The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[sparrow]

From a live news conference with the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq it has been stated that U.S. forces just identified the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein. Multiple sources were used for identification of the bodies. They were held up in a residence in Mosel and a fire fight took place which led to their deaths. A sources came to the forces yesterday with the information of the sons location. More details to come.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Everything here is hard and bright and violent. Everything I feel, everything I touch, this is hell."

Edited by: sparrow  at: 7/22/03 12:42 pm

[maudmac]

It wasn't the literacy of folks back then that's the issue, it was their access to information. We can live in the middle of nowhere now and be as connected (immediately) to current events as anyone else. Two hundred or so years ago, that wasn't the case.



About seatbelt laws...I really don't see how the government has the right to come into my private property and tell me that I have to wear my seatbelt. They can (and should) tell me I have to obey traffic laws, that I cannot drive while impaired, etc., because those issues affect every driver around me. I have no right to make the road more dangerous for you, if we share the road, but the government should not be telling me I cannot make it more dangerous for myself, if I choose to. I am no threat to you if I'm not buckled in.



If "society is going to assume (at least some of) the costs of accident victims, society should have a say in minimizing the damage done," why do we not mandate the use of condoms, for example? That would reduce the burden on taxpayers far more than seatbelt/helmet laws, I would think.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[darkmagicwillow]

It wasn't the literacy of folks back then that's the issue, it was their access to information.

In the part of my post you omitted, I pointed out that the level of political discourse was substantially higher in the past, which provides an indication that if we ever needed wiser heads to choose our leaders, it may be now rather than in the past.

We can live in the middle of nowhere now and be as connected (immediately) to current events as anyone else. Two hundred or so years ago, that wasn't the case.

Why is the immediate access to the day to day or even week to week trivia of the campaign so important to you? Did anything happen in the final few weeks of the last election you participated in to change your mind? If nothing has, and I confess that I've never come to such a late decision, then why is immediacy so important? Even if it is important, why do you think immediacy is of greater import than the ability to have a deeper discussion of issues as we had in the past?

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[maudmac]

dmw, I didn't "omit" any part of your post. I just didn't respond to every single point you made.



To say that the printed political material from that time indicates a higher or more sophisticated level of discourse about politics addresses a different issue from the issue that fewer Americans had access to whatever material was available then. We have almost universal access to up-to-date information about current events, the issues, the positions candidates take on those issues, etc. Not so then.



When I speak of immediacy, I am talking about knowing the position any given candidate has taken on an issue more or less as soon as she/he takes it, rather than having to wait three months until someone who was back east travels through your town with the news, or hearing something second/third/fourthhand.



Besides all those issues, that time in our history, well, it wasn't exactly the greatest time for voting rights. When a supposedly democratic nation denies the majority of its population the right to vote, I'm not going to look upon that time as preferable to the way things are now.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[Gatito Grande]

Just who was going to challenge my blanket assertion? dmw stepped up to the plate, and queried:

Quote:

---

Why don't you tell us what you think Left and Right are as I have no idea what you're talking about? From your posts, it's clear that Left is good and Right it evil, but beyond that it's nebulous, especially when you say Leftist dictators don't exist but Rightist ones do. If you're talking about the two major American political parties, why not call them by name? They're both about greed and neither shows much support for the rights delineated in the Constitution.

---

Now, c'mon you seriously have no idea of what I'm talking about, or are you playing Devil's Advocate? (a favorite "T" pasttime in my experience, dmw! )



Good vs. Evil. Left vs. Right: clearly, these terms are in the realm of the Ideal, and never strictly lived out in human terms. Democrat vs. Republican: obviously somewhat more concrete (in terms of registration, anyway), though in no way zero-sum (3rd Parties and Independents are outside of the spectrum), and what about ticket-splitters? George Walker Bush: totally specific (as is Howard Dean, Dick Gephart, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, etc. etc.).



I would assert that it's absurd to reduce a human being to an Ideal. However, I would argue that's equally absurd to act as if generalizations don't matter. There are lots of Democrats up to a lots of evil a lot of the time (as I'm sure you would agree)---and there are probably some Republicans who, on balance, do more good than evil (both of them!). However, that doesn't mean that you can't say that Democrats are generally about equality more than Republicans, or that Republicans are generally about selfishness more than Democrats (this is completely apart from whether 3rd parties, or party-independence, is a morally better way to go). I would agree that Democrats have slipped more towards the Corporate Capitalist (i.e. selfish) in recent years: a betrayal of FDR! (I hope they don't go the way of the GOP, who betrayed Lincolnesque equality ages ago).



I never said that Leftist dictators don't exist. At the very least, there have certainly been dictators who used (twisted) the language of Leftism. However, I believe that Rightism---being the philosophy of inherent inequality tends toward dictatorship (or social oligarchy anyway): Rightist dictatorship is consistent, in a way that Leftist dictatorship is not.



[The issue of militarism is a tricky one: I would argue that it violates the humanistic imperative of Leftism, though many proponents of "armed struggle" would disagree. But as for Rightism, what better represents inequality that shooting your "inferior" opponent dead?]



I realize that this probably doesn't answer all your objections, dmw---we may have to agree to disagree. I still think we're mainly disagreeing in terms of philosophical ideals however---on policy, I think we agree more often than not. (As long as we ask, "What would Willow and Tara do?")





