Politics: A new beginning - Page 39

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I view his interfaith worship much differently than I view the person who can't be racist because he went to high school with a black guy.

Most people are racist, at least at some level. From time to time, biases will slip out. The question is do we treat biases differently depending on which type bias slips out.
The guy shows he not anti-semetic by saying his church shares space with a Jewish temple? It's not co-worship, which I think is pretty impossible, as an aside.This isn't even "I have black friends."
SS is right, its simply I went to school where black kids go, but they come in after/before we leave.
So its hard to see how this is different/less than Rush.
But all of it misses the real point.
There will always be racism. The way to limit its effect it to neutralize its power. In a perfect world this guy (or Rush) wouldn't be canned for saying something offensive, they might be canned because listeners would (eventually) realize the things they said were stupid.
If we stopped being indignant about stupid racist remarks we'd go along way towards taking away the power of the remarks.

Connect_the_Dots · 10-20-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Most people are racist, at least at some level.

Nice to hear your admit it...YOU RACIST!!!

Shape Shifter · 10-20-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The guy shows he not anti-semetic by saying his church shares space with a Jewish temple? It's not co-worship, which I think is pretty impossible, as an aside.This isn't even "I have black friends."

This is more than a Saturday/Sunday timeshare. From the blog:

"Two years ago I wrote in The New Republic of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea."

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid%C2%816

From the Bradley Hill Pres website:

"In addition to sharing physical space the two congregations have shared: Pulpit exchanges between the pastor and rabbi Sponsorship of social actions Musical programs featuring members of both congregations Annual joint Thanksgiving Service."

http://www.bradleyhillschurch.org/qu...id=-1999999513

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This is more than a Saturday/Sunday timeshare. From the blog:

"Two years ago I wrote in The New Republic of the Bradley Hills-Bethesda Jewish joint congregation, "One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism." I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea."

this is part of his apology. what does it mean, cooperatively? they can buy toilet paper in bulk? There is nothing on the websites that points to real interaction.

Quote:

From the Bradley Hill Pres website:

"In addition to sharing physical space the two congregations have shared: Pulpit exchanges between the pastor and rabbi Sponsorship of social actions Musical programs featuring members of both congregations Annual joint Thanksgiving Service."

lots of single congregations have "exchanges." that doesn't show anything. You/he seem to imply the "joint" worship means something about his charecter, and how he feels about Jewish people. FWIW, the time share aspect may be nothing more than his congegation is as cheap as his word imply he feels the Jews are. Oh, and Thanksgiving would be hard to time share and easy to do as non-denominational. You got to get the bodies in and out on Thanksgiving, and home in time for football. If you were going to share space, this'd be a compromise you'd have to make.

edit: FWIW not FYI

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2003, 03:54 PM

Californa Attorney General (and Democrat) Bill Lockyer revealed that he voted for Schwarzenegger:

"You know the people in your profession really well," Lockyer said, explaining why he couldn't bring himself to vote for Bustamante. "You know who works hard and who doesn't and you know who is honest and who isn't. Cops know that about cops. Doctors know that about doctors. I know that about politicians."

link

sgtclub · 10-20-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Californa Attorney General (and Democrat) Bill Lockyer revealed that he voted for Schwarzenegger:

"You know the people in your profession really well," Lockyer said, explaining why he couldn't bring himself to vote for Bustamante. "You know who works hard and who doesn't and you know who is honest and who isn't. Cops know that about cops. Doctors know that about doctors. I know that about politicians."

link

The WSJ carried a similiar piece. Apparently Lockyer voted for Arnold. Shocking.

Atticus Grinch · 10-20-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The WSJ carried a similiar piece. Apparently Lockyer voted for Arnold. Shocking.

Why is it shocking that the best Democratic candidate for 2006 would vote for the candidate least likely to want to run again in 2006? Party loyalty is one thing; enlightened self interest is another.

