Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Um, you might want to pick another example.

Huh?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Did he just dump the problem on the Legislature? Why, yes, I think he did. It's what got him recalled. So I think Arnold wouldn't want to go there.

Or, maybe this is an attempt at solving a solution COLLECTIVELY. You work on your side, I'll work on mine, and together we can save CalEfornia.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop If they're out of work and voting for George, I guess they deserve what they get.

Yes they do. 7.1% growth and a hopefully a job shortly. Which brings up another subject. While I certainly have sympathy for anyone who wants to work but is out of a job, on the macro level 6.1% unemployment is actually pretty good. And certainly far better than the double digits we see in EU powerhouses such as Germany and France.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh?

Guess you had to be there.

Or, maybe this is an attempt at solving a solution COLLECTIVELY. You work on your side, I'll work on mine, and together we can save CalEfornia.

Great plan, Arnold. "I'll stay here and cut people's taxes -- you guys take charge of making up the shortfall."

Yes they do. 7.1% growth and a hopefully a job shortly. Which brings up another subject. While I certainly have sympathy for anyone who wants to work but is out of a job, on the macro level 6.1% unemployment is actually pretty good. And certainly far better than the double digits we see in EU powerhouses such as Germany and France.

You should realize that the unemployment rate has dropped largely because of the increased numbers of people who have become discouraged and have stopped looking for work. And unemployment is much worse than it was under the last Democratic president.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You should realize that the unemployment rate has dropped largely because of the increased numbers of people who have become discouraged and have stopped looking for work.

Oh to have that luxury.

[sgtclub]

From letter by novelist Frederick Forsyth to W, published in the Guardian. May be a sock for Hello:

"You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world's most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.

I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.

It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.

Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left's idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il . . . and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh to have that luxury.

That can be arranged. PM me and I'll escort you to your street corner. It's the one with the lamppost on which "Gavin Newsom is a cock" is written in black Sharpie.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's the one with the lamppost on which "Gavin Newsom is a cock" is written in black Sharpie.

There are quite a few posts fitting that description. I take it as a sign that he's gonna win.

[edited to make sense]

[sgtclub]

This is unbelievable. During the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, the women referred to below reportedly saved at least 7 people. This is a quote from a man on the street:

"What was she thinking? It's not her role to save others. She exposed herself and those with her to grave danger," he said. "She had no right to risk the lives of others. What if she had been involved in another accident on her way to the hospital? She should have waited for professional help. If we approve her action and applaud it, then we are encouraging other Sabas out there. I agree with the Arabic saying 'Close the door through which the wind blows and relax.' "

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is unbelievable. During the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, the women referred to below reportedly saved at least 7 people. This is a quote from a man on the street:

"What was she thinking? It's not her role to save others. She exposed herself and those with her to grave danger," he said. "She had no right to risk the lives of others. What if she had been involved in another accident on her way to the hospital? She should have waited for professional help. If we approve her action and applaud it, then we are encouraging other Sabas out there. I agree with the Arabic saying 'Close the door through which the wind blows and relax.' "

I hope no public officials are saying that. Its one thing to prohibit witnesses from chasing hit and run drivers through traffic (not so intuitive til it goes bad) or from chasing drive-byers through traffic (I wish I could tell this story). But its another entirely to tell people not to pick up mass casualties and bring them to a hospital, especially if the distribution of ambulances in Rihahd or whatever is in the ballpark of what I think it is -- spread thinly all over (i.e., she may have been 15 minutes faster than an ambulance).

From whatever article you are quoting, do you get the sense they are pissed because its a woman? Or do people in the article really think that only paramedics should pick up the wounded and rush them to a hospital, even in a mass-casualty event?

Very sad.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
From whatever article you are quoting, do you get the sense they are pissed because its a woman?
Very sad.

Hello

Yes, that's clearly the issue for this "man on the street." The article was on opinionjournal.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
From whatever article you are quoting, do you get the sense they are pissed because its a woman?

I think that is likely. I believe (though I am not certain) that SA is one of the countries where women are not supposed to drive unchapperoned, and just being in the company of men other than male relations is frowned on (for Saudi women, at least - I understand the standards are usually rather different for foreigners). So picking up strange men and driving them about, even direly injured men, is not very virtuous.

But there are other posters here, occasionally, who have much better first-hand knowledge of the social conditions existing in specific middle eastern countries rather than the vaguely remembered details I spew; if they say I'm full of shit, I'm full of shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

A lot of people complain the judiciary is made-up of out of touch rich white guys, who can't possibly understand the poor black people they sentence. One judge's solution; a little "Watermelon Man" research.

Alas, the man's efforts are criticized, and not for copyright reasons.

Judge Timothy C. Ellender, a state district judge in Terrebonne Parish, has acknowledged wearing [blackface] to a party at a seafood restaurant in Houma, about 60 miles southwest of New Orleans.

"It's a tempest in a teapot," Ellender told The Courier of Houma. He did not immediately return a call for comment Monday.

Jerome Boykin, president of the Terrebonne branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Monday that Ellender's costume stereotyped blacks as criminals and convicts.

"For a judge to take the time to paint his face black with shoe polish, put on an afro wig, a prison jumpsuit and shackles ... and walk around in public, I feel he ain't fit to be a judge," Boykin said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...judgeface.html

No word yet on where he stands in the evaluation process for Federal appeals court nomination.

[sgtclub]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...han_optimism_1

[83% say they are better off today than pre-war]

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think I agree with this in principle, but it's an interesting take.

http://www.nydailynews.com/business/...p-121930c.html

[Lou Dobb's column]

Interesting take how?

In saying that (i) Bush's steel tariffs have propped up a failing industry and prevented bankruptcies (or consolidation, depending on your semantics), (ii) Europe is threatening sanctions designed, not to address the economic inequities created by the tariffs, but to hurt Bush politically, and (iii) Europe will be economically harder hit by (even a minor) trade war with the US than the US will, he's just stating the obvious.

And his implication that the steel tariffs were a good idea, or economically justifiable, or in any way beneficial to the US economy, isn't interesting it is just idiotic. The real damage to the US from this situation isn't what Europe is threatening, it's what the moronic steel tariffs themselves are doing.

Frankly, if the Bush admin had the sense God gave a gnat, it would take the WTO ruling as an excuse to unwind this bit of idiocy. But they are ignoring the WTO and multilateral trade orgs in favor of bilateral trade dealings instead. I understand why, and don't necessarily think it's a bad idea for US interests in the mid-term, but, still, in this case at least they should accept the fig leaf and run.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Interesting take how?

In saying that (i) Bush's steel tariffs have propped up a failing industry and prevented bankruptcies (or consolidation, depending on your semantics), (ii) Europe is threatening sanctions designed, not to address the economic inequities created by the tariffs, but to hurt Bush politically, and (iii) Europe will be economically harder hit by (even a minor) trade war with the US than the US will, he's just stating the obvious.

(ii) and (iii). It may be the obvious, but no one else to my knowledge, has written about it.

I agree with the rest of your post, though my guess is that Bush will adhere to the WTO and spin it as the temporary fixing having achieved its goal . . ..

[Gattigap]

On the FB, Our Fearless Leader (Leagl) has opined that with the Mass Court rejecting the state law banning gay marriage, this will now be the predominant domestic issue in the upcoming campaign.

She might be right -- this is something that's always gotten the Christian conservatives wrapped 'round the axle.

This Slate article has an interesting take on why that's so*.

In other words, many of the world's faiths do argue against homosexuality, but they don't raise it to the level of moral calamity: It's bad but not that bad. Privately, religious conservatives are appalled and grossed out by homosexuality but realize that the more common American view is modulated. So, they choose to focus on the idea that marriage in general is under threat.

So, expect to hear more from the Christian Right that gay marriage is apocalyptic because (1) it's, you know, bad**, but more importantly (2) a more secular argument -- that it signals the erosion and collapse of civil society.

Gattigap

* At least to me.

** And generally icky in the view of those who oppose it.