| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:43299 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165121 This is a sad precursor to November. Despite all the complaints and problems within the GOP, the number of Republican voters is still much greater than the number of Democrat voters. \_ yes ... much greater ... in a Republican district ... Busby is a weak candidate. I'm surprised she did as well as she did against a telegenic GOP person pushing an anti-immigration plank. \_ She was also taped encouraging illegal aliens to vote for her. "You don't need papers to vote.. we'll show you how.." http://csua.org/u/g2g (Not all in the link, i'll try to find the audio file) |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43297 Activity:nil |
6/6 So in CA we vote for members of the "board of equalization".
Apperently this board is associated with "administering" taxes.
Why are these even elective positions? Isn't that too low-level?
Why isn't it just a sub-agency that reports directly to some other
elected official? What BS. No wonder CA is a mess. Everything is
regulated at a low level instead of bestowing individuals with
power to do what's best.
Also, the BoE's blathering about the CA "Use Tax" is a total joke. |
| 2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:43289 Activity:nil |
6/6 How many voted for prop 82? Did you see the bit about having a
parent tax if the income tax doesn't generate enough revenue yet
no one will be denied access for lack of ability to pay? So where
does the shortfall come from? The general fund? A bonus tax for
everyone?
\_ The fact of the matter is, our government is poor. We don't
have enough money in the education system and everyone has to
suffer more crime and somehow make it up, like paying for more
jails. We're freeloaders leeching from our past social projects
such as our transit systems and power grids. We no longer build
anything these days, thanks to our tax-cutting loving Republicans
who have two things in mind-- privatizing everything that our
government can't afford, and cut even more tax. Thanks to them,
we have to suffer from sky rocketing crime rates much of it
due to the lack of education our kids have. We are forced to
build one of the largest jail systems in the world, and the quality
of living has been going down since the 80s when conservative
movements became popular. Fuck all this tax-cutting conservative
movements. Stop thinking about yourself and just raise the fucking
tax. It'll be better for everyone.
\_ Where do you keep pulling this "sky rocketing crime rates"
line from? Everything I've seen has crime dropping for the
last 20 years.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime
\_ Interesting theory since CA has some of the highest taxes in
the US but worst education system, bad jail system, and as you
say is living off the public works of the past. How do you
justify more taxing going into what we agree is a broken syetem?
How will throwing good money after bad make anything better?
Also, are you ok with hidden taxes like prop 82 creates? All
those parents who think they're getting free day care at the
expense of the wealthy will end up paying for it in the end.
That's a crappy way to write law or a proposition.
\_ How do you fix the system when you don't have enough
money to fix it? The only other alternative to not
taxing is privatizing everything and let the
free market take its course. Is that what you want?
\_ CA is 15th in state tax burden.
\_ 21st if you count only state taxes...
\_ 1 in 5 US workers is employed in some form by the government.
This giant mass of leeches, who demand anachronistic pension
and benefit plans and only ever grow in size, is a worthless
drag on the nation. I'm in favor of privatizing every public
school in the nation, and the postal service.
\_ Ah yes, fuck the system that attempts to give a flatter level
of playing field because survival of the fittest is how
the world should work. Let the free market take its course
because everything in life is be measured by efficiency,
profits, and making stock holders happy. I get it now.
Thank you very much!
\_ Ah yes let's make unfounded assumptions! The current
field is not flat. Privatising the schools wouldn't
necessarily make it worse given a voucher-like
system. In fact, odds are good that things would
be improved. Everyone would have more choice.
There would be more competition among the different
private schools with voucher money making them
more affordable for people. The private school I
had for 3 years was soooooo much better than any
public school I ever saw. And no, not everything
in life is measured by efficiency etc. That is
a stupid statement. Schools would be measured
the same as otherwise. Thanks for playing.
\_ This monolithic government that supposedly employs 20% of
working Americans does not exist. Each level of govt. (city,
state, federal) has its own system of employment benefits;
within those, different departments and branches have their
own systems and even different unions. Note also that govt.
jobs not tied to political appointments pay roughly 10-20%
less than equivalent private sector positions. I agree with
you that there is room for reform, but your sweeping
generalization does not do the situation justice.
\_ Actually, even political jobs pay less. For an example,
look at the pay of the President. However, the government
is also a lot more inefficient and wasteful than the
private sector. That is, in many positions (except the
most prestigious and for things like nuclear physicists
which depend on the DOE), the government is also
getting what it pays for - or often not even that.
\_ Yes the government is inefficient, there is no doubt
about that. Take the firefighters in New Enland
for example. Prior to the 1900s people paid private
firefighter insurance and when there were blocks of
homes on fire, the firefighters would extinguish fire
nearby homes that had special signs that they paid
for, while letting everything else burn down. It was
profitable and efficient, but it obviously didn't
provide a consistent service to everyone. It is NOT the
goal of the government to be profitable, it is to
provide everyone a consistent service at some monetary
loss which hopefully will benefit everyone in the
end. Most of the tax-cut loving conservatives will
never understand this, because their world is entirely
measured by efficiency and profits.
\- also plenty of "tax cut loving
conservatives" are ok with "mercantilist"
inititatives like: import-export bank,
subsidized research in their area of
interest, making private interests matters
of public policy [RIAA], or changing
more natural priorities of govt resources
allocated to things like trade negotions
in IP, agricultural subsidies, govt
allocating public resources without seeking
to maximize the return to the public
[sketchy ways of selling rights to say
airwaves, frequency, western grazing lands,
mineral rights etc].
\_ It is not the goal of government to be profitable,
but it should be efficient. The amount of red
tape that doesn't even make any sense is
staggering and constantly growing. It's why this
country produces more lawyers than the rest of
the world combined. Example from NASA: I want to
buy a supercomputer. The vendor agreed to provide
3 years warranty on the quote. However, one of
the five tasks funding the computer ends in one
year. (The rest continue past three years.)
Regulations say that we cannot accept the three
year warranty, as that is longer than one of the
funding tasks will be in existence (or maybe
not, because it could be extended perhaps).
Therefore, we had to ask vendors to provide only
one year of warranty, essentially throwing away
two free years. This is highly inefficient and
as a taxpayer, too, I am horrified. --dim
\_ Having survived the dotcom bubble and govt. jobs at
the city, state, and federal level, I respectfully
disagree with your assessment insofar as I think you're
being much too generous to private sector employees.
\_ <DEAD>Dot.com<DEAD> was just a big party. To be fair,
compare to *profitable* companies.
\_ What, like Enron? WorldCom?
\_ Are you suggesting the employees at Enron
and WorldCom were not hard-working and
efficient? I would guess that most were.
\_ I don't think there's any real evidence that
private companies as a whole are more efficient
than government as a whole. Good private
companies are more efficient than bad government,
and vice versa. If Orange County had been a
corporation, it would have laid everyone off,
bilked its investors, and sold pieces of itself
out for pennies on the dollar, as Enron and
WorldCom did. That's highly inefficient. -tom
\_ Private companies are efficient at maximizing
***PROFITS*** without regard to anything else
such as the quality of service, unless of
course there is enough competition to drive
them to be less profitable. Government
services on the other hand have initial
noble intent of creating services for the
people but many fail because of a lack of
accountability (FEMA, CIA, etc). In the end,
neither pure free-market nor strict government
controlled programs work well on a
consistent basis for a long period of time.
\_ "In particular, studies of garbage collection,
water utilities, electric utilities, office
cleaning, firefighting, and transportation
(airlines, railroads, buses) found that
private providers were more efficient under
conditions of competition and accountability
(Donahue 1991; Spann 1977).
Notably, though, in several instances public
provision was more efficient than private
provision, even under competitive market
conditions (Donahue 1991)."
There are instances where it doesn't make
sense to privatize a service (e.g.
duplication of infrastructure involved in
electricity transmission) but I think it's
obvious that in most cases the private
sector is more efficient because it has an
incentive to be. What incentive does the
government have to be efficient?
\_ Civilian and press oversight; not something
corporations generally need to worry
about in this country. -tom
\_ The point is not that it has no incentive
to be efficient. The problem is that
lack of competition and choice is less
efficient. The government can just do
stupid things and there is no market
to punish their stupid decisions.
They just get more money when they
squander what they have. They set up
idiotic and corrupt contract deals.
Oversight doesn't prevent mediocrity.
It doesn't really do anything at all,
just generates discussion when something
particularly egregious comes up, or
laws are broken. Corporations do still
obey laws in this country.
\_ You think competition is inherently
more efficient? Tell me, how many
programming languages does your
company's main product use for
development? Would your development
be more efficient if you had two
different groups, one using Java and
one using Ruby, competing to develop
the same product?
Competition between companies doesn't
prevent mediocrity. And there is
a market that punishes stupid
governmental decisions; it's called
"voting." -tom
\_ Voting can't handle this. Voters
are worried about gay marriage.
They don't have the time nor
inclination to dig through stuff
and analyze... and even if they
did, it still doesn't help. A
real market, at least ideally,
selects the best performers.
I read about govt fuckups all
the time and never hear about
heads rolling. Everything is
aggregated. If you try to punish
poor performance in one area it
is lost in the noise. And you
have small way of knowing if
the new guy is any better than
the old.
\_ And even if he is, term
limits mean he won't be around
long. This helps when there's
an idiot like Bush in office,
but it's bad when there's
someone sincere and capable. |
| 2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43288 Activity:low |
6/6 So are people voting for Angelides or Westly? Westly even has the
former eBayer and Asian ch1c thing going on.
http://csua.org/u/g3c (westly2006.com)
\_ http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3851538
"Angelides promises to raise taxes on the rich and on
corporations. Westly, while promising to close the deficit without
cuts to schools, will not say how he plans to find the money.
Westly is a dot-com millionaire from eBay who is largely self-
funding his campaign... Angelides, a former chairman of the
state Democratic Party, has the edge, with a potential army of
party volunteers and the unions that have endorsed him. To counter
it, Westly is expected to mount an expensive direct mail campaign
to convince absentee voters to cast their ballots for him."
Sounds to me that Westly is a Republican in disguise of
a Democrat.
\_ I am probably not voting for Angelides, but I'm totally
NOT voting for Westly and I hope everyone understands why.
Westly started his aggressive negative ads against Angelides
early on and they're very mean spirited ads. This is an
indication that he's a complete ass. Furthermore I have had
enough experience with upper-class white male who are completely
out of touch with reality. Enough is enough and I just want to
see new faces, preferably non-white representatives. I was so
happy that Jim Hahn the I-prefer-status-quo-because-everything-
looks-alright didn't get re-elected. Just say no to white male
who are out of touch with reality. Just say no to Westly.
\_ Your sentiment is strongly felt in Hawaii, the reason why
pale looking blond candidates historically don't compete well
with the native candidates. Many Hawaiians resent whites for
historical reasons, but they do of course welcome the tourism
money they bring in. I'm guessing your sentiment is starting
to be felt by many natives in California, many of them are
non-whites and feel that California should be controlled by
people who are more in-touch with their world.
\_ Because us whiteys are all just too busy keeping the ethnic
underclasses down. -John
\_ but Westly is trying to undo his evil while upper class
\_ white
heritage by marrying a h07 azn woman! That makes Westly
a better candidate. I'm voting for him. White Power!
\_ Well, today is the primary, who are you voting for? Nice
racist screed BTW.
\_ You could've just said, "I hate white people" instead of your
long rant.
\_ Yes, I hate white people. However, I assure you that I'm not
the only person feeling this way. Many Californians are
non-white, and feel that whoever represents them should
reflect them instead of rich white men who live in huge
mansions and own big SUVs. -op
\_ You and they are idiots for making assumptions like
that. I guess you'd be fine with a rich Chinese man
who lives in a huge mansion and owns a big Mercedes.
Who cares what they say, they reflect me!
\_ Why is it that corrupt and incompetent black New
Oreleans candidates do better than white candidates
in Louisiana? Because the majority of the voters is
an idiot. And yes if I were a chink I'd still vote for
a rich Mercedes driving chink, he'd have more
sympathy as to why I want to lobby to reverse bills
that discriminate against our culture, like
local laws that prohibit the culture of processing
live food in front of the restaurants. Maybe you
should ask why many non-whites resent dominant whites
before you start calling them idiots. Fuck you for
not respecting our culture. -Minority Power
\_ LOL. Thanks -- that's the funniest thing I've
read on motd all week. With an attitude like that,
you deserve whatever oppression you get.
\_ I think (hope) you've been trolled. -John
\_ Angel(ides) of Death 666
\_ I don't like either one of them, but mostly because of these
asinine attack ads. It's to the point where I'd almost throw my
political ideals aside and vote for any candidate who refrains
from attacking.
\_ Ah, the blissfulness of not having TV.
\_ What is asinine about attack ads? How are they any more
asinine than ads claiming the candidate loves children and
dogs? -tom
\_ In the context of Primaries, they're asinine because they
make it harder for the losing candidate to support the
winning candidate without appearing like an utter
hypocrite.
\_ Why do you hate children and dogs?
\_ Umm, no on 82?
\_ What, you make more that 400k per year?
\_ "...and then they came for me..."
There's tyranny to democracy too, you know.
\_ That may be true, but I don't think making the tax curve
a little more progressive is tyrannical.
\_ It's not more progressive. The people who benefit from
this are the middle/upper-middle class parents who
are already sending their kids to pre-school. poor
kids can already go to first start. i would have voted
for increasing funds to first start, but we don't need
yet another program with yet another tax that actually
helps somewhat wealthy (100k-400k) parents.
\_ So let's see... the people who benefit are the
people who are paying for it and perhaps some
others with lower incomes. Wild idea!
\_ It's not making the tax curve on the whole more
progressive. When you do that and you want to spend gvt
money on something (almost) everyone pays at least a
little. This is saying "hey, let's make the minority
pay for this because there are more of us and we can
_make_ them pay it" If the money were going to pay for
something like "roads that expensive SUVs ripped up" or
"a larger airport for business travelers" or something
even remotely related to the "burden of the rich on
society" it would be one thing, but this is as arbitrary
as that Mental Hospital thing that passed earlier.
Someone's just found an easy way of getting things
funded: bill those who are too few in number to fight it.
\_ I am opposed to these sorts of taxes, but while
these people are few in number they are not
small in influence on our politicians.
\_ I am voting against and I make significantly less than 400k.
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits.
\_ The government is not a fee-for-service business. -tom
\_ Nor is the government a way for the majority to abuse
the minority for the majority benefit.
\_ There are a number of problems with those sorts
of measures. For one thing, high incomes like that tend
to be very flighty. They are often tied to the
stockmarket and other highly volitile sources of income.
Which rasies the question, of what will happen when
there's a downturn and tax reciepts on the rich drop?
Oops. Not to mention, I don't really think the way to
fix our mess of a school system is to expand it.
\_ I agree. We should privatize the school system, and
revive it like the way GWB tried to privatize
social security, like the way the Republicans tried
to privatize electricity and utilities, so on and
so forth.
\_ Way to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool.
\_ I'm voting against 82 because the LA Times board said the system
is poorly implemented and I'm trusting them on that. I'm also
for small, efficient government with a safety net and against
welfare for people who can work but don't.
I'm also for a progressive tax system, with an inheritance tax
rate of 0% for amounts up to $1.5 million (kids get the family
house + extra for free, or $500K/kid assuming 3 kids,
inflation-adjusted) and >= 50% for extra inheritance. The
inheritance tax money can be used to subsidize a lower tax rate
for people who are still working. -dem
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. "Oh this will be
FREE because we'll make the RICH pay for it!" "Oh lovely! You
have my vote! What else can we make them pay for?"
I think, out of principle, no tax should be levied ONLY on
a certain tax bracket. It's just wrong. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits. The people
making a lot of money are often important players in the
economy and stuff like this just provides incentives to
drive them out. I also hate the idiot democrats that say
things like "make businesses pay for everything!" Way to
screw over the very things the entire state economy depends
on. I'm gonna go Republican this year because the dems are
too stupid. At least the CA Republicans seem a lot smarter than
the federal ones. The CA Dems are like a caricature of
themselves, always promising "free stuff from the government".
I'll vote for the Green secretary of state though. Only
because I'm a firm believer in IRV.
\_ Ok friends and relatives, Tuesday is California's
primary, so it's time for me to get cranky and tell y'all
how to vote! :-)
Actually this election is rather short and there isn't
much to it, and it actually has not been much to do, as
far as ballot Propositions go, so let us start with them:
STATE PROPOSITIONS:
Proposition 81 - $600 million in library bonds -- NO. As
much as I might like to, NO. Not at this time.
Prop 81 would increase state spending by $1.17 billion
because, in order to finance $600 million in bonds, the
state would pay $570 million in interest over 30 years.
I was a bookish kid and enjoyed the library, and I still
do. And I know how wonderful for young and old minds they
can be. However....
In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 14, which
was $350 million in bonds for library building projects,
25 year bonds which we are still paying off, for a
projected legislative analyst cost of $600 million in
year 2000 dollars.
Meanwhile, Governor Ahnold recently issued a lot of bond
debt for infrastructure improvements. (Those improvements
should have been paid from raided gasoline tax funds, but
I'm getting off topic.)
The point is that more bonds, at this time, is just plain
irresponsible. Was it just the other day we were reading
in the papers about a state financing crisis? Now the
economy has improved and state revenues are up, but that
could sour as fuel prices rise, another calamity breaks
out somewhere in the world, or any host of other
reasons. It is irresponsible to do this at this time.
Proposition 82 - Socialized pre-school -- NO. Oh hell NO.
Prop 82 would amend the state constitution to offer
taxpayer-funded universal preschool to all four-year old
children in California. The state would determine the
educational standards for the preschool programs.
Now doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy, given that
Governor Ahnold just had to veto SB1437, a demand hatched
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--Mom
and Dad, you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--
you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
show-- to "require social science textbooks sold in
California to include the significant contributions of
gay, bisexual and transgendered people."
In an age when kids often don't even know the basics,
this attempt to politicize education further is
positively horrid. What's next? Saying whether a notable
preferred blonds to brunettes? What people do to
contribute to history, not who they sleep with, is what
matters in an education. Students have a hard enough
time learning history - and every other subject in
California's schools. Adding notable cross-dressers or
people who have gender reassignment surgery - two
inappropriate subjects for high school - to the curricula
will not correct the woeful state of education.
The fact that SB1437 made it all the way through both
houses of the Legislature and we were only spared it by
Governor Ahnold's veto, as well as the Legislature's
majority endorsement of the illegal alien rallies on
Communist May Day no less, tell you everything you need
to know about the current rulers of the California
Democrat Party. Help!
But I digress. Back to Prop 82:
Teachers in the preschool programs would also have more
educational requirements and would be paid more than
existing public preschool teachers. In order to fund this
universal preschool, an additional 1.7% income tax would
be levied on individuals earning over $400,000 per year
(and couples earning over $800,000 per year). It sounds
fun to make someone who earns more than you pay for your
kids state-run preschool, but watch all those business
owners get Nevada incorporation or some other state's
incorporation and leave the state overnight if this
passes. High income almost always means high or even
higher overhead, something the socialists who cooked up
this proposal never seem to grasp.
Approximately 62% of California children already attend
some kind of preschool or daycare program before going to
kindergarten. Prop 82 would simply require the state to
pay for preschool, and presumably shut some perfectly
fine church or private business pre-school programs out.
As if the state government doesn't have already have its
hands full enough with focus on improving education in
K-12 levels (California test scores in science currently
rank second to last) rather than building a whole new
bureaucracy to control the education of four-year-olds.
Prop 82 paves the way for mandatory preschool and lowered
compulsory attendance ages. This will infringe upon the
rights of parents to direct the education of their own
children and determine when their own children are
physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to start
school.
Additionally, studies touting that children receive an
educational advantage by attending preschool are not
reliable because they a) do not show any long-term
advantage or b) they are based on insufficient data.
Prop 82 is an all-around bad idea.
NON-PARTISAN OFFICES:
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Diane A. Lenning
Jack O'Connell is the current incumbent, and given the
advantages of incumbency will probably be re-elected
handily.
However, if you want to know why I really like this lady,
check out her website at http://www.dianelenning.com
compare it with those of the other candidates on page 44
of the Official Voter Information Guide, and decide for
yourself. In particular, check out
http://www.dianelenning.com/issues.html
PARTISAN OFFICES:
Well, all of you know I am a Republican and am only
focused on that primary as a result. This is not to say
that registered Democrats are bad. I have a co-worker who
is a registered Democrat even though he has not voted for
one in a general election in nearly 30 years, because he
likes "to practice primary damage control, voting for
lesser evils," he says. I understand that. In fact, so
much of politics is damage control, for either party.
Allow me two observations about the Democrat Primaries:
1. For all the alleged unpopularity of convervative
Republican ideas, two Democrat primary candidates seem to
be running on them.
Governor wannabe Steve Westly is just bashing rival
Democrat Phil Angelides for being a tax raising socialist
weenie, and Attorney General wannabe Rocky Delgadillo is
bashing Jerry Brown (rising out of his political coffin
as current Mayor of Oakland) for being a criminal
coddling commiecrat and is raising the spectre of Brown
court appointees Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso. (Man, I
could VOTE for a Democrat like that; go Rocky go!)
2. A serious game of political "musical chairs" is going
on in the Democrat Party, which means that term limits
may be doing some good after all: --Current Controller
Steve Westly and Current Treasurer Phil Angelides are
fighting for Governor. --Current Insurance Commissioner
John Garamendi and Current State Senator Jackie Speier
are fighting for Lieutenant Governor. --Current
Lieutenant Govenor Cruz Bustamante is running for
Insurance Commissioner, flip-flopping with Garamendi!
--Aspirant state legislators State Senator Joe Dunn and
Franchise Tax Board head John Chiang are fighting for
Steve Westly's old controller slot. --Meanwhile, former
Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown is trying
to rise out of his political coffin and become Attorney
General.
From a "damage control" and admittedly Republican biased
perspective, here goes my take on the Democrat Primary:
Dem GOVERNOR: Steve Westly, because he is less sleazy
than Angelides. I only say this because my sleazy state
employee's union, for which I pay compulsory dues, is
backing Angelides.
Dem LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Jackie Speier. She may be a
wacky lefty, but she's transparent, unlike the political
snake Garamendi.
Dem CONTROLLER: John Chiang is less obnoxiously partisan
than Joe Dunn, and the Controller probably shouldn't be
an obnoxiously partisan office. I admired Karen
O'Connell, yes a Democrat, when she was Controller (I
think no relation to Jack?), because she stated the
budget like it was, to Republican and Democrat
legislators alike.
Dem ATTORNEY GENERAL: Go Rocky Delgadillo, go....even if
I will still vote for the all around awesome Chuck
Poochigian in the fall.
OK, now onto the Republicans. Here, the primary contests
are few:
Rep GOVERNOR: Ahnold has no serious opposition.
Rep LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Tom McClintock has no serious
opposition either.
He is the Last Honest Politician or, to quote Ayn Rand's
optimistic protagonist, "The first of their return."
This guy ran in the Governor's recall race on a
shoestring budget and in spite of the official Ahnold the
Republican bandwagon, still did respectably well. I wish
Ahnold had campaigned for McClintock in the recall and
chose to become a "Senatator" vs. Dianne Feinstein in
2004 instead of a "Governator", but oh well, Ahnold went
for the sure thing.
If McClintock can win Lieutenant Governor this fall,
there is hope for Cali. Otherwise, stick a fork in the
state and turn it over.
Rep CONTROLLER: Abel Maldonado. The other prominent
Republican, Tony Strickland, would be great too! But what
I liked about Mr. Maldonado was his bold opening
candidate statement on page 34 of the Official Voter
Information Guide. Somebody in the Republican Party gets
it about the ilegal alien problem!
Sadly, the President, his advisor Karl Rove, and a good
many Republican senators DON'T get it, which explains
their utterly low approval ratings, and they deserve to
suffer the consequences this fall. Sadly, some major
"conservative" media, like the Wall Street Journal, in
their quest for ever cheapr gardeners and maids, don't
get it either.
(Mr. Strickland, to his credit, also has a comment about
the problem at the end of his candidate statement).
Perhaps Mr. Maldonado makes such a bold opening statement
and isn't afraid of being called "anti-Latino" by the
Smearing Left because he IS Latino.
Rep TREASURER: Keith Richman. The other prominent
Republican, Claude Parrish, also appears to be a stand up
guy, and he'd be fine too, just like Tony Strickland for
Controller above. I especially liked Mr. Parrish's stern
admonition "to oppose all but the most vital bond
issues!"
But like Mr. Maldonado in his candidate statement above,
Richman discusses the real fiscal impact of importing a
larger underclass, and when too many Republicans at the
national level just don't get it about excessive
immigration (obviously illegal, but also certain
categories of legal immigration have been abused),
Mr. Richman's candor is refreshing.
Rep ATTORNEY GENERAL: Chuck Poochigian has no serious
opposition.
Rep INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Steve Poizner has no serious
opposition. Like Tom McClintock, if he can win this
fall, there is hope for Cali.
Rep SENATOR: Richard Mountjoy has no serious
opposition. He is as hard Right as his opponent this
Fall, the wretched Soviet Slut, Wobblie Wench, (OK,
enough invective) Barbara Boxer, is hard left. He will
also campaign on a shoestring budget. And you know what?
I say GOOD to all that.
For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made
three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in
fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):
1. Serious principled conservative (so-called
"extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a
shoestring budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce
Herschensohn 1992).
2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has
backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard
questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom
Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything
here?
3. Vacuous and vapid rich Republican candidate who also
has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune
into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly
(Mike Huffington 1994)
I know which path Mr. Mountjoy will take, and I know what
path I am on. I want a real choice, not a pathetic
echo. The only way to fight a nasty bitch like Boxer is
with a crusty ol' bastard (and I say that with affection)
like Mountjoy. If he loses, he at least loses narrowly
and doesn't spend much.
FOR EITHER PARTY:
CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE, STATE ASSEMBLY, and STATE SENATE
critters: Given gerrymandered districts, incumbents rule
the roost. Deal with what you have where ever you live.
\_ You couldn't post a link?
\_ You can already gift up to $1 million over a lifetime and
leave $2 million in your estate tax-free.
\_ http://csua.org/u/g3v (irs.gov)
"The total amount used against your gift tax reduces the
credit available to use against your estate tax."
My reading is if you gift $1 million today and keel over,
you can leave $1 million more tax-free for $2 million total.
$3.5 mill total in 2009, and unlimited in 2010, but the gift
part (while you're alive) is always $1 million. |
| 2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43287 Activity:nil |
6/6 Don't forget to vote today!
\_ Yes vote for tax more or tax even more.
\_ Robinhood, we need you! Please tax the rich to support the poor
because the super rich like Kenneth Lay, Skilling, Fastow,
Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, the Bush Dynasty, so on and
so forth have had a history of ripping off the poor ever
since the dawn of mankind. Please help Robinhood.
\- i think BGATES may be a pigdog for other reasons but i
dont think he is one of the people pushing plutocracy. |
| 2006/6/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Media] UID:43281 Activity:nil |
6/5 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060605/ap_on_sc/black_brant Fox Kill = good. |
| 2006/6/3-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:43267 Activity:nil |
6/3 I took several years of Chinese in Berkeley. Ranch 99 in Albany has
\_ 99 Ranch
quite a few wanted ads posted in Chinese for tenants, many requiring
you to be female or be of Chinese ethnicity. This makes me very
angry. Isn't this clearly DISCRIMINATION and can I sue them?
Do I have a case? ACLU claims this is not legal:
http://www.aclunc.org/language/lang-report.html
\_ Honestly, I'd rather face direct discrimination in this case
than hidden discrimination. I mean, all they have to
do is say "no" to whomever they don't want and not explain
why, and it is difficult to make a case. At least
this way you don't waste your time. --PeterM
\_ The ACLU doesn't seem to say it's illegal in housing. -tom
\_ But CA law does. See below.
\_ Unless this is a roommate situation, it's illegal to advertise for
female-only tenants. Sue 'em on that.
\_ California's FEHA is the primary state law which prohibits
discrimination in the sale, rental, lease negotiation, or
financing of housing based on a person's race, religion,
national origin, color, sex, marital status, ancestry, family
status, disability,sexual orientation, and source of income.
http://www.shastafairhousing.org/California2001.pdf
\_ I don't know how they phrase it in ranch 99, but I usually
state my "preference" on my craigslist ad. If you are a
business managing an apartment complex, then you probably
shouldn't say "female only", but if someone's just looking
for a roommate, then I don't see what the big problem is.
\_ This stuff has gone on in Berkeley for decades.
\_ Well then, we need to sue Berkeley. Reverse discrimination
is bad for our superior Ayran race! |
| 2006/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:43265 Activity:low |
6/2 "You don't need papers for voting"
Busby on defense, says she misspoke
http://csua.org/u/g2g |
| 2006/6/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:43256 Activity:nil |
6/2 Zinc.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/01/news/newsmakers/penny/index.htm?cnn=yes
\_ 65% of the people think the penny should be eliminated. Yay!
Now if only they can turn dollar bills into loonies and two
dollars into toonies, that'd be cool too.
\_ profit-making scheme:
buy pennies for one cent each
sell them for their zinc
\_ Mark Weller tells us
"Americans want pennies"
Backed by zinc lobby
\_ behold the penny
heavy, useless currency
uses too much zinc
\_ we are galvanized
in our monetary aim
turn all bills to zinc
\_ Modernization
Of legal tender permits
No place for pennies
\_ In the current thread
This haiku does not belong
No mention of zinc |
| 2006/5/30-6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43225 Activity:nil |
5/30 How is it known which Supreme Court justice casts the tie-breaking
vote (if there is one)? Do they cast their vote sequentially?
(e.g. why is Alito assumed to have cast the tie-breaking vote
in this whistleblower lawsuit?)
\- without going into it more deeply, the ct doesnt exactly vote,
they issue opinions and if one gets more than 5 people to sign
on, that has the force of law. given that people can "join in
part and dissent in part" and more than 2 opinions can be written,
this can be complicated to figure out. for example in the uc davis
Bakke aff action case, 6 opinions were written. there is an initial
this can be complicated to figure out. for example in the UC DAVIS
BAKKE aff action case, 6 opinions were written. there is an initial
vote and based on that the writing of opinions is assigned, but
this is sort of a fluid notion.
this is sort of a fluid stage.
\_ OK, so given that, how can the tie-breaking vote be
determined? -op
\- it depends on what the person using the term means.
if you point me to the article i can see if i can
figure it out. but it's probably not really a precise
term w.r.t. this decision. when there is a "real tie"
[like say only 8 justices are deciding a case due to
reculsals or absencens] the lower ct is affirmed.
it could mean "X voted last" or "we knew which way
everone else was going to go but were not sure about
alito" or "both opinion writers were offering changes
to get alito on board" etc. usually a tie breaker is
somebody who doesnt vote unless there is a tie as an
outcome. in this case there was not "final state"
od a tie, i assume. |
| 2006/5/22-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43151 Activity:nil |
5/22 http://www.bureauit.org/sbox The Suicide Box, Golden Gate Bridge. \_ This is a joke, right? Or it's just plain weird: "Workers killed on the job lose a future average 5580 days production time. Conversely the number of astronauts to have died from space since 1967 is 17.... Quarterly data captured by the box will be indexed to the Dow Industrial Average. Inverse proportionality is predicted and may provide concrete measure of civic morality and character in the population. Indexing the public healthcare budget to the bit data is further expected to amplify the digital sediment." |
| 2006/5/22-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43141 Activity:nil |
5/21 Dude. I'd totally vote for Al Gore again. Esp. after watching his
appearance on Saturday Night Live. I like him. Fuck Kerry.
Al Gore rules!!!
\_ He'd probably want to make peace with the Taliban.
