From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 1 14:31:15 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:31:15 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: <69634636B24A4FC0A3694B7D6CFBA13B@StevePC> References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com><83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E 8162@StevePC> <200812311920.mBVJKfeg017317@mail.zarquon.net> <69634636B24A4FC0A3694B7D6CFBA13B@StevePC> Message-ID: Blago should appoint a committee of sitting elected officials to select a replacement Senator, and go with whomever they select. From teacherrtj at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 00:40:09 2009 From: teacherrtj at gmail.com (Richard Jensen) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:40:09 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: <83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> Message-ID: <84dc99b70901032240o4c896f60nfe77b8a91be8d86c@mail.gmail.com> > Miriam Solon says: > > I'd be happy to see White as either the Senator or Governor. > Steve: > I would except that I don't have any reason to think he has the breadth of > expertise, and for the reasons you gave: he's not enough of a politician. I > think he'd be eaten alive. You've seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." > I toss in: I like how the black activist is trying to blackmail Jesse White & Dick Durbin into supporting Burris for the slot. I would like to see someone ask publicly if the name blago suggested had been white, whether this activist would have been as up in arms... [Personally, I see it as a racist act on the part of the black activist. IMO, Burris has not been active enough politically in recent years to have the contacts or clout to do a good job for Illinois. After all, a black activist threatening a white politician if said white pol does not support the activist's choice is a racist act.] Opinions? Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090104/06d4aba5/attachment.html From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sun Jan 4 02:57:43 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 02:57:43 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: <83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: > >Miriam Solon says: > >> I'd be happy to see White as either the Senator or Governor. > >I would except that I don't have any reason to think he has >the breadth of expertise, and for the reasons you gave: >he's not enough of a politician. I think he'd be eaten >alive. You've seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Jesse White? An apolitical naif? That's like calling Paris Hilton an innocent schoolgirl. White has served two and half terms (ten years) as Secretary of State. a term and a half (six years) as County Recorder of Deeds, and _eight terms_ (sixteen years) in the Illinois House. He's held elective office continuously since 1976, and won _13_ elections. I'm not saying any of this as a criticism, mind. But jeeze louise! What's somebody got to do to be "enough of a politician"? White's experience and background are far beyond Obama's when he went to the Senate. Or Joe Biden's: White's been in elective office longer than Biden was alive when first elected to the Senate. Indeed, he has far more political experience than the vast majority of new Senators. Eaten alive? He's too far up the food chain. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Go for a night out in Glasgow and there's always an | | angry short-arse accusing you of looking at his pint or | | spilling his girlfriend. -- Bob Scott | From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Sun Jan 4 03:10:09 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:10:09 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: The Betrayal of the Commons In-Reply-To: <3A911A750E1B4CF19707F6E5E9337FB9@StevePC> References: <3A911A750E1B4CF19707F6E5E9337FB9@StevePC> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: >Rich Rostrom says: > >> The effect of legal enforceability of contracts >> is to greatly extend the "circle of trust". > >and > >> The Sarbanes-Oxley law on corporate financial >> reporting was an attempt to restore trust by >> increasing criminal liabilities for fraud. > >Note that this seems to be currently an accepted definition >of "trust," but a perverse one. Not "I trust you," i.e. "I >have faith in your integrity," but "I trust you will not be >so reckless as to violate a criminal law when there is a >material risk of getting caught." I had a gaming buddy named Joe. At one time he worked for the Postal Service, or so he said. One day the bosses came around looking for someone to drive the mail truck. It was important to have someone who would not rob the mail truck, which had cash, uncancelled checks, and other valuables aboard. They asked all candidates "Would you rob the mail truck?" They all answered "Of course not! That would be wrong!" Except Joe. He asked "How much swag would there be in the truck?" They told him "Several hundred thousand dollars." He said "I wouldn't rob the mail truck - it's not worth the risk and hassle." They gave him the job. Trust has two legs. One is belief in the other party's integrity. The other is belief in the other party's rational self-interest, which under a regime of strict enforcement of laws, leads to obedience of those laws. The former requires one to judge other people's characters, always a tricky proposition. The latter does not, and is thus much easier. That is why we hope our country has "a government of laws, and not of men". -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Go for a night out in Glasgow and there's always an | | angry short-arse accusing you of looking at his pint or | | spilling his girlfriend. -- Bob Scott | From ignatz at dminet.com Sun Jan 4 07:24:48 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:24:48 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> Message-ID: <20090104132448.GA13152@dminet.com> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:57:43AM -0600, Rich Rostrom wrote: > Indeed, he has far more political experience than the vast > majority of new Senators. Eaten alive? He's too far up the > food chain. Actually, think about it--after all that time in office, and that many offices, and he's still got people thinking about him being quiet, unassuming, and maybe fodder for the _real_ politicians... That's a real politician. He'd have my vote. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 4 07:28:47 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: <84dc99b70901032240o4c896f60nfe77b8a91be8d86c@mail.gmail.com> References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com><83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> <84dc99b70901032240o4c896f60nfe77b8a91be8d86c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Jensen says: > I like how the black activist is trying to blackmail Jesse > White & Dick Durbin into supporting Burris for the slot. Could you tell us whom and what you're talking about? I've been following the national and local Chicago news, and I can't figure this out. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 4 07:40:57 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:40:57 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: References: <494825.17632.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com><83EF6D21AB0E4174B7E84705DF2E8162@StevePC> Message-ID: Rich Rostrom says: > Jesse White? An apolitical naif? I said nothing of the sort. > But jeeze louise! What's somebody got to do to be "enough > of a politician"? Read my message again. I said nothing about his past positions or his naivete. My statement refers only to his *political* skills. I see little evidence that he is as political, i.e. as devious, aggressive, or generally tough as the job requires. His last couple of decades - which is all I am familiar with - have been in elected but relatively low-pressure (political pressure, that is) administrative jobs. I could be mistaken about his personal qualities and skills, but I have not observed evidence of the relevant ones. > Eaten alive? He's too far up the food chain. The Chicago food chain. That has no particular relevance in DC. To make the transition requires relevant talents and modes of behavior, not a place in the "food chain." - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Sun Jan 4 08:15:04 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:15:04 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: References: <84dc99b70901032240o4c896f60nfe77b8a91be8d86c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090104141504.GB13152@dminet.com> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:28:47AM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Could you tell us whom and what you're talking about? I've > been following the national and local Chicago news, and I > can't figure this out. There have been calls from what WBBM calls "Chicago activists"--a codeword for most of the influential, or at least well-known, black pols--to honor Blago's appointment of Burris because we "need to keep a black in Congress". I heard them on the radio a few days ago, but haven't been following the story, since I consider it a foolish ploy and almost certainly doomed to failure. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 09:04:21 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:04:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: <84dc99b70901032240o4c896f60nfe77b8a91be8d86c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <236968.90325.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Richard Jensen wrote: > I would like to see someone ask publicly if the name blago suggested > had been white, whether this activist would have been as up in arms... > [Personally, I see it as a racist act on the part of the black > activist. IMO, Burris has not been active enough politically in recent > years to have the contacts or clout to do a good job for Illinois. > After all, a black activist threatening a white politician if said > white pol does not support the activist's choice is a racist act.] I think Blago is guilty of manipulating that sentiment to stir up the pot. He's taking what could be seen as a valid concern and exploiting it into a "have you stopped beating your wife?" moment to buttress his own standing. I applaud Jesse White for not taking the bait in the most diplomatic way he could. I'm sorry to see that Bobby Rush came out on the other side, but it could be said to be more out of his loyalty to Burris as a trailblazer than to simply wanting an African American in the seat. Regardless of Burris' current status, his historical stature and record of service cannot be denied. He may not have the current connections, but his skills haven't dried up. If it weren't for the fact that he was named by Blago, I'd be okay with him too. Nobody here has anything much to say bad about Burris, and many people have much to say that is good about him, with justification. If the Senate is forced to seat Burris, as it will be, based on the previous Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. case in the House, it still will only be a pyrrhic victory for Blago. He'll be celebrating from a cell. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 09:12:11 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:12:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Burris ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <787990.58367.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > >Miriam Solon says: > > > >> I'd be happy to see White as either the Senator or Governor. > > > Steve G wrote: > > > >I would except that I don't have any reason to think he has > >the breadth of expertise, and for the reasons you gave: > >he's not enough of a politician... > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: > Jesse White? An apolitical naif? > > That's like calling Paris Hilton an innocent > schoolgirl... > > ... What's somebody got to do to be "enough of a politician"? > > White's experience and background are far beyond Obama's > when he went to the Senate... > > Indeed, he has far more political experience than the vast > majority of new Senators. Eaten alive? He's too far up the > food chain. Just don't attribute the apolitical naif comment to me; that was Steve G. I agree with you completely on this (oh, my gosh, hell's open for ice skating). Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sun Jan 4 09:17:20 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 07:17:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: The Betrayal of the Commons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <571329.96417.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: > I had a gaming buddy named Joe. At one time he worked for > the Postal Service, or so he said. One day the bosses came > around looking for someone to drive the mail truck. It was > important to have someone who would not rob the mail truck, > which had cash, uncancelled checks, and other valuables > aboard. They asked all candidates "Would you rob the mail > truck?" > > They all answered "Of course not! That would be wrong!" > > Except Joe. He asked "How much swag would there be in the > truck?" They told him "Several hundred thousand dollars." > He said "I wouldn't rob the mail truck - it's not worth the > risk and hassle." They gave him the job... Funny story, but it was still a gamble. Who's to know if this guy wouldn't organize a heist of another truck on another run with a similar or larger payload, using outside operatives as partners? He sounds smart enough to do that. I'd be watching his every move and/or kicking him upstairs as an investigator. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Tue Jan 6 12:50:10 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:50:10 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] Message-ID: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> Have no idea if this will be legible when converted to plain text... * * *INTERESTING FACTS ----- NOTICE LINK **/AND MAP/** AT BOTTOM *Some unreported stats about the 2008 election Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul ,Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election: -Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30 -Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000 -Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million -Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. And I inject: ? the rest are in Hollywood ? ******************************* *Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won by McCain/Palin.**The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at this link:**http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337** * From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Tue Jan 6 12:57:57 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:57:57 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] In-Reply-To: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <4963A9B5.8020809@CasaDelGato.Com> Whoops, sorry about that. wrong message. This one is full of BS. John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Have no idea if this will be legible when converted to plain text... > > * * > > *INTERESTING FACTS ----- NOTICE LINK **/AND MAP/** AT BOTTOM > From steveg at swhi.net Tue Jan 6 14:56:35 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:56:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] In-Reply-To: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <55538.144.183.224.2.1231275395.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Have no idea if this will be legible when converted to plain text... Why not? - Steve G From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Tue Jan 6 15:08:07 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:08:07 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] In-Reply-To: <55538.144.183.224.2.1231275395.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <55538.144.183.224.2.1231275395.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <4963C837.3090606@CasaDelGato.Com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > John G. Lussmyer wrote: > > >> Have no idea if this will be legible when converted to plain text... >> > > Why not? > The original had a nice graphic map. It didn't show up on the list posting. From steveg at swhi.net Tue Jan 6 16:31:09 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:31:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] In-Reply-To: <4963C837.3090606@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <55538.144.183.224.2.1231275395.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4963C837.3090606@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <33479.144.183.224.2.1231281070.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: >>> Have no idea if this will be legible when converted to plain >>> text... >> >> Why not? > > The original had a nice graphic map. > It didn't show up on the list posting. What I meant was, why don't you know? If it's a matter of concern, it's easy enough to copy the text to a plain text window before sending it. Then you would know. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Tue Jan 6 17:24:24 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:24:24 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] [Fwd: [Fwd: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!]] In-Reply-To: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting "John G. Lussmyer" : > > Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican > won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat > territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or > government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government > welfare..." Does the government own tenements? Perhaps it is only the pejorative connotation of that word, but I had always thought that government owned housing was required to be maintained at or above building code. And somehow this whole study strikes me as similar to the Bellisles, "guns didn't win the west" study of a few years ago. Clearly coming from the right, not the left, but it has the same smell to it. In any case, if the Republicans had more traction in places where more people lived, things would be different. But they don't and they aren't. Maybe another time, but not now. Trying to build some kind of smug defense rhetorical wall isn't making that situation better. Bill Taylor From higgins at fnal.gov Tue Jan 6 20:12:43 2009 From: higgins at fnal.gov (Bill Higgins) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:12:43 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:24 PM, jazz at qnet.com wrote: > Quoting "John G. Lussmyer" : >> Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory >> Republican >> won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat >> territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or >> government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government >> welfare..." [...] > And somehow this whole study strikes me as similar to the > Bellisles, "guns > didn't win the west" study of a few years ago. Clearly coming from > the right, > not the left, but it has the same smell to it. It is instructive to ask whether Snopes is aware of this compendium of statistics and political argument. The answer is yes: Apparently it was composed to make Republicans feel better about losing the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. The guy it's attributed to didn't write it. The 18th-century guy who is quoted apparently didn't say the stuff attributed to him, either. The numbers claiming to be about the 2008 election are identical to the ones in e-mails passed around in 2000. And 2004. Also, if I understand him correctly, John apparently posted it by mistake! > In any case, if the Republicans had more traction in places where > more people > lived, things would be different. But they don't and they aren't. > Maybe > another time, but not now. Trying to build some kind of smug defense > rhetorical wall isn't making that situation better. Not all smug defensive rhetorical walls will be as easy to shoot down as this one. Bill Higgins Fermilab higgins at fnal.gov From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Tue Jan 6 22:51:53 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:51:53 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> Message-ID: <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> Bill Higgins wrote: > > > Apparently it was composed to make Republicans feel better about > losing the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. > Hmm, how hard would it to be to work up the actual valid numbers for the recent election? From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 01:33:35 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:33:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <708321.51758.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > Hmm, how hard would it to be to work up the actual valid > numbers for the recent election? > Not nearly as hard as getting anyone to believe them, but I think many of us would be interested in seeing someone make a sincere effort. If nothing else, the vast increase in the number of available nits to pick will provide months of entertainment. Note that this sarcasm is orthogonal to political leanings, with the country 60/40 divided either side of the issues will find a large group opposed to the result. Cheers, Janet From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 09:38:32 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:38:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Hmm, how hard would it to be to work up the actual valid numbers for > the recent election? A fair amount of grunt work; see the Snopes article for guidance. Also, someone asked whether the government really owns tenements. That would depend on your personal definition of "tenement" and which government. "Tenement" is not necessarily a pejorative term, and when it is used as one, highly subjective. Under one definition, most Chicago area residents would probably say "sure, our local government still owns some pretty run-down subsidized housing." Under another, most people in any large city would say "of course, our local government owns some multi-unit apartment complexes." As used here, the *implication* is that the Federal Government is cheating the "taxpaying citizens" by spending their tax money on other people - presumably neither taxpayers nor citizens, and disproportionately murderers to boot - who accept the money because they are "complacent and apathetic" and thus perfectly willing to be "government dependents" - and is cheating those people as well, by warehousing them in slum housing. It says none of that explicitly, but that it what it conveys. Take this set of statements wrongly attributed to Prof Olson: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." It could just as well have been phrased as follows: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the economically secure and the privileged. Democrat territory included those residents who were, or many of whose neighbors were, living in multi-unit dwellings, exposed to high rates of unemployment and crime, many of them subsisting only marginally on the meager support provided by public agencies." Either is equally accurate. The second is pretty much a direct translation of the first from one political perspective to another. So even if this thing were somewhere near accurate, what would it mean? Arguably that people who voted for Bush, on a statistical basis, were mainly those who are unconscious of the problems of the poor, city dwellers, and crime victims. What a shocking piece of news that would be. - Steve G From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Wed Jan 7 09:50:10 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:50:10 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > So even if this thing were somewhere near accurate, what > would it mean? Arguably that people who voted for Bush, on > a statistical basis, were mainly those who are unconscious > of the problems of the poor, city dwellers, and crime > victims. What a shocking piece of news that would be. > And that is also a highly biased description. Just trying to keep the meme going eh? From ignatz at dminet.com Wed Jan 7 10:00:32 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:00:32 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <20090107160032.GA5331@dminet.com> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:38:32AM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > It could just as well have been phrased as follows: Heh. Heinlein said it a long time ago in "If This Goes On": "Which would you rather have? A nice, thick, juicy tender steak, or a segment of muscle tissue from the corpse of an immature castrated bull?" Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From higgins at fnal.gov Wed Jan 7 10:05:38 2009 From: higgins at fnal.gov (Bill Higgins) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:05:38 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <4964D2D2.60209@fnal.gov> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Steve Gruenwald wrote: >> So even if this thing were somewhere near accurate, what >> would it mean? Arguably that people who voted for Bush, on >> a statistical basis, were mainly those who are unconscious >> of the problems of the poor, city dwellers, and crime >> victims. What a shocking piece of news that would be. >> > > And that is also a highly biased description. Just trying to keep the > meme going eh? Yes, I think Steve made it clear that he set out to write a highly-biased description, from a non-conservative point of view. He was holding up a mirror to the original screed. Bill Higgins Fermilab higgins at fnal.gov From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Wed Jan 7 10:11:05 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:11:05 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <4964D2D2.60209@fnal.gov> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> <4964D2D2.60209@fnal.gov> Message-ID: <4964D419.8060301@CasaDelGato.Com> Bill Higgins wrote: > Yes, I think Steve made it clear that he set out to write a highly-biased > description, from a non-conservative point of view. He was holding up a mirror > to the original screed. > Well, since he had pointed out the biases in the original description, AND that last statement was in response to the serious question of actually getting the REAL data, I'd kind of expected a reply that corresponded to the question. From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 10:19:37 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:19:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <48260.144.183.224.2.1231345178.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > And that is also a highly biased description. Of course it is; I explained that at length, just above what you quoted. I don't know what "keep the meme going" means, but I was *explicitly* making the point that what it means depends on what you want to derive from it. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 10:31:28 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:31:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] CNN's Gupta May Be Surgeon General Message-ID: <61417.144.183.224.2.1231345888.