Politics Domestic Crime - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Crime:
Results 151 - 300 of 522   < 1 2 3 4 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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
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. "Itú is said he was preaching murder, but he was
        actually preaching from the Koran itself."Ä?
        \_ 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
                       [ 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
              \_ 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
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."
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.
          [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
           \_ 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
              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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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?
           \_ 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,
              \_ 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
           \_ 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
              \_ 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?
        \_ "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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
           [ 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.
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
           \_ 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
              \_ 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
                                               \_ 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:
                    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.
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
        "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:
        \_ 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:
                 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:
                 \_ it is still much cheaper and saves a lot more time
                    than litigation.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40830 Activity:nil
12/2    Democrats - protecting you from yourself.
        \_ 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.
2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40762 Activity:low
11/29   1 corrupt congresscritter down.  500+ to go:
        \_ 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,
        \_ "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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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
        \_ 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:
2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics] UID:40449 Activity:nil
11/4    Huge Iceberg Breaks Apart in Antarctica - Yahoo! News
        \_ 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.
           \_ 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
                          \_ 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
        \_ 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
2005/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40313 Activity:nil
10/16   DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document
2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40289 Activity:moderate
10/27   Miers has WITHDRAWN!
        \- 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:
                         \- 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?
        \_ People who worship money and Jesus at the same time, which is
           technically not possible, should have no problem holding that
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
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
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
               \_ 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
            \_ 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
                  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
                                            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
                             \_ 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
                                                     *combined* with
                                                     personal drive to
                                                     succeed and excel
                                                     through hard work,
                                                     education and self-
                                                     improvement improves
                                                     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
                                         \_ 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'
                                         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
                   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
           \_ 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
           \_ 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.
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
           \_ Rove, DeLay, and Frist indictments being handed down?  HIT THE
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
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
        \_ 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
                          \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                 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
                      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
                    \_ 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
                                      \_ 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
                                            \_ 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
                                                     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
                                                        \_ "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
                                         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
                                                  \_ 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]
                                                           \_ I asked the
                                                              question, and I
                                                              took your silence
                                                              as acquiescence.
                                                              Mea culpa.  Will
                                                              you accept Rove's
                                                              \_ See oddly
                                                                 post [below].
                                                     \_ Nope.  But then I am
                                                        not trying to invent
                                                        a standard by which
                                                        OJ could be punished
                                                        despite his legal
                                                        \_ 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
                      \_ 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
                                  \_ 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,
                                                       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
                                                       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
                                                       \_ 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
        \_ 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:
           Miller's filthy.  I don't know that she should be in prison
           for "protecting sources", but she definitely needs to be in
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
              \_ 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.
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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?
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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:
        \_ 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"
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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                               \- 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
                          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
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":
        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)
        \_ 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?
                \_ 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?
                              \_ 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.
                                          \_ 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.
        \_ 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
           (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.
                 \_ 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.
                           \_ 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.
                    \_ 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
        \_ 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
           \_ 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.
        \_ 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.
                                                  \_ 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
                                              \_ It's "Dufus of the CSUA,
                                                 patron saint of MOTDs and
               \_ 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.
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
                 \_ 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,
                                \_ 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!
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        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
                    \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                       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
                    MRS. GREY: If this is your idea of humor, Inspector...
                    BOARD EXAMINER: All right, what are you trying to do here,
                    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
           \_ 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:
        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:
2005/3/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36835 Activity:nil
3/23    We paid $200000+ to help that piece of shit?
        \_ 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
                     \_ 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
                            \_ 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
                        \_ 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
                 \_ That's just a more roundabout and less intellectually
                    honest way of saying that you're an opponent of capital
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!
        \_ 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
2005/2/23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36376 Activity:nil
2/23    Dumbest Criminal Ever Award: Man admits bank robbery on radio talk
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
           \_ 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:
              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
                \_ your brain has been classified as: small.
                   \_ wait... whose brain?
                      \_ The brain of anyone who disagrees with ilyas on any
        \_ We are the Americans.  You will be democratized.  Resistance is
           \_ 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
        \_ 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:
2005/1/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35797 Activity:moderate
1/19    Funny review of "Hated: GG Allin And The Murder Junkies"
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
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...
        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
                                  \- 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. --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.
        \_ 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
                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:
        \_ 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
2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35389 Activity:high
12/21   Jesus of Nazareth, wrong on crime, wrong on defense, wrong choice.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
                \_ nice web page name! - danh
        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
                   \_ 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
        \_ 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-
                          \_ 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:
                                            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
                                 \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
           \_ 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.
                \_ 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
                                   \_ 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
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
                   \_ 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
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.
        \_ 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
2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34228 Activity:kinda low
10/19   Turn off any TV! (I want one)
        \_ 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.
                       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
        \_ 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)
        \_ ^Tim Noah^Geddes
           \_ Both.  Is public examination of your life worse than getting
              \_ 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
                       \_ 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
                                      \_ 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
                                            \_ 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,
                                                     \_ 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
                                                        \_ I'm the same guy.
                                                           Basically I'm for
                                                           publicity on
                                                           the firing, but I'm
                                                           not sure about
                                                           publicity on his
                                                           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
                                     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
                             \_ 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:
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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
        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.
        \_ 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
              \_ 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?
       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
                 \_ 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
                                \_ watch how easy it is to link to the
                                   article without linking to freeper
                                   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
           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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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:
           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.
                 \_ 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
           \_ 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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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?
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
           \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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.
                         \_ 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
                            \_ 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
                                        \_ 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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 151 - 300 of 522   < 1 2 3 4 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:Crime: