Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:June:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/6/29-7/3 [Reference/BayArea, Academia/Berkeley, Recreation/Sports] UID:43522 Activity:nil
6/29    Anyone know of a place around berkeley to buy Replica Soccer Jerseys?
2006/6/29-7/3 [Reference/Celebration] UID:43523 Activity:nil
6/29     Happy Birthday sony!
2006/6/29-7/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43524 Activity:nil
6/29    Hamdank decision big news for Constitution and rule of law, bad news for
2006/6/29-7/3 [Reference/History/WW2] UID:43525 Activity:nil
6/29    Pretty cool Axis & Allies clone; allows for local & net play:  -John
2006/6/29-7/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43526 Activity:kinda low
6/29    Supreme Court rules 5-3 that Dubya-installed GTMO military tribunals
        violate Geneva Conventions and U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (
        \_ Sure, the court interprets laws, but... our new government,
           a different type of executive and the legislature will make
           the law.
        \_ John Yoo must be having a bad day....
           \_ Christopher Yoo is ready to bat
              "First, I believe that the use of Presidential signing statements
              as legislative history is inherent in the system of checks and
              balances embodied in our Constitution. Second, I believe that
              Presidential statutory interpretation is also inherent in the
              President's role as Chief Executive. Third, I suggest that
              recognizing Presidential signing statements as legislative
              history would better promote the democratic process."
              "A History of the Unitary Executive: Executive Branch Practice
              from 1789 to 2005" (Yale University Press, forthcoming 2007)
              \_ This would put an inordinate amount of power to ignore two
                 branches of goverment in the hands of the Executive Branch.
                 I agree that the Pres. needs power to make commentary on
                 legislation passed by Legislative, but to go beyond this
                 to dictating law is dangerous.
                 \_ Note also that the Executive is obliged to execute
                    faithfully the laws of the land.  His signing statements
                    have stated explicitely that he has no intention to do so.
                    People should be fucking pissed.  Some are.  Not enough.
                    \_ Don't worry.  This will all be corrected forthwith as
                       soon as a Democrat is elected as head of the Executive
                       Branch of govt.
                       \_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
                          land. cool!" then come back and tell us how dems are
                          morally superior and the great protectors of the
                          constitution.  power corrupts.  period.
                 \_ go look up the phrase, "stroke of the pen, law of the
                    land. cool!"
                    \_ Why do you hate Paul Begala?
                    \_ Go look up Washington Times, UPI, Moonies.
                       The quote is solid, yes; the implication that what Bush
                       has done through Exec Orders and signing statements is
                       somehow mitigated by Clinton's use of same is asinine.
                       \_ Bullshit.  You're putting words in my mouth.  Go
                          see all of 3 lines up where I made it perfectly
                          clear that "power corrupts".  The implication is
                          that this crap has been going on and will always go
                          on so long as there is power to be had.  If you don't
                          want abuses of power then there has to be less power
                          to abuse which means smaller government with less
                          federal control.  Having a Dem in office will change
                          absolutely nothing regarding power abuses.  What is
                          asinine is believing that members of the one party
                          are somehow saintly while the other party is full
                          of devils out to kill and eat people's children.
                          \_ While I will gladly apologize for mischaracter-
                             izing your use of a quote oft-used by GOP flacks
                             to demonize Clinton as an attempt to do just that,
                             I think your solution to shrink government is
                             short-sighted and will cause more problems than
                             it will fix. My original point (the one you
                             replied to with your quote) was that Bush has
                             used Exec Orders and signing statements to
                             place himself above the ability of the other
                             two branches to contradict him. This is much more
                             dangerous than what previous presidents have
                             \_ Corruption builds upon itself over time.  One
                                guy gets away with X because we like him or we
                                like X that makes it ok, so the next guy does
                                X+1.  I don't think any one branch should be
                                put above any other beyond what the const. says
                                about checks and balances.  Thus, one abuse of
                                power is no 'better' or worse than any other.
                                It is an abuse of power.  As far as a large or
                                small government goes, the less there is to
                                abuse the less abuse there will be.  That seems
                                obvious to me.  If you're saying that there are
                                other problems a weak federal system would
                                cause, maybe so, that would have to be weighed
                                against the harm a strong federal system
                                \_ The problem with absolutes is that they're
                                   absolutely fallible. While I would agree
                                   with you that 99.9% of power abuses are bad,
                                   I think it's simplistic to say that there
                                   are no degrees of better and worse in
                                   regards to abuses of power. But better and
                                   worse are utterly subjective, so here's a
                                   clarification: Bush's abuses of power have
                                   done more to weaken oversight of the Exec
                                   Branch by the other two Branches than prev.
                                   abuses of power. In my mind, this is worse
                                   than prev. Admins' abuses of power because
                                   it robs the citizenry of a mechanism to
                                   ensure that such abuses are stopped; YMMV.
                                \_ As for smaller/no government (new thread),
                                   sure, the current fed system has problems,
                                   but I don't think those problems outweigh
                                   its benefits. I have yet to see an alterna-
                                   tive suggested that wouldn't lead to either
                                   anarchy, plutocracy, or corporate robber
                                   barons; if you have one that benefits all,
                                   I would be very receptive.
              \_ He will get spanked by the USSC, too.
2006/6/29-7/3 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:43527 Activity:nil
6/29    Visual Programming in Perl:
2006/6/29-7/3 [Uncategorized] UID:43528 Activity:nil
6/29    Esquire has an article on the fate of John Walker Lindh which is
        quite good:
2006/6/29-7/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43529 Activity:nil
6/29    If I hear "as the iraqis stand up, we can stand down" one more time,
        I'm going to scream.  This zero sum expectation is ludicrous when
        the country is falling apart.  When the iraqi military is a loose knit
        group of militias, each with their own agenda, us standing down only
        makes for freer reign for pursuing their agendas.  The happy talk
        about "N brigades trained" makes me ill.
        \_ "as the iraqis stand up, we can stand down"
        \_ Dubya's strategy can be summed up as:  Bravely running away.