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh, and Thanksgiving would be hard to time share and easy to do as non-denominational. You got to get the bodies in and out on Thanksgiving, and home in time for football. If you were going to share space, this'd be a compromise you'd have to make.

actually, upon reflection, the problem day would be when Christmas falls on Saturday. Carry on.

sgtclub · 10-20-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Why is it shocking that the best Democratic candidate for 2006 would vote for the candidate least likely to want to run again in 2006? Party loyalty is one thing; enlightened self interest is another.

Oh Atticus, so cynical.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 06:23 PM

Along the lines of the gnashing of teeth here regarding Ashcroft's sentence guideline rampage, two things to note:

1.) I hear a rumor that the DEA is moving to focus more towards asset forfeitures/seizures;

2.) Instead of charging the 20 year old who snuck the stuff on Southwest Airlines planes with anything serious, why not bring him aboard. It seems pretty clear that he has a youthful (i.e., not immature) motivation to expose flaws so they can be corrected. If he is charged with anything, I'd hope if would be something along the lines of a recklessness charge for leaving the boxcutters on planes for 5 weeks. And I'd find it easy to drop the charges if he cooperated.

But charging him just seems vindictive, given what appears to be his actual intent.

Hello

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But charging him just seems vindictive, given what appears to be his actual intent.

Charging him will deter other people from pointing out what the TSA is doing wrong.

Shape Shifter · 10-20-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

2.) Instead of charging the 20 year old who snuck the stuff on Southwest Airlines planes with anything serious, why not bring him aboard. It seems pretty clear that he has a youthful (i.e., not immature) motivation to expose flaws so they can be corrected. If he is charged with anything, I'd hope if would be something along the lines of a recklessness charge for leaving the boxcutters on planes for 5 weeks. And I'd find it easy to drop the charges if he cooperated.

But charging him just seems vindictive, given what appears to be his actual intent.

Hello

I will remember this defense next time I am caught speeding. "You Honor, I was just trying to expose the flaws in the speed traps so that they may be corrected."

Atticus Grinch · 10-20-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Charging him will deter other people from pointing out what the TSA is doing wrong.

Exposing the flaws in a security system that will never be perfect, and which relies in part on deterrence, is a matter of dubious morality. I personally think this was a stunt, but I imagine that any al Qaeda sleeper cell in the U.S. that wanted to repeat 9/11 would use some dupe to put weapons on the plane for later retrieval by more hardened men, rather than carry the weapons themselves on D-Day.* Those people will profess to be "making a point" if ever caught. The kid was playing a high-stakes game in which he would never be a winner.

*This would be a longshot under any circumstances, but would be quite a coup for Islamist morale if accomplished. More likely, though, that entirely different scenarios await us.

notcasesensitive · 10-20-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Exposing the flaws in a security system that will never be perfect, and which relies in part on deterrence, is a matter of dubious morality. I personally think this was a stunt, but I imagine that any al Qaeda sleeper cell in the U.S. that wanted to repeat 9/11 would use some dupe to put weapons on the plane for later retrieval by more hardened men, rather than carry the weapons themselves on D-Day.* Those people will profess to be "making a point" if ever caught. The kid was playing a high-stakes game in which he would never be a winner.

*This would be a longshot under any circumstances, but would be quite a coup for Islamist morale if accomplished. More likely, though, that entirely different scenarios await us.

Just like War Games. Except with diffent results. I think he'll be cahrged with some felonies, the govt will accept a plea that involves some jail time, but nowhere near the amount he could have gotten*, and people will be duly warned not to try to carry illegal shit on planes. Govt basically has to prosecute him. Even if he had pure motives.

* or he gets a lot of jail time and he waits for a presidential pardon in a few years (or less?!)

str8outavannuys · 10-20-2003, 07:37 PM

So I've decided to join in the fun on this board after reading Al Franken's "Lies" book this weekend. As a political agnostic with conservative tendencies, I'm curious if anyone has challenged the veracity of anything in Franken's book? Reading it made me hate hate hate Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly. Especially Coulter.

I think Easterbrook made interesting and fair points and is getting a raw deal by the herd-instinct mass-media who sees an easy story by being intellectually dishonest. What Easterbrook was getting at is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain in their heads, and it has nothing to do with greedy jews.