31.0°F Fair [Forecast]
ADVISORY!
:: Tuesday, February 9th, 2010CapeCodToday Blog Chowder
Welcome to CapeCodToday's Blog Chowder! This page aggregates the most recent postings from all the CapeCodToday bloggers for your convenience. Bookmark this page or see below left for RSS options.Latest comments
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Cape Cod Home Helpers
Specializing in providing the best in home health care solutions for seniors and those recuperating from recent illness or injury in Barnstable County, MA. Meal preparation, shower/bath assistance and medication reminders. Serving all of Cape Cod. (Dennis)
Specializing in providing the best in home health care solutions for seniors and those recuperating from recent illness or injury in Barnstable County, MA. Meal preparation, shower/bath assistance and medication reminders. Serving all of Cape Cod. (Dennis)
Printex
Quality ink and toner at a super savings! A local green company that offers excellent customer service, personal service, and free delivery to your home or office. Contact us today to see how much you can SAVE! (Dennis)
Quality ink and toner at a super savings! A local green company that offers excellent customer service, personal service, and free delivery to your home or office. Contact us today to see how much you can SAVE! (Dennis)
Richard [Member]
In response to: The #1 Argument AGAINST Cape Wind
In response to: The #1 Argument AGAINST Cape Wind
Hi, Ted
Better watch out 'cause if Peter Walker reads your comment he'll accuse you of "plagiarism." The fish quote is from W.C. Fields, explaining why he always drank whiskey.
Better watch out 'cause if Peter Walker reads your comment he'll accuse you of "plagiarism." The fish quote is from W.C. Fields, explaining why he always drank whiskey.
Richard [Member]
In response to: COFFEE OR TEA-SARAH'S GOT A BRAND NEW BAG
In response to: COFFEE OR TEA-SARAH'S GOT A BRAND NEW BAG
Regarding Sarah, it looks like she'll have real competition in the GOP primary from Cosmo Boy Scott Brown. His macho, truck driving beefcake will overpower her airhead cheesecake -unless, of course, she agrees to another shot as VP. Is that a dream ticket or what?
Just hope that Scotty boy is dumb enough to give Katie Couric a shot at him on prime time television. He'll know more Supreme Court cases than Palin who couldn't name a single one other than Roe v. Wade, but he's someone who takes a lot of financial industry money and doesn't want to regulate the bankers. Like Dave Kent says, he's just a Reagonomic supply-sider and someone has to pin him down as to exactly how he thinks all that "free enterprise" easy money b.s. is gonna did us out of the hole W's small government deregulation dug us into.
Just hope that Scotty boy is dumb enough to give Katie Couric a shot at him on prime time television. He'll know more Supreme Court cases than Palin who couldn't name a single one other than Roe v. Wade, but he's someone who takes a lot of financial industry money and doesn't want to regulate the bankers. Like Dave Kent says, he's just a Reagonomic supply-sider and someone has to pin him down as to exactly how he thinks all that "free enterprise" easy money b.s. is gonna did us out of the hole W's small government deregulation dug us into.
Richard [Member]
In response to: COFFEE OR TEA-SARAH'S GOT A BRAND NEW BAG
In response to: COFFEE OR TEA-SARAH'S GOT A BRAND NEW BAG
Don't you just love the photo on the CC Times sports page today. Tracy Porter with the ball, pointing to the end zone, a teammate right behind him with both arms raised, and Peyton baby on his back,helplesly looking at his new round of high end endorsements going over to Drew Breese. I love it!
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
Hey, coybaby
They're still just factoids that have nothing to do with the larger questions concerning our national economic health that I have raised -and you still haven't answered coherently, without the typical wingnut attempt at diversion a la Ford and UAW, because you can't.
So, insted of pressing Dave for answers to your questions, why don't you answer mine and tell everyone exactly why financial deregulation is good, like Sen. Brown believes, when it allows a market in over the counter derivatives to become so large, based on inflated valuation of underlying assets, it causes the whole economy to crash after a relatively small segment of the mortgage market defaults.
Facts and figures please, as opposed to the usual right wing "free enterprise" sloganeering you do get on Fox TV, rant radio and from GOP back benchers like Brown and Perry.
They're still just factoids that have nothing to do with the larger questions concerning our national economic health that I have raised -and you still haven't answered coherently, without the typical wingnut attempt at diversion a la Ford and UAW, because you can't.
So, insted of pressing Dave for answers to your questions, why don't you answer mine and tell everyone exactly why financial deregulation is good, like Sen. Brown believes, when it allows a market in over the counter derivatives to become so large, based on inflated valuation of underlying assets, it causes the whole economy to crash after a relatively small segment of the mortgage market defaults.
Facts and figures please, as opposed to the usual right wing "free enterprise" sloganeering you do get on Fox TV, rant radio and from GOP back benchers like Brown and Perry.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod Patients: Know Why You're Taking that Prescription
In response to: Cape Cod Patients: Know Why You're Taking that Prescription
Hi, Bruce
It's not just Big Pharma that uses hired gun "experts" to fool the public, as I'm sure you know. We can choose not to use a drug as individuals, but we can't stop the effects of climate change unless we act as a society to eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as feasibly possible.
It's not just Big Pharma that uses hired gun "experts" to fool the public, as I'm sure you know. We can choose not to use a drug as individuals, but we can't stop the effects of climate change unless we act as a society to eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as feasibly possible.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MMS's "Rushed" Study
In response to: MMS's "Rushed" Study
So, what unique cultural, scenic, historic or "sacred" features do you think Salazar actually saw as he crossed Horseshoe Shoal -as opposed to just waves on the surface of the Sound?
The Kennedy compound maybe?
The Kennedy compound maybe?
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
Hi, possee
Where we disagree on this is that you believe the decline to be inevitable, while I say that with wise leadership that can bring about real change we can continue to thrive, both politically and economically, as a democracy.
Unfortunately, as shown by the recent election of Sen. Brown, R. Mass., it appears that you may be correct. He campaigned on the slogan of "change," but what he really means is to change back to the free market nonsense that caused the current crisis under the Bush administration's agenda of deregulation, informed by Reaganomic small government ideology.
The cultures that fail, historically, are those which prove incapable of real change, such as the Democrats present attempt to rein in the excesses of the corporatist plutocrats who support candidates like Brown.
We're never gonna get back to the Jeffersonian ideal because we can't. We've grown too big for that. So the only choice we have is between rule by "big government," which we can control, or by corporatist big business which we can't control without governmental regulation and taxes
Where we disagree on this is that you believe the decline to be inevitable, while I say that with wise leadership that can bring about real change we can continue to thrive, both politically and economically, as a democracy.
Unfortunately, as shown by the recent election of Sen. Brown, R. Mass., it appears that you may be correct. He campaigned on the slogan of "change," but what he really means is to change back to the free market nonsense that caused the current crisis under the Bush administration's agenda of deregulation, informed by Reaganomic small government ideology.
The cultures that fail, historically, are those which prove incapable of real change, such as the Democrats present attempt to rein in the excesses of the corporatist plutocrats who support candidates like Brown.
We're never gonna get back to the Jeffersonian ideal because we can't. We've grown too big for that. So the only choice we have is between rule by "big government," which we can control, or by corporatist big business which we can't control without governmental regulation and taxes
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
Hi, nrn
I most certainly agree with you about the desirability of civil discourse. Unfortunately, however, that is something that has fallen by the wayside due to Republican obstructionism -as opposed to loyal opposition, as when Congressmen yell "liar" at the President or minority Senate leaders say they just want the President to fail, that plus right wing rant radio calling everyone names who doesn't adhere to the strict right wing agenda they claim to be the infallible truth.
So, I simply come back at that stuff in kind, as it's the only way to get the attention of those hard core "conservative" ideologues who respond to my posts -and to show them just how wrong they are and thus expose the emptiness of their right wing rhetoric.
I do this by asking questions that they can't answer, such as giving an explanation of how unregulated derivatives are for the national economy, in light of Sen. Brown's aversion to regulation. I also ask just where the Constitution requires strict "free market" capitalism or prohibits socialization of essential services. (Hint: It doesn't).
I most certainly agree with you about the desirability of civil discourse. Unfortunately, however, that is something that has fallen by the wayside due to Republican obstructionism -as opposed to loyal opposition, as when Congressmen yell "liar" at the President or minority Senate leaders say they just want the President to fail, that plus right wing rant radio calling everyone names who doesn't adhere to the strict right wing agenda they claim to be the infallible truth.
So, I simply come back at that stuff in kind, as it's the only way to get the attention of those hard core "conservative" ideologues who respond to my posts -and to show them just how wrong they are and thus expose the emptiness of their right wing rhetoric.
I do this by asking questions that they can't answer, such as giving an explanation of how unregulated derivatives are for the national economy, in light of Sen. Brown's aversion to regulation. I also ask just where the Constitution requires strict "free market" capitalism or prohibits socialization of essential services. (Hint: It doesn't).
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
Hi, ding
You say we're "deranged dingbats," so maybe you can explain exactly how over-valued, unregulated derivatives, CDOs and CDSs sold over the counter, bundled mortgage "securities" etc., actually gave us a strong, sustainable economy -as opposed to a solid manufacturing base supported by investing in stocks, despite the crash of 2008 when everthing came tumbling down because a small percentage of underqualified borrowers defaulted on mortgage debt.
Facts and figures please to support your vapid, wingnut opinions. Or do you even understand what I'm talking about?
You say we're "deranged dingbats," so maybe you can explain exactly how over-valued, unregulated derivatives, CDOs and CDSs sold over the counter, bundled mortgage "securities" etc., actually gave us a strong, sustainable economy -as opposed to a solid manufacturing base supported by investing in stocks, despite the crash of 2008 when everthing came tumbling down because a small percentage of underqualified borrowers defaulted on mortgage debt.
Facts and figures please to support your vapid, wingnut opinions. Or do you even understand what I'm talking about?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
coy, baby
You absorb all those factoids from the right wing hacks on Fox media, but you understand nothing.
It's not what Ford or the UAW did or didn't do. It's what unregulated FIRE did with our national wealth, with tax incentives to boot. The reason we went from over 30% manufacturing and under 20% FIRE in 1980 to just the reverse in 2005 has nothing to do with Ford or UAW. It has everything to do with the government making it far more attractive, via deregulation and tax policy, to invest in FIRE "products" like high risk derivatives and bundled mortgate "securities", and for investors to use leveraged money to buy viable companies and sell off assets.
No world power has ever sustained itself on the basis of a financialized economy -that's one of the factors that allowed the US to eclipse England, and it's happening now to us with China emerging to be the dominant 21st century economic power.
One thing we could do is reindustrialize with alternative energy technology but, no-o-o, W gave us a trillion dollar oil war, and didn't even get the 30 oil year leases in Iraq.
You absorb all those factoids from the right wing hacks on Fox media, but you understand nothing.
It's not what Ford or the UAW did or didn't do. It's what unregulated FIRE did with our national wealth, with tax incentives to boot. The reason we went from over 30% manufacturing and under 20% FIRE in 1980 to just the reverse in 2005 has nothing to do with Ford or UAW. It has everything to do with the government making it far more attractive, via deregulation and tax policy, to invest in FIRE "products" like high risk derivatives and bundled mortgate "securities", and for investors to use leveraged money to buy viable companies and sell off assets.
No world power has ever sustained itself on the basis of a financialized economy -that's one of the factors that allowed the US to eclipse England, and it's happening now to us with China emerging to be the dominant 21st century economic power.
One thing we could do is reindustrialize with alternative energy technology but, no-o-o, W gave us a trillion dollar oil war, and didn't even get the 30 oil year leases in Iraq.
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
Hi, Cru
Those rich, corporate Republicans really like Switzerland. It's where they hide their money from the IRS, and it's also where they used send their knocked up daughters before Roe v. Wade -to "finishing school," so they could demagogue the religious right about "family values" and abortion.
Those rich, corporate Republicans really like Switzerland. It's where they hide their money from the IRS, and it's also where they used send their knocked up daughters before Roe v. Wade -to "finishing school," so they could demagogue the religious right about "family values" and abortion.
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY ENTERS RACE FOR U.S. CONGRESS
Hi, lib
What is broke, aside from a functioning democratic government with a loyal opposition -as opposed to what we've got with the GOP's ideological obstructionism, is the economy, stupid.
After 30 years of Reaganomic "small government" nonsense, with deregulation on steroids during the Bush II years, the economy has gone from one with a strong manufacturing sector and a supportive financial sector, to one dominated by finance -basically unregulated finance, with a quickly vanishing manufacturing sector. This leads to a massive shortfall in our balance of trade, exacerbated by our financial system being based on debt to countries like China and Japan, whose goods we buy, as opposed to credit.
I know it makes some people's hair hurt to think about these things, especially since it contradicts their conventional idiocy of "free market" deregulation, but that's also a big part of what's wrong -a populace who doesn't think but simply reacts to mindless right-wing slogans like "government is the problem" and "no taxes" -which allows FIRE corporations to become to big to fail.
What is broke, aside from a functioning democratic government with a loyal opposition -as opposed to what we've got with the GOP's ideological obstructionism, is the economy, stupid.
After 30 years of Reaganomic "small government" nonsense, with deregulation on steroids during the Bush II years, the economy has gone from one with a strong manufacturing sector and a supportive financial sector, to one dominated by finance -basically unregulated finance, with a quickly vanishing manufacturing sector. This leads to a massive shortfall in our balance of trade, exacerbated by our financial system being based on debt to countries like China and Japan, whose goods we buy, as opposed to credit.
I know it makes some people's hair hurt to think about these things, especially since it contradicts their conventional idiocy of "free market" deregulation, but that's also a big part of what's wrong -a populace who doesn't think but simply reacts to mindless right-wing slogans like "government is the problem" and "no taxes" -which allows FIRE corporations to become to big to fail.
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
So coyrat
Why don't you share all those "smart" ideas you have, and Cosmo Boy has, that will make the fat cat bankers who bankrolled him behave themselves without the federal government regulating them and/or using tax policy to coerce them into doing right by all the "mill workers" -the Walmart workers too these days?
How's Cosmo Boy gonna do that without supporting the Dems regulatory agenda? Give some specifics here, please.
Why don't you share all those "smart" ideas you have, and Cosmo Boy has, that will make the fat cat bankers who bankrolled him behave themselves without the federal government regulating them and/or using tax policy to coerce them into doing right by all the "mill workers" -the Walmart workers too these days?
How's Cosmo Boy gonna do that without supporting the Dems regulatory agenda? Give some specifics here, please.
Richard [Member]
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
In response to: What Over The Counter Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?
So, Mon
Is that why they keep voting for guys like Brown who want to keep the bankers driving those silver beemers with the money they make with "creative" financial "products" that result in putting the mill guys out of work and foreclosing their homes? They could do a lot worse than listen to TR, and judging from the past special election for senator they surely did.
Is that why they keep voting for guys like Brown who want to keep the bankers driving those silver beemers with the money they make with "creative" financial "products" that result in putting the mill guys out of work and foreclosing their homes? They could do a lot worse than listen to TR, and judging from the past special election for senator they surely did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Osterville oligarch Bunny Mellon financed Edwards love child
In response to: Osterville oligarch Bunny Mellon financed Edwards love child
So Buzz
You a repressed homo or what? Why else would you think I might have a "man crush" on Cosmo Boy just because I made the purely objective observation that he's better looking than Newt? C'mon, Buzz, you can come out of the closet -hey, it's the 21st Century -unless maybe you've got political ambitions as a conservative Republican.
You a repressed homo or what? Why else would you think I might have a "man crush" on Cosmo Boy just because I made the purely objective observation that he's better looking than Newt? C'mon, Buzz, you can come out of the closet -hey, it's the 21st Century -unless maybe you've got political ambitions as a conservative Republican.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Osterville oligarch Bunny Mellon financed Edwards love child
In response to: Osterville oligarch Bunny Mellon financed Edwards love child
Not just Haggard, Ned. In politics think Newt, Vitter, John Ensign, Mark Sanford and the House of the Fallen Sons on C Street, all members of the GOP, Grand Old Philanderers. In religion think Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart -the list goes on and on, of course.
Sure, we all know about Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Gary Hart of the Democrats, but they didn't make a career out of gay bashing and preaching "family values." It's not the philandering, it's the hypocrisy that makes the GOPs such a laughing stock.
Now, Scotty Boy may not fall into the same category. He's a moderate on abortion and seems to be more of a corporatist Republican than a "family values" guy. Still, he's a lot better looking than Newt, so it's gonna be awful hard for him to keep those hot, young political groupies from getting into his pants.
Sure, we all know about Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Gary Hart of the Democrats, but they didn't make a career out of gay bashing and preaching "family values." It's not the philandering, it's the hypocrisy that makes the GOPs such a laughing stock.
Now, Scotty Boy may not fall into the same category. He's a moderate on abortion and seems to be more of a corporatist Republican than a "family values" guy. Still, he's a lot better looking than Newt, so it's gonna be awful hard for him to keep those hot, young political groupies from getting into his pants.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Take your pick Mashpees - a Casino or a Sunrise Greeting
In response to: Take your pick Mashpees - a Casino or a Sunrise Greeting
Here's all you need to know about those "traditional" native American rights.
I'm a long time member of Trout Unlimited with over 200 hours volunteering to reclaim the Quashnet River in Mashpee after it had been trashed by cranberry growers in the early 20th century. Matt Patrick also worked on the river as a TU member, and we both were directors of Citizens for Protection of Waquoit Bay. Matt became our lobbyist on Beacon Hill for the state acquisition of the Quashnet River watershed, from the obscene little golf course down to the Bay -which is how he got into politics.
The state DFW then took over management of the area, including the dirt access roads, and put up gates to keep the ATVs out -to prevent siltation of the river. But the Mashpee DPW kept unlocking them and leaving them unlocked. Why?
So the Wampanoag DPW workers wouldn't have to leave their pickups and walk through the woods to exercise their "traditional" hunting rights -with shotguns, of course.
Traditional, you say? So what happened to walking softly in mocassins and taking game with the bow and arrow?
I'm a long time member of Trout Unlimited with over 200 hours volunteering to reclaim the Quashnet River in Mashpee after it had been trashed by cranberry growers in the early 20th century. Matt Patrick also worked on the river as a TU member, and we both were directors of Citizens for Protection of Waquoit Bay. Matt became our lobbyist on Beacon Hill for the state acquisition of the Quashnet River watershed, from the obscene little golf course down to the Bay -which is how he got into politics.
The state DFW then took over management of the area, including the dirt access roads, and put up gates to keep the ATVs out -to prevent siltation of the river. But the Mashpee DPW kept unlocking them and leaving them unlocked. Why?
So the Wampanoag DPW workers wouldn't have to leave their pickups and walk through the woods to exercise their "traditional" hunting rights -with shotguns, of course.
Traditional, you say? So what happened to walking softly in mocassins and taking game with the bow and arrow?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
So, karetntz
Your "vote" thinks Brown and Perry understand the economic problems that caused the crash of 2008, i.e. increased financialization of the economy, with a wholesale GOP abrogation of the federal government's constitutional obligation to regulate commerce and use tax policy in order to promote the general welfare -which is expressly provided in the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8.
Perhaps, then, you can explain as neither of them has, why we should simply "change" back to the GOP deregulatory policies that allowed the investment banks and insurers to become "too big to fail," instead of taking affirmative steps via regulation and taxation to correct the causes of their failure, the harsh reality that belies Reaganomic small government ideology.
As Nobel economist Jos.Stiglitz says, we have an "ersatz capitalism" in America, privatizing all the deregulated profits and socializing the risk via bailouts.
So what are the specific ideas you think Cosmo Boy and little Jeffy have to straighten out the mess -or is this just "faith based" support on your part?
Your "vote" thinks Brown and Perry understand the economic problems that caused the crash of 2008, i.e. increased financialization of the economy, with a wholesale GOP abrogation of the federal government's constitutional obligation to regulate commerce and use tax policy in order to promote the general welfare -which is expressly provided in the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8.
Perhaps, then, you can explain as neither of them has, why we should simply "change" back to the GOP deregulatory policies that allowed the investment banks and insurers to become "too big to fail," instead of taking affirmative steps via regulation and taxation to correct the causes of their failure, the harsh reality that belies Reaganomic small government ideology.
As Nobel economist Jos.Stiglitz says, we have an "ersatz capitalism" in America, privatizing all the deregulated profits and socializing the risk via bailouts.
So what are the specific ideas you think Cosmo Boy and little Jeffy have to straighten out the mess -or is this just "faith based" support on your part?
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Hey coyrat
Get real. I used the word corporatist because that's just what the so-called "conservative" majority on the Supremes is.
For the record, I think unions should be restricted from using union funds to influence elections to the same extent corporations are restricted from using shareholder funds -which is what the statute required. But free speech for the unions wasn't really the concern of the "conservative" majority. Here are three questions for you.
1. You really think those guys, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are pro-union?
2. You really think the few unions that remain in America after Reagan's union busting assault on labor can keep pace with corporate political spending?
3. What planet are you living on?
Get real. I used the word corporatist because that's just what the so-called "conservative" majority on the Supremes is.
For the record, I think unions should be restricted from using union funds to influence elections to the same extent corporations are restricted from using shareholder funds -which is what the statute required. But free speech for the unions wasn't really the concern of the "conservative" majority. Here are three questions for you.
1. You really think those guys, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are pro-union?
2. You really think the few unions that remain in America after Reagan's union busting assault on labor can keep pace with corporate political spending?
3. What planet are you living on?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
Buzz
Like I always say, it ain't what you dont know that makes you look dumb, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Sure, the subprime mortgage market was a catalyst for the crash of 2008, but the FMs didn't get into that banking scam until late in the game. Plus, the housing bubble was just a catalyst, not the basic problem which is we've become a debtor nation over the past 30 years whose economy is now based primarily on finance, as opposed to manufacturing, with no new ideas to sell to our overseas creditors. Chinese and Japanese banks buy our T-bills, and our banks borrow money back from them, lending it to Mr. and Mrs. North America who then use it to buy merchandise manufactured in China and Japan.
The unregulated wizards on Wall Street used their "creative" powers to design exotic things like bundled mortgage securities,getting huge bonuses for pulling investors into the housing market in droves and driving up the "value" of real estate. Sub-primes were just the weakest link, and Sen. Scotty Boy doesn't even have a clue. Neither, it seems, does your Mr. Perry.
Like I always say, it ain't what you dont know that makes you look dumb, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Sure, the subprime mortgage market was a catalyst for the crash of 2008, but the FMs didn't get into that banking scam until late in the game. Plus, the housing bubble was just a catalyst, not the basic problem which is we've become a debtor nation over the past 30 years whose economy is now based primarily on finance, as opposed to manufacturing, with no new ideas to sell to our overseas creditors. Chinese and Japanese banks buy our T-bills, and our banks borrow money back from them, lending it to Mr. and Mrs. North America who then use it to buy merchandise manufactured in China and Japan.
The unregulated wizards on Wall Street used their "creative" powers to design exotic things like bundled mortgage securities,getting huge bonuses for pulling investors into the housing market in droves and driving up the "value" of real estate. Sub-primes were just the weakest link, and Sen. Scotty Boy doesn't even have a clue. Neither, it seems, does your Mr. Perry.
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
Buzz
Where were you between 2000 and 2008, when the GOP Bush administration, aided by a 6-year GOP majority in both houses of Congress deregulated us into the ground? That wasn't Barney, Kerry, Kennedy or Delahunt that did that.
As a result, the GOP let Wall Street devolve into a vast Ponzi scheme, not just a bubble, but a lather of bubbles upon bubbles, with "creative" ideas like CDOs and CDSs, traded over the counter with no regulatory oversight, the real value of which was based on nothing but paper and promises.
As shown by Brown's own words, he doesn't even have a clue about what needs to be done to correct such abuses and, so far, it seems that Mr. Perry doesn't either.
Prediction: When Perry takes "the next step" and lays out his issues and agenda, it's gonna be nothing but the same old Reaganomic "government is the problem" BS that caused the crash of 2008, just as it is with Senator Cosmo Boy.
Where were you between 2000 and 2008, when the GOP Bush administration, aided by a 6-year GOP majority in both houses of Congress deregulated us into the ground? That wasn't Barney, Kerry, Kennedy or Delahunt that did that.
As a result, the GOP let Wall Street devolve into a vast Ponzi scheme, not just a bubble, but a lather of bubbles upon bubbles, with "creative" ideas like CDOs and CDSs, traded over the counter with no regulatory oversight, the real value of which was based on nothing but paper and promises.
As shown by Brown's own words, he doesn't even have a clue about what needs to be done to correct such abuses and, so far, it seems that Mr. Perry doesn't either.
Prediction: When Perry takes "the next step" and lays out his issues and agenda, it's gonna be nothing but the same old Reaganomic "government is the problem" BS that caused the crash of 2008, just as it is with Senator Cosmo Boy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
coyrat
FYI, the statutory provision struck down in Citizens United v. FEC, 1 USC Sect. 441b, prohibited unions as well as business corporations from electioneering for or against a candidate within 30 days prior to an election. I complained that this evenhanded statute, as between unions and business corporations, was nullified by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
If you didn't hear me clearly, it's only because you, like most of today's knee-jerk "conservatives" don't really listen to anyone who may have a different point of view from your own.
The main thrust of this post, however, was to point out that the so-called "conservative" SC majority is anything but -they are zealous judicial activists serving corporate capitalism, as clearly shown by their disregard for basic conservative principles like stare decisis, judicial restraint and case and controversy.
So, the next time one of you guys complains about liberal judicial activism in support of our individual rights, as with gay rights, abortion, etc., I'll laugh in your face and say "Citizens United."
FYI, the statutory provision struck down in Citizens United v. FEC, 1 USC Sect. 441b, prohibited unions as well as business corporations from electioneering for or against a candidate within 30 days prior to an election. I complained that this evenhanded statute, as between unions and business corporations, was nullified by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
If you didn't hear me clearly, it's only because you, like most of today's knee-jerk "conservatives" don't really listen to anyone who may have a different point of view from your own.
The main thrust of this post, however, was to point out that the so-called "conservative" SC majority is anything but -they are zealous judicial activists serving corporate capitalism, as clearly shown by their disregard for basic conservative principles like stare decisis, judicial restraint and case and controversy.
So, the next time one of you guys complains about liberal judicial activism in support of our individual rights, as with gay rights, abortion, etc., I'll laugh in your face and say "Citizens United."
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
Hi, lottabaloney
That "snippet" as you call it is a clear statement of Brown's firm and basic belief in the "free market" nonsense of deregulation that caused the crash of 2008 -just as the same nonsense had 80 years earlier in 1929. So, I'm asking Mr. Perry if he shares that belief and to explain why or why not. That's more than fair.
If Brown had any real understanding of the economy, he might have said something like we have to look real close at over the counter trading in those "creative" Wall Street products, like CDOs and CDSs, that it's not just sub-prime home mortgages that need to be reined in but the home morgage market in general, the securitization of mortgage debt and the much larger market in commercial credit, which combined to cause the crash of 2008, based on Reaganomic deregulation, allowing lenders to overvalue assets in a system that became, essentially, a vast Ponzi scheme. But, no, all Senator Cosmo Boy could say was we should just let "free enterprise" work things out.
So what does Mr. Perry think about these things -or does he even think at all?
That "snippet" as you call it is a clear statement of Brown's firm and basic belief in the "free market" nonsense of deregulation that caused the crash of 2008 -just as the same nonsense had 80 years earlier in 1929. So, I'm asking Mr. Perry if he shares that belief and to explain why or why not. That's more than fair.
If Brown had any real understanding of the economy, he might have said something like we have to look real close at over the counter trading in those "creative" Wall Street products, like CDOs and CDSs, that it's not just sub-prime home mortgages that need to be reined in but the home morgage market in general, the securitization of mortgage debt and the much larger market in commercial credit, which combined to cause the crash of 2008, based on Reaganomic deregulation, allowing lenders to overvalue assets in a system that became, essentially, a vast Ponzi scheme. But, no, all Senator Cosmo Boy could say was we should just let "free enterprise" work things out.
So what does Mr. Perry think about these things -or does he even think at all?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
Mr.Perry, sir
It seems to me that you've got this thing just ass backwards. You should have your "agenda" set, i.e. your policy initiatives and ideas firmly in place before you decide to seek high political office, not the other way around. It therefore seems to some of us sitting downwind from where you're at, that your notion about running for Congress smells like nothing more than partisan political opportunism, i.e. running on Brown's coattails.
So, whether you agree or disagree with Brown's belief in letting "free enterprise" work things out, with more of Wall Street's "creative" ideas like LBOs, CDOs, CDSs, please tell us what your position is, giving us the specific reasons why you maintain that position, pro or con.
If you can't do that now, why do you think you're qualified to be a Congressman? Let me be the first to tell you, you won't win just by having a pretty face like Cosmo Boy -even if you do drive a truck.
It seems to me that you've got this thing just ass backwards. You should have your "agenda" set, i.e. your policy initiatives and ideas firmly in place before you decide to seek high political office, not the other way around. It therefore seems to some of us sitting downwind from where you're at, that your notion about running for Congress smells like nothing more than partisan political opportunism, i.e. running on Brown's coattails.
So, whether you agree or disagree with Brown's belief in letting "free enterprise" work things out, with more of Wall Street's "creative" ideas like LBOs, CDOs, CDSs, please tell us what your position is, giving us the specific reasons why you maintain that position, pro or con.
If you can't do that now, why do you think you're qualified to be a Congressman? Let me be the first to tell you, you won't win just by having a pretty face like Cosmo Boy -even if you do drive a truck.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Deadhead Wingding at WOMR!!
In response to: Deadhead Wingding at WOMR!!
Hey, Ned
Do you mean the annals of radio, or the anals of radio -maybe both, huh?
Do you mean the annals of radio, or the anals of radio -maybe both, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
Hey, baloneysammich
I directly summarized Brown's exact words which were:
“So pulling back on the financial (regulations), I think if you do too much too soon, it doesn’t have a chance to catch up and see if we can work out of this ourselves through free enterprise, through private enterprise, intervention and creativity. . . . So I’m all in favor of just holding back for a little bit and letting private enterprise try to get us out of this mess.”
He was asked, specifically, what he would do to regulate Wall Street, and that's what he said verbatim. You may still be able to find it on www.wbur.org for 9/1/09. So I'd like to know what Mr. Perry has to say on this point.
This isn't taking anything out of context, nor is it a Katie Couric gotcha thing. Brown was asked what he thought was needed to regulate Wall Street, and he said just let them continue to do their "creative" thing. So inquiring minds want to know -does Rep. Perry share this same belief, or does he have any real ideas how to rein in the well documented "free market" excesses of Wall Street.
I directly summarized Brown's exact words which were:
“So pulling back on the financial (regulations), I think if you do too much too soon, it doesn’t have a chance to catch up and see if we can work out of this ourselves through free enterprise, through private enterprise, intervention and creativity. . . . So I’m all in favor of just holding back for a little bit and letting private enterprise try to get us out of this mess.”
He was asked, specifically, what he would do to regulate Wall Street, and that's what he said verbatim. You may still be able to find it on www.wbur.org for 9/1/09. So I'd like to know what Mr. Perry has to say on this point.
This isn't taking anything out of context, nor is it a Katie Couric gotcha thing. Brown was asked what he thought was needed to regulate Wall Street, and he said just let them continue to do their "creative" thing. So inquiring minds want to know -does Rep. Perry share this same belief, or does he have any real ideas how to rein in the well documented "free market" excesses of Wall Street.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Well, Buzz
How many times have you heard a news report that begins "The White House announced today . . . " So, go figure.
How many times have you heard a news report that begins "The White House announced today . . . " So, go figure.
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
In response to: PERRY IN FINAL STAGES OF CONSIDERING RUN FOR US CONGRESS
So, Mr. Perry, sir
As you are choosing to run for Congress, perhaps you'll share your views on what the federal government should do to prevent another economic crash like 2008 -and 1929.
Sen. Brown was asked about this during the campaign and he said he wouldn't do anything to regulate, preferring to let "private enterprise" work it out -you know, the same Wall Street gang who caused the crash.
So, Mr. Perry, sir, please enlighten us hayseeds here whether you agree with Brown, and then give a detailed explanation why in your next post, citing relevant recent events to support such belief in terms of jobs, housing, savings and income parity.
Or, if you disagree, please list some specific regulatory reforms that you would support in Congress, with Obama on a bipartisan basis, to rein in the excesses of Wall Street -which even Bernanke and Greenspan now agree, in retrospect, were needed to prevent 2008.
If you can't do either of these things without simply resorting to "free market" sloganeering like Sen. Brown, why should anyone even think of voting for you?
RSVP
As you are choosing to run for Congress, perhaps you'll share your views on what the federal government should do to prevent another economic crash like 2008 -and 1929.
Sen. Brown was asked about this during the campaign and he said he wouldn't do anything to regulate, preferring to let "private enterprise" work it out -you know, the same Wall Street gang who caused the crash.
So, Mr. Perry, sir, please enlighten us hayseeds here whether you agree with Brown, and then give a detailed explanation why in your next post, citing relevant recent events to support such belief in terms of jobs, housing, savings and income parity.
Or, if you disagree, please list some specific regulatory reforms that you would support in Congress, with Obama on a bipartisan basis, to rein in the excesses of Wall Street -which even Bernanke and Greenspan now agree, in retrospect, were needed to prevent 2008.
If you can't do either of these things without simply resorting to "free market" sloganeering like Sen. Brown, why should anyone even think of voting for you?
RSVP
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Hi, Buzz
More folks than you think don't have cable -especially those who can't afford the monthly fees to pay for privatized broadcasting. You know, the folks who are s'posed to just hush up and lissen and get "enlightened" when all that corporate money talks.
Obama's grass roots success was based on intense internet communications, largely bypassing the broadcast media. That's going to become an increasingly important tool for politicking, but still vast numbers of folks get their nightly news over television -even those with cable frequently tune in to the stations that broadcast over the airways as I do, with Channel 4 and Channel 2.
More folks than you think don't have cable -especially those who can't afford the monthly fees to pay for privatized broadcasting. You know, the folks who are s'posed to just hush up and lissen and get "enlightened" when all that corporate money talks.
Obama's grass roots success was based on intense internet communications, largely bypassing the broadcast media. That's going to become an increasingly important tool for politicking, but still vast numbers of folks get their nightly news over television -even those with cable frequently tune in to the stations that broadcast over the airways as I do, with Channel 4 and Channel 2.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Dave
It's long been the law that commercial advertising can be regulated, under principles like truth in advertising to prevent fraud or disclaimers pertaning to product safety -you know the rapid fire delivery you hear after all the wonderful promises have been delivered.
United Citizens deals solely with political speech, and more specifically with how corporations can spend their money within 30 days before an election to influence its outcome -a very specific and narrow restriction under Sect. 441b.
The argument that "speech" applies only to humans was specifically rejected by the conservative majority, and was advanced by the dissent. The way the 1st Amendment is written, referring to free speech in the abstract and not persons I tend to agree with the majority on that narrow point -which leaves room to distinguish this case from Roe v. Wade which dealt with the competing rights of "persons" under the 4th and 14th amendments.
Still, speech can be regulated in the name of higher public interests, e.g. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
It's long been the law that commercial advertising can be regulated, under principles like truth in advertising to prevent fraud or disclaimers pertaning to product safety -you know the rapid fire delivery you hear after all the wonderful promises have been delivered.
United Citizens deals solely with political speech, and more specifically with how corporations can spend their money within 30 days before an election to influence its outcome -a very specific and narrow restriction under Sect. 441b.
The argument that "speech" applies only to humans was specifically rejected by the conservative majority, and was advanced by the dissent. The way the 1st Amendment is written, referring to free speech in the abstract and not persons I tend to agree with the majority on that narrow point -which leaves room to distinguish this case from Roe v. Wade which dealt with the competing rights of "persons" under the 4th and 14th amendments.
Still, speech can be regulated in the name of higher public interests, e.g. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Easy, easy, easy -there you go again.
Like Peter W so often does when he thinks he's onto a gotcha, you are just making my point! Thank you very much.
When corporate interests are allowed to monopolize public broadcasting, financed by corporate advertising, the message that gets out to "inform" and "enlighten" the listenership is the right wing corporate agenda. When the major source of information, and hence manipulated political beliefs come from such monopolized media, it becomes a vicious cycle. Duh!
And so it is with so-called corporate "free speech" spending huge gobs of money to influence the outcome of an election.
That's what I'm talkin' about bro. Thanks for backin' me up here.
Like Peter W so often does when he thinks he's onto a gotcha, you are just making my point! Thank you very much.
When corporate interests are allowed to monopolize public broadcasting, financed by corporate advertising, the message that gets out to "inform" and "enlighten" the listenership is the right wing corporate agenda. When the major source of information, and hence manipulated political beliefs come from such monopolized media, it becomes a vicious cycle. Duh!
And so it is with so-called corporate "free speech" spending huge gobs of money to influence the outcome of an election.
That's what I'm talkin' about bro. Thanks for backin' me up here.
Richard [Member]
In response to: MONEY TALKS
In response to: MONEY TALKS
Hey, easy baby. . .
One ostensible reason for the success of right wing rant radio and the inability of more liberal programming to compete is the fact that the people who decide where to put their advertising dollars are the same corporate interests who want a free hand to advance their political advertising as well.
Maybe you don't remember, but liberal programming was very successful in the 1960s, and into the 70's. What changed was Republican administrations beginning with Reagan relaxing control over media monopolies, permitting large corporations to buy up huge blocks of bandwidths nationwide.
One ostensible reason for the success of right wing rant radio and the inability of more liberal programming to compete is the fact that the people who decide where to put their advertising dollars are the same corporate interests who want a free hand to advance their political advertising as well.
Maybe you don't remember, but liberal programming was very successful in the 1960s, and into the 70's. What changed was Republican administrations beginning with Reagan relaxing control over media monopolies, permitting large corporations to buy up huge blocks of bandwidths nationwide.
Richard [Member]
In response to: 10th Amendment discussion
In response to: 10th Amendment discussion
Yeah, Mr. Perry, sir, sure.
But what about the 9th Amendment? When the Constitution was adopted, abortion was legal throughout the colonies, at least until "quickening" of the foetus, or about six months. The concept of quickening was similar to, but less scientific than the Roe v. Wade viability standard. After quickening, in some colonies, it was a misdemeanor only.
So why does't abortion, at least pre-viability as under Roe v. Wade, come within the unenumerated rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment? Especially since the 4th amendment expressly guarantees the right to be secure in our persons against government interference, as made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.
So how can you say criminalizing abortion is a right reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment, when it was not a right exercised by any of the colonies before, or any of the states at the time the Constitution was written?
But what about the 9th Amendment? When the Constitution was adopted, abortion was legal throughout the colonies, at least until "quickening" of the foetus, or about six months. The concept of quickening was similar to, but less scientific than the Roe v. Wade viability standard. After quickening, in some colonies, it was a misdemeanor only.
So why does't abortion, at least pre-viability as under Roe v. Wade, come within the unenumerated rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment? Especially since the 4th amendment expressly guarantees the right to be secure in our persons against government interference, as made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.
So how can you say criminalizing abortion is a right reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment, when it was not a right exercised by any of the colonies before, or any of the states at the time the Constitution was written?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
Peter, Peter, Peter
Yes, I am far more critical of the GOP's misdeeds than the Dems' -because they've caused far more damage. If you think I'm just advancing simplistic a simplistic good-bad argument here, it's because you don't know how to read and are incapable of critical thinking about anything above that level yourself.
I've laid out a considerable factual case here, with cogent analysis, that ties the crash of 2008 directly to the deregulatory policies that are informed by GOP ideology ever since the Reagan era. I've referenced several highly intelligent and well informed observers including Jos. Stiglitz whose new book Freefall states the same case in much greater detail, and all you can come back with is ad hominem attacks on me and cartoonish commentary.
Thanks again for making my main point about the GOP's pathological inability to accept responsibility for the massive damage their ideology has caused to America, as well as their venality.
Yes, I am far more critical of the GOP's misdeeds than the Dems' -because they've caused far more damage. If you think I'm just advancing simplistic a simplistic good-bad argument here, it's because you don't know how to read and are incapable of critical thinking about anything above that level yourself.
I've laid out a considerable factual case here, with cogent analysis, that ties the crash of 2008 directly to the deregulatory policies that are informed by GOP ideology ever since the Reagan era. I've referenced several highly intelligent and well informed observers including Jos. Stiglitz whose new book Freefall states the same case in much greater detail, and all you can come back with is ad hominem attacks on me and cartoonish commentary.
Thanks again for making my main point about the GOP's pathological inability to accept responsibility for the massive damage their ideology has caused to America, as well as their venality.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
Hi, Crusader
As you say- "he's just a 'cosmo boy', but that's what American wants, Richard. It's all about shallow-egomaniacs." And that's just what got this poor little furry bunny so scared up here -and angry, too.
I'm really a moderately conservative Democrat, as indicated on my prior posts here against gay marriage, against animal rights, for gun rights, et cetera. And I often voted for popular moderate Mass. Republicans like Frank Sargent and Ed Brooke before Reagan and even Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci afterward.
Reaganism is what spurred me to register as a Democrat, and Bush/Cheney is what me going on the attack against what the once respectable GOP has become. Like I said, TR would be spinning in his grave if he could see it.
BTW, I wish I could share your optimism that Brown will fight for the working man, but his clearly stated belief in the same old deregulatory, free market nonsense that caused the collapse of 2008 makes me believe otherwise -which is the main reason I wrote this post as I did.
As you say- "he's just a 'cosmo boy', but that's what American wants, Richard. It's all about shallow-egomaniacs." And that's just what got this poor little furry bunny so scared up here -and angry, too.
I'm really a moderately conservative Democrat, as indicated on my prior posts here against gay marriage, against animal rights, for gun rights, et cetera. And I often voted for popular moderate Mass. Republicans like Frank Sargent and Ed Brooke before Reagan and even Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci afterward.
Reaganism is what spurred me to register as a Democrat, and Bush/Cheney is what me going on the attack against what the once respectable GOP has become. Like I said, TR would be spinning in his grave if he could see it.
BTW, I wish I could share your optimism that Brown will fight for the working man, but his clearly stated belief in the same old deregulatory, free market nonsense that caused the collapse of 2008 makes me believe otherwise -which is the main reason I wrote this post as I did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
Thank you Peter!
Once again you prove my main point, i.e. that the GOP and its faithful are incapable of owning up to their faults, which are legion, and always seek to blame anyone and everyone else for their screwups - the blame game.
This, typically, takes the form of venal, ad hominem attacks which is all the you could muster here, directed at me personally. It doesn't bother me, because I'm thick skinned and, especially because, like I said, you're just proving my main point.
You've said nothing to refute the detailed facts, figures and analysis I set out here, clearly because you can't. You got nuthin, so you come at me personally because I write in a pull no punches style -like the corporate shills on right wing rant radio, proving two other home truths about today's GOP.
1. You guys love to dish it, but can't take it, like bullies everywhere.
2. It ain't what you don't know that makes you stupid, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Reaganism failed America, badly, so why don't you try dealing with that proven fact instead of attacking messengers like me.
Once again you prove my main point, i.e. that the GOP and its faithful are incapable of owning up to their faults, which are legion, and always seek to blame anyone and everyone else for their screwups - the blame game.
This, typically, takes the form of venal, ad hominem attacks which is all the you could muster here, directed at me personally. It doesn't bother me, because I'm thick skinned and, especially because, like I said, you're just proving my main point.
You've said nothing to refute the detailed facts, figures and analysis I set out here, clearly because you can't. You got nuthin, so you come at me personally because I write in a pull no punches style -like the corporate shills on right wing rant radio, proving two other home truths about today's GOP.
1. You guys love to dish it, but can't take it, like bullies everywhere.
2. It ain't what you don't know that makes you stupid, it's what you know that just ain't so.
Reaganism failed America, badly, so why don't you try dealing with that proven fact instead of attacking messengers like me.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
Dolphin
You, like most of your soulmates who chime in here really have no respect for reality or factual accuracy. As I said at the outset, the Democrats must share some of the blame, especially for getting too cozy with FIRE interests, which is all you're really saying when you talk about Dodd and Barney. But that's not the basic problem we're facing -something you guys just cannot admit because the problem is the systemic result of the free market ideology you've fallen for hook line and sinker and Senator Cosmo Boy wants to perpetuate.
The problem with the Democrats is the don't have enough kishkes to do the right thing, they take K street money and go along. But the GOP hacks take just as much money and do the same things, not because they just want to go along but because they actually believe in the free market nonsense that informs the GOP's post-Reagan deregulatory agenda.
And that's what caused the inevitable crash in '09, not simply lending to underqualified borrowers but a system based on unregulated corporate greed across the board.
You, like most of your soulmates who chime in here really have no respect for reality or factual accuracy. As I said at the outset, the Democrats must share some of the blame, especially for getting too cozy with FIRE interests, which is all you're really saying when you talk about Dodd and Barney. But that's not the basic problem we're facing -something you guys just cannot admit because the problem is the systemic result of the free market ideology you've fallen for hook line and sinker and Senator Cosmo Boy wants to perpetuate.
The problem with the Democrats is the don't have enough kishkes to do the right thing, they take K street money and go along. But the GOP hacks take just as much money and do the same things, not because they just want to go along but because they actually believe in the free market nonsense that informs the GOP's post-Reagan deregulatory agenda.
And that's what caused the inevitable crash in '09, not simply lending to underqualified borrowers but a system based on unregulated corporate greed across the board.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lucy, you have some 'splaning to do!
In response to: Lucy, you have some 'splaning to do!
BTW -last Mass. AG to make it to higher office was, I believe, Republican Senator Ed Brooke.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
In response to: Dorothy Says Cosmo Boy For President
No, easy
It's not that Dave won't read a response to his very specific fact-based question -the only reason they shouldn't bother is 'cause they can't give any specific facts to back up the little sound-bite factoids they regurgitate after listening to right wing rant radio.
You guys just bleat in generalizations about Dodd, and Barney, et cetera, and never have anything to respond specifically and factually to a question like Dave's based on the political reality in washington.