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Article in Wall Street Journal: From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 7 11:01:55 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:01:55 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <200901071708.n07H89uP020482@mail.zarquon.net> At 20:51 1/6/2009 -0800, John G. Lussmyer wrote: >_ >Bill Higgins wrote: > > > > > > Apparently it was composed to make Republicans feel better about > > losing the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. > > > >Hmm, how hard would it to be to work up the actual valid numbers for the >recent election? Seems to me I did see a chart of results by county. But I'm not able to remember where it went to. I recall that although people talk about Red and Blue states, the effect was more of reddish purple states and bluish purple states. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 7 11:07:27 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:07:27 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <48260.144.183.224.2.1231345178.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <56782.144.183.224.2.1231342712.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4964CF32.7030306@CasaDelGato.Com> <48260.144.183.224.2.1231345178.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <200901071708.n07H8A6Y020485@mail.zarquon.net> At 10:19 1/7/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >John G. Lussmyer wrote: > > > And that is also a highly biased description. > >Of course it is; I explained that at length, just above what >you quoted. I don't know what "keep the meme going" means, >but I was *explicitly* making the point that what it means >depends on what you want to derive from it. However, rephrasing is clearly the more accurate of the two. Obviously. Bill Taylor From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 11:42:40 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:42:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <200901071708.n07H89uP020482@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <307649.44753.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > Seems to me I did see a chart of results by county. But > I'm not able to remember where it went to. I recall that although > people talk about Red and Blue states, the effect was more of reddish > purple states and bluish purple states. > Seems to me we are split mostly 50/50 with the last election being 60/40 due to some mix of: - republicans losing their way - the perception that unfettered capitalism and unregulated markets == fail - around 60%-70% of folks genuinely wanting to move the country in a progressive direction. Now those things are debatable, but it seems that the country being purple is on solid footing. I myself have moved from conservatism in the Reagan era, to being a progressive deeply disgusted with the democratic party. But that is irrelevant to my point, which is, we are purple, not red/blue. I think that point is pretty solid, but don't expect many to agree. Janet From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 11:45:32 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:45:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should see before you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <200901071708.n07H89uP020482@mail.zarquon.net> References: <4963A7E2.20104@CasaDelGato.Com> <1231284264.4963e828eea78@webmail.qnet.com> <496434E9.3030704@CasaDelGato.Com> <200901071708.n07H89uP020482@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <58443.144.183.224.2.1231350332.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor wrote: > Seems to me I did see a chart of results by county. Yes, I think we discussed one here. I think it was this one: *** Note that at the bottom he has links to complete spreadsheets of his data. *** At a glance, it may be all anyone needs. Here's another good one for user-friendly graphics: Click on a state to see counties, put your mouse on a county to see details. Click on State Results at the top to select states, then under a table on the left, click on County Results to get those in a table. Requires Flash. There's also some handy statistical analysis in the Wikipedia article on "United States presidential election, 2008." - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Wed Jan 7 14:56:53 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:56:53 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Some Presidential election trivia Message-ID: McCain-Palin was the first Presidential ticket to be entirely from west of the Continental Divide. The first ticket from west of the Mississippi was Hoover-Curtis (Republican, 1928). The first ticket from west of the Appalachians was Cass-Butler (Democrat, 1848). Kerry-Edwards (Democrat, 2004) was the last ticket from east of the Appalachians, and the first since Nixon-Agnew (Republican, 1968; in 1968, Nixon was legally resident in NY). The last two before that were Parker-Davis (Democrat, 1904), if one counts WV as east, and Scott-Graham (Whig, 1852). The first bicoastal ticket was Fremont-Dayton (Republican, 1856). The practice of selecting the VP nominee for help in carrying an important state has largely disappeared. Of the last six VP nominees, four have been from states with just three electoral votes (Cheney, WY, 2000 and 2004; Palin, AK, and Biden, DE, 2008). At least one New Yorker was nominated in 32 of the 43 elections from 1800 through 1968. _Two_ New Yorkers were nominated 8 times (the last time in 1944). New Yorkers have been nominated only twice in the 11 elections after 1968. Californians have been nominated 11 times; seven times from 1948 to 1984, but not since 1984. Five of the last six Republican Presidential nominees have been former military pilots. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Go for a night out in Glasgow and there's always an | | angry short-arse accusing you of looking at his pint or | | spilling his girlfriend. -- Bob Scott | From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 15:18:02 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:18:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Some Presidential election trivia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Rich Rostrom wrote: > Five of the last six Republican Presidential nominees have > been former military pilots. Interesting trivia overall, but I can't make out this one. Gerald Ford: Naval ship officer (assistant navigator, antiaircraft battery officer, gunnery instructor, athletic coach) Ronald Reagan: Army public relations * George H. W. Bush: Navy pilot Bob Dole: Army infantry * George W. Bush: Air National Guard pilot * John McCain: Navy pilot I count three out of six, assuming you count Texas ANG as military. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Jan 7 17:57:21 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:57:21 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Shopworn misinformation (was Re: FACTS you should seebefore you feel blue!) In-Reply-To: <307649.44753.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200901071708.n07H89uP020482@mail.zarquon.net> <307649.44753.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49B159D2DD174306B00C60988A089629@StevePC> Janet Plato says: > Seems to me we are split mostly 50/50 Well, I am. - Steve G From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 19:55:13 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:55:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House Message-ID: <801589.22175.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Whatever else Bush43's legacy might be, he will go down as an utterly charmless twerp for this bit of childishness. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 7 22:12:38 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:12:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <801589.22175.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <647130.85440.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't think he will. I think people who hate him will continue to hate him, and people who like him will not believe this. The thing is, there is so much information coming at everyone every day, that the vast majority of people cannot process it all. So in the end, they tend to accept things that support their views, and reject things that do not support their views as inaccurate, invalid or flawed. It's really hard to get someone to change their mind about these sorts of things, Janet --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Miriam Solon wrote: > From: Miriam Solon > Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House > To: goglog at zarquon.net > Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 8:55 PM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > > > Whatever else Bush43's legacy might be, he will go down > as an utterly charmless twerp for this bit of childishness. > > Miriam Solon > "Things are not as they seem; nor are they > otherwise." > --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" > > > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 8 00:13:39 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:13:39 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <647130.85440.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <647130.85440.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This looks like a procedural hiccup rather than malice. The current admin may not have given the request the appropriate attention because of whatever it is they've been doing all day. Looking forward to seeing people in the White House working smarter, not harder. Hopefully muy pronto. From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 8 00:22:26 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:22:26 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Some Presidential election trivia In-Reply-To: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: Carter was a submariner. Who piloted the flying sub assigned to the Seaview. From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 00:35:09 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:35:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <667472.51096.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have no reason to believe it was one thing or the other but I am curious, on what basis do you conclude this looks like it was a procedural hiccup? --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > From: Michael Brian Bentley > Subject: Re: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel > instead of Blair House > ____________________________________________________________ > This looks like a procedural hiccup rather than malice. The > current admin may not have given the request the appropriate > attention because of whatever it is they've been doing all day. > > Looking forward to seeing people in the White House working > smarter, not harder. Hopefully muy pronto. > I hope so too. Janet From mbcrui at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 05:18:12 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:18:12 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <667472.51096.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <667472.51096.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4965E0F4.9040701@gmail.com> Janet Plato wrote: > I have no reason to believe it was one thing or the other but I am curious, on what basis do you conclude this looks like it was a > procedural hiccup? > I would assume that it's on the idea that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Unless someone comes up with a tape of GWB saying "Don't need to let no n*****s in before their time" I don't know that you can prove it wasn't stupidity... > I hope so too. > I don't have a lot of faith in the Democrats not to shoot themselves in the foot, but there is no denying that Obama is smart. Hopefully he is not only intelligent and a good politician but good leader, too. (And smart enough to keep his ... cigars... in his pants.) Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From ignatz at dminet.com Thu Jan 8 09:13:21 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:13:21 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <4965E0F4.9040701@gmail.com> References: <667472.51096.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4965E0F4.9040701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090108151321.GC1440@dminet.com> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 06:18:12AM -0500, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > I don't have a lot of faith in the Democrats not to shoot themselves in > the foot, but there is no denying that Obama is smart. Hopefully he is > not only intelligent and a good politician but good leader, too. (And > smart enough to keep his ... cigars... in his pants.) Indeed. Two of our most intelligent Presidents--Carter and Clinton--had fatal character flaws that crippled what should otherwise have been stellar presidencies. Carter couldn't delegate; Clinton--well, he needed a tube of crazyglue applied to his zipper. I shudder to think what the legacy of another President would be had he lived today--Kennedy. Imagine what would happen if he lived his personal life as a sitting president as he did in the '60s in the current political no-holds-barred, tell-it-all arena... -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 09:22:28 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:22:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <251172.4004.