*Blunt language warning ahead!*



maudmac, in all honesty, if I could, I would mandate at least civil penalties for any male who ejaculated on/in another human being, w/ the singular exception: vaginal sex w/ a female partner, who says the following words: "I permit you to impregnate me." Barring that, ejaculation (on/in someone else) serves no social purpose, and has the possibility of great harm (I know, it's not even necessary for pregnancy, but even *I* have social control limits! ). As the anti-AIDS poster used to say "Men: Cover Your Meat or Beat It!"



But back to the seat-belt argument: I think a case could be made, that being thrown from your car does, in fact, make one a threat to me on the road. But you didn't address my point about the social costs of the greater chance of unbuckled car-inhabitants being seriously injured or killed. A truly libertarian argument would say "unplug 'em . . . let their orphans starve." I really don't want to go there, though---do you?



GG Honey, I'm a Leftist: your "private what?" Out

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

About seatbelt laws...I really don't see how the government has the right to come into my private property and tell me that I have to wear my seatbelt. They can (and should) tell me I have to obey traffic laws, that I cannot drive while impaired, etc., because those issues affect every driver around me. I have no right to make the road more dangerous for you, if we share the road, but the government should not be telling me I cannot make it more dangerous for myself, if I choose to. I am no threat to you if I'm not buckled in.

---

I don't know about the US but in Germany, if I cause (or am at least partially to blame for) an accident with casualties, I get tried in criminal court. The difference between physical injury resulting from negligence and manslaughter through culpable negligence (I hope the lawyer speak was correct) can be up to two years in prison.

So if you die and wearing a belt could have prevented that (and it wasn't mandatory), not only are you "responsible" for my harsher sentence but also for my being a killer.

You can say that it's my own fault for causing the accident, but I think we all agree that it can happen so easily even when you are careful. And you can get seriously hurt or die even when just very moderate speed is involved.

Which also means that generally you will get hurt more severely without a belt and I (or my insurance) would have to pay a lot more to cover your recovery (hospital bills, etc.). Again this would only go into effect if wearing a seatbelt would not be mandatory. Because as it is now, if you don't use your seatbelt and you get injured, you are at least partially to blame and that means that I won't have to pay 100% for your stupidity.

So yes, you not wearing a seatbelt can have consequences that impact negatively on your fellow drivers.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Isychos]

Gatito Grande

Quote:

---

you didn't vote for Perot, to avoid electing Clinton. I didn't vote for Nader, to avoid electing Dubya. We're just alike, right? Wrong

---

I just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to say we were alot alike. We may be alike, we may not be. What I was trying to infer was that I agree with Maudmac about wanting to vote for thrid parties but by doing so we cause more harm than good in our own personal opinions.

Quote:

---

With rare exceptions, conservative Republicans---like Dubya---are Bad for Willow and Tara

---

Out of my own curiousity and ignorance of what a Democrat and a Republican did for homosexual rights, I tried to find some articles regarding this. Now, again I take what all press says with a grain of salt, and I have no knowledge on the credibility of these sources, but I found what you say to be the exact opposite.



www.newswithviews.com/bal...dwin18.htm



Here is a religious zealot bashing bush for what he has done to help homosexuals.



www.greenleft.org.au/back...24/124p24.



Here is one bashing Bill Clinton for not helping with the rights of homosexuals. So whats that say about Republicans and Democrats? Hell if I know. Clinton may be a democrat and George W may be a republican, but that doesnt make one a savior or a one bigot.



As far as the seatbelt issue. I didn't see anyone bring this up so I may be repeating this. We need to remember that Driving in the US is a privilage and not a right. No where in our constitution can you find that driving is protected. We drive only out of convienence or personal satisfaction. If you think about it, there are many laws that restrict our driving habits. In some cities you must carpool, other places require you to wear a helmet with motorcycles, and in my own great state of Kansas your vehicle must have working windshield wipers (However you do not need to have a windshield.) So my point here is that at anytime our government could simply make a law that bans the use of automobiles all together. Will it happen most likely not. But if laws regarding driving are passed, we should follow them until we get them changed.

The sky is blue and all the leaves are green. The sun's as warm as a baked potato. I think I know precisely what I mean, When I say it's a Shpadoinkle day.

Edited by: Isychos at: 7/22/03 6:06 pm

[lauriebear]

lsychos,



ah....your first article doesn't support our argument it actually is for the other side.



The Chuck Baldwin is a conservative. He is bashing Bush for being too "liberal or left".(i'll put that in quotation marks because it's not like he has done tons.....putting a couple of gay ambassadors to a couple small country's isn't liberal in my book)



oh yea...and the "gay activists" that are praising GW are the Log Cabin group which are gay republicans so it's not like GW has the praise of the majority of the gay community.



your other link wasn't working but it's a leftist web site, probably yelling at clinton for being too "right"



Basically, these two guys are getting critisized by the more extreme factions of their party for being too central.



But typically republicans/conservatives are not usually supportive of gay rights. The more right you go the more hard pressed you'd be to find someone supportive of gay anything.

For example, the people that want to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage right are republican.