\_ And you'll probably rape a busload of retarded children on
your way home tonight.
\_ Sure, Gore will just have 540,000 more votes with a +0.5% margin
again and still lose on electoral votes.
\_ Because purely democratic elections are a bad thing. The EC is
not a perfect answer but it's better than pure democracy. This
is a democratic republic, not a democracy and it's still one of
if not the best forms of government ever created.
\_ I do not have a problem with representative democracy.
A pure democracy is lame. However, changing the election of
the president to a popular vote would be cool in my book,
although the change probably would never occur in my lifetime.
\_ Of course you liek the idea, you live in a big city.
\_ Of course you like the idea, you live in a big city.
\_ Meaningless since most states practice winner-takes-all
for EC votes.
\_ Umm.. no. You misunderstand. Big city people
generally see no problem with screwing rural
types. The point doesn't really have anything
to do the votes that actually come from cities.
\_ Ah, I see. I did misunderstand: I thought you
were talking about the same thing we were:
representational v. pure democracies.
\_ So what? Why should a rural minority skew the
federal politics their way?
\_ And completely ignoring the minority is good?
The EC exists as a compromise system. No one
is ever happy with a compromise. That's the
point.
\_ Counting votes does not "completely ignore
the minority."
\_ Rural types generally see no problem with
screwing big city people. How does that
argument sound? It's probably more true also.
Almost all the big cities are overwhelmingly
democratic voting, even in "red states".
The bumpkins got Dubya in office. |
| 12/24 |
| 2006/5/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43053 Activity:nil |
5/14 http://saveoceanbeach.org/stopthefireban proposed ban on fires on ocean beach. \_ Why do they ban beachfires in CA? FL, Carolinas, Vi Bch, etc don't seem to care? \- i assume because people burn stuff like pallats with \_ they want to ban it in SF because assholes leave their detritus on the beach. \- i assume because people burn stuff like pallets with nails and people who do obnoxious things like throw glass bottles in the fires. \_ Heh, why not just put stone-enclosed "fire areas" there? That way you could burn what you wanted... -John \_ It could be an air quality thing. |
| 2006/5/12-17 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43033 Activity:nil |
5/11 Cody's on Telegraph to close:
http://csua.org/u/fu2
\_ "Down the block at equally venerated Moe's Books, bookseller Dave
Yetter said sales have been down throughout the area. He blamed
Berkeley city officials for neglecting Telegraph and instead
focusing their efforts on other shopping corridors such as
Shattuck Avenue in the downtown area."
-- Wow, so downtown Shattuck is what happens when the city
council tries to improve an area? What a bunch of losers.
If you ask the cops and business owners in Berkeley, they
all *hate* the city council. Even more liberal business
owners who are more interested in quality goods and services
than profits hate them.
\_ Vote. Get others to vote.
\_ What it comes down to is that I can buy a text for $32 (including
shipping) on the Internet or for $51 at Cody's. Yes,
brick-and-mortar bookstores are great for browsing, but as
a student with an assigned (required) text I don't need to
browse. I just want my book for cheap. I imagine the main
reason Cody's is closing isn't lack of demand, but a refusal
to be competitive with Border's/B&N let alone the Internet.
\_ yeah, if they just sold their books for $19 less each,
they'd be in much better shape! -tom
\_ Imagine how well off they'd be if they'd just charged
$100 more for each book!
\_ Maybe they would? The main thing when I was there was
the B&M shops deal in used books. You already get
screwed on taxes with B&M, if they can't even compete
on the base price then they deserve to be gone.
\_ Retail stores will never be able to compete on
price with national mail-order. The world will
be a poorer place if places like Cody's all go
away. -tom
\_ Which is why I have a simple rule. If I use
a B&M store to browse and discover what thing
I want to buy (salespeople's recs/looking at what
is available/etc) I buy that item at the B&M store.
Amazon is one of the few internet stores out there
that has done a good job at fullfilling those needs.
Hell there are things I research on Amazon that I
end up buying offline (cause I need it that day or
whatever.)
\_ if you are also the previous poster, you
have an internally inconsistent world view. -tom
\_ nope not pp
\_ They serve three purposes as far as I can see.
1) stock for when you need it "now"
2) being able to browse
3) convenient used market (although, I guess this
too is now done on amazon and ebay, but you can't
really examine those items etc.)
Cody's was right next to another store anyway and
IIRC wasn't usually cheapest. Maybe if they had one
larger store with a cafe inside etc. they could
stay in business. Anyway, for browsing, libraries
are good things. Maybe there should be more budget
for that. In any case I don't feel obligated to
do charity work for struggling bookstores.
\_ and you think the world is a better place
without Cody's?
\_ Personally, I don't care whether it exists or
not. Give me a reason to care. Maybe something
else will occupy its space that is better
overall? Maybe you think we should pay taxes
to support Cody's? Or what?
\_ A reason to care is that it was a place
with a good selection of books, arranged
for browsing, with a knowledgeable staff
and a pleasant environment. Telegraph
Ave. is lesser for its loss. It's another
example of how the "free" market often
has undesirable end effects. -tom
\_ You know, I think I've been thinking
Cody's was actually another store. I
think I may never have even gone into
Cody's. The problem with Telegraph was
how it became a trashy hobo zone. My
folks told me they used to go there from
the south bay decades ago. When I was at
Cal I didn't really enjoy Telegraph.
Roaches were crawling on the walls in
that Blue Nile restaurant and there were
always bums accosting you. And you
couldn't park, and the parking meters got
sawed off, and the store windows were
getting broken overnight, and somebody
got murdered around Dwight or something.
Whatever.
\_ Oh my god. THANK you for articulating
this so well. A lot of my friends
who went to Berkeley said they loved
it because its suckiness built
character and made them tough. They
loved the bums and the trash and the
the murders. My take has always been
that the whole city was a total
waste of tax payer's money. The best
public school in the world should
not have to be placed in such a
trashy town. As for the people who
think I'm a traitor or just hate
me because I have nothing good to say
about Berkeley-- I don't need to
conform with anyone's opinion and
you can go fuck yourself. WHATEVER.
\- the authors that would come on tour
and gives talks/readings at codys
was the main benefit i think. and a
good example of the free mkt. otherwise
i dont think this is really much of an
evidence of mkt failure. --psb
\_ I'm sorry but you're WRONG. Free market
and less government improves people's
lifestyle. Case in point, it allows
people to work less while giving more
freedom to many others:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1955256&page=1
Go Free Market! -Reagan's #1 fan
\_ I have never seen the price discrepancy so large (but,
disclaimer: I usually shop on amazon and never buy used or
third-world paperback editions online.) Usually, the price
difference is 5-10 bucks on expensive items before shipping and
quite often it's worth it for me to just pick the book at the
store instead of waiting for days for it to be delivered. Of
course, the presure of the online competition is still
undeniable. I buy most books online now.
\_ Well, that was a real world example for a book I bought.
I realize Cody's cannot compete on price, but to be
honest such a large subsidy isn't worth it. I like the
idea someone suggested about adding a cafe or something.
It's like the gas stations adding mini-marts. The
problem is that Berkeley is saturated with cafes. I will
miss Cody's, but I still wouldn't buy a book there for
$50 when I can get it (new) for $30.
\_ I hope all you Amazon shoppers and shareholders are happy... |
| 2006/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43029 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_taxes I make over 100K base salary, not including options/stocks. How does this law benefit me? |
| 2006/5/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:42972 Activity:nil |
5/8 Gotta love socialism
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194557,00.html
Chavez wants to be president for next 25 years
http://mosnews.com/money/2006/04/28/venezuelaoil.shtml
Venezuela oil production down 60%, buys from Russia
\_ It's not Socialism, it's Bolivarian..uh..ism. I am seeing first-
hand how a lot of S. American countries are getting very scared
of Chavez; here in Chile they're paranoid about how he prodded the
Bolivians into nationalizing their gas production (even though they
did the same with copper at one point.) The Argentines are playing
along because they're dependent on cheap energy, and Brazil
isn't doing much about it. Basically the only country really
raising its voice against Chavez is Colombia, and then mainly
because they're pretty sure he's using oil cash to supply massive
\_ Chavez' term, interestingly translated, not mine. -John
amounts of guns to FARC. -John
\_ Bolivarianism? How did you pick that word? Right now
Bolivia is kind of apeing Argentenia, aren't they? -op
\_ The Economist says its Bolivarianism, so it exists.
\_ Ah, it's not from "Bolivia" it's from "Bolivar"
\_ Ah, it's not from "Bolivia" it's from "BolÃvar"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism
\_ Chavez' term, interestingly translated, not mine. -John
\_ Dictators wear many masks. In the past it's been Communism,
fascism, democracy, divine right of kings, fundamentalist [
islam, christianity].... The problem is that most people don't
see the monster behind the pretty mask. |
| 2006/5/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42961 Activity:nil |
5/6 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.html mortgage as percentage of income across the country ... \_ "The population increase is driven primarily by births and foreign immigration. According to census statistics, from April 2000 to July 2005, California experienced a net natural increase . taking into account births and deaths . of 1.5 million people." How now, Mr. "People are Fleeing the State, the crash is coming" Yes, they're fleeing, but the population's still racing upwards. \_ I don't recall anyone making the claim that the CA population was going down, just that the BAY AREA population was declining. Generally people have said all the growth is happening down south. \_ Republicans have made the claim to try and make the Democrats running the state look bad. \_ link? \_ obGoogleFiveMinutes \_ Eh, it's a valid request, I think. He may want to verify your reading of the sources that you're referencing, or possibly to determine whether your opinions are based in fact or 'something that [absurdly extreme pundit] said on the radio yesterday so it must be true'. \_ Why is Chico so expensive? Just because of that stupid school? \_ It's a nice place to live. I blame the move-ins from the bay area. Interestingly, if you don't mind living outside the City proper, land is really cheap. -jrleek |
| 2006/5/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42956 Activity:nil |
5/5 FCC votes unanimously to require ISPs, VoIP providers, universities,
and municipalities to cover the cost of building VoIP call
surveillance infrastructure for law enforcement use
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6067971.html?tag=nl.e550 |
| 2006/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:42912 Activity:nil 63%like:42908 |
5/3 Dan Silverstein Inquiry: You arent related to BSTEIN are you?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/06/a_missing_piece.html
BSTEIN is the son of HSTEIN. "I did not know that". ok tnx.
\_ No. My Aunt (Mother's sister) married a gentleman with the last
name Stein so her kids (my cousins) have that surname, but they
have no relationship to Ben Stein or Herbert Stein. What led
you to inquire? You might as well ask if I'm related to Craig
Silverstein of Google or Shel Silverstein, and the answer to both
of those is no. The name Stein, as well as combinations like
Goldstein, Silverstein, etc., usually imply German and Stein is
usually pronounced 'stine'. I pronounce it 'steen,' and am of
Russian descent on both sides, but family lore says my
great-grandfather saw Silverstein on a cigar box, and used it in
lieu of his actual surname, which he felt sounded too polish,
when he immigrated. -dans
\_ "My name is Fronkensteen"
\_ "Do you also say Froaderick"?
\_ What color hair do your parent's have?
\_ What kind of grammatical errors do your parents make? -dans |
| 2006/5/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:42908 Activity:nil 63%like:42912 |
5/3 Dan Silverstein Inquiry: You arent related to BSTEIN are you? ok tnx.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/06/a_missing_piece.html |
| 2006/5/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Military] UID:42903 Activity:nil |
5/2 The Republicans have a secret weapon to win the 08 Election--
the capture of OSL. This is my 06 prediction. -Lefty Swami
\_ Who the fuck is OSL? Do you mean OBL or UBL?
\_ Artifact of translating Arabic names into English.
Unless you are talking about the ODB.
\_ They don't need a secret weapon. Their not-so-secret-weapon
is "Iran will nuke you unless you vote Republican" - danh
\_ Why didn't they bring him out in '04, then?
\_ they didn't need it then.
\_ So, you think they've had OSL in custody this whole time,
and are just keeping it a secret? Whatever, conspiracy
boy. Are they also going to destroy education this year?
\_ I really thought they might pull this in '04, but I'm increasingly
convinced that these people couldn't run a conspiracy in a
kindergarten. |
| 2006/4/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:42657 Activity:moderate |
4/4 AZ Voter Reward Act. "This law will establish a voter reward random
drawing every two years with a first prize of one million dollars or
more. The purpose is to increase voter participation. Voters who cast
ballots in primary or general elections will be eligible to win."
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/Initiatives.htm
\_ way to grab the poor vote.
\_ Which puts the Republicans at a disadvantage. Oh no!
\_ How about if you vote, you get tax deduction?
\_ How about if you don't vote 5 years in a row, you lose your
citizenship?
\_ This sounds like a really bad idea, it's bound to invoke the
law of unintended consequences. This will bring to the polls
people that are not informed, but simply want the money. These
folks are less likely to make informed decisions. But maybe
that's the point. --jwm
people that are not informed, but simply want the money. But
maybe that's the point. --jwm
\_ I don't see any reason to artificially boost voter participation.
Voting isn't a lottery and we shouldn't have to bribe people to
exercise a right others have died for.
\_ Is this Constitutional? I don't think so. Can you pay people
to vote?
\_ What particular section of the US (or state) constitution
would forbid this? I don't mean to be argumentative, but
if you're going to cite the Constitution or "the law", put
up the particulars. Anyway, Paying people to vote a certain
way (and not in the "vote for me and I'll cut your taxes"
way) is pretty verboten, but just to show up at the polls?
People here get free stickers for voting -- Is that verboten?
\_ The sticker is a red herring. Can, say, the Governator
pay every registered Republican $100 to turn out and
vote 'however they choose to vote'? I don't think so.
\_ http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.htm
Sec. 1973i(c)
There is a law which makes it illegal to buy votes in an
election for federal offices. There are probably state laws
prohibiting vote buying for individual states.
The correct question is to ask: Are these laws
unconstitutional? Probably not.
How about a state law which institutes a lottery? I don't know.
\_ The problem with voting from my point of view is it's
inconvenient. The vote day should be a mandatory holiday.
Also the registration and absentee ballot process should be
simpler. It should be a state-coordinated marketing effort
to just go to a promoted web site and fill in minimum
info, to get the ball rolling and the forms sent to you
with postage-paid return envelopes, and send absentee
ballots to everyone by default.
\_ Voting shouldn't be so easy it has no value or meaning. Voting
is something people should think about and understand wtf theyre
doing before they vote. I used to think low turnout was a bad
thing but then I realised I don't want the stupid, the uninformed
and the too lazy to bother diluting my vote. Let them stay home
and play video games. Voting is just not that hard. |
| 2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42547 Activity:moderate |
3/30 Welcome to the government-mandated gas shortage. Get ready for $3/gal
and more:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-29-10.asp
\_ "We need to put oil companies on notice that they cannot use MTBE
as another excuse to boost up oil prices," yeah, we all know that
artificially restricting supply never causes a price increase!
\_ I love how a senator complains that forcing the gas companies to
switch their ingredients is the gas companies' fault.
\_ you do know MTBE pollutes water and has no significant benefit,
right?
\_ No significant benefit to _you_. Lots of benefits to the chums
of the politicians legislating it.
\_ Yes, but congress also is forcing them to replace MTBE with
ethanol (rather than simply removing it) and ethanol producers
simply can't supply the demand.
\_ Oil companies finally figured out a way to get rid of a
byproduct (MTBE) by adding it to gasoline. Too bad it's
a pollutant!
byproduct (MTBE) by adding it to gasoline. Too bad it's a
pollutant!
\_ Congress also mandated MTBE in the first place.
\_ Who runs Congress? Noo, the answer is not "the
Congresscritters", try again.
\_ that is a different story. while adding ethanol make sense
in corn-producing countries such as Iowa, transporting them
from midwest to California so it can be added doesn't make
any economic sense. Thanks to powerful corn producing
countries... btw, this is also the reason why we don't see
any frutose (liquid sugar that is only half of calories) at
starbuck... god damn it.
\_ Umm, all sugar is going to be the same number of calories.
Carbs is carbs.
\_ Do you mean frutose or fructose? If it's the latter, are
you talking about high fructose corn syrup, which, to my
knowledge, is terrible for you, or is there some just
plain fructose liquid sugar that is less bad? -dans
\_ sugaarrr... mmmmm.... |
| 2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Humor] UID:42537 Activity:nil |
3/29 Isn't it funny that many hispanics decided to switch and vote for
the GOP and now the GOP is dissing them?
\_ Because all hispanics are in favor of open borders by virtue
of their ethnicity? Isn't it funny how many people can hold
incredibly racist beliefs and not even see it while at the
same time pointing the same fat finger at others? |
| 2006/3/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42528 Activity:low |
3/29 These are the counties in the USA with the most millionaires,
excluding the value of their primary residence : (from Money/CNN)
1 Los Angeles County, CA 262,800
2 Cook County, IL 167,873
3 Orange County, CA 113,299
4 Maricopa County, AZ 106,210
5 San Diego County, CA 100,030
6 Harris County, TX 96,593
7 Nassau County, NY 78,816
8 Santa Clara County, CA 75,371
9 Palm Beach County, FL 69,871
10 Middlesex County, MA 67,552
\_ http://www.city-data.com/top2.html
Top median household income are usually in N Cal
\_ It's not what you earn, it's what you save/invest.
\_ Hmm .. I didn't expect Cook County to rank so high. It's kind
of a dump. I guess it's just a big county, or maybe housing
is still relatively cheap here so they don't have all their
money locked up in their homes. - cook county resident
\_ Why is New York not in there?
\_ New York City is *IN* Nassau County last time I checked.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_County,_New_York
"Nassau County is a county located outside New York City
in the state of New York."
\_ As a former resident of Nassau County: I would like to
correct this info: Nassau is most definitely not a part
of NYC. It is a distinct county of the state of NY.It is
of NYC. It is a distinct county of the state of NY. It is
\_ What info would you like to correct? You proceeded
to say the exact same thing yourself.
not a borough of NYC. Now if you want to start defining
what is or is not a part of suburban NYC; then things get
interesting in that suburban NYC is contained in three
states; not one. Most of the NY rich have houses
in Connecticut, NJ or Westchester County ;AFAIR.
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_NYBOROUGHS.html
\_ In NYC, each borough is its own county of about 2-3 million
people. None of them qualified on their own. I'm going to
also guess that lots of people who work in NYC actually live
in CT and NJ, further reducing the number in NYC counties.
If you look at number of billionaires by city then NYC is
#1(#2), LA is #2(#5), SF is #3(#7), and Chicago #4(#10) in the
USA/world.
\_ It still seems wrong that there aren't 68k or more
millionaires in Manhattan.
\_ As the guy above points out, this has a lot to do with
the number of people in a given county. It's not a
coincidence that the counties are mostly in Western
states. Western counties are the size of eastern states
in some cases.
\_ "excluding the value of their primary residence"
Doesn't seem too unlikely with that caveat.
\_ Might seem wrong, but those are the stats.
\_ Why would you exclude the value of someones primary residence?
\_ With the recent runup in real estate prices, lots of people
are paper millionaires. However, their wealth is not liquid
and not really useful either. (If they sold their house
they would have to buy another for a similar price.) It
makes a lot of sense to ask how much in cash/investments
people have *outside* of their house, which they are
presumably living in and intend to keep. |
| 2006/3/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42524 Activity:nil |
3/29 The McMansions are coming! The McMansions are coming!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060327/ap_on_re_us/mansionizing_history |
| 2006/3/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics] UID:42515 Activity:nil |
3/29 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_sc/smart_brains Smart kids' brain may mature later than dumber kids. Horray for all immature men on Soda! You may all turn out to be smart kids later in your life. \_ great, still waiting for my foreskin to retract. |
| 2006/3/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:42509 Activity:high 79%like:42498 |
3/28 http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.212651~-118.660726&style=o&lvl=1&scene=3064367 Is this an example of how suburbs grow? First they carve out the road and then they build houses on top of it? shares is 1,000,000. All 1,000,000 shares are issued, and employees are granted 10% of that, and the founder grants himself 90%. What's to prevent the founder from voting to double the number of authorized shares to 2,000,000 and screwing the employees with 2x dilution? Other than all the employees getting pissed and leaving. \_ The board can do anything. If you're a staffer and want to sue, you're welcome to but good luck on that. You'll spend way more on lawyers than whatever you might have regained in a lawsuit and probably won't win anyway. \_ Word of advice, if the chair/founder/whatever is Ari Zilka, leave. He'll take most of the money and leave you suckers with almost nothing. \_ Nothing. But, generally this is why small corporations have boards, and, if memory serves, the board must be at least 3 people, and, once a corporation gets to a certain number of employees, the board gets bigger. -dans \_ What if two of the three positions on the board of directors are occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the founder will always get the majority vote? \_ Welcome to the wonderful world of business. \- Is the founder's name RIGAS? --psb \_ Merely issuing more shares would not directly screw the employees. If he did something like say grant himself 1,000,000 new shares that could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit but good luck. \_ What about doubling the number of authorized shares? \_ We just started covering this in my bus org/corp law class. The way I understand it majority controlling shareholders have a fiduciary duty wrt to the minority shareholders. In the scenario you describe the maj shareholder has effectively reduced the voting power of the min shareholders by 1/2 (assuming that each of the new shares has one vote and the voting power of the old stock did not increase). By acting this way the maj shareholder has breached his fiduciary duty and the min shareholders can sue him for this breach. [ I might have this wrong, so I'll ask my bus org prof on thurs ] \_ Can the dude with 90% also pay himself a big salary, and thus take away all the profits of the company? |
| 2006/3/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42505 Activity:nil |
3/28 http://tinyurl.com/ep643 14 Walmart stores in Northern Cal, none in the peninsula. What's up? |
| 2006/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:42445 Activity:moderate |
3/26 http://csua.org/u/fc5 Remember those whiney, rigid unhappy kids in pre-school? They grow up to be whiney, rigid, unhappy Republicans. \_ Yeah, "95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking." Why do I get the feeling that the results would have been different if it were Orange County "social scientists" doing the research. - Never whined to a teacher in my life. have been tracking." Why do I get the feeling that the results would have been different if it were Orange County "social scientists" doing the research. - Never whined to a teacher in my life. \_ Are you suggesting the researcher's political bias would affect the outcome of the experiment? Inconceivable! \_ This is old. Can't you find something new to troll about? |
| 2006/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42427 Activity:high |
3/25 Vermont AP bureau chief abruptly fired for what appear to be overtly
political reasons: http://csua.org/u/fc2
This is hands down one of the most chilling pieces of news I've seen
in a long time. I originally found about this from Dan Gillmor's blog:
http://bayosphere.com/node/1877
Gillmor is a highly respected journalist who left the San Jose Mercury
News to make the ideals of Citizen Journalism he laid out in his book,
"We The Media," a reality. I consider Gillmor to be a very reliable
source. -dans
\_ Uh... no. AP chief fired for reasons currently only known to
AP and him. You may trust Gillmor but he's only able to quote
unnamed 'sources'. Public statements from professional journalists
should maintain a higher standard than we do on the motd. For all
you know he got fired for pissing in someone's morning coffee. You
don't have any information beyond third+ hand rumor and suspician.
\_ What part of ``appear to be'' don't you understand? English,
motherfucker, do you speak it? Can you read it? -dans
\_ So what? He got fired. Big deal. There are thousands of journalism
majors currently working at your local Starbucks who can take his
place.
\_ Preprending "appears to be" isn't sufficient cover for the
next line, "This is hands down one of the most chilling
pieces of news I've seen in a long time" which makes it
clear this isn't an "appears to be" to you but you're taking
as fact and expect the rest of us to take as fact as well.
Just an FYI, take it as you will, "English, motherfucker, do
you speak it?" as a response makes you look like a ranting
moronic junior highschool level child. It adds nothing to
the conversation. It doesn't score you any points. It's a
complete waste of bits at best. And it never brings the
level discourse *up*. We can all go to various http://myspace.com
quality communities and message boards if we want that level
of discussion.
\_ Seriously, your comments indicate that you have the
reading comprehension skills of a fourth grader. When I
write, ``This is hands down one of the most chilling
pieces of news I've seen in a long time,'' the use of the
personal pronoun `I' indicates that the statement is *my*
opinion, and *not* a statement of fact. You clearly don't
understand this. Clearly, you cannot read English well.
In order to help you, I found this helpful workshop
provided by the BBC to educate you on personal pronouns:
http://csua.org/u/fc4
Furthermore, I signed every post I made to this thread
showing that I stand behind my words. You don't. You can
call my comment mean and nasty, but you can't call it
childish. Childish is throwing an anonymous temper
tantrum when someone forcefully points out that your
previous anonymous post shows poor reading comprehension
skills. This is the motd. Nobody put a gun to your head
and forced you to respond to my post. If you don't want
to be criticized, either don't post, or write your posts
and argue your points so well that there's nothing to
criticize.
P.S. When did we elect your anonymous ass to the position
of Arbiter of MOTD Behavior? I missed that vote.
-dans
\_ So what? Newspapers are a business. Business make decisions.
Sometimes the decisions are based on politics. That is the
way the world works. Besides, its not like there is anything
worth reading in a newspaper besides the comics and Fry's ads.
\_ This so has to be a troll. I cannot believe anyone is this
stupid. ilyas, is that you? No, can't be ilyas, no talk of
sentient stars. -dans
\_ Well, its only 1/2 a troll. I only look at two things in
the newspaper, the Fry's ad and the comics. Some days I
even skip the comics (other than Fox Trot, its not like
any of the comics can really compete w/ Penny Arcade).
\_ Coool! -dans |
| 2006/3/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42404 Activity:nil |
3/23 Americans loathe liberal media:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060323/cm_ucac/pollmostamericanslovecoultercolumns
\_ Wow... Just... wow... |
| 2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:42395 Activity:high |
3/23 Have you done your taxes yet? Do you owe or do you get a refund?
\_ owed $4500 (too much capital gains)
\_ L'chaim. -dans
\_ Only got $1500 from the feds, $600 from CA.
\_ you didn't "get" anything. it was your money in the first place.
\_ Except for the portion lent to us from China, Japan, Europe,
etc.
\_ Damn alternative minimum tax cost us $4000 above what we'd
normally pay. No weird deductions, just a mortgage. Doh!
\_ Yeah so? That just means you're rich and need to be taxed even
more.
\_ $160 back Fed, $700 CA (don't ask)
\_ $3k Fed, $3k CA...first year with a home, I immediately raised
my exemptions after I found out how much money I could have had
all year to invest. I love home ownership, I compared my apt to
home taxes and have saved $12K overall. Even accounting for
property tax ($7k), I still save $5k a year with a home.
\_ really? can you show us the math? |
| 2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42340 Activity:kinda low |
3/20 Every year we Northern Californians pay a lot of tax to the State
of California, but how much are we really getting back? Are we
getting back every dollar we paid to the State in the form of
mass transit and infrastructure and what not, or are we wasting
money on projects in the Central Valley and Southern California?
\_ You're committing the "taxes == fees for services" fallacy.
\_ High income, economically productive areas like the Bay Area
always pay higher taxes than the subsidized suburban and rural
areas. This has been true for a long time, pretty much since
the Industrial Revolution.
\_ Considering that most of the population growth has been shifting
down the past couple years, hopefully this taxe trend will shift.
down south the past couple years, hopefully this taxe trend will
shift that way too. |
| 2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42268 Activity:nil |
3/16 First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. Then you win. -M. Ghandi
http://csua.org/u/f9q (Article by http://Talkingpoints.com editor)
(NYT article on Bush impeachment)
\_ Why impeachment is a bad idea:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/031606.html
http://tinyurl.com/oahfm (hillnews.com)
\_ Politics is local. The number of incumbents who lose elections each
term is trivial. Ghandi had a much better chance with the British
than the D do of retaking anything. His was a moral issue and he
was on the side of right against a people who think of themselves
in those terms. Ds and Rs are just politicians. There is no great
moral conflict. The math is the math. Don't hold your breath.
\_ The War on Iraq is not a moral conflict? Don't kid yourself.
\_ "Politics is local". Iraq is far far far away.
\_ In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 61 percent said the Iraq
war would be a very important or the most important issue
in deciding their vote for Congress.
\_ 'With "impeachment on the horizon," he wrote, "maybe, just maybe,
conservatives would not stay at home after all."'
Uh, how does that jibe with 36% approval rating?
\_ A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of
touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of
Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by
"good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent
reply was "honest."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060316/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc |
| 2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42231 Activity:nil |
3/14 New CBS poll with Bush at 34% breaks down party affilation this way:
32% GOP
32% Dems
36% Ind
So what's the new talking point? For reference, the last poll had
the "controversial" breakdown of:
28% GOP
40% Dems
32% Ind
\_ I believe the 32% / 32% numbers are unweighted (they asked about
the same raw number of Dems and Republicans).
However, all results have been weighted so that Dems represent
34% and Republicans represent 29%, for the most recent CBS poll.
As for the previous CBS poll, my guess is that the 28% / 40% numbers
were also the raw number of people asked, and they again weighted to
~34% Dem / ~29% GOP, but they asked the same number of Dems and
Republicans for the new poll to avoid that controversy.
Or perhaps to have a new controversy of "Why did you weight the
GOP votes down to 29% you motherfuckers?!"
\_ The "controversy" was not weighted vs. unweighted. It was
stupidity vs. facts.
\_ I just found the data for the older poll.
The weighting for that was 37% Dem / 28% GOP.
So that means they went from a split of 9% to 5% from the
old poll to the current one.
\_ There have always been more Democrats than Republicans. The
so-called controversy was just more GOP denying of reality
slapping them in the face. |
| 2006/3/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42223 Activity:low |
3/14 Anyone ever heard of these guys? Are they legit? The lack of
contact info seems a bit odd: http://safedealexchange.com -John
\_ I thought this might indicate they _weren't_ legit, but on
further consideration it might merely indicate that someone
copied their license number / address.
http://www.corp.ca.gov/pub/consumeralerts.htm#071505 -niloc
\_ Probably bogus. See http://www.corp.ca.gov/fsd/lic -niloc
\_ Turns out they are bogus, without looking up any BBB or
Dept. of Corporations info; their whois RIR is in
Thailand. Thanks though. -John
\_ The misspelled affiliates. Probably a scam. -ausman
\_ The misspelled affiliates. Probably a scam. From
http://www.carbuyingtips.com/fraud.htm
"Escrow sites with the word "Safe" or "Secure" in their name
are neither safe, nor secure."
\_ That seems like kind of a bizarre generalization, except that
in this case it seems to apply... :-) -John |
| 2006/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:42178 Activity:nil |
3/10 Looking for data that supports the claim from the 10/13 motd that
Bay Area prostitution is decreasing. I can't find anything that
supports this claim.
For reference: http://csua.org/u/f70
\_ Look at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5text2.htm . That'll
have the raw numbers. I'm too lazy to do the math myself, but I
like to see the answer after you've figured it out.
