| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41632 Activity:nil |
2/1 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html "Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." Can anyone say "18 1/2 minutes" \_ Please explain? |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41618 Activity:nil |
1/31 What's the difference between the Chairman, President, CEO and COO of
a company? To me, all of them are "people up there". Thx.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_operating_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man,
will the crime boss be held liable?
\_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced
all his killings.
\_ Of course. Criminal conspiracy.
\_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some
reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love".
\_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his
son's gf because she knew about his robbery?
\_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held...
\_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people"
\_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured
in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does
not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any
const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv-
ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable).
But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then
the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of
US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend. |
| 2006/1/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41455 Activity:low |
1/20 "GOP == GOD"
\_ "My vehicle, my choice. Keep your laws off my SUV."
\_ "Fight crime. Shoot back."
\_ if ("GOP" == "GOD") {
exit ;
} |
| 2006/1/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41454 Activity:nil |
1/20 Err... oh my. "Itœ is said he was preaching murder, but he was
actually preaching from the Koran itself."€?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2001006,00.html
\_ He's a fucking scumbag, Koran or not. And it's nice to see
traditionally "tolerant" Euro govts. starting to catch on. -John |
| 2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:41324 Activity:kinda low |
1/10 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5.html "Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals" So if people break immigration laws, they're not criminals? \_ If the person writing that quote doesn't believe that they're just laws then, no, to them they are not criminals and shouldn't be treated as such. \_ Not all violations of the law are subject to criminal penalties. If you break the building code by putting in a deck w/o a permit are you a criminal? One can imagine a system where an immigrant is subject to a purely civil deportation system. \_ I see. So you're parsing the word "criminal" to mean the criminal part of the penal code, vs. the civil part. Okay. Yeah. What's the case of illegal immigration right now? Is that a civil violation or a criminal one. Shut yer pie hole \_ I agree that many violations of the immigration code are criminal, but not every violation is criminal. Some, such as overstaying a NAFTA guest worker visa may be treated as a civil offense, not even subject to deportation. Furthermore, my point is related to the speaker's idea of what the law ought to be, not what it is. The person who made that statement may feel that it is never permissible to use criminal law to punish immigration violations. There is nothing inherently invalid with that idea, regardless of whether it reflects currently law. \_ How would you apply your logic to the sentence "Child molesters should not be treated like criminals"? \_ It depends on what you accept as the basis for criminal punishment. One theory holds that criminal punishment is appropriate only in cases where the victim is one or more actual individuals (as opposed to society in general). If we accept this as the basis for criminal punishment, then we find that while child molest should be punished by criminal law, immigration violation should not. only in cases where the victim is a person (as opposed to society in general). If one accepts this view as the basis for criminal punishment, then we find that while child molest should be punished by criminal law, immigration violation should not. [ I am not saying this view is correct, I am suggesting that it can be logically self consistent. ] \_ This sounds like a hopelessly out of context (or out of reason) soundbite. A much more well-reasoned statement might have been, "Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be be treated like violent repeat offenders, drug dealers, or terrorists, unless they're guilty of those crimes, too." \_ You're reading your own bias into the quote. The Latin countries are asking for a guest worker program. Guest worker programs makes migrant work legal. By their proposed solution you see the main issue is the illegal status of migrant workers (hence "criminal"), and not the intensity of their treatment given they're illegal (hence not "violent criminal" or some such variant). \_ On a related note, I don't yet see the problem with a migrant worker system. To me, the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that there's no way to control it. Illegal immigrant violent criminals are a particular pain in the rear. It seems reasonable to work on both tighter controls and a migrant worker system. |
| 2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41314 Activity:nil |
1/9 A million little lies
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html |
| 2006/1/9-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41306 Activity:nil |
1/9 "The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's
request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or
sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment |
| 2006/1/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41301 Activity:low |
1/9 Attention Trollers:
It is now illegal to post messages anonymously that annoy others via
the Internet. Basically, it's already illegal to annoy someone
anonymously via telephone. However, someone added "communications
that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet" to the
existing law. See HR3402 Sec. 113.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402
[click "Text of Legislation", then #6]
http://tinyurl.com/dfw9t (cornell.edu)
http://csua.org/u/ejy (news.com)
Yes, it is still legal in most cases to "annoy" someone
non-anonymously via telephone and Internet.
\_ You're annoying me.
\_ Annoying? The whole net would collapse if that was ever taken
seriously.
\_ Apparently the law requires a prosecutor to prove "intent to
annoy," which sounds laughably difficult to me.
\_ but you're wrong. -tom
\_ But isn't that what makes proving a libel case so difficult
in an American court? The need to prove "intent to cause
damage?" (aka reading defendant's mind)
\_ No, libel has no bearing on the situation. The
difficulty with libel suits is that true statements,
or statements of opinion, are not libel, so you have
to show that the statement is based in fact (as opposed
to saying "he's an asshole," which is a matter of
opinino), and that the person saying it reasonably
should have known the statement was false, and that
people reading the statement could reasonably believe
it was true.
"Intent to annoy" is easy; any reasonable person
could see that, say, repeatedly sending explicit mail
to someone after they've explicitly told you not to,
or subscribing them to hundreds of mailing lists, or
whatever, is intended to annoy. -tom |
| 2005/12/30-2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41174 Activity:very high |
12/29 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/od_nm/britain_party_dc The article above says certain areas require more claims than others. Does the insurance company have a right to charge your premium based on location, and if so, does it have a right to charge different based on last names (like scotsman)? In the US, you're not allowed to use things like sex, religion, age, and race, but what about the UK? \_ Question 1. Sure it can, it happens all the time. Question 2. Don't know, UK isn't a constitutional government AFAIK, but since it's the origin of common law I would assume you can't (whole concept of being a subject to the crown with certain inalienable rights per magna carta). \- um i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various \- hello i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various comments above like "in the US you are not allowed to use [sic] things like [list]" and "UK [sic] isn't a constitutional government". also it seems like you are alluding to the notion of what is called "sovereign immunity" although i am not sure what you point is about "common law" and the "magna carta". you may wish to see the very fine book The Law of the Land, by Charles Rembar. some random comments: \_ Well, for starters, the U.S. law (at least that which is not covered by the Constitution expressly) is derived originally from English Common Law. English Common Law isn't exactly written down, but is based on accepted traditional legal practices and case precedent. This is in contrast to what's called "continental law" which is more "rule-based." What this translates into is that the common law systems, such as the U.S. and commonwealth countries the system is often based on the adversarial system, the oppossing parties essentially run the trial while the jurist ensures that the proceedings are run in accordance to procedure (either civil or criminal, etc.). In the continental system the jursist supposedly has a much more active role. In real life I doubt that the systems differ much in modern day contexts. The amount of standardized procedure in the U.S. has resulted in what I like to call "form based law," in which we are innundated with Judicial Council forms, especially for things like divorces or DUIs. I'd say that 90% of the law that I do is routine, and I'm sure it's very similar throughout the world (I know for a fact that patent law certainly is). As for the magna carta, it basically set a precedent for the limitations of government through the use of a contract, so it is significant in the tradition of our modern day democratic institutions, as such a copy is prominently displayed in DC next to the constitution (at least when I was visiting it). \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history and terminology this is no longer worth talking about. e.g. common law is characterized by being "judge made" based on actual cases ... in contrast to code/civil law, which is statue-based by a committe or legislature or some other codifying authority. the english may not have a WRITTEN constitution but they are a constitutional govt ... in their case the line between parliamentary statue and "rights under the const" are a little vague ... this is hard to talk about without going into great detail. for example there is an act on Habeus Corpus which is reasonably comparable to the HC section in the us const. however the document known as the "Bill of Rights" in english history, is not comparable to the US Const's BoR. comments like "English Common Law isn't exactly written down" is ridiculous. If you want to see where the Rule in Hadley v. Baxendale comes from, you can actually read the decision Hadley v. Baxendale ... some of it is based on custom which dont flow from a single authoritative document, but the huge body of prior cases are written down. 1. you may wish to look up "adverse selection" in the context of insurance markets and premiums. there are consequences for not allowing insurance companies to not consider all relevant factors. also there are indirect ways to influence your insured pool ... like having your office on the 8th floor of a bldg with no elevator [ok this may violate ADA, but you see what i mean ... efficiency and "public policy" both play roles in shaping the insurance business] 2. you can discriminate based on some of the factors you list, but different factors requires different levels of "scrutiny" [which means different levels of justification and narrow tailoring]. also this obligation doesnt apply to all occasions. you can invite whomever you want to your house for poker and beer, but if you apply for a alchol lic to run a booze operation, you may not be able to keep certain people out. BTW, i think english law begins before the magna people out. 3. i think english law begins before the magna \_ I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I never implied that english common law started with the magna carta. English common law started much further back, and even has historical roots all the way to the Roman occupation. My point was that England is not a constitutional democracy (it never was), and it has the concepts that are embodied within the U.S. model (the constitution and the subsequent bill of rights) through tradition. However, not having things written down did apparently pose problems, as can be evinced by the subsequent misunderstandings which led to the revolution. \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history and terminology this is no longer worth talking about. Also you are changing your vocabulary ... you say "const govt" above and then use "constitutional democracy" later. yes, they are certainly different. England was essentially a different country [or arguably wasn't really a country] much before the Norman Conquest so the Roman stuff isn't even worth talking about. I think it is fair to say English law really begins to take on its own identity starting with Henry II. I do agree there has some continental style "codification" of various areas of the law in the US sign on to various "uniform" standards for tort/contract/business practices etc. carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an important legacy in english law [post norman conquest]. people out. BTW, i think english law really does begin before the magna carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an important legacy in english law [post norman conquest]. YMWTS, the book referenced at: ~psb/MOTD/EnglishLegalHistory.ref As the Times Literary Supplement says "it is the standard".oktnx. \_ Again, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but apparently you're trying to interject something what appears at best tangential information. Anyway, I'm sure that individuals who are actually interested in this can do their own research. \- the last bit was just for the humorous review from AMAZONG. but ti does discuss the great Assize of Clarendon, the "census projects", and the Magna Carta (although i ends before the Magna Carta story really plays out, which it does for +50yrs after 1215, into at least the reign of H3.). |
| 2005/12/29-2006/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:41165 Activity:kinda low |
12/28 Come on guys, murdering women and children? NOT Honorable.
http://csua.org/u/eg8
\_ You're being culturally insensitive.
\_ Go away, troll.
\_ they need to teach muslims the power of forgiving. not every-
thing has to be eye for an eye. hopefully this gives fuel
to us Westerners as to how ruthless these people are.
\_ I think this has more to do with "third world" than Islam. |
| 2005/12/29-2006/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41163 Activity:nil |
12/28 I don't think you can do this by accident
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1213/garcia_ctv.html
\_ He should have made sure that he was the heir of something
rich and powerful before doing something controversial.
\_ Ok, a guy does a BillClinton on a woman's dress, so what?
There are worse things happening everyday and people still get
away with it, especially the rich people. For example, an heiress
kills a man, but gets only 60 days in jail even though she
was found guilty. An heiress paid money for school assignments.
Why single out this minor peccadile BillClinton wannabe?
http://csua.com/?entry=38950
http://csua.com/?entry=40218
\_ I used to buy Vanity Fair a lot last year before getting
on planes, and I was always reading about that Long
Island scion who got away with chopping up a woman into
parts and sticking her in a suitcase.
\_ The only thing that causes this case to stand out is how out-
rageous the alleged crime is. He hired her, then, while she's
working at her desk, he ejaculates on her. Dude, seriously,
wtf?
\_ Actually, the part that made it stand out even more to me
was that he then allegedly, "apologized and stated that
he did not mean to do that." Ummm... did not mean to do
what? That's pretty freakin' hard to do by accident.
\_ Didn't mean to get any on her.
\_ probably was trying to get it to go *over* her
\_ Wait, is there DNA evidence? If there is, then this is going
to become a He-said/She-said case; if not, why the hell is he
even saying it was consensual? Didn't LewinskyGate teach people
anything?
\_ It's hard to believe there wouldn't be DNA evidence.
\_ she called the cops three weeks later.
\_ Hmmm.. well that certainly makes her story sound less
reliable.
\_ Everyone knows you keep cum stained clothes unwashed for at
least 4 months for potential future impeachment purposes. |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41109 Activity:low |
12/21 I understand that the transit strike is causing huge headaches in
NYC, but I don't get how a Judge can impose fines on the strikers
if the strike itself is legal. Help?
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/21/ap2408180.html
\_ "for the illegal strike" Umm.. it's not legal.
\_ http://www.goer.state.ny.us/cna/bucenter/taylor.html
http://csua.org/u/eee (cornell.edu)
\_ eee!
The Taylor Law, passed in 1967, prohibits public employees in the
state of New York from going on strike, instead requiring management
and the union to ultimately settle their differences via binding
arbitration conducted by a neutral third party.
\_ Thank you, that's very informative. -op
\_ I lived in NYC and have little sympathy for the MTA workers.
Having said that, If you remove the power of strike from Union,
you are essentially remove the only teeth Union has, no?
\_ Fuck 'em.
\_ Are they allowed to quit? Is slavery legal again?
\_ in the good old days, we have no minimum wage,
no minimum age, and labor union was illegal.
Are you saying that we should go back to those days
and let iron hand of wages to do its work?
\_ Union members are allowed to terminate the employment,
while the employers aren't. Is that fair?
\_ Misrepresentation of facts. Employers are allowed to
terminate employment; they are simply required to
follow strict guidelines to ensure that they do so
in a socially just manner (i.e., not just because
you wouldn't sleep with them).
\_ isn't it fair if both sides go to binding arbitration? |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41089 Activity:kinda low |
12/20 Freepers confused about intelligence design decision
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts
\_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper
links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right
wingers posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting
from ultra left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting
from the ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We
don't *have* to mimic the rest of the web's trash here.
\_ What ultra left wing garbage sites did you object to?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com? The guy that broke the Duke-stir
story?
\_ Three days later, still no reply. That is what I thought.
The New York Times is "ultra left wing garbage" to the
Freeper crowd.
\_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper
links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right wingers
posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting from ultra
left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting from the
ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We don't *have*
to mimic the rest of the web's trash here. |
| 2005/12/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41020 Activity:kinda low |
12/14 I just saw a link posted on http://crooksandliars.com and I thought I'd ask motd about it: http://csua.org/u/ebc Mostly I was just wondering if people supported hate crimes legislation. I'm very much a liberal, but there seems to be something silly about punishing people differently based upon what was in their head when they committed the crime. Really, is one murder different than another? Do we want to punish people for what they think? \_ I am an ultra liberal, but in this regard, I don't buy this 'intent' logic. Let say if a guy raped a woman. His defense could be something like he was drunk at the time and thus get a less severe penalty. WTF? we are rewarding people who are not responsible for their actions? \_ Uh.. How exactly does your example relate to the discussion? \_ Well intent does matter in determining whether some acts are a crime or not, but I agree that it's pretty silly and basically amounts to extra crimininization because of the offender's politics. -another liberal \_ I think that using intent to punish people different for the same effect does make sense in most cases. A person who plans out a effect does make sense in many cases. A person who plans out a crime and executes it may pose a greater threat to society as a whole vs. the person who gets caught up in the heat of the moment and overreacts. Almost anyone can misjudge a situation and overreact, while few sit around and plan crimes. The fact someone overreacted once doesn't necessarily imply that they would do so again (though it is suggestive of this; hence the need for incarceration and post release monitoring). The effectiveness of incarceration as a means of correction on those who act w/o a plan may be greater b/c many of them feel regret over their actions and may take steps to prevent the recu- rrence of a similar action. rrence of a similar situation. In addition, the person who gets caught up in the heat of the mo- ment might have made a mistake re the need to defend themselves or others, so they could have a partial (or complete) excuse. This is generally not the case with those who execute a pre-existing plan. [ In the context of hate crime legislation - I think that the existing law are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass these law. I think that many of them will get passed b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive ] existing laws are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass new laws. I think that many of them will get passed anyway b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive. ] |
| 2005/12/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40991 Activity:nil |
12/13 Instead of "Tookie" Williams, maybe people can rally behind
a death row immate who really got a raw deal. He's black, had no
criminal record but lived with his 18 month old daughter in a duplex
in a bad neighborhood. In the other unit lived a suspected drug
dealer. In the middle of the night, a cop + SWAT team perform a "no
knock raid" on the unit (mistakenly kicking in his door) and he
shoots the cop, who happens to be white and the
son of the police chief, and kills the cop. A mostly white jury
sentences him to die.
http://tinyurl.com/8kc4y
\_ A mostly white jury sentenced Tookie to die, too. It's completely
legal as long as jury members aren't known to the court to have
demonstrated prejudice against the ethnicity of the defendant.
\_ who said anything to the contrary? It is also not legalistically
relevant that the cop who was shot happened to be the son of the
police chief, but if you think it isn't indicitive of whether or
not jutice was served, then you are none too bright.
\- in theory peremptories are not supposed to be based on race.
i dont have energy for extended discussion but you can start
with Batson v. Kentucky.
\_ i don't disagree with you.
\- i am not taking a position here. i am just sharing a
decision that goes to your "it's completely legal"
[where it's not clear what the antecedant to "it" is]
\_ I was talking to the "you need to have other black
people (peers), don't you?" crowd, just in case there
were any of those people reading.
\- legality isnt just a matter of who ends up on the
jury, but how the juries venire is composed, the
vopir dire process itself, and there are special
voir dire process itself, and there are special
issues for grand juries and "death ceritifed" juries
as well as auxilliary issues like victim impact
statements. there are some pretty interesting stats
about who end up getting the death penality. the
crudest generalizations [black people get the
death penality] are not so accurate but there are
some dramatic staticistic ... like the differnece
some dramatic statistics ... like the differnece
in likelihood between a black fellow killing another
black person vs black killing white getting the
death penalty. --psb
\_ Unfortunately, the white/black issue is pretty much irrelevant and
by bringing it up you weaken your case. Also, the defenders of
"Tookie" have helped people like this guy (who looks like he got a
raw deal) get screwed. My friend's mother was sentenced to 20-life
for killing her husband when there was video of him saying that she
didn't do it. Her conviction was overturned, but not until after
she had been in jail for 10 years and developed MS.
\_ How did the defenders of Tookie screwed this guy? -clueless
\_ Most of USA looked at Tookie and decided that the people
trying to keep him from being executed were loons. That
weakens any future attempts to keep people from being
executed, especially when the race card is played.
\_ I think most people think it's okay for Tookie to die
because of the abominableness of the crimes, they really
think he did it, and that after 26 years an appeal hasn't
succeeded so that's good enough proof that he did it.
His behavior in his first ~10 years in jail didn't help
any.
\_ Exactly. So when the nutjobs say he's innocent, they
tune out on a case like this which may be legitimate.
\-^innocent^nominate for nobel prize
\_ I think there is a difference between someone with NO criminal
record and a known gang leader ... There is really no dispute of
the facts, only whether or not someone is permitted to defend
themselves with deadly force if people storm into their house,
and if there is reasonable doubt that the defendent did not
know they were police officers, which I believe there is in this
case.
\_ Maybe I'm being dense, but how did he make a video if..er, you
know, he was dead? -John
\_ It was taken by the medics who life-flighted him to the
hospital. -pp |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40976 Activity:low |
12/12 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/WILLIAMS.TMP "The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses 'whose credibility was highly suspect,' U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in 1998." ... while upholding the jury's verdict, because the jury >> appeals judges, unless you find a technical problem in the trial, new evidence, or persuasive evidence the jury was on crack, etc. \_ And? \_ "Four years later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiced similar qualms, saying the prosecution had relied on witnesses with 'less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie' to win lenient treatment for their own crimes." (also upholding the conviction) \_ And he loves animals and writes children's books, found Jesus on death row and is a 5 time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee! Free Tookie! \_ And at 12:01 he'll meet Jesus. \_ strawman \_ it isn't a strawman. it is mockery. and i fart in your general direction as well! \_ strawman + mockery \_ a strawman is a lame debate method. i'm not debating or attempting to score points by saying you said those things and then knocking them down. i am mocking you. mock, mock, mock! we are the knights who say mock! mock! what a great word! mock! say mock! 10 times, fast. \_ whatever you say ... \_ here's an example of a different yet equally lame debate method. \_ no, it is not a debate method. i am mocking your attempt at mockery. \_ you're attempting but failing. go look up "mock". perhaps if you knew what mockery is you'd be able to do it. thanks for joining us today. \_ It must be strange to take so much joy in the death of another human being. One that did not even do anything to you personally. \_ No it mustn't. Justice is good. \_ Last I checked, eye for an eye is a crappy basis for justice. \_ I can understand a sort of grim satisfaction, but so much overwhelming joy. \_ Well I'm a different poster and I wouldn't call it joy. I think the pp's mocking doesn't necessarily == joy either, he just doesn't care about it enough to not joke. Personally I know very little about this guy but he doesn't seem worth caring about. Their strategy was to turn his case into a political hurdle for the Gov. \_ In fact he loves animals so much that he called the three victims he killed "three oriental pigs". \_ You know, in an abstract way I am opposed to executions, but I don't think there's any reason to get especially incensed about this execution. Becoming a cause celebre should not get you special treatment under the law. \_ I agree. I am not especially incensed, but I am generally pissed off whenever someone is executed and there is some doubt that the guy did it or not. \_ What doubt was that in this case? Have you read anything that doesn't have an agenda? The SF Comical is definitely agenda territory. \_ The idea that the SF Chronicle is a left-wing paper is so completely out of touch with reality and history that there's really no way to respond to it. -tom \_ SF Comical on Tookie: http://csua.org/u/ea4 Not everything in the world fits into your little boxes. \_ I read the DA's summary of events, and I read Ah-nold's 3-5 page statement. 3-5 page statement. I'll give 12 jurors thought it enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to me there remains doubts. |
| 11/23 |
| 2005/12/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign] UID:40928 Activity:nil |
12/8 Lawyer for 13 GTMO detainees filed a petition Mar 11 2005
http://csua.org/u/e85 (latimes.com)
"Falkoff's petition quoted a section of the memo, but the quotation was
blacked out in the unclassified version...Falkoff's interpretation...:
'The government believes that Mr. Ahmad has information that it wants
but that it cannot extract without torturing him.' ... because torture
is not allowed at Guantanamo, 'the recommendation is that Mr. Ahmad
should be sent to another country where he can be interrogated under
torture.'"
"Falkoff's description was not disputed by U.S. government lawyers or
by U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who read the actual
Pentagon document. The judge ruled in favor of the Yemenis on March 12
..."
\_ The LA Times has been found to be insufficiently patriotic and
therefore in league with Emmanuel Goldstein.
\_ Another violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. |
| 2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40908 Activity:high |
12/7 Where in the constitution and/or law says that you can't have a
gun duel? How about a fist duel between two people (like boxing),
is that still legal? If boxing is legal, how about non-lethal
kendo stick duels, or even katana duels?
\_ Faimiliar with Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton?
\_ I'm betting where you will get in trouble with gun dueling is not
going to be federal law but state/city law. Specifically assault
with a deadly weapon, manslaughter or murder, none of which are
federal crimes (at least under normal circumstances). You are
allowed to box, because thats a consentual sport. You aren't
allowed to kill people, consentual or otherwise.
\_ Ok, let's say there is no intent to kill. Let's say that
ilyas and john hate each other and want to humiliate each
other to settle their scores. They're happy to bruise each
other and may fight it out using nothing but their fists.
Is this legal at all?
\_ Yes unless a passing cop decides to nail us for disturbing
the peace or any number of other reasons, or in response to
someone complaining about two crazy people beating each
other up. And then, that doesn't keep either of us from
calling the cops on the other for assault, or from filing
a civil suit. I believe boxers sign all kinds of waivers
before whaling on each other. -John
\_ In a gun duel intent to kill wouldn't matter. If you killed
someone it would be manslaughter at least. But yeah, I
imagine if you had a fight in the privacy of your own home
voluntarily with eachother, and without lasting injury there
wouldn't be any legal recourse. -pp
\_ Yes, its called boxing. Get a ring.
\_ GUN DUEL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel
\_ CA had a specific provision in the penal code that made Dueling
a separate offense. This was repealed in 1994. Some states still
have such provisions. Strictly speaking a separate provision is
not required to punish dueling b/c it is a general principle that
one cannot consent to a crime against one's person. If both ppl
survive they are both probably guilty of attempted 1st degree
premeditated murder. If one dies the other is guilty of 1st
degree murder. Note that there is no self defense argument b/c
the duelers created the dangerous situation.
\- this is a silly question but for the rest of you with
some interest in legal history, you may wish to read
about Ashford v. Thornton. --lord blackstone
\_ Interesting. Thanks. For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_duel
Summary: Until 1819 dueling was an alternate
dispute resolution method.
\- well i dont think that is fully the "take away"...
it raises the issue of stale law, the evolution
of law, the back and forth between law and
what you might call epistemology. the interesting
detail here is it was essentially forgotten that
trial by battle was still on the books. it wasnt
like 1819 was the year parliament finally got rid
of it ... dueling and trial by battle being common
until then. there had not been a case of trial
by battle for ~200yrs before that and "the system"
was sort of at a loss about what to do. anyway,
if you are interested in legal history, this book
is very interesting ... Charles Rembar: The Law
of the Land. see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rembar
\_ it is still much cheaper and saves a lot more time
than litigation. |
| 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... |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40810 Activity:nil |
12/1 A discorse on why people do the murder-suicide thing.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/493.html |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40762 Activity:low |
11/29 1 corrupt congresscritter down. 500+ to go:
http://www.nbc4.com/news/5418701/detail.html
\_ Scanlon/Abramoff may take out a dozen or more. The Duke's situation
may take down a couple more before it's through... I just popped
some fresh popcorn.
\_ As a native San Diegan, I can assure you this couldn't have
happened to a more deserving scumbag. --erikred
\_ May he rot in jail. -emarkp
\_ One can only hope.
\_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie about
the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad you can sit
there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed at night when you
never lived in a communist state.
\_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie
about the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad
you can sit there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed
at night when you never lived in a communist state.
\_ Poor troll indeed.
\_ Traficant was really not guilty, so was Jim Wright, too.
I'm sure good old Danny boy Rostenkowski was not guilty as well.
\_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press briefing "
He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05
\_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Trafficant? Grow up,
\_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Traficant? Grow up,
dipwad.
\_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press
briefing. "He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05
"I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my high
office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my
worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my
friends and family." -Duke Cunningham 11/27/05
\_ This would be interesting if the quote dates were reversed.
\_ Actually, you are right. That would be hysterical in fact.
I am going to start reporting them backwards like that.
\_ Compared to Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham *is* an honorable man
of high integrity. |
| 2005/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40694 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Yay, Fox News takes an AP story and does the global search and replace
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176345,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051122190101
\_ They forgot to replace 'insurgent' with 'homosexual America-hater.'
\_ Fox also removed the name of the AP Reporter.
\_ Aren't all bombs "homicide bombs" by definition? Suicide bomber
conveys more information than homicide bomber.
\_ I think "homicide bomb" may fail to suggest that the bomber
is also sacrificing his own life. "suicide bomber" is fine
for me. Why don't we just call them "murder bomber" if we're
propagandizing?
\_ Doesn't "suicide bomber" fail to suggest that the bomber is
also sacrificing (and intends to sacrifice) other people's
lives? (I do think it's stupid propaganda.)
\_ "Sacrifice"? That almost denotes something halfway noble.
And why is calling it "murder" propaganda? -John
\_ I guess my only real point is that "homicide bomb"
and "homicide bomber" just sound stupid. We get it,
they're murderers. They're bastards. Yes, we get it.
But they also committed suicide. They're... suicide
bombers.
\_ because murder signifies that we are in the right;
realize that a lot of the insurgents do it out of
revenge for lost loved ones in the war, and feel as
righteous and justified as we are in this war.
leaving it as suicide bomber is a more neutral term.
\_ Um, this is one of the stupider things I've read in
a long time. WTF? Who gives a shit "why"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder - looks
like a pretty clear case to me. There is no fucking
justification for it. None. At. All. And don't
give me shit about "he was aiming for combatants" or
"yes but xyz is also murder." I don't want "neutral."
It's brutish, malicious, primitive and criminal.
Ergo, "murder", QED. -John
\_ same thing US troops just did/have been doing.
death = death, eye for an eye
\_ This is the same kind of idiotic, cowardly
equivocation I hear from a lot of pseudo-intel-
lectual types here. (a) US troops don't target
civilians and (b) if they do it's a crime and
should be punished. Go away. -John
\_ My revenge against the Americans is to blow up a
Jordan wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids,
Jordian wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids,
take your pick)
\_ sure, soon as you lose a son, brother, close
friend, etc, you may feel differently
\_ No, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty
that losing any number of friends and/or
relatives will not result in me wanting to
blow up completely unrelated innocent people.
\_ Whoever you are, when you lose a relative or close
friend for whatever reason and decide that mowing
down a pile of civilians with your car is the
right answer, please make sure to do this far far
away from here. You're a nutter. Thanks.
\_ I'm just exploring the muslim psyche. It's
not what I'd do personally - I've got too
much to lose. Your average Iraqi/
Palestinian probably doesn't.
\_ Why not? They're not human? They don't
love? They don't have parents and children
and wives and husbands? Are their lives
truly so empty because they can't get an
XBox360 on the first day at Walmart? What
exactly is so valuable about your life that
isn't about theirs?
\_ Their family might have been wiped out,
their home destroyed, no job prospects,
no hope for the future.
\_ So that would inspire one to strap on
a bomb and blow up a wedding in a
different country full of people who
were most likely sympathetic to your
cause and loss. Good plan.
\_ The Jordan bombing was stupid.
Suicide bombers have been
brainwashed and/or weren't that
clever to begin with
\_ You understand that these were
higher ups in the Iraqi branch
of the Al-Q organisation, right?
These were not teenagers pulled
from some West Bank slum. These
were leaders, not the brain-
washed masses.
\_ So what? Even if they are, they
are committing a conscious act,
and are almost always driven to
do so by someone else (the
"higher-ups" mentioned above.)
Trying to "understand" is fine,
but a lot of this sounds much
closer to justification. -John
\_ The English usage of "murder" denotes something more
personal. While both "murder" and "homicide" are
technically correct, homicide is much drier, less
emotionally connected.
\_ s/denotes/has the connotation of/ |
| 2005/11/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Science/Biology] UID:40662 Activity:kinda low |
11/20 Krauthammer also hates ID
http://csua.org/u/e16
\_ What I don't understand is why this is even up for debate. I mean,
it's the fuckin' 21st Century. Get with it, people. Aren't we
done having the Scopes Monkey Trial? BTW, Wikipedia, for all its
\_ Errr.. You do realize Scopes lost, right?
\_ Indeed. And from what I understand of the facts of the _real_
trial, if Scopes were trying to teach today what he was trying
to teach back then, he'd lose again.
\_ What was he teaching?