[darkmagicwillow]

Now, c'mon you seriously have no idea of what I'm talking about, or are you playing Devil's Advocate?

I'm serious. Those words are used so differently by people who identify with each one and even within each group that I never know what people mean by them. Thanks for answering my question. Now another serious question: why do you think the Left is about equality and the Right about inequality? What does equality mean to you anyway?



As you mentioned libertarians, what do you think of them? I'd love one in office for a term or two because they'd dismantle the Homeland Security garbage and hopefully have enough time to stop the war on drugs too.

Driving in the US is a privilage and not a right.

Why do you think this? Walking, riding a horse, and other forms of transportation aren't in the constitution either. I see this statement repeated a lot as the reason for laws on driving, but it's an argument which justifies government regulation of essentially all areas of our lives, so I can't agree with it. The 9th and 10th amendments exist for a reason.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Isychos]

Quote:

---

But typically republicans/conservatives are not usually supportive of gay rights. The more right you go the more hard pressed you'd be to find someone supportive of gay anything.

---

Your statement here is more or less what I was trying to get at. Yes republicans are usually not sympathetic to homosexuals, but that is not the case with all republicans. I was trying to show that just because your republican your a homophobe.IE I am republican and I support gay rights. And just because your a Democrat doesnt mean you support Gay rights. IE Mississipi in 2000 banned same sex adoptions.

Quote:

---

Driving in the US is a privilage and not a right.



Why do you think this?

---

I think this way because that is what it is. There is nothing in our constitution that protects this. We have rights not to incriminate ourselves and rights to free speech, but no absolute right to drive. I will say I see your point though, we do have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and if driving makes us happy, and it infringes on no one elses rights, why should we be regulated? You could also ask this same question on same sex marriages. If it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights, why cant you pursue what makes you happy?

The sky is blue and all the leaves are green. The sun's as warm as a baked potato. I think I know precisely what I mean, When I say it's a Shpadoinkle day.

Edited by: Warduke at: 7/22/03 8:42 pm

[maudmac]

GG, I realize that what I meant might have only made sense in my head. That happens to me quite a lot. But my question about mandating condom use actually was me addressing your "point about the social costs of the greater chance of unbuckled car-inhabitants being seriously injured or killed." What I meant was that I agree there is a social cost to the issue of unbuckled drivers, but that allowing the government to mandate seatbelt use seems as out-of-line as mandating condom use.



Speaking of which, am I understanding you correctly that you would advocate some kind of legal action against all males whose semen finds its way anywhere except the vagina of a woman who wishes to become pregnant? I want to make certain I'm understanding you before I address that.



I don't see the issue of a driver being thrown from a vehicle being a threat to her/his fellow drivers as being significant enough to warrant mandating seatbelt use. It doesn't often happen that the body of a driver thrown from a vehicle causes an accident. Certainly, it has happened, of course. But I don't think it's common enough to be much of an issue. I imagine far more motorcyclists are thrown from their bikes into traffic and no one's proposing banning motorcyles. I could be completely wrong about this, since I'm basing it not on any research, but on my personal perception and experience as a driver.



Diebrock, point well taken about the potential for an unbuckled driver to change the nature of the crime for the person who causes an accident. I honestly hadn't looked at it that way. That's a good point.



And, can I just say that it's always fascinating to me what we get up to in here. From the war to copyrights to seatbelt issues. I like this thread a lot. It gets hot in here sometimes, but I'm glad we can have dialogue about these things. I think we never agree. But that's cool - it's always good to hear other sides of issues.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[Gatito Grande]

Thus spake maudmac:

Quote:

---

I don't see the issue of a driver being thrown from a vehicle being a threat to her/his fellow drivers as being significant enough to warrant mandating seatbelt use. It doesn't often happen that the body of a driver thrown from a vehicle causes an accident.

---

I really don't know this or not---I do know that a driver wouldn't necessarily have to be thrown free of the vehicle, to cause an accident (e.g. I don't think I could drive that well from the passenger side, to say nothing of the back seat! )

Quote:

---

Speaking of which, am I understanding you correctly that you would advocate some kind of legal action against all males whose semen finds its way anywhere except the vagina of a woman who wishes to become pregnant?

---

Another blunt language alert!



"Men are so careless w/ their seed" (a line from some movie/miniseries or other, I don't remember which ). I don't know what I'm advocating, other than a change. Right now, it seems that to say "Yes" to sex w/ a male, carries w/ it an implied consent to insemination (broadly understood, inc. oral and anal). I'm just not sure why this is the case. I'd like the default to be the other way---that a male has no right to inseminate, w/o express permission (something more than "No, Baby, you don't have to wear that." Barebacking is becoming a serious problem in the resurgent spread of HIV among young American gay men).



What would the penalties be (for inseminating w/o permission)? At the very least, I'd like every female who was impregnated (w/o giving express permission) to be able to sue (Note: they could sue regardless of whether they chose to continue the pregnancy or not). Ditto for everyone who picked up an STD from a non-condom-wearing male (the idea being that condom-wearing demonstrates good faith on the part of the male to keep his semen to himself).



An interesting comparison can be made to S/M: forcibly striking someone is usually taken to be assault---however, one can choose to give express permission for it (within reason). I happen to think that ejaculation---with its attendant risks---should be treated much the same. However, with patriarchy still a dominant social system across so much of the U.S., I'm not holding my breath for these kind of changes any time soon. It will still be incumbent on each and every person who has (consenting, hopefully) sex w/ males to individually demand condom-use---if they don't, whatever negative outcomes arise---they're screwed.



I really think I've said all I want to say about semen and ejaculation for a while---like Willow and the Doublemeat, I think I've crossed my "if I wasn't gay before" threshhold!



GG Greetings from Planet Gatito---things are different here! Out

[darkmagicwillow]

In his editorial Saving the Net, Doc Searles had some interesting comments about conservative values and how they threaten the net that I thought GG might find interesting:

Who Owns What?



That's the fundamental question, and it's going to get more fundamental as we roll toward the next presidential election here in the US. Much is at stake, including Linux and its natural habitat: the Net. Both have been extraordinarily good for business. Its perceived "threat" to Microsoft and the dot-com crash are both red herrings. Take away Linux and the Net, and both technology and the economy would be a whole lot worse.



Both the Net and Linux were created, grew and flourished almost entirely outside the regulatory sphere. They are, in a literal sense, what free markets have done with their freedoms.



Yet, there are some who do not care. Unfortunately, they're driving the conversation right now. Hollywood has lawmakers and news organizations convinced that file sharing is "piracy" and "theft". Apple, Intel and Microsoft are quietly doing their deals with the Hollywood devil, crippling (or contemplating the crippling of) PC functionalities, to protect the intellectual property of "content producers".



...



Two oddly allied mentalities provide intellectual air cover for these threats to the marketplace. One is the extreme comfort certain industries feel inside their regulatory environments. The other is the high regard political conservatives hold for successful enterprises. Combine the two, and you get conservatives eagerly rewarding companies whose primary achievements consist of successful long-term adaptation to highly regulated environments.



That's what's happened with broadcasting and telecom.



...





There's also a problem with conceiving broadcast service--especially the commercial variety--as a "marketplace." Its customers and consumers are different populations. The customers of commercial broadcasting are advertisers, not viewers and listeners. In fact, commercial broadcasting mostly is an advertising business. The "content" it distributes is merely bait; the goods sold are the ears and eyeballs of "consumers". That means commercial broadcasting's real marketplace is Madison Avenue, not radio and TV dials. As a consumer of commercial broadcast programming, your direct influence is zero because that's exactly what you pay. (Paying for cable or satellite service doesn't count, because that payment is for access, not for the content itself.)



The notable exceptions are "premium" channels like HBO and public broadcasting. The reason why programming on both is relatively higher in quality is a simple one: there's little or no split in their markets between customers and consumers. As a viewer or listener, you get what you pay for.



All of which is why this talk about the "media marketplace" is highly screwed up. Relaxing broadcast property ownership rules, in the absence of making larger chunks of available spectrum for everybody, is hardly deregulation. It is a highly selective change in existing regulation that opens opportunities only to the most successful players in a completely closed marketplace.



...



The Net's problem, from telco and cable industries' perspective, is it was born without a business model. Its standards and protocols imagine no coercive regime to require payment--no metering, no service levels, no charges for levels of bandwidth. Worse, it was designed as an end-to-end system, where all the power to create, distribute and consume are located at the ends of the system and not in the middle. In the words of David Eisenberg the Internet's innards purposefully were kept "stupid". All the intelligence properly belonged at the ends. As a pure end-to-end system, the Net also was made to be symmetrical. It wasn't supposed to be like TV, with fat content flowing in only one direction.



The Net's end-to-end nature is so severely anathema to cable and telco companies that they have done everything they can to make the Net as controlled and asymmetrical as possible. They want the Net to be more like television, and to a significant degree, they've succeeded. Most DSL and cable broadband customers take it for granted that downstream speeds are faster than upstream speeds, that they can't operate servers out of their houses and that the only e-mail addresses they can use are ones that end with the name of their telephone or cable company.



And why not? These companies "own" the Net, don't they? Well, no, they don't. They only "provide" it--critical difference.



The gradual destruction of the Net is getting political protection by two strong conservative value systems. One values success, and the other values property. Let's look at success first.



Liberals often are flummoxed by the way conservatives seem to love big business (including, of course, big media). Yet the reason is simple: they love winners, literally. They like to reward strength and achievement. They hate rewarding weakness for the same reason a parent hates rewarding kids' poor grades. This, more than anything else, is what makes conservatives so radically different from liberals. It's why favorite liberal buzzwords like "fairness" and "opportunity" are fingernails on the chalkboards of conservative minds. To conservatives, those words are code-talk for punishing the strong and rewarding the weak.



As George Lakoff explained in Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't (University of Chicago, 1995), conservatives consider strength a "moral value". Strong is good. Weak is bad.



...



Now, to the elections. Look at the two big political parties; both have existed largely as funding mechanisms. For proof, ask yourself, "When was the last time I went to a party meeting?" Whatever other functions they serve, the parties are fundamentally about The Money.



At least until the Net came along.



As I write this, Democratic candidate Howard Dean just gathered his party's largest campaign fund for the most recent quarter. The mainstream press has acknowledged that most of this money came from fund-raising on the Internet. But they avoid visiting a fact that should be deeply troubling to every candidate running (and then governing) for money rather than for voters: Dean's lead is owed to a huge number of small donations, not to a small number of large special interests. If he's being bought, it's by his voters. This is a New Thing. It's also been made possible by the Net.

Read the whole thing, btw. It's a great article on the real dangers threatening to eliminate the net as a place where people produce their own web sites, content, and services in favor of a place where everything is controlled by corporate entities.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 7/23/03 7:02 am

[justin]

Thanks DMW, that s a very interesting article.



I noticed that it mentions the SCO/IBM case. I've been following that case and my feeling about the whole thing is that the managing directors of SCO should be hunted down and shot like the dogs that they are.



The comments about Howard Dean were interesting and I hope that other candidates follow his example. If we start getting lot's of politicians who are financed by the electorate then the lobby groups might find it harder to get their laws passed. They might have to demonstrate how their proposals benefit the public good rather than just their share prices.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[Gatito Grande]

Yikes, dmw! I appreciate you thinking of me, but most of the article you posted is like "fingernails on the chalkboard" in terms of its legal, economic and technological content. I are too stupid fur it.



However, one quote stuck out (within the limited power of my brainstem):

Quote:

---

This, more than anything else, is what makes conservatives so radically different from liberals. It's why favorite liberal buzzwords like "fairness" and "opportunity" are fingernails on the chalkboards of conservative minds. To conservatives, those words are code-talk for punishing the strong and rewarding the weak.



As George Lakoff explained in Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't (University of Chicago, 1995), conservatives consider strength a "moral value". Strong is good. Weak is bad.

---

Strong is good, weak is bad: this takes me back to my Left vs. Right, Good vs. Evil, Paradise vs. Patriarchy dualities. If "strong is good," how is that strength defined? At its base, this model of strength is defined in the image of a male overpowering and raping a female. It all flows from this archetype, however "cleaned up" for public consumption. (Within my limited philosophical understanding, this is the Nietzschean "Will to Power").



The weak exist only to be raped by the strong---beyond that, they should die and, in the immortal words of Dickens, "decrease the surplus population."



To argue, as Feminists (and many Leftists) do, that "compassion" or "fairness" (as mentioned above) could be alternative (superior) definitions of strength, is as meaningless to many conservatives as is the concept of lesbian sex (as anything other than pornography for males): as there is no sex w/o a penis, there is no strength w/o rape.



Feh, I'm just getting angry again . . .



GG Thank the Goddess for all males who don't buy into the "Rape is Strength" model Out

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

4WiccanLuv, I'd like to understand you. Really I would. Maybe I could begin to, if you could explain your (Kitten) name to me? Because when I think of "WiccanLuv," and Willow-n-Tara, and Goodness . . . I think Left. I think of the political Left---that's what those things mean to me.

---

Been away for a while, but here ya go...GG, I adore the characters, I loved the show. When I sat down and thought up a name for the Kitten, I didn't want it to represent anything other than what it said, "4WiccanLuv," meaning…I’m for it, "love"…that is! This is a WT fan site and what better way to honor the characters? WT mean a great many things to me, none of which are the Left, Right or politics at all. When I think WT, I think…"love"plain and simple. I don’ t classify it as "gay" love or "hetero" love, just "love". And because my Kitten name implies WT goodness that doesn’t automatically align me with the Left. I refuse to be put in a box like that. For me, being gay does not define who I am, it's only a piece of the puzzle that comprises me.



Yes, I’m far more conservative these days than I was in my 20’s, but I don’t share all of the Right's ideology. Although I happen to disagree with their stance on gay rights that doesn't necessarily negate the rest of their beliefs and ideas that I do agree with. You claim that the Right are homophobes and are bad for WT, but on the other hand, I don’t see the Left running to pass legislation in favor of WT love. To me, their homophobia is simply masked with platitudes. I have yet to hear a prominent Democrat step up and full on support gay marriage, if I’m wrong please let me know.



BTW, I happen to fall on different sides of the fence depending on the issue. For example, I’m pro-choice, but also pro death penalty. I’m pro equal rights, but oppose affirmative action. I’m for legalizing marijuana and prostitution. And since I’m a Californian, I’m for Davis’ recall! If we had a Republican governor and he screwed up the state as despicably as Davis has, you bet I’d want his ass out too! I've never voted straight across the board by virtue of identifying with one particular party or another. Matter of fact, I voted for Gore in the last election and believe it or not, Clinton as well. Sure Clinton did a lot of great things while in office, but when the Lewinsky fiasco surfaced, my entire opinion of the man changed, I could no longer trust in him, but that’s just me. The bottom-line is that I vote according to *my* moral compass, my heart, my mind and my conscious, sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wrong. We live, we learn.



Also, let me add that I dislike extremism in any form, whether religious or political. I, like many others, am praying for some wonderfully descent honest fair person to show up and save the current state of American politics, coz it's gettin' ugly and I’m sickened by what I’m seeing and hearing lately, i.e., the New York City Hall shooting today…and in Sacramento, those darned squawk boxes, specifically, Jackie “Oh Shit” Goldberg, who is one among many Dems preferring to advance their political careers rather than meet the needs of the citizens!! I can't bear knuckleheads like Robertson, Buchanan, Gingrich, Helms, Thurmond, etc…and dislike radio talk show hosts and commentators such as Coulter, Savage, Imus and Limbaugh to name a few…these people are all about dividing, rather than uniting us! My point is that there are as many Right Wing nutjobs out there as there are the Left Wing wackos!