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > This looks like a procedural hiccup rather than malice. The current > admin may not have given the request the appropriate attention > because of whatever it is they've been doing all day. If that's so, why did the other guests bow out, all except for Howard? > Looking forward to seeing people in the White House working smarter, > not harder. Hopefully muy pronto. amen to that, guy Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 09:37:00 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:37:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] how did this get on the topic of scandal, anyway? In-Reply-To: <20090108151321.GC1440@dminet.com> Message-ID: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: > I shudder to think what the legacy of another President would be had he > lived today--Kennedy. Imagine what would happen if he lived his personal > life as a sitting president as he did in the '60s in the current > political no-holds-barred, tell-it-all arena... good golly... as if... Ike (Kay Moresby) FDR (Lucy Mercer) Grant (before being a booze hound got you sent to rehab) Buchanan (hello-o-o!? [one of my fave stand-up comic lines of 2008 in the run-up to the Prop. 8 balloting]) Jefferson, forsooth The only one who came as close as Clinton to being hit by public revelation of a personal scandal while in office was Warren Harding. He had the good sense to die only surrounded by political scandal. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Thu Jan 8 09:43:44 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:43:44 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT Message-ID: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> Bills will no longer be subject to dispute by minority. Pelosi Overturns Century-Old House Rules By: Jim Meyers In a naked power grab for Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has angered Republicans by pushing through a rule change to curb the GOP?s rights to affect legislation. The rule change ? approved on Tuesday, the first day of the 111th Congress ? puts new restrictions on motions to ?recommit? a bill to the committee that approved it in order to add new amendments. Previously Republicans have used the rule to delay or kill legislation or to force Democrats to take politically difficult votes on such issues as gun control and illegal immigration, according to The Hill newspaper. The new rule allows the full House to reconsider a bill without delay. The move, which Pelosi engineered, ?silences the voices of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down open debate on the House floor and taking away the minority?s right to offer substantive policy alternatives on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent,? Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained. And Rep. David Drier of California, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said the rule change would create ?the most closed Congress in history.? Before the vote on the bill, GOP leaders sent a letter to Pelosi stating: ?This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised.? Democrats argue that Republicans overused the ?recommit? tactic in the previous Congress in an effort to derail immediate votes, the Washington Times reported. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Republicans had used the tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House, compared with only 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007. In the Senate, the threat of a filibuster gives the minority party leverage, but in the House, the minority has few tools to challenge the majority?s will, the Times noted. Now, without the recommit tactic, which had been in place for 100 years, it will become ?harder to cut taxes,? Rep. Boehner said in remarks reported by CNS News. ?Under existing rules, if Democrats bring a bill to the floor that includes a tax increase, Republicans could motion to send the bill back to committee and strike the tax hike, but the majority?s rules package takes this option away.? Also on Tuesday, Democrats, who hold a 257-178 majority in the House, approved a measure to eliminate the six-year term limit for committee chairmen, one of the reforms of the ?Contract with America? agenda adopted by Republicans after they took control of the House in 1995. Boehner said in a letter to Pelosi that eliminating the six-year restriction ?will entrench a handful of members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.? http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/pelosi_recommit_motion/2009/01/07/168712.html From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 10:13:19 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, relax, you sounds almost hysterical in your partisanship. This sounds a lot less draconian than the crap the republi-criminals pulled when they were in the majority, such as almost disallowing the filibuster, which does not make it right either. I personally think the Demo-losers are bending over ... backwards ... to accomodate the right. They are throwing tax cuts into the stimulus package to assuage repedo-philes which will water down the effect and leave them open to the claim later that their policies failed to solve the problem, when it was really the republicreep accomodations in the bills. I think the demo-wankers are trying really hard to change the tone, especially Obama. I'm already upset that he is extending an invitation of honor to Rick Warren a person who has said publically that people like me should be euthenized. Imagine how you would feel knowing much of the dominant political party thought killing you was a good idea. Imagine eight years of that... now think about what it would take to work with those kinds of people and then come back and talk to me about restraint. You want to talk about partisan, the religious right pushed through more bitter rancor via the neo-cons than any national party. I am upset with some of the other accomodations Obama made, but I trust his judgement a little, and I think we need to all try hard to get along. I think both parties suck moldy donkey cock, but we need to work together on solving the problems we all face, and I don't see a viable third party emerging any time soon... cranking out emotional partisan tirades does not help any of us solve the real problems we face and does not help raise the tone of the debate[1]. Janet [1] Strictly speaking, my use of perjoratives for both national parties was probably not helping either, nor was my use of the phrase "moldy donkey cock" raising the level of discourse, but I was engaging in satire, which I do not expect to be obvious, but well, this is a pretty smart group, so I can hope. --- On Thu, 1/8/09, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > From: John G. Lussmyer > Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT > To: "Demagogue Dialogue" > Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 10:43 AM > > Pelosi Overturns Century-Old House Rules > > By: Jim Meyers > > In a naked power grab for Democrats, House Speaker Nancy > Pelosi has angered Republicans by pushing through a rule > change to curb the GOP?s rights to affect legislation. > > The rule change ? approved on Tuesday, the first day of > the 111th Congress ? puts new restrictions on motions to > ?recommit? a bill to the committee that approved it in > order to add new amendments. > > Previously Republicans have used the rule to delay or kill > legislation or to force Democrats to take politically > difficult votes on such issues as gun control and illegal > immigration, according to The Hill newspaper. > > The new rule allows the full House to reconsider a bill > without delay. > > The move, which Pelosi engineered, ?silences the voices > of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down > open debate on the House floor and taking away the > minority?s right to offer substantive policy alternatives > on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent,? > Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained. > > And Rep. David Drier of California, ranking Republican on > the House Rules Committee, said the rule change would create > ?the most closed Congress in history.? > > Before the vote on the bill, GOP leaders sent a letter to > Pelosi stating: ?This is not the kind of openness and > transparency that President-elect Obama promised.? > > Democrats argue that Republicans overused the > ?recommit? tactic in the previous Congress in an effort > to derail immediate votes, the Washington Times reported. > > Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Republicans had used the > tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took > control of the House, compared with only 36 times when the > Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007. > > In the Senate, the threat of a filibuster gives the > minority party leverage, but in the House, the minority has > few tools to challenge the majority?s will, the Times > noted. > > Now, without the recommit tactic, which had been in place > for 100 years, it will become ?harder to cut taxes,? > Rep. Boehner said in remarks reported by CNS News. > > ?Under existing rules, if Democrats bring a bill to the > floor that includes a tax increase, Republicans could motion > to send the bill back to committee and strike the tax hike, > but the majority?s rules package takes this option > away.? > > Also on Tuesday, Democrats, who hold a 257-178 majority in > the House, approved a measure to eliminate the six-year term > limit for committee chairmen, one of the reforms of the > ?Contract with America? agenda adopted by Republicans > after they took control of the House in 1995. > > Boehner said in a letter to Pelosi that eliminating the > six-year restriction ?will entrench a handful of members > of the House in positions of permanent power, with little > regard for its impact on the American people.? > > http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/pelosi_recommit_motion/2009/01/07/168712.html > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Thu Jan 8 10:27:16 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:27:16 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> Janet Plato wrote: > This sounds a lot less draconian than the crap the republi-criminals > pulled when they were in the majority, such as almost disallowing > the filibuster, which does not make it right either. I personally think > the Demo-losers are bending over ... backwards ... to accomodate the > right. They are throwing tax cuts into the stimulus package to assuage > repedo-philes which will water down the effect and leave them open to > the claim later that their policies failed to solve the problem, when it > was really the republicreep accomodations in the bills. > BOTH sides do this all the time. It gets depressing. > of honor to Rick Warren a person who has said publically that people > like me should be euthenized. Hmm, that I hadn't heard about. For one thing, people like what? > I think both parties suck moldy donkey cock, but we need to work > together on solving the problems we all face, and I don't see a > Actually, I agree with you there. Note that I didn't write that article. I was actually hoping that Congress would at least play nice for a few weeks before jumping in to the "Screw everybody but me" mode. I admit to being one of the people that thinks we pay enough taxes already. Even with government inefficiency, I already have FAR more government than I want. This leaves me worried about Demo/Obama, since a lot of his campaign seemed to be "tax anybody that makes money", and get govt involved in more things. The last few years of the Repubs hasn't been nice either, as they've been in the mode of "Constitution? What Constitution?". From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 10:32:47 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:32:47 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <647130.85440.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <647130.85440.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15993.144.183.224.2.1231432367.