\_ You're going to have a hard time finding hard data since there
really isn't any. The census is once per 10 years, it's self
reporting and then they further manually munge the data to fit
their idea of who they think should be there. There are other
methods that take place on a local level but they're not that
accurate either. Until everyone gets RFID'd, processed, scanned,
enumerated, and entered in the computer, these numbers will always
just be guesstimations at best. IMO, it's better that way.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/l4j5n (was declining)
http://tinyurl.com/m4sf3 (now rising a bit)
\_ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-10-topstrip-usat_x.htm |
| 2006/3/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42169 Activity:moderate |
3/9 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/forbes_billionaires Number of Billionaires to a record 793. Who says Bushconomy sucks? \_ I think that includes foreigners, who sure benefitted from our spending and more spending. \_ I say it sucks and I'll explain to you. Bush uses my tax dollars to go fund his illegitimate war and go and take all the spoils for himself. Plus I will almost certainly be paying higher taxes to offset his record deficit that he's created. So tell me how I benefit from this again???? Bush better be planning to pay back the "loan" that he's taken out from the American people, cuz I sure as hell don't want to be paying extra taxes cuz of the stupid debt he's racked up at our expense. \_ Just like when we had Reagan as a President, we owe him a debt we can never repay ... \_ You must be on crack if you believe Reagen was responsible for the economic boom of the 90's. If you can explain how Reagen administration was more responsible than, say, the rise of the Internet for the 90's boom, I'll give you a Nobel prize. \_ Who commercialized the Internet? \_ In a way the defeat of Soviet Communism and the resulting demilitarization supported the boom of the 90s. Reagan embraced and executed an active policy to defeat, instead of contain, the USSR. This policy, combined w/ economic conditions in the USSR, largely worked. Specifically WRT supply side economics, I agree that it is not clear that this economic policy resulted in the boom of the 90s. \_ complete BS. Soviet would of fell apart on its own weight regardless. \_ It is very hard to say that the USSR was in such bad shape in the 80s that it would have died w/o Zero Option, &c. I am not saying Reagan single handedly killed TEH COMMIE, just that his policies were a contributing factor. \_ It isn't so important that they collapsed, per se, but what they became after. Had they been crushed by anything other than the US their odds of becoming a more democratic nation would have been zero, simply replacing one dictatorship with another. There were a few attempted non-democratic coups that went no where. Some historical what-if for you: Had the Nazi's survived WWII and into the 90's, would the Soviets have still collapsed? Likely so. Would it have turned into a more western nation? You decide. \_ 1) Is that inflation injusted and yes 2) "Bushconomy" is VERY good for rich people, I don't think anyone will disagree with that. The disagreement is over whether good for billionaires == good for everyone else. \_ You're not getting it. If you argue with a wealthy conservative, he/she will say that if everyone else's income didn't increase it is because they didn't work as hard [as the wealthy folks]. In the conservative world, YOU are self-reliant and you, and no one else, can make yourself wealthy. The rich conservatives' argument is that if you tax the rich more, then you'll fall under socialism (which Ronald Reagan declares as EVIL!!!) and \_ Socialism *is* evil. no one will have incentives to work hard anymore. So, fuck \_ See "Collapse of Soviet Union under own weight" above. social programs, cut taxes, and faggots need to go to hell. That is the platform of the American conservatives. \_ You've clearly never talked to a conservative, rich or otherwise. Would you like to hear what the "extremist ultra liberal" platform is? You know it wouldn't be difficult to paint your beliefs into a tidy little strawman and then knock it down, so why do you do that to other people? \_ There is something to be said that a grim socialist completely state controlled economy is the bane to economic growth, witness eastern bloc countries before the fall of the soviet union. current conservatives in power though appear to want to take everything to the \_ There are no conservatives in power at the moment. There are pro-business Republicans. If the Dems had put up something better than that mindless Republican-lite playboy they would have won in 2004. Stop running stupid candidates so we can have better candidates from both parties running. If you run Hillary in 2008 she'll lose and we'll get another 4-8 years of pro-Business Republicans again. complete logical extreme with no oversight on business by government in even the most egregious examples. \_ http://www.nowartax.org can help you out with your tax problems |
| 2006/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Food/Alcohol] UID:42073 Activity:moderate |
3/2 So much for federalism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_he_me/food_warnings
\_ 1) federalism is LONG dead (in these united states)
2) Whatever the possibly undesirable outcomes of such legislation,
the concept of unified food labeling is completely consistent
with the principles of Federalism and in particular with the
interstate commerce clause of our constitution. It boggles
my mind, that in a time in which that clause is used to
justify (successfully, btw, see the CA marijuana case) leg.
regarding things that aren't even commerce, let alone inter-
state commerce, that you would point to the above link as
some sort of watershed legislation signifying the end of Fed.ism
I suspect (just a guess, and i don't know who you are since you
didn't sign, so don't get all offended) that you are just some
dumb leftist who doesn't have the first clue about federalism
(and probably doesn't care) but (mistakenly) thinks he has caught
his "opponents"(a larger mistake I won't go into), in some sort
of a hypocrisy/contradiction. -crebbs
some sort of watershed legislation signifying the end of
Federalism. -crebbs
\_ "Consumers across the country deserve a single set of science-based
food warning requirements, not the confusing patchwork that we have
today," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (news, bio, voting record),
R-Tenn.
I demand faith-based food warning requirements!
\_ According to the bible, a believer can drink any poison
and survive, so why do we need food warnings at all? Note
I'm getting this from a recent Boston Legal episode, but
I'm sure some Christian can give the reference.
\_ you are right, see Psalm 91:11,12 - (1)
but then you are also wrong, see Deuteronomy 6:13 - (2)
but then you are also wrong, see Deuteronomy 6:16 - (2)
and then there is Matthew 4 where satan uses (1) and
Jesus uses (2) in reply.
oh wait, u are just trolling. doh!
\_ The bible contradicts itself? You're shattering my
world!
\_ Psalm isn't the (very general, directly countered in
Matthew 4) reference they were talking about; they were
talking about Matthew 16:18.
talking about Mark 16:18.
\_ Deuteronomy 6:13 applies to Mark 16:18 too. It's
\_ Deuteronomy 6:16 applies to Mark 16:18 too. It's
the same idea.
\_ "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him,
and shalt swear by his name." -- Deut 6:13
ooooooook...
(note: verse corrected from 6:13 to 6:16. thanks!)
\_ My bad. It's Deut 6:16.
\_ To think I wasted years of my life building up an immunity
to iocane powder when all I needed to do was believe.
-westley
\_ Do you really think that we would be better off leaving all
food labeling to the states? The FDA std labeling require-
ments for many types of foods are a net positive for consu-
mers in terms of consistency and safety. You can go to any
store in any state in the union and read the label and know
what you are getting. That is a good thing in my book.
I agree that taking away the ability of the states to add
extra warnings could be a bad thing, but if the federal stds
are better than the state stds, then maybe it would be okay.
\_ If you read the article, this isn't about "better federal
in place of"; it's about states adding extra, and mfrs.
complaining b/c of cost.
\_ I read the article (hence, the "I agree, ..."). I was
suggesting that in this case abs. federalism would not
be a good thing. I have not read the bill, but if the
stds it required were more than anything the states
currently required (unlikely) it could be a good thing
as well.
\- The POWER of CAROLENE PRODUCTS |
| 2006/3/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42071 Activity:nil |
3/2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_us/helpful_babies Altruism start as early as 18 months. \_ then stops as early as 18 years when you become a conservative like GWB. \_ Haw haw haw! \_ I'm an independent, and if I understand the conservative from an independent's perspective, they are: *pro lower tax-- "I don't want to pay tax to fund programs that I personally don't need, like welfare" *pro family value-- "Who needs the government when you can get support from your family" *pro self-reliance-- "God helps those who help themselves" *pro small government-- "If you help yourself you don't need to leech off from the government" *pro free market-- "success is measured by money and efficiency" I'm sorry my conservative friend, but none of the above values stem from altruism. That's why I'll never vote for a conservative candidate. I have similar gripes about anal ass loving liberals but we can save that for another discussion. \_ You got the previous poster wrong. GWB is NOT a conservative. Just look at how the idiot is spending money like a drunken sailor. We'll be in debt for generations thanks to GWB. GWB, is, pure and simple, a crony-rewarding dumbass frat-boy criminal who has used the power and treasure of the US to conduct personal and family vendettas, and enriched his cronies in the process. \_ In other words, unfortunately he's a typical national-level politician. \_ In other words, the people really don't want a "real" conservative government. Didn't we already find this out in the Reagan years? |
| 2006/2/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41959 Activity:moderate |
2/22 Can anyone tell me why Bush wants to outsource the ports to
a company from another country? What's the reason behind it?
What is the advantage for doing so?
\_ sounds more to me like that the ports are already outsourced by
foreign counteries. This was a case of one foreign company selling
out to a company HQ'd in a country that had a few folks unhappy
\- i dont think this is really a hands on personal decision.
it was a cmte decison by Committee on Foreign Investment in
the US. i suppose it is possible BUSH let them know what he
wanted, but i dunno if that has really been established.
this is controversial because the country is arab, not foreign.
foreign companies were already involved running other parts
of the ports/martine infrastructure.
\_ His threatened veto of any bar to it belies the "not hands on"
\- well that's after the fact. that can be construed as
backing the cmte rather than desiring a particular
outcome. perhaps a legitmate case of defending executive
privilage.
\_ Yes, it's after the fact. But that, combined with them
bypassing the required 45 day investigation period
suggests a concerted effort that would depend on an
executive branch "understanding". Yes, this is
conjecture, but it runs along their standard MO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html
\_ UAE only supplied two 9/11 hijackers, so they only get ports.
Saudi Arabia sent 15 hijackers, so they get Abrams tanks, F-15s,
and quality time with Dubya. http://csua.org/u/f22 (whitehouse.gov)
\_ Their banks also provided money to the hijackers and stopped any
investigation to follow the money trail through UAE. There are a
lot of conservatives like me upset about this.
\_ Ok, Mr. Responsible Conservative Guy, so which GOP candidate
are you planning on backing for '08? Just curious.
\_ Anybody but Bush!
\_ Do you mean Jeb?
\_ I don't see any '08 candidates of any party worth looking
at twice. -Mr. RCG
\_ Reasonable, informed, people should always vote, and
shold always care. Even if you're a "lesser evil"
voter, shouldn't you care that they get someone who
can beat the other party? Of if you really hate them,
you should pick a Dem to support. Reasonable,
non-partisan people ignoring party primaries is how you
end up with assholes like George Bush being a major
party candidate. I will forever regret not registering
as a Republican in 2000 so that I could vote against
that bastard twice.
\_ I'm sure that would have made a difference. Anyway,
I think you're missing the above person's point
which is this is early 06 and the election isn't
until late '08. We don't even know who is running
so how could anyone have an intelligent opinion?
\_ If Colin Powell could be convinced to run, I would vote
for him. My 2d choice would be McCain. I voted for him
in the 2000 primary. If the GOP runs some neocon nutcase
and the Democrats run someone reasonable like Lieberman
or Clark, I'd probably vote Democrat for the first time
in my life. -gopvoter
\_ You don't want someone more moderate and not in the
pocket of the insurance industry like Senator Clinton?
\_ I'm pretty much center of the road, so I could
bring myself to vote for a moderate democrat,
esp. considering that a moderate democrat prob.
would not have expanded the fed gov as much as
BUSHCO has.
Re Sen. Clinton: I don't think I can vote for her
b/c I think her whole moderate stance is a just a
PR stunt and that she would go left if elected. I
am also just too closed minded to think that a woman
could lead troops into battle a la President Wash-
ington [except perhaps Princess Leia :-)]. I know
that no modern President has had to or could effect-
ively do this (except maybe Ike), but it is still a
factor in my voting. -gopvoter
\_ Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that they
both are leading identical countries, with
identical armies so that the only difference is
leadership, and imagine a war with Thatcher
leading one side and George W. Bush leading the
other. I'm not saying Clinton could be a good
commander in chief, but it would be hard to be
worse at that particular job than the lazy, lying
ex-cheerleader AWOL know-nothing who presently has
the job.
\_ As much as I love Maggie, the guys on the Brit
destroyer the Argentinians sunk might
disagree with you.
\_ I understand on a rational level that some
women can perform the duties of CiC better
that most of the men who have held that
position. That isn't the problem for me.
I still have this vision of the President
as a man who, if necessary, can walk on to
the battle field and defend this nation w/
his life. I just can't bring my self to see
this as the proper sort of thing for a
woman.
\_ Looks like you'd better start pushing
for a Jesse Ventura presidential bid.
\_ I prefer Ahnuld, but The Body would
be okay w/ me.
\_ "When two tribes go to war..."
\- and BUSH and CHENEY fit your vision of
a CiC who can walk on to the battle
field [sic] and defend this nation with
his life? wow, you have quite an
imagination. --motd vet for truth
\_ Bush2 does not fit my vision of a
proper president (I voted for McCain
in the 2000 primary and would have
liked the Democrats to have nominated
Clark in 2004). Furthermore, I said
that fitness as the CiC was one factor
in my voting. Between two male candi-
dates, this factor is not dispositive.
It only really affects my decision to
vote for a woman for the presidency.
I'd rather abstain than vote for a
woman candidate b/c I can't get over
the feeling that women are not fit
to be the CiC.
\_ Aren't these guys heavy Carlyle Group investors?
\_ I thought they aren't actually running the ports just leasing some
terminals ...
\- hola fyi ucb dept political science prof steve weber will
be talking about this on the radio at 9pm on thr.
\_ Polls don't matter, I read it on the motd. |
| 2006/2/18-23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41922 Activity:high |
2/18 Now here's an excellent reason to put a child in the SF public
school system.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/19/SPED.TMP
\_ I'm going to make a prediction. I predict that the GOP is planning
a frontal attack on public education within the next year, and that
talking points are being distributed through their usual channels
in anticipation of that attack. You can jump up and down and flame
me, and say that's crazy now, but I'll just repost this whole thread
in a year, when we're hearing a new proposal to phase out free
public k-12 education in America.
\_ So, are you anti-vouchers? If so, what's your reasoning?
Or, do you really believe the GOP wants to completely phase
out free public education? Also, if you're so sure about
your prediction, why not sign your name? -jrleek
\_ I am 100% pro-vouchers, and yes, I believe that the long-term
goal of those at the top in the GOP is the destruction of
all social services.
\_ Well, I'm with you on vouchers, but I think your fear
of associating your name with your prediction shows
that you know the prediction is BS and your belief
really only amounts to paranoid delusion. -jrleek
\_ I believe in a totally anymous motd. Part of the
reason for that is that I think anonymity helps remove
ego from discussions. I find claims by people like you
that the only reason people don't sign is cowardice
to be childish and stupid. If you really care, I'll
just email you. Do you care?
\_ I didn't say the only reason people don't sign
is cowardice. I often don't sign myself, and I
would appreciate a completely anonymous motd, so
people wouldn't get "outted" by lamers. But
in this case you not only made a specific
prediction, but bragged that you'd come back and
rub it in any flamer's faces when it came true.
This suggests that you want the "benifit" of
being right, but don't want to pay the "price"
of being wrong. That actually does sound like
cowardice to me. I don't really care who you
are, I just suggest that if you're going to
"call people out" you should have the guts to
sign your name. That said, I'm sure not going
to remember this in a year. -jrleek
\_ okay, if i was a poor person and my children flunked out
of highschool i would start sueing schools for them not
having provided special education and ruining my childs life.
I would start sueing every school and get poor people to sue
school after school. it's the only way for the poor to make
money.
\_ I want to go kill the fucking parents, piece of shit.
\_ Yeah, me too. Evil manipulative fuckers.
\_ Um, when did Woodside become part of San Francisco?
\_ 1. SFUSD is a recent favorite motd target. 2. SFUSD is
probably an easier mark with deeper pockets.
\_ Hey, I was a frustrated youth too! I should sue for a million
dollars as well.
\_ The State of California is required to provide education to
all children. Unsurprisingly, special needs kids are not often
catered to. It's not uncommon for those parents to sue to get
the education their child needs. Maybe these parents took
advantage of that or maybe not. It's not clear the what extent of
services their child may need.
\_ How would you ever legally decide whether a child actually
"needs" a service? Horseback lessons? It's patently obvious
that while all children could benefit from that, no child
actually requires it. Same goes for a private schooling
across the country. The school they chose had no special
services, it was just away from home and small.
\_ Things like that can make a big difference. With children
who have special needs, class size is a huge factor,
for instance. As someone else said below, an army of
therapists, doctors, teachers, and so on must all be
involved in deciding that a child has special needs. I
am surprised at the callous and uninformed responses in
this thread. It's possible this couple manipulated the
system. However, what evidence do we have of that?
\_ I am a bit confused. You say "an army of therapists, etc."
are involved in deciding a child has special needs? An
army? 11% of all students 6 to 13 receive some special
ed (http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/research/rb2txt.htm And
an army is required to certify each child? I fail to see
how that army scales to 11% of the student population.
Ref please.
\_ Don't take the word 'army' literally. The point is
that parents can't just make this stuff up. There
are a lot of people involved in the process. My
nephew is 9 and autistic. Each year he gets evaluated
by at least 3-4 different people in addition to
his own doctors and teachers. He has probably been
seen by 30-40 different professionals by now. It's
not like his parents can just make stuff up. In fact,
in my experience they tend to score him as more
functioning than he really is, probably for a
combination of financial and practical reasons.
(It's easy for him to fake being 'normal' for an
hour session, but it's quite eye-opening to spend the
weekend with him.) One social worker can handle a
lot of cases, for instance, so don't worry about
the numbers game. Just rest assured that the government
(including school districts) doesn't easily cough up
wads of cash to any dipshit parents who claim their kid
has issues. From what I see, for the most part kids
who should be receiving services are not and not
the other way around.
\_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole. Now have
you read the sfgate article? There, the Woodside
parents are doing "'unilateral placement--enrolling
a child in a private school, then billing the
district for tuition". IOW, they bypassed that
\_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole, and you
extrapolated from your experience with one nephew.
Now have you read the sfgate article? There, the
Woodside parents are doing "'unilateral placement--
enrolling a child in a private school, then billing
the district for tuition". IOW, they bypassed that
"army" and hired their own special ed expert to find
a prep school, and then the Woodside parents hired
a lawyer to sue the school district so the district
would pay for tuition and family travel cost to
visit the child in Maine.
a prep school in Maine. Then the Woodside parents
hired a lawyer to sue the school district so the
district would pay for tuition and family travel
cost to visit the child in Maine. In fact, according
to the artcle, of 3763 special ed kids who filed
complaints last year, the distrcits had secret
settlements with 90% of them.
cost to visit the child in Maine. Nor does it seem
that the Woodside child was all that disabled.
Even the mother said "He's a model child". His
problem? "[H]is frustration and anxiety were so
high that [he could] turn to drugs...".
\_ Actually, I am not using just one data point.
I met a psychology professor whose specialty
is 'special education' and he referred me to
a private practice attorney who deals with
filing suits against school districts. The
way it works is that the district drags its
feet until confronted with parents who are
willing to do something about them. Then they
pay up because it's actually cheaper to pay
the parents than to solve the initial
problem. They don't do so until there has
been a mountain of evidence amassed against
them (i.e. they feel they will lose the
case). This is where the expert testimony and
evaluations come in. I don't know if these
parents were full of shit or not, but I am
appalled at the responses nonetheless.
\_ Did you read the article? It's obvious
they are full of shit. If you don't know
then you're an idiot.
\_ Why are you appalled? Did you read the
article? It's obvious that things like
horseback riding aren't needed. And in
this case of the small school across
the country, that's complete bull also.
From the article, the parents put the
kid there WITHOUT having any specific
reason, just the mother's whim basically.
If you think that's fair to the taxpayers
then you can fuck yourself.
\_ Now, 90% of complaints are settled by the
school districts. It seems difficult to
settle 90% of the time and at the same time
require "a mountain of evidence amassed
against them". In fact, the only way I think
90% settlement can be explained is if the
school district bends over like a cheap whore
on speed.
\_ If you don't know anything about the
process then just say so.
\_ Given a choice between anonymous motd
assurances from someone with a vested
interest in the system or sfgate,
interested in the system or sfgate,
I'll run with sfgate.
\_ Thanks for posting this. What a ridiculous ass story. I bet
that kid doesn't have a single thing wrong with him, except
that he has a psychotic bitch of a greedy mother. No wonder
he has "anxiety".
\_ I know who this family is. Is anybody prepared to terrorize
them if I provide the name?
\_ Do you mind if I ask how you know it's them?
\_ I don't have the time, money, or personal bandwidth to do it,
but I think it would be poetic justice to bring civil suit
against them for extortion/theft of public services or the
like. -dans
\_ It doesn't even matter. Technically speaking you don't have
standing to sue anyway.
\_ Gee, isn't this vigilantism?
\_ Yup. -dans
\_ No vigilantism would be if you firebombed their
house. This is using the legal system to bring
about justice.
\_ It's vigilante use of the courts. Of course, I
don't really mind this since I'm not opposed to
all vigilante acts (eg the Billboard LIberation
Front is non-violent, usually thought-provoking,
and makes good art). Using the courts for
vigilante justice is much safer than the street
variety since the formal bureaucratic procedures
of the courts provide some level of check against
the chance of `bad' or unjust acts being
successfully completed. Then again, there's
always the possibility for abuse. Many
organizations (eg the RIAA) use the legal system
the way a corner street thug uses a gun or
baseball bat. -dans
\_ So is their kid really a 'tard or just a typical
underachieving teen?
\_ So how do children get certified as needing special ed?
\_ doctor's evaluations, state and/or private, administrators,
teachers, etc., etc.
\_ In addition to the above, the process also hinges on an
advocate willing to badger and harrass. This is true both
for legitimate and illegitimate cases.
\_ It would be interesting to see what percentage of special
ed application is rejected.
\_ Probably not as many as you would think. More likely is
that an application without an active advocate will
simply be set aside.
\_ It's easy to get approved for 'special ed' (usually
just a diagnosis). It's hard to get approved for
special ed outside of the district and/or to get
money from the district to pay for additional
services. Also, as someone above said, without a
strong advocate your case will languish for years.
Many parents cannot afford such a person/people
(usually a social worker, a doctor, and an attorney).
Districts will otherwise practice a policy of
appeasement, giving in here and there over time to
avoid actually doing everything they should be.
Note that there are some good districts. I am
referring to the bad ones, which are most of them in
California.
\- You know I think one of the "right' outcomes
would be for the reporters in cases like this to
give the names of the parties involved. Journalists
makes sometimes make wild claims based on the
"public's right to know" but often they or their
editors filter it through a bit of an agenda.
For example in union strike coverage they often
dont list the salaries involved. The recent
muscisian strike was an interesting exception.
\_ Now, this is what confuses me. At first the poster
above says "an army of therapists, doctors, teachers,
and so on must all be involved in deciding that a
child has special needs." Now you tell me it's
easy to get approved. OK, so you say certification
as needing special ed is easy, it's getting approved
for outside resources that's hard. But isn't the
original articl all about parents skipping the
outside special ed process altogether, and then
sueing afterwards for the expenses? If the system
is set up so that certification to be eligible for
special ed is easy (your claim), and then sueing for
outside services rendererd is easy (sfgate's claim),
isn't that just asking for trouble?
\_ OK, so you say certification as needing special ed
is easy, it's getting approved for outside resources
that's hard. But isn't the original articl all
about parents skipping the outside special ed
process altogether, and then sueing afterwards for
process altogether, and then suing afterwards for
the expenses? If the system is set up so that
certification to be eligible for special ed is
easy (your claim), and then sueing for outside
non-preapproved services rendererd is easy (sfgate's
easy (your claim), and then suing for outside
non-preapproved services is easy (sfgate's
claim), isn't that just asking for trouble?
\_ You will only win a suit if there is evidence
supporting your case. You can send your kid
to boarding school in Switzerland and bill
the district for it, but you will lose unless
you have built a good case. Therefore, suing
for outside services (preapproved or not)
is not easy unless your case might win. It is,
however, easier than actually getting the school
district to provide those services themselves.
This is what the professor told me in so many
words. Keep asking the district for what you
need and let them tell you 'no'. It works out
better for everyone that way. If they say
'yes' and then half-ass it it becomes much
more difficult to prove that the program is
substandard and the school pays as much or
more money in the end anyway while your kid
fritters away in useless classes for 2-3-4-5
years of valuable time while the case goes
through the legal process. This is why many school
districts would rather pay kids who genuinely
need special help to go where they can
receive it. It's better for the kids and
cheaper/easier for the district. |
| 2006/2/15-16 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41866 Activity:low |
2/15 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060215/od_nm/germany_confession_dc Forgive me, Father, for I have guns... German people are weird. Why is that? \_ "... church rules governing confession prevented him from revealing the man's identity." Hmm, church rules are above law, okay. \_ Attorney client privilege is not codified in many countries, yet it's usually accepted as a reason for not divulging information. Or a journalist protecting his sources? Even if it is not a legally valid reason, there is still precedent for it; if the police really want to know something, they can always have a subpoena issued; it is then your choice as to whether you will respect the subpoena or suffer the consequences. -John \_ Actually, the privilege of a priest to refuse to divulge confidential information and the privilege of a penitent to prevent the priest from divulging confidential infor- mation have a long history of acceptance at common law. Many states, including CA, have codified these privileges in their evidence codes. In CA the privileges are codifed in Cal. Evid. Code Sec 1030-1034. |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41742 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm Is this really what you apologists think is acceptable? \_ At this point, I think not having the backing of the White House when running for reelection (even as a Republican) is going to be a win in many areas. |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41653 Activity:high |
2/1 The State of the Union offers the president the chance to show off
his best and argue his case to a national (and international)
audience. It is also an occasion for http://TNR.com to make its case to
you, our reader. Simply put, The New Republic Online provides you
with the most insightful, original, and intelligent analysis of last
night's speech. In this important election year, we feel that the
press's job is to report honestly, to hold Democrats accountable,
and to provide our readers with the ability to understand events
being discussed and, more important, those that are not. We strongly
urge you to subscribe today, for as little as $9.97, so you won't
miss out on the timely, comprehensive analysis that can be found both
online and in our weekly print edition.
\_ The press's job is to hold one party responsible?
\_ The press's job is to maximize profits for their shareholders.
\_ They say "accountable" for what it's worth. Anyway, this is
at least honest unlike, say, the NYT which is a biased crap
paper that pretends to be straight.
\_ It has to be that it pretends. It never even tries, right?
Yes, honesty is so virtuous. You know, if some corrupt
politician was honest about it, I think we should love that.
After all, all politicians are corrupt. So the one being
honest about his corruption must be better than the rest.
\_ There's a world of difference between political corruption
and news reporting. They are apples and oranges. I would
prefer that each news source I'm reading tells me flat
out they have a particular bias so I can judge the source
with that in mind rather than assuming they're straight
and *maybe* finding out later they're not.
\_ What is the NYT biased towards?
\_ If this is a reference to media being liberal leaning,
then I think you should ask why that is the case.
Most conservatives (i.e. read uneducated farmers in the
Most conservatives (i.e. most likely uneducated farmers in the
Mid-West who carried Bush in 2004) are totally unread in
terms of current events and what happens in the world. Nor
are they particularly well-educated about America and it's
history (both the good and the bad). I mean, seriously,
if everyone were equally educated on the circumstances
of Iraq, Bush wouldn't have been able to continually spout
that Iraq and Al-Quaida were related for 4+ years. I knew
that before the war started. What percentage of Bush
supporters knew that? How bout know that today?
that Iraq and Al-Quaida are linked for 4+ years. (They
weren't linked at the start of the war, but obviously
they are now. Al Quaida took it upon themselves to fight us
whereever we go.) Now I knew all of this before the war
started. How many Bush supporters can say that? How about
even today, 5 years after the start of the war?
Perhaps there's your answer for why respected organizations
like the NY Times are "liberal".
\_ Wow, this is wrong in so many ways... where to start?
The midwest is just dumb farmers and all the coastal
people are smart because they're well educated? CA has
one of the *worst* public education systems in the
country. You have to go to the deep south into the poorest
areas to find a shittier school system. Have you ever even
met someone educated in the mid-west? Your elitist little
cliche is bullshit. As far as Iraq/Osama links are
concerned, if you were so edjumakaited like you are then
you'd know there was contact in both directions for years
and there's still hundreds of thousands of untranslated
intelligence documents slowly being read through that may
provide more light on this subject. This is not in any
way, shape or form a done deal. Only the ignorant and
unread would believe that. Now I've know that for years.
How many NYT koolaid drinkers can say that? How about
even today, 5 years (not really but I'll go along with
your ignorance on this point) after the start of the war?
Actually, no, I won't go along with it. You don't even
know how long it's been since we attacked Iraq and you
hold yourself up as some elitist uber genius. Please
do all the smart people a favor and stay home for future
elections. It is the least you can do for your country.
\_ California post-secondary institutions are still the
best in the world. Our high schools are not so hot,
but not as bad as you portray. The percentage of
our population that is college educated is pretty
high. -not the guy you are replying to
Oh, and if you are still trying to make a case for
the Cheney/Wolfowitz line that SH and Al Qaeda were
close buddies, you really have no business accusing\
someone else of being a kool-aide drinker.
close buddies, you really have no business accusing
someone else of being a kool-aide drinker.
\_ Not so hot but not as bad? Seriously, go to another
state, find some average middle class mid westerners,
talk to their children. CA kids are totally hosed.
Cheney/Wolfy: I'm only saying what I said: there are
a zillion documents that remain untranslated and
there was some contact between them for many years.
I make no claims beyond what is known.
\_ Both of you seem to have neglected the fact that
the Midwest has more swing voters than just
about anywhere. Kerry could have fucked a goat,
and he'd have taken New England and California,
and Bush could have fucked a goat and he'd have
taken the deep south and texas, but those
midwestern states tend to be up for grabs.
\_ Oh contraire, mon frere! :-) I never said the
midwest was conservative nor stupid. I said
their kids are getting a much better education
than CA kids are getting. Since my debate
buddy, the elitist, tells us that education =>
smart voter, those smart mid westerners are
not in anyone's pocket, and thus swing voters,
as you say.
\_ K-12 is definitely better in the mid-West,
which I know from the studies as well as
personal experience. post-secondary is
better here, that is my point.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Has liberal New England and Minnesota
the highest, The Southwest and The South
at the bottom.
\_ Uni's take students from all over the
country, including those 'dum hiks' from
the midwest who went to better k-12
schools. So a mid westerner has a better
k-12 and at least as good a uni edu.
\_ Now you're just being fucking retarded.
So, because people from a region can
go to school at the top universities
go to school at the top universtities
which are mostly in New England, all
of those places have "top post
secondary education"? Ok. So every
sedondary education"? Ok. So every
poor African nation that sends a few
kids a year to Harvard now gets to
claim Harvard as part of their
education system? I'm not going to
disagree with you about the k-12
thing, but you've strayed into kooky
land here.
\_ Stop being obtuse. Unis are
nationwide. Especially odd of you
to name Harvard since they truly
pick and choose from the country
and a bit from the rest of the
world. Where'd you get the stupid
idea that living geographically
near to Harvard makes you more
likely to get accepted? The entire
US gets to claim Harvard as part of
the educational system as well as
every other top tier school, which
are all taking students from the
entire country. Maybe *you* chose
Berkeley because you lived in
Oakland or something but most
do this thing called "going away
to college" which involves travel
beyond the Jones' farm and it is
even further away than Next Town
Over for most. You can blather
all you like with ad hominen but
you consistently fail to adhere
to the same reality the rest of
the country lives in. At least
you figured out the midwest has
superior k-12 schools so there's
some hope for you.
\_ So are you saying that CA
is subsidizing its world class
universities for the benefit of
students from other states? I
\_ Wasn't the topic. I said
nothing about who paid what.
But since we're here, out
of staters pay a much higher
rate. Unimportant. Shrug.
disagree. Not only is tuition
cheaper for CA residents, but UC
is mandated to accept the top
percentage of CA grads. An
\_ Not seeing where you're
going with this. Are we
subsidizing out of staters
or are they subsidizing us?
out-of-state student who
performs better in high school
than an equivalent CA student
may still not get in to take
advantage of the superior
college-level schooling.
\_ Priority is given to UC as
a whole. The gem of the
system, Berkeley, takes
whoever the hell they want.
I still don't see what this
has to do with anything.
\_ Point being that
someone educated
in CA has a better
chance of getting
into (and affording)
a UC education than a
"better-educated"
out-of-stater.
