throw around comments like that off the top of my head. I know the leaders and key staff of all of the "leading" national anti-gun violence groups. I give substantial sums to many of them and am on both real and advisory Boards. My involvement is not passive. Actually, I spend the equivalent of at least a day a week on anti-gun violence matters.
Don't assume that those who differ with your own simplistic conclusion that anti-gun violence efforts equate to ultimate confiscation are naive. You've just accepted that scare tactic - hook, line and sinker.
I think Jack and Wombat are addressing reality, not rhetoric. While I suppose it is possible that the SC might decide to push aside the 2nd Amendment entirely, I'd like to think it is extremely unlikely.
I think the more likely "danger" is that it won't ever get to the Supreme Court; the right will be chipped away by other approaches (litigation). I'm not terribly concerned about that, either, but it strikes me as the more likely negative outcome.
But in general, I view all of the stuff from both sides as posturing. The NRA is a lobby; it does its best to flank any attempt to limit gun control. The gun control groups, despite their attempt to paint their goals as righteous, are also money-grubbing agenda whores (aka lobbies).
And what else can lobbies do except sound dramatic? That's their job.
I think you're wrong on this issue. I also think you are condescending regarding an issue that is of growing importance to a great number of voters -- condescending in a way that infuriates me and makes me more determined in my views on the subject. The people who are concerned about gun violence are not children who will go away if you just ignore them. And the fact that you feel this way doesn't surprise me in the least or change my opinion about this being a gender divide, since you are typically hostile toward women.
People don't go out of their way to get involved in a political event of this sort without being motivated on the issue. And you can bet that if they're motivated enough to attend, they're also motivated enough to vote and to talk about the issue with friends and family.
I've said this before, but for clarity purposes I'll rephrase it again: The 3 day period would be applicable ONLY for people who fail the Instant Check. In other words, people who may indeed have criminal records or mental health issues, etc. People who pass the Instant Check would be able to pay and take on the spot.
In other words, the whole idea of the 3 day wait is indeed intended to help keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records, etc. - the types that even our friends from the NRA say that they don't want having guns.
Obviously, the March picked up some people who have always supported certain mild forms of gun control and used this opportunity to come out and "make a statement". They looked at the March and thought "Hmm. No wackos, a nice, mild agenda--I can do this."
These people don't have a three minute attention span, I readily grant you. Although I think the term "dilettante" applies--not to their beliefs, in that case, but their participation in marches of these sorts.
But there aren't enough of them to create a meaningful March, anyway.
I wager the majority of folks there are those who never really thought one way or another about gun control, are horrified by all the school killings, and want to be one with Rosie O'Donnell. They are the ones who are moved by the nasty grief-whoring that Jack objects to, and they are the ones whose focus will be shifted, inevitably.
I repeat, in substance, a post from yesterday, CalGal, in which I asked whether there was ANY cause for which you would find activity involving one or more or all of organizational efforts/publicity efforts to make the public aware of the dimensions of the given issue and proposed actions/lobbying/attention to voting records/activities to support or oppose given candidates based on their voting records that you would deem "appropriate"?
What causes if any would you support in such a manner?
I think you're wrong on this issue.
The "issue" is nothing more than my characterization of the March, as opposed to those who think it means something in any larger sense. There are times when large numbers at a demonstration mean something because the huge numbers are a surprise. The abortion March of some years ago was a case in point. Also the Gay and Lesbian March of 93; another one where the sheer size was unexpected.
But everyone knew this was going to have a huge turnout--it was a carefully arranged media event. The polls have shown strong support among women for "soft" gun control for some time now--there is a strong, if misguided belief, that trigger locks and waiting periods will somehow eliminate the possibility of another Columbine. It won't, but by the time everyone figures that out, they'll be off on some other cause of the moment.
It is the strong support for "soft" gun control that will drive the day when sensible precautions are mandatory, saving some number of four year olds from their criminally stupid parents at no real cost to liberties. Fine by me. But the March certainly won't be what makes that happen--it's the polls that will do that.
