| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/7/19 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes] UID:38697 Activity:low |
7/19 To get from SF to Fresno (Sequoia Nat Park) is it better to take
580/5 and get on 99 near Modesto or the southern route taking 152
though Los Banos to 99? I assume taking 5 all the way to Los Banos
doesnt make sense. n.b. Not travelling during rush hour and the
drivers are speed limit drivers, so it's not worth driving extra
distance on 5 with the assumption you will drive 100mph]. ok tnx.
\_ Hmm, I thought I was the only one that drives at speed limits on
freeways.
\_ A lot does depend on the time of day. 99 gets is a major highway
that gets a lot of local/truck traffic. Expect small traffic jams
during the usual times. Plus 99 is rougher, goes through more
towns, and the number of people following the speed limit varies.
5/152/99 has more truck traffic, fewer jams but the occasional farm
equipment slowdowns on 152, and is less scenic (not by much though).
On both routes, drivers are happy to pass you by with out cursing
you out.
\_ A lot does depend on the time of day. 99 is a highway with a lot
of local/truck traffic. Expect small traffic jams during the usual
times. Plus 99 is rougher, goes through more towns, and the number
of people following the speed limit varies. 5/152/99 has more truck
traffic, fewer jams but the occasional farm equipment slowdowns on
152, and is less scenic (not by much though). On both routes,
drivers are happy to pass you by with out cursing you out. |
| 2005/7/19 [Recreation/Pets] UID:38699 Activity:nil |
7/19 Birds learn to imitate cell phone ring tones:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_1434263,00180021.htm
\_ I've heard mockingbirds around here doing the whole
four-tone car alarm. -tom |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38700 Activity:kinda low |
7/19 "My answer hasn't changed in 24 hours" seems like Bush
is starting to realize no one trusts him anymore.
\_ I'm glad you learned nothing from 2004 Election.
\_ What did he not learn? Are you the "there's only room for one
party in America" guy?
\_ The lesson is that it doesn't matter how corrupt, dishonest
or dangerous the ruling party is because God wants Bush
to rule, so get used to it.
\_ No, it's that dumbasses like you aren't worth the time.
If you want to talk rationally we can do that, but it's
become increasingly difficult to talk to anyone who's
rational.
\_ Heh. -- ilyas
\_ I wonder if he will see the error in his sentence,
although he speaks more truth than he realizes.
\_ Oh, I'm responding to vitriol with vitriol. I
know what I wrote and the potential irony.
\_ Acknowledging your stupidity doesn't make
you any less stupid or any less a part of
the problem. You seem to be missing this. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38701 Activity:high |
7/19 Iraqi Prime Minister praises the late Ayotollah Khomeini:
http://csua.org/u/crd (Tehran Times)
Also lays wreath on Khomeini's grave:
http://csua.org/u/cre (Gulf Times)
\_ This is surprising because?? Do you even know the results of
the last 'election' there?
\_ I just think that it's ironic. The Iraqi government we are
propping up as a "model of democracy" is praising the guy that
engineered the 1979 hostage crisis.
\_ Betcha you didn't think it was ironic we were protecting
Shias in the south and north under Klinton.
\_ Nice red herring.
\_ Splitting up Iraq into Shiiteland, Sunniland,
and Kurdland might be a good idea. - danh
\_ How about Future Land and Frontier Land too? And signs
that say "You have to be this tall to..."?
\_ It is, in a way, but you might want to look up "Mohammed
Mossadegh", "Kermit Roosevelt" and "Reza Pahlavi" to get a bit
of insight into why things worked out the way they did, and
why certain people feel about certain other people in certain
ways. -John
\_ You mean the US engineered coup that installed the Shah.
Yes, that's an additional layer of irony.
\_ You can thank Eisenhower for that ... Kissing the
Brit's ass.
\_ Uhhhhh. No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
\_ Uhhhhh. Yes. Eisenhower was Prez, and the
British got us to overthrow the government
because they were going to lose their
insanely profitable oil monopoly in Iran.
\_ You have a poor understanding of history.
What part of "anti-Communist" do you
not understand?
\_ you guys still don't get it.. still blind by our wrong
decisions in the past. Despite Khomeini, Shia is not the
problem. The problem lies extreme militant arm of Sunnis,
which the epic center is in *SAUDI ARABIA*. If you guys
have the slightest knowledge of what Saudi is teaching
to their children, you guys would agree with me that
to fight terrorism, you have to deal with SAUDI ARABIA,
not secular government such as Hussien's Iraq!
\_ It's militant Sunnis and Shias. The Shia side of it just
happens to have originated around a single issue (Israel
and US/Western support for Israel). Iran supports or has
supported Hamas and Hezbollah, I'm not sure about Islamic
Jihad. They've at the very least actively encouraged the
Badr Brigades and SCIRI. -John
\_ Billmon has a funny photoshop related to this:
http://billmon.org/archives/002030.html |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:38702 Activity:low |
7/19 Our next Supreme Court justice better not be a retard.