Therefore, it is not
correct to claim that
UC belongs to everyone
equally.
Last I knew Berkeley takes the top ~3% of CA students, the _/
other UCs take the top ~5-7% (I dont remember exactly) and
fill out the rest of their spots from out of staters. To get
into UC, you already have to be top notch, at least compared
to the other educationally challenge k-12ers you went to
school with. Yes, UC will have fewer spots for OoSers but
UC isn't the only good system available for all those sharp
mid-western educated k-12 kids who already have a step up in
life on public school edjumkaited CA k-12ers. There are also
plenty of decent schools in the midwest. You don't have to go
to Cal to get a good education and frankly most people will do
better in life with a 4.0 from almost any reasonable 4 year
school than the lower grades they're likely to get from Cal
and they won't have to work as hard to get that higher GPA.
I did k-8 somewhere else and then moved here. Getting into
UC wasn't terribly difficult when so much of the competition
had trouble keeping their pencils inside the bubbles on the
SAT. ;-) |
| 2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41647 Activity:nil |
2/1 The Democrats were disgusting in their behavior. I guess it's
true you never really leave high school. -Samantha (San Diego, CA) |
| 2006/1/30-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41600 Activity:low |
1/30 Filibuster killed, Alito scheduled for confirmation at 11 EST tomorrow
"All Your Cloture Vote Are Belong To Us"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568198/posts
\_ All your fetuses are belong to you
\_ That's "potential humans", to you. Remember, abstinence is
murder, too!
\_ are you pro-egg/sperm/zygote?
\_ So is eating.
\_ Not if you only eat things that don't kill the plant/
animal.
\_ Like... sand?
\_ Like...fruit.
\_ now you're killing unhatched baby plants :(
\_ fruit isn't a baby plant, seeds are. |
| 2006/1/30-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41596 Activity:nil |
1/30 Hey did something happen to http://teleflip.com? That site rocks. \_ I had half a page of vitriol qued up in my mind before I realized that your link has nothing to do with real estate speculation. \_ lafe, why do you hate free capitalism? people do what they do to maximize return, that's the spirit of our capitalism. \_ what did it do? |
| 2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:41571 Activity:very high |
1/27 Wow, Alito is getting confirmed and the Democrats did nothing, only
cowered and thought of their election campaigns. The GOP is one of
the most corrupt and vile political parties in recent memories, and
the Democrats just roll over and play dead every time. Simply
pathetic. They're even worse than the Republicans. There really
is no one worth voting for in this damn country.
\_ Well, if the other side has the 60 votes to kill the filibuster
polls show > 60% of Americans supporting Alito's appointment, I
suppose your choice is "Look weak by failing miserably in the
filibuster", or "Look weak by not attempting a filibuster".
\_ After one defeat after another morale with the D is low.
They just don't want to do anything now. If someone beats
you up badly, are you gonna standup and fight immediately?
Better to wait till you get better.
\_ Well, if the other side has the 60 votes to kill the filibuster and
polls show 54% (30% opposing) of Americans supporting Alito's
appointment, I suppose your choice is "Look weak by failing
miserably in the filibuster", or "Look weak by not attempting a
filibuster".
\_ Sure, but that was a choice the Democrats made. If they had
decided from the start to present a united front, and had used
the televised hearings as a platform to present Alito as
a danger to the balance of powers, perhaps they could at least
make a stand. Instead they dithered and cowered like they
always do.
\_ I'm not sure how much the Right's combination of raw media
control and skillful media usage had to do with it, but
you know, I completely agree. All the Left had to do was
to unify around the message of: Alito is no Sandra Day
O'Connor, a centrist and frequent swing voter.
\_ Looks like they chose option C: "Look like a bunch of weak
squabbling idiots who couldn't get elected dogcatcher, let
alone run a country."
http://csua.org/u/et2 (yahoo news)
\_ When was the last time anyone was elected dogcatcher?
\_ Nah, anyone who votes against cloture gets points in my book,
even with the odds.
"I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some
political calculus about the future. ... The choice is now."
-- Kerry's unfuckingdeniably right. I sincerely hope he
manages to procure some balls for the rest of the party.
\_ That's rich coming from Mr. "I voted for it before I voted
against it."
\_ He voted for an *amendment*, which failed. Without
the amendment, he voted against the *legislation*.
Is this so hard to understand? -tom
\_ That would be two different "its" not the same one.
\_ Yes, that's exactly my point. -tom
\_ That's right, same guy. The world always loves a
comeback / redemption story, and it works for me.
\_ So it's not remotely possible that most of them think (privately
of course, it wouldn't do to say so publically) he'd actually be
a decent justice? That maybe he's not an executive-crushing
firecracker and he might actually be <gasp> pro-life, but he might
still be a good justice?
\_ Nope. They blew their chance in the hearings with meandering
questions and the Kennedy nonsense, and then the media jumped
on the "crying wife" story and killed any further chance of
questions.
\- OP inquiry: what is the reason to oppose ALITO and not
ROBERTS?
\_ Excellent question. The answer is: none. Roberts should
not have been approved.
\_ Shrug, my impression of Roberts is of a very smart,
honest, conservative dude from Harvard who did pro-bono
work for gays because he believes in the cause.
My impression of Alito is of a not-so-smart, weaselly
foot-soldier being rewarded for a lifetime of furthering
party causes with a lifetime appointment, one that
sends a clear, resounding message to all other
moderately intelligent slimeballs. -someone else
\- I'm not thrilled with ALITO (Initially he seemed
more reasonable than later on), but I am not sure
there are grounds to not put him on to a court with
THOMAS. The problem with the Democrats was
windbaggery more than cowardice. Did you see the
ratio of words uttered by BIDEN and "Killer" TEED
KENNEDY to ALITO. It was like 3.5, 3.2 words to 1.
PAT LEAHEY is perhaps becoming my favorite Democrat. |
| 2006/1/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:41551, category id '18005#4.165' has no name! , ] UID:41551 Activity:nil |
1/26 WTF, Robert Byrd?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/politics/26cnd-alito.html
\- if this surprises you, you dont know that hack robert byrd.
he's the democrat's TEED STEVENS
\_ Democrat*IC*!! *IC* STOP STEALING OUR *IC* YOU CRAVEN WORM! |
| 2006/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41532 Activity:nil |
1/26 Senator Train Wreck Coburn set to stir up the Senate
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/TimChapman/2006/01/26/183818.html
Gingrich / Coburn in 2008! |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:41492 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4641954.stm Canadian Conservatives win. Lower taxes and Bushism to reign in N America forever! \_ You know, I don't even feel too bad about this. The Conservatives are probably just as corrupt as the Liberals, but at least if they lower taxes they'll have less money to embezzle. The idea of closer ties with the US scares me, but it's not like Martin was doing a great job of keeping his distance either. \_ Or they can slash taxes, run up a huge debt and leave it to later generations to pay and/or default. Note that Canada is actually paying down their national debt right now. \_ Well, not all "conservatives" are as stupid as ours. \_ Except being a parlimentary system they only have something like 32-38 percent of the seats and 52 percent of the seats are in the hands of what, in the us, would be leftist pinkos. \_ We kicked out Davis for Ah-nold. Yes, we are all closet gropers, aren't we? |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41431 Activity:low |
1/19 Ron Paul, the only Congresscritter to tell the truth? Truth most
Americans don't want to hear ... (http://www.house.gov
http://tinyurl.com/d6g7y
\_ I'd vote for him.
\_ What's your favorite federal program? Ready to have it slashed
or eliminated?
\_ Please please don't cut the massive farm subsidies to ADM!
\_ Someone hasn't read the article. Come back when you have.
\_ I posted the article. See:
11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign
aid, international NGOs, defense contractors,
the military industrial complex, and rich
corporate farmers before cutting welfare
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the poor at home;
\_ I'd vote for him too. --PeterM
\_ Uh, wow. Did you actually read the whole thing? The guy's a
libertarian radical.
\_ I thought the article was great not because of his
proposed "solutions" but for his summary of the problems.
I agree with him that the Abramoff scandal is just a symptom
of Congress & the Executive branch selling out to the
highest bidder.
highest bidder. -- not PeterM
\_ That's no reason to vote for an optimistic anarchist
\_ A libertarian radical wouldn't say "cut corporate welfare
before you cut benefits to the poor"
\_ He's just prioritizing. |
| 2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41407 Activity:nil |
1/17 Yup, federalism is dead.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/01/court_takes_no.html
\_ Can the feds still enforce anti-pot laws in CA? Then, no, not dead. |
| 2006/1/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/RealEstate] UID:41277 Activity:high |
1/6 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/realestate/29afford.html Buying a home now is still easier than it was in the 80s \_ "in almost every place outside of New York, Washington, Miami and along the coast in California. ... places like New York and Los Angeles ... families buying their first home often must spend more than half of their income on mortgage payments, far more than they once did" \_ This could be read to mean exactly the opposite of what the article said. Even ignoring that, you left out the next sentence, "But the places that have become less affordable over the last generation account for only a quarter of the country's population." Considering the concentration of population in NY and CA, it's likely only a tiny number (<< 1/4) of municipalities have become less affordable. \_ It only means the exact opposite in places like NY, Washington, Miami, and coastal California. \_ It's your choice where you want to live and how much you are willing to spend on real estate. Fortunately, the number of places with more affordable housing is growing. \_ Enjoy your life in Nebraska. \_ I imagine that's the difference between us. I feel no superiority over people who would find Nebraska right for them. It sounds like you do. \_ I imagine that's the difference between us. You're a snob and I'm not. \_ Be grateful. Having all the people with that personality want to buy houses in the same small group of cities gets them out of your way. I could name several really wonderful cities which still have affordable houseing, but I won't, because I want to keep the speculator-parasites from even hearing the names. \_ have fun in boonyville. It's not hard to find out which cities will continue to boom regardless of existing population. I'll give you a hint-- where there are damn jews and orientals there will always be irrational housing boom. \_ *laugh* Hi Wannabe-Racist Housing Troll! And that's "damned" not "damn". Also, if you're going for the racist thing there are plenty of hard core racial slurs you could have used instead of "damn jews and orientals". That was pretty weak. You get a "D-". --Troll Rating Advisory Board \_ I imagine I have actually live in Nebraska \_ As far as "orientals" are concerned, there are plenty of busts following booms. Just check out HK, Spore, Tokyo, etc. \_ I imagine I have actually lived in Nebraska and you have not. Enjoy the 20 below zero weather with endless winds blowing off the prarie while I enjoy my sunny days in the 60s in January. \_ Yeah, but harder than it was during the 90s. At the end of the 80s home prices took a big drop. They will soon again. |
| 2006/1/6-9 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41275 Activity:nil |
1/6 http://www.inman.com/blogger/2006_01_01_bradinman_archive.aspx Go to "No thanks banks, I'll pay cash." Apparently 1/3 of the homes over 1 million dollars are paid by cash. \_ Why is this surprising? \_ The 1/3 number came from a 2003 Coldwell Banker survey of 200 of its agents. It's probably not all that scientific. Of the 15-ish people I know in $million+ houses (it's not hard in the Bay Area), everyone financed. Of course, that's not that scientific either. its agents. It's probably not all that scientific. |
| 2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41197 Activity:moderate |
1/2 Hey, I thought we were having a draft in 2005. What happened? Will
there be a military draft in 2006?
\_ Whoever said there was going to be a draft way back when was
overreaching almost as bad as the greeted as liberators person.
\_ Only if Charles Rangel (D - http://www.house.gov/rangel gets his way.
\_ Damn warmongering Democrats.
\_ It's funny, but the reasons he gives for it are as a social
program (like busing) and a way to make people not want war
(they won't vote for war if their kids are in the service).
\_ I remember the reason why Rangel draft the bill is he wants
to make sure the process of draft is relatively equal, and
wealthy kids have their chances to see actions.
\_ Wealthy kids volunteer for service so they can be officers
or protect the homeland as part of the NG.
\_ There will be no draft because Dubya said so. Read his lips.
\_ There was one MOTD poster who swore there would be a draft.
Silly me, I thought he would be more credible than Dubya.
\_ that guy was saying that if we need to do this Iraq business
right, we need to have a draft to fill the gap in man power.
In that regard, he is still right. The reason why we don't
have a draft is because Dubya decided it is ok if Iraq really
fells apart, and he can always divert our attention to
somewhere else by, let say, bombing Iran.
\_ Nice revisionist history.
\_ Perhaps you can point us to the thread? Things like the
following seem more prevalent:
\_ ohh yeah? what happened to the "beacon of democracy
in the middle east?" are you saying that we've
accomplished this and this is why Rummy pulls out
5000 troops?
\_ Good job trying to switch the subject. Try to focus
on the draft here. You want to talk about Rummy?
Start your own thread about your pretty nicknames.
\_ Reference please. Things like the following seem more
prevalent:
http://csua.com/?entry=37623
At that point (5/05), someone claimed there would be
a draft within the next 18 months. Does that person
(-vet?) still stand by the claim?
\_ Are you claiming that the US will bomb Iran? Care to put
a time frame on that prediction and sign your name to it,
so you can be properly celebrated when your prediction
comes true?
\_ http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10415
\_ So? Are *you* claiming that the US will bomb Iran?
Time frame and name please, if you're willing to
stand behind your prediction. |
| 2006/1/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41191 Activity:nil 88%like:41188 |
1/1 Wild predictions for 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ckllp (news.yahoo.com)
\_ From USAToday founder, actually: http://tinyurl.com/7uooe |
| 2005/12/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41140 Activity:nil |
12/25 Jesus now lives in Manhattan:
http://tinyurl.com/7nxwv (news.yahoo.com)
\- I think I have encountered (and yelled at) the CA doofus who
tried to become III ... although this fellow appeared to have
successfully changed his name. Maybe it was a different III. |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41108 Activity:high |
12/21 http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10975.shtml The Native Americans who live in ANWR want drilling there. And it's supposed to be their land. \_ And if our history's taught us anything, it's that the Native Americans make excellent choices about what to do w/ their land. \_ Uh? What? When or how exactly uh... wtf are you talking about? \_ He's probably talking about Indian Gaming. \_ Then he has no idea what he's talking about. \_ You misspelled "Some of the Native Americans." There are two tribes there, one of which initially opposed drilling and now supports it, and one of which still opposes it. -tom \- in general i think a lot of liberals are cowed by conservatives saying "are you saying group X is stupid and doesnt know what is in their own best interests?" ... i think liberals would often be wise not to fall for this and say "yes, people do often make dumb decisions for themselves either via ignorance or weakness or lazyness etc". \_ Exactly why direct democracy initiatives in California are such a failure. \- well i think there are other factors at play there [single issue voters, persistent, disinformation etc] but i dont have time to write more about that now.--psb \_ how are they a failure? however in this case there is another argument which is the dilution factor. the benefits of ANWR drilling "amortized" over everone in the US is trivial but if the locals [indians or alaskans] are bought off [which they are] then even if it is "in their backyard" [so maybe they pay 10x the "cost"] it may make sense to be in favor since they may reap 100x the benefits. if there were a national referendum on ANWR drilling how much would you ell your vote for? $25? (my personal position on ANWR has more to do with the terms of selling national endowments to private interests rather than "oooh, nature must not be harmed." so i think about it in the same way as water subsidies to farmers or western grazing rights to Big Cattle, or how mining rights are granted, frequency auctions etc.) --psb \_ Oh, you mean the Gwich'in? They can drill on other parts of their land and have nice checks rolling in that the Inupiat don't. \_ As far as state politics goes, part of the point here is that *everyone* who lives in Alaska has checks rolling in every year from oil money(actually interest on money set aside in the 70's oil boom). The majority of Alaskans of all races are in favor of drilling for that reason. Alaskans who are willing to go against their economic interests on this issue are a few local natives, and the liberal population who mostly live in Juneau, Anchorage, and a few hippie towns on the Kenai peninsula. I should probably mention that I'm from Juneau and oppose drilling, although my personal reasons are closer to psb's than to that of the typical environmentalist. \_ How big are the checks? It can't be that much. Does everyone who lives there qualify? \_ It's about a grand a year for every man, woman, and child. So for a big family living out in the bush, that can make a big difference. And don't forget there are no state sales or income taxes, and they want to keep it that way. One thing I've wondered about is whether it's more profitable in the long run to pump out the oil, sell it, put the money in a fund(they call it the PFD) and invest that fund as they have done, or to leave it there until the price goes crazy, *then* pump it. \_ thanks, that's what I was looking for. \- two things: 1. the issue is the marginal increase in the checks if ANWR drilling foes through, not the absolute size of the checks 1. the issue is the marginal increase in the checks (benefits) if ANWR drilling foes through, not the absolute size of the checks(benefits). 2. the benefits are not just caputured by the size of the checks ... you also have to factor in perhaps higher level of state services provided, what the state taxes would be otherwise etc. the state taxes would be otherwise i.e. paying $10k in state taxes and getting a fund check for $12k vs having no state taxes and getting a check for $2k. \_ I know someone who lived up in the ANWR area, teaching in one of the villages. My impression from him is that both the native and white local population are bitterly divided over the issue. I think he said that both natives and whites are sort of 50/50. \_ Nice overwrite dumbass. \_ Did you read George Will's awesome editorial saying that we should all be for drilling in ANWR because environmentalism == Communism? - danh \_ No, but I doubt anyone would say, "We should drill in XYZ because otherwise the communist will win!" as you describe it. \_ George Will wrote an editorial saying, "We must drill or the communists will win!"? Unlikely. \_ http://tinyurl.com/csqgr - danh \_ the bigger issue is energy independence. I remember American Science Foundation had a study saying that if we increase our automobile's fuel efficiency by 15%, we would save twice as much oil as Anwr's reserve in the span of couple years. \_ Why not do both? Conservation alone only delays the inevitable. Conservation by definition doesn't create new sources of anything. So with conservation we push this decision back a few years and then what? Also, you can only eek so much fuel efficiency from a vehicle. There are still some basic physical laws we need to follow re: mass, energy, heat loss, acceleration, etc. \_ In other, totally unrelated, news, congressional budget cuts to lead to layoffs of 100 scientists at the National Renewable Energy Lab http://csua.org/u/een [Rocky Mountain News] "In fiscal 2006, Congress cut the Department of Energy's budget for all renewable energy programs by more than 35 percent." Amazing. \_ Blah, as if they're the only people who got cut. The budget is public. Go see who else got cut to ribbons. \_ Posting again because someone didn't like reality: All sorts of DOE budgets got cut. The budget is public. Go look up who else got axed. The RE guys weren't a special target like you imply. \_ I implied nothing of the kind. \_ Then there should be nothing amazing about some particular program getting a cut. \_ Really? And if it were the Marine Corps, right before a major ground war, how would you feel then? This is a national security issue. \_ Uh oh, you're not about to go off about the Peak Oil thing, are you? \_ I implied nothing of the kind, you fucking twat. What would your reaction be if they laid off, say, ten percent of the senior officers in the Marine Corps right now? This is a national security issue, and congress just doesn't seem to get that. And why should they, when their job is to represent morons like you? \_ PEEK OIL!!!!!1!1!!! |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41103 Activity:moderate |
12/21 Republicans declare political suicide, demand elderly and poor
run them out of office:
http://csua.org/u/ee6 (Washington Post)
(Actual title: With Cheney's Vote, Senate Passes Budget Bill)
\_ This is the most bizarre bill I've seen from congress in a long
time. It's practically a caricature of the Evil Republicans. I
don't understand why congress didn't chop out $40B in pork instead
of this. -emarkp
\_ Probably because pork fights back.
\_ The poor are religious. They'll vote with their faith.
\_ Troll harder. This one is pathetic. Young Troll, you are FIRED!
\_ Eh, while there is a heavy element of trollishness to the
post, there is still a kernel of truth in what he said.
\_ More than a kernel. Poor white southerners overwelmingly
vote GOP. This may be partly a racism thing, but I think
that's much less a factor than the bible shit. Maybe pp
thinks all those scare tactics about gay marriage were
targeted at college educated, middle class people?
Convincing the powerless to support the powerful of their
own free will has been the main purpose of organized
relgion for thousands of years, and the GOP happens to
be better at this game and evil enough to exploit it
shamelessly right now.
\_ 'a racism thing'? Do you mean 'racial' or 'ethnic' or
am I misreading what you're saying?
\_ Have you ever been to the south?
\_ Yes. I'm not disputing that there's racism in
in the South -- I'm just having trouble parsing
the PP's use of the word in that context. Is
PP calling himself a racist? It just seems like
a different word seems to fit the context better.
\_ Yes, bad choice of words, sorry. I meant the
GOP's "southern strategy", in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
If Nixon had not figured out how to use
"states rights" as a
code word for opposition to civil rights
reforms, those worthless fucks would all
still be voting Democrat because Abe
Lincoln started the "war of northern agression".
\_ Ah, I see -- thanks for clarifying!
\_ I would agree with you on this if the current bill
didn't make severe cuts to Medica[id|re]. That's a
sacred cow for a whole lot of poor white folks, race
and sexual orientation issues aside.
\_ Bullshit. Let's see what happens in 2008, and how
many of these deep south states leave the GOP.
Maybe in the north, you're right. But the demographic
we're talking about here believes the Earth was
created 6000 years ago and that homosexuals should
be jailed for crimes against God. As far as I'm
concerned, they're not even Americans, and there's
no way they'll stop thumping their bibles for long
enough to change parties over some nerdy policy
issue that doesn't involve the Old Testament.
\_ Whatever you may think of them, they'll squeal
when they realize their holy entitlements have
finally been fucked with. Cf. the Pres. inability
to shitcan Social Security. You won't have to
wait for '08; a number of Senators are up for
re-election in '06.
\_ Bush and his cronies fear middle class
mid-western swing voters, who will switch
parties over social security. It's not
the poor southern white trash that they
were afraid of with the social security
debacle.
\_ Yes, remember, all people who vote or think
differently than you are utterly comtemptible
hateful trogs. You have private access to the
only one true way of clear thought. All others
are darkly evil or just plain stupid. You are
my hero. You represent all that is good and
pure and clean in this country!
\_ Young Troll, the Young Troll Hiring & De-Hiring Committee has
received updated notice from the Sub-Committee On Young Troll
Quality Control and as per their advice has determined you shall
continue in your present role as Young Troll at current rate.
You do not need to report to the Young Troll Food Vat for
Additional Services. You're doing a fine job! Carry on!
\_ I believe now that the voting majority is now cut off from
actual policy feedback. They vote on sloganeering and perceived
cultural ideology. Some parts of this bill are sickening.
\_ Repubs are the party of the middle class. Screwing the poor
shouldn't be a surprise.
\_ Voting Dem is better somehow?
\_ Bull. Republicans are the party of the filthy rich. Middle
class Americans identify with the GOP because they hope to be
filthy rich themselves some day. Hopefully, mucking about with
Medicare/Medicaid will wake some of these people up.
\_ Most of the truly wealthy in this country are the ultra
rich. Who else can afford to be a Democrat?
\_ MOst of working-class Boston. |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41084 Activity:nil |
12/20 Ok, Canadian Liberals like Islamists?
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/12071.shtml |
| 2005/12/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41044 Activity:high |
12/16 Bush uses NSA to spy on US Citizens:
http://csua.org/u/ebv
\_ Engage spin cycle:
"Those aren't citizens, they're enemy combatants"
"These are dangerous people. Do you want another 9/11?"
"We wouldn't be spying on them if they weren't bad guys"
"It's not spying, it's routine surveillance" -tom
\_ "Tom Holub is an unpatriotic hippy, let's spy on him" -Echelon
\_ I'm unable to find the word "citizen" in the article or headline.
Can you point it out?
\_ Gee, would we be as worked up if the headline said "Bush uses
NSA to monitor foreign nationals inside the US"? Of course
these must be citizens.
\_ Of course you would. You've been worked up over all sorts
of things that wouldn't bother you if the previous admin
did them.
\_ I call bullshit. Many people were worked up about
project Echelon.
\_ Dude. It's reiffin. Bullshit is self evident.
\_ No, I meant the wider issues of admin vs admin and the
typical political nonsense of "my guy is always right
and yours is always wrong" which is seen from people
on both sides of the isle.
\_ Well, let's see. According to kchang's MOTD archive,
there has been 4 Echelon threads. How good is that
archive's coverage back to 2001? Let's see how much
MOTD coverage this current story is worth. OBTW,
reading about Echelon coverage on MOTD, there did not
seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed. Perhaps
you can substantiate your claim?
seem to be a lot of outrage as you claimed.
\_ Please, this is the motd, no facts.
\_ You think "Jam Echelon" day is a statement
in favor of Echelon?
\_ Boy, it must be nice to live in a binary world.
Someone said "worked up", someone else said
"outrage". To my mind, a 2 line "jam echelon"
thread doesn't count for either.
\_ And there have been no discussions about
whether watching paint drying is interesting,
therefore it *must* be interesting.
\_ Now, you really should be better at logic than
this.
\_ Do I have to do everything for you? Do you dispute
that citizens were being spied on?
http://tinyurl.com/ahlo5
\_ Tips balance on Patriot Act:
http://csua.org/u/ec8 (NYT)
\_ 'Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called the
disclosure "shocking" and said it had impelled him to vote "no"
today.' Oh blow it out your ass, Chuck. Like you were going to
vote "yes" under any circumstances. -independent
\_ Hmmm.. I wonder how Schumer voted on the Patriot act in 2001.
Actually, I don't have to wonder. I know. Do you? Blow it
out your own.
\_ I do know, but that doesn't change the fact that if Chuck's
brand of reactionary blustering is the best face the
Democrats can put forward (and he's one of the ones I see
most often), they're in as sad a state as the Republicans.
-pp
\_ And look up "impelled" in the dictionary.
\_ Hey, this guy can't even bother to look up "lie" in the
dictionary and avoid looking like an ass. |
| 2005/12/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41035 Activity:nil |
12/15 Leon County, FL gets rid of Diebold voting machines:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html |
| 2005/12/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41015 Activity:moderate |
12/14 Hypothetical: You're an Iranian thug who just drove a few zillion
fake ballots over the Iraqi border. How are you going to get them
into the vote count somewhere in sufficient quantities that it shifts
the election but not so many that it causes enough suspicion to get
your bogus votes thrown out?
\_ Dump them in Chicago (an official Iraqi polling place in the US).
All good democracies believe every vote from Chicago.
\_ Nah, do it like this: First get a polical ally to build the
electronic ballot boxes. Eliminate any voting paper trail,
and finally make it illegal to ask for a recount (like the
GOP is doing in Ohio!)
\_ why do republicans hate democracy?
\_ a fundamentalist Christian govt would get the word
of Jesus to everyone more efficiently
\_ I still have to wonder why an all-powerful god needs
help getting His message out. Oh, yeah, because
it's a fucking bullshit fairytale.
\_ You seem to have some serious lack of clue about
religious/christian ideology. There's this little
concept called 'free will'.... As an agnostic, I'm
hardly an apologist for any religious system, but
at least get some clue before spewing vitriol like
a recent high school grad.
\_ free will is incompatible with ominiscience.
\_ Get Jimmy Carter to certify the vote?
\_ Just burn a shi'ite vote for every fake sunni vote you toss in
\_ That's okay. We had no problem with 99% votes in the referendum
a couple months ago in Iraq. |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:40887 Activity:nil |
12/5 GOP Corruption Continues:
http://halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblower_hearings_denied.html
\_ Why is a story from 18 months ago news now?
\_ Which President gave Halliburton their first exclusive no
competition contract? |
| 2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40868 Activity:nil |
12/5 Eminent domain abuse in CA:
http://csua.org/u/e6p
"A jury next year will decide how much the county must pay for the
land, unless the owners agree on a sale price.
"Gidaro's group bought the property last year for $60 million from
National Gas and Energy Transmission, a successor to PG&E Properties.
The county values the land at $50 million. The Rumsey Band of Wintun
Indians, which operates the Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County,
has said it would finance the purchase of the ranch."
\_ How is it abuse? Or are you one of the "use == abuse" people?
\_ You're right, we should pave over prime ag land with Blockbuster
and Olive Garden. Suburban sprawl is awesome!
\_ Pretty impressive those Gidaro guys manage to buy land in CA that
goes down in value.
\_ Yeah weird how ED works like that.... |
| 2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40855 Activity:nil |
12/5 I've seen a few license plates that say "VETERAN" on the bottom with
a California seal on the left side. Do you have to be a veteran of a
war to get those plates?
\_ http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/elp/elp.htm
\_ Is this an attempt to cop some sympathy from a cop?
\_ For that you have to make donation to a certain police
organization (forgot the name) and get their license frame.
I heard that Ferrari owners do that to avoid getting tickets.
\_ obBUD DAY |
| 2005/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40830 Activity:nil |
12/2 Democrats - protecting you from yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html
\_ Erm. Reads to me like "activist" judge protects us from overzealous
lawmaker. A clerk for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must
lawmaker. A staffer for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must
rock your freakin world... |
| 2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40823 Activity:nil |
12/2 Zombie soldiers come back to vote Bush out of office... or
something.
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0548,lim,70455,20.html
\_ Here's Showtime's site about the show, along with some clips:
http://www.sho.com/site/mastersofhorror/movie.do?content=homecoming |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40806 Activity:nil |
21/1 To the guy asking about the Canadian no confidence vote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176982,00.html
According to my Canadian friend, if the conservatives can keep
from sticking their foot in their mouth, they might have a good
chance this election. Bloc Quebecois is huge in Qubec, but
can't get any bigger, and "the NDP is a bunch of pinkos."
(Apparently a pretty minor force.)
\_ I thought "vote of no confidence" only happens in star wars!! -silly sodan
\_ I thought "vote of no confidence" only happens in star wars!!
-silly sodan |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40785 Activity:high |
11/30 Lieberman has visited Iraq four times in 17 months. He said there are
signs life is returning to normal, including a profusion of cell phones
and satellite TV dishes on rooftops.
"About two-thirds of the country is in really pretty good shape," he
said, noting most attacks are in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region.
"Overall, I came back encouraged."
http://csua.org/u/e4m
\_ Lieberman's editorial:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
\_ Wow, if you only look at vast swaths of empty desert, the country
is doing fine!
\_ It is encouraging to hear about how well the Kurdish north... which
was already free and prosperous under Saddam... is doing.
\_ Except for the occasional spell of mustard gas before some
random kind people laid down the whoopass on anything airborne
there. Nothing serious, though. -John
\_ I think the poster meant post '91
\_ why do you listen to anything this scumbag says? --liberal
\_ Agreed. He's a tool.
\_ Why is he a tool? -uninformed moderate
\_ "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right." When
I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative,
Lieberman smiled and said, "No, but some of my
best friends are neocons."
\_ b/c he might actually be smart enough to know that
socialist big government programs are a dumb idea.
\_ if anything Dubya has increase the size of government
to an blowed level. why don't you vote him out of
office?
\_ Lesser of two evils. The Democrats don't
believe in liberal economic policies,
limited government or conservative/trad-
itional social policies. At least the GOP
pretends to believe in liberal economics,
limited govnerment and conservative social
policies. I feel less revulsion voting for
such candidates.
\_ The GOP stopped pretending to believe in limited
government. Well, unless you've got an Inc. or
an LLC after your name.
\_ My take is that many in the party still
believe in less government, but the
current administration does not. I was
never hot on either Bush, but I liked
the alternatives even less.
\_ Are you really that much of an ignorant fuck or are
you just pretending? Liebermann is *owned* by
the insurance companies. Saying that Liebermann's
position on health care reform are based on
\_ he is also owned by Accounting industry and
fanatically oppose to any of accounting reform
after Enron scandle...
position on health care reform is based on
principle is like saying that a senator from
a tobacco state's position on tobacco regulations
or Ted Stevens's position on drilling ANWR is based
on principle. Fuck you, and fuck Liebermann.