\_ Above poster is being disengenuous. He's probably
referring to the fact that the textbook Scopes was
using contained references to eugenics and the
"superiority of the white race." However, the
Tennessee law he was accused of violating read:
"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of
the Universities, Normals and all other public schools
of the State which are supported in whole or in part by
the public school funds of the State, to teach any
theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of
man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that
man has descended from a lower order of animals"
faults, has a nice summary of ID and its gaping logical and
empirical holes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
\_ George Will doesn't like it either:
\_ George Will can't stand it either:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111705.asp |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics] UID:40449 Activity:nil |
11/4 Huge Iceberg Breaks Apart in Antarctica - Yahoo! News
http://www.csua.org/u/dxd
\_ USA USA USA! |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40446 Activity:low |
11/4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515823/posts New Republic article condemning Libby indictment (compare this with the http://findlaw.com article) Rosen: "In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying crime was committed." Dean: "In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793 [the Espionage Act]" \_ While that's the analysis of many conservatives, Fitzgerald believes he was obstructed in his investigation (and he was the one charged to the the real analysis). And last I checked, that /is/ a crime. -emarkp \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, Rosen's point was there was no "underlying crime", besides the crime of perjury/etc., which he pretty much discounts to support his dubious thesis: "... [Fitzgerald] succumbed to the old temptation to indict otherwise innocent officials for misleading him and his investigators reminds us, once again, that the entire apparatus of special prosecutors is a menace." Of course, Dean's point is that there may have been an underlying crime, which is violation of the Espionage Act, and that it looks like Libby is protecting Cheney. \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, but Rosen's argument can be summed up as: (1) "Strong reason" to think there was no underlying crime. (2) Perjury/etc. is not really serious. (3) Therefore, eliminate special prosecutors. Dean's argument is: (a) By reading the indictment, Fitzgerald thinks there may be an underlying crime of violating the Espionage Act. (b) Perjury/etc. prevents this determination. (c) It looks like Libby is protecting Cheney from (a). \_ On another front, Larry Wilkerson, Powell's former CoS, said today that he has a paper trail that links Cheney directly to the prisoner treatment guidelines. \_ I read that. He said he "had" a paper trail. He got it when he was trying to figure out this mess with Powell when he was still Sec State. Wilkerson says he no longer has access to those documents. \_ Right, and I desagree with (2). Dean seems to be completely nuts--do you mean the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982?). The text of that act says the agent must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." From what I've seen Plame doesn't qualify. That means that the spirit of the law may have been violated but no crime under that act could have been committed. -emarkp \_ From the findlaw article: "Count One, paragraph 1b ... 'As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.' ... What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code." != Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (it's good that you asked!) \_ Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to read the findlaw article more carefully. -emarkp \_ yeah, I'm confused why everyone was talking about the 1982 act (which would be hard to prove a violation of) when there should clearly be a broad, all-encompassing law covering release of classified information. \_ That confusion is by design. That's how this administrations' propaganda machine operates. \_ So David Corn (author of "The Lies of George W. Bush") is an administrative lackey? He apparently was the first to raise the question of the 1982 act. \_ So, soda user, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb. |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40440 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html (findlaw.com, Dean) "Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall. ... Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. ... Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections." \_ Any incentive for Libby to do that? It's going to be his ass regardless and Bush & Co is abandoning him... |
| 2005/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40422 Activity:nil |
11/3 Okay, as I survey all the major (TV/print) news web sites, I see
all of them feature Libby/Rove as a main story (usu with photo),
except http://cnn.com. Even http://cnn.com International Edition shows Libby.
Even http://foxnews.com covers it prominently. |
| 2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40334 Activity:nil |
10/29 Excellent collection of easy to understand points by Fitzgerald
http://csua.org/u/dv7 (someone's blog) |
| 2005/10/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40333 Activity:high |
10/29 BTW, the right-wing spin is going to be very, very easy to predict:
There may have been an unintentional outing of Plame, but the goal was
always to protect America, and Wilson was wrong anyway.
There will be no specific mention of Libby committing perjury, etc.,
other than the "unintentional outing" - we thought everyone knew.
\_ Hold on, what was Wilsong wrong about? - danh
\_ You mean the partisan spin. I'm right wing and my opinion is that
perjury is a crime and should be treated as such. If Libby purjored
himself, I want him out of there. Same as with Clinton. When will
politicians learn that the coverup is almost always worse than the
crime? -emarkp
\_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a
serious crime and should be treated as such. I can't
follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is
worse than the crime. That may have been true with Nixon
and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary
or adultery. I know that word (treason) gets thrown around
by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here.
\_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious
crime and should be treated as such. I can't follow you all the
way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime. That
may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons
comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery. I know that word
(treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it
literally applies here.
\_ No, I don't think treason applies here. Especially since that
would be in the indictment. -emarkp
\_ I love this. "not indicted, therefore, innocent of guilt."
Based upon your logic, no one in the whitehouse ever
leaked the identity of CIA agent neither.
\_ I love this. My saying treason doesn't apply gets
twisted pretty fast. I said I didn't think treason
applied here, not that there was no guilt. Furthermore,
given the resources Fitzgerald has had, I think he'd
charge treason if he found it. Some random anonymous
wanker on motd claiming treason has roughly zero value
IMO compared to a special prosecutor who's been pursuing
this for two years. -emarkp
\_ that is my problem with the conservatives. it is not
ok to lie about sex, but it's perfectlly ok to lie
about war and leak of classified information.
\_ Precisely where did I say it was okay? I specifically
said perjory is serious. If Libby perjured himself he
should be in prison. -emarkp
\_ Have you really not noticed that your view is in the
very small minority among American conservatives?
Wake up! The former party of small government
conservatism has become a proto-fascist organization.
\_ I disagree with the second part of your sentence,
but the first part (i.e. "former party of small
government") is one of the reasons I'm an I and
not an R now. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, why do you play the catch-22 game? no matter
what you say it is going to be twisted, taken out of
context or as we see here, "you dont represent the
rest of conservatives even though i have no link to
prove that".
\_ Never. Because it works far more often than it doesn't.
\_ I disagree. This spin will take two forks. First, they will
repeat the perjury in suggesting the Valerie isn't a "real"
operative and therefore can't be outed (example below). Second,
they will suggest that obstruction of justice isn't a real
crime unless you can prove the underlying crime (example to
follow since there are enough twits on soda they won't be able
to help themselves).
\_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? -jblack
\_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years?
\_ yeah, you're doing it right. The funny thing is that the
"outing" part isn't what the indictments were for. -op
\_ Comments like this are the reason that Fitzgerald specifically
mentioned in his indictment that Valarie Plame-Wilson's status
was NOT well known at the time of the initial crime. Not only
was her status classified, but her cover was still required
as MANY operatives were posing as working for the same cover
energy company she supposedly worked for. By blowing her
cover, they ruined a number of other covers as well. Try
reading the indictment and associated report before you
condemn it.
\_ I read it. The indictment pertains to different
accounts given by Libby, Russert, and Miller, and
has nothing to do with Plame's status or revealing
her name. Libby is being accused of misleading the
FBI during questioning because his accounts differ
from the reporters.
has nothing to do with revealing Plame's name.
has nothing to do with Plame's status.
In his news conference Fitz himself absolved Libby of
any guilt related to Plame "outing". You are the
one who needs to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
one who need to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
poorly written and self-inconsistent. |
| 2005/10/28-11/5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40329 Activity:nil |
10/28 Contractors Plead Guilty to Illegal Donations to Texas Democrats -jblack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510734/posts |
| 2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40313 Activity:nil |
10/16 DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3397339 |
| 2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40289 Activity:moderate |
10/27 Miers has WITHDRAWN!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4382370.stm
\- But the CSUA Politburo is asking her to reconsider!
\_ I have to admit I am suprised by this. I thought the WH could make
the Congress roll over. The next nominee ought to be interesting...
\_ Apparently Republicans basically told Bush that unless there
is some good proof that she has a grasp of constitutional
issues there was no way she was getting confirmed. Imagine
that, requiring someone interpreting the constitution to
be an expert on the constitution.
\_ CJ John Marshall only had about a month of legal edu
but is widely regarded as one of the finest justices
to serve on the ussc.
Personally I think that we should have *fewer* judges
and lawyers on the ussc and more intelligent regular
people in the ussc.
I opposed the Miers nomination not b/c she wasn't a
judge or a constitutional expert, but b/c she just
didn't seem bright enough to serve on the ussc.
Personally, I think they should nominate posner (if
partha is unavailable). - #10 psb fan
partha is unavailable).
\_ I have no problem with the "brain the size of
a planet" exception.
\_ Nice quote on dailykos:
It is a sad day when your choices for Supreme Court
Justice appear to be 'unqualified hack who may do some
damage' and 'qualified nutcase who will reap destruction a
cross the land'
\_ WHo's the nutcase? Roberts?
\_ The Scalia clone to come.
\- the comment about JM's legal educ is misleading.
it was quite common for lawyers "back then" to
have more of an apprentice style of legal educ.
i think law is sort of different from say biology.
today a bio prof has bs/ms/phd/postdoc ... which
can easily be a decade of post-grad educ. while a
newly minted law prof may be 3 yrs of law school
and maybe two 1yr clerkships.
\_ The Thomas/Scalia clone to come.
\_ Interesting that you chose Scalia and not
Thomas (the argument that Thomas is a Scalia
clone does not hold water, ex. Scalia concu-
red in Raich but Thomas dissent).
\- this is somewhat interesting:
http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm
\- i dont believe SCALIA and THOMAS had the highest
percentage of voting the same way. Although it
is possible of the 7-2 decisions, they are most
likely to be S+T vs everbody else.
\_ Emphasis on the "QUALIFIED" in qualified nutcase |
| 2005/10/24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40239 Activity:moderate |
10/23 So, I'm confused. Perjury is impeachable, but not indictable?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/23/hutchinson-technicality
c.f.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/impeach-trial.htm
\_ People who worship money and Jesus at the same time, which is
technically not possible, should have no problem holding that
belief.
\_ I'm not sure what you are getting at b/c perjury is indictable
and the comments only specify that the Sen. Hutchinson would
like the indictment to be for a substantive crime rather than
for perjury.
There is a colorable argument that perjury is insufficient
to meet "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement of the
impeachment clause (Art 2 Sec 4) re civil officers and
perhaps the VP b/c their Art 4 Sec 3 oath may not be have
covered perjury but the Pres. oath in Art 2 Sec 1 cl 8
does. (NOTE: I think this is a BS argument b/c perjury
isn't the sort of "high crime or misdemeanor" the framers
had in mind.)
\_ I think the point is that the same senators decrying indicting
government officials for perjury are *on the record* as saying
that perjury qualified as "high crimes and misdemeanors" when
it was Clinton lying under oath about something that wasn't
even a crime. The traitors currently under investigation are
not the President, and ARE lying about a REAL crime, assuming
the indictments are handed out.
\_ That's what I assumed, which is why I said there is
a colorable argument that the std is different wrt
the pres. Personally, I think it is BS - it didn't
qualify then, it doesn't qualify now.
the pres (not that I buy it, only that it is there). |
| 2005/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40236 Activity:nil |
10/23 The Katrina rape and murder myth:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/24/katrina_horror/index.html
\_ I guess the writer saw the latest episode of South Park |
| 2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40220 Activity:nil |
10/21 http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051020/ts_latimes/iwilleatyourdollars Extremely complex Nigerian corporations working hard for your money. |
| 2005/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40183 Activity:nil |
10/19 Excellent summary of Myths vs. Facts re Plame and Joe Wilson
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40001 Activity:nil |
10/6 Larry Elder writing about Bill Bennett: http://csua.org/u/dnf "How does one artfully say that out of a small percentage of America's population -- 13 percent -- blacks account for 37.2 percent of all those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders? The murder rate in the city of New Orleans stands at over 7.5 times the national average, and authorities convict only one in four arrested for homicide." \_ One recognizes it's not about their race, but other factors. \_ Ever wonder why white collar crime is never broken up by race? \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes? People fear less for white collar crimes than for violent crimes, even in homogeneous society. \_ A mugger will only take your wallet. Kenny boy will end your job, take your life savings and put you on the street! \_ but Kenny boy is dubya's friend... \_ But a mugger would stab me to death as he pleases. \_ Why? If caught mugger/killer could face life in prison or death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well, he's still free ain't he? \_ Savings and credit can be rebuilt; a perforated heart probably can't be. If a guy is mugging you to begin with, considerations such as "he might get caught" aren't really a serious deterrent. Violent crime isn't inherently rational to begin with -- which is partially what makes it scary (aside from, you know, the possibility of being stabbed to death or getting raped). \_ Which would be true if every mugging resulted in death, rape, etc. But they don't. Odds are Kenny will do less time for damaging thousands lives than some fool who gets caught for doing for robbing $100 from somone. \_ It's not what "will" happen, it's the fact that it "can" happen -- and is far more likely a possibility. Honestly, I'm not even sure what the point of the conversation is. I'm not going to be able to keep on posting to this thread -- too much going on here right now. Perhaps the other guy will pick up the thread. Sorry man. \_ Not to mention few robbers can rob thousands at once or steal Billions. The amount of money stolen by bank robbers is insignificant to what the white collar crooks can steal. \_ Why? If caught mugger could face life in prison or death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well, he's still free ain't he? \_ That article has some stellar quotes. \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes? |
| 2005/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39991 Activity:nil |
10/5 Someone asked: "Any other historical examples of a president
nominating a judge based entirely on that judge's loyalty to the
president?" http://www.slate.com/id/2127493
\_ Hey thanks! --the someone who was asking |
| 2005/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:39964 Activity:nil |
10/3 DeLay indicted on second charge: money laundering
http://csua.org/u/dln (statesman.com)
\_ WOOOOOOOOOOO!
What cell do I send his ham sandwich to?
\_ You mean the ham sandwich the grand jury indicted as well?
\_ Ham sandwiches are dangerous. Put both of them in the
cell. See who survives.
\_ Republican + pork? I think they'll get along just fine.
\_ It's jail. There will be plenty of the other white meat
to get along with. |
| 2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39936 Activity:kinda low |
9/30 "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole
purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your
crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and
morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
-Former Education Secretary William Bennett, GOP member, and now
radio host (Sep 28 2005) (full quote)
\_ Despite his whining, the problem is not that he was taken out of
context (people are clued enough to realize that he was not
calling for the forced abortion of black fetuses). It's the
disgusting insinuation that blacks are inherently predisposed
to crime. He was playing this hand off the cuff when he said
it. I wouldn't fault him the misspeak. But he doesn't realize
what he said _was_ offensive and that he should apologize (if
he did, it would all go away).
\_ "Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, 'I don't
think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an
apology.'"
\_ Considering that the context was a discussion of 'freakonomics'
and the fact the very next sentence (not quoted above) was:
"So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations
are, I think, tricky."
There is no reason for Bennett to apologize.
\_ Yes, there is. If you miss that then you are also
a bigot without realizing it.
\_ Finally, 10 yrs of voting republikkan have yielded
fruit.
\_ You're making the same error though. It's a disgusting but
accurate insinuation. You can attach whatever reasons to it you
want (poverty, history of cultural abuse, etc.), that doesn't
make it inaccurate.
\_ You're putting a lot of words in Mr. Bennett's mouth.
\_ To make it completely accurate, aborting all babies of any
race would reduce the crime rate. Singling out blacks implies
a bias.
\_ did you mean "reduce the crime rate" or "reduce crime"?
\_ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Blacks 7x more likely than whites to commit homicide.
\_ if it's a "disgusting but accurate insinuation", do you
apologize?
E.g., I casually mention to you in front of an audience,
"If I could have sexual relations with your wife, she would
be thrilled. That would be a morally reprehensible thing to
do, but she would be quite satisfied."
\_ Blacks commit crimes higher than their proportion in the general
population. As a simple numbers game, it would have been more
correct to say that if all blacks were removed from the
population, the crime rate would go down. Of course, that's
still not necessarily correct because of secondary effects. But
no one is seriously considering it.
\_ White males between 25 and 35 make up a higher proportion
of serial killers than their proportion to the general
population would suggest. Statistics without context are
meaningless and, in this case, merely provocative. Get into
Paul Harvey mode, or STFU.
\_ not the poster above, but if we remove white males
25 to 35, then that would decrease serial killer crime.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494395/posts
\_ You could also give every black baby $100,000 at birth and in
a couple generations it would probably be whites committing all of
the crimes.
\_ It probably wouldn't take a couple of generations.
\_ Why do you think handouts will end crime?
\_ People tend to commit crime out of desperation. There are
exceptions, but in general criminals are products of
their environment. If slums became suburbs then crime
rates would fall.
\_ Why would a single big handout to a baby turn slums into
suburbs, reduce or eliminate desperation or do anything
else positive? Counter example: lottery winners. How many
big money lottery winners are any better off a few years
after their pay out than they were before? Handouts do
not improve lives. They create dependency. Another
example: Africa. Pouring money into Africa has done
nothing to eliminate crushing poverty or starvation.
Free food, clothing, money, etc, from the EU and USA
only destroys the local economy. How can a native
African farmer make any money when the West is giving
out free food (for a limited period of time)? They can't
so they stop farming, then surprise! there's a famine.
Handouts do not improve lives in the way you seem to
believe. Opportunity *combined* with personal drive to
succeed and excel through hard work, education and self-
improvement improves lives.
\_ This is why it would take a few generations. A
lottery winner is already the product of his
environment. A millionaire athlete is already a
product of his environment. However, if every
child's life was some incremental amount better
(and it would be with $100K) eventually there would
be a parity between the races. You and I both know
that hard work is just hard work. Lots of people
work hard and they are usually not the CEOs making
life miserable for everyone else. Europe takes care
of their poor and their crime rate is much better
than ours. I actually do not believe in 'handouts'
but there is no doubt they would reduce crime and
help those who received them if you give them time
to work.
\_ You still fail to demonstrate how giving a huge
handout at birth will change the environment the
new-born is born into. Once we cover that the next
concept we'll go over is this nasty thing called
"inflation" and how "money doesn't grow on trees"
but we still need to finish the "handouts don't
help people" part. We've had generations of handouts
and all we got were slums and high crime rates. Why
do you think that is? Why have generations of
hand out ridden people ended up worse off than their
grand parents? You seem to think $100k is a lot.
It isn't. Someone in section 8 housing, getting
welfare, social security, medical/caid/care/etc, and
various other government handouts is easily getting
way more than $100k over a few short years. Are
you saying that if they got a lesser amount ($100k)
at birth all at once instead of the greater amount
over time everything would just be roses? Or there
should be continued handouts on top of the $100k at
birth? What exactly do you think that $100k is
goign to do for a child? How many more children
will be born just to nab an extra $100k/kid? Where
do you get the idea that tossing raw cash at a
problem for long enough will make it go away?
\_ I am going to guess that you have no real idea
what life as a poor black family is like. Did
you ever see the movie 'Hoop Dreams'? If not,
watch it. If so, how do you think Arthur's
family life would've been different if his
parents had $100K for each of their kids.
\_ Ok, thank you. We're done. You've completely
ignored everything I've had to say and instead
gave me a movie reference and your sister's
anecodtal life story in return. And I was so
looking forward to the next bit about how
inflation works and money-growing-on-trees,
but you're clearly just looking for $400k
for your sister, not a rational discussion of
why a) this makes no sense, b) won't help end
poverty, c) can't be paid for anyway, and
d) has already gone on for generations to the
detriment of poor people who are now more
dependent than ever on government handouts,
not less so. If you'd like to actually read
and respond to anything I've brought up, we
can continue but you haven't shown any real
interest thus far.
\_ You're clearly the asshole I thought
you were and I'm glad I didn't my waste
time addressing your points.
\_ No, really what happened is you had
nothing to say so you fell back on
"soft" anecdotal arguments about your
sister and a movie in an attempt to
avoid serious discussion. If "asshole =
out debated you" or "asshole = unwilling
to take an anecdote and a movie reference
seriously from someone consistently
unwilling to respond" then so be it.
It isn't a case of you somehow having
not "wasted your time addressing my
points". You thought you were but
simply failed and got called on it. Why
do you feel the need to fall back on
grade school personal attack? Because
you lack the ability to think clearly
and express yourself rationally?
\_ Dude, you're an asshole and I
thought that from the beginning.
Now you've erased any doubt I
had. You're also egotistical
and, clearly, a neocon with
little understanding of the
plight of blacks in this country,
and are possibly a bigot. Just admit
as much.
\_ This isn't helping or proving that
you're any less of a "raving
lunatic". If you play his game,
you've basically conceded the
moral highground. He may not be
especially polite in his
presentation, but he has made a
a couple of good points. -mice
\_ Maybe you can find them in
there somewhere. He's setting
up strawmen and knocking them
down. "Inflation" and
affordability (money growing on
trees) are not really relevant
to the discussion, which is not
to debate the feasibility, but
whether such an endeavor could
be successful if feasible and
the reasons it would or would
not. It is to understand
the nature of crime, especially
crime as committed by blacks.
Why blacks? It's what Bennett
(way up there!) was addressing.
Bringing a million tangential
points up and making a couple
of them doesn't score any
points.
moral highground. -mice
\_ That really has very little to do with how
much 'value' $100k really has within the US
economy. It's also extrapolating a debatable
example into a much larger population, which
isn't necessarily valid when you take various
regional differences into account. It also
doesn't necessarily represent the general
cultural attitude of the people -- this can
greatly affect how the money is used and how
the people in question choose to participate
in society. I see what you're getting at, but
your argument is basically flawed. -!ppp
\_ So choose a number you think is more
realistic. Attack the concept, not the
number. That's a waste of time. As for
cultural attitudes, I assure you that
black people wish to succeed and *do*
succeed when given the opportunity.
\_ Hm, well, I would debate the concept,
but the other guy that did that seems
to have been labelled a possible bigot
and a neocon, and a couple of other
things besides without any real dialogue.
I think I'll pass on your invitation
and save my time.
\_ Do I really need to explain to
someone how money can 'change the
environment a new-born is born
into'? That is someone being
difficult or an idiot - possibly
both. Isn't that obvious to everyone
other than a neocon bigot? To say that
I just want money for my sister is
offensive and uncalled for. He left
all attempt at rational discourse
behind with that. My evidence may
be anecdotal, but I haven't seen
him present any at all other than
some bullshit about lottery
winners.
\_ ie, "I saw this movie once about poor black
people so I'm an expert."
\_ ie, "I have no rebuttal". As someone
from a working class family whose
half-sister is a black single mother of
4, I can attest to the accuracy of
the movie in question. If, say, my
sister had had the money to stay at
home instead of 'working hard' and
'going to school' then the lives of my
nieces and nephew would've been much
better. As it is, they did well with
what they had, but that's beside the
point, which is that they could've done
even better with aid. Maybe her kids
would be less afraid of going to
college (debt), for instance.
\_ You do realize there are at least 3
people in this 'conversation', right?
\_ Why don't you answer his questions?
\_ He's a ranting lunatic.
\_ No, he provided a list of points as
to why your "give $100k to all blacks"
idea is stupid. You didn't address a
single one of them.
\_ He's a ranting lunatic. His
latest response proves that. He's
not interested in rational
discourse. His portrayal of me
and my family is offensive and
so is he. I don't waste my time
with bullshitters like that.
\_ Yeah, seriously. God forbid that
you'd actually be required to
try and rationally debate. Name
calling and application of the
race card is SOO much easier!
\_ There's nothing rational
about that guy. He's a
blowhard who has already
made up his mind that
blacks commit crimes
because they don't work hard
and have no personal drive
to succeed and money won't
change anything for people
like that. He already said
as much. That is bigoted
and beyond comprehension.
\_ As far as I can tell,
you made most of that
up. Sorry man, you
might as well give up.
Pretty much everyone
seems to agree you lose.
\_ Just read the first
response:
"Opportunity
*combined* with
personal drive to
succeed and excel
through hard work,
education and self-
improvement improves
lives."
The implication is
that money won't help
poor blacks because they
don't have those
other qualities. Right?
\_ Wrong. You're the
only one here harping
on race. See what you
want to see. Play the
race card. Launch
personal attack. Do
anything but respond
to the opposing points
raised. And then
claim to be offended.
If you bring up your
sister as evidence
of something, you have
no right to be
"offended" when someone
attacks that "evidence"
that *you* brought into
this. Go re-read all
the other comments and
make a count of how
many times someone
other than you refers
to race. Then count
your own references to
race. After that go
figure out what might
happen to the value
of money if you hand
it out in big chunks
to people. It will
become nearly
worthless. This is
called 'inflation'.
Handing out money for
nothing helps no one.
Nor does resorting to
unfounded personal
attack help you make
any points.
\_ The whole thread is
about race, bozo.
The person who
quoted Bennett
made it so!
It's not about
about inflation.
Can you think
in the abstract?
And attacking
my motives is
certainly beyond
ridiculous.
\_ See above. And after this I'll
add "oops, nothing else to say,
got called on it so let's fall
back on the old 'i'm offended'
thing".
with bullshitters like that. Do
you really think that if you gave,
say, $100K to every black child
born that crime levels would
remain the same? How did you get
into Cal?
\_ Giving someone a fish vs. teaching someone how to fish.
\_ A starving man doesn't have time to learn. You
have to give him a fish and then show him how.
\_ it is not just about money. There are rich people who
are criminals. There are poor people who are very good.
Moral values plays a good role in this, not just money.
\_ Of course there are rich criminals. It's not *just* money
but it plays a *big* part in it. Think of all the black
fathers in jail for drugs. How many could've had better
representation? How many could've bought the drugs like
rich Cal students do instead of stealing for the money?
Would the mom have been home more often to instill morals
and watch the kids? Could they have gone to private
schools outside of the slums? Money changes a *LOT*. The
idiot above thinks that $500/month in WICK or Section 8
housing is somehow proof that money won't really help
anything. Shit, man. Does anyone have a fucking clue here?
\_ It's a lot more complicated than money. There are lots
of examples of poor immigrant groups who work their
butts off and get ahead, while the slum population
gets worse. It has to do with the culture of the
people involved and after all those generations it's
not clear how that should be changed. The slum parents
who are themselves unmarried drug users are not going
to be of any use straightening out their kids, and
never would be.
\_ It's more complicated and yet money would solve a
lot of problems. Black immigrants tend to do well
here also. That's not the same as the descendants
of the slaves, who have a whole different set of
circumstances to contend with. To think that
somehow a Vietnamese boat person immigrating here
and succeeding is comparable misses the point. That
person has a culture and an identity. Blacks in
this country acquired that only recently. It's not
the whole story, of course, since Mexicans in this
country are also prone to crime and they do have
a cultural identity, but it's part of the issue. Even
by saying that 'unmarried drug users are not going
to be of any use straightening out their kids' you
are being borderline offensive. Those are the
people who can and will straighten out their kids
when they are given an opportunity to. It's hard
when so much of the population is in jail because
of a mixture of stereotypes and bad circumstances.
The cycle self-perpetuates. At some point it needs
to be broken and money is one way (not the only
way) to do that. You would be surprised at how well
kids who enter programs like 'Big Brothers' perform
when given the opportunities many white kids are
born with.
\_ It's not a very interesting or useful point when
taken out of a real-world context. Sure, if you
give $100,000 or $1M or $1Kabajillion dollars to
all poor newborn babes and stipulate that the
value of the dollar stays constant you might have a
point. But it's a completely empty point devoid
of any real meaning with those assumptions.
\_ Not any empty point at all. It proves that
there is an economic component to all of
this. Is that a point the raving lunatic is
willing to concede? No one was arguing about
feasibility, just like Bennett wasn't. He is
not advocating killing all blacks and likewise
I am not advocating that we give them all
millions of dollars. However, to fail to see
how giving them money would help solve the
problem of crime is to also misunderstand why
Bennett's solution is so bigoted and offensive.
\_ See, what I would do, if I were king, is to give a 4 year
full scholarship to any child who can prove that they
are descended from slaves. This is "worth" about $100k,
but would probably be a much more effective anti-poverty
program. It is certainly affordable, too, no matter how
much you claim it is not. There are certainly no more
than 4M blacks of college age in this country. At $25k/yr
that works out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending
standards.
much you claim it is not. There are no more than 4M blacks
of college age in this country. At $25k/yr that works
out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending standards.
\_ Why only "descended from slaves"? Would you give a free
ride to a "dfs" kid who has multi millionaire parents?
Middle class parents? What about the poor kid of some
other race? The kid born in the house next door gets
screwed out of a $100k education because his skin is
the wrong color? Why would you have a hand out program
based solely on race when what you claim to be trying to
do is fix economic injustice? Would that cause not be
better served by giving grants based on economic status
instead of skin color? And what about the kids who are
descended from slaves but lost their "descended from
slaves" membership card? Those kids get screwed too?
I'm in favor of making education affordable for everyone,
but strongly opposed to your picking a "pet" group to
benefit based solely on skin color and unprovable
membership in the "descended from slave" set.
\_ I'm not the person who suggested that, but I
think it is reasonable to extend such an offer to
anyone descended from slaves, no matter their
current economic status. Poor kids of some other
race are another issue entirely and how to (or
whether to) address that is divorced from this
issue. Skin color is not relevant. If there's a
white person descended from slaves that's fine,
too (and there are some descended even from black
slaves). From a practical standpoint a certain
percentage of heritage would have to be decided,
like with Native Americans. The people who
couldn't prove it - well, that's a problem.
Native Americans face it as well. It's not a
reason to deny the people who can. It is, after
all, still based on academic achievement (i.e.
they still have to get into college). I personally
would support such an idea. I think extending it
based on economics isn't necessary, since there
are already scholarships and grants to cover
those cases.
much you claim it is not.
\_ Ob Lotto Lout. http://csua.org/u/dkv
\_ what would happen if we removed all Asians from Berkeley
Engineering?
\_ the virgin rate would go down, duh |
| 2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39935 Activity:nil |
9/30 Ex-Education Secretary Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime:
http://csua.org/u/dkj [sfgate.com]
I guess the new edition of the Book of Virtues includes obsessive
gambling and racial profiling.
\_ "A Modest Proposal"
\_ But... it's true. I mean at a naive statistical level, and even if
you looked at the longer term implications it's true. Of course it's
reprehensible.. and he noted that.. the whole point was a commentary
on why there are some things we don't and shouldn't do to lower
crime.
\_ Yes, but it's a mental disconnect. Is abortion really related
to the crime rate, specifically black abortions? The fact that
the phrase "black abortions" appeared to have come up without
prompting demonstrates a certain mindset.
\_ Steven Levitt (U of Chicago economist, "Freakonomics" guy) wrote a
somewhat related paper (link:tinyurl.com/ae7sf called "The Impact
of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (one sentence summary: "legalized
abortion had an impact on crime"). Actually all of his stuff is
quite readable and really interesting.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/LevittCV.html
--shithead@soda |
| 2005/9/28-10/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39906 Activity:nil |
9/28 Tom DeLay INDICTED
Frist next?
\_ Apparently he has already stepped down as House Majority Leader.
\_ Isn't this automatic? You can't serve in congressional
leadership when under indictment?
\_ Yes, although the Republican leadership attempted to
dismantle that rule (the so-called 'DeLay Rule Change').
They were publicly embarrassed into not doing it.
\_ Wrong. This is an an ethics rule the Republican
delegation in the House applies to itself! It
\_ Bullshit. You are either lying or misinformed.
was in response to the massive, widespread
corruption in the House when the Republicans took over
under Armey and Gingrich in 1994 (an apt analogy
would be running the House like New Orleans). In 1993,
BTW, Earle indicted Sen. Hutchinson during her Senate
run in an attempt to change the outcome of the
election. When the trial took place he refused to
present any evidence and the charges were dismissed.
\_ Mmmm... parrots...
\_ Remember the adage: you could get a grand jury to indict a sandwich.
\_ Unless the indictee is on The Other Team, in which case it's
Justice.
\_ Rove, DeLay, and Frist indictments being handed down? HIT THE
TRIFECTA! |
| 2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39896 Activity:nil |
9/27 Is there a Federal law somewhere that bans gun duels?
\_ Crime, such as dueling, is generally a matter for the states
and not the feds.
\_ What's the big deal? A duel is a fight between two consenting
adults. It is an agreement, a civilized way to settle scores
between two individuals. What does the government have anything
to do with private contracts between two individuals?
\_ You obviously failed contracts. There's a thing called
illegal bargains.
\_ uh, have you heard of "felonies"?
\_ uh, are you serious? A "felony" is not the same thing as
a "federal offence."
\_ But they can be, and in this case they are. It's called
either "murder", "attempted murder", "manslaughter",
"criminal assault", or "criminal homicide".