Sandra Day graduated 3rd out of 102 from Stanfraud, I mean, Stanfurd
Law, and in two years.
\_ Why? Kerry only averaged a C at Yale, and most here thought he
was presidential material.
\_ Wow. Yer dumb.
\_ Yeah, Dubya did worse at Yale (on average and trend-wise), and
look at his Presidency! Leadership!
\_ "Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first
three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a
non-numerical rating system during his senior year...
[Kerry] got a cumulative 76 for his four years... Like
Kerry, Bush reportedly suffered through a difficult freshman
year and then pulled his grades up."
http://csua.org/u/chg
\_ neither Kerry and Bush were anywhere close to Bill
\_ Neither Kerry nor Bush were anywhere close to Bill
Clinton. Bush just *looks* like a total moron when
speaking -- it's a carefully honed act ... Not to say
he's a genius or anything, but he's nowhere near stupid.
he's a genius, but he's nowhere near stupid. He knows
what he's doing which makes it yet scarier sometimes.
\_ Both Kerry and Bush would be among the duller lights
among aquaintances of folks on soda. However, claiming
that Dubya did worse at Yale was factually incorrect.
\_ You're talking to the wrong guy. "Okay, you got me"
is the same guy that said "Dubya did worse"
\_ Okay, you got me. Dubya did a little better or the same
than Kerry (depending on how you view 1 point and 3 years
numerical grading Dubya versus 4 years Kerry), but Kerry
did have the better trend owing to being Mr. Distinction
in his freshman year (4 D's out of 10 classes).
\_ Since you insist on arguing the point, taking into
acount that both Kerry and Bush trended upwards, Kerry's
score was certainly less than 76 after 3 years, and Bush
would have gotten a higher score than 77 after 4 years
had he received a numeric score for his last year.
So the delta between them at the end of both year 3 and
4 would have been greater than 1 point. Meaningful?
No. Correcting a logical error? Yes.
\_ Huh, what are you talking about? I'm agreeing with
you: "Dubya did a little better or the same than
Kerry".
\_ "depending on how you view 1 point and 3 years
numerical grading Dubya versus 3 years Kerry)"
\_ Yes, but the key is that I acknowledge that
Kerry did not do better than Dubya.
\_ Gates dropped out of college.
\_ So did psb.
\_ it doesn't take a genius to vote no to abortions. any monkey can.
\_ Rehnquist was #1
\_ Class rank means nothing. Chief Justice John Marshall only had
6 weeks of legal education but most jurists consider him one of
(if not the) greatest men to ever sit on the Court. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38703 Activity:high |
7/19 Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
\_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
tonight at 9pm EDT!
\_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
sensitive and confidential.
\_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
be fired? Look! Over there! A supreme court nomination!
\_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
(was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
should be fired"?
\_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
\_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
wife the CIA agent" to him.
\_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
\_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
investigating this.
\_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
\_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
believe R. Kelly is guilty.
\_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
legally guilty. I am a fan of fairness and
logic, and I try to point out claims that are
unsupported by fact. -pp
\_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
would you accept that?
\_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180? What is
he hiding?
\_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
\_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
\_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
"a plausible theory".
I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
collect on any bets.
\_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
but really isn't.
\_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
probably shouldn't be disclosed to
unauthorized individuals".
\_ If you mean "classified", which has a
clear legal definition, use that. It
sounds like you're trying to carve out
a category of information that occupies
the space between legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Actually, I'm just using the words
in the article. I'd be hesitant
to bet on "classified" though.
To a layperson, "sensitive and
probably shouldn't be disclosed
to unauthorized individuals" has a
very clear meaning -- and I could
bet on that.
\_ Bush I probably thought the fact
that he didn't like brocoli was
"sensitive" and shouldn't be
disclosed to the public. And I
will repeat my claim that you are
trying to carve out a space between
what is legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Yes I am carving out a space
between what is legal and
illegal, but what is my
purpose in doing that?
It is what I would be willing
to "bet" on, rather than
legal criteria for putting
him in jail.
\_ I think it's because you
suspect Rove won't be found
legally guilty but you're
not willing to let him off
the hook, so you're trying
to invent a standard whereby
he is guilty even when he
is not.
\_ /Everyone/ suspects that
Rove won't be found
legally guilty.
Listen, all I wrote was
that I would put money on
the fact that Rove and
Libby knew Plame's
identity was sensitive and
probably shouldn't be
disclosed to unauthorized
individuals. I also
acknowledge that Rove
probably won't be
convicted. I also
acknowledge that the terms
I would bet on probably
don't meet the legal
requirements for
conviction.
So what's the big whoop?