I'm all in favor of saving some four year olds, and if a bunch of afternoon TV addicts also get to see Rosie in person in large enough numbers to create a media event--well, good for them. They'll all move on.
Jack thinks the harm is in the approach, the tone. I think the tone is necessary to the audience, and that's what I was commenting on.
People don't go out of their way to get involved in a political event of this sort without being motivated on the issue.
Nonsense--these media events attract all sorts of celebrity worshippers. That being said, it is the depth of the motivation that is at issue, not the fact that they are true believers at this particular point in time.
I am always dismissive of the element in our society that gets all worked up about something and then moves on. Unless you wish to deny this element plays a big part in US political and social development, I think we're only debating whether or not this particular March is an example of it or not. I think the media play and the tone (which is what began this conversation) supports my contention, without even referencing history.
Quite true.
But events like the March help build the polls. It also will result in at least some (and based on the extraordinary determination shown by a large number of those who were signing up for this or that or both) of the people who attended becoming more actively involved. Which in turn will help on some of the key pinpoint issues - making sure that our wonderful members of Congress get the message loud and clear both on a general level but also in terms of ever increasing and vocal awareness by their own constituents. This is how the political process will grow and become increasingly effective.
"Implicit in this argument is recognition that the saturation of society with weapons makes the concept of confiscation unlikely. "
The saturation makes it a logistical impossibility that the government could confiscate all firearms. The government could certainly make it illegal to own certain types of firearms, such as all handguns. I could forsee a 5-4 Supreme Court majority saying that handguns were not used by the militia, therefore they aren't covered by the Second Amendment. I don't buy that reasoning myself, but it could happen.
Anyway, let's suppose that there was mandatory registration of handguns. Then, later, the government made it illegal to own a handgun. Obviously, if the govenment has a list of registered handgun owners, those are the ones that will be confiscated first. And who would be the people that registered their handguns? People who used to be law abiding citizens.
Does this scenario really sound so unrealistic, Jack?
You're wrong. Most of the attendees at the MMM were just these sort of people.
"....and want to be one with Rosie O'Donnell."
Again, you are quite wrong. You're attributing motives to attendees that are much more applicable to those who organize these events. They try to cast a wide, wide net so that they can pull in as many folks as they can to swell the numbers.
Rabid Rosie O'Donnell fans and the grief mongers, as you put it, were in the minority. I know you and Jack V don't want to believe that - the truth doesn't offer a target so tempting to mock, but nevertheless.
Really, your assumptions are lazy. The majority of the attendees at the Million Man March weren't black separatists who follow Louis F. slavishly, the majority of Promise Keepers at the DC event aren't wife beaters....
No. Only outlaw states will.
The women (all mothers, by the way)I know who are concerned about gun violence were not cajoled into their views by appeals from Rosie O'Donnel. Instead, they are typically uninvolved in politics. In the case of my sisters and friends in this area who are growing inceasingly supportive of gun control measures, the concern about gun violence came before the MMM. In fact, they are much more of a grass roots movement looking for an outlet than dupes for organizers looking for a crowd.
None of them voices support for gun confiscation. Hell, they may not even have any specific recommendations in mind. But they are motivated to ensure that the only voice their representatives hear on the issue of guns isn't the NRA and that the support of the NRA in their elections will cost them more votes than it can deliver.
Finally, to listen to Jack these past few days, you would think that the MMM was featuring snuff pics full of gore. That's not the case -- these were simply photos of the people who's death left holes in the lives of their family, friends and community. Why Jack thinks it's so such a travesty to show the school picture of a child who was later killed by a buddy playing with a gun they found is beyond me, despite his comparisons to showing fetuses in a jar. My guess about his objections is that those tactics are so effective.
Incidentally, I don't think that comparing the manner in which people tend to handle their grief when a loved one dies of, say, cancer or alzheimers to the outrage/futility/anger/desire to change society that comes with having a child or a husband or whomever senselessly shot to death.
As I just said, you (and Ad) disagree (and disapprove) of my characterization of the March. You want to believe that it's a sign that true change is coming, I think it's just one more cause du jour that gets out the masses. History is on my side. Ask yourself this--what percentage of March attendees do you think were registered voters?