\_ I'm not talking about any particular issue.
I'm just saying overall he is reasonable in
comparison to many of his scum bag colleagues.
\_ Lieberman's loyalties are to Israel, not America.
\_ Yeah you just can't trust a Jew. They own the
banks, Hollywood, send our jobs overseas, they
steal our tech, and ZOG has been intentionally
destroying the environment since 1889 for their
own negarious purposes. Kill the Jews! Oh btw,
you overpaid your Klan membership fees, so you'll
get the difference back in the mail next week.
get the difference back in the mail next week. -lior
\_ You'd probably enjoy some of the requests for
email accounts or "membership" I get at http://zog.net.
Probably doesn't help that it's hosted on <DEAD>88.net<DEAD>
(no it's not what you think) -John
\_ I know you wrote this as a joke, but my dad
and *many* of his hard core democrat friends
(all asian) refused to vote for Gore b/c his
running mate was "JEW" Lieberman.
The best reason I've heard for not voting for
Lieberman is that he looks exactly like the
Emperor :-)
\_ I'm a Jew, and Liebermann was one of the main
reasons I didn't vote for Gore (along with
my deep loathing of Tipper.) I can think
of several Jewish friends who also veered
over to Nader becauese of how much they hate
Liebermann. In fact, when I think of all
my Jewish friends, I can only think of a couple
who *don't* hate Liebermann, and I live in
his home state.
\_ You voted against him *because* he's a Jew
like the above poster's racist family
friends? I wouldn't vote for or against
anyone based on their membership in a
mainstream (ie: we don't sacrifice goats
and virgins) religion. Voting against him
because you think he's an ass or an
insurance company shill or whatever makes
sense. -lior
\_ he is a scumbag, and happened to be a
Jew. Rather he is a Jew or not is
not important. -- liberal Asian
\_ Of course I didn't vote against him
because he's a Jew. For me it was 60%
his relationship with the insurance
companies, 30% his involvement with
music censorship(which is why I hate
Tipper), and 10% general hatred of his
idiotic positions on local pork issues.
There are a lot of defense contractors
in Ct., and I think Liebermann clearly
puts their interests above the overall
interests of national defense. Yes,
I realize everyone does that, but that's
no excuse, and I still hate the guy for
it. Also, what the hell is wrong with
sacraficing goats?
\_ You're anti-goat?
\_ I'm not a pro-goat zealot. That's
all.
\_ No, I didn't write it as a joke. I think the
guy I was responding to saying Lieberman is an
Israeli shill is a POS racist. When exactly
did Asians decide they hated Jews? They're not
did Asians decide they hate Jews? They're not
on the traditional list of anti-semite racist
types.
\_ Maybe joke was the wrong word. I was
just trying to point out that there
are democrat voters out there who
actually believe all that stuff that
wrote.
I don't know when Asians decided to
start hating jews, but anti-semitism
and racism are fairly common in asian
circles.
\_ Asians dont have guilt complex over the
Holocaust and dont feel beholden to Israel
over that issue nor their "stewardship"
over the Holy Land.
PP: you are overreacting. I think Judaism
is a bit snobbish but I don't like the Pope
either. I do respect the importance of law
to the Jews and respect the Israeli courts
have taken a number of wildly unpopular but
principled decisions.
\_ Guilt? So by that you're saying that
guilt over the holocaust is the only
reason to not hate Jews. And how exactly
is Judaism "snobbish"? Not only am I not
over reacting but I find your "it's ok
to hate Jews because my people didn't
take part in the holocaust" line quite
shocking. I'm used to racism, especially
on the motd, but not at this level. You
need to take a serious step back and
really look at what you're saying. Also,
Israeli != Jew. You can be a Jew and not
be Israeli and you can be a full voting
tax paying Israeli citizen and not be a
Jew.
Jew. -lior
\_ Dummy, you are running rabid. Just
because I am not a big supporter of
Israel doesnt mean I want to see them
driven into the sea. I think
Lieberman's advice to attack Iraq,
Syria, and Iran is suspect. On the
other hand I repect his not being an
other hand I respect his not being an
apologist for Pollard. Are you a
Pollard supporter? Are you also an
apologist for Israel over the USS
Liberty affair? I am laughing at you.
\_ Liberty affair?
\_ http://www.ussliberty.org
\_ Re-read the whole thread. Trying
to paint me as rabid but ignoring
everything I said when I directly
responded to your posts isn't
scoring you any points. You are
falling back on the age-old racist
debate tactics and I'm not going
to bite. Failure to stay on topic
and bouncing to a zillion new
things that have nothing to do
with your personal racism aren't
going to help you any. This has
*nothing* to do with Israel and
you know it. Bye. -lior
\_ You have a persection complex.
And you have been trolled.
Ha ha ha. Does it make you feel
better to think someone out
there is hating you?
\_ 1) no. 2) its the motd, its
all trolls, 3) whatever, 4)
why would you say someone
out there hates me? shrug.
you're still a racist.
\_ "I dont like Lieberman"->
"You hate Jews!"
\_ Never said that. Read
the thread. Thanks.
/
/
/
"Lieberman's loyalty is
to Israel" -> "Yeah
you just can't trust a
Jew."
\_ I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the
conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the
Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the
Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which
required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to
Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and
security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am
disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil
production and energy production are below pre-war levels.
Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security
situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for
reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about
60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the
$2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent.
And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from
about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of
attacks going down over time and with the addition of more
troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations
at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual
State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in
global terrorism. - Rep. Murtha
\_ I don't know who to believe, the guy who is an expert
on the military or the other guy! |
| 2005/11/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40754 Activity:nil |
11/28 http://CNN.com lead story "The government of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin fell Monday evening when opposition parties united to topple him with a no-confidence vote. Martin's center-left Liberal Party has been dogged by a corruption scandal, in which it paid advertising firms with Liberal links more than $1 million with little or no work done in exchange. An election -- probably in January -- could now end 12 years of Liberal rule in America's largest trading partner." \_ I don't know much about Canadian politics. What does this translates to? Lower taxes? Welfare cuts? \_ I doubt it. I don't know much either, but there are quite a few parties in Canada. I would assume there will be a lot of confusion, and then a different liberal party will be in charge. |
| 2005/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Academia/Berkeley] UID:40722 Activity:nil |
11/23 http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3241529 |
| 2005/11/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:40682 Activity:nil 60%like:40678 |
11/21 The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html
By the way I'm a gay Republican. -jblack
\_ Best...motd...post...ever!
\_ as a private-sector moderate, i'll agree that public-sector pension
benefits are unfair and fleece America.
\_ Why do you hate firemen, policemen, teachers, nurses, and children?
Are you some kind of devil monster? |
| 2005/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40678 Activity:nil 60%like:40682 |
11/21 The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html |
| 2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40646 Activity:nil |
11/18 http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rep_murtha_end_iraq_051117b.mov Murtha speech, transcript: http://csua.org/u/e1a (Washington Post) House GOP does a bait-and-switch and puts forward GOP version of Murtha resolution to vote http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/18/163220/03 \_ A dailykos post from someone watching the C-SPAN debate: "Soms [sic] Republican jackass just referred to it as the 'Democrat resolution.' Jim McGovern then made a parliamentary inquiry--'The gentleman stated that this is a Democratic proposal. Could you tell me who introduced this resolution.' So Republican Jackass starts yelling for McGovern to yield and McGovern says, 'No, I have a parlimentary [sic] inquiry.' And the chair tells him Mr. Hunter introduced it. 'Mr. Hunter? The Republican?' says McGovern. That was great." -op \_ How is this a "bait-and-switch"? \_ Do http://cnn.com and http://foxnews.com think people are voting on Murtha's or the GOP resolution? \_ ??? How does the reporting mean GOP is doing a bait-and-switch? \_ As characterized by one poster: "Republican Jackass starts yelling for McGovern to yield" It's not "classic" bait-and-switch, let's call it Republican variation #69. \_ Let's call it "you don't know what you're talking about" \_ Nah, I think you don't. Okay, I got it. You want me to call it a "strawman", right? Okay, it's a strawman as well. \_ yeah, yer right, it's a strawman |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:40596 Activity:nil |
11/15 http://csua.org/u/e0n (huffingtonpost.com) http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559 Previously accurate Ohio predictions wildly inaccurate for this year's Ohio referendum issues. \_ And you didn't go to the talk last week on electronic voting security? For shame. \_ Why don't we just forego elections altogether and just determine the winner by polls. \_ These articles are really weak. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:40589 Activity:moderate |
11/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_re_us/asians_bullied Asian harassment up in other parts of the country. Time to move back to my motherland, the Bay Area, the land created by our people, for our people. -Asian \_ Funny, I experienced exactly the reverse in SF, until I got in a fight with the Korean bullies at my school--then they were nice to me. Maybe AZN bullies are just more pragmatic. -John \_ pragmatic you mean this Korean knows the chance of him relocated to ghetto or something? \_ Is "relocated to ghetto" some sort of "in" slang for "getting your ass kicked"? If so, yes. -John \_ Last week there was a news article about the same problem in Skyline High in Oakland. \_ Here's a way to solve the problem: Let the Asian community randomly select a certain percentage of kids among themselves. Force them to score low in tests and exams (by otherwise starving them, for example.) Make them go loitering instead of learning. Drop them example.) Make them to go loitering instead of learning. Drop them off at parties and lock them out of public libraries. Buy them video games instead of violins. Teach them street fighting instead of studying. This will bring down the average achievement of the community and will remove it from the bad guys' radar. example.) Make them to go loitering instead of learning. Spend time at parties instead of public libraries. Buy them video games instead of violins. Teach them street fighting instead of studying. That will bring down the average achievement of the community and will remove it from the bad guys' radar. Another way to solve the problem is for the other communities to do the opposite. \_ Nah, too complicated. Let's just create 2 sets of standards: 1 for Asians and 1 for non-Asians. Then you can just adjust the 2 standards to get whatever result you want. the 2 standards to get whatever result you want. You probably want to tweak the definition of "Asian" so that some populations with roots in Asia are included and some are not. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Religion] UID:40573 Activity:moderate |
11/14 trick to weed out radical muslims in bay area..
what if someone just rips apart the koran in front
of a mosque... would that bring out the outrage and rioting
from radical muslims in the bay area or will this person
be put in prison for a hate crime?
\_ If you did the same thing with a bible in front of a
church, you'll get a lot of protest but I don't think
you will out anyone radical.
\- the logging motd is actually a trick to get idiots
to reveal themselves.
\_ i am not a radical muslim, but i would consider beating the
shit out of you for being an idiot.
\_ If I saw you beating the shit out of OP for ripping up a koran,
I'd jump in and beat the shit out of you. So now you know how
to bring radical atheists who believe in freedom of speech out
in the open. Oh yeah, I almost forgot--fuck you!
\_ I'd help OP beat the shit out of you, just for shits and
giggles and because it's the cool thing to do. -John
\_ I can take any three of you with my knife, which is
*always* at the ready. I'm suprised you would side with the
jesus-nazis.
\_ I think you have become confused. In the hypothetical
brawl, I'm on the same side as OP. I'll side with pretty
much anyone who pisses off a Christian or a Muslim. I'm
guessing mr. "beat the shit out of" is a Christian.
\_ Oh, I lost track of who was for or against what a few
posts ago. I just think it would be fun to get in a
fight with a bunch of morons beating on each other
while yelling religious profanities. -John
\_ sure you're not....
\_ and you would go to prison.
\_ Not necessarily, actually. If you provoke someone into
fighting you, the cops may actually opt to give the other
a fight, the cops may actually opt to give the other
guy a lesser charge or perhaps charge you both with something.
\_ Don't be an idiot. I can destroy a Koran if I like as an
expression of freedom of speech. -mrauser
expression of freedom of speech. -mrauser, noted
constitutional scholar.
\_ I'm not being an idiot -- you're not understanding my
point (which is perhaps my fault for being vague). Just
because you didn't throw the first punch doesn't mean
can't and won't be held accountable for your
you can't and won't be held accountable for your
participation in a physical altercation. I'll readily
acknowledge that this is OT, though - since the OP has
has made it clear that his intention is to 'rip up a
koran and magically summon muslim terrorist 20-ft
radius' or something. Sorry for the confusion.
\- you may be interested in Beauharnais v. Illinois
and more directly relevantly Chaplinsky v. NH.
i dont remember the exact details of Terminilello
but that may be on point too. ok tnx. --psb
\_ Huh -- interesting reading. There is some mention
of 'fighting words' in the Chaplinsky case, which
is what I was attempting to point out in my above
post. If I have the time, I'd dig up the exact
California Penal codes refer deal with this case.
Thanks for posting.
post. If I have the time, I'll dig up the exact
California Penal codes which deal with this
situation. Thanks for posting.
\- just as obscenity or symbolic speech or
advocacy of illegal action or libel are
subtopics of 1st amd jurisprudence/free
speech doctrine, "fighting words" is too,
although not as important an area.
these are sort of old cases however, so it
is unclear what their current status is.
there are lots of lower ct decisions about
yelling "fuck you" or "unhand me you nazi"
or "you have a fruitcake relig" type things
but much of this is probably not settled by
the USSC.
\_ 1. Cal. Penal Code may make this a crime, but
the 1st is incorporated so state law cannot
abridge the protection provided by the 1st.
(See Duncan, 391 US 145).
\- i thought CA const had higher protections
than 1st+incorp. i believe that came up
in pruneyard v. robins. although the
particular areas of greater protection
may not be relevant to this context.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
2. The 9th Cir's Barnett (667 F2d 835) theory
(also 4th Cir in Rice, 128 F3d 233) is prob.
not applicable here IF the law directly
regulates speech.
3. Chaplinsky is probably no longer good law
b/c of Brandenburg (395 US 444), Hess (414
US 105) and Claiborne Hardware (458 US 886).
Under the current std to show that the
speech is not protected, it must be shown
that the speech was intended (subjectively)
to produce "imminent lawless conduct" and
did or was likely to produce such conduct.
Seeing as the USSC has NEVER found such
conduct (Hess made a "threat" in front of
cops, and the ppl in Claiborne Hardware
said they would beat up anyone who crossed
the picket line), ripping up a koran or
a bible infront of a mosque/church wouldn't
qualify.
\_ I agree with your interpretation of speech
here but respectfully submit that the action
proposed is much more significant. That
said, perhaps still not enough to warrant
revocation of protection. Would love to
see a case where a flag burner was assaulted
for more relevant comparison.
4. I am not sure who the bigger idiot is here;
the person who wants to rip up the koran,
or the person who thinks that the free
exercise of one's 1st amend. right must be
deterred w/ physical violence. If your ideas
are superior to this fool's ideas, they why
don't you compete w/ him and win in the
marketplace of ideas?
[ Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of all for
even responding ]
\_ It sounds like you have no clue what a 'radical muslim' is.
I don't think picking a fight with a guy proves anything
other than how stupid and misguided you are. sorry.
\_ "... but I would consider beating the shit out of
you..." would result in you going to prison. What part
of that don't you understand?
\_ The part where that proves he's a 'radical muslim'.
\_ It sounds antagonistic for no particular reason. If the best way
we have to find radical muslim terrorists is making an art show out
of ripping up a Koran, we're doomed and should just start praying
east 3 times a day and save the hassle.
\_ Who's your favorite prayer carpet vendor?
\_ Omar's Carpetorium down on 8th street. He's working on his
website but you can just go down there.
\_ Wouldn't it be easier just to setup a suicide bomber recruitment
center and arrest those who are willing to strap bombs to
themselves?
\_ Arrest them? There's a simpler solution.
\_ One might even say a 'Final Solution'? |
| 2005/11/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40567 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Veterans%20Day.htm 78% Have Favorable Opinion of U.S. Military -jblack |
| 2005/11/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40542 Activity:high |
11/11 Robertson to Pennsylvania town: Drop dead.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Robertson_Evolution.html
\_ Bill O'Reilly to SF: City not worth saving:
http://csua.org/u/dzj [sfgate.com]
\_ Why do they hate America?
\_ San Franciscans? The ones I know don't consider themselves
a part of this country so I guess it's a tribal us vs. them
thing, but really you'd have to go there and ask. It's only
a BART trip away.
\_ No, the obvious interpretation.
\_ San Franciscans? Which "they" are you referring to?
SFans is the only plural. Unless you mean the
Penn. town but then you're mis-indented.
\_ Nice misleading headline, dumbass. (you and the columnist)
\_ How's it misleading?
\_ He didn't say it was "not worth saving". He said that if
you don't want the military recruiting, then you don't get
the protection of the military. Talk about biased
reporting.
\_ Then can I stop paying the percentage of my taxes
that fund the military?
\_ If you're willing to fund your own military, your
own coast guard, etc, and the other million people
in the area are willing to do the same, then you
should try to get the city to cecede. I'm sure the
economics of the situtation will work in your favor.
Let us know how that works out for you.
\_ Perhaps a more interesting question is, should the federal
government do anything about SF banning military recruitment in
SF schools?
\_ Of course. No federal funds for them. Thanks for playing!
\_ That's exactly what they threatened to do to Yale Law for
exactly that reason. Yale backed down. Of course, that
may have partly been a personal feud between our moron
in chief and his alma matter.
\_ Ok, that's basically all O'Reilly said, he just threw in
a bunch of stupid hyperbole.
\_ Hmm, maybe the rest of California should pass similar
measures then, since we only get back half of what we
pay to the federal government.
\_ Half? URL please. And what's wrong with that anyway even
if true? I get back far less than half of what I pay into
the tax system, you don't see me or others trying to drop
out of the tax system. You want less taxes? You'll get
fewer services. It isn't possible to get 100% of your
taxes back because the government can't be 100% efficient.
No organization can. What's your beef with taxes, exactly?
\_ It's not half, but it is a fraction and it is a lot
in absolute dollar terms.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
\_ The same is true of your state and local taxes.
Government tax systems can *not* be 100% efficient.
The moment you put a middle man in between your
dollar and the service it renders, you lose.
\_ I think you misunderstand. It is indeed a
zero sum game. The dollars are going to be
spent somewhere. It may as well be California.
Why should other states get out of it more
than they put into it? If the middle man
takes his share, it shouldn't be a middle man
somewhere other than California (like DC).
\_ au contraire mon frere! I understand quite
well. You send $X to the Feds. Simply
employing someone to process your taxes costs
money (super simplified example). Thus right
there at step 1 you can't get 100% back. It
costs money to run the Federal government.
Taxes are not zero sum. They are a minus and
a drag on the system but they also provide
services that we agree as a nation are
necessary so we pay up and take the hit. So
instead of Federal taxes you seem to want to
pay only CA state taxes. Ok, you're still
not getting your money back. Some people are
going to get more, a lot more, money out of
the system than you. So let's only pay local
county/town taxes. But oh wait.... See? You
can't tax people and have all the people taxed
get 100% of their money back out. I don't care
where the middleman/waste is. Waste is waste.
Certainly, the CA State Legislature has not
proven itself better run than the Federal
level House/Senate.
\_ I think you still misunderstand. If the
person employed is a *CALIFORNIAN* then
there is no loss of money to the *STATE*.
Whether I, an individual, get back 100%
of what I put in is rather irrelevant.
I just don't want to see the money leave
the State if it can be spent here. So,
it is zero sum. Every tax dollar is
spent on something. None is lost to
'overhead' if the 'overhead' means
jobs/services for Californians. Sending
money off to Arkansas helps me not. Capiche?
\_ So you are not willing to consider your-
self a member of the "U.S. tribe" but
are willing to sacrifice to the "CA
tribe"? How does money spent on someone
in <random cow county in CA> help you?
How does money spent in another state
hurt you? Either way you get nothing
and pay the same amount. Money spent
on overhead is not productive for the
economy; furthermore, the economies are
so tightly intertwined that a poorly
performing state will drag the others
down. I understand what you're getting
at but fail to see how that philosophy
actually applies to the real world.
\_ If I am receiving 'federal' services
I would rather receive them from
my neighbor than from someone across
the country. If a dam is built in
Random Cow County it may benefit
me more than one built in New Orleans.
I would argue that spending more
money in CA is more likely to get me
something for my money. Or, more
obviously, just refund me my 'overage'
money back and I will benefit
directly. I identify strongly as
a Californian and I think, if
anything, much of the rest of the
country drags CA down. Certainly
many red states are just a drag
on the blue ones.
\_ If Cow County, CA is wiped off the
face of the map, most people won't
notice. If NO, LA is wiped off the
face of the map, the effects ripple
through the rest of the economy.
States are no longer highly
distinct entities, especially so
where the economy is concerned.
Your money is better invested in
NO, LA than it is in Cow, CA if
your concern is getting value back
for your tax dollar. If you just
hate everyone outside CA, well,
that's got zip to do with the way
that taxes or the economy work and
is a different topic.
\_ If NO, LA is that important
economically it should be
able to pay for its own dam
and not rely on CA to pay
for it. It's not like CA is
doing so well that we can
afford that stuff for other
places. What about our own
dams in the Delta, for example?
\_ So any part of the US that
isn't making profit should
be left to die? Now I think
you're just trolling but I'll
respond anyway: *when* CA is
hit by The Big One, you'll
be the first one bitching
about slow FEMA response and
any delays in the National
Guard showing up to save your
ass from looters.
\_ If so, it's because I
expect our fair share
after paying for floods
and tornados elsewhere
for the last 30 years
while FEMA refuses to pay
for our landslides and
wildfires.
\_ A landslide is too tiny
for FEMA. 5 houses?
Oh please. And the
wildfires aren't a Fed
issue either but we do
get help from other
states when they get
too big but really,
CO has had much bigger
fires than us. You're
really stretching now,
troll. Pay your damned
taxes and stop the fake
whining.
\_ Where was FEMA
in the last
couple quakes?
\_ Troll. They
weren't needed.
1 old guy had a
heart attack. A
few ancient bldgs
had cracks. Go
away troll. You
are stupid and
boring. Pay
your taxes.
\_ I have no beef with taxes. I'm merely pointing out
that it would be in our best interest to stop paying
federal taxes if, as the above post suggested, we
no longer are given federal funds. In other words,
be careful what you wish for.
\_ You don't pay taxes to get federal funds. You pay
taxes to get federal services such as the military,
the federal court system, the fbi, someone to
regular interstate commerce, etc. If you wanted
your tax dollars back in full measure you *can't*
pay federal taxes or any other taxes because the
tax system *can't* be 100% efficient. The government
is giant middle man system.
\_ Perhaps that might be related to the hostility to the
federal government exemplefied in the SF measure?
\_ say what?
\_ He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their
children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become
lesbians."
\_ That's silly. How does it destroy capitalism?
\_ Because women should be barefoot & pregnant in the home,
not part of the workforce, which ... Um ... helps
capitalism?
\_ The idea is feminism would force companies to accept lesser
qualified women in the name of equality. Their lack of
experience (wink and nod about female frailities) and forced
quotas would destroy the Competitive Edge (i.e. capitailism).
And they'd all be lesbians and pick up the good ones from the
secretarial pool thanks to their human children sacrifice to
their Wiccan gods.
\_ AND what is wrong with LESBIANS?
\_ Feminism doesn't force companies to do anything. Quota
systems do but obviously that's not the same thing. As
far as what real conservatives think about women in the
workforce, it is considered wasteful and stupid to scrub
half your country's brain power and creativity from
economically productive pursuits as seen in the Middle
East (except for Israel).
\_ AND what is wrong with LESBOS?
\_ Nothing BUD DAY can't fix!
\_ The local economy has been sucking, and tourism
hasn't been able to pick up the slack. Plus the
usual fears of terrorists attacking planes, trains,
and automobiles.
\_ In my observation, lesbians are in fact very good for the
economy.
\_ *laugh* A bit off topic? |
| 2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40534 Activity:kinda low |
11/10 Faux News shows 36% approve of Dubya's job performance
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
\_ Didn't we already go over this whole thing? What happens if his
ratings drop to 0? Nothing. What does it mean? Nothing. I guess
if it amuses you, whatever, it's harmless but you seem really hung
up on it.
\_ yes, we did, but it appears that you didn't actually learn
anything.
\_ I learned too many people are obsessed with the wrong things
and think random numbers on a lame duck president matter.
Politics is local. GWB didn't brain wash half the country.
When he's out of office and forgotten those 51% will still
vote the same way.
\_ I'm hoping the 20% of people who apparently changed their minds
since Bush's second election won't vote in another nation-
wrecking idiot. --PeterM
\_ Fat chance. their attention spans are too short to remember
any of this stuff in 2008. Especially if it's vs. Hillary.
\_ Yup in a few years Katrina, Plamegate, etc., will be
drowned out by the usual God, Guns & Gays.
\_ There's no "there" there.
\_ If the president has a low approval rating it becomes a lot
harder for him to convince modertate congresscritters to take
his side. That matters a lot.
\_ It also makes it potentially harder to keep a decisive
edge in the interim elections.
\_ Politics is local. If politics were national, then the
whole country would be (R) since we've had more (R) years
at the top level in the last 30 years than (D). |
| 2005/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40529 Activity:nil |
11/9 LA school district provided buses to send students to political
protests. http://csua.org/u/dz5
\_ It's okay to sponsor political activities with taxpayers' money, as
long as it's Democratic activities.
long as it's Democratic political activities. |
| 2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40507 Activity:low |
11/9 Anyone in SF want to sell me their gun?
\_ (Not a SF voter). Did the anti-gun measure have any teeth, like
fines, jail time, and someone empowered to enforce it or is it
a toothless suggestion?
\_ Read it yourself:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_index.asp?id=33919
"Section 5. Penalties
Within 90 days of the effective date of this section, the Board
of Supervisors shall enact penalties for violations of this
ordinance. The Mayor, after consultation with the District
Attorney, Sheriff and Chief of Police shall, within 30 days from
the effective date, provide recommendations about penalties to
the Board."
The Board of supervisors gets to pick the penalty. Nice
democratic proceses.
\_ Sweet! So they enacted a law with unknown penalties TBD that
could range anywhere from nothing to death for the perp's
entire family by public hanging. ;-)
\_ I'd prefer public raping, Pakistani style.
\_ I bukake for justice!
\_ bukake for great justice! |
| 2005/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:40500 Activity:nil |
11/8 http://drudgereport.com accidentally flips prelim. Virginia election results http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518401/posts |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40425 Activity:nil |
11/3 http://csua.berkeley.edu/ElectronicVoting.html Since I haven't seen this advertised on {listdujour}@csua, anyone going? --Jon \_ has someone told the ASUC? |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:40413 Activity:nil |
11/2 Amusing Fark post arguing politics with Magic The Gathering cards:
http://csua.org/u/dwv |
| 2005/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:40370 Activity:low |
10/31 Second homes accounted for 36 percent of all home sales last year.
Is this historically normal?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/051031/316081.html?.v=1
\_ randomn guess... no :p how many of your parents' friends own
more than one home 10 years ago?
\_ dunno, that'd depend on how rich my parent's friends are. is
that a statistically reliable sample set?
\_ lots of kids are also living with their parents past 30, when
they should get off their ass and buy a house.. Is that
normal either? I believe it evens out.
\_ Is it 36% of all successful sellers sold their second homes? Or is
it 36% of all successful buyers bought their second homes? |
| 2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40272 Activity:low |
10/25 What Congress Did Is Disgusting
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_26_05_JS.html
\_ Google maps image of where the bridge would go:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/bqr2f (maps.google.com)
More info on the Gravina bridge
http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
\_ Something liberals and conservatives can agree on. -emarkp
\_ This seems made up: "Last week, Alaska's other senator,
Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your
money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked
her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was
unusually candid: 'We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure
want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is.'"
\_ It's john stossel. don't expect too much.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html
http://csua.org/u/du4
Price gouging saves lives!
\_ Soo soo sook! |
| 2005/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40252 Activity:nil |
10/25 Iraqi election officials announce Iraq constitution has passed
link:tinyurl.com/cqk34 link:tinyurl.com/cdcq2 (nytimes.com)
"The Iraqi electoral officials, at the suggestion of United Nations
advisers, had also audited a random sampling of provinces in which more
than 90 percent of voters had approved the constitution. The officials
said today that they had found no evidence of voter fraud in those
provinces, which were Basra and Babil, dominated by Shiites, and Erbil,
a Kurdish province in the north."
[From the LA Times:]
"Carina Perelli, the U.N. elections chief, praised the election audit
and said, 'Iraq should be proud of the commission.'"
[From the Washington Post:]
"But while there is still anecdotal evidence of vote tampering, no
credible evidence of widespread fraud has yet emerged."
\_ mission accomplished. we can go home now. |
| 2005/10/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40210 Activity:low |
10/20 Re: the redistricting proposition. Prop 77.
It's not a partial, non-biased redistricting. It'll decrease
the amount of seats urban areas get, while increasing rural
representation. Think districting based on land covered, rather
than population. This essentially means it will increase R
representatives and decrease D representatives. Arnold sends
another wolf in sheeps' wool.
http://csua.org/u/dsc (blog)
OTOH, he later mentions a Cal study showing no apparent political
bias effects to 77, but the study isn't released. (scroll up) The
Trib article he quotes mentions prof. Bruce Cain. Anyone know of
him? His UCB bio shows he's very pro-redistricting.
\_ why are they always pushing a magical retired panel of judges
somewhere to plan redistricting? what makes them so special?
also the redistricting would be based on 5 year old census
data. there's a reason redistricting usually happens
only immediately after each 10 year census, the data is considered
to be the most accurate at that time. - danh
\_ Also, first time around, the new plan goes into effect before
we get to vote on it. bull shite. --scotsman
\_ Almost anything would have to better than the current system
where the legislature chooses their voters, rather than the
other way around. Just because DeLay jerrymandered Texas,
doesn't mean the Democrats should do the same to CA. -ausman
\_ I have yet to see evidence that the current map is
gerrimandered. In the BA, at least, the maps pretty much run
along county or city grouping lines. I don't think people
voting their representatives back in necessarily means
the game is rigged. --scotsman
\_ It is definitely gerrymandered. I don't know about the
Bay Area, but it is apparent in LA. How it happened:
http://tinyurl.com/8vae2 |
| 2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40195 Activity:moderate |
10/19 Is there an "unbiased" site that gives the straight dope about what
each proposition is really about, and what the pros and cons are?
\_ It's the GOVERNATOR! What do you expect? More tax cuts for the
corporation and the people who have made it. That is the basic
platform of the conservatives.
\_ wait, you're actually going to vote on those?
\_ The voter pamphlet you get from the state will have the pro/con
from biased sources and the 'neutral' description from the state.
And why wouldn't someone vote on them?
\_ the voter pamphlet only has so much space and my past experience
with it has been somewhat unsatisfactory.
\_ Just vote no on 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 and yes on 79 and 80 if you
are a lefty and do the reverse if you are a righty. I'd personally
vote no on all of them because I think they all muck around with
things that we don't fully understand, but since nobody listens
to anybody anymore just tow the party line.
\_ toe
\_ Why would redistricting have anything to do with left or right?
\_ Ahnud says vote yes on 73-78 and no on 79, 80. The reality is
it makes no difference how you vote, b/c if everyone votes no
the law doesn't get passed but if everyone votes yes, the law
will be struck down by the courts.
\_ I thought we paid the legislature to legislate.
\_ no, the various lobbies and special interest groups pay the
legislators to legislate. We just occasionally vote them in
or out.
\_ I advocate voting against all propositions on principle, regardless
of issue. The system sucks and should be done away with.
</flamebait>
\_ pretty much... check out this prop that passed:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/63
It's bluntly stupid. I guess you can pass anything as long as
it targets a rich enough tax bracket.
oh and that smartvoter site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop
\_ Why do you love rich people john? I don't mind having
Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton's cousins pay a bit
more for basic infrastructures to help out the rest.