\_ Nothing at all. But I
am encouraged to see
you admit that Rove's
action "probably don't
meet the legal
requirements for
conviction."
\_ "Admit" is not the
right word.
I always had the
distinction between
what I wrote and
legal requirements
in mind, and I
don't see how
I implied I wasn't
aware of the
distinction.
For legal purposes, "classified" has
a very clear meaning as you pointed
out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
Libby knowing it was "classified".
I'm definitely not betting on whether
Rove will be convicted or not, but
the smart money of course would be
on no conviction.
\_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
ultimately exonerates Rove, would
you accept that?
\_ If by exonerate you mean "not
convicted of breaking the law",
I'm not sure I would be happy.
If by exonerate you mean
convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, then I would
accept that.
But what I said above is all
very obvious, I think.
\_ Does "not sure I would be
happy" mean that you do not
accept Rove was innocent,
despite Fitzgerald to the
contrary?
\_ Look, O.J. was found "not
guilty" / "innocent" of
killing his wife.
Do you accept that?
\_ BTW, I take it that
you will not accept
Fitzgerald's conclusion
if it is counter to
your position. Who has
the closed mind here?
\_ How do you translate
"I may not be
happy" to I "will
not accept F.'s
conclusion if it
is counter to [my]
position"?
\_ I asked the
question, and I
took your silence
as acquiescence.
Mea culpa. Will
you accept Rove's
exoneration?
\_ See oddly
shaped
post [below].
\_ Nope. But then I am
not trying to invent
a standard by which
OJ could be punished
despite his legal
innocence.
\_ Where did I EVER
say Rove should
be punished under
my criteria?
\_ So if Rove were
exonerated, you
would not clamor
for his removal?
/--------------------------------------------/
If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, I would accept that.
\_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald? So you're still
saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
want to see him removed? And that is not "punished despit
his legal innocence" in what sense?
\_ What does convicingly mean when used without
qualifiers? It means convincing to an informed observer
who can be persuaded both ways.
This thread has deviated way off course.
You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
as being factually true (but probably never practically
verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
my political beliefs.
Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
UNENDINGLY.
\_ I think your politics are abundantly clear. The
question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
if he is found legally innocent?
\_ It depends on who you ask.
I'm too tired to answer myself.
\_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again? If
you've made up your mind, admit that. Being
intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
having a closed mind.
\_ Oh god, I've been trolled. Fuck you troller.
If you were an innocent motd poster, I
apologize.
\_ Hardly. You have been shown to be a
charlatan though.
\_ <roll eyes>
Who are you dude?
I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
\_ But apparently you're not willing
to answer the question whether Rove
should be punished depite his legal
innocence, but that might cause you
to contradict yourself again.
\_ I would like to know that I am
not being trolled. Please
identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
\_ Heh. Show a little
intellectual honesty. It's
not like we'd be surprised by
your answer.
\_ Okay, anonymous dude:
You see contradictions
where I do not.
You see intellectual
dishonesty where I do not.
Your jump to these two
claims are indicative of a
troll, though not proof.
You've been called out, and
you have not come out to
back up what you've
written. -jctwu
\_ Re "sensitive": carve
out space between legal
and illegal? "Actually,
I am just using the
words in the article".
Well, later, "I am
carving out a space"
after all.
\_ Both facts are
true at the same time
\_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
\_ same to you,
buddy
Will you accept F's
judgement? "How do you
translate [not happy] to
[will not accept]?"
As it turns out, you
want Rove to be
convincingly ethical.
To whom? F? Well, not
F after all, but an
informed observer. So
you don't accept F's
judgement. How about
\_ This is a jump in
logic
punishing Rove? "Where
did I EVER say Rove
should be punished
under my criteria?" So
would clamor for his
removal? Or are you
going to contradict
yourself again?
\_ Non-sophisticated:
What are you talking about?
Faux sophistication / aloofness:
"Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
meaning but for some reason really isn't
here.
\_ troll! or coward!
one or both may
be true. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38704 Activity:nil |
7/19 Iraqi blogger kidnapped by mukhabarat (new Iraqi secret police):
http://csua.org/u/cr8 (raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com)
\_ Oh no.. secret police. |
| 2005/7/19 [Computer/SW/Editors/Vi] UID:38705 Activity:high |
7/19 Wow, apparently I've made 249 posts today. -tse
\_ kchang is trying to lower the bar for the term 'heuristic.'
\_ I keep an editor open on motd.public, and I periodically
reload and save when I do not overwrite. Ah, the magic of
scripting.
\_ I copy the motd to read it and kchang thinks I'm
making posts.
\_ Hm, according to the log, it says:
tse vi 58050 7 / 62 -rw-rw-rw- 36564 r /etc/motd.public
tse vi 2184 3 / 62 -rw-rw-rw- 34298 r /etc/motd.public
... so on and so forth ...