Basically, to quote Spike Lee, "you got nuthin'."
It's not that Dave won't read a response to his very specific fact-based question -the only reason they shouldn't bother is 'cause they can't give any specific facts to back up the little sound-bite factoids they regurgitate after listening to right wing rant radio.
You guys just bleat in generalizations about Dodd, and Barney, et cetera, and never have anything to respond specifically and factually to a question like Dave's based on the political reality in washington.
Basically, to quote Spike Lee, "you got nuthin'."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lucy, you have some 'splaning to do!
In response to: Lucy, you have some 'splaning to do!
While you're certainly right about Coakley per se, I can see another woman, someone with a personality like Hillary Clinton for example, cleaning Cosmo Boy's clock. The problem with Coakley wasn't that she's a woman, but she's another Cambridge liberal like Harshbarger was, and has a lot of that Dukakis aloofness.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
Dolphin
No, Coakley lost because deep down she's just another Cambridge liberal -like Harshbarger who I voted against back when there was still some integrity among Republicans, at least on the state level, despite the post-Reagan decline in the national GOP.
So now we've elected a Republican Senator who's slickly packaged as a "populist" because he drives a truck, but he's promised to vote against regulation of the financial industry.
That's just peachy if you've got a large piece of a hedge fund, but if you're behind on your credit card or just hanging in there with your mortgage -you just might live to regret voting for Cosmo boy.
No, Coakley lost because deep down she's just another Cambridge liberal -like Harshbarger who I voted against back when there was still some integrity among Republicans, at least on the state level, despite the post-Reagan decline in the national GOP.
So now we've elected a Republican Senator who's slickly packaged as a "populist" because he drives a truck, but he's promised to vote against regulation of the financial industry.
That's just peachy if you've got a large piece of a hedge fund, but if you're behind on your credit card or just hanging in there with your mortgage -you just might live to regret voting for Cosmo boy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
Dave
Brown won "fair and square," sure. But let's face it, deep down he's really just Sara Palin with a schlong and maybe two brain cells to rub together.
Brown won "fair and square," sure. But let's face it, deep down he's really just Sara Palin with a schlong and maybe two brain cells to rub together.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Happy Day for a Lawyer and Client in Harwich
In response to: A Happy Day for a Lawyer and Client in Harwich
Be careful when you talk about recovering additional damages for the impact on your client's health, Bruce -that sounds a lot like "pain and suffering," which is sure to get guys like Peter whining about "tort reform" and excessive lawyers fees.
Good luck with it, though.
Good luck with it, though.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
In response to: Camelot died Tuesday night
"The indadequacy of the Democrats -every four years they seem to resemble the Not Ready for Prime Time Players . . . -compliates things but hardly excuses what the Republican party has become: a vehicle of special interests that have become entrenched in crippling commitments and biases."
-Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy (2006), p.348.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose . . . as them Frenchy socialists might say.
-Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy (2006), p.348.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose . . . as them Frenchy socialists might say.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Hey, karent
From your personal remarks somebody might think my stuff is really getting to you. I mean you can't come back with anything specific and substantive to refute what I'm saying, so you try attacking my intelligence generally and even criticize my photograph. I'd object to your use of ad hominem argument if I thought you knew what it meant.
From your personal remarks somebody might think my stuff is really getting to you. I mean you can't come back with anything specific and substantive to refute what I'm saying, so you try attacking my intelligence generally and even criticize my photograph. I'd object to your use of ad hominem argument if I thought you knew what it meant.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Hey, easy baby
You right wing reactionaries just love to throw epithets around like "socialist," but tell me -and everyone else here: Where exactly does the Constitution say that the federal government cannot socialize basic services or industries? Where does the Constitution even mention either "socialism" or "capitalism?"
I keep asking this of the wingnuts who reply to my posts with terms like "socialist," and they can't seem to come up with an answer. How come is that? Could be because the Constitution doesn't require capitalism or privatization and doesn't prohibit socialized services, huh? It only requires that Congress use its regulatory power and taxation to serve the general welfare, and after 1929 and then 2008 don't make us laugh by suggesting that unregulated "free market" capitalism is the way to do that.
So, put up here, huh? Where do you find your anti-socialist imperative in the Constitutional text. Cite Article or Amendment, with specific section number please.
If you can't do that, just like today's national GOP, you got nuthin'.
You right wing reactionaries just love to throw epithets around like "socialist," but tell me -and everyone else here: Where exactly does the Constitution say that the federal government cannot socialize basic services or industries? Where does the Constitution even mention either "socialism" or "capitalism?"
I keep asking this of the wingnuts who reply to my posts with terms like "socialist," and they can't seem to come up with an answer. How come is that? Could be because the Constitution doesn't require capitalism or privatization and doesn't prohibit socialized services, huh? It only requires that Congress use its regulatory power and taxation to serve the general welfare, and after 1929 and then 2008 don't make us laugh by suggesting that unregulated "free market" capitalism is the way to do that.
So, put up here, huh? Where do you find your anti-socialist imperative in the Constitutional text. Cite Article or Amendment, with specific section number please.
If you can't do that, just like today's national GOP, you got nuthin'.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Why I cancelled my Cape Cod Times subscription today
In response to: Why I cancelled my Cape Cod Times subscription today
Peter
Austratian? Is that how they turn baby bulls into steers down under?
Austratian? Is that how they turn baby bulls into steers down under?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Ana
You probably logged in while my first abortive attempt to post this one failed because I couldn't upload the picture and I erased the text. So our postings crossed in the ether.
You probably logged in while my first abortive attempt to post this one failed because I couldn't upload the picture and I erased the text. So our postings crossed in the ether.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Hey, easy baby
About filibusters -they've always been used by obstructionists who don't want change and don't believe in majority rule -like the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation and today's GOP who don't believe in Congress working as a unit for the common good. So now guys like you are blaming the Democrats for the utter failure of Bush's economic policies because they didn't filibuster.
Plus, if you knew anything at all, most of Bush's dismantling of the federal bureaucracy that oversees business and finance was done as the "Decider," i.e. the chief executive who determines how the bureacracy operates -like simply dropping several environmental lawsuits by the EPA, and staffing the SEC with people who believe Adam Smith's fable of the invisible hand is literally true.
Problem is you, like the national GOP, can't get over two basic facts:
1. Your free market ideology, predictably, caused the economy to fail in 2008; and
2. You lost the White House because of it -deservedly so.
Now you got nuthin' left but obstruction via fillibuster and bleating on blog sites.
About filibusters -they've always been used by obstructionists who don't want change and don't believe in majority rule -like the Dixiecrats who opposed desegregation and today's GOP who don't believe in Congress working as a unit for the common good. So now guys like you are blaming the Democrats for the utter failure of Bush's economic policies because they didn't filibuster.
Plus, if you knew anything at all, most of Bush's dismantling of the federal bureaucracy that oversees business and finance was done as the "Decider," i.e. the chief executive who determines how the bureacracy operates -like simply dropping several environmental lawsuits by the EPA, and staffing the SEC with people who believe Adam Smith's fable of the invisible hand is literally true.
Problem is you, like the national GOP, can't get over two basic facts:
1. Your free market ideology, predictably, caused the economy to fail in 2008; and
2. You lost the White House because of it -deservedly so.
Now you got nuthin' left but obstruction via fillibuster and bleating on blog sites.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Hey, bartender from hell
As 4000 dead soldiers if they'd rather join the guard with a leader like Obama in the White house or chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney who lie to start oil wars in places like Iraq.
Oh, that's right, darn it -you can't.
As 4000 dead soldiers if they'd rather join the guard with a leader like Obama in the White house or chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney who lie to start oil wars in places like Iraq.
Oh, that's right, darn it -you can't.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
In response to: Scott Brown -A Real American
Ana
Are you making points here -or drawing blanks?
Are you making points here -or drawing blanks?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Massachusetts Miracle
In response to: The Massachusetts Miracle
As my wife always reminds me, half of the American electorate is below average intelligence. That, plus the factor of corporate money and the corporate class itself voting fully explains the political success of ciphers like Ronald Reagan and, perhaps, Scott Brown too.
The GOP has spent a lot of money here in Mass. for Brown, and like Mencken remarked, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the "plain people" -certainly not those who believe and vote for someone like Brown who bleats about "change" while vowing to continue the same deregulatory policies that nearly bankrupted America when his party was in control of the White House.
The GOP has spent a lot of money here in Mass. for Brown, and like Mencken remarked, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the "plain people" -certainly not those who believe and vote for someone like Brown who bleats about "change" while vowing to continue the same deregulatory policies that nearly bankrupted America when his party was in control of the White House.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
Mr. bryfry, sir
It may surprise you to learn that I was praying for the Haitian people yesterday morning with my fellow congregants at North Falmouth Congregational Church. We also do more for those in need than just pray, however, as with our planned trip to New Orleans this April for a week of hard labor helping rehab homes destroyed by Katrina, for which my wife and I have signed on.
Your praying for the Haitan people is personally commendable, and in stark contrast with many who purport to speak for the "Christian" right in America -like Pat Roberston who blamed the Haitian people for their plight because they overthrew French colonial rule or Rush Limbaugh who tells his ditto head listeners, largely "Christian" white folks, not to give any money for Haitian relief because it's all a scam.
But, of course, those are just facts which, as with the Bush/Cheney GOP don't matter because they always interfere with the Christian right's faith-based ideology.
It may surprise you to learn that I was praying for the Haitian people yesterday morning with my fellow congregants at North Falmouth Congregational Church. We also do more for those in need than just pray, however, as with our planned trip to New Orleans this April for a week of hard labor helping rehab homes destroyed by Katrina, for which my wife and I have signed on.
Your praying for the Haitan people is personally commendable, and in stark contrast with many who purport to speak for the "Christian" right in America -like Pat Roberston who blamed the Haitian people for their plight because they overthrew French colonial rule or Rush Limbaugh who tells his ditto head listeners, largely "Christian" white folks, not to give any money for Haitian relief because it's all a scam.
But, of course, those are just facts which, as with the Bush/Cheney GOP don't matter because they always interfere with the Christian right's faith-based ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WWJB
In response to: WWJB
Actually, Walter, Jesus would probably have bombed America during the cold war. After all, the earliest Christian church was communist, taking from each according to his means into a common pool and giving to each according to his needs. Acts 4:32-35. During the 1950s, the anti-Communist hysteria here in the U.S. was at such a fever pitch Jesus would have had to bomb us like with W's pre-emptive non-aggression in Iraq. W is a good Christian man, too, don't you know.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
Hi, lib
I've heard what the GOP is full of called a lot of things, some polite and some not polite, but "hot air" doesn't quite meet the "smell" test.
I've heard what the GOP is full of called a lot of things, some polite and some not polite, but "hot air" doesn't quite meet the "smell" test.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tempus Frigid
In response to: Tempus Frigid
Hi, Jack
Just remember that "normalcy" wasn't a real word either until Pres. Warren G. Harding used it in a public address -apparently not being capable of enunciating the four syllables of "normality."
Neologisms happen. Sometimes they are repeated, become part of normal, everyday usage and then become "real" words. You could look 'em up -some of them anyway. Others just get ignored.
I like the word "finity" though -fish are short lived, as were '59 Caddies. Like fish and American automobiles we all must succumb to finity, even though we don't all have fins.
Just remember that "normalcy" wasn't a real word either until Pres. Warren G. Harding used it in a public address -apparently not being capable of enunciating the four syllables of "normality."
Neologisms happen. Sometimes they are repeated, become part of normal, everyday usage and then become "real" words. You could look 'em up -some of them anyway. Others just get ignored.
I like the word "finity" though -fish are short lived, as were '59 Caddies. Like fish and American automobiles we all must succumb to finity, even though we don't all have fins.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
Hi, Dave
You say I let Islam off the hook too much because there are extremist groups within Islam that go after each other as well as lash out at America. So how is that so different from the Christian right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.?
Hard core Christian extremists in America like Pat Robertson push for war against Islam at the same time they call for criminalization of homosexuality and even the death penalty for gays. They seek to impose their theocratic ideas on America no less than Islamic extremists do in the Arab world, with their incessant clamoring for public prayer, teaching creationism, rejecting science and other such nonsense. The main difference is that they haven't taken over the whole country as the ayatollahs have in Iran -yet. They got pretty close with Ms. Palin in 2008 though, and they're still pushing.
The relevance here is that Bush identifies himself as a "born again" Christian, has always pandered to the more extreme elements of the Christian right as with his remark about a "crusade" in Iraq -which just happens to be the site of ancient Babylon
You say I let Islam off the hook too much because there are extremist groups within Islam that go after each other as well as lash out at America. So how is that so different from the Christian right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.?
Hard core Christian extremists in America like Pat Robertson push for war against Islam at the same time they call for criminalization of homosexuality and even the death penalty for gays. They seek to impose their theocratic ideas on America no less than Islamic extremists do in the Arab world, with their incessant clamoring for public prayer, teaching creationism, rejecting science and other such nonsense. The main difference is that they haven't taken over the whole country as the ayatollahs have in Iran -yet. They got pretty close with Ms. Palin in 2008 though, and they're still pushing.
The relevance here is that Bush identifies himself as a "born again" Christian, has always pandered to the more extreme elements of the Christian right as with his remark about a "crusade" in Iraq -which just happens to be the site of ancient Babylon
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME, FIRST OVERTIME
Hi, lib
Like Ronnie Reagan said "facts are stupid things." It was a Freudian slip, where his script read "stubborn things." He emoted it o.k., getting the scripted inflection right being the seasoned B movie actor that he was, but he was getting old and flubbed the line. It was what he really believed, though. Like his present day GOP spawn Ronnie really hated facts because they always get in the way of right wing ideology.
Like Ronnie Reagan said "facts are stupid things." It was a Freudian slip, where his script read "stubborn things." He emoted it o.k., getting the scripted inflection right being the seasoned B movie actor that he was, but he was getting old and flubbed the line. It was what he really believed, though. Like his present day GOP spawn Ronnie really hated facts because they always get in the way of right wing ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
Petercohen
"Ideas" means using Congressional authority under Article I, Sect. 8, to serve the constitutional ideal of promoting the general welfare by providing for adequate health care available to everyone. This is a non-ideological concern which should be shared by every responsible officeholder, but it's not on the GOP's agenda.
Instead, with the GOP, we get ideology, i.e. unrestrained free market capitalism which in this instance rejects effective regulation of the insurance industry and rejects the sensible idea of using tax revenues to fund affordable health care for everyone, based on nothign but ideological objections about "socialism" and taxation.
I have no ideological objection to capitalism per se, as it's the best way to provide for the majority of goods and services in a free society, but it's not exclusive of socialized services like education, fire protection and health care.
To disagree is to elevate ideology over pragmatic ideas, because the private, loosely regulated insurance industry doesn't, won't and can't provide adequate, cost effective coverage
"Ideas" means using Congressional authority under Article I, Sect. 8, to serve the constitutional ideal of promoting the general welfare by providing for adequate health care available to everyone. This is a non-ideological concern which should be shared by every responsible officeholder, but it's not on the GOP's agenda.
Instead, with the GOP, we get ideology, i.e. unrestrained free market capitalism which in this instance rejects effective regulation of the insurance industry and rejects the sensible idea of using tax revenues to fund affordable health care for everyone, based on nothign but ideological objections about "socialism" and taxation.
I have no ideological objection to capitalism per se, as it's the best way to provide for the majority of goods and services in a free society, but it's not exclusive of socialized services like education, fire protection and health care.
To disagree is to elevate ideology over pragmatic ideas, because the private, loosely regulated insurance industry doesn't, won't and can't provide adequate, cost effective coverage
Richard [Member]
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
Hey Dave
Remember what Groucho said about military justice is to justice what military music is to music -well, that's what we're getting with Cosmo boy Scotty. He's posing like a war hero in his fatigues based on being in the JAG, when the truth is compared to Coakley in real courtroom experience he's a benchwarmer.
Remember what Groucho said about military justice is to justice what military music is to music -well, that's what we're getting with Cosmo boy Scotty. He's posing like a war hero in his fatigues based on being in the JAG, when the truth is compared to Coakley in real courtroom experience he's a benchwarmer.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Alliance Should Pay to Relocate Cape Wind
In response to: The Alliance Should Pay to Relocate Cape Wind
Just wonderin'
Nine long years of divisive "debate," and the Wampanoags just get around to telling everyone that Cape Wind wants to build wind turbines on their "sacred" ancestral lands -lands which have been innundated by the ocean for several millennia.
Didn't they know that nine years ago? Or did someone like Ms. Parker have to "remind" them? Anyway, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on that kind of obstructionism?
Nine long years of divisive "debate," and the Wampanoags just get around to telling everyone that Cape Wind wants to build wind turbines on their "sacred" ancestral lands -lands which have been innundated by the ocean for several millennia.
Didn't they know that nine years ago? Or did someone like Ms. Parker have to "remind" them? Anyway, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on that kind of obstructionism?
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
Hey coyrat
If you knew anything at all about the real world you would know that Clinton was worried enough about al Qaeda to at least attempt to take him out, and was roundly criticized by the right when that attempt failed. Still, he was listening to Clarke and had he or Gore been in office when Clarke's January 25, 2001, memo was delivered to the White House they would have taken it seriously enough to establish a top level review immediately -one which would have drawn together all the available intelligence, including the Phoenix FBI memo, in time to stop the 9/11 terrorists before it happened. As Clarke has written, all of his recommendations were in fact followed by the Bush people, but only after 9/11 with no plausible reason why they could not and were not pursued beforehand, as Clinton or Gore surely would have done.
If you knew anything at all about the real world you would know that Clinton was worried enough about al Qaeda to at least attempt to take him out, and was roundly criticized by the right when that attempt failed. Still, he was listening to Clarke and had he or Gore been in office when Clarke's January 25, 2001, memo was delivered to the White House they would have taken it seriously enough to establish a top level review immediately -one which would have drawn together all the available intelligence, including the Phoenix FBI memo, in time to stop the 9/11 terrorists before it happened. As Clarke has written, all of his recommendations were in fact followed by the Bush people, but only after 9/11 with no plausible reason why they could not and were not pursued beforehand, as Clinton or Gore surely would have done.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
mr. jonflob
The general welfare provision is clearly not used to justify "violations" of state sovereignty. The general welfare language in the Preamble, and in the tax clause are there as express delegations of authority to the federal government, defining, respectively, an important part of its fundamental purpose and specifically its power to spend tax revenues. Because that power is expressly delegated to Congress in Article I, Sect. 8, specific substantive policies and programs which implement it are not "reserved to the states" under the 10th Amendment. And that's "strict construction," sir.
Again, though, rather than trying to fine tune regulation of interstate insurance business under the Commerce Clause, what we really need Congress to do is to enact a single payer health care system which would then completely avoid the problem of uniformity you allude to as well as lotabaloney's concern for individual rights, as well as best serving the general welfare of the people of the United States, intelligently, humanely and in the long run most efficiently.
The general welfare provision is clearly not used to justify "violations" of state sovereignty. The general welfare language in the Preamble, and in the tax clause are there as express delegations of authority to the federal government, defining, respectively, an important part of its fundamental purpose and specifically its power to spend tax revenues. Because that power is expressly delegated to Congress in Article I, Sect. 8, specific substantive policies and programs which implement it are not "reserved to the states" under the 10th Amendment. And that's "strict construction," sir.
Again, though, rather than trying to fine tune regulation of interstate insurance business under the Commerce Clause, what we really need Congress to do is to enact a single payer health care system which would then completely avoid the problem of uniformity you allude to as well as lotabaloney's concern for individual rights, as well as best serving the general welfare of the people of the United States, intelligently, humanely and in the long run most efficiently.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
lottabaloney, sir
No I cannot cite any case or constitutional provision where the government is empowered to compel individuals to purchase insurance. That's why I said Perry raised an interesting question on that narrow point. I then went on, however, to point out that we have exactly that here in Massachusetts, a compulsory health insurance law that Romney takes credit for, in addition to our compulsory auto insurance law. I did point out that uninsured sick people create a public health risk, much as uninsured drivers create a public safety risk. I also made it very clear this is a matter of individual rights under the 9th Amendment, not states rights under the 10th as Perry would have it. And I concluded that the issue could be entirely avoided by simply enacting a single payer system where nobody is compelled to purchase private health insurance, as that would clearly be promoting the general welfare without violating anyone's individual rights -as well as intelligent, humane and, in the long run, a lot less expensive to society as a whole.
No I cannot cite any case or constitutional provision where the government is empowered to compel individuals to purchase insurance. That's why I said Perry raised an interesting question on that narrow point. I then went on, however, to point out that we have exactly that here in Massachusetts, a compulsory health insurance law that Romney takes credit for, in addition to our compulsory auto insurance law. I did point out that uninsured sick people create a public health risk, much as uninsured drivers create a public safety risk. I also made it very clear this is a matter of individual rights under the 9th Amendment, not states rights under the 10th as Perry would have it. And I concluded that the issue could be entirely avoided by simply enacting a single payer system where nobody is compelled to purchase private health insurance, as that would clearly be promoting the general welfare without violating anyone's individual rights -as well as intelligent, humane and, in the long run, a lot less expensive to society as a whole.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
In response to: Update:Scott Browned by Robo-Call from K Street!!!
Hey, Ned
Go easy on Scotty Boy, 'cause I'm gonna be in line for a Congressional Medal of Honor if he gets in. I mean with him posing in the camo fatigues like some kind of war hero and all, based on all his courtroom battles. Hell, I've got as much actual combat experience as he does, i.e. zero, and at least as much time in court.
Go easy on Scotty Boy, 'cause I'm gonna be in line for a Congressional Medal of Honor if he gets in. I mean with him posing in the camo fatigues like some kind of war hero and all, based on all his courtroom battles. Hell, I've got as much actual combat experience as he does, i.e. zero, and at least as much time in court.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
Hey coyrat
Try getting your head out of whatever dark hole it's stuck in and do some accurate reading here. I didn't "apologize" for anyone with respect to the Flight 253 lapse. Like Obama himself, I said it was a failure of the system to work, and contrasted his response, vowing to hold people accountable, with Bush's feckless response to the shoe bomber incident, essentially doing another "Great job, Brownie" routine as the Commander 'n Cheerleader, that plus pointing out the significant differences between the panty bomber and shoe bomber on one hand and the abject failure of the Bush administration that allowed 9/11 to occur.
Such rational, documented exposition and explanation can only be confused with "apology" by someone who cannot understand written English, politics or both.
Try getting your head out of whatever dark hole it's stuck in and do some accurate reading here. I didn't "apologize" for anyone with respect to the Flight 253 lapse. Like Obama himself, I said it was a failure of the system to work, and contrasted his response, vowing to hold people accountable, with Bush's feckless response to the shoe bomber incident, essentially doing another "Great job, Brownie" routine as the Commander 'n Cheerleader, that plus pointing out the significant differences between the panty bomber and shoe bomber on one hand and the abject failure of the Bush administration that allowed 9/11 to occur.
Such rational, documented exposition and explanation can only be confused with "apology" by someone who cannot understand written English, politics or both.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Cannot Increase Electricity Rates
In response to: Cape Wind Cannot Increase Electricity Rates
Hey, Buzz
If I were Asian I'd say you make a point about concern for the future being "idiotic" Keep it up, guy. The Communist government in China is counting on know nothing beliefs like that in America as they develop wind energy technologies they can sell to us, like everything else we buy with the money we borrow from them.
If I were Asian I'd say you make a point about concern for the future being "idiotic" Keep it up, guy. The Communist government in China is counting on know nothing beliefs like that in America as they develop wind energy technologies they can sell to us, like everything else we buy with the money we borrow from them.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
In response to: THAT TIRED OLD GOP BLAME GAME
Hey, easy baby
Blame is a "game" only when, like today's GOP you put it onto everyone and anyone else for your own mistakes and misdeeds. Look at the facts, pal. We're in hock up to our eyeballs, dependent on overseas oil to meet our energy needs and engaged in a war that could have and should have been over in December 2001 at Tora Bora. That's not Barney Frank's fault, now, is it.
Blame is a "game" only when, like today's GOP you put it onto everyone and anyone else for your own mistakes and misdeeds. Look at the facts, pal. We're in hock up to our eyeballs, dependent on overseas oil to meet our energy needs and engaged in a war that could have and should have been over in December 2001 at Tora Bora. That's not Barney Frank's fault, now, is it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Cannot Increase Electricity Rates
In response to: Cape Wind Cannot Increase Electricity Rates
This whole debate is down there on the nickle dime level, how much power will Cape Wind produce, how much will it cost the local consumer, how will it affect the local tourist industry, et cetera ad nauseam.
The fact is that we will be running out of petroleum eventually, and within decades it will be getting not only scarcer but subject to much higher demand as former third-world nations and second-world powers develop. We do not and cannot produce enough to meet even our domestic demand, and we're becoming increasingly beholden to Asian and Mid Eastern countries not only for oil but as our largest international creditors. We've got nothing to sell them, as our manufacturing and technology is rapidly disappearing. Yet, on this site, we're debating the kilowatt price of electricity and the scenic beauty of Nantucket Sound. It's insane!
Cape Wind, and thousands of other renewable projects, wind, solar, geothermal, whatever,are needed now, wherever anyone is willing to put up the money to build them. Period.
The fact is that we will be running out of petroleum eventually, and within decades it will be getting not only scarcer but subject to much higher demand as former third-world nations and second-world powers develop. We do not and cannot produce enough to meet even our domestic demand, and we're becoming increasingly beholden to Asian and Mid Eastern countries not only for oil but as our largest international creditors. We've got nothing to sell them, as our manufacturing and technology is rapidly disappearing. Yet, on this site, we're debating the kilowatt price of electricity and the scenic beauty of Nantucket Sound. It's insane!
Cape Wind, and thousands of other renewable projects, wind, solar, geothermal, whatever,are needed now, wherever anyone is willing to put up the money to build them. Period.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
coy rat
There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so ignorant as those who will not understand.
When Medicare compromises a lien, it is not giving away "taxpayer money." It is, rather, assuming a share of the injured party's cost and risk in collecting the money from the tort feasor who caused the injury and the consequntial medical costs. That money would otherwise not be returned to Medicare or the taxpayer.
If you knew anything about what you presume to criticize you would know that the typical plaintiff in a personal injury case, upon collection of damages, pays an attorneys fee of one-third the recovery plus case expenses. Medicare routinely discounts its lien on the case proportionately, which many private insurers refuse to do. That's a windfall profit to them, where the injured person bears all the risk and expense and the private insurer gets the hog's share of the recovery.
I work hard for my clients and I resent having to do free collection work for greedy, profit driven insurance companies who make close cases harder to settle.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so ignorant as those who will not understand.
When Medicare compromises a lien, it is not giving away "taxpayer money." It is, rather, assuming a share of the injured party's cost and risk in collecting the money from the tort feasor who caused the injury and the consequntial medical costs. That money would otherwise not be returned to Medicare or the taxpayer.
If you knew anything about what you presume to criticize you would know that the typical plaintiff in a personal injury case, upon collection of damages, pays an attorneys fee of one-third the recovery plus case expenses. Medicare routinely discounts its lien on the case proportionately, which many private insurers refuse to do. That's a windfall profit to them, where the injured person bears all the risk and expense and the private insurer gets the hog's share of the recovery.
I work hard for my clients and I resent having to do free collection work for greedy, profit driven insurance companies who make close cases harder to settle.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
Dear graniteguy
I use the term "know nothing" about today's GOP advisedly -it being the party that supports anti-intellectual, anti-science "states rights" policies such as teaching creationism, or "intelligent design" in public schools as if it were science, it being the party that claims holding prayer sessions in public schools is not establishing religion, it being the party that claims America is a "Christian nation" politically when the Constitution is unquestionably based on the secular ideas and principles of the Enlightenment, and so on. It was not always so, in the days before Reagan, as exemplified by honest conservatives like Eisenhower, and even Nixon whose dishonesty in Watergate was driven by political paranoia and not policy based as with today's GOP's obstructionism on every substantive initiative by President Obama, including health care reform.
I used that epithet about Perry specifically because his purported constitutional gloss on the health care issue is just another clear example of Republcan know-nothing politics.
I use the term "know nothing" about today's GOP advisedly -it being the party that supports anti-intellectual, anti-science "states rights" policies such as teaching creationism, or "intelligent design" in public schools as if it were science, it being the party that claims holding prayer sessions in public schools is not establishing religion, it being the party that claims America is a "Christian nation" politically when the Constitution is unquestionably based on the secular ideas and principles of the Enlightenment, and so on. It was not always so, in the days before Reagan, as exemplified by honest conservatives like Eisenhower, and even Nixon whose dishonesty in Watergate was driven by political paranoia and not policy based as with today's GOP's obstructionism on every substantive initiative by President Obama, including health care reform.
I used that epithet about Perry specifically because his purported constitutional gloss on the health care issue is just another clear example of Republcan know-nothing politics.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
Hi, Lorne
As a matter of fact, I have handled many cases against SSA on disability claims, but my current practice in disability law is geared to ERISA and personal coverage. Atty. Julianne Soprano of Falmouth, however, has a large practice handling SSI and SSDI cases on contingency, along with Workers Comp. I refer SS cases to her and she refers ERISA cases to me -no referral fee, just quid pro quo, and we've been doing so for years. Many other lawyers nationally handle SS cases as well, most of them members of a focus group called NOSSCR.
Other lawyers specialize in Medicare claims, and I frequently negotiate Medicare liens as part of BI settlements for older individuals. Medicare will routinely compromise a lien to facilitate a settlement, but many profit driven private insurers will tell you to take a hike if you ask them to reduce a lien, though some of them will do so to some degree.
As a matter of fact, I have handled many cases against SSA on disability claims, but my current practice in disability law is geared to ERISA and personal coverage. Atty. Julianne Soprano of Falmouth, however, has a large practice handling SSI and SSDI cases on contingency, along with Workers Comp. I refer SS cases to her and she refers ERISA cases to me -no referral fee, just quid pro quo, and we've been doing so for years. Many other lawyers nationally handle SS cases as well, most of them members of a focus group called NOSSCR.
Other lawyers specialize in Medicare claims, and I frequently negotiate Medicare liens as part of BI settlements for older individuals. Medicare will routinely compromise a lien to facilitate a settlement, but many profit driven private insurers will tell you to take a hike if you ask them to reduce a lien, though some of them will do so to some degree.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
So, username, you probably agree with me that all drugs should be decriminalized, huh? Let the DEA, the cops and DA O'Keefe spend our tax money to go after real criminals for a change. Right on, brother!
BTW, before you go raving about liberals, etc., please remember that arch conservative Bill Buckley was with us on this one.
BTW, before you go raving about liberals, etc., please remember that arch conservative Bill Buckley was with us on this one.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
In response to: A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry
Hi, Lorne and bbj.
I hear what Lorne is saying, and he raises a legitimate question about paying for health care reform -which is far different from the issues of constitutional law addressed in this post.
Unlike Perry's ill informed 10th Amendment diatribe, Lorne is right to ask how we will pay for inclusive health care for all Americans can be paid for. I've suggested before that a single payer, tax supported program that gets the gaggle of private insurers out of the picture will be a lot more efficient and less costly because more of your health care tax dollar will get to pay for medical services as opposed to paying for advertising, lobbying, executive bonuses, company planes, risky speculative investments a la AIG, urban office towers, administrative process geared toward profit rather than paying valid claims and high powered law firms defending denials of valid claims in court -all of which your premium dollar, or your employer's, is paying for before your doctor sees even one penny.
I hear what Lorne is saying, and he raises a legitimate question about paying for health care reform -which is far different from the issues of constitutional law addressed in this post.
Unlike Perry's ill informed 10th Amendment diatribe, Lorne is right to ask how we will pay for inclusive health care for all Americans can be paid for. I've suggested before that a single payer, tax supported program that gets the gaggle of private insurers out of the picture will be a lot more efficient and less costly because more of your health care tax dollar will get to pay for medical services as opposed to paying for advertising, lobbying, executive bonuses, company planes, risky speculative investments a la AIG, urban office towers, administrative process geared toward profit rather than paying valid claims and high powered law firms defending denials of valid claims in court -all of which your premium dollar, or your employer's, is paying for before your doctor sees even one penny.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE HUMPTY DUMPTY DECADES
In response to: THE HUMPTY DUMPTY DECADES
I said I'm not going to get into a lengthy thread about Palin, so I won't. I didn't bother to cite the Couric interview either, but I would suggest reading the transcript if you have any delusions that Palin is even marginally competent to manage the affairs of the United States.
http://tv.spreadit.org/sarah-palin-katie-couric-interviewpalin-couric-interview-transcript/
Don't bother with that baloney about her being a governor either. W was governor of a much larger state, and he managed to bookend letting the worst attack ever occur on US soil with deregulating us into the second most devastating economic collapse ever during his 8 years in office.
Plus, Palin was, briefly, the governor of a state with a total population of only 626,932. Comparably, Boston has a population of 620,535, which makes Bosont's five-term Mayor Tom Menino competent for the oval office too, huh? Right -Mumbles for President! Makes a lot mores sense than Palin -unless you think presidential politics is some kind of a beauty contest.
http://tv.spreadit.org/sarah-palin-katie-couric-interviewpalin-couric-interview-transcript/
Don't bother with that baloney about her being a governor either. W was governor of a much larger state, and he managed to bookend letting the worst attack ever occur on US soil with deregulating us into the second most devastating economic collapse ever during his 8 years in office.
Plus, Palin was, briefly, the governor of a state with a total population of only 626,932. Comparably, Boston has a population of 620,535, which makes Bosont's five-term Mayor Tom Menino competent for the oval office too, huh? Right -Mumbles for President! Makes a lot mores sense than Palin -unless you think presidential politics is some kind of a beauty contest.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
Hi, Dave
You misread me by saying I think wind power is "all or nothing." You may recall that we've discussed this in person where I've said clearly that wind is just one source, along with solar, geothermal, tidal et cetera that need to be integrated as diverse sources for a universal grid. When the sun isn't shining, the wind may be blowing, the tides will be running one way or another, methane will be escaping from buried land fills for a long time to come, the Earth's core will continue to provide heat energy indefinitely and so on.
It's the antis who take the "all or nothing position," or more precisely try to paint us greens into such corners so they can nitpick on things like wind providing only 20% of our needs.
What's needed, as I've told you before, is a Manhattan project on energy -e.g. spending the trillion dollars wasted trying to steal Iraqi oil on renewable energy technologies, to make each technology more efficient, to integrate them and to devise ways to store such energy for long term use.
Can't be done? That's what they said about nuclear energy in 1940
You misread me by saying I think wind power is "all or nothing." You may recall that we've discussed this in person where I've said clearly that wind is just one source, along with solar, geothermal, tidal et cetera that need to be integrated as diverse sources for a universal grid. When the sun isn't shining, the wind may be blowing, the tides will be running one way or another, methane will be escaping from buried land fills for a long time to come, the Earth's core will continue to provide heat energy indefinitely and so on.
It's the antis who take the "all or nothing position," or more precisely try to paint us greens into such corners so they can nitpick on things like wind providing only 20% of our needs.
What's needed, as I've told you before, is a Manhattan project on energy -e.g. spending the trillion dollars wasted trying to steal Iraqi oil on renewable energy technologies, to make each technology more efficient, to integrate them and to devise ways to store such energy for long term use.
Can't be done? That's what they said about nuclear energy in 1940
Richard [Member]
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
Hey, coyrat, if you had a functioning brain you'd be awesome too.
Subprime mortgages were just the weakest link in the financial house of cards built buy Reaganomic deregulation of the financial industry, perfected by Bush and Cheney, which allowed finance and insurance to take over our national GNP, based largely on borrowing rather than producing goods and reversing dominance with our now almost non-existent manufacturing sector over the past thirty years since Reagan intoned that "government is the problem" and we shoud trust everything to the masters of the universe on Wall Street.
So now people who had good manufacturing jobs now fight to get work at Walmart -to sell goods made in China while the investor class keeps buying those BMWs with their tax sheltered capital gains. But I guess that's what you'd call "freedom," huh?
BTW, the 2 grand you made off the last snow storm was just chump change compared with what the oil companies are making.
Subprime mortgages were just the weakest link in the financial house of cards built buy Reaganomic deregulation of the financial industry, perfected by Bush and Cheney, which allowed finance and insurance to take over our national GNP, based largely on borrowing rather than producing goods and reversing dominance with our now almost non-existent manufacturing sector over the past thirty years since Reagan intoned that "government is the problem" and we shoud trust everything to the masters of the universe on Wall Street.
So now people who had good manufacturing jobs now fight to get work at Walmart -to sell goods made in China while the investor class keeps buying those BMWs with their tax sheltered capital gains. But I guess that's what you'd call "freedom," huh?
BTW, the 2 grand you made off the last snow storm was just chump change compared with what the oil companies are making.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
So, nofree
You say it will cost "more than money," but then all you can come up with is it will cost more money, "doubling the cost of energy." That's only money, pal, it ain't dead soldiers and civilian casualties as with the Bush-Cheney oil war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, if China will be continuing to depend on fossil fuels as you say, while we develop alternative energy sources to "save the planet," how come is it that China is able to manufacture wind turbines to sell here because we aren't making them?
You say it will cost "more than money," but then all you can come up with is it will cost more money, "doubling the cost of energy." That's only money, pal, it ain't dead soldiers and civilian casualties as with the Bush-Cheney oil war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, if China will be continuing to depend on fossil fuels as you say, while we develop alternative energy sources to "save the planet," how come is it that China is able to manufacture wind turbines to sell here because we aren't making them?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
Hey, poss
The supposed climate "hoax" of your ruminations only pales beside Bush's WMD lies, e.g. the "imminent threat" with the "smoking gun" becoming a "mushroom cloud" if, indeed, you harbor the belief that it's all about the money.
Unlike lying to start a war, which has cost trillions of dollars so far, untolled civilian deaths and 4,000 American soldiers killed, converting to alternative renewable energy will only cost money -and eliminating fossil fuels will actually save lives by reducing air pollutants that cause pulmonary disease.
So, if those arguments seem "weak" to you, I have to believe it's only because you value money and power above all, like most so-called "conservatives" today, the Bushes, the Cheneys, and their media sycophants, and it doesn't matter to them how many lives it costs, either as casualities of oil wars or from lung
disease caused by continued chemical pollution of the air we breathe.
The supposed climate "hoax" of your ruminations only pales beside Bush's WMD lies, e.g. the "imminent threat" with the "smoking gun" becoming a "mushroom cloud" if, indeed, you harbor the belief that it's all about the money.
Unlike lying to start a war, which has cost trillions of dollars so far, untolled civilian deaths and 4,000 American soldiers killed, converting to alternative renewable energy will only cost money -and eliminating fossil fuels will actually save lives by reducing air pollutants that cause pulmonary disease.
So, if those arguments seem "weak" to you, I have to believe it's only because you value money and power above all, like most so-called "conservatives" today, the Bushes, the Cheneys, and their media sycophants, and it doesn't matter to them how many lives it costs, either as casualities of oil wars or from lung
disease caused by continued chemical pollution of the air we breathe.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
In response to: Mais, Ou` Sont Les Neiges D'antan?
Hi, petercohen
You make the most salient point in the whole climate change/fossil fuel dialogue, which is that there are so many other extremely good reasons for America to phase out coal, oil and gas asap.
Burning fossil fuels, even if not related to climate change causes air pollution that is detrimental to pulmonary health.
Extracting fossil fuels and transporting them does great damage to local environments, e.g. oil spills and destroying whole mountains for coal.
Relying on foreign oil, purchaed with borrowed money just raises hell with our trade and credit balances.
Relying on foreign oil requires that we accommodate hostile foreign forces in the Arab world and Latin America.
Petroleum has had its day, and putting our money and effort into alternative, renewable energy will allow us to reindustrialize the economy and keep us competitive with rising powers like China -failing to do so will render us a second rate power as happened to the UK's coal based industries after WWI with the ascent of the US petroleum based industries.
You make the most salient point in the whole climate change/fossil fuel dialogue, which is that there are so many other extremely good reasons for America to phase out coal, oil and gas asap.
Burning fossil fuels, even if not related to climate change causes air pollution that is detrimental to pulmonary health.
Extracting fossil fuels and transporting them does great damage to local environments, e.g. oil spills and destroying whole mountains for coal.
Relying on foreign oil, purchaed with borrowed money just raises hell with our trade and credit balances.
Relying on foreign oil requires that we accommodate hostile foreign forces in the Arab world and Latin America.
Petroleum has had its day, and putting our money and effort into alternative, renewable energy will allow us to reindustrialize the economy and keep us competitive with rising powers like China -failing to do so will render us a second rate power as happened to the UK's coal based industries after WWI with the ascent of the US petroleum based industries.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Our wish list for Cape Codders in 2010
In response to: Our wish list for Cape Codders in 2010
You're right, Walter.
I guess, when all is said and done,
And we've all had our fun,
You're a poet, and I should know it.
I guess, when all is said and done,
And we've all had our fun,
You're a poet, and I should know it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Christmas poem by Lawrence Ferlanghetti
In response to: A Christmas poem by Lawrence Ferlanghetti
Jesus left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans. . . .
Workin from one end to the other and all points in between. . . .
Then out to California through the forests and the pines.
Ah, take me with you, Jesus.
-ZZ Top, 1979
Workin from one end to the other and all points in between. . . .
Then out to California through the forests and the pines.
Ah, take me with you, Jesus.
-ZZ Top, 1979
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sleepy Joseph
In response to: Sleepy Joseph
A good point about Joseph, but the shepherds weren't sleeping. They were wide awake, out in the fields on a chilly winter night when they saw the bright star and heard angels singing . . . so the Holy Bible say.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hi, Dave
It's true that when 30 year old Ted K. first ran for the senate, to fill JFK's vacant seat, as his Democratic primary opponent Ed McCormack quipped, "If your name was Edward Moore . . . your candidacy would be a joke."
But he grew into the job as he matured, unlike Bush. One of the more disgusting spectacles of the Bush era was W boasting that he was a "war president," as if that in itself could imbue him with the gravitas that he so clearly lacked, after lying to start the war in Iraq and fumbling in Afghanistan because the administration's policy was to invade oil-rich Iraq and they really didn't need or want to take out bin Laden to do that.
If W's name were George Walker his candidacty would have been a joke, and so was his presidency -a long, sick joke.
It's true that when 30 year old Ted K. first ran for the senate, to fill JFK's vacant seat, as his Democratic primary opponent Ed McCormack quipped, "If your name was Edward Moore . . . your candidacy would be a joke."
But he grew into the job as he matured, unlike Bush. One of the more disgusting spectacles of the Bush era was W boasting that he was a "war president," as if that in itself could imbue him with the gravitas that he so clearly lacked, after lying to start the war in Iraq and fumbling in Afghanistan because the administration's policy was to invade oil-rich Iraq and they really didn't need or want to take out bin Laden to do that.
If W's name were George Walker his candidacty would have been a joke, and so was his presidency -a long, sick joke.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Peter, Peter, Peter, there you go again as Ronnie Reagan would say.
FYI,I usually don't read all the responses to these posts after the first 30 or 40, so if I didn't answer your question it's because I didn't read it.
I was appellate counsel for Richard Allen in Comm. v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, which ruled under the Mass. Declaration of Rights that prosecutors could not use peremptory challenges to deliberately exclude black jurors, which was then permissible under the Sixth Amendment as held in Swain v. Alabama. Seven years later the Supremes followed suit and overruled Swain -effecting a major change in the law providing minority defendants with the right to a fair trial.
I wrote the prevailing brief in Comm. v. Funches, 379 Mass. 283, argued by J. Poulin, involving the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses. Funches was a murder one case and we got our client out on post conviction bail pending appeal.
I was appellate counsel in U.S. v. Bynoe 562 F.2d 126, which reversed an enhanced sentence under the 5th Amendment.
How many constitutional cases have you handled?
FYI,I usually don't read all the responses to these posts after the first 30 or 40, so if I didn't answer your question it's because I didn't read it.
I was appellate counsel for Richard Allen in Comm. v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, which ruled under the Mass. Declaration of Rights that prosecutors could not use peremptory challenges to deliberately exclude black jurors, which was then permissible under the Sixth Amendment as held in Swain v. Alabama. Seven years later the Supremes followed suit and overruled Swain -effecting a major change in the law providing minority defendants with the right to a fair trial.
I wrote the prevailing brief in Comm. v. Funches, 379 Mass. 283, argued by J. Poulin, involving the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses. Funches was a murder one case and we got our client out on post conviction bail pending appeal.
I was appellate counsel in U.S. v. Bynoe 562 F.2d 126, which reversed an enhanced sentence under the 5th Amendment.
How many constitutional cases have you handled?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
To Peter and Fishbrains
I just love how you guys, in your zeal to show me up on trivial points like the fishery near Horseshoe shoal actually give strong support to the main thesis of this post -that Nantucket Sound is already heavily industrialized, with commercial fishing as well as the real estate, construction, boating and tourist industries -hardly the components of what most sane people would consider either "scenic" or highly "spiritual."
I just love how you guys, in your zeal to show me up on trivial points like the fishery near Horseshoe shoal actually give strong support to the main thesis of this post -that Nantucket Sound is already heavily industrialized, with commercial fishing as well as the real estate, construction, boating and tourist industries -hardly the components of what most sane people would consider either "scenic" or highly "spiritual."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hey, Peter and fishbrains -you've been getty all picky-picky about my admittedly lesser knowledge of salt water fishing and navigation than yours -really trivial matters.
So maybe you can get a glimmer of how I have to laugh out loud when guys like you, who know nothing about the law or the Constitution, as in nada, zilch nothing, start spouting off about issues of constitutional law -regurgitating the crap you swallow whole from right wing rant radio.
The main difference is the knowledge gap between what I know about law and you don't is much wider than the knowledge gap on fishing and navigation, matters on which I have some actual knowledge based on experience -that plus the issues I discuss here about law and our constitutional rights are the actual topic for discussion in these posts and far more important than the mean low tide at Horseshoe Shoal or the definition of rock bass.
BTW, thanks again for bolstering the main point of my last post about how Nantucket Sound has already been heavily industrialized by commercial fishing. Keep up the good work.
So maybe you can get a glimmer of how I have to laugh out loud when guys like you, who know nothing about the law or the Constitution, as in nada, zilch nothing, start spouting off about issues of constitutional law -regurgitating the crap you swallow whole from right wing rant radio.
The main difference is the knowledge gap between what I know about law and you don't is much wider than the knowledge gap on fishing and navigation, matters on which I have some actual knowledge based on experience -that plus the issues I discuss here about law and our constitutional rights are the actual topic for discussion in these posts and far more important than the mean low tide at Horseshoe Shoal or the definition of rock bass.
BTW, thanks again for bolstering the main point of my last post about how Nantucket Sound has already been heavily industrialized by commercial fishing. Keep up the good work.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Our wish list for Cape Codders in 2010
In response to: Our wish list for Cape Codders in 2010
Pretty good on the whole, but with some of the forced rhyming it's not just the Globe having a "groaner."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
No, patrioto
Paying off the family is not what got Ted K off the hook -it's all the good he did afterward as atonement.
By the same token, getting sober and "finding Jesus" didn't get W off the hook, and all the evil he caused as the "Decider" is what's gonna keep him on it big time.
Paying off the family is not what got Ted K off the hook -it's all the good he did afterward as atonement.
By the same token, getting sober and "finding Jesus" didn't get W off the hook, and all the evil he caused as the "Decider" is what's gonna keep him on it big time.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hi, Peter
You sure have a lot of fun nitipicking on small details while ignoring the larger point -which is typical of so-called "conservatives" in America today.
Yes, rock bass are a different species from striped bass. I misspoke on the point, because the colloquial name for stripers in some areas is rock fish, not rock bass. Oh, take me to the woodshed please. But the reason they are called rock fish is because they tend to seek structure like underwater rocks, which was the thrust of my argument about how the wind turbines would change fishing on Horseshoe Shoal, making it easier for sports to find the bass by anchoring and casting, while not having to spend as much costly fuel trolling along the edge.
You sure have a lot of fun nitipicking on small details while ignoring the larger point -which is typical of so-called "conservatives" in America today.
Yes, rock bass are a different species from striped bass. I misspoke on the point, because the colloquial name for stripers in some areas is rock fish, not rock bass. Oh, take me to the woodshed please. But the reason they are called rock fish is because they tend to seek structure like underwater rocks, which was the thrust of my argument about how the wind turbines would change fishing on Horseshoe Shoal, making it easier for sports to find the bass by anchoring and casting, while not having to spend as much costly fuel trolling along the edge.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hi, Peter
I've never made anything up that cost American taxpayers a trillion dollars, cots 4000 American soldiers their lives and caused the death of over 140,000 innocent civilians.
Buch and Cheny have, which is the main point of this post.
I've never made anything up that cost American taxpayers a trillion dollars, cots 4000 American soldiers their lives and caused the death of over 140,000 innocent civilians.
Buch and Cheny have, which is the main point of this post.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hi, fact checker
Thanks for the input. As to TK's inebriation, I cannot either prove or disprove what you say, but it's irrelevant to my main point which is, assuming TK was drunk his misdeeds at East Beach pale to nothing in comparsion to W's misdeeds while sober.
W was charged in Maine for drunk driving, pleaded sufficient facts and was fined. Later, he got his kid brother drunk and trashed a family car.
Bush has admitted smoking reefer. The cocaine charges are not documented because, some claim, Daddy Bush as CIA chief was able to get them expunged. Bush is on record first as denying them, then later saying he didn't deny anything.
Accuracy in such details is good, but unlike George Will I don't have a staff of paid fact checkers. This doesn't at all detract from my main point which faults W, not for drinking or drugging but for lying to start a war that's killed 140k civilians, 4k American soldiers and cost a trillion dollars augmenting the financial crisis caused by his mindless deregulatory policies -and for being such a pious phony about it all.
Thanks for the input. As to TK's inebriation, I cannot either prove or disprove what you say, but it's irrelevant to my main point which is, assuming TK was drunk his misdeeds at East Beach pale to nothing in comparsion to W's misdeeds while sober.
W was charged in Maine for drunk driving, pleaded sufficient facts and was fined. Later, he got his kid brother drunk and trashed a family car.
Bush has admitted smoking reefer. The cocaine charges are not documented because, some claim, Daddy Bush as CIA chief was able to get them expunged. Bush is on record first as denying them, then later saying he didn't deny anything.
Accuracy in such details is good, but unlike George Will I don't have a staff of paid fact checkers. This doesn't at all detract from my main point which faults W, not for drinking or drugging but for lying to start a war that's killed 140k civilians, 4k American soldiers and cost a trillion dollars augmenting the financial crisis caused by his mindless deregulatory policies -and for being such a pious phony about it all.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Memo to Peter & Fishbrain
You two guys are having so much fun nitpicking about Horseshoe Shoal and fishing the Sound I almost hate to spoil it by saying the obvious.
The main point of my post about the opposition to Cape Wind is that Nantucket Sound has been "industrialized" for a long, long time, and you two only strengthen my case by arguing there's been significant commercial fishery at Horseshoe Shoal where the wind turbines will be sited.
Thanks, guys, and Merry Christmas!
You two guys are having so much fun nitpicking about Horseshoe Shoal and fishing the Sound I almost hate to spoil it by saying the obvious.
The main point of my post about the opposition to Cape Wind is that Nantucket Sound has been "industrialized" for a long, long time, and you two only strengthen my case by arguing there's been significant commercial fishery at Horseshoe Shoal where the wind turbines will be sited.
Thanks, guys, and Merry Christmas!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Sober For Eternity
In response to: Sober For Eternity
Hey, fishbrain ...
I mean dolphin, you don't need to be God to be judgmental about the sins of others -just ask
Pat Robertson and Gerry Falwell who didn't hesitate to blame the sinners in New Orleans, the gays, the dopers etc. for Hurricane Katrina.
I mean dolphin, you don't need to be God to be judgmental about the sins of others -just ask
Pat Robertson and Gerry Falwell who didn't hesitate to blame the sinners in New Orleans, the gays, the dopers etc. for Hurricane Katrina.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Horseshoe Shoal
In response to: Horseshoe Shoal
Yes,Peter, there is deep water off Horseshoe Shoal, but please take note of the extensive singe-digit depth contours, some of which appear to be as shallow as four feet -which is all I was saying.
Now, where do you think it will be most cost effective to site the bases for wind turbines, in the "hole" or on the shallower contours of the shoal?
Now, where do you think it will be most cost effective to site the bases for wind turbines, in the "hole" or on the shallower contours of the shoal?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
Hi, peter
If you want to make nice with language, I can do the same. So, yes, I stand by what I said about the shallow water over horseshoe shoal which I have seen with my own eyes, from my own shallow draft 21-foot center console, on several occasions. I doubt your claim about being able to traverse 99 percent of that shoal with a 9-foot draft, though I'm sure it can be done in places where the tides scour out holes as with any sandy shoal.
BTW, Walter invited me to write this blog after reading and reposting a letter I wrote about the wind farm, suggesting that Ted K would actually benefit from it knowing he'd run his sailboat aground on Succanesset shoal despite it being clearly marked with buoys. I said that with the tall wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal he'd be able to stay clear of it even in the foggiest conditions -weatherwise or otherwise.
If you want to make nice with language, I can do the same. So, yes, I stand by what I said about the shallow water over horseshoe shoal which I have seen with my own eyes, from my own shallow draft 21-foot center console, on several occasions. I doubt your claim about being able to traverse 99 percent of that shoal with a 9-foot draft, though I'm sure it can be done in places where the tides scour out holes as with any sandy shoal.
BTW, Walter invited me to write this blog after reading and reposting a letter I wrote about the wind farm, suggesting that Ted K would actually benefit from it knowing he'd run his sailboat aground on Succanesset shoal despite it being clearly marked with buoys. I said that with the tall wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal he'd be able to stay clear of it even in the foggiest conditions -weatherwise or otherwise.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
Yes, dolph
I'm keely aware of recreational fluke limits, having landed dozens of fluke under 17.5 inches this past summer only to release them back into the waters of Vineyard Sound. At the same time I observed several small-boat commercial fishermen landing dozens of the same fish, all going into the fishbox for market, irrespective of the size limit or bag limit for us sports.
I'm keely aware of recreational fluke limits, having landed dozens of fluke under 17.5 inches this past summer only to release them back into the waters of Vineyard Sound. At the same time I observed several small-boat commercial fishermen landing dozens of the same fish, all going into the fishbox for market, irrespective of the size limit or bag limit for us sports.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
Yes, there is commercial fishing near Horseshoe Shoal, but on the shoal itself, where the water depth is often less than three feet at low tide, draggers are not a significant factor. There are small-boat licensed fishermen who compete with the sports taking fish on light tackle without size and bag limits for some species like fluke.
FYI, dolph, I've been on dozens of charter trips, all over Vineyard Sound and Nantucket Sound, on Cape Cod Bay, Bass Rip Shoals, and the tuna grounds south of Nomans. I've observed what the charter captains do very closely.
So, petey, we agree on a few points here. Wind power will not, by itself, replace fossil fuels and, indeed, as a temporary transitional fix we will have to increase reliance on nuclear power as many greens like myself acknowledge.
Inevitably, though, alternate energy sources will supplant fossil fuels, because they're gonna run out, and will become prohibitively expensive before they do. The smart thing is to anticipate that with numerous projects like Cape Wind before we are in crisis mode -it's called "planning." Duh!
FYI, dolph, I've been on dozens of charter trips, all over Vineyard Sound and Nantucket Sound, on Cape Cod Bay, Bass Rip Shoals, and the tuna grounds south of Nomans. I've observed what the charter captains do very closely.
So, petey, we agree on a few points here. Wind power will not, by itself, replace fossil fuels and, indeed, as a temporary transitional fix we will have to increase reliance on nuclear power as many greens like myself acknowledge.
Inevitably, though, alternate energy sources will supplant fossil fuels, because they're gonna run out, and will become prohibitively expensive before they do. The smart thing is to anticipate that with numerous projects like Cape Wind before we are in crisis mode -it's called "planning." Duh!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
Hi, petey
As you wrote about not replacing Mirant, the CC Times today ran a story about the plant shutting down. There's some talk about converting it to natural gas, which would be an improvement, but we will still need to develop renewable energy technologies because gas, like oil or coal, is still a finite resource which requires expensive, land destroying techniques for extraction.
As you wrote about not replacing Mirant, the CC Times today ran a story about the plant shutting down. There's some talk about converting it to natural gas, which would be an improvement, but we will still need to develop renewable energy technologies because gas, like oil or coal, is still a finite resource which requires expensive, land destroying techniques for extraction.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
Hi, Dave
The fishing on Horseshoe Shoals is done today by trolling when the tide is running. I've done it hundreds of times, but the guys who really know the technique are the charter boat operators. They oppose the windfarm because (a) the bases of the towers will in fact interrupt trolling patterns; and (b) those bases will create structure that attracks and holds fish, striped bass particularly which are known in some parts as "rock bass" for their tendency to lurk near large rocks on the shoreline.
The charter guys don't want this to happen because then anyone will know where to find the fish at Horseshoe -any tower base will do. They'd have to adapt their practices to the new structures on the shoal, no more long, gasoline consuming trolls, but anchoring or shorter drifts for the sports to spin cast toward the fish. That's a lot more fun for the sports than trolling, but there's no special technique involved that the charter guys can trade on.
The fishing on Horseshoe Shoals is done today by trolling when the tide is running. I've done it hundreds of times, but the guys who really know the technique are the charter boat operators. They oppose the windfarm because (a) the bases of the towers will in fact interrupt trolling patterns; and (b) those bases will create structure that attracks and holds fish, striped bass particularly which are known in some parts as "rock bass" for their tendency to lurk near large rocks on the shoreline.
The charter guys don't want this to happen because then anyone will know where to find the fish at Horseshoe -any tower base will do. They'd have to adapt their practices to the new structures on the shoal, no more long, gasoline consuming trolls, but anchoring or shorter drifts for the sports to spin cast toward the fish. That's a lot more fun for the sports than trolling, but there's no special technique involved that the charter guys can trade on.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
In response to: The Capacity For Wonder
So, tell me, dolph . . .
Take away the landforms, the Cape and the Islands that define the Sound and just what is there about the waters themselves that is in any way scenically or spiritually unique -any different from the waters of Boston Harbor, say?
The real environmental problem with all our oceans, and all sounds and embayments is the pollution that has been caused by burning fossil fuels for the past century or so -and it's long overdue for that practice to stop.
Cape Wind is just one small project of many, many more that will be needed off many, many American coastlines to begin the environmental and spiritual healing of America.
Take away the landforms, the Cape and the Islands that define the Sound and just what is there about the waters themselves that is in any way scenically or spiritually unique -any different from the waters of Boston Harbor, say?
The real environmental problem with all our oceans, and all sounds and embayments is the pollution that has been caused by burning fossil fuels for the past century or so -and it's long overdue for that practice to stop.
Cape Wind is just one small project of many, many more that will be needed off many, many American coastlines to begin the environmental and spiritual healing of America.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Pagliuca For Senate
In response to: Pagliuca For Senate
Hi, Ned
I'm getting hit from a guy like petey on the right and from you on the left. I guess I'm doing something right, huh?
Anyway, to address your question, I'm not sure anyone is on the "up and square." Coakley, maybe, when she says she's not going to be Ted Kennedy -which became obvious when she said she's
vote against health care reform if it excluded abortion coverage, thus helping DeMint and the GOP attack dogs tear President Obama apart. That kind of up and square ideology we can do without from a Democrat. Capuano -who knows? Up and square when he ripped Coakley, or when he joined her on the Stupak amemdment issue?
Coakley's obviously playing to the feminist vote, and apparently means it, and Capuano's doing a belated "me too." I really don't see any up and square there, do you?
I'm getting hit from a guy like petey on the right and from you on the left. I guess I'm doing something right, huh?
Anyway, to address your question, I'm not sure anyone is on the "up and square." Coakley, maybe, when she says she's not going to be Ted Kennedy -which became obvious when she said she's
vote against health care reform if it excluded abortion coverage, thus helping DeMint and the GOP attack dogs tear President Obama apart. That kind of up and square ideology we can do without from a Democrat. Capuano -who knows? Up and square when he ripped Coakley, or when he joined her on the Stupak amemdment issue?
Coakley's obviously playing to the feminist vote, and apparently means it, and Capuano's doing a belated "me too." I really don't see any up and square there, do you?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Pagliuca For Senate
In response to: Pagliuca For Senate
Hi, petey
In case you missed the eight years prior to the crash of 2008, perhaps you were vacationing in Wingnut Wonderland, it was a Republican administration that controlled the national agenda, with six years of absolute GOP control of Congress, committed to and implementing their small government ideological idiocy. And it was just that idiocy in the form of deregulation that led inevitably to the economic collapse. So, yes, I blame the Republicans. They called the shots and they're responsible -at least here in the real world of cause and effect.
In case you missed the eight years prior to the crash of 2008, perhaps you were vacationing in Wingnut Wonderland, it was a Republican administration that controlled the national agenda, with six years of absolute GOP control of Congress, committed to and implementing their small government ideological idiocy. And it was just that idiocy in the form of deregulation that led inevitably to the economic collapse. So, yes, I blame the Republicans. They called the shots and they're responsible -at least here in the real world of cause and effect.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Support Our Troops, Cut&Run Surrender-Monkeys!!!
In response to: Support Our Troops, Cut&Run Surrender-Monkeys!!!
The thing is that President Obama is doing what BushCheney should have done years ago at Tora Bora, which is to commit enough troops to wipe out the al Qaeda leadership where it's been hiding all along -instead of strutting around calling himself a "war president" as Bush did after starting a war in Iraq based on lies, as if that were enough to imbue him with some measure of gravitas.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
Possee
Your basic premise about fascism as a melding of corporate and governmental power is correct. But it'a only the GOP that seeks total dictatorial control, as with their claim of "a permanent Republican majority" a few yeara ago, with W proclaiming himself to be the "Decider," just like Il Duce or Der Fuhrer.
Your basic premise about fascism as a melding of corporate and governmental power is correct. But it'a only the GOP that seeks total dictatorial control, as with their claim of "a permanent Republican majority" a few yeara ago, with W proclaiming himself to be the "Decider," just like Il Duce or Der Fuhrer.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
Hey, R5, it's war based on faulty premises that's the real recipe for disaster, as in Iraq. No, wait! That one was based on official lies about the intelligence -claiming that Saddam has WMDs he'd use against America like the "smoking gun" that becomes a "mushroom cloud." And the so-called "conservative" ideologues lapped it up like so many mongrel puppies at a bitch'a teat, didn't they.
Then there was the non-existent connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda and 9/11. The wingnuts sucked really hard on that one too.
So how about it -you still want some more ideological dog milk, R5? Sounds like it the way you keep on barking.
Then there was the non-existent connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda and 9/11. The wingnuts sucked really hard on that one too.
So how about it -you still want some more ideological dog milk, R5? Sounds like it the way you keep on barking.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
In response to: Conservative Communism!!
Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Fascism, blah, blah, blah! It's all ideology, left or right, supplanting reason and balance in the conduct of public affairs.
Try walking using just your right foot and aee how far you get. Ditto for using just your left foot. Socialism and capitalism are just two economic models with capitalism working better in some contexts, like building a strong industrial base -can you remember when the U.S. had one of those -and socialism working better in others like public water supply, fire protection and health care.
What passes for "conservatism" these days is actually corporatism masquerading as an ideological "free market" capitalism, which can succeed only in the fervid imagination of extreme right wing ideologues like the late Ayn Rand.
But don't take my word for it. Just ask her most prominent disciple Alan Greenspan what he thinks now, after the deregulatory debacle of 2008. It juat doesn't work, and that's because ideologically driven economic policies, left or right, are imbalanced, irrational and unrealistic.
Try walking using just your right foot and aee how far you get. Ditto for using just your left foot. Socialism and capitalism are just two economic models with capitalism working better in some contexts, like building a strong industrial base -can you remember when the U.S. had one of those -and socialism working better in others like public water supply, fire protection and health care.
What passes for "conservatism" these days is actually corporatism masquerading as an ideological "free market" capitalism, which can succeed only in the fervid imagination of extreme right wing ideologues like the late Ayn Rand.
But don't take my word for it. Just ask her most prominent disciple Alan Greenspan what he thinks now, after the deregulatory debacle of 2008. It juat doesn't work, and that's because ideologically driven economic policies, left or right, are imbalanced, irrational and unrealistic.
Richard [Member]
In response to: How dare you call Democrats or Obama " Communists" ?
In response to: How dare you call Democrats or Obama " Communists" ?
Hi, Bill
See what we're up against here, with unaligned reactionaries like r-five saying things like:
"If the GOP actually gets serious about taking the [badly] needed measures to clean up its act, it's going to be a lot harder for the Left to maintain its death-grip on America's throat."
R-five is deathly afraid that the GOP will return to its senses and get people elected who know there are in fact two sides to the aisle in Congres and they're supposed to talk with each other as Obama's been trying to get the GOP to do.
Democracy only works with the consent of the people, and that requires consensus. Consensus requires compromise. It ain't pretty, as Bismarck observed, but it used to work pretty good here in America until the corporatist sleasebags got the GOP busy stirring up divisive "values" issues, mainly because they didn't have anything else to offer -and still don't after the debacle of 2008.
I don't blame Obama for trying but now he has to show the American people what a truly effective and honest "Decider" can do working for them instead of the corporations.
See what we're up against here, with unaligned reactionaries like r-five saying things like:
"If the GOP actually gets serious about taking the [badly] needed measures to clean up its act, it's going to be a lot harder for the Left to maintain its death-grip on America's throat."
R-five is deathly afraid that the GOP will return to its senses and get people elected who know there are in fact two sides to the aisle in Congres and they're supposed to talk with each other as Obama's been trying to get the GOP to do.
Democracy only works with the consent of the people, and that requires consensus. Consensus requires compromise. It ain't pretty, as Bismarck observed, but it used to work pretty good here in America until the corporatist sleasebags got the GOP busy stirring up divisive "values" issues, mainly because they didn't have anything else to offer -and still don't after the debacle of 2008.
I don't blame Obama for trying but now he has to show the American people what a truly effective and honest "Decider" can do working for them instead of the corporations.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Why I chose the path of Conservatism.
In response to: Why I chose the path of Conservatism.
You should know about "girlie men," petey.
Roy Cohn, Esq., right wing hero "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy's legal beagle right out of Columbia Law, always denied being gay. He said he just liked having sex with men, something he did a lot of, but he wasn't gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that -unless you're a hypocritical conservative. I know,I know, that's an oxymoron, whereas today's GOP "conservatives" are just plain morons.
Roy Cohn, Esq., right wing hero "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy's legal beagle right out of Columbia Law, always denied being gay. He said he just liked having sex with men, something he did a lot of, but he wasn't gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that -unless you're a hypocritical conservative. I know,I know, that's an oxymoron, whereas today's GOP "conservatives" are just plain morons.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
So, petey
Are you equating latter day "militia" members with rocket scientists? That's really going off the deep end.
I never accused McVeigh of being particularly intelligent, only being part of a group intent on doing damage to civilian populations in America as a strike against the government,something quite different from an armed force subject to military tribunals -but a lot like the al Qaeda cells that operate here and were responsible for 9/11.
You really need to learn how to do critical thinking, petey, instead of just thoughtless criticism of anything "liberal" which you've clearly mastered from listening to too much right-wing rant radio.
BTW, I studied constitutional law with the legal scholar and constitutional expert Prof. Herbert Wechsler, just as AG Holder did a year later. "Scooter" Libby was in my class, too, only we knew him as "Irv" then. So, where did you study constitutional law, petey?
I've argued several cases before the Mass. SJC and the U.S. Court of Appeals that involved constitutional issues. How many constitutional cases have you argued?
Are you equating latter day "militia" members with rocket scientists? That's really going off the deep end.
I never accused McVeigh of being particularly intelligent, only being part of a group intent on doing damage to civilian populations in America as a strike against the government,something quite different from an armed force subject to military tribunals -but a lot like the al Qaeda cells that operate here and were responsible for 9/11.
You really need to learn how to do critical thinking, petey, instead of just thoughtless criticism of anything "liberal" which you've clearly mastered from listening to too much right-wing rant radio.
BTW, I studied constitutional law with the legal scholar and constitutional expert Prof. Herbert Wechsler, just as AG Holder did a year later. "Scooter" Libby was in my class, too, only we knew him as "Irv" then. So, where did you study constitutional law, petey?
I've argued several cases before the Mass. SJC and the U.S. Court of Appeals that involved constitutional issues. How many constitutional cases have you argued?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
Possee wrote: "any lawyer who defends and receives acquital for a murderer, rapist, pedophile, mass murderer,terrorist, etal.."
So, possee, you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Nah! That's 'cause your head's filled with the crap you hear on right-wing rant radio.
That's a fundamental principle of law, a principle that prevents the government from just locking you up and throwing away the key like they can do in China and still do in Russia.
By, definition, if an individual is acquitted of charges, be they murder or terrorism, that person is not a murderer or a terrorist.
OJ was acquitted of murder charges, though he did kill his wife and her friend, so legally he's not a murderer thanks to the ineptitude of the L.A. DA's office. I'm sure Johnny Cochran had OJ over to his house on occasion, too.
So it was up to the good guys, plaintiff's tort lawyers like me, to nail him in civil court for wrongful death, and they nailed him real good.
You need to think these things through a bit more, Poss.
So, possee, you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Nah! That's 'cause your head's filled with the crap you hear on right-wing rant radio.
That's a fundamental principle of law, a principle that prevents the government from just locking you up and throwing away the key like they can do in China and still do in Russia.
By, definition, if an individual is acquitted of charges, be they murder or terrorism, that person is not a murderer or a terrorist.
OJ was acquitted of murder charges, though he did kill his wife and her friend, so legally he's not a murderer thanks to the ineptitude of the L.A. DA's office. I'm sure Johnny Cochran had OJ over to his house on occasion, too.
So it was up to the good guys, plaintiff's tort lawyers like me, to nail him in civil court for wrongful death, and they nailed him real good.
You need to think these things through a bit more, Poss.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
Hey, petey
Dave didn't say he couldn't answer the question, he said it's not an answerable question within the simplistic, mindless parameters that you "conservative" reactionaries insist be applied to every situation.
It's especially apt to demur on such an issue when the question posed is purely hypothetical -if bin Laden were captured then what? That's exactly what A.G. Holder said to Graham as well, and even if Holder had a contingency plan for that hypothetical, which he probably does, there's no reason for him to disclose it to ideological opponents like Graham and the rest of the world as well.
Like I said, Holder and the Justice Department are very competent people who know how to deal with complex situations with appropriate subtlety, as opposed to the simple-minded ideological, bumper-sticker absolutes that define todays GOP.
Dave didn't say he couldn't answer the question, he said it's not an answerable question within the simplistic, mindless parameters that you "conservative" reactionaries insist be applied to every situation.
It's especially apt to demur on such an issue when the question posed is purely hypothetical -if bin Laden were captured then what? That's exactly what A.G. Holder said to Graham as well, and even if Holder had a contingency plan for that hypothetical, which he probably does, there's no reason for him to disclose it to ideological opponents like Graham and the rest of the world as well.
Like I said, Holder and the Justice Department are very competent people who know how to deal with complex situations with appropriate subtlety, as opposed to the simple-minded ideological, bumper-sticker absolutes that define todays GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
petey-
I knew you'd weigh in with some kind of tripe -pickled and fried this time.
1 & 3. You say a "militia" must be a citizen army, based on a dictionary definition. Well, that would exclude al Qaeda too, which in the US acts as a criminal terorist organization, no different from McVeigh and his accomplices. Physical evidence, detonator caps used by McVeigh tied him into the Aryan supremacist group Midwest Bank Robbers, but McVeigh wouldn't name names. Many "militia groups" in America, like the Michigan Militia, are not recognized as an "army" within your definition, and there are no real militias today within the Constitutional meaning, as in the 2nd Amendment. "Militia" today is used generally to describe any group of ideological dissidents who take up arms against the government, like McVeigh and his accomplices.
2. The Mexican gun and drug smugglers are not U.S. citizens either, so why not try them in military tribunals?
4. The US Attys. in SDNY convicted Yousef in the 1993 attempt on the WTC, as funded by Khalid, while OJ walked.
Once again, you got nuthin.
I knew you'd weigh in with some kind of tripe -pickled and fried this time.
1 & 3. You say a "militia" must be a citizen army, based on a dictionary definition. Well, that would exclude al Qaeda too, which in the US acts as a criminal terorist organization, no different from McVeigh and his accomplices. Physical evidence, detonator caps used by McVeigh tied him into the Aryan supremacist group Midwest Bank Robbers, but McVeigh wouldn't name names. Many "militia groups" in America, like the Michigan Militia, are not recognized as an "army" within your definition, and there are no real militias today within the Constitutional meaning, as in the 2nd Amendment. "Militia" today is used generally to describe any group of ideological dissidents who take up arms against the government, like McVeigh and his accomplices.
2. The Mexican gun and drug smugglers are not U.S. citizens either, so why not try them in military tribunals?
4. The US Attys. in SDNY convicted Yousef in the 1993 attempt on the WTC, as funded by Khalid, while OJ walked.
Once again, you got nuthin.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
In response to: Lindsay Graham's Big Problem
Hi, Buzz
Khalid will get as fair a trial in NYC as he would anywhere else in America, and a lot fairer than before a military tribunal. It will be a panel of 12 ordinary citizens who hear his case, as opposed to a panel of military officers.
The biggest joke in the OJ trial was not the ineptitude of Assistant D.A.s Clark and Darden, letting Furman tell Flea Bailey that he'd never in his whole life used the word "nigger," but D.A. Garcetti himself who decided to hold the trial in the 'hood instead of in Brentwood where OJ lived, where the murder was committed and where his actual peers resided.
Holder and the U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New York are a whole lot more competent.
Khalid will get as fair a trial in NYC as he would anywhere else in America, and a lot fairer than before a military tribunal. It will be a panel of 12 ordinary citizens who hear his case, as opposed to a panel of military officers.
The biggest joke in the OJ trial was not the ineptitude of Assistant D.A.s Clark and Darden, letting Furman tell Flea Bailey that he'd never in his whole life used the word "nigger," but D.A. Garcetti himself who decided to hold the trial in the 'hood instead of in Brentwood where OJ lived, where the murder was committed and where his actual peers resided.
Holder and the U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New York are a whole lot more competent.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, cru
Sure, Capuano has the credentials, and he was true to form at first when he lambasted Coakley for her opposition to the Dems health care bill based on the abortion issue. But then he flip flopped, and that's the basis of my criticism. I would have expected him to stick to his guns in criticizing Coakley's position for many reasons, including the fact that this was the single issue most important to Ted Kennedy, health care reform, not abortion rights.
Sure, Capuano has the credentials, and he was true to form at first when he lambasted Coakley for her opposition to the Dems health care bill based on the abortion issue. But then he flip flopped, and that's the basis of my criticism. I would have expected him to stick to his guns in criticizing Coakley's position for many reasons, including the fact that this was the single issue most important to Ted Kennedy, health care reform, not abortion rights.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, Buzz
You know this petey guy? He's really losing it with all the infantile jive. Your analysis of the voting patternsshows a lot more intellect and maturity, but still I disagree for several reasons.
First, in 2000, Bush didn't have a record to run on, but he did in '04 and he was in fact vulnerable for a lot of the independent vote. Kerry, by contrast, didn't have the Clinton baggage that Gore had to carry into the presidential race.
The statistics you cite, that more people turned out in red states in '04 than in 2000 just makes my point. Those were the religious right voters energized by the gay marriage issue, making a statement for "God" at the urging of the preachers. Take those extra votes based on the anti-gay marriage petition in Ohio out of the equation, and Kerry wins both the state and the presidency. Most of the other states where the gay marriage opponents won were not swing states so, sure, W would win them anyway, but not by as many popular votes.
You know this petey guy? He's really losing it with all the infantile jive. Your analysis of the voting patternsshows a lot more intellect and maturity, but still I disagree for several reasons.
First, in 2000, Bush didn't have a record to run on, but he did in '04 and he was in fact vulnerable for a lot of the independent vote. Kerry, by contrast, didn't have the Clinton baggage that Gore had to carry into the presidential race.
The statistics you cite, that more people turned out in red states in '04 than in 2000 just makes my point. Those were the religious right voters energized by the gay marriage issue, making a statement for "God" at the urging of the preachers. Take those extra votes based on the anti-gay marriage petition in Ohio out of the equation, and Kerry wins both the state and the presidency. Most of the other states where the gay marriage opponents won were not swing states so, sure, W would win them anyway, but not by as many popular votes.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hey, Buzz
You got it wrong. I don't object to gay marriage on an ideological basis at all. My church isn't against gay marriage and I'm o.k. with that.
My rap on gay marriage is based on technical constitutional grounds and, more importantly, national politics -not whatever the solons on Beacon Hill did or didn't do.
The Goodridge ruling was based the Mass. state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. When the issue gets to the S.C., the 5-4 conservative majority will kill it, which might not be true if Kerry had gotten the chance to appoint two liberals instead of Roberts and Alito, and thus create a 7-3 liberal majority.
That's where the political stupidity comes in, when Dems themselves raise these so-called "values" issues that detract from the really important issues like corporate control of the economy, and the GOP wins those issues by default because the bible thumping preachers get the vote out for the GOP.
My church supports gay marriage, but our pastor doesn't preach about it on Sunday before election day like they do in the SBC churches.
You got it wrong. I don't object to gay marriage on an ideological basis at all. My church isn't against gay marriage and I'm o.k. with that.
My rap on gay marriage is based on technical constitutional grounds and, more importantly, national politics -not whatever the solons on Beacon Hill did or didn't do.
The Goodridge ruling was based the Mass. state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. When the issue gets to the S.C., the 5-4 conservative majority will kill it, which might not be true if Kerry had gotten the chance to appoint two liberals instead of Roberts and Alito, and thus create a 7-3 liberal majority.
That's where the political stupidity comes in, when Dems themselves raise these so-called "values" issues that detract from the really important issues like corporate control of the economy, and the GOP wins those issues by default because the bible thumping preachers get the vote out for the GOP.
My church supports gay marriage, but our pastor doesn't preach about it on Sunday before election day like they do in the SBC churches.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Hi, bitter
Yes, you're right that Coakley and Capuano didn't make abortion an issue for health care reform on the national level, but they sure have glommed onto it here in Massachusetts. Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local, and how smart would it be for one of them lose on this issue to, say, Mitt Romney who would then get to occupy Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat for the remainder of Obama's first term at least.
Obama's been trying desperately to get those so-called "values" issues out of the national political debate, and he really doesn't need -we really don't need, the likes of Stupak, Coakley or Capuano serving them up from within his own party for the corporatist GOP gluttons to feast on some more.
Yes, you're right that Coakley and Capuano didn't make abortion an issue for health care reform on the national level, but they sure have glommed onto it here in Massachusetts. Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local, and how smart would it be for one of them lose on this issue to, say, Mitt Romney who would then get to occupy Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat for the remainder of Obama's first term at least.
Obama's been trying desperately to get those so-called "values" issues out of the national political debate, and he really doesn't need -we really don't need, the likes of Stupak, Coakley or Capuano serving them up from within his own party for the corporatist GOP gluttons to feast on some more.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
I agree with Cru and Bitter that abortion is and should be a matter of choice for the individual woman, within the parameters defined in Roe v. Wade, i.e. until the foetus becomes a separately viable "person" entitled to protection as such under the Constitution. But that's an issue that really takes second place to the more fundamental right of all Americans, of all human beings for that matter, to have equal, affordable access to decent health care.
That's a right that need not and should not be subject to paying tribute to the private insurance companies. We don't need privatized health coverage any more than we need a privatized water supply. Those corporate SOBs would privatize the air supply if they could work out the technology and the politics. You know, with free air it's "socialism." Just ask guys like Maverick, possee and little petey.
That's a right that need not and should not be subject to paying tribute to the private insurance companies. We don't need privatized health coverage any more than we need a privatized water supply. Those corporate SOBs would privatize the air supply if they could work out the technology and the politics. You know, with free air it's "socialism." Just ask guys like Maverick, possee and little petey.
Richard [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Petey! You clever little boy!
Yes, Bush won the electoral college 286-251, it's a fact. Here are some other facts, stubborn things that they are.
Fact: Bush's win included all of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, based on a slim 51-49 percent popular majority.
Fact: If Kerry had won, those 20 electoral votes would have been his, giving him a 271-266 electoral majority and the presidency.
Fact: There was an anti-gay marriage petition on the Ohio ballot, and bible thumping preachers all across the state were getting the vote out against gay marriage and for that "good Christian" man George W. Bush, just like they did in every other "red" state with gay marriage on the ballot.
That was my point about gay marriage in this post, petey, which was simply made as an analogy to the error made by Democrats who want to inject abortion into health care reform.
When facts are on the table it's like your mommy told you, petey, you gotta eat everything on the plate. So, you want ketchup with them facts, or what?
Yes, Bush won the electoral college 286-251, it's a fact. Here are some other facts, stubborn things that they are.
Fact: Bush's win included all of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, based on a slim 51-49 percent popular majority.
Fact: If Kerry had won, those 20 electoral votes would have been his, giving him a 271-266 electoral majority and the presidency.
Fact: There was an anti-gay marriage petition on the Ohio ballot, and bible thumping preachers all across the state were getting the vote out against gay marriage and for that "good Christian" man George W. Bush, just like they did in every other "red" state with gay marriage on the ballot.
That was my point about gay marriage in this post, petey, which was simply made as an analogy to the error made by Democrats who want to inject abortion into health care reform.
When facts are on the table it's like your mommy told you, petey, you gotta eat everything on the plate. So, you want ketchup with them facts, or what?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Senior is Tired
In response to: Senior is Tired
Hey, John
If your so tired, maybe you got some kind of wasting disease, hepatitis or something. I'd suggest you see a doctor but you'd prob'ly have to put it on Medicare, with the doctor's bill and all the biopsies, blood work, ultrasounds and other needless tests the doctor's gonna do, not because he wants to get the diagnosis right before treating you, but just because he's scared you'd sue him if he didn't.
But,of course, you don't want to do that do you -because you're such a principled guy who's against all big gummint programs, right?
If your so tired, maybe you got some kind of wasting disease, hepatitis or something. I'd suggest you see a doctor but you'd prob'ly have to put it on Medicare, with the doctor's bill and all the biopsies, blood work, ultrasounds and other needless tests the doctor's gonna do, not because he wants to get the diagnosis right before treating you, but just because he's scared you'd sue him if he didn't.
But,of course, you don't want to do that do you -because you're such a principled guy who's against all big gummint programs, right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Dave
How 'bout that possee? Emily Litella's got nuthin' on him, huh. He starts out about how the Dems health care bills give immunity to insurance companies from tort claims for injury and death, even cites chapter and section and claims it's what Elmendorf said. So you check them out and there's nothing in either bill that mentions immunity and you call him out on it.
Meanwhile, I check the reference in both bills to ERISA which is cited there, and there is an indirect reference to a section in ERISA which precludes state tort and contract claims against employee health plans because ERISA decisions are governed by federal law. Maybe ERISA should be amended to change that, but that's not what health care reform is about. I explain all this in addition to your comments, and what does possee do?
He changes the subject of course. Emily Littella would have said "Never mind," folded up her papers and left the podium. But these wingnuts? They don't have any shame so they don't know when they've been shamed. They just change the subject and rant off in a different direction.
How 'bout that possee? Emily Litella's got nuthin' on him, huh. He starts out about how the Dems health care bills give immunity to insurance companies from tort claims for injury and death, even cites chapter and section and claims it's what Elmendorf said. So you check them out and there's nothing in either bill that mentions immunity and you call him out on it.
Meanwhile, I check the reference in both bills to ERISA which is cited there, and there is an indirect reference to a section in ERISA which precludes state tort and contract claims against employee health plans because ERISA decisions are governed by federal law. Maybe ERISA should be amended to change that, but that's not what health care reform is about. I explain all this in addition to your comments, and what does possee do?
He changes the subject of course. Emily Littella would have said "Never mind," folded up her papers and left the podium. But these wingnuts? They don't have any shame so they don't know when they've been shamed. They just change the subject and rant off in a different direction.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey, Possee
Read the freaking bill, if you know how to read. I don't care what Elmendorf or anyone else says, the Dems bills do not create any tort immunity for insurance companies. Both bills say only that the health care reform statute will not affect the existing ERISA statute which does protect insurance companies from state law tort claims, and contract claims as well for that matter, because it is a federal law that provides an exclusive remedy for claim denials.
You're a classic example of the maxim that it ain't what you don't know that screws things up, it's what you know that just ain't so. Give it up.
Read the freaking bill, if you know how to read. I don't care what Elmendorf or anyone else says, the Dems bills do not create any tort immunity for insurance companies. Both bills say only that the health care reform statute will not affect the existing ERISA statute which does protect insurance companies from state law tort claims, and contract claims as well for that matter, because it is a federal law that provides an exclusive remedy for claim denials.
You're a classic example of the maxim that it ain't what you don't know that screws things up, it's what you know that just ain't so. Give it up.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Possee
Now you and I both know that neither the Democrats House Bill or Senate Bill says anything about immunity for insurance companies when benefit denials or terminations result in injury or death.
Both bills make oblique reference to ERISA Sect. 514, i.e. existing law which already provides such immunity from state law claims. Personally, I think that's a sick joke because the theory is that since ERISA is a labor law and not an insurance law it's not open to remedies under state tort law, and insurance companies are considered "fiduciaries."
I deal with that nonsense all the time in my practice and I believe it's something that should be remedied directly by future amendment of ERISA, but for political purposes of getting a workable health reform package passed it's not necessary at this time.
Your attempt here to put words into the Democrat's health reform bills that aren't there is so typical of the obstructionist innuendo and outright lying that we're getting from the right wing pols and media hacks who just want to see Obama fail -like they did.
Now you and I both know that neither the Democrats House Bill or Senate Bill says anything about immunity for insurance companies when benefit denials or terminations result in injury or death.
Both bills make oblique reference to ERISA Sect. 514, i.e. existing law which already provides such immunity from state law claims. Personally, I think that's a sick joke because the theory is that since ERISA is a labor law and not an insurance law it's not open to remedies under state tort law, and insurance companies are considered "fiduciaries."
I deal with that nonsense all the time in my practice and I believe it's something that should be remedied directly by future amendment of ERISA, but for political purposes of getting a workable health reform package passed it's not necessary at this time.
Your attempt here to put words into the Democrat's health reform bills that aren't there is so typical of the obstructionist innuendo and outright lying that we're getting from the right wing pols and media hacks who just want to see Obama fail -like they did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey, Buzz
You gotta read the whole Constitution, especially the part that begins "We the People," i.e. the citizens of the U.S. of A. It's the people for whom our constitutional protections and amenities exist, and it's just so much idiotic twaddle to argue as you do that the "general welfare of the United States" means anything other than the general welfare of its people.
Give it up. You guys had eight years in the White House, six of them in control of the whole government, and you failed. That's the whole story, pal, so now it's time to get back on track with a government that exists to serve the People and not the petroleum defense industries like the GOP has been doing and still wants to do.
You gotta read the whole Constitution, especially the part that begins "We the People," i.e. the citizens of the U.S. of A. It's the people for whom our constitutional protections and amenities exist, and it's just so much idiotic twaddle to argue as you do that the "general welfare of the United States" means anything other than the general welfare of its people.
Give it up. You guys had eight years in the White House, six of them in control of the whole government, and you failed. That's the whole story, pal, so now it's time to get back on track with a government that exists to serve the People and not the petroleum defense industries like the GOP has been doing and still wants to do.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-five
Actually the commerce clause and the general welfare clause have served as the constitutional basis for government to support agriculture with farm subsidies, including many broccoli growers I'm sure, and even tobacco growers in years past.
But of course those are just facts, and like Uncle Ronnie said "facts are stupid things" for guys like you who cling to the mindless "free market" ideology that caused the most devastating economic collapse since 1929 as the result of eight years of GOP deregulation and mismanagement of the economy. Again, more facts, so feel free to ignore them, which is basically to define your determinedly ignorant ideology.
Actually the commerce clause and the general welfare clause have served as the constitutional basis for government to support agriculture with farm subsidies, including many broccoli growers I'm sure, and even tobacco growers in years past.
But of course those are just facts, and like Uncle Ronnie said "facts are stupid things" for guys like you who cling to the mindless "free market" ideology that caused the most devastating economic collapse since 1929 as the result of eight years of GOP deregulation and mismanagement of the economy. Again, more facts, so feel free to ignore them, which is basically to define your determinedly ignorant ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, maverick
You're so right about something for once when you say read my posts to see why litigation is so expensive. It's right here in this post where I document the fact that med mal litigation drives up the cost of doctor's liability insurance, not because of us tort lawyers who are ready to settle obviously meritorious claims for reasonable damages, but precisely because the industry makes every med mal case go through the costly process of litigation under "reform" statutes like the one we have here in Massachusetts.
Or maybe you think it's a good idea to have a simple negligence case like a broken arm caused by a doctor's careless pushing a button to start up a treadmill that causes the patient to lose balance and fall down go through a costly med mal tribunal before the plaintiff can get her day in court.
Maybe you're one of those guys who are just fine with a doctor who schedules costly tests only because he's afraid of being sued rather than wanting to get the diagnosis right to best serve his patient.
Like I said, they're depending on folks like you.
You're so right about something for once when you say read my posts to see why litigation is so expensive. It's right here in this post where I document the fact that med mal litigation drives up the cost of doctor's liability insurance, not because of us tort lawyers who are ready to settle obviously meritorious claims for reasonable damages, but precisely because the industry makes every med mal case go through the costly process of litigation under "reform" statutes like the one we have here in Massachusetts.
Or maybe you think it's a good idea to have a simple negligence case like a broken arm caused by a doctor's careless pushing a button to start up a treadmill that causes the patient to lose balance and fall down go through a costly med mal tribunal before the plaintiff can get her day in court.
Maybe you're one of those guys who are just fine with a doctor who schedules costly tests only because he's afraid of being sued rather than wanting to get the diagnosis right to best serve his patient.
Like I said, they're depending on folks like you.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hi, Tom
It probably won't happen to you, but when guys like you get the wrong kidney taken out, guys like me are suddenly working in their "favorite profession."
It probably won't happen to you, but when guys like you get the wrong kidney taken out, guys like me are suddenly working in their "favorite profession."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cards for our brave military fighting overseas!
In response to: Cards for our brave military fighting overseas!
Question: Are the cards just for enlisted guys, or do the mercenaries and the contractors get cards too? Just wondering.
Richard [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Thank you Dave for saying it explicitly.
I was hoping that PeeWee could take a hint like Snakedog did, knowing when he was thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a reactionary partisan obstructionist and just quietly bow out. But then, I guess, Snakedog actually had half a brain -at least.
I do in fact take "all this shit" seriously, i.e. the nature of our precious constitutional democratic republic, and the serious threats posed by the reactionary right to its endurance, as well as the lesser threats posed by the extreme left. That's why I bother posting these comments.
PeeWee, though, thinks it's all just a joke, or even worse just some kind of schoolyard bullying game, which says a lot about where the post-Reagan right-wing GOP's head is at. To hell with the national interest, truth, justice and the American way. They just want to win for the sake of winning and, oh yes, all those corporate profits that are riding on defeating health care reform.
I was hoping that PeeWee could take a hint like Snakedog did, knowing when he was thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a reactionary partisan obstructionist and just quietly bow out. But then, I guess, Snakedog actually had half a brain -at least.
I do in fact take "all this shit" seriously, i.e. the nature of our precious constitutional democratic republic, and the serious threats posed by the reactionary right to its endurance, as well as the lesser threats posed by the extreme left. That's why I bother posting these comments.
PeeWee, though, thinks it's all just a joke, or even worse just some kind of schoolyard bullying game, which says a lot about where the post-Reagan right-wing GOP's head is at. To hell with the national interest, truth, justice and the American way. They just want to win for the sake of winning and, oh yes, all those corporate profits that are riding on defeating health care reform.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Angels channel Red Sox in falling to Yankees
In response to: Angels channel Red Sox in falling to Yankees
Yes, timely hitting is important -not massive power that leads to home runs regularly but not necessarily when you need them most -viz. Manny Ramirez and Texeira as well.
No, what wins championships is pitching, something that the Sox had when they won their two Series this century and the Yankees didn't. Meanwhile, though, it seems that Theo forgot all about that basic fact and wasted all his effort this spring chasing Texeira and letting the Yankees get a solid No. 2 pitcher like Burnett for relatively cheap money.
Fact, the Yankees started the season with 23 pitchers on the 40 man roster, while the Sox began with only 20 because, you know, they had "enough" pitching. Hah!
You never have enough pitching, and you certainly don't let a solid guy like Burnett go to your division rivals without even trying to outbid them, while wasting all your effort bidding for a guy who's basically just another power hitter. Timely hitting, remember, occurs only when the game is close enough to make a difference, which depends on your pitching. Hey, it ain't rocket science.
No, what wins championships is pitching, something that the Sox had when they won their two Series this century and the Yankees didn't. Meanwhile, though, it seems that Theo forgot all about that basic fact and wasted all his effort this spring chasing Texeira and letting the Yankees get a solid No. 2 pitcher like Burnett for relatively cheap money.
Fact, the Yankees started the season with 23 pitchers on the 40 man roster, while the Sox began with only 20 because, you know, they had "enough" pitching. Hah!
You never have enough pitching, and you certainly don't let a solid guy like Burnett go to your division rivals without even trying to outbid them, while wasting all your effort bidding for a guy who's basically just another power hitter. Timely hitting, remember, occurs only when the game is close enough to make a difference, which depends on your pitching. Hey, it ain't rocket science.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Thank you, petey
Your questions are off point, once again. I posted a series of specific talking points that I believe in and asked whether you wingnuts agree or disagree with them in substance, not whether I think I'm smarter than the "unwashed minions," your term not mine, nor whether I'm a constitutionalist within your Humpty Dumpty usage of the term.
But you did address some of my subtantive statements and you apparently equate the principles I listed as being some kind of warm-fuzzy kumbayah philosophy with which you would like to agree, but you feel you can't because it's "naive" to resolve differences without arms and we have to have more weapons than anyone else.
I say "thank you" because you prove once again my main point about how far the GOP has gone to the extreme right after the Reagan "revolution." All of the statements in this post were "plagiarized" -from Dwight David Eisenhower, a real conservative and a truly great leader who wouldn't have a place in today's GOP.
Meanwhile, Obama's policies that you assail are much closer to Ike's than were Bush's. QED
Your questions are off point, once again. I posted a series of specific talking points that I believe in and asked whether you wingnuts agree or disagree with them in substance, not whether I think I'm smarter than the "unwashed minions," your term not mine, nor whether I'm a constitutionalist within your Humpty Dumpty usage of the term.
But you did address some of my subtantive statements and you apparently equate the principles I listed as being some kind of warm-fuzzy kumbayah philosophy with which you would like to agree, but you feel you can't because it's "naive" to resolve differences without arms and we have to have more weapons than anyone else.
I say "thank you" because you prove once again my main point about how far the GOP has gone to the extreme right after the Reagan "revolution." All of the statements in this post were "plagiarized" -from Dwight David Eisenhower, a real conservative and a truly great leader who wouldn't have a place in today's GOP.
Meanwhile, Obama's policies that you assail are much closer to Ike's than were Bush's. QED
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
I'm waiting, petey
I expressly asked you about whether you disagree with the substantive principles I stated in this post, asking that you get back either to say you agree in order to find some common ground, or if you disagree to provide some well reasoned analysis as to why. That's what's called "debate," as opposed to your right wing invective.
Your apparent inability to do either clearly proves my point about you right wing reactionary bozos, you got nothin' but the same-old Ouingnut Ouija "talking points," only this time you had to reach way back off the board to come up with a lame, gay-bashing joke about Gerry Studds.
Keep it up, petey baby, 'cause every time you post here you only prove my point about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's "conservative" GOP and the people who support them.
More lame jokes about Studds, or Obama or attacks on "liberalism" in general that have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand? Fine. It just adds more weight to what I'm saying about today's GOP. Like Ann Richards said about bush, you're all hat and no cattle.
I expressly asked you about whether you disagree with the substantive principles I stated in this post, asking that you get back either to say you agree in order to find some common ground, or if you disagree to provide some well reasoned analysis as to why. That's what's called "debate," as opposed to your right wing invective.
Your apparent inability to do either clearly proves my point about you right wing reactionary bozos, you got nothin' but the same-old Ouingnut Ouija "talking points," only this time you had to reach way back off the board to come up with a lame, gay-bashing joke about Gerry Studds.
Keep it up, petey baby, 'cause every time you post here you only prove my point about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's "conservative" GOP and the people who support them.
More lame jokes about Studds, or Obama or attacks on "liberalism" in general that have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand? Fine. It just adds more weight to what I'm saying about today's GOP. Like Ann Richards said about bush, you're all hat and no cattle.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, petey
Again, you still haven't addressed the actual substance of this post, either to agree in order to find some common ground or to disagree with any reasoned analysis as to why the principles stated are in any way open to debate.
You just keep on proving my point about today's so-called "conservatives," petey, which is that you're all nothin' but a gaggle of obstructionist, reactionary reactionaries who, when you get right down to it, you got nuthin'.
So, how 'bout it? You got any real ideas for moving forward into the 21st Century? Or just some more of that right-wing bullstuff the GOP's been selling for the past 30 years that led directly to the most massive economic failure since 1929.
That's a fact, petey, so what do you suggest -keep fighting "pre-emptive" oil wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives? Keep letting the industrial and financial sleasebags claim they "earn" million dollar bonuses while driving the economy into the tank, while hundreds of thousands of families' homes are foreclosed? Is that your vision, petey?
Again, you still haven't addressed the actual substance of this post, either to agree in order to find some common ground or to disagree with any reasoned analysis as to why the principles stated are in any way open to debate.
You just keep on proving my point about today's so-called "conservatives," petey, which is that you're all nothin' but a gaggle of obstructionist, reactionary reactionaries who, when you get right down to it, you got nuthin'.
So, how 'bout it? You got any real ideas for moving forward into the 21st Century? Or just some more of that right-wing bullstuff the GOP's been selling for the past 30 years that led directly to the most massive economic failure since 1929.
That's a fact, petey, so what do you suggest -keep fighting "pre-emptive" oil wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives? Keep letting the industrial and financial sleasebags claim they "earn" million dollar bonuses while driving the economy into the tank, while hundreds of thousands of families' homes are foreclosed? Is that your vision, petey?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, petey
You think high interest rates on mortgages and consumer purchases when you have an income are worse than not having a job that pays enough to afford a home or a car -or, thanks to the past eight years of GOP "free market" deregulatory nonsense, having no job at all as with today's 10 percent unemployed? Get real.
By the way, what's all this got to do with the actual substance of my post? Yeah, I borrowed a bit of scriptural cliche to describe the essence of the thoughts expressed as "pearls," but you really haven't got anything to say about the truth of what the post is actually all about. Like I said, all you guys know how to do is deny, obfuscate and evade without offering any substantive alternatives. Talk about "nattering nabobs of negativism!"
You think high interest rates on mortgages and consumer purchases when you have an income are worse than not having a job that pays enough to afford a home or a car -or, thanks to the past eight years of GOP "free market" deregulatory nonsense, having no job at all as with today's 10 percent unemployed? Get real.
By the way, what's all this got to do with the actual substance of my post? Yeah, I borrowed a bit of scriptural cliche to describe the essence of the thoughts expressed as "pearls," but you really haven't got anything to say about the truth of what the post is actually all about. Like I said, all you guys know how to do is deny, obfuscate and evade without offering any substantive alternatives. Talk about "nattering nabobs of negativism!"
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Possee wrote:
The problem with the democrat worship religion, is that they vilify any belief system that even questions their belief system..
Uh, poss baby, where were you when the GOP controlled congress under the leadership of Tom Delay excluded the minority Democrats from all meaningful debate on legislation and policy?
And I suppose you believe that the hard core right wing media hacks welcome opposing views from callers on their rant radio programs.
It really used to be different, when real conservatives like W.F. Buckley would engage liberals openly on live television, without a kill button, and liberals like Susskind, for example, would do the same with conservatives.
Those days are long gone, of course, now that the corporate elite have bought up all the public broadcast licenses and allow only "fair and balanced" programming like on Fox TV with its crew of right-wing hatchet men.
The problem with the democrat worship religion, is that they vilify any belief system that even questions their belief system..
Uh, poss baby, where were you when the GOP controlled congress under the leadership of Tom Delay excluded the minority Democrats from all meaningful debate on legislation and policy?
And I suppose you believe that the hard core right wing media hacks welcome opposing views from callers on their rant radio programs.
It really used to be different, when real conservatives like W.F. Buckley would engage liberals openly on live television, without a kill button, and liberals like Susskind, for example, would do the same with conservatives.
Those days are long gone, of course, now that the corporate elite have bought up all the public broadcast licenses and allow only "fair and balanced" programming like on Fox TV with its crew of right-wing hatchet men.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Now, petey
Are you criticizing me for quoting scripture without attribution -more "plagiarism" perhaps? Well, in every Christian church I ever belonged to, including Unitarian, Episcopal and now Congregational, they taught us to spread the word of Jesus -the good news!
So what kind of "conservative" are you that criticizes someone for simply repeating Jesus' teachings. I believe most of the sentiments I expressed in this post are a lot closer to what Jesus would say than, oh, Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh -a lot closer to Obama, too, for that matter.
Are you criticizing me for quoting scripture without attribution -more "plagiarism" perhaps? Well, in every Christian church I ever belonged to, including Unitarian, Episcopal and now Congregational, they taught us to spread the word of Jesus -the good news!
So what kind of "conservative" are you that criticizes someone for simply repeating Jesus' teachings. I believe most of the sentiments I expressed in this post are a lot closer to what Jesus would say than, oh, Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh -a lot closer to Obama, too, for that matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey, Ned
What makes you so sure those creeps went to the Dominican Republic to go to a cat house? There's lots of places closer and cleaner, like Las Vegas where it's even legal in some counties.
I mean, when unmarried guys like that go overseas together to third world countries for sex it's usually not for sexually mature women, is it?
What makes you so sure those creeps went to the Dominican Republic to go to a cat house? There's lots of places closer and cleaner, like Las Vegas where it's even legal in some counties.
I mean, when unmarried guys like that go overseas together to third world countries for sex it's usually not for sexually mature women, is it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Hey Buzz
Maybe dk listens to Limbaugh, but I don't have the stomach for that. So I read about his bloviations, both quotes and analysis and then check it out on line at youtube or other video sources to get it from the horses-asses' mouth. Only in small doses though because it's really toxic shhtt.
Maybe dk listens to Limbaugh, but I don't have the stomach for that. So I read about his bloviations, both quotes and analysis and then check it out on line at youtube or other video sources to get it from the horses-asses' mouth. Only in small doses though because it's really toxic shhtt.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, Maverick
The thing is, see, that I don't come back at you or Buzz with things like "little peter" because you don't come at me with that kind of crap like peter whatshisname did right out of the blocks several posts ago with ad hominem comments about me personally.
So, I just give it back, and you can tell from the increasingly shrill retorts from little petey that it's really getting to him. He copycats what I say like a little brat on the gradeschool playground, essentially just saying "so are you, nah-nah-nah-nah-na-nah" without any cogent, substantive analysis as to the actual topic at hand -in addition to parroting the right wing crap he gets from rant radio and now on the ouingnut ouija board.
I commented about Rush never having played a down of football in his life. He came back with Kraft and I pointed out that Kraft played lightweight football at Columbia, full contact with pads against teams from Princeton, Harvard, etc. Now he's putting that honorable program down just so he can, like a little snotnosed schoolboy, think he's won all the marbles. Pathetic!
The thing is, see, that I don't come back at you or Buzz with things like "little peter" because you don't come at me with that kind of crap like peter whatshisname did right out of the blocks several posts ago with ad hominem comments about me personally.
So, I just give it back, and you can tell from the increasingly shrill retorts from little petey that it's really getting to him. He copycats what I say like a little brat on the gradeschool playground, essentially just saying "so are you, nah-nah-nah-nah-na-nah" without any cogent, substantive analysis as to the actual topic at hand -in addition to parroting the right wing crap he gets from rant radio and now on the ouingnut ouija board.
I commented about Rush never having played a down of football in his life. He came back with Kraft and I pointed out that Kraft played lightweight football at Columbia, full contact with pads against teams from Princeton, Harvard, etc. Now he's putting that honorable program down just so he can, like a little snotnosed schoolboy, think he's won all the marbles. Pathetic!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
What the global warming deniers don't understand due to their basic ignorance of science is that the weather system is not a uniform, static phenomenon either geographically or temporally. Weather patterns and temperatures change locally all the time on short intervals of this year or that year throughout the world, sometimes getting colder and sometimes warmer, sometimes going in different directions in different localities.
What global warming is about, what the competent climatologists, oceanographers and geologists are telling us, is that we are undergoing a global warming trend that is unprecedented both in scale and rate of change and therefore unpredicted by any prior trend for either warming or cooling -except in times of global catastrophe. And that's exactly what the past 100 years of worldwide industrialization, with massive burning of coal and petroleum products, has amounted to -a global catastrophe whose effects are just beginning to be seen -including unpredictable local weather as well as the well documented effects of melting polar and glacial ice.
What global warming is about, what the competent climatologists, oceanographers and geologists are telling us, is that we are undergoing a global warming trend that is unprecedented both in scale and rate of change and therefore unpredicted by any prior trend for either warming or cooling -except in times of global catastrophe. And that's exactly what the past 100 years of worldwide industrialization, with massive burning of coal and petroleum products, has amounted to -a global catastrophe whose effects are just beginning to be seen -including unpredictable local weather as well as the well documented effects of melting polar and glacial ice.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
In response to: The US Mission in Afghanistan is...?
There's an old song by Blind Blake called "That'll never happen no more" about a fellows self-inflicted difficulties with several women. Now, Professor Gordon Ourside, in his Songs of Morning in America anthology has updated the lyrics somewhat. Here's the last verse and chorus.
Mr. Obama, you're a smart man
So get us to hell outta Afghanistan.
No more neocon crap 'bout democracy,
Just bust bin Laden's butt and call it victory.
The rich are gettin richer while we have a war.
Sellin' guns and stealin' oil, like it's always for.
Us poor folks are payin' for it with our lives
Just so their damned high-livin style survives.
Well that can't never happen no more.
No that can't never happen no more.
Blind Blake sang humorously about getting away from his calamatous relationships with women, but Dr. Ourside gives the same advice about how to deal with the truly disastrous Bush administration debacle in Afghanistan that Obama's been saddled with.
It's like what Joe Biden's been saying, Get bin Laden, declare victory and leave. Show some real political cojones for once.
Mr. Obama, you're a smart man
So get us to hell outta Afghanistan.
No more neocon crap 'bout democracy,
Just bust bin Laden's butt and call it victory.
The rich are gettin richer while we have a war.
Sellin' guns and stealin' oil, like it's always for.
Us poor folks are payin' for it with our lives
Just so their damned high-livin style survives.
Well that can't never happen no more.
No that can't never happen no more.
Blind Blake sang humorously about getting away from his calamatous relationships with women, but Dr. Ourside gives the same advice about how to deal with the truly disastrous Bush administration debacle in Afghanistan that Obama's been saddled with.
It's like what Joe Biden's been saying, Get bin Laden, declare victory and leave. Show some real political cojones for once.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey, r-five
You got a point there. Not the one on top of your head but about capitalism and socialism not being mentioned in the Constitution because the words hadn't been coined yet. Actually, half a point because capitalism, i.e. commmerce, was known and is mentioned in the Constitution as in Article I, Sect. 8, giving Congress the power to regulate commerce.
More to the point, however, is that the Constitution avoids specifics and deals with broad general ideals such as promoting the general welfare, mentioned in both the preamble's statement of governmental purpose and in the tax clause.
So the question becomes one of practicality based on the evidence. Which model best serves the general welfare, a system based on reckless risk taking that nearly bankrupts the country, or a genuinely conservative system that recognizes the need for government to regulate and provide for essential services like public water supply and the availability of medical care for everyone on a fair, level economic playing field.
You got a point there. Not the one on top of your head but about capitalism and socialism not being mentioned in the Constitution because the words hadn't been coined yet. Actually, half a point because capitalism, i.e. commmerce, was known and is mentioned in the Constitution as in Article I, Sect. 8, giving Congress the power to regulate commerce.
More to the point, however, is that the Constitution avoids specifics and deals with broad general ideals such as promoting the general welfare, mentioned in both the preamble's statement of governmental purpose and in the tax clause.
So the question becomes one of practicality based on the evidence. Which model best serves the general welfare, a system based on reckless risk taking that nearly bankrupts the country, or a genuinely conservative system that recognizes the need for government to regulate and provide for essential services like public water supply and the availability of medical care for everyone on a fair, level economic playing field.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, Tad
I missed it with you. You got right down to cases with Barney Frank, but I didn't predict it on the board. Oh, well, you can't win 'em all.
I missed it with you. You got right down to cases with Barney Frank, but I didn't predict it on the board. Oh, well, you can't win 'em all.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
So, little peter,
What's your point? I acknowledged the trivial mistake of confusing Holmes with Ali, and even if Holmes has a better lifetime record than Ali, that's only because Ali kept fighting long after his prime. In their day, it was no contest and anyone with any level of intelligence would rather watch Ali boxing than Holmes punching -but I guess that exludes you.
But thank you for again proving my point in this post about how you wingnuts always glom onto some trivial little factoid, having nothing to do with the subject at hand and worry it to death in a desperate attempt to discredit any center liberal commentary that challenges your a priori right wing ideology.
The point about Cobb was not whether Ali or Holmes fought him or was a better boxer, but about how he kept coming back and back, taking punch after punch after his face was bloodied by Holmes, as you correctly note, without landing a punch. It's exactly what guys like you and r-five are doing right now in response to this post.
Again, thank you, petey, for once again proving you got nuthin'.
What's your point? I acknowledged the trivial mistake of confusing Holmes with Ali, and even if Holmes has a better lifetime record than Ali, that's only because Ali kept fighting long after his prime. In their day, it was no contest and anyone with any level of intelligence would rather watch Ali boxing than Holmes punching -but I guess that exludes you.
But thank you for again proving my point in this post about how you wingnuts always glom onto some trivial little factoid, having nothing to do with the subject at hand and worry it to death in a desperate attempt to discredit any center liberal commentary that challenges your a priori right wing ideology.
The point about Cobb was not whether Ali or Holmes fought him or was a better boxer, but about how he kept coming back and back, taking punch after punch after his face was bloodied by Holmes, as you correctly note, without landing a punch. It's exactly what guys like you and r-five are doing right now in response to this post.
Again, thank you, petey, for once again proving you got nuthin'.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, r-five
You must have amazing x-ray vision, seeing all that stuff with your head lodged way up there where the sun don't shine, along with little petey and the other wingnuts who come back at this post with derivative, unoriginal copy cat games based on the very same right wing rant radio shibboleths I predicted.
At least Buzz came back with some real humor and perspective, but that's probably because his head is closer to the center and isn't in the same dark place as yours and petey's. Capiche?
You must have amazing x-ray vision, seeing all that stuff with your head lodged way up there where the sun don't shine, along with little petey and the other wingnuts who come back at this post with derivative, unoriginal copy cat games based on the very same right wing rant radio shibboleths I predicted.
At least Buzz came back with some real humor and perspective, but that's probably because his head is closer to the center and isn't in the same dark place as yours and petey's. Capiche?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Mr. Kelly
You mention the Constitution, so let's start with Article I, Sect. 8, which expressly gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, i.e. businesses like the insurance giants.
It also gives Congress the right to levy taxes to promote the general welfare on equal footing with national defense. If you don't think providing adequate health care to all Americans serves the "general welfare" what in hell does?
Nowhere does the Constitution say that capitalism is a required economic model, or that socialism is prohibited. Private property is mentioned only once, in the 5th Amendment, where it recognizes that the government can take property for public use, i.e. "socialize" it, by paying just compensation.
Article III gives the Supremes the sole right to determine all questions of federal law, which is the supreme law of the land under Article VI, binding on judges in every state anything else in the Constitution like Amendment 10 or state law "notwithstanding."
So why don't you try reading the Constitution instead of regurgitating your ignorant reactionary cant.
You mention the Constitution, so let's start with Article I, Sect. 8, which expressly gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, i.e. businesses like the insurance giants.
It also gives Congress the right to levy taxes to promote the general welfare on equal footing with national defense. If you don't think providing adequate health care to all Americans serves the "general welfare" what in hell does?
Nowhere does the Constitution say that capitalism is a required economic model, or that socialism is prohibited. Private property is mentioned only once, in the 5th Amendment, where it recognizes that the government can take property for public use, i.e. "socialize" it, by paying just compensation.
Article III gives the Supremes the sole right to determine all questions of federal law, which is the supreme law of the land under Article VI, binding on judges in every state anything else in the Constitution like Amendment 10 or state law "notwithstanding."
So why don't you try reading the Constitution instead of regurgitating your ignorant reactionary cant.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cellular Distractions!
In response to: Cellular Distractions!
The easily distracted will always be distracted no matter what they do, but we shouldn't encourage or otherwise enable them when they are trying to controll a 2000 block of steel moving at 50 or 60 m.p.h.
Even at low speeds it's maddening when I'm in a long line of traffic and see someone to the left or right waiting at a stop sign, I slow down and blink my highbeams to signal them to go ahead of me and they just sit there because they're involved a really "important" conversation on the cell phone exchanging pleasantries about the weather or whatever.
It's even more infuriating when I happen to be behind one of these easily distracted folks at the stop sign and they ignore another courteous driver who gives them the chance to move out. I've been known in that situation to rudely interrupt their convesation with my automobile horn, not polite but a lot less impolite than someone blocking traffic while they gossip with a friend. The horn is not as rude as the digital response offered by these easily distracted drivers who think the public road is their private phone booth.
Even at low speeds it's maddening when I'm in a long line of traffic and see someone to the left or right waiting at a stop sign, I slow down and blink my highbeams to signal them to go ahead of me and they just sit there because they're involved a really "important" conversation on the cell phone exchanging pleasantries about the weather or whatever.
It's even more infuriating when I happen to be behind one of these easily distracted folks at the stop sign and they ignore another courteous driver who gives them the chance to move out. I've been known in that situation to rudely interrupt their convesation with my automobile horn, not polite but a lot less impolite than someone blocking traffic while they gossip with a friend. The horn is not as rude as the digital response offered by these easily distracted drivers who think the public road is their private phone booth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, petey
Yeah, you got me on the Ali / Holmes mixup, but it only proves my point. Not many guys could hit Ali, but Holmes was hittable and Cobb couldn't do it, just like you wingnuts trying to land a glove on me here.
About buying the Constitution for $300. It costs a lot more than that, I'm afraid, more likte trillions as with the massive debt run up by Bush's GOP until the crash in 2008. But the corporate elite, working through the GOP over the past eight years, has made a huge down payment. Right now they're negotiating with the Roberts Court conservative majority to buy the First Amendment through "corporate free speech." You think maybe Jefferson would buy that one?
About Ronnie Reagan, I know it's hard to disparage a fool, but it's necessary only because of his devastating, divisive political legacy. As for homoerotic oedipal impulses, do I detect some projection on your part here? Yes, definitely!
About the bloviating bombastic buffoon, I couldn't think of a way to fit your homoerotic ego ideal "Rush" into the Ouingnut board. Sorry, maybe next time. :-)
Yeah, you got me on the Ali / Holmes mixup, but it only proves my point. Not many guys could hit Ali, but Holmes was hittable and Cobb couldn't do it, just like you wingnuts trying to land a glove on me here.
About buying the Constitution for $300. It costs a lot more than that, I'm afraid, more likte trillions as with the massive debt run up by Bush's GOP until the crash in 2008. But the corporate elite, working through the GOP over the past eight years, has made a huge down payment. Right now they're negotiating with the Roberts Court conservative majority to buy the First Amendment through "corporate free speech." You think maybe Jefferson would buy that one?
About Ronnie Reagan, I know it's hard to disparage a fool, but it's necessary only because of his devastating, divisive political legacy. As for homoerotic oedipal impulses, do I detect some projection on your part here? Yes, definitely!
About the bloviating bombastic buffoon, I couldn't think of a way to fit your homoerotic ego ideal "Rush" into the Ouingnut board. Sorry, maybe next time. :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Jonathan
Thanks for the verses. They reinforce what I wrote at the outset of this blog. I'm a liberal centrist who believes in our constitutional ideals and not any ideology left or right. I both admire Eisenhower and subscribe to his remark that he despised extremists on the left and right who throw rocks at those of us in the center. The main difference being that I throw rocks back from the center, both at the left as I've done with gun control, gay marriage and animal rights, and more frequently at the right.
The sad truth is that Ike wouldn't find a place under todays GOP tent. The closest thing we've seen to him is Powell and look how they used him and stabbed him in the back.
The GOP has moved so far to the right in ideological lockstep that liberal centrists like us are labelled extremists on right-wing rant radio and Fox media. We have to fight back on every front and it really isn't allthat difficult given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's right wing GOP. In fact, it can sometimes be outright fun baiting these wingnuts, as with this post. :-)
Thanks for the verses. They reinforce what I wrote at the outset of this blog. I'm a liberal centrist who believes in our constitutional ideals and not any ideology left or right. I both admire Eisenhower and subscribe to his remark that he despised extremists on the left and right who throw rocks at those of us in the center. The main difference being that I throw rocks back from the center, both at the left as I've done with gun control, gay marriage and animal rights, and more frequently at the right.
The sad truth is that Ike wouldn't find a place under todays GOP tent. The closest thing we've seen to him is Powell and look how they used him and stabbed him in the back.
The GOP has moved so far to the right in ideological lockstep that liberal centrists like us are labelled extremists on right-wing rant radio and Fox media. We have to fight back on every front and it really isn't allthat difficult given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's right wing GOP. In fact, it can sometimes be outright fun baiting these wingnuts, as with this post. :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, r-five
Where you been for the past eight years? It was on Bush's watch, with six years of GOP control of Congress as America became Baltic Avenue. Have you checked the mortgage foreclosure data lately? I.e. "free markets" at work.
And who was it that tore down Filene's leaving a gaping hole in the heart of Boston's downtown? You think that was Acorn, too? Try asking yourself how Macy's was allowed to become so big that it put both Filenes and Jordan's out of business -Acorn again, huh?
About being paid for who you are instead of what you do, try applying that analysis to George W. Bush, and all the trust fund babies who grew up to become "free market" Republicans.
About jail, try looking at the actual American prison population and count how many of them look like Madoff or Skilling and how many of them look more like O.J. -only those guys don't come from Brentwood but, um, Baltic Avenue.
Also, who got "all the money in the game" over the past eight years, the folks on Baltic Ave., or the sleasebags on Wall Street -including public tax money. Can you spell A.I.G.?
Where you been for the past eight years? It was on Bush's watch, with six years of GOP control of Congress as America became Baltic Avenue. Have you checked the mortgage foreclosure data lately? I.e. "free markets" at work.
And who was it that tore down Filene's leaving a gaping hole in the heart of Boston's downtown? You think that was Acorn, too? Try asking yourself how Macy's was allowed to become so big that it put both Filenes and Jordan's out of business -Acorn again, huh?
About being paid for who you are instead of what you do, try applying that analysis to George W. Bush, and all the trust fund babies who grew up to become "free market" Republicans.
About jail, try looking at the actual American prison population and count how many of them look like Madoff or Skilling and how many of them look more like O.J. -only those guys don't come from Brentwood but, um, Baltic Avenue.
Also, who got "all the money in the game" over the past eight years, the folks on Baltic Ave., or the sleasebags on Wall Street -including public tax money. Can you spell A.I.G.?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Buzz
Thanks for the input. Once again you show yourself to be the exception that proves the rule about today's "conservatives." You're a conservative, but you have some perspective and a sense of humor, and that's truly remarkable.
Thanks for the input. Once again you show yourself to be the exception that proves the rule about today's "conservatives." You're a conservative, but you have some perspective and a sense of humor, and that's truly remarkable.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hi, Cru
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes, I did the board myself including caricatures, the hardest part being reductions on the copier to fit into the design. (Before I went to college and law school I flunked out of art school.)
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes, I did the board myself including caricatures, the hardest part being reductions on the copier to fit into the design. (Before I went to college and law school I flunked out of art school.)
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey,Buzz
Before you go around calling a liberal like me hypocritical,try looking at yourself and the people you identify with and defend publicly.
I'm not the one saying America is a "Christian nation." That would be the religious right that votes GOP throughout the Bible Belt. You know, the folks that the GOP depends on for the popular vote in national elections and those who the "fair and balanced," corporatist Fox media depends upon for the bulk of its listenership and panders to with all that phony "conservative" family values crap.
My point here wasn't that I am especially Christian, so there's no need for me to give everything I own to the poor, but if Kelly wants to dump on Obama for being "communist," he should first try rapping Jesus and the Apostles and then see how far that flies out in Fox snooze land.
Before you go around calling a liberal like me hypocritical,try looking at yourself and the people you identify with and defend publicly.
I'm not the one saying America is a "Christian nation." That would be the religious right that votes GOP throughout the Bible Belt. You know, the folks that the GOP depends on for the popular vote in national elections and those who the "fair and balanced," corporatist Fox media depends upon for the bulk of its listenership and panders to with all that phony "conservative" family values crap.
My point here wasn't that I am especially Christian, so there's no need for me to give everything I own to the poor, but if Kelly wants to dump on Obama for being "communist," he should first try rapping Jesus and the Apostles and then see how far that flies out in Fox snooze land.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Hey, Mr. Kelly
Why bash Obama on this issue? Why not Jesus? As the Good Book says:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. . . .Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Matthew,19:21-24.
Why not bash the Apostles, too, who organized the early church according to that teaching:
"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." -Acts,4:30-35
You really think Marx dreamed up the idea of collectivism all by himself in a spiritual void? Or maybe it's die hard right wing Americans like you who live in the spiritual void and would deny health care to the needy.
Why bash Obama on this issue? Why not Jesus? As the Good Book says:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. . . .Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Matthew,19:21-24.
Why not bash the Apostles, too, who organized the early church according to that teaching:
"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." -Acts,4:30-35
You really think Marx dreamed up the idea of collectivism all by himself in a spiritual void? Or maybe it's die hard right wing Americans like you who live in the spiritual void and would deny health care to the needy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, all
Thanks for joining me on this post, but I'm done with it. I'll be putting something else up in a day or so, but I won't be checking back on this one. Just letting you know that ahead of time so you won't think I'm avoiding you. Thanks.
Thanks for joining me on this post, but I'm done with it. I'll be putting something else up in a day or so, but I won't be checking back on this one. Just letting you know that ahead of time so you won't think I'm avoiding you. Thanks.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Crusader
No, I have not practiced in the area of landlord tenant law since I worked for Legal Services in 1975, and I have never practiced real estate law. Bruce Bierhans who blogs on this site as Cape Cod Barrister does a lot of work representing mortgagors in trouble, as you probably know.
My practice is focussed on general litigation, including a lot of work representing disabled people against the insurance industry weasels who are in business only to collect premiums on group ERISA policies rather than paying claims.
No, I have not practiced in the area of landlord tenant law since I worked for Legal Services in 1975, and I have never practiced real estate law. Bruce Bierhans who blogs on this site as Cape Cod Barrister does a lot of work representing mortgagors in trouble, as you probably know.
My practice is focussed on general litigation, including a lot of work representing disabled people against the insurance industry weasels who are in business only to collect premiums on group ERISA policies rather than paying claims.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, Petey
You remind me a lot of Tex Cobb. Remember him trying to box with Ali, how he kept coming getting all bloody without even landing a punch, but he never quit. That's like you trying to lay a glove on me here.
As for Bob Kraft, he played lightweight football for Columbia. The Ivies have a lesser known league for small players and Kraft played at that level.
Also, both Kraft who I admire and Kyam who I didn't like as an owner, are both astute businessmen who know how to run an organization. Limbaugh is just a fat windbag who couldn't even run his own personal life.
BTW, you apparently know how to read a case and are familiar with the law of defamation, as in your reference to Myers. So why can't I find Peter Walker listed in Lawyer's Diary? Retired? Disbarred? Or are you just another chicken "stuff" blowhard who doesn't even have the cojones to use his real name on a site like this?
You remind me a lot of Tex Cobb. Remember him trying to box with Ali, how he kept coming getting all bloody without even landing a punch, but he never quit. That's like you trying to lay a glove on me here.
As for Bob Kraft, he played lightweight football for Columbia. The Ivies have a lesser known league for small players and Kraft played at that level.
Also, both Kraft who I admire and Kyam who I didn't like as an owner, are both astute businessmen who know how to run an organization. Limbaugh is just a fat windbag who couldn't even run his own personal life.
BTW, you apparently know how to read a case and are familiar with the law of defamation, as in your reference to Myers. So why can't I find Peter Walker listed in Lawyer's Diary? Retired? Disbarred? Or are you just another chicken "stuff" blowhard who doesn't even have the cojones to use his real name on a site like this?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Buzz
You got me on the Cardinals thing. Of course, I started following NFL football circa 1958 when I began playing for Lawrence High School in Falmouth. Played all four years and started at fullback in '61.
In those days, the New York football Giants were our team here in New England, and Charlie Connerly was the quarterback, then Y.A. Tittle. So, I slip up once in awhile on team names, like I still refer to the Colts as Baltimore every so often. Now that's a real BFD, isn't it?
Your referral to Jay Z buying into the NBA is typical right wing obfuscation. First, I was talking about the NFL, not the NBA, and second I never said anything about Jay Z because that would be wholly off-topic.
I only mentioned Limbaugh and the NFL because possee said that he spoke for many respectable Americans and the response he's gotten from NFL owners indicates otherwise.
Let's try to keep things focussed, huh?
You got me on the Cardinals thing. Of course, I started following NFL football circa 1958 when I began playing for Lawrence High School in Falmouth. Played all four years and started at fullback in '61.
In those days, the New York football Giants were our team here in New England, and Charlie Connerly was the quarterback, then Y.A. Tittle. So, I slip up once in awhile on team names, like I still refer to the Colts as Baltimore every so often. Now that's a real BFD, isn't it?
Your referral to Jay Z buying into the NBA is typical right wing obfuscation. First, I was talking about the NFL, not the NBA, and second I never said anything about Jay Z because that would be wholly off-topic.
I only mentioned Limbaugh and the NFL because possee said that he spoke for many respectable Americans and the response he's gotten from NFL owners indicates otherwise.
Let's try to keep things focussed, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Maverick
"Upstanding" is a relative term, especially in today's deregulated business climate that fosters the likes of Kenny Boy Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, with an upper echelon of corporate executives who feel entitled to bonuses paid with taxpayer bailout money after they drove the economy into the ground which necessitated those bonuses.
By comparison to those guys, who are legion in corporate America, Irsay is a moral paragon.
"Upstanding" is a relative term, especially in today's deregulated business climate that fosters the likes of Kenny Boy Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, with an upper echelon of corporate executives who feel entitled to bonuses paid with taxpayer bailout money after they drove the economy into the ground which necessitated those bonuses.
By comparison to those guys, who are legion in corporate America, Irsay is a moral paragon.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Peter, you ignorant twit.
If you knew anything at all about Philadelphia, Mississippi, you'd know that it wasn't simply "three negroes" being murdered.
In the first place, only Chaney was black, Goodman and Scwherner were Jewish -not quite as bad for the bigots who murdered them, only Chaney was beaten severely before being shot dead, sustaining two broken arms. Given your tolerance Reagan's pandering to that bunch of bigots I'd guess it doesn't make that much difference to you either, "Negroes" or Jews, whatever, right?
It wasn't just the Klan, though, it was a joint effort with the Neshoba County sheriffs office who first arrested the three civil rights workers on bogus charges, denied them a call to a lawyer, and then delivered them to the Klan mob who murdered them.
That was "state" action, by the way, as in the "states rights" Reagan professed to believe in so strongly. You, too, huh?
If you knew anything at all about Philadelphia, Mississippi, you'd know that it wasn't simply "three negroes" being murdered.
In the first place, only Chaney was black, Goodman and Scwherner were Jewish -not quite as bad for the bigots who murdered them, only Chaney was beaten severely before being shot dead, sustaining two broken arms. Given your tolerance Reagan's pandering to that bunch of bigots I'd guess it doesn't make that much difference to you either, "Negroes" or Jews, whatever, right?
It wasn't just the Klan, though, it was a joint effort with the Neshoba County sheriffs office who first arrested the three civil rights workers on bogus charges, denied them a call to a lawyer, and then delivered them to the Klan mob who murdered them.
That was "state" action, by the way, as in the "states rights" Reagan professed to believe in so strongly. You, too, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Um, petey
I "got nuthin'," huh? So now who's "plagiarizing" who? You can't even think up your own putdowns, so you resort to retorting with my taunts like some little brat on the school playground.
Give it a rest, please, because you're only making yourself look like a bigger fool. In case you can't remember back beyond yesterday, it was your guys, Bush, Cheney and the GOP, that nearly bankrupted America as well as got us involved in an intractable war in Afghanistan, and it's unquestionably the case that they were put into a position to do so by pandering to the religious right, all those "Red State" voters in the Bible Belt.
Now before you come back with some more ad hominem carping, try addressing the specific issues.
Did the economy collapse in 2008 on Bush's watch?
Did Bush start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone have a clear idea of how to "win" in Afghanistan? How?
What did we actually "win" in Iraq that benefits any Americans other than the defense industry? Exactly how?
I'm waiting for you to give cogent answers, but not holding my breath.
I "got nuthin'," huh? So now who's "plagiarizing" who? You can't even think up your own putdowns, so you resort to retorting with my taunts like some little brat on the school playground.
Give it a rest, please, because you're only making yourself look like a bigger fool. In case you can't remember back beyond yesterday, it was your guys, Bush, Cheney and the GOP, that nearly bankrupted America as well as got us involved in an intractable war in Afghanistan, and it's unquestionably the case that they were put into a position to do so by pandering to the religious right, all those "Red State" voters in the Bible Belt.
Now before you come back with some more ad hominem carping, try addressing the specific issues.
Did the economy collapse in 2008 on Bush's watch?
Did Bush start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone have a clear idea of how to "win" in Afghanistan? How?
What did we actually "win" in Iraq that benefits any Americans other than the defense industry? Exactly how?
I'm waiting for you to give cogent answers, but not holding my breath.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, dave
Again, I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for financial deregulation which, again, is why I was not a Hillary supporter last year. But it was Bush who systematically dismantled and undermined the entire regulatory apparatus in the name of "free markets" as ideology, as opposed to Clinton's honest but, in hindsight erroneous, trust in limited deregulation as a practical matter.
Again, I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for financial deregulation which, again, is why I was not a Hillary supporter last year. But it was Bush who systematically dismantled and undermined the entire regulatory apparatus in the name of "free markets" as ideology, as opposed to Clinton's honest but, in hindsight erroneous, trust in limited deregulation as a practical matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Buzz
I'll stop mentioning Reagan's states rights speech as soon as the GOP leadership acknowledges that their claims about "states rights" and the Tenth Amendment are just so much nonsense, the way an honest American conservative like Eisenhower did in 1957, sending federal troops into Little Rock to enforce court-ordered desegregation. Here's what Ike said at the time in response to those Dixiecrats who were bleating about "states rights."
"Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all deliberate speed."
So, Buzz, you really should be arguing with Ike about Reagan's "states rights" speech if you're an honest conservative, not me.
I'll stop mentioning Reagan's states rights speech as soon as the GOP leadership acknowledges that their claims about "states rights" and the Tenth Amendment are just so much nonsense, the way an honest American conservative like Eisenhower did in 1957, sending federal troops into Little Rock to enforce court-ordered desegregation. Here's what Ike said at the time in response to those Dixiecrats who were bleating about "states rights."
"Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all deliberate speed."
So, Buzz, you really should be arguing with Ike about Reagan's "states rights" speech if you're an honest conservative, not me.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, r-five
The thing to do with the bigots and the religious extremists is simply to ignore them except when they commit criminal acts of terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roerder, and then prosecute them vigorously.
That is to say our leaders should simply marginalize them, instead of pandering to them as the GOP has been doing ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy worked in 1968.
Indeed, the way Rondald Reagan did to start the "Reagan Revolution," choosing to open his 1980 campaign by preaching states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where a white racist mob had gotten away with murdering three civil rights workers less than 15 years earlier. Why do you suppose he chose Philadelphia, Mississippi for that speech, instead of the much larger City of Philadelphia, PA?
The thing to do with the bigots and the religious extremists is simply to ignore them except when they commit criminal acts of terrorism, like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roerder, and then prosecute them vigorously.
That is to say our leaders should simply marginalize them, instead of pandering to them as the GOP has been doing ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy worked in 1968.
Indeed, the way Rondald Reagan did to start the "Reagan Revolution," choosing to open his 1980 campaign by preaching states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where a white racist mob had gotten away with murdering three civil rights workers less than 15 years earlier. Why do you suppose he chose Philadelphia, Mississippi for that speech, instead of the much larger City of Philadelphia, PA?
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey, possee
Like you say, Limbaugh, et al. do speak for what I refer to as the very worst and most ignorant elements in American society.
But don't just take my word for it. Bob Irsay, owner of the Colts, has gone public saying that he will not vote in favor of Limbaugh who wants to buy into the NFL with the Cardinals, and he's being backed up by the Commish, Roger Goodell.
These guys are upstanding businessmen, with a multi-million dollar operation and they don't want to go near Limbaugh for the very reason that he speaks for the very worst elements in America, specifically racism as with his little diatribe about black quarterbacks last year.
That, plus Limbaugh is a world class phony, a loser who never played a down of football in his life, and he thinks he can operate an NFL football franchise just because he gets paid millions of dollars for pandering to the very worst elements of American society.
Like you say, Limbaugh, et al. do speak for what I refer to as the very worst and most ignorant elements in American society.
But don't just take my word for it. Bob Irsay, owner of the Colts, has gone public saying that he will not vote in favor of Limbaugh who wants to buy into the NFL with the Cardinals, and he's being backed up by the Commish, Roger Goodell.
These guys are upstanding businessmen, with a multi-million dollar operation and they don't want to go near Limbaugh for the very reason that he speaks for the very worst elements in America, specifically racism as with his little diatribe about black quarterbacks last year.
That, plus Limbaugh is a world class phony, a loser who never played a down of football in his life, and he thinks he can operate an NFL football franchise just because he gets paid millions of dollars for pandering to the very worst elements of American society.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hi, Dave
You and Michael Moore are right about Clinton and his economic policies, which is why I was an Obama supporter against Hillary from the git go.
But Clinton did leave America in the black, Clinton did not start oil wars in the mid-East, Clinton did not bankrupt the middle class, the working class and the poor. Bush Cheney with GOP majorities in Congress did all those things.
No, Clinton just spunked Monica's blue dress so, of course, he must be blamed for everything else as well. I mean let's really be fair and balanced and blame Clinton for what he did, then compare it to what Bush did -4000 American lives lost for nothing, plus a trillion dollars in debt. C'mon, Dave, let's try a little perspective here.
You and Michael Moore are right about Clinton and his economic policies, which is why I was an Obama supporter against Hillary from the git go.
But Clinton did leave America in the black, Clinton did not start oil wars in the mid-East, Clinton did not bankrupt the middle class, the working class and the poor. Bush Cheney with GOP majorities in Congress did all those things.
No, Clinton just spunked Monica's blue dress so, of course, he must be blamed for everything else as well. I mean let's really be fair and balanced and blame Clinton for what he did, then compare it to what Bush did -4000 American lives lost for nothing, plus a trillion dollars in debt. C'mon, Dave, let's try a little perspective here.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Oh, Peter, little peter. (Yes, I know about capitalization so it's not a typo). I only resort to ad hominem attacks against those who post here in response to same. Now, this last one of yours is truly pathetic.
You apparently have a problem with small town lawyers -perhaps you've been sued a few times, whatever.
Yes, Reagan did address the Urban League after preaching Jim Crow states rights in Mississippi. Like I said, petey, you aren't very strong on critical analysis. In this post I said that Reagan was advancing a "phony" conservatism, he was just a freaking actor reading lines to advance the corporatist agenda and would say anything to anyone to get votes.
Reagan was a phony who pandered to the racists and the religious right, which is the whole point of my criticism of the corporatist GOP today.
As for Maureen Dowd, I usually read her column and a lot of others as well. Her remarks were not the source of my comments, though brilliant minds do often think alike. This is a blog post, not a scholarly paper, and if I attributed every source it would be unreadably long.
You apparently have a problem with small town lawyers -perhaps you've been sued a few times, whatever.
Yes, Reagan did address the Urban League after preaching Jim Crow states rights in Mississippi. Like I said, petey, you aren't very strong on critical analysis. In this post I said that Reagan was advancing a "phony" conservatism, he was just a freaking actor reading lines to advance the corporatist agenda and would say anything to anyone to get votes.
Reagan was a phony who pandered to the racists and the religious right, which is the whole point of my criticism of the corporatist GOP today.
As for Maureen Dowd, I usually read her column and a lot of others as well. Her remarks were not the source of my comments, though brilliant minds do often think alike. This is a blog post, not a scholarly paper, and if I attributed every source it would be unreadably long.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is it Flat or Round?
In response to: Is it Flat or Round?
It's like Geraldine used to say: "What you see is what you get." Walk outside and the Earth looks flat, so. . . .
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Hey,Possee, Buzz, Little Peter, nice of you to drop in. I do wish you'd try once in awhile to actually deal with specific issues based on fact, instead of going off on tangents and parroting the slogans you hear on the right wing rant media.
Now, Buzz, I know you do try to be both relevant and coherent at times, and I give you an A for effort there, even though your work really never shows much in the way of factual accuracy or critical analysis. But this time, you bring up the right wing rant radio shibboleth of tort reform, totally off topic and without any attempt to make sense in context -definitely an F this time.
And Peter, Little Peter, of course you haven't heard about Reagan's Jim Crow states rights speech in a couple of wseeks. You get all your talking points listening to the hacks in the right wing media and they don't like to mention such inconvenient truths as Reagan's phony conservatism based on his blatant appeal to the very worst elements of American society.
Now, Buzz, I know you do try to be both relevant and coherent at times, and I give you an A for effort there, even though your work really never shows much in the way of factual accuracy or critical analysis. But this time, you bring up the right wing rant radio shibboleth of tort reform, totally off topic and without any attempt to make sense in context -definitely an F this time.
And Peter, Little Peter, of course you haven't heard about Reagan's Jim Crow states rights speech in a couple of wseeks. You get all your talking points listening to the hacks in the right wing media and they don't like to mention such inconvenient truths as Reagan's phony conservatism based on his blatant appeal to the very worst elements of American society.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Jeezus, Jack
A "liberal loser?" Can't you respond to anything that challenges your right wing ideology without descending to direct ad hominem attacks?
I have two all black shelter cats, Muggs and Tillie, but I don't get my political ideas from them as you seem to do from Mittens -at least judging by the quality of your comments here which really amount to nothing more than "Bad Kitty!"
Rich
A "liberal loser?" Can't you respond to anything that challenges your right wing ideology without descending to direct ad hominem attacks?
I have two all black shelter cats, Muggs and Tillie, but I don't get my political ideas from them as you seem to do from Mittens -at least judging by the quality of your comments here which really amount to nothing more than "Bad Kitty!"
Rich
Richard [Member]
In response to: Haaaaaaaaaaar 'Mateys'!!
In response to: Haaaaaaaaaaar 'Mateys'!!
So, is Rup's new cookie a ten -or just a nine? Can't tell from the picture 'cause it's only a headshot.
It's like when little Johnny Potts got the U in the vocabulary lesson and the teacher cringed when he said "urinate." Then she asked him to use it in a sentence and he said "Urinate, but if you had bigger tits you'd be a nine."
O-ops! Now I'm really gonna get it from all the feministas.
It's like when little Johnny Potts got the U in the vocabulary lesson and the teacher cringed when he said "urinate." Then she asked him to use it in a sentence and he said "Urinate, but if you had bigger tits you'd be a nine."
O-ops! Now I'm really gonna get it from all the feministas.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Oh,my Gawd,as they say Down East. I left town for a few days to visit my son at his college homecoming, and look what happened to this site. I'm not even gonna try to respond to any specific post, but I do want to thank DK for stepping up as he did.
Anyway, it should be enlightening for anyone interested in the issue to review two prior posts on this site dealing with the health insurance "debate." The first, on 8/12, entitled "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," dealt with the issue in political and ideological terms and generated a 41 post thread because everyone has an opinion.
The second one, however, on 8/15, entitled "Just Follow The Money" was strictly factual. It compares what happens to your tax dollar for public health insurance vs. your premium dollar for private coverage -no BS, just undeniable fact that a lot more of the tax dollar actually gets to the doctor while the premium dollar is stepped on repeatedly for advertising, CEO perks, investment, profits, lawyers, lobbyist, etc., before the doctor sees even a penny. How many responses? Zero. That says a lot.
Anyway, it should be enlightening for anyone interested in the issue to review two prior posts on this site dealing with the health insurance "debate." The first, on 8/12, entitled "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," dealt with the issue in political and ideological terms and generated a 41 post thread because everyone has an opinion.
The second one, however, on 8/15, entitled "Just Follow The Money" was strictly factual. It compares what happens to your tax dollar for public health insurance vs. your premium dollar for private coverage -no BS, just undeniable fact that a lot more of the tax dollar actually gets to the doctor while the premium dollar is stepped on repeatedly for advertising, CEO perks, investment, profits, lawyers, lobbyist, etc., before the doctor sees even a penny. How many responses? Zero. That says a lot.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
Why do so many people think that two economic models, capitalism and socialism, must be mutually exclusive? There is no constitutional provision that requires that the U.S. must always operate on a capitalist basis in every sector, nor is there a provision that says no sector of the economy may be socialized. It just isn't in there, folks.
What is in there, in Article II, is Congress' power to regulate commerce and to raise taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States which clearly must include providing for the health of everyone if it means anything.
The corporate elite, however, has a vested interest in sustaining a political and ideological schism between capitalism and socialism and thereby sustaining their stranglehold on the economy. It isn't really a case of socialism being antithetical to capitalism as economic models. It is rather, a case of socialism being antithetical to the corporatist mentality that informed the Bush administration and led to the crash of 2008.
BTW, the Supremes are now thinking of expanding "corporate free speech." So watch out.
What is in there, in Article II, is Congress' power to regulate commerce and to raise taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States which clearly must include providing for the health of everyone if it means anything.
The corporate elite, however, has a vested interest in sustaining a political and ideological schism between capitalism and socialism and thereby sustaining their stranglehold on the economy. It isn't really a case of socialism being antithetical to capitalism as economic models. It is rather, a case of socialism being antithetical to the corporatist mentality that informed the Bush administration and led to the crash of 2008.
BTW, the Supremes are now thinking of expanding "corporate free speech." So watch out.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Perry pushes Tort Reform on Beacon Hill
In response to: Perry pushes Tort Reform on Beacon Hill
We actually have limited tort "reform" in Massachusetts for medical malpractice. We don't have an arbitrary cap on damages, but there are limits on contingency fees which, theoretically, will prevent those "greedy" trial lawyers from overreaching. Bad, bad trial lawyers!
There is also the tribunal, a panel of physicians that must review every medical malpractice case that is filed and if that panel of doctors judging doctors finds that the case has no merit the plaintiff must post a cash bond in order to proceed.
Still, our medical costs and malpractice insurance costs have not declined. Nor have such costs declined in Texas where they have an arbitrary cap on pain and suffering damages.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than another corporatist right-wing shibboleth designed to boondoggle the ignorant and uninformed who make up a significant part of the GOP's electoral base.
There is also the tribunal, a panel of physicians that must review every medical malpractice case that is filed and if that panel of doctors judging doctors finds that the case has no merit the plaintiff must post a cash bond in order to proceed.
Still, our medical costs and malpractice insurance costs have not declined. Nor have such costs declined in Texas where they have an arbitrary cap on pain and suffering damages.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than another corporatist right-wing shibboleth designed to boondoggle the ignorant and uninformed who make up a significant part of the GOP's electoral base.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Oh, Buzz
So nice to hear from you. Now why don't you try to explain why the "general Welfare of the United States" does not include using tax money to protect the health of all Americans. While you're at it, please explain how using tax money for corporate welfare, starting a resource war overseas to secure oil leases for oil companies is somehow connected with defending the United States.
So nice to hear from you. Now why don't you try to explain why the "general Welfare of the United States" does not include using tax money to protect the health of all Americans. While you're at it, please explain how using tax money for corporate welfare, starting a resource war overseas to secure oil leases for oil companies is somehow connected with defending the United States.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
See what I mean about little Peter? Now he says, twice even, that he doesn't believe the Kenyan birth conspiracy theory. But he avoids answering my pertinent follow up question.
If he doesn't believe that nonsense what was his point in claiming that he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? To make a statement like that in reply to my critique of that conspircy theory can only have one of two explanations.
1. He believes the theory and is defending it. O.k., he denies that, so the other must be true and he's proving my basic point about today's conservative know-nothings.
2. Just like all the GOP Congressional stooges are doing on health care reform, little Peter puts garbage like that into the discussion, cynically knowing it is garbage, to simply obstruct reasonable discussion of the issues because, just like the GOP stooges in Washington, he's got nuthin.'
See what I mean about little Peter? Now he says, twice even, that he doesn't believe the Kenyan birth conspiracy theory. But he avoids answering my pertinent follow up question.
If he doesn't believe that nonsense what was his point in claiming that he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? To make a statement like that in reply to my critique of that conspircy theory can only have one of two explanations.
1. He believes the theory and is defending it. O.k., he denies that, so the other must be true and he's proving my basic point about today's conservative know-nothings.
2. Just like all the GOP Congressional stooges are doing on health care reform, little Peter puts garbage like that into the discussion, cynically knowing it is garbage, to simply obstruct reasonable discussion of the issues because, just like the GOP stooges in Washington, he's got nuthin.'
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
Didja notice how Petey totally ignored my specific question about his belief or disbelief in the birther conspiracy theory and instead kept up with a barrage of trivial, off-topic right wing talking points?
That's what those guys always do. I put the question to little Peter directly. If he doesn't believe the birther theory, why did he defend it by saying he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? No response there -wonder why?
Is it because he really is an Elmer who believes that crap, or is it because he's a typical right wing obstructionist who's got nuthin' but irrelevant, trivial disinformation, stuff even he doesn't really believe, and he uses it to derail intelligent, serious discussion of the issues at hand when it might threaten his precious know-nothing right wing ideology?
It's got to be one or the other, Ned, and little Peter just doesn't want to talk about it because, either way, he's got nuthin' -and he knows it.
Didja notice how Petey totally ignored my specific question about his belief or disbelief in the birther conspiracy theory and instead kept up with a barrage of trivial, off-topic right wing talking points?
That's what those guys always do. I put the question to little Peter directly. If he doesn't believe the birther theory, why did he defend it by saying he saw Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? No response there -wonder why?
Is it because he really is an Elmer who believes that crap, or is it because he's a typical right wing obstructionist who's got nuthin' but irrelevant, trivial disinformation, stuff even he doesn't really believe, and he uses it to derail intelligent, serious discussion of the issues at hand when it might threaten his precious know-nothing right wing ideology?
It's got to be one or the other, Ned, and little Peter just doesn't want to talk about it because, either way, he's got nuthin' -and he knows it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Maverick:
I was worried about going off topic, too. That's why I mentioned the fact that most religious art, what we see in the European cathedrals, was commisisoned by artists who got paid or were otherwise supported in high style.
That was a way of expressing the idea of God during the Middle Ages, albeit a highly structured, formal expression, that was intended to convey scriptural messages pictorially to the masses who were largely illiterate.
I was worried about going off topic, too. That's why I mentioned the fact that most religious art, what we see in the European cathedrals, was commisisoned by artists who got paid or were otherwise supported in high style.
That was a way of expressing the idea of God during the Middle Ages, albeit a highly structured, formal expression, that was intended to convey scriptural messages pictorially to the masses who were largely illiterate.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Fox25 Boston Runs Anti-Spanking Story?!
In response to: Fox25 Boston Runs Anti-Spanking Story?!
Yeah, yeah, sure. But what about a smack upside the head?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
In response to: Is our democracy in its final days?
To understand the social and economic dynamics that bear on the question whether our democracy is in its final days, read Kevin Phillips' 2004 book "American Theocracy." Phillips, author of The Emerging Rebublican Majority in 1969, has a good track record as a political analyst/prognosticator.
In American Theocracy, he draws parallels between the decline of the Dutch and British empires with the present decline of the American empire, based on three fundamental elements: (1) the political entrenchment of a single energy resource; (2) financialization of the economy; and (3) the ascendancy of religion in politics.
Holland had perfected wind and wood as it's economic energy base, England had coal, and the U.S. now clings doggedly to petroleum, while China is stepping ahead with renewable energy technologies. We've seen excess financialization ruin the US economy, putting us deeply in debt to the Chinese and others who now have the edge over us in trade based on superior manufacturing capacity, and we've seen what the religious right has done to tear our society apart.
In American Theocracy, he draws parallels between the decline of the Dutch and British empires with the present decline of the American empire, based on three fundamental elements: (1) the political entrenchment of a single energy resource; (2) financialization of the economy; and (3) the ascendancy of religion in politics.
Holland had perfected wind and wood as it's economic energy base, England had coal, and the U.S. now clings doggedly to petroleum, while China is stepping ahead with renewable energy technologies. We've seen excess financialization ruin the US economy, putting us deeply in debt to the Chinese and others who now have the edge over us in trade based on superior manufacturing capacity, and we've seen what the religious right has done to tear our society apart.
Richard [Member]
In response to: HOUSE REPUBLICANS QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY
In response to: HOUSE REPUBLICANS QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY
Let's think this through, people, something totally unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Either the appointment will be held constitutionally valid or it will not be. I make no claim either way, but I do know this.
We have no voice in the Senate right now and won't until January 2010 unless the seat is filled by a benchwarmer who is not a candidate to complete Kennedy's term, someone like Paul Kirk.
If Kirk's appointment is valid, we will have a strong voice over the next four months, and one close to those of the man we elected to fill the seat last time around.
If the appointment is found to be invalid, then we won't have a vote in the Senate for the next four months. So, how are we any worse off? Public officials are elected to serve the intersts of the public, not their party -a principle also very unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Either the appointment will be held constitutionally valid or it will not be. I make no claim either way, but I do know this.
We have no voice in the Senate right now and won't until January 2010 unless the seat is filled by a benchwarmer who is not a candidate to complete Kennedy's term, someone like Paul Kirk.
If Kirk's appointment is valid, we will have a strong voice over the next four months, and one close to those of the man we elected to fill the seat last time around.
If the appointment is found to be invalid, then we won't have a vote in the Senate for the next four months. So, how are we any worse off? Public officials are elected to serve the intersts of the public, not their party -a principle also very unfamiliar to today's GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Question for Petey:
You say you don't believe the birthers, so why do you post to support the credibility of their cause by claiming to have seen a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? If it isn't because you dont' belive it is competent, credible evidcence, what's your point?
My point, the main point of this thread was that unlike the birther nonsense, both the 9/11 conspiracy theory and the Pearl Harbor theory have an element of plausibility but cannot be proven. So it is a fair question, Petey, do you believe the Kenyan birth theory is plausible or not based on the purported birth certificate you have "seen?"
Either way, you got nuthin.' If you believe it's plausible, then you really are living in Alice's Wonderland like Judge Land said in dismissing the Rhodes case - and you should change your name to Elmer.
You wrote that you "never said" you believed it, but you never said you disbelieved it. So, if you're not an Elmer, then you're simply an obstructionist raising all kinds of unfounded scary objections to anything Obama does, a typical Republican like Wilson.
You say you don't believe the birthers, so why do you post to support the credibility of their cause by claiming to have seen a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? If it isn't because you dont' belive it is competent, credible evidcence, what's your point?
My point, the main point of this thread was that unlike the birther nonsense, both the 9/11 conspiracy theory and the Pearl Harbor theory have an element of plausibility but cannot be proven. So it is a fair question, Petey, do you believe the Kenyan birth theory is plausible or not based on the purported birth certificate you have "seen?"
Either way, you got nuthin.' If you believe it's plausible, then you really are living in Alice's Wonderland like Judge Land said in dismissing the Rhodes case - and you should change your name to Elmer.
You wrote that you "never said" you believed it, but you never said you disbelieved it. So, if you're not an Elmer, then you're simply an obstructionist raising all kinds of unfounded scary objections to anything Obama does, a typical Republican like Wilson.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Give it up, Petey, 'cause you got nuthin'.
We know Carter changed, as did former KKK members Hugo Black and, yes, Robert Byrd, because of what they did affirmatively over several decades. Carter's most recent remarks about racist opposition to Obama is an example. Black's vote for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. in '54 is another, as is Byrd's change in '68 to support civil rights legislation. What has Wilson ever done to support civil rights?
Meanwhile, Byrd remained a Democrat, supporting civil rights after '68, as Wilson's old boss Thurmond left the Dems over that issue with all the other Dixiecrats and became staunch Republicans. That says volumes about why Wilson called our first black President a liar.
This isn't court, Petey, remember. It's politics, and I don't have to produce a smoking gun here, as you should know from listening to all the right-wing media bloviators whose stuff you parrot.
Petey, you got nuthin' but your paranoid hatred of anyone you think wants to make you share your toys with others. There's a name for people like that, too. They're called Republicans.
We know Carter changed, as did former KKK members Hugo Black and, yes, Robert Byrd, because of what they did affirmatively over several decades. Carter's most recent remarks about racist opposition to Obama is an example. Black's vote for Brown v. Bd. of Ed. in '54 is another, as is Byrd's change in '68 to support civil rights legislation. What has Wilson ever done to support civil rights?
Meanwhile, Byrd remained a Democrat, supporting civil rights after '68, as Wilson's old boss Thurmond left the Dems over that issue with all the other Dixiecrats and became staunch Republicans. That says volumes about why Wilson called our first black President a liar.
This isn't court, Petey, remember. It's politics, and I don't have to produce a smoking gun here, as you should know from listening to all the right-wing media bloviators whose stuff you parrot.
Petey, you got nuthin' but your paranoid hatred of anyone you think wants to make you share your toys with others. There's a name for people like that, too. They're called Republicans.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
To Peter, YT and all you other Elmers who defend the birther conspiracy theory.
There's a huge difference between a courtroom, where facts must be proven with real, competent evidence so the BIG LIE gets swept into the trash where it belongs, after the whacko plaintiffs have their day in court, and the kind of unscrutinized drivel you get from the internet. Judge Land was being too kind when he called it Alice in Wonderland.
BTW, why do you think the GOP hacks are always squealing for "tort reform?" It's only because they know that juries given a fair presentation of real, competent evidence, unlike you Elmers who glom onto to right-wing media ruminations, can see right through the crap and get at the truth after a fair trial.
BTW are you sure you have your "real" original birth certificates? It's very unlikely because the record is entered on municipal books and then the clerk issues a "certificate" on request of what is entered there. That's how it works, Elmer.
So why can't I sue you as ETs posing
as human beings unless you produce your "real" birth certificates?
There's a huge difference between a courtroom, where facts must be proven with real, competent evidence so the BIG LIE gets swept into the trash where it belongs, after the whacko plaintiffs have their day in court, and the kind of unscrutinized drivel you get from the internet. Judge Land was being too kind when he called it Alice in Wonderland.
BTW, why do you think the GOP hacks are always squealing for "tort reform?" It's only because they know that juries given a fair presentation of real, competent evidence, unlike you Elmers who glom onto to right-wing media ruminations, can see right through the crap and get at the truth after a fair trial.
BTW are you sure you have your "real" original birth certificates? It's very unlikely because the record is entered on municipal books and then the clerk issues a "certificate" on request of what is entered there. That's how it works, Elmer.
So why can't I sue you as ETs posing
as human beings unless you produce your "real" birth certificates?
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
balongnsam:
Leaving aside the death penalty issue, the conviction was upheld because there was sufficient evidence, both from the snitch's eyewitness testimony and the corroborating circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Leaving aside the death penalty issue, the conviction was upheld because there was sufficient evidence, both from the snitch's eyewitness testimony and the corroborating circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
YT
Prediction: The California case will be dismissed after the hearing, just as all the other BS birther cases have been. That's your tax dollars at work, too.
Prediction: The California case will be dismissed after the hearing, just as all the other BS birther cases have been. That's your tax dollars at work, too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Shame On A Blogga
In response to: Shame On A Blogga
I saw the game Sunday. The Pats got beat but not "embarassed" as one Jet predicted. Here's a prediction, though.
The Jets will be embarassed big time when they visit Foxboro later this fall.
The Jets will be embarassed big time when they visit Foxboro later this fall.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Adrift at Buttermilk Bay
In response to: Adrift at Buttermilk Bay
Singin' flotsam and jetsam, alive-alive-o!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter
As a member of the bar I am well aware that when evidence is accepted in court, unlike what you see on the internet, it has been proven to be relevant, material and competent. Competent evidence includes authentic records as opposed to something anyone can fiddle with and put on the internet like your supposed Kenyan birth certificate.
Now, several birther lawsuits have been was thrown out of court precisely because the competent evidence, including Obama's birth certificate and the 47 year old newspaper microfilm of his birth announcement. Your Kenyan "birth certificate" was specifically rejected by Judge Land of the U.S. District Court in Georgia in the case of Rhodes v. MacDonald. Land called the entire case "Alice in Wonderland," and he's a Bush appointment.
So, if you question Judge Land or the integrity of the federal judiciary generally, why don't you give us some paranoid wingnut ruminations about why the Rosenberg's were wrongly convicted by those "liberal" federal judges in New York? I'd love to read it!
As a member of the bar I am well aware that when evidence is accepted in court, unlike what you see on the internet, it has been proven to be relevant, material and competent. Competent evidence includes authentic records as opposed to something anyone can fiddle with and put on the internet like your supposed Kenyan birth certificate.
Now, several birther lawsuits have been was thrown out of court precisely because the competent evidence, including Obama's birth certificate and the 47 year old newspaper microfilm of his birth announcement. Your Kenyan "birth certificate" was specifically rejected by Judge Land of the U.S. District Court in Georgia in the case of Rhodes v. MacDonald. Land called the entire case "Alice in Wonderland," and he's a Bush appointment.
So, if you question Judge Land or the integrity of the federal judiciary generally, why don't you give us some paranoid wingnut ruminations about why the Rosenberg's were wrongly convicted by those "liberal" federal judges in New York? I'd love to read it!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter
Right wing idiocy is clearly the modern day equivalent of TB in the 19th Century. Virulent and incurable only because of ignorance.
Yes, Jimmy Carter as a young local politician in the deep South took positions consistent with the southern racist mentality, even two years after Brown v. Bd. of Education. But he grew out of that, clearly.
Meanwhile, Joe Jim Crow Wilson, began his political career working for non other than Strom Dixiecrat Thurmond, and there is no clear evidnece that he ever grew out of the virulent racism that drove the Dixiecrats to break with Truman over integration of the military, then to oppose all civil rights initiatives when they were still Democrats and then to defect to the GOP when Reagan pandered to their "states rights" mantra -which is exactly what folks like Thurmond, Faubus, Wallace et al. shouted in opposing integration.
Joe Jim has never given any clear indication that he has changed, and his outburst against Obama is a clear indication he has not -along with his vote to keep the Stars and Bars flying.
Right wing idiocy is clearly the modern day equivalent of TB in the 19th Century. Virulent and incurable only because of ignorance.
Yes, Jimmy Carter as a young local politician in the deep South took positions consistent with the southern racist mentality, even two years after Brown v. Bd. of Education. But he grew out of that, clearly.
Meanwhile, Joe Jim Crow Wilson, began his political career working for non other than Strom Dixiecrat Thurmond, and there is no clear evidnece that he ever grew out of the virulent racism that drove the Dixiecrats to break with Truman over integration of the military, then to oppose all civil rights initiatives when they were still Democrats and then to defect to the GOP when Reagan pandered to their "states rights" mantra -which is exactly what folks like Thurmond, Faubus, Wallace et al. shouted in opposing integration.
Joe Jim has never given any clear indication that he has changed, and his outburst against Obama is a clear indication he has not -along with his vote to keep the Stars and Bars flying.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Possee
If you want to discuss my positions, please get it right. I did not say that I wanted to chase down the Bush 9/11 conspiracy theory any further. What I said very clearly was that it is both credible and plausible, but unprovable, and therefore it would be futile to investigate any further.
I said that in context of comparing it to the very similar right-wing conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, which I said was also plausible but unprovable.
My point was that the circumstantial evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is stronger, which it is, but it is still not conclusive.
Now, if you want to debate that point, as to the strength of the circumstantial evidence in each case, fine. But please do not suggest that I'm arguing for further investigation of 9/11, because I'm not.
If some insider came forward with a tell-all, or if a smoking gun memorandum emerged, then I surely would and in that event the circumstantial evidence as to the Bush administration's motive would be compelling corroborative evidence. But that's a big if, isn't it?
If you want to discuss my positions, please get it right. I did not say that I wanted to chase down the Bush 9/11 conspiracy theory any further. What I said very clearly was that it is both credible and plausible, but unprovable, and therefore it would be futile to investigate any further.
I said that in context of comparing it to the very similar right-wing conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, which I said was also plausible but unprovable.
My point was that the circumstantial evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is stronger, which it is, but it is still not conclusive.
Now, if you want to debate that point, as to the strength of the circumstantial evidence in each case, fine. But please do not suggest that I'm arguing for further investigation of 9/11, because I'm not.
If some insider came forward with a tell-all, or if a smoking gun memorandum emerged, then I surely would and in that event the circumstantial evidence as to the Bush administration's motive would be compelling corroborative evidence. But that's a big if, isn't it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Ned: What's the difference between commercial art and fine art?
Is it money? Despite the "starving artist" cliche, all true artists have practiced their art as a means of making a living. Those who haven't are called dilletantes. But even Van Gogh, the quintessential starving artist tried desperately to make a living by selling his work.
Is it quality? Not really, there's lots of junk that's called "fine art" and there's lots of "commercial" stuff that's very good. Andy Warhol, a commercial artist, presented commercial stuff as fine art and it was very good. Lautrec's posters, too, were commercial as were the ephemeral posters for '60s rock bands at places like the Filmore in S.F. Meanwhile, IMHOP, Jackson Pollock's stuff is crap.
Is it intent or the message being presented? The "fine" artist is expressing his own ideas/feelings while the commercial artist is selling someone else's stuff. So what? The people who carved the steles for Pharoah were doing the exact same thing.
Ditto for most commisisoned religious art.
So what do you think the difference is?
Is it money? Despite the "starving artist" cliche, all true artists have practiced their art as a means of making a living. Those who haven't are called dilletantes. But even Van Gogh, the quintessential starving artist tried desperately to make a living by selling his work.
Is it quality? Not really, there's lots of junk that's called "fine art" and there's lots of "commercial" stuff that's very good. Andy Warhol, a commercial artist, presented commercial stuff as fine art and it was very good. Lautrec's posters, too, were commercial as were the ephemeral posters for '60s rock bands at places like the Filmore in S.F. Meanwhile, IMHOP, Jackson Pollock's stuff is crap.
Is it intent or the message being presented? The "fine" artist is expressing his own ideas/feelings while the commercial artist is selling someone else's stuff. So what? The people who carved the steles for Pharoah were doing the exact same thing.
Ditto for most commisisoned religious art.
So what do you think the difference is?
Richard [Member]
In response to: CCTimes Owner Punk'd in NYC by 'The Yes Men'...
In response to: CCTimes Owner Punk'd in NYC by 'The Yes Men'...
This reflects the true genius of the post-Reagan ultra-right wing GOP. It's been discussed in detail before by better writers than me, including Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas.
Two or three generations ago, that's the kind of muckraking front page you'd expect to see on working class rags like the Post. But ever since Reagan perfected the Southern Strategy of duping the "Red State" bible thumpers into supporting the GOP's corporate agenda -voting consistently against their own economic interests based on socially divisive "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, gay marriage et cetera, papers like the Post only attack "liberals" on "values" issues like that and give the corporate weasels who also happen to own the papers a free ride.
Two or three generations ago, that's the kind of muckraking front page you'd expect to see on working class rags like the Post. But ever since Reagan perfected the Southern Strategy of duping the "Red State" bible thumpers into supporting the GOP's corporate agenda -voting consistently against their own economic interests based on socially divisive "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, gay marriage et cetera, papers like the Post only attack "liberals" on "values" issues like that and give the corporate weasels who also happen to own the papers a free ride.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Maverick
The Rosenberg case was decided well before the Warren Court's landmark rulings on the constitutional rights of the accused, including not only Miranda which everyone who watches cop shows on tv knows about, but Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, Katz v. U.S. and Terry v. Ohio.
As a result of that line of cases, laws governing criminal procedure have been tightened generally, including the requirements for corroborating the testimony of accomplices who testify against an accused after a plea bargain, and it is stricter today than when the Rosenbergs were convicted. They still might be convicted under today's standards, I make no argument on that either way, but the standards for corroboration are stricter today than then.
The Rosenberg case was decided well before the Warren Court's landmark rulings on the constitutional rights of the accused, including not only Miranda which everyone who watches cop shows on tv knows about, but Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, Katz v. U.S. and Terry v. Ohio.
As a result of that line of cases, laws governing criminal procedure have been tightened generally, including the requirements for corroborating the testimony of accomplices who testify against an accused after a plea bargain, and it is stricter today than when the Rosenbergs were convicted. They still might be convicted under today's standards, I make no argument on that either way, but the standards for corroboration are stricter today than then.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Peter, Peter, Peter, there you go again as Ronnie Reagan might say.
Membership in a crypto racist organization like Sons of the Confederacy is prima facie evidence of racist beliefs. Wilson was one of the 8 South Carolina state senators to vote in favor of keeping the Stars and Bars flying over the state house as a direct affront to black citizens. When Essie May Washigton Williams revealed she was the illegitimate multi-racial child of a union between Strom Thurmond and his Afro-American maid, it was Wilson who labeled that a "smear," even though Thurmond acknowledged his paternity.
BTW, when were you in Nairobi to see Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? Did you also see the 47 year old microfilm of the East Africa Standard's announcement of Obama's birth there?
Admit it, Peter, you got nuthin.' Never have and never will as long as you cling to that idiotic right wing garbage you seem to cherish.
Membership in a crypto racist organization like Sons of the Confederacy is prima facie evidence of racist beliefs. Wilson was one of the 8 South Carolina state senators to vote in favor of keeping the Stars and Bars flying over the state house as a direct affront to black citizens. When Essie May Washigton Williams revealed she was the illegitimate multi-racial child of a union between Strom Thurmond and his Afro-American maid, it was Wilson who labeled that a "smear," even though Thurmond acknowledged his paternity.
BTW, when were you in Nairobi to see Obama's Kenyan birth certificate? Did you also see the 47 year old microfilm of the East Africa Standard's announcement of Obama's birth there?
Admit it, Peter, you got nuthin.' Never have and never will as long as you cling to that idiotic right wing garbage you seem to cherish.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Rojay Srs.' two Shabbat questions remind me of a passage in Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. Hawking lucidly writes about the theoretical construct of the singularity, the infinitessimal point from which the known universe we can see and measure has emerged, i.e. what is colloquially referred to as the "Big Bang." Hawking says he has the mathematics to prove that's how it happened, and I certainly cannot question his math.
But then he remarks that it is "meaningless" to ask about any prior context for the singularity, which is where a person of faith can say "Aha!"
When Hawking and other rationalists say that question is "meaningless," what they are saying is their math can't answer it. Math can only tell us how, not why. But as Mr. Rojay Sr. would tell them, that has been the most meaningful question of all for most of mankind throughout all history and prehistory.
We can't answer it with certainty, though, as Hawking's math can describe the known universe, and it's important to understand that fact. Still, it's just as important that we keep asking the question.
But then he remarks that it is "meaningless" to ask about any prior context for the singularity, which is where a person of faith can say "Aha!"
When Hawking and other rationalists say that question is "meaningless," what they are saying is their math can't answer it. Math can only tell us how, not why. But as Mr. Rojay Sr. would tell them, that has been the most meaningful question of all for most of mankind throughout all history and prehistory.
We can't answer it with certainty, though, as Hawking's math can describe the known universe, and it's important to understand that fact. Still, it's just as important that we keep asking the question.
Richard [Member]
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
In response to: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
It's not the idea of God that causes trouble, it's the notion by some people that they own the copyright and therefore their idea of God is both exclusive and infallible.
That's what leads us into absurdities like the "holy war" many self-described American "Christians" believe we are fighting in the middle East. That same thing is also evidenced by the corruption of faith in pursuit of geopolitical ends everywhere.
The most absurd of these, again, occurs in the middle east based on the legend that Abraham's wife Sarah had been barren so he sired the male child Ishmael by the servant girl Hagar. Then Sarah bore him Isaac so Hagar and Ishmael were expelled. Isaac then begat the lineage of the Jews and Ishmael the lineage of the Arabs, and they've been fighting basically territorial wars for about three millenia because of it, always claiming it's because of their belief in the one "true" God.
The idea of God isn't insane, but it surely leads us to mass insanity. That's the whole history of modern western "civilization," too, from the Crusades to "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
That's what leads us into absurdities like the "holy war" many self-described American "Christians" believe we are fighting in the middle East. That same thing is also evidenced by the corruption of faith in pursuit of geopolitical ends everywhere.
The most absurd of these, again, occurs in the middle east based on the legend that Abraham's wife Sarah had been barren so he sired the male child Ishmael by the servant girl Hagar. Then Sarah bore him Isaac so Hagar and Ishmael were expelled. Isaac then begat the lineage of the Jews and Ishmael the lineage of the Arabs, and they've been fighting basically territorial wars for about three millenia because of it, always claiming it's because of their belief in the one "true" God.
The idea of God isn't insane, but it surely leads us to mass insanity. That's the whole history of modern western "civilization," too, from the Crusades to "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, Ned
I would add that when someone like Peter resorts to purely ad hominem retorts about Lawrence Velvet and Sybil Edmonds, with nothing more by the way of proven facts or reasoned analysis, he not only loses the debate but also betrays the abject desperation of all right-wing "true believers" today.
Hey, they didn't get what they really wanted in Iraq, long term oil leases and permanent military bases, because the pretext of Iraqi self determination was actually realized. Then the economy crashed, and even Alan Greenspan recanted on their idiotic "free market" ideology. So, what's left for them except personal attacks on liberals with nothing to back them up?
We saw it in Congress a week ago with Joe Jim Crow Wilson, a card carrying member of Sons of the Confederacy, shouting "You lie," to our first black president.
An old saying of trial lawyers: When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you got nuthin', pound the table, and that's exactly what true believers like Peter and all other Rush Limbaugh wannabes are doing today.
I would add that when someone like Peter resorts to purely ad hominem retorts about Lawrence Velvet and Sybil Edmonds, with nothing more by the way of proven facts or reasoned analysis, he not only loses the debate but also betrays the abject desperation of all right-wing "true believers" today.
Hey, they didn't get what they really wanted in Iraq, long term oil leases and permanent military bases, because the pretext of Iraqi self determination was actually realized. Then the economy crashed, and even Alan Greenspan recanted on their idiotic "free market" ideology. So, what's left for them except personal attacks on liberals with nothing to back them up?
We saw it in Congress a week ago with Joe Jim Crow Wilson, a card carrying member of Sons of the Confederacy, shouting "You lie," to our first black president.
An old saying of trial lawyers: When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you got nuthin', pound the table, and that's exactly what true believers like Peter and all other Rush Limbaugh wannabes are doing today.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi,dk
A couple of flaws in your argument here.
First, as to "thousands of memos," one supposes that memoranda are written to be read by those responsible for setting the agenda and making decisions. One also supposes that in an honest and competent organization those responsible set priorities and those reviewing memoranda make sure that high priority information is acted upon promptly.
Now I'm sure there were dozens of memos about trade with India, or cutting corporate taxes, or bailing out of environmental lawsuits,et cetera. But how many memos were there saying explicitly that al Qaeda is planning an imminent attack on the U.S.? As I said, those clowns in the White House either wanted it to happen, or they were grossly negligent for ignoring that one memo. As I said, also, anything more than such astounding incompetence cannot be proven without either hard evidence like an explicit memo or credible insider testimony. But that kind of evidence would then be supported by a strong circumstantial case as to motive.
Second, Clarke also served ably under Reagan and Bush I.
A couple of flaws in your argument here.
First, as to "thousands of memos," one supposes that memoranda are written to be read by those responsible for setting the agenda and making decisions. One also supposes that in an honest and competent organization those responsible set priorities and those reviewing memoranda make sure that high priority information is acted upon promptly.
Now I'm sure there were dozens of memos about trade with India, or cutting corporate taxes, or bailing out of environmental lawsuits,et cetera. But how many memos were there saying explicitly that al Qaeda is planning an imminent attack on the U.S.? As I said, those clowns in the White House either wanted it to happen, or they were grossly negligent for ignoring that one memo. As I said, also, anything more than such astounding incompetence cannot be proven without either hard evidence like an explicit memo or credible insider testimony. But that kind of evidence would then be supported by a strong circumstantial case as to motive.
Second, Clarke also served ably under Reagan and Bush I.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, bitter
The only way that could ever be proven without a "smoking gun" like a secret memo or e-mail printout, is if someone on the inside of the Bush White House came forward in a pique of conscience and testified under oath. With that kind of testimony, as in the Rosenberg case, then the circumstantial evidence would be strongly probative. Even stronger than in the Rosenberg case, given Clarke's clear warning and the administration's undeniable motive, opportunity and exploitation of the situation.
Otherwise, the principle of deniability obtains and will remain unproven.
The only way that could ever be proven without a "smoking gun" like a secret memo or e-mail printout, is if someone on the inside of the Bush White House came forward in a pique of conscience and testified under oath. With that kind of testimony, as in the Rosenberg case, then the circumstantial evidence would be strongly probative. Even stronger than in the Rosenberg case, given Clarke's clear warning and the administration's undeniable motive, opportunity and exploitation of the situation.
Otherwise, the principle of deniability obtains and will remain unproven.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Heed the Will of the Voters
In response to: Heed the Will of the Voters
Those complaints about the law's unenforceability are almost entirely from the district attorneys and the police, including our very own Harry Anslinger wannabe Michael O'Keefe.
Those selectively zealous public servants are clearly worried about the continued health of their federal grants in the forty year "war on drugs" which depends on the size of the local criminal drug "problem" and their effort to curb it. Take away a criminal drug law like marijuana possession, there's gonna be fewer busts, fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. That translates directly into fewer bucks going to the local drug abuse "task force."
My reply to them, as my old tort law professor Willis Reese used to say, is "too bad, so sad." Maybe they can get the feds to give them more money to fight real crimes like murder, rape, robbery etc. instead of maintaining a system of criminal drug laws that only fuels such crime -like the Barnstable High student who was murdered last year over $2,000 in drug money.
Those selectively zealous public servants are clearly worried about the continued health of their federal grants in the forty year "war on drugs" which depends on the size of the local criminal drug "problem" and their effort to curb it. Take away a criminal drug law like marijuana possession, there's gonna be fewer busts, fewer prosecutions and fewer convictions. That translates directly into fewer bucks going to the local drug abuse "task force."
My reply to them, as my old tort law professor Willis Reese used to say, is "too bad, so sad." Maybe they can get the feds to give them more money to fight real crimes like murder, rape, robbery etc. instead of maintaining a system of criminal drug laws that only fuels such crime -like the Barnstable High student who was murdered last year over $2,000 in drug money.
Richard [Member]
In response to: We aren't that Gull-ible
In response to: We aren't that Gull-ible
Hi, Dick
You should have said we aren't all that gullible. The other two replies here show that some of us clearly are.
You should have said we aren't all that gullible. The other two replies here show that some of us clearly are.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?
In response to: Who is this tax-evader -- and how stupid can he be?
I recall a generation or so ago when there was a mass emigration from Massachusetts into "tax-free" New Hampshire.
It significantly elevated the average IQ in both states.
It significantly elevated the average IQ in both states.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hey, possee
It is doubtless true that both the Dems and the GOP have pursued cynical geopolitical agendas in the name of overseas corporate welfare. As the old saying goes, the flag follows the trade.
One difference is that in recent times, it's been more of a case that a Democratic president inherits the mess created by overzealous GOP administrations. Thus it was that Kennedy inherited the plans designed by Dulles to assist in the invasion of Cuba and to thwart the Geneva accords for a unifying election in Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Similarly, Obama has inherited the atrocities initiated by Bush/Cheney in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem with the Dems has been more that they fear being seen as "soft" on the enemy du jour, commies or "jihadists," as opposed to cynically starting wars.
Yes, I know about Clinton and Kosovo, but with his belief in economic globalization he's the exception that proves the rule. In domestic policy, however, it's always the GOP that pushes ideological paranoia in service of the corporate elite.
It is doubtless true that both the Dems and the GOP have pursued cynical geopolitical agendas in the name of overseas corporate welfare. As the old saying goes, the flag follows the trade.
One difference is that in recent times, it's been more of a case that a Democratic president inherits the mess created by overzealous GOP administrations. Thus it was that Kennedy inherited the plans designed by Dulles to assist in the invasion of Cuba and to thwart the Geneva accords for a unifying election in Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.
Similarly, Obama has inherited the atrocities initiated by Bush/Cheney in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem with the Dems has been more that they fear being seen as "soft" on the enemy du jour, commies or "jihadists," as opposed to cynically starting wars.
Yes, I know about Clinton and Kosovo, but with his belief in economic globalization he's the exception that proves the rule. In domestic policy, however, it's always the GOP that pushes ideological paranoia in service of the corporate elite.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Hi, jmadden
I'll take the comparison with Pete Seeger as a compliment as I've always admired his integrity as well as enjoyed his musicianship.
The most striking thing about Seeger is the way he maintained his principles during the right-wing paranoia of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. It cost him careerwise for awhile, but he came out whole both in terms of his integrity and his career.
What a contrast with the chicken "stuff" weasel Ronnie Reagan who just went along while those red-baiting "conservatives" ruined lives and smeared even real American heroes like J. Robert Oppenheimer.
I'll take the comparison with Pete Seeger as a compliment as I've always admired his integrity as well as enjoyed his musicianship.
The most striking thing about Seeger is the way he maintained his principles during the right-wing paranoia of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. It cost him careerwise for awhile, but he came out whole both in terms of his integrity and his career.
What a contrast with the chicken "stuff" weasel Ronnie Reagan who just went along while those red-baiting "conservatives" ruined lives and smeared even real American heroes like J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
To answer your question Ana, I don't know for sure but I believe it will not happen unless and until the economy really does crash again like in 1929, or maybe when gasoline hits five dollars or so a gallon with unemployment up around 10 or ll percent.
There's nothing like real economic hardship to sweep away ideological myths like the magic invisible hand of free markets and get people moving for political and economic change.
There's nothing like real economic hardship to sweep away ideological myths like the magic invisible hand of free markets and get people moving for political and economic change.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
Hi, JM
I'd just love to see Ted try to stand in there when Dice K throws a high heater to the plate. Then we'd see just how much of a big American guy Ted really is.
I'd just love to see Ted try to stand in there when Dice K throws a high heater to the plate. Then we'd see just how much of a big American guy Ted really is.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
In response to: Red Sox magic returns in improbable win over Angels
I was at the game Tuesday night, seventh row at home plate, and Dice K was bringing the real stuff for five solid innings. It was good to see, and from the way he was pitching don't be surprised to see more like it through the end of the season and through the playoffs.
The real highlight, though, was to see Papi's record setting home run as DH. You can always tell from behind the plate when a shot is going to leave the park from the moment it leaves the bat, and there was no doubt about this one.
A bit of caution, though. Lackey is a horse and except for a surprise bit of NL style small ball that got two runs, the Sox really couldn't touch him through seven solid innings.
The real highlight, though, was to see Papi's record setting home run as DH. You can always tell from behind the plate when a shot is going to leave the park from the moment it leaves the bat, and there was no doubt about this one.
A bit of caution, though. Lackey is a horse and except for a surprise bit of NL style small ball that got two runs, the Sox really couldn't touch him through seven solid innings.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Dingbat wrote: "If it seems reasonable and believable, there you go, I don't need to check any more facts!"
But that's just the point with Van Jones signing the petition for further inquiry, i.e. he wanted some further development of the facts, because the theory was in fact reasonable, i.e. it was plausible from a neutral realpolitik point of view that disregards any ideological favoritism.
Not the absurd claim that the Bush people were actually involved in 9/11, but simply the possibility that they deliberately turned their heads away when Clarke warned of an impending attack, with no idea that it would be as dramatic as it turned out to be, because they needed something to happen as a catalyst for invading Iraq.
But, as I said, that can never be proven. The other scenario, that 9/11 was simply the result of official incompetence in the White House, is equally plausible. So nothing would ever come of any further investigation other than the Scotch verdict "not proven."
But that's just the point with Van Jones signing the petition for further inquiry, i.e. he wanted some further development of the facts, because the theory was in fact reasonable, i.e. it was plausible from a neutral realpolitik point of view that disregards any ideological favoritism.
Not the absurd claim that the Bush people were actually involved in 9/11, but simply the possibility that they deliberately turned their heads away when Clarke warned of an impending attack, with no idea that it would be as dramatic as it turned out to be, because they needed something to happen as a catalyst for invading Iraq.
But, as I said, that can never be proven. The other scenario, that 9/11 was simply the result of official incompetence in the White House, is equally plausible. So nothing would ever come of any further investigation other than the Scotch verdict "not proven."
Richard [Member]
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
Um, Maverick
Have you considered the possibility that the bill was amended because Obama said very clearly that he would not sign a bill that provided benefits for illegal aliens or abortion, i.e. because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise?
Have you considered the fact that what Obama said when Wilson said "you lie" has actually come to pass because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise, i.e. that he meant exactly what he was saying?
No, of course you haven't, because that wouldn't fit as neatly with your simplistic ideological preconceptions which permit of no flexibility or compromise even in the most complex political and economic negotiations.
Your comments would fit far better in a forum like Rush Limbaugh, instead of a site like this one written and edited by a rational and knowledgable individual speaking to people with the same attributes.
Have you considered the possibility that the bill was amended because Obama said very clearly that he would not sign a bill that provided benefits for illegal aliens or abortion, i.e. because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise?
Have you considered the fact that what Obama said when Wilson said "you lie" has actually come to pass because of Obama's leadership and willingness to compromise, i.e. that he meant exactly what he was saying?
No, of course you haven't, because that wouldn't fit as neatly with your simplistic ideological preconceptions which permit of no flexibility or compromise even in the most complex political and economic negotiations.
Your comments would fit far better in a forum like Rush Limbaugh, instead of a site like this one written and edited by a rational and knowledgable individual speaking to people with the same attributes.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
This is an interesting discussion among us all who favor reform and want to see better health care delivery for more people. That isn't really an ideological issue, but corporate profiteering is. What we're seeing today is a defeated GOP clinging to its infantile belief system as to the magical power of corporate enterprise, i.e. "privatization," as against "big government," and this in the face of the second major failure of unrestrained free enterprise in 80 years of driving us over a bumpy economic road with periods of inflation and recession, controlled by regulation until the GOP took over in 2000.
Such a system of risk and profit is fine when we're talking about selling cars, jewelry, electronics, applicances, et cetera, but we should not let private corporations play games with our money for basics like health care.
What Obama has done by floating the idea of co-ops instead of a public option is to lay bare the GOP's abject commitment to corporate profiteering, hoping enough Americans will finally wake up to that fact so he can push through real reform next year.
Such a system of risk and profit is fine when we're talking about selling cars, jewelry, electronics, applicances, et cetera, but we should not let private corporations play games with our money for basics like health care.
What Obama has done by floating the idea of co-ops instead of a public option is to lay bare the GOP's abject commitment to corporate profiteering, hoping enough Americans will finally wake up to that fact so he can push through real reform next year.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform Part I/ General Comments
In response to: Tort Reform Part I/ General Comments
Bruce
The single best example of what so-called "tort reform" is all about is the 1972 Ford Pinto case where people were killed due to a faulty gas tank design. This is something that everyone should understand and keep in mind whenever caps on damages are "debated."
Ford could have made the Pinto safer by relocating the gas tank or providing better protection for it, but that would have cost X million dollars. So their actuaries, using statistics as to frequency of collisions and average jury verdicts, calculated the cost in damages with the safer design as opposed to keeping it as it was. Because it would have cost more, as against predicted damage payouts to make it safer, they chose not to do so knowing that more people would be killed and badly burned in accidents because of it.
The "runaway" verdict in 1972 caught them by surprise. The question we all should be asking is whether we really want to make it easier for corporate managers to compromise our health and safety based on more certain predictions, or do we want to keep them guessing in favor of safer practices.
The single best example of what so-called "tort reform" is all about is the 1972 Ford Pinto case where people were killed due to a faulty gas tank design. This is something that everyone should understand and keep in mind whenever caps on damages are "debated."
Ford could have made the Pinto safer by relocating the gas tank or providing better protection for it, but that would have cost X million dollars. So their actuaries, using statistics as to frequency of collisions and average jury verdicts, calculated the cost in damages with the safer design as opposed to keeping it as it was. Because it would have cost more, as against predicted damage payouts to make it safer, they chose not to do so knowing that more people would be killed and badly burned in accidents because of it.
The "runaway" verdict in 1972 caught them by surprise. The question we all should be asking is whether we really want to make it easier for corporate managers to compromise our health and safety based on more certain predictions, or do we want to keep them guessing in favor of safer practices.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
In response to: Blog Topics for the Coming Weeks/ Your Ideas?
The most significant political/legal issue facing America today was just argued in the Supreme Court last week concerning the scope of corporate free speech. All the parties seem to agree that the plaintiffs who produced "Hillary the Movie" will likely win on the merits of that specific case, but the larger issue is whether it will be a narrow ruling confined to those facts or a "broad ruling" that greatly expands corporate control over the public media.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee wrote:
"I previously stated I do NOT trust corps either, just trust the feds LESS..
given their discpicable track record for everything they run.. . ."
So, tell me, Poss, does that include the Bush administration's war for corporate opportunity in Iraq? I mean you got both of them in play there, big government and big business, playing footsie actually. I don't recall you ever saying how much you distrusted the Bush folks when they told us those scary stories to start an oil war against Saddam. Did you trust Cheney meeting with oil industry execs to discuss national energy policy? Did it ever occur to you that Cheney's energy policy task force might just have something to do with getting our soldiers into Iraq in an attempt to seize Saddam's oil reserves? If so, when did you speak out against all that big federal government starting wars to benefit the big oil industry? Or maybe you trusted both of them on that one, huh? Just wondering.
"I previously stated I do NOT trust corps either, just trust the feds LESS..
given their discpicable track record for everything they run.. . ."
So, tell me, Poss, does that include the Bush administration's war for corporate opportunity in Iraq? I mean you got both of them in play there, big government and big business, playing footsie actually. I don't recall you ever saying how much you distrusted the Bush folks when they told us those scary stories to start an oil war against Saddam. Did you trust Cheney meeting with oil industry execs to discuss national energy policy? Did it ever occur to you that Cheney's energy policy task force might just have something to do with getting our soldiers into Iraq in an attempt to seize Saddam's oil reserves? If so, when did you speak out against all that big federal government starting wars to benefit the big oil industry? Or maybe you trusted both of them on that one, huh? Just wondering.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Possee
We agree on one thing at least. It is indeed most unfortunate that you place so much trust in the corporate weasels that run private insurance companies that you cannot see the obvious fact that any program, governmental or private, that does not take profits, investment costs, huge executive compensation payments, advertising, lobbying, real estate development, will have more of you health care dollar left to pay your doctor than the private insurers do today because they do use your money for all those purposes having nothing to do with health care.
We agree on one thing at least. It is indeed most unfortunate that you place so much trust in the corporate weasels that run private insurance companies that you cannot see the obvious fact that any program, governmental or private, that does not take profits, investment costs, huge executive compensation payments, advertising, lobbying, real estate development, will have more of you health care dollar left to pay your doctor than the private insurers do today because they do use your money for all those purposes having nothing to do with health care.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Possee
As I indicated earlier, and as Obama expressly stated last night, we are already paying for those 50 million uninsured when they go to a hospital ER and the bill has to get written off because they cannot pay.
Obama's plan, if you were listening, does not involve a significant tax incrase for the middle class and the working class. Instead, it reallocates existing health care moneys by forcing private insurersn to be more competitive in the market, and improves the private insurance "product" through regulations which prohibit exclusions for pre-existing illness and arbitrary caps on benefits and/or terms of coverage.
You don't trust governmental bureaucrats. Fine. But right now we've entrusted our health care money to profit driven corporate bureaucrats. As the old saying goes, "you pays your money and you makes your choice." But only a fool would choose to pay for corporate excesses in terms of premiums, only to have to pay with tax mnoney to bail them out as we did this past year.
It is broke, figuratively and literally, so let's fix it.
As I indicated earlier, and as Obama expressly stated last night, we are already paying for those 50 million uninsured when they go to a hospital ER and the bill has to get written off because they cannot pay.
Obama's plan, if you were listening, does not involve a significant tax incrase for the middle class and the working class. Instead, it reallocates existing health care moneys by forcing private insurersn to be more competitive in the market, and improves the private insurance "product" through regulations which prohibit exclusions for pre-existing illness and arbitrary caps on benefits and/or terms of coverage.
You don't trust governmental bureaucrats. Fine. But right now we've entrusted our health care money to profit driven corporate bureaucrats. As the old saying goes, "you pays your money and you makes your choice." But only a fool would choose to pay for corporate excesses in terms of premiums, only to have to pay with tax mnoney to bail them out as we did this past year.
It is broke, figuratively and literally, so let's fix it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee
So you read Camille Paglia, good for you. I like reading Paglia too, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.
I mean it's not "foolish" to blame GOP obstructionism for the stalemate in the health care "debate," in light of the documented fact that a major GOP player, Sen. Jim DeMint, is on tape saying exactly that -they want to defeat Obama on the issue of health care simply for political gain, to make it his "Waterloo."
For those of us who have short historical memories, Waterloo was the decisive battle in which Wellington defeated Napoleon. That DeMint chose that metaphor clearly demonstrates that GOP opposition to health care reform is not concerned with the substantive specifics of any plan, but solely with inflicting political defeat on Obama as decisive as Wellington's defeat of Napoleon.
What would be foolish now, is for Obama or the Democrats to continue the effort at bipartisanship, an effort that requires good faith -where that quality is totally foreign to today's ideologically driven GOP.
So you read Camille Paglia, good for you. I like reading Paglia too, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.
I mean it's not "foolish" to blame GOP obstructionism for the stalemate in the health care "debate," in light of the documented fact that a major GOP player, Sen. Jim DeMint, is on tape saying exactly that -they want to defeat Obama on the issue of health care simply for political gain, to make it his "Waterloo."
For those of us who have short historical memories, Waterloo was the decisive battle in which Wellington defeated Napoleon. That DeMint chose that metaphor clearly demonstrates that GOP opposition to health care reform is not concerned with the substantive specifics of any plan, but solely with inflicting political defeat on Obama as decisive as Wellington's defeat of Napoleon.
What would be foolish now, is for Obama or the Democrats to continue the effort at bipartisanship, an effort that requires good faith -where that quality is totally foreign to today's ideologically driven GOP.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Buzz, baby, how quickly we forget.
California's problems really began with Enron, i.e. with the lack of government oversight over corporate miscreants like W's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay. And that lack of oversight and resulting lack of corporate accountability was the misshapen Caliban birthed from the Reagan "revolution" of governmental corporate indulgence enabled by the GOP's cynical exploitation of so-called "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, jingoism, et cetera.
The problem with pension funding today is that California, like many private companies, invested in the same Wall Street scams that brought down AIG and other large investors. I mean, tell us all how it was "unions" that caused AIG to fail, or Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers.
They were all playing with Ponzi money on Wall Street, largely because of GOP deregulatory indulgence over the past 8 years, and California got caught up just like everyone else in America.
Happy Labor Day, indeed!
California's problems really began with Enron, i.e. with the lack of government oversight over corporate miscreants like W's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay. And that lack of oversight and resulting lack of corporate accountability was the misshapen Caliban birthed from the Reagan "revolution" of governmental corporate indulgence enabled by the GOP's cynical exploitation of so-called "values" issues like abortion, school prayer, creationism, jingoism, et cetera.
The problem with pension funding today is that California, like many private companies, invested in the same Wall Street scams that brought down AIG and other large investors. I mean, tell us all how it was "unions" that caused AIG to fail, or Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers.
They were all playing with Ponzi money on Wall Street, largely because of GOP deregulatory indulgence over the past 8 years, and California got caught up just like everyone else in America.
Happy Labor Day, indeed!
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Possee, as Ronnie Reagan might say, "there you go again."
It was Reagan, by the way, who began his political career railing against Medicare and through his false "values" driven populism poisoned the political climate in America by creating schisms among the working and middle classes over non-economic issues.
Responsible Republicans, including even Richard Nixon, supported Medicare. But after the "Reagan Revolution" and during the past 30 years, it has been GOP obstructionism in the form of dishonest demagoguery, like we're seeing today, that has prevented real reform. No GOP president since Nixon has tried it, and Clinton's effort failed largely to COP congressional obstruction combined, as yet today, with a chicken-hearted lack of resolve among the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.
That's a fact. I know it's "beyond belief" for you because you people, i.e. "conservatives," don't believe in anything anyway -certainly not genuine Christian values like caring for each other. Killing others in overseas oil wars o.k., but God forbid we should use taxes to help those in need.
It was Reagan, by the way, who began his political career railing against Medicare and through his false "values" driven populism poisoned the political climate in America by creating schisms among the working and middle classes over non-economic issues.
Responsible Republicans, including even Richard Nixon, supported Medicare. But after the "Reagan Revolution" and during the past 30 years, it has been GOP obstructionism in the form of dishonest demagoguery, like we're seeing today, that has prevented real reform. No GOP president since Nixon has tried it, and Clinton's effort failed largely to COP congressional obstruction combined, as yet today, with a chicken-hearted lack of resolve among the so-called Blue Dog Democrats.
That's a fact. I know it's "beyond belief" for you because you people, i.e. "conservatives," don't believe in anything anyway -certainly not genuine Christian values like caring for each other. Killing others in overseas oil wars o.k., but God forbid we should use taxes to help those in need.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Um, Possee
You seem to be pretty good at numbers, so why not think about how much it really costs each of us, not just in premium dollars for those of us fortunate enough to have health coverage, but also in terms of insurance driven increases in medical costs, and the burden on ERs from uninsured people who need treatment, and uninsured and therefore untreated persons spreading disease among the general population, and uninsured and untreated persons becoming disabled by progressive illness and going onto SSDI or welfare, and the burden on the judicial system when we have to sue to get denied claims paid,and the damage to our financial stability caused by private insurers gambling with our premium dollars and, lest we forget, the billions of tax dollars we just ponied up to bail out those private insurers.
I'm sure it's more than 3 grand a pop, not even counting the needless human suffering involved. But you're right to question mandatory purchase of private insurance, when single payer or the public option would do the job better and cost us a lot less across the board.
You seem to be pretty good at numbers, so why not think about how much it really costs each of us, not just in premium dollars for those of us fortunate enough to have health coverage, but also in terms of insurance driven increases in medical costs, and the burden on ERs from uninsured people who need treatment, and uninsured and therefore untreated persons spreading disease among the general population, and uninsured and untreated persons becoming disabled by progressive illness and going onto SSDI or welfare, and the burden on the judicial system when we have to sue to get denied claims paid,and the damage to our financial stability caused by private insurers gambling with our premium dollars and, lest we forget, the billions of tax dollars we just ponied up to bail out those private insurers.
I'm sure it's more than 3 grand a pop, not even counting the needless human suffering involved. But you're right to question mandatory purchase of private insurance, when single payer or the public option would do the job better and cost us a lot less across the board.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Don't Stifle Them With Plenty
In response to: Don't Stifle Them With Plenty
I grew up in a small town neighborhood, with relatives nearby and many other children whose parents looked out for everyone. But demographics have changed all that.
I lived on a public street then, not far from the downtown area -within an easy walk. But what we've seen on Cape Cod over the past fifty years, with rampant subdivision of once open land or agricultural land, often miles away from downtown areas, schools, playgrounds, et cetera, has had a significant impact on how we have to parent our kids.
My folks could let me roam on my bike and go to the nearby ballfield, because we had that kind of neighborhood. When my kid was growing up, though, we were several miles from the nearest ballfield, and with all the retirees buying up the building lots our subdivision didn't have enough families with kids to allow eight or ten of them to get together for a pickup game, even if there had been an open field on which to play nearby.
Each section of town once had it's own Little League team and field, but now that's centralized around one facility, with a townwide draft.
I lived on a public street then, not far from the downtown area -within an easy walk. But what we've seen on Cape Cod over the past fifty years, with rampant subdivision of once open land or agricultural land, often miles away from downtown areas, schools, playgrounds, et cetera, has had a significant impact on how we have to parent our kids.
My folks could let me roam on my bike and go to the nearby ballfield, because we had that kind of neighborhood. When my kid was growing up, though, we were several miles from the nearest ballfield, and with all the retirees buying up the building lots our subdivision didn't have enough families with kids to allow eight or ten of them to get together for a pickup game, even if there had been an open field on which to play nearby.
Each section of town once had it's own Little League team and field, but now that's centralized around one facility, with a townwide draft.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
Unreal, maybe, but I've always preferred surreality myself.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
In response to: Bishop to Freemason
Hi, Jonathan
Religion and politics, politics and religion -where to draw the line? Here in the U.S.A., the line is clearly drawn in the First Amendment, where there can be no establishment of religion under our Constitution, nor any restriction on religious observance. But within families it's a different matter, as shown by your family history.
Freemasonry, by the way, and its youth group offshoot DeMolay, is not anti-Catholic. It is a secular organization which welcomes members from all segments of our democratic society. Ben Franklin was a Mason, as was my father. It's the Church that has always forbade Catholics from joining the Masons, and that's obviously political.
Religion and politics, politics and religion -where to draw the line? Here in the U.S.A., the line is clearly drawn in the First Amendment, where there can be no establishment of religion under our Constitution, nor any restriction on religious observance. But within families it's a different matter, as shown by your family history.
Freemasonry, by the way, and its youth group offshoot DeMolay, is not anti-Catholic. It is a secular organization which welcomes members from all segments of our democratic society. Ben Franklin was a Mason, as was my father. It's the Church that has always forbade Catholics from joining the Masons, and that's obviously political.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Happy Labor Day!
In response to: Happy Labor Day!
Hi, Ana
Please go easy on bartender. After all, he didn't rant about how the publicly funded municipal fire department that replaced the private fire insurance companies in the 19th Century is "socialist."
Sorry if that sounds like propaganda, but like Fox News this site needs to be "fair and balanced." :-)
Please go easy on bartender. After all, he didn't rant about how the publicly funded municipal fire department that replaced the private fire insurance companies in the 19th Century is "socialist."
Sorry if that sounds like propaganda, but like Fox News this site needs to be "fair and balanced." :-)
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
In response to: A Labor Day Reflection On Corporatism And The Working Man
Hi, Ana. As they say:
The farmer is the man, the farmer is the man,
Lives on credit 'til the fall.
Then they take him by the hand, and they lead him through the land,
And the middle man's the man who gets it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxs01nUAE3g
Sorry I couldn't find Ry Cooder's original on-line, but these guys get the idea across.
Only difference is today it's the money man who gets it all.
The farmer is the man, the farmer is the man,
Lives on credit 'til the fall.
Then they take him by the hand, and they lead him through the land,
And the middle man's the man who gets it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxs01nUAE3g
Sorry I couldn't find Ry Cooder's original on-line, but these guys get the idea across.
Only difference is today it's the money man who gets it all.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Possee
I don't disparage people who disagree with me simply because of different opinions. I respect those on the right who demonstrate both factual accuracy and intelligence in their commentary, even though their values are different from mine.
The cretins I refer to are those 49 percent of American voters who apparently believed Sarah Palin was qualified to be a weak John McCain heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This is a woman who proved on prime time television she knows zip about how our constitutional government is structured, and even less about our history and world geography.
Cretin is, perhaps, to good a word though, because a cretin is someone whos mental deficiencies render him incapable of making intelligent choices, while many of the 49 percent who voted for Palin did so out of simplistic ideological zeal when they could have and should have known better -putting party affiliation ahead of the national interest just as the GOP obstuctionist demagogues are doing with healthcare today.
That, to me, is worse than a cretin.
I don't disparage people who disagree with me simply because of different opinions. I respect those on the right who demonstrate both factual accuracy and intelligence in their commentary, even though their values are different from mine.
The cretins I refer to are those 49 percent of American voters who apparently believed Sarah Palin was qualified to be a weak John McCain heartbeat away from the Oval Office. This is a woman who proved on prime time television she knows zip about how our constitutional government is structured, and even less about our history and world geography.
Cretin is, perhaps, to good a word though, because a cretin is someone whos mental deficiencies render him incapable of making intelligent choices, while many of the 49 percent who voted for Palin did so out of simplistic ideological zeal when they could have and should have known better -putting party affiliation ahead of the national interest just as the GOP obstuctionist demagogues are doing with healthcare today.
That, to me, is worse than a cretin.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Buzz
It's well and good to worry about health care costs, whether privately or publicly financed. But why aren't you concerned about the exorbitant costs of the private health insurance model we have today?
Theyr'e real costs, not speculative ruminations about what a public plan might cost. This is an industry that went from 2% of GNP in 1970 to around 15% today. Some of that is due to the economy itself tanking, with growth primarily in the financial sector while losing manufacturing and technology jobs to our creditors, the Japanese and "socialist" Chinese. The reckless investment practices of the insurance industry is a major factor driving that "growth."
So, please explain with facts why a publicly financed system that does not use your health care dollar to reward investors, or pay million dollar executive salaries, bonuses and perks, or make foolish investments, or build office towers, or pay corporate lawyers and lobbyists to maintain the status quo would cost more than the present system that does all that and still requires a taxpayer bailout.
It's well and good to worry about health care costs, whether privately or publicly financed. But why aren't you concerned about the exorbitant costs of the private health insurance model we have today?
Theyr'e real costs, not speculative ruminations about what a public plan might cost. This is an industry that went from 2% of GNP in 1970 to around 15% today. Some of that is due to the economy itself tanking, with growth primarily in the financial sector while losing manufacturing and technology jobs to our creditors, the Japanese and "socialist" Chinese. The reckless investment practices of the insurance industry is a major factor driving that "growth."
So, please explain with facts why a publicly financed system that does not use your health care dollar to reward investors, or pay million dollar executive salaries, bonuses and perks, or make foolish investments, or build office towers, or pay corporate lawyers and lobbyists to maintain the status quo would cost more than the present system that does all that and still requires a taxpayer bailout.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Born in Boston
In response to: Born in Boston
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear -that coffin sound?
Another po' boy is in the ground.
-"Please See That My Grave Is Kept Clean"
Blind Lemon Jefferson, Dallas, 1927
Did you ever hear that coffin sound?
Did you ever hear -that coffin sound?
Another po' boy is in the ground.
-"Please See That My Grave Is Kept Clean"
Blind Lemon Jefferson, Dallas, 1927
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Ned
Maybe you didn't know, but I'm a long time Aries myself. Ever since my birth.
Maybe you didn't know, but I'm a long time Aries myself. Ever since my birth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Well, John
You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to express it here. So don't take offense when I say that almost half the American electorate are cretins, the ones who apparently believe that an ingnorant cipher like Sarah Palin, someone who doesn't have the first clue about what is written in the Constitution and how our government is designed to work thereunder, is qualified to be a heart-beat away from our highest Constitutional office.
As for Obama's health care bill, the most important thing it proposes is to get the insurance industry leeches out of the loop, and that of course is what the GOP hacks are really concerned about, not grandma's hospital bill. That's why they won't even work with Obama to refine the legislation and resolve specific points of contention on a bipartisan basis.
Anyone who believes that the GOP hacks are really concerned about the general welfare, consistent with their Constitutional oath and not just industry profits, is truly a cretin. Listen to DeMint's boast about Obama's "Waterloo" to see what the obstructionism is really about.
You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to express it here. So don't take offense when I say that almost half the American electorate are cretins, the ones who apparently believe that an ingnorant cipher like Sarah Palin, someone who doesn't have the first clue about what is written in the Constitution and how our government is designed to work thereunder, is qualified to be a heart-beat away from our highest Constitutional office.
As for Obama's health care bill, the most important thing it proposes is to get the insurance industry leeches out of the loop, and that of course is what the GOP hacks are really concerned about, not grandma's hospital bill. That's why they won't even work with Obama to refine the legislation and resolve specific points of contention on a bipartisan basis.
Anyone who believes that the GOP hacks are really concerned about the general welfare, consistent with their Constitutional oath and not just industry profits, is truly a cretin. Listen to DeMint's boast about Obama's "Waterloo" to see what the obstructionism is really about.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi Crusader
I said it back in January. Obama had just taken office, and people were expecting him to magically undo eight years of Republican malfeasance and corruption overnight. It takes time to make changes.
It's now been just eight months. Obama has made a good faith effort to work with the GOP, and has given them every opportunity to show some good faith,too, and they have failed. So now is the time, when Congress reconvenes, to start pushing things. He's given the Republican obstructionists enough rope to hang themselves, as it should be obvious to anyone but a cretin that their main interest is protecting insurance company profits. So let's just wait and see what happens this fall.
I said it back in January. Obama had just taken office, and people were expecting him to magically undo eight years of Republican malfeasance and corruption overnight. It takes time to make changes.
It's now been just eight months. Obama has made a good faith effort to work with the GOP, and has given them every opportunity to show some good faith,too, and they have failed. So now is the time, when Congress reconvenes, to start pushing things. He's given the Republican obstructionists enough rope to hang themselves, as it should be obvious to anyone but a cretin that their main interest is protecting insurance company profits. So let's just wait and see what happens this fall.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
Hi, Ned
Don't you just love it when these opponents of public option health care say what we really need is "tort reform," and then you just know that if the guy with the finger off finds the other guy the first thing he'll do is go find a good tort lawyer?
I've handled a few finger off cases over the years. One of them was a from a poorly designed logsplitter. A year or so after we settled the case, my expert was at a trade show and he saw the same machine on display, but they altered it to incorporate the changes he testified were needed to make it safe. I told him to bill the manufacturer for his consultation and design services.
BTW, you know the manufacturer's liability insurer is the one who told them to change the design, and this was after paying some defense lawyer and a defense expert to say those changes weren't necessary. Now that's what I call real "tort reform," reforming the tortfeasors without penalizing their victims.
Don't you just love it when these opponents of public option health care say what we really need is "tort reform," and then you just know that if the guy with the finger off finds the other guy the first thing he'll do is go find a good tort lawyer?
I've handled a few finger off cases over the years. One of them was a from a poorly designed logsplitter. A year or so after we settled the case, my expert was at a trade show and he saw the same machine on display, but they altered it to incorporate the changes he testified were needed to make it safe. I told him to bill the manufacturer for his consultation and design services.
BTW, you know the manufacturer's liability insurer is the one who told them to change the design, and this was after paying some defense lawyer and a defense expert to say those changes weren't necessary. Now that's what I call real "tort reform," reforming the tortfeasors without penalizing their victims.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
In response to: Moonbat Bites Back!
Hey buster555
Cool it. You're gonna give morons a bad name if you keep it up.
Cool it. You're gonna give morons a bad name if you keep it up.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Angelic Existence
In response to: Angelic Existence
"I had to cut back some of his hours."
Hi, Ana. I bet you did that like Walmart does so you don't have to pay for his ERISA health and disability coverage, right?
Hi, Ana. I bet you did that like Walmart does so you don't have to pay for his ERISA health and disability coverage, right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Knuckleheads of Genesis
In response to: Knuckleheads of Genesis
They left the garden just in time
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.
One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.
And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.
Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.
The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!
How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a sense they didn't
live on cakes and jam.
Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.
From "Origin of Species" by Chris Smither
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/06/05/chris-smithers-origin-of-species/
With the landlord cussin' right behind.
They headed East,
and they finally settled down.
One thing led to another:
A bunch of sons,
One killed his brother
And they kicked him out with nothin' but his clothes.
And the human race survived
'Cause all those brothers found wives
But where they came from
Ain't nobody knows.
Then came the flood
Go figure...
Just like New Orleans only bigger.
No one who couldn't swim would make it through.
The lucky ones were on a boat
Think "circus"
And then make it float
I hope nobody pulls the plug on you!
How they fed that crowd is a mystery.
It ain't down in the history,
but it's a sense they didn't
live on cakes and jam.
Lions don't eat cabbage
And in spite of that old adage,
I ain't never seen one
Lie down with a lamb.
From "Origin of Species" by Chris Smither
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/06/05/chris-smithers-origin-of-species/
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Peter
No beating this time because you make a valid point. Leeches, the species,annelida Hirudinea, do indeed stop sucking your blood once you are dead, just as you say.
But the metaphorical leeches, of the species homo Insureparasitica, don't ever stop sucking your blood. They'll stiff you on health care and disability when you're alive, and they'll try to stiff you on life insurance and wrongful death claims after you're dead.
Maybe we don't have eternal life through Jesus, and maybe we do, nobody really knows despite what the extremists on either side say. We do know, however, that the insurance companies believe we have to provide them with eternal profits whether we're dead or alive, and you could take that to the bank if you had any money left after paying all your insurance premiums.
No beating this time because you make a valid point. Leeches, the species,annelida Hirudinea, do indeed stop sucking your blood once you are dead, just as you say.
But the metaphorical leeches, of the species homo Insureparasitica, don't ever stop sucking your blood. They'll stiff you on health care and disability when you're alive, and they'll try to stiff you on life insurance and wrongful death claims after you're dead.
Maybe we don't have eternal life through Jesus, and maybe we do, nobody really knows despite what the extremists on either side say. We do know, however, that the insurance companies believe we have to provide them with eternal profits whether we're dead or alive, and you could take that to the bank if you had any money left after paying all your insurance premiums.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, Monponsett
I've read about using leeches in modern medicine to treat some conditions. The difference today is that the practitioners know which species are posionous and which ones are safe to use, and it's a very specialized technique used in limited circumstances.
I've read about using leeches in modern medicine to treat some conditions. The difference today is that the practitioners know which species are posionous and which ones are safe to use, and it's a very specialized technique used in limited circumstances.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
In response to: Of Medicinal Leeches & Poisons
Hi, all
Not surprising that some of you shift focus from insurance executives to us lawyers, for the simple reason that you cannot refute anything I said about how the insurance industry abuses our premium dollar for its own purposes and only grudgingly uses it to pay for our health insurance bills.
It's funny, too, that a lot of my clients are people who used to share the negative opinion you have of lawyers until they got stiffed on a disability or health insurance claim, with the deck stacked in favor of the insurance companies, and then they come running to someone like me who understands the law and the fine print gobbledygook the insurance companies use to deny claims and is willing to take the insurers on. I get paid a fee for this, usually just a percentage of past due benefits if successful, which believe me is only a tiny fraction of what the insurance executives pay themselves per claim denial and what they pay out in legal fees to corporate lawyers to defend their predations on the consumer -including some of you whether you know it yet or not.
Not surprising that some of you shift focus from insurance executives to us lawyers, for the simple reason that you cannot refute anything I said about how the insurance industry abuses our premium dollar for its own purposes and only grudgingly uses it to pay for our health insurance bills.
It's funny, too, that a lot of my clients are people who used to share the negative opinion you have of lawyers until they got stiffed on a disability or health insurance claim, with the deck stacked in favor of the insurance companies, and then they come running to someone like me who understands the law and the fine print gobbledygook the insurance companies use to deny claims and is willing to take the insurers on. I get paid a fee for this, usually just a percentage of past due benefits if successful, which believe me is only a tiny fraction of what the insurance executives pay themselves per claim denial and what they pay out in legal fees to corporate lawyers to defend their predations on the consumer -including some of you whether you know it yet or not.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
So Buzz
You're mad as hell that Obama is trying to get a trillion dollars or so in federal tax money allocated to providing basic health care for everyone, but at the same time you are somehow "not O.K." with the undeniable fact that millions of your fellow American citizens today don't have basic health coverage.
Meanwhile, our former President spent almost a trillion dollars, borrowed from people like the Chinese and Japanese, for fighting wars of corporate opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, designed solely to promote the interests of the petroleum industry by trying to steal Iraqi oil and protecting pipeline routes -all the while stiffing proposals for renewable energy development to wean us away from reliance on fossil fuels for basic consumer needs like transportation, home heating and electricity.
But that's okay with you, huh? Hey, at least it's not "socialism," right?
Get real!
You're mad as hell that Obama is trying to get a trillion dollars or so in federal tax money allocated to providing basic health care for everyone, but at the same time you are somehow "not O.K." with the undeniable fact that millions of your fellow American citizens today don't have basic health coverage.
Meanwhile, our former President spent almost a trillion dollars, borrowed from people like the Chinese and Japanese, for fighting wars of corporate opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, designed solely to promote the interests of the petroleum industry by trying to steal Iraqi oil and protecting pipeline routes -all the while stiffing proposals for renewable energy development to wean us away from reliance on fossil fuels for basic consumer needs like transportation, home heating and electricity.
But that's okay with you, huh? Hey, at least it's not "socialism," right?
Get real!
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz! There you go again -as Ronnie Reagan might say.
You are living proof of the old adage that figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
The key words in your analysis of our tax burden is "wage earners" who pay a disporportionately huge share of taxes. That's because the corporate elite, those people whose incomes are in the top echelon and own the vast majority of America's capital assets don't work for wages. Their exorbitant income is received through a variety "perfectly legal" financial schemes designed primarily to minimize and eliminate their tax liability. That includes hiding massive gobs of cash in offshore accounts so they don't have to declare interest like the wage earning schlumps have to.
Surely, being the bright fellow you are and all, you knew that didn't you?
Like I said, figures don't lie, but . . . .
You are living proof of the old adage that figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
The key words in your analysis of our tax burden is "wage earners" who pay a disporportionately huge share of taxes. That's because the corporate elite, those people whose incomes are in the top echelon and own the vast majority of America's capital assets don't work for wages. Their exorbitant income is received through a variety "perfectly legal" financial schemes designed primarily to minimize and eliminate their tax liability. That includes hiding massive gobs of cash in offshore accounts so they don't have to declare interest like the wage earning schlumps have to.
Surely, being the bright fellow you are and all, you knew that didn't you?
Like I said, figures don't lie, but . . . .
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Buzz, again
I got a lot of help in my life from others, including socialized services in my town and at our state university, U.Mass.'62, fully supported by our tax dollars. In law school, I had a partial scholarship which was paid out of the University's endowment which, in turn came from wealthy folks who had a sense of public obligation -totally lacking in today's neocon corporate elite, and a significant portion came from publicly financed low income loan programs.
So, my answer to you for my modest success in life is certainly not "free will" but like the Beatles said I got by with a little help from my friends, including the state and federal government through tax-supported programs for higher education.
Now, that was nice, but I'm not so selfish as to believe that paying for my education was more important than paying for other peoples' health care.
How about you, Buzz? You okay with millions of Americans going withou basic health coverage? Hell, paying for that might require taking a few trillion away from the military industrial complex for oil wars, huh?
I got a lot of help in my life from others, including socialized services in my town and at our state university, U.Mass.'62, fully supported by our tax dollars. In law school, I had a partial scholarship which was paid out of the University's endowment which, in turn came from wealthy folks who had a sense of public obligation -totally lacking in today's neocon corporate elite, and a significant portion came from publicly financed low income loan programs.
So, my answer to you for my modest success in life is certainly not "free will" but like the Beatles said I got by with a little help from my friends, including the state and federal government through tax-supported programs for higher education.
Now, that was nice, but I'm not so selfish as to believe that paying for my education was more important than paying for other peoples' health care.
How about you, Buzz? You okay with millions of Americans going withou basic health coverage? Hell, paying for that might require taking a few trillion away from the military industrial complex for oil wars, huh?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Buzz
Yes, let's talk about facts, indeed.
Fact No. 1. All health care costs money. Disagree?
Fact No. 2. If you receive health care, someone has to pay for it. Disagree?
Fact No. 3. Private insurers charge you a fee called a premium to pay your medical bills when you are sick or injured. Disagree?
Fact No. 4. When you pay an insurance company $1,000 as a premium for health coverage, that money does a lot of things before paying your doctor, like advertizing, sales commissions, lobbying against public health care, paying enormous executive salaries, bonuses and perks like $50 million corporate jets manufactured in France, playing the financial markets with risky investments like bundled mortgage securities, then administering claims and maybe paying your doctor, mabybe not, and then paying lawyers to fight you in court after denying your claim. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Fact No. 5. Your extra $1,000 in taxes for a public option pays for admnistration and benefits only. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Yes, let's talk about facts, indeed.
Fact No. 1. All health care costs money. Disagree?
Fact No. 2. If you receive health care, someone has to pay for it. Disagree?
Fact No. 3. Private insurers charge you a fee called a premium to pay your medical bills when you are sick or injured. Disagree?
Fact No. 4. When you pay an insurance company $1,000 as a premium for health coverage, that money does a lot of things before paying your doctor, like advertizing, sales commissions, lobbying against public health care, paying enormous executive salaries, bonuses and perks like $50 million corporate jets manufactured in France, playing the financial markets with risky investments like bundled mortgage securities, then administering claims and maybe paying your doctor, mabybe not, and then paying lawyers to fight you in court after denying your claim. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Fact No. 5. Your extra $1,000 in taxes for a public option pays for admnistration and benefits only. Disagree? Please explain with facts, not ideology.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Possee
It's funny you mention about the alleged near bankruptcy of Medicare. We hear the antis complain that Medicare spends too much money on end care for the elderly and terminally ill. But then when Obama wants to provide for end-of-life counselling for them, all of a sudden the antis are up in arms about forced euthanasia.
See, what I mean. With that kind of mentality coming from the neocon right, nothing will ever get done to change the economic balance here in the U.S., to provide basic necessities for everyone, and that's just what the GOP obsructionists want, isn't it? I mean they don't even have an alternate plan, never mind a better one, do they?
BTW, a lot of that "trillion dollar" debt you mention isn't based on providing medical benefits for all Americans, and is instead based on cynical overseas oil wars started by the Republicans as in Iraq for its oil fields and Afghanistan for control of pipeline routes -instead of spending our tax money over the past 8 years on developing new technologies for clean, renewable energy.
It's funny you mention about the alleged near bankruptcy of Medicare. We hear the antis complain that Medicare spends too much money on end care for the elderly and terminally ill. But then when Obama wants to provide for end-of-life counselling for them, all of a sudden the antis are up in arms about forced euthanasia.
See, what I mean. With that kind of mentality coming from the neocon right, nothing will ever get done to change the economic balance here in the U.S., to provide basic necessities for everyone, and that's just what the GOP obsructionists want, isn't it? I mean they don't even have an alternate plan, never mind a better one, do they?
BTW, a lot of that "trillion dollar" debt you mention isn't based on providing medical benefits for all Americans, and is instead based on cynical overseas oil wars started by the Republicans as in Iraq for its oil fields and Afghanistan for control of pipeline routes -instead of spending our tax money over the past 8 years on developing new technologies for clean, renewable energy.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, crusader
You hit the nail on the head about "globalization," and Clinton was as bad as the GOP on that. The real problem with globalization is, as you say, production of goods is farmed out to slave labor overseas instead of keeping good manufacturing jobs in America at a fair wage, in balance with what the corporations charge for the cheaply produced goods they sell back here, largely to service workers who both work and shop at places like Walmart.
You hit the nail on the head about "globalization," and Clinton was as bad as the GOP on that. The real problem with globalization is, as you say, production of goods is farmed out to slave labor overseas instead of keeping good manufacturing jobs in America at a fair wage, in balance with what the corporations charge for the cheaply produced goods they sell back here, largely to service workers who both work and shop at places like Walmart.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Voiceofreason
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Voiceofreason
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
The "real issue" is how to pay for health care for the average American. You may think that's funny, but I don't.
So, what is your explanation to my question, how can a premium dollar that pays for myriad insurance company goodies, advertising, exorbitant executive salaries and perks, risky investments, legal costs, etc., before claims administration, do a better job paying your doctor's bill than a tax dollar that pays none of the above except the cost of administration?
While you're at it, please explain if the present system of corporate privatization of health care coverage is so wonderful, why did we taxpayers have to bail out AIG and other insureres last year. Why is socializing the costs for private benefit like that somehow better than "socialism" that benefits everyone?
Got any ideas?
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
In response to: The Bush-wah Blues Redux
Hi, Possee -you too, dingbat
What I think is funny is how you and a lot of other folks had comments about my post "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," and now you're commenting on this one too -both of them stating strong opinions and you chime in with contrary opinions.
But my last post? Follow the money which was basically comparing how your insurance premium dollar gets stepped on so many times before even a penny is spent for paying your doctor? Not a peep. That's typical, too, because those who pss and moan about "socialism" are ideologues who can't really come back at a matter of fact argument based on dollars and cents.
Fact is, our private insurance system doesn't do a very good job of delivering health care to a large number of Americans while it serves as an excellent vehicle for creating corporate profits that benefit only a few. Disagree? Fine, but then tell me in dollars and cents just how this system, with myriad costs having nothing to do with providing health care does more with your premium dollar than a public health system would do with your tax dollar.
What I think is funny is how you and a lot of other folks had comments about my post "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," and now you're commenting on this one too -both of them stating strong opinions and you chime in with contrary opinions.
But my last post? Follow the money which was basically comparing how your insurance premium dollar gets stepped on so many times before even a penny is spent for paying your doctor? Not a peep. That's typical, too, because those who pss and moan about "socialism" are ideologues who can't really come back at a matter of fact argument based on dollars and cents.
Fact is, our private insurance system doesn't do a very good job of delivering health care to a large number of Americans while it serves as an excellent vehicle for creating corporate profits that benefit only a few. Disagree? Fine, but then tell me in dollars and cents just how this system, with myriad costs having nothing to do with providing health care does more with your premium dollar than a public health system would do with your tax dollar.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Red Sox stomping by Yankees seals loss of division
In response to: Red Sox stomping by Yankees seals loss of division
It was a N.Y. Yankee, I believe, who made the astute observation that "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, petercohen
You really hit the nail on the head here about the nature of the problem. All of these competing interests about providing public health care should be debated in legislative committees and negotiated there, the way Congress is supposed to work and the only truly effective way it can work.
But this kind of right wing guerilla theater, orchestrated by industry flaks, is just SOP for the GOP's post-Reagan "values" agenda in service of maintaining the corporate stranglehold on every aspect of American life, including energy and healthcare.
You really hit the nail on the head here about the nature of the problem. All of these competing interests about providing public health care should be debated in legislative committees and negotiated there, the way Congress is supposed to work and the only truly effective way it can work.
But this kind of right wing guerilla theater, orchestrated by industry flaks, is just SOP for the GOP's post-Reagan "values" agenda in service of maintaining the corporate stranglehold on every aspect of American life, including energy and healthcare.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Possee
It seems I misquoted you. Oops! So I guess that means you agree with me that public option healthcare is no more "socialist" than public funding of other basic services like police and fire protection, huh?
You must also agree that a lot of the opposition to Obama's healthcare initiative is based on disinformation and lies, as the incident with Hawking and Investors Business Daily clearly shows.
That one was a beaut, because the editorial said if Hawking had grown up in the UK he wouldn't have gotten the medical care he need. Problem is that Hawking did grow up in the UK, he's a Brit after all, and he did get the health care he needed. That's just a tip of the GOP Big Lie iceberg.
I misquoted you about socialism and shortcomings, you didn't complain about those things, so you must agree with me -right?
It seems I misquoted you. Oops! So I guess that means you agree with me that public option healthcare is no more "socialist" than public funding of other basic services like police and fire protection, huh?
You must also agree that a lot of the opposition to Obama's healthcare initiative is based on disinformation and lies, as the incident with Hawking and Investors Business Daily clearly shows.
That one was a beaut, because the editorial said if Hawking had grown up in the UK he wouldn't have gotten the medical care he need. Problem is that Hawking did grow up in the UK, he's a Brit after all, and he did get the health care he needed. That's just a tip of the GOP Big Lie iceberg.
I misquoted you about socialism and shortcomings, you didn't complain about those things, so you must agree with me -right?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Cheify
No, you didn't mention senators in your reply to my post which did mention GOP senators like DeMint whose aim is to win a political victory at the public's expense by defeating Obama's health care bill. So when you came back with your vague allusion to "dummy hacks" who wanted Bush's invasion of Iraq to fail, I asked you to name, specifically, which Senators put politics ahead of the policy in that context as DeMint has clearly done with healthcare. If you can't do that, as you apparently cannot, then your arguing rotten apples against my fresh oranges.
All you can come up with is one fringe liberal "commentator," a person who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as DeMint and the other GOP obstructionists have. Gimme a break, chiefy.
You've been to Iraq and all you've seen is untold thousands of Iraqis killed and uprooted, Christians driven from their homes, and one Islamic faction displacing another. The Bush clowns didn't even get the sweetheart oil deal they wanted.
As for your worry about money in the health care debate, stay tuned.
No, you didn't mention senators in your reply to my post which did mention GOP senators like DeMint whose aim is to win a political victory at the public's expense by defeating Obama's health care bill. So when you came back with your vague allusion to "dummy hacks" who wanted Bush's invasion of Iraq to fail, I asked you to name, specifically, which Senators put politics ahead of the policy in that context as DeMint has clearly done with healthcare. If you can't do that, as you apparently cannot, then your arguing rotten apples against my fresh oranges.
All you can come up with is one fringe liberal "commentator," a person who hasn't taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as DeMint and the other GOP obstructionists have. Gimme a break, chiefy.
You've been to Iraq and all you've seen is untold thousands of Iraqis killed and uprooted, Christians driven from their homes, and one Islamic faction displacing another. The Bush clowns didn't even get the sweetheart oil deal they wanted.
As for your worry about money in the health care debate, stay tuned.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Buzz
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Buzz
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Who's being denied health care in Britain? Certainly not Stephen Hawking as the Investors Business Daily claimed. I mean who have you personally spoken with, as opposed to getting your information from insurance industry flaks and GOP hacks?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, John
In case you didn't know, all of your doctor's bills are reviewed by doctors employed by your HMO or insurance company who make decisions whether the bill will be covered. The difference here is that those in-house insurance doctors are concerned with earning their keep by keeping the insurer's costs down and profits up. The public agency's medical consultants are concerned with keeping your tax burden down while providing the fairest and most effective coverage possible.
Like they say, John, you pays your money and you make your choice. You want to give most of your health care dollar to private insurance executives, fine. But I don't.
In case you didn't know, all of your doctor's bills are reviewed by doctors employed by your HMO or insurance company who make decisions whether the bill will be covered. The difference here is that those in-house insurance doctors are concerned with earning their keep by keeping the insurer's costs down and profits up. The public agency's medical consultants are concerned with keeping your tax burden down while providing the fairest and most effective coverage possible.
Like they say, John, you pays your money and you make your choice. You want to give most of your health care dollar to private insurance executives, fine. But I don't.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi, Ana
Yes, thankyou. You are both correct and succinct. However, with Buzz you have to be a bit more specific because, being a conservative GOPsymp, he needs to have things spelled out as I have done.
Yes, thankyou. You are both correct and succinct. However, with Buzz you have to be a bit more specific because, being a conservative GOPsymp, he needs to have things spelled out as I have done.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No, Buzz
Individuals within police departments, white individuals, apply certain racist assumptions to profile all black males as perpetrators, frequently based on nothing more than suspicion of breathing while black. There are a sufficient number of them within police departments nationwide, to make racial profiling a systematic problem, but it is not the organizing principle of the departments themselves.
Meanwhile the organizing principle of a municipal police department is socialist, and under the 14th Amendment racially neutral. It is a publicly funded entity that provides a public service, i.e. police protection, without charging a fee for service and without seeking a profit. That is in sharp contrast with private health insurers, and is how our health care system should be organized if our fellow Americans had even half the sanity of the English and other civilized countries with national health care.
Your mind supple enough to see the distinction here, Buzz, or do I have to try to explain it in even simpler terms?
Individuals within police departments, white individuals, apply certain racist assumptions to profile all black males as perpetrators, frequently based on nothing more than suspicion of breathing while black. There are a sufficient number of them within police departments nationwide, to make racial profiling a systematic problem, but it is not the organizing principle of the departments themselves.
Meanwhile the organizing principle of a municipal police department is socialist, and under the 14th Amendment racially neutral. It is a publicly funded entity that provides a public service, i.e. police protection, without charging a fee for service and without seeking a profit. That is in sharp contrast with private health insurers, and is how our health care system should be organized if our fellow Americans had even half the sanity of the English and other civilized countries with national health care.
Your mind supple enough to see the distinction here, Buzz, or do I have to try to explain it in even simpler terms?
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No, petercohen
The Big Lie is the basis of the corporate weasel/GOP hack conspiracy to tap all our incomes and bank accounts dry to enhance their own, as opposed to using our money to provide decent health care for everyone as Obama's public option will do.
The Big Lie is the basis of the corporate weasel/GOP hack conspiracy to tap all our incomes and bank accounts dry to enhance their own, as opposed to using our money to provide decent health care for everyone as Obama's public option will do.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hey possee
One of those "shortcomings" in
Obama's "socialist" health care bill is that it won't cover everything, among other the GOP hacks have dreamt up.
As for it being socialist, yes, it is socialist in exactly the same way your fire department, your police department, your public water supply and many other basic servies we take for granted are "socialist." Health care is at least as important as those other services.
As for the alleged "shortcomings" have you read about the British Health Care system's rebuttal to the GOP assault on Obama's proposal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/stephen-hawking-nhs-twitter-welovethenhs
A hack writing for the corporate rag Investor's Business Daily claimed that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been covered with a "socialist" plan like Obama's. Problem is he has been covered by BHC all his life, and he's spoken up to say so in support of Obama.
Investor's Business Daily is a small part of the GOP's Big Lie machine. It's just so much Kudzu but the GOP faithful eat it up like it's cabbage.
One of those "shortcomings" in
Obama's "socialist" health care bill is that it won't cover everything, among other the GOP hacks have dreamt up.
As for it being socialist, yes, it is socialist in exactly the same way your fire department, your police department, your public water supply and many other basic servies we take for granted are "socialist." Health care is at least as important as those other services.
As for the alleged "shortcomings" have you read about the British Health Care system's rebuttal to the GOP assault on Obama's proposal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/stephen-hawking-nhs-twitter-welovethenhs
A hack writing for the corporate rag Investor's Business Daily claimed that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been covered with a "socialist" plan like Obama's. Problem is he has been covered by BHC all his life, and he's spoken up to say so in support of Obama.
Investor's Business Daily is a small part of the GOP's Big Lie machine. It's just so much Kudzu but the GOP faithful eat it up like it's cabbage.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hey, chiefy baby-
Three questions:
1. Name some names here. Exactly which Democratic Senators are on record as saying they hoped the Bush invasion of Iraq would fail as DeMint is with Obama's health care bill?
2. Exactly which liberal pundits or Democratic politicians are on record as saying they hoped Bush's invasion of Iraq would fail simply because they wanted to see him defeated politically across the board without regard to the specifics of the mission, as DeMint is on record as saying about Obama's health care initiative, as opposed to saying as some did that they wanted the misison to fail on the merits because they believed it was a corrupt mission based on lies.
3. Exactly what pretexts has Obama advanced to support his public option for health care, as Bush did for his invasion of Iraq, i.e. WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, democracy for the Iraqi people while denying the obvious, overriding objective to secure access to Iraqi oil reserves for American and British oil companies?
I'm waiting for your answers with bated breath.
Three questions:
1. Name some names here. Exactly which Democratic Senators are on record as saying they hoped the Bush invasion of Iraq would fail as DeMint is with Obama's health care bill?
2. Exactly which liberal pundits or Democratic politicians are on record as saying they hoped Bush's invasion of Iraq would fail simply because they wanted to see him defeated politically across the board without regard to the specifics of the mission, as DeMint is on record as saying about Obama's health care initiative, as opposed to saying as some did that they wanted the misison to fail on the merits because they believed it was a corrupt mission based on lies.
3. Exactly what pretexts has Obama advanced to support his public option for health care, as Bush did for his invasion of Iraq, i.e. WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, democracy for the Iraqi people while denying the obvious, overriding objective to secure access to Iraqi oil reserves for American and British oil companies?
I'm waiting for your answers with bated breath.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
Hi,Snoopy
Unfortunately the current "debate" driven by GOP hacks and insurance flaks in essence has nothing to do with what is or isn't in the specific bill, which is subject like any other legislation to give and take in committee and then between both houses of Congress.
Instead, it has everything to do with the insurance industry's understandable desire to keep milking the teat of health care costs at the expense of everyone else, and the GOP's even more despicable desire to see Obama fail, as GOP Senate hack Jim DeMint has expressly stated.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/
DeMint speaks for the entire GOP right wing when he acknowledges that he wants this issue to be Obama's "Waterloo," not because of any real issue pertaining to health coverage, but simply for GOP political gain.
At least the insurance industry isn't betraying any oath to uphold the Constitution as are the GOP Congressional hacks opposing Obama's health care bill solely for political gain.
Unfortunately the current "debate" driven by GOP hacks and insurance flaks in essence has nothing to do with what is or isn't in the specific bill, which is subject like any other legislation to give and take in committee and then between both houses of Congress.
Instead, it has everything to do with the insurance industry's understandable desire to keep milking the teat of health care costs at the expense of everyone else, and the GOP's even more despicable desire to see Obama fail, as GOP Senate hack Jim DeMint has expressly stated.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/
DeMint speaks for the entire GOP right wing when he acknowledges that he wants this issue to be Obama's "Waterloo," not because of any real issue pertaining to health coverage, but simply for GOP political gain.
At least the insurance industry isn't betraying any oath to uphold the Constitution as are the GOP Congressional hacks opposing Obama's health care bill solely for political gain.
Richard [Member]
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
In response to: There's A Sucker Born Every Minute
No VR, those angry people are demonstrating because they have let themselves be manipulated by the lies, innuendos and half-truths being generated by the right wing Media, GOP political hacks and insurance industry flaks -lies about assisted suicide, and innuendo about "socialism."
And those who carry signs and shout angrily about a "Tea Party" are willing dupes because the industry propaganda dovetails so nicely with their simplistic knee-jerk anti-tax mantra.
That, plus many of them are obviously people who need to vent their anger because after 8 years of GOP mismanagement of our government they've been royally screwed but they can't admit to themselves that it's their own sorry fault for putting those GOP clowns into office in the first place.
And those who carry signs and shout angrily about a "Tea Party" are willing dupes because the industry propaganda dovetails so nicely with their simplistic knee-jerk anti-tax mantra.
That, plus many of them are obviously people who need to vent their anger because after 8 years of GOP mismanagement of our government they've been royally screwed but they can't admit to themselves that it's their own sorry fault for putting those GOP clowns into office in the first place.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Ned
It's not just the tacky steel and cement edifices to corporate greed, but it's the laissez faire attitude that let Macy's monopolize Boston's downtown department store business, and then proceed to turn downton crossing into a mini-Baghdad by half-demolishing an iconic building like Filene's leaving a huge, gaping eyesore.
Like Ana Paulina says, what about accountability for more than just the corporate bottom line?
It's not just the tacky steel and cement edifices to corporate greed, but it's the laissez faire attitude that let Macy's monopolize Boston's downtown department store business, and then proceed to turn downton crossing into a mini-Baghdad by half-demolishing an iconic building like Filene's leaving a huge, gaping eyesore.
Like Ana Paulina says, what about accountability for more than just the corporate bottom line?
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Buzz
Words are defined both on the pages of lexicons and in the behavior of those who use them. The English neologism "profiling" refers to the actual practice used, historically and still at present, by police departments on all levels and in all parts of the country, to focus on black males as suspects, whether or not there is any objective evidence to support a suspicion, and as in Gonsalves' case and Gates' case, in the face of objective evidence to the contrary.
You define "system" tautologically as "referring to a system." There are several definitions of "system" in my dictionary, one of which is "an established way of doing something; method; procedure. . . . ", which fits racial profiling in police departments exactly.
As far as questioning whether racism is inherent among many segments of the American population, what planet have you been living on for the past 235 years?
As I've said before, a huge part of the problem is denial -and you seem to have a bad dose of it.
Words are defined both on the pages of lexicons and in the behavior of those who use them. The English neologism "profiling" refers to the actual practice used, historically and still at present, by police departments on all levels and in all parts of the country, to focus on black males as suspects, whether or not there is any objective evidence to support a suspicion, and as in Gonsalves' case and Gates' case, in the face of objective evidence to the contrary.
You define "system" tautologically as "referring to a system." There are several definitions of "system" in my dictionary, one of which is "an established way of doing something; method; procedure. . . . ", which fits racial profiling in police departments exactly.
As far as questioning whether racism is inherent among many segments of the American population, what planet have you been living on for the past 235 years?
As I've said before, a huge part of the problem is denial -and you seem to have a bad dose of it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Post:: Buster's!!!
In response to: Post:: Buster's!!!
I like it. I see shades of R. Crumb in it, but with a bit more restraint. No beads of sweat flying off the lettuce.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi,john34
As I wrote in a prior post:
The use of the criminal law for dealing with drug abuse, throwing billions of dollars at the problem with increasingly draconian penalties, was intensified by Nixon’s declared “War on Drugs” some thirty-five years ago. But it is actually a war that began almost eighty years ago, with the repeal of prohibition and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Former Asst. Commissioner of the Prohibition Bureau Harry Anslinger was appointed in 1930 as the Commissioner of the FBN, and he clearly set the ideological, moralistic tone of the “war on drugs” that continues to this day:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death –the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Only difference is Anslinger didn't even have enough shame to hide his racism.
As I wrote in a prior post:
The use of the criminal law for dealing with drug abuse, throwing billions of dollars at the problem with increasingly draconian penalties, was intensified by Nixon’s declared “War on Drugs” some thirty-five years ago. But it is actually a war that began almost eighty years ago, with the repeal of prohibition and the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Former Asst. Commissioner of the Prohibition Bureau Harry Anslinger was appointed in 1930 as the Commissioner of the FBN, and he clearly set the ideological, moralistic tone of the “war on drugs” that continues to this day:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death –the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Only difference is Anslinger didn't even have enough shame to hide his racism.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Buzz
You fall asleep or something? I was sure you were gonna get all over me for going way off topic here, going from racial profilers to tax haters.
You fall asleep or something? I was sure you were gonna get all over me for going way off topic here, going from racial profilers to tax haters.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, tad
What makes me think the government would do a better job with health insurance than private insurers? Hm-m-m. Lemme see. Oh, yeah, there's Medicare, working just fine for it's clientele right now because its claim denials are based on saving tax monies instead of profit, while the insurers with all their "best minds" as Reagan put it went in the tank last year and had to be bailed out by "big government."
You know, the guys who love collecting premiums just to deny claims had to ask for a handout from Uncle Sam. It's called socialized cost with privatized benefits.
Most "corruption" in government, BTW, comes from corporations that support and then trick out politicians. The way to stop that is not cutting taxes but getting tougher on corporations and their agents on K Street. Ever hear of regulation and enforcement? You know, through tax funded federal agencies with teeth staffed with bureaucrats who, unlike Bush's wrecking crew over the past 8 years of deregulation and corporate tax welfare, actually want to do the job of regulating.
What makes me think the government would do a better job with health insurance than private insurers? Hm-m-m. Lemme see. Oh, yeah, there's Medicare, working just fine for it's clientele right now because its claim denials are based on saving tax monies instead of profit, while the insurers with all their "best minds" as Reagan put it went in the tank last year and had to be bailed out by "big government."
You know, the guys who love collecting premiums just to deny claims had to ask for a handout from Uncle Sam. It's called socialized cost with privatized benefits.
Most "corruption" in government, BTW, comes from corporations that support and then trick out politicians. The way to stop that is not cutting taxes but getting tougher on corporations and their agents on K Street. Ever hear of regulation and enforcement? You know, through tax funded federal agencies with teeth staffed with bureaucrats who, unlike Bush's wrecking crew over the past 8 years of deregulation and corporate tax welfare, actually want to do the job of regulating.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hey, Buzz
Did you miss something? Yeah, you missed the whole point.
Now, take a deep breath and think about your answer. Take as much time as you want and then give us a direct, well-reasoned explanation.
Assuming that Whalen is truthful saying she did not speak with Crowley as he wrote in his report, where did he get the information about "two black males" breaking in from her 911 report of a possibly Hispanic and another man only possibly breaking in? Pick one.
A. Did he just make it up -i.e. lying to cover himself as Mary suggests? Possibly.
B. Or did he, more likely, write that he heard it from Whalen because he actually heard it from the dispatcher who profiled, translating possibly "Hispanic" maybe just pushing on a stuck door into "two black males" breaking in.
It's an undeniable fact that racial profiling exists in police departments, think Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett for example, and Crowley himself teaches rookie cops about it, so it's logical that racial profiling by the police led to Gates' arrest, unless you think Whalen lied. But, then, why?
Did you miss something? Yeah, you missed the whole point.
Now, take a deep breath and think about your answer. Take as much time as you want and then give us a direct, well-reasoned explanation.
Assuming that Whalen is truthful saying she did not speak with Crowley as he wrote in his report, where did he get the information about "two black males" breaking in from her 911 report of a possibly Hispanic and another man only possibly breaking in? Pick one.
A. Did he just make it up -i.e. lying to cover himself as Mary suggests? Possibly.
B. Or did he, more likely, write that he heard it from Whalen because he actually heard it from the dispatcher who profiled, translating possibly "Hispanic" maybe just pushing on a stuck door into "two black males" breaking in.
It's an undeniable fact that racial profiling exists in police departments, think Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett for example, and Crowley himself teaches rookie cops about it, so it's logical that racial profiling by the police led to Gates' arrest, unless you think Whalen lied. But, then, why?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, possee
Most tax-haters, so-called "conservatives" today, are apparently selfish and have no capacity for empathy, genuine Christian compassion or any other kind of social responsibility. Now I don't know about you personally, but I've never heard you express any idea on this site to indicate otherwise.
Fortunately, however, the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide expressly, in Article I, Sect. 8, that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare. . ," with welfare put on equal footing with defense.
The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1913, makes it explicit that Congress has power to collect taxes on personal and corporate income.
I've repeatedly asked "conservatives" who post on this site exactly where the Constitution says essential services like health care cannot be socialized, why providing basic health care doesn't promote the general welfare and where it provides for "insurance company welfare." Got any specific, informed answers -or just more mindless slogans?
Most tax-haters, so-called "conservatives" today, are apparently selfish and have no capacity for empathy, genuine Christian compassion or any other kind of social responsibility. Now I don't know about you personally, but I've never heard you express any idea on this site to indicate otherwise.
Fortunately, however, the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide expressly, in Article I, Sect. 8, that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare. . ," with welfare put on equal footing with defense.
The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1913, makes it explicit that Congress has power to collect taxes on personal and corporate income.
I've repeatedly asked "conservatives" who post on this site exactly where the Constitution says essential services like health care cannot be socialized, why providing basic health care doesn't promote the general welfare and where it provides for "insurance company welfare." Got any specific, informed answers -or just more mindless slogans?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Buzz
A far better idea would be for all Americans, police profilers included,to realize that were all the same race, the human race, and act accordingly.
A far better idea would be for all Americans, police profilers included,to realize that were all the same race, the human race, and act accordingly.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Mary
Your observation about closing ranks is right on the mark. For that reason, I have felt that Crowley himself may not be racist in any personal sense, as he claims, but he is still loyal to the systematic racism that is inherent in the profiling that goes on within the Department.
Crowley says Whalen described two black men, she denies ever saying that to him, and her 911 call only mentions a Hispanic. So, it may not have originated with Crowley, but somewhere in the chain racial profiling took over. That's an objective, logical conclusion where there is no other sensible explanation.
Maybe Crowley's report about two black males, attributing it falsely to Whalen, was just his way of covering for the dispatcher who profiled. I could accept that if the police admitted it and then apologized, not just to Gates but to the public as well.
Whatever the case, Obama was correct in his assessment that the police acted stupidly in this matter, even though he probably shouldn't have gotten himself drawn into the debate in the first place as a matter of politics.
Your observation about closing ranks is right on the mark. For that reason, I have felt that Crowley himself may not be racist in any personal sense, as he claims, but he is still loyal to the systematic racism that is inherent in the profiling that goes on within the Department.
Crowley says Whalen described two black men, she denies ever saying that to him, and her 911 call only mentions a Hispanic. So, it may not have originated with Crowley, but somewhere in the chain racial profiling took over. That's an objective, logical conclusion where there is no other sensible explanation.
Maybe Crowley's report about two black males, attributing it falsely to Whalen, was just his way of covering for the dispatcher who profiled. I could accept that if the police admitted it and then apologized, not just to Gates but to the public as well.
Whatever the case, Obama was correct in his assessment that the police acted stupidly in this matter, even though he probably shouldn't have gotten himself drawn into the debate in the first place as a matter of politics.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Peter, Peter, Peter, there you go again!
Have you noticed that you're the only one on this thread and the prior one who has made overtly ad hominem comments about me?
And have you noticed that you're the only one to whom I have made overtly ad hominem comments as well?
Do ya there may be a connection there? Nah, you clearly don't have the capacity for such complex critical analysis.
It began on the last thread with you calling me a "hopelessly partisan race baiter," then a "socialist" who hates cops. Then you accused me of profiling about Ms. Whalen, after I admitted being wrong about her, so I responded in kind by saying you seem incapable of either critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
It continued on this thread, first with the extended yawn and then the imbecilic doggerel. So I continued to come back at you in kind, as I intend to do as long as you persist with name-calling.
The difference, Peter, is that my ad hominem counter attacks are sharper, and they're all my own as opposed to being the regurgitated infantile crap you get from right wing rant radio.
Have you noticed that you're the only one on this thread and the prior one who has made overtly ad hominem comments about me?
And have you noticed that you're the only one to whom I have made overtly ad hominem comments as well?
Do ya there may be a connection there? Nah, you clearly don't have the capacity for such complex critical analysis.
It began on the last thread with you calling me a "hopelessly partisan race baiter," then a "socialist" who hates cops. Then you accused me of profiling about Ms. Whalen, after I admitted being wrong about her, so I responded in kind by saying you seem incapable of either critical thinking or intellectual honesty.
It continued on this thread, first with the extended yawn and then the imbecilic doggerel. So I continued to come back at you in kind, as I intend to do as long as you persist with name-calling.
The difference, Peter, is that my ad hominem counter attacks are sharper, and they're all my own as opposed to being the regurgitated infantile crap you get from right wing rant radio.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Oh, Peter
Now I've really abused you, haven't I? I not only woke you up from your blissful, ignorant slumber but now you've taken to writing pitiful doggerel to fight off your insomnia.
I know better than to assume it's the result of anything like a conscience, though. It's just the arrogant belligerence that typifies post-Reagan GOP true believers that has roused you.
Now I've really abused you, haven't I? I not only woke you up from your blissful, ignorant slumber but now you've taken to writing pitiful doggerel to fight off your insomnia.
I know better than to assume it's the result of anything like a conscience, though. It's just the arrogant belligerence that typifies post-Reagan GOP true believers that has roused you.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Tapirfoot
The City of Cambridge, as a public employer, cannot be held liable under the Mass. Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c.258, for Crowley's misconduct insofar as it involved false imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of mental distress, malicious prosecution, etc., as provided in Sect. 10(a).
Crowley can, however, be sued civilly for his "obviously unconstitutional" violation of Gates' civil rights under both state and federal law by entering his home without a warrant, probable cause or invitation, by then wrongfully demanding that he produce an ID in his own home and by then by inviting him outside to arrest him on a bogus charge of disorderly conduct.
This is recognized in the Mass. Tort Claims Act, at c.258, Sect.9A, which requires that the Commonwealth defend and indemnify the errant police officer in such a case.
If Crowley's misconduct were then found to have been wilful, wanton or malicious, however, then the state would not have to indemnify him and he would be solely responsible for any damages awarded -which could result in Gates' levying on Crowley's home.
The City of Cambridge, as a public employer, cannot be held liable under the Mass. Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c.258, for Crowley's misconduct insofar as it involved false imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of mental distress, malicious prosecution, etc., as provided in Sect. 10(a).
Crowley can, however, be sued civilly for his "obviously unconstitutional" violation of Gates' civil rights under both state and federal law by entering his home without a warrant, probable cause or invitation, by then wrongfully demanding that he produce an ID in his own home and by then by inviting him outside to arrest him on a bogus charge of disorderly conduct.
This is recognized in the Mass. Tort Claims Act, at c.258, Sect.9A, which requires that the Commonwealth defend and indemnify the errant police officer in such a case.
If Crowley's misconduct were then found to have been wilful, wanton or malicious, however, then the state would not have to indemnify him and he would be solely responsible for any damages awarded -which could result in Gates' levying on Crowley's home.
Richard [Member]
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
In response to: WHO’S THE BOSS?
Hi, Mainiac
This is an excellent summary of what went down at Prof. Gate's home, but you haven't really addressed the core issue of racial profiling.
Yes, Gates' civil rights were being violated in several respects, Crowley entering the home without permission, asking Gates for an ID inside his own home, getting him to step outside so he could arrest him for "disorderly conduct," a trumped up charge so bogus the DA had it voluntarily dismissed as soon as it came before the Court. Those would all be serious incidents of police misconduct irrespective of race.
But it all began with, and was in furtherance of racial profiling within the Cambridge P.D. How else do you get from Whalen's very tentative description of a Hispanic and another man of uncertain race who may have just been pushing on a sticky door, to Crowley's more specific and erroneous written note that "two black men" were reported to be breaking in?
And that's the problem with racial profiling -it too often leads to violation of an innocent minority "suspect's" civil rights.
This is an excellent summary of what went down at Prof. Gate's home, but you haven't really addressed the core issue of racial profiling.
Yes, Gates' civil rights were being violated in several respects, Crowley entering the home without permission, asking Gates for an ID inside his own home, getting him to step outside so he could arrest him for "disorderly conduct," a trumped up charge so bogus the DA had it voluntarily dismissed as soon as it came before the Court. Those would all be serious incidents of police misconduct irrespective of race.
But it all began with, and was in furtherance of racial profiling within the Cambridge P.D. How else do you get from Whalen's very tentative description of a Hispanic and another man of uncertain race who may have just been pushing on a sticky door, to Crowley's more specific and erroneous written note that "two black men" were reported to be breaking in?
And that's the problem with racial profiling -it too often leads to violation of an innocent minority "suspect's" civil rights.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Peter
Where are your manners? Didn't your mother tell you it's impolite to yawn in public?
Sorry I woke you up from that comfy little dreamworld of right wing ideology you cling to, though. So just roll over, think about all those nice fantasies you cherish about Ronnie Reagan, and I'm sure you'll go right back to sleep again.
Where are your manners? Didn't your mother tell you it's impolite to yawn in public?
Sorry I woke you up from that comfy little dreamworld of right wing ideology you cling to, though. So just roll over, think about all those nice fantasies you cherish about Ronnie Reagan, and I'm sure you'll go right back to sleep again.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, jee
I think it has to begin with everyone being honest about their feelings, not only with each other but with themselves. That's only a start, but it's a necessary precondition to resolving the issue of race relations in America.
The issues cannot be resolved when people of either race take hard and fast positions of accusation or denial. I was guilty of that in my prior post which simply assumed that Ms. Whalen's 911 call was based on racial profiling when that was not the case.
I acknowledged that mistake, but then that means that the police had to do some racial profiling to get from her very tentative report of a Hispanic man maybe trying to break in to Sgt. Crowley's written note that he got a report of "two black males" breaking in. I mean how else do you get from Whalen's Point A to Crowley's Point B without racial profiling somewhere along the line within the Cambridge P.D.?
Instead of an honest self-evaluation here, all we've gotten from Crowley and the Cambridge police is denial and the same old CYA BS. This isn't white "guilt" speaking, just basic logic.
I think it has to begin with everyone being honest about their feelings, not only with each other but with themselves. That's only a start, but it's a necessary precondition to resolving the issue of race relations in America.
The issues cannot be resolved when people of either race take hard and fast positions of accusation or denial. I was guilty of that in my prior post which simply assumed that Ms. Whalen's 911 call was based on racial profiling when that was not the case.
I acknowledged that mistake, but then that means that the police had to do some racial profiling to get from her very tentative report of a Hispanic man maybe trying to break in to Sgt. Crowley's written note that he got a report of "two black males" breaking in. I mean how else do you get from Whalen's Point A to Crowley's Point B without racial profiling somewhere along the line within the Cambridge P.D.?
Instead of an honest self-evaluation here, all we've gotten from Crowley and the Cambridge police is denial and the same old CYA BS. This isn't white "guilt" speaking, just basic logic.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Ned
I confess that I don't recall much about Nixon's outreach program, except that it was some kind of appeal to neo-Nazis and other fascists to get them to vote Republican, and I guess it worked.
As for Opus Dei, I think Dan Brown did a pretty good job in explaining things in the Da Vinci Code. The louder the protests from conservative Catholic groups, the more valid his perspective seems.
As far as putting these two things together, I just look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia and say "aha"!
I confess that I don't recall much about Nixon's outreach program, except that it was some kind of appeal to neo-Nazis and other fascists to get them to vote Republican, and I guess it worked.
As for Opus Dei, I think Dan Brown did a pretty good job in explaining things in the Da Vinci Code. The louder the protests from conservative Catholic groups, the more valid his perspective seems.
As far as putting these two things together, I just look at Supreme Court Justice Scalia and say "aha"!
Richard [Member]
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
In response to: Profiling: Probable Cause for Suspicion of Breathing While Black
Hi, Peter Cohen
Like I said, I don't feel guilty about what I did to identify that young black man. In fact, I still feel fairly smug about it, not just because he was in fact guilty of a crime, but because I was right in my assessment based on knowledge of the local street layout that the cop, a white cop BTW, did not possess.
So, it's not guilt but it is a broader perspective, based on my much greater awareness now of the racial issues that still divide America. That perspective has been gained not just by following the media reports about incidents like Gates, Gonsalves, Re. Williams, Charles Stuart, et al., but by working as an attorney for criminal defendants whose constitutional rights have been deprived based on racial considerations by the Commonwealth, such as the Soares case that tossed out murder convictions based on the prosecutor's racially prejudiced use of peremptory challenges, as well as civil cases involving racial job discrimination.
I do agree, however, that the larger problem is official disregard of our Constitutional rights generally.
Like I said, I don't feel guilty about what I did to identify that young black man. In fact, I still feel fairly smug about it, not just because he was in fact guilty of a crime, but because I was right in my assessment based on knowledge of the local street layout that the cop, a white cop BTW, did not possess.
So, it's not guilt but it is a broader perspective, based on my much greater awareness now of the racial issues that still divide America. That perspective has been gained not just by following the media reports about incidents like Gates, Gonsalves, Re. Williams, Charles Stuart, et al., but by working as an attorney for criminal defendants whose constitutional rights have been deprived based on racial considerations by the Commonwealth, such as the Soares case that tossed out murder convictions based on the prosecutor's racially prejudiced use of peremptory challenges, as well as civil cases involving racial job discrimination.
I do agree, however, that the larger problem is official disregard of our Constitutional rights generally.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Crusader
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
I appreciate your disdain for academic arrogance and hubris. But I have my own direct experiences with how racial profiling by the police works on the streets, as well as awareness of several high-profile cases involving profiling.
See the following post on profiling as based on probable cause for suspicion of breathing while black.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
As I asked crusader, please explain how Whalen's "possibly" Hispanic male with another man of uncertain race, who only may have been breaking into a house but could as likely have been pushing on a stuck door, became transformed, as written on Crowley's official report, into "two black males with backpacks" breaking into the house.
Please explain how that happened without someone, either the dispatcher or Crowley himself, making the assumption that Whalen's ambiguous and tentative report as to both race and what was happening actually meant that two black men were breaking into the house. That assumption, as clearly documented on Crowley's report and contrary to what Whalen said,was racial profiling.
How else do you explain it, both in light of logic and the fact that racial profiling is a common enough phenomenon that Crowley himself instructs rookie cops on the subject?
Give Crowley a break? O.k, then it was the dispatcher who profiled. Still, Crowley acted stupidly to arrest Gates as he did, as both Obama and the Middlesex D.A. clearly recognized.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Possee
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
I confess. I'm guilty of speaking while white about race relations. What are you gonna do -arrest me for disorderly comment?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
The issue in the Gates incident really isn't whether the police properly asked for a description, but how the police got from Whalen's description of one "possibly Hispanic male" who might have been breaking in but also might just have been pushing on a sticky door, all the way to "two black males" who were seen breaking in?
Now, I'm not talking over you to prevent you from getting your question out like "Cindy" did to me a few weeks ago, so don't go storming out on me. Just answer the question, directly please, how do you get from a "Hispanic" who wasn't definitely breaking in to two black males who were breaking in, as Crowley says was reported to him, without racial profiling?
This isn't subjective on my part, because I'm white. It's entirely objective, as well as both logical and intellectually honest.
I wrongly prejudged Ms. Whalen as part of the profiling chain, but the 911 tapes show that the profiling actually began within the Cambridge PD. How else do you explain it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
So, awayfromthebay
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
I realize that my comment about Whalen's profiling was wrong, based on prejudgment, and I admit it. That doesn't alter the validity of my larger point about racial profiling within the Cambridge PD, however, and it in fact serves as proof as you must agree.
Whalen, to her credit didn't offer anything about race, didn't say black but only Hispanic and didn't say that the men she saw were in fact breaking in, only that they might have been doing so but they could have just been pushing on a sticky door. That's what the 911 tape says.
So how did Crowley get "two black males" breaking in on his police report, if it wasn't racial profiling somewhere within the Cambridge PD, either by the dispatcher or by himself, or both? Whalen denies telling him that.
Please explain.
While you're at it, try explaining why Crowley arresting Gates for anything wasn't very stupid after he knew that Gates lived in the house. Sure, Gates was being obstreperous, but that's not a crime, and the charges were in fact so stupid the D.A. had them voluntarily dismissed.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Crusader
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
I agree with you, except I won't put most of the blame on Gates -just an equal share with Crowley. Both men acted stupidly, as Obama correctly but stupidly opined.
Gates and Crowley acted out of Macho stupidity, as Joan Vennochi commented. Obama acted upon political stupidity.
But let's have some sympathy for Gates here. After all, this whole thing in the press will blow over soon, but his wife has been on his case about why he didn't fix the damned door when she told him to before he went on the trip, and she's not gonna let up on him anytime soon.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Peter
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
I guess critical thinking wasn't on the curriculum up there in Hanover. How do you get profiling from my statement that "many Americans" equate Hispanic with black when:
(a) I did not say that all white Americans equate Hispanic with black;
(b) Despite the DOT, the majority of people who are descibed as Hispanic in the US are not European Spanish but are from Mexico or South America where they are racially mixed and therefore non-white; and
(c) As a matter of fact, not opinion, Whalen's description of two Hispanic men who only might have been breaking in, or were maybe just pushing on a sticky door, was equated within the Cambridge PD with "two black males" breaking in, as stated on Crowley's written report.
C'mon Peter, get a few brain cells working together for a change, plus some intellectual honesty for once, and admit you can't explain how "Hispanic" got translated as "two black males" without racial profiling somewhere along the line, specifically within the Cambridge PD, as it appears from the 911 tape it did not come from Whalen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi,awtb
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
What's your point? I said I backtracked on my comment as to Ms. Whalen after I listened to the 911 tape. I was wrong about her and I said so, which is something all the right-wing ideologues who comment here are incapable of doing, either intellectually or morally.
Where the profiling occurred is when the dispatcher took that "Hispanic" reference, sent a report out, and somehow it was translated by Sgt. Crowley as "two black men." Now, despite what intelligent people like you know about the DOT, to many Americans, including the Cambridge PD dispatcher, "Hispanic" means black or the equivalent. How else did Crowley get that idea? Ms. Whalen denies she told him, and I said I give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. As you say, AFTB, "try getting your facts right next time" and open your eyes and your mind so you will recognize reality in all its forms, including racial profiling, when it's staring you in the face.
The main point of this post was not Whalen. It was Obama's absolutely correct statement that the cops were stupid -and so was he for discussing it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, awayfromthebay
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. she saw them as not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report, however. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the benefit of doubt to Whalen, but there's still some doubt on the issue.
It's possible Crowley saw the driver leave which is how he knew he was black and his report is just one big CYA job.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi Buzz
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Fact. Whalen described the two men she saw as "Hispanic."
Fact. Crowley understood before he entered Gates house that it was "two black men with backpacks" attempting to break into the house.
Fact. Crowley says he got that information about the "suspects" race from Whalen.
Fact. Whalen denies she told Crowley about the two men's race.
Fact. Whalen expessly told the dispatcher she could not tell whether the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Fact. The only way Whalen could have known the "suspects" were black is if she waited around and saw the driver leave.
Fact. Crowley doesn't say that Whalen saw one of the "suspects" leave.
Fact. If she told Crowley she saw the driver leave, he wouldn't have claimed to have "fear" when he saw only one "suspect" in the house.
There's only one thing certain here, and it is racial profiling by the Cambridge police, if not Whalen too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Peter
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Tell me where an unconfirmed 911 call creates probable cause to enter -especially where the 911 caller expressly said she couldn't tell if the two men she saw were breaking in or just pushing on a stuck door.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, capecon
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
There's a difference between an alarm that the property owner deliberately installs as an invitation for the police to investigate, and seeing the police show up based on nothing more than an ambiguous report like the one Ms. Whalen gave.
Having now heard the actual 911 tape I have to backtrack a bit on Ms. Whalen. She didn't volunteer the race of the two men she saw, but she did say they looked "Hispanic" which still involves an element of profiling -i.e. not "white" as expected in that neighborhood.
More to her credit, though, was the fact that she expressly said she couldn't tell if the two were attempting to break in or were just pushing on a stuck door -which was exactly what Gates and his driver were doing. It was the cops who then did the profiling with Crowley expecting to see a break-in by non-whites.
It's still unclear where he got the "two black men with backpacks" in his written police report. He says it came from Whalen, and she denies it. It's possible they're both lying, but at this point I'll give the doubt to Whalen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Of Constables and Fences
In response to: Of Constables and Fences
Hi, Troy
Perhaps you're to young to remember, but there was a time when two Planning Board members fought over a chair at the start of a meeting -physically fought over the chair.
At least Brent is fighting over an issue that means something, and that's only verbally. I shudder to think of what might have happened if those two long ago PB members had been packing as Monponsett would have it.
Perhaps you're to young to remember, but there was a time when two Planning Board members fought over a chair at the start of a meeting -physically fought over the chair.
At least Brent is fighting over an issue that means something, and that's only verbally. I shudder to think of what might have happened if those two long ago PB members had been packing as Monponsett would have it.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
Hi, Buzz
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
What you're not supposed to do is enter someone's house without a warrant like Crowley did. And if Gates were a frail, elderly white man backtalking him, Crowley would have acted more cautiously because he wouldn't have felt the alleged "fear" about the second black man Whalen told him about, the one she saw after she couldn't tell the race of the people on the porch breaking in. Possibly Hispanic, as if they aren't profiled by the cops too.
I will have more to say in a future post about the issue of profiling. The main point of this one, as the heading indicates, is Obama's lapse of judgment in even commenting on the incident, and comparing that with goofs by other presidents.
I'm not surprised that you chose to limit your comment to the underlying framework of the Gates incident, as opposed to the main thrust of my comment by coming to Ronald Reagan's defense, or Bush's defense. That's because my main point was correct. Those two "leaders" made repeated idiotic statements, while Obama made a single sensible statement when he should have kept his mouth shut.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
So, Peter, as you say, Whalen's account of her 911 call and Crowley's account of her statement to him are mutually inconsistent. So somebody's lying here.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Whalen has said she couldn't even tell the race of the two men who were "breaking in" to the house, yet Crowley says she told them they were two black men with backpacks. How did her perception improve over the few minutes it took Crowley to get there?
It's possible she waited around and therefore would have seen the big black driver get into the car and drive off. And then she might have assumed that the other "perp" was also black. But, if so, why didn't she tell Crowley that the other black guy left?
That way Crowley would have known that the only one inside the house was the frail elderly owner, Mr. Gates. But Crowley said he was experiencing "fear" because there was another suspect inside the house.
You don't have to be a mindreader, Snoopy, to read between the lines. At least one of these people is lying about what transpired after the 911 call, if not both of them, and I stand by my statement about profiling.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
In response to: Presidential Gaffes & Goofs
No apology needed FTB because whether or not she mentioned two black males, the only reason she called 911 was because they were two black males and she therefore assumed they were breaking into the house, i.e. profiling.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
Don't try to pretent that if were an elderly white man, with a younger white companion pushing on a stuck door on a humid day she would have thought there was a crime being committed. And don't try to pretend that Crowley, based on the report he received, wasn't expecting to find one or two black perps.
Richard [Member]
In response to: I'm Buying a House: Do I Need a Lawyer??
In response to: I'm Buying a House: Do I Need a Lawyer??
My former partner, the late Marcel Kistin, had a cartoon on his office wall with a grinning fellow saying that he didn't need a lawyer and he negotiated a home purchase by himself and the other party threw in two liens and several encumbrances for free.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Employee Manuals Can be "Implied Contracts"
In response to: Employee Manuals Can be "Implied Contracts"
Would a simple disclaimer suffice? Language could appear in a prominent place stating "This manual is advisory only as to the employer's voluntary personnel policies. It is not a contract, and it does not imply the existence of an employment contract. Policy is subject to change at the employer's sole discretion, and employees remain at all time subject to dismissal at will as provided by the laws of the Commonwealth."
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
Richard [Member]
In response to: BLACK, WHITE AND GRAY AND THE GOLDEN ASS CAFE....OBAMA'S DILEMMA
In response to: BLACK, WHITE AND GRAY AND THE GOLDEN ASS CAFE....OBAMA'S DILEMMA
To answer your question you make a lot of sense for the most part. But you avoid dealing with the crux of the dilemma.
Yes, Woodie's people should be Obama supporters, and surely would be if economics were all that drove politics today as it did in the 1930s and 40s.
But after 30 some years of divisive Reaganista politics, based on the GOP's so-called "family values" agenda, the important issues in middle America today are sschool prayer, creationism, abortion and gay marriage.
Just look at the 2004 presidential race where Bush was on the ropes with the economy, but he was saved by the bell of anti-gay marriage petitions in so many of the states in middle America.
It's not an easy problem to resolve. Obama was given a good opening with the failure of GOP economics in 2008, but he must capitalize on that, rather than abandon constitutional prinicple on the "values" issues. To do that, as Ana Paulina suggests, he must start to show real competence on the economic issues, as well as foreign policy, to get middle America's head screwed back on straight.
Yes, Woodie's people should be Obama supporters, and surely would be if economics were all that drove politics today as it did in the 1930s and 40s.
But after 30 some years of divisive Reaganista politics, based on the GOP's so-called "family values" agenda, the important issues in middle America today are sschool prayer, creationism, abortion and gay marriage.
Just look at the 2004 presidential race where Bush was on the ropes with the economy, but he was saved by the bell of anti-gay marriage petitions in so many of the states in middle America.
It's not an easy problem to resolve. Obama was given a good opening with the failure of GOP economics in 2008, but he must capitalize on that, rather than abandon constitutional prinicple on the "values" issues. To do that, as Ana Paulina suggests, he must start to show real competence on the economic issues, as well as foreign policy, to get middle America's head screwed back on straight.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, dingbat
See my comment to Buzz about a judge's record. The difference between Carville and Bork on the one hand, and Roberts and Alito as well as Sotomayor on the other, is how extreme their prior decisions have been, how well reasoned within the range of rational constitutional debate on the facts under established principles of law, and not simply whether they had been overturned on appeal.
See my comment to Buzz about a judge's record. The difference between Carville and Bork on the one hand, and Roberts and Alito as well as Sotomayor on the other, is how extreme their prior decisions have been, how well reasoned within the range of rational constitutional debate on the facts under established principles of law, and not simply whether they had been overturned on appeal.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, Karen
I'll say it again about Scalia. He's a smooth sophist, skillful with words, but his culturally conservative prejudices, against gays, against individusal sexual freedom, come through loud and clear.
The difference here between Sotomayor and Scalia is indeed the "empathy" that comes out of bias and the antipathy -or bigotry that comes out of prejudice.
Empathy tends to enlarge the rights of everyone to basic freedoms, albeit imperfectly, while bigotry always and perfectly leads to constrictiong our freedoms.
My own comments critical of gay marriage, for example, have not been based on any prejudice against gays, but on a basically political analysis that sees that issue, coming up as it did just before the 2004 election, having disastrous impact on the cause of civil rights generally, not the least of which was the fact that Bush got to appoint Roberts and Alito to join the other culturally conservative activists Thomas and Scalia.
Prejudicde, whether it's based on race, gender or sexual orientation, unlike bias, restricts freedom and opportunity.
I'll say it again about Scalia. He's a smooth sophist, skillful with words, but his culturally conservative prejudices, against gays, against individusal sexual freedom, come through loud and clear.
The difference here between Sotomayor and Scalia is indeed the "empathy" that comes out of bias and the antipathy -or bigotry that comes out of prejudice.
Empathy tends to enlarge the rights of everyone to basic freedoms, albeit imperfectly, while bigotry always and perfectly leads to constrictiong our freedoms.
My own comments critical of gay marriage, for example, have not been based on any prejudice against gays, but on a basically political analysis that sees that issue, coming up as it did just before the 2004 election, having disastrous impact on the cause of civil rights generally, not the least of which was the fact that Bush got to appoint Roberts and Alito to join the other culturally conservative activists Thomas and Scalia.
Prejudicde, whether it's based on race, gender or sexual orientation, unlike bias, restricts freedom and opportunity.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
In response to: Comments On A Wise Latina, White Males And Jim Crow States' Rights
Hi, Buzz
Good to hear from you again. It is indeed relevant to look at any judicial nominee's record on important issues that may come before the Court. That's why white males like Carville, Bork et al. were rejected by Senatorial majorities that did not agree with their stated position on the issues.
Whether a judge's rulings are reversed or not, however, isn't really the key because the Supremes are nominated based on a president's politics and they are confirmed based on the Senate's politics which will change from time to time.
That's the reality of it, where Solomonic neutrality is really a myth, never more so than with the present four culturally conservative activists Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment did nothing more than honestly acknowledge this fact, and I don't just "hope" but am certain that her wise Latina perspective will lead her to much better decisions in defense of our constitutional rights than those four black robed, white male clowns.
Good to hear from you again. It is indeed relevant to look at any judicial nominee's record on important issues that may come before the Court. That's why white males like Carville, Bork et al. were rejected by Senatorial majorities that did not agree with their stated position on the issues.
Whether a judge's rulings are reversed or not, however, isn't really the key because the Supremes are nominated based on a president's politics and they are confirmed based on the Senate's politics which will change from time to time.
That's the reality of it, where Solomonic neutrality is really a myth, never more so than with the present four culturally conservative activists Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment did nothing more than honestly acknowledge this fact, and I don't just "hope" but am certain that her wise Latina perspective will lead her to much better decisions in defense of our constitutional rights than those four black robed, white male clowns.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Animating Cause
In response to: Animating Cause
There's good reason for some optimism, now that we have a President who understands that difficult issues require critical thinking and reason aimed at developing fair and honest policies. They cannot be resolved with "patriotic" bluster combined with hypocritical actions as the former administration seemed to believe.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Addiction: Is it an illness or personal choice?
In response to: Addiction: Is it an illness or personal choice?
As someone who has kicked a heavy tobacco habit and stronger stuff as well, it would be easy for me to say anyone can do it because I did and therefore users are weak willed and immoral people.
That would be easy except for the fact that as someone who has developed a serious habit of critical thinking, I know better. I believe that I am probably fortunate in my genetic makeup and I know many equally intelligent people who have not been able to give up serious addictions.
I view this as a sound rationale for decriminalizing all addictive substances, controlling and taxing production and sales, and plowing all the money back into serious and effective programs aimed at both preventive education and rehabilitation. I see no role for the police in what is essentially a public health problem and not a crime problem per se.
That would be easy except for the fact that as someone who has developed a serious habit of critical thinking, I know better. I believe that I am probably fortunate in my genetic makeup and I know many equally intelligent people who have not been able to give up serious addictions.
I view this as a sound rationale for decriminalizing all addictive substances, controlling and taxing production and sales, and plowing all the money back into serious and effective programs aimed at both preventive education and rehabilitation. I see no role for the police in what is essentially a public health problem and not a crime problem per se.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Some Reflections On Patriotism, July 4, 2009
In response to: Some Reflections On Patriotism, July 4, 2009
Hi, peter
You probably haven't read very many of my posts on this site if you think my remarks in this post are in some way "hypocritical" because I make a partisan criticism of today's GOP.
You also seem to be confusing partisanship, which is necessary to a truly democratic republic, with ideological extremism which is my target on this site, on both the right and the left as well. Just read my lenghthy critiques of gay marriage, of animal rights and, recently, Cindy Sheehan.
Eisenhower said he despised people on the extreme right and left who throw rocks at us in the center. On this site, I throw them back from the center.
This post was not directed at Republicanism per se as I have known it in my lifetime. Indeed, I expressly quoted Repulican leaders like Schurz and Ike. Instead, my target here is the extreme right wing ideology that has taken over today's GOP with its "free market" nonsense and phony "values" agenda -an ideology that shrilly resists any attempt to change from within, as with Cheney and Limbaugh recently shouting down Colin Powell.
You probably haven't read very many of my posts on this site if you think my remarks in this post are in some way "hypocritical" because I make a partisan criticism of today's GOP.
You also seem to be confusing partisanship, which is necessary to a truly democratic republic, with ideological extremism which is my target on this site, on both the right and the left as well. Just read my lenghthy critiques of gay marriage, of animal rights and, recently, Cindy Sheehan.
Eisenhower said he despised people on the extreme right and left who throw rocks at us in the center. On this site, I throw them back from the center.
This post was not directed at Republicanism per se as I have known it in my lifetime. Indeed, I expressly quoted Repulican leaders like Schurz and Ike. Instead, my target here is the extreme right wing ideology that has taken over today's GOP with its "free market" nonsense and phony "values" agenda -an ideology that shrilly resists any attempt to change from within, as with Cheney and Limbaugh recently shouting down Colin Powell.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, jm
I fully agree with you, which is why I began this post by saying that I respect both Ms. Sheehan's efforts in the cause of peace and the fact that she lost a son in Iraq. My disappointment was solely based on her inability and refusal to answer a simple question about whether Gore would have made a difference in the 2000 election. I think he would have made a big difference, and I was disappointed that she did not address the question but tried to deflect it instead.
As for walking out, I was the the last or next to last person allowed to ask a question, and I had to be really insistent to get the question out because she immediately began to talk over me when she got the drift of where I was going. That's just demagoguery, not reasoned dialogue, and I just didn't want to hear any more of it that night.
I fully agree with you, which is why I began this post by saying that I respect both Ms. Sheehan's efforts in the cause of peace and the fact that she lost a son in Iraq. My disappointment was solely based on her inability and refusal to answer a simple question about whether Gore would have made a difference in the 2000 election. I think he would have made a big difference, and I was disappointed that she did not address the question but tried to deflect it instead.
As for walking out, I was the the last or next to last person allowed to ask a question, and I had to be really insistent to get the question out because she immediately began to talk over me when she got the drift of where I was going. That's just demagoguery, not reasoned dialogue, and I just didn't want to hear any more of it that night.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi,dk
I went to the meeting, not knowing very much about Ms. Sheehan's position on larger issues than the war in Iraq and with a completely open mind.
I think anyone who has fought in a war or who has lost a loved one in a war, has sufficient "credentials" to speak about war in general. I think the rest of us who, as taxpayers, are paying for costly overseas wars also have sufficient credentials to speak out.
As for larger political issues, we are all equal under the First Amendment, but clearly we are not equal in terms of our ability to think clearly when we speak -and that's what I was trying to get Ms. Sheehan to do when I asked the question about whether Gore would have made a difference in 2000. I was disappointed that she could not -or would not do so.
I went to the meeting, not knowing very much about Ms. Sheehan's position on larger issues than the war in Iraq and with a completely open mind.
I think anyone who has fought in a war or who has lost a loved one in a war, has sufficient "credentials" to speak about war in general. I think the rest of us who, as taxpayers, are paying for costly overseas wars also have sufficient credentials to speak out.
As for larger political issues, we are all equal under the First Amendment, but clearly we are not equal in terms of our ability to think clearly when we speak -and that's what I was trying to get Ms. Sheehan to do when I asked the question about whether Gore would have made a difference in 2000. I was disappointed that she could not -or would not do so.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
capewatch.
BTW, do you think my question about wehther President Gore would have started an oil war in Iraq as Bush did was somehow unfair in light of Ms. Sheehan's claims that elections don't matter and there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP?
If so, please give me the explanation that Ms. Sheehan did not give me as to why that might be so.
If you think it was a fair question, as I do, then please explain how her deflection of the question about Gore by referring to an irrelevant association with Armand Hammer, was anything other than an attempt to evade the question.
BTW, do you think my question about wehther President Gore would have started an oil war in Iraq as Bush did was somehow unfair in light of Ms. Sheehan's claims that elections don't matter and there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP?
If so, please give me the explanation that Ms. Sheehan did not give me as to why that might be so.
If you think it was a fair question, as I do, then please explain how her deflection of the question about Gore by referring to an irrelevant association with Armand Hammer, was anything other than an attempt to evade the question.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi capewatch
As I stated in the post, I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan's claim that the American corporte elite, through its GOP political wing, has been successful in perpetrating several myths on the American people, including:
The myth that America itself,is somehow special as a nation and different from the rest of the world. It is a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism as a people, while what has has always made us different from other nations is our secular constitution which is indeed special when it is not corrupted by political ideologies from the right or the left.
Another myth is that America is a classless society, when the reality is that we have a very real class system based solely on wealth.
And another myth in today's climate of mass media being monopolized by corporate interests is that we still have a free press.
Those are all points on which I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan as being major problems in America today.
However, her belief that there's no difference between the GOP and the Dems so elections don't matter is itself a myth.
As I stated in the post, I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan's claim that the American corporte elite, through its GOP political wing, has been successful in perpetrating several myths on the American people, including:
The myth that America itself,is somehow special as a nation and different from the rest of the world. It is a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism as a people, while what has has always made us different from other nations is our secular constitution which is indeed special when it is not corrupted by political ideologies from the right or the left.
Another myth is that America is a classless society, when the reality is that we have a very real class system based solely on wealth.
And another myth in today's climate of mass media being monopolized by corporate interests is that we still have a free press.
Those are all points on which I fully agree with Ms. Sheehan as being major problems in America today.
However, her belief that there's no difference between the GOP and the Dems so elections don't matter is itself a myth.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, demos
I agree, but the way to build that unified party is not to demonize those successful politicians who you would need in order to become a unified majority on the issues that matter. Rather than build a "new party" from scratch, people like Ms. Sheehan should be trying to rebuild the Democratic Party from within, as Colin Powell is trying to do with the GOP.
Nor, as we agree, is it helpful to preach that "elections don't matter," simply because the differences between the major parties are not as great as some of us might like to see. If we are ever to have a unified majority on the issues that matter, peace, prosperity for all, equality, liberty, the way the GOP has managed to gain majorities on divisive "values" issues, then elections certainly do matter.
I agree, but the way to build that unified party is not to demonize those successful politicians who you would need in order to become a unified majority on the issues that matter. Rather than build a "new party" from scratch, people like Ms. Sheehan should be trying to rebuild the Democratic Party from within, as Colin Powell is trying to do with the GOP.
Nor, as we agree, is it helpful to preach that "elections don't matter," simply because the differences between the major parties are not as great as some of us might like to see. If we are ever to have a unified majority on the issues that matter, peace, prosperity for all, equality, liberty, the way the GOP has managed to gain majorities on divisive "values" issues, then elections certainly do matter.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, greenferret
The idea of a runoff is interesting, but in the end it would be both needlessly costly and unworkable given our constitutional system of separation of powers. Third parties work very well under a parliamentary system where the chief executive is a prime minister and his election depends on a parliamentary majority.
But that's not our constitutional model. So, instead, what happens is that a third party simply serves to divide the electorate which might not be bad except for the fact that the GOP corporatists have been more skilfull at doing that with their phony "values" agenda ever since Reagan won in 1980.
In this context, third party demonization of Democrats from the left only serves to empower the GOP by adding to the crippling divisiveness among those who are, or should be voting against the corporate elite based on their common economic interests.
Read Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas," for example, or Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" to see how well this has actually worked to empower the GOP over the past 30 years.
The idea of a runoff is interesting, but in the end it would be both needlessly costly and unworkable given our constitutional system of separation of powers. Third parties work very well under a parliamentary system where the chief executive is a prime minister and his election depends on a parliamentary majority.
But that's not our constitutional model. So, instead, what happens is that a third party simply serves to divide the electorate which might not be bad except for the fact that the GOP corporatists have been more skilfull at doing that with their phony "values" agenda ever since Reagan won in 1980.
In this context, third party demonization of Democrats from the left only serves to empower the GOP by adding to the crippling divisiveness among those who are, or should be voting against the corporate elite based on their common economic interests.
Read Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas," for example, or Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" to see how well this has actually worked to empower the GOP over the past 30 years.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, paul
As you can see from the responses to this post, not everyone agrees with your take on Ms. Sheehan, nor mine for that matter. And while many at Morse Pond may have been happy when I left last Saturday, I got several smiles and thumbs up on my way out.
I don't doubt Ms. Sheehan's courage, or her basic intelligence which I have in fact defended against some negative comment here. But that doesn't mean I have to close my mind to her flaws as well as some at the Morse Pond meeting apparently do.
As for wanting to hear oneself above all others, look around paul, and really think about the way Ms. Sheehan responded to my simple question about what Gore's policy would have been. Instead of actually focusing on my difficult question and giving an honest answer, she deflected the question with an irrelevant reference to Armand Hammer, in order to maintain her own
voice "above all others" about how "elections don't matter."
That's hardly speaking "truth to power," is it?
As you can see from the responses to this post, not everyone agrees with your take on Ms. Sheehan, nor mine for that matter. And while many at Morse Pond may have been happy when I left last Saturday, I got several smiles and thumbs up on my way out.
I don't doubt Ms. Sheehan's courage, or her basic intelligence which I have in fact defended against some negative comment here. But that doesn't mean I have to close my mind to her flaws as well as some at the Morse Pond meeting apparently do.
As for wanting to hear oneself above all others, look around paul, and really think about the way Ms. Sheehan responded to my simple question about what Gore's policy would have been. Instead of actually focusing on my difficult question and giving an honest answer, she deflected the question with an irrelevant reference to Armand Hammer, in order to maintain her own
voice "above all others" about how "elections don't matter."
That's hardly speaking "truth to power," is it?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, Ned
It's like FDR supposedly said about Somoza being our SOB. The difference is, though, that repressive right wing dictators back then could be relied on to oppose the "enemy" dou jour.
My take on Ms. Sheehan's attack on Democrats has quite the opposite effect, inasmuch as it only serves to augment the divisiveness among people who should be voting for Democrats on economic issues, to complement the GOP's effort to create divisiveness based on the so-called "values" issues.
Just look at "gary's" rant about Palin to see what the problem is. He says she's a lock to be next president, and he could be right if the GOP's natural constituency on economic issues remains divided against itself. Think about that a moment, and if you ain't scared, you ain't right.
Now, that the GOP's regulatory incompetence has led to the total collapse of our "free market" economy, is not the time to give them another boost by demonizing the Democrats or pretending they don't offer a real alternative to GOP policies. And that's my point about Ms. Sheehan.
It's like FDR supposedly said about Somoza being our SOB. The difference is, though, that repressive right wing dictators back then could be relied on to oppose the "enemy" dou jour.
My take on Ms. Sheehan's attack on Democrats has quite the opposite effect, inasmuch as it only serves to augment the divisiveness among people who should be voting for Democrats on economic issues, to complement the GOP's effort to create divisiveness based on the so-called "values" issues.
Just look at "gary's" rant about Palin to see what the problem is. He says she's a lock to be next president, and he could be right if the GOP's natural constituency on economic issues remains divided against itself. Think about that a moment, and if you ain't scared, you ain't right.
Now, that the GOP's regulatory incompetence has led to the total collapse of our "free market" economy, is not the time to give them another boost by demonizing the Democrats or pretending they don't offer a real alternative to GOP policies. And that's my point about Ms. Sheehan.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hi, dingbat
I, too, miss William Buckley as a sane conservative voice. But after Reagan's 2000 "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Miss., the GOP has gone almost entirely over to the truly wingnut "values" agenda of the religious right. The corporate capitalists put up the money for GOP candidates to pander to the "values" voters in the south and the heartland, expecting to reap the benefits of small government in the form of deregulation and "free market" economics but, as the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
Now, with the failure of small government economic deregulation, all of Reagan's "best minds" in industry and Wall Street are going to big government asking for welfare, i.e. "socialism," while the GOP has been taken over by the gun nuts, the school prayer nuts and the sexual puritans.
Even as a Democrat, I've been rooting for Colin Powell in his effort to get the GOP back on track and out of the grasp of nut cases like Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin.
I, too, miss William Buckley as a sane conservative voice. But after Reagan's 2000 "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Miss., the GOP has gone almost entirely over to the truly wingnut "values" agenda of the religious right. The corporate capitalists put up the money for GOP candidates to pander to the "values" voters in the south and the heartland, expecting to reap the benefits of small government in the form of deregulation and "free market" economics but, as the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
Now, with the failure of small government economic deregulation, all of Reagan's "best minds" in industry and Wall Street are going to big government asking for welfare, i.e. "socialism," while the GOP has been taken over by the gun nuts, the school prayer nuts and the sexual puritans.
Even as a Democrat, I've been rooting for Colin Powell in his effort to get the GOP back on track and out of the grasp of nut cases like Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
Hello, mbrad!
I could tell that Ms. Sheehan had a much better grasp on the issues, and was significantly more intelligent than Palin just based on what she said and how she said it, comparing what I've heard from Palin in similar public fora.
If you think someone needs to know relative IQ scores in order to judge the intelligence of others, that only calls your own intelligence into question as well as display an ignorance of the limited validity of IQ testing itself in areas outside of academics.
But I'll give you the benefit of doubt and allow that you're probably a fairly intelligent fellow but, like most defenders of Palin who should know better, you sound like just another dishonest GOP cynic.
I could tell that Ms. Sheehan had a much better grasp on the issues, and was significantly more intelligent than Palin just based on what she said and how she said it, comparing what I've heard from Palin in similar public fora.
If you think someone needs to know relative IQ scores in order to judge the intelligence of others, that only calls your own intelligence into question as well as display an ignorance of the limited validity of IQ testing itself in areas outside of academics.
But I'll give you the benefit of doubt and allow that you're probably a fairly intelligent fellow but, like most defenders of Palin who should know better, you sound like just another dishonest GOP cynic.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
Hi, Danny:
A dog will drink beer, and even get drunk, but I've never been able to get a cat to go anywhere near a glass of beer or wine -not that I've really tried to get them to drink. Still, when a cat sniffs at a glass of beer or wine it just recoils like it was poison.
A dog will drink beer, and even get drunk, but I've never been able to get a cat to go anywhere near a glass of beer or wine -not that I've really tried to get them to drink. Still, when a cat sniffs at a glass of beer or wine it just recoils like it was poison.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Peter:
Surely you must know that TP refers to talking point. And that's all you get with the Herald, printed talking points, factoids without any substance, analysis or validity.
By the way, before the recent "news" about Jon and Kate breaking up, did you even know who they were or that they were together? Tell the truth, now.
Surely you must know that TP refers to talking point. And that's all you get with the Herald, printed talking points, factoids without any substance, analysis or validity.
By the way, before the recent "news" about Jon and Kate breaking up, did you even know who they were or that they were together? Tell the truth, now.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Peter, try some basic logic, something totally unfamiliar with Herald editors and it's core readership:
Hypothesis 1: I criticized the Herald for having no "left" content.
Hypothesis 2: You countered my criticism by clear implication that Marjorie Eagan is a left biased columnist in the Herald.
Conclusion: You defended the Herald against my criticism that it has no left biased content, by contradiction.
I recognize that your statement could, literally, be taken to state only that Eagan was a centrist without any left or right bias, but then what was your point?
Hypothesis 1: I criticized the Herald for having no "left" content.
Hypothesis 2: You countered my criticism by clear implication that Marjorie Eagan is a left biased columnist in the Herald.
Conclusion: You defended the Herald against my criticism that it has no left biased content, by contradiction.
I recognize that your statement could, literally, be taken to state only that Eagan was a centrist without any left or right bias, but then what was your point?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Check out today's Globe and Herald. As usual, the Globe's front page is filled with a variety of actual news stories, including local, regional and national, with no apparent political slant.
Meanwhile, the Herald's front page has one side devoted to a story, again, about Dice K of the Red Sox, a large purely sensationalist item taking up half the page about the Craigslist murderer which is really old news, a smmall box at the top about Ted
Kennedy's son selling access, which is newsworthy but is also evidence of a political slant as it is the only newsworthy item on the front page, and then a larger box about Jon and Kate breaking up. Gasp!
Now that is really a newsworth item, but only to those with the intellectual limitations of the core Herald readership who actually know who Jon and Kate are and have such a minimal grasp on issues of public importance to think that the breakup has some actual significance in the real world.
Core Globe readers, like me, don't even know who Jon and Kate are, never mind having even the slightest concern whether they stay together or not.
Meanwhile, the Herald's front page has one side devoted to a story, again, about Dice K of the Red Sox, a large purely sensationalist item taking up half the page about the Craigslist murderer which is really old news, a smmall box at the top about Ted
Kennedy's son selling access, which is newsworthy but is also evidence of a political slant as it is the only newsworthy item on the front page, and then a larger box about Jon and Kate breaking up. Gasp!
Now that is really a newsworth item, but only to those with the intellectual limitations of the core Herald readership who actually know who Jon and Kate are and have such a minimal grasp on issues of public importance to think that the breakup has some actual significance in the real world.
Core Globe readers, like me, don't even know who Jon and Kate are, never mind having even the slightest concern whether they stay together or not.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The Man on the Street Speaks in Falmouth
In response to: The Man on the Street Speaks in Falmouth
Don't complain too much about Mustafa btfh. Just remember how we used to elect selectmen like George Pinto who told the old Brothers Four nightclub in the Heights to take a sign down from their property for a group called "Band in Boston" because it was obscene. He thought since it was banned in Boston it must be obscene and he wasn't joking. Neither were the voters who elected him to help run the town, which is even scarier. At least Mustafa, agree with him or not, takes positions on real issues like the merits of a liquor violation charge.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Hello, Peter
Eagan is the Herald's token "liberal," but she is really what intelligent people would consider a right leaning centrist, like the moderate Republicans who used to guide the GOP, Eisenhower or Rockefeller nationally, and Richardson, Brooke, Sargent, Hatch and Weld locally.
As a left-leaning centrist, and an independent voter before 1980, I always voted for those Republicans. It was when Reagan started his 1980 campaign by appealing to racist whites in Philadelphia, Miss., on the basis of "states rights" demagoguery, creating divisive cultural issues by pandering to the so-called "values" voters, that I became a registered Democrat. And the GOP has done nothing since then to get my vote. I can only pray that Colin Powell might succeed in getting the GOP back on track, but it won't happen while most Republicans still subscribe to printed TP like the Herald.
That you would cite Eagan as a "left" leaning commentator only goes to prove my point about how far over into the deep, deep right wing abyss both the Herald and its defenders like you have fallen.
Eagan is the Herald's token "liberal," but she is really what intelligent people would consider a right leaning centrist, like the moderate Republicans who used to guide the GOP, Eisenhower or Rockefeller nationally, and Richardson, Brooke, Sargent, Hatch and Weld locally.
As a left-leaning centrist, and an independent voter before 1980, I always voted for those Republicans. It was when Reagan started his 1980 campaign by appealing to racist whites in Philadelphia, Miss., on the basis of "states rights" demagoguery, creating divisive cultural issues by pandering to the so-called "values" voters, that I became a registered Democrat. And the GOP has done nothing since then to get my vote. I can only pray that Colin Powell might succeed in getting the GOP back on track, but it won't happen while most Republicans still subscribe to printed TP like the Herald.
That you would cite Eagan as a "left" leaning commentator only goes to prove my point about how far over into the deep, deep right wing abyss both the Herald and its defenders like you have fallen.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
In response to: Read All About It! Herald Editors Know How To Edit!
Hi, Ned.
You're right about the Post of course, but when Paxton wrote the song the Daily News was clearly the paper of choice for right wing nitwits, as the Herald is today.
You're right about the Post of course, but when Paxton wrote the song the Daily News was clearly the paper of choice for right wing nitwits, as the Herald is today.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The lies of Hiroshima
In response to: The lies of Hiroshima
Some perspective. The Nazis were intensively trying to develop an atomic bomb, and as has come to light during the past decade, the Japanese themselves were trying to develop a uraniam based fission bomb.
The travesty was not dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which either the Germans or the Japanese would have done to us if they got there first. That bombing did, in fact, save American lives, and many, many Japanese lives outside the target areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is unrealistic ideolology to deny that fact.
No, the real travesty occurred after the war ended when Oppenheimer's plan to internationalize all nuclear development with close controls over all fissionable materials, was rejected by Truman, listening to the paranoid right, saying we had to protect our "atomic secrets."
That's the travesty because there were no secrets. Everyone knew the basic theory, and after Hiroshima they knew it could work. So it was only a matter of time before Russia, China, Israel, Korea, at al. got their own bombs. Now it's Iran's turn.
The travesty was not dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which either the Germans or the Japanese would have done to us if they got there first. That bombing did, in fact, save American lives, and many, many Japanese lives outside the target areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is unrealistic ideolology to deny that fact.
No, the real travesty occurred after the war ended when Oppenheimer's plan to internationalize all nuclear development with close controls over all fissionable materials, was rejected by Truman, listening to the paranoid right, saying we had to protect our "atomic secrets."
That's the travesty because there were no secrets. Everyone knew the basic theory, and after Hiroshima they knew it could work. So it was only a matter of time before Russia, China, Israel, Korea, at al. got their own bombs. Now it's Iran's turn.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
Hi, Jon
Two weeks ago a church member played that song on guitar and sang during the early morning service at North Falmouth Congregational Church. It was well received by the congregation.
The song was still resonating in my head when I read Danny's post and the AA concept just kind of fit in with it, know what I mean?
Two weeks ago a church member played that song on guitar and sang during the early morning service at North Falmouth Congregational Church. It was well received by the congregation.
The song was still resonating in my head when I read Danny's post and the AA concept just kind of fit in with it, know what I mean?
Richard [Member]
In response to: PERRY OFFERS RESOLUTION BEFORE HOUSE PROTECTING 10th AMENDMENT
In response to: PERRY OFFERS RESOLUTION BEFORE HOUSE PROTECTING 10th AMENDMENT
Since VR asked for my input, I'll just ask a simple question. Why has Mr. Perry and his ilk stopped reading at the 10th Amendment and never seem to mention the 14th Amendment?
I would suggest it's because they know that the principles of equal protection and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment throws their 10th Amendment "states rights" bullstuff into the dungheap where it belongs.
I would suggest it's because they know that the principles of equal protection and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment throws their 10th Amendment "states rights" bullstuff into the dungheap where it belongs.
Richard [Member]
In response to: David v. Goliath Cases: What Would Have Happened Without the Slingshot?
In response to: David v. Goliath Cases: What Would Have Happened Without the Slingshot?
The problem today is that too many Goliaths have become "too big to fail." Look at the insurance biz, for example. Everyone knows that we'd be much better off with a publicly backed single payer health care system, but since the U.S. now has an equity stake in the Goliath AIG, how likely is it we will get a system that takes premiums away from that asset?
When you have to fight the U.S., on Social Security claims or Medicare liens,they resist but at least you know they're only protecting public funds generated by taxes, serving an important public policy.
With the insurance Goliaths they're resisting only in the name of their own bottom line. We're gonna need more than a slingshot to kill that Goliath as most other Western societies have done.
When you have to fight the U.S., on Social Security claims or Medicare liens,they resist but at least you know they're only protecting public funds generated by taxes, serving an important public policy.
With the insurance Goliaths they're resisting only in the name of their own bottom line. We're gonna need more than a slingshot to kill that Goliath as most other Western societies have done.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Getting Rid of God
In response to: Getting Rid of God
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbyyl_joan-osborne-what-if-god-was-one-of
Whose call would he return first, the Pope's or Bill's?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbyyl_joan-osborne-what-if-god-was-one-of
Whose call would he return first, the Pope's or Bill's?
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hi, Buzz
Good to hear from you. Yes, if by elitist you mean someone who is capable of critical thinking about the issues, and doesn't need to be told what to think by authority figures and demagogues like Limbaugh, and then says so, I have to say mea culpa.
I think that's a lot better, though, than someone who is a mere sycophant to what is the true elite in America today, not the thinkers and the educators, but the corporate masters in industry, finance and insurance, who own most of America while the rest of us just get further and further behind.
We all know that the corporate elite have billions of reasons for this, but those in the media who earn chump change to enable them, like the Herald editors, are just fools.
You can call me "elitist" for pointing out how the so-called "values" voters, the Herald readers for example, have let themselves be duped by the corporate elite while the income and ownership gaps steadily increase in what is really a class-based society today.
I just call it being honest.
Good to hear from you. Yes, if by elitist you mean someone who is capable of critical thinking about the issues, and doesn't need to be told what to think by authority figures and demagogues like Limbaugh, and then says so, I have to say mea culpa.
I think that's a lot better, though, than someone who is a mere sycophant to what is the true elite in America today, not the thinkers and the educators, but the corporate masters in industry, finance and insurance, who own most of America while the rest of us just get further and further behind.
We all know that the corporate elite have billions of reasons for this, but those in the media who earn chump change to enable them, like the Herald editors, are just fools.
You can call me "elitist" for pointing out how the so-called "values" voters, the Herald readers for example, have let themselves be duped by the corporate elite while the income and ownership gaps steadily increase in what is really a class-based society today.
I just call it being honest.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Whalerick suggests that Herald Readers reject the Globe because the don't want to read "a paper that has what they consider to be too much left bias, with stories that don't appeal to them."
But, let's get real here, huh? Look at the editorial slant of the Herald,including the Op Ed, and its virtually all right wing bias. Compare that to the Globe which is, at least in the Op Ed usually 30 to 40 percent right wing with a lot of middle of the road stuff. Then look at the headlines of the Herald which are very opinionated, as well as many alleged "new" stories, always with a right slant.
So you're just making my point here, because it's just those people who can't handle the kind of critical thinking required to digest and evaluate two different viewpoints who buy the Herald and who generally vote for today's GOP.
The reason such people prefer the Herald is not because the Globe has too much of a left bias, but because the Herald as almost zero left content.
Like the Beatles said: "Living is easy with eyes closed," and they were not talking about Globe readers.
But, let's get real here, huh? Look at the editorial slant of the Herald,including the Op Ed, and its virtually all right wing bias. Compare that to the Globe which is, at least in the Op Ed usually 30 to 40 percent right wing with a lot of middle of the road stuff. Then look at the headlines of the Herald which are very opinionated, as well as many alleged "new" stories, always with a right slant.
So you're just making my point here, because it's just those people who can't handle the kind of critical thinking required to digest and evaluate two different viewpoints who buy the Herald and who generally vote for today's GOP.
The reason such people prefer the Herald is not because the Globe has too much of a left bias, but because the Herald as almost zero left content.
Like the Beatles said: "Living is easy with eyes closed," and they were not talking about Globe readers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hey,Monponsett
Another great headline in the Herald yesterday "Horse Snit" about the BPD mounted patrol. And that was actually real news, too.
Another great headline in the Herald yesterday "Horse Snit" about the BPD mounted patrol. And that was actually real news, too.
Richard [Member]
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
Hi, Possee
Since you asked, the logical opposite of progressive is regressive. That pretty much sums it up about the GOP, too. The Democrats are acused of "empathy" for others less fortunate, but the Republicans binge on antipathy, i.e. hatred,for anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow, regressive world view.
Since you asked, the logical opposite of progressive is regressive. That pretty much sums it up about the GOP, too. The Democrats are acused of "empathy" for others less fortunate, but the Republicans binge on antipathy, i.e. hatred,for anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow, regressive world view.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
whalerick asks: And yet, all reports are that it's the GLOBE that's in trouble the most. Why is that?
I think the Globe being in trouble might have something to do with the fact that almost half of American voters, including all who can barely read, voted for McCain Palin last November. McCain likes to get "talking points" for Senatorial debate by "twittering" with his colleagues. I mean, can you imaging Levertt Saltonstall doing that? Or even Ed Brooke? As for Palin, after the Couric interview everyone who can read knew she was just a twit.
I think the Globe being in trouble might have something to do with the fact that almost half of American voters, including all who can barely read, voted for McCain Palin last November. McCain likes to get "talking points" for Senatorial debate by "twittering" with his colleagues. I mean, can you imaging Levertt Saltonstall doing that? Or even Ed Brooke? As for Palin, after the Couric interview everyone who can read knew she was just a twit.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
Hi, bipr
That's mainly why I buy the Herald,for the front page headlines.
That's mainly why I buy the Herald,for the front page headlines.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
In response to: Extra! Extra! Globe Editors Can't Edit
"All this highbrow critique from a fella who misspelled "newspaper" in the third paragraph."
Thank you Mrs. Gradgrind. So now do you have anything of substance to say?
[
Thank you Mrs. Gradgrind. So now do you have anything of substance to say?
[
Richard [Member]
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
In response to: How to get the GOP back to core principles...
No, Mr. Perry, it is the Republican Party that has lost an understanding of what the Republican Party used to stand for -before the divisive demagoguery of Ronald Reagan on so-called "values" issues.
To mention Reagan in the same breath as Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist who built our national park system, as Coolidge, a principled conservative who believed in capitalism only to the extent that it served the public welfare and not private greed, as Eisenhower, who stood up to state's rights racism in Little Rock instead of embracing it to get votes like Reagan did in Philadelphia, Mississippi, is a joke. To mention Reagan in the same breath as Lincoln, is pure farce.
I used to vote for Republicans and became a registed Democrat only after Reagan got the nomination in 1980. I know what the Republican Party, the candidates my parents voted for, always stood for and I respected that with my votes for Republicans who were a lot like General Colin Powell, and worlds apart from demagogic phonies like Cheney, Bush, Palin and, yes, Ronald Reagan.
To mention Reagan in the same breath as Teddy Roosevelt, an environmentalist who built our national park system, as Coolidge, a principled conservative who believed in capitalism only to the extent that it served the public welfare and not private greed, as Eisenhower, who stood up to state's rights racism in Little Rock instead of embracing it to get votes like Reagan did in Philadelphia, Mississippi, is a joke. To mention Reagan in the same breath as Lincoln, is pure farce.
I used to vote for Republicans and became a registed Democrat only after Reagan got the nomination in 1980. I know what the Republican Party, the candidates my parents voted for, always stood for and I respected that with my votes for Republicans who were a lot like General Colin Powell, and worlds apart from demagogic phonies like Cheney, Bush, Palin and, yes, Ronald Reagan.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Health Care-Government, Market or Both
In response to: Health Care-Government, Market or Both
So, Mr. Kelly, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution "socialism" is ruled out as a valid economic policy for America. Indeed, please tell us exactly where the Constitution states that "capitalism" and "free market" ideology are either a required or even preferred economic model.
What the Consitution does say, both in the Preamble and the tax clause of Article I, is that our democratic government was created to promote "the general welfare," and Congress has the power to levy taxes for that purpose.
Congress also has the right to regulate commerce to promote the general welfare but, damn, I can't seem to find the clause where it states that we have to let the parasitic insurance companies dip their beak whenever a doctor gets paid for providing necessary medical care to someone who isn't represented by K Street. If you know where that "insurance welfare" clause is found in the Constitution, please tell us.
What the Consitution does say, both in the Preamble and the tax clause of Article I, is that our democratic government was created to promote "the general welfare," and Congress has the power to levy taxes for that purpose.
Congress also has the right to regulate commerce to promote the general welfare but, damn, I can't seem to find the clause where it states that we have to let the parasitic insurance companies dip their beak whenever a doctor gets paid for providing necessary medical care to someone who isn't represented by K Street. If you know where that "insurance welfare" clause is found in the Constitution, please tell us.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Hope I'm Not Embarrassing Anyone
In response to: Hope I'm Not Embarrassing Anyone
Very droll, Monponsett, but you know it's exactly like Steinem said: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Richard [Member]
In response to: That "Odor" You Smell Could be Damage to Property
In response to: That "Odor" You Smell Could be Damage to Property
Hi, Buzz
The tort of nuisance has existed for centuries under Common Law as, you know, a very conservative law. The word "nuisance" derives from the French "nuisir" which means to annoy. A tort claim for private nuisance is based on interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property due to some offensive, or "annoying," condition coming from the defendant's property.
A tort case in nuisance can be based on the emanation of foul smells from one property to another. That was the situtaion in Pendoly v. Ferreira (1961), in which the Massachusetts SJC ordered that the defendant pig farmer must shut down because of odors emanating onto neighboring residential properties. And you know, Buzz, you would certainly have been one of the plaintiffs in that case if you lived next to the piggery. You can tell your kid to put his sneakers on the porch, but you have to sue a neighbor for nuisance.
So, yes, odor itself is damage to property under Massachusetts common law, just at the Court of Appeals ruled.
Next case!
The tort of nuisance has existed for centuries under Common Law as, you know, a very conservative law. The word "nuisance" derives from the French "nuisir" which means to annoy. A tort claim for private nuisance is based on interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property due to some offensive, or "annoying," condition coming from the defendant's property.
A tort case in nuisance can be based on the emanation of foul smells from one property to another. That was the situtaion in Pendoly v. Ferreira (1961), in which the Massachusetts SJC ordered that the defendant pig farmer must shut down because of odors emanating onto neighboring residential properties. And you know, Buzz, you would certainly have been one of the plaintiffs in that case if you lived next to the piggery. You can tell your kid to put his sneakers on the porch, but you have to sue a neighbor for nuisance.
So, yes, odor itself is damage to property under Massachusetts common law, just at the Court of Appeals ruled.
Next case!
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, djm55
I have to say Oops! Because I knew that, too. But unlike Scalia's dissembling it was just a mistake.
Thanks for the correction.
RKL
I have to say Oops! Because I knew that, too. But unlike Scalia's dissembling it was just a mistake.
Thanks for the correction.
RKL
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, Possee
Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence is himself, just like Scalia, a consrvative Republican appointee and a Roman Catholic. Unlike Scalia, however, he respects his obligation to uphold the Constitution, over and above any faith based moral beliefs, when considering our individual Constitutional rights.
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence concludes with ruminations about the potential for gay marriage, as if there were no distinction between the state's taking away a person's liberty for engaging in private conduct like homosexuality, and the state's refusal to honor such conduct by recognizing same sex marriage. Kennedy, by the way, expressly noted that difference in passing when he wrote the Lawrence majority opinion which is why, as I have suggested in my earlier post on gay marriage, I believe he will vote against any recognition of gay marriage, which is entirely a creature of state law, when a case gets to the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution, such as the suit just filed against California on Proposition 8.
Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence is himself, just like Scalia, a consrvative Republican appointee and a Roman Catholic. Unlike Scalia, however, he respects his obligation to uphold the Constitution, over and above any faith based moral beliefs, when considering our individual Constitutional rights.
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence concludes with ruminations about the potential for gay marriage, as if there were no distinction between the state's taking away a person's liberty for engaging in private conduct like homosexuality, and the state's refusal to honor such conduct by recognizing same sex marriage. Kennedy, by the way, expressly noted that difference in passing when he wrote the Lawrence majority opinion which is why, as I have suggested in my earlier post on gay marriage, I believe he will vote against any recognition of gay marriage, which is entirely a creature of state law, when a case gets to the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution, such as the suit just filed against California on Proposition 8.
Richard [Member]
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
In response to: On Justice Antonin Scalia: A Case Study In Judicial Activism Masquerading As Conservatism
Hi, SM
Thanks for your comment. I've communicated with Walter Brooks about the length of my posts, raising the question myself, and he stated that the internet is not limited by spatial constraints as are the print media.
One problem with all public media today is the tendency to limit debate to competing slogans, sound bytes and "talking points." That leads inevitably to candidates for high office like Sarah Palin giving opinions on issues of Constitutional law based on zero understanding of either the Constitution or the legal principles involved.
I wish I could get published in LW, because then I might get paid. Meanwhile, for the more streamlined version of this post,check out the letters in today's CC Times. I made the same points, without any analysis or documentation, within the 200 word limit suitable for a newspaper letters column. I even alluded to Scalia's raising the specter of gay marriage in the Lawrence dissent, which I decided to leave out of this post in the interest of brevity.
Thanks for your comment. I've communicated with Walter Brooks about the length of my posts, raising the question myself, and he stated that the internet is not limited by spatial constraints as are the print media.
One problem with all public media today is the tendency to limit debate to competing slogans, sound bytes and "talking points." That leads inevitably to candidates for high office like Sarah Palin giving opinions on issues of Constitutional law based on zero understanding of either the Constitution or the legal principles involved.
I wish I could get published in LW, because then I might get paid. Meanwhile, for the more streamlined version of this post,check out the letters in today's CC Times. I made the same points, without any analysis or documentation, within the 200 word limit suitable for a newspaper letters column. I even alluded to Scalia's raising the specter of gay marriage in the Lawrence dissent, which I decided to leave out of this post in the interest of brevity.
Richard [Member]
In response to: The True Meaning Of Conservatism In Our Constitutional Democracy
In response to: The True Meaning Of Conservatism In Our Constitutional Democracy
Hi, Robert
An intelligent reply to your view of Justice Scalia, one that doesn't simply elevate "talking points" and "sound bytes" to the level of argument, would take up more space than is available in this comment format.
Therefore, see my next post in a day or so discussing Scalia's alleged "conservatism" in the Constiutional sense, comparing his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller which is clearly correct in both result and reasoning, though comes up a little bit incomplete on reasoning, as against his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which clearly betrays his penchant for judicial activism in service of his faith-based "conservatism."
Stay tuned.
An intelligent reply to your view of Justice Scalia, one that doesn't simply elevate "talking points" and "sound bytes" to the level of argument, would take up more space than is available in this comment format.
Therefore, see my next post in a day or so discussing Scalia's alleged "conservatism" in the Constiutional sense, comparing his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller which is clearly correct in both result and reasoning, though comes up a little bit incomplete on reasoning, as against his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas which clearly betrays his penchant for judicial activism in service of his faith-based "conservatism."
Stay tuned.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Shadow: You say that my supposed "factual inaccuracies" and "baseless assumptions" are not even worth mentioning and therefore, of course, you do not get into any specifics. Obviously, you won't provide any specifics as to my legal analysis about the nature of our rights and duties under the social contract we call the Constitution of the United States because you cannot.
Whether or not PETA and HSUS are "animal rights" groups is irrelevant. The whole concept of "rights" belonging to animals who can neither understand nor claim them for themselves, and who are incapable of performing any concommitant duties, is nothing but inane drivel.
Our Constitution provides rights, along with correlative duties, only to "persons" -period! If you want to argue that my position on this point is "drivel," at least try to give some informed argument, based on the Constitution and our American jurisprudence.
Clearly, it is you,shadow, who doesn't have a clue as to the legal issue of claiming "rights" for animals, and why such claims are not constitutionally justiciable in the courts.
Whether or not PETA and HSUS are "animal rights" groups is irrelevant. The whole concept of "rights" belonging to animals who can neither understand nor claim them for themselves, and who are incapable of performing any concommitant duties, is nothing but inane drivel.
Our Constitution provides rights, along with correlative duties, only to "persons" -period! If you want to argue that my position on this point is "drivel," at least try to give some informed argument, based on the Constitution and our American jurisprudence.
Clearly, it is you,shadow, who doesn't have a clue as to the legal issue of claiming "rights" for animals, and why such claims are not constitutionally justiciable in the courts.
Richard [Member]
In response to: A Memorial Day Reflection On Patriotism And Duty
In response to: A Memorial Day Reflection On Patriotism And Duty
Hi,JM
The only thing I disagree with is the implication that only veterans can honor veterans and that respect for the Constitution is best displayed by being a veteran. Only veterans and non-veterans, acting as citizens, can honor both our Constitution and veterans, by not letting the military industrial complex get away with starting wars for corporate opportunity overseas, as in Iraq, that have no real connection to our defense or national interest.
It is the duty of both veterans and non veterans, acting as citizens, to question the official reasons for starting wars of aggression overseas, especially when it is an administration with close connections to an industry like petroleum that invades a petroleum rich nation like Iraq by making up serial pretexts.
Many veterans come back from Iraq maimed for life, and it is no honor to them to simply ignore the official malfeasance and corruption that sent them off to war in service of the petroleum industry as opposed to any real concern for our defense. That disrespects both their sacrifice and our basic democratic values.
The only thing I disagree with is the implication that only veterans can honor veterans and that respect for the Constitution is best displayed by being a veteran. Only veterans and non-veterans, acting as citizens, can honor both our Constitution and veterans, by not letting the military industrial complex get away with starting wars for corporate opportunity overseas, as in Iraq, that have no real connection to our defense or national interest.
It is the duty of both veterans and non veterans, acting as citizens, to question the official reasons for starting wars of aggression overseas, especially when it is an administration with close connections to an industry like petroleum that invades a petroleum rich nation like Iraq by making up serial pretexts.
Many veterans come back from Iraq maimed for life, and it is no honor to them to simply ignore the official malfeasance and corruption that sent them off to war in service of the petroleum industry as opposed to any real concern for our defense. That disrespects both their sacrifice and our basic democratic values.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Single Payer is Coming....
In response to: Single Payer is Coming....
I agree with j.madden about Obama tying his own hands in many cases. In the case of health insurance, I suspect it may also involve the fact that we, i.e. the U.S., owns a major share of AIG and other companies as well. Therefore, it is something of a conflict of interest situation -the more profitable health insurance is, the bigger the conflict for government, but also the bigger the need to nationalize it for us the taxpayers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
The Ecuadoran constitution recognizing the "rights" of nature is interesting and it is on topic with this post, but it is also in keeping with one of the main points of this post that all "rights" as such can only arise by agreement among human being that they exist. The new Ecuadoran constitution is a social contract among men by which they agree, among themselves, to recognize "rights" belonging to nature. That creates obligations among the citizens of Ecuador, but it creates no conommitant duty on the part of "nature" which is therefore not party to that social contract.
In effect, the ecuadorans have only elevated environmental protection laws to the status of constitutional mandates, as opposed to simple civil laws such as the EPA which Nixon signed into law.
Getting back to corporate constitutional rights, it makes sense as to property rights. But when we get into corporate "free speech" it becomes nonsense because corporations per se don't have any ideas or beliefs to be protected, only natural persons can claim free speech rights consistent with Constitutional intent.
In effect, the ecuadorans have only elevated environmental protection laws to the status of constitutional mandates, as opposed to simple civil laws such as the EPA which Nixon signed into law.
Getting back to corporate constitutional rights, it makes sense as to property rights. But when we get into corporate "free speech" it becomes nonsense because corporations per se don't have any ideas or beliefs to be protected, only natural persons can claim free speech rights consistent with Constitutional intent.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
The idea of corporate personhood began with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). The issue was differential taxation of corporate property belonging to the railroad, under the equal protection clause. But the language relied on by later lower courts was mere obiter dictum, that "persons" created by law are protected by the 14th Amendment, unrelated to the basis on which the case was actually decided.
The fact is that corporations have always been recognized as separate entities from their owners. As Ambrose Bierce noted in his Devils Dictionary, a corporation is a device designed to maximize personal profit while minimizing personal liability.
The argument for recognizing corporate personhood is that they are separate entities and therefore the owners cannot claim equal protection for them.
Within the social contract analysis, corporations can reasonably be held to observe legal duties to others as well as possess rights, e.g. to pay fair taxes or to make safe products, etc., while animals cannot. They can't do time, however.
The fact is that corporations have always been recognized as separate entities from their owners. As Ambrose Bierce noted in his Devils Dictionary, a corporation is a device designed to maximize personal profit while minimizing personal liability.
The argument for recognizing corporate personhood is that they are separate entities and therefore the owners cannot claim equal protection for them.
Within the social contract analysis, corporations can reasonably be held to observe legal duties to others as well as possess rights, e.g. to pay fair taxes or to make safe products, etc., while animals cannot. They can't do time, however.
Richard [Member]
In response to: We have met the enemy, and they are us
In response to: We have met the enemy, and they are us
The story about the flea is a good example of flawed logic, drawing a logical but erroneous conclusion without taking all the available information into account.
Here's another story about how impeccable logic, based on ignorance, can lead to the correct conclusion.
Mike, a Cockney, was on an American quiz show with a chance to win a million dollars. The question was what bird doesn't build its own nest, a robin, a thrush or a cuckoo. Mike said he had to call his mate Tommy back home. Tommy said it was obvous -it's the cuckoo. The host asked Mike if that was his final answer and yes it was. So Mike won the million dollars.
Back in London Mike met Tommy at the pub to give him 500 grand and asked how in the world Tommy knew the cuckoo didn't build its own nest. Tommy replied, "think on it, mate, the cuckoo lives in a bloody clock!"
A blind pig can find nuts in the forest because he can smell them. But in real life people don't fall out of trees headfirst and land on their feet like Tommy did.
Here's another story about how impeccable logic, based on ignorance, can lead to the correct conclusion.
Mike, a Cockney, was on an American quiz show with a chance to win a million dollars. The question was what bird doesn't build its own nest, a robin, a thrush or a cuckoo. Mike said he had to call his mate Tommy back home. Tommy said it was obvous -it's the cuckoo. The host asked Mike if that was his final answer and yes it was. So Mike won the million dollars.
Back in London Mike met Tommy at the pub to give him 500 grand and asked how in the world Tommy knew the cuckoo didn't build its own nest. Tommy replied, "think on it, mate, the cuckoo lives in a bloody clock!"
A blind pig can find nuts in the forest because he can smell them. But in real life people don't fall out of trees headfirst and land on their feet like Tommy did.
Richard [Member]
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
In response to: "Animal Rights:" Pernicious Nonsense For Both Law & Public Policy
Hi, trog
"Nature" as a "rights bearing entity" is nonsense, especially under our determinedly secular Constitutional democracy.
Our Constitution does not recognize any church, and it expressly prohibits the establishment of any religion. But the First Amendment does grant the freedom of every citizen to practice religion or not practice religion as he chooses. That's a decision that can only be made by a human being.
A horse cannot make such a decision, or respect the rights of others to do so, never mind a rain forest. We protect horses and rain forests solely as a function of our decency as human beings and in our own enlightened self-interest -not to uphold any "rights" belonging to the horse or the trees and rivers.
"Nature" as a "rights bearing entity" is nonsense, especially under our determinedly secular Constitutional democracy.
Our Constitution does not recognize any church, and it expressly prohibits the establishment of any religion. But the First Amendment does grant the freedom of every citizen to practice religion or not practice religion as he chooses. That's a decision that can only be made by a human being.
A horse cannot make such a decision, or respect the rights of others to do so, never mind a rain forest. We protect horses and rain forests solely as a function of our decency as human beings and in our own enlightened self-interest -not to uphold any "rights" belonging to the horse or the trees and rivers.
Richard [Member]
In response to: Hacked by Jesus freaks!
In response to: Hacked by Jesus freaks!
Solon,don't you know, the Commies are passe'. The real threat to our Consitutional democracy today is the religious right, the Jesus freaks, along with financial irresponsibility and petroleum based foreign policy. But don't just take my word for it.
Read Kevin Philips' 2004 book "American Theocracy" where he provides both cogent analysis and thorough documentation to draw parallels bet
Read Kevin Philips' 2004 book "American Theocracy" where he provides both cogent analysis and thorough documentation to draw parallels bet
In response to: The #1 Argument AGAINST Cape Wind
I'll take that talk about the "pristine" waters of Nanucket Sound seriously the day they start to tear down all the overbuilt mansions and McMansions that line the northern shore of the sound -beginning with the Kennedy properties in Hyannisport.
Scenic values are a two way street, and the view from the sound ain't what Gosnold saw when he first plied the local waters.
To speak of preserving the "scenic" value or "spiritual" purity of Nantucket Sound, after more than 300 years of commercial use and abuse, is the moral and logical equivalent of defending the virginity of a whore.