Since the war in Iraq and the media have been the main focus in this thread, it's been easy for some to make assumptions about me because I do support President Bush, but I'm no more Right than I am Left! I'm more of a moderate, middle of the road, average Joe, a hard workin' 9 to 5'er, and yes, a flag waver! I wasn’t born here, but this country opened its arms to me and has given me more freedom, love and acceptance than I could have ever dreamed of. Perhaps my love for this country is part of the reason I get a tad defensive when I read so much negativity here. One would think Bush is evil incarnate. I don’t agree. He happens to be the president during a trying and difficult time in our history and I honestly believe he does what he thinks is best for our country and our security, but that’s just my opinion and you have every right to feel otherwise and express it. That’s the beauty of the freedom I so cherish!



So GG, either that helped or confused the beejeezus out of you more.



One last note: Seatbelts…last week, here in LA, a mother and three of her small children were killed in an accident. Only one 12 yr old child survived the crash and she was wearing her seatbelt. The others were all thrown from their vehicle and killed instantly. Now regrettably, a young man has to bury his wife and children. Whether mandated or not, wear seatbelts people…they save lives.

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by sparrow



It is official, there is a date for the recall election of California Gov. Davis. October 7 has been chosen as the date for the election. Question is now, who will run against him. Will Arnold finaly stop side stepping and put his hat in the ring? Will the field be flooded with Republican hopefulls and who will the Democrats to step up.

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by sparrow



Let's just hope that there will be no tripling of the car registration fees. As a Californian I just think that it is amazing that no matter what political party your affiliated with you have to realize that the people has voices their opinion, people from all parties, across the state. People are still angry over the energy crisis, the huge state deficit and now the still non existant budget and the proposed increase in vehicle fees. The democratic legislature is looking into a way that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamonte will fill in. Don't know if they can do this.

[4WiccanLuv]

Amen Sparrow…and let’s add to that the fact that since Davis took office over four years ago, California has gone from the #1 state in the union to #50 in loss of commerce. Businesses are running out of here faster than you can blink and relocating in other states such as Arizona and Nevada where it’s much cheaper. Our job loss is their gain. It’s nearly impossible to run a successful business what with the skyrocketing cost of premiums for Workers Comp Ins and fraudulent lawsuits. The employer has no recourse or control over these problems due to lax legislation. BTW, the trial lawyers contribute BIG BUCKS to Davis’ campaigns, trust me I know, I worked for a plaintiff law firm for over 15 years.



California is currently bankrupt running on borrowed money that it can't pay back and all this due straight out careless spending. They've already shut down hundreds of childcare centers, terminated thousands of state workers, college tuition fees have shot through the roof, they’re thinking of raising the state tax yet again and it's already at 8.25%, the list goes on and on....

Quote:

---

The democratic legislature is looking into a way that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will fill in. Don't know if they can do this.

---

The way I understand it is if Davis were to step down now, Lt. Governor, Cruz Bustamante would rightly fill in and there would be no vote in October, recall petitions or no. However, I sincerely doubt Davis would do that, he'll probably be doing what he does best...raising money in an attempt to bail himself out! The only possible candidates I'm interested in are McClintock (R) and Feinstein (D), but neither have thrown their hats into the ring, so we’ll have to wait and see. And as far as D. Issa is concerned, yes he may have put up tons of money to get the recall going, but I think he's going to be severely disappointed in the end.

Quote:

---

1) that the crapful state of California's (and the rest of the U.S.!) economy has far more to do w/ Republican greed and mismanagement (inside California and "trickling down" from the Dubya Cesspool) than anything Davis has or hasn't done . .

---

GG, I disagree with this statement. California has been run by Democrats for the past 4-5 years. Clinton was still in office when Davis became governor…how you can blame Bush is beyond me. Bottom-line is that Davis has done a craptific job, he *should* step down.



CTLA campaign contributions

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

Edited by: 4WiccanLuv  at: 7/24/03 7:40 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Exsqueeze me? Clinton left the U.S. w/ a surplus---Dubya's giving us the biggest deficits in U.S. history! I'm not saying Bush is entirely responsible for the worst recession in a generation (the Dot.Com Bust was clearly already coming before the 2000 election), but it's clear that his back-loaded tax cuts, favoring the wealthiest, while driving up the national debt, have made the recession significantly worse.



As I've said before, California's energy crisis was greatly intensified (if not caused outright) by Dubya's (and "President Cheney's") pals in the energy biz, like "Kenny-Boy" Lay at Enron. I'm not saying that Davis is above reproach here, but he's nowhere near the player in this debaucle that the Bushies are.



And besides, every state's economy is crapful, so how can California's possibly be all Davis' fault? California has the largest budget shortfall, but then again, it's by far the biggest budget (of the most populous state).

Quote:

---

They've already shut down hundreds of childcare centers, terminated thousands of state workers, college tuition fees have shot through the roof, they’re thinking of raising the state tax yet again

---

: yeah, that's true of my state, too, and how many others? We're not all running to recall our governors, though.