So, I don't know what you're doing, but the log says
you "vi /etc/motd.public", WITH LOCK. -kchang
\_ Yep. I reload and save without overwriting in a
script. Why? If I own all the updates, then I own
none of the updates. |
| 2005/7/19 [Computer/Theory, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:38706 Activity:nil |
7/19 For the betting types below: You could always use some sort of
formulation of the bet that would result in a yes/no:
eg: Rove is indicted by 12/31/2005, or
Grand Jury evidence shows 1 witness reporting Rove "handled"
the memo.
\_ You mean something like this? http://csua.org/u/crr
\_ error page
\_ Fixed |
| 2005/7/19 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:38707 Activity:low |
7/19 My boss has a bunch of money for techinical books he needs to get
spend. Any suggestions on what I should get?
\_ Duh, what field is your dept in?
\_ Actually, it should be something OUTSIDE my field. (That's
how the money is budgeted) Some Topics:
Linux Kernel Hacking
MPI programming
Advanced Threaded Programming
Software engineering
\_ Design Patterns
\_ Driving J2EE and SOAP CORBA for B2B and B2C success in
XML RSS!!!
\_ The Art Of Computer Programming |
| 2005/7/19 [Uncategorized] UID:38708 Activity:low |
7/19 Ouch. http://csua.org/u/cro [SFW] \_ Er, why motd this? I mean, yuck. For everyone else, it's a story on a guy who had a grotesque accident leading to being maimed and blinded. \_ Fear the danh! Fear! \_ As I recall, danh uses tinyurl, not http://csua.org. \_ And he usually signs his url posts as well. Besides, this is way sub-par to danh's standards. \_ It's a CT for crying out loud. danh would have posted a color photo. |
| 2005/7/19-20 [Finance/Banking] UID:38709 Activity:low |
7/19 I just applied to Citibank and got a card last week. Today someone
from Citibank called and asked to verify some information, like
my address, then the SSN. I didn't feel comfortable giving out
my SSN esp. when I wasn't sure who was calling, so I asked her to
give me Citibank's number. I called Citibank back, and they said
they NEVER call you unless something's wrong with the card, and
in fact they checked their call log and they didn't call this
morning. What is going on?
\_ The fact that they're (assuming it's them) asking for your SSN
is fucking stupid. I don't believe it's legal to require it for
any services, I could be mistaken. -John
\_ Citibanks calls me all the bloody time for satisfaction surveys
and for new product sales. When I'd call, I get different answers
to questions all the time.
\_ You were smart not giving out the SSN when the other party
initiated the call. But were you calling the number she gave you
thinking that it was a legitimate Citibank number?
\_ The caller this morning gave me a legit Citibank number when
I requested for it but when I called the legit number they
said they NEVER call me to get these information. If it's
fake, then I don't understand how these people know I just
got a Citibank card.
\_ They dived into your mailbox? Or, the called didn't actually
know, and she was just calling random numbers in the
phonebook. If you didn't happen to have a Citibank card, she
would just say it was a computer glitch. Anyway, if she was
fake, she was stupid to give you a legit number.
\_ I once had the following conversation:
"Hi, I'm calling from [company], we just want to confirm
your address."
"Ok"
[pause] "Um, I'm ready when you are Sir."
"No no, you tell me what my address is, I'll tell you if you're
right."
"... I uh... don't have your address."
"That's right. You don't." [click]
So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if someone was trying to
scam you. Good call in not giving out the info. -bz |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38710 Activity:nil |
7/19 Biased source, but Rove may not have told the FBI about Matt Cooper
at all in 2003:
http://csua.org/u/crt (prospect.org) |
| 2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38711 Activity:low |
6/19 What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent
(wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion
that isn't shared by the majority of other justices?
\- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but
1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents.
one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter",
see e.g. Dissent in Lochner.
Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single
dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases
contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history"
title? [that was HARLAN].
\_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter
in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d.
\- i picked PLESSY because the lone dissent is a
little more dramatic, although yeah, in terms
of the actual holding DRED SCOTT is worse.
2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there
isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might
image are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
std such examples:
POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed
an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts
I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in
Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL,
J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402,
filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and
REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408.
\- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that
current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively
hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends
up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA
cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the
law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to
strike down the UG AA system].