At any rate the rich bourgeois already own vast amounts
of land in metropolitan areas and they have been, are, and
will continue to gobble up empty, underutilized suburbian
vacation homes. They also run and control mega apartment
complexes in hot spots of metro cities and artificially
inflate land values (Irvine) which really screw up the rest
of us working class prolitariats. -fuck capitalism
oh and that smartvoter site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop
(oh and that http://smartvoter.org site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/63 )
\_ i'm not John, don't interrupt, and you = bluntly stupid
\_ Because I'm a fat bloated plutocrat bastard tool of the
running dog imperialists. Because I hate hippie long-
hairs and think all the colored folks should limit their
career aspirations to serving me and Muffy drinks at the
country club. Because I like the idea of a Metropolis-
like tribe of underclass laborers being squashed under my
mighty oppressive boot. Excuse me? -John
\_ Vote Yes on 77. Redistricting in an impartial way is the key to
making districts more competitive, which should reduce the number
amount of extremism, left or right, in the legislature. ok tks -!psb
making districts more competitive, which should reduce the amount
of extremism, left or right, in the legislature. ok tks -!psb
\_ As above, show me that it's not impartial now, and you might
change my mind on 77. Oh, and btw, it's "ok thx" |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40139 Activity:nil |
10/17 "Iraqi election officials said today that they were investigating ...
vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces, where as many as 99
percent of the voters were reported to have cast ballots in favor
of Iraq's new constitution"
\_ We'll just call those the "red provinces". At least the elections
in Iraq don't seem to be more crooked than ours. |
| 2005/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:40068 Activity:high |
10/13 Why I don't think the real-estate will ever bubble. Many young
people seeking for opportunities from inland move to coastal metro
CA. Most asian immigrants to move to CA. The people from the border
love to move to CA. Kids are born and raised in CA. People who
already stay in CA like to stay in CA. The fact of the matter is,
regardless of the economy the CA population is still rising and
there is a shortage of land. We talk about bubble as if people will
all of a sudden will lose their jobs or move to apartments or
move out of the state. Wouldn't such a movement trigger an apartment
rental boom, which is unlikely since many are already close to full
occupancy anyways? Real-estate bubble-- wishful thinking,
it'll never happen.
\_ Do you have statistics to show that the Bay Area population is
growing? I read an article that claimed the opposite.
\_ There's an artificial shortage of land, in reality there is
no shortage of land in CA. If the population does increase to
a certain size we'll just expand the burbs is all. All you have
to do is travel down interstates between the two large metropolitan
areas of LA-OC-SD and the Bay Area and you can see the large
amount of empty room still available. But real statistics show
that the Bay Area has been losing population, contrary to
popular belief, and that the growth has been in SoCal and
Sac.
\_ I think it's a matter of perspective. The housing bubble is not
going to be like the stock market bubble. Houses won't end up
being worthless. The problem are those people who are betting
their property will continue to increase in worth by double digits
and those who will get caught by the increasing high interest.
The bubble will be stagnant markets, or slightly depressed prices.
\_ actually considering that most people are financing their homes,
likening it to stock merket would be likening it to a stock
market heavy on margin traders. If someone only puts up 10% down
on real eastate, it only takes a 10% drop for them to lose it
all. Because of the heavy leverage, small changes in the
market can produce big losses!
The one saving grace is real eastate is not very liquid. It
won't take a week for the market to crash ; it'll take months.
\_ Sorry, but people from the border can't afford the million $
homes. As for CA kids, they will all just live with their
parents. For speculators, if home prices don't rise, they will
be bleeding money, and hence looking to sell. Inflation is
rising and the fed is forced to keep raising rates. Add to
that outsourcing, trade deficit, budget deficit, high consumer
debt, and an overall ugly economy, and even though I wish to
say housing would just calm down and stagnate, I have to be
honest, and tell you that, more likely, it would pop and fall
like 20%. - worried homeowner
\_ If this real estate bubble is anything like the last one in the
Bay Area, I wouldn't worry too much. Even if prices start
falling, it won't do dramatically. Incomes and prices are high
enough that you can sell if need be.
\_ Actually, the new immigrants are able to afford quite a lot.
How? They share. It's common for several families of new Mexican
immigrants to share a house. In this way, I've seen even day
laborers buy a $400K house. Yes, this constrains prices
because at some point income is always a limiting factor. By
the way, why are you worried about a 20% drop? That's
nothing. So your $500K house falls to $400K. BFD.
\_ if you spent $100k down on that $500k house, after the 20%
drop, that $100k of equity is GONE. If you borrowed it all,
you're now $100k in debt; selling the house would leave you
still well in the red.
\_ Uhm no. If I put $100k down on a $500k house and the sell
price drops 20% I have the option of "not selling" since I
live there. If I was a speculator I'd probably take a hit
since a 20% drop is unlikely to recover quickly in which
case I'd lose a tiny amount of the millions I'd made over
the last 5-10 years. Too bad I wasn't a speculator. ;-)
\_ Not selling is all fine and dandy if everyone took
out 30 year fixed mortgages. Unfortunately, there are
too many 1 year, 3 year ARMs, no interest, blah blah
mortgages these days. I am not worried about my own
home per se, but a deflating housing bubble pulling
the whole economy down. IIRC, something like half of
the jobs created lately are real estate related.
\_ I think the real estate market in CALIFORNIA will be a good
investment IN THE LONG RUN precisely because the population
here is growing quickly. However, this is not true in most
places.
\_ Yea, in the long run, stock market goes up too, but like my
old Numerical Analysis TA says, "Why are we learning this
faster algorithm? Cause LIFE IS SHORT!"
\_ Look, do you want to invest or are you trying to win the
lottery? If you're not in it for the long-term then just
go to Vegas already. Many people have long-term goals and
accomplish them by staying the course. That doesn't mean
to ignore short-term fluctuations, but most of us here are
quite far from retirement age and have time on our side.
\_ "Yea, things are overpriced, but you need to get in or
you will miss the boat. Just invest for the long term."
That's what they say at the height of the internet
bubble too.
\_ Maybe. On the other hand, I thought we were at the
top 4 years ago (when I bought). I needed a place
to live. I wouldn't buy an investment property
right now. However, I'd buy a 'home' if I needed
one and could afford it.
\_ How far off is the DOW/NAS/etc now from where they were
at the top of the dotocm bubble?
\_ nasdaq: 5000 (top of bubble 5+ years ago), 2000 (now)
\_ The End Is Nigh:
http://www.golyon.com/images/sacsvs.png
http://www.golyon.com/pricingtrends_f.htm |
| 2005/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:39980, category id '18005#3.2025' has no name! , ] UID:39980 Activity:nil |
10/4 Good TPMCafe post pointing out the logical fallacies in that "study"
which attempted to link high levels of religiosity with high levels
of social dysfunction:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/4/17430/4632
\_ You mean that the moron ignored his own statement that
correlation does not imply causation? |
| 2005/9/28-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:39904 Activity:nil |
9/28 Mortgage interest is tax-deductible for federal and state taxes. Is it
also deductible for the items on my paycheck like Social Security,
Medicare, etc.?
\_ No. You get to pay the middle-class regressive tax whether you
like it or not. Call us back when you get past that AMT wall, boyo.
\_ i dont understand AMT. when i am about to pay $0 tax dollars..
all of a sudden i have to pay $8000?
\_ AMT is a minimum amount of tax you should pay based on
some formula. So, for instance, if you make $300K and
have $300K in deductions (let us say stock losses) you
still have to pay the minimum tax (and not $0).
\_ AMT was designed to prevent the ultra-rich from paying
no tax. Unfortunately it has never been indexed to
inflation, and so it increasingly hits the middle class.
This is only going to get worse over time, but for some
reason the Republican leadership seems reluctant to fix it.
\_ Well, the R leadership is too busy spending like drunken
sailors (apologies to sailors). But if they tried it,
the D's would say "they're trying to protect the rich
again!" -emarkp
\_ Apology accepted. I used to be a sailor, and drank
plenty, but I never spent more than I could afford.
\_ You also spent /your own money/. Which is another
important difference. -emarkp
\_ For what it's worth, I believe the Democrats want
to fix the AMT. It may even be in the platform,
but I don't recall.
\_ The AMT is primarily a problem for voters in
Democratic states. Why would the Republicans rush
to fix it? Let CA and NY vote Republican, and the
AMT will get fixed in a jiff.
\_ No, the Republicans want the AMT to explode and
hurt people. Then they can repeal the whole thing,
no questions asked.
\_ and by not removing the AMT, they have a
non-exploding budget for years to come :P
\_ No one wants to "remove" the AMT, except
for maybe the Grover Norquist wing of the
Republican party. What it needs is to
fixed so that it doesn't hurt the already
battered and shrinking middle class.
\_ yerright. I amend that to:
and by not fixing the AMT, they have a
non-exploding projected budget deficit
for years to come
\_ No, I think you're wrong. To correct it
would be simple, just like the fixing the
estate tax. And now that tax is on the
brink of being permanently off the books.
The fate of the AMT will be the same, but
unlike the "death tax," it will actually
hurt people.
hurt people first before they kill it.
\_ do you think the GOPers will be
laughing their asses off when the
upper-middle-class Democrats are
paying the higher taxes they wanted?
\_ Oh dear me yes. They are expecting
a rash of people going to the GOP
when this happens. |
| 2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:39874 Activity:nil |
9/26 Everytime I get a http://proxyvote.com I get the following: "PROPOSAL FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN." I always vote no because my CEO is a fucking playboy and a dickhead who doesn't do anything. I've been voting no for the past 8 years and it's annoying seeing this everytime proxyvote comes. Is there a way to find out the past results of my votes? Thanks \_ Is your CEO named Larry and have a fetish for all things Japanese? \_ Should be part of the annual report. -tom \_ you don't need to look it up. I assure you that it has passed every year. -phuqm. \_ and if there's an accounting scandal, well, he doesn't do anything so he wouldn't know anything about that! |
| 2005/9/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39865 Activity:nil |
9/25 My property tax for 2005, the amount I need to pay, has increased
8% from 2004. Is this legal? I thought the cap was 2% a year
(and it has been more/less for the past 2 years). The total
assessed value is only increased by 1.9%, but the end result
is a whopping 8% increase. Anyone else seeing similar things?
This is Santa Clara county. Thanks.
\_ Your city has been taken over by evil socialists.
\_ Prop 13 limits the raise in assessed value to 2% per year.
\_ http://www.hjta.org/faq.htm#I%20just%20got%20my%20property%20tax |
| 2005/9/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39864 Activity:nil |
9/24 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1108.html According to this Japan's gasoline is actually cheaper than Germany!!! How can that be? |
| 2005/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:39860 Activity:nil 57%like:39850 |
9/24 http://tinyurl.com/7aspg IKEA votes to refer domination to Walmart. In order to obtain abstentions from socialists and liberals, language specifying "Republicans" and including a specific date were dropped. \_ how about the Religious right? |
| 2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:39814 Activity:nil |
9/22 Jimmy Carter says we need to show photo ID to vote. ACLU says:
"Photographic identification as a requirement for voting is
antidemocratic and prevents people from exercising their fundamental
right to vote whether proposed by the General Assembly of the state of
Georgia or the Carter-Baker commission"
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/12688495.htm
\_ How does that follow? (What the ACLU says)
\_ Is this a matter of confusion between verification of right to
vote with anonymous voting?
\_ Yes, and also a question the circumstances of how and who
gets a verifable ID and how that ID will be used later on
(i.e. will it become akin to SSN or driver's license for
serices).
\_ What does Jimmy Carter say about corporations run by directly
partisan Republicans supplying black boxes for voting in our
election? |
| 2005/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39799 Activity:nil |
9/21 Man, this is just fucked. Amateur porn site offering free access to
soldiers in exchange for photos of "fresh kills."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/09/21/ntfu/index.html
\_ Why is it fucked up? At least in Vietnam the soldiers had plenty
of poon tang to satisfy their urges. In Iraq the soldiers feel
bored and depressed. They need their poon tang.
\_ Obviously you've never served.
\_ Oh, they are meeting lots of local beauties according to my
family that was there. The problem is that sometimes these
girls have dads/brothers who are part of the insurgency. Is
it worth getting killed for some poon tang?
\_ You don't see anything fucked up about the proximity of graphic
shots of a person's head destroyed by a 50 caliber machine gun
and ads for a mother-daughter sex movie? Ooooookaaaaay...
\_ Yeah it's fucked up. It should be brother-sister sex movie.
\_ Maybe DoD could ship over some eager young republican girlies
as comfort women. -John
\_ Finally a way for the Bush twins to serve their country,
and I'll bet they would excel at the task.
\_ Go for the Bushes' bushes!
\_ Isn't it hard to get booze & coke down there? -John |
| 2005/9/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39726 Activity:moderate |
9/17 "To the Citizens of the United States of America: In light of your
failure to elect a competent President of the USA thus to govern
yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective immediately." --John Cleese
http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2005/04/message-from-john-cleese-to-citizens.html
\_ This is BRILLIANT thank you whoever posted this.
\_ old. and who wants blair as our PM anyway?
\_ Man, how far the standard for the word "brilliant" has
fallen. Has it been smoking crack recently or something?
\_ Not brilliant. Brillant.
\_ it's not brilliant and it's not from john cleese either, dummies. |
| 2005/9/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:39661 Activity:nil |
9/13 To conservatives and small-government supporters, what is your opinion
on regulating mercury emissions?
http://tinyurl.com/chhea
Another fact: FDA/EPA & number of states have issued fish consumption
advisories: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg.html
Don't you think these two things somehow related?
\_ If the mercury is completely w/in the state it OUGHT to be
beyond the reach of the fed gov. Re fish - so what? don't
eat fish, I've never eaten fish (or any other animal) in
my entire life and I'm doing okay.
\_ Your mind has been classified as: small and conservative.
\_ Brilliant!!! Maybe Colorado can charge an exorbitant amount
of money for water going into California since they have an
abundance. And you're thinking of privatization right? That's
great! Go America, go Ronald Reagan, go Conservatism!!!
\_ Re air, I've never breathed air my entire life and I'm...oh
wait.
\_ so your general position is a lack of respect for animal life,
AND disrespect for people's culinary tastes?
\_ Are the fish affected by the Hg? If so, let them evolve.
If not, what is the big damn problem - why don't you get
some culture and stop living off the flesh of dead animals.
\_ most mercury emitted to the air in the coal-firing powerplants.
coal contains a very very small amount of mercury, but because
we burn a lot of it, this become a problem. Since mercury
vapor do travel across state lines, what is your opinion on
Feds impose regulation on state-own power plants?
\_ Legitimate ways for congress to get pwr over state coal
plants would be:
1. the plant provided pwr to other states not just
the state it was located in
2. the plant got coal from another state
3. Congress paid for the plant (all or part)
4. Congress took over all regulation of all coal plants
in the entire US
If the state is paying for the plant and it gets all of
the coal locally and provides all of the coal locally,
it OUGHT to be beyond the pwr of Congress. The argument
that the effect of the coal production on other states
justifies fed regulation if taken to its logical
conclusion justifies congressional regulation of
everything. Crime in one state affects another - why
shouldn't congress regulate that?
The pwr of the fed gov in necessarily limited and should
remain so.
\_ I'm going to shoot you. I've never gotten anything good from
you in my entire life and I'm doing ok.
\_ Bring it on! |
| 2005/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:39578 Activity:low |
9/8 California, the next Katrina? What do you think? Will the big
one strike in your lifetime, or has it already passed?
\- The big one may not be the most likely catastrophe. A large part
of the Central Valley relies on levees for protection. There's
already been one dramatic breaching recently but it didn't get much
attention because it didn't affect a populated area. -- ulysses
\_ This is crap. Only the Sacramento/Stockton area is in danger of
flooding by failed levees. And it would take a total breakdowns
of all the levees to hurt Sacramento proper (Stockton is a
different story) which might happen in an earthquake that would
level most of the area anyhow. And while devastating, the
property damage would be nothing what the levee destruction
would mean to the loss of freshwater flow from NorCal to SoCal.
property damage would be nothing next to how the levees'
destruction would mean the loss of freshwater flow from NorCal
to CV/SoCal. |
| 2005/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39572 Activity:nil |
9/8 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/08.html#a4856 Mississippi resident yells "Go f-ck yourself" during Cheney interview. (click movie link, wait 1 minute until web site responds) \_ Who cares? \_ sodans do! but obviously not the bush luvahs \_ The Mississippi resident is just practicing the golden rule \_ No, he is practicing the reverse Golden Rule, also known as the psb rule. |
| 2005/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39571 Activity:nil |
9/8 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/08.html#a4851 Watch conservative Joe Scarborough, while saying Nagin and the LA governor are inept and in over their heads, ask why Dubya's people didn't run New Orleans as efficiently as the Florida hurricanes (three different sections where he talks) |
| 2005/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39559 Activity:nil |
9/7 http://csua.org/u/db1 (governor.ca.gov) "[Schwarzenegger] believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners. ... The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. ... Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849." -Margita Thompson, Press Secretary for Ahnold [fyi, I clipped out a couple sentences for brevity, but the "unconstitutional" part is the public voting no-gay-marriage and the legislature revoking it -- also keep in mind no-gay-marriage may also be unconstitutional. Not sure in both cases.] \_ More to the point: Wow. It's the governor's job to determine what's unconstitutional...OK. --scotsman \_ few points: 1. afaik it is not specified in either the ca state or or fed constitution that the executive cannot make a determination re constitutionality 2. the executive (state and fed) is a co-equal branch of gov w/ the legislature and the cts 3. it is a judicial decree (marbury v madison) that says that the scotus is the final arbiter re con- situtionality (fed). 4. one ought to be free to wonder why a co-equal br- anch, the executive, ought to accept this. \_ What I meant was, _if_ he really really for true wanted to sign this, then he should have signed it, and let the courts do their job. He's trying, lamely, to have it both ways. "My hands are tied, dear cahlifohniahns." BTW, mr. black, ordering your pointless points as bullets don't make you make any more sense. \_ The statement made above implied that the governor could not to determine whether a particular act was constitutional. My point is that there is no basis for this assertion. Neither the federal nor state constitutions preclude the executive from making determinations re constitutionality of legislative acts. At least on the federal level the ONLY authority for the supremacy of the judiciary over the executive re constitutional interpretation comes from the judiciary (see marbury). The question remains, WHY should the executive branch, which is co-eqaul w/ the judiciary and not precluded from constitutional interpretation, defer on these questions? BTW, Who is mr black? \_ Um.. Why not post a URL? \_ i first got the text from reg-required <DEAD>sjmercury.com<DEAD> |
| 2005/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39540 Activity:nil |
9/7 ~90% of the Democrats think the religious right provides a
negative influence on American culture, while ~90% of the
Republicans think it provides a positive influence:
http://pollingpoint.com/results_071305.html
\_ What about independents?
\_ In related news, 90% of cats think birds are a tasty treat, while
90% of birds hate cats.
\_ Oddly, the 10% dissenting birds are hawks. |
| 2005/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39534 Activity:nil |
9/6 Gay marriage bill passed by California legislature with minimum
required votes, goes to Ahnold
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1478960/posts
\_ Judicial activism! Think of the children!!1!1 Oh wait...
\_ Feel the love.
\_ Passed under cover of Katrina, ignoring Prop 22, etc.
\_ Make up your mind -- do you want it made legal by activist
judges or activist legislatures?
\_ Neither. |
| 2005/9/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:39522 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050905/cm_huffpost/006844 My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong (regarding Rehnquist). \- No matter what you think about CHITCHENS, you have to admit this is nicely phrased ... --psb \_ What are you talking about, that essay is by alan dershowitz - danh \- i am talking about the quote below: \- it's possible AD also re-quoted the same samuel johnson quote but CHITCHENS is quoted below and i have heard CH repeat the same quote slightly differently phrased in an interview. What are you talking about? A man is not on his oath, said Samuel Johnson, when he gives a funeral oration. One ought to try and contest the underlying assumption here, which condescendingly excuses those who write nil nisi bonum of the dead. |
| 2005/9/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39463 Activity:moderate |
9/2 So everyone is complaining that the Federal response to
this Katrina business is too slow.
1. Why should there be a federal response at all?
2. Shouldn't it be the responsiblity of the state to deal
with this sort of thing?
3. Why blame the feds for acting slowly when the states
didn't ask for help for ~ 2 days? [ I could be wrong
on the timeframe here ]
\_ 33% Federal income tax, that's fucking why. Screw all the "the
gub'mint should this, and the Feds should that", here's a service
that people paid for and they ain't getting it. Someone should
call the BBB. -John
2. Shouldn't it be the responsiblity of the state to deal
with this sort of thing?
3. Why blame the feds for acting slowly when the states
didn't ask for help for ~ 2 days? [ I could be wrong
on the timeframe here
\_ Hurray for narrow ideologies that oversimplify issues. I think
the problem with the federal response is that this catastrophe
was predicted up to four years ago, yet the budget for building
precautions to avert it has been consistently cut by this
administration. Then it's taken this long to bring to bear the
official federal disaster relief agency, which should nominally
be in charge since its supposed replacement has not yet been put
in place. If this is the response time for a predicted disaster
with that many people who did not or could not evacuate, what's
going to happen the next time an unpredicted disaster strikes?
\_ So, you don't think FDR should of step in to revive the economy
back in the 1930's, right? Should we abolished EPA and SEC?
\_ I think FDR over stepped the bounds of his authority
in many cases (the USSC thought so as well). I'm not
100% convinced that the EPA falls w/in the commerce
pwr of Art 1 Sec 8, but its probably close. The SEC
clearly falls under the commerce pwr, so congress
has ever right to establish it.
has every right to establish it.
My argument is about separation of pwrs, the nature
of our gov is that the states are independent from
the fed gov and are responsible for administration
of internal affiars. This is an internal affair,
let the state deal w/ it UNLESS they ask for help
from the feds. IF they ask for help from the feds
and the feds mess it up, then its probably okay to
evaluate the federal response. But evaluating the
federal response prior to any state request is not
valid. [ If I got the timeframe wrong, sorry to be
a bother ]
\_ hmm... state right again. I thought those who
advocate "seperate but equal" use "state right" as
main arguement. *FURTHER* How about the Flood of
Mississippi in 1927, when bankers in New Orleans
decided to break the leeves to save New Orleans.
But the result was complete devistation to the country
side... State Supreme Court was completely aligned
with those white plantation owners / bankers, all
law suit was ruled in favor of those who were white.
You *PREFER* that kind of state right? --non white
\_ The states are subordinate to the constitution
and separate but equal is incompatible w/ the
the 14th amd.
If the local gov/populace undertakes a measures
that is not in the best interest of the local
populace, the sol'n isn't to call in the feds.
The sol'n is to deal w/ it local. Or move.
Personally, I don't trust any gov. - local or
fed - to act in the best interests of the ppl.
But I think that the feds have even less interest
in acting responsibly than the locals, therefore
I am opposed to widespread fed intervention.
-also non-white
\_ You _are_ wrong on the timeframe. Blanco asked for financial
assistance for facilitating evacuations on the 26th, when it
became apparent that the storm (then a Cat IV, soon to be Cat V)
was heading their way. Why is a federal response needed? Because
preventing a meltdown of an entire region of our country is an
integral part of protecting your precious markets. This is a
social, economic, and humanitarian crisis on our sovreign territory.
\_ As I understand it, assistance for evacuation for the
entire region was given by the fed gov (note more than
just NO was affected). The problem w/ NO is that the
local resources were not mobilized b/c of local gov
inaction and local resident refusal. The fed gov
should not be blamed for the actions of the local
populace.
My questions have nothing to do w/ mkts, &c. They
are about separation of pwrs. Shouldn't the states
be responsible for themselves to a certain extent?
Why should the fed gov be involved in everything
immediately?
Is it always true that a federal response will be
superior to a local response (cf '89 quake)?
[ Perhaps my views re this event are colored b/c I
come from a part of the world where thousands
of ppl die in floods every year and no one ever
notices ]
\_ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050903/ap_on_re_us/katrina_national_guard
\_ http://tinyurl.com/deota (news.yahoo.com)
This was a failure of planning. It's STILL failing. There
are people waiting and wanting to help. There is a breakdown
here that is resulting in people dying of dehydration and
illness on the streets of american cities. When the federal
government has depleted the available national guard for the
states involved, it is THEIR responsibility to fill the gaps.
\_ A few questions:
1. Is the argument: the feds sent the NG from LA to
Iraq so that's why they weren't in NO to help w/
this mess?
\_ This is one portion of the argument that puts the onus
of insufficient resources for the state on the feds.
2. If this is the argument, is the assertion also
that so many NG are in Iraq that all of the NG
offered by the other states wouldn't have been
enough to deal w/ the situtaion?
\_ I don't know, and can't speak to it. but you apparently
didn't read the article. the request _was_ made for
more NG support and it languished in Washington (who
would, I suppose, have to approve any interstate troop
transfers).
\_ I got the impression that the delay was b/c LA
wanted to use the NG troops for police purposes
and hadn't put into place provisions for such
use in their agreements. I saw the delay as
shortsightedness on LA's part not as a failing
of the feds. [ I could be wrong ]
3. Assuming that the feds hadn't deployed the NG
to Iraq, is the assertion that there were enough
NG in NO to deal with the situtation in a better
manner?
4. If so, where is the proof that the NG in NO wouldn't
have been overwhelmed just like the NO cops were?
The whole city was flooded and most of the roads
were out. Unless you are claiming that the NG in NO
had a huge fleet of choppers and hovercraft, what
difference could it possibly have made - many of
the LA NG probably would have ended up dead as well.
\_ Wow. Logical leap. I don't know what their plan would
be but I would assume it would not include congregating
their forces in the center of Katrina's path and letting
it wipe them off the map. Are you claiming that the LA
NG is a backwoods militia with a couple jeeps and some
armored bicycles? I would think they would have large
vehicles and cargo movers that could be used as personnel
transports to help facillitate evacuations and high-water
vehicles, helicopters and boats to help in search and
rescue, and portable generators to keep hospitals
working. Since these things didn't show up, I would
assume that they didn't have enough people and equipment
here.
\_ NO was prepared for a cat 3 or so hurricane, not
one this big. It was known that the best way to
survive was to evacuate, but the local gov didn't
handle that properly. If the NG had been in NO,
where is the proof that they could have handled
the situation better than the cops if the whole
place knew they couldn't have handled a situation
like this?
5. Assume that the NG hadn't been deployed to Iraq,
some (perhaps many) of the NG in LA would have
been outside of NO. What is the basis for a claim
that they could have rendered assistance to NO
in a better manner than external NG troops?
\_ How big do you think LA is? The roads have been
passable enough for busses leaving. I'm sure they could
get their armored bicycles through in less than 5 FUCKING
DAYS.
\_ This makes no difference. If the external
troops could have deployed as quickly as
the LA troops, then the fact that the LA
troops were not present does not change
anything.
While there may have been a failure of planning,
to me it seems to be a failure at a state level
not at a fed level. The fed response seems to be
sufficient.
\_ The president doesn't agree with you
\_ So what? I don't agree w/ the pres on many
things.
\_ Hello jblack! Haven't seen you for a while. I miss you too.
Did you have a blast at the golf course? Did you break 80?
\_ Is this the same idiot who said he wouldn't donate money
to natural disaster relief funds because we should
instead be donating money to the "root of the problem"?
\_ No. I donated money to this (and many other) relief
efforts. I'm just not clear on why this is/should be
a federal problem instead of a state problem (the
states are free to ask for federal help, but until
they do can/why should the feds get involved?)
\_ Thank you for speaking out. Like you I'm a minority and I'm
fed up with you socialists. I'm a believer in family
values, moral values, free markets, small government, self-
reliance, and fiscal rectitude. The New Orleans are like the
grasshoppers who squander food and party everyday until
winter comes. It's just a matter of time before they start
begging for food. There's a saying that God helps those who
help themselves. I'm sick and tired of having to pay
for illegal immigrants and lazy people so that they can get
a free education and free lunch. If the Orleans had any family
values or work ethics they would work hard and support
themselves. Instead they leech off from hard honest working
people. The fact that they loot and rape tells you the kind
of people they are. They're worse than the grasshoppers and
they have no sympathy from me.
\_ This just has to be a troll.
\- i'm sure this is a troll but to find a point in it
all ... i think there are tiers of govt involvement
there are tiers of government. it's quite under-
stanable the federal govt be the "backup" when the
state/local govt collapses. it's not like states should
only rely on "private point to point agreements"
with other public or private units ... again, analogosly
when orange county collapsed, the CA state steped in
and this is case the "buck" reasonably stopped with
the state. moving on from "tier of govt" to "tiers
of involvement/effort", i think even many non-fruitcake
libertarian and small-govt people would think it is
consistent with the mission of a "minimal state"
to provide order. moving on from there to the
provision of emergency clean water, doesnt seem
crazy talk. there is a decent prima facie economic
case to think the govt should be responsible for
public goods like levy's ... surely even more so
public goods like levees ... surely even more so
than the classic case of lighthouses, which are a
sop to the shipping industry by and large [yes, i
am aware of some cliams of the possibility of private
lighthouses]. this level of involvement, does not
seem at odds with federal involvement in the new
bay bridge, or ANWAR, or Bob's Expensive Alaskan
Bridge or the Army Corps of Engineers dredging
channels for oil tankers or the Fed govt researching
AIDS or cancer. but finally, if we are talking should the
govt be involved in "making people whole", i do agree
this seems problematic. i personally have not heard a
good rational [as opposed to political or senitmental]
case for why there should have been a special compensation
fund for 9/11 victims. i think vastly increasing the
death benefits for military KIA or firefighters and such
KIA at home should be given relatively more. --psb
\_ Orange County is paying the bonds off with their
own money. The State didn't bail them out.
\- the state did step in in the short term.
if you want to send LA a bill for the
water delivered later, i guess you can do
so. should the state send a bill to people
for firefighting services? or just get out
\_ they do. it's called "taxes".
of the firefighting business? i think there
is a difference between firefighting and
rescuing people from mt mckinley. and
remember at least some of the hypociritical
conservatives [not the libertarians in this
case] wnat the FED GOVT to be involved in
protecting "traditional marriages" from
assmaster and deviant marriages. maybe
scalia will claim the state will make it
iillegal for people to build PRIVATE LEVEES
or drink non-govt suppplied water ... oh wait
in some countries where water provision has been
made private they *have* passed laws making it
illegal to collect your own water.
(BTW, I am not familiar with the details of
how the orange county matter was settled
but i do believe there was some assistance
in buying htem time to restructure [that's
part of the point of bankrupty gradations]
and there may have been some "repuational
assistance" to help them lower their
interest rates when they went back into
the borrowing pool).
\_ Hey Partha, I think you should work on making your
writing look a little less like verbal vomit.
-- ilyas (friendly neighborhood total dumbass)
\- verbal vomit >> mental vomit
i think a point of intersection of
my moral and your political philosophy
is the state should not compel you to
vomit or read. however you may wish to
read Rochin v. California and vomit.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/333
--psb
\_ I think the state should make an exception
in your case, since you are a pol pot
in training. You know, the counterfactual
golden rule -- do onto others as they
would have done onto you if they only
could. -- ilyas
\- well i think i'd do a lot of good
early in my tenure as pol pot ...
i acknowledge things might get
carried away after a while. i mean
we can all agree on tunring the
out of hand after a while. i mean
we can all agree on tunring The
Donald into Trump Carpaccio, right?
\_ You give yourself too much credit.
-- psb for fertilizer 2008
\_ We used to have private fire companies whose
services were paid for by the insurance companies.
I think all fire fighting is public in the US now.
I wonder if it's now illegal to operate a private
fire company or merely just uneconomical.