There are any number of loathsome Republican officeholders I would like out of office ASAP, but absent something impeachable (like, say, lying in order to start a unilateral war), I don't see how you can justify the extraordinary disruption, to say nothing of the cost, of a recall.* But hey, that's one bed my Native State will have to lie in.



BTW, thanks, 4WL for your response to my questions---I'll get back to you on that. My arguments here may in no way be persuasive to you, or to many else for that matter (this always happens to me---must be my obnoxiousness ). However, when more eloquent Democrats (and open-minded Independents and even Republicans) give voice to their righteous rage, I think the billionaire-paid-for smokescreen around this recall is going to dissipate in the fresh air of Truth.



GG And you say things are tough for the poor employers and business owners, vs. those naughty workers? Simple: make every business a workers cooperative, then everyone will play for the same team. THINK LEFT! Out



*Note: I don't call on Dubya's impeachment for his discombobulation of the economy---that's what November '04 is for, babe!

[darkmagicwillow]

Exsqueeze me? Clinton left the U.S. w/ a surplus---Dubya's giving us the biggest deficits in U.S. history! I'm not saying Bush is entirely responsible for the worst recession in a generation (the Dot.Com Bust was clearly already coming before the 2000 election), but it's clear that his back-loaded tax cuts, favoring the wealthiest, while driving up the national debt, have made the recession significantly worse.

While Bush may have the worst economic policy since FDR, I'm not sure that his policies have had time to percolate through the economy for us to feel them yet. It'll be a lot worse when the time comes to pay off those bills for military spending and tax cuts.



Hmmm...Bush may be tied with FDR for inept domestic policy, but FDR (or at least his advisors) was better at foreign affairs. While presidents managed to worsen the domestic economy through bungled policy initiatives, FDR cleverly involved the US into a war which he knew would get America out of the depression, whereas Bush ham-handedly got America into a war that's sure to exacerbate its economic woes with the $4billion/month cost of occupying Iraq.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Gatito Grande]

OK, dmw, article-of-faith time: FDR was one of the greatest leaders in American history (far and away my favorite President of that tortured century). Don't you diss GG's Sacred Cow. (Besides, didn't he have the Supreme Court, Republicans and Dixiecrats thwarting him at most every turn?)



Five or so years ago, I heard a recording of FDR that just bowled me over: speaking of his opponents' efforts to stop the New Deal, he said "They hate me for it, and I welcome their hatred!" (Such a refreshing change from the focus-group, Offend No One politics of, well, *most Democrats* of recent times).

Quote:

---

FDR cleverly involved the US into a war

---

Now dmw, be fair: I'm a *pacifist*, but even I'm not going to call the U.S. role in smashing Fascism (those most unpleasant Nazi death camps---hello?), as merely a war the U.S. was "involved into."



GG You know what they say "if your neighbor is unemployed, it's a recession, if *you're* unemployed, it's a depression"? Well, GG really wishes there was a WPA right about now . . . Out

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

Exsqueeze me? Clinton left the U.S. w/ a surplus---Dubya's giving us the biggest deficits in U.S. history!

---

GG, I can use your very same argument and say that Pete Wilson left California w/a surplus…but we’ll just go around in circles here.

Quote:

---

yeah, that's true of my state, too, and how many others? We're not all running to recall our governors, though.

---

Why should you? I'm not sure which state you hail from, but I doubt it is fiscally bankrupt? I understand it’s bad all over, but I can't imagine it's to the extent of California's troubles.

Quote:

---

And you say things are tough for the poor employers and business owners, vs. those naughty workers

---

Without those poor employers and naughty businesses, workers wouldn’t be needed. I’d like to keep my job thank you very much. Does that make me selfish? Oh well....

Quote:

---

I don't see how you can justify the extraordinary disruption, to say nothing of the cost, of a recall.*

---

I guess you’d have to live here to understand the general sentiments of most Californians. 1.2 million signatures say a hell of a lot! If people weren’t so angry, they would have blown off the recall drive, but they didn't and it snowballed. I can’t tell you how many Democrats I know personally that lined up to sign these petitions. If people want to call it a “coup” then damn straight it is, but it's the citizens that are taking back their state. BTW, nothing is set in stone, we can still end up electing another Democrat, we just want someone who is better qualified!

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

Edited by: maudmac  at: 7/25/03 1:45 am

[justin]

Since I know next to nothing about what's happening in California I'll instead address the idea of making every business a workers cooperative.



IMAO that is a damn good idea. If I understand you correctly then the workers (oops almost used the p word) would get a fair share of any profits that they generate and would have a say in the running of the company. That is how businesses should be run.



Might I suggest that we take things further and nationalise all businesses, putting them and their profits under the control of the people?



Anyway where is this planet Gatito, I want to live there.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[darkmagicwillow]

OK, dmw, article-of-faith time: FDR was one of the greatest leaders in American history (far and away my favorite President of that tortured century).

He was certainly charismatic and even courageous, but he was displayed little intelligence or focus in either his personal or political life. While the WPA was a good idea and he did experience opposition to his policies, he had and successfully executed just as many bad policies, his economic bumbling overall worsening the Great Depression until he discovered WWII as a way out. It was people like Eisenhower, Hull, and Stimson who are responsible for many of the American political successes of WWII, often having to push Roosevelt to renege on whatever foolishness he had just agreed to.