\_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which
established that a voluntary act was required
under the constitution for criminal punishment
but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not. |
| 2005/7/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38712 Activity:moderate |
6/19 http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956 Supreme Court choice John C. Roberts Jr. reported by multiple sources is sharp, but will probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I say there should be no filibuster attempt. -liberal/moderate \_ Roe v. Wade *should* be overturned. And then (or even prior) congress should pass laws about privacy, etc. \_ If you're a strict constructionist, then you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. On the other hand, if you're Sandra Day, you would uphold it. Which is more valid? You got me. \_ The magic number is 50. Assuming everything equal, he'll be around for the next 30-odd years. \_ When a Democrat is President, he or she can also nominate a sharp 50-year-old with little in judicial opinions written down but believed to be as liberal as you can get, but also one who has stated that they support being impartial over being predictable. \_ Only if someone on SCOTUS dies or retires during his presidency. Cf. Clinton. \_ "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." \_ I also read an article today that said he was speaking for a client, and not from his personal view, when advocating for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. \_ Does it mean anything that he's a Harvard man? \- no. HLS is one of the largest law schools in the country. who he clerked for might mean more ... what ever that means. half the sup ct went to harvard. \_ He clerked for Sith Lord Rheinquist. \_ Of course it means something. You are naive. It even means more that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. It is not a coincidence that half the supreme court and 10% of Congress went to HLS. Seven US Presidents are Harvard grads. This is how the upper class perpetuates itself. \_ Souter graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, and also graduated Harvard Law. Appointed by Bush I in 1990. Scalia is also a Harvard Law grad, as well as Breyer and Kennedy. \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38713 Activity:nil |
7/19 Rove _should_ be punished even if he is legally found innocent,
because what he did was unethical, foolish, and dangerous. If he
didn't know better, he should have. Bush came into office saying
he would restore integrity. He has an opportunity to do this by
firing Rove. He hasn't. He's backed further and further from his
"I will fire anyone involved" because he knows it was a definitive
statement. He's hoping for people not to notice.
This is on par with the house eviscerating its ethics committee and
rescinding the "get indicted, lose your leadership position" rules.
Once upon a time the bar was "appearance of impropriety" but that's
apparently too hard these days.
In short, as soon as his lawyer said "by the way, yeah he did tell
her name to these guys" his desk should have been packed and his
WH badge pulled. Anything less is pure hypocrisy. --scotsman
\_ well said. -nivra
\_ Ok, I haven't been following this very carefully, does someone want
to summarize what was found for me? -- ilyas
\_ I'm speaking to the thread below. All this discussion is moot
until Fitzgerald reports. But the WH's statements that "anyone
involved would be fired" should have been honored.
\_ What if Rove was actually innocent (in the ethical sense as well as
the legal sense)? How do we decide if he were ethically innocent?
\_ I'm tempted to say "doesn't matter". The president said he
would fire him. He hasn't. If Rove was ethically pure, then
in terms of being entrusted with any sort of security clearance
he was utterly incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
Actually, strike all of the above. Do you know just how FUCKING
STUPID you sound?
\_ Why? Because I'm still waiting for all the evidence to come
out before I pass judgement?
\_ unethical how? If he didn't know she was covert (or she wasn't even
covert) how is that unethical?
foolish how?
dangerous how?
\_ eg. "I come across the information that X works at the CIA. Prior
to revealing this information, it might behoove me to check _if_
X's status is sensitive information." The Jun 10 memo shows that
Plame's status was sensitive. Given your conditional, Rove
apparently had been too _foolish_ to check. This type of
foolishness from an official privy to sensitive information is
dangerous.
\_ Oh give me a fucking break. It's dangerous for the president
of the United States to lie under oath. Why weren't you
calling for Clinton's head? -- ilyas
\_ Actually, I didn't support Clinton over the perjury charge.
I presume you or the op were calling for Clinton's head.
If so, why aren't you calling for Rove's head? Revealing
the status of non official cover CIA assets is at least
as dangerous as the Clenis.
\_ The above wasn't me, but for me it's the same reason that
R's joined D's in voting not to remove him: because the
case brought wasn't weighty enough to warrant his removal.
(Okay, yes it's silly for me to suggest i know the
senators' reasoning) --scotsman
\_ So let me get this straight. If Rove didn't do anything
legally wrong, he should still resign because he did
something 'unethical.' Clinton, on the other hand,
despite not getting nailed on legal grounds, should
nevertheless have stayed despite doin something
clearly 'unethical.'
\_ No, Ilya. Rove should resign or be fired because
the President said that's what would happen. Clinton
isn't President right now, btw.
\_ I don't know how you managed to shout over my
response without waiting for me to finish,
_ON THE FUCKING MOTD_ but you did it. Thanks for
pointing out Clinton isn't president now. I rely
on hard working folks like you to keep me up to date
on world events. You started your first post
talking about Rove doing something unethical and
foolish. If you want to rag on Bush for not
following through on what you think Bush said,
that's fine, but if you want to rag on _Rove_, you
will have to explain why leaving Billy alone with
his foolishness and lack of ethics was ok. -- ilyas
\_ heh. you saved half your response (ending at
the second sentence), which Ben responded to
while you were constructing your last sentence.
He had no idea you were formulating a 3rd
sentence. -nivra
\_ The purpose for his revealing this information to
the public is to discredit a 3rd party, and advance an agenda.
That is unethical.
