Politics Domestic California - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]
Results 751 - 900 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/02/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
2/19    

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.
2018/02/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
2/19    

2006/5/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] 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, Politics/Domestic/California] 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 "BolĂ­var"
                    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, Politics/Domestic/California] 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 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/California] 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/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, 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 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] 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/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] 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/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] 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 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Domestic/California] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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 [Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Domestic/California] 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?
2018/02/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
2/19    
Results 751 - 900 of 1361   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California: [Arnold(228) | Prop(52) ]
.