           \_ So, the "before" "bring it on" Bush:

        Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
        He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
        He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
        Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

        He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
        Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
        To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
        And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

        His head smashed in and his heart cut out
        And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
        And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
        And his pen--


        Brave Sir Robin ran away.
        Bravely ran away, away!
        When danger reared its ugly head,
        He bravely turned his tail and fled.
        Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
        And gallantly he chickened out.
        Bravely taking to his feet
        He beat a very brave retreat,
        Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
2006/6/29 [Uncategorized] UID:43530 Activity:nil
2006/6/29-7/3 [Health/Men, Reference/Military] UID:43531 Activity:nil
6/29    How Silicon Valley men fight:
        \_ Are you interested in joining? I know one of the guys in that
        \_ Holy stupid. "Hey look I cut my arm I'm cool!" Martial arts classes
           already have sparring. So this is just play fighting on concrete for
           no particular reason and vague rules. They seem to think this has
           something to do with a real world fight without rules. I'd like to
           see them fight this guy:
           Or someone who doesn't abide by these rules:
           \_ Of course it has something to do with it.  Slightly more
              than sparring.  I don't think anyone there thinks this is
              real fight where you get hurt.  That's the whole point.
              \_ Well one of them says something like "we want to see how
                 martial arts work against someone who is fighting back".
                 Obviously if they are not wearing pads and avoiding hurting
                 each other then well, it's probably less than sparring
                 other than that they getting more injuries.
                 other than that they get more injuries.
                 \_ Umm.. most of the sparring I've seen and done you're
                    wearing pads, not hurting each other, stuff ends in
                    points, and you're restricted to one martial art.
                    That sparring is less like a real fight that what they
                    are doing.  What sparring do you do?  You use real
                    knives or something?
                    \_ Protective gear at lets you do more without being
                       as concerned about hurting them. At least they use
                       that headgear but still. Is that enough to protect
                       head vs. concrete?
                       Sparring isn't really better but this doesn't
                       seem to add anything other than pointlessly
                       getting hurt. (why not have a padded floor?)
                       Their knife fight looks like it has little to do with
                       knives beyond their first stabs at each other.
                       Maybe ending in a point is better than just play
                       hitting each other with no result.
                       \_  This is why grappling is so much better than
                           striking arts.  You can go full contact with no pads
                           using judo or jiujitsu tournament rules and no one
                           gets hurt, but in a no-holds-barred fight against
                           karate and boxing fighters you do better because
                           you're used to the real thing.  Don't belive me?
                           Watch the early UFC fights when boxers and karate
                           people would get their asses handed to them in
                           seconds by grapplers many pounds lighter than them.
                           And the last judo tournament I went to had something
                           like 100 people in it, including little kids, with
                           zero injuries.  Grappling: more fun, more effective,
                           more interesting, safer.
        \_ can I do curbing on a nerd?
2006/6/29-7/3 [Uncategorized] UID:43532 Activity:nil
6/29    [URL without description deleted]
2018/12/13 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:June:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>