I doubt we disagree on the outcome--I've already said that there are far too many people who think that trigger locks would have stopped Columbine to try to argue reality. And since some mandatory safety requirements will make the world safer for the children of idiots, I don't really object to the fact that the "solution" won't fix the perceived "problem".
Hahahahahaha. But events like the March bring out the wannabees and dilettantes!
Proving my point, thanks.
You seem under the impression that I think lobbying activities to be "inappropriate". As a result, the entire premise of your question is unfounded, which is why I didn't answer it the first time.
I enjoy the discussion, and I recognize that many have strong feelings, but let's not overreach. I have given a compendium of actions that, to my mind, grotesquely blend the emotional with the political.
With regards to the march, however, the items I cited were the images of children killed by guns and rhetoric such as the following:
"Mothers, we have shed tears for our children," Patricia Anderson of Albuquerque, N.M., whose son was a victim of gun violence and survived, told the crowd. "Let's make our tears a raging river of votes to get our legislators out of office if they do not want stricter gun controls."
I did not depict the march as "featuring snuff pics full of gore." I did ask whether such more extreme imagery would be offensive, given the acceptance of a lesser level by many. I never received a response.
And your impugning of my motives is lazy. I have taken great pains to identify those who have crossed the line, to my mind, regarding use of the emotional in the political, and that identification has been inclusive, from McCain to Bush Sr. to Gore to Waxman. You may not agree with my sentiments, but I support various forms of gun control, many of which were heralded at the march.
It is the manner that offends, not the goal.
There also were some spot "polling" efforts done during the course of the day. Using conservative projections, there were extraordinarily large numbers of professionals/college grads/habitual voters in attendance.
I did try to make that point about your argument several times, you know.
What is your point? I'm happy if a lot of people who went are registered voters--but let's face it, the lines could have been around the block and not scratched the surface.
Other than that, I've already readily agreed that it was an upscale crowd--as I said, who else determines the cause of the day if it isn't these folks?
Just what do you think an appropriate "manner" would have been?
CalGal. Do you really believe that building public awareness through things like the MMM with one objective being to build positive public opinion for certain legislative objectives is somehow...wrong? inappropriate? OK, so you now say you don't disapprove of all lobbying - just large scale organized efforts? I repeat because I really would like to know in an effort to try to understand where you are coming from on this topic - just what issues if any would you feel compelling enough to become actively involved in a political process which involved, say, even slightly organized lobbying efforts.
This movement is not going to be just the flavor of the week or yesterday's beanie babies or whatever those ugly little dolls were. It is here to stay.
You are being dim. You cannot separate the goal (gun control) and revulsion of the manner in getting to that goal (transforming tears and blood into a raging river of votes). It appears too much for you to handle.
"Just what do you think an appropriate "manner" would have been?"
You don't answer questions. When you start to answer them, I'll be glad to maintain the dialogue.
And your impugning of my motives is lazy. Fair enough. I apologize.
What I have a hard time getting past is my perception that all of politics is emotional -- policy analysis is dispassionate, but doesn't sway voters. I myself would prefer if government action were more often based on empirical evidence, analysis and the like. But the fact is that if the legislature has a choice between voting based on options laid out dispassionately with charts and tables or voting based on emotional appeals from people the legislator and the public can identify with, which do you think is going to be more persuasive?
jake quoted this as an example of the "manner" of the MMM which he found so offensive.
Incredible. He's not a purist. He's an absurdist. When it comes to the political process, that is.
I see your point. Indeed, I expressly agreed with janjon that the emotional tug, more and more grotesque as times goes on (at least, to me), will be the wave of the political future.
And as I said yesterday when setting forth my compendium, it is not an exact science. My condemnation of the practice essentially rests on debasing the public discourse by making those who disagree with you people with blood on their hands (MADD, MMM, Clinton to the NRA, LaPierre back to Clinton). I am also concerned about the using of the grief-stricken or infirm (Brady, Waxman) or the abusing of one's own tragedies for public consumption (Bush Sr., Gore, McCain).
You've effectively whittled your discourse to the petty jabs of a very small dog. If you've got nothing else to offer, go bother JJ.
Just what question is it that I didn't answer? It must have been a really significant one if a lack of response would cause you to say you won't play any more. What rubbish.
Yes, good man. Rubbish. Poppycock. Tomfoolery.
Now that we've determined my diversionary tactics ("Look! Over there! Poppycock!") and your gasbaggery, let's call it a day.
The last word is yours, good man.
Just how would YOU see the anti-gun violence movement from proceeding to try to achieve its goals? Be realistic.
No. I do become more than a tad skeptical when people like you change your opinion about the organization based on the definition of "certain legislative objectives", though. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that your sentence, as written, applies to the NRA just as surely as it does to HandGun Control of America.
As with earlier gun control proposals, then, we are left wondering what the real goal is. Gun owners who see registration and licensing as a prelude to confiscation are not paranoid; they are simply trying to make sense out of an agenda that otherwise seems irrational.
Nor does it help that the advocates of "sensible gun laws" see the Constitution as nothing more than an annoying obstacle. To the concerns of those who defend the right to keep and bear arms, their response is uncomprehending impatience: "Enough is enough."
Sound familiar? It’s the voice of a mother who has given up on persuasion.
As for the constitutional issues, I for one would love to see them addressed by the Supreme Court.
Color me shocked.
No, gun registration should NOT be comparable to cars
It doesn't stop gun control advocates from using it anyway.
And, of course, the same old slippery slope arguments about confiscation. The people who make such arguments may not be paranoid but they play to that feeling.
It isn't the slippery slope. It is attempt to make sense of a fundamentally irrational argument. Gun control advocates cry about the evils of guns and then propose measures that will have no effect on the situation they are crying about. If we assume that they are not irrational or complete idiots, we have to assume they are planning something beyond what they are telling us. Since registration will not prevent gun violence (their stated objective), it must be for some purpose. The only way registration can possibly have an impact on gun violence is if it is used to confiscate guns. This still won't have the effect gun control advocates believe, but it is obviously where they are heading.
If this isn't the ultimate plan, they are either hysterical or idiotic, and I don't believe that is the case.
I've said this before, but for clarity purposes I'll rephrase it again: The 3 day period would be applicable ONLY for people who fail the Instant Check. In other words, people who may indeed have criminal records or mental health issues, etc. People who pass the Instant Check would be able to pay and take on the spot.
In other words, the whole idea of the 3 day wait is indeed intended to help keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records, etc. - the types that even our friends from the NRA say that they don't want having guns.
OK, if that's really all there is to that, then I don't have any objection to it, personally.
Jonesy Message # 11091:
In fact, possession of a nuclear bomb is a lower offense level than 1.5 or more keys of cocaine base.
Kinda tells you what addressing a specific problem in an irrational manner gets you, doesn't it? Maybe it's just me, but I see a great many parallels between the War on Some Drugs and the gun control effort. Both things are motivated by the actions of idiots and criminals, the 1% that are either malevolent or clueless. This doesn't mean "do nothing", but I reject the hand-wringing approach to problem-solving. It always ends up screwing over perfectly harmless people, in its earnestness.
"Mothers, we have shed tears for our children," Patricia Anderson of Albuquerque, N.M., whose son was a victim of gun violence and survived, told the crowd. "Let's make our tears a raging river of votes to get our legislators out of office if they do not want stricter gun controls."
Oh, by all means, let's. People in the midst of grief can always be counted on to think logically and rationally. Jesus Christ. This is the kind of thing I was talking about the other day, that is a perfect example of someone conflating venting with political change.
Whaddaya wanna bet that Ms. Anderson's son was shot by his best friend, screwing around with a loaded gun that he didn't know how to use in the first place? Even if not, there were plenty there that were. And they've got the wrong end of the stick, quite simply. No amount of legislation will replace common-freakin'-sense. Don't know how to use a gun? Then don't fuck around with them.
Vandelay is right --the few good points of the march got lost in all the touchy-feely Oprah-ization "you go girl" mode of testifying. At least that's what got covered the most, and that does not equate to a political sea change. It's just politicizing person