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato wrote: > I think people who hate him will continue to > hate him, and people who like him will not believe this. But the latter category is so small. . . never mind. In any event, I have no faith in either view of the story. The article cited presents the issue as: - Obama's request was turned down because Blair House was booked for other, unspecified guest or guests; - the other, unspecified guest or guests turns out to be only the former Prime Minister of Australia, and only for one night, while some other dignitaries coming to town are staying elsewhere; - Blair House has lots of rooms; and - Carlson reported back in December that there were no dignitaries booked there. But OTOH, the article and those it links also make clear that: - what the White House is directly quoted as saying at the time is that it was booked for "receptions and gatherings" that "don't make it suitable for full-time occupancy by the Obamas yet" (see the "rebuffed them" hyperlink in the article); - it was only someone at the State Department who reportedly did not know of any foreign dignitaries booked to stay there, not a statement from Blair House or the White House that there were or weren't any dignitaries booked; - there *were in fact* receptions and events scheduled there for that week, including those for the Medal of Freedom winners; and - the selection of Howard for the Medal of Freedom had not been made, or at least announced, when the request was made and turned down. On that basis, I would assume, there is no way anyone would have been told the house was booked for Howard - or any specific individual - if even he couldn't know it yet. It seems very probable, from the various statements collected in the press, that the people at Blair House who answered questions either wouldn't have known or wouldn't have admitted that it was booked for any individual dignitaries. So was this an excuse to keep the Obamas out? It doesn't appear to have been either used as one or needed as one. As far as I can tell the "excuse" that it was booked for Howard seems to have been interpreted as one only by the press. > It's really hard to get someone to change their mind about these sorts > of things, Definitely. People (including commenters in blogs on the Think Progress column!) still rant that the Bush Administration's first nasty lie to the public was about typewriter or computer keyboards with missing "W" keys, obviously a hoax the Bush people made up just to smear the Clinton staffers - when in fact the GAO investigated this, and was unable to determine *just how many* such incidents there were, but did not seriously question whether it happened at all. A bunch of keyboards were replaced and some number of them clearly for this reason. (Report GAO-02-360, to Hon. Bob Barr, June 2002.) So whatever else Bush's people may have lied about, this one has long been known to be an unfair accusation - by those who cared to check the facts. In fact, I have seen it suggested that this is Bush "payback" for that incident. Could it be? That would be stupid and childish. Obviously stupid and childish things do in fact happen even at these levels. Ms. Carlson and Ali Frick obviously prefer to think of that as the most probable explanation. A lot of other people will too. - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 10:46:22 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:46:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <15993.144.183.224.2.1231432367.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <81385.81831.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > In fact, I have seen it suggested that this is Bush > "payback" for that incident. Could it be? That would be stupid and > childish. Obviously stupid and childish things do in fact > happen even at these levels. Ms. Carlson and Ali Frick > obviously prefer to think of that as the most probable > explanation. A lot of other people will too. > > - Steve G Our leaders are human too, no disrepect to Kang or Kodos intended. I for one welcome our new lizard overlords. But seriously, I think it's deplorable that this sort of things happen, but it is neither surprising nor particularly concerning. Document it, fix it, move on. I've been left feeling very disenfrachised the last eight years. When folks in government welcome the leadership and insight of people who want you dead, it wears on you. So anyway, we should try and work together. Janet From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:04:38 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:04:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <20090108151321.GC1440@dminet.com> References: <667472.51096.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4965E0F4.9040701@gmail.com> <20090108151321.GC1440@dminet.com> Message-ID: <45348.144.183.224.2.1231434278.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Dave Ihnat wrote: > Indeed. Two of our most intelligent Presidents--Carter and > Clinton--had > fatal character flaws that crippled what should otherwise have been > stellar presidencies. Entirely aside from the fact that anyone who wants to become President probably has a fatal character flaw anyway. Just not necessarily one that cripples the Presidency. I appreciated a comment by Ted Koppel when interviewed on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" about his interview with Michael Dukakis. "Dukakis was a very polite man - apparently not what we want for President of the United States." - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Thu Jan 8 11:07:04 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:07:04 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <20090108170704.GC30288@dminet.com> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:43:44AM -0800, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Bills will no longer be subject to dispute by minority. I can't decide if this is getting revenge for the crap the pseudo-Republicans have been pulling for the past 8 years, or an attempt to actually defuse a real, nasty Republican revenge tactic. I think it revolves around the veracity of the statement: Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Republicans had used the tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House, compared with only 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007. IF this is true, it sounds like there needs to be a change, but I doubt fully removing the option is any more correct than the Republican effort to remove the option of filibustering. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 11:09:39 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:09:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, > > which will water down the effect and leave them open to > > the claim later that their policies failed to solve > > the problem, when it was really the ... accomodations in the > > bills. > > > BOTH sides do this all the time. It gets depressing. > Indeed, it is entirely too common. I really, really want us all to come back together. We all have a lot more in common than apart. We all breathe the same air, drink the same water, want a better life for the generations that follow and so forth. > > of honor to Rick Warren a person who has said > > publically that people like me should be euthenized. > Hmm, that I hadn't heard about. For one thing, people > like what? > In one of his many speeches he compared gays to pedophiles and then went on to say that at some point we would have the technology to identify and selectivly euthenize us either pre or post natally. He did not use those specific words, but he did say something that meant, at some point we can kill gay babies. The speech and a lot of the homophobic rhetoric has been removed from his website, and he has toned it down, but it is pretty clear he, and the religious right, see no use in keeping people like me (lesbians) alive. This sort of things makes it hard to feel much love for one's fellow man, you start to see them as "other", and once you open the door to us versus them, much badness follows. I am really busy and cannot find this, even with the right search terms, I will try again after work. I did look up the speech at the time, and I am convinced that he really said it. We are not us and them, we are us. Janet From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:10:45 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:10:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] how did this get on the topic of scandal, anyway? In-Reply-To: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <31381.144.183.224.2.1231434645.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam Solon wrote: > The only one who came as close as Clinton to being hit by public > revelation of a personal scandal while in office was Warren Harding. > He had the good sense to die only surrounded by political scandal. Depends what you mean by "public." AFAIK his affair with Carrie Fulton Phillips was known to at least party leaders after he was nominated for President but before he was elected. But yes, if you mean specifically sexual scandal, he was probably the most endangered while in office other than Clinton. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:19:17 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:19:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <31823.144.183.224.2.1231435157.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Bills will no longer be subject to dispute by minority. and quotes: > The rule change ? approved on Tuesday, the first day of the 111th > Congress ? puts new restrictions on motions to "recommit" a bill to > the committee that approved it in order to add new amendments. I can't tell from this article which way this actually cuts, and would have to understand the "recommit" process better; but it does not seem to make bills "no longer subject to dispute by minority." The point seems to be the extent to which debate will have to be on the full Senate floor rather than in committee. The *most obvious* point to this change is to get bills to a vote and avoid endless delay tactics, but I suspect it's yet more complicated than that. The political debate seems to be GOP saying "we need this as a tool to affect legislation" and the Dems saying "but you abuse it to delay bills the majority is ready to pass." In the labyrinthine ways of Federal legislative process, either or both could be honest statements. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:22:56 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:22:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <54712.144.183.224.2.1231435376.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato wrote: > Rick Warren a person who has said publically that people > like me should be euthenized. But he's probably not the only person who's said that about system administrators. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:25:53 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:25:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Even with government inefficiency, I already have FAR more > government than I want. Not saying you're wrong, but let's try an experiment: which expensive Government functions would you do away with, if you seriously had the option? And on which of them do you think the majority of voters, if in possession of the relevant facts (not philosophy but facts), would agree with you? - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:29:56 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:29:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <81385.81831.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <81385.81831.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44889.144.183.224.2.1231435796.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato wrote: > Our leaders are human too, no disrepect to Kang or Kodos intended. OK, I had to look that up. I don't watch the Simpsons. - Steve "there goes my credibility" Gruenwald From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 8 11:32:19 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:32:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Why the Obamas wound up in a hotel instead of Blair House In-Reply-To: <44889.144.183.224.2.1231435796.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <321933.63776.qm@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> That's OK Steve, I had to look it up last year when someone on the list said "I for one welcome our new robotic overlords" and everyone got it as a cultural reference to K&K. But hey, I never had any pop culture cred anyway, Janet --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > From: Steve Gruenwald > > > Our leaders are human too, no disrepect to Kang or > > Kodos intended. > > OK, I had to look that up. I don't watch the Simpsons. > > - Steve "there goes my credibility" Gruenwald From ignatz at dminet.com Thu Jan 8 11:45:14 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:45:14 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090108174514.GI30288@dminet.com> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Janet Plato wrote: > In one of his many speeches he compared gays to pedophiles and > then went on to say ... Ah. And now that I've googled on him, well, I see. Dork. I'm sorry to say that it really *is* "us vs. them" for some people, and they're not going to change. For folk like that, you have to be on your guard all the time--it's like the old saw about the lion *can* lay down with the lamb...but it'll be a different lamb every time. There are people who see intolerance as righteous. And there are people--and many have flocked to the pseudo-Republican Party--who don't want what we want. They either don't believe, or don't care, that sensible preservation of the environment is wise; that those who aren't in their social or economic circle are deserving of any consideration, either personal or societal; and that if they fail, starve, or even die, it's OK by them--they're not "us". Gack. I need some coffee; I'm too dark this morning. Later, -- -Dave From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 11:55:11 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:55:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <20090108174514.GI30288@dminet.com> References: <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090108174514.GI30288@dminet.com> Message-ID: <40784.144.183.224.2.1231437312.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Dave Ihnat wrote: > There are people who see intolerance as righteous. And there are > people--and many have flocked to the pseudo-Republican Party--who > don't want what we want. If you really want to muddy the issue, see the current movie "Doubt." It's largely about the nasty days of covering up pedophilic abuse in the Catholic church, but not simplistically. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Jan 8 12:22:09 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:22:09 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Some Presidential election trivia In-Reply-To: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: >Rich Rostrom wrote: > >> Five of the last six Republican Presidential nominees have >> been former military pilots. > >Interesting trivia overall, but I can't make out this one. > >Gerald Ford: Naval ship officer (assistant navigator, > antiaircraft battery officer, gunnery instructor, > athletic coach) >Ronald Reagan: Army public relations >* George H. W. Bush: Navy pilot >Bob Dole: Army infantry >* George W. Bush: Air National Guard pilot >* John McCain: Navy pilot > >I count three out of six, assuming you count Texas ANG as >military. G H W Bush and G W Bush were nominees twice; i.e. G H W Bush G H W Bush Dole G W Bush G W Bush McCain -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Jan 8 12:43:52 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:43:52 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <20090108170704.GC30288@dminet.com> References: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> <20090108170704.GC30288@dminet.com> Message-ID: John G. Lussmyer wrote: >> Bills will no longer be subject to dispute by minority. > >I can't decide if this is getting revenge for the crap the >pseudo-Republicans have been pulling for the past 8 years, or an attempt >to actually defuse a real, nasty Republican revenge tactic. I think it >revolves around the veracity of the statement: > > Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Republicans had used the tactic 50 > times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House, > compared with only 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority > from 1995 to 2007. > >IF this is true, it sounds like there needs to be a change, but I doubt >fully removing the option is any more correct than the Republican effort >to remove the option of filibustering. The devil is always in the details. One question would be "How many times have Democrats tried to push through really obnoxious legislation in the last two years, compared to the number of times Republicans did in the previous twelve?" That is a subjective question, of course. One would have to compile a list of occasions on which this rule has been invoked. Another point, I think, is that 50 times in two years is only once every couple of weeks. This is not something that has ever been used a _lot_, I think - it's something that turns up when the pulling and hauling gets to a statistical extreme. A third point: Republicans did not make any effort to abolish the filibuster. There were discussions of it, but no actual move to do so. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From ignatz at dminet.com Thu Jan 8 14:07:51 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:07:51 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: References: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> <20090108170704.GC30288@dminet.com> Message-ID: <20090108200751.GA15630@dminet.com> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:43:52PM -0600, Rich Rostrom wrote: > The devil is always in the details. Isn't it, though? > One question would be "How many times have Democrats tried > to push through really obnoxious legislation in the last > two years, compared to the number of times Republicans did > in the previous twelve?" Yeah, right. That makes sense...not. We know the pseudo-Republican party underwent a sea-change; it's much more believable that this is a result of that change. > Another point, I think, is that 50 times in two years is only once > every couple of weeks. This is not something that has ever been used > a _lot_, I think - it's something that turns up when the pulling and > hauling gets to a statistical extreme. The point is that its expected use, if you go by historical frequency, it so much less than the recent actual, excessive use that it points to use for different reasons than in the past. It IS a lot. > A third point: Republicans did not make any effort to abolish the > filibuster. There were discussions of it, but no actual move to do so. Not for want of desire. They couldn't pull a _fait accompli_, or they would have, I'm dead certain. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 8 15:04:42 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:04:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Some Presidential election trivia In-Reply-To: References: <64943.144.183.224.2.1231363082.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <49427.144.183.224.2.1231448682.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Rich Rostrom wrote: > G H W Bush and G W Bush were nominees twice Ah; you said "Five of the last six Republican Presidential nominees." OK. - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 8 20:02:54 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:02:54 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <20090108200751.GA15630@dminet.com> References: <49661F30.3030802@CasaDelGato.Com> <20090108170704.GC30288@dminet.com> <20090108200751.GA15630@dminet.com> Message-ID: If I remember right, they wanted to eliminate the ability to use filibuster against confirmation votes only. The senate still has filibuster, which is used to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority. They've used it quite a bit the last few months. While Polosi whacked the House rule, the Senate rule still stands, so hopefully the Repubs will still be able to slow some things down. From jazz at qnet.com Thu Jan 8 23:38:00 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:38:00 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Just in case you missed it on the news Message-ID: <4966E2B8.6090104@qnet.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaE5NGgLtxo Right around 1:15 Vice President Dick Cheney says something rather interesting. :-) Bill Taylor (sent one to GT by mistake) From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Jan 9 00:47:52 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:47:52 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] how did this get on the topic of scandal, anyway? In-Reply-To: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Miriam Solon wrote: >--- On Thu, 1/8/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: > >> I shudder to think what the legacy of another President would be had he >> lived today--Kennedy. Imagine what would happen if he lived his personal >> life as a sitting president as he did in the '60s in the current >> political no-holds-barred, tell-it-all arena... > >good golly... as if... > >Ike (Kay Moresby) Is this a reference to Kay Summersby? Even she did not claim there was an affair, only that Ike was "in love" with her but impotent. >FDR (Lucy Mercer) FDR's relationship with Mercer was terminated (at Eleanor's insistence) long before he became President. In the last year of his life, he resumed contact with her - it appears they did little but talk over old times. >Grant (before being a booze hound got you sent to rehab) Grant sobered up well before the Civil War. There's evidence that he may have gone on one bender during the war, when he was bored and had nothing to do. Franklin Pierce was reputed to have spent much of his Presidency in a drunken stupor. >Buchanan (hello-o-o!? [one of my fave stand-up comic lines >of 2008 in the run-up to the Prop. 8 balloting]) However, by the time he became President he was 65 years old and his alleged Ganymede was dead for three years. >Jefferson, forsooth Jefferson's alleged behavior was splashed all over the press by his enemies. >The only one who came as close as Clinton to being hit by >public revelation of a personal scandal while in office was >Warren Harding. He had the good sense to die only surrounded >by political scandal. Grover Cleveland was attacked for his involvement with a notoriously "loose" widow in Buffalo; IIRC he provided support for a child that _might_ have been his. "Ma, ma, where's my Pa?" "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!" Cleveland was also hassled over his marriage to a woman less than half his age. (He was 49, she was 21.) He had been the second bachelor to be elected President. Incidentally, their youngest child, Francis Grover Cleveland, lived until 1995. However, Dave's point, which no one else seems to have addressed, was that Kennedy, in his era, got away with continual reckless misbehavior. Not just a mistress, but a whole string of chippies. Of course at that time, the professional press was much more in control of public access to information, and they had decided to protect Kennedy. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From par at richinn.com Fri Jan 9 08:30:44 2009 From: par at richinn.com (par at richinn.com) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:30:44 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Just in case you missed it on the news In-Reply-To: <4966E2B8.6090104@qnet.com> References: <4966E2B8.6090104@qnet.com> Message-ID: <20090109073044.kig9m3iqdcgo4o8c@richinn.com> Quoting Bill Taylor : > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaE5NGgLtxo > > Right around 1:15 Vice President Dick Cheney says something rather > interesting. :-) > Obviously I missed the rather interesting part. I just heard the vote totals that we have pretty much known all along. I thought maybe Cheney declared the vote illegal and declared McCain the winner. Peter Richardson From ignatz at dminet.com Fri Jan 9 08:59:16 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:59:16 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] how did this get on the topic of scandal, anyway? In-Reply-To: References: <174814.62846.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090109145916.GD3955@dminet.com> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 12:47:52AM -0600, Rich Rostrom wrote: > Of course at that time, the professional press was much more in > control of public access to information, and they had decided to > protect Kennedy. Probably wise, considering who Joe had enlisted to insure JFK's election. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From jazz at qnet.com Fri Jan 9 09:39:50 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:39:50 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Just in case you missed it on the news In-Reply-To: <20090109073044.kig9m3iqdcgo4o8c@richinn.com> References: <4966E2B8.6090104@qnet.com> <20090109073044.kig9m3iqdcgo4o8c@richinn.com> Message-ID: <200901091540.n09Fe7HG006085@mail.zarquon.net> At 07:30 1/9/2009 -0700, par at richinn.com wrote: >Quoting Bill Taylor : > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaE5NGgLtxo > > > > Right around 1:15 Vice President Dick Cheney says something rather > > interesting. :-) > > >Obviously I missed the rather interesting part. I just heard the vote >totals that we have pretty much known all along. > >I thought maybe Cheney declared the vote illegal and declared McCain >the winner. No, just hearing Cheney say the result and declare Obama the winner was interesting enough for me. His tongue didn't burst into flame, and he even managed a smile. Or grimace, or something. GHW Bush was in this position back in 1989, when he declared himself the winner. That was when they changed the wording a bit, so that the totals were stated, and then say this was sufficient to declare the winners. It allowed him to not have to directly say "George Bush is elected President". Bill Taylor From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 10 09:58:03 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] how did this get on the topic of scandal, anyway? Message-ID: <646846.87186.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> >>Ike (Kay Moresby) --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: > Is this a reference to Kay Summersby?(sheepish grin). Sorry, shoulda googled it. and I KNOW how bad I am with names. > Even she did not claim there was an affair, only that Ike was "in love" > with her but impotent. I thought we were talking about what would have been considered scandalous if known publicly THEN. It was suppressed for its scandalous nature as perceived during the time that IKE was in the White House. 'sides, how did she know he was impotent? >> FDR (Lucy Mercer) > FDR's relationship with Mercer was terminated (at Eleanor's insistence) > long before he became President. It didn't make the press as a retrospective bit of scandal, the way Clinton's pecadillos did. > In the last year of his life, he resumed contact with her - it appears > they did little but talk over old times. He was too sick to do anything else. It still hurt Elanor to find out there was *anything* going on between them behind her back. >> Grant (before being a booze hound got you sent to rehab) > Grant sobered up well before the Civil War. There's evidence that he may > have gone on one bender during the war, when he was bored and had nothing > to do. Tom Eagleton was politically lynched for going into rehab. > Franklin Pierce was reputed to have spent much of his Presidency in a > drunken stupor. Was this widely reported in the press? >> Buchanan (hello-o-o!? [one of my fave stand-up comic lines >> of 2008 in the run-up to the Prop. 8 balloting]) > However, by the time he became President he was 65 years old and his > alleged Ganymede was dead for three years. See my comments about Clinton and Eagleton. >> Jefferson, forsooth Jefferson's alleged behavior was splashed all over the press by his enemies. >> The only one who came as close as Clinton to being hit by >> public revelation of a personal scandal while in office was >> Warren Harding. He had the good sense to die only surrounded >> by political scandal. > Grover Cleveland was attacked for his involvement with a notoriously > "loose" widow in Buffalo; IIRC he provided support for a child that > _might_ have been his. > Cleveland was also hassled over his marriage to a woman less than half > his age... Oh, yeah, forgot about that. He served two terms (with a gap), so I guess it wasn't that big of a deal. Maybe it would have been more so if he had been proven to be the earlier child's father and refused to pay child support. > However, Dave's point ... was that Kennedy, in his era, got away with > continual reckless misbehavior... Of course at that time, the > professional press was much more in control of public access > to information, and they had decided to protect Kennedy. The press still has control over its own content. They choose to gang up on people over their personal lives, because of an assumption that that's the best choice of where to make more money. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From ben at bl.com Sat Jan 10 10:34:29 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:34:29 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT In-Reply-To: <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <608373.381.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 9:09 AM -0800 1/8/09, Janet Plato wrote: >I am really busy and cannot >find this, even with the right search terms, I will try again after >work. I did look up the speech at the time, and I am convinced that >he really said it. Maybe the internet archive has it http://www.archive.org/web/web.php -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Sun Jan 11 10:59:08 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:59:08 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Not saying you're wrong, but let's try an experiment: which > expensive Government functions would you do away with, if > you seriously had the option? > How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? What I can own? That should reduce the number of "enforcement officers" and Court cases. Get rid of "The War On Drugs", replace it with taxes on drugs. Currently, It's rather expensive and difficult for me to even built a garage myself. The sheer number of permits required is obscene (and expensive), and the lead time on those permits is quite long. Why are we subsidizing corn for fuel? That's a net loss. (and raising food costs.) Why are we bailing out the Big 3 Auto Makers - who've proven they can't compete in the market place? From teacherrtj at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 11:37:59 2009 From: teacherrtj at gmail.com (Richard Jensen) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:37:59 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > Not saying you're wrong, but let's try an experiment: which > > expensive Government functions would you do away with, if > > you seriously had the option? > > > > How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? What I can own? Heaven forbid that we (the gov't) should allow Joe Public to have any self-control/determination. After all, we know better than he. > > That should reduce the number of "enforcement officers" and Court cases. Or we could allow the other citizens to do the "enforcement" - vigilante justice? > > Get rid of "The War On Drugs", replace it with taxes on drugs. But then we (gov't) wouldn't have an outside bogeyman/enemy to protect our sheeple from. > > Currently, It's rather expensive and difficult for me to even built a > garage myself. The sheer number of permits required is obscene (and > expensive), and the lead time on those permits is quite long. You might build something that someone else finds ugly or you might build something that isn't safe enough (after all, if you live in the middle of a plate, you are very likely to be hit by an earthquake - or if you are 2000 feet above the floodplane, you are certain to get flooded, etc.). > > Why are we subsidizing corn for fuel? That's a net loss. (and raising > food costs.) Because it is politically expedient to show that we are "doing something" to lessen dependence on foreign oil. > > Why are we bailing out the Big 3 Auto Makers - who've proven they can't > compete in the market place? Because they have given us great quantities of money. (also for a real and legitimate reason, if we were to allow the auto-makers to fold, it would have a massive ripple effect and we would have 25-30% unemployment [using the current method of calculation {1}]) Rick {1} Currently someone is unemployed if and only if they are collecting benefits from the government. Once they use up all their benefits they stop being unemployed. As a result, the actual number of people that are really unemployed and looking for work is probably closer to 15% than the 7.2% quoted by the government. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090111/dc21e4d9/attachment.htm From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 12:34:21 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:34:21 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901111034n6997900ahfee8eb4cb33c8368@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Richard Jensen wrote: > > Currently someone is unemployed if and only if they are > collecting benefits from the government. Once they use > up all their benefits they stop being unemployed. I know others have tried to refute this belief on this list before, but I'm going to wade in and try again. It is popularly believed, even reported by know nothing media types, that the above is true. However, it is not. The government calculates unemployment much the way Nielsen rates TV shows. A survey is taken every month, with rotating participants, to determine how many people are actually working. Here's a link to a detailed explanation of how it all works. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm Hope that helps. Though I have my doubts. -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." From jazz at qnet.com Sun Jan 11 13:51:40 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:51:40 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Those dammed Chicagoans Message-ID: <200901111952.n0BJpxr6023117@mail.zarquon.net> Just heard on "Wait Wait Don't Tell me" at about the 45 minute point. They were doing a riff on combining porn and corrupt politics, in an effort to eliminate both. "... starring Diane 'she's so fine'-stein, and featuring the Minority Whip". I'll be scrubbing my mind's eye for a while now. Thanks There's probably a podcast around somewhere, or you might be able to catch it streaming over the net. Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 15:07:57 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:07:57 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Those dammed Chicagoans In-Reply-To: <200901111952.n0BJpxr6023117@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200901111952.n0BJpxr6023117@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901111307h57370a80t7579f57731c8ed8d@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Bill Taylor wrote: > There's probably a podcast around somewhere, or you might be able to > catch it streaming over the net. Indeed you can, at: http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/ If you want to only hear the porn bailout part, listen to the segment "Panel Round 2." -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 15:55:59 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:55:59 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com><21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> John G. Lussmyer says: > Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > Not saying you're wrong, but let's try an experiment: which > > expensive Government functions would you do away with, if > > you seriously had the option? > > How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? [etc.] I thought the subject was "too much government," not "too many restrictions on my personal behavior." That's why I asked "which expensive Government functions would you do away with?" All your replies are that you disagree with certain policies, but none of them obviously would, if adopted, result in smaller government, and you made no effort to answer which of them you think the majority of voters would agree with. Just griping "I don't like these particular decisions" is not what I asked. Which expensive Government functions would you do away with? National defense? Environmental protection? Police? Unemployment insurance? Which? > How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? > What I can own? That should reduce the number of "enforcement > officers" and Court cases. That's not at all clear. It would result in more civil lawsuits for nuisance and more assault cases between neighbors. And the fact that these restrictions exist generally mean the majority support them. Can you demonstrate to the majority either that it is wrong or that it is trampling on some important right of yours? > Get rid of "The War On Drugs", replace it with taxes on > drugs. With no huge licensing, safety, and taxing bureaucracies? > Currently, It's rather expensive and difficult for me to > even built a garage myself. Again, because the majority has interests to protect. Can you convince them that they'd be better off letting everyone build whatever they want, no matter how ugly, unsafe, or environmentally unsound? > Why are we subsidizing corn for fuel? > Why are we bailing out the Big 3 Auto Makers These seem to have nothing to do with the question at all. - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Sun Jan 11 16:06:48 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:06:48 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> Message-ID: <20090111220648.GE8045@dminet.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:55:59PM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > And the fact that these restrictions exist > generally mean the majority support them. Actually, that's not how gummint works; or, at least, not in Chicago. The aldercritters get elected, willy-nilly. They come up with these ideas that become ordnances. Nobody really gets a choice in what gets proposed, voted on, and passed in the City Council. And you can't vote the bums out, usually because either you've no choice, or the one running against the current aldercritter is in cahoots with Da Mayor and the existing organization just as much as the bum you're trying to depose. > With no huge licensing, safety, and taxing bureaucracies? It certainly in no possible way could be as huge, expensive, and ponderous as the current anti-drug war machine. Licensing, safety and taxing bureaucracies already exist; they'd just embrace and engulf this as another product line. > Again, because the majority has interests to protect. See above; it's acceptance by fiat. Show me any person anywhere in Chicago who doesn't believe the current building code inspection and permit process isn't slow, bloated, corrupt and inefficient. I dare you. If you *do* find someone, it's either a person who's never actually tried to get anything built or remodeled, or they're part of the bureaucracy. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 16:13:06 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:13:06 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com><21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net><496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <89FE05B3BF5B40FB83E57FCE53C65F45@StevePC> Richard Jensen says: > Heaven forbid that we (the gov't) should allow Joe Public > to have any self-control/determination. After all, we > know better than he. Evidently you think we do, at least in some areas, from some other of your answers. Are you just parroting a party line or do you have some meaningful examples in mind? Are you saying, for instance, that obviously vigilante justice would be an improvement? > Get rid of "The War On Drugs", replace it with taxes on > drugs. > > But then we (gov't) wouldn't have an outside bogeyman/enemy > to protect our sheeple from. What does this mean? If it's prohibited that makes it "an outside bogeyman/enemy"? Outside what? Taxing instead means now it's inside, or no longer a problem, or what? > (after all, if you live in the middle of a plate, you are > very likely to be hit by an earthquake - or if you are > 2000 feet above the floodplane, you are certain to get > flooded, etc.). And do you know of some government operation that requires earthquake insurance in non-earthquake areas, or requires flood plain insurance in non-flood-plain areas? Or of any government agency that mandates earthquake insurance *at all*? > {1} Currently someone is unemployed if and only if they > are collecting benefits from the government. Once they > use up all their benefits they stop being unemployed. Wrong. We discussed this just last month, but it may have been when your subscription wasn't working. Go see "How the Government Measures Unemployment," at - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 17:23:53 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:23:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Democrats are obviously trying to work with the Republicans now - NOT Message-ID: <924348.2063.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for the the wayback link Ben, I have looked and looked and I found a lot of deplorable stuff, and a lot of stuff where he comes off as a relatively charming moderate, mostly using coded language to make his point, but I cannot back up the specific comment re: euthanizing gays. If he made such a comment, it's surprising that it is not linked to by the left, but there is a lot of noise and chatter and it's tedious to find these things. A lot of this is video clips, and they take time to go through. I'll look around as time permits, but I am not going to spend a lot more time on it. I stand by my comments, but I cannot document them, and they should be viewed in that light. We all say things we do not mean, truly hateful people can mask their hatred but will always return to it. If Rick Warren is truly hateful, he will make public statements to that effect in the future, although he is smart and very careful. If he is a human being and maybe, or maybe not, said something once, well I am prepared to suspend judgement for a moment, and see how this shakes out. It's clear that he holds a lot of views I am repelled by, and the debate on whether that is right or wrong would be divisive and pointless. Cheers, Janet From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 18:15:53 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:15:53 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <20090111220648.GE8045@dminet.