\_ Not necessarily. Wilson still insists that his wife had
nothing to do with getting the trip, when she was the one who
recommended him. Wilson looks pretty dirty to me.
\_ Every time you bring this up it sounds dumber and dumber.
You're FUD slinging. Wilson has been a diplomat for
us for decades, has served in Iraq and African countries.
It doesn't matter that his wife may have recommended him.
You're asking us to believe that he and his wife, along
with the CIA, conspired to get sent over there just so he
could prove Bush wrong a couple years down the line. You
need help.
\_ No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Rove
was trying to discredit Wilson. I don't think that Rove
offered a compelling reason ("don't believe him, he just
got the job because his wife recommended him"). And yet
he denies that she recommended him, even though the
Senate intelligence committee has a memo in her
handwriting recommending him.
\_ And to discredit him, he simply _had_ to reveal
a CIA agent's identity...
\_ danh's link says that this memo was a formality and
CIA folks are pretty pissed this memo is being
twisted. Anyways, go back to what the other guy was
saying about it not mattering even if Plame
recommended Wilson. |
| 2005/7/19-20 [Uncategorized] UID:38714 Activity:nil |
7/19 I don't suppose anyone is planning to go to the Aquabats show
tonight at Slims? -jrleek |
| 2005/7/19-22 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:38718 Activity:low 80%like:38735 |
6/19 Firefox 1.0.6 is out:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/1.0.6.html
\_ Yay, Firefox is turning out to be just as broken and bug-ridden
as IE! Woo!
\_ Err.. that seems like a bit of an overstatement.
\_ Is it? Six major patches in as many months, correct?
\_ IE still runs ActiveX.
\_ Have you done any significant programming?
You ought to know how damn hard it is to get all
the bugs (esp. security) out. The FF team is doing
a very good job considering that for many of them
it is not a paying job.
\_ I think the PP was referring to the fact that so many
security holes existed in the first place (rather than
how fast/slow they were fixed), which means Fx was not
more secure than IE after all. (I understand that 1.0.6
is not about security fixes.)
\_ 1.0.x vs 1.0.y is a "major patch"? I don't think so.
\_ Hi guys, when upgrading Firefox for your Windoze clients, do you
just install over the old Firefox, or do you manually uninstall
it and manually delete the leftover C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox
directory like the official download site recommends?
\_ I don't know about broken and bug-ridden, but IE's update
process is much easier than Firefox's. I hate updating my
notebook, my desktop, my girlfriend's notebook/desktop, my
mom's desktop, etc., etc. ... ob yermom joke
\_ When upgrading Firefox for your Windoze clients, do you
just install over the old Firefox; or do you uninstall Firefox
first, then manually delete the leftover C:\Program Files\Mozilla
Firefox directory like the official download site recommends?
\_ What I do for every upgrade is: exit Fx and all other apps, start
Fx, Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Clear All, exit Fx, uninstall
Fx from Control Panel, reboot, delete "C:\Program Files\Mozilla
Firefox", install new Fx.
Firefox", install new Fx. Actually, now that I've learned about
the profile folder, I'll also delete that from now on.
\_ Related question: How do I uninstall all the extensions and
themes when I uninstall Firefox?
\_ Probably Tools -> Extensions -> Uninstall, before you
uninstall Firefox. I don't know, I always though not
uninstalling them was a feature. I do have to re-install
Macromedia Flash every time though. |
| 2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38719 Activity:kinda low |
6/19 Re: "strict constructionist" below. I can't see how anyone would want
a SCOTUS judge to not be strict constructionist. If they follow the
document then we don't get wonky rulings like the expansion of eminent
domain and the excuse of interstate commerce to trample on states'
rights. Furthermore, it means we the people change the consitution
through elected officials (many of them have to act together) rather
than 9 or so appointed judges. So, if you disagree with the strict
constructionist philosophy, please argue your case. I really don't see
the other side of it and I'd like to change that. -emarkp
\- "strict constructionist" or "fundamental fairness" and other such
terms are can get universal agreement but they mean different
things to different people. to take a geek turn, two people can
think 'object oriented programming' is good and mean different
things by it. a judicial philosophy is more than two words long ...
and isnt even a list of "two words phrases" ... "i believe in
'original intent' and 'strict constructionism' and 'stare decisis'
and the 'plain meaning' of the constitution."
see e.g. Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial Process.
\_ Let me preface my comments by saying that Justices ought to
primarily interpret the law not create it. However, in some
cases they need to be flexible enough to mold the law into a
particular direction that is favorable for society as a whole.
\_ I see this as a problem. Who decides what's faborable for
society as a whole? Society should. And we should do it through
constitutional amendments if necessary, or by state and federal
legislature if not. -emarkp
\_ The judiciary has a role in molding the development
of society as much as the legislature does. Often
judges are asked to interpret laws for situations
that were not envisioned by the the people who framed
the law. Instead of automatically deferring to the
legislature (when/if they get around to dealing w/
the issues instead of bonking their interns or taking
bribes), it would be preferable for judges to suggest a
manner in which the law should develop. If the judicary
makes a mistake, the legislature can always fix it via
statutory enactment or constitutional amendment.