\_ I think there would have to be some reason for the
Feds to get involved. I don't think just having a
duel would cut it. A duel between international
drug trafficers would do it.
\_ uh, no. murder, attempted murder, &c. are generally
crimes under state law (see Cal. Penal Code Secs.
187, 188, &c.) While there maybe federal equiv. of
these crimes, those generally include a jurisdictional
element related to a federal interest (interstate
commerce, federal property, federal officers, &c.)
FYI, until 1994 Cal. Penal Code Sec. 225 made dueling
a separate offense. Now I think that it is charged as
attempted murder (or murder, if someone dies).
\_ No, but they're frowned upon in general. -John |
| 2005/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39831 Activity:nil |
9/22 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050922/ap_on_re_us/katrina_criminals_hk4 "State police did criminal background checks on every refugee and found that more than half had a criminal arrest records -- a third for felonies." |
| 2005/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39779 Activity:moderate |
9/20 http://tinyurl.com/bk4or (Yahoo news) Diversity (women, blacks, etc) changes the way justices see the world. Please don't delete this jblack. I already know what you think \_ never have deleted a thread, thanks. \_ I, on the other hand, have. Do I get freeper cookies? \_ I have never deleted a thread. |
| 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. |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39666 Activity:nil |
9/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/philippines_imelda_dc Imelda Marco is ok with being guilty but she will not allow the government to sell her precious jewelries. |
| 2005/9/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39503 Activity:moderate |
9/3 Talking POINTS on Fox, towards the end of the talk on "The lesson
to be learned from Hurricane Katrina" says that if you want something
done, you do it yourself. You can't rely on the government for
anything, you must rely on yourself. Conservatism #1! Republican #1!!!
\_ Weird, I thought law and order was the one thing conservatives
think government is good for.
\_ Weird, I thought the one thing conservatives and libertarians
thought was a valid function of government was law and order.
\_ Conservatives believe in, first and foremost, *self-reliance*,
the "take matters with your own hands" attitude.
\_ oh, man, things were so much better when the states all
printed their own money.
\_ So you're saying that each state and local government
should invest billions of dollars in their own military
and civil infrastructure to defend themselves and deal
with catastrophic terrorist acts or natural disasters?
That sure makes a lot of sense economically. Why create
a single resource that can be shared amongst the entire
nation when you can just reinvent the wheel at the state
and local levels? Because we all need to be "self-reliant"
\_ I'm not saying that. It's what many Republicans believe.
\_ really? got a URL for any republican saying that
each state and local government should spend billions
of state/local dollars for their own military and
civil infrastructure to defend themselves and deal
with catastrophic terrorist acts and natural
disasters? oh. no. you don't. you just made that
up. welcome to the motd.
\_ Republicans are defending the federal government
and the president while blaming state and local
authorities for the NOLA fiasco. If you're
saying that it means that either (A) the state
did not utilize all the resources it had in
an effective manner or (B) the state simply
did not have the resources to handle the
disaster in the first place. But I think it's
clear from the scale of the disaster that the
only way to deal with this disaster is to have
an emergency response infrastructure that is well
beyond the scale and budget of any state like
LA.
\_ The world is not that black and white. Local and
state authorities have responsibilities that they
shirked. They didn't even approach a minimal
\_ You don't have any evidence of this other than
the rantings of right wing blogs. Do you still
believe the governor didn't declare a state of
emergency?
\_ How many school buses were left sitting
unused? What exactly was the evacuation
plan and did anyone even try to follow it?
I don't read *any* blogs, thanks for trying.
\_ So your evacuation plan would have been
to ferry 100,000 on these school buses
to be driven by all these school bus
drivers who would rather take care of
their own family and problems than to
drive a bunch of strangers around on
an already overcrowded I-10?
\_ nice way to ignore the rest. but yes
if you had read the plan you'd know
that the school buses they left to rot
were *part* of the plan to evac those
who couldn't get out on their own.
look, i'm sorry if the facts are
getting in the way of your agenda but
the fact remains that the locals have
responsibilities and failed. here,
let me save you the trouble of going
on, "gwb is evil, HALIBURTON!, oil,
Iraq, cheney is evil, scalia is evil,
dick morris is evil, HALIBURTON!, oil,
save the spotted owl, christians are
evil!". did i miss anything?
\_ I've never said anything in the
last 5 lines you wrote there but
nice of you to make assumptions
like that. I do think GWB is
pretty inept. What was the *full*
plan? I think the mayor calling
for a mandatory evacuation and
the governer requesting a state
of emergency is part of the plan.
I think the federal government
not acting on the request is
pretty criminal. If a state
governer requests resources for
evacuation and you don't act on
it that places the blame on
the federal government, not
state and local.
level of reasonable response or use the resources
they had in place prior to the event to prevent
a lot of the hardship we've seen in the last week.
Yes, of course the federal response could have
been better as the President already stated. The
federal response was slow and somewhat inept. The
state/local response borders on criminal. With
authority comes responsibility, something the
locals didn't understand and the people suffered
for it. It's all fun n games being Governor or
Mayor until people start drowning, starving, and
dying of dehydration. Then you just blame the
feds and start your re-election campaign early.
\_ How is the state and local response
"criminal"? The state and local govt have
limited resources. The federal govt has
much greater resources. If you exhaust your
state and local resources to capacity then
you've done everything you can. But if you're
a federal government with billions of dollars
at its disposal and you've done jack shit
at your disposal and you've done jack shit
then that's criminal
\_ see above.
\_ I thought that was more of a Libertarian plank....
\_ I think their definition of "self-reliance" meant something
like "give tax break to big business" and "relax
pollution standard so mercury is on everyone's dinner
plate."
like "give tax break to big business" and "relax pollution
standard so mercury is on everyone's dinner plate." |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:39278 Activity:high |
8/25 Hah, San Francisco is voting to ban handguns in November. -- ilyas
\_ why is that amusing? -tom
\_ Because ilyas is not exactly what you called, a stable person
\_ I suppose I am amused stupidity is alive and well in San
Francisco. -- ilyas
\_ That would never happen in LA.
\_ LA has already banned 50 BMG weapons. Because you know,
they are used in crimes ALL THE TIME. It's a veritable
CRISIS. -- ilyas
\_ cuz this is America biatch!
\- wasnt this tried in a chicago suburb a few yrs ago?
was that case materially different or are they trying to
get inconsistenecies on the books so cert. will be more
likely.
Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because
people rely on him. He is a roll model. This is
America. People do whatever the fuck they feel
like doing, you got a problem with that?
Becuase they have a right to. And because they
have guns and no one can fucking stop them.
ok tnx.
\_ Because it's almost-but-not-quite as stupid as the Berkeley
"nuclear free zone". I object to them not trying to ban knives
and clubs and ice picks and fruit bats and orang-utangs. -John
\- i dont know what is going on in SF, but the morton grove
law had teeth. it wasnt an essentially symbolic move like
berkeley "nuclear free policy" [or berkeley's various foreign
policy pronouncements]. note that after the law passed the
police didnt "round up" all the guns but were empowed to
keep what they came across. also this law had enough teeth
to be challenged in court. in "reponse" another community
in GA or alabama i believe passed a law requiring the head
of household to have a gun, or something like that.
\- BTW, the morton grove case applied to "handguns" not all
guns.
\_ Yes, like in the UK where you can still have rifles if
you are a member of a gun club. Incidentally, the UK
also has the world's highest rate of video surveillance
and, IMHO, really-fucking-scary big brother-type laws,
such as ASBOs, RIP and PTA. None of which stopped a
sharp rise in knife crimes, burglaries and beatings
since they banned private handgun ownership. Not that
the ban was the direct cause of the rise in non-gun
violent crime, but it certainly didn't help curtail it
in any form. I object to people who have problems with
mandatory waiting periods, background checks or safety
training as prerequisites for gun ownership, but a ban
is the sort of badly thought through populist gut-
reaction you get from "concerned citizens" and
politicians who want to be seen as "doing something".
It's as stupid and irrational as the NRA. -John
\- well fighting it may cost the NRA $ and resources.
\_ Come on, John, the "argument" that they'll just
kill people with knives instead is ridiculous.
England's rate of death by stabbing is at least an
order of magnitude lower than the US's rate of
death by handgun. -tom
\_ Somebody overwrote my reply to this. Tom, re-read
my statement; I did not claim causality. The
problem in the US is NOT GUN CRIME. It is crime,
plain and simple. Americans have this weird
psychotic "ban them" or "pry them from my cold
dead fingers" relationship with guns, neither of
which is a solution. Anyway, about a year after
the handgun ban in the UK, a study found that
non-gun violent crime there was much higher than
in the US. Once again, not causality, but I
stand by my assertion that banning guns simply
does not help; the UK did not have a tremendous
amount of gun homicides before the ban; in the US,
I would assume that other forms of crime would
rise after a ban, yes. -John
\- the gary becker school has claimed if guns
become difficult to find, it will shift the
victim profile toward old people and women
in face to face confrontations, since a hood
will be less inclined to hold up a young
male with "only" a knife.
\_ Another dose of true-but-irrelevant statistics
from Tom. What you should be comparing is, for
instance, murder rates pre and post ban. Or,
more interestingly, crime rates in general pre and
post ban. Or, even more interestingly, the pre
ban gun crime rates (we are talking about three
(3) gun homicides a year). What societal crisis
ban gun crime rates. What societal crisis
was this ban supposed to have solved exactly?
-- ilyas
\_ high murder rate isn't a societal crisis,
right. -tom
\_ Are you claiming England had a high gun
murder rate, pre-ban? Compared to
other countries, and other kinds of murders?
-- ilyas
\_ A handgun ban in San Francisco is particularly
offensive since the SFPD is notorious for simply
ignoring the pleas of citizens to patrol and
protect certain areas. I have a cute female
friend who's rather short of stature that has
recently been forced to take an apartment in
the Tenderloin (long story). She has seen some
incredibly scary shit in her neighborhood in
just the 3 weeks that she's lived there, and
fears for her life. When she saw a gang of
approximately 30 people beating a single man
to death, she called the cops - no response.
Her complaints and calls to various departments
and government offices around the city have all
been met with the same response - basically,
"We don't give a fuck." Not everyone who lives
in the TL is a crackhead or a prostitute, and
it's just insane that the SFPD basically thinks
you're expendable if you have to live there.
Take away the guns, and you probably take away
one of their few options for self-protection.
\_ knock on the nearest manhole and borrow some
weapons from the ninja turtles.
\_ Call them and tell them you and 3 friends are
about to open fire on the guys. -John
\_ Will DiFi be allowed to keep her concealed carry? |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38950 Activity:nil |
8/2 In 1998, Susan Cummings, heiress of the late billionaire arms
dealer Sam Cummings, murdered Roberto Villegas at her 2.3 million
dollar vacation home. She was proven to have shot him in the back,
withdrew her self-defense claim, and was found be guilty of
voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to 60 days in jail
and a $2500 fine.
In 2005, a rich Chinese lord had his 2 bodyguards beat up a
peasant boy who now needs wires for his jaw and a nose job,
was not guilty of anything and gets away clean.
All hail great Capitalism! I guess China is catching up to
our great nation.
\_ Ooo Susan was born in Switzerland. Did you know her, John?
\_ Yes, I lent her my assault rifle? Sorry, did I miss something?
\_ http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/65/crimeBeingPoor.htm
In the same county a year before Cummings' trial, a cow killer
was sentenced to 9 months in jail, woman who shoplifted got
135 days, a car thief 5 years, a purse thief 15 months, and
a man who fired into an empty dwelling got 2 years. Hmm... |
| 2005/7/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:38886 Activity:high |
7/29 To the Japanese imperialist/asian nationalist troll (I'm so proud that
my troll farm finally has a little friend for chicom troll, I was
getting worried): They lost. -John
\_ yeah and you thick skinned white men still don't get why you're
bombed and attacked and hated and jihad'ed and so on so forth.
\_ Here, let me take a stab at this: US is (for the time being at
least) the top dog in the geopolitical dog pile, and also
supports Israel. If you think it has anything to do with 'lack
of sensitivity' then I have to wonder what deluded idyllic
closet *you* came out of. Grow up, son -- the world doesn't
revolve around your hurt feelings.
\_ Ah, ok, now we're getting somewhere, I wasn't sure what your
point was, exactly. So you are equating a racist, imperialistic
regime's expansionist policies based on perceived American
aggression with the justified indiscriminate violence perpetrated
against civilians by a few ideologically exploited thugs who
are just as wont to murder their own "people" and oppress
infidels and women as a response to repeated supposed slights
committed against a primitive, barbaric "culture" that has never
undergone a renaissance, never ever consider a tiny measure of
introspection about why it is economically and socially failing?
You know, I'm the first to try and look for and analyze faults
in my own society's internal and international workings-as I've
stated before, maybe this makes me a bit naive. You, on the
other hand, are a cranky, ill-educated cretin. Oh, and I'll make
sure to inform Condi about the "white men" thing. I'm sure it
sounded good on a flyer on Sproul plaza. -John |
| 2005/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38738 Activity:nil |
6/19 What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent
\_ Why do people not know that July=7
(wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion
that isn't shared by the majority of other justices?
\- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but
1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents.
one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter",
see e.g. Dissent in Lochner.
Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single
dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases
contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history"
title? [that was HARLAN].
\_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter
in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d.
2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there
isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might
imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
std such examples:
POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed
an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts
I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in
Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL,
J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402,
filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and
REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408.
\- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that
current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively
hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends
up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA
cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the
law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to
strike down the UG AA system].
\_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which
established that a voluntary act was required
under the constitution for criminal punishment
but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not. |
| 2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38711 Activity:low |
6/19 What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent
(wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion
that isn't shared by the majority of other justices?
\- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but
1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents.
one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter",
see e.g. Dissent in Lochner.
Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single
dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases
contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history"
title? [that was HARLAN].
\_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter
in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d.
\- i picked PLESSY because the lone dissent is a
little more dramatic, although yeah, in terms
of the actual holding DRED SCOTT is worse.
2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there
isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might
image are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
std such examples:
POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed
an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts
I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in
Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and
BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL,
J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402,
filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and
REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408.
\- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that
current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively
hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends
up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA
cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the
law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to
strike down the UG AA system].
\_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which
established that a voluntary act was required
under the constitution for criminal punishment
but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38703 Activity:high |
7/19 Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
\_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
tonight at 9pm EDT!
\_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
sensitive and confidential.
\_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
be fired? Look! Over there! A supreme court nomination!
\_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
(was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
should be fired"?
\_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
\_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
wife the CIA agent" to him.
\_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
\_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
investigating this.
\_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
\_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
believe R. Kelly is guilty.
\_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
legally guilty. I am a fan of fairness and
logic, and I try to point out claims that are
unsupported by fact. -pp
\_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
would you accept that?
\_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180? What is
he hiding?
\_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
\_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
\_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
"a plausible theory".
I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
collect on any bets.
\_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
but really isn't.
\_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
probably shouldn't be disclosed to
unauthorized individuals".
\_ If you mean "classified", which has a
clear legal definition, use that. It
sounds like you're trying to carve out
a category of information that occupies
the space between legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Actually, I'm just using the words
in the article. I'd be hesitant
to bet on "classified" though.
To a layperson, "sensitive and
probably shouldn't be disclosed
to unauthorized individuals" has a
very clear meaning -- and I could
bet on that.
\_ Bush I probably thought the fact
that he didn't like brocoli was
"sensitive" and shouldn't be
disclosed to the public. And I
will repeat my claim that you are
trying to carve out a space between
what is legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Yes I am carving out a space
between what is legal and
illegal, but what is my
purpose in doing that?
It is what I would be willing
to "bet" on, rather than
legal criteria for putting
him in jail.
\_ I think it's because you
suspect Rove won't be found
legally guilty but you're
not willing to let him off
the hook, so you're trying
to invent a standard whereby
he is guilty even when he
is not.
\_ /Everyone/ suspects that
Rove won't be found
legally guilty.
Listen, all I wrote was
that I would put money on
the fact that Rove and
Libby knew Plame's
identity was sensitive and
probably shouldn't be
disclosed to unauthorized
individuals. I also
acknowledge that Rove
probably won't be
convicted. I also
acknowledge that the terms
I would bet on probably
don't meet the legal
requirements for
conviction.
So what's the big whoop?
\_ Nothing at all. But I
am encouraged to see
you admit that Rove's
action "probably don't
meet the legal
requirements for
conviction."
\_ "Admit" is not the
right word.
I always had the
distinction between
what I wrote and
legal requirements
in mind, and I
don't see how
I implied I wasn't
aware of the
distinction.
For legal purposes, "classified" has
a very clear meaning as you pointed
out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
Libby knowing it was "classified".
I'm definitely not betting on whether
Rove will be convicted or not, but
the smart money of course would be
on no conviction.
\_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
ultimately exonerates Rove, would
you accept that?
\_ If by exonerate you mean "not
convicted of breaking the law",
I'm not sure I would be happy.
If by exonerate you mean
convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, then I would
accept that.
But what I said above is all
very obvious, I think.
\_ Does "not sure I would be
happy" mean that you do not
accept Rove was innocent,
despite Fitzgerald to the
contrary?
\_ Look, O.J. was found "not
guilty" / "innocent" of
killing his wife.
Do you accept that?
\_ BTW, I take it that
you will not accept
Fitzgerald's conclusion
if it is counter to
your position. Who has
the closed mind here?
\_ How do you translate
"I may not be
happy" to I "will
not accept F.'s
conclusion if it
is counter to [my]
position"?
\_ I asked the
question, and I
took your silence
as acquiescence.
Mea culpa. Will
you accept Rove's
exoneration?
\_ See oddly
shaped
post [below].
\_ Nope. But then I am
not trying to invent
a standard by which
OJ could be punished
despite his legal
innocence.
\_ Where did I EVER
say Rove should
be punished under
my criteria?
\_ So if Rove were
exonerated, you
would not clamor
for his removal?
/--------------------------------------------/
If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, I would accept that.
\_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald? So you're still
saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
want to see him removed? And that is not "punished despit
his legal innocence" in what sense?
\_ What does convicingly mean when used without
qualifiers? It means convincing to an informed observer
who can be persuaded both ways.
This thread has deviated way off course.
You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
as being factually true (but probably never practically
verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
my political beliefs.
Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
UNENDINGLY.
\_ I think your politics are abundantly clear. The
question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
if he is found legally innocent?
\_ It depends on who you ask.
I'm too tired to answer myself.
\_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again? If
you've made up your mind, admit that. Being
intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
having a closed mind.
\_ Oh god, I've been trolled. Fuck you troller.
If you were an innocent motd poster, I
apologize.
\_ Hardly. You have been shown to be a
charlatan though.
\_ <roll eyes>
Who are you dude?
I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
\_ But apparently you're not willing
to answer the question whether Rove
should be punished depite his legal
innocence, but that might cause you
to contradict yourself again.
\_ I would like to know that I am
not being trolled. Please
identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
\_ Heh. Show a little
intellectual honesty. It's
not like we'd be surprised by
your answer.
\_ Okay, anonymous dude:
You see contradictions
where I do not.
You see intellectual
dishonesty where I do not.
Your jump to these two
claims are indicative of a
troll, though not proof.
You've been called out, and
you have not come out to
back up what you've
written. -jctwu
\_ Re "sensitive": carve
out space between legal
and illegal? "Actually,
I am just using the
words in the article".
Well, later, "I am
carving out a space"
after all.
\_ Both facts are
true at the same time
\_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
\_ same to you,
buddy
Will you accept F's
judgement? "How do you
translate [not happy] to
[will not accept]?"
As it turns out, you
want Rove to be
convincingly ethical.
To whom? F? Well, not
F after all, but an
informed observer. So
you don't accept F's
judgement. How about
\_ This is a jump in
logic
punishing Rove? "Where
did I EVER say Rove
should be punished
under my criteria?" So
would clamor for his
removal? Or are you
going to contradict
yourself again?
\_ Non-sophisticated:
What are you talking about?
Faux sophistication / aloofness:
"Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
meaning but for some reason really isn't
here.
\_ troll! or coward!
one or both may
be true. |
| 2005/7/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:38684 Activity:nil |
7/18 Which angry conservative/libertarian deleted the Plame threads?
Did the http://abcnews.com poll upset you?
\_ Why do you assume it wasn't a liberal. Restored. -emarkp
\_ The assumtion was made because the threads were deleted after
someone posted the http://abcnews.com poll. Wasn't that pretty clear?
\_ You're both wrong, a moderate deleted it. -me, moderate |
| 2005/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38630 Activity:moderate |
7/14 If Rove did nothing wrong please explain why the White House isn't
shouting out their love for him right now? Gee, funny how waiting
to see how the wind blows makes you look bad.
\_ If Rove is found guilty, then the Dems would make fun of Reps
for supporting him. So it's probably better to be quiet. However,
if Rove is NOT found guilty, then the the silence would work
to Reps' advantage-- they're more gentlemen like. Also it would
just make Dems seem stupid, when he's not found guilty, which
I think will be the most likely outcome.
\_ So they think there is a decent chance he will be found guilty?
\_ They probably just think there is a decent chance he'll
be tossed for being caught red-handed doing something
unscrupulous while blowing someone's wife's cover - not
necessarily found guilty.
That is, unless you believe all the talk about Rove not
really leaking Plame's identity but merely confirming it for
snoopy reporters.
\_ It seems to be a pretty standard thing for the Bush admin to
keep quiet in crisis. It seems to work well for them.
\_ Yeah, true, imagine if they'd actually made rousing passionate
speeches instead of cowering in bunkers the morning of 9/11.
\_ If Rove did something wrong, how come he hasn't been charged yet?
\_ patience, grasshopper. |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38604 Activity:moderate |
7/13 There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap
http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071405.html
\_ We do know that this guy is a National Review hack, however.
\_ If you don't know what "being obtuse" is, here it is.
[restored by !poster. fuck off, deleter]
\_ I deleted my own post because I didn't think it was as accurate
as I would have liked. It's maybe about 80% "being obtuse".
\_ A lot of those questions have been answered. For instance
Judith Miller was drawn into the case via phone records.
\_ I stopped reading when he didn't acknowledge that the signed waivers
were coerced and thus not authentic releases. What's the strongest
evidence of this? Matthew Cooper didn't spill until he got an
explicit release from Rove, and at the last minute too.
\_ I don't think this true. Karl Rove's attorney has denied
that Rove has contacted Cooper recently. Rover did sign
a blanket waiver a while ago letting any reporter discuss
all this crap. I think it's not really clear why Cooper
suddenly said Rove is his source, it could be for
a variety of reasons, maybe he just didn't feel like going
to jail for 18 months to protect Karl Rove. - danh
This is an opinion piece supporting Rove which dodges essential
facts like the above.
\_ FUD from the National Review. How uncharacteristic of them. |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign, Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38600 Activity:nil |
7/13 http://csua.org/u/cp6 (findlaw.com) "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." ... so, what do you think? I don't see "name" in the above, just "identifies", so I guess it depends on what the meaning of "identifies" is. A lot of it is also intent and foreknowledge. \_ Rove's claim that "I didn't know her name" is totally irrelevant. Identifying someone as "his wife" uniquely establishes her identity, except possibly in Utah. |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38588 Activity:nil 76%like:38586 |
7/12 Another DeLay ally indicted:
http://csua.org/u/cp3 (WashPo) |
| 2005/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38586 Activity:nil 76%like:38588 |
7/12 Another DeLay ally indicted:
http://csua.org/u/cp3 (WashPo)
Republicans. You just can't trust them. |
| 2005/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38454 Activity:high |
7/6 So wait, a member of the "liberal" New York Times just took
a fall for the Bush Administration? How is Rush Limbaugh
going to spin this one?
\- when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
\_ Interesting data point:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/7/1148/62336
Miller's filthy. I don't know that she should be in prison
for "protecting sources", but she definitely needs to be in
prison.
\_ it hurts my head to sort out the timeline of how this
happened, maybe someone could summarize. judith miller
spewed a bunch of horseshit about Iraq leading
up to the war and has no friends.
\_ Judith Miller is one of the reasons that the WMD "threat" was
so badly reported and covered. Fuck her and fuck the NYT.
\_ I think Judith Miller is a putz too, but I think that
reporters being able to maintain the confidentiality of
their sources is even more important. --liberal
\- this is not the relationship of a journalist and a
source, it is the relationships of a criminal suspect
and an (unwitting?) accomplice. it is a narrow case and
the procedurual obligations are adequate to limit the
chilling effect. it has nothing to do with miller
being a putz but the nature of of what was revealed
being against public policy. i think the one thing you
can reasonably argue for is the journalist should be
entited to his or her own jury trial [so jury nullification
is an option beyond judicial checks and balances, should
some secrecy obsessed "hypothetical" executive branch
pass some law making all whistleblowing/leaking a crime]
and not subjec tto detention by a sole judge for contempt.
this is not an absolute right but one for a certain
public policy end and thus is limited to a scope consistent
with those ends. |
| 2005/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38433 Activity:high |
7/6 Every year, Americans vacationers disappear in foreign land like
Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, etc. Why is the Holloway case
so much more visible on news? Why is Natalie Holloway so special?
\_ Timing. It's the "Where the White Women at?" network news.
DeLay's in trouble! Find me a kidnapping!
\_ Its not a conspiracy. Just a good ol' American mix of racism
and prurience.
\_ It isn't journalism, and it's putting their ratings in the
toilet. There has to be some sort of impetus for it.
\_ Are you talking about Fox? In their case, they just don't
want to cover Iraq anymore. Can't imagine why.
\_ It's all of them. They spend more time on MJ and the
latest missing woman than on our federal government,
foreign affairs, local affairs, even sports...
\_ http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474
\_ i don't think that many disappear, non english grammar
troll
\_ Cute white blonde chick kidnapped by black guys. You figure it out.
\_ Same for the Laci Peterson case -- husbands kill wifes in America
\_ http://www.wrongsideoftown.com
\_ NSFW, duh.
\_ Same for the Laci Peterson case -- husbands kill wives in America
all the time, but this one got the media's and people's attention.
\_ The Peterson case got a lot of attention because of the
"prosecuting him for the death of the unborn" angle. That
set an interesting precedent.
\_ The Peterson case didn't set any precedent; the treatment of
murderers of pregnant women is well-established.
\_ I am pretty sure this is the first conviction in
California for killing an unborn fetus.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/26/ctv.fetal.homicide
\_ And it was an 8-mo. pregnant woman who went missing on
Christmas Eve, etc.
\_ wow. I've self-filtered my news-sources pretty well. I've never
heard of her until this. -nivra |
| 2005/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38417 Activity:high |
7/5 James Wolcott talks sense on the "Freedom Tower" design.
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/07/gusts_of_mastur.php
\_ I think this article is better: link:csua.org/u/clz (NYTimes)
\_ I don't really understand this criticism. "An impregnable tower
set against the outside world." What exactly are they supposed to
erect, an inviting vagina in heat? "Freedom Tower" is the stupidest
name ever though. -- ilyas
\_ No, "Freedom fries" is the stupidest name ever.
\_ Freedom Fries Tower
\_ In the rush to make the world's most inviting terrorist target
"bombproof," they've managed to make it incredibly ugly. Thus
it is a telling symbol of the state of our current national
psyche. That is the argument, at least. I guess whether you
buy that depends on whether you think architecture reflects on
the society that produces it.
\_ I do think it's ugly (or at least could be better), but I
don't understand the phrasing of the criticism. It sounds like
the objection is to the very notion that it ought to appear
impregnable. -- ilyas
\_ It is a sign of cowardance to try and build an impregnable
fortress. The real worls is a dangerous place.
fortress. The real world is a dangerous place.
\_ I agree. A cheaper, more aesthetic solution is to
deploy an active missile defense system where the
missle (hidden behind the glass building) launches
to strike unidentified targets that are flying low
and coming towards the new tower.
\_ That's pretty stupid. If you know it's going to make it
a target you should strengthen it.
\_ I think the argument is more sophisticated than that.
The argument isn't that the tower shouldn't _be_
impregnable. It obviously has to be secure, given how
much of a target it will be. The argument is that it
shouldn't _appear_ impregnable, because it sends the
wrong 'aesthetic message.' I happen to disagree with
that. -- ilyas
\_ Why? A good contrast is the Statue of Liberty,
which sends a very welcoming message, and is
generally seen as a positive symbol of America's
greatness. Do you really think that the
architectural equivalent of an Abrams Tank should
be a symbol of America? Just like the Twin
Towers, this building will have strong symbolic
value whether we like it or not.
\_ I hate to point out the obvious, but people
don't work in the Statue of Liberty. -- ilyas
\_ The point is that trying to build an impregnable
signature tower is horribly misguided; there's
nothing you can do, architecturally, to protect
against a 747 full of fuel ramming into your
signature building. Perhaps you can build it
so the building won't fall down, but you're
still talking about thousands of dead and massive
business resumption costs. The proposal is
horribly ugly, and in addition is completely
unnecessary, as vacancy rates in lower
Manhattan have skyrocketed since the attacks;
no one wants to work there anyway. -tom
\_ I don't really understand. Building anything
conspicious in a major metropolitan area in the
US will render it a target. Given that something
like that is a target, you have to take security
measures. Are you proposing either that
nothing conscpicious be built or that if
something is built it not be secured? The mind
boggles. -- ilyas
nothing conspicious be built or that if
something is built it not be secured? Ugliness
is one thing, but clearly, the criticism here
isn't just that the thing is ugly. -- ilyas
\_ I think it looks like a big toothpick, and that's okay -- except
for the base, and that's a big except. Kind of makes sense they
hid the ugliest part several clicks in, huh?
http://csua.org/u/cm0 (nytimes.com)
\_ Ugh. Gotta wonder how many cavity searches and retinal scans
you'll need to go through to get to work every day in that
thing.
\_ It looks like an anal probe. Someone I know said it looks
like NY flipping the bird, maybe that's what they were
going for. -- ilyas
\_ Or an old-fashioned syringe and hypodermic needle.
\_ Freedom Tower as Rorschach test?
\_ anyone have a url for the original Libeskind design? |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38323 Activity:low |
6/27 http://csua.org/u/cj5 What is the penalty for War Profiteering? \_ $10,000 fine and no cookies before bedtime. \_ It's not profiteering nor illegal unless there are people in office who are not on your side. \_ And murder isn't murder if it's a hooker. |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38316 Activity:moderate |
6/27 Agriculture - The Worst Mistake In The History of the Human Race?
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
\_ There are so many hilarious logical flaws in that article I don't
know where to start.
\- Helo, this seemed absurd to me too, but I really dont know
much about anthropology or pre-literate societies. I have
read a little bit of GGS and some of that stuff seems pretty
interesting [also well-beyond things I have significant
understanding of]. On the other hand, I believe much of what
he says in Collapse seems tenuous. I think there are more
he says in Collapse seems tenuous. I feel there are more
compelling explanations rooted in economics. It would be
like trying to explain prisonner dilemma by "studying the
criminal mind" instead of the spare axioms of rationality
or trying to explain tragedy of the commons by sociological
factors or "first/second image" explanations [in the sense
of Waltz: Man, the State and War]. I think it would be
interesting to ask him if he things hunt/gather societies
could have evolved universities, libraries and other such
knowledge-oriented institutions and labor specialization.
I think he's a pretty smart guy, but I wonder if after
becoming a "public intellectual" he feels obligated to
come up with big, provocative ideas that are a little beyond
his core knowledge [the extreme example is when physicists
win the nobel prize and start talking about world peace].
I do imagine he would have some rebuttals to your hilarious
logical [not empirical?] flaws which you failed to know
where to begin enumerating and leave unstated. ok tnx.
\- btw, JD is giving a talk in SF in about 2 weeks. |
| 2005/6/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38202 Activity:moderate |
6/19 Defend this:
http://csua.org/u/cfg
\_ Why DO you hate America?