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com><496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com><94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <20090111220648.GE8045@dminet.com> Message-ID: Dave Ihnat says: > Actually, that's not how gummint works; or, at least, not in Chicago. John doesn't live in Chicago, and especially in smaller bureaucracies (i.e. most of them) people do have a realistic opportunity to challenge zoning ordinances that no one likes. While of course many disagree with specific rulings, most support the *function.* And only doing away with the system entirely will result in materially "smaller government." Other than zoning ordinances, few if any of the restrictions John was complaining about have anything to do with local government. > > With no huge licensing, safety, and taxing bureaucracies? > > It certainly in no possible way could be as huge, expensive, and > ponderous as the current anti-drug war machine. Licensing, safety and > taxing bureaucracies already exist; they'd just embrace and > engulf this as another product line. I beg to differ. The existing bureaucracies are already stretched past their breaking points. You try asking them to just embrace this too. Did you notice how the formation of the Department of Homeland Security went really easily and merely involved reshuffling some offices and duties, rather than growth? How about the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, precursor of BATF, after the end of Prohibition? No, neither did I. There is now no structure for ensuring the purity of cocaine, licensing labs, preparing tax stamps or other mechanisms, etc. Presumably this would have to involve substantial extra workload for the FDA, CPSC, NIH, IRS, and maybe others, *all of whom already have huge shortfalls and backlogs for which they have been under fire from Congress and the public.* Regardless of how you think this *should* happen, do you have confidence that there would not be as many people involved in regulating, testing, licensing, and taxing drugs, *plus still prosecuting the unsafe or unlicensed or untaxed bootleg ones*, as now involved in only prosecuting? I don't. Look at the manpower related to the (basically) legal liquor and cigarette industries, including still-needed law enforcement and prosecutorial resources. I certainly don't think this would be nearly as simple as those to implement. > Show me any person anywhere in Chicago who doesn't believe the current > building code inspection and permit process isn't slow, > bloated, corrupt and inefficient. I dare you. Why? I never suggested anything like that. The point was whether John thought it could rationally be *done away with.* He specifically said, "*Even with government inefficiency,* I already have FAR more government than I want." So setting aside inefficiency,* the question remains, what functions of government would he do away with so as to make government (including the sum of state, local, and Federal) materially smaller? * And I'm glad he said that. There is no disagreement, in or out of the halls of government,** that inefficiency is bad and should be combated. There is, however, no expertise on this list as to where it exists or how to get rid of it. ** Government as a whole. I hesitate to include (e.g.) the private offices of the Chicago City Council. I ask, of course, because if he will identify some, then we can try to discuss whether we, and/or most of the population, would seriously consider making those *specific* changes. So far I have for many years heard people say "government is too big" but never "and here is what it is doing that we can honestly agree it should stop doing." - Steve G From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Sun Jan 11 19:39:34 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:39:34 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com><21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> Message-ID: <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > John G. Lussmyer says: > > >> How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? >> What I can own? That should reduce the number of "enforcement >> officers" and Court cases. >> > > That's not at all clear. It would result in more civil > lawsuits for nuisance and more assault cases between > neighbors. And the fact that these restrictions exist > generally mean the majority support them. Why in the world would you believe that? Have you ever actually attended a state senate hearing about a proposed law? I have. Multiple times. Each time there were about 10x as many citizens against the law as for it. It passed easily. Which laws are passed (especially those regulating you at home), have very little to do with what the "majority" wants, and a whole LOT to do with how much a special interest group pays for lobbyists. Usually, the "majority" of citizens never even hear of these laws. From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Sun Jan 11 19:43:35 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:43:35 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com><21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> Message-ID: <496AA047.7020506@CasaDelGato.Com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > >> Steve Gruenwald wrote: >> >>> Not saying you're wrong, but let's try an experiment: which >>> expensive Government functions would you do away with, if >>> you seriously had the option? >>> >> How about fewer laws regulating what I can do at home? >> > > [etc.] > > I thought the subject was "too much government," not "too > many restrictions on my personal behavior." That's why I > asked "which expensive Government functions would you do > away with?" All your replies are that you disagree with > certain policies, but none of them obviously would, if > adopted, result in smaller government, and you made no > effort to answer which of them you think the majority of > voters would agree with. Just griping "I don't like these > particular decisions" is not what I asked. Which > expensive Government functions would you do away with? > National defense? Environmental protection? Police? > Unemployment insurance? Which? > So, since I don't happen to have the Federal (and State) Budgets memorized, where IS all the money going? The % that gets taken seems to go UP every year, so there should be a bunch of new services to make my life easier, right? Or are you saying that the ONLY things the govt spends money on are Police, Army and Unemployment Insurance. Of course, the later is directly paid by most employers, not via general tax. From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 19:56:18 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:56:18 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901111756p4d33eee5rcf6733ce30dfd33e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:39 PM, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Have you ever actually attended a state senate hearing > about a proposed law? I have. Multiple times. Each > time there were about 10x as many citizens against the > law as for it. It passed easily. When it comes to live demonstrations, in general (obviously not in every case), the opponents are louder, and turn out in bigger numbers, than the supporters. Just because there are "ten times as many" on one side at the demonstration, doesn't mean that number is indicative of statewide, or nationwide, agreement with that position. -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Sun Jan 11 20:00:46 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:00:46 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf0901111756p4d33eee5rcf6733ce30dfd33e@mail.gmail.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0901111756p4d33eee5rcf6733ce30dfd33e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <496AA44E.4030503@CasaDelGato.Com> Bill Wilson wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:39 PM, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > >> Have you ever actually attended a state senate hearing >> about a proposed law? I have. Multiple times. Each >> time there were about 10x as many citizens against the >> law as for it. It passed easily. >> > > When it comes to live demonstrations, in general (obviously not in > every case), the opponents are louder, and turn out in bigger numbers, > than the supporters. Just because there are "ten times as many" on > one side at the demonstration, doesn't mean that number is indicative > of statewide, or nationwide, agreement with that position. > Well, in the case of one bill that has directly affected me (for the worse), I have gathered some data. Mainly by directly asking just about everybody that visits my place. So far, I've found about 1-2% who think owning exotic animals should be illegal. It's illegal now (except I can keep mine until they die). The law was passed by PETA/HSUS/API. They wrote they bill, and their lobbyists spent a LOT of time making flat-out lies to all our congress critters. So, yes, I do believe laws are written and passed by lobbyists. Most congress critters neither write, nor read, the bills they are voting on. From jazz at qnet.com Sun Jan 11 20:32:37 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:32:37 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <20090111220648.GE8045@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200901120233.n0C2XNAO003718@mail.zarquon.net> At 18:15 1/11/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Dave Ihnat says: > > > Actually, that's not how gummint works; or, at least, not in Chicago. > >John doesn't live in Chicago, and especially in smaller >bureaucracies (i.e. most of them) people do have a realistic >opportunity to challenge zoning ordinances that no one likes. >While of course many disagree with specific rulings, most >support the *function.* And only doing away with the system >entirely will result in materially "smaller government." While I generally agree with you, I think the term "smaller government" may have taken on a new connotation. Not only can it mean fewer actual employees of the government and lower actual cost. It might also mean that the government is involved in fewer items of contention and has a sharper and more limited focus. To take zoning as the example, lets say you are doing a room addition. It might make sense for your local planning people to see if your home is allowed to have more than a given amount of coverage of your lot. Or that runoff water is diverted to the street and not your neighbor. Or that the plan comes from a registered architect or engineer and conforms to the proper national codes. Generally regulation related to the actual safety of the finished structure and its effect on others in the area. But they should not be able to review and approve the color of the stucco. Or the size and placement of windows. Or the style of paving, beyond the carrying strength. Or the kind and placement of shrubbery. That last one is big here, due to the risk of wildfire in remote areas. These kinds of things creep more into the style arena. Many people have Homeowners Associations that deal with this. But there are many cities with designated architectural zones, and those zones mandate certain kinds of construction. Your plans must meet appearance guides arbitrated by city employees. In effect, they have to like the look of what you want to do or they can stop you. The most intrusive I've seen was the City of Santa Fe, where they mandate Spanish colonial adobe style throughout the city. I actually visited the home of a man that claimed at the time that he had built the only pitched roof in the city (as opposed to flat), and he had to appeal several times to get it. Cutting off that sort of thing is more properly "limited" government I think, but still it is smaller. The line of where the limit is can be somewhat fuzzy, but people as individuals certainly know where they want the nanny state to stop. It just isn't in the same place for every person. In the case of southern California, we're having yet another drought. Municipalities are getting more serious about water conservation. Good. They are not approving new developments with lavish landscaping and irrigation. Good. And they are not allowing people to reinstall landscaping that might have died due to not being taken care of during a foreclosure. Uhh,... wait a minute. Plus, some places are mandating that even foreclosed properties be maintained just as if it were still occupied. Including keeping the existing lawn and shrubs a lush green. Hmmm. So no more wasteful uses, and if you fall out of high use you can never go back, but we'll fine you if you let it fall out. And we decide what wasteful, dead, and non-conforming is, according to our tastes. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 20:43:15 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:43:15 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com><21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com><94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <4DDFDBD40D90437996E32D5B2D8CC120@StevePC> John G. Lussmyer says: > > And the fact that these restrