Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You have explicitly said, in several posts recently, that it would be nice if I actually read what you posted before I attacked it. I have.

Forgive me for being less than fully clear. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that I link to support, rather than complaining that I form views without any basis.

Me too. But I believed it. That's what the evidence shows happened.

That's what we're discussing. You're a couple days late to figure out what the conversation is about, but now that we're on the same page I expect you'll start to carry your end.

"Want"? No, you misunderestimate. The story WAS about Spanish appeasement and cowardice. I would much rather it had not been that way. Why do you want it to be otherwise so badly that you will go through these contortions to keep it from being so? You have made up a new, after-the-fact rationalization that fails to square with the facts (go look at pics of the election-eve protests, and read their signs) and that glorifies justifications that even the Spanish didn't think of until the morning after? Why do you so not want this to be a reflection of base self-interest, fear, and ransom-paying?

Now that you've proven that you can say I want it to be about one thing, and I've proven that I can say that you want it to be about another, can we agree that it's just a stupid form of argument?

Your linked article started out with "now that we all agree that he's a fucking liar . . .". You can lead a horse to water, but you can't paint it pink.

So what? I've already explained that (a) I gave the link as a cite for the FT quote, and (b) Drum is patently referring to previous posts, etc.

It was his first headline, bolded, and his second thesis sentence, and the rest of the blog was in support of those statements. If I say "Atticus is a big fat lying sunnovabitch who screws sheep on Thursdays", my main point isn't that AG has a good social life on Thursdays.

It amazes me that you continue to evade that Drum's post centered on the fact that the FT reported that the Spanish government was lying to German intelligence. You initially dismissed this account as partisan hackery -- since SAM and I pointed out that it was the FT reporting it, not Drum, you're just ignoring it. Yes, Drum was writing about the Spanish government lying. The hook was a respected newspaper reporting that the Spanish government lied.

Uh huh. Then link to the FT article, and avoid the initial "HE LIED HE LIED HE LIED HE'S A BIG FAT LIAR" dicta that means nothing to you.

I linked to Drum because his blog entry was in my browser's address bar, thereby avoiding the need to right-click on the link to the FT and copy the url from the properties therein. I'm sorry that my singular act of laziness, which saved me maybe a second of my life and a few extra movements of my right hand, has been the cause of so much distress on your part. It appears to have taken much more time off your lifespan, for reasons that quite elude me.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If I say "Atticus is a big fat lying sunnovabitch who screws sheep on Thursdays", my main point isn't that AG has a good social life on Thursdays.

Jeez. Just post a couple of times on the FB to point out that it just might be the eensiest bit hypocritical to criticize people who eat fries while maintaining a legendary coke habit, and you get labeled a fat.

Et tu, Bilmore?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus lesson #126: He posted this for the last sentence. He wanted to see who's reading the articles. Then, he factors that into, to whom he gives credibility.

This makes not a lot of sense to me. I am confused. But as a female, I am not that smart. where is that damn bustier . . . .

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I do. I expect proof (or close to it) before assuming the worst, and, in my mind, lying is the worst.

Ok, that's a good position to take.

Originally posted by bilmore
(In the realm of our discussion, at least - yes, mismatching colors in ties and shirts is actually THE worst, but we're not speaking of that level of malfeasance, are we?)

I rather like my ties.

Originally posted by bilmore
I still believe that the average person is rather honorable, and doesn't do the things that Drum, Ty, et al so easily accuse others of.

Most of the people I prosecuted were terribly average. But, true enough, I'll agree that most Presidents/politicians probably don't flat out lie much.

Originally posted by bilmore
That's why I was so taken aback when I read your earlier comments to say "well, so what if he didn't lie, he might have politicized something bad." It's a vast gulf in my mind (a mind already full of vast gulfs - there, I'm saving someone a post) between the two, and your post treated it as a difference in labelling.

My post was intended to say: "Whether or not Aznar lied . . . " (i.e. did one bad thing) . . . it appears that he certainly did another bad thing (i.e. vigorously and recklessly exploit the deaths of 200 people to try to win an election) -- that in my view was bad enough to justify reasonable folks deciding not to vote for him on that point alone." I guess I see a smaller distance between the two than do you.

Originally posted by bilmore
For my part, I will vote for, and campaign for, people whom I perceive to share my own moral basis. (Singular, purposeful.) The daily press run of who gaffed, and who had the most hurtful line, means little to me. At this point, I have no idea what Kerry's moral basis might be, and I doubt Kerry does either. I know Bush's - and some parts I find horrible, and others I find familiar and comforting. I'll let you know when I find my perfect mirror.

(a) Good, I suppose we need such participation.

(b) That daily press run is a huge part of our politics today, and is vastly influential. Every person you will work for has legions of people devoted to playing and winning that destructive, corrosive game -- and we mock them if they're not good at it.

(c) I'm not sure why you think that Kerry doesn't know his "moral basis". He has done many admirable things in his life, and its a bit much to say that he did them all calculatingly, for personal gain.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
This sort of clears up something for me - why would you be pushing this? Why would you care? Why would Drum care? I get it, now. It's not the issue of, did azner lie. It's, did the Spanish really wimp out badly and vote themselves out of the war out of fear. You guys don't want that to be - it makes an antiwar choice seem dishonorably and cravenly arrived at - so you need a new focus. In spite of all of the marches and protests pre-election and during-election with signs about "get us out" and " the US war has killed us", you now want to spin it as "ha! we all see that Avnar lied!!". Too little, too late, Ty.

Jeeminee, Bilmore!

This is not 1968, we're not leaders of SDS, and we're not taking orders from the Communist International.

I think that your search for motives and/or conspiracies are a bit too convoluted. I also think that you're wrong to automatically consider any discussion of this issue to be motivated by anything deeper than a desire to discuss/argue about an interesting question.

You know, Ty's statement of "your" possible motives (i.e. the motives of the right) to jam the Spanish decision into the appeasement pigeonhole makes at least as much sense as your opposing theory. Think about what that means -- if for nothing else than what it says about the value of such arguments over motives.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
That was my favorite paragraph. Start out with the thesis that a brave action is cowardly because being brave is the easy and expected way out, while being craven is hard because it exposes you to ridicule.

Ty -- You should have known that a Dionne piece would not get you anywhere.

Bilmore -- That is a very interesting thesis to draw from an article that does not have that thesis at all.

Having read some pieces on both sides of this issue, I tend to think that you are being as selective in what you choose to believe as you accuse Ty of being.

You are apparently willing to concede, at most -- that Aznar may have spun the tragedy for political gain, but for some reason you keep saying that there is no way the Spanish voters could have known about that or been offended by that before the vote on Sunday!

Heck, I was reading stuff in the _American_ press suggesting al Qaeda involvement despite the denials of Spanish leaders before the vote on Sunday. (Including, I believe, quotes from Socialist legislators in Spain.) Why are you so sure this wasn't circulating around Spain then?

Moreover, I understand that -- contrary to false statements made by Ann Coulter (e.g.) -- the Spanish election was very close before the bombing. The PP, though favored, was hardly sailing to victory. Why dismiss the possibility that this flipped it?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty -- You should have known that a Dionne piece would not get you anywhere.

Dionne and Drum are coming from the same place on the political spectrum, but I think bilmore is unlikely to call Dionne a whore.

eta: Apparently "liar" is a word to be used carefully, but "whore" is a word to be slung around with great abandon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The following appeared here. The author is a former president of the Sierra Club. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, and while I don't usually pay much attention to the board election, I will this year.

Hostile Takeover
Anti-immigration coalition seeks control of Sierra Club

By Adam Werbach | 3.9.04

Members of the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental group, will receive ballots this month to elect their board of directors, and with that vote will cast their views in the most contentious immigration battle of the year.

Immigration is not a new debate for the Sierra Club. In 1998 the membership voted overwhelmingly to stay out of the issue, restating that the most effective way to deal with the impact of population on the planet is to reduce levels of American waste and to raise the global status of women.

But for some, tackling immigration is a moral imperative, and their quest to bring the Sierra Club into the debate has resulted in a slate of board candidates with significant ties to right-wing groups.

Former President Robert Cox, a communications professor at the University of North Carolina with deep ties to the environmental justice and labor movements, is a leader in the organization’s effort to fight off this “hostile takeover attempt” through an unprecedented public education campaign called Groundswell Sierra (www.groundswellsierra.org).

“The far more effective way of slowing the growth of population worldwide is by addressing women’s access to healthcare and family planning, and by building economic sustainability for the world’s poor,” Cox says. “As long as people are driven from their home countries by hunger or political strife we will see migration, period.”

Although many who support Sierra Club’s involvement in immigration policy are concerned about the environmental effects of population, Cox says, “We’re concerned by a darker side of the movement.”

The national board of the Sierra Club received a letter in October 2003 from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) alerting it to efforts by right-wing racist organizations to encourage their members to join the Sierra Club and back anti-immigration candidates. SPLC traced the effort to a 1996 memo written by anti-immigration leader John Tanton, who stated that although “the Sierra Club may not want to touch the immigration issue … the immigration issue is going to touch the Sierra Club!”

The three immigration-control candidates running for the board have interlocking ties to organizations funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, a leading conservative who funds the Heritage Foundation and other groups that have written the playbook for President Bush’s attacks on the nation’s environmental laws.

The Sierra Club is vulnerable to this type of attack because, unlike most national environmental organizations, the entire board is elected by its 750,000 membership. Three immigration-control advocates won seats on the board in the last two elections: Paul Watson, Doug Lafollette and Ben Zuckerman. If the three candidates backed by Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization are elected this year, the immigration-control faction will have enough votes on the 15-member board to move the issue.

Watson says efforts to gain seats on the board are “being blown out of proportion.” Watson was a founder of Greenpeace who went on to create the Sea Shephard Conservation Society, a direct-action organization responsible for ramming and sinking numerous illegal fishing vessels.

“I’m not here to represent people, people are well represented,” Watson says. “I’m here to represent non-human species and ecosystems.”

For Watson, immigration is simply a matter of numbers. Too many people in the United States leaves no room for the habitat he wants to protect. “I don’t allow any human politics to influence my decisions,” he says.

But Cox says the Sierra Club can’t ignore politics. “We have come so far in raising questions of environmental impacts on people in our work with labor and communities of color. As a result we have forged partnerships with a broader progressive coalition in America.” This coalition is partly responsible for the club’s growing political effectiveness, he says, and “all of that is now at risk.”

Even if none of the candidates is elected, Watson says the immigration-control faction has won. “It’s a fait accompli,” he says. “The goal was to make the Sierra Club get the national press to write about immigration. And look what you’re writing now.”

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The following appeared here. The author is a former president of the Sierra Club. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, and while I don't usually pay much attention to the board election, I will this year.

While I am for scaling back immigration to the US, I don't see how it helps the Sierra Club's goals. I guess if the SC's goals are only to protect the environment in the US, less people in the US helps that cause. But I thought the SC was more globally oriented? Maybe not.

[Not Me]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-152754c.html

Potty mouth!

Airline smacked, kisses off urinals planned for JFK

Gee whiz.

Virgin Atlantic's provocative urinals - shaped like a woman's open mouth - just got the royal flush.

The airline announced yesterday it would not install the urinals in the men's room of its new clubhouse in Kennedy Airport's Terminal 4 because of public criticism.

"We apologize to people we offended. No offense was intended," said John Riordan, the airline's vice president of customer services. "Any piece of art, by its nature, has its critics and its fans."

[Not Me]

Thought this was a chilling report because of how easy it seems they were able to get the explosives.

They warehouse dynamite unguarded I suppose. I think that governments are going to have to more tightly regulate access to dynamite and other dangerous explosives. I know this would make business more expensive to conduct for those businesses who legitimately use dynamite, but times have changed.


http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAI4SH32SD.html

Report: Spaniard Led Four Moroccans to Mine to Steal Dynamite Used in Madrid Bombings

MADRID, Spain (AP) - A Spaniard with a criminal record led four Moroccans to an explosives warehouse at a mine to steal dynamite used in the Madrid terror bombings, a newspaper reported Saturday.

The unidentified Spaniard, a former miner in the northern Asturias region, was among five people arrested Thursday. He insisted he only led the Moroccans to the warehouse and did not help with the robbery or know the Moroccans had Islamic extremist links, El Pais reported, quoting police sources.

The Spaniard has a record for drug and weapons possession, the newspaper said. The Moroccans remain at large and have not been identified, it added.

. . .

The Spaniard arrested in Asturias told police he had met the four Moroccans in January in a bar in the Lavapies district of Madrid, El Pais said.

That's where one suspect, Jamal Zougam, had a cellular telephone store to which police have traced a cell phone found attached to a bomb that failed to explode.

The Moroccans told the Spaniard they ran a mine in Morocco but had trouble obtaining explosives. The Spaniard offered to help them get dynamite, and in return was apparently given drugs, El Pais said.

. . .

Police think all or part of the estimated 220 pounds of dynamite used in the Madrid bombings came from that warehouse, the paper said.

[Not Me]

Anyone know? I don't have time to research it and I was just wondering if anyone knows what it is about the CA worker's comp system that is in need of reform. I understand that it is expensive, but is it so much more expensive than other state's WC systems and if so, why?

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQIST42SD.html

Schwarzenegger Threatens to Take Workers' Comp Issue to Ballot if Lawmakers Do Not Act

TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger warned state legislators that unless they reach a deal to repair California's costly worker-compensation system, he will bypass lawmakers and ask voters to fix the problem with another ballot initiative.

[Not Me]

That is pretty funny how they were going to play the tape backwards.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAMU0Y22SD.html

Atlanta Radio Morning Show Hosts Suspended for Sexually Explicit Talk

ATLANTA (AP) - Clear Channel Communications suspended two Atlanta radio talk show hosts after sexually explicit talk with a porn star was aired during their morning program.

Larry Wachs and Eric Von Haessler, hosts of "Regular Guys" on WKLS-FM, had planned to interview porn star Devinn Lane on tape, then play the tape backward Friday to mock the federal crackdown on broadcast indecency.

But while recording the segment during a commercial, their microphones stayed live and Lane could be heard describing sexual acts.

[sgtclub]

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21346.htm

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21346.htm

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the standards have in there something about context in that it has to appeal to the prurient interest or something similar to be indecent/obscene?

Isn't it different if you are talking about this stuff in a clinical or social context, i.e., concerned about STD transmission, as opposed to the context of trying to sexually stimulate someone?