Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Kaus's interesting take on Kerry and the Colorado initiative:

"Should Kerry take a dive in Colorado? Ron Brownstein notes that as Kerry becomes competitive in the state, Colorado Democrats are tempted to vote against the state initiative that would award Kerry a proportional share of Colorado's nine electoral votes even if he loses. After all, why should Dems settle for a proportional share if they can win all nine? But that's a risky calculation: If the initiative passes and is upheld, Kerry would almost certainly get four of the nine electoral votes even if he loses the state. If the initiative fails--in part because Dems think Kerry might win--and then Kerry loses the state by a hair, he winds up with zero. It could theoretically be smarter for him to settle for a sure 4 --losing to Bush in the state but winning the initiative--than to go for all 9. ... Of course, Kerry would have to factor in uncertainty about whether the initiative will be upheld in court. The "sure 4" wouldn't be all that sure. Prof. Hasen explains why here. ... 4:52 P.M."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not sure what he's actually done. Seems to have been fairly ineffectual, but, then, he's definitely out of my area of expertise.

Think of it this way. If Mo came down or up from wherever or whatever, and told all his people to demand a vote by peaceful means and throw off the shackles of their truly Godless occupiers, and they did it (peacefully), and freedom and elections and free markets erupted all over, that's about what the Pope did.

Suddenly, Iran has elections, Syria has elections, Afghanistan has elections, Iraq has elections. Er, I guess that's started. Who's pushing this idea? There are people on the left that are seriously arguing that some places on earth simply aren't fit for elections and democracy. In the old days, we called these people Soviets.

Come to think of it, this freedom thing is kinda what you are saying about the risible one, no? Same concept, Bush is just a bit more in people's faces about it. And some people hate, hate, hate it when other people get to vote, especially when a Republican is all up in their face about it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've read the Hitchens' piece before.

Good. That's like a primer. Now read this:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Think of it this way. If Mo came down or up from wherever or whatever, and told all his people to demand a vote by peaceful means and throw off the shackles of their truly Godless occupiers, and they did it (peacefully), and freedom and elections and free markets erupted all over, that's about what the Pope did.

Suddenly, Iran has elections, Syria has elections, Afghanistan has elections, Iraq has elections.... That Pope helped push freedom and democracy on people.

I have to confess, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(Board motto!)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kaus's interesting take on Kerry and the Colorado initiative:

"Should Kerry take a dive in Colorado? Ron Brownstein notes that as Kerry becomes competitive in the state, Colorado Democrats are tempted to vote against the state initiative that would award Kerry a proportional share of Colorado's nine electoral votes even if he loses. After all, why should Dems settle for a proportional share if they can win all nine? But that's a risky calculation: If the initiative passes and is upheld, Kerry would almost certainly get four of the nine electoral votes even if he loses the state. If the initiative fails--in part because Dems think Kerry might win--and then Kerry loses the state by a hair, he winds up with zero. It could theoretically be smarter for him to settle for a sure 4 --losing to Bush in the state but winning the initiative--than to go for all 9. ... Of course, Kerry would have to factor in uncertainty about whether the initiative will be upheld in court. The "sure 4" wouldn't be all that sure. Prof. Hasen explains why here. ... 4:52 P.M."

is it broken down by congessional district. if so, the Dems would be dead if it was adopted everywhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good. That's like a primer. Now read this:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

Allright... well, you'll need to gimme a little while on that one. Pretty dense. My first impression, however, is that that's a whole lotta ink to spend refuting facts. If Moore's facts were really weak, you'd think they could be dispensed of a bit more easily. But fair is fair... I'll examine the piece and let you know.

You suck - today will now be a loss on the work side.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Blair and Howard -- no way. Nice guys, and all that, but you don't get a Nobel Peace Prize for being sidekicks in one war.

Blair deserves one - but for Northern Ireland and the Balkans, and perhaps for Afganastan, but not for Iraq (which is just too early to tell at this point. If Democracy takes hold there and peace reigns over the Tigres and the Euphrates 10 years from now, he [and W] would have my vote for the Nobel. If Iraq is the center of a shit storm, not so much.). It's easy to forget that before he was W's ally, he was Clinton's.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have to confess, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(Board motto!)

I fixed it. Basically, back around the time you were busy with babysitting your first grandchild, the Pope was pushing Democracy in eastern Europe, particularly in Poland. Along with Walesa and Thatcher (moreso than Reagan, but he was up there too).

The comparison to today would be if any Muslim leader tried doing the same (Sistani seems like he's on the verge of making this leap), but it hasn't happened. Instead, Bush is pushing it for them.

Anyway, that's the Pope's greatest legacy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You suck - today will now be a loss on the work side.

You're the third lawyer to say that to me today.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
. . . back around the time you were busy with babysitting your first grandchild, the Pope was pushing Democracy in eastern Europe . . .

Pius VII?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No offense intended, but of course you don't.

Would you look to me for a nuanced understanding of the various groups and sub-groups of the hard right wing of the GOP and/or the social conservative network supporting Bush?

S_A_M

Not the point. I have yet to meet anyone who actually likes Kerry. Do you? Does anyone on this board?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My first impression, however, is that that's a whole lotta ink to spend refuting facts. If Moore's facts were really weak, you'd think they could be dispensed of a bit more easily.

No, that's just the sign of a well-done lie. Moore uses specific factual lies all throughout his movie, some little, some big, all making Bush look bad. In order to show that his assertions are lies, explanation is needed, and, to a certain extent, people won't listen to explanation if it seems too technical or detailed - they immediately think "excuse". That's part of Moore's effectiveness - he knows that his simplistic portrayal of 30 facts in a scene, 23 of which are lies, makes it hard to keep an audience interested enough to hear the explanation of the truth.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, that's just the sign of a well-done lie. Moore uses specific factual lies all throughout his movie, some little, some big, all making Bush look bad. In order to show that his assertions are lies, explanation is needed, and, to a certain extent, people won't listen to explanation if it seems too technical or detailed - they immediately think "excuse". That's part of Moore's effectiveness - he knows that his simplistic portrayal of 30 facts in a scene, 23 of which are lies, makes it hard to keep an audience interested enough to hear the explanation of the truth.

Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
to a certain extent, people won't listen to explanation if it seems too technical or detailed.

Which makes me wonder how many people have me on ignore.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

Well, it should. That was me. Bilmore. I used to post here.