\_ I know someone who works for one, but he only
does forest fires, and he said his unit is the
only one he knows of that's private. He likes it.
\- well there were medival "law merchants" too.
doesnt mean today the govt should get out of
the business of business law. i supposed
gated communities can choose to have their
own fire fighters and that may get into
messy situations like private firefighting
companies "poaching" FFs trained on the public
dime. with an "arragement" like that it may
be "economical" ... OWNERSHIP SOCIETY.
i shall now watch CHEF DU FER instead of the motd.
\_ Chef du fer? I'll be playing chemin de fer
tomorrow. BTW, much of the business of the
legal system is now handled by private
arbitrators.
\- yes and lots of people put out their own
kitchen fires. that's why i wrote
"get out of business law" not 'have a
monopoly on dispute resolution".
they do have a monopoly on criminal
prosecution. |
| 2005/9/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:39409 Activity:low |
9/1 The libertarian answer to a non-libertarian society
is to game it for all it's worth while pointing
and laughing. -- ilyas (reposted by meyers)
\_ Gee, must be nice to have such a flexible philosophy that you
never need to make any tough decisions, like say getting a job
instead of continuing to beg for government handouts like public
education. Do you think emarkp, for example, would engage in
an all male orgy that might benefit him greatly financially? Of
course not, he has convictions (even if I disagree with him).
-meyers
\_ Meyers, you don't seem to understand something. 'Libertarianism'
isn't a moral philosophy, it is a political philosophy. It has
certain things to say about how state power ought to be
exercised, but that is all. It does not say one should not
engage in charity (moral question), it does not say one should
not receive charity (again, moral question). Do you start to
see the pattern here? A non-libertarian society is structured
to take advantage of productive members of society to benefit
the non-productive. The proper productive response is to leave,
strike, or take advantage of an unjust system. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not meyers but it's clear to me that people like you
care about libertarianism more than morals. People who
don't care about moral, are jerks.
\_ Who says I don't care about morals? Do you even know me?
-- ilyas
\_ No, I don't know you. It is YOUR FAULT for not letting
people know you. You talk about libertarianism. What
about your other beliefs? Open up. Tell us about your
self. !meyers
\_ Why don't you email me, trollboy, and we ll have a
nice chat. -- ilyas
\_ This is a bad analogy. Mark's religion says "it's bad to
engage in male orgys" Libertarianism doesn't say "it's bad to
take money from the government." It says "It's bad for the
government to give money (in many situations)" -phuqm
\_ That makes no sense. Govt aid is bad, but not if you
take it? -meyers
\_ Well that's like believing taxes for public schools is
bad, but still going to a public school. Nothing really
wrong with that scenario... it's not like using gov't
services violates libertarian religion. They are having to
pay for it like the rest.
\_ Actually it says all sexual relationships outside of marriage
are bad for various reasons. So that excludes female orgies
as well. -emarkp
\_ Actually it says all sexual relationships are bad for
various reasons. So that excludes female orgies as well.
-emarkp
\_ Actually it says all sexual relationships
are bad for various reasons. So that excludes female orgies as
well. -emarkp
\_ Well that's just crazy talk. -phuqm
\_ Just thought I'd clarify. -emarkp |
| 2005/8/31-9/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39392 Activity:high |
8/31 Poll: Did you / are you going to donate more/same/less for the Katrina
relief effort than what you donated for the South Asia Tsunami relief
effort?
More :
Same : .
Less : .
Not decided yet : .
0 : .
0 in both cases : ..
\_ I need to defend my reasoning. Donating after a disaster is like
volunteering to serve food to starving people during Thanksgiving.
While the gesture is noble, people need food the other 364 days.
Just because you are nice one day, doesn't mean these people
will have the means to survive later on. It is thus a shallow
gesture, and doesn't solve the root of the problem. I don't
believe in a one-time effort. I believe in a long term, consist
solution to the root of the problem, like educating people to
improve their lives, saving up national treasury for rainy days,
or better yet, make the drastic move to turn US more like Denmark
where there are no poor people to kill/starve themselves.
Unfortunately the US government will never do anything. It has
a history of irresponsively externalizing problems to someone or
somewhere else. The US has this mentality that if something goes
wrong with your life, it is always your fault. Well, that is just
heartless, selfish, and wrong. Your problem is my problem, and
my problem is your problem.
my problem is your problem. Let's help each other out. Help
me turn the profit oriented, corporate-run America into a nation
that has more compassion for its people. Join my revolution
and no one will ever have to worry trivial things like donations.
Help me a little and everyone will be greatly rewarded. !che
\_ This is stupid for many reasons, here are some:
1. The U.S. government has already allocated billions to
save New Orleans. Since we all pay taxes, and since
California gets only about 80 cents on the dollar for
taxes sent to D.C., we are all already footing the bill.
2. Americans are amongst the highest, if not the highest,
donors in the world. On a per capita basis, Americans will
donate more to more causes than any other society on the
face of the planet.
3. America is exceedingly diverse. Denmark isn't. You can't
compare a dinky country like Denmark to the U.S. In fact,
you can't really compare any country to the U.S. The U.S.
is unique in terms of composition of its populace and its
place in geopolitics.
4. The U.S. is also the most generous internationally. It
gives out more aid to the world than any other country.
\_ USA actually ranks close to last in aid on a per-capita basis.
http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
\_ God, I can just feel my brain cells dying. -- ilyas
\_ !che is pretty anti libertarian. Sorry ilyas, I'll be happy
to see self-absorbed people like you die.
\_ Almost everybody is self-absorbed including, most assuredly,
yourself. The difference between you and me, is that I am
willing to 'live and let live.' You, on the other hand,
wish me dead. Now lecture me some more about my immorality.
-- ilyas
\_ Almost everybody is self-absorbed including, most
assuredly, yourself. The difference between you and me,
is that I am willing to 'live and let live.' You, on
the other hand, wish me dead. Now lecture me some more
about my immorality. -- ilyas
\_ "Almost everyone is self absorbed" is a blatant
generalization, and almost certainly false.
\_ And calling me self-absorbed without knowing anything
about my life is what? You make me laugh. -- ilyas
\_ I wasn't the person that wants you to die. I
want you to live! The motd would be a less
entertaining place without you, ilyas. -pp
\_ Can you please explain why there are so many people
out there volunteering for nothing in return?
\_ Because it makes them feel good. "But that's not
what self-absorbed usually means!" you ll cry.
My response: "how did the pp know I was self-absorbed
in that sense?" -- ilyas
\_ not the pp but I wish you were dead because you can't
fucking conform to 80 columns. asshole.
\_ You make me proud to call myself a nerd.
\_ I believe in helping people in both cases dumbass.
\- "live and let live" when actually "live and 'there is no
and'" is just sloganeering. the point is that some people
are not "and living" ... without help, the will have a
signifiant probability of dying and almost no chance to
improve their lot in life [nozick's idea of "life chances"].
i believe most of the poverty in this country is not, in
jeffrey sachs poignant expression, "the poverty that kills".
"live and let live" in the global context [as opposed to
say discussions about say social agenda in the us ... drug
legalization, assmaster marriage etc] is like saying "i
believe in equality ... i am happy not giving medicine to
the sick *and* the well". see e.g. A. K. Sen "equallity of
what" essay/sppech.
what" essay/speech. maybe you can change you slogan to
"live and whatever".
\_ Partha you don't strike me as particularly dumb, but when
it comes to libertarian stuff it's like most of your brain
just shuts off. 'Live and let live' is about applications
of state power, not a statement about how one ought to live
one's life morally. -- ilyas
\_ It warms the cockles of my heart to know that somewhere
a taxpayer is being forced at gunpoint to pay for
ilyas to write these sentences for us all to see.
\_ See, Eli, you don't understand selfish behavior.
The libertarian answer to a non-libertarian society
is to game it for all it's worth while pointing
and laughing. -- ilyas
\- i dont think that is true. i just dont fall for the
artificial boundaries libertarians of moderate
sophistication draw. first of all, a lot of these
people will change their tune when they need the help
[orange county bail out] and there really diffcult
problems of "too big to fail" [what is the liberaltarian
answer to LTCM?]. this thread began with the idea of
resource allocation not political liberty, so i think
my continuing to think in that mode is not unreasonable.
i'm actually fairly libertarian when it comes to
people playing on a level playing field except
one has to distinguish between "if i were king"
and "what do we do now" scenarios that take the
the status quo as a given [like you can be opposed
to the iraq war yet feel we cant leave now].
it may be an interesting academic discussion whether
something like federal deposit insurance is a good
or bad thing from a libertarian perspective, but i
think the libertaian perspective has little to say
about what to do about the hundreds of thousands of
people dying of malaria. i dont really care if you
want to throw terms like "state power" around ...
when discussing charity, those are the types of
questions that concerns me, not cancer research
or school vouchers etc. anyway, i was not making
abscract ethical statements like "do not lie" but
my conception of "distributive justice".
\_ Artificial boundaries my ass. Do you fall for
artificial boundaries between moderate socialists
and communists? Why are libertarians so different
all of a sudden? If voluntary charity concerns you,
libertarians have nothing to say about it (not being
moral philosophers). Any other kind of charity falls
under the rubric of 'state power.' -- ilyas
\- i am not defending socialism, communism, anachists
trostskiites, marxists, democrats xtian fruitcakes
randroids, bolshvicks, mamuluks, baski bazouks or
any other group in particular. there are a couple
smart people i list [including the leading light
of smart libertarians, nozick]. i am criticizing
libertairians here because they are the "live
and let live" party. if you want to have a thread
on environmental legislation ot affirmative
action or regulation of barbers or hollywood's
role in diverting $ to pet medical projects
i would probably attack some non-libertarian
group. i have said before a lot of liberals
operate with the assumetion "poor people are
stupid" and get defensive when you call them on
it. i think they shoudl acknowledge that as an
operating assumeption but they cant have it both
ways. libertarianism may have more theoretical
parsimony but has some big empirical problems.
for example if state A > B it not not necessarily
true that C "near" A is better than A. see e.g.
Cancun Fuck You. for the record, i think
televanglists are worse than libertarians.
BTW, are you controled in part by Sander Greenland
in addition to Judah Pearl? --psb
\_ While I am sure you have some choice words to
say about certain Christians (perhaps on wall)
all I see from you on the motd is libertarian
bashing. Libertarians come across as your
favorite political punching bag for some reason,
which I find odd because they, as a group, are
responsible for none of the things you find
annoying (parasite CEOs, etc). In fact, as a
party they are responsible for next to nothing,
good or ill. Why do you care suddenly about
my Sith Lords? I sat in on Greenland's class,
and found him annoying. I couldn't exactly
figure out why. It's 'Judea' btw. -- ilyas
\- when i go to parties with communists in
berkeley, then i attack them. i didnt
realize i had to give equal time to who i
"bash" on the wall/motd. maybe you can
search the wall logs/kchang logs for my
comments on ALGOR and BILLARY. it's not
my fault hillary is no longer public enemy
number one. did sander show you his large
telescope?
\_ You know, if he offered to show me his
large telescope, I don't think I would
have taken him up on it. Do you collect
smart people you know like trophies?
You know, collecting things is the
economic prism through which a
'merchant soul' (Plato) views acquisition
of knowledge. -- ilyas
\- i know ander via the person who was
\- i met sander via the person who was
\- i know sander via the person who was
hiding in the closet in a previous
motd post. i think his house
used to be owned by a sex cult or some
\- i met sander via the chick who was
hidining in the closet in a previous
motd post/wall. i think his house
use to be owned by a sex cult or some
thing like that. that is where he
keeps his large telescope. he also
has a large skaeboard, which i thought
was sort of pecular. hey ididnt know
according to JP terry speed was
involved in the OJ trial.
libertarians have nothing to say about it. Any
other kind of charity falls under the rubrik of
'state power.' -- ilyas
figure out why. -- ilyas
keeps his large telescope.
involved in the OF trial. |
| 2005/8/31-9/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39391 Activity:low |
8/31 Local New Orleans paper predicted this problem almost exactly about 3
years ago:
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf?/washingaway/harmsway_1.html
\_ John McPhee predicted this back in 1989. Great Book:
http://www.johnmcphee.com/controlofnature.htm
\_ And who came along to cut the funding for the Army corps of
eng. to work on it?
\_ Bush, but it was Clinton's fault.
\_ Just curious, but why do the Feds pay for this? Shouldn't
the local tax base pay for it? Touching on the comment
someone else made about CA tax dollars leaving the state,
why should CA dollars be used to build a bridge in TN or
a levy in LA?
\_ If you believe that then you also believe we shouldn't
have federal taxes higher than required to maintain a
national military and little else. Is that so?
\_ Sort of. I think there are other programs other
than defense that deserve federal funding, but a
lot of this should be handled at the state and
local levels.
\_ Sort of. I think there are programs other than defense
that deserve federal funding, but a lot of this should
be handled at the state and local levels.
\_ Is this what Federalism means? I help myself
and you help yourself?
\_ Is that a rhetorical question?
\_ And that is why the Kurds and the Sunnis want it. |
| 2005/8/29 [Finance/Banking, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:39327 Activity:low |
8/28 Any tips on saving money? What do you do?
\_ My strategy was to be really cheap and worry about every dollar
spent. I bought a cheap but decent car with a bunch of rebates out
of college and haven't spent money on that in 5 years. I lived in a
cheap place. These things aren't good for getting women BTW.
I lived much the same way and had no problem _/
on this front. Bitter much?
I think depending on your income though these things probably end
up being kind of a sucker's way to save money. Given a certain level
of saving the best defense is a good offense... try to build your
income through good investments. That will pay off more than
cheaping on misc. consumerism although that comes down to the level
compared to your income. Stupid = buying $ cars and HDTVs with no
savings left. Oh and yeah I never carried a credit card debt.
\_ Have your income exceed your expendetures.
\_ This is pretty much what I do. Do what businesses and
(responsible) governments do: only borrow money to buy things
that will help you make more money. (e.g. car, house) Otherwise,
wait to buy it until you've saved the money to "pay cash". And
that's beyond 6 months+ expenses saved so that next time you lose
your job you don't have to live off credit cards.
\_ It's a pretty goddamn simple concept, but it's worked for me
well enough. I've gotten a lot of long-winded lectures on
complicated savings plans from people who are always living
month to month, while I've been able to save enough to pay off
my college loans on my grad student stipend without really
doing anything that complicated.
\_ Get a copy of Quicken. Go through your old bank and cc statements
(you should be able to get the last few months online) and put
them in, making sure you actually catagorize everything. You will
have to guess on cash transactions, but you should have some idea.
Make a budget with the budget tools in Quicken. Keep it for a
month or two, see how you do. Revist the budget with a better idea
of how well you can stick to it. Then stick to it.
\_ This is a good way to find out what you spend money on and how
much to budget, but not a really good way to ensure you save
the difference. As below, make sure you don't mingle your
'savings' with your 'checking'.
\_ A good way is to automatically deduct money from your paychecks
and send it to a brokerage or even a savings account. Start
small. Send $50 or $100 week off that way and you probably
won't even miss it. When you get used to that increase it.
\_ Vote for less tax! Less tax, more personal income, more savings.
You can start by registering as a Republican, and vote for the
Republican who cuts the most tax. Don't get brainwashed by
left-wing socialists and Democrats alike. You worked hard to
earn your money, you should keep it all. -jblack #1 fan
\_ What's your restaurant and entertainment budget? Cut that.
Travel? Cut that too. Toys and other discretionary? Ditto.
New cars? Forget about it. Clothing and other personal grooming?
Trim those to the bone.
\_ earn more, spend less! Simplicity!
\_ Stop buying lattes. Eat in. Make your own breakfast instead of
buying a pastry. Limit how often you drink in bars. These four
things saved me hundreds of dollars a month.
\_ I bet it lost you about 5lbs/month too, if you were overweight.
\_ Actually, I'm towards the bottom of the BMI for my height, but
that's probably more due to the 5 miles of running every other
day than anything else. But thanks for asking. By the way,
the "get rid of your car" advice is also really good, but
only operable if you work in certain areas. -pp
\_ Get rid of your car. The average car costs $400/mo. -ausman
\_ So if you work for 30 years with no car, that gives you
144,000 dollars more to spend on a place closer to work.
Not to mention the commuting time that you either get for
yourself or use to make more money. I'm pretty sure most of the
whinners who blather about not having the money to live closer
to work could do it with the money saved from not driving.
\_ People get work done with laptops on BART or on buses. Some
read novels. For me, I just nap all the way on the bus. You
can't do these while driving. At least you're not supposed
to.
\_ $400/month really doesn't make the difference between
"able-to-afford housing" and "not" for most people in the
Bay Area. Particularly since if you don't have a car,
getting around (usually) isn't free. Most people will need
to take public transportation, which can easily be ~
$100/month.
\_ don't forget about insurance. But this will only work in
selected areas like NY City.
\_ "AAA Says Average Driving Cost Is 56.2 Cents Per Mile For 2004"
http://csua.org/u/d6l
And that's 2004, when gas prices were lower.
\_ whatever John does, do the opposite. John has expensive tastes.
\_ Oh man, nice rep. :) -John
\_ what's with those expensive pens, restaurants, etc., etc.? :) |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39285 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 "Iraq on brink of meltdown"
http://csua.org/u/d5q (UK Telegraph)
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering
this constitution"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html
\_ The intellectual dishonesty of Brooks continues. Why should the
Sunnis accept most or all of Iraq's oil revenue being taken from
them?
\_ they are not. They are being alienated from oil resources, so
they can be crushed in civil war later... Their only ally
is Saudi Arabia... provided that Saudi Arabia has the extra
bandwidth to supply arms and money for Sunni's cause :p
\_ I really think this "constitution" thing is all for American
domestic politics than for Iraq. There is hardly any sense of
rule of law there. Having constitution which no one going to
follow is kind of pointless.
\- what do you propose? we're not talking about just deciding
whether there will be jury trials or not. but you have to
define the basic existence of the organs of government.
britain may famously have an unwritten constitition but
the do have written laws governing elections to parliament
and such. striving for something as detailed as the failed
eu constitition is obviously absurd, but you do need something
like article i/ii/iii.
\_ i think i am trying to say that don't put much hopes up.
sure, constitution is nice, but there are no concept of
things like seperation of power, independent judicial branch,
etc. it is a classic example of what we are throwing
what worked for us at someone and naively think it will work
for them.
\- i think it is well understood(*) that order is a prereq
for law, that law does not mechanistically follow from
order, or even order + a constitution. the constitution
is supposed to help get from "mere" order [under saddam
there was order, just not justice, law equity or any
values procedural or substantive] to the rule of law.
(*) = excepting anarchist or libertarian fruitcakes.
bring it on, fruitcakes. --psb
\_ You know Partha, your rants about libertarians are even
less amusing than usual given that you don't even seem
to understand the crucial distinction between libertarians
and anarchists. What you just said is comparable to
\_ That anarchists listen to better music?
me saying 'it is well understood(*) that property rights
form a basis for a civilized society.
(*) = excepting communist and liberal fruitcakes.
bring it on, fruitcakes.' -- ilyas
\- 1. i understand libertarian != anarchists.
i didnt write "libertarian/anaarchists".
2. i agree communists dont appreciate the
importance of private property. i dont
like "liberals" means much there. a lot of
the liberal hedonists in a place like SF
are very keen on private property.
3. my dispute with you would be over the word
"basis". i am merely asserting the empirical
theory [as opposed to a value claim] that
order/law preceeds property, i.e. is "more
foundational".
4. i agree libertaians and anarchsts view of the
situation is different. just addressing
libertarians ... or even Friedmanite "flat
worlders" ... this is an example of modeling
too much behavior with narrow microecon
type thinking. --psb |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39266 Activity:nil |
8/25 "A final version of Iraq's constitution has been completed and the
document will be approved later on Thursday, said government spokesman
Laith Kubba. He told reporters parliament did not need to formally
meet to approve the charter because it had effectively been passed on
on Monday."
Yay!
\_ Are you reading theonion?
\_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1556425,00.html
\_ So you read the one line that could possibly be a "yay"
and ignored the rest that tells you that they really haven't
gotten anywhere in terms of consensus...
\_ hey, someone thought it was from the onion, right?
\_ It was a joke, son.
\_ "The interim constitution, adopted when the U.S.-led coalition ran
the country, states simply that parliament 'shall write the draft
of the permanent constitution' and that the document 'shall be
presented to the Iraqi people for approval in a general referendum
by Oct 15.'
... if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces
vote against it, the charter will be defeated [in the Oct 15
referendum]"
hey, is that two-thirds of people who actually vote, two-thirds
of registered voters, or two-thirds of estimated legal voters?
Here's the interim constitution:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Rants] UID:39263 Activity:kinda low |
8/26 What are the pros and cons of Arnold's plan to increase the time
it takes for public school teachers to gain a tenure?
\_ One of the problems (and always a sure sign that something else
is going on) is the wording here. The "tenure" that they're
talking about isn't tenure. For the first two years of a new
teacher's career, it's basically at-will employment. After those
two years, they can be fired but must be given a review process
to defend their position. In a job where 40% of people leave in
the first 5 years because we DON'T PAY ENOUGH TO KEEP THEM, and
where there are extreme shortages pretty much across the board,
this measure is a petty slap in the face so the gropenator can
say he's doing something about the schools.
\_ So you agree with the idea of ending any sort of tenure and
pension system for teachers and treating them like any other
degreed professionals? Meaning: at-will for their entire career,
their retirement is whatever they can get from social security,
and personal savings in their 401k, but pay them higher wages
along the way?
\_ Yeah, I'd love to see it. But the "higher" wages would need
to be on par with, say, tech workers. A 10 year veteran
should be pulling down 6 figures. I doubt we'll come anywhere
near this sort of a system in the next 50 years, though. Until
then, because the wages are so low, I'm all for teachers
having strong unions yielding good job protection.
\_ Are you effing kidding? 6 figures?! Lots of university
professors aren't pulling that down!!!
\_ Doesn't matter. They shouldn't get tenure anyway.
\_ Right, take away the one thing that actually attracts people
to teaching jobs! That'll learn 'em!
\_ Your solution to bad schools is to guarantee life employment
for anyone hired in after a short period of time? How about
paying them more and making it easy to get fired, just like
the rest of us. Professors get tenure so they can say/write
wacky things that might actually be true and not get fired
for it. People who aren't willing to take a 10th grade
proficiency exam should not be teaching. They sure as heck
shouldn't get locked in for life. Worse than tenure is the
teacher's unions but that's another story. Why should
teachers get tenure and no one else? I don't have tenure.
You don't if you're not a teacher. There are lots of crummy
jobs that need doing that don't provide tenure (all of them).
They don't provide pensions either.
\_ Your argument sounds suspiciously like "I didn't mine, so
why should anyone else get theirs?" The solution to your
problem, brother, is to unionize your profession, not
complain because others have unionized theirs. And before
you get into the evils of unions, remember that if you're
in on the ground floor, you can avoid the mistakes of
others.
\_ Your example fails on the first step. No one is offering
teachers bundles of money. In addition, at-will employment
would be disasterous. Changes in administration could
result in mass job dissatisfation. Say CA does a Kansas and
implements an Intelligent Design requirement or something
more subtle such as using a certain teaching method which
some disagree with. Most teachers I know are working more
than 8 hours a day on a job that requires more than a
little emotional attachment to their students and their
futures. If you make teaching just another job to them
where they have to worry about the bottom line instead of
a life choice, you're going to lose a lot of good teachers
to other jobs where they aren't going to be hassled.
\_ Since when did public school teachers officially get tenure?
\_ It has occurred to me that part of why pols can use public
schools and public teachers as punching bags is because
people know very little about public schools and public
teachers. To answer your question: Since before you were
born, at least, in most districts. I'm told that polling
shows the odd result that people generally feel their own
kids' school is in good shape and should simply receive
more funding while feeling public schools, at large, are
in awful shape and require massive reform. -- ulysses
\_ That result is interesting to me because I've lived
in 3 seperate CA school systems, Bakersfield, Santa
Maria, and Chico. Chico was ok, Bakersfield wasn't
good, and Santa Maria was mind-bogglingly awful.
-jrleek
\_ The biggest problem is not the tenure portion of the initiative but
rather the part where ANY teacher (even those "tenured") can be
dismissed for having a unsatisfactory review. This means all
teachers fall into an at-will employment situation. A neat trick
to avoid paying pension and retirement benefits. Another is to
drop the at-will teacher after four years to prevent having pay
more for the five-year vet vs the new kid. This will be especially
useful for those school systmes who are experiencing budgetary
problems. A nice quick fix. |
| 2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39253 Activity:very high |
8/24 We should go back through the motd archives and dig up all the
arguments that Ah-nold was going to be above corruption:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050824/ts_latimes/nonprofitscloakdonorstogovernor
\_ Shrug. I voted for Ah-nold because (a) Davis deserved punishment,
and (b) his wife spoke up for him after people pointed out he was
a groper.
I didn't vote for him because I thought he would be a great
governor, or do a better job than Davis.
I /am/ going to vote him out next election, because purpose (a) has
already been served.
\_ What, people don't like Arnold, I didn't vote for him and I think
he has done WAY better than any reasonable expection. -phuqm
\_ I still have not heard anyone say why Davis 'deserved punishment'
\_ He was an idiot who sold the state out to his pet
campaign donors, like Edison. He sat on his hands and
\_ntm Ellison
did nothing as the power crises escalated.
\_ Davis didn't sign deregualation.. He pushed for long
term contracts to staunch the bleeding. Then when the
causes became more clear he went to court to try and get
those contracts renegotiated.
\_ I thought selling the state out was done by Pete Wilson
and the legislature BEFORE Davis became governor.
\_ Because he allowed car registration fees to go back to what
they were before the brief CA tax surplus years.
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=10325
See second response. Eh, to answer your question, it was
mainly the hugeness of the budget deficit combined with the
hiding of it until the last moment. Energy brokers and
special interests too, as someone else wrote.
\_ CA government is fucked anyway. Governors can't fix it.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16350
\_ I voted for McClintock becuase Arnold was a scumbag groper and
wasn't really conservative. I'm disappointed that he's been taking
money in hand over fist considering his promises. He hasn't gotten
my vote and won't in the foreseeable future.
\_ Did anyone on the motd actually make that argument? On the
other hand, if Arnold can get that Gerrymandering law passd,
he's my hero.
\_ He wouldn't be my hero, per se, but it would be a really great
thing if that were passed, I agree.
\_ How do you figure?
\_ I went with this editorial
http://csua.org/u/d58 (Wash Post)
\_ An editorial which presumes corruption. What corruption
can you point to in the process? The "no seats changed
hands" argument doesn't hold water without evidence
\_ "replace the state's corrupt system for drawing state
and federal legislative districts with a cleaner one
in which a panel of retired judges -- rather than
the very politicians who have to run for office --
would draw lines without regard for protecting
incumbents"
I believe they're saying they just don't like
politicians doing the districting, even if they were
benevolent politicians. You could say we have a
system that invites corruption, if it wasn't already
present.
\_ Can anyone point to a arguments _against_ this?
\_ If it didn't call for an immediate redistricting, I MIGHT
support it. If it were to pass, whatever plan they decided
on would take effect without voter approval for the 2006
elections. Ludicrous.
\_ What's ludicrous is Republicans openly being against it
because it might be unfavorable to them right now. Way
to think about justice and the future there boys. Anyone
making that kind of comment publically should be
automatically blacklisted for reelection.
\_ What kind of comment?
\_ Even given that it might take effect immediately, I
think that's better than the situation we have now.
\_ Then you're an idiot.
\_ Cram it with walnuts, ugly. Our legislature is
dismal. And our lines have been drawn such that in
the last election not a single seat changed parties.
We have a horribly unresponsive and unrepresentative
democracy. I'm willing to put up with a lot to make
it more responsive and representative.
\_ This is as foolish as the more idiotic arguments
for term limits. Show me where on the map they
drew broken, unreasonable lines. For comparison
look at TX's current map. If you want a more
responsive democracy, find some way to get the
voters to actually get interested.
\_ Are you asking if there is anyone who is pro-gerrymandering?
\_ Anyone who believes unelected judges are slimier than
elected officials. I think only elected officials believe
this and then never with a straight face.
\_ Tom DeLay is pro-gerrymandering. At least when it creates
more GOP seats.
\_ The whole gerrymandering debate is overblown; in the
states which have judges draw up the districts, no
seats changed hands in the 2004 elections. It just won't
\_ Um, the 2000 map was judge-drawn, the 2003 map was
Republican-drawn. R's gained from their own map.
make that much difference. -tom
\_ In TX, R's gained 6 seats from a judge-drawn map
\_ No, you have it backwards. When they went from
a judge drawn map, to the DeLay Gerrymandered one,
they gained six seats:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040106-115653-7008r.htm
http://csua.org/u/d56 (Wash Times)
\_ "We will look at an unaccountable, arrogant,
out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose
at Congress and the president...The time will
come for the men responsible for this to answer
for their behavior." T. Delay
\_ Oop. You're right. My brain is tired.
\_ BTW, has anyone done research on algorithmic ways of
redistricting that involve as little human input as
possible?
\_ Consider the source, the LA-Times hates Arnold and has been, and
continues on a quest to make him look bad and keep him
out of office. -ax
\_ Fuck Arnold and his quest to reduce the quality of life
in California via tax reduction, infrastructure quality
reduction, and Republicanism. |
| 2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39140 Activity:nil |
8/16 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050816/ts_nm/bush_protester_dc Take that, you godless liberals! \_ "we respect the troops, so we're gonna break your symbols of respect for the troops..." \_ One of the neighbors shot at her, too. How long till she becomes a martyr for her cause? \_ The guy fired a shot in the air. Even in this age of grade inflation and relaxed standards, you still have to die to become a martyr. \_ I give her a week before one of the deranged Freepers blows her brains out. \- Would you like to make a bet? --psb \_ No need. The neighbors are petitioning to ban protesters. This really IS Bush Country. \_ A neighbor (a relative of the guy who fired the shot) has offered them space on his land to stay. \- i am sort of suprised ROVECO hasnt found some iraqi mom whose son was shredded or boiled by S HUSSEIN to "spontaneously" reply saying something like "your son didnt die in vain, pls dont abandon us now. we love bush." --psb \_ Mom and Son probably got crushed to death together, you know the more the merrier principle of torture and despotism. |
| 2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39108 Activity:nil |
8/13 Military exercises good for endangered species:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050808/full/050808-14.html |
| 2005/8/11-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39101 Activity:nil |
8/11 Surprisingly good Rolling Stone article about a month in the life of
the current Congress, and how it really works these days:
http://csua.org/u/d0q (rollingstone.com)
The section on China, Westinghouse, and the Ex-Im Bank is particularly
fascinating and infuriating. |
| 2005/8/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:39004 Activity:low |
8/4 http://www.incidentlog.com/lookup.pl?Src=56&Start=250 2005-07-19 2242 PDT LOUD FRAT BOYS CHANNING WAY AND COLLEGE BERKELEY CA CA - BERKELEY WOO! WOO! WOOOOOOOOO! \_ Dooooooonutttttttts! |
| 2005/8/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38992 Activity:nil |
8/4 berkeley crime reports + google maps
http://www.incidentlog.com/lookup.pl?Src=56
\_ Ah, I miss Berkeley so much...
\_ What, you think berkeley is the only city with crime?
\_ So the campus is pretty safe.