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Why would anyone defend this? -conservative
\_ You'd be surprised. Or maybe not.
\_ You're sounding like a terrorist. |
| 2005/6/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38186 Activity:very high |
6/18 AI is looking for solviet gulag survivors to back up their
Gitmo=gulag equation. Criticism there of.
http://csua.org/u/cez (Washington Post)
\_ Why does the left (Democratic party) always embrace people who
want to kill them. The Democratic ethos is self-destructive
and irresponsible behavior.
\_ Why do morons like you always embrace perfectly valid points and
ruin any chance of educated discourse on the matter (such as
letting people decide for themselves, "Wow... what dipshits"
by making uneducated, irrelevant and pretty fucking pathetic
generalizations like the one above? -John (not a Democrat)
\_ obviously I have a hit a sore spot. Try not to be so
transparent.
\_ Troll!
\_ No, I just don't like morons. I think morons are a
great argument for retroactive abortion. In fact, I
actively support eugenics as an anti-moron measure, if
only to remove the irritant of morons trying to spoil my
motd-browsing pleasure through moronitude. -John
\_ Part of the Democratic "ethos" is to turn people to the Good
Side, not destroying them. Republican behavior is to destroy
the Evil ... with some collateral damage.
\_ so you have 6 kids out of wedlock, no problem the Democrats
will subsidize the bastardization of children. What better
way to expand their voter base? You have
unprotected sex with 100's of strangers, it wasn't your
fault you caught AIDS you were a victim, entitled to
free medical care for life at the taxpayer expense.
Murdering a cop makes you an instant cause celebre of the
left as a victim of the oppression of capitalism.
As a nation state you are the largest state sponsor of
terror over the past 3 decades and you stone to death
teenage girls who have been raped, what are you to Democrats-
a misunderstood democracy victimized by US imperialism.
You sold out the country to China for campaign contributions
from Loral Space - this action alone makes you the
Savior of the Democratic party.
Savior of the Democratic party. -jblack
\_ Too many hits off the crack pipe?
\_ Ah, yes, it's better to limit sexual education and
availability of sexual protections so that things like
this don't happen.
\_ Wow... what dipshits. -- ilyas |
| 2005/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37835 Activity:nil |
5/25 Haha, it's about time:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/wilbanks/index.html
\_ It's about time people stopped caring about bullshit non-news items
that are none of their business.
\_ True, but with the big deal ALL the news sources made about
that bitch, it was hard not to get suckered into showing
some interest.
\_ Not really. Do you also consider the Michael Jackson
trial to be important news?
\_ Right now, no. I'll probably show some interest
once a verdict is reached though. Same thing
with that runaway bride. I didn't care about the
updates, but once she was caught and no charges
were filed against her, then I started caring some.
\_ You're really that flaccid?
\_ It's about time people stop posting un-descriptive URLs without a
brief description of what the page is about.
\_ Hey stop it, she seems like a very nice typical all American girl.
\_ A very typical all American Bush voter from Georgia. |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37772 Activity:nil |
5/19 Good stuff:
George Orwell, "The Decline of the English Murder"
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/decline/english/e_doem |
| 2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37714 Activity:low |
5/16 "But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that
somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of
America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't
think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to
continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should
not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my
advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't
appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution
of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I
am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying."
-Sen Adams (R) NH on his filibuster of Clinton appointee Richard Perez
\_ Where is that in the senate record?
\_ You know, when googling this, it appears to be a quote from Senator
Robert Smith on March 7, 2000, not Senator "Adams". Where did you
get this quote from?
\_ I got it from a discussion forum I am on. I guess the guy
got the author wrong, but Sen Robert Smith is a
(R) from NH, right?
\_ "Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am
talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court
nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back
further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back
into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are
filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to
the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term
``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster.
You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if
it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then
we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or
reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters
led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader
on the floor." From the same speech, Mr. Smith goes to
washington and redefines the filibuster to include blocking
in committee. His speech starts on page S1209, and this
quote is on page S1212, March 7 2000. |
| 2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37695 Activity:kinda low |
5/15 Interview with Intelligent Design leader Phillip Johnson: Attended
Harvard one year early, graduated first in class at Chicago law, and
a Boalt professor emeritus - http://csua.org/u/c2t (Post)
\_ Gee, I always get my biological science from lawyers. -tom
\_ Indeed, those do seem to be odd qualifications. -emarkp
\_ Lawyers should stay out of science, scientists have always
voluntarily stayed out of law.
\_ munson@csua graduated cum laude in astrophysics, went to law
school, worked as an attorney, and is going back to get his
astrophysics doctorate. So much for that theory :-) -John
\_ Lawyers and empirical scientists are both interested in
causation (the former to determine responsibility, the latter
to determine laws of nature). The business of law and science
is not that different. -- ilyas
\_ Lawyers are interested in winning, regardless of the
truth. Scientists are interested in winning too, but
at least the data has to stand up to empirical truth
\_ Some lawyers. Just like there are some good politicans.
\_ You are thinking about litigators, most lawyers
don't litigate. So far what I've learnt is that
being a lawyer is a lot like being an engineer,
you try to design solutions that will keep your
clients out of trouble and make thier lives
easier.
\_ I think it's a matter of knowledge not principles. |
| 2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Transportation/Car] UID:37679 Activity:nil |
5/14 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/14/world/main695223.shtml Tiananmen Square, Uzbekistan style. |
| 2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Recreation/Music] UID:37667 Activity:nil |
5/13 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050513/od_nm/mexico_mariachi_dc New type of crime: Bogus mariachi band rob music-lovers in Mexico. I can just see this new crime spread to Europe, where string quartet musicians in Vienna robs tourists after they play Mozart. |
| 2005/5/10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37602 Activity:moderate |
5/9 Filling the jail cells American's don't want to fill.
Feds pay $5.8 billion to jail criminal aliens
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44184
\_ Do you mean Americans want to leave them free, or kick them out of
the country?
\_ That is kinda the problem. Sent them to Mexico, they just
walk back, or pay to put them in jail and pay for them.
\_ When USSR existed, it had the longest border in the world
and not even a fly could cross it.
\_ interesting. I'd guess that's because if left open, vast
amounts of people would have fled (bad for economy);
whereas, w/ the US, porous borders are places where
people enter (good for economy) ... so less incentive
to expend the large sums of money needed to guard them
\_ Do you think that's more expensive than trying to deport them all
and keep them out? |
| 2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:37531 Activity:high |
5/5 Heh. It's hard to make a pinko happy: http://csua.org/u/byq \_ No, it's easy. Just put them in charge. It's more of an "I'm always right" ideology. |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Consumer/Audio] UID:37489 Activity:nil |
5/3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1474613,00.html Obscure law designed to make CleanPlay (a DVD censoring device) legal also contains provisions that make it a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to share a copyrighted movie or song. |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37462 Activity:nil |
5/3 Is the blond lawyer on the right wearing flip-flops?
http://tinyurl.com/b997c
(news.yahoo.com)
\_ How should I know? I can only see her head.
\_ What the hell are you talking about? I went through all the
pictures and didn't see anything related.
\_ What's it too you? The law says there shall be no blond lawyer? |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Health/Sleeping] UID:37399 Activity:kinda low |
4/28 Woman convicted of rape for giving sleeping man a blowjob:
http://csua.org/u/bw2
\_ how fat was she?
\_ This is ignorant, but yet oddly intelligent. He got paid $6,355
for getting head, does it get any better?
\_ Yeah, but you have to go down in history (no pun intended)
as the wierdo who called the police for getting a blowjob.
\_ a Norwegian friend tells me he'd actually have to have reported her
for the police to do anything. This doesn't sound like a good way
to encourage more in the future from anyone.
\_ Nine months of jail time is equality? If it were a man raping a
woman, would it be nine months only?
\_ for just going down on her instead of penetrating?
\_ if a man gave a woman oral while she was sleeping and claimed
that she consented, that doesn't sound too outrageous.
\_ Who knows, we don't know what the standard sentences are in
Norway, do we? Usually in Europe, sentences are much lighter
than in the US.
\_ Gee. I thought sentences in the US are already too light.
\_ Which is why our prison population continues to increase
as crime rates go down.
\_ You mean, as we put criminals in jail, the crime
rate goes down? holy crap!
\_ Soylent Green...Soylent Green is *people*!!!! |
| 2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37249 Activity:high |
4/18 Defender of Earth, Destroyer of Big Fat Ugly Hummer, sentenced to 8
years. It's a sad sad day.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut
\_ 8 years? He should have gotten more! Get real. Destroying
SUV does NOTHING to save the earth. Neutering people will,
starting with people like you and him.
\_ Yes sir! Damn the Yankee Rebels who threw our pretious tea
into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her Majesty
into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her
Majesty
\_ This stupid fool is on par w/ the patriots of the
Boston Tea Party? WOW. After years of being deprived
of their fundamental rights w/o representation the
patriots took to violent protest. This guy chose
violent protest as a FIRST resort. Show me how the
sovereign (ie US gov) has deprived this man of any
rights w/o representation.
\_ Do we get to vote out the Saudi prince, the sheik and the
ben ladens, who walks all over us?
\_ This has something to do w/ Hummers how? I hope
you realize that most of the crude does not end
up in the belly of a hummer.
\_ I'm sure he'll become real familiar with Hummers while in jail.
\_ I disagree with his message and certainly don't condone his method,
but I am bothered by the hypocrisy behind it. Years ago it caused
an outrage when Singapore gave a mere 15 symbolic caning to an
American playboy who damaged private cars for thrills and then let
him walk. Now a political act in the American tradition of Boston
tea lands one in Sodom for 8+ years. What's wrong with America?
\_ Gee, spray painting is a different crime than arson; how
hypocritical! Moron. -tom
\_ 2 seditious aliens who fled did the arson; at least the
prosecution did not (bother to) prove otherwise. Where does
your notion of justice go? And how is arson better than
shipjacking and destruction of 45 tons of public property?
As for the insult, you are what you are.
\_ I think you need to do a little research about how any
sane or reasonable court system works. It's not the
prosecution's job to prove the innocence of the guy
they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The
\- not all countries use the adversarial system
used in the US. e.g. the german system is very
different. practically nobody else uses juries
any more. --psb
\_ True, but this divergence rather misses my
point.
\- in the case of some systems the judge
is not passive but actively participates
in establishing the "truth of the matter"
including the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. while that doesnt make it
the prosecutions job, the state does
play a role on his behalf. i'm just
suggesting the "a reasonable ct system"
is not code for "the us style adversarial
system". BTW, martin shapiro's book
courts is pretty interesting. well done
"scientific study" in the social sceinces.
they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The
prosecution's job is to put a malicious arsonist behind
bars. *Of course* the defense is going to make the
claim that 'it was someone else that did it, my client
was innocent, blah blah etc'. A jury didn't agree or
he chose to plea bargain. I have very little sympathy
for an idiot that chooses to attack the property of his
fellow citizens because of an obscure and noncritical
political point (which, if you're really an educated
reader, should show up *at least* two major differences
from the Boston Tea Party).
\_ The accused is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution
should prove beyond reasonable doubt that he took part
in the arson or has full knowledge in advance. He is
guilty of spray-paint, but that doesn't mean he is
guilty of arson because he is a fool and cannot afford
a lawyer who can "prove" one's innocence. Is your
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by a
lawyer for a hefty fee?
guilty of spray-paint, but convict him of arson just
because he is a fool and cannot afford a lawyer who can
"prove" one's innocence? Is your freedom guaranteed by
the Constitution or provided by an expensive lawyer?
\_ What you've basically just said here is "I don't
agree with the verdict, so the whole justice system
must therefore be broken". Uhm, yeah. This
conversation has no future.
\_ A person need not be charged w/ commission of the
substantive crime in order to be found guilty of
it. Ex. the dude could have been charged w/
conspiracy to destroy property, which means the
people only have to show that he agreed to this
conspiracy and that someone else who agreed to
it committed the arson. Alt. he could be found
guilty on accomplice liability theories also.
The motivation for this type of liability is
obvious, society has an incentive to deter
these type of crimes to ensure everyone's safety
and welfare.
This is not about needing a "expensive lawyer",
this is about not being STUPID and committing
crimes.
Perhaps you forget, but every man who signed
the declaration (and many of those who dumped
tea into Boston Harbor) was a traitor to his
majesty and would have been hanged if caught.
Most lost their homes, businesses, assets, &c.
\_ the american boy in spore only got 3 strokes of the cane.
originally it was 6, but they reduced it to 3 after
bill clinton pleaded for the boy. He was 18 years old
at that time.
\-he was more of a bratty kid than "playboy" as suggested above
but there are a number of interesting details ... in a new
yorker kind of way ... to the story not mentioned here (like
one of the cars painted belonged to a judge). YMWTGF "michael
fay". an interesting double standard is women are not subject
to caning in SIN. --psb, pro-beating
\_ Yeah, I'll bet you're pro-beating.
\_ I think I'd rather be caned 3 times than be raped and get
HIV in jail.
\_ Well, of course. But comparing the Singaporian incident
and the corresponding sentence to the SUV guy...man,
it's comparing apples to oranges -- just in terms of
property damage *alone*.
\- a better comparison is to vandalizing protestors
like anti-nuke people, animal rights freaks etc.--psb |
| 2005/4/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37227 Activity:nil |
4/16 Doing the jobs American's won't do. First aircraft mechanics, now
ship builders for the Navy.
Audit Shows Illegal Workers Hired
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384322/posts |
| 2005/4/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Tax] UID:37166 Activity:nil |
4/13 Yahoo! News - "At tax time, lots of money under table":
http://csua.org/u/bog
The evaded tax is "equal to 75 percent of the annual budget deficit,
two-thirds of Defense Department spending, or what the US spends on
Medicare in a year." |
| 2005/4/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37120 Activity:very high |
4/8 First Bolemic Lady and now a woman in Georgia is being starved to death. In
this woman's case however the woman's living will is being ignored.
She's not in a persistenet vegitative state nor is she comatose. The
granddaughter says "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and
who would want to live with disabilities like these?" She's also
prayed about it apparently and says "Grandmama is old and I think it is
time she went home to Jesus."
\_ She's prayed about it...who are we to doubt the will of Jesus? -tom
\_ Yeah, how would you feel as an atheist if someone prayed for you
and decided you were ready to die? -emarkp
\_ If I was incapable of understanding what was going on, I
don't think I'd feel much about it. Why do you think the
grandmother is an atheist? -tom
\_ I don't know if she's an atheist, but I'm fairly confident
that you are. And the question was directed to you, not
her. -emarkp
\_ I'll ask again, since you obviously have infinite free
time: what the FUCK is your point? Aside from the
fact that stirring up mindless bile among your
fellow social conservatives helps bring about your
theocracy, why are you so concerned with other
people's business? Maybe you should take heed of
the fact that if Christian fundamentalists really do
take over this country, mormons won't fare any better
than us liberal athiests.
\_ The irony here is palpable. I'm not for a
democratic theocracy. I don't like the idea of
people being starved to death when their wishes are
unknown or known to be against dying. -emarkp
\_ Don't argue with him, tom. Bolemic Lady's probably already
a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous baptism. JPII
too most likely too by now.
\_ Well, if you're really not interested in
turning this country into a far-right theocracy,
you should re-think some things. Do you really
not see what's going on here? The media circuses
surrounding various moral issues is to soften up
appointments in May. It is all part of a
so that the far right can force their extremist
have occured daily forever. Doesn't the timing
of this explosion of politics seem just the
tiniest bit odd to you? Think about it. Based
on your other posts, I don't think you are an
evil guy, but I'm afraid that you have decided
to act as a tool of evil by spouting the party
line of the far-right theocrats.
\_ Don't argue with him, tom. Terri's probably
already a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous
baptism. JPII too most likely too by now.
\_ Aaron!?! You're back! And you can't spell
"bulimic". -emarkp
\_ So you admit that your question was nothing but a
red herring? OK, thanks. I already answered your
question for me, and it added absolutely nothing to
the discussion.
I certainly don't see how someone whose brain and
bodily systems are all in an advanced state of
failure can think that Jesus wants her to live. -tom
\_ Um, this subthread was about the Georgia woman, who
doesn't have the problems you describe. -emarkp
\_ yes, she does. -tom
\_ Where does any story say that? -emarkp
\_ Then it'd be like that six month old boy that a hospital
put to death in Texas, despite the pleas from this mother!
CULTURE OF LIFE!!
\_ obTroll: Remind me again how many people Texas knocks
off every year? Oh, that's different. -John
The only online story I can find about
it is here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688
Please don't dismiss it just because it's worldnetdaily. I'll happily
eat my words if the facts turn out to be different, but I've heard a
phone conversation with Ken Mullinax (the elderly woman's nephew). You
can listen to it free here (windows media unfortunately):
http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml (first link)
-emarkp
\_ Stop saying "starved to death". They are not being starved to death.
Their disease process is killing them, not starvation.
\_ What you meant to say was, most neurologists say a PVS patient
doesn't suffer, since they have no perception of pain.
\_ Wow, your ignorance is stunning. What "disease" did "they" have?
-emarkp
\_ OK I was referring to Terri, not your new person.
\_ What "disease" did Terri have? -emarkp
\_ OK I was referring to Bolemic Lady, not your new person.
\_ What "disease" did Bolemic Lady have? -emarkp
\_ Oh I don't know, maybe some shit called necrosis
rotting away in her brain from old events due to
her eating disorder. She was as close to dead
as possible, so don't even try to say she was
healthy. The only reason you and others think
she was functioning was because her eyes were
open in a creepy sort of way, fooling you into
believing she was engaging you. Yeah, the lack
of food tipped the scales finally, but that was
hardly a major blow. Starvation was the least of
her worries.
\_ She only needed food and water to survive, just
like you and me. Also, I've never seen proof of
any eating disorder. It's commonly noted, but
her family disputes that it was ever established.
Can you point to proof of her eating disorder?
-emarkp
\_ OK, how can we prove anything then? This
actually brings up a very good point, which is
that NONE of her situation is for us to
discuss. And by us I mean anyone that isn't
her, her husband, her parents, and her medical
team (which means no dumbass lawmakers and
politicians of course). The issue of one's end
of life is an extremely personal issue that is
only relevant to the few select people I
mentioned, for they are the ONLY ones that
know the true situation in all its intimate
and fine detail. This is not our business (and
it never was), so let's stop discussing it.
\_ The *real* question in the issue is why did
her husband have the only vote when there
was doubt about her wishes. *That's* what
we need to discuss. If Terri had left
we need to discuss. If Bolemic Lady had left
written instructions, I'd have no beef.
Though it may not have helped her, as it
hasn't for the woman in Georgia. -emarkp
\_ For CHRISSAKE! He didn't have the only
fucking vote. There were multiple
relations who testified to her wishes.
Her parents had their day in court.
The system did its job. Get the hell
over it.
\_ No, the court system determined that
he had the only vote. I don't
understand how the judge did that.
-emarkp
\_ Because he was 1) her husband,
2) her legal guardian, and 3) when
challenged, the judge decided not
to change the guardianship. And
if you start screaming about his
"infidelity" again, we've been
through it. Bury this dead horse.
\_ Do you have a point?
\_ Now wouldn't have it been a lot better if protestors rallied to this
person's cause instead of Terri's?
\_ Terri's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
person's cause instead of Bolemic Lady's?
\_ Bolemic Lady's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
person's cause instead of Anorexia's?
\_ Anorexia's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
this is more important than her case because (if the facts are
right) they're killing someone against her express wishes.
-emarkp
\_ If this is indeed true, and someone wrongly claimed to have power
of attourney, this is bad, and should come to legal trouble for the
hospice and for the claimant to PoA. However, as the only sources so
far are wnd and a few right leaning blogs, I'll continue to be
skeptical. --scotsman
\_ Did you listen to the audio?
\_ no. but it appears to be an interview from someone who made
plenty of hay out of schiavo. Get a journalist on the case
and i'll lose some skepticism. check the validity of the
will. check out the PoA claims. strip the hysterics and give
me the facts.
\_ Ah. So you're not willing to evaluate the case because
Beck was in the don't-starve-Terri camp? Nice piece of
Beck was in the don't-starve-Bolemic Lady camp? Nice piece of
work. -emarkp
\_ Uh, no, i'm not willing to evaluate the case because
everything you've posted and everything on google news
about it is from interested parties. Find me a couple
disinterested observers as sources, and I'll consider
it. For now it feels like an attempted echo chamber.
\_ Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota....
\_ People who lose credibility often find it tough
to regain anyones trust. The whole Terri Schiavo
crowd, by their pointless campaign to smear her
husband by spreading a bunch of lies, has lost
my trust and respect.
\_ Now here is a non-WND link: link:csua.org/u/bm7 -emarkp
\_ I don't doubt that even if this particular story is skewed,
in the real world stuff like "Kid doesn't want to take care
of granny anymore for [laziness|greed|revenge|stupidity] and
sticks it to granny against her expressed wishes" is not new to
the 21st century.
\_ what is new is the idea that random nutjobs in Utah think
they should have something to do with the decision. -tom
\_ What does Utah have to do with this? -emarkp
\_ Dum dum dum dum dum...
\_ You mean you just discovered that people starve to death in America?
This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time.
\_ Hey 80 col Nazi! You keep deleting lines that are 79 or 80 chars.
What's your problem? -emarkp
\_ Yeah, doesn't he know that [79 columns|3 out of 4 neurologists
who have done a neurological exam and say she's PVS for 12+
years] is acceptable to most people? [80 columns which causes
automatic linebreaks|evil grandkid ignoring living will] crosses
a line, though.
\_ emarkp, do you realize all of the following:
(1) In Feb 2000, the court determined "by clear and convincing
evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would then elect to cease
evidence that Mrs. Bolemic Lady would then elect to cease
evidence that Mrs. Terri would then elect to cease
life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own
decision".
(2) Her parents appealed.
(3) The Florida appeals court affirmed the decision in Jan 2001.
(4) The Florida appeals court denied re-hearing in Feb 2001.
(5) The Florida Supreme Court denied review of the case in Apr 2001.
(6) Since then there have been multiple motions claiming new
evidence, but all the courts have come back leaving the original
decision intact.
Sure, innocents are executed in capital crimes. Just as well,
Terri Schiavo might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can
this might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can
see how it would make sense to create a law that said you can't
kill someone in a PVS unless they have put it in writing. I can
also see how it would make sense to have a law that says you can't
kill a criminal unless there is no doubt (as opposed to beyond a
reasonable doubt) that person committed a capital crime. Your
focus should be on creating the former law, and you do a great
disservice to your cause by not clearly stating this. In addition
to saying "If Terri had left written instructions, I'd have no
to saying "If Bolemic Lady had left written instructions, I'd have no
beef", you should also say, "I support a law requiring such". Stop
complaining about the effects of the rules -- petition to change
the rules.
the rules. -jctwu
\_ You do know that this was a judicial review of Judge Greer's
findings of fact, right? There was no 'de novo' review of the
case. Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
\_ Because congress is not allowed to just create new
jurisdictions. Separation of powers. The judge rightly
smacked congress down for it.
\_ This is not strictly correct. Art. 3 allows congress
to enact legislation that provides jurisdiction for
fed cts. The jurisdiction of fed cts is far more
limited than what the framers allowed in Art. 3.
Please note that the judges did not rule on whether
the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Bolemic Lady's
the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Terri's
case to be heard in fed ct was constitutional. Rather
he ruled on the temp restraining order that was sought
to keep Bolemic Lady alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
to keep Terri alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
party seeking it must show that they will most likely
previal at trial. The parents could not show this so
the lost the motion.
\_ What is "this"? Are you referring to (3)-(5), or the de novo
review that federal courts were ordered by law to conduct?
Before you answer, I urge you to consider carefully what I've
already written. Why argue when we might already agree on
some key points? -jctwu
\_ "Ordered by law"... Heheh. The judge would have had a
hard time deciding which grounds to toss that law out on.
It's a veritable garden of unconstitutionality.
\_ The standard for review of findings of facts by a ct of
appeals is clear error. The only other way to make new
findings of fact is to conduct a new trial.
While it can be argued that congress authorized this,
the text of the statute is not clear. The version I
read simply says 'de novo', it does not state whether
this is a new trial or merely review of the record. If
it is review of the record, then the dist ct only had
the power to review the record and reverse legal
conclusions or findings of fact that were clearly
erroneous; the dist ct would have to assume that the
trial ct's findings of facts were largely true.
Please also see above re the TRO. The parents did not
meet the requirements to be granted a TRO (which has
nothing to do w/ the standard of review).
Terri's case was handled properly w/in the law, even
if the judges didn't like the outcome, they were
constrained to act as they did. If they were to do
otherwise, all stability would be lost.
If the results in this case are not to your liking,
the proper course of action is to have statutes (fed
or state) enacted to ensure a different result.
--ranga
\_ yeah, like in Texas where Bush enacted a statute that
lets hospitals kill patients over the objections of
their caregivers. -tom
\_ I do not know the legislative history of the
the Texas statute that you mention, however
statutes are normally enacted by the legislature
and signed into law by the Gov. Assuming that
this statute became law in that fashion, the
statute can be taken as an expression of the
views of the majority of the citizen of Texas
by their elected representatives. Perhaps the
views of the citizen differ from those of the
caregivers, but why should the views of the
caregivers be given precedence over those of
the general public?
If the enactment of such a statute bothers you
(1) don't live in Texas or (2) work to elect
people who hold other views.
\_ What kind of nonsense is this. So when the
legislature of Indiana defined Pi to be 4,
that was a good thing since it was the will
of the people?
\_ No, because the bible states it should be 3.
Heretic!
\_ The value of pi is a fact, community
opinion doesn't define the value of
pi, nature does. In contrast, the
issue of how to handle end of life
cases are largely based on societal
conventions/opinion and are best
handled by the legislative process.
BTW, if pi were defined as 4, it
just means that we have to change
the rest of our number system, there
is nothing holy about 3.14159...
\_ If smart was defined as stupid, you would
be smart.
\_ Get your facts right. That never happened.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
\_ I'd be willing to bet that if Terri hadn't been white
and photogenic, we'd never have heard of her. |
| 2005/4/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37025 Activity:kinda low |
4/1 U.S. Soldier Convicted of Killing Iraqi Walks Free
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20050401/ts_nm/iraq_courtmartial_dc
\_ your url is long and tax free
\_ I'm amazed he was convicted of anything. I don't know how we have a
military that can accomplish anything when this kind of thing goes
on.
\_ Yep, it's GOOD to be the invader isn't it?
\_ FOAD. It's a question of ethics on the battlefield.
\_ It's a sad case. If you were in Infantry, it
would have been drummed into you that if there is
a mortally wounded enemy lying down in front of
you, defenseless, and probably suffering terribly
(this happens a lot when you're a U.S. soldier),
you JUST CAN'T PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY --
even if you personally think it's morally
justified. However, the guy was trained as a tank
commander, so he probably didn't know. He's a
poor guy, since he did what he thought was right
and probably spent a lot of time securing the role
of company commander. His Army career is over, he
can't even be a desk jockey.
\_ It doesn't say what kind of discharge he got. If it was a
dishonorable discharge, that will be a huge burden on him
for the rest of his life.
\_ http://basic.armystudyguide.com/benefits/after_the_army.htm
6. Including Commissioned and Warrant Officers who have been
convicted and sentenced to dismissal as a result of General
Court-Martial. [included with Dishonorable Discharge] |
| 2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36992 Activity:high |
3/31 Terry Schiavo dies.
http://www.cnn.com
\_ Any guesses on coverage ratio of this vs. the scathing WMD report
that came out today?
\_ Well, on the major news sites, it's in big print, but it's
invariably #2 to the Schiavo story.
\_ is it over now or do we have to put up with weeks of bickering over
who has burial/disposal rights?
\_ I give it about 5 days of additional bickering, and then everyone
will totally forget about it.
\_ Her name was Terri. Short for Theresa. If you don't give a damn
about it, please don't comment on it.
\_ woke up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?
\_ I've been following this case for 2 years. I never saw it as
a "right-to-life" or "right-to-die" issue. It was a "can a
husband kill a wife" issue. I'm sad that a single judge was
able to order her to be killed. I "woke up" to find out that
Terri was dead and all our futures are in danger.
\_ can a husband kill his wife and get away with it?
\_ ask oj
\_ If you could exchange places with someone terminal in
excruciating pain in the last few weeks life for an hour
I'll bet your entire viewpoint of the situation would
change. All our futures are in danger -- what is the
% chance of ending up on life support for 15 years while
in a PVS?
\_ Of four neurologists who have done a neurological exam on
Terri, three said she was in a persistent vegetative state.
That's how it is.
\_ Actually, it was 8 doctors, 7 concurring.
\_ I'd read from CNN or AP (can't remember which) that
evidence from 5 doctors was used, 2 from husband,
2 from the parents, and one appointed by the court.
Unsurprisingly, 2 from parents said she could recover,
2 from husband as she wouldn't, and the court
appointed doctor said she wouldn't. So, bascially
3/5 with 4/5 giving largely meaningless testimony.
\_ How about letting a hospital kill a six month old boy,
following a law signed by then governor George W Bush?
Um, right, that's somehow different.
\_ "a single judge"? the u.s. supreme court refused to hear
the case multiple times. 9 judges there. an appeal went
to a 3-judge panel on the 11th circuit court. 2 ruled
against the schindlers, one for. the full 11th circuit
court later upheld that ruling. of the 12 judges, only 2
dissented. and lest you argue the "evil liberal judge"
tack, the majority of these judges are republican.
\_ "can a husband kill a wife"? please. are you one of those
religious zealots who relies on the bible for the law
(as opposed to the constitution), who doesn't believe in
the multiple clinicans who thoroughly evaluated her, who
doesn't believe that she made a living will...who, when
all those failed you, resorted to a smear campaign
against the husband? it sure sounds like it. don't worry
about our future so much, it'll be ok.
\_ Theresa? Can they still make her a saint? Since there's already
Mother Theresa on the saint track. How do they deal with
ambiguously named saints?
\- there is already a famous st. theresa [of avila].
theresa isnt mother therasa's orgiginal name.
you are a doofus. --psb
\_ I take pride in not knowing
about saints. --dufus, patron
st. of MOTD
\-it's not a matter of being
versed in the history of
the church. do you really
think they turn down people
because there already is
somebody with the same
name canonized? ... "you
should have considered
thomas beckett, before you
started writing summa
theological, thomas aquinas".
you have never heard of them
or st. thomas more? there are
like 50 or a 100 st. marys.
what is sort of weird are the
nuns who pick a man's name
after taking holy orders.
--psb
\_ I was being facetious
with the saint question
and asked about the names
since it came to mind and
I'd never considered it.
I was thinking in type, so
to speak.
After that I went to
http://catholic.org/saints and
saw the multiplicities of
certain saint names, many
don't even have "of Rome"
or anything else to
disambiguate. I guess they
divinely know to which one
the prayers are directed.
\_ Wait...St Dufus of MOTD or of
CSUA? Which? Or are they the
same? Shit...now I'm all
confused.
\_ It's "Dufus of the CSUA,
patron saint of MOTDs and
trolls".
\_ You shall be named: St. Dufus of the CSUA
\_ Surely there is already a St. Dufus of CSUA? what's the
next level of disambiguation?
Almighty and eternal God,
grant we beseech Thee that,
through the intercession of Saint Dufus the lesser of CSUA
troller and nuker,
during our journeys through the MOTD we will direct our
hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee
and treat with charity and patience all those trolls whom
we encounter.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen |
| 2005/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36950 Activity:high |
3/29 CNN: "Lawyer Johnnie Cochran, who famously defended actor O.J.
Simpson, has died aged 67 at his home in Los Angeles, CNN confirms."
Take those money to your grave, fucker.
\_ Did OJ ever pay Johnny? If not, maybe OJ killed Johnny. No
lawyer, no debt...
\_ His civil trial (where he lost $$$ for wrongful death) happened
after his criminal trial, so presumably Cochran got paid.
\_ An autopsy will show OJ's blood inside the brain tumor. |
| 2005/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:36909 Activity:high |
3/27 I have a proposal for you Christians and Pro-Lifers. Instead of
bitching and whining, how about setting up a "Save Terri Fund", where
you donate a large portion of your church money to the Terri fund so
that you can 1) bribe Michael and 2) pay for medical expenses? I mean,
this whole thing is about MONEY right? Stop building really nice super
mega churches, spend some of that money on Terri.
\_ Um, people *have* tried to give Michael money. By his count it's
over $15M.
\_ I'm neither a Christian nor a pro-lifer, but this is a completely
nonsensical statement. This whole thing is NOT about money. If
you honestly believed that then you're a moron. This whole thing
is about a whacky belief system that insists a brain-dead shell
of a human should be allowed to be artificially maintained
ad nauseum. I'm not quite sure why this is "christian" since
if you believe in god, you'd figure that this is basically god's
way of telling you that your time is up. Keeping people on earth
indefinitely through life support sure as hell doesn't sound
very christian, ethical, or humane. In fact, it's rather ironic
that it isn't the atheists who insist on letting Terri continue
on, since if there's no god, there's no after life, and keeping
Terri alive indefinitely theoretically improves her chances of
getting some sort of future miracle treatment that would cure
her. Chances of that are obviously virtually nil, but it's an
illustration on how whacky reasoning can get you to any conclusion
you want.
\_ anti-Christian troll alert. I hope to see a good rebutal from
our good mannered Christian/Mormon friend(s) on motd.
\_ Any result is in God's plan, right?
\_ many if not most of Terri's advocates only want her to receive
due process, which she obviously has not. There are too many
conflicts of interest between the only judge who actually
reviewed the case, the lawyer Felos, and Michael. I don't
understand how after all of the publicity given to this case
you can't see the glaring inconsistencies in the order of
her execution. When the only witness to her wish to die
contradicts himself repeatedly, one might expect a more
thorough investigation.
\_ I can't think of ANYONE who has received more due process than
Terri Schiavo. THIRTY court decisions, state and federal, EVERY
one of them ruling
for Michael Schiavo, and against the parents. This is unusual
since usually this many court cases will have at least ONE
ruling that goes against the others. The "due process" the
"Culture of Life" supporters want is for her to be hooked up to
machines until she dies of old age. And of course, no mention
is made by them of the DOZENS of people who could have been
helped with the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and
medical care, resources and time wasted on keeping this brain
stem functioning. People who could actually get better and
live a meaningful life because of being healed.
one of them ruling for Michael Schiavo, and against the
parents. This is unusual since usually this many court cases
will have at least ONE ruling that goes against the others.
The "due process" the "Culture of Life" supporters want is for
her to be hooked up to machines until she dies of old age.
And of course, no mention is made by them of the DOZENS of
people who could have been helped with the tens of millions of
dollars in legal fees and medical care, resources and time
wasted on keeping this brain stem functioning. People who
could actually get better and live a meaningful life because
of being healed.
\_ her case was only reviewed in full once, by one judge.
This judge received campaign contributions from Felos.
This judge is legally blind.
All of the others were decided in 90 minutes, not de novo.
How can a judge review the evidence from a 15 year case
in 90 minutes when it is a life and death matter?
I think you are blissfully ignorant about the facts
surrounding her sentence. David Boeis
and Derschowitz support a de novo review, doesn't that
tell you something. Clearly you understand the
significance and precedent setting nature of this case,
which is why you've become so upset. All that most are asking
is a full vetting of the facts.
surrounding her sentence. David Boeis and Derschowitz
support a de novo review, doesn't that tell you something.
Clearly you understand the significance and precedent
setting nature of this case, which is why you've become so
upset. All that most are asking is a full vetting of the
facts.
\_ Upon what basis do you call this precedent setting? This
sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Thousands of families
have to make this decision every year. I'm sure in
hundreds of those cases, there are disputes which end up
in the courts. The only precedent set here is the level
of hypocrisy in our federal legislature.
\_ The majority of America does not agree with your assessment
\_ Bullshit.
\_ No, really.
\_ No, bullshit. You're are misrepresenting polls,
etc.
\_ Even evangelical Christians think the
courts have it right. The polls are
not being misrepresented, the courts did not
screw up -- you are just wrong -- but I
know no FACTS will convince you of this.
Her cerebral cortex is just spinal fluid
but fundies want to claim she is "minimally
conscious" thanks to 4+ hours of footage
edited Oliver Stone-style into 4 minutes
of propaganda. At least in a few
days this will be all over, an autopsy
will show her brain was just mush, and
the fundies can find the next illogical
position to take and rant about.
\_ Actually what was decided in 90 mins is whether a
TRO should be granted or not. A TRO is designed to
maintain/change the status quo so that one party
is not unduly damaged while the case proceeds. In
deciding whether a TRO can be granted the judge
needs to see whether the party seeking the TRO
has a strong change of winning at trial. In this
case, there was basically no chance of winning at
trial based on the record presented to the judge
(which is all the judge can use at this stage to
determine if a TRO can be granted), thus refusal
of the TRO was appropriate.
There is also some ambiguity about what exactly
the judge is authorized to do by the act of
congress. The act does not specify de novo trial.
It simply specifies de novo. This could be de
novo review which means that the judge cannot
consider new evidence but must rely only on the
record as presented. Also keep in mind that every
fed judge in the middle dist of FL and all of
their law clerks, &c. have probably been reviewing
the record for some time since it looked like
congress was going to do something dumb, thus
they probably had a good idea about how to rule
on various motions, such as a TRO. |
| 2005/3/27-29 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36906 Activity:kinda low |
3/27 Go Pat Go!
http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050323-nazi.htm
\_ I think Godwin's law is now invalid. -emarkp
\_ You're right, Godwin's law generally doesn't apply when
Nazis bring up the subject themselves.
\_ I hear the Nazi party is running Oregon now because
of their euthanasia laws ... it's a slippery slope,
just like Pat says.
of their euthanasia laws ... It's a slippery slope,
just like Pat says. Truly compassionate doctors would
let babies suffer in agony for a few months instead when
they know there is no hope -- and it's lots of fun for
the parents too. |
| 2005/3/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36898 Activity:insanely high |
3/26 I think it's pretty clear the American public is being intentionally
distracted from something right now by all this bullshit. But what
is it?
\_ Maybe the fact that we haven't got any sort of contingency plan
for when oil prodcction can no longer meet the rate of increasing
consumption? Just a thought.
\_ Yer right. Michael Schiavo made a deal with Dick Cheney to pull
out the tube while the VP was busy dealing with some unexpected
tapes of Condi-Dubya "69" action.
\_ more like DeLay and Frist and all the rest have been watching
and waiting for the perfect case with which to bring this
issue to the forefront of public discourse. I'm more skeptical
about this being some kind of "cover up" ... and rather just
a way for Bush Dick et al to throw a bone to the christian
nut jobs who he's pissing off by letting them down on the
marriage amendment, etc etc.
\_ Let's bomb Iran!
\_ Massive protests in Taiwan: http://tinyurl.com/6vtmv
\_ euthansia and killing mentally handicapped people is not an
issue worth your attention, eh? Well, I hope in the future
you are put down when you get old or are mentally incapicated,
and leave no living will.
\_ Go fuck yourself.
\_ go euthansize yourself. Here's your logic, someone
is a murderer, kills a cop for example like Mumia,
give him 30 years to go through the Fed courts and
deify him as a victim. A woman is mentally incapicated
and her husband remembers she wants to die 7 years
later after receiving 1 million in money that
is deemed to be spent on recuperation but isn't,
starve her to death. I hope you and your children
embrace and enjoy the culture of death you are creating.
\_ Hi, motherfucker. So I guess you figure that once the
constitution and the rule of law have been suspended,
everything will be fine as long as your little club
happens to be in charge. Fuck you. I hope the next
federal abuse of power is you getting executed with no
trial...because that's exactly where the present abuses
of federal power are heading.
\_ the Constitution grants to right to starve the
mentaly incapacitated on the sole basis of compromised
testimony from someone who may inflicted the injury
in the first place?. That was summarized in
Federalist 12, right? This was one of most heated
points of discussion at the Constitutional Conv.,
right? Honestly, have you ever even read the
Constitution? I suspect you are ignorant of the
facts surrounding this case and are projecting your
irrational vitrol towards anyone who is not a
Communist on this poor women. It's ok to starve a
mentally incapacitated woman who has not received
due process but god forbid we disturb a few elk on
a barren tundra.
\_ I am not pp, but your argument re this poor
woman's constitutional rights are flawed.
There is something more important at stake
here than whether this woman lives/dies:
Are we a nation of laws or men?
\_ Law, but the law is not an end in and of itself.
I can't take a side in this gigantic tragic
clusterfuck of a personal and legal travesty, as
I really don't know what I would do (this sort of
reminds me of the "would you use torture even
though it violates your laws and principles if
innocent life is at stake?") but it's pretty
clear to me that, either way, some part of the
judicial and democratic processes has failed
pretty horribly. -John
\_ Laws are instituted among men so that
we may order and plan our affairs better.
Whether or not you like the result in
this case, the laws have served their
proper purpose. Simply b/c the result
is not palatable to some, is not a
reason to throw out the laws and
take an opinion poll to decide what
should be done.
BTW, the only way that you can say
the judicial process has failed is
if you think that the trial ct judge
hugely screwed up in the original
\_ As I recall there was some discussion
about various expert opinions, some video
tape that wasn't used, etc. I don't know
the specifics, honestly, but the whole
thing just reeks of "fuckup". -John
\_ Actually, the stuff that the
media is making a big deal
about (experts, video,
hearsay, &c.) are things
that frequently get messed
up at trial but are generally
not grounds for a new trial.
proceedings. This is not likely
given that the record has now been
reviewed by the FL Appellate Ct,
the FL Supreme Ct, a FL Fed Dist Ct,
and the 11th Cir Ct of Appeals.
I somewhat agree that the democratic
process has failed, b/c congress
clearly overstepped its bounds.
Yes the constitution does not grant the
right to starve a mentally incapacitated
woman. However, the constitution does
limit the power of the fed gov/judiciary
(see Art. 3 Sec 2).
This is a dispute about whether her husband
or her parents have the right to decided
when to end her life. The dispute is
governed by state law.
In creating original jx for a particular
fed ct to rehear her claim from scratch
congress has extended the power of the
fed cts beyond what the constitution
allows: the fed cts cannot hear state law
claims w/o diversity, which does not exist
here. [Yes Art 3 allows congress to enact
legislation that delineates the powers of
the fed cts, but that power must be w/in
the limits set by Sec 2.]
WRT 14th amd due process claims, due process
means that her rights are adjudicated in
ct w/o being subject to material errors.
In this case there is no evid that the cts
of FL have screwed up and have violated any
state or fed statutory or constitutional
right this woman has. Thus due process
has not been violated.
WRT 8th amd cruel and unusual punishment,
this is not applicable to her case.
Re ANWR, I have no opinion. Drilling may
be a good short term soln, but long term
soln are needed as well.
\_ As long as you and yours are first in line, we will.
\_ The "facts" your screed is based on are lies and half truths.
You need to educate yourself before spreading this
propaganda further. What is your purpose in doing this?
\_ As a resident of FL, that poor lady is subject to the
laws of FL. Her rights have been properly adjudicated
under that law. There is no reason for me or for the
feds to get involved in what is essentially a private
matter covered under state law.
\_ Can they move her to another state or country? Will
her rights then change?
\_ If she was in a different forum, her rights may
be different (state law/constitution can give
you all sorts of rights beyond what the fed
versions do, same goes for foreign countries).
One of the compromises that we make in order to
live in a given part of the world is that we are
sub to the laws of that part of the world.
\_ Could she be moved? Who determines that?
\_ Her primary caregiver.
\_ Your whole line of argument is based on a bunch of outrighT
lies and misinformation. Either you are deliberately
misinforming people or you are passing on falsehoods.
You need to educate yourself before spreading this
propaganda further.
\_ Tom DeLay is a disgusting hypocrite. What a surprise:
http://csua.org/u/bi5 (LA Times)
\_ The cases aren't even remotely similar. If Terri had been on the
same equipment as DeLay's father, there wouldn't be an outcry.
Terri's "life support" consists of food and water. Can we
disconnect your life support too? -emarkp
\_ Unlike Terri, I feed myself and drink on my own.
\_ So Christopher Reeve should have been put down? How about
infants? -emarkp
\_ you're very good at coming up with new red herrings.
-tom
\_ ANWR just got opened up. Bankruptcy bill just got passed, making
it safe for CEOs to continue running companies into the ground. |
| 2005/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36886 Activity:nil |
3/25 Michael Schiavo lawyer on board of directors of Terri's hospice
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032605.htm
\_ Yep. And she shouldn't have been put there in the first place since
residents in a hospice are supposed to be terminally ill. |
| 2005/3/25 [Academia/Berkeley, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36876 Activity:high |
3/25 Ward Churchill is coming to Berkeley!
http://tinyurl.com/6prrz (resipsaloquitor.blogspot.com)
\_ i think he was at codys a few weeks ago, no one died. - danh
\_ That's unfortunate. -alexf
\_ Do you really oppose academic freedom of speech? -ausman
\_ Yes. I realize it's extremely difficult to judge such any
particular case where the "academic freedom of speech"
argument is invoked, but I do believe there ought to be
bounds on the use of the academic pulpit to advocate
terrorism or other forms of utterly unjustifiable, by any
remotely rational argument, violence. How to adjudicate
such cases is a different problem, and I (or anyone else,
it seems) do not know of a complete answer. But that does
_not_, in my mind, render the behavior immediately immune
from justice. -alexf
\_ A lot of idiocy could be prevented if these bullshit
"studies" departments were eliminated. The arguement
that because "ethnic studies" or "african american
studies" are new warrants new departments is specious.
When someone invents a new field of math, they are
still in the math department, and still have to prove
to other mathematicians that they're doing real work
in order to get tenure. Yet these people in ethnic
studies operate with no real peer review outside their
tiny, politically charged world. I don't think this
asshole would have gotten tenure in a history department
at a school like CU.
\_ Sure, because history departments are dominated by
the elite white man genocidal oppressors and subject
to their agenda!
\_ I'm not sure how expressing disappointment or criticism of
an individual whose views one disagrees with can be
characterized as ``opposition to academic freedom of
speech.'' Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us?
Unless, of course, you're the one opposed to academic
freedom of speech. -dans
\_ Do you believe that murder is speech? Alex said that
it is unfortunately no one died. I think it would be
it is unfortunate no one died. I think it would be
great if a bunch of protestors showed up to express
disagreement. I think it would be a tragedy if someone
was killed over it. -ausman
\_ Ah, I parsed that as ``That's unfortunate [that
Churchill was at codys a few weeks ago].'' It
appears you parsed it as ``That's unfrotunate
[nobody died attending Churchill's appearance at
codys a few weeks ago].'' Eh. What can I say,
natural language parsing is a bitch. I assumed the
former because I know alexf to be a generally
reasonable individual who is not prone to making
part-serious statements like ``So-and-so needs
killing.'' And of course I don't think murder is
speech. Don't be a git, who do you think I am, Tim
May? -dans
\_ Interesting thread, guys. Somewhat contrary to
dans's assessment, I did _not_ mean to say it's
unfortunate that he was at Cody's, but rather
that no one died. However the statement, need
this be clarified, was meant as humorous
hyperbole, although I do think the world would be
an appreciably better place if Ward Churchill did
not exist. -alexf
\_ I was amused. You get a gold star. -dans |
| 2005/3/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36874 Activity:moderate |
3/25 US military deserters seek refugee status in Canada.
http://csua.org/u/bhq
I'm basically just posting this article to reference this awesome
quote by the deserters' lawyer:
"We don't believe that people should be imprisoned for doing what
they believe is illegal."
\_ I think what the lawyer meant was "... for NOT doing what ...".
\_ I figured you should just replace 'illegal' with 'right.'
\_ This is all kinds of irrelevant, but if I think carefully
about the original statement I agree with it. If
someone does something they think is illegal, but it's not,
then no, they should not be imprisoned.
But I think the first responder was right, the lawyer meant
"for NOT doing".
\_ That's not how criminal law works. People are tried
and convicted for doing something which they think
is illegal but it is not for some time now. The
mens rea is sometimes more important than the actus
rea in certain crimes according to some courts and
commentators. The concept here is that we wish to
deter criminal intentions for such crimes as
conspiracy.
\_ Conspriacy requires an agreement, an overt
act and the mens rea to join an unlawful
scheme. The unlawful scheme part is impt.
Simply thinking that what you are doing is
illegal is not enough. It has to be unlawful.
Ex. If you didn't know that the 21st amd
had been passed, but you concocted a scheme
w/ your buddies to smuggle booze from Canada
into the US thinking that you were breaking
law, it wouldn't be a conspiracy, regardless
of the fact that you thought it was a crime.
FYI, an actus reus is ALWAYS required in
order to get a criminal conviction whereas
there is no constitutional requirement that
a mens rea be shown (See Robinson v CA).
\_ Ah, I see. Because Iraq was an "illegal war."
\_ I agree with a pp that there is nothing wrong w/ the
lawyer's statement. In order to be criminally punished
a person must have violated the law. If a person thinks
that they have broken the law but really they haven't,
it is irrelevant whether the person thought that he was
breaking the law.
\_ No, you're completely wrong. It does matter in crimes of
conspiracy. In fact, it's been ruled in the past that crimes
of conspiracy don't even require that the other parties involved
are agreeing to break the law, only that the defendant believes
he is conspiring to break the law.
\_ I am sorry, but this is just fucking stupid. Not you, the
government for prosecuting people for not breaking the law.
\_ I don't think that you understand how conspiracy works.
\_ Well, you're wrong. I certainly do know how conspiracy
works in general. How it works in your particular
state is another matter.
Conspiracy is an independent crime from subtantive
crimes. What is required for conspiracy is agreement
to an unlawful scheme. Once a party has agreed to an
unlawful scheme, that party is responsible for the
general intent version of any stubstantive crime
committed by all other parties to the scheme.
Note The underlying scheme must be unlawful, if you
and I agree to stop watching FOX news and then you
go off and kill someone, I'm not liable for voluntary
manslaughter even though I thought that not watching
FOX was a crime.
\_ Actually, that's completely wrong. If you actually
went to law school you'd have heard of the "empty
pocket theory" in which a pickpocket can be convicted
of attempt when he tries to pickpocket an empty
jacket. The same applies for conspiracy. It doesn't
take much to charge someone with conspirac.
What you are describing is actually techinically
a conspiracy, however, due to the inherent impossibility
of committing the crime by watching FOX, it is not
conspiracy. Your reasoning for why the above fact pattern
is wrong is simply wrong. If you had actually studied
conspiracy, you'd know about the "voodoo curse" doctrine
in which inherent factual impossibility excuses
conspiracy.
\_ What about what the above person claims? What if you
and I conspire to say, sneak across the Nevada border,
a perfectly legal act, but one that I believe is
unlawful. Can I be prosecuted for conspiracy?
\_ The empty pocket theory mainly relates to attempt is
applicable to factual vs legal impossibility. In
attempt what is being punished is an act that is
close to being a complete crime w/ the mens rea for
that crime. A factual impossibility does not excuse
b/c a crime would have been committed except for an
external circumstance (the cops caught you in time,
the pocket was empty, &c.) A legal impossbility is
different. Consider a plan to steal a laptop from
someone's backpack during class. Let say you sit down
next to the target and you stick your hand in his
bag, but he left his laptop at home. You are guility
of attempted larceny. However, let's say that you
both have the same sort of backpack and you happen to
reach into your own backpack. Even if the cops slap
the cuffs on you right at that point, you are not
guilty of an attempted crime b/c stealing from
yourself (regardless of the mens rea) is a legal
impossibility.
WRT "voodoo", if you conspire to kill someone,
and one of you happens to use voodoo and the
other uses a gun, you are both still guilty
of the conspiracy to commit murder. However,
if you conspire to kill someone only via
voodoo you are not guilty of the conspriacy
b/c killing via voodoo is not a crime.
(I believe you are referring to the Ivy case,
in which the brothers did time for trying to
kill a judge via a voodoo hex).
BTW, I got a decent grade in crim law.
However, if you and I agree to put up a web site that
lists all the locations of police speed traps in real
time so that people can avoid speeding tickets, a
conspiracy exists b/c the object of our conspiracy was
to help ppl exceed the speed limit which is unlawful.
Now if you kill someone, I will be liable for VMS.
\_ CALLAHAN: Hypothetical situation, huh? All right, I'm
standing on the street corner and Mrs. Grey here comes up
and propositions me... that if I come home with her, for
five dollars she'll put on an exhibition with a Shetland
pony.
MRS. GREY: If this is your idea of humor, Inspector...
BOARD EXAMINER: All right, what are you trying to do here,
Callahan?
CALLAHAN: I'm just trying to find out if anybody in this
room knows what the hell law's being broken... besides
cruelty to animals.
\_ What does this have to do with conspiracy?
\_ It's one of the laws being broken in the hypothetical
situation.
\_ I'm not sure I understand how what you're saying applies to
this case. Desertion is illegal, and I'm pretty sure the
deserters knew it was illegal.
\_ My comment is directed at statement itself w/o regard
to the context. I agree that in the context of the
desertion, the statement makes no sense.
\_ Weren't there a bunch of CO cases during Gulf War I that rested on
the argument that the US military service oath required you to
'defend the Constitution...' (yeah, yeah, I know, that whole
'following orders' thing. -John |
| 2005/3/24-25 [Science/Space, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36853 Activity:low |
3/24 Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the
loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything:
http://csua.org/u/bhg
I think the moral of the story is "Trial lawyers are bad for the
country and cause our healthcare costs to go up but they're good
if you're suing leftist professors because they don't agree with
your beliefs" ... WTF?
\_ "Professors would also be advised to teach alternative serious
academic theories that may disagree with their personal views"
Well at least they're not requiring anyone to teach creationism.
Or is that Kansas public schools only? And this is pretty funny:
"Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things
you don't want to hear" Kinda goes both ways... -John
\_ The point is if some Prof is teaching evolution and some
student doesn't like it they are being encouraged to sue
the school -- that is beyond lame -- don't go and get
educated at a University if you don't want to be taught
the currently prevailing theories and science.
\_ Ever heard of "preaching to the choir"? That quote is
from the bill's sponsor. -John
\_ Water is good if you drink it in moderate amounts because you
need it for life. Water is bad if you're in a tank of it with
weights tied to your legs. WTF?
\_ Your brain has been classified as: small
\_ Your statement has been classified as content free.
\_ Your statement has been classified as content free.
\_ Time to amputate Florida before the disease spreads.
\_ But it's America's wang! |
| 2005/3/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36851 Activity:nil |
3/24 Just in case you think we're getting close to the end of the
loopiness caused by the Republicans running everything:
http://csua.org/u/bhg |
| 2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36835 Activity:nil |
3/23 We paid $200000+ to help that piece of shit?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/laci.peterson.costs.ap/index.html
\_ Well, he was the defendent, and he did run out of money after a
while, apparently.
\_ It produced more than $200K worth of tax and "entertainment" for
the state... |
| 2005/3/21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36792 Activity:high |
3/21 The way I see the Schiavo case is as follows, it is just my opinion
and you're free to criticize me if you want:
-Scientists claim she has no consciousness, and that the probability
of her regaining consciousness is less than 0.01%, which is
unlikely. Let's just move on.
-Family members and religious right activists say that all lives
are sacred and that despite statistics and science, miracles DO
happen. Let's keep her alive.
\_ Husband claims that Schiavo explicitly requested death over
being kept alive artificially like she is.
\_ yeah, after he smacked her so many times she ask
him to just kill her off
Also, ^Family members^parents (above)
\_ I think you have a large number of mitigating factors.
This is not a right to die case, there is no living will
and testimony to her wish to die is suspect at best.
Michael Schiavio's behavior is very suspicious and there
alot of facts that are not publicized.
\_ what the hell are you talking about? there are lots of
facts. here is a list:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html - danh
\_ i suspect less than 10% of US population is aware
of the full story involving her case and are basing
their judgement on what they see on the alphabet
networks. No need to work yourself into a frenzy.
Are you aware of the conflicts of interest between
Schiavos lawyer?
Are you aware of affadavits from girlfriend stating
Michael denied ever discussing Terri's wish to die?
Are you aware he euthanized her cats so he could move
in with a girlfriend 2 years after her collapse?
Are you aware Michael was undergoing pyschological
counseling and on prescription drugs at the time
of her accident?
Are you aware judge Greer is legally blind?
\_ It's just a typical case of American blind justice, and
there ain't a-nothin' you can do about it.
Are you aware several women have restraining orders
on Michael?
\_ I have read stuff like "michael greer works
near the hospital in question and really annoyed
the staff about his vegetable wife's care, kind
of like an annoying cast member of ER, so someone
got a restraining order against michael". this is a lot
different than random women getting restraining orders
against him.
\_ you mean the hospital staff does.
Are you aware Michael's testimony in the malpractice
suit contradicts his later testimony about her
wish to die?
Want more?
Murderers on death row get better treatment
than this.
Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fe\
d and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had nu\
merous health problems, but none have been life threatening.
Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because\
of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996,\
the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point,\
much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spi\
nal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true mir\
acle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious,\
reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.
\_ tjb? is that you?
\_ These are good to know, but the most important fact
is that there is no documentation of Terri's supposed
request to die. Michael could be wanting to sell her
organs to the highest bidder for all I care. We don't
know what Terri wanted and there is still a chance for
her to recover. Given that, she should be kept alive.
Anything else is murder, IMO.
\_ Why should the US population be aware of this case?
Even if all of the above were true, should Congress
intervene in this case? What about in all similar
cases when a person in a vegetative state has relatives
who fight over the person's right to die? Should
all those people ask Congress to intervene?
\_ This whole affair is just political grandstanding by the
Republicans, especially certain congressional leaders
that have their eyes on 2008. This is red meat for their
base and everybody (including the public) knows it.
\_ Exactly. Come 2008, and they'll say that Democrats are
evil heartless liberals, and that Republicans are
compassionate. Personally, I think the Democrats should
just give in on the basis of "compassion for election" -lib
\_ http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf
\-If this schavio vegetable woman was say a portugese
woman and this drama was playing out in lisbon instead
of florida, would you "pro culture of life" people advocate
congress offering to bring her into the us and continue
feeding/hydratiing her? [assuming portugal and her parents
would be happy to let her move to the us, it could be done
safely, from a medical perspective etc]. --psb
\_ No.
\- why doesnt the culture of life apply here?
\_ I think you are a superstitious loon. |
| 2005/3/17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36731 Activity:nil |
3/17 WTF, Scott Peterson gets hot meals at the taxpayers' expense? If
he's going to be executed anyway, let him eat table scraps from
dumpsters like a homeless person. |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36723 Activity:high 75%like:36717 |
3/16 Robert Blake aquitted for murder. Hung jury on one count of asking
someone to kill Bakley; acquittal on the second count.
I'm still wondering how Scott Peterson got convicted "beyond
a reasonable doubt".
\_ Nobody cares if a woman dies, but a fetus on the other hand..
\_ Because the whole body of evidence pointed to Peterson killing his
wife and unborn child, and there wasn't a reasonable doubt.
\_ Which trial did you follow? The one I saw had plenty of room
for doubt.
\_ I guess we just disagree then. That happens, even on juries.
\_ The law requires 'reasonable doubt'. I saw doubts, but didn't
consider them very reasonable. Murders are never proved 100%.
\_ Uh, so that guy, Brian Nichols, we aren't 100% sure that
he murdered the judge, the court reporter, and the security
guard who chased him out front?
\_ No, we are 100%-epsilon sure. What is epsilon and what
epsilon constitutes reasonable doubt is a matter of
personal choice.
\_ This analog thinking will get you into trouble;
think Digitally, the new revolution!
\_ Scott Peterson was guilty in my mind. He's one of
those guys who, even if not guilty, deserves jail time
anyway for being a dick. The death penalty seems a
bit harsh, though.
\_ Is it possible we have:
Backlash against OJ -> Convict Scott Peterson
Backlash against Scott -> Acquit Blake
\_ You really think there was a backlash against Scott?
\_ Nah, not really. That's one of the "benefits" of anonymous
posts - you can troll every once in a while.
Backlash against Blake -> <Screwed individual>
\_ This is not rocket science. The trend is simple. If you're a famous
guy in football or Hollywood, you're acquitted. And if you're not
(Scott) then you're guilty. |
| 2005/3/16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36717 Activity:nil 75%like:36723 |
3/16 Robert Blake aquitted for murder. Hung jury on hiring a hit man.
I'm still wondering how Scott Peterson got convicted "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
\_ Nobody cares if a woman dies, but a fetus on the other hand..
\_ Because the whole body of evidence pointed to Peterson killing his
wife and unborn child, and there wasn't a reasonable doubt. |
| 2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36698 Activity:high |
3/15 Are they going to grill Michael Jackson as well or is he just
going to sit behind his army of lawyers and let them do all
the talking?
\_ it is extremely unlikely they'll have jackson take the stand.
\_ why? how can he not?
\_ because putting nutjobs on the stand is a good way to get
them exposed as nutjobs. -tom
\_ Yes, but nutjobs often don't listen to their lawyers.
\_ I know why they don't want MJ to take the stand.
What I am asking is can they do that? This is all
about fair and balance, how can he not take the
stand? (or rather, why would the law allow him not to
take the stand?) If you grill hard enough on any rape
victims, you are bound to find some thing. This just
seems a little strange.
\_ It is fairly common for criminal defendants not to
testify on their own behalf. I've known some public
defenders who routinely advise their clients not to
testify. -tom
\_ Because of the 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution.
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself..."
\_ Ah, that nonsense...
\_ I do believe he should be required to take the
stand, and can say "I have nothing to say about
that" for all questions. But required to take the
stand.
\_ The prosecution can call him as a hostile witness
if they want to, but that would probably be seen as
a grandstanding ploy. -tom
\_ he'll plead the fizzif. one two three four fiiiiif!
\_ because of 5th amendment, prosecution can't really force
him to testify, so only reason he might testify is if his
defense lawyers thought was a good idea.
\_ This is the same thing as the "self incrimination" thing
that we hear from cop dramas, right?
\_ 5th Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service, in time of
war, or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be
compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself;
nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."
\_ About not being tried twice for the same offence,
what if the subject was found not guilty, and then
some new evidence is found later showing that he's
guilty?
\_ That's the idea. The prosecution has to hold
off on bringing charges until they think they
have enough to convict. Otherwise you could
have someone on trial over and over again for
the same offence as prosecuters keep
'discovering' evidence they should have
presented at the first trial. Now if new
evidence of a similar but distinct crime turns
up, then you can be retried.
\- unless the new evidence points to a "new
crime" it is over. so in theory
you could even confess once you have been
found innocent. however there are some not
very self-evident details about what
constitutes the same crime, there may be
state/federal issues, you can still be
sued in tort possibly etc. you can also\
read about "jury nullification", directed
verdicts, with/without prejudice dismissal.
oh and obviously this doenst apply in the
case of a mistrial. the double jeopardy
issue was run around in the OJ case.
\_ Uh, it's still double jeopardy. How did all
you people who've never heard of the fifth
amendment get into Berkeley?
\- If you are talking about the Miranda warning, the
decision of Miranda v. Az is sort of procedural rather
than substantive decision. The essence was "you have
to let suspects in custody know what their rights are"
rather than an expansion of the right against
self-incrimination. This is in contrast to a more
subtantive decision like Gideon v. Wainwright, which
says the right to counsel include an obligation for
the state to provide counsel for indigents. There
are a lot of intersting cases relating to self-
incrimination. YMWTGF: christian burial speech. --psb
\_ I'm surprised the racist-against-Mexicans guy isn't
frothing at the mouth and posting another anti-
immigration freeper storm in response to this
thread.
\_ tnx for the suggestion (re "christian burial"). An
interesting case which I hadn't seen before. As
usual, I think the dissent has it right. -crebbs
\- somewhat interestingly, there are two brewer v.
williams cases. the first one involves the
"appeal to conscience" issue, and the second
one promotes the "inevitable discovery" doc-
trine. the evolution of the exclusionary rule
is also pretty interesting. --psb
\_ It's called "Pleading the 5th". |
| 2005/3/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36653 Activity:moderate |
3/11 I am curious, what would the death penalty opponents say about
people like Brian Nichols? Or those who committed 911? Where
do you draw the line?
\_ You draw the line at "state-enforced execution." -tom
\_ So you suggest we let people like Brian Nichols happily
live in prison, watching TV, and pumping iron?
\_ Yeah, I'm sure prison is just like a country club. -tom
\_ Of course not. In a country club, you have to pay for the
food and the gym, and there's no free medical.
\_ What about state-enforced prison? Are you against
anything state-enforced?
\_ No. Don't be a moron. -tom
\_ He probably can't help it.
\_ I'm not necessarily against the death penalty, but I believe the
system can be improved. My opinion is that, while in the U.S. you
can convict someone with "beyond reasonable doubt", you should only
be able to put someone to death using "beyond any doubt" that the
defendent actually committed the crime.
E.g., the jury convicted Scott Peterson using "beyond reasonable
doubt", but I don't believe a jury could say it was "beyond any
doubt" he did it or had someone do it, and so therefore couldn't
sentence him to death.
Naturally things like state-of-mind (premeditation / heat of the
moment, clinical insanity, etc.) may be hard to include in this
equation -- unless for example you have someone telling several
people that they have nothing against Grandpa, but they really want
that inheritance and he's old anyway -- but that's the main tricky
part of the implementation.
Ideally, there shouldn't be a death penalty, but some system where
those who would normally be put to death would be punished with hard
labor and minimal comforts for the rest of their lives. But this
ideal may be hard in coming and in regulating abuse, so I'm not
going to preach on that, but push a "beyond any doubt" restriction
on capital punishment instead.
\_ So let's say they can't prove for _sure_ someone did XYZ. It's
OK to take away their life with a fate many would consider worse
than death: life in prison, but not OK to kill them, usually on
\_ What I don't understand are the arguments that support the
death penalty for reasons beyond what it is: (a) to punish,
(b) to set an example, (c) to remove a danger from society.
It is not a mercy killing, nor can you apply economic
arguments. I personally oppose it, although asking me a
"what if" question like this is basically the same as the
torture dilemna--in short, I don't know. I just wish people
arguing pro/contra the death penalty would be intellectually
honest and not use nonsense reasoning. -John
the argument that it's irrevocable. I would argue that life (or
even a long period) in prison is just as irrevocable.
\_ Let's take Scott Peterson. We can't prove for _sure_ he did
it or had someone do it. The jury puts him in jail for life.
20 years later, someone else says he did it -- Scott is an
adulterer, an asshole, a liar, and a poor excuse for a human
being -- but to a judge, he didn't kill Laci.
You release Scott Peterson. The government must pay
restitution and clear his legal record. The payments don't
make up for the time lost. For some people, this would be
fair. So, let's say we had someone truly innocent convicted,
like Dr. whatshisface from The Fujitive. The government would
pay restitution, but it wouldn't make up for lost time. But
that's life. That's not "OK", but it's the best we can do
with the system.
On the other hand, if you kill Scott Peterson and Dr.
Fujitive guy on "beyond reasonable doubt" and they both
turn out to be innocent, that's not "OK", and we can actually
do better with a "beyond any doubt" restriction on capital
punishment.
\_ That's just a more roundabout and less intellectually
honest way of saying that you're an opponent of capital
punishment. |
| 2005/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36615 Activity:high |
3/10 Hey ilyas, take your philosopher kings and blow 'em out your nose
with a rubber hose!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050310.shtml
\_ Intelligently written, but horseshit. Imagine a world where
legislation is so thorough as to leave absolutely no gray areas?
The fact that lawyers can exploit this is not a failure of the
way our legal system works, but a failure of the way lawyers work.
No matter how clever a restriction you put into place, you'll
always find some smartass who'll take advantage of it. -John
\_ Then legislators can correct the problem. That's not the role of
a judge.
\_ interpreting the law is exactly the role of the judicial
system. -tom
\_ There is a huge difference btwn interpreting the law
and making it. No one objects to interpretations of
the law, but when judges base their decisions on the
current prevailing views (as Kennedy recently did)
the foundation upon which the law is based becomes
quite unstable.
The whole idea of separation of powers comes into
question if you allow judges to "interpret" the
legislative schemes to fit into their notion of how
the scheme should work (look at the reluctance of
the USSC to allow judges to fashion soln to the
asbestos mess)
WRT to the posted article the comparison of fixed
speed limits to no undue speed is a poor analogy.
In many cases the law needs to be flexible so that
various factual situations can be handled. Things
"undue" and "prudent" are not just arbitrary, they
have specific meanings that judges and lawyers
know and adhere to.
In many ways the flexibility of modern law is a
reaction to the common law writ system which had
specific (but arbitrary) requirements on what a
person must plead, &c. which forced people to
distort their facts to fit into one writ or the
the other.
\_ Nowhere did I say "correct". The law is deliberately
ambiguous in a lot of areas. The EU has a famous statute
governing the curvature of bananas, as well as one about
the positioning of light fixtures--something like 600,000
pages of random shit that their legislators use to try and
regulate things they have no business with, which is what
legislators do given the opportunity. This breeds a culture,
all too pervasive in a lot of countries, that everything not
explicitly permitted is forbidden--innovation and personal
accountability are stifled. I am arguing against the
extremes that the approach taken by Sowell's article would
create implicitly. That said, striking down laws judged to
violate the constitution (created by legislation) is a form
of "correction", no? Would you ban that? -John
\_ In our system a lawyer has a duty to represent the best
interests of his client. If the clients interests means
that he has to be creative in his interpretation, then
it is not really his fault, he is doing what is required
of him. |
| 2005/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36417 Activity:nil |
2/25 http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2005-02-25/n.php Proper courting behavior indeed http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Feb/EEN421f5ecb61b68.html |
| 2005/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36376 Activity:nil |
2/23 Dumbest Criminal Ever Award: Man admits bank robbery on radio talk
show.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-radio23.html |
| 2005/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36063 Activity:high |
2/4 What do you sodans think if an Alien race came and claims that our
democracy is inferior than their whatever system. Does that
give them the right to attack us? Will any of you be working
for the "Alien" for a "better America"?
\_ definitely. i'd embrace their culture and worship their kind
\_ let me be the first to welcome our new alien overlords.
\_ damn, you beat me to it!
\_ What would you sodans do if a stupid troll was posted on the
motd?
\_ ilyas wrote the question so it's not a troll. anyways, yes,
they will have the right to attack us, as long as it's done
in the name of Jesus Christ. God Bless.
\_ Actually ilyas wrote one of the replies. But don't let me
get in the way of the infallibility of your spy script.
P.S. You are an idiot. -- ilyas
\_ Well. That would depend on whether it is _actually_ better.
\_ this is a matter of opinion, and if the Alien race used their
\_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than
others. You = Lenin's useful idiot.
super media power to convince us, YES, so be it. But if the
alien race failed to convince us at first and then attacked us,
then it's their fault. Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/web.us
The point is that information warfare is just as important as
traditional warfare, and in this case, the US failed to win
information battles and has a hard time catching up
\_ No, it's not. Some forms of government are better than
others. You = Lenin's useful idiot.
\_ Better in terms of what? Freedom? Economics? Military
Power? Control? And better for whom? Your brain has been
classified as: American, self-centered and self-righteous
\- you must pay me 5cents
\_ American! Now that stings! Your brain has been
classified as: European, relativist, and morally
bankrupt. This game is fun.
\_ Your brain has been classified as: Russian Jew,
\- you must pay me 5cents
sarcastic, not funny, and attention whore.
(seeking attention on motd. how pathetic)
\_ Wasn't my brain American a second ago? Make up
your mind! And yes, I stand suitably humbled
your brain! And yes, I stand suitably humbled
by a fellow motd poster, who clearly is not
limited by any kind of whoring himself.
\_ But is democracy _actually_ better than what was in Iraq
before?
\_ your brain has been classified as: small.
\_ wait... whose brain?
\_ The brain of anyone who disagrees with ilyas on any
subject.
\_ We are the Americans. You will be democratized. Resistance is
terrorism.
\_ Hahahahaha, you've made my day! This about sums it up!!
\_ ARe you Chinese? Do you understand the impact of the opium
trade on Cnina?
\_ I think that you fail to understand something fundamental
about how the world works. Behind the protective wall of
civilization people are free to argue about this right or
that, but outside of those walls, a man's rights are based
on his ability to defeat and destroy all those that oppose
him. If the Aliens are stronger than we are, then we may
have no choice but to live by their rules.
Personally, given a choice between American and the Alien,
I would fight and die for this nation b/c I believe that
no better alternative can exist in this life.
\_ My country right or wrong! -John |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35873 Activity:nil |
1/24 PROOF THAT DUMOCRAPS ARE VIOLENT!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1271455/posts
\_ The motd has gotten so goddamn stale and boring in the last few
days that I'm actually glad to see freeper troll back. Keep
up the good work!
\_ It's more like dirty than violent.
\_ Proof that the American Justice system still works:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327414/posts |
| 2005/1/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35797 Activity:moderate |
1/19 Funny review of "Hated: GG Allin And The Murder Junkies"
http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/ReviewsH.html#anchor270435
\_ GG Allin was a waste of space.
\_ If I could push a button and make either GG Allin never have
existed or make one of these all-sound-the-same corporate
sellout bands they call punk now, I'd kill the corporate
sellout.
\_ I vote for GG Allin and others like him. He's a sellout
of a different kind.
\_ Seconded. Take your goddamn "performance art" out of my
punk, please. |
| 2005/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35743 Activity:insanely high |
1/16 Dear libertarians (ie "all man for himself") and conservatives
(ie "flat tax means equality"), what is your opinion on the
following article and why is it flawed? -moderate
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/wealth.gap.ap/index.html
\_ Dear moderate (ie "I am too dumb to make up my mind"),
please fuck off.
\_ I'll bite. The article points out that the income
gap has closed but the wealth gap has not. It seems
intuitive that if the gap in income and wealth
were to both close, that the income gap will come first.
That we haven't seen the wealth gap close yet does
not indicate a market failure. Also, doesn't take
into account that regional variations in wealth/income
and regional variations in race are highly correlated
(see <DEAD>www.csua.berkeley.edu/~darin/upload/black.PNG<DEAD>
--Darin (moderate libertarian)
\_ user/pass? I tried moderate/libertarian and it didn't work.
\_ I'll go in as well. Again, they point out that the income gap
has closed, but not the wealth gap. In the article they
attribute this to racism in companies giving morgages. BS.
Lack of loans don't stop people from investing in the stock
market or any other sort of saving. Basically, America has a
big problem with people not saving. There's an epidemic of
people living beyond their means in America, and blacks seem to
be particularly susceptible to the lure of conspicuous
consumption. This is cultural, if your parents didn't save
money, you probably won't either. (In this case, it may be
their parents didn't save money because some white guy would
come and steal it. It doesn't matter, the result is the same
now.) I think we should make a class in money management a
high school requirement. -jrleek
\_ I agree with everything you say, and yet I am a liberal.
This may be one of the first jrleek posts I would say that about.
\_ Ahh! You used the b**** word!!! Racist!!!
\_ People keep saying blacks don't save money. Then you go
look up life expectancy of black males and it's like 69.
The amount of money one needs to save for retirement is
vastly different depending on whether one is going to live
to 69 or 82.
to 69 or 82. White people complain a lot, but it's they
who live a long, unproductive, useless post-retirement
life on government subsidies. They should learn to die
earlier like black people, and stop wasting my tax dollars.
These days, you start getting social security at like 67,
so the average black male is only gonna get two years'
worth, whereas someone who lives till 87 is going to get
20 years' worth. So, please stop dissing on black people.
\_ Sigh. This is why a little knowledge of statistics is
such a dangerous thing.
\_ well, the same thing can be said of jrleek's post,
which is my point.
\_ I must have missed it then. Could you explain
where my post goes wrong in more detail? Your post
makes a number a wierd logical fallacies that I
makes a number of weird logical fallacies that I
don't THINK I commited, which you claim to have
understood when you posted. Please be more
specific. -jrleek
\_ Please explain what weird logical fallacies
were in my post?
\_ I don't think you know how life expectancy
works. - !jrleek
\_ That's the main problem. The way you
apply life expectency is criminal, and
the resulting argument is horrifying in
it's circularity. -jrleek
\_ This is the first time I've heard of the notion of African
Americans in general not saving money vs. other Americans. I
read last night in the Post editorial on Social Security that the
average U.S. household saves 1.5% of disposable income, compared
to 11% two decades ago.
So ... that must mean blacks are dragging down the average, even
though they make up ~ 10% of the U.S. population?
(That was an absurd statement; of course I don't believe that.)
\_ I was just using the stats from the article. I guess you
could say that blacks are "dragging down the average" but
I wouldn't. It's a huge probelm in every race. Blacks
just seem to be particularly afflicted with it. -jrleek
\_ I just updated my stats for you since I remembered my
source. Anyway, if you said, whiteys played more stocks
than black people, even if they make the same money -- I'd
agree with you.
But I think the numbers don't lie, for all Americans, when
it comes to annual savings.
I don't know if the Post's result intelligently classified
some stock market investments as savings, so I can't argue
there.
\_ Again they focus on equal outcome rather than equal opportunity.
The goal is clearly socialism.
\_ socialism is equal income.
communism is equal outcome.
\_ capitalism is equal cum.
\_ no, capitalism is equal outcome when you have enough income
\_ "Victims!" |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35631 Activity:very high |
1/10 As much as I like 24, I find its portraying of us liberals and
the mention of moore interesting. Is the producer hard core
republican? -curious 24fan
\_ Is this from yesterday's episode? Didn't you find that they
played the Sec. of Defense as a caricature too (on the right)?
Also, have the good guys stopped using Macs?
\_ yes, macs are kind of non-mainstream now.
\_ Has any past U.S. Defense Secretary been a non-republican?
Trollish, but I'm also curious.
\_ Harold Brown might have, president of Caltech at one time
Director of Lawrence Livermore. Ph.D. in physics by age 21
\_ Some of FDR's Secretary of Wars were Democrats. George Dern
for sure. Louis Johnson, appointed by Truman must have been
a Democrat, too.
\_ Was Palmer rep. or dem.?
\_ I never really watched 24 before last night. I thought the acting
and drama was good but several things left a bad taste in my mouth.
The stuff with the hacker "stealing software" was laughable. The
\_ no, concluding that someone was
"corrupting the internet" from looking
at a scrolling series of hex numbers
is laughable.
defense guy's security was incompetent. The stuff with the
terrorist's kid and his evil parents and the American chick was
ridiculous. He wants to invite her over to kill her? Like that's
\_ how did you draw this conclusion?
\_ From the "scenes from the next episode"
teaser they played afterwards.
not gonna get noticed by anybody?
\_ If you analyze it like that, then I am sure you'll find
flaws. What I like about the show is the non stop
suspense and twist and turns and the fact you have no
idea what will happen next. A lot of shows are too
predictable. I feel they've done a good job at 24.
whether they are going up hill or down hill, hard to say
at this point...
\_ Yeah I said the acting and drama was good. I can't help
analyzing stuff but I can generally overlook it. It doesn't
take that much to appease me... if for example the feds put
up even a slight bit of fight instead of getting completely
wasted, or the hacker stuff was slightly plausible.
\_ The toughest part for me to overlook has always
been that the characters never seem to notice that
something cliffhanger-ish always seems to happen
every hour on the hour. At some point you'd think
they'd look at their watches, see it's 9:59, and
brace themselves for something really really bad
to happen. It's still a lot of fun though.
\_ The part that's always funny to me is the technical
stuff. Looking at hex scrolling by is an example,
maybe they thought we geeks can read machine code
or something. Or they are so fancy/advanced I go
\_ you can't?
"you can do that?" Guess that's true with most
movies as well.
\_ I'm amazed at how quickly people can get from
place to place in LA. |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35618 Activity:nil |
1/8 Death row inmate seeks organ transplant
http://organtx.org/ethics/prisoners.htm |
| 2005/1/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35607 Activity:very high |
1/7 Before you people start mouthing off about the law, i.e.
PSB, I suggest you pick up a copy of "American Courts" by
Daniel John Meador. It's put out by West Group, probably the
same people behind Westlaw. It's required reading at some
law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
\_ FYI, West Group is the same people behind Westlaw.
\_ FYI, West Group are the same people behind Westlaw.
law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
\- it's amazing what PDFs you can find via google...
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/tmp/Texts1.jpg
Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
\- You know for the legal topics that interest me, I think I
have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the vocational
practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack about civil procedure
but I do know a little about Constitutional Law, Law and Economics,
Antitrust Law [but I have more background in Econ ... but I have
read a reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you do,
unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It would also
be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... face your accuser
and all that. I think it is poor form to talk about background in
a public forum but would be happy to do so by email. --psb
have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the
vocational practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack
about civil procedure but I do know a little about
Constitutional Law, Law and Economics, Antitrust Law [but I
have more background in Econ ... but I have read a
reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you
do, unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It
would also be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... with
these anonymous conversation you never know if you are
speaking to the same person as before ... and then there is
facing your accuser and all that :-). I think it is poor
form to talk about background in a public forum but would
be happy to do so by email. Somewhat ironically, my entire
legal educatation, for what it is, esentially predates google.--psb
\-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book
mentioned above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was
surprised to see that for what I assume is a classic,
there was only one review ... allthought a 5star one. So
then I looked up a number of famous law books [Martin
Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo: Nature of the Jud. Process,
Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol Proc, Posner: Econ
Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously, HLA
Hart: Concept of Law] and not a single one had more than
10 reviews ... it sure seems like law people spend a lot
less time writing reviews than say math people ... (Baby)
Rudin has 73 reviews. A lot of the std math/phyiscs
textbooks have 20-40 reviews. Oh Rawls: Theory of Justice
has 46 reviews.
\_ I was in a law class with PSB. For the Mock Trial he was the
best attorney by far. His only problem was he was a bit
impatient with a dumb judge during oral arguments. That hurt
his case when we voted. He would probably be a better law
professor than lawyer.
\-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book mentioned
above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was surprised to see
that for what I assume is a classic, there was only one
review ... allthough a 5star one. So then I looked up a
number of famous law books [Martin Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo:
Nature of the Jud. Process, Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol
Proc, Posner: Econ Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights
Seriously, HLA Hart: Concept of Law, Bickle: Least Dangerous
Branch] and not a single one had more than 10 reviews ... it
sure seems like law people spend a lot less time writing
reviews than say math people ... (Baby) Rudin has 73 reviews.
A lot of the std math/phyiscs textbooks have 20-40 reviews.
Oh, Rawls: Theory of Justice has 46 reviews.
\_ psb, why do you specifically single out yale in your
response? out of curiosity, where did you learn all
your legal knowledge?
\- in political science, philosophy, and econ
departments. the one law class i took in
the business school was the worst class i
ever took at berkeley. it was taught by a
visiting prof who was i believe a second
rate practicing attorney who didnt know the
subject well from an academic perspective
and was just dull (e.g. he didnt know and
could not understand anything about "the
economic analysis of law" ... "i dont want
to consider the availabilty of insurance"
"what do you mean about the evolutionary
efficiency of the common law"). has anybody
else had really bad experieinces with a
visiting prof? it was my theory that he
wanted "taught at berkeley" on his resume
and learned on some friend here to get him
a job for the term. when i talked to prof
muir with a number of specific example of
what was wrong with him [like his scantron
exam], muir sighed and i believe indirectly
hinted he'd seen a lot of problems with
visiting people.
\_ Funny. I've been at Yale for the last five years and
know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy. I guess
the osmosis theory of learning doesn't work after all.
I'm pretty sure the engineering undergrads I've TA'd all
also know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy; this
comment is mystifying.
\_ not really. i think he's talking about, say, the
people in the law school. yale's law program has a
reputation for a relatively high focus on theory.
\_ Well, that's even stupider. So if someone is
in law school at some other top-tier school,
they must automatically bow the might of the PSB?
Of course given the near infinite idiocy of the
op's pompous rant, I guess it all cancels out.
\- sigh, it was sort of a jokey-reference to
yale law schools reputation for abstractness.
there is a joke that goes something like:
3 law student friends are waiting to take the
bar exam in boston. the harvard student asks
the umass student "what is the MA law on torts?"
and the yale law student asks the HLS student
"what is a tort?" only after i started meeting
people who went to or were in law school i
learned how "vocational" even good law programs
were. you spend a lot of time on "how to be a
lawyer" rather than thinking about "The Law
and Justice". i.e you dont read a lot of Plato
and Kant. --psb
\_ Why shouldn't it be vocational? I'm
not going to pay someone three
hundred bucks an hour to talk about
Kant.
\- that was not a criticism. it was an
observation. i mean to get at something
like if you start up a conversation
about something like "what do we owe
each other" or what is a rationale for
progressive taxation, a lawyer may little
more to say than say an english major
who has relfected some on a classist
society upon reading Dickens.
\_ If all our lawyers talk about Plato and Kant
from now on there would be no frivilous
lawsuits and our health insurance cost
would come down. Everyone except the
lawyers would be better off.
\-SPARTAN LAWYER!
O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede
keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi
(Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here obedient to their laws we lie.)
--Simonides in honor of the
Spartans who fell at Thermopylae
\_ I think "theory" is just a code word
for leftist.
\- That applies maybe to something like
"Critical Legal Studies" but a big area
is Law and Economics [sort of the
Chicago approach] so that is not really
true. Plenty of this philosophy is
libertarian in flavor [contract and all
that]. I think Plato is sort of like
Lincoln ... everyone wants a piece of
him. Well except maybe whackos like
racialists.
racialists. --psb |
| 2004/12/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35495 Activity:high |
12/30 And a Slate article on Sontag. Hitchens wrote it so it's safe for
liberals and conservatives alike.
http://www.slate.com/id/2111506/12/30
\_ Sure, it slandered cancer patients.
\_ A surprisingly touching eulogy from the man who described Mother
Teresa as a twisted Albanian dwarf and Gandhi as a Hindu
fundamentalist. [Edited to reflect psb's comment.]
\_ Like I said. Hitchens has something for everybody.
\-Hindi = language. Hindu = religion. Hine = Cognac.
\_ It looks like the above was a typo, but accroding to this
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hindi
hindi: adj : of or relating to or supporting Hinduism
There is another meaning of the word "hindi" in English
besides the language.
\-hitchens is a pretty good essayist and debater evaluated
in terms of form. content is sometimes suspect. e.g.
the johnson quote is nice. the t.s. eliot reference
is nice. his description of CHIRAC in terms of the
character from L'Education Sentimental [someone who
would gladly pay for the pleasure of selling his own
mother] was also great. ok tnx. |
| 2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35475 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/29/hunters.shot.ap/index.html Hmong hunter to use the insanity defense. I guess they didn't want to use the "Damn 4 eyed chink can't see and can't shoot, therefore you must acquit" defense as suggested by O'Reiley. |
| 2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35470 Activity:nil |
12/29 Jerry Orbach RIP:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/29/obit.orbach/index.html
\_ That man singlehandedly made Law&Order fun to watch. |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35403 Activity:very high |
12/22 Dear Religious Democrats (emarkp, jrleek, etc), please help out.
I'm trying to find biblical sections like John 12:34,
Genesis 56:78, or something like that, which may suggest
that Jesus 1) favors more government handouts for
welfare 2) is compassionate and is soft on crime
3) prefers raising tax for the rich to support the poor
4) anything else that aligns with the Democratic agenda
I'm trying to come up with something cool, but I need actual
sections from the bible. ok thx -don't know much about bible
\_ Apparently you know even less about the motd and its cast of
characters than you do about the bible.
\_ I have to wonder what I or jrleek have written which led this
person to believe we are Democrats. -emarkp
\_ Well, it sounds pretty bizarre to me. Is there *any* issue
on which you would consider yourself to be a "liberal?"
\_ This has to be the dumbest request of the year. You can't take
the bible and start applying 21st century politics to it.
Anyway, the Bible as a whole is definitely conservative, especially
the Old Testament. You are prohibitted from homosexuality, you can't
eat pork, and anyone who isn't part of your group is slain. If you
think that Jesus was a liberal, you'd be wrong. He expressly
states that although he brings something new, the old ways are
by no means to be overthrown. Also, although the Catholic
Church has traditionally been aligned with the Democrats, they
are firmly against abortion, divorce, and contraception. I'm
not quite sure how you could align the strongly traditional message
in various parts of the Bible, especially books like Job or Jonah
which teach absolute faith in God without reason, to liberal
democratic views.
\_ look, if Karl Rove can successfully use the Bible to
manipulate the not-so-bright mass of people, then it
shouldn't be so hard to use his own ammo to manipulate
them the other way. If all logic and reasons fail, you
have to resort to... Religion, which is proven to work well.
\_ Maybe instead of finding a few choice quotes to bend to your
agenda you should read the whole bible to get a better idea
of what Jesus stood for. You're no better than O'Reily.
\_ it takes one OReiley to counter another OReiley.
\_ Maybe you should watch Jon Stewart on Crossfire. He
seriously disagrees with that approach.
\_ Um, I'm most certainly not a Democrat. -emarkp
\_ uh, ok. So what are you, a conservative?
\_ he's not a Democrat, he's been Visited by the Angel Moroni
\_ Yes. And I see very little in the Bible to support government
policy of any sort. -emarkp
\_ Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21, Colossians 3:2
\_ None of those have anything to do with public policy. -emarkp
\_ so emarkp, would you say that if Jesus were alive today, he
would rather support Republican agendas than Democratic agendas?
\_ I don't think he'd support any political agenda. -emarkp
\_ If you ask me, Jesus is a communist. Just read:
Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Matthew 19:21 "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Colossians 3:2 "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."
\_ Yes, those would be the verses listed above. They are about how you
should live your own life, not how you should legislate the lives of
others. Note also that in Luke he was speaking to the twelve
(slightly different commission) and in Matthew he was responding to
the young man who asked how to become perfect. -emarkp
\_ "not how you should legislate"? Give me a break, conservatives
are trying to legislate religious values all the time.
\_ That doesn't mean Jesus would advocate it, or that all
conservatives suggest that Jesus would advocate it. -emarkp
\_ hi kchang!
\_ "As you treat the least of mine, you treat me also".
\_ 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire
prepared for the Devil and his demons! For I was hungry,
and you didn't feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn't give
me anything to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn't
invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me
no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
Jesus goes on to say Then they will reply, `Lord, when did we
ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or
sick or in prison, and not help you?' And he will answer,
`I assure you, when you refused to help the least of
these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to
help me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment,
but the righteous will go into eternal life." -Matthew 25:41
Also look up liberation theology to see how leftists have
interpreted these ideals into action.
\_ Jesus advocates charity. Leftists advocate charity at the point
of a gun. -- ilyas
\_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology#Passages_from_the_Bible |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35389 Activity:high |
12/21 Jesus of Nazareth, wrong on crime, wrong on defense, wrong choice.
http://www.wiseass.org/files/Jesus.swf
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_jesusad.jpg
\_ Yeah, those damn Jews, they're all democrats.
\_ I'm surprised ilyas the Russian Jew hasn't said anything yet.
\_ I am neither russian nor jewish. -- ilyas
\_ How do you describe your ethnicity?
\_ Why should I tell you things if i don't even know who
you are? Email me if you care. -- ilyas |
| 2004/12/14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35295 Activity:high |
12/14 Instead of letting Scott Peterson get off easy with a painless
lethal injection, how about we let Laci Peterson's mom cut off
his head with a large knife and let Fox televise it? I'm sure
it's get great ratings in this country, and would do more to
deter crime than the current death penalty.
\_ Sounds like a good idea to me.
\_ You won't be making this joke if your loved one is killed.
\_ Her mom wants vengeance! Did you see her during the
sentencing??
\_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga!
\_ is that joke that popular? i heard that freshman year ('96).
\_ It's a lot older than that
\_ Man I feel old, my freshman year is 92.
\_ you are old. -another '96
\_ Ah, youngster, I remember you now. -'92 grad |
| 2004/12/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35265 Activity:high |
12/13 REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- A jury today recommended that 32-year-old
Scott Peterson should be executed for the murder of his wife when she
was eight months pregnant with their first child.
\_ obTurnOffFoxNews
\_ So does anyone thing he actually didn't do it? I don't care if you
think he should have been acquited.
\_ He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn't testify, with
everything that happened.
\_ I think it would be a bad idea to testify. Having had the
affair and all the stupid shit he did after Laci disappeared,
the prosecution could have made him look very bad on the stand
\_ Not to disagree with you, but do you remember him ever
having stood up and said, "I had an affair but I didn't,
honest to God, kill Laci".
\_ No, but he wouldn't have to testify in court to say that
\_ Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on circumstantial
evidence? Look, I think he did it, too, but the trial's
been a horrible miscarriage of proper judicial procedure.
The lesson for you would-be murderers out there: don't be so
damn public about it all.
\_ A lot of murder cases are circumstantial. It's actually
rare thet you have an eyewitness or incontravertable
physical evidence. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just
that: That any doubts in the case are unreasonable. The
defence theory was that some strangers would kidnap a woman
walking a golden retriever in broad daylight, and then go
to the trouble of driving her body 100 miles away to frame
the husband, yet also attempt to keep the body sunken.
That strikes me as not very reasonable.
\_ The burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the
defense. Given that the prosecution's case seemed to
be, well, he could have done it, there seem to be plenty
of reasonable doubts.
\_ Certainly the defense does not have to prove their
case, but they must offer an alternative explanation
for the evidence that is at least plausible. I saw
no plausible explanation for the evidence other than
the one the jury believed.
\_ Ah, I've been thinking that it might be framining, until
you mentioned the "yet also attempt to keep the body
sunken" part.
\_ Kidnappings of strangers are rare.
Kidnappings in broad daylight are rare.
Kidnappings of someone with a large dog are rare.
Framings are rare.
\_ Married men killing their expectant wives are
rare. What's your point here?
\_ Even if he didn't do it, his actions after his wife's death
were so stupid that he probably deserves to die.
\_ Scott should have tried to relocate to Los Angeles with the
mostly sympathetic and uneducated jury. "Dear homies, senors, y
senoras, que fish baits don't hook, you must acquit!!!"
\_ help also if Peterson were a famous/heroic football
legend who won the Heisenfuck award.
\_ Or if he's African American.
\_ racist!!!
\_ I'm still looking for the Real Killer with every round
of golf I play!
\_ Yeah, clearly the problem with the criminal justice system
in this country is that blacks have it too easy.
\_ For cases under the media spotlight, it seems so.
\_ That's why I don't agree with the Jury system. In this country
we leave the jobs to the professionals. But like everything that's
set in stone, it's hard to change.
\_ the problem is not the Jury system, but the African
Americans in the Jury system.
\_ If you're going to say something blatantly racist, why
use politically correct language to do it?
\_ Most Napoleonic/continental European justice systems rely
on cases handled exclusively by professionals (i.e. judicial
panels--the more serious the case, the more judges.) It works
more often than not, leading to fairly common-sense verdicts,
but has resulted in some pretty horrendous travesties. Does
this sound familiar at all? -John
\_ Has anyone done a comparison between these systems?
I am sure you can find bad examples in each, but I would
trust professionals more than a bunch of idiots. Yeah,
sure, a stupid guy smoking with cancer deserves some
billions of dollars, give me a break.
\_ These are the idiot examples of US justice. Someone did
a study a while ago comparing US handling of, say,
corporate responsibility vs. European--their findings
were that the Euros do a nanny act up front, with tons
of regulations, while the Americans rely on the threat
of lawsuits after the fact to keep companies in line.
The upshot? While it's possible for an cretin to
disavow personal responsibility in the US and go for an
insane payout, the average Joe also tends to have far
easier access to the law. I'm not claming either system
is better, but it's something to think about before
completely discounting common/English law as a
defective system. -John
\_ You forget that there are now multiple efforts
underway to reduce or remove people's ability to
sue companies. -tom
\_ The biggest problem IMO is the large number of CSI-style
programs that people watch and the increasing legalese invading
normal culture.
\_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga! |
| 2004/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35092 Activity:nil |
11/27 Happy Holidays everyone! And in the spirit, I present to you this
story. Teenage girl murders her mother and posts about it on her
LiveJournal. Not a hoax. Hilariously, a lot of the comments on her
blog are defending her.
http://www.glassdog.com/archives/2004/11/26/heavenly_creature.html
\_ nice web page name! - danh
http://www.livejournal.com/users/smchyrocky
http://csua.org/u/a4l (Google News search) |
| 2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:35047 Activity:insanely high |
11/23 Ok, right-wingers. Vang claims he was shot at first, and returned
fire as if his life were in danger. Given the repeated statements
of how eager you are to take the law into your own hands, how is
Vang's reaction any different than what you would have done?
\_ he is justified if true, he also assumed they had more
than one gun if they are hunters
\_ Actually in order to claim self-defense, he needs
to meet several requirements:
1. Did he create the situation?
2. Did he have an honest and actual belief that
there was a danger to his life?
3. Was his belief reasonable? [This test is tougher
than it looks]
4. Was the threat imminent?
5. Was his response appropriate?
If any of these questions are answered in the negative
then he doesn't get self defense. He may get imperfect
self defense, if he didn't create the situation, had
and honest and actual belief, but his belief was not
reasonable.
\_ Everyone agrees it is unreasonable and not totally
self-defense, but many people secretly wish they could
do what he did.
\_ And for that we have federal pound-me-in-the-ass
penitentiary.
\_ Quoth investigator report (via Reuters): "He fired back, hitting
the man who shot at him and then pursued the others, shooting them
and another couple who showed up later riding an all-terrain
vehicle..." It seems that whether or not the hunters fired the
first shot, Vang's claim to self-defense ended at some point
through the killings.
\_ Yeah, you think the rest of them wouldn't have "defended"
their dead friend if Vang just walked off?
\_ "...and then pursued the others, shooting them..."
\_ Let's try this again. A group of thugs shoots at you.
You decide to return fire and kill the one that shot
at you. What makes you think the others would not have
continued shooting at you?
\_ Uhh.. they were running away?
\_ Uhh.. they weren't all armed?
\_ Yes. The rest were hunting with their fists.
\_ Why don't you read the article?
\_ What article? Do I need to go to The Free
Republic and track it down?
\_ I'm just suggesting that maybe you should
read some articles about the subject we're
discussing, rather than just shooting your
mouth off.
\_ "shooting" my mouth off, eh? You are
a funny guy.
\_ Wow. According to the sheriff's report, there
was only one firearm amongst those that were shot.
Those lying sheriff bastards! Obviously it was
all a conspiracy! Well, that or you're a
blithering idiot.
\_ By the time the sheriff got there, the other
hunters had hidden the rest of their guns,
some of which might not have been legal to
own. It would make for a nicer story too,
if that damn gook shot and killed a bunch
of unarmed white christian males.
\_ The sheriff in a white southern county
is just going to lie to cover up for
high school drinking buddies. Especially
over some dink.
\_ I think my theory about you being a
blithering idiot is far more likely.
\_ Well, WI is south of Canada. - !pp
\_ OK, let's take this real slow now. The rest of the
hunters were running away, and Vang pursued them and
then shot them (as in it's kind of difficult to pursue
someone who's standing and fighting). Bye bye self-
defense.
\_ Depends on what happened. If they attacked
Vang and he fought back, then pursued them
b/c he was afraid they would come back and
kill him, he has a valid self defense argument.
Most juries in this country don't really care
if you over-react (see Gotez from NY in 86).
\_ maybe they just want to spread out into the woods
and then hunt Vang down. Also who knows
what firearms they carry in their ATV.
\_ Do you get your tin foil hats cheaper when you
join the tin foil hat of the month club?
\_ they fired the first shot. once that
happened you cannot assume those people
are sane.
\_ In this country, for a crime to be committed
you have to be able to prove intent (in
this case, only provable in the case of the
first guy since he's the only one that
shot). Ability (which is clearly lacking
since only one was armed when Vang started
shooting), and an attempt to commit a crime
(which is really fucking hard to prove if
they're all running away being chased by a
gun-toting maniac).
\_ Err ... we are arguing whether he is
acting in the belief that he needs
to defend himself, not whether a
crime has been committed. Remember
the Halloween case where a Japanese
exchange student was killed because
the shooter thought he was a threat?
\_ Yes and no. The case can be argued
for the first (alleged) shooter. But
in the absence of wrongdoing on the
part of the others, proving that he
had self-defense as a motivator is not
very likely to carry much water.
\_ Actually, the question is not whether
Vang believes he needs to defend
himself, but rather whether Vang can
*reasonably* believe he needs to
defend himself.
\_ White person shoots unarmed Asian:
reasonable.
Asian guy shoots armed White guy:
not reasonable.
Any questions?
\_ Yes. How does it feel
having your head up your
butt 24/7?
\_ Do you really think it will
be any other way? Even if
Vang really was justified
and if it was totally
self-defense, it won't
matter. The jury of his
peers will be white, and
they're just going to see
him as some slant-eyed
murderer.
\_ Yeah, ok. Does your hat use the heavy
foil or the light foil? I assume the
heavy foil offers better protection but the
light is more comfortable.
\_ but he was called names...
\_ Nice troll.
\_ Don't ilyas my thread.
\_ It should be easy to verify that the hunter fired a shot. Has
that been verified?
\_ How would that be easy to verify? Ask the dead witnesses?
\_ First, there is a live witness. Second, it's easy to tell
if a gun was fired. There should be a round or pellets or
something evident.
\_ I'm still trying to figure out how the presence of
a round or pellets will determine who shot first.
\_ I want to know if he fired *AT ALL*. Has this been
verified?
\_ The US Army trained its soldier well.
\_ California National Guard. Man, theyshould send this guy to
Iraq, instead of hunting deer and white folks, hunt Al Qaidans.
\_ Can't we just ignore facts and assume what probably happened:
Vang was ticked, the white people didn't shoot first but shot
off their mouths, then Vang killed all the white people.
\_ It was private property. So really the correct rendition
is he was trespassing, the may have impolitely asked him
to leave, he lost it and murdered them.
\_ How do you "politely" ask someone to leave after you've
shot at them? Vang was already on his way out. The
property was also adjacent to public property, and the
property line wasn't marked.
\_ Someone might have shot into the air. Like the old
"git off my property" hillbilly stereotype.
\_ So someone tells you to leave their private property,
and as you're calmly walking away trying to ignore
their racial slurs, one of them shoots their gun.
Vang, realistically, acted to defend himself.
\_ Let's say someone shot at Vang, Vang blew him away, other guys
started coming, Vang thought they were coming to nail him, Vang
nailed them first, all their guns were hidden, Vang didn't chase
anyone down. Anyways, I still believe the Vang got ticked and
anyone down. Anyways, I still believe that Vang got ticked and
shot everyone theory more.
\_ Hello armchair judges. Here's the fact. The outcome of the
Vang trial has nothing to do with evidence and facts. It has
everything to do with the jury and how the cops conducted
their search. The OJ trial proved just that.
\_ So is the jury all going to be Hmong and they'll find that the
sheriff made racist remarks about Hmong on tape and Vang will
go free and say he's looking for the real killer with every
deer he shewts?
\_ They were running away to get their guns, so Vang has to cut
them down before they got more guns and more people. Shit,
he killed one, but then they called for help and he sees a
another vehicles with a bunch of reinforcements, what is he
supposed to do? He's outnumbered at least 10 to 1, like
Rambo, the man.
\_ "Shot for vagrancy in Jerkwater, USA..."
\_ "But the man kept pushing Sir...They drew first blood,not me."
\_ Those other hunters should have joined a server with
Friendly Fire off!
\_ link:www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/10255877.htm?1c
for a MUCH MORE detailed police report
\_ Wow, this IS detailed. Thanks!
\_ How stupid can you get?
(1) 15 people in the hunting party but they only brought one
gun...are they going to share it or something?
They are either very stupid or lying.
(2) Though unarmed, they start name-calling
"chink,gook,fucking asian" to this guy holding
a semi-automatic rifle. Uh. That's really smart. Duh.
(3) Call more of your idiotic, unarmed ATV-riding friends
on the radio, so they can come by to escalate the situation
and make Vang even more scared and reactionary
Conclusion: white "hunters" deserved to die for being stupid
but Vang is the idiot who will have to go to jail for falling
into their stupid trap.
This is what happened: they see Vang on the platform, they call
up to him: "hey you fucking chink, get out of our tree. You
damn gooks are always trespassing". Then they radio their white
friends, tell them to come over immediately because "we caught
a chinaman on our property." Then the rest of the mob arrives,
surrounds Vang, starts screaming, yelling, cursing at
him saying: "fucking kick your ass, gook", "you fucking chink",
"get the fuck off our property before we fuck you up, chinaman"
Now Vang, being a Man, who has Pride, doesn't get off the
property "fast enough", so white-hunter fires a warning shot
at him. Vang, who is already pissed because (1) he didn't get to
hunt (2) they call him racial slurs (3) they have him outnumbered
(4) his pride is hurt (5) he's been wronged so many times in the
past and just swallowed his pride, and now (6) his life is in
real danger, lashes out and fires like a real soldier and hunter.
Then a 2nd wave of even more shitheads show up on ATVs which
just escalate the danger, he's outnumbered 15-to-1 by
racist whites, who are hunters who would reasonably have
guns, who have threatened him, so he defends himself
(defend in military/moral/emotional, but not legal-sense)
And he at least got some hunting done for the day.
\_ What the fuck?
\_ right.. the poor minority victim was called bad names. Too
bad there is no death penalty in Wi, the taxpayers will have
pay for housing this asshole. All of the facts - deer stand,
scope, number of shots, position of victims, ammunition,
etc. - indicate this guy flipped.
\_ Read the http://twincities.com link. Use http://bugmenot.com for password.
\_ We should let Ilya torture him to death. That'd teach him!
\_ Lucky this guy have a gun. Otherwise he would probably be
beaten to death like Vincent Chin.
\_ This guy lives the pro-gun dream, defending himself against
the odds with his rifle, and the motd right-wing turns on him.
It's shameful. |
| 2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35007 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 So the hunting shooter turns out to be Asian. I hear
a race card getting ready to be brought out. BTW, I hunt
and I'm Asian. Hunting has far fewer accidents and far
more participants than most people know.
\_ The "hunting shooter?" What the crap are you talking about?
\_ Who's pulling out the race card? I only just saw this story, but it
looks pretty straightforward to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4630724,00.html
\_ RACIST!!!
\_ I dunno about the race card, but if he's a displaced Hmong, expect
to hear the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder defense soon.
\_ The most charitable explanation I can think of goes like this:
Redneck: Git offa my property! <BLAM>
Asian guy: Oh shit! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
Redneck 2: What was that? He shot pa!
Asian guy: On no! More rednecks! <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM> <BLAM>
\_ There was only 1 gun found amoung the 8 shot.
\_ The dialog above only has one redneck shooting. So what's
your point?
\_ But let's not let facts get in a way of good ol' fashioned
redneck bashing.
\_ One gun among 8 hunters? During a 9-day hunting season?
This is suspicious.
\_ Only one gun was found amoung the 8 shot.
\_ Haven't read the article, have you?
\_ This is Wisconsin, not Kentucky. Wisconsin has a large number
of Hmong refugees. It's possible that the victims used racial
epithets and heated language, but it's not likely they shot
first.
\_ More likely, as a member of a Dem. mascot group, he feels a
sense of entitlement. |
| 2004/11/18-22 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34971 Activity:low |
11/18 Can the owner/president of a private company hire/fire
whomever he wants, for whatever reason? If so, does that
include race-based reasons?
\_ Yes, if there is no standing contract other than an at-will
employment. There are statutes that protect for wrongful
termination based on discrimination.
However, if the employer (the correct term) is smart about it
they will simply fire you because of lack of work and state
that employment was at-will. You can
bring a lawsuit against your former employer, and the usual
song and dance is if an attorney finds enough merit in your
case there will be an out of court settlement.
If there is an employee handbook explaining the terms of
employment and what is a fire-able offense then it's a bit
harder.
\_ no, you can't hire/fire based on race. See the Civil Rights
act. That's why if you do go see a lawyer the first thing
they will ask was "was it race based". If you say "no" then
they probably will lose interest in talking to you.
\_ Yes, but if the reason is race/gender/religion you can't say
that's the reason why, unless you want to get suuuued.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Employment/at_will.html
\_ Get a cat
\- I dont know a tremendous about employment law, but I believe
there are two factors to consider: 1. who is covered and
2. what is the standard. 1. re: "who is covered" obviously a
public sector employer or subcontractor is prohibited. But
today probably almost all employers will be covered ... this
is the famous (ab)user of the interstate commer clause to
give the federal govt jurisdiction in these matters. A famous
quote talks about how the "ICC lets the fed govt regulate an
elevator operator's job in kansas city" [elevator -> cant
move like say trucking or bread production]. so by default
you are probably covered. some exception are things like
religious organization ... ostenisbly a hindu temple can
prefer to hire hindu for a number of positions. even a sole
proprietorship like a bar is probably covered [alcohol
license] ... but i am not sure if all very small commercial
enterprises are covered [you run a home business and hire
somebody to stuff envelopes]. 2. using racial or relig [or
the other categories mentioned on the expertlaw] WEEB page
call the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means it needs the
highest level of justification [and some more obligations].
it's easier to "discriminate" based on "must be able to life
80lbs" or "but be at least 5'6" than "no women" "no chinese"
etc. this applies to more than employment relationships ...
it's been argued about for laws [e.g. a case where the
drinking age was lower for women], education, club
memberships etc. this expasion of federalism through the ICC
is one of the philosophical debates at the heart of the
rightwing turn of the court. unless the new breed of
republicans go totally nuts, this is more likely to be the
ground the gives way than Roe v Wade. ok tnx. --psb
\- BTW, for a similar dilemma see BATSON v. KENTUCKY [and
its successors like Wilkerson v TX and Swain v. Alabama for
context] which says you cant kick someone off of a
jury because or race [i.e. a peremptory isnt really a
peremptory any more] ... so now lawyers make up a
reason other than race [kickng offf based on gender also
not allowed but i forgot the SupCt case] to kick people
off. Of course the only people who explicitly say they
are doing things based on race are people looking for
a fight [like the "white only" scholarship case]. --psb |
| 2004/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34879 Activity:moderate |
11/13 Scott Peterson should have hired Johnny Cochran. Then he would
have been acquited based on 1) the possibility that black cops
were racists and contaminated evidence to frame a white guy
2) moving the trial to a predominately uneducated, white
supremacist neighborhood who feel threatened by the minorities
3) that the gloves/whatnot don't fit, and if the gloves don't
fit, you must acquit. It just goes to tell you that expensive
lawyers are in fact better lawyers.
\_ Please explain why so many people on the motd or in the world
at large seem to give a shit about this murder case.
\_ I find it really puzzling also. -- ilyas
\_ Are you a hoser? Do you have any idea the effect of
ilyasing the motd??
\_ because the lawyers are crooks, the minority jury is dumb, and
the OJ case proved just that. The fact that the case is in
San Mateo a predominantly white/educated town, proved just
that again.
\_ The media decides you should care. They see a dramatic situation
that has the right parameters for mass consumption and just
run with it.
\_ I guess we consume different media. I first heard about this
on the motd, and only found out about media coverage by
googling. Maybe it's because I don't live in the bay area
anymore?
\_ I refer you to the only intentionally funny line in "Traffic":
"I have actually dreamed about this... about busting the top
people... the rich people... you know, white people!"
\- the original BBC version of TRAFFIK is much much better.--psb |
| 2004/11/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34862 Activity:high |
11/12 Scott Peterson found guilty of murder.
\_ 1st degree for Laci, 2nd degree for their unborn son.
\_ 1st degree with special circumstances, which qualifies him for
the death penalty.
\_ Am I the only one who thinks that there should be different
standards of proof for conviction and a death sentence? I'd
roughly say you need about 98% confidence to convict someone
of a criminal offence (1 wrongly-convicted person for every
50 real criminals). But I think you need 100% certainty to
give the death penalty, because there really is no appeal for
the innocent once they're dead. I'm anti-death penalty, but
not for the truly guilty, but there's the rub.
\_ There *are* different standards of proof for conviction
and a death sentence. -tom
\- i dunno what tom is talking about but one possibly
significant difference is the jurors have to be
"death certified" meaning they have to be willing to
entertain the death penalty. so the question is "if you
weed out all the no-death penalty people from the jury
pool, is the remaining group more likely to be pro-
prosecution". this is the definitive book on how
juries operate today: http://csua.org/u/9y0
there are certainly more appeal procedures, but i
dunno if in law there is a different standard, as
there is for treason. --psb
\_ Really? I thought it was that the crime and special
circumstances both needed no 'reasonable doubt'.
\_ Not sure what you mean by there are different
standards of proof for conviction and death
sentence (sentencing in most cases is at the
judges discretion). Anyway, CA Pen. Code only
allows for death penalty in the case of 1st
degree pre-meditated murder (there are other
type of 1st degree murder, including felony
and Taylor). The burden of proof for showing
pre-meditated 1st degree murder is the same
as for other crimes (beyond a reasonable
doubt), but the requirements to show pre-
meditation are quite high in CA (must show
planning, motive, manner and can't use
post killing evid. for this). Also in CA,
any case in which the def. is sentenced to
death MUST be reviewed by the CA S. Ct.
BTW, the 2nd degree murder conviction for
the unborn child makes no sense. If he
pre-meditated to kill Laci, then there
is no way for him to not pre-meditate the
killing of the kid. The only way I can
think of that the jury came up with this
is that they didn't believe he had a good
motive to kill the kid, even though he
had planning and manner.
\_ So why isn't abortion murder again?
\_ Abortion is embryos that do not have higher cognitive
function. An 8-month fetus is more-or-less a newborn baby.
A 3-month embryo is closer to a worm, developmentaly.
\_ partial birth abortion at 9 months., murder?
\_ CA Penal Code Sec. 187 exempts (1) legal abortion,
(2) doctor's who act in the best interests of the
mother's health and (3) where the mother gives
consent. The fetus has to be older than seven
wks or so.
\_ That's a surprise to me. I think he's guilty but I thought he was
going to be acquitted by benefit of the doubt or some technicality
or some nonsense.
\_ cuz he's white.
\_ YEAH, JUSTICE IS SERVED!!
\_ OK, why wasn't it now?
\_ ok, so when are the white men going to the streets of LA
and start looting/protesting at the Koreans, like what happened
in the Rodney King and the 4 racist LA cop case?
\_ i think you're getting your race riots confused
\_ whitey takes it up the ass, and there was much rejoicing.
\_ There's not much to pillage in Modesto.
\_ Huh? These two cases have nothing in common. Do you think
that most white people think Scott Peterson was innocent?
\_ Did most people think OJ was innocent?
\_ What does OJ have to do with Rodney King?
\_ Riots.
\_ Did anyone riot after the OJ verdict?
\_ Uhm, the guy you're arguing with is clearly either
a troll, or fuck-stupid. I suggest leaving him be
with his ill-informed commentary.
\_ They would have if the verdict was guilty.
\_ And you know this because...???
\_ Rodney King. Ta da! Tied it all
together!
\_ You are an idiot. But you probably
already knew that.
\_ Because you said so? Hardly.
\_ You're right...you clearly don't
know. Poor thing.
\_ So they replaced one juros and started deliberations all over?
All-in-all, how much deliberation was there? Wasn't that pretty
quick? |
| 2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:34812 Activity:kinda low |
11/10 I think that Scott Peterson is guilty, but I am disturbed that
the judge can just replace jurors who seem to be holdouts. What's
up with that? The person was just too smart with a law and
medical degree and so they get booted for a 'hang 'em high' type?
I didn't realize our justice system provided for a trial by 'your
peers, except for that guy and that guy'.
\_ So you're surprised for some reason to find out we have shitty
judges in CA?
\_ When you're a shit salesman, your peers do not hold advanced degrees
\_ my friend works at the same bank as the pink haired tattooed
jurist. - danh
\_ Radio said she has 7 tats. How do they know?
\_ maybe they asked the 90 people she works with? - danh
\_ Sigh. I was hoping for a more titilating answer.
\_ yeah i know you were but sometimes there is a really
easy explanation - danh
\_ Juries are supposed to deliberate. The judge is allowed to remove
jurors if they are preventing that from happening. For example, if
a juror declares they are voting guity/not guilty, but declines to
participate in discussions to persuade others or if one juror is
preventing others from discussing elements of the case. Think
debate vs. pundits yelling at each other. |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34808 Activity:very high 57%like:30533 |
11/11 I get the feeling the Peterson's trial is going to be like OJ Simpson
all over again. If you are rich [1], you can get away with anything.
\_ 3 things unique about the OJ case. 1. Johnny Cockroach and his
lame glove/chubaka defense. 2. Uneducated minority jury who
have sympathy for people of their own kind. 3. Uneducated
jury who believe the glove/chubaka defense.
\_ What the fuck are you guys talking about? I saw something
about this case on http://www.cnn.com but they didn't explain the context
at all either. What the fuck is the matter with this country
that every news story involving, say, the secretary of defense
of the U.S. tells you who everyone is in case you don't know, but
for some stupid fucking celebrity trial tabloid bullshit, it's
assumed everyone knows?
\_ Peterson is a shit salesman. You are a knucklehead. His parents
took out a loan on their house to pay his lawyers.
\_ Why? He's fucking guilty.
\_ why? cuz he uses a trout pole for ocean fishing?
go to a pier and see what twinks fish with these
days
\_ Not because of what he used, but because of what he
didn't use. He told police that he bought some fake bait
and used it for fishing, but when the police found the
bait it was still in its packaging.
\_ Because they love their son and will believe anything he tells
them as long as it preserves their image of him as a good boy.
\_ No. The prosecutors presented a weak case. Also the police
did a poor job of detective work.
\_ With OJ, you had damning DNA evidence. The jury believed the
defense showed reasonable doubt with a racist detective who might
have planted the DNA evidence.
With Peterson, there is no damning DNA evidence.
\_ The OJ defence of a racist cop trying to frame him is a lot more
compelling, if improbable, than the Peterson defence that the
police did not look hard enough for the 'real killer'.
\_ [1] Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman, I must be in the wrong
business. |
| 2004/11/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34722 Activity:high |
11/5 http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1286272004 I was going to make some sort of snarky comment but I think this one speaks for itself. Headline: "Van Gogh murder backlash begins" please leave this nuked, i want to get my message across the asshole who selectively ilyaed my message. \_ go fuck yourself. some poeple are actually trying to communicate using the motd. \_ someone should've done the same to Michael Moore. -liberal \_ Perhaps you could, then you could pretend to be a mouth breathing pig ****ing bible basher. \_ MM is a big fat idiot, but your comment can only be met with something along the lines of "U SUKC TEH COCK". Sad. -John \_ C0KC [ pick a better adjective, bitch. -- ilyas ] |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34631 Activity:nil |
11/3 So, when are the pissed off, desperate liberal extremists
going to suicide bomb Ohio, Florida, and Texas?
\_ Well the Unabomber was a Berkeley Liberal...
\_ He spent two years in Berkeley, and hated liberals
\_ Remember that it is a crime to threaten the President.
\_ Who said anything about that? |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34366 Activity:high |
10/26 Awesome. Children's puppet show encourages massacre.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41091
\_ I love You, You love me
We'll murder the Zionist Enemy...
\_ that's hilarious, sad it's true.. sheesh..
\_ If your livelihood was an olive grove, maybe you'd want to shoot
the people ripping it out.
\_ Oh please. Did you catch the palestinians were using the
trees to hide rocket launchers?
\_ I knew that, but the people firing rockets from olive
groves are not the same people who live/work there. The
Israeli Army's distinct lack of sympathy for innocent
farmers is not exactly winning them friends.
\_ And how would you suggest an army deal with this
situation? Ask them to stop?
\_ Look, if they feel the need to destroy an olive grove
for security reasons, that's OK, but you need to pay
them a fair-market price if you're going to take away
their means of earning a living. From what I've
heard they just send in the buldozers and say
'tough shit'.
\_ Did you know that if the police destroy your
property while pursuing a suspect, etc. they are
not liable for damages? Sounds like you don't
know much about established law.
\_ From what you've heard? Still reading dailykos?
Or is that the PLO website?
\_ Wow, the governments on your planet must be
really fucking cool. Could you kindly cite an
actual example of any existing government
compensating individuals (in this case
non-citizens!) for property destroyed/seized
for security reasons within a reasonable
timeframe following the destruction/seizure?
\_ The US Army routinely reimburses non-citizens
for property damage incurred during training.
I know this for a fact, since I saw it happen
in Panama. -Vet
\_ I am unaware of any police department deciding
they are in the business of punishing people,
that is a matter for our correctional system.
\_ If the army flattened your house while persuing
terrorists in this country, you would probably
be reimbursed but it isn't guaranteed. If your
property was being used to hide weapons and you
didn't report it and the military destroyed your
house, tough shit.
\_ Actually, you probably wouldn't be reimbursed,
even in the case where you were just an
innocent bystander.
\_ There's no need to speak hypothetically
here. One word: Waco.
\_ But they were religious nutters so they
don't have any rights. Just because
Reno could have had Koresh picked up
in town when he made shopping trips,
usually alone, twice a week.
\_ yea, easy for you to say. report it, and
the next day, you will be killed by those
bastards for "collaborating with the
enemy". |
| 2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34228 Activity:kinda low |
10/19 Turn off any TV! (I want one)
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65392,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
\_ Best...invention...ever. I wonder if this would banish the
omnipresent FoxNews TVs they have at most US airports now.
[why was this censored, exactly?]
\_ Probably. I want one. That rocks. -John
\_ Never confuse censorship with carelessness.
\_ Because THE MAN wants yout to watch FOX News!!1!11
\_ I understand their logic. Fox is the most popular 24 hour
news channel. Give the people what they want. However,
that doesn't mean that I need other people's bad taste
shoved down my throat while I'm waiting for an airplane.
Note that by 'bad taste," I do not mean this in a partisan
sense. There are plenty of great conservative media outlets.
However, television news is a cesspool and Fox is the worst
of a bad lot - with the possible exception of local TV news,
which often makes Fox look like quality journalism.
\_ I don't care about the video, it's the audio that drives
me nuts. They should do the same thing they do on the
plane: hand out headseats for those who want audio, and
everyone else gets silence.
\_ Sit down among the TVs with Noam Chomsky on a boombox.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE HEARING ABOUT JENNIFER LOPEZ AND LACI
PETERSON OVER AND OVER AT TOP VOLUME?
\_ BECAUSE I HATE AMERICA!!!!
\_ Very cool. Note that if they catching you using one of these in
a bar in New York or Boston tonight, they will kill you. |
| 2004/10/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34008 Activity:high |
10/9 Conservatives control the House, the Senate, the President, and two
Supreme Court Justices. How do they still manage to come off as the
victims of some huge liberal media conspiracy?
\_ The control of the media by foreign liberal elements is well
documented.
http://csua.org/u/9eg
\_ In case you didn't notice, members of the House, Senate, Presidency,
and Supreme Court neither write newspaper articles, nor do they
read the network news on the air every night.
\_ OP knows. He's just a troll.
\_ A little piece of news for you - most Congressional Republicans
are not conservative. The conservatives embody a relatively
small minority of the Congressional Republicans.
\_ So true. Most Congressional Republicans are part of the New
World Order Illuminati/Masonic conspiracy to kill our unborn
children, take away our guns and sell us into bondage to the UN. |
| 2004/9/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33779 Activity:low |
9/27 Republicans try to steal Florida again:
http://csua.org/u/986 (law blog)
\_ There was no attempt in the first place. Learn your facts. Though
many people were incorrectly on the felon list, more felons who
should have been on the list were not. Blacks and whites alike.
Nice troll though. |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33675 Activity:high |
9/21 Don't get Tim Noah mad at you. http://slate.msn.com/id/2107041 \_ it's pretty amazing how quickly the dittohead machine gets the public discourse away from the core issues. (See below discussion) -tom \_ ^Tim Noah^Geddes \_ Both. Is public examination of your life worse than getting fired? \_ http://csua.org/u/90k (original source article) If you think the right to privacy exceeds the newsworthiness, then more power to you. \_ Yep, I know. Just make sure you don't get Tim Noah mad at you, or he'd drag your life out in electronic print. \_ I'm struggling to find the newsworthiness in Tim Noah's expose of Geddes' life. \_ The "expose of Geddes' life" seems to be restricted to his political beliefs in direct relation to why he fired the lady. Again, if you think the right to privacy exceeds the newsworthiness, then more power to you. \_ Yes, I am sure Geddes' work as a standing trustee has much to do with the firing. And certainly the examination on how he got the standing trustee job has much to do with the firing. In fact, the whole point of the article seems to be that there's no news here. \_ Okay, that part is outside the firing. As for "no news here", it was news to me -- thanks for the URL. \_ Just eyeballing it, but that part is probably 2/3 of the article. Like I said, don't get Noah mad at you. \_ IMO, an employer firing someone for having a Kerry bumper sticker is something one can get legitimately mad about. \_ Sure, get mad. But publish an "expose" of Geddes as a standing trustee? This is just Noah flexing his power to punish Geddes. \_ I believe you were the person who used the term "expose". IMO, the publicity is deserved. BTW, do you know you overwrite posts? \_ Sorry if I overwrote your post, though I did try to merge in my changes. To be honest, with all the automerging that is going on, it's hard to tell who's overwriting whom in conversations like this. \_ We place different value on privacy then. If you care about your privacy, don't get Noah mad at you, because he has a mouthpiece, and he's going to use it to punish you. \_ The publicity is deserved, IMO. \_ I think we can all agree that Geddes is a jerk. So you think it's ok to talk about his other work as a standing trustee, even though it has nothing to do with the firing. What else would be ok to talk about? Can Noah publish his past traffic violations? Any other criminal record of Geddes'? How about what books he borrowed from the library? Or what tapes he rented from the video store? Or where he web surfed? Do you have a privacy threshold? \_ I believe I already wrote that this was outside the firing, and I won't spend time defending that. This is where you say "no news here", and this is where I say, "thanks for the URL, anyway." \_ Ah. I thought you were also the guy who said the publicity is deserved, and I was responding to that. Hard to tell on the motd. \_ I'm the same guy. Basically I'm for publicity on the firing, but I'm not sure about publicity on his trusteeship. The latter is much more arguable. \_ Ah, then we agree then. I also have no trouble with publicizing the firing, but I find the bulk of the Noah article disturbing. I don't find it disturbing. If you _/ Do something political and newsworthy then media will analyze you for juicy tidbits in search of a story. Noah here got a story: that this guy profits from people having economic troubles. \_ Tough shit. This is politics. This is how the world works. If you act like an ass, you might have someone act like an ass back to you. This is why we have a free press. \_ So every facet of Geddes' life is open to inspection? Or is there a privacy threshold? |
| 2004/9/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33579 Activity:insanely high |
9/16 Captain Yee given an HONORABLE DISCHARGE.
\_ And his commander thanked him for all the muslim p0rn he brought to
the military.
\_ Do you even know who Yu is?
\_ I think the OP is talking about Captain YEE, who was the Muslim
chaplain at Gitmo who was charged with espionage. The case was
dropped and it looks kind of like a Wen Ho Lee repeat.
\_ wen ho actually misplaced classified documents. i think
he was acting weirdly and stupidly but didn't deserve
solitary for a year
\_ Yeah, but they made a big case about how he was spying
for the Chinese, and when it turned out they were totally
wrong, they charged him for the only minor thing they
could get him on.
Oh, and before someone says "misplacing classified
information isn't minor" I'll admit it's important, but
it's a crime lacking in criminal intent.
\_ Dropping charges for national security reasons which
happens all the time is not the same as him not being
a spy for the Chinese.
\_ what was he doing then? it's just odd that he deliberately
stored all that stuff on some of disk media, then
some how lost it. was he just looking for another job?
\_ what's so odd about it? some people are careless or
absent-minded. einstein even forgot where his home
in princeton was.
\_ i bet when you work for a NUCLEAR LAB you get trained
to not do the above. what do you think?
\_ I bet you always follow every one of your
employer's regulations to the letter.
\_ You haven't been in one of the labs. If you had
you wouldn't be so flip about it.
\_ If I worked in a government NUCLEAR LAB, I would follow
the "don't copy random secret shit to floppy disks
and leave them lying around at Starbucks please
IF IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE" employee worksheet
\_ Yeah I know, but wasn't he charged with adultery and storing
p0rn on army computers?
\_ And those charges were dropped this week and he's being
given an honorable discharge.
\_ Yeah, after the treason and espionage case was shown to be
a crock of shit.
\_ Not true.
\_ Oh, really? They why did they never determine he
passed any classified information? Why did they drop
the charges? To drop a serious national security
case and then press on with some minor unrelated
stuff seems like major ass-covering by the people
prosecuting him.
\_ Would you care to elaborate?
\_ I believe that person thinks Yee did mishandle
classified documents. The Army said national
security concerns prevented them from seeking
a court-martial in open court.
\_ An honorable discharge in this sort of
situation is practically an apology (as
close as he'll ever see). The pp is flat out
wrong.
\_ Which is a BS excuse, because they could use
lawyers with security clearances, have the
evidence sealed, and have a closed courtroom.
In other words, use the same system they're
planning on using on the Gitmo prisoners. |
| 2004/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33545 Activity:very high |
9/15 Emmanuel Goldstein at the RNC:
http://www.2600.com/rnc2004
\_ Yeah! Civil disobedience! What? You mean I might get
arrested for breaking the law?!? NO FAIR MAN!
\_ No, you get arrested for not breaking the law.
Do you seriously support jailing people for their political
beliefs?
\_ No, I support people being arrested for breaking the law
though. I just pointing out that it's really amusing how
protesters always seem to think that civil disobediance
should be legal. I'm not saying that that's what
everyone in New York was doing, but it's obvious
even from this report that a lot of "civil disobediance"
was going on.
\_ Goldstein was not breaking any laws. Did you read the
link?
\_ What site did you read? It sounds to me like a whole bunch
of people just got rounded up on the street and arrested
for no reason. Certainly *some* of them were breaking
the law, but to just arrest everyone when most are being
peaceful and law-abiding is political repression, plain
and simple.
\_ Well, we're only getting one side of the story. If
the NYPD arrested people without charging them, then
that's a tort case for illegal imprisonment. One would
have to read the charges to get a clearer picture.
I wonder what the total number of protestors was, the
percentage arrested was probably very small.
\_ So you don't see anything vaguely... oppressive
about mass roundups and incarceration of people
in order to arrest a few scattered people?
\_ Interesting, you assume that one side of the
story is valid without having heard the other.
Since neither you nor I (and please correct
me if I'm wrong) have all the facts pertaining
to the incident you presuppose that mass
oppression has occurred. I suppose it depends
on your definition of oppression. If incarceration
is simply oppression then all people incarcerated,
whether guilty or not, are oppressed. Being
detained can definitely be viewed as a type
of oppression. However, if you are trying to
infer from that that we are living in an
oppressive society then I believe that your
argument is rather weak. Sure, there is oppression
in the criminal justice system. I'm not quite
sure how you could have it any other way.
At least we don't guillotine people on the spot
and afford them the right to due process and
a right to seek damages through torts from
the government.
\_ You may wish to consult Amendment I, regarding
"freedom of assembly." [restored]
\_ Yer gonna need a permit for that. -troll
\_ nah, it didn't happen to supporters of the
President so no one cares. There were no
terrorist incidents, either, so it must have
been a good policy. Be proud of NY City's
finest! -troll
\_ This happens all the time in SF. Last time it
did, The City had to pay out $10k to each
person illegally incarcerated. I expect NYC
to end up doing the same thing. Municipalities
probably consider it money well spent. I
consider it a violation of civil liberties. |
| 2004/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33377 Activity:very high |
9/6 Argument broke out among Chechens in Beslan raid:
"Umar Sikoyev, a lawyer for a captured militant identified as
Nur-Pashi Kulayev, said the band's leader did not tell them what their
mission was and that after the seizure a fierce argument broke out in
the band, with several objecting that taking children hostage was
wrong. The raid's commander shot the dissidents' leader to death and
then detonated the suicide belts worn by two women raiders by remote
control to establish order in the band, Sikoyev told The Associated
Press."
Note to dissident hostage-takers:
(1) Shoot hellspawn leader first, ask questions later.
(2) Don't wear suicide belt remote-controlled by evil leader.
\_ This is a pretty normal set of rules for any military
situation. For example, if manning a base the Americans have
just promised (we give warning usually) to drop a MOAB on, and
your leader says "Stay at your posts," Shoot leader, THEN run.
Not vice-versa.
\_ I think this has been SOP since the German Kommisars started
shooting deserters at Stalingrad.
\_ These are not smart people.
\_ As the old Dennis Miller might have put it, "First clue?
suicide belts as haute couture. I mean, come on, people,
those things are so 1999."
\_ wow ... people are actually quoting Dennis Miller
these days.
\_ *Old* Dennis Miller. Pre-brainwashing.
\_ I thought there are rules in the US military that says a leader
cannot order his troops to do suicidal missions.
\_ That's probably in the rules. In fact, in general, it's
ok, if it serves some greater purpose. However, at least
in the MOAB case, it's a totally worthless gesture, and
really stupid order. |
| 2004/9/6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Recreation/Dating] UID:33368 Activity:low |
9/6 http://p2pnet.net/story/2356 Why all those Chinese guys come to Berkeley for CS. \_ There are elements of our government that would love to do the same thing here, and I'm pretty sure from some of the posts here that there are some csua americans who would be more than happy to help them do it. \_ And of course, the most insightful reply in the thread following: "If we stop looking at internet porn, the terrorists win. Is that what you want? Huh? I didn't think so." |
| 2004/9/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33363 Activity:very high |
9/5 They Knifed Babies, They Raped Girls
It should be pointed out that Beslan is a small Christian
enclave among a Muslim population.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208007/posts
\_ And the Russians raped and killed Chechens, a small Muslim enclave
ruled by a Christian population. Right?
\_ No, the Russians didn't rape anyone. Killing is what happens in
war.
\_ Well, the Russians have never been famous for their
| kinder, gentler military. (Well, unlesss you're
| comparing to the imperialist Japanese) But they probably
| weren't so systematic about it.
Sigh. Do I really have to dig up links?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2618021.stm
http://www.torturecare.org.uk/news/newsRelease04-15-04.php
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,820261,00.html
Russian rapes are widely reported, although often without direct proof,
but do we have direct proof of this "They Raped Girls" allegation?
\_ I don't ever recall the Russians taking a school and shooting 200
children in the back, do you?
\_ Maybe, but they blew up entire villages and so forth. Why
split hairs? Fact is the Russians have no justification for
being there. It's left over from old Russian imperialism.
If the Russians wipe out a village it's fine, but some
terrorists take over a school it's unthinkable brutality.
\_ Look, no one disputes that what the hostage-takers did at the
school was dispicable. I think what the pp is trying to point
out, though, is that they didn't do it just because they were
bored and felt like being evil. To prevent this sort of thing
from happening again, you need to understand why it
happened in the first place. If you adopt the "all Muslims
are evil" posture of these freeper idiots, then there is no
hope.
\_ It happened because some people *are* evil. This was it.
No one said all muslims are evil. To prevent this sort of
thing from happening again, you need to understand that
some people *are* evil, they mut be found, they must be
killed before they commit more acts of evil. You're
strawmanning with the all muslims are evil line.
\_ "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously
committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being. And who is willing to
destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
\_ Hey, I hear ya. There are people who
are just born evil, and there's nothing you
can do about it. But I don't think comparing
these guys to Son-of-Sam/Zodiac Killer
types is entirely correct. Some people are
born evil, some people aspire to evilness,
and some people have evilness thrust
upon them. In which group are these guys?
As for "all Muslims are evil", did you read
the entire text of the link you posted?:
"And to anyone who is appalled at the
prospect of killing "innocent" Chechens,
these scum didn't grow up in a vacuum.
They were raised to be fiends by other
fiends. It's us or them."
"If the muslims will not police
their own, make Mecca Melt."
If you want, I can pull even more
egregious examples out the
freeper bunghole.
\_ Woah! You mean people sometimes post stupid
crap on Internet message boards? No Way!
\_ Dude, don't be fatuous. You posted a freeper
link, and I made a comment on the content of
that link. You then accused me ok creating a
strawman argument, and I then posted evidence
that I was responding to statements in the
link you posted, and now I am somehow to blame
for you posting a dumb-ass freeper link? Sheesh.
\_ A) I'm not the same guy. B) Perhaps he
was trying to link to the article, not
to what a bunch of freepers SAID about the
article.
\_ watch how easy it is to link to the
article without linking to freeper
noise:
http://csua.org/u/8xo [mirror.co.uk]
that took me all of about 10 seconds.
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com
\_ It is not surprising that this attack happened in Beslan and
not elsewhere. There have been always attacks on Ossetia throughout
90s and 2000s but most didn't seem to be worthy of coverage to the
western media (those were mostly explosions on the markers, etc).
It is quite possible that this time the terrorists were intending to
instigate ethnic strife in all of Northern Caucasus. Many Ossets
are already talking about revenge on the Chechen and Ingush peoples
living in their republic. Beslan is the third largest city of the
autonomous republic of Northern Ossetia. Here are some facts that
put Ossets at odds with the Chechens:
1. Ossets are predominantly Christian (although there is a small
muslim minority among Ossets, mostly living around the
town called Digora).
2. Ossets are probably the most pro-Russian people on the Northern
Caucasus. While they are very proud of their Ossetic identity,
they are also very proud to have been part of USSR and now
Russia. (BTW, they are also very proud of the well-known fact
that Stalin's true father was an Ossetian from South Ossetian
part of Georgia). In addition Russians seem to favor Ossets in
their territorial conflicts with the neighboring Ingushetia and
Georgia.
3. In the early 90s, Ossets have been involved in a short lived
but very violent territorial conflict with the neighboring
republic of Ingushetia. Ingush were demanding the return of the
territories that were taken away from them by Stalin after WW2
for sympathizing with Germans. During the conflict Ossets
succeeded in ethnically cleansing their territories from the
Ingush who have moved in after they were rehabilitated after
Stalin's death. Nothing has been done to solve this conflict
since then and both sides consider themselves as victims. It is
important to note that the Ingush are ethnically very closely
related to Chechens. (they have similar languages, customs, etc)
\_ short recent article on the ossentians in The Exile
http://www.exile.ru/2004-August-19/war_nerd.html - danh
\_ Thanks, that was among the most informative posts I've
read on the MOTD. Like information I would expect to
find on, gasp, http://freerepublic.com
\_ The signal to noise ratio is much higher in places
like the Journal of Foreign Affairs. |
| 2004/9/3 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33339 Activity:nil |
9/3 Man walks in Denver with Rocket Launcher:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3703268/detail.html
\_ Right to bear arms!
\_ Right to arm bears!
\_ The police TOOK them? Why didn't they just ask him to wrap
them up or something?
\_ This really winds me up. I mean, I'm all about banning assault
weapons, etc. but to take these relics is just plain abuse of
power. I hope he sues.
\_ Well, strictly speaking, they're probably still property of
the army, not that they'd miss them.
\_ While I can support the right to own fake/uselss versions of
extremely powerful weapons, do you honestly think they should
have let him walk around in public with them in plain sight?
\_ Of course not. He should be made to cover them up. Taking
them is an overreaction.
\_ Well, transporting them as he did may constitute a
crime. Taking them from him, may be an overreaction,
but it's hardly a travesty of justice. If he comes to
the police station with a proper means to transport them
and they don't want to charge him with recieving stolen
property, then I see no reason not to give them back.
\_ If they think he's guilty of a crime, they should
say so. They said they took them so as not to panic
the other citizens. Call it like it is, or don't do
it.
\_ Man walks in Denver with used, useless rocket launcher.
\_ disposable rocket launchers? Is it really better/cheaper?
\_ I doubt it's cheaper, but you do avoid the issue of cleaning
servicing and reloading in the field. Plus you are no longer
required to make different warheads conform to a standardized
launcher.
\_ I don't know, but it would probably really suck to have your
rocket launcher jam. |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33243 Activity:kinda low |
8/30 All right, I googled for the "$8 million" to re-sod Central Park,
but I didn't find anything. Please help.
\_ jesus fucking christ, youy're a dumbass. second link from google:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/224945p-193242c.html
They say 18 million. whatever.
\_ What's your problem? I asked nicely.
\_ ok, sorry. nothing personal, i just hate everyone.
\_ 100,000 protestors... 100,000 America-hating liberals, all in one
convenient location, in a major landmark of a city known to be a
terrorist target. What a waste of opportunity!
\_ This joke telegraphed itself about a mile ahead. I was
waiting looking at my watch for this sad mule to finally
pull into the freaking station and ring the bell, already. --acs
\_ Sorry. Wasn't feeling very sassy today. |
| 2004/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33210 Activity:kinda low |
8/29 The man of the East cannot take Americans seriously because
they have never undergone the experiences that teach men how
relative their judgement and thinking habits are.
Their resultant lack of imagination is appalling.
\_ Excuse me, but WTF?
\_ Just an out-of-context quote.
\_ W00t!
\_ Europeans?
\_ Because they were born and raised in a given social order
and in a given system of values, they believe that any other
order must be "unnatural", and that it cannot last because
it is incompatible with human nature. But even they may
one day know fire, hunger, and sword.
\_ THEY CALL HIM JUDGE, HIS LAST NAME IS DRED
SO BREAK THE LAW AND YOU'LL WIND UP DEAD!
TRUTH AND JUSTICE IS WHAT HE'S FIGHTING FOR
JUDGE DRED THE MAN, HE IS THE LAWWWWWWWWWW!!!
\_ In all probability this is what will occur;
for it is hard to believe that when one half of the world
is living through terrible disasters, the other half
can continue a nineteenth-century mode of life,
learning about the distress of its distant fellowmen
only from movies and newspapers. Recent examples
teach us that this cannot be.
\_ RESPECT THE BADGE!
HE EARNED IT WITH HIS BLOOD!
FEAR THE GUN!
YOUR SENTENCE MAY BE DEATH BECAUSE
I AM THE LAW!!!!! |
| 2004/8/25 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33130 Activity:high |
8/25 ilyas, what does your advisor, Judea Pearl have to say about his son,
Daniel Pearl?
\_ Do I know you? -- ilyas
\_ Troll alert! Troll alert!
\_ Why do you hate ilyas?
\_ I don't hate ilyas. I feel pity for ilyas.
\_ Do I know you? -- ilyas
\_ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003095
\_ what is it with this same religion/ethnicity advisor/student
relationship here? Like, Chinese professors have mostly Chinese
students, Iranian (ah ehm, PERSIAN) profs have Iranian students,
etc etc.
\_ what is it you find surprising about this? |
| 2004/8/24 [Recreation/Activities, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33103 Activity:very high |
8/24 Anyone watched men's gymnastics last night? During the booing for
Alexei Nemov, I think I saw American spectators booing for him also.
That was cool.
\_ What happened?
\_ http://csua.org/u/8qn (si.com)
\_ Also http://csua.org/u/8qm (Yahoo! Sports)
\_ well...they should. I was sitting on my couch booing for him.
\_ yeah, that was really cool. Finally, the judges got judged, and
humiliated.
\_ What's more cool is that some of us are willing to set national
pride aside and boo for our rival.
pride aside and boo for our rival. Nemov asking the crowd to
calm down was also a class act.
\_ It was cool and yet uncool. The whole thing is bullshit. They
still ranked him fifth based, as far as I can tell, almost
entirely on the step he took on the landing. While Hamm also
took a step (a smaller one, but still), plus Hamm's routine
appeared less difficult and was shorter. All the sports with
this judge system inevitably run into this crap, pretty much
in every event the TV commentators question some scores.
As a spectator it's just frustrating not having a public
rationale for a score. The rings event where the Greek guy
won over the Bulgarian looked pretty suspicious to me also.
\_ I can understand why the two guys before and after Hamm either tied
him or scored below. Olympics gymnastics are judged by classical
moves. Crowd-pleasing stunts are hard to judge if no one else does
them. Judges are looking for demonstrated control and form along
with strength, and what better way than with classical moves?
The two judges that changed their scores are tards. |
| 2004/8/20-21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33049 Activity:nil |
8/20 Shit. This is exactly what precipitated Chicago '68. Now all we
need is a few overzealous cops and a few overzealous protesters:
http://csua.org/u/8p0 (yahoo! news link) |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:32866 Activity:very high |
8/12 Cringely has a short, excellent, non-techie article up.
http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/cringely/thisweek.pl?pulpit
\_ Key phrase: "My view is that they went ahead because they were more
interested in punishment than deterrence." I agree. I am more
interested in punishment than deterrence, also. What about you?
Would you let a known criminal off the hook if it would prevent
crime? I wouldn't. -- ilyas
\_ obWhyDoYouHateAmerica?
\_ My question is, What kind of punishment did the study recommend for
poor people in the ghetto?
\_ Err, hopefully it would have only been those that had committed
a crime first that were punished, but then again this is the
motd...
\_ Excellent? It's a rambling mess.
\_ All of Cringely's columns are about the same thing: What a
clever little monkey I am. After reading the article do you
actually understand anything new? There are a bunch of
assertions made, he mentions he knowns one of the principles,
he has his little twist at the end ... but is there a cite
or link to the brilliant article? Is the thesis actually
explained [the thesis isnt "the govt is wrong" but should
explain the deterrence failure]. Cringely is a guy who doesnt
understand social science, economics and politics writing for
people who dont understand social science, economics or
politics.
\_ Key phrase: "My view is that they went ahead because they were more
interested in punishment than deterrence." I agree. I am more
interested in punishment than deterrence, also. What about you?
Would you let a known criminal off the hook if it would prevent
crime? I wouldn't. -- ilyas |
| 2004/8/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32843 Activity:nil |
8/11 Is George W. Bush a satanic mass-murderer?
http://csua.org/u/8k8 |
| 2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32628 Activity:insanely high |
8/2 Someone posted a few days ago: "Too bad 58% of the people don't know
that the economy would collapse if the deficit was zero." I happen to
be among the 58%. Can you please elaborate? Thx.
\_ The trade deficit or the budget deficit?
\_ I think it was the budget deficit.
\_ I think the OP of the quote meant the debt and not the
deficit. If it was the deficit then OP is truly ignorant
because there have been budget surpluses in the past.
However, there has always been a national debt. If we
were to pay off that debt (which stands at $7 Trillion
currently) there may be certain financial repercussions
that economists aren't sure about. Greenspan commented
on this briefly a couple years ago when there was overly
optimistic talks about paying off the national debt
within our lifetimes based on extrapolating from the
surpluses we were getting from dot-com mania.
\_ Someone's an idiot?
\_ I seem to remember some discussion of financial chaos if the US
government bond market disappeared.
\_ US Bond market stops selling, Asian investors (and governments)
stop buying. They stop buying, they stop selling their own
currencies to buy dollars. That happens, the dollar starts to
deppreciate VS. the Yen and Yuan. That happens, and asian goods
becmore more expensive in the US, then asian exports start to
decline, which is a big part of their economy.
\_ US governemnt bond is the classic risk-free investment, and
some people like to invest in them. Also, aren't lots of
things tied to the price of a t-bill?
\_ Even if the government wasn't selling bonds, there'd still
be a t-bill market. The thing is prices would go up while
interest rates would go down.
\_ yea, but asia is becoming a big market itself, and asian
domestic consumption is rising fast in relative importance.
japan's economy was pulled out of its 10-year recession by
by china, for instance.
\_ Are there notable economies that regularly run a budgetary surplus?
Probably some of the oil states, Norway for example.
\_ China does not seem to have a trade deficit, and it's economy
does not seem to be collapsing. We had a budget surplus a few
years back and the economy was doing hell a lot better than it is
today.
\_ Historically, we run a budgetary deficiet, and budgetary
surpluses are by far the exception. And when we were running
the surplus, there was confusion among some financial people
re US governement bond market.
\_ Those who spread these kind of lies are republicans profiting from
the war, the oil, and everything else at the expense of the middle
class.
\_ We need partha for the definitive answer.
\_ The way I see it, it is similar to managing a household.
If you manage your household, then you will try not to run
into budget deficit, because you know if you borrow money,
you have to pay it back with interest. Now why does the
government runs a budget deficit most of the time? It's
simple, because those who spend the money are not
responsible for paying it back. Think about it this way, if
your household will be run by someone else 4 years later,
you might not hesitate to overspend, especially buying
expensive stuff from a store you own down the street. Most
households are more responsible about money because they
have to pay back whatever they spent. The government does
not. It depends on how corrupt they are. The democrats want
to spend the money on public infrastructure, on job
creation, on welfare (not everything I agree with). The
republican wants to spend money on defense (the big surplus
we had, geez, what can we do with all these money, how do I
get it into my pockets), and for that, they need to create
enemies and wage wars around the world.
\_ spending billions on missile defense systems that don't work
isn't defense, it's welfare.
\_ Don't forget other corporate welfare like crop subsidies,
ethanol programs, and tax cuts for 'job training' that
amounts to operating the cash register at Walmart.
\_ I figured I'd just post the most obviously fraudulent...
Now watch as the motd neocons try to explain to us why
deploying a system which was shown not to work
makes sense, even without further testing.
\_ Republicans also 'spend' surplusses by giving tax cuts, then
scream bloody murder when you try to raise taxes to cover the
defecit.
\_ BTW, what was the last time the national debt was 0?
\_ I am so happy no one is using such facts to lobby for deficits. |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32435 Activity:very high |
7/22 So, the thread got deleted, but I am curious what the people
who thought the fascism essay was well-informed and informative
thought about the author classifying militant anarchists/libertarians
as a proto-fascist movement? No one ever commented on that.
It was a really dumb thing to write.
\_ That is not what he said at all. He stated that they have
political alliances with some extreme right wing groups and
sometimes exchange ideas. I think that is correct. Where do
you think these "income tax is unconstitutional" types get
their thread of argument from? Certainly not from the
usual trailer trash White Patriot guy.
\_ Yeah, must be a right wing conspiracy feeding them these
arguments.
\_ All right I checked and he lump them in with the
\_ All right I checked and he lumps them in with the
"xenophobic right" which is kind of bizarre. But they
certainly deserve some of the credit for making
the Rush Limbaugh anti-government screed more
respectable. Why does it have to be a "conspiracy"?
They all go to the same gun shows, maybe they
realy do listen to each others arguments. What
is so nutty about?
really do listen to each others arguments. What
is so nutty about that?
\_ Wait, are you saying 'going to gun shows' is a stain on
one's character and intellectual integrity? Dude.
People go to gun shows. You know, to buy guns, and
look at pretty old rifles. You are a loon.
\_ No, I didn't say that, you inferred it. I am a loon
because I know that both libertarian types and
anti-government tax freedom nutters go to gun shows?
How do you think that I know that? I sure as hell
didn't find it out reading Salon.
\_ What sort of idiot is in favor of more government? All
intelligent people are anti-government. It's a huge
beaurocracy of the mediocre and uncaring. How can anyone
be in favor of that??
\_ Lots of sorts of idiots, I'd wager. I am personally
for better government and more government where I
I am pretty sure it would do better than private
enterprise, like the health care system, to start with.
Lots of idiots want better schools, roads, more
rapid transit, better fire systems, hospitals,
mental health care, etc.
\_ It never ceases to amaze me how people still believe
government control of any business (like Healthcare)
is ultimately better.
\_ There are plenty of studies that show that
countries with socialized medicine have much
better price/performance ratios on healthcare.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002173.html
\_ I don't want better price/performance health care
ratios. I want the best health care. Period. Of
course a government run HC facility will have
better *ratios*! You can't get the newest medical
techniques and equipment! So you die but it saves
a lot of money. Brilliant!
\_ you can't afford the best healthcare period.
if you don't want to die, try exercising and
eating right, and not becoming a fat pig.
prevention health care has good price /
performance ratio. fancy equipment just
prolong your miserable suffering.
\_ National Health in the UK is a catastrophe--
it swallows insane amounts of money without
delivering much. Same with Germany. France and
Sweden have obscene income tax rates to support
their habits. Lots of Euro countries also have
massive public pressure to put hospitals in the
furthest corners of nowhere. It's not as obvious
as it seems. -John
\_ People I know in France and England feel
differently. They praise socialized medicine.
Also, speaking of Sweden, I find it very
interesting that on basically every study
related to health care, standard of living,
freedom of expression, happiness,
social tolerance, and other quality of life
issues, Sweden consitently ranks near the
top and usually higher than the US. -!op
\_ I have several friends in the UK, and they
moved to private healthcare the moment they
could afford it. French regional health-
care is high quality, but in cities it is
a calamity. As for Sweden, "quality"
perceptions are also largely a factor of
how much aid you receive. Students will
love it, most upwardly mobile individuals
I know from there try to move out. Not
to mention Norway, with similar services,
but one of the world's higher suicide
rates... -John
\_ This actually fits right in with yesterday's
bureaucracy discussion. Bureaucracies, by
nature, must impose rules over the whole
system. Any rule they put in place,
immediately changes the ecomomics of the
medicine. Suddenly it's not "pleaseing the
customer," it's "applying the rules directly
so I won't get sued," or, even more commonly
"gaming the system so I make more money."
Such rules obviously stifle innovation and
research. For any given problem, a lot of
little groups will solve the problem faster
than one huge bureaucracy grinding through it
with trial and error. Try a throught
experiment. Make up some law that would
probably be passed about new medicines. Then
figure out what that would cause in the market
place. I defy you to come up with a possiable
law that wouldn't screw everything and
ultimately result in either the end of most
medical research or massive corruption, or
both.
\_ I spent most of last night in the ER of
an American private hospital, and I just
want to say a big "fuck you" to anyone who
thinks the US system is anything but fucking
barbaric. I'm not arguing for a european system
or any other particular system, I'm just saying
that if anyone here doesn't think our system is
100% broken they can go fuck themselves.
\_ This is the result of HMOs fucking everything
up. Our health care system has already been
destroyed. We're arguing about bringing it
back to the way it used to be instead of
going even further towards the failed
socialist model.
\_ You're right. The problem is right now
we've got a kind of half and half
system. It's sorta private, but it has
a number of bureaucracies (HMOs,
Medicaide) that act like little
socialized Healthcare systems. Lawyers,
Liberals, and insuracemen have been
pushing in this direction for a long
time, and it's screwed us up. What I
don't is understand why so many people
think the solution to the problem is
MORE socialization. "Socialism didn't
work, obviously it wasn't enough! We
need communism!" Huh?
\_ Compare and contrast the Canadian model
with the American model. The Canadians
pay less and get more, no matter how
you slice it. They live longer, healthier
lives, with less infant mortality and
better health outcomes. And they pay
much less than US patients, both in
overall dollars and as a percentage
of GDP. Yet you refuse to even consider
that this might be because their
socialist system is superior in this
area. Faith based economics, anyone?
\_ Socialism makes baby Jesus cry.
\_ How did these words get in my
mouth? _I_ didn't put them
there... OH! you did! I'm sure
it's better in that area. Never
said it wasn't. But I think
you're leaving out a lot of
variables and important factors.
For example, how much medical R&D is
done by Canadian compaines? How
many Canadian crack fiends are
there per capita? What's the
average wait for important care? etc.
\_ Fewer crack fiends, more beaver
junkies.
\_ Which words did I put in your
mouth? "Socialism didn't work..."
But you said that! OH!
I have studied where money is
spent in health care, in both
countries. In niether one do
crack babies count for even
1/10 of 1 percent. In the US
50 percent of lifetime spending
occurs in the last three months
of life.
\_ It's interesting how people who are in favor of
open source and the whole "lots of eyes" concept
to solve problems are so often in favor of big
government one-stop-fits-all 'solutions' to
real world problems. I don't get it. I guess
it really comes down to they want free stuff,
and don't really believe the rest of the open
source philosophy.
\_ I don't know about this private or public thing.
One thing I know is that health insurance should
all have higher deductibles and have the customer
pay a percentage of the charges up to a
significant limit. I see too many colleagues
abuse health insurance by visiting doctors,
chiropractors day in and day out for very minor
conditions, and their doctors are happy to comply.
American natives are especially good at bilking
the system like this. They also eat like pigs
and don't exercise, increasing health insurance
costs for everyone. Just look at Rush Limbaugh
or Dick Cheney, both too fat! Health INSURANCE
should be an INSURANCE, not free healthcare! |
| 2004/7/12 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:32225 Activity:high 71%like:32223 |
7/11 Illegal Aliens are Boosting for Billions, 60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/60minutes/main601396.shtml
\_ It's Romanian gangs in Europe--they also do a lot of organized
burglary, ramming (steal a car, ram a jewelery shop window),
and stealing ATMs (attach to the back of a pickup truck, rip it
from the walls. -John
\_ Romanian or Romany?
\_ Romanian. The Roma mainly specialize in pickpocketing.
\_ Doing the jobs Americans won't do...
\_ So instead of paying a fair wage you build your economy on the
under paid backs of illegal labor? Oh, that's so liberal
minded of you. Thanks for being such the humanitarian. Maybe
we can export our slave labor policy to other nations in an
effort to spread our form of human rights?
\_ Bub, if you're gonna bitch, you should read the link first.
\_ Americans will do any job if the price is right.
\_ except for manually working a farm. it has that stigma, y'all
know.
\_ Are you kidding? Having sex with people for money has a
stigma, but farming? Do you just mean the stereotype that
farmers are 'dumb'? Dude, I d farm if the salary was good.
It's much better than rotting in a cubicle. -- ilyas
\_ No, they'd do that too if the work-reward ratio and conditions
were improved. There is a stigma, but there's also a sort of
romanticism about agriculture that I think would appeal to
some people if there was any dignity to the job.
\_ Winery employees have no problem working alongside the
Latino laborers. I've done it myself at harvest. Lots
of people like to garden, which is basically the same
thing. If the salary was higher more people would do it.
I'll tend sheep for $100K/year.
\_ Alot of americans would do it for a third of that.
\_ As long as we deny immigrants the chance to organize,
a lot of people in America will end up doing it for
1/20th of that. |
| 2004/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32223 Activity:high 71%like:32225 |
7/11 Illegal Aliens are Boosting for Billions, 60 Minutes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169423/posts
\_ dude can't you find another place other than freerepublic?
i'd take you more seriously.
\_ it's all 60 Minutes stuff
\_ So find some other place that has the article. Seeing 500
nutjobs froth themselves in the comments is just sad. |
| 11/23 |