Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Besides, Metropolitan Stadium was as far better place to watch a ballgame.

You're a closet Minnesotan, aren't you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. . . "atque ita tribus et uiginti plagis confossus est uno modo ad primum ictum gemitu sine uoce edito, etsi tradiderunt quidam Marco Bruto irruenti dixisse: 'kai su teknon . . . ."

One tires of constantly hearing this.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
You're a closet Minnesotan, aren't you?

I watched one baseball game at the Metrodome. I'm quite confident that a little league field carved out of adobe clay on the poorest Indian reservation would be a more enjoyable venue for a game. I'm sure the Met could do better than that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Securities fraud: Alleges Stewart "well knew" her personal reputation was critical to shareholders in her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Alleges she made misleading public statements in June 2002, after news of her ImClone sale broke, and intended to "defraud and deceive" her investors.

This will not fly. No matter how couched, the prosecution is asking the jury to effectively hold her criminally liable for protesting her innocence.

First, the jury instruction on this will be a mess. I can't even think how to write that one up as a prosecutor. Second, no jury is going to punish someone for a protestation of innocence, no matter how inartfully the prosecution stumbles to show that she did it for the malevolent purpose of merely propping her stock. Its nonsense. The judge will probably blow it out. Think of the horrible precedent that could emerge is criminal defendants could face additional penalties for saying they're innocent. The defenses to this charge are endless.

[Atticus Grinch]

Here's what happens when you run the full text of Bush's interview with Russert through the autosummarize feature of Microsoft Word.

Intelligence is a vital part of fighting and winning the war against the terrorists. We need really good intelligence.
Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence means that a president can make good calls about fighting this war on terror.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

I fully understand people — He’s trying to avoid responsibility. I’m a war president. We’ve got people working hard in intelligence gathering around the world to get as good an information as possible.

Yeah.

Right.

Right.

Vital question.

Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world.

We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. It’s important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. We can’t say, “Let’s don’t deal with Saddam Hussein. Let’s hope he changes his stripes, or let’s trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Yeah.

What — in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats? Yeah.

We are welcomed in Iraq.

See, free societies are societies that don’t develop weapons of mass terror and don’t blackmail the world.

If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you’d be a little bitter.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah. A free Iraq will change the world. It’s historic times. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It’s a war of necessity. Yeah.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. You’re right. The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. Yeah.

I want people working. I want people to find work. I don’t hold up people. I think that people — when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. I’ve shown the American people I can lead.

Link.

[sgtclub]

Did anybody catch Gore's rant yesterday? He is off his rocker. Very, very scarry.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This is one of those events where you issue tear gas to teams, cancel days off, extend shifts to overlap from immediately before the expected end of the game til 3 AM or so, and put 30-45% of your total manpower on the street for riot-duty. I'm serious, that is what's done in almost any other city, and its almost certainly what Boston has done before.

In a very well-run city, this is a blip. But pretending there was nothing wrong is making it into a bigger event than it was.

I see your point on the Mayor's stonewalling, but in Oakland for last year's SB they did all of the things you cite and it still got f-ed up. I guess police chiefs around the country are now going to be rooting against their hometown teams whenever they reach the conference championship games from here on out.

What a strange society this is.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
An explanation of the interview:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110004665



from there its get more political.

Pretty interesting spin, but it lost me right where it started implying that the interview went bad because Bush is more "philosophical" than (any and all) Democrats are.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Hey Look! There might be some science in here --

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17711

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hey Look! There might be some science in here --

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17711

If it's inevitable, might as well lie back and enjoy it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hey Look! There might be some science in here --

Nope. I looked.

"Something might happen. Or it might not. But, if we just ignore this whole horrid mess, it will definitely happen. That is, if it's going to happen. Or, not. Maybe. It's all awful. Fuck those ostriches. KYOTO!! KYOTO!! KYOTO!!"

(I would add "YEEEAAARRGGHH!!!", but am unsure of the spelling.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Confidential to Ty: DOJ wants to question Atticus. Please PM me contact info.

http://www.usdoj.gov

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hey Look! There might be some science in here --

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17711

there is. thank you. climatic variation is a normal, cyclic things that has happened again and again over the ages. Ty, Concession?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there is. thank you. climatic variation is a normal, cyclic things that has happened again and again over the ages. Ty, Concession?

There surely have been climactic changes over the years. There is a concern, though, that human activity has an effect on the climate that is different from what has come before, although it is hard to tell because our frame of reference is so limited. There is a natural tendency to assume that we are too puny (yourself excepted) to change the world around us, and yet we know that this is not true. New England was deforested in post-colonial times. Aborigines apparently were responsible for massive changes (think fire) once they arrived in Australia. So I can believe that industrialization might harm the climate, and I assume you would concede as much.

As for the question of whether it is happening, I don't know. I tend to believe the many scientists who say something bad is happening, and you and bilmore find great personal satisfaction in siding with those renegade industrial concerns with the audacity to challenge the conventional wisdom.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope. I looked.

"Something might happen. Or it might not. But, if we just ignore this whole horrid mess, it will definitely happen. That is, if it's going to happen. Or, not. Maybe. It's all awful. Fuck those ostriches. KYOTO!! KYOTO!! KYOTO!!"

(I would add "YEEEAAARRGGHH!!!", but am unsure of the spelling.)

You misapprehend my point (not surprising, given the oblique reference and lack of context). I did not intend to suggest that the article proved or supported the existence of global warming, just that it contained some nifty scientific information about ocean currents and global climate/climate change.

The Kyoto treaty aside, that information makes it a bit harder for me to understand or agree with those who weigh the costs of significantly reducing greenhouse emissions as being much greater than the potential costs of the status quo.


S_A_M