Now dmw, be fair: I'm a *pacifist*, but even I'm not going to call the U.S. role in smashing Fascism (those most unpleasant Nazi death camps---hello?), as merely a war the U.S. was "involved into."

Stopping the Holocaust wasn't even on the board as one the US's war aims during WWII. After all, the US continued to deny Jews fleeing it entry into the US due to its immigration quota system after the US knew about the camps. The War Refugee Board wasn't established until 1944.



I'd think that you would be especially cynical about US involvement in WWII since one of the major political war aims was suppressing the Left. Remember the winter where the US announced that it wasn't going to advance any further in Italy on open radio, thus allowing the Germans to liquidate the Italian Leftist partisans in the North, eliminating them as a factor in Italy's postwar goverment? What about the Leftist demonstrators the Allies shot in Belgium after it was liberated? Or the British invasion of Greece after the Nazis withdrew all their troops so they British could suppress the possibility of the EAM dominating the postwar government? And of course the fact that the Anglo-Americans let the Soviets, who they saw as Leftist whether or not you do, fight 75% of the German army for four years while the Ango-Americans fought less than 5% until the last year of the war.



While there are qualities I admire about FDR and he had some great accomplishments, I don't think he's a hero, especially not to the Left.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Gatito Grande]

I've come to the conclusion that it is time for me to retire from this thread for awhile ("And there was much rejoicing!" ).



I'm an idealist, no bones about it. Like Robert JFK, "I dream of things that never were, and say why not?" Workers cooperatives. A stronger UN, and eventually the abolition of the nation-state system. An end to violence as a way of "resolving (yeah, right) conflict." Same-sex marriage everywhere.



But dreaming of a better world (one where I'm like, maybe, employed?) seems kinda off topic right now. Then again, maybe my dreams really are too fragile/impractical for the World Today (a subsidiary of Bechtel/Halliburton Inc.). I don't know.



I do know that I love Willow and Tara, and that what they share is, to me, an icon for all kinds of possibilities. Of Love. Of Magic. I'm going to focus on them for awhile (in-between job-applying, of course), and less on the day-to-day of Dubya's latest outrage, or Gray Davis/FDR's supposed sins. I suspect, by avoiding this thread, I'll feel better---maybe the rest of you who remain will, too.



GG Shalom, Political Kittens Out

[Blue Pariah]

For everyone arguing about Left/Right, Democrat/Republican, I think it would be a good idea to read THIS article. The old definitions just don't apply any more.

I take to shade and I play in the shadows
I watch my back and I play it cool
"Blue Pariah" by BRJ

[DaddyCatALSO]

I always *knew* the word "conservative" didn't describe me correctly.

[darkmagicwillow]

Musician Janis Ian has written an interesting article giving her perspective as a musician on the free downloading of music.

The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free downloading.



Nonsense. Let's take it from my personal experience. My site (http://www.janisian.com ) gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But… that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money in my book. And that doesn't include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows.



Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores and libraries. As she said herself: "For the past ten years, my three "Arrows" books, which were published by DAW about 15 years ago, have been generating a nice, steady royalty check per pay-period each. A reasonable amount, for fifteen-year-old books. However... I just got the first half of my DAW royalties...And suddenly, out of nowhere, each Arrows book has paid me three times the normal amount!...And because those books have never been out of print, and have always been promoted along with the rest of the backlist, the only significant change during that pay-period was something that happened over at Baen, one of my other publishers. That was when I had my co-author Eric Flint put the first of my Baen books on the Baen Free Library site. Because I have significantly more books with DAW than with Baen, the increases showed up at DAW first. There's an increase in all of the books on that statement, actually, and what it looks like is what I'd expect to happen if a steady line of people who'd never read my stuff encountered it on the Free Library - a certain percentage of them liked it, and started to work through my backlist, beginning with the earliest books published. The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than 'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works."



I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot.



And I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise.



Now, RIAA and NARAS, as well as most of the entrenched music industry, are arguing that free downloads hurt sales. (More than hurt - they're saying it's destroying the industry.)

...

the music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[maudmac]

I like a whole lot of what Janis Ian has to say about pretty much everything.



I could probably argue either side of this issue, because I think both sides have some valid points. But, legalities aside, I agree that free works. It's standard practice in so many industries to offer customers (and, most importantly, prospective customers) a sample of a product, I don't understand why the music industry can't see that it's good business. The reason sales are horrible in the music industry is because they are putting out absolute shit, not because people are sharing songs online.



One hundred percent of my most recent CD purchases were the result of file-sharing of one type or another. Because I got to hear it - for free - first, I bought it because it blew me away with its wonderfulness. What I've listened to for free that I didn't like...well, I wasn't gonna be buying that anyway, so no one's losing a sale.



Another issue, too, is that I often download a song I like because it's quicker and easier than going downstairs, finding the CD, bringing it back upstairs, and ripping it. I'm not stealing. I bought it already.



The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good information about these issues.

---

Green green grass surrounding me / Wind is blowing through the trees / Sun is bright and I feel happy -- Shonen Knife