Does there exist
James Nicoll
pre-Hiatus is problematic but I don't care about that so much.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Carl Fink
> A timeline of events within Doonesbury continuity? I understand
> pre-Hiatus is problematic but I don't care about that so much.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/retro/timeline/timeline.html
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
James Nicoll
Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 2009-09-20, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> A timeline of events within Doonesbury continuity? I understand
>> pre-Hiatus is problematic but I don't care about that so much.
>
>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/retro/timeline/timeline.html
I don't know if I can phrase this coherently [1]
but I mean totally within the context of the strip, not how
it relates to the real world. In other words, not
1-3-00
As the last new daily Peanuts strip appears, Trudeau pays tribute to
ailing creator Charles M. "Sparky" Schulz.
But more:
Day Month Year: Alex Doonesbury born.
1: I'm still getting over a major sleep disruption caused by a cat
deliberately flipping a water container: the water leaked down one
floor and set off the fire alarm. I didn't get it to stop until
4 AM yesterday. My ears stopped ringing around 6 PM.
Carl Fink
> 1: I'm still getting over a major sleep disruption caused by a cat
> deliberately flipping a water container: the water leaked down one
> floor and set off the fire alarm. I didn't get it to stop until
> 4 AM yesterday. My ears stopped ringing around 6 PM.
I imagine the cat is pretty traumatized, too, even if you didn't kick it.
James Nicoll
Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 2009-09-20, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> 1: I'm still getting over a major sleep disruption caused by a cat
>> deliberately flipping a water container: the water leaked down one
>> floor and set off the fire alarm. I didn't get it to stop until
>> 4 AM yesterday. My ears stopped ringing around 6 PM.
>
>I imagine the cat is pretty traumatized, too, even if you didn't kick it.
Annoyingly, not at all.
Peter B. Steiger
> the water leaked down one
> floor and set off the fire alarm
OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
James Nicoll
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
>> the water leaked down one
>> floor and set off the fire alarm
>
>OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
>
ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to manipulating
it with things I could tape to a staff.
JC Dill
> In article <XaydncnR_utBbyvX...@bresnan.com>,
> Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
>>> the water leaked down one
>>> floor and set off the fire alarm
>> OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
>>
> My guess is it causes a short. Of course, havign loaned my
> ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to manipulating
> it with things I could tape to a staff.
Fire alarms work by sensing (checking) a gap that should have nothing in
it except clear air - when anything obscures this gap (smoke, other
fumes, water) the alarm will go off.
If the fire alarm shorted out you wouldn't normally get an alarm - you
might get a fire instead!
jc
Default User
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
> > the water leaked down one
> > floor and set off the fire alarm
>
> OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
Heck, look what coffee can do:
<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/F1CBA
14E3C09644986257636000057DC?OpenDocument>
There is no, I repeat no, truth to the rumor that James Nicoll involved.
Brian
--
Day 230 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Dann
@reader1.panix.com.
> My guess is it causes a short. Of course, havign loaned my
> ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to manipulating
> it with things I could tape to a staff.
Ahhhhh....so THIS is why the Staff of Fire Alarm Repair was in that module.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Now also on Facebook in case you just can't get enough of me!
Mike Marshall
> My guess is it causes a short. Of course, havign loaned my
>ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to manipulating
>it with things I could tape to a staff.
... like a 5lb sledge hammer?
-Mike
James Nicoll
I do have several hatchets and axes and I did consider using
one. The fire alarm is wired into the mains, though (with a battery
back-up so cutting the power didn't work).
aemeijers
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
>> the water leaked down one
>> floor and set off the fire alarm
>
> OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
>
building. Water flow sensors in the standpipes, and flood sensors in
critical areas, ofter set bells ringing and horns blowing. Prolly not
common in residential use, but you can hook up whatever you want,
especially to mains-powered systems that often have the ability to
discuss things amongst themselves.
--
aem sends...
Invid Fan
<aeme...@att.net> wrote:
Semi related, we had a case in Buffalo where a fire set off a burglar
alarm and thus two fire fighters were killed because someone was
thought to be in the basement (it didn't help that product exploding
was heard as banging in response to calls from the street)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
George W Harris
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <XaydncnR_utBbyvX...@bresnan.com>,
>Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
>>> the water leaked down one
>>> floor and set off the fire alarm
>>
>>OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
>>
> My guess is it causes a short. Of course, havign loaned my
>ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to manipulating
>it with things I could tape to a staff.
This inspired me to look up how smoke detectors work, which
was pretty interesting:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/fire/smoke1.htm
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/l6t3hj
Anyway, if water got into the photoelectric
detector chamber, it could set it off by scattering
the light. It could also block the alpha particles in
the ionization chamber.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
trnco...@aol.com
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/retro/timeline/timeline.html
> --
Well, *here's* something interesting:
June 16, 1978--Mark Slackmeyer and Lacey Davenport zing the uncle of
Zach Galifianakis for his involvement in Koreagate.
(In the immortal words of Dave Barry, we are not making this up:
Paul
news:clfgb59ip2rq4pr1f...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:39:25 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com
> (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <XaydncnR_utBbyvX...@bresnan.com>,
>>Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:38:58 +0000, James Nicoll sez:
>>>> the water leaked down one
>>>> floor and set off the fire alarm
>>>
>>>OK, I'm baffled... how does water set off a fire alarm?
>>>
>> My guess is it causes a short. Of course, havign loaned my
>>ladder to someone, I can only speculate. I was limited to
>>manipulating it with things I could tape to a staff.
>
> This inspired me to look up how smoke detectors work, which
> was pretty interesting:
>
> http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-
safety/fir
> e/smoke1.htm
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/l6t3hj
>
> Anyway, if water got into the photoelectric
> detector chamber, it could set it off by scattering
> the light. It could also block the alpha particles in
> the ionization chamber.
More likely, as mentioned, a short; a drop of water on the
electronic circuit board within the detector, or across the alarm
contacts of a heat detector or even an alarm pull station can set
off an alarm, because (impure) water and electricity do not play
well together.
--
Paul
Dann
15cb43...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com.
Was he?
Neither that entry nor the one for Koreagate suggest that he was.
trnco...@aol.com
> On 21 Sep 2009, �said the following in news:bd73d253-015a-4ebb-8d14-
>
> > On Sep 20, 2:21 pm, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/retro/timeline/timeline.html
> >> --
>
> > Well, *here's* something interesting:
>
> > June 16, 1978--Mark Slackmeyer and Lacey Davenport zing the uncle of
> > Zach Galifianakis for his involvement in Koreagate.
>
> > (In the immortal words of Dave Barry, we are not making this up:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Galifianakis�)
>
> Was he?
>
> Neither that entry nor the one for Koreagate suggest that he was.
>
Go to the Doonesbury timeline, click on the 1970s and scroll down to
that date.
Dann
6bed7d...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com.
Which proves that Mr. Trudeau thought his involvement was significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreagate
The ever questionable Wikipedia doesn't mention Mr. Galifianakis but does
mention others that didn't make into Mr. Trudeau's target list.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918482,00.html
Time in 1976 didn't find his role worth mentioning in their coverage.
This article suggests that he took $10,000.
I'm not suggesting anything in particular. I do wonder why Mr. Trudeau
selected certain people for scrutiny and not others.
Pity he can't/won't do the same thing for Charles Rangel.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, he'd have to actually do something questionable first . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
OK, I guess I'm clueless, but why should we care that the uncle of
Zach Galifankis got zinged by Trudeau in the 1970's?
Dann
> On 24 Sep 2009 01:16:15 GMT, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Pity he can't/won't do the same thing for Charles Rangel.
>
> Well, he'd have to actually do something questionable first . . .
>
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
1. Some people really never learn!:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/m26zun>
Dim bulb indeed!
2. So, a powerful person fails to pay taxes on something that could
easily go un-noticed, making it . . .
*checks calendar*
. . . Thursday.
As I said, he'd have to do something questionable first; I'd say
nice try, but . . . not really, that'd mean effort was placed . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:30:47 -0700 (PDT), Dann <detox...@hotmail.com>
Sorry, I hold my elected officials to higher standards than that. Come
on, these are supposed to be smart people- don't they even ASK were
all these nice things come from or check to make sure errors are
corrected once they are uncovered?
Dann
Taxes are for the little people.
Accountability only matters if the politician is a Republican.
--
Regards,
Dann
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> Taxes are for the little people.
>
> Accountability only matters if the politician is a Republican.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dann
He could at least pretend to be remorseful and wipe that perpetual
smirk off of his face....
Antonio E. Gonzalez
So his problem is not correcting an error that has just been
uncovered before it was uncovered . . . shame on him for not having
time travel capabilities! Or precognition, I guess . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Sep 25, 11:41�am, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Just look at the way Rep. David Vitter resigned after he was
caught with a prosti- . . . oh, never mind . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
. . . but enough about Carl Rove . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Charles Whitney
> Taxes are for the little people.
>
> Accountability only matters if the politician is a Republican.
Hahahahahaha.
Quick Dann, who's the governor of South Carolina? How about the
Senator from Nevada who's not Harry Reid?
And that's just from *this summer*!
And being from New York, I'm surprised to find out that my governor is
still Eliot Spitzer.
C
Invid Fan
<69066044-eaf7-4c85...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Charles Whitney <cbill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I long for the good old days, where a politician was only in trouble if
they were caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
Mike Marshall
> who's the governor of South Carolina?
We have an awesome governor...
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/sanford.jpg
-Mike
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
No, the problem is that I wouldn't expect any politician to either
ignore the details or at least be surrounded with people that will
take care of the details for him (This is assuming, of course, that
the whole rental property tax thing was just a lost detail and not an
intentional attempt to avoid paying taxes.) I would also expect that
any politician, upon discovering such an error, would make immediate
amends to correct it.
At least Tom Daschelle corrected his financial faux pas when it was
uncovered during the vetting of his cabinet candidacy.
Dann
4c85-b948-a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com.
I'll change my mind when the Democrats finally learn how to eat their
own.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> And being from New York, I'm surprised to find out that my governor is
> still Eliot Spitzer.
>
> C
Wow, I knew that there is usually a delay between submitting a post
and having it appear, but seven months is ridiculous!
Dann
Perhaps my sarcasm receptors aren't functioning, so I'll assume this
is literal.
Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
He's right.
But that isn't the trend.
The trend is for Republicans to resign and for Democrats to stay in
office. And for the more vocal* Democratic supporters to excuse those
office holders. Reflex being a recent example of the latter.
--
Regards,
Dann
*I use the phrase "more vocal" because that is who we get to hear
regarding such things. We rarely get to hear from the mainstream
Democrats that are usually just as frustrated as everyone else. One
example being those Democratic voters that removed Dan Rostenkowski
due to his corruption.
Invid Fan
<509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:28�am, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 7:59�pm, Charles Whitney <cbillin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > And being from New York, I'm surprised to find out that my governor is
> > > still Eliot Spitzer.
> >
> > > C
> >
> > Wow, I knew that there is usually a delay between submitting a post
> > and having it appear, but seven months is ridiculous!
>
> Perhaps my sarcasm receptors aren't functioning, so I'll assume this
> is literal.
>
> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>
> He's right.
>
> But that isn't the trend.
>
> The trend is for Republicans to resign and for Democrats to stay in
> office. And for the more vocal* Democratic supporters to excuse those
> office holders. Reflex being a recent example of the latter.
>
Democrats often don't claim the high ground on morality, so see nothing
wrong with the occasional immoral action :)
JC Dill
> In article
> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>
>> He's right.
>>
>> But that isn't the trend.
Let's look at the trend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Sex_scandals
I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's
staff, Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor,
State Attorney General, etc).
Didn't resign:
Nevada Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Mark Sanford Governor (R-SC)
John Edwards (D-NC) US Senator
Vito Fossella (R-NY) - US Congressman
Tim Mahoney (D-FL) - US Congressman
David Vitter (R-LA) - US Senator
Glenn Murphy Jr. (R) - 33 year-old president of the YRNF
Larry Craig (R-ID) - US Senator
Ed Schrock (R-VA) - US Congressman
Resigned:
California Assemblyman Mike Duvall (R)
Randall L. Tobias (R) Deputy Secretary of State
Mark Foley (R-FL) - US Congressman
Eliot Spitzer (D) Governor of New York
Bob Allen (R-FL) - State Congressman
Paul J. Morrison (D) Attorney General of Kansas
Jim McGreevey (D) Governor of New Jersey
3/5 of the Ds resigned.
4/11 of the Rs resigned.
The data indicates that Rs are caught in moral/sex scandals more than
twice as often as Ds and are ~50% less likely to resign when caught.
>> The trend is for Republicans to resign and for Democrats to stay in
>> office. And for the more vocal* Democratic supporters to excuse those
>> office holders. Reflex being a recent example of the latter.
>>
> Democrats often don't claim the high ground on morality, so see nothing
> wrong with the occasional immoral action :)
I see it more the other way around - the Republicans claim the high
moral ground and almost always support legislation antagonistic towards
various "moral" issues about homosexuality, infidelity, etc. But when
they get caught being involved in the very acts they were antagonistic
towards, they usually don't resign. Which is, of course, hypocritical.
The Dems who got caught weren't trying to pass antagonistic
legislation for the very behaviors they were caught doing, AND they are
more likely to resign when caught. Plus, they weren't being hypocrites
on these so-called "moral" issues.
jc
Charles Whitney
"JC Dill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org...
> Invid Fan wrote:
>> In article
>> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>>
>>> He's right.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the trend.
>
> Let's look at the trend:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Sex_scandals
>
> I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's staff,
> Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor, State
> Attorney General, etc).
>
> Didn't resign:
>
John Edwards had been not been a Senator for roughly four years when his sex
scandal broke (and indeed, before he even began his relationship). He had
nothing to resign from. He was a private citizen.
Of course, for plenty of the gentlemen you list, yes, it was a "sex
scandal", but it was something much more significant than merely getting
caught with his pants down.
C
JC Dill
> "JC Dill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org...
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>>>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>>>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>>>
>>>> He's right.
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the trend.
>> Let's look at the trend:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Sex_scandals
>>
>> I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's staff,
>> Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor, State
>> Attorney General, etc).
>>
>> Didn't resign:
>>
>> John Edwards (D-NC) US Senator
>
> John Edwards had been not been a Senator for roughly four years when his sex
> scandal broke (and indeed, before he even began his relationship). He had
> nothing to resign from. He was a private citizen.
Oops, you are right. This makes the D ratio 3/4 of those caught
resigned where only 4/11 of the Rs resigned.
> Of course, for plenty of the gentlemen you list, yes, it was a "sex
> scandal", but it was something much more significant than merely getting
> caught with his pants down.
That too. I was just listing all of them, at the upper levels of
government (e.g. Senator or Governor, not Mayor), without further
breaking it down into "magnitude" of the scandal.
jc
Sherwood Harrington
> That too. I was just listing all of them, at the upper levels of
> government (e.g. Senator or Governor, not Mayor),
*Whew!*
--
Gavin Newsom
Hairgel Creek, California
Dann
news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org.
> Invid Fan wrote:
>> In article
>> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>>
>>> He's right.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the trend.
>
> Let's look at the trend:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Se
> x_scandals
>
> I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's
> staff, Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor,
> State Attorney General, etc).
You are also omitting non-sex related scandals such as Dan Rostenkowski,
Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, etc.
Don't think that I'm not aware of similar non-sex related scandals on the
GOP side of things [i.e. Newt Gingrich].
Corruption is a bipartisan phenomenon. IMO, Democratic politicians are
far less likely to scream for blood if the person in question is also a
Democrat. At least compared to the Republican ability to criticize their
own. [i.e. Bob Packwood]
Charles Whitney
"Dann" <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C95E417120A0d...@74.209.136.97...
> On 29 Sep 2009, JC Dill said the following in
> news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org.
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>>>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>>>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>>>
>>>> He's right.
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the trend.
>>
>> Let's look at the trend:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Se
>> x_scandals
>>
>> I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's
>> staff, Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor,
>> State Attorney General, etc).
>
> You are also omitting non-sex related scandals such as Dan Rostenkowski,
> Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, etc.
I'm sure it wouldn't really change anything. We'd find that some
Republicans don't resign, and some Democrats do, which contradicts the point
you made. I'm sure if we went down the list, however, you'd be willing to
use some convoluted logic to justify your point, or perhaps you'd just
ignore it and bring up some irrelevant side issue, as you have here. As
noted, the list JC provided belies the foolish point you were making.
> Don't think that I'm not aware of similar non-sex related scandals on the
> GOP side of things [i.e. Newt Gingrich].
One thing I think that gets lost is how often a "sex scandal" actually
implicates many other, more important issues than the sexual conduct of the
person in question. After all, Sanford's situation was appalling mostly
because of his dereliction of duty which left his state without anyone who
could legally declare a state of emergency in case something terrible had
happened while he was crying himself to sleep on his lover's breasts.
Spitzer had some other significant problems in reference to his scandal, as
did Ensign. It was not merely the fact that they were banging away with
women who weren't their wives.
> Corruption is a bipartisan phenomenon. IMO, Democratic politicians are
> far less likely to scream for blood if the person in question is also a
> Democrat. At least compared to the Republican ability to criticize their
> own. [i.e. Bob Packwood]
Wow, a Senatorial sexual assaulter from nearly twenty years ago. You had to
reach back pretty far for that one, Dann. I suppose it's a good thing that
some Republicans may have raised some issue with that, seeing how appalling
Packwood's conduct was.
But since this is your opinion, and can thus dismiss any such counterexample
as lacking in some respect according to the parameters you yourself define,
I won't contest this issue.
C
JC Dill
> On 29 Sep 2009, JC Dill said the following in
> news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org.
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <509550a0-7807-4020...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Charles' was attempting to point out that there are Republicans that
>>>> have not resigned despite personal peccadilloes while there are also
>>>> Democrats that have left office due to their indiscretions.
>>>>
>>>> He's right.
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the trend.
>> Let's look at the trend:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Se
>> x_scandals
>>
>> I'm omitting scandals below the Federal (President and President's
>> staff, Congress, Federal Judge) or State-wide office level (Governor,
>> State Attorney General, etc).
>
> You are also omitting non-sex related scandals
I had to draw a line somewhere. The sex-related scandals are the ones
where people are most likely to engage in extremely hypocritical
behavior, engaging in behavior that they denounced about others while
discussing bills in Congress or the behavior of others who were caught
misbehaving.
> such as Dan Rostenkowski,
> Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, etc.
>
> Don't think that I'm not aware of similar non-sex related scandals on the
> GOP side of things [i.e. Newt Gingrich].
Exactly. So what's the point of digging deeper - do you *really* think
it will even up the odds somehow? If so, feel free to do your own
report on these other scandals.
> Corruption is a bipartisan phenomenon. IMO, Democratic politicians are
> far less likely to scream for blood if the person in question is also a
> Democrat.
The same is true of Republicans, if the person in question is a
Republican.
A significant percent of the "outrages" over Obama issues are identical
to things Bush did and the Republicans didn't say a word about it when
Bush did it - e.g. back to school speeches, children singing songs
written for the President, the number of Czars (Obama has fewer than
Bush had), if Czars are bad (Republicans were urging Bush to appoint
various Czars to help in the "war against terror") etc.
> At least compared to the Republican ability to criticize their
> own. [i.e. Bob Packwood]
The issue isn't corruption, it's hypocrisies. It's about so-called
moral conservatives loudly denouncing "immoral" behavior they are
actually participating in themselves, and then not having the grace to
resign when caught.
jc
Dann
news:h9uq34$aih$1...@aioe.org.
> Dann wrote:
>> Corruption is a bipartisan phenomenon. IMO, Democratic politicians
>> are far less likely to scream for blood if the person in question is
>> also a Democrat.
>
> The same is true of Republicans, if the person in question is a
> Republican.
>
> A significant percent of the "outrages" over Obama issues are
> identical to things Bush did and the Republicans didn't say a word
> about it when Bush did it - e.g. back to school speeches, children
> singing songs written for the President, the number of Czars (Obama
> has fewer than Bush had), if Czars are bad (Republicans were urging
> Bush to appoint various Czars to help in the "war against terror")
> etc.
I've got no problem with the speech that he gave. It wasn't the speech
that was advertised. Either his press secretary needs a kick in the ass,
or they changed the speech.
I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
Got a link?
Czars are generally a bad idea regardless of who is appointing them.
Mr. Obama has continued several other Bush era policies as well; Iraq,
Afghanistan, Gitmo, signing statements, supporting the Patriot Act, etc.
Some of which were good ideas, while the rest were not.
The larger point being who are the larger hypocrites? The Republicans
that support morality and have a girlfriend on the side or leftists that
scream bloody murder when Mr. Bush is in office but apparently are
disinterested in the same issues now that Mr. Obama is in office?
Are both sides homers? Sure. But the trend, IMO, is for the GOP to have
a line that you can cross where they will eat their own. I'm not seeing
that on the Democratic side of the fence. And I'm not seeing a media
that treats both sides equally as well.
--
Regards,
Dann
Alexander Mitchell
>
> I've got no problem with the speech that he gave. It wasn't the speech
> that was advertised. Either his press secretary needs a kick in the ass,
> or they changed the speech.
More specifically, they ditched the "write a glowing, fawning essay
telling us how you intend to help our Glorious Leader achieve his
goals" part of the whole thing. Okay, I'm just barely exaggerating.
>
> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
> Got a link?
>
I got plenty of links for anthems to Obama besides that one during the
campaign. Let's start with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKIzVZtbFUA&feature=player_embedded#t=15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAbHttDSRJc&NR=1
Background and details: FoxNews report at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBA65i26lv8&feature=related
Go ahead. Provide us with films, video clips, or media reports about
children singing anthems to Bush 43. Hell, I'll even take blog
reports.
[pulls up lawn chair, gets bag of popcorn...............]
nickelshrink
>
> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
O say can you see
by the dawn's early light -
Lackawanna troops? Nixed!
Hey! He did something *right* !
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
James Nicoll
nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dann wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/
Our country.s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
>
>O say can you see
> by the dawn's early light -
>Lackawanna troops? Nixed!
> Hey! He did something *right* !
Did you know it's surprisingly easy
to sing the STAR SPANGLED BANNER [1] to
the tune of BOOGIE WOOGIE BUGLE BOY [2]?
O CANADA too.
1: Thank you Arthur C Clarke, for making me have to correct
that every time I type it (Clarke wrote a story where an
American starship passed too close to a neutron star and
its deadly tides. All that was left was [rot13] n fgne znatyrq
fcnaare).
2: http://www.fass.uwaterloo.ca/1989/songs#12
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Alexander Mitchell
> In article <7ihah5F31g8k...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> nickelshrink <nickelshr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Dann wrote:
>
> >> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/
>
> Our country.s stood beside us
> People have sent us aid.
> Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
> Congress, Bush and FEMA
> People across our land
> Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
>
*Okay, I'll be perfectly honest: That's totally tacky, cheesy, and
nausea-inducing, and whoever thought that was a good idea should be
taken out back and flogged, fired, and/or maybe even waterboarded.
Now, would any of the dozens of folks who left disparaging commentary
about that incident/report be willing to equally disparage those
kiddie "Obama anthems"? I somehow doubt it.
James Nicoll
In the interests of good feelingness and hand shakery: I think
the American Cult of the President is very creepy and undermines America's
one true religion: flag worship.
I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
Stephen Graham
> I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
> to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
US Capitol Police, if I recall correctly.
James Nicoll
Says "White House cops" here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false
What are "White House cops", exactly, and why can't Presidents
may do with Inuit soap stone statues for self-defense?
Jym Dyer
> 4/11 of the Rs resigned.
>
> The data indicates that Rs are caught in moral/sex scandals
> more than twice as often as Ds and are ~50% less likely to
> resign when caught.
=v= My notion of "moral" has less to do with sex than with the
public trust. For example, I'm less upset about Clinton having
sex with a consenting adult than his lying about it.
=v= I know we're all supposed to pretend that white-collar crime
isn't worth much thinking about, even when it's in the public
sector, but somehow this triggers this particular moral sense in
me. Go figure.
=v= I remember Bert Lance resigning over the mere *appearance*
of impropriety, allegedly using his post for personal gain, a
charge he was later cleared of. The next Administration had
over 100 people who actually did just that, with impunity, and
generally bragging about it.
<_Jym_>
Stephen Graham
> In article <nIGdncxEQvHMN17X...@speakeasy.net>,
> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
>>> to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
>> US Capitol Police, if I recall correctly.
>
> Says "White House cops" here:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
> What are "White House cops", exactly, and why can't Presidents
> may do with Inuit soap stone statues for self-defense?
Yep, those are the US Capitol Police.
Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
Congress was offended by this. Actually protecting the President would
take a bit longer to put into practice.
Sherwood Harrington
> Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
> Congress was offended by this. Actually protecting the President would
> take a bit longer to put into practice.
Still hasn't happened, evidently, if verbal assaults on the President in
the capitol by congresscritters are included.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
James Nicoll
Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <nIGdncxEQvHMN17X...@speakeasy.net>,
>> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
>>>> to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
>>> US Capitol Police, if I recall correctly.
>>
>> Says "White House cops" here:
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>>
>> What are "White House cops", exactly, and why can't Presidents
>> may do with Inuit soap stone statues for self-defense?
>
>Yep, those are the US Capitol Police.
>
>Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
>Congress was offended by this.
Ah.
Our PMs have been able to defend themselves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake
Which is just as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire
Stephen Graham
>> Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
>> Congress was offended by this.
>
> Ah.
>
> Our PMs have been able to defend themselves
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake
>
> Which is just as well
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire
More concern was evinced for Presidential sons; the solution for
Presidents at the time was to allow Andy Jackson loose with a cane. On
the whole, I think I'm happier with the Secret Service being responsible
for the President. Jackson could be a bit excitable.
JC Dill
> On 30 Sep 2009, JC Dill said the following in
> news:h9uq34$aih$1...@aioe.org.
>
>> Dann wrote:
>
>>> Corruption is a bipartisan phenomenon. IMO, Democratic politicians
>>> are far less likely to scream for blood if the person in question is
>>> also a Democrat.
>> The same is true of Republicans, if the person in question is a
>> Republican.
>>
>> A significant percent of the "outrages" over Obama issues are
>> identical to things Bush did and the Republicans didn't say a word
>> about it when Bush did it - e.g. back to school speeches, children
>> singing songs written for the President, the number of Czars (Obama
>> has fewer than Bush had), if Czars are bad (Republicans were urging
>> Bush to appoint various Czars to help in the "war against terror")
>> etc.
>
> I've got no problem with the speech that he gave. It wasn't the speech
> that was advertised. Either his press secretary needs a kick in the ass,
> or they changed the speech.
They didn't change the speech in any way. They changed one line in the
accompanying lesson suggestion materials.
>
> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
> Got a link?
Singing to Bush II:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977825299
The tune children sang for past President and First Lady Laura Bush:
Lyrics
========
Our country's stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us,
our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us
and we join them hand-in-hand!
Singing to President Clinton:
http://www.globalmothers.org/history.html
Late in September, led by Greg, 1600 schoolchildren in Provo, Utah
created a video letter addressed to President Clinton, and also
distributed in Congress. In it the children, speaking in unison, said,
"Mr. President, We the children, Need a holiday of peace, compassion and
generosity . . . A day without violence�OneDay. . ." President Clinton
promptly responded in a letter to Greg, pledging his support. Yet in the
same letter the President also made clear that he did not have the
unilateral power to declare a national holiday. Efforts to pass the
Congressional measure were redoubled.
(snip)
They sang the new song "Peace One Day" written by their teacher.
> Czars are generally a bad idea regardless of who is appointing them.
No, they aren't. For one thing, many are subject to vetting by
Congress, others are positions in a president's staff that have been
there for many, many years. Republicans have applauded and encouraged
many czar appointments when it was a Republican president.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf
> Mr. Obama has continued several other Bush era policies as well; Iraq,
> Afghanistan, Gitmo, signing statements, supporting the Patriot Act, etc.
> Some of which were good ideas, while the rest were not.
>
> The larger point being who are the larger hypocrites? The Republicans
> that support morality and have a girlfriend on the side or leftists that
> scream bloody murder when Mr. Bush is in office but apparently are
> disinterested in the same issues now that Mr. Obama is in office?
It's not fair to say all liberals or Obama supporters are
"disinterested" - I know many who are upset with Obama's position and
lack of action in resolving problems with the Patriot Act, DADT, and
DOM, for instance. If he doesn't make progress on these issues it may
haunt him in 2012.
> Are both sides homers? Sure. But the trend, IMO, is for the GOP to have
> a line that you can cross where they will eat their own.
Really? If this were the case why aren't the Republicans resigning when
they are caught, quite literally with their pants down? If the party
was really holding their members accountable for moral transgressions
then they should have made it impossible for those Republicans to remain
in office. They should have denounced their actions and demanded these
transgressors resign, but they didn't.
> I'm not seeing
> that on the Democratic side of the fence. And I'm not seeing a media
> that treats both sides equally as well.
Oh there we go, the old "media has a liberal bias" claim. It has been
disproven many times, but conservatives can't manage to remember this
tiny fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
A major problem in studies is experimenter bias. Research into studies
of media bias in the United States shows that Liberal experimenters tend
to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while
conservatives experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a
liberal bias, and those who do not identify themselves as either liberal
or conservative get results indicating little bias, or mixed bias. This
same problem with experimenter bias extends to the studies of
experimenter bias, of course. [25][26][27] Whether bias is toward the
left or the right depends on where you stand.
jc
aemeijers
> In article <KrednSWbhsjjIl7X...@speakeasy.net>,
> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <nIGdncxEQvHMN17X...@speakeasy.net>,
>>> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
>>>>> to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
>>>> US Capitol Police, if I recall correctly.
>>> Says "White House cops" here:
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>>>
>>> What are "White House cops", exactly, and why can't Presidents
>>> may do with Inuit soap stone statues for self-defense?
>> Yep, those are the US Capitol Police.
>>
>> Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
>> Congress was offended by this.
>
> Ah.
>
> Our PMs have been able to defend themselves
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake
>
> Which is just as well
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire
>
>
>
>
guards at the time were Secret Service Uniformed Division. (Thought I
better spell out the SS, this time.) In more recent years, the guards
out and about on the grounds are US Park Service Park Police, while SS
does the inside. Very political and turf-conscious, like all those
churches sharing care of that old church site in Jerusalem.
Definitely not US Capitol Police. They aren't allowed anywhere near the
executive branch. The fools on the hill aren't really part of the actual
government, they pretty much have their very own everything, and often 2
of them, one for the senators and one for the congressmen.
DC is lousy with duplicative overlapping police departments. Seems like
every damn agency and department just has to have their very own. Very
much like the local LEOs in many of the more built up counties out in
the real world. Lots of side-by-side small ponds, each with their own
Big Fish. Your tax dollars at play. (Standard disclaimer- not a slam at
the folks actually wearing the uniforms- I'm sure most of them are the
salt of the earth. But with N+1 departments in any given area, it is
little wonder the bad guys get away with so much.)
--
aem sends...
Sherwood Harrington
... a very good post, but one whose impact could have been made slightly
more dramatic with the following edit:
> Really? If this were the case why aren't the Republicans resigning when
> they are caught, quite literally with their pants down? If the party
> was really holding their members [...]
> then they should have made it impossible for those Republicans to remain
> in office. They should have denounced their actions and demanded these
> transgressors resign, but they didn't.
--
Sherwood Harrington
That's-Not-My-Leg-You're-Pulling Creek, California
Jym Dyer
>> to put into practice.
> Still hasn't happened, evidently, if verbal assaults on the
> President in the capitol by congresscritters are included.
=v= You lie.
<_Jym_>
George W Harris
>
>I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr. Bush.
>Got a link?
>
Here ya go. Relevant clip at 14:43.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/250292/mon-september-28-2009-bruce-bueno-de-mesquita
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yl3b2n3
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
<gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
I was under the impression that Andrew Jackson
was the first U.S. President to be physically attacked
while in office. Someone actually tried to *shoot* him in
the Capitol, but both guns misfired.
Alexander Mitchell
>
> Oh there we go, the old "media has a liberal bias" claim. It has been
> disproven many times, but conservatives can't manage to remember this
> tiny fact.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
>
> A major problem in studies is experimenter bias. Research into studies
> of media bias in the United States shows that Liberal experimenters tend
> to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while
> conservatives experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a
> liberal bias, and those who do not identify themselves as either liberal
> or conservative get results indicating little bias, or mixed bias. This
> same problem with experimenter bias extends to the studies of
> experimenter bias, of course. [25][26][27] Whether bias is toward the
> left or the right depends on where you stand.
>
discuss these issues on the talk page.
* Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words.
Tagged since January 2008.
* It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since
January 2008.
* It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality
standards. Tagged since February 2009."
So, tell us how you include both Fox News and MSNBC into your viewing
habits. Or how you read both the NY Times and the NY Post. Or how
you read both the Washington Post and the Washington Times.
Dann
news:h9vti8$ksm$1...@reader1.panix.com.
> In article <7ihah5F...@mid.individual.net>,
> nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Dann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr.
>>> Bush.
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/
>
> Our country.s stood beside us
> People have sent us aid.
> Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
> Congress, Bush and FEMA
> People across our land
> Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
>
That is just....awful!
And it does nothing to justify the current lionization.
But I do appreciate knowing that the GOP can be similarly idiotic.
Dann
news:Jym.30Sep20...@econet.org.
Where were you 4 years ago?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Ah, for the more civil assaults of the 1970's:
(Thanks to James Nicholl for pointing out the Goolge archive of "Life"
magazine! What a cultural time capsule!)
Paul Ciszek
In article <Jym.30Sep20...@econet.org>,
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>> 3/5 of the Ds resigned.
>> 4/11 of the Rs resigned.
>>
>> The data indicates that Rs are caught in moral/sex scandals
>> more than twice as often as Ds and are ~50% less likely to
>> resign when caught.
>
>=v= My notion of "moral" has less to do with sex than with the
>public trust. For example, I'm less upset about Clinton having
>sex with a consenting adult than his lying about it.
How do you feel about his successor lying in order to be able
get congressional and public approval for his own elective war?
>=v= I know we're all supposed to pretend that white-collar crime
>isn't worth much thinking about, even when it's in the public
>sector, but somehow this triggers this particular moral sense in
>me. Go figure.
Around the time the bank bailout was making its way through congress,
there was a case that some of us liberals were making a big deal
about where some guy was going to be spending some large number of
years--likely the rest of his life--in prison for stealing a few
hundred dollars from a bank; meanwhile, those who stole millions
or even billions of dollars from banks were going unpunished.
Funny how a lot of people changed their opinion on white collar
crime when they found out that Bernie Madoff had stolen *their* money.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Jym Dyer
>> the public trust. For example, I'm less upset about Clinton
>> having sex with a consenting adult than his lying about it.
> How do you feel about his successor lying in order to be
> able get congressional and public approval for his own
> elective war?
=v= I think it's safe to say that I'm no fan of that, either.
<_Jym_>
JC Dill
> On 30 Sep 2009, James Nicoll said the following in
> news:h9vti8$ksm$1...@reader1.panix.com.
>
>> In article <7ihah5F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dann wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd love to see kids being taught to sing a positive song about Mr.
>>>> Bush.
>> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/
>>
>> Our country.s stood beside us
>> People have sent us aid.
>> Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
>> Congress, Bush and FEMA
>> People across our land
>> Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
>>
>
> That is just....awful!
>
> And it does nothing to justify the current lionization.
>
> But I do appreciate knowing that the GOP can be similarly idiotic.
It wasn't the GOP, it was an elementary school, a class of children and
their teacher. You didn't see Dem's getting all outraged that children
were singing the praises of the president - you didn't even KNOW the
event happened. Only the GOP rises up with the misplaced outrage that
school children, in the month of February (Black History Month) learn
and sing a song in praise of the historic event when the first black man
became president of the United States just a few weeks earlier,
certainly a very historic moment in Black History.
Oh no, we can't let school children sign a song about current historic
events help them understand the topic - no we should only teach them
boring approved events from a textbook written years ago.
Since Obama was elected, the GOP and their conservative media bedmates
have been endlessly screaming about things that they (and everyone)
either ignored or praised when Bush did them. This level of hypocrisy
is unprecedented.
jc
Jym Dyer
>>> President in the capitol by congresscritters are included.
>>
>> =v= You lie.
>
> Where were you 4 years ago?
=v= The more apt question would be where I was 5 years ago.
It was someplace kind of like this:
http://www.sinfest.net/?comicID=1633
=v= June Brashares was over in the next barbed-wire pen. It
seems that when it comes to free speech, some of us are more
equal than others.
<_Jym_>
Dann
> Since Obama was elected, the GOP and their conservative media bedmates
> have been endlessly screaming about things that they (and everyone)
> either ignored or praised when Bush did them. This level of hypocrisy
> is unprecedented.
And since Mr. Obama was elected, the leftists that were formerly screaming
bloody murder at Mr. Bush have since said nothing when Mr. Obama has
pursued precisely the same policies. Additionally, the same leftists are
shocked at the milder rebukes being aimed at Mr. Obama where those same
leftists had much harsher comments for Mr. Bush.
It seems that there is a piece of hypocrisy pie for almost everyone sitting
at the table.
Stephen Graham
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:28:46 -0700, Stephen Graham
> <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> Apparently someone assaulted one of the John Adamses in the Capitol and
>> Congress was offended by this. Actually protecting the President would
>> take a bit longer to put into practice.
>
> I was under the impression that Andrew Jackson
> was the first U.S. President to be physically attacked
> while in office. Someone actually tried to *shoot* him in
> the Capitol, but both guns misfired.
I was deliberately a bit elliptical - it was John Quincy Adam's son,
John, who was assaulted.
James Nicoll
Wait, John Adams' kid John Quincy Adams also has a son named John?
Huh, yep, and also a grandfather John Quincy.
JC Dill
> On 01 Oct 2009, JC Dill said the following in news:ha2j81$9n$1...@aioe.org.
>
>> Since Obama was elected, the GOP and their conservative media bedmates
>> have been endlessly screaming about things that they (and everyone)
>> either ignored or praised when Bush did them. This level of hypocrisy
>> is unprecedented.
>
> And since Mr. Obama was elected, the leftists that were formerly screaming
> bloody murder at Mr. Bush have since said nothing when Mr. Obama has
> pursued precisely the same policies.
False. There are a lot of people who are quite unhappy about some of
his policies and positions for example, DADT, and this is being widely
reported (but probably not as widely reported by conservative media):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/reid-appeals-directly-to_n_305784.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-10/obamas-dont-ask-dont-tell-hypocrisy/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html
Now, if he actually acts on DADT, then we can expect the conservative
media to be up in arms about it, and find some right-wing homophobes and
bigots who will explain how this is going to destroy the armed forces.
> Additionally, the same leftists are
> shocked at the milder rebukes being aimed at Mr. Obama where those same
> leftists had much harsher comments for Mr. Bush.
Cite?
> It seems that there is a piece of hypocrisy pie for almost everyone sitting
> at the table.
It seems you are making stuff up. Come up with some citations. Start
with "the same leftists" who are "shocked" at rebukes against Obama when
they had the same rebukes against Bush.
jc
Mark Jackson
>> In article <KrednSWbhsjjIl7X...@speakeasy.net>,
>> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> In article <nIGdncxEQvHMN17X...@speakeasy.net>,
>>>> Stephen Graham <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I miss the days when a President could roundly mocked for trying
>>>>>> to introduce Ruritainian-style White House Marine Guard uniforms.
>>>>> US Capitol Police, if I recall correctly.
>>>> Says "White House cops" here:
>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are "White House cops", exactly, and why can't Presidents
>>>> may do with Inuit soap stone statues for self-defense?
>>> Yep, those are the US Capitol Police.
> I don't care enough to look it up, but I think the white house gate
> guards at the time were Secret Service Uniformed Division.
The Smithsonian seems to think so:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/Presidency/2b4_b.html
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Don't worry about people stealing an idea.
If it's original you will have to ram it
down their throats. - Howard Aiken
Charles Whitney
"JC Dill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9tob8$5sa$1...@aioe.org...
>
> Resigned:
> California Assemblyman Mike Duvall (R)
> Randall L. Tobias (R) Deputy Secretary of State
> Mark Foley (R-FL) - US Congressman
> Eliot Spitzer (D) Governor of New York
> Bob Allen (R-FL) - State Congressman
> Paul J. Morrison (D) Attorney General of Kansas
> Jim McGreevey (D) Governor of New Jersey
Looking at this again, I'm reminded that not all sex scandals are created
equal, and that each one of them has its own qualities that would set it
apart from the others which might change whether an officeholder would feel
compelled to resign.
Foley and Allen resigned after they were caught in a homosexual scandal.
(Allen's was particularly ludicrous) The fact of the matter is, a
Republican caught in a homosexual scandal can pretty much expect his career
to be over. The way the Republican party has been presenting itself for
years now means that most Republican voters would be very hostile toward a
homosexual running for office. So Foley and Allen, had they run again,
would have seen their Republican support evaporate, and they certainly could
not count on any increase in support from Democrats or independents.
Essentially, had they run again they would have been trounced. (This is
undoubtedly why Craig did not run again in 2008) So, they could either
resign as quietly as possible or run a political campaign that would almost
certainly end in an embarrassing loss, with their homosexual scandal being
brought up virtually every time they're mentioned in the news. Whatever
legacy they may have had would also be damaged from the frequent mentions of
the scandal.
So I guess I'm saying is that those two Republican resignations shouldn't be
looked at as equivalent to the typical Democratic resignation. But as I
said, each has its own set of facts and its own level of outrage.
C
Alexander Mitchell
>
> So I guess I'm saying is that those two Republican resignations shouldn't be
> looked at as equivalent to the typical Democratic resignation. But as I
> said, each has its own set of facts and its own level of outrage.
>
the most loyal Democrat-supporting celebrities of late, I would almost
think that being caught in a homosexual scandal would be a big *plus*
to candidates in certain jurisdictions....... like, oh, I dunno, the
Hollywood supporting Roman Polanski for the past week or
so..............
Dann
> Dann wrote:
> > Additionally, the same leftists are
> > shocked at the milder rebukes being aimed at Mr. Obama where those same
> > leftists had much harsher comments for Mr. Bush.
>
> Cite?
>
If you can't recall 2001-2009 then I'm not sure this particular bit of
thread drift is going anywhere productive.
--
Regards,
Dann
JC Dill
If you are talking about rebukes over different policies, well yeah.
Bush was an idiot, a dry drunk, a C student, and I'm amazed that we have
enough stupid people in the US who saw him as a leader and voted for him
that he ended up elected not once, but twice! He was lead by the nose
by Cheney and Rove et.al. and we did rebuke him for his idiotic behavior
like "heck of a job Brownie" while New Orleans was destroyed after
Katrina, thousands died, millions lost everything, because of FEDERAL
malfeasance (Army Corps responsible for and delaying levee repairs, FEMA
being totally unprepared to Manage the emergency response, etc.). Bush
lied to us about WMDs and we have over 5000 soldiers buried and
countless others with severe injuries (head trauma, missing limbs, etc.).
If Obama does something similar you can bet we are going to rebuke him
too. But so far all the rebuking is over extremely TRIVIAL crap like
"the number of czars" even though Obama has FEWER than Bush did, or
about something he has absolutely no control over like school children
singing a song. These things are not comparable to the huge issues we
had with Bush. This is why Obama's polling numbers are still extremely
high - the people are SO happy to finally have a president who is
getting things done, things the people elected him to do.
There isn't anything Obama has done so far that hasn't had:
1) Widespread support from the people (based on polls);
2) Widespread support in Congress (because otherwise they wouldn't have
passed).
(There are some things he *hasn't* done that have less support or more
mixed support. Clearly he's picking his battles. Smart man.)
The conservative pundits keep cherry-picking polls to try to show a lack
of support for the health care initiative, but it has WIDESPREAD backing
by the people. (Check www.fivethirtyeight.com for details.) Now the
conservative pundits have members of Congress afraid to sneeze, afraid
they will end up being lambasted on FAUX for doing something the PEOPLE
WANT, and FAUX et. al. keeps "blaming" Obama for doing what he was
elected to do because it's not what the people who voted for the Other
Guy want done. This is CRAZY. We didn't elect the other guy. He LOST.
We elected Obama and in doing so we gave him permission to move
forward with the things he promised to do when elected. So stop all the
crybaby whining about how he's not doing the things the other guy
promised and let him go forward with the things he promised to do.
When he *breaks* his promise, THEN you can lambast him. I know the
liberals have (DADT etc.) and will.
jc
James Nicoll
he wouldn't be enjoying the level of celebrity support he is now [1].
Girls tend to be seen as fair game.
I see this more as a combination of a class thing and a Hollywood
Hates Women thing (Well, and maybe a Hollywood: bastion of corrupt practices
thing, too). Polanski is one of their own, whereas the victim was
just some girl and Hollywood is the sort of place where it's perfectly
acceptable to make an actress audition for a role by making her wash
a directors car while wearing a bikini.
Some of the French and Polish officials may have been doing
a reflexive anti-American thing as well. Note that Nicolas Sarkozy's
government is center-right. I notice that the actual French people
are leaning heavily towards sending Polanski to the US to face the
music.
1: A list of people whose work I won't be making any effort to see:
http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman-Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html
I like how Woody Allen is featured right up front.
Jym Dyer
> to show a lack of support for the health care initiative,
> but it has WIDESPREAD backing by the people.
=v= I will add that the peace movement is *indeed* critical of
Obama's ever-receding timeline for getting out of Iraq (contrary
to Dann's earlier assertion). The anti-globalization folks are
*not* keen on continued obeisance to the economic dogma that's
gotten us into this mess (as seen in Pittsburgh quite recently).
Also, some of lack of support, or tepid support, for the public
option is from people who find it *insufficient* (and would be
happier with a single-payer proposal).
=v= The prevailing discourse is along the lines of moronic
slogans, the "Obama = Socialist" idiocy, so naturally we find
that *any* criticism of Obama is being dishonestly spun as
support for Republicans. The very same crap abounded in the
Clinton years, of course.
<_Jym_>
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> Bush was an idiot, a dry drunk, a C student, and I'm amazed that we have
> enough stupid people in the US who saw him as a leader and voted for him
> that he ended up elected not once, but twice!
The best students do not make the best leaders (see: Jimmy Carter and
Herbert Hoover for just a few examples of smart men who were lousy
presidents). Leadership depends less on book smarrts and more on
charisma and being able to choose wisely among conflicting options.
More for those reasons that presidents like Kennedy and Clinton were
seeen as more capable leaders.
As for being a reformed alcohlic, that if anything suggests qualities
such as resolve, self-awareness, and inner strength that are needed
for good leadership.
And just because people don't see things your way, they aren't stupid.
That is just mean-spirited and cheapens any legitimate itellectual
arguements you might have.
I think Bush's elections victorys are more a testament to marketing
and the failure of the Democrats to run a modern Presidental campaign.
(They finally figured it out in 2008.)
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article <f239c68d-5aea-4e46-be0d-e24a1c30c...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I like how Woody Allen is featured right up front.
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
First time I read the petition and I immediately thought "a case of
_morals_"? Statutory rape of a 13-year old girl is not a matter of
'morals'- it is a criminal act. Would they have signed the same
petition if the warrant was for manslaughter?
Though there may be some merit in the basic premise of free movement
for artisits, they definitely hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.
James Nicoll
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>First time I read the petition and I immediately thought "a case of
>_morals_"? Statutory rape of a 13-year old girl is not a matter of
>'morals'- it is a criminal act. Would they have signed the same
>petition if the warrant was for manslaughter?
Did Phil Spector have defenders?
>Though there may be some merit in the basic premise of free movement
>for artisits, they definitely hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.
They appear to have confused "free speech" with "may drug
and rape minors".
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
Sherwood Harrington
>> Bush was [...] a dry drunk,
[...]
> As for being a reformed alcohlic, that if anything suggests qualities
> such as resolve, self-awareness, and inner strength that are needed
> for good leadership.
"dry drunk" != reformed alcoholic
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
JC Dill
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 10:32?am, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Bush was [...] a dry drunk,
>
> [...]
>
>> As for being a reformed alcohlic, that if anything suggests qualities
>> such as resolve, self-awareness, and inner strength that are needed
>> for good leadership.
>
> "dry drunk" != reformed alcoholic
Thank you Sherwood! I'm glad someone gets it.
jc
Alexander Mitchell
>
> First time I read the petition and I immediately thought "a case of
> _morals_"? Statutory rape of a 13-year old girl is not a matter of
> 'morals'- it is a criminal act. Would they have signed the same
> petition if the warrant was for manslaughter?
>
Abu-Jamal lying around to cross-check?
Dann
news:ha52tl$1fs$1...@aioe.org.
>> If you can't recall 2001-2009 then I'm not sure this particular bit
>> of thread drift is going anywhere productive.
>
> If you are talking about rebukes over different policies, well yeah.
> Bush was an idiot, a dry drunk, a C student, and I'm amazed that we
> have enough stupid people in the US who saw him as a leader and voted
> for him that he ended up elected not once, but twice! He was lead by
> the nose by Cheney and Rove et.al. and we did rebuke him for his
> idiotic behavior like "heck of a job Brownie" while New Orleans was
> destroyed after Katrina, thousands died, millions lost everything,
> because of FEDERAL malfeasance (Army Corps responsible for and
> delaying levee repairs, FEMA being totally unprepared to Manage the
> emergency response, etc.). Bush lied to us about WMDs and we have
> over 5000 soldiers buried and countless others with severe injuries
> (head trauma, missing limbs, etc.).
>
> If Obama does something similar you can bet we are going to rebuke him
> too. But so far all the rebuking is over extremely TRIVIAL crap like
> "the number of czars" even though Obama has FEWER than Bush did, or
> about something he has absolutely no control over like school children
> singing a song. These things are not comparable to the huge issues we
> had with Bush. This is why Obama's polling numbers are still
> extremely high - the people are SO happy to finally have a president
> who is getting things done, things the people elected him to do.
>
> There isn't anything Obama has done so far that hasn't had:
The cognitive dissonance in here is deafening.
Dann
news:ha59d8$a9a$1...@reader1.panix.com.
> In article
> <9707d5e1-25a9-4ddf...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>First time I read the petition and I immediately thought "a case of
>>_morals_"? Statutory rape of a 13-year old girl is not a matter of
>>'morals'- it is a criminal act. Would they have signed the same
>>petition if the warrant was for manslaughter?
>
> Did Phil Spector have defenders?
That's an open question today?
http://www.petitiononline.com/Spector/petition.html
Alexander Mitchell
Ooops, my bad. That was Murder One of a police officer point-blank,
not manslaughter.
Wait, what's that? There were celebrities in Hollywood STILL signing
it?
Geez, what's next? Folks defending or supporting David Letterman?
No, no, forget I said anything, I'm off to bed.............
Heather Kendrick
<9707d5e1-25a9-4ddf...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First time I read the petition and I immediately thought "a case of
> _morals_"? Statutory rape of a 13-year old girl is not a matter of
> 'morals'- it is a criminal act. Would they have signed the same
> petition if the warrant was for manslaughter?
The problem I have with both the petition and the paragraph above is
that they treat the term "morals" as though it meant something trivial.
From my perspective, the fact that manslaughter is a violation of
morality is a lot more serious than that it is a violation of law.
Heather
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Yes, nothing like supporting someone who did *nothing illegal*.
Maybe blackmail's still in.
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Yes, your cognitive dissonance is quite deafening; nice projection!
--
- ReFlex76
nickelshrink
You'll notice that the topic got Mitchellized from what
citizens think of the President, into what Hollywood celebrities
think of other Hollywood celebrities. The relevance escapes me.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Sherwood Harrington
> You'll notice that the topic got Mitchellized from what
> citizens think of the President, into what Hollywood celebrities
> think of other Hollywood celebrities. The relevance escapes me.
Not to worry. He'll almost certainly lecture us about how obvious the
relevance is.
Jym Dyer
> qualities such as resolve, self-awareness, and inner strength
> that are needed for good leadership.
=v= You do realize that this is George W. Bush we're talking
about here, don't you? With his forehead immobilized into a
squint, he could read "resolve" off a teleprompter, so long as
his speechwriters stuck to short sentences with little words,
but self-awareness and inner strength? Seriously?
=v= At any rate, dry drunk syndrome falls short of being a
reformed alcoholic.
<_Jym_>
Charles Whitney
"Dann" <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C98CCA0C11C0d...@74.209.136.100...
You're going to have to unwrap that for me. I have a strong sense that you
don't know what that means.
I do think you're suffering from a false dichotomy however. It seems you're
incapable of recognizing that it is possible for progressives to criticize
the president both legitimately and significantly without them becoming Jim
DeMint supporters.
Most progressives dislike the legislative maneuverings of the Democratic
Leadership Council (of which Rahm Emanuel was a member) almost as much as
they dislike the same of Republicans.
C