Free Krugman
Mark Jackson
range of views represented in the media today.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19690
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The most important of all medical discoveries is not antibiotics,
or immunization; it is the randomized double-blind test, by means
of which we find out what works and what doesn't. - Robert Park
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
"Mark Jackson" <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:dhu3mr$9kg$1...@news.wrc.xerox.com...
> Jen Sorensen has an interesting take on pay-to-view Web content and the
> range of views represented in the media today.
>
> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19690
>
importance of the subject at hand.
The NY Times deserves kudos for attempting to address the fact that everyone
using the Internet has now been conditioned to demand better content for
free. Unfortunately, it has probably blundered horribly in its choice of
material for which to charge.
By deciding that its advocacy columns are *the* material that people will
pay to read, the NY Times has basically admitted to the world that people
read the paper for its liberal advocacy, not for news. This alone
discredits the journalistic integrity of the paper--they should just bundle
up the content in a magazine and call it "The Other New Yorker" or something
and stop its self-delusion that it's still the be-all and end-all of
journalism.
Second, by charging for access to its contents, sure, it's assuring a better
standard of living for its writers (assuming that the proceeds are properly
shared), but it's also curtailing the readership of its columnists to
effectively "the choir" rather than the "congregation," and most assuredly
seeing to it that the "sinners" outside the church never hear the message.
There's nothing wrong with selling your message to the right audience. I'm
not going to sell a missive on Pakistani railroad history to a scrapbooking
magazine or Beanie Babie magazine, and I doubt a treatise on craft bourbon
will fly with a Bible Baptist newsletter. But with the type of writing
involved with Krugman, Michael Moore, et al, the point should be to persuade
others to your side--meaning exposure to nay-sayers, with the risk that
they're going to point out fallacies or errors in your assumptions or
statements.
Personally, I think anything that limits the world's exposure to Krugman's
swill is fine with me. (^_^)
mikepe...@gmail.com
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
> "Mark Jackson" <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:dhu3mr$9kg$1...@news.wrc.xerox.com...
> > Jen Sorensen has an interesting take on pay-to-view Web content and the
> > range of views represented in the media today.
> >
> > http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19690
> >
> *And the lack of response to this probably says a lot about the actual
> importance of the subject at hand.
Or the fact that people didn't find the cartoon particularly
compelling. I mean, this is a cartoon newsgroup, we ought to
occasionally mention.
>
> The NY Times deserves kudos for attempting to address the fact that everyone
> using the Internet has now been conditioned to demand better content for
> free. Unfortunately, it has probably blundered horribly in its choice of
> material for which to charge.
>
> By deciding that its advocacy columns are *the* material that people will
> pay to read, the NY Times has basically admitted to the world that people
> read the paper for its liberal advocacy, not for news. This alone
> discredits the journalistic integrity of the paper--they should just bundle
> up the content in a magazine and call it "The Other New Yorker" or something
> and stop its self-delusion that it's still the be-all and end-all of
> journalism.
An interesting richochet back and forth between interesting analysis
and silly posturing. That is to say, I agree that they have made an
error, but not with the hot-air portion about "liberal advocacy, not
news" and "journalistic integrity."
The public editor today has an analysis of their print subscribers,
which indicates that it is a very up-scale group.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/opinion/09publiceditor.html>
But I would seriously fault the direction their marketing department
went with this data in deciding what to sell and what to give away. For
my part, I would have bundled the Sunday Magazine, travel,
entertainment and food sections, since they invariably cater to the
rich-trendy-asshole demographic that can happily pony up for one more
subscription. And I wouldn't have missed it, because even when they are
profiling modest travel destinations like Vermont or Pennsylvania,
they're talking about inns that cost $500 a night and restaurants
serving $150 appetizers.
If they HAD an "advocacy" intent, they'd make their political columns
that last thing they charge for. Obviously, they don't.
>
> Second, by charging for access to its contents, sure, it's assuring a better
> standard of living for its writers (assuming that the proceeds are properly
> shared), but it's also curtailing the readership of its columnists to
> effectively "the choir" rather than the "congregation," and most assuredly
> seeing to it that the "sinners" outside the church never hear the message.
Again, I agree about the fact that they have curtailed their message
exactly as you say. I snicker over the notion that their columnists are
getting any more money because of this ... and would suggest that we
not waste any worry over their ability to pay their utilities anyway.
I'm sure they're doing just fine.
>
> There's nothing wrong with selling your message to the right audience. I'm
> not going to sell a missive on Pakistani railroad history to a scrapbooking
> magazine or Beanie Babie magazine, and I doubt a treatise on craft bourbon
> will fly with a Bible Baptist newsletter. But with the type of writing
> involved with Krugman, Michael Moore, et al, the point should be to persuade
> others to your side--meaning exposure to nay-sayers, with the risk that
> they're going to point out fallacies or errors in your assumptions or
> statements.
Michael Moore is not a columnist for the New York Times. But a nice
swipe of the broad brush. You, James Dobson, Joseph Goebbels, et al, do
a nice job of that sort of thing. ;-)
>
> Personally, I think anything that limits the world's exposure to Krugman's
> swill is fine with me. (^_^)
Yeah, dissenting voices are a real threat to freedom. You going to
Beijing for the Olympics? I hear it's going to be a great time! (At
least, nobody there has said anything else ... )
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<LNER447...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>"Mark Jackson" <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:dhu3mr$9kg$1...@news.wrc.xerox.com...
>> Jen Sorensen has an interesting take on pay-to-view Web content and the
>> range of views represented in the media today.
>>
>> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19690
>>
>*And the lack of response to this probably says a lot about the actual
>importance of the subject at hand.
>
Well, Mark Fiore is still free, and kickin' ass!:
<http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gops.html>
- ReFlex76 (formerly "Vaughner")
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
>> By deciding that its advocacy columns are *the* material that people will
>> pay to read, the NY Times has basically admitted to the world that people
>> read the paper for its liberal advocacy, not for news. This alone
>If they HAD an "advocacy" intent, they'd make their political columns
>that last thing they charge for. Obviously, they don't.
I suppose Alex has at least explained for us that the WSJ's news
is worth something and its editorials (the only part given away for free
on the web) aren't.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." - J.K. Galbraith
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> which indicates that it is a very up-scale group.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/opinion/09publiceditor.html>
>
> But I would seriously fault the direction their marketing department
> went with this data in deciding what to sell and what to give away. For
> my part, I would have bundled the Sunday Magazine, travel,
> entertainment and food sections, since they invariably cater to the
> rich-trendy-asshole demographic that can happily pony up for one more
> subscription. And I wouldn't have missed it, because even when they are
> profiling modest travel destinations like Vermont or Pennsylvania,
> they're talking about inns that cost $500 a night and restaurants
> serving $150 appetizers.
>
> If they HAD an "advocacy" intent, they'd make their political columns
> that last thing they charge for. Obviously, they don't.
>
*That may be a point--that would be the "rational" attitude to take.
However, I cannot fathom any reason that the Times would decide to charge
for its "advocacy" content at a premium, other than their own belief that it
is the most important, valuable, or distinctive content they have available,
and the content that people will most likely pay for. In other words, a
(probably) inflated sense of self-worth. It's a variation of the
self-deluded "but *how* can anyone *not* see the value and correctness of
our beliefs?" attitude that, IMO, was a substantial factor in the left's
loss of the past two elections--they just couldn't believe the "heartland"
or "fly-over country" felt any differently than they did, let alone far
differently.
>>
>> Second, by charging for access to its contents, sure, it's assuring a
>> better
>> standard of living for its writers (assuming that the proceeds are
>> properly
>> shared), but it's also curtailing the readership of its columnists to
>> effectively "the choir" rather than the "congregation," and most
>> assuredly
>> seeing to it that the "sinners" outside the church never hear the
>> message.
>
> Again, I agree about the fact that they have curtailed their message
> exactly as you say. I snicker over the notion that their columnists are
> getting any more money because of this ...
*So do I.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with selling your message to the right audience.
>> I'm
>> not going to sell a missive on Pakistani railroad history to a
>> scrapbooking
>> magazine or Beanie Babie magazine, and I doubt a treatise on craft
>> bourbon
>> will fly with a Bible Baptist newsletter. But with the type of writing
>> involved with Krugman, Michael Moore, et al, the point should be to
>> persuade
>> others to your side--meaning exposure to nay-sayers, with the risk that
>> they're going to point out fallacies or errors in your assumptions or
>> statements.
>
> Michael Moore is not a columnist for the New York Times. But a nice
> swipe of the broad brush. You, James Dobson, Joseph Goebbels, et al, do
> a nice job of that sort of thing. ;-)
*I said "the type of writing involved with". I 'm referring to any writing
making a pitch for ideas, and more specifically the disjointed arguments and
attacks made by Krugman, Moore, and even Ann Coulter (whom I can't stand for
exactly the same reasons). I was given a Michael Moore book (one that was
circulated from a local library a total of *once* since it was purchased),
and having read it, I had to roll my eyes. Compared to right-wing writers
like Harry Stein, Bernard Goldberg, John Stossel, and Virginia Postrel, he's
like the drunk classmate at the class reunion that reminds you why you don't
go back to reunions.
>
>>
>> Personally, I think anything that limits the world's exposure to
>> Krugman's
>> swill is fine with me. (^_^)
>
> Yeah, dissenting voices are a real threat to freedom. You going to
> Beijing for the Olympics? I hear it's going to be a great time! (At
> least, nobody there has said anything else ... )
>
*There, now, see, you turn my assault upon Krugman's prose into my
attempting to stifle all dissent China-style. And you were trying to say
*I* paint with a broad brush.
I have nothing wrong with dissent, as long as it's well-reasoned,
well-argued, and based on reason and not emotion. Krugman is none of those.
But just as I wouldn't ever infringe upon the free speech of a snake-oil
salesman but still wish him utter lack of exposure, I wish the same upon
Krugman, for much the same reasoning--to offer the gullible a degree of
protection they probably don't deserve but should get anyway.
Peter Trei
> for its "advocacy" content at a premium, other than their own belief that it
> is the most important, valuable, or distinctive content they have available,
> and the content that people will most likely pay for. In other words, a
> (probably) inflated sense of self-worth.
My opinion of the NYT took a major dip when, in the mid-80s, they
started a circulation campaign with the slogan "Find your world in
ours".
Sorry, but the NYT was a small facet of my world, not a superset
of it.
Peter Trei
Bruce Y
> It's a variation of the
> self-deluded "but *how* can anyone *not* see the value and correctness of
> our beliefs?" attitude that, IMO, was a substantial factor in the left's
> loss of the past two elections
-
Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right has won the
last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen. America is still the land
of Liberty and progress. We are still made up of decent human beings, not
greedy faux christians. That so many on the right can accept the loss of
democracy in this country shows that the republican party is really the
anti-American party. If you disagree, then tell me why republicans are
opposed to election reform. Why are they opposed to paper ballots that can
be recounted? Why are they opposed to recounts(except when they lose)? Had
George Bush been a decent man, he would have welcomed a recount in 20000.
Instead, he went to the Supreme Court to stop it rather than respect "state
rights" and the will of the people.
Detox
*sigh*
1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
electoral college meets.
2. The post fails to address the many cases of voter fraud that have
arisen from Democratic efforts in 2004. Thus far we have cases from
Ohio and St. Louis, MO. I'm not sure if there have been any legal
cases in Wisconsin, but I have read analyses that cast some doubt on
the assigning of that state's electoral votes to Mr. Kerry.
3. Why is the Democratic Party so opposed to electoral reform?
Specifically, why are they opposed to voters having to provide I.D.
when they show up to the voting booth?? That particular door swings
both ways.
This is precisely the sort of moon-battery that drives me away from
voting for Democrats. Not that the result is beneficial to the
GOP...but it doesn't help the Democrats at all.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Those that accuse others of being 'reactionary' generally have spent
too much time discussing collectivist theories and not enough time
living under them.
George Peatty
>Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right has won the
>last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen
Horse manure. And, the Republicans will win again in '08, if the Democrats
are actually stupid enough to nominate "that bitch" Hilary ..
Jim Strain
To quote a recent C&H rerun, "What a great club!"
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right has won the
>> last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen. America is still the land
>*sigh*
>
>1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
>the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
Indeed, that is a pretty simple case when you put it that way.
Why did SCOTUS write that their decision _could not be used as a
precedent for future equal protection cases regarding elections_, then?
>have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
>there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
>electoral college meets.
I agree with you.
So why didn't they?
>3. Why is the Democratic Party so opposed to electoral reform?
>Specifically, why are they opposed to voters having to provide I.D.
>when they show up to the voting booth?? That particular door swings
>both ways.
I think it's the historical baggage of how such tests were
typically used to discriminate against the already oppressed.
A. Mayuzumi
Detox のメッセージ:
> *sigh*
>
> 1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
> the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
> have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
> there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
> electoral college meets.
Without commenting on stolen or not, it must be admitted that
the election was an extremely close one. That alone makes all of
the "only a minority, and a crazy minority, of people aren't right
wing, and so real Americans don't have to listen to them" attitude
silly on the face of it.
I already subscribe to one electric paper, so I will pass on
the New York Times. Often enough I find it in the recycling anyway
and just read it there.
Now if I could only subscribe to Kobo-chan online I'd be happy.
For now I will have to read the written description posted on 2channel.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Detox
Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right has won the
> >> last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen. America is still the land
>
> >*sigh*
> >
> >1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
> >the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
>
> Indeed, that is a pretty simple case when you put it that way.
It was a bit more complex than that. But boiled down that is what it
really came down to.
> Why did SCOTUS write that their decision _could not be used as a
> precedent for future equal protection cases regarding elections_, then?
Beats me. Write Mr. Bush and recommend me for Justice Ginsberg's seat
and I'll ask around the coat closet after I'm confirmed. <grin>
Could be that they were dealing with a one of a kind case where there
were Constitutional issue in play, but they didn't want the unique
nature of the case to create a precedent that would awkwardly tie the
hands of a future court.
They send normal cases back to the lower courts repeatedly before they
actually decide to hear a specific case.
>
> >have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
> >there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
> >electoral college meets.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> So why didn't they?
I think it has something to do with the general strict constructionist
trend to not create new law where before none existed. The court over
the years has generally refused to answer questions that the appellants
did not seek to have answered.
I find that sort of reasoning to be questionable. Who cares if a law
is within the penumbra of an emanation of an 80 year old wet dream if
the law on its face is in violation of the First Amendment's free press
guarantee?
No one asked them to reschedule the electoral college's meeting and so
they didn't.
> >3. Why is the Democratic Party so opposed to electoral reform?
> >Specifically, why are they opposed to voters having to provide I.D.
> >when they show up to the voting booth?? That particular door swings
> >both ways.
>
> I think it's the historical baggage of how such tests were
> typically used to discriminate against the already oppressed.
Sure. But that was 40 years ago. Today we have a large problem with
people voting multiple times in the same election. And while the
current problem happens to reside with the Democrats, the next cycle it
could be the GOP playing at the same sort of tricks.
The bottom line being if we are only going to take care of the drafty
windows and ignore the wide open dutch door, then what's the point?
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Can you repeat the part after "Listen very carefully?"
Detox
A. Mayuzumi wrote:
> Detox のメッセージ:
>
> > *sigh*
> >
> > 1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
> > the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
> > have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
> > there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
> > electoral college meets.
>
> Without commenting on stolen or not, it must be admitted that
> the election was an extremely close one. That alone makes all of
> the "only a minority, and a crazy minority, of people aren't right
> wing, and so real Americans don't have to listen to them" attitude
> silly on the face of it.
Indeed. A very close election.
But the "selected not elected" and "resident not President" crowd are a
bit much. I think it's one of the reasons that Mr. Kerry didn't do
very well. The MoveOn crowd failed to....well....move on.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Hey Santa, how much for your list of naughty girls?
mikepe...@gmail.com
Detox wrote:
> Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> > Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right has won the
> > >> last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen. America is still the land
> >
> > >*sigh*
> > >
> > >1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was about
> > >the use of a single standard for counting votes. The Supremes should
> >
> > Indeed, that is a pretty simple case when you put it that way.
>
> It was a bit more complex than that. But boiled down that is what it
> really came down to.
>
Yesterday, the Washington Redskins lost to the Denver Broncos by two
points, having failed to send the game into overtime with a two-point
conversion at the end of the game. Redskins fans point to a call
earlier in the game that, had it gone another way, would have given
their team two points, so that the last-minute touchdown would have
tied the game, with the easy point-after providing a win.
To which the rational response is, "Yeah, well, if you'd scored two or
three more touchdowns, you wouldn't be sitting here whining, would
you?"
Though I am absolutely appalled that the vacant-staring, crony-hiring
empty suit political-legacy won re-election, I am more appalled that he
didn't lose in a landslide. Whether this-or-that happened in Ohio is
secondary to the fact that a larger number of people didn't see this
charlatan and his cohorts for the thieves and liars that they are.
I agree with the poster who said that, goddammit, it was so close that
an honest man would govern almost in a coalition, reckognizing that
some 49 percent of the country wanted his opponent to win. But that was
true in 2000. The fact that he ignored (nearly) half the country and
yet won re-election falls under the category of "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, we're obviously a country made up of fucking
morons."
I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
Sherwood Harrington
> Though I am absolutely appalled that the vacant-staring, crony-hiring
> empty suit political-legacy won re-election, I am more appalled that he
> didn't lose in a landslide. Whether this-or-that happened in Ohio is
> secondary to the fact that a larger number of people didn't see this
> charlatan and his cohorts for the thieves and liars that they are.
> I agree with the poster who said that, goddammit, it was so close that
> an honest man would govern almost in a coalition, reckognizing that
> some 49 percent of the country wanted his opponent to win. But that was
> true in 2000. The fact that he ignored (nearly) half the country and
> yet won re-election falls under the category of "Fool me once, shame on
> you. Fool me twice, we're obviously a country made up of fucking
> morons."
> I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see it again, all by itself.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
George Peatty
<mikepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
I was saying the same things when his predecessor won two consecutive terms.
Compared to the previous occupant our current president is hyperion almost
literally to a satyr ..
Mike Beede
George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
I had no idea what you're talking about, even after reading all the
definitions of "hyperion" I could find. The only one that has anything
to do with comics seems to be:
> Hyperion is a comic book superhero in the Marvel Comics universe,
> and a member of the Squadron Supreme.
Pointed and witty closing comments left as an exercise for the readers.
Mike Beede
Sherwood Harrington
> In article <0kulk15f95m68r81i...@4ax.com>,
> George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2005 16:14:59 -0700, "pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org"
>> <mikepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
>>
>> I was saying the same things when his predecessor won two consecutive terms.
>> Compared to the previous occupant our current president is hyperion almost
>> literally to a satyr ..
> I had no idea what you're talking about, even after reading all the
> definitions of "hyperion" I could find. The only one that has anything
> to do with comics seems to be:
"Hyperion is a comic book superhero in the Marvel Comics universe,
and a member of the Squadron Supreme."
Maybe he means that since Clinton ("satyr") left battles unfinished for
Bush (Squadron Supreme warrior), but Bush is pretty much unconscious at
night, then Satyr's day knight's all right for fighting.
> Pointed and witty closing comments left as an exercise for the readers.
Hey, I gave it a shot, but I didn't have much to work with.
Dann
news:1128986099.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 10 Oct
2005:
> Detox wrote:
>> Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
>> > Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Analyses like this are worthless, because they assume the right
>> > >> has won the last two elections. They didn't, they were stolen.
>> > >> America is still the land
>> >
>> > >*sigh*
>> > >
>> > >1. Neither election was "stolen". The court case in 2000 was
>> > >about the use of a single standard for counting votes. The
>> > >Supremes should
>> >
>> > Indeed, that is a pretty simple case when you put it that way.
>>
>> It was a bit more complex than that. But boiled down that is what it
>> really came down to.
>>
>
<snip krep>
>
> Though I am absolutely appalled that the vacant-staring, crony-hiring
> empty suit political-legacy won re-election, I am more appalled that
> he didn't lose in a landslide. Whether this-or-that happened in Ohio
> is secondary to the fact that a larger number of people didn't see
> this charlatan and his cohorts for the thieves and liars that they
> are.
I recall having the same basic thoughts along about November of 1996.
> I agree with the poster who said that, goddammit, it was so close that
> an honest man would govern almost in a coalition, reckognizing that
> some 49 percent of the country wanted his opponent to win. But that
> was true in 2000. The fact that he ignored (nearly) half the country
> and yet won re-election falls under the category of "Fool me once,
> shame on you. Fool me twice, we're obviously a country made up of
> fucking morons."
IIRC, he did try to include Democrats after his election in 2000. Sen.
"Chappaquiddick" Kennedy (or his staffers) wrote substantial portions of
the No Child Left Behind Act at the request of Mr. Bush as a part of bi-
partisanship.
Given that Mr. Bush's domestic agenda hasn't been all that great, I'm not
going to defend the results. But it is accurate to note that he did
offer Democrats a substantial role in policy making in his first term.
Of course, for people that were looking to behave as if 49%>51%,
well.....
> I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
I hear there are a great many to choose from. Although they have found
evidence of global warming on Mars, so that might not be the best, first
choice.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
A lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math.
A. Mayuzumi
"Why can't the losers realize that Bush won, 'the people'
rejected them and they should just shut up?" The fringe
that wants to pretend that the American flag only stands
for conservative causes is every bit as far out there.
(Perhaps the two sides deserve each other.)
'The people' are pretty well evenly divided. A healthy
opposition party (if you have to settle for only two parties)
is a GOOD thing.
I did get to read Krugman today, handily snatched
from recycling.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Dann
news:1128999118.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 10 Oct
2005:
> Yet they are balanced by the people who constantly whine,
> "Why can't the losers realize that Bush won, 'the people'
> rejected them and they should just shut up?" The fringe
> that wants to pretend that the American flag only stands
> for conservative causes is every bit as far out there.
> (Perhaps the two sides deserve each other.)
I must be reading the wrong blogs, because I don't recall reading those
sentiments anywhere.
I've read quite a bit about how the Dems don't have an agenda beyond
reversing tax cuts and not being Bush. Such analysis is typically
followed by the observation that the GOP doesn't have much of an agenda
either these days beyond spending more money.
> 'The people' are pretty well evenly divided. A healthy
> opposition party (if you have to settle for only two parties)
> is a GOOD thing.
I'd prefer to have quite a few more, but would be willing to settle for
three if the third was Libertarian or Constitution.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Andrew Ryan Chang
> George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
>> I was saying the same things when his predecessor won two consecutive terms.
>> Compared to the previous occupant our current president is hyperion almost
>> literally to a satyr ..
>
>I had no idea what you're talking about, even after reading all the
>definitions of "hyperion" I could find. The only one that has anything
Say, remember Damon Wayan's over-articulate prisoner character
from "In Living Color"? No, no reason why I bring this up.
--
Right now, I want each of you to try something interesting. There's no
trick to it -- it's just a simple trick!
-- Brad Goodman at the "Inner Child Workshop", "Bart's Inner Child"
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> precedent for future equal protection cases regarding elections_, then?
>
>Beats me. Write Mr. Bush and recommend me for Justice Ginsberg's seat
>and I'll ask around the coat closet after I'm confirmed. <grin>
>
>Could be that they were dealing with a one of a kind case where there
>were Constitutional issue in play, but they didn't want the unique
>nature of the case to create a precedent that would awkwardly tie the
>hands of a future court.
I was being sarcastic. I've read the entire opinion (admittedly
it was five years ago and I'm certainly not about to do it again for free)
and it was complete garbage to pretend that the different recount
standards violated equal protection but the differing voting standards
within the state didn't. That's pretty much why the court had to write
that they weren't setting a precedent -- because doing so would likely
have undermined the result they were seeking to achieve.
It's not an accident either that they _halted_ the recount
procedure rather than allowing it to go so they could determine later
whether or not the original numbers or the recount numbers would be the
official results.
>> >have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
>> >there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
>> >electoral college meets.
>>
>> I agree with you.
>>
>> So why didn't they?
>
>I think it has something to do with the general strict constructionist
>trend to not create new law where before none existed. The court over
>the years has generally refused to answer questions that the appellants
>did not seek to have answered.
<snip>
>No one asked them to reschedule the electoral college's meeting and so
>they didn't.
ISTR Team Rehnquist actively participated in the pretense that the
safe harbor law, which lists a non-binding date for the ec votes to come
in, actually meant a binding date.
>> >3. Why is the Democratic Party so opposed to electoral reform?
>> >Specifically, why are they opposed to voters having to provide I.D.
>> >when they show up to the voting booth?? That particular door swings
>> >both ways.
>>
>> I think it's the historical baggage of how such tests were
>> typically used to discriminate against the already oppressed.
>
>Sure. But that was 40 years ago. Today we have a large problem with
>people voting multiple times in the same election. And while the
Has anyone studied the scope of this problem? I really doubt it's
as large as you think it is. For that matter, I don't think
discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur today as you
seem to think.
Dann
news:difci5$1jo$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca on 10 Oct 2005:
> Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I was being sarcastic.
Oh, don't do that. We get enough sarcasm already from other sources.
<snip>
>
>
>>> >have mandated that the count be completed the second time around as
>>> >there is nothing Constitutionally restrictive about the date the
>>> >electoral college meets.
>>>
>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>> So why didn't they?
>>
>>I think it has something to do with the general strict constructionist
>>trend to not create new law where before none existed. The court over
>>the years has generally refused to answer questions that the
>>appellants did not seek to have answered.
> <snip>
>>No one asked them to reschedule the electoral college's meeting and so
>>they didn't.
>
> ISTR Team Rehnquist actively participated in the pretense that
> the safe harbor law, which lists a non-binding date for the ec
> votes to come in, actually meant a binding date.
Lacking the will or interest to check, I will defer.
>>> >3. Why is the Democratic Party so opposed to electoral reform?
>>> >Specifically, why are they opposed to voters having to provide I.D.
>>> >when they show up to the voting booth?? That particular door
>>> >swings both ways.
>>>
>>> I think it's the historical baggage of how such tests were
>>> typically used to discriminate against the already oppressed.
>>
>>Sure. But that was 40 years ago. Today we have a large problem with
>>people voting multiple times in the same election. And while the
>
> Has anyone studied the scope of this problem? I really doubt
> it's as large as you think it is. For that matter, I don't
> think discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur
> today as you seem to think.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/324933.asp
"And even now, three months after the investigation, officials have not
been able to close a gap of 7,000 votes, with more ballots cast than
voters listed. Officials said the gap remains at 4,609."
"The fraud investigation has focused on the more than 70,000 people who
registered to vote on election day, not the other 200,000-plus voters.
That is because registration cards provide a paper trail, which officials
said would be stronger in court than computerized records."
70,000 previously unregistered people show up to vote on election day in
a leftward leaning city. Doesn't that smell funny to you? Especially
with a margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes?
I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with such
an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to be on
the lookout for such things. Being able to positively ID voters will
restore confidence that we still are a nation of "one person, one vote".
And given that this sort of voter fraud is a problem (perennially in
Chicago, I might add), we've got to do something to get it under control.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Gun Control: The theory that it is morally superior for a victim to be
found dead than for the same victim to have to explain to the police how
those fatal bullet wounds got in their assailant.
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with such
> an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to be on
> the lookout for such things.
Oh, don't worry. I paid attention in those assemblies back in the '50s.
If any Russians try to make us carry a national ID card or try to tell
us that they need to tap our phones and read our mail in order to keep
us safe, I'll just call Jack Webb.
Four legs good, two legs better!
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> it's as large as you think it is. For that matter, I don't
>> think discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur
>> today as you seem to think.
>
>http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/324933.asp
>70,000 previously unregistered people show up to vote on election day in
>a leftward leaning city. Doesn't that smell funny to you? Especially
>with a margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes?
It's a little high. Minnesota, which also allows election day
registration, registered over half a million new voters that day, for
about 20% registered that day out of all votes cast. Milwaukee's comes
out to 35%.
www.state.mn.us/ebranch/sos/election/ge2004.pdf
--
Then do not expect to learn all the mysteries of Perl in a moment, as
though you were consuming a mere peanut, or an olive. Rather, think of it
as though you were consuming, say, a banana.
Foreword to "Learning Perl", Larry Wall
Rob Wynne
>In article <beede-1D6D7A....@ip-lcc.supernews.net>, Mike Beede
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>> >I'm not looking for a recount. I'm looking for another planet.
>
>>> I was saying the same things when his predecessor won two consecutive terms.
>>> Compared to the previous occupant our current president is hyperion almost
>>> literally to a satyr ..
>
>>I had no idea what you're talking about, even after reading all the
>>definitions of "hyperion" I could find. The only one that has anything
>>to do with comics seems to be:
>
>>> Hyperion is a comic book superhero in the Marvel Comics universe,
>>> and a member of the Squadron Supreme.
>
>..
>
Later, he opines, "Ophelia, you ignorant slut..."
-R
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2006: Jan 6-8, 2006 -- Atlanta, GA -- http://www.gafilk.org/
Nick Theodorakis
Chang) wrote:
[...]
>... For that matter, I don't think
>discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur today as you
>seem to think.
>
>
Here in Indiana, they just passed a law requiring a voter to show
government-issued photo ID (e.g., driver's license) in order to be
allowed to vote.
Now the state is closing a number of Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)
branch offices, in the name of efficiency. Among the closures that
were slated is the *only* BMV office in Gary, a city which perhaps not
coincidentally, is predominantly black and votes heavily Democratic.
Joel Silverman, the BMV commisioner, was quoted as saying:
"Our customers are people who have cars... It's a matter of where our
customers are, and our customers are more in suburban areas."
<http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/COLUMNISTS19/509140458/1006/NEWS01>
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_the...@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Andrew Ryan Chang
>>... For that matter, I don't think
>>discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur today as you
>>seem to think.
>>
>>
>
>Here in Indiana, they just passed a law requiring a voter to show
>government-issued photo ID (e.g., driver's license) in order to be
>allowed to vote.
>
>Now the state is closing a number of Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)
>branch offices, in the name of efficiency. Among the closures that
>were slated is the *only* BMV office in Gary, a city which perhaps not
>coincidentally, is predominantly black and votes heavily Democratic.
And here I thought that was only in Georgia.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0905/20voterid.html
--
And let's pretend that work isn't as boring and tiring and humiliating
as we all know it really is. Even then, work would _still_ make a mockery
of all humanistic and democratic aspirations, just because it usurps so
much of our time. -- "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" by Bob Black
Dann
2005:
> Dann wrote:
>
>> I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with
>> such an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to
>> be on the lookout for such things.
>
> Oh, don't worry. I paid attention in those assemblies back in the
> '50s. If any Russians try to make us carry a national ID card or try
> to tell us that they need to tap our phones and read our mail in order
> to keep us safe, I'll just call Jack Webb.
Totally separate issue. I find nothing wrong with an individual state
requiring positive identification for voters to participate in a
state-run election.
That isn't quite true. I find it disturbing that my countrymen cannot
be trusted to limit themselves to one vote in a given election and find
this to be the most minimally invasive remedy.
> Four legs good, two legs better!
No one rang the sarcasm bell. Put it back in neutral.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
(A)bort, (R)etry, r(E)align with large hammer
Dann
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The brain droppings of Andrew Ryan Chang were posted in
>>> Has anyone studied the scope of this problem? I really doubt
>>> it's as large as you think it is. For that matter, I don't
>>> think discriminatory Jim Crow measures are as unlikely to occur
>>> today as you seem to think.
>>
>>http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/324933.asp
>
>>70,000 previously unregistered people show up to vote on election day
>>in a leftward leaning city. Doesn't that smell funny to you?
>>Especially with a margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes?
>
> It's a little high. Minnesota, which also allows election day
> registration, registered over half a million new voters that day, for
> about 20% registered that day out of all votes cast. Milwaukee's
> comes out to 35%.
That sort of reinforces my point that the election in Wisconsin may not
have been on the up-and-up. If even a third of those 70,000 votes were
fraudulent in a city that went hard for Mr. Kerry, then it is quite
possible that the statewide results may have been affected.
Put the shoe on the other foot and let me know what you think.
And yes, I'm concerned about some of the reported hijinks with GOP votes
being pre-loaded into some ballot counting machines, etc.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil
and steady dedication of a lifetime. -Adlai E. Stevenson
Dann
news:434c5bb8...@news.ind.sbcglobal.net on 11 Oct 2005:
Unsurprisingly, that strikes me as wrong. Does Indiana offer ID cards for
non-drivers? (Michigan does) If so, which state office issues those
cards?
Several Georgia politicians have embraced the photo ID concept. They are
using the issue as a way of demonstrating that they are interested and
capable of operating their respective governments in a manner that is
fundamentally fair to everyone involved. They have proposed giving away ID
cards to low income individuals so that they can vote.
It shows me that they have confidence that their agendas are something
people will vote for and that they don't need someone stuffing the ballot
box to get elected. Very encouraging stuff.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
miracle-
1. [n] a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God
2. [n] any amazing or wonderful occurrence
3. [n] the act of obtaining a straight answer from Mike Peterson
Ron Parker
> Unsurprisingly, that strikes me as wrong. Does Indiana offer ID cards for
> non-drivers? (Michigan does) If so, which state office issues those
> cards?
They do, and it's the same office that issues drivers' licenses. Thus
the problem.
Dann
news:slrndkot0g.iv5.this#is$really*my^address!@mail.parkrrrr.com on 11
Oct 2005:
Indeed. I agree.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Dating Tip: Real women don't deflate when you bite them...
A. Mayuzumi
Dann のメッセージ:
> I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with such
> an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to be on
> the lookout for such things. Being able to positively ID voters will
> restore confidence that we still are a nation of "one person, one vote".
>
> And given that this sort of voter fraud is a problem (perennially in
> Chicago, I might add), we've got to do something to get it under control.
Can't you just dye their fingers purple with indelible ink?
--
A. Mayuzumi
Andrew Ryan Chang
>> registration, registered over half a million new voters that day, for
>> about 20% registered that day out of all votes cast. Milwaukee's
>> comes out to 35%.
>
>That sort of reinforces my point that the election in Wisconsin may not
>have been on the up-and-up. If even a third of those 70,000 votes were
>fraudulent in a city that went hard for Mr. Kerry, then it is quite
>possible that the statewide results may have been affected.
>
>Put the shoe on the other foot and let me know what you think.
Yes, perhaps. I wish I'd gone and found the statewide numbers for
Wisconsin's election day registrants, as well as city numbers for
Minnesota and the other states that did EDR.
--
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if
you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the
difference between the dream world and the real world?
-- Morpheus, MATRIX (1999)
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
> news:1129034192.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11 Oct
> 2005:
>
> > Dann wrote:
> >
> >> I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with
> >> such an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to
> >> be on the lookout for such things.
> >
> > Oh, don't worry. I paid attention in those assemblies back in the
> > '50s. If any Russians try to make us carry a national ID card or try
> > to tell us that they need to tap our phones and read our mail in order
> > to keep us safe, I'll just call Jack Webb.
>
> Totally separate issue. I find nothing wrong with an individual state
> requiring positive identification for voters to participate in a
> state-run election.
>
> That isn't quite true. I find it disturbing that my countrymen cannot
> be trusted to limit themselves to one vote in a given election and find
> this to be the most minimally invasive remedy.
No one ever finds anything wrong with it. There's always a good reason.
That's what's so insidious about it.
>
> > Four legs good, two legs better!
>
> No one rang the sarcasm bell. Put it back in neutral.
That's not "sarcasm" -- it's a literary allusion. The revolution slowly
redefines its goals and values until it has become the monster against
which it rose. If Orwell is too "eighth-gradey" for you, try
Marat/Sade. The argument is the same -- "We are the people our parents
warned us about" was funny as a comment on sex, drugs and
rock-and-roll, but it's a little chilling when it's applied to those
Cold War assemblies in which we were cautioned against giving up our
freedoms.
On the other hand, for those who like sarcasm (and there may be some
here) and comics (there maybe even some of those), try this:
<http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19635>
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
"When bullshit fails, try ridiculing them in your sig file" -- Dann
Dann
2005:
Doh!! But of course!
That wouldn't address those that vote by mail, but then again, those
folks don't register the same day that they vote.
I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly
for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. -
James A. Baldwin
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
>
> I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
> people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
This would be sensible, but there are already labor laws -- at least in
New York and I think they're federal -- that require employers to give
employees time to vote.
Granted, getting to come in an hour late or leave an hour early isn't
much help if you live two hours from your job and the polls don't open
until eight, etc etc etc.
So, yes, weekend voting would be more sensible and practical. With, of
course, appropriate measures to allow for the various Sabbaths, the
impact of which would be a great deal less than the impact of voting
during the work week.
This assumes, of course, that getting more people to vote is a
desireable goal. ;-)
Nick Theodorakis
Moreover, they set a pretty high bar for the amount of ID required to
obtain a license/id in the first place:
<http://www.in.gov/bmv/driverlicense/idreq.html>
Moreover, the cost for obtaining a non-driver's id is $9.00. Although
it's not a lot of money, the fact that such an id is required for
voting does strike me as having the smell of a poll tax.
SIlverman's comment is doubly idiotic. First, I can't believe that the
proportion of non-drivers in Gary is so small that it's justifiable to
close the only BMV branch there. Second, because of the requirement
that state-issued id is now required for voting, the "customers" of
the BMV are now all potential voters, not just those who drive.
More on Silverman:
<http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050831/NEWS02/508310403>
ronniecat
-0400 Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
I don't know what this would mean for Orthodox and all
sabbath-observing Jews. I know that writing (or erasing) two or more
letters is one of the activities forbidden on Shabbos/Shabbat; so I
suppose making your "X" might be permitted. I'd be interested to hear
what an Orthodox Rabbi thought about voting on Shabbos though.
However, move it to a Sunday and even fewer would have to make the
choice between voting and working, and as far as I know there's no
Christian prohibition to writing (or voting) on Sunday.
ronnie
--
return address altered. remove my collar to reply.
"I try to be cynical, but it's so hard to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com * a weblog about deafness
nancy13g
ronniecat wrote:
>>I'd also like to see election day moved to
>> a Saturday so that fewer people would have to
>> make the choice between voting and working.
[ ... ]
> However, move it to a Sunday and even fewer
> would have to make the choice between voting
> and working, and as far as I know there's no
> Christian prohibition to writing (or voting) on Sunday.
As long as we're taking over the world here, why not go one step
further and create elections that last for two days? Why not have
voting (perhaps only for national elections, not local ones) take place
on Sunday *and* Monday? Or maybe even Sunday *through* Monday, to catch
all the insomniacs and night-shift workers?
ronniecat
14:04:24 GMT ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
>Recklessly waiving the right to remain silent, on 12 Oct 2005 07:17:27
>-0400 Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>>people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
>
>I don't know what this would mean for Orthodox and all
>sabbath-observing Jews. I know that writing (or erasing) two or more
>letters is one of the activities forbidden on Shabbos/Shabbat; so I
>suppose making your "X" might be permitted. I'd be interested to hear
>what an Orthodox Rabbi thought about voting on Shabbos though.
Following up to myself, I just remembered that you Yankees don't use
good old reliable paper and pencil anymore, and instead use electronic
machines, which would almost certainly be verboten for people who are
not allowed to generate an electrical spark, for example, on Shabbos.
According to this article,
http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5765/lech/aaustrl.htm
in Australia, where elections are held on Saturday and voting
compulsory, people either voted after sundown Saturday but before the
8 pm deadline, or submitted blank votes :( Now they can vote by mail
which is one solution - if an awkward and somewhat discriminatory one
(as it puts the onus on the observant Jew to register, pre-vote, etc.,
something which other Australians don't have to do).
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> And given that this sort of voter fraud is a problem (perennially in
> >> Chicago, I might add), we've got to do something to get it under
> >> control.
> >
> > Can't you just dye their fingers purple with indelible ink?
>
> Doh!! But of course!
>
> That wouldn't address those that vote by mail, but then again, those
> folks don't register the same day that they vote.
>
> I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
> people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
What about the people with purple fingers? Huh?
Seriously, there is an interesting attack against this system.
If you can dye someone's fingers, you can keep them from voting.
Does that mean that there has to be a law criminalizing dying
someone's fingers on or near polling day? After a couple
minutes of effort I can't think of an easy way to bulk-dye a
bunch of people, but there probably is one, and I bet it would
work great in a comic strip. Maybe a purple-ink volcano.
The Saturday idea is a good one, though I've never worked anywhere
where it was a real hardship to get to the polls. Another idea
I've heard proposed is voting in the precinct where you work
instead of at home. There's a tradeoff, of course--it's easier
to vote, but you change the constituancies (however you spell that).
Mike Beede
ronniecat
-0700 "nancy13g" <nanc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>As long as we're taking over the world here, why not go one step
>further and create elections that last for two days? Why not have
>voting (perhaps only for national elections, not local ones) take place
>on Sunday *and* Monday? Or maybe even Sunday *through* Monday, to catch
>all the insomniacs and night-shift workers?
I think that's a great idea, actually.
Mike Beede
ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
> Following up to myself, I just remembered that you Yankees don't use
> good old reliable paper and pencil anymore, and instead use electronic
> machines, which would almost certainly be verboten for people who are
> not allowed to generate an electrical spark, for example, on Shabbos.
Not all Yankees are created equal. In Minnesota we use
mark-sense ballots. There's some kind of machine that
gobbles them, but the voter only uses a pen.
I am amazed at the other states that have been getting
"electronic voting machines." I call them "electronic
fraud machines." After working in computer security for
approaching twenty years, I am appalled at the entire
idea. If it costs a little more to use paper ballots,
I say it's money well spent. At least it makes systematic
fraud harder to pull off.
"Sure, we can do a recount with the touch of a button!
Look! The same number comes out each time! Surely
our system is powerful and promotes growth!"
Bah.
Mike Beede
James Nicoll
Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>I am amazed at the other states that have been getting
>"electronic voting machines." I call them "electronic
>fraud machines." After working in computer security for
>approaching twenty years, I am appalled at the entire
>idea. If it costs a little more to use paper ballots,
>I say it's money well spent. At least it makes systematic
>fraud harder to pull off.
If it helps, the US and Canada spend pretty much the same
per person. We use paper ballots and hand-counting by a team
composed of people from mutually hostile parties. Takes a few
hours to total up the votes.
However, the last ballot I saw looked like this:
[ ] Ima G. Onnawin [Liberal]
[ ] Magda Asa Ell [Conservative]
[ ] Ira Ella Fant [NDP]
[ ] Komikos R. Lief [Libertarian]
Time to see which, if any, boxes are checked, about a zillionth
of a second.
A US ballot might look more like a phone book or one of those
ornate programs theatres produce to use up money that might otherwise
go toward actual shows.
I'm thinking Henry Ford was onto something when he broke complex
tasks into simple ones and since he was American, applying some of his ideas
to elections [1] might be a good idea.
1: Only some, because I remember what his politics were like.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
A. Mayuzumi
Mike Beede のメッセージ:
> What about the people with purple fingers? Huh?
>
> Seriously, there is an interesting attack against this system.
> If you can dye someone's fingers, you can keep them from voting.
> Does that mean that there has to be a law criminalizing dying
> someone's fingers on or near polling day? After a couple
> minutes of effort I can't think of an easy way to bulk-dye a
> bunch of people, but there probably is one, and I bet it would
> work great in a comic strip. Maybe a purple-ink volcano.
Oooh. How about some sort of paper that dyed all your fingers
by reading it, but it took a while to develop? Like that anti-theft
money? Still I suppose it wouldn't get the good pattern.
>
> The Saturday idea is a good one, though I've never worked anywhere
> where it was a real hardship to get to the polls. Another idea
> I've heard proposed is voting in the precinct where you work
> instead of at home. There's a tradeoff, of course--it's easier
> to vote, but you change the constituancies (however you spell that).
Why not make election day a holiday? Some jobs must be staffed,
true, but you'd think at least even those jobs could manage to
give people an hour or three off.
--
A. Mayuzumi
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
That makes perfect sense; which, of course, is why it'll never
happen . . .
- ReFlex76 (formerly "Vaughner")
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
Sherwood Harrington
> Recklessly waiving the right to remain silent, on 12 Oct 2005
07:15:51
> -0700 "nancy13g" <nanc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>As long as we're taking over the world here, why not go one step
>>further and create elections that last for two days? Why not have
>>voting (perhaps only for national elections, not local ones) take place
>>on Sunday *and* Monday? Or maybe even Sunday *through* Monday, to catch
>>all the insomniacs and night-shift workers?
> I think that's a great idea, actually.
It's an idea that almost half of the states down here are already using,
actually. 23 states have provisions for early in-person voting (not
absentee), including the one I live in. I intend to vote in "next
month's" election sometime next week.
For a list of the states that employ this option, see this page in the
National Conference of State Legislatures' webpile, and scroll down to the
bottom:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/absentearly.htm
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Peter Trei
> On 12 Oct 2005 07:17:27 -0400, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>>people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
>
>
> That makes perfect sense; which, of course, is why it'll never
> happen . . .
Not if you're an observant Jew. You'd be limited to voting between
sunset and closing time.
Thursday isn't a holy day for anyone, afaik.
My solution would be to keep the polls open for 24 hours, having
them open and shut simultaneously in all timezones.
Peter Trei
Pat O'Neill
I'm not sure that'd be equitable...especially to Hawaiians.
Let's say the hours chosen are midnight to midnight Central time.
That'd make the hours 1 AM Tuesday to 1 AM Wednesday in NY, 12 to 12 in
Chicago, 11PM Monday to 11PM Tuesday in Denver, 10PM Monday to 10PM
Tuesday in LA, 9PM Monday to 9PM Tuesday in Anchorage, and 7PM Monday
to 7PM Tuesday in Honolulu. The bulk of the hours in Hawaii would be
either after dark or during working hours.
> Peter Trei
Peter Trei
Nonsense. The number of light/dark, and working/nonworking
hours is the same everywhere with this method; the only thing
which changes is the opening/closing time.
This method also has a further advantage; there'll be no calling
the election before the polls close in California, let alone
Alaska or Hawaii, on the basis of results in the Eastern states.
Peter Trei
mikepe...@gmail.com
A. Mayuzumi wrote:
> Why not make election day a holiday? Some jobs must be staffed,
> true, but you'd think at least even those jobs could manage to
> give people an hour or three off.
> --
I'm old enough to remember when most "legal holidays" were holidays --
not only was school out and the post office and banks closed, but so
were the majority of stores. And Sunday was much the same.
I'm not old enough to remember the end of WWII, but I was doing some
research when I worked at another paper and found a day after the war
when they decided to have a community gathering out at the local
military base to thank the veterans and celebrate their homecoming. Not
only did businesses close, but the newspaper didn't even publish the
next day -- that is, they gave their employees the day off and
consequently there was no next-day paper. Banks ran ads basically
apologizing for the fact that they were legally required to stay open,
and the paper mill talked about the number of people they had to keep
on hand because you can't just shut down the entire mill for a day. In
those cases, they were only keeping a skeleton crew on hand and
encouraged their other employees to join the community celebration.
This could never happen today. Starting in the 1970s, various stores
began to be open on Sunday, and it became necessary for their
competitors to also stay open. It didn't mean there was any more
business -- once they were all open, they just spread the income across
seven days instead of six, but added additional labor and utility
costs. (I watched Quebec go through this same foolish process a decade
or so ago. Sunday there used to be a holiday.)
Can you imagine a town deciding to shut down to thank its veterans
today? The suits at corporate headquarters would never allow it.
The only way an election day holiday would work would be if the
government absolutely declared that all businesses must close. And that
would never happen.
Don't kid yourself -- the capital of this nation is Wall Street, not
Washington.
Dann
<snip>
> The only way an election day holiday would work would be if the
> government absolutely declared that all businesses must close. And that
> would never happen.
>
> Don't kid yourself -- the capital of this nation is Wall Street, not
> Washington.
Was that every not the case??
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Diplomacy: Saying "nice doggie" until you find a big rock.
Dann
2005:
> Dann wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>> people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
<snip>
>
> This assumes, of course, that getting more people to vote is a
> desireable goal. ;-)
I'm of two minds on the subject.
The libertarian in me says that the greater the number of voters, the
better as an indicator of liberty. There are all too many nations out
there where voting can and will get you killed. And there have been too
many nations with better voter turnout (percentage) than the US.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
When I use the word 'summarize', get comfortable. It may be a while
before I'm done.
Dann
> Dann wrote:
>> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
>> news:1129034192.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 11 Oct
>> 2005:
<snip>
>> > Four legs good, two legs better!
>>
>> No one rang the sarcasm bell. Put it back in neutral.
>
> That's not "sarcasm" -- it's a literary allusion. The revolution
> slowly redefines its goals and values until it has become the monster
> against which it rose.
The problem is that it is a poorly selected allusion. No one is talking
about purposefully keeping people from participating in the election
process. Whereas that was a central feature to "Animal Farm".
[8 hour break....further thought]
The other thing that makes that bit of "allusion" ring hollow is the fact
that it seems to me that both parties are bent on driving us into
political hell. Currently, the GOP is dragging us along with a two-
stroke 1930s farm tractor. The last time the Dems had the reins, they
had everything hooked up to a pick-up with a 350 V-8 and ran the thing at
3/4s power.
Sure we've got the GOP doing bad things relative to national ID as well
as some other things that aren't Constitutionally defensible.
But exactly which party/group was it that pursued speech codes on
campuses, suing tobacco companies, suing gun companies, and generally
promoted the nanny-state as a superior model on which to base our
society? It surely wasn't the conservatives or the libertarians.
> If Orwell is too "eighth-gradey" for you, try
> Marat/Sade. The argument is the same -- "We are the people our parents
> warned us about" was funny as a comment on sex, drugs and
> rock-and-roll, but it's a little chilling when it's applied to those
> Cold War assemblies in which we were cautioned against giving up our
> freedoms.
Neatly avoiding the fact that expansionist communism was a genuine threat
throughout the Cold War.....
>
> On the other hand, for those who like sarcasm (and there may be some
> here) and comics (there maybe even some of those), try this:
> <http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19635>
>
> Mike Peterson
> Glens Falls NY
>
> "When bullshit fails, try ridiculing them in your sig file" -- Dann
Hey! Can I use that??
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Books are the lodestones of life. Everything else is a passing fancy.
mikepe...@gmail.com
Um ... Dann? I wasn't talking about any of that. Here it is again ...
*******
Dann wrote:
> I'll concede that someone, somewhere might try something funny with such
> an ID requirement. That just means that we are going to have to be on
> the lookout for such things.
Oh, don't worry. I paid attention in those assemblies back in the '50s.
If any Russians try to make us carry a national ID card or try to tell
us that they need to tap our phones and read our mail in order to keep
us safe, I'll just call Jack Webb.
Four legs good, two legs better!
***************
I was just pointing out that the increased security, including national
IDs, and all for our own safety, is just what we were warned against
back in the 1950s. The allusion to Orwell (and follow-up to Marat/Sade)
was merely a note that, just as the pigs once singled out "two legs" as
the sign of evil, until they found going around on two legs convenient,
so, too, the notion of ID cards, the need to account for your
whereabouts and justify your travel, etc etc etc, was once seized upon
as emblematic of evil dictatorship.
Today, it's for our own good.
No matter who is doing it -- Republican, Democrat, Green or Red -- it
ought to scare the hell out of us all. But, just as the sheep bleated
"Four legs good, two legs better," so, too, we accept a 180-degree
adjustment in values with only a vague sense that maybe, maybe we used
to chant something else ... didn't we?
But a very strong sense that we love Big Brother!
Andrew Ryan Chang
>The other thing that makes that bit of "allusion" ring hollow is the fact
>that it seems to me that both parties are bent on driving us into
>political hell. Currently, the GOP is dragging us along with a two-
>stroke 1930s farm tractor. The last time the Dems had the reins, they
>had everything hooked up to a pick-up with a 350 V-8 and ran the thing at
>3/4s power.
>
>Sure we've got the GOP doing bad things relative to national ID as well
>as some other things that aren't Constitutionally defensible.
>
>But exactly which party/group was it that pursued speech codes on
>campuses, suing tobacco companies, suing gun companies, and generally
>promoted the nanny-state as a superior model on which to base our
>society? It surely wasn't the conservatives or the libertarians.
And yet, it's been under Republican rule that the US has gone
completely bonkers as far as (certain) cultural issues go. I still can't
quite believe the furore over "Grand Theft Auto" got as big as it did, nor
that the (currently) Republican-dominated FCC fined Fox $1.2 million
dollars for airing a (admittedly tasteless) show after receiving 159
complaints, **almost all of which were photocopies**.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481
This is your "two stroke farm tractor"?
Did someone strap a rocket on it while you weren't looking?
--
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!! -Patrick J. LoPresti
Dann
2005:
Um, Mike? I caught all of that the first time. I enjoyed reading your
expanded version a great deal, but I caught what you were trying to say
the first time.
And my counter was essentially....."How appropriate of you to be
concerned about the growth in the amount of power being wielded by the
government. And I sure am glad that you are concerned about the modern
erosions of our civil liberties.
But I gotta ask, since you don't seem much bothered by those trends when
the politicians you favor are in power, why the heck do you care about
such things now?"
> But a very strong sense that we love Big Brother!
Some more than others. Some more than others.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.
-Rene Descartes
Dann
Was that ever not the case?
[sheesh]
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Hangover: the wrath of grapes.
Dann
news:dikd8u$mgp$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca on 12 Oct 2005:
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>But exactly which party/group was it that pursued speech codes on
>>campuses, suing tobacco companies, suing gun companies, and generally
>>promoted the nanny-state as a superior model on which to base our
>>society? It surely wasn't the conservatives or the libertarians.
>
> And yet, it's been under Republican rule that the US has gone
> completely bonkers as far as (certain) cultural issues go. I still
> can't quite believe the furore over "Grand Theft Auto" got as big as
> it did, nor that the (currently) Republican-dominated FCC fined Fox
> $1.2 million dollars for airing a (admittedly tasteless) show after
> receiving 159 complaints, **almost all of which were photocopies**.
You fail to mention that the GOP inspired new War on Porn must mean that
the War on Terror has been one.
> http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481
I am a regular reader and occasional comments contributor on Mr. Jarvis'
site. So I read that post and most of the related ones some time ago. I
wish more liberals were like him.
I'd also point out that the FCC may be "dominated" by the GOP, but some
of the more egregious proposals of late have come from the Democratic
commissioners. Well, at least before Michael Powell retired.
> This is your "two stroke farm tractor"?
>
> Did someone strap a rocket on it while you weren't looking?
Some higher octane fuel perhaps, but nothing that should cause the owner
of that V-8 powered pick-up to lose any sleep.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
(A)bort, (R)etry, r(E)align with large hammer
Alexander D. Mitchell IV
Why not make election day a holiday? Some jobs must be staffed,
true, but you'd think at least even those jobs could manage to
give people an hour or three off.
Building on Dann's analysis:
A holiday in the United States today has become when 90% of the people get
the day off to go make life a living Hades for the other 10%.
(Think about it: Mall workers. Restaurant workers. Lifeguards. Police
and medics. Traffic police.)
I would *love* to see the nation shut down to recognize the responsibilities
of voting. But it simply isn't going to happen. If we do it nationally,
what about state elections? Primaries?
Invid Fan
<"pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org"> wrote:
> The only way an election day holiday would work would be if the
> government absolutely declared that all businesses must close. And that
> would never happen.
>
And in this international world unless every country your business
deals with shuts down, many companies would have to keep some staff on
(my sister deals with computer servers in many different countries).
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Charles Whitney
Peter Trei wrote:
> Pat O'Neill wrote:
> > Peter Trei wrote:
> >
> >>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 12 Oct 2005 07:17:27 -0400, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
> >>>>people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That makes perfect sense; which, of course, is why it'll never
> >>>happen . . .
> >>
> >>Not if you're an observant Jew. You'd be limited to voting between
> >>sunset and closing time.
> >>
> >>Thursday isn't a holy day for anyone, afaik.
> >>
> >>My solution would be to keep the polls open for 24 hours, having
> >>them open and shut simultaneously in all timezones.
> This method also has a further advantage; there'll be no calling
> the election before the polls close in California, let alone
> Alaska or Hawaii, on the basis of results in the Eastern states.
I doubt that would happen though, because I don't think voters' habits
concerning when they vote would be significantly affected by the
simultaneous opening and closing of the polls.
Assuming everyone votes similarly, say, a block of people voting early
in the morning before work, another block voting over the lunch hour,
and still another block of voters voting in the early evening after
work, the New Yorkers will still have the bulk of their voting done six
hours prior to voters following the same pattern in Hawaii, and three
hours prior to the west coast voters.
Although making it start at midnight or a couple hours earlier on the
east coast might have some effect, because it would be more convenient
for Hawaiians or people on the west coast to vote at 6-8PM, whereas
east coasters wouldn't be likely to vote in large numbers starting at
10 or 11PM, waiting until the next morning instead.
My point is, though, that people vote when it's convenient for them,
rather than basing their timing on when the polls open, and that
convenient time is usually going to be later the further west you go.
C
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> And my counter was essentially....."How appropriate of you to be
> concerned about the growth in the amount of power being wielded by the
> government. And I sure am glad that you are concerned about the modern
> erosions of our civil liberties.
>
> But I gotta ask, since you don't seem much bothered by those trends when
> the politicians you favor are in power, why the heck do you care about
> such things now?"
>
Guess I'll have to go back and look at my writings from, what, six or
seven years ago? Glad you said "favor" which is a comparative term
rather than an absolute. Mind you, when the politicians I favor are in
power, the conversations about restricting civil liberties are a great
deal more theoretical in nature, since the politicians I favor wouldn't
allow them to be put into action.
Anyway, you could help me along with a few footnotes. I can't remember
being in favor of a loss of civil liberties at any stage in my life.
The only things I can think of offhand that might qualify would be
things like deceptive advertising and some forms of marketing aimed
directly at children, but I don't think I ever specifically talked
about bans -- more about restrictions and enforcement.
I did write a column one time in which I observed that, while the
framers of the First Amendment didn't anticipate broadcasting and the
Internet, neither did they anticipate automatic weapons in framing the
Second Amendment. But the gist of the piece was, IIRC, about how few
people seem to put those two ideas into the same coherent political
view. Anyway, by the time any of my writings were on-line, I think Bush
II was already in office, so I'm not sure where you are getting this.
But thanks for paying so much attention! Have you read Salon today?
ronniecat
-0400 Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Re: Wall (and Bay) Street running the countr(ies):
>[corrected version]
>
>Was that ever not the case?
>
>[sheesh]
It always was, of course, but the social change that I've noted in the
past 15 years or so that has rocketed Sunday openings is that shopping
has been successfully sold as a family outing, in some cases the
*only* group activity the family does together.
We've allowed Sunday shopping only in the past few years. Some groups,
most notably church groups, argued against it vociferiously. Being too
smart to think they could sell it as a day of religious observance any
more, they built their case on saying that it was imperative
culturally that Sunday remain a day for "family activities".
Well, one or two cities passed bylaws, consumers started going to the
cities which had malls open on Sundays, and in the usual
domino-effect, city after city voted to allow Sunday shopping in
response to merchant concerns. Now the malls here are *blocked* on
Sunday - some Sundays are definitely busier than Saturdays, based on
observing parking and crowds. And very shortly I realized that this is
what people *were* doing as a family activity on Sunday - that what
you usually saw were whole families wandering around together. Even
the teenagers.
Is that a good thing? No. I mean, I don't think so. Not if they would
be doing something healthier and less expensive (and more
communicative) instead. But would they? [shrug]
Pat O'Neill
Peter Trei wrote:
> > Let's say the hours chosen are midnight to midnight Central time.
> > That'd make the hours 1 AM Tuesday to 1 AM Wednesday in NY, 12 to 12 in
> > Chicago, 11PM Monday to 11PM Tuesday in Denver, 10PM Monday to 10PM
> > Tuesday in LA, 9PM Monday to 9PM Tuesday in Anchorage, and 7PM Monday
> > to 7PM Tuesday in Honolulu. The bulk of the hours in Hawaii would be
> > either after dark or during working hours.
>
> Nonsense. The number of light/dark, and working/nonworking
> hours is the same everywhere with this method; the only thing
> which changes is the opening/closing time.
>
> This method also has a further advantage; there'll be no calling
> the election before the polls close in California, let alone
> Alaska or Hawaii, on the basis of results in the Eastern states.
>
> Peter Trei
OK--perhaps I should have said, "the central hours in Hawaii are after
dark and during working hours." Those folks who have a window of
opportunity between, say, 5PM and 7PM are out of luck on Monday...and
if they have an emergency on Tuesday, well--too bad.
When you look at a 24-hour period, most people would say 8AM to 8AM is
a lot more convenient than 8PM to 8PM.
Dann
2005:
> Dann wrote:
>
>> And my counter was essentially....."How appropriate of you to be
>> concerned about the growth in the amount of power being wielded by
>> the government. And I sure am glad that you are concerned about the
>> modern erosions of our civil liberties.
>>
>> But I gotta ask, since you don't seem much bothered by those trends
>> when the politicians you favor are in power, why the heck do you care
>> about such things now?"
>>
>
<snip>
I'm sorry, Mike. You are right. I was wrong. Some might call it
projection. Others might call it a bad assumption. The kinder souls would
call it a poorly phrased question.
Permit me another crack at it??
In our limited time together, you have struck me as someone that is not
enamored with the GOP or conservatism in general. You also don't strike me
as someone that is inclined to support for Libertarians,
Constitutionalists, or other similarly minded folks.
That would leave but a few options. One would be that you support some
sort of totalitarianism in the grand traditions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and
the family Kim of N. Korea. I'd be a bit surprised and more than just a
little disappointed to find that to be the case. So that eliminates the
World Workers Party and similar organizations.
The only option left would be the Democratic party or perhaps their kissing
cousins in the Green Party.
Now the Democratic Party has been primarily responsible for the steady,
gradual erosion of various individual freedoms from the 1930's until about
1994. You can rack up a lot of damage over a span that long.
Perhaps I'm wrong (again!). Perhaps in the conflict between individualism
and collectivism, you possess a great zeste pour la guerre in support of
individual liberty. Perhaps you have defended the right to keep and bear
arms with zeal that would leave most free press supporters jealous.
So let me rephrase things.
I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive' corner
of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort of ideology
have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over the years. To a
greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases. Were you ever
concerned enough about those incursions to point out that they led towards
totalitarianism? Were you concerned enough to stop supporting them in the
voting booth?
If not, what's the big deal now?
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
The free world may be gross, vulgar and immoral, but that is not something
that the slave society can fix. - Jeff Cooper
Sherwood Harrington
> I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive' corner
> of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort of ideology
> have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over the years. To a
> greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases. Were you ever
> concerned enough about those incursions to point out that they led towards
> totalitarianism? Were you concerned enough to stop supporting them in the
> voting booth?
While not addressed to me, and while I don't presume to speak for the
Deacon, I will ask you this, Dann: how old are you?
Do you remember 1968?
Do you know what happened then? Do you know which party was in power
then?
Do you know what happened in Chicago that summer? Do you know which party
the protests were aimed at?
Yeah, we were "concerned enough to stop supporting them in the voting
booth." And more.
The upheavals of the '60's were about more than Vietnam, Dann, and it was
more than cowardly hippie-dippies who were outraged.
Dann
news:dimvp6$jna$1...@blue.rahul.net on 13 Oct 2005:
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote to the Deacon:
>
>> I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive'
>> corner of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort
>> of ideology have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over
>> the years. To a greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases.
>> Were you ever concerned enough about those incursions to point out
>> that they led towards totalitarianism? Were you concerned enough to
>> stop supporting them in the voting booth?
>
> While not addressed to me, and while I don't presume to speak for the
> Deacon, I will ask you this, Dann: how old are you?
40
> Do you remember 1968?
>
> Do you know what happened then? Do you know which party was in power
> then?
The one that was slowly working to erode our individual liberties.
> Do you know what happened in Chicago that summer? Do you know which
> party the protests were aimed at?
>
> Yeah, we were "concerned enough to stop supporting them in the voting
> booth." And more.
>
> The upheavals of the '60's were about more than Vietnam, Dann, and it
> was more than cowardly hippie-dippies who were outraged.
I will readily admit to not being there...'cause I wasn't. But it seems
to me that the 1960s was a decade of the well going not simply dry, but
bad.
We had in the 1950s a group of people that saw the continuation of many,
various, gross injustices. They took direct and personal action to
correct as much of it as they could. Even though I may disagree with
some of their later beliefs, I am truly grateful for the hard work they
did in service to bettering our nation.
Their efforts and ideals were polluted in the 1960s by those that saw
liberty as oppression and communism as a viable form of successful
governance. Those protesters weren't protesting in Chicago because the
Democrats were being oppressive. They were protesting because the
Democrats weren't being oppressive (i.e. socialist/communist/etc.)
enough.
And.....I think I ought to put away the brush for a while as that's more
than enough paint splattered around.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Gilbert and Sullivan...the team that made opera palatable.
Sherwood Harrington
> Their efforts and ideals were polluted in the 1960s by those that saw
> liberty as oppression and communism as a viable form of successful
> governance. Those protesters weren't protesting in Chicago because the
> Democrats were being oppressive. They were protesting because the
> Democrats weren't being oppressive (i.e. socialist/communist/etc.)
> enough.
We were, eh? Thanks for clearing that up for me.
And you have no idea how angry you have just made me.
Dann
Well that wasn't the objective.
I don't know you. I certainly don't know what personally motivated you
to be there.
And I am sorry that I have made you angry.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
As I lay back looking up at the stars, I thought to myself, "Where the
heck is the ceiling?"
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, Mike. You are right. I was wrong. Some might call it
> projection. Others might call it a bad assumption. The kinder souls would
> call it a poorly phrased question.
>
> Permit me another crack at it??
>
> In our limited time together, you have struck me as someone that is not
> enamored with the GOP or conservatism in general. You also don't strike me
> as someone that is inclined to support for Libertarians,
> Constitutionalists, or other similarly minded folks.
I don't have a problem with the conservativism of Goldwater, etc.,
except for what I sometimes see as a sort of ... not "indifference to"
but "insensitivity to" the fact that not everyone is able to make
heroic strides. To me, a policy that doesn't allow for the weakness of
people is a heartless, utopian policy -- but there are tender, utopian
policies as well, and they are as unworkable.
Anyway, however impractical those policies are, they are not as rooted
in ether as Libertarianism, which I think is primarily for people who
only come out of their parents basements long enough to go to Mensa
meetings. It is as idiotic as communism.
But my views have nothing to do with the major parties -- I've voted
for Republicans, including for the presidency.
> That would leave but a few options. One would be that you support some
> sort of totalitarianism in the grand traditions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and
> the family Kim of N. Korea. I'd be a bit surprised and more than just a
> little disappointed to find that to be the case. So that eliminates the
> World Workers Party and similar organizations.
Right. It was a stupid option.
>
> The only option left would be the Democratic party or perhaps their kissing
> cousins in the Green Party.
See above.
>
> Now the Democratic Party has been primarily responsible for the steady,
> gradual erosion of various individual freedoms from the 1930's until about
> 1994. You can rack up a lot of damage over a span that long.
Not "primarily." The GOP did a lot during the same period. You could
look it up. Or did you think Nixon was a Democrat? Did you think the
GOP would have acted differently? The fact that they couldn't get
elected makes it hard to test the theory, doesn't it? (Eisenhower
hardly being typical of much of anything except an apparently
fair-minded war hero with an asshole McCarthyite for a vice-president.
Oh, did you think Tailgunner Joe was a fan of civil liberties?)
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong (again!).
Yup! You sure are!
Perhaps in the conflict between individualism
> and collectivism, you possess a great zeste pour la guerre in support of
> individual liberty. Perhaps you have defended the right to keep and bear
> arms with zeal that would leave most free press supporters jealous.
I have been a member of the NRA, though not in some years. I grew up in
a part of the country where a deer hanging from the chimney is a pretty
common sight.
I don't defend the right of idiots to prove their sexual adequacy by
running around with guns, but my feelings on the Second Amendment have
to do with that troublesome clause about well-regulated militias, which
is a reasonable point of debate. That is to say, I think the Founders
added a qualifier that I realize not everyone acknowledges.
>
> So let me rephrase things.
>
> I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive' corner
> of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort of ideology
> have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over the years.
Bullshit on two points -- I don't consider my politics extreme, and I
don't agree that liberal/left/progressive are one thing. Just because
you disagree with anything less that rightwing extremism doesn't mean
you're in the center and everyone else is in a "corner."
The fact that you posit your views as the default/norm and everything
else as a deviation reveals a lot.
To a
> greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases.
"To a greater extent in many cases." What a weasal phrase THAT is! Are
you really building a political ideology on that? Lewis Carroll must be
missing a character ...
> Were you ever
> concerned enough about those incursions to point out that they led towards
> totalitarianism? Were you concerned enough to stop supporting them in the
> voting booth?
Yeah. Pretty consistently. But from both sides, since I'm not in
lock-step (goose-step?) with any particular party.
>
> If not, what's the big deal now?
Um .. if I didn't protest then, why do I protest now? I protested then
and I protest now.
That seems like an okay thing to me. But I understand that you feel the
need to find a party and support it for some sense of identity it gives
you. I've seen people like that all the time, from the Young Americans
for Freedom to the Weather Underground.
Party loyalty and ideological purity are a lot easier than constant
thought and analysis.
And putting people in pigeonholes means you don't have to actually
listen to what they're saying. Life becomes SO clear and simple!
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
>
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> I will readily admit to not being there...'cause I wasn't. But it seems
> to me that the 1960s was a decade of the well going not simply dry, but
> bad.
>
> We had in the 1950s a group of people that saw the continuation of many,
> various, gross injustices. They took direct and personal action to
> correct as much of it as they could. Even though I may disagree with
> some of their later beliefs, I am truly grateful for the hard work they
> did in service to bettering our nation.
>
> Their efforts and ideals were polluted in the 1960s by those that saw
> liberty as oppression and communism as a viable form of successful
> governance. Those protesters weren't protesting in Chicago because the
> Democrats were being oppressive. They were protesting because the
> Democrats weren't being oppressive (i.e. socialist/communist/etc.)
> enough.
This is straight out of Uncle Spiro's book of rightwing mythology.
Ghostwritten by Pat Buchanan, of course. You have been fed ahistorical,
ideological nonsense.
Sure, there were extremists in the late 60s -- just as Usenet is full
of rightwing crackpots now, and the woods of Montana and Idaho shelter
a fair number of nutcases with freeze-dried food and arsenals.
One difference is that Abbie Hoffman was able to get a lot of media
coverage -- he was a genius about it -- but he never got a radio show
like Rush Limbaugh. And Jane Fonda never got the kind of exposure that
Ann Coulter has today.
Also, there was a guy back then named "J. Edgar Hoover" who made the
issue of which party was in power a little irrelevant in terms of
personal liberties. You might have heard of him and a thing called
"Cointelpro." Also remember that, up to a point where I think the
courts stopped it, you could be reclassified and drafted for protesting
the war. We blamed LBJ at the time, but Nixon proved to be a bigger SOB
and it turned out neither one of them was in charge of harassing
dissidents after all.
Though it was Nixon's buddies who staged the "spontaneous" hardhat riot
on Wall Street, which was presented as the patriotic workers on the
World Trade Center defending freedom against the commie pinko anti-war
marchers. A lot of spontaneous grassroots stuff was set up by Nixon's
people to help turn the country around in those days.
If you believe it was spontaneous, you are part of the movement that
destroys personal liberties. But since you object to people quoting
Orwell, I guess we won't be able to pursue that any farther.
Still, if you ever learn to think for yourself, you'll look back on
this right-wing, revisionist nonsense and wonder why you ever fell for
it. (But by then it may be wiser not to say so in public.)
ameijers
"Dann" <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EED2CBDA18d...@198.109.197.10...
> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
> news:1129201479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 13 Oct
> 2005:
>
> I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive' corner
> of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort of ideology
> have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over the years. To a
> greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases. Were you ever
> concerned enough about those incursions to point out that they led towards
> totalitarianism? Were you concerned enough to stop supporting them in the
> voting booth?
>
> If not, what's the big deal now?
>
follow or favor any political party, since I find them all to be more alike
than different at this point- the 'big tent' run amok. A pox on all their
houses. I also find the standard labels of liberal, conservative, et al, to
be pretty meaningless. I vote for individuals, and take their campaign
speeches with large grains of salt, since they are merely how they collect
donations. If the Big 2 don't have acceptable candidates, I don't vote for
either, and move down to whoever the least crackpot of the alternative
candidates are, just for the sake of throwing a scare into the big parties.
If there are only 2 choices, I hold my nose, and go for the one that seems
to have their head the shortest distance up their arse. I can only recall a
few elections and races where it didn't seem to be a choice among the lesser
of multiple evils. Ballots should have nothing but names on them, and
committee assignments in congress should be assigned at random, every year.
And yeah, I remember 1968 Real Well, even though I was a mere lad of 12 at
the time...
aem sends...
hubcap
>This is straight out of Uncle Spiro's book of rightwing mythology.
>Ghostwritten by Pat Buchanan, of course. You have been fed ahistorical,
>ideological nonsense.
.
.
.
>Still, if you ever learn to think for yourself...
Feh. We have you to think for us.
-Mike
mikepe...@gmail.com
He said, standing by the brimming trough and yet dying of thirst ...
Dann
2005:
> Dann wrote:
>
>> I will readily admit to not being there...'cause I wasn't. But it
>> seems to me that the 1960s was a decade of the well going not simply
>> dry, but bad.
>>
>> We had in the 1950s a group of people that saw the continuation of
>> many, various, gross injustices. They took direct and personal
>> action to correct as much of it as they could. Even though I may
>> disagree with some of their later beliefs, I am truly grateful for
>> the hard work they did in service to bettering our nation.
>>
>> Their efforts and ideals were polluted in the 1960s by those that saw
>> liberty as oppression and communism as a viable form of successful
>> governance. Those protesters weren't protesting in Chicago because
>> the Democrats were being oppressive. They were protesting because
>> the Democrats weren't being oppressive (i.e.
>> socialist/communist/etc.) enough.
>
> This is straight out of Uncle Spiro's book of rightwing mythology.
> Ghostwritten by Pat Buchanan, of course. You have been fed
> ahistorical, ideological nonsense.
Well, lets see....
<snip>
> One difference is that Abbie Hoffman was able to get a lot of media
> coverage -- he was a genius about it -- but he never got a radio show
> like Rush Limbaugh.
According to the ever questionable Wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman
"He graduated from Worcester's Classical High School and was a 1959
graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert Marcuse, a
leading (post-Marxist) Critical Theorist associated with the Frankfurt
School."
"One of his most clever protests was on August 24, 1967, when he led a
group opposed to capitalism (and other things, including the Vietnam War)
in the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)."
"At Woodstock in 1969, Hoffman interrupted The Who's performance, trying
to make a protest speech against the jailing of John Sinclair of the
White Panther Party."
So here we have someone that studied communism and apparently endorsed
that theory as a viable option. He is known for disturbing the
legitimate activities of others in an attempt to publicize his perverted
(my term) views.
I'd like to point out that Mr. Hoffman's antics are one reason why we now
have to have free-speech-zones and similar nonsense. He wasn't content
to simply protest and move along. He wanted to interrupt and obstruct.
Sort of like....."Hey, what I have to say is so important that I'm going
to prevent you from doing whatever you are doing until you accept my
point of view as the correct one." I guess being talked to death beats
the traditional communist debating techniques of re-education camps,
firing squads, and mass graves.
He was a pain-in-the-ass supporter of a morally corrupt system of
governance.
>
> Also, there was a guy back then named "J. Edgar Hoover" who made the
> issue of which party was in power a little irrelevant in terms of
> personal liberties. You might have heard of him and a thing called
> "Cointelpro." Also remember that, up to a point where I think the
> courts stopped it, you could be reclassified and drafted for
> protesting the war. We blamed LBJ at the time, but Nixon proved to be
> a bigger SOB and it turned out neither one of them was in charge of
> harassing dissidents after all.
Nixon?? The greatest Democrat to ever be elected as a Republican??
> Though it was Nixon's buddies who staged the "spontaneous" hardhat
> riot on Wall Street, which was presented as the patriotic workers on
> the World Trade Center defending freedom against the commie pinko
> anti-war marchers. A lot of spontaneous grassroots stuff was set up by
> Nixon's people to help turn the country around in those days.
Spontaneous? Probably not. I'll accept your criticism as being
legitimate. At the same time I can tell you that there were a lot of
people in the US that were not comfortable with rather socialist bent
that was common among the protest leadership.
> If you believe it was spontaneous, you are part of the movement that
> destroys personal liberties. But since you object to people quoting
> Orwell, I guess we won't be able to pursue that any farther.
No, no!!! Go right ahead. I was being an ass-bag by making some gross
assumptions about your past.
The fact still remains that the Democrats have done far more to harm our
civil liberties than have the Republicans. They've had a better shot at
it, so the GOP may rank higher in liberties destroyed per time of
opportunity.
Or put another way, I understand Orwell's message quite well. What do
you propose as a solution?
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
ebius tagline. This is a moebius tagline. This is a mo ...
Neil Robinson
On 14 Oct 2005, Dann wrote:
> Nixon?? The greatest Democrat to ever be elected as a Republican??
Rex? Is that you?
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
> news:1129260084.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 13 Oct
> 2005:
>
> > Dann wrote:
> >
> >> I will readily admit to not being there...'cause I wasn't. But it
> >> seems to me that the 1960s was a decade of the well going not simply
> >> dry, but bad.
>
> <snip>
Hey -- you snipped the part where I said there were some visible
extremists who did not represent the average anti-war (etc) activists
and supporters. Come on, man, that's horseshit.
As for Abbie, I happened to get a kick out of him, which is why I
compared him to Rush Limbaugh -- conservatives often counter that,
yeah, Rush is an idiot, but he's only intended to provoke and amuse.
Abbie had more cred -- he got his start registering black voters in the
South and gained much of his bitterness in Southern jails. But, again,
I put him forward as an example of the extremists who should not be
taken as typical of the era.
And you completely deleted my comparison of Jane Fonda and Ann Coulter
-- a pair of idiots who get attention because, well, because they're
babes. (Ironic that Jane popularized the exercise obsessions that,
today, make a scarecrow like Coulter seem attractive instead of
undernourished!)
> > One difference is that Abbie Hoffman was able to get a lot of media
> > coverage -- he was a genius about it -- but he never got a radio show
> > like Rush Limbaugh.
> "One of his most clever protests was on August 24, 1967, when he led a
> group opposed to capitalism (and other things, including the Vietnam War)
> in the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)."
That was funny -- they threw money out of the gallery and disrupted
trading while the traders grabbed for it. Pure theater, nothing
serious, just a prank. The exchange promptly installed glass.
Since 9/11, BTW, the exchange no longer allows tours. We used to take
students through, in order to help turn them into capitalist exploiters
of the working class. Your loss, I'd say.
>
> "At Woodstock in 1969, Hoffman interrupted The Who's performance, trying
> to make a protest speech against the jailing of John Sinclair of the
> White Panther Party."
Does it mention that he got his ass thrown off the stage, literally?
How does that fit in with the notion that he was universally accepted
by everyone who opposed the war?
Or did Spiro's Revisionist History of America tell you the Woodstock
audience was pro-war?
>
> So here we have someone that studied communism and apparently endorsed
> that theory as a viable option. He is known for disturbing the
> legitimate activities of others in an attempt to publicize his perverted
> (my term) views.
Nothing perverted about them, man. He liked to fuck. We all liked to
fuck. I wish we all got the chance as often as the media image of the
era suggested.
Anyway, who's presenting him as "viable"? I presented him as an
extremist who was not typical.
> >
> > Also, there was a guy back then named "J. Edgar Hoover" who made the
> > issue of which party was in power a little irrelevant in terms of
> > personal liberties. You might have heard of him and a thing called
> > "Cointelpro." Also remember that, up to a point where I think the
> > courts stopped it, you could be reclassified and drafted for
> > protesting the war. We blamed LBJ at the time, but Nixon proved to be
> > a bigger SOB and it turned out neither one of them was in charge of
> > harassing dissidents after all.
>
> Nixon?? The greatest Democrat to ever be elected as a Republican??
Excuse me while we redo the lines on the field -- For some reason, I
appear to have been wrong about the location of the goalposts ... I
really should be more careful in the future!
Too bad you weren't around back in 1968 when the Democrats conspired to
hold a phony convention and have Nixon run on the Republican ticket.
Months later, all the delegates to the real GOP convention were found
bound and gagged on the Hog Farm in New Mexico. Wavy Gravy was feeding
them ice cream through their noses to keep them alive.
It was a very strange time, but anyway, you're right -- Nixon was NOT
the responsibility of the Republican party and should never be
considered such.
>
> > Though it was Nixon's buddies who staged the "spontaneous" hardhat
> > riot on Wall Street, which was presented as the patriotic workers on
> > the World Trade Center defending freedom against the commie pinko
> > anti-war marchers. A lot of spontaneous grassroots stuff was set up by
> > Nixon's people to help turn the country around in those days.
>
> Spontaneous? Probably not. I'll accept your criticism as being
> legitimate. At the same time I can tell you that there were a lot of
> people in the US that were not comfortable with rather socialist bent
> that was common among the protest leadership.
How can you tell me that? You acknowledge that the myth of the Silent
Majority and the hard hats was invented by that shifty Democrat, Nixon,
but then declare that you know how people felt. (Take a look into POW
bracelets and the whole "missing prisoners" scam that was used to keep
the war going! Another "spontaneous" action of the Glorious American
People.)
A lot of people DID reject the media image of the hairy, screaming,
VC-flag-waving protestor. But, again, that's like assuming every
conservative today embraces the Aryan Brotherhood. Fact is, people kept
voting for people who promised to end the war. That's how Nixon got
into office.
>
> > If you believe it was spontaneous, you are part of the movement that
> > destroys personal liberties. But since you object to people quoting
> > Orwell, I guess we won't be able to pursue that any farther.
>
> No, no!!! Go right ahead. I was being an ass-bag by making some gross
> assumptions about your past.
>
> The fact still remains that the Democrats have done far more to harm our
> civil liberties than have the Republicans. They've had a better shot at
> it, so the GOP may rank higher in liberties destroyed per time of
> opportunity.
That one I'll go with -- but remember that people kept voting for
Democrats because they generally supported what was happening.
(And Mayor Daley could only do so much -- one election, one convention,
sure, but even Hizzoner had his limits. I knew Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley
was a fiend of mine. And Mayor Daley was no Karl Rove. Even the White
House Plumbers could have taken a lesson from this nest of scoundrels.)
(The White House Plumbers, of course, were lead by that great Democrat,
Richard Nixon. Who was always at war with Oceana.)
>
> Or put another way, I understand Orwell's message quite well. What do
> you propose as a solution?
Thought.
An end to people arguing to defend partyline dogma instead of to find
actual solutions.
Won't happen, of course, but it's worth proposing once in awhile, just
for laughs.
nickelshrink
> The brain droppings of pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org were posted in
> news:1129260084.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 13 Oct
> 2005:
>
>> Dann wrote:
>
> "He graduated from Worcester's Classical High School and was a 1959
> graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert Marcuse, a
> leading (post-Marxist) Critical Theorist associated with the Frankfurt
> School."
>
> "One of his most clever protests was on August 24, 1967, when he led a
> group opposed to capitalism (and other things, including the Vietnam War)
> in the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)."
>
> "At Woodstock in 1969, Hoffman interrupted The Who's performance, trying
> to make a protest speech against the jailing of John Sinclair of the
> White Panther Party."
>
> So here we have someone that studied communism and apparently endorsed
> that theory as a viable option. He is known for disturbing the
> legitimate activities of others in an attempt to publicize his perverted
> (my term) views.
>
> I'd like to point out that Mr. Hoffman's antics are one reason why we now
> have to have free-speech-zones and similar nonsense. He wasn't content
> to simply protest and move along. He wanted to interrupt and obstruct.
The trouble with You Kids is that all you know of the 60's is
the documentaries you saw in school and on TV. They will
show the big media events and personalities, because that's
all they CAN do. That's all that's on film. They can't show
the quiet changes for the good in American society that came
about as people started to question things that needed
questioning. Things like, "Is the Vietnam War really a good
thing?" and "Do 99 percent of women really need to stay home
and make babies because of some bogus idea that they have
no rational reactions and are are totally hormone-driven?"
Hoffman, and all the rest of the hoop-la, were like the fashion
industry. Look at those bizarre things that come down the
runways from the major designers. By the time these fashions
reach the racks of the populus, they are are a vastly modified,
subtle, even practical version of some design elements hidden
in the originals. The Big Protests and protesters had the same effect.
Many small minds saw the bad things that a military industrial
complex-run-rampant could do, but were unable to see any
way except the most-opposite-thing-they-could-conceive-of
whixch was communism. That doesn't make the concerns
about The Establishment unjustified. Power corrupts.
Questioning the Establishment keeps weeding out the corruption
that all of it is prone to, Republican or Democrat, and that's
the legacy of the 60's.
pax
ruth
grouchy old hippie
--
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
(remove fspam to reply)
Dann
2005:
> Dann wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sorry, Mike. You are right. I was wrong. Some might call it
>> projection. Others might call it a bad assumption. The kinder souls
>> would call it a poorly phrased question.
>>
>> Permit me another crack at it??
>>
>> In our limited time together, you have struck me as someone that is
>> not enamored with the GOP or conservatism in general. You also don't
>> strike me as someone that is inclined to support for Libertarians,
>> Constitutionalists, or other similarly minded folks.
>
> I don't have a problem with the conservativism of Goldwater, etc.,
> except for what I sometimes see as a sort of ... not "indifference to"
> but "insensitivity to" the fact that not everyone is able to make
> heroic strides.
"Heroic strides"??
1. Go to school.
2. Stay in school.
3. Don't do drugs (alcohol and tobacco inclusive)
4. Don't have sex if you can't afford to raise the results. Marriage
before having children works best.
5. Graduate.
6. Get a job [or better still, start a business]. Any job. Any pay.
Work hard. It's called paying your dues.
7. Get more education. A trade school. The military. College.
Something. Something productive that is.
8. Get another job [or start another business]. Work hard. Repeat as
necessary. It's called climbing the ladder.
9. Save.
10. Invest.
11. Avoid credit cards.
12. If one is so incline, get married and if the inclination is
incurable, have kids....after making sure that you can afford to raise
them.
End result - a comfortably middle class life at the least. You can
violate a couple of them and still do fine in the long run. But they are
not heroics.
Heroics are the actions of a couple of lady friends of mine. Well, one
is more of an acquaintance. One has been a quadriplegic from birth. The
other has a condition that causes her to speak very slowly and have a lot
of trouble walking. They both have worked as best they can to either
provide for themselves or to give back to the community that supports
them. They get up every morning and go to work.
They are heroes.
Those that claim serial disabilities until they can get one to stick?
Not heroes. And by 'serial disabilities' I mean things that don't keep
others from waking up every morning and going to work to earn a paycheck.
Those that can't be bothered to follow sound advice per the above? Not
heroes.
Being able to provide for one's self is not heroic. It is expected.
> To me, a policy that doesn't allow for the weakness of people is a
> heartless, utopian policy -- but there are tender, utopian policies
> as well, and they are as unworkable.
And what if a person's weakness is that they are perfectly willing to let
someone else foot the bill for their life, for the rest of their life?
> Anyway, however impractical those policies are, they are not as rooted
> in ether as Libertarianism, which I think is primarily for people who
> only come out of their parents basements long enough to go to Mensa
> meetings. It is as idiotic as communism.
Hey! You made it to one of the meetings!
I stopped going for just that reason. It was a geek-squad debating club
that returned nothing but unworkable solutions.
<snip>
> Perhaps in the conflict between individualism
>> and collectivism, you possess a great zeste pour la guerre in support
>> of individual liberty. Perhaps you have defended the right to keep
>> and bear arms with zeal that would leave most free press supporters
>> jealous.
>
> I have been a member of the NRA, though not in some years. I grew up
> in a part of the country where a deer hanging from the chimney is a
> pretty common sight.
<snip>
Individual liberty includes a passion for gun rights, but it also
includes a passion for other things as well. Privacy. Free press.
Freedom of association. Religion (freedom from inclusive). Right to
work. Right to keep what you earn. And many others.
But in my opinion, the two major parties (and therefore most people) have
decided that they can be part time supporters of individual liberty;
picking and choosing those issues that they want to support. The result
is that by turns both parties have been slowly eroding our rights.
>> So let me rephrase things.
>>
>> I assume that your politics fall in the liberal/left/'progressive'
>> corner of the political pool. The politicians that share that sort
>> of ideology have been antagonistic towards individual liberty over
>> the years.
>
> Bullshit on two points -- I don't consider my politics extreme, and I
> don't agree that liberal/left/progressive are one thing. Just because
> you disagree with anything less that rightwing extremism doesn't mean
> you're in the center and everyone else is in a "corner."
I never said that your politics were extreme. I said that they fall in
the liberal/left/'progressive' corner of the political pool. Just as
mine fall in the libertarian corner of the political pool. How deep they
go in those respective directions is another matter.
> The fact that you posit your views as the default/norm and everything
> else as a deviation reveals a lot.
Pot?? Kettle??
I don't think my views are the default/norm. On some issues, my views
are pretty extreme. On other issues, my views are pretty normal.
However, I will offer two things.
1. Most non-voters that I talk to are more Libertarian than anything
else. Not hard core "do away with property zoning laws" Libertarian, but
"just a little less government please" libertarian. They don't vote
because neither of the big parties represent their point of view.
2. Part of the problem is that we've got extremists pulling our nation
this way and that. From the socialists that protest the World Bank to
the nut balls that blow up abortion clinics. As a result, our government
polices fall somewhere between the two. Few people stake out the extreme
individualist position, and thus we continually lose individual liberty
to other interests.
>> To a greater extent than has been the GOP in many cases.
>>
>
> "To a greater extent in many cases." What a weasal phrase THAT is! Are
> you really building a political ideology on that? Lewis Carroll must
> be missing a character ...
Just trying to be honest and accurate. The GOP has done quite a bit of
harm to individual liberty as well. They've done some good as well. For
example the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enjoyed much broader support from
the GOP than from the Democrats on a percentage basis. And Mr. Nixon's
anti-drug initiative put a focus on treatment instead of prison.
<snip>
>> If not, what's the big deal now?
>
> Um .. if I didn't protest then, why do I protest now? I protested then
> and I protest now.
As I put in it in another post. I was making gross assumptions without
fact. Sorry about that.
<snip>
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
A hand in the bush beats two on the bird?
Steven
Hoffman was a "
graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert
Indeed I find it hard to believe no one has responded to this.
while I could make some jokes about all those wall street and madison
avenue guys who attended Brandeis and therefore are communists waiting
to destroy the capitalist system from within..
Instead I will just comment that this is another new low.
Nasty and filthy!
google, where is thy Killfile????
Dann
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com on 15 Oct 2005:
That isn't what was said.
"He graduated from Worcester's Classical High School and was a 1959
graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert Marcuse, a
leading (post-Marxist) Critical Theorist associated with the Frankfurt
School."
He studied under a self described Marxist.
Historically, communism has been imposed through violence. If Mr. Hoffman
didn't know this, then it was because his professors defrauded him by
accepting his tuition money in exchange for a grossly incomplete education.
In any case, the direct result of adopting his anti-war position was the
extermination of over 600,000 South Vietnamese who's only crime was that
they didn't want to live under Communism. I tend to be an optimist, so I
assume that Mr. Hoffman would have supported our continued presence in
Vietnam if he had known that our withdrawal would have resulted in such a
blood bath. If he knew what was going to happen beforehand...........
Brandeis is a fine university. Thomas Sowell taught there briefly. It's
retention of professors that espouse Marxist theory isn't the smartest
decision, but I'm sure they have other programs that provide productive
instruction.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of moral crisis. -Dante Alighieri
mikepe...@gmail.com
Dann wrote:
> In any case, the direct result of adopting his anti-war position was the
> extermination of over 600,000 South Vietnamese who's only crime was that
> they didn't want to live under Communism.
This may be the single most ridiculous remark you've ever made.
A direct result of adopting Abbie Hoffman's opposition to the war?
Jeezus, how many died as a direct result of people who preferred Jerry
Rubin's style of opposition? How many died because somebody somewhere
agreed with Senator Mark Hatfield's opposition, or Gene McCarthy's?
Now, Nixon SAID he opposed the war, but then he continued it for
several more years ... did they wound people because of him, or did
they, like, hold them in a jail somewhere while they waited to see if
they should kill them or not?
And how did they do it, Dann? Line them up and read off a list of who
was being killed as a result of which American's protests?
My goodness, what painstaking people those North Vietnamese are! No
wonder they won the war!
(We'll come back to your theory that anyone who studies socialism
automatically becomes a communist. It's true of course -- just as
everyone who studies carpentry becomes a cabinetmaker and everyone who
plays kickball ends up as a professional baseball player.)
My stars, Dann == try breaking the pills in half.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<mikepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's also Vietnam's economic success and relative peace since
1975, but, you know . . . Mum's the word . . .
- ReFlex76 (formerly "Vaughner")
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
Charles Whitney
It reminds me of that article by Heather Mallick referenced here many
months ago, which talked about Americans having to cope with a new
surrealism in public life, usually with a stunned disbelief:
What on earth did you expect us to say? Olé?
C
ronniecat
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead
wrote:
>I'd like to point out that Mr. Hoffman's antics are one reason why we now
>have to have free-speech-zones and similar nonsense. He wasn't content
>to simply protest and move along. He wanted to interrupt and obstruct.
You're right. How we managed to stumble through the late 70s, and the
entirety of the 80s and 90s with all those looney Hoffman emulators
interrupting and obstructing willy-nilly is a near-miracle.
There's one reason you have "free speech zones and similar nonsense",
Dann, and it has NOTHING to do with protestors, past or present,
behaving particularly badly. It has to do with an administration which
will not suffer being even having to *look at* certain segments of the
people who elected them and now dare question them.
ronnie
--
"The very deaf, as I am, hear the most astounding things all
round them, which have not, in fact, been said." - Henry Green
<<remove mycollar to respond by email>>
www.hearingloss.blogspot.com - a blog about deafness
ronniecat
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead
wrote:
>That isn't what was said.
>
>"He graduated from Worcester's Classical High School and was a 1959
>graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert Marcuse, a
>leading (post-Marxist) Critical Theorist associated with the Frankfurt
>School."
>
>He studied under a self described Marxist.
Yeah? I studied under nuns. What's your point?
nickelshrink
>
> "He graduated from Worcester's Classical High School and was a 1959
> graduate of Brandeis University where he studied under Herbert Marcuse, a
> leading (post-Marxist) Critical Theorist associated with the Frankfurt
> School."
>
> He studied under a self described Marxist.
>
> Historically, communism has been imposed through violence. If Mr. Hoffman
> didn't know this, then it was because his professors defrauded him by
> accepting his tuition money in exchange for a grossly incomplete education.
>
> In any case, the direct result of adopting his anti-war position was the
> extermination of over 600,000 South Vietnamese who's only crime was that
> they didn't want to live under Communism. I tend to be an optimist, so I
> assume that Mr. Hoffman would have supported our continued presence in
> Vietnam if he had known that our withdrawal would have resulted in such a
> blood bath. If he knew what was going to happen beforehand...........
Holy SHIT. Dann, i do understand that you are not
claiming Hoffman caused the withdrawal, but that the anti-war
stance > caused the withdrawal > caused the extermination.
But to lay the entire Vietnam debacle at the feet of the protesters?!
12 years of bad decisions, 12 years of Presidents from Truman on
down looking at Vietnam with only what they knew then, not with our
somewhat better hindsight.
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran -- who's standing right here
next to me -- urges you to read the Pentagon Papers, and SEATO.
for a full understanding of the Vietnam War. Why it was started, and
why it was ended the way it was. The blood of all the Vietnamese
after we left is on the hands of Big Oil, who wanted us there because of
the huge reserves off the coast of S. VN. And the Vietnamization
program, which forbade US troops to shoot at the enemy unless they
shot first.
He (husband standing here) and his unit were hidden, saw a unit
of the enemy NVA ENTER the country and keep marching forward, and
could NOT stop them because they (the NVA) hadn't fired first.
"We watched them go. That's all we could do. And that's the way we
fought the fucking war. This was the decision of the politicians, not the
protesters. Yes, the protesters were a disturbing presence to us while
we were there. However, the way WE treated the Vietnamese people was
a hell of a lot more disturbing."
He also points out that casualties of the Vietnamese people from
Agent Orange exposure were huge. Some stimates, a million or
more, counting genetic mutations etc. He came back and became a
member of Vietname Veterans against the war, AND switched from
Republican to Democrat, because of the destruction we were visiting
on that country, and because we didn't belong there in the first place.
And by the way, he urges that i add, he supports our troops 100 percent,
but NOT this administration. The true results of what we're doing in
Iraq right now will not be learned for a decade or more after US
withdrawal.
--
pax
ruth
Pat O'Neill
Dann wrote:
> "Heroic strides"??
>
> 1. Go to school.
> 2. Stay in school.
Easier done when your family doesn't need your income than when it
does. Many poor kids drop out of school because the family needs the
additional income--even the pittance of a minimum-wage job--to avoid
homelessness.
> 3. Don't do drugs (alcohol and tobacco inclusive)
> 4. Don't have sex if you can't afford to raise the results. Marriage
> before having children works best.
OK--you've just eliminated some of the cheapest forms of enjoyment
available. What are these kids supposed to do for fun, anyway?
> 5. Graduate.
See above.
> 6. Get a job [or better still, start a business]. Any job. Any pay.
> Work hard. It's called paying your dues.
Start a business? With what as seed money? As noted, we're talking
about people living literally hand-to-mouth, paycheck-to-paycheck.
> 7. Get more education. A trade school. The military. College.
> Something. Something productive that is.
And pay for it all how?
> 8. Get another job [or start another business]. Work hard. Repeat as
> necessary. It's called climbing the ladder.
And all the money required is coming from where, exactly?
> 9. Save.
> 10. Invest.
With what extra money? I'm lower middle-class with two kids, and *I*
don't have enough left over to do that adequately. I can't imagine
somebody with a lower income than mine managing it.
> 11. Avoid credit cards.
So ban the banks from sending them out willy-nilly. My college-age son,
who has no viable income right now, gets an average of three offers a
week. What do they think he's going to pay them with? Gold spun from
straw?
> 12. If one is so incline, get married and if the inclination is
> incurable, have kids....after making sure that you can afford to raise
> them.
A neat way to end poverty--tell poor folks they shouldn't procreate.
> End result - a comfortably middle class life at the least. You can
> violate a couple of them and still do fine in the long run. But they are
> not heroics.
End result--stagnation. Because your "plans" are all based on the
assumptions of a middle-class lifestyle, not a lower-class one. Take
the blinders off, Dann, and look at what the people you are so happily
"advising" really have to deal with.
ronniecat
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead
wrote:
>"Heroic strides"??
>
>1. Go to school.
>2. Stay in school.
2.a. Don't attend a lousy, crime-ridden school where you get a sub-par
education that leaves you unequipped to attend college.
2.b. Don't have to take care of an alcoholic, drug-abusing, or
mentally ill parent.
>3. Don't do drugs (alcohol and tobacco inclusive)
3.a. Don't be sexually abused or suffer any other kind of
psychological trauma that causes you to self-medicate with drugs and
alcohol before you are old enough to understand the lifelong
consequences.
>4. Don't have sex if you can't afford to raise the results. Marriage
>before having children works best.
4.a. Don't use a birth control device that has even a fraction of a
percent of a failure rate when used properly. That only means
avoiding... oh, wait ... uh - okay, all of them. On second thought,
just don't have sex until you've graduated college and gotten married.
>5. Graduate.
5.a. Don't have to quit to go to work to help support your family.
>6. Get a job [or better still, start a business]. Any job. Any pay.
>Work hard. It's called paying your dues.
6.a. Don't get sick.
>7. Get more education. A trade school. The military. College.
>Something. Something productive that is.
>8. Get another job [or start another business]. Work hard. Repeat as
>necessary. It's called climbing the ladder.
>9. Save.
9.a. See 6.a.
9.b. Don't marry someone who gets sick.
9.c. Don't give birth to a sick kid.
9.d. Don't give birth to a healthy kid who gets sick.
9.e. Don't have to care for broke parents who cost a fortune to die.
>10. Invest.
10.a. Make sure the job you got with that crappy education earns you
enough to invest. Oh, and that you followed all the advice in 9.a-e.
>11. Avoid credit cards.
>12. If one is so incline, get married and if the inclination is
>incurable, have kids....after making sure that you can afford to raise
>them.
ronnie
Bill Marcum
> news:1129120438.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 12 Oct
> 2005:
>
>> Dann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd also like to see election day moved to a Saturday so that fewer
>>> people would have to make the choice between voting and working.
><snip>
>>
>> This assumes, of course, that getting more people to vote is a
>> desireable goal. ;-)
>
> I'm of two minds on the subject.
>
> The libertarian in me says that the greater the number of voters, the
> better as an indicator of liberty. There are all too many nations out
> there where voting can and will get you killed. And there have been too
> many nations with better voter turnout (percentage) than the US.
>
What does the other mind say?
--
/earth is 98% full ... please delete anyone you can.
ameijers
"Bill Marcum" <bma...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:621b23-...@don.localnet...
> On 12 Oct 2005 21:14:29 -0400, Dann
> >> This assumes, of course, that getting more people to vote is a
> >> desireable goal. ;-)
> >
> > I'm of two minds on the subject.
> >
> > The libertarian in me says that the greater the number of voters, the
> > better as an indicator of liberty. There are all too many nations out
> > there where voting can and will get you killed. And there have been too
> > many nations with better voter turnout (percentage) than the US.
> >
> What does the other mind say?
>
exceeds their 'worth the hassle' tipping point. The unwashed masses, the
barely literate, the lazy, are much less likely to vote, and if they do, are
thought to be more easily swayed by pork barrel promises and slick actors in
TV promo spots (since the unwashed masses largely do not read...). (Not
aying any of this is true, mind you, just that that is the theory...)
Or to put it simply, do you <want> stupid people to vote? Perhaps an elitist
attitude, but understandable, given recent history. These other countries
with high turnouts don't seem to have much better luck with the quality of
their elected officials.
(standard disclaimer- I always vote, even when I have to wear a clothespin
on my nose to do so. {due to the candidates, not the people in line}. Always
believed that you had to vote in order to have a right to bitch about
whatever the silly SOBs are doing now, etc.)
aem sends...
ronniecat
23:23:53 GMT "ameijers" <aeme...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Or to put it simply, do you <want> stupid people to vote? Perhaps an elitist
>attitude, but understandable, given recent history.
My irony meter just broke.
ronnie
--
return address altered. remove my collar to reply.
"I try to be cynical, but it's so hard to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com * a weblog about deafness
Ron Parker
>
> (standard disclaimer- I always vote, even when I have to wear a clothespin
> on my nose to do so. {due to the candidates, not the people in line}. Always
> believed that you had to vote in order to have a right to bitch about
> whatever the silly SOBs are doing now, etc.)
ObComics: You were raised by bumper stickers?