Politics As Usual - Page 291

ltl/fb · 07-12-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you catch that I said the chubby girl in that band was cute?

I am aware that you are obsessed with me, yes.

Sidd Finch · 07-12-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you think the Greeks just up and invented gay? Only god works from whole cloth, man must make do with what come before.

Actually australiapithecus shapeshifterous appears to be at the root of homosexuality. The male had a colon that was particularly compliant. Leaky theorizes it was handy for double anal parties. The females were left alone and eventually the strain died.

Could we please not use the word "Leaky" in the same sentence as "double anal"? Thanks.

Nice new avatar, Hanky-poo.

Sidd Finch · 07-12-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably this story is payback for Harris' refusal to seek the death penalty against that cop killer.

It's been spun that way by some but I think that's a little silly. There wouldn't be a story if Harris hadn't refused to prosecute on several good arrests for prostitution. She stated a policy of enforcing the prostitution laws, but because she wants to spin it as "preventing exploitation of women" she can't stomach actually prosecuting prostitutes.

Replaced_Texan · 07-12-2004, 05:37 PM

Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a study released Monday by the Hammond Political Research Group, many of the nation's liberals are suffering from a vastly diminished sense of outrage.

"With so many right-wing shams to choose from, it's simply too daunting for the average, left-leaning citizen to maintain a sense of anger," said Rachel Neas, the study's director. "By our estimation, roughly 70 percent of liberals are experiencing some degree of lethargy resulting from a glut of civil-liberties abuses, education funding cuts, and exorbitant military expenditures."

San Francisco's Arthur Flauman is one liberal who has chosen to take a hiatus from his seething rage over Bush Administration policies.

"Every day, my friends send me e-mails exposing Bush's corrupt environmental policies," said Flauman, a member of both the Green Party and the Sierra Club. "I used to spend close to an hour following all the links, and I'd be shocked and outraged by the irreversible damage being done to our land. At some point, though, I got annoyed with the demanding tone of the e-mails. The Clear Skies Initiative is bogus, but I'm not going to forward a six-page e-mail to all my friends—especially one written by a man who signs his name 'Leaf.' Now, if a message's subject line contains the word 'Bush,' it goes straight into the trash."

Neas found that many survey participants who attended protests against the war in Iraq in 2003 could barely summon the energy to read newspaper articles about the subject in 2004.

Portland, OR resident Suzanne Marshal compared herself to an addict, needing increasingly large doses of perceived injustices to achieve a state of anger.

"Even though I know how seriously messed-up the situation is in Iraq, I've became inured to all but the most extreme levels of wrongdoing," Marshal said. "For months, no amount of civilian bombing could get me mad. Then those amazing photos of the tortured Iraqi prisoners hit the streets, and I got that old rush of overwhelming disgust with my government. Then more photos came out, and more officials were implicated, and now—I don't know. It's like a switch in my head turned off again."

Continued on Page 2

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's been spun that way by some but I think that's a little silly. There wouldn't be a story if Harris hadn't refused to prosecute on several good arrests for prostitution. She stated a policy of enforcing the prostitution laws, but because she wants to spin it as "preventing exploitation of women" she can't stomach actually prosecuting prostitutes.

There wouldn't be a story if someone in the SFPD hadn't handed it on a platter to Matier & Ross. I'm not saying the complaint about her has no merit -- I'm just more interested in the question about how the SFPD and DA's office get along.

Atticus Grinch · 07-12-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's been spun that way by some but I think that's a little silly. There wouldn't be a story if Harris hadn't refused to prosecute on several good arrests for prostitution. She stated a policy of enforcing the prostitution laws, but because she wants to spin it as "preventing exploitation of women" she can't stomach actually prosecuting prostitutes.

I'm struggling to remember a time when the DA's office didn't think the SFPD were a bunch of undereducated cowboys and assorted numbnuts, and the cops didn't think the DAs were eggheads, softies, and too "political" about crime and its aftermath.

They're probably both right, as always.

In that sense, it's business as usual.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Pretty fucking silly. Harris was right to stand up against the police on the death penalty issue, since opposition to the death penalty was central to her platform (and to the platform of anyone else who wants to run for DA in SF). But on this issue she sounds like a third-rate sociology professor stuck in the "old feminism" of victimhood.

If anything, the Johns were the victims.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the President really wanted the answer to that, surely he could have it by now, but the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has been looking into it and perhaps we will have some indictments before too long.

You keep saying this, but I don't know what you think he could do to get the answer.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a study released Monday by the Hammond Political Research Group, many of the nation's liberals are suffering from a vastly diminished sense of outrage.

That's some serious lack of commitment. The right was able to keep up the outrage over the Clinton scandals for 11+ years and counting.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you think he could do to get the answer.

If the President made it clear to the people working for him that they fucked up, and that he wants whoever did to 'fess up, I think they would. When you're working for the President, and the President tells you that he wants you to take a hit for the country, you do. (He could then accept the person's resignation, and pardon him.)

Alternatively, the President could tell Novak that he shouldn't keep protecting his sources.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the President made it clear to the people working for him that they fucked up, and that he wants whoever did to 'fess up, I think they would. When you're working for the President, and the President tells you that he wants you to take a hit for the country, you do. (He could then accept the person's resignation, and pardon him.)

Alternatively, the President could tell Novak that he shouldn't keep protecting his sources.

I think you are being somewhat naieve.

And if he attempted to pressure Novak, there would be an uprising from the 1st Amendment supporters (including me).

Hank Chinaski · 07-12-2004, 05:59 PM

maybe it goes the uninteresting way?...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20040712.shtml

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you are being somewhat naieve.

SO much for the whole "restoring integrity to the White House" business. Who knew we were getting such a cynical crowd? I still think they'd put the President and the country above their own self-interest.

Quote:

And if he attempted to pressure Novak, there would be an uprising from the 1st Amendment supporters (including me).

It's not pressure. He's not a prosecutor.

Look, when Clarke's book came out, the White House released transcripts of background briefings that Clarke gave to the press when he was in the White House, putatively to embarrass him with contradictions, although there weren't any. I don't recall you saying that the White House was threatening the First Amendment then.* All they have to do is the same thing -- tell Clarke that the "on the background" protection is revoked.

* You said the White House was "stupid" to fan the story, but you didn't say anything about the First Amendment.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe it goes the uninteresting way?...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20040712.shtml

Who knew Jeff Jacoby is so, um, homely?

eta: For someone who complains that the Financial Times story has been "virtually ignored" by the U.S. press, he has strangely little to say about those who haven't ignored it.

Not Me · 07-12-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Could we please not use the word "Leaky" in the same sentence as "double anal"? Thanks.

I think it is important that women know that if they let men perform anal sex on them, even single anal, they risk becoming incontinent of feces. I hope all women will join in my boycott of anal sex. Let the men bugger each other if they want that. It is bad enough that we have to give birth and menstruate. We don't need dicks in our asses, too.