\_ Campus has its own PD. |
| 2005/8/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38957 Activity:kinda low |
8/2 http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com Interesting read. -- ilyas \_ Oh no! An ultra conservative writer got killed. BOO HOO! \_ Yeah, the life of anyone who disagrees with your political philosophy has no value. Good way to win friends and influence people. \_ "There is only room for one party in this country" \_ How can you equate gloating over someone's death with a random trollish political statement? Nevermind.... \_ Wow, talk about delusions of grandeur. Do you always put quote marks around your comments? \_ He is quoting one of the motd Conservatives. Or perhaps a troll posing as a motd Conservative. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. http://csua.org/u/cwn \_ Ah, hiding behind http://csua.org. Are you ashamed of the real URL? \_ Wow, you're dumb. Or maybe just deeply paranoid? \_ No, the full URL was too long to put on one line in the motd. Did you even look at it? \_ Uh, ignore the liberal drones above. That wasn't the point of that url at all. -- ilyas \_ Don't you even asscociate some of the above with the Liberal Team - we don't want 'em. -Liberal Team Management |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38946 Activity:nil |
8/2 Can we PLEASE get a petition of Douglas Adams fans together to name
the 10th Planet "Rupert?"
http://csua.org/u/cwb (yahoo! news)
\_ Dear god, I hope your petition not only fails, but is subsequently
taken out back and shot. twice.
\_ you mean 9th, amirite??
\_ Someone didn't read Mostly Harmless.
\_ Someone is going to be a pathetic geek all his life.
\_ There's an irony in calling someone a "pathetic geek" on
the CSUA motd, but it may very well be lost on you. |
| 2005/8/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38921 Activity:nil |
8/1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050802/ap_on_re_us/lesbian_country_club Up yours emarkp, it's a glorious day for the gay community. \_ My anonymous troll is back! And he's making less sense than ever. Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp \_ Somehow I kinda doubt emarkp wants it "up his." \_ You'd be surprised \_ Silly anonymous troll. Homophobia is just fine here on motd, glad you could join. -emarkp \_ Dang, the trolls just get lamer and lamer. [Oh, and please don't delete my responses if you leave your troll, Mr. Anonymous Troll.] |
| 2005/7/30-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38891 Activity:nil |
7/30 Freedom is on the march!
"The vote is the first in which Mubarak -- in power for 24 years --
will face an opponent, and his government has said it will serve as a
launching pad for greater democracy. ...
On Saturday, several hundred men and women were gathering to begin
their march toward Cairo's main square when men in plainclothes
descended on them, swinging billy clubs and assaulting the
demonstrators. Burly government supporters surrounded activists
sprawled on the pavement, kicking them in the head and ribs and
tearing at their clothes. Others lifted protesters in the air by the
arms and legs, hauling them off to police trucks. One elderly man
wandered in a daze, his head bleeding. 'Down with the rule of the dog
Mubarak,' one young man yelled as he was being clubbed. "
\_ Are the several hundred men and women gathering without a permit
to loudly yell their support for Mubarak not molested in this
manner? If your answer is "the government won't give anti-Mub
demonstrators a license" then there's really a different, more
immediately relevant blow to democracy right there... and one that's
much closer to things that are starting to happen in the U.S.
\_ So you honestly believe the level of freedom in Egypt is similar
to the levels in the US? Or that we're not that far from where
they are? Okey dokey....
\_ Boy, I didn't remotely say that, but you turn it into whatever
makes you happy.
\_ Yes, Egypt is massively repressive, especially about things
like public gatherings. This is not new, btw. |
| 2005/7/30-8/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38887 Activity:low |
7/30 Democrats do better in Snow Belts, worse in Sun Belts:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164196,00.html
\_ This article falsely implies that a majority of Latinos
voted Republican in a number of states. Bush did better
than most Republicans with Latinos, but still lost by
about a 60-38 ratio. The Emerging Democratic Majority
crowd is pinning their hopes on Latinos, so this article
is correct that Democrats need to hold onto those voters.
But as long as Tancredo is the voice of immigration in
the GOP, that shouldn't be too hard.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp
http://lin.kz/?sf66j
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp
\_ Cf. Cuban exiles in Florida. |
| 2005/7/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Shopping] UID:38862 Activity:high |
7/28 How is the existing global domination of IKEA, who's founder
surpasses Bill Gates as the richest man due to weakening
US currency, differ from the American domination of Walmart?
People boycott, protest, and say bad things about Walmart, but
what about IKEA?
\_ He's a lonely old miser who barely leaves the house (the IKEA guy.)
That, and IKEA doesn't have the size 30 mumus next to the family
tubs of cheap candy. I kid you not, I saw this in the first and
only Wal-Mart I ever went into. It was as close to inferno as I
ever hope to get. -John
\_ It is not Walmart's size that is the problem. It is Walmart's
behavior. -- ulysses
\_ How is Walmart's aggressive behaviour any different from
other super-mega American corporations' behaviours?
\_ Stay on topic. IKEA != American corp.
\_ Costco pays their employees a decent wage, Wal-Mart does not.
Costco gives health benefits, Wal-Mart does not, dumping the
cost onto the taxpayer. Costco allows unions to form, Wal-Mart
does not.... should I go on???
\_ You guys just don't get it. This is like thinking a minimum
wage actually helps the poor. -- ilyas
\_ So, if there was no wage, and people could be paid
$.20/hour, that would be better?
\_ I think it would. The economy is a complex machine,
but everybody wants to tinker with it, without an
understanding of what tinkering will actually do,
given the way the machine works. So if your original
tinkering doesn't work, you tinker some more! The
real art is to make a just society where people do
the natural self-interested things. I could turn your
own question on you: 'if the minimum wage was 20
dollars an hour, would that be better?' The real
question is, why are there poor people in our economy?
The poor aren't going to go away, regardless of what
you do. -- ilyas
\_ Your troll is barely amusing. The minimum wage
should be set to whatever gives people in a given
area a reasonable standard of living for a 40
hour work-week. Most poor people living on
minimum wage are barely scraping by, and there
are a lot of them. They are the ones using the
emergency room, food stamps, etc. Why do you
prefer big government programs to just plain
companies compensating employees properly?
\_ I don't prefer big government programs either.
Legislating minimum wage increases unemployment,
and fucks over the poor. Similarly for most
measures forcing companies to spend more money
on employees. -- ilyas
\_ Do you think poor people should be allowed
to be worked to death? Should the government
let poor people starve?
\_ As I mentioned in the conversation on this
topic on irc, it's very difficult to
starve in the United States. Mconst said
that in Togo they say the US is a country
where even the poor people are fat.
-- ilyas
\_ After 100 years of big government
intervention in the economy, it is
hard. It was not hard at the
turn of the century. You want to
bring us back to those days.
\_ Yes, of course, you want to claim
the cause of American prosperity
was 100 years of attempts at
socialism, whereas in reality
America prospered in spite of, not
because of it. I ve seen what
actual socialism does, you haven't.
-- ilyas
\_ No, the cause of American
prosperity is the combination
of government, business,
eductation and other efforts
over the last 100 years. The
ameliortion of the worst forms
of poverty and abuses of
capitalism were done because
of the popular will, exercised
through the political process.
You are like the man that was
bitten badly by a dog as a
child and persists in believing
that all dogs are evil.
\_ No, I just saw the 'wall of
cheese.' -- ilyas
\_ But if the min wage is increased, then the
wage required to get a "reasonable standard
of living" (define pls) must increase. It
creates unemployment and harms the ability
to get a job of the very people who would
most have trouble getting a better job.
Instead of min wage you might as well do the
zero unemployment economy thing and create
taxpayer-subsidized "jobs". They do some of
that in Europe.
\_ Wal-Mart also gives health benefits.
\_ Less than most companies:
http://csua.org/u/cv2
\_ That's not what the claim above is.
\_ Much of the Walmart hate stems not from the family founders
being filthy rich (worth billions), but the fact they are so
chincy in providing benefits to their employees. When you
have over $22,000,000,000 why would 1) you force your workers
to pay relatively high health care premiums, 2) hire illegal
aliens, and 3) discriminate against female workers in pay and
promotions. Those 3 thorny issues haven't plauged IKEA.
In fact IKEA has been rated one of the 100 best places to work
for in general and for working mothers.
\_ And the worst part in all of this is that their huge size and
power forces their competitors to do the same in order to stay
in business, so now an entire sector of the economy is always
low paying with shitty benefits.
\_ Wal-Mart pays 50% of health insurance premiums. The industry
standard is 75%. I read that it would reduce Wal-Mart's profits
20% in order to jump to a more standard 75%. Can they afford to
do it? Of course. However, most companies aren't in business to
give all profits back to the employees. In fact, I really detest
Wal-Mart, but I can't think of anything unique about your points
#1, #2, or #3. Wal-Mart is evil for other reasons, including
the aggressive way it does business with suppliers and
competitors. I don't know enough about IKEA to say if it is
similar, but since it is an UltraMega corporation buying a lot of
cheap product from Asia it probably has skeletons in its closet, too.
\_ costco is holding its own against walmart, and it treats its
employees well:
http://csua.org/u/cut
\_ I like Costco in that it doesn't provide plastic bags and
that items only come in big sizes, both of which cut down
wasted material which is good for the environment. Of
course Costco does it for profit reasons, but I like its
side-effect.
\_ I find the big sizes wasteful. It's good if you have
a large family, though.
\_ purchase what you need and use up. eg. I don't touch
their huge boxes of snacks i rarely eat. But, water,
or fruit juice, I purchase plenty of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?ex=1122696000&en=4cd5686772a804b6&ei=5070
\_ As a friend pointed out to me, Costco's return policy is
the best. You can basically return anything anytime.
If you don't like wal-mart, don't shop there. Tell people
not to shop there. This is how a healthy economy works.
Avoid government regulation as much as possible.
\_ Yeah, my friends said they could buy a computer at
Costco, and return it 1yr later saying that they
didn't like it. I think that's insane to allow that.
didn't like it. I think it's insane to allow that.
\_ It's now 6 months on computer and computer eq.
\_ Welcome to America, where the safety net blows so hard that you
need to work to survive -- which is why America is so productive.
Create a wealth gap (they earned it), it will keep 90% of America
working like dogs to either make ends meet or keep up with the
Jones's.
I heard in Canada you can be productive and also get a lot of
social services, and the wealth distribution is not as insane.
Commies.
\_ Yup, social services that includes cheap prescription drugs
that Americans pick up the tab for. If they had to pay the
real cost of medicine, their system would completely collapse
instead of merely teeter on the edge as it does now.
\_ Their economy is also mostly based on exporting raw
materials.
\_ Like beer?
\_ Canadian cost of living is very high - higher than US.
\_ You sure about that?
\_ Factoring in taxation, yes.
\_ Are you factoring in health care costs?
\_ For quality health care or Canadian health care?
\_ Depends. Do you want to survive an illness?
\_ http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving3.htm
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/coca_701.asp
Canadian cities are lower than American.
Canadian cities are cheaper than American.
\_ PWNT!
\_ except for american goods!
\_ 'Comparative cost of 200 items' is not cost of living.
Canadians have less money to begin with because of the
taxes.
\_ You mean sales taxes? Because income taxes shouldn't
really be part of the "cost of living"; they affect
ability to gain income but not costs, seems like.
\_ Income taxes are absolutely a part of the cost
of living. How can you think it matters if the
money came out of my check before I saw it or I
had to pay extra for each item I purchase with
that same money? You're trolling, right? IHBT. |
| 2005/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38795 Activity:very high |
7/23 50% of Americans think that the the Atomic bombing of Japan
was a bad idea:
http://csua.org/u/ctr
Take the poll again in another 20 years and most of the people alive
during WWII will be dead, then it will be 70%. I'll bet in 1945 that
number was a lot lower. What percentage of Japanese think
bombing Pearl Harbor was a good idea? -ax
Put that in your pipe and smoke it emarkp -ausman
\_ My anonymous troll has a name! -emarkp
\_ On the flip side, this is what Japanese think of the Pearl
Harbor invasion:
http://photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/slanted.jpg
\_ The exhibit gets some key points wrong, but there does
seem to be some indication that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor
to happen despite some knowledge of a Japanese attack
in order to rally America behind a war that he WANTED
to join.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking sucks.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking lies.
\_ Yeah, and the FDR forced Japan to commit Nanjing Massacare,
atrocities of Unit 731, and all the other good stuff it did to
other Asian countries. Oh, or was it the Chang Kai-Shek of the
Chinese govt that forced Japan to do those things? Also, Japan
was already at war with Britain even before Pearl Harbor. FDR
could have used the same excuse to declare war on Japan
\_ 50% of Americans voted for W.
\_ That, and the below bit about "not being able to find Japan on
a map" are my sentiments exactly. I'm glad someone's using their
brains tonight. -John
\_ What about Americans who were actually around back then?
\_ 50% of Americans can't find Japan on a map. The other 50% don't
know what a map is. Thanks to the teacher's unions for the
quality public schools that brought us here.
\_ thanks to the california senate which doesn't allocate enough
funds to the public school system and the people who voted for
prop 37.
\_ Schools are the biggest line item in the budget and CA
teachers are among the highest paid anywhere. There's money.
It's not a money issue.
\_ Even if it was the case the CA teachers are the highest
paid in the country, why would anyone want to teach
in CA? You wouldn't be able to make a decent living.
\_ Isn't California like 43rd on average spending per
pupil? Of course it is about the money. You can't
totally scrimp on spending like that and have
a good outcome. Teacher salaries are high, but
not on a purchasing parity basis (adjusting
for California's high cost of living).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG186
\_ The average spending per pupil number is not
meaningful. The fact is that CA spends almost 60%
of all tax revenues on education. Should it
increase to 90%? The fact is that the urban areas
of CA are difficult to teach in. Throwing money at
the problem won't help. King/Drew in LA has some of
the highest paid doctors and a large budget and yet
it provides far worse service than other hospitals.
The same principles are at work in education.
\_ California used to spend 4.5% of state income
on education, now we spend 3%. Not surprisingly,
the quality of the education has gone down. We
need to raise taxes.
\_ Uhm... Doesn't the state law say they have to
spend 40% of outlay on education, minimum?
\_ Where are you getting these crazy numbers?
\_ From the Rand report cited above. "In the
early to mid-1970s, California spent about
the same share of its personal income on
public education as the rest of the country
did, about 4.5 percent. However, in the late
1970s, the share of personal income that
Californians devoted to their public schools
fell to about 1.2 percent below the national
average and remained well below the national
average through 2000."
\_ http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-03-03li.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/7vxl7
\_ Ok that's nice n all but has nothing to do
with total state outlay to education. The
State is paying 40% of the total budget at
a minimum, by law. How much more of the
budget would you like to spend on education
in this state? At what level of budget
spending do you think we'd magically have a
real school system again? You're just
playing with statistics that favor your
"pay my mom more money!" position. I've
*never* heard or seen anyone, reputable or
not, use a "percentage of personal income"
measurement to determine anything before.
Ever. Join the rest of us using a useful
number and we'll talk. In the meantime,
the evil teacher's unions can take a hike.
\_ Exactly. CA has a higher income. Why
does the % matter? Likewise,
spending per pupil. If I have a
school district of 10 and a school
district of 100 they both need, say,
an administrator. The district of 10
is going to pay more per pupil for
that administrator, but they are not
getting anything more for it. You
can't argue this with teachers,
though. They just like to bitch.
\_ Prior to prop 13, California had some of the best public
schools in the nation. Post prop 13, it ranks near the
bottom. It is at least a very strong data point.
\_ Once judges ruled that local money couldn't be spent
locally, Prop 13 was inevitable.
\_ Getting rid of Prop 13 won't help anything. Don't
believe the propaganda.
\_ Yeah, prop13 was so great. The schools were just
awesome... for anyone not getting taxed out of their
home and forced to move out of state.
\_ Spoken like either a true union cultist or someone who has
no idea how the teacher's unions work in this country.
\_ spoken like someone who went through public schools and
saw almost every helpful and effective program for
connecting with students fought and eventually dissolved
because of financial reasons. Spoken like someone who
has family working in public education being jerked around
by an administration focused on standards based assessment
and transfered or laid off at least once a year due to
financial reasons.
\_ yes, everyone in teaching is just like your anecdotal
experiences. go look at how the unions behave and come
back and shed a bitter tear about all those poor
teachers who just want to educate the next generation.
\_ actually, every teacher I know winds up spending
hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on books
and office supplies that the school system refuses
to pay for.
\_ They can deduct this on their taxes. It sounds
to me like they need to take this up with their
school district. The money is there, but teachers
are such pathetic whiners I can't blame most
districts for tuning them out at this point.
\_ The same article says:
"Two-thirds of Americans say the use of atomic bombs was
unavoidable"
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea? Hmm.
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea?
\_ The same article says a number of other things but taking a
single line out of context makes some people feel good.
\_ Okay here is some context. Preceding lines:
"President Truman decided to try to end the war by
dropping atomic bombs ... Those bombings led to
Japan's announcement on Aug. 15 that it would
surrender."
And then the article says 2/3 of Americans felt that
the use of the bombs of unavoidable - ie there was
no way to end the war OTHER than to use the A-Bomb.
The line following says that 20% of Japanese agreed
that use of the A-Bomb was the only way to end the
war while 75% felt that the war would have ended
w/o the A-Bomb. Then comes the sentence so promiently
quoted above. I find it inconsistent to not approve
of something that you find was the ONLY possible
option.
\_ A lot of Japanese don't even know about Pearl Harbor. Japanese
textbooks only talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
\_ Do Americans now about the crippling naval blockade that
made the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
\_ But Japan attacked without declaring war.
\_ yea, America should continue to supply Japan with the
resources to undertake more Nanjing Massacres.
\_ The point was that it was something foreseeable.
\_ If not others, the 1970 Hollywood movie "Tora! Tora!
Tora!" by 20th Century Fox talked about all that. |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38776 Activity:nil |
7/22 Profile of Victor Hanson, a popular conservitive essayist:
http://www.hooverdigest.org/052/kay.html
\_ "...Hanson doesn't play so well with others. At a recent meeting
at Hoover, he strained to remain polite..." This sounds just
like a Conservative Bush lover in my lab. He is somewhat shy,
stubborn, and rude most of the time and doesn't get along with
anyone else. Fucking Neocons. |
| 2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38737 Activity:nil |
6/19 NY Times with apparently accurate (non-biased) background article
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
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 |
| 2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38736 Activity:nil |
6/19 Re: "strict constructionist" below. I can't see how anyone would want
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
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
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
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
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? |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38715 Activity:kinda low |
7/20 Hi guys. Adding to emarkp's comments ... according to Wikipedia,
Rehnquist is a strict constructionist, and Scalia and Thomas are
originalists (textualists). Let's say California enacted a law saying
"Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or
recognized in the state of California." Would that be constitutional
according to these three judges? Is there an amendment which makes
this decision easy?
\_ Uhm, the text of all the amendments is available on the net. They
aren't a national secret or anything. Is this some bizarre troll
attempt?
\_ No, I read all the amendments prior to posting -op
\_ Rehnquist is more of a "pragmatic conservative" as opposed to a
strict conservative; he's one of those that's less concerned
with what the constitution precisely says and more concerned with
making the supreme court and government work efficiently and smoothly.
making the supreme court and government work efficiently and
smoothly.
\_ I hadn't seen the term "originalists" before. But I'd say that when
pretty much all marriage laws were enacted, that law wouldn't be
necessary. Checking my OED, the word "marriage" means "the union
between husband and wife". -emarkp
\_ I hadn't seen it either. But when a http://freerepublic.com poll
from last week came out with 70-80% of voters supporting an
Originalist SCOTUS nominee, that was interesting.
Scalia is supposed to be the representative originalist
(textualist). -op
\_ Then maybe I'm wrong in saying I align with "strict
constructionists" because I see Scalia as a model jurist.
I'll take a look at the wikipedia article. -emarkp
[Postscript: I guess I'm an "originalist" according to the
wikipedia article.]
\_ Assuming you are not a troll the 14th amd makes it pretty clear
that this is unconstitutional - "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States."
\_ Hi guys, op here ... Considering what you've written already,
would the state law "Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in the state of California" be constitutional
or not (for a strict constructionist and originalist)? We're
_assuming_ the law does not violate the state Constitution, and
we're now employing the Supreme Court check.
\_ I think for an originalist it would be seen as redundant because
that's what marriage means. -emarkp
\_ But the word "marriage" (of people in matrimony) isn't in
the Constitution (including amendments), is it?
Anyway, the question was whether a strict constructionist
or originalist would see such a state law as unconstitional
or not.
\_ Okay, as a newly identified originalist I'd see it as
constitutional. -emarkp
\_ This is a far more interesting question b/c it goes to the
heart of equal protection. A possible interpretation under
the original purpose of the 14th amd (prevent discrimination
based on race) would be that the statute does not violate
the constitution b/c it does not deprive any person of equal
protection under the law - ie any man can marry any woman
protection under the law - ie any many can marry any woman
and visa versa.
An alternate view is that equal protection was always intended
to protect people even if they made unpopular choices (say
they chose to be a Jew/Quaker instead of a Protestant), thus
discrimination based on the gender of the person you wish to
marry would be unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure that an "originalist" would go w/ the 1st view
but the 2d could work as well.
\_ "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Marriage is, at its heart, a contract between two adults.
Such a law, ultimately, says that only a man and a woman make
this contract. See Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S.
549, 567 , 570 (1911)
\_ "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means
not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere
physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but
the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to
be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free
to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he
will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue
any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter
into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential
to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes
above mentioned." 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897)
\_ Okay, person posting judgements from 1911 and 1897, what do
you think strict constructionists and originalists would
write as an opinion? -op
\_ While this court has not attempted to define with exactness
the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much
consideration and some of the included things have been
definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely
freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally
to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
262 U.S. 390 (1923) |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38682 Activity:kinda low |
7/16 Religion is strong. Faith is hot. A time of doubt for Atheists:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/atimeofdoubtforatheists (latimes)
\_ No god worth believing in would have allowed such wankery to be
published.
\_ It's clear to me many years ago that the liberals are losing
and the conservatives are kicking serious ass. When you can't
beat them, you join them. From now on, I am claiming to be
"spiritual" and I'm going to register as a Republican, short
of actually voting for one. I will convert to Conservatism and
repent later. -disillusioned motd troll
\_ Cool, go for it. In the meantime I'll pick up your share of
laughing at all the fucking morons. -John
\_ Who is Faith?
\_ http://www.inbedwithfaith.com (NWS)
\_ Someone on the motd is very clearly a boob-man. |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38621 Activity:moderate |
7/14 Why do politicians I want to like keep trying to alienate me?
http://csua.org/u/cpl (c|net)
\_ A) Because you're part of a block the doesn't vote much.
B) Hillary has been trying to pretend she has religious right
opinions.
C) Because politicians rarely know what they're talking about.
D) All of the Above
\_ The party of social liberalism, eh? -- ilyas
\_ as a libertarian, wouldn't you agree with op in this case?
\_ What, that Hillary is being venal and betraying the
\_ What, that Hillary is being unprincipled by betraying the
'principles' of her party and trying to
appeal to religious conservatives in a calculated attempt
which also involved Rvt. Graham? You don't need to be a
libertarian to agree. -- ilyas
\_ forget the politics. I was asking about policy. That
less legislation of business and markets the better. In
this case, the legislation is targetting morality.
\_ Of course I agree. I rarely agree with the democrats,
this is just one of the first times I disagreed on
social issues. -- ilyas
\_ huh? I can't parse that. You rarely agree, yet
this is one of the first times you've disagreed?
\_ Well, it could conceivably make sense as a claim
that social issues don't come up much, but that
would also be an odd assertion.
\_ It makes sense because economic issues are more
important to me than social issues. -- ilyas
\_ First times? Ilyas, you need to google Tipper Gore
and the PMRC. Democrats are definitely not new to
playing the morality-police game.
\_ "Rockstar, like many video game developers, usually encourages
so-called mod amateur programmers who create modifications for
popular games, which often give players access to special areas,
missions or abilities." Like many? Say what? |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38552 Activity:nil |
7/11 "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious, of traitors." - George H.W. Bush - April 1999
\_ Yeah, but he was an Un-american traitor who raised taxes, so fuck
him.
\_ Did you ever read the Constitution? Who writes the laws? Who
controls the money? It was George Mitchell who pushed Bush, sr
to raise taxes.
\_ Awww, poor widdle Georgie. Only the pwesident, getting
beaten up by the Bad Bad Democrats.
\_ You make me laugh with your silly non-sequiturs. |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/RealEstate] UID:38550 Activity:low |
7/11 Top cities to live in the US. Northern Cal towns got mentioned a few
times. Go Bay Area!!! Northern Cal >>> Southern Cal. We are the best!
Go Mill Valley, Saratoga, Aptos, Benecia, and Petaluma.
Proof that California >>> Rest of the US!!!
http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/top100_1.html
\_ I regard any list with Chino Hills on it with the utmost
suspicion. As someone who lived in LA and SF, though, I think
San Diego is the best place in CA. Nice weather, lots of single
women, good quality of life, close to LA but not in it.
Somewhere like La Jolla would rock.
\_ Dude...they have COMPTON on that list!!!
\_ I don't see it. What number?
\_ Coronado is indeed BEAUTIFUL, but if the median household income
is $72000 and the average home price is over 1 million dollars...
then something's really screwy here.
\_ Naperville, IL has a median household income of $96,000 and
average home price of $311,000. Compare that to California
where it is not unusual that average home prices are 10X the
household income. Based on unaffordability, I failed to see why
they even bother to put in CA cities. I guess it makes sense
if you bought houses in the 80s or inherited land.
\_ Wait until you see how big that house in Illinois is, too.
It's probably 3x the size of the average house here. However, it
is in Illinois. I wouldn't move there if you paid my mortgage
for me.
\_ nah, Naperville is not that cheap. $300K will likely get
you a nice 1800 sq ft townhouse, but that's about it.
A suburb of chicago, it's a pretty nice city, but not
comparable to the bay area in terms weather, outdoors
activities, places to go within 4 hours drive, and
cosmopolitan demographics.
activities, places to go, and cosmopolitan demographics.
\_ 5 bedrooms, 2 baths $374K. 3/2 $239K. $500K gets you
a 3000+ square foot house.
\_ yes, that sounds about right. How much is a
decent 1800 sq ft townhouse in the Bay Area
(say Fremont) these days?
\_ $500-700k
\_ Sister's 2/2 in Walnut Creek is $595K. I saw
a 3/1 1600 square foot SFR in Naperville for $200K.
\_ but the SFR is likely old and crappy.
\_ Sure, just like it would be here in CA but
cost 3x as much.
\_ don't worry, the price/rent ratio between
naperville and bay area will eventually
start converging, one way or another.
A $200K townhouse in naperville rents
for about $1300.
\_ Yeah, but it will probably be home
prices going up in Illinois. You
still make more money over the long
run by buying, even in California.
There is a global savings glut right
now, driving down yields, forcing
investors into things like rental
property. |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38544 Activity:low |
7/11 link:tinyurl.com/8wbn2 (journalnow.com, Bloomberg News) The US gov will report this week that rising tax revenue is shrinking this year's budget deficit, possibly by as much as 90 billion, giving Bush a shot at fulfilling his deficit reduction promise 3 years early. Also, California's economy is improving: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050708/85505.html?.v=1 If things do indeed improve in the next few years, will you guys still say bad things about Bush? \_ He promised to cut it in HALF. $90 billion isn't close to half of $400 billion. For that matter, he CREATED the problem in the first place by being the first president EVER to push tax cuts in a time of war. So to answer your question: yes. A minor reduction in problems he created won't validate him for me. \_ Does your quoted $400 billion include the spending in Iraq/Afgh? The added debt during Bush's terms is in the ballpark of $2.1 trillion. There was a join study including the Heritage Found. that found that on our current track, the only thing the gvmt will be able to afford by 2040 is financing our debt. \_ I believe it was stated in the promise that the deficit will be halved by half by the END of his second term, not in the 2004/2005 fiscal year. \_ Does "halved by half" mean 25% reduction? \_ Wishful thinking aside, does 2004/2005 mean the end of W's 2nd term? \_ The only reason tax revenue is rising is because more and more people are getting hit with AMT problems. \_ Do you have data to back that up? \_ Racking up a gigantic deficit and then cutting *that* in half isn't quite that impressive, which is why promising to cut the deficit in half seems like a kind of vague goal. deficit in half seems like a king of vague achievement. |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:38520 Activity:low |
7/11 only tangentially related to the below: Does anyone know what
the term is for "the name given to people/things from a place"?
For ex, peopl from Los Angeles are Los Angelinos, people from
New York are New Yorkers, people from Glasgow are Glaswegian,
etc. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how these names
are derived and I've been curious to find a list of tons for all
kinds of strange place names but no idea how to google. thanks
\_ "demonyms"!! fantastic! thanks. this has bothered me for years.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adjectival_forms_of_place_names - danh
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adjectival_forms_of_place_names
- danh
\_ "demonyms"!! fantastic! thanks. this has bothered me for years.
\- What about people from Niger? |
| 2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38459 Activity:nil 66%like:38434 |
7/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_2012_bids London Upsets Paris to Win 2012 Olympics. \_ Most of my English colleagues didn't care about the olympics, they just wanted to piss off the French. Chirac making disparaging comments about Finnish food when the difference was 4 votes, 2 of them Finnish, also was pretty smart. -John \_ Is it like the relationship between us and Stanfraud -- we don't care if we win the ACM, we just want to beat Stanfraud? \_ Wonder if the committee is having second thoughts now. |
| 2005/7/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38436 Activity:nil |
7/6 "And in the days and weeks that followed, racial skirmishes on this and
other Southern California campuses unmasked a current of racial tension
that has alarmed law enforcement and school officials"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jefferson6jul06,0,6512314.story
\_ ""Race riot! Brown on black!" and several of his students
\_ ""Race riot — brown on black!" and several of his students
bolted. Outside, Bachrach saw half a dozen kids scaling the
school's chain-link fence, desperately trying to escape from
campus." Smart kids. |
| 2005/7/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38434 Activity:low 66%like:38459 |
7/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_2012_bids London Upsets Paris to Win 2012 Olympics. War pays, peace doesn't. \_ What the fuck does your second sentence have to do with the first? Oh shit, I have been trolled. \_ Every decision made in the world has had some influences from personal fetish, personal vendetta, and global politics. \_ That's a nice Super Bowl ring you got there! \_ Most of my English colleagues didn't care about the olympics, they just wanted to piss off the French. Chirac making disparaging comments about Finnish food when the difference was 4 votes, 2 of them Finnish, also was pretty smart. -John |
| 2005/7/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:38406 Activity:high |
7/4 Happy 4th of July. In consideration of the event, it might be a
good idea to carefully read the following and give it some thought:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm -John
\_ Please note the 2nd. Yes, it applies in California too.
\_ Not really. I can't bear arms of my choosing in public. My right
has been infringed.
\_ Apparently Article 1, section 10, paragraph 3 does not apply either
if this drivers' license for illegals thing passes in Kalifornia.
\_ No right is absolute. Ex. 1st amd protection of free speech
doesn't bar defamation suits or protect people who falsely
yell fire in a crowded theater.
AFAIK, it is still legal to own (and carry) some type of
firearm in CA.
\_ So when we're limited down to only black powder rifles
more appropriate to the Framers time, would you stil think
the second amendment hasn't been regulated away?
\_ Apparently Article 1, section 10, paragraph 3 does not apply
either if this drivers' license for illegals thing passes in
Kalifornia.
\_ Shouldn't all you good patriotic freepers be out celebrating
4th of July? What are you doing skulking around on the motd?
\_ Read and recite it bitch. I was out shooting on the 4th.
\_ I think famous member Sameer Parekh nailed it when he said, "THIS
IS A COOL HOLIDAY. It's the day we celebrate overthrowing the
government."
\_ Congress and SCOTUS have gutted the 1st, 5th, and 10th. Do you have
a compilation of court decisions that have altered the Bill of
Rights from its original intent? |
| 12/24 |