\_ Here's where we disagree then. I see SCOTUS as having a
very narrow purpose, and that's making sure laws passed by
congress don't violate the constitution. Of the three
branches of gov't, the congress should be the strongest and
the judges (not elected, not removable) the weakest.
-emarkp
\_ Okay. If you view the congress has having the
strongest role and the judiciary as having a
merely passive role, I can agree that you want
\_ I don't see 9 people striking down
legislation approved by 536 people as
"passive". -emarkp
\_ Is there a particular act you are
talking about, or are you speaking
in general? I find it hard to
believe that anyone can think that
the vast majority of legislation
has unanimous approval of the
house and senate (or that it
reflects the views of more than
perhaps a mere majority of the
voters - and if it is a mere
majority then the cts must serve
as a check on the tendency of
to resort to mob rule)
\_ Not any particular act. Just the
congress + president as a whole in
principle. I guess another way to look
at it is that 337 people can pass an
act (2/3 of house and senate to
override a veto), but 5 people could
smack it down (SCOTUS majority).
-emarkp
\_ Personally I feel safer that
there are at least 5 people
in the country who can smack
down the BS that comes out
of congress. Without a strong
and independent judiciary
to keep a check on congress
we would quickly descend
into mob rule in which the
rights of the minority would
basically be ignored.
\_ I agree. It's a good check. The
appointment for life is
important--that way it takes
decades to shift the entire
makeup of the court, so one group
can't easily dominate it. But
if it goes beyond a check it's a
problem. -emarkp
judges who act in a limited way.
I, however, think of the judiciary as a feedback
system for the legislature. The legislature has
the primary role in setting national policy, &c.
Sometimes, the legislature doesn't do a good job
and fails to think things through. This is where
the ct can come in and make sure that things are
running smoothly. Actions taken by the court can
provide valuable feedback to the legislature to
get its act together and fix things rather than
just dink around discussing pay raises, and 1/2
dead people in FL.
With that as a reference, here are some points re strict
constructionism:
(1) Often its not clear what the rule actual is - congress will
frequently enact legislation drawing power from various
clauses in the constitution but fail to define key terms
and the circuits will split over the meaning. The Court
needs to have justices who can think about the long term
effects of their actions and act appropriately. Acting like
a curmudgeon and applying 18th-19th century principles to
things like the Internet isn't realistic - the framers had
no idea about this type of communication/commerce and you
need judges who can look to the past for analogies but also
look to the future.
\_ There is something about your rhetoric I find vaguely
unsettling. -- ilyas
\_ Consider Sony for example. Yes there were people
using the VCR to violate copyright but it wasn't
clear that Sony had done anything wrong in making
a product that enabled this. The fact that the
ct saw its way clear to say that producing a product
w/o more wasn't enough to infringe copyright was a
big deal (Sony was going to be decided the other way
until one justice switched his vote, iirc b/c of
the implications of just a decision).
(2) Sometimes you have a doctrine that is the "law" and is
defended as such but in reality is just a cover for something
more insidious like racism. In these situations you need to
be flexible to stamp out behavior that has no place in a
civilized society.
\_ Again, who defines "civilized society"? Again I argue that
society should, not a panel of judges. -emarkp
\_ So you would be willing to accept racism until
the states voluntarily decided to outlaw it?
And that was going to happen like NEVER. In
some instances, the states/people need a nudge
in the "right" direction.
\_ So you've turned prophet and caretaker now? You can
say what would or would not happen? You can decide
what the "right" direction is? Here's a question:
aren't you concerned about a group of 9 people deciding
what's "right" for you? What if all of them were
hardcore conservatives? -emarkp
\_ If you looked at the trends in desegregation
prior to Brown, it was pretty clear that the
state were doing NOTHING to overturn separate
but equal on their own.
This has nothing to do w/ me being a prophet,
it is just extrapolation based on the trends
that were present.
\_ Extrapolating to NEVER isn't justifiable IMO.
Public attitudes were changing, and I believe
it would have happened legislatively, but of
course I don't know for sure. -emarkp
\_ When would it be justifiable for the court
to step in? When 25 states had changed? 30?
47? Or never?
\_ This could be a whole different topic, but
you might be able to argue that there really
was a constitutional problem with the
implementation of seperate but equal.
\_ Not the point. I don't think it's valid to
say that it would never change, nor do I
think it's right for 5 people to determine
what's "right" for society. And on top of
that, I agree with the person below re:
PLessy v. Ferguson. -emarkp
\_ Extrapolation is never justifiable?
\_ Read it again. In this case,
extrapolating "not yet" to "NEVER" isn't
justified. -emarkp
\_ Perhaps NEVER is incorrect
b/c almost every event has
a small non-zero probability
of occuring. Yes I could
wake up tomorrow in Andromeda
and know how to speak fluent
Klingon, but its not bloody
likely.
How do you order your future affairs
w/o looking to the past/present and
seeing trends?
Re legislative intervention in Brown,
I strongly disagree. I have friends
in the south and there is still a
tendency to treat "colored" people
less favorably than "white" people.
I really doubt that an southern
state would voluntarily have integrated.
\_ I would argue that the example or Brown v.
Board of Education is invalid, because
Plessy v. Ferguson really was
unconstitutional by the 14th, IMHO.
\_ It is by no means clear that Plessy
was wrongly decided under a strict
constructionist or originalist view.
Consider that the framers put in the
3/5 compromise and the framers of
the 14th amd also created segregated
schools in Washington DC during the
same session.
No where in the text of the 14th
amd does it say the same, it just
says equal - as long as the facilities
were equal, everything was kosher.
In fact, in Brown, the Board of
Education agreed that the schools
were not equal and that they needed
to fix them, what they didn't want
was integration.
I am not sure why you think that a bunch
of conservatives would make me unhappy?
\_ Choose your bogeyman then. -emarkp
In general the conservatives tend to issue
opinions that are far more consistent w/
a free/open society than the liberals.
As an example, when the issue of police
use of thermal imagers w/o a warrant was
presented to the court, it was conservatives
who held that this use violated the 4th amd.
The liberals were all for letting the cops
do whatever they wanted. It is not clear
that a strict interpetation of the 4th amd
would have found that a thermal imager was
a search and thus fell under the 4th amd.
I would point to separate but equal as an example - clearly
the intent behind the doctrine was racist and it needed to be
ended, but the strict constructionism stood in the way of
this. This was a state law issue, but the states weren't
doing anything about it. Second, congressional intent when
the 14th amd was drafted seemed to show that segregation
was constitutional b/c the same congress created segregated
schools in DC. The Court had to be flexible to get around
the doctrine.
(3) Reasonable minds can differ as to how the framers would
apply or interpret parts of the constitution to modern
situations. You gave the example of commercial development
(Kelo). AFAIK, there were no commerical developers around
when the constitution and the bill of rights were enacted.
You MIGHT think you know how they would interpret the
situtation, but do you really know? Esp. considering the
fact that there were probably some at the constitutional
convention who would have found no problem w/ the Kelo
decision. Wouldn't it be better to have Justices who can
see that perhaps we need rules that help order affairs
in the reality of 21st century life rather than get stuck
w/ rules that were suited to 18th-19th century life?
\- wasnt part of the MARSHALL J. holding
in Barron v. Baltimore the takings clause
\- wasnt part of the MARSHALL J. holding in
Barron v. Baltimore the takings clause
didnt apply to the states but just the
national govt? what you you crazy ori-
ginalists think about that?
\_ iirc, Barron was decided in the 1830s prior to
the 14th amd. At the time it was decided it was
correct b/c the 5th amd only apply to actions
by the federal gov and not the states. However,
the 14th amd (sec 1) made the 5th amd. applicable
to actions by the states, thus the holding in
Barron is no longer correct.
\- so the whole idea of the absorbption doctrine,
and the slaughterhouse cases and 14th amd
interpretation is a big area where these kinds
of originalist interpretations become difficult
or break down. like the meaning of "congress shall
make no law" in the 1st amd no longer has the
"scope" of only applying to the congress eventhough
it "plainly" says so.
\_ The Founding Fathers deliberately set up a balance of powers
arrangement so that the different branches of government could
serve as checks on each other. If the SC turns itself into
a rubber stamp for the legislature, or even worse, the executive,
they will weaken one leg of the stool. Plus, even what exactly
a "strict" constitutionalist changes over time, as our notions
of equality and fair play and even the definitions of words change.
Furthermore, technology and other changes have made parts of the
Constitution obsolete. Isn't $10 still the limit for immigration
taxes somewhere and $20 the limit for trails by jury?
\_ The 7th amd sets the min limit for trial by jury as $20
for suits at common law. |
| 2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38720 Activity:nil |
6/19 NY Times with apparently accurate (non-biased) background article
on Roberts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20judge.html
"On the other side of the political equation, he is likely to be
confirmed, at least with far less trouble than many of the other
candidates who had been listed as possible Bush choices. Even as
Democrats were resisting many of Mr. Bush's other appeals court
candidates with filibusters, Mr. Roberts was approved by a vote of 16
to 3 in the Judiciary Committee and confirmed without a roll call vote
on May 9, 2003." (you can bet the 3 no's were for the abortion thing)
Filibuster at your own peril. -liberal/moderate |
| 5/17 |