Breaking News: Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
I love The Onion :-) Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats WASHINGTON, DC-Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55018 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
> Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote: > >> Charlie wrote: > >> Still got a long way to go, especially in > countries where they're > >> specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay > marriage. Round and round we go. > > I agree, but younger people have more tolerant > attitudes and are more > > likely to ask why we discourage loving > relationships. > Yep. > >> Seeing friends with legal marriage from one > country recognised in > >> another, and other friends with legal marriage > from that country > >> *not* recognised in the other, purely on gender, > upsets me greatly. > > > > Yes, but twenty years ago we probably wouldn't > even dream of having > > this conversation so at least we seem to be making > good progress. > > To drag this back to the start of this thread and > Ted Haggard's > spectacular self-destruct, it's the closet itself > that's the problem, > and with more and more GLBTs out of the closet, > we're all learning > acceptance. The only way to genuinely combat > discrimination is > exposure to differences. You're right on the > progress, it's just > disheartening to keep having to refight the same > battles over and over. I'm not sure who put Referendum I on our ballot (gays for real civil rights? evangelicals to get the base out?), but I voted for it [granting legal status for gay couples who wish to be legally bound]. Rehashing old battles does seem to devour a great deal of time and energy. Debbi Off For A Lesson Maru (and what a lovely day it is!) Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms https://www2.nextag.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
Julia Thompson wrote: > >> I know what He says. I also know what He says about "1984". >> But I am discussing the scare of "1984", not the 1984-zation >> of Airstrip One. > > I'm lost, Alberto. Words of 7 syllables or less and/or linky > goodness to help me out here? > Ok. "He" with a capital _H_ means His Brinness. 1984 is George Orwell's novel. Airstrip One is the name of England in the 1984 Universe. See the Wikipedia for more details (except that He with a capital _H_ might link to God). See also His page, and what He wrote about 1984. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying home surveillance as "equivalent" to that of Russia and China. Which is absolute and total rubbish. What is rubbish? My report is as acurate as an eyewitness can be :-P As He wrote, the best quality of science fiction is portraying such a horrible future that people will fight to prevent it. 1984 still resonates in Airstrip One. You're trying to put the genie back into the bottle. Who, me? I think you might want to consider what the Brin had to say about doing that with surveylance tech. I know what He says. I also know what He says about "1984". But I am discussing the scare of "1984", not the 1984-zation of Airstrip One. Alberto Monteiro I'm lost, Alberto. Words of 7 syllables or less and/or linky goodness to help me out here? Julia "antidisestablishmentarianism" is right out ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying >> home surveillance as "equivalent" to that of Russia and China. > > Which is absolute and total rubbish. > What is rubbish? My report is as acurate as an eyewitness can be :-P >> As He wrote, the best quality of science fiction is portraying >> such a horrible future that people will fight to prevent it. >> 1984 still resonates in Airstrip One. > > You're trying to put the genie back into the bottle. > Who, me? > I think you might want to consider what the Brin had to say about > doing that with surveylance tech. > I know what He says. I also know what He says about "1984". But I am discussing the scare of "1984", not the 1984-zation of Airstrip One. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
On 7 Nov 2006 at 13:27, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are > > covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human > > rights act, and a right to privacy. > > > I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying > home surveillance as "equivalent" to that of Russia and China. Which is absolute and total rubbish. It just makes a good story that a study which only looks at possible policies, not the controls on them, had come up with. > As He wrote, the best quality of science fiction is portraying > such a horrible future that people will fight to prevent it. > 1984 still resonates in Airstrip One. You're trying to put the genie back into the bottle. I think you might want to consider what the Brin had to say about doing that with surveylance tech. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
Andrew Crystall wrote: > > And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are > covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human > rights act, and a right to privacy. > I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying home surveillance as "equivalent" to that of Russia and China. As He wrote, the best quality of science fiction is portraying such a horrible future that people will fight to prevent it. 1984 still resonates in Airstrip One. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Those who can't, teach
Nick Arnett wrote: All you 'merican citizens out there in Brin-L land, please vote tomorrow. Can't. Voted Friday. :) One of my friends voted Thursday because she's working the election, at a precinct rather far from her house, and wouldn't be able to vote at her precinct today. That's a very important job, and I'm glad she stepped up to do that. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Nitpick Re: Judicial Activism
jdiebremse wrote: There is certainly a bit of a judgment call when dealing with bad precedent as to how best to overturn it. For instance, the same people who love stare decisis when it comes to Roe v. Wade, wouldn't dream of deferring to precedent in Pessy v. Ferguson or in Korematsu... Plessy, not Pessy. :) (Missed a letter typing?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Those who can't, teach
Dan Minette wrote: > I think we've reached a > point where we cannot stop a civil war from happening. We > can, as long as we stay, stretch out the first phases of that > war, but I think the most likely outcome of staying the > course will be to increase the potential suffering, instead > of decreasing it. Yep. And any attempts to train army/police would ultimately mean arming and training different factions. Otoh, if the Coalition were to suddenly announce the intention to withdraw, people with a stake in the region will have to step up and be responsible. Not that it it's going to be easy, not that the power hasn't devolved almost completely, but sooner or later someone has to sort the mess out, and that wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. > So, I think our differences involve our understanding of the > most likely effects of staying until things improve > substantially Wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. Right now the Coalition is responsible for Iraq, the weak Iraqi govt notwithstanding. And, as enough commanders on the site have said, the Coalition is a part of the problem. If you withdraw, you force the Iraqis and their neighbours to focus on their responsibilities. And you also remove a part of the problem. Besides, since the force has demonstrably not been large enough to establish and maintain peace, keeping it in Iraq will achieve little beyond prolonging the departure. I am not saying that there wouldn't be a great loss of life as the last restraint melts and war erupts within Iraq, I am not saying that the US wouldn't be blamed. Both these things will happen. But they will happen anyway. The only difference is that the longer the Coalition stays on in Iraq, any kind of a resolution is further delayed, and the patterns of chaos become more complex. > or we are told to leave Wouldn't happen. Thanks to the Coalition's postwar policies, any Iraqi government is denied a functioning police and military. Both these institutions have been deliberately weakened, and the Iraqi govt depends on the US troops to function as instruments of state's coercive power. > vs. the most likely outcome of having a withdrawal timetable. Politically, it would create a storm. 'Cutting and running' would be the phrase of the day, and Bush's foreign policy will be finally acknowledged as a disaster. Diplomatically, it would be a severe blow to the US image and international clout. It would be seen as an admission of defeat. Militarily, it would be a sensible decision. The US army will get a chance to rest, recoup, and refit. A significant portion of the Merkin army is stuck in Iraq, doing things it just wasn't supposed to be doing. If the media reports are even halfway accurate, the stress is formidable, and it will take some time to build the army up to its former level of readiness. Economically, well, very few post-withdrawal commitments can be quite as heavy as stationing the troops and the corporations in Iraq. Strategically, you will need to focus on containing the mess instead of pouring your resources down the pipeline called 'cleaning up the mess'. And that would involve dual focus - repercussions in the region, events within Iraq. The former would involve a change of strategy vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, the latter...sigh, that's a separate bundle of problems. The withdrawal can easily mean an unrestrained explosion within Iraq. The only way to restrain the bloodshed somewhat would be a robust UN force but that is not going to happen. So, in practical terms, Iraq would be on its own and we'd have to wait and see what'd happen there. Callous as it sounds, sooner or later things will come down to that. The only question is when and under what circumstances. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
On 07/11/2006, at 11:46 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote: An oddly on-topic article.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human rights act, and a right to privacy. But, increasingly, your movements will be tracked, through card usage and satellite vehicle tracking. They're pushing it as far as they can. Good job the ECHR was enacted and ratified, it's restricted the UK government's ability to breach privacy, and forced the Human Rights Act to bring the UK in line with Europe. America has no equivalent of those. Other than the 4th Amendment, you're right. Privacy is actually more weakly defined in the States. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote: They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're being treated differently. But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership between three people." The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted, fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else. You're also being obtuse. I have attempted to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair enough, you don't want that wider discussion. First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue. For example, when you write: Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals" and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views across the US political spectrum. it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time. Of course there is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that are useful. When people start arguing about not using labels to discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense that they are not being serious about the discussion. I'm being serious, I just think your characterisation of both liberals and conservatives are straw men, and your generalisations are vastly too broad. It's the whole "dems think they're smarter than reps, reps think they're more moral than dems" thing, and that's not true either. In my experience the label is rarely actually useful - the sorts of people described as "liberal" in the States seem to me to be a pretty broad bunch who actually think all sorts of things. It doesn't seem to be a useful term any more at all. As I said, the last lot of people I saw coming out in favour of an activist judiciary were pro-IDers, who I'd be guessing would be "conservative" by your measure as they were all for Judge Jones, Republican appointee, before the trial. (He's a class act, by the way, his recent talks on the need for an independent judiciary were top notch). Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions. I don't know what more you want. Like I said, the server issues may have sent some of that thread into the aether. But I've also asked why if you're in favour of civil unions for gay people, you'd be against civil marriage for those same people (as the mechanism is there). I fully respect the right of churches to marry or refuse to marry anyone they choose, but I don't see the point of inventing a new class of civil union when we've got a perfectly good set of civil union laws already, in the form of a marriage down the registry office or by a civil celebrant. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?
On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote: > An oddly on-topic article.. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human rights act, and a right to privacy. America has no equivalent of those. The "criteria" used in the study mentioned also ignore how much must be authorised by a judge, and how much by a burocrat. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Or is it moral, just > >> and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual > >> orientation? > > > > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is > > free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation > > They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're > being treated differently. But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership between three people." > You're also being obtuse. I have attempted > to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in > the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair > enough, you don't want that wider discussion. First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue. For example, when you write: > Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a > bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of > time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because > some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover > furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused > of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist > judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the > courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph > would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals" > and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views > across the US political spectrum. it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time. Of course there is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that are useful. When people start arguing about not using labels to discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense that they are not being serious about the discussion. Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions. I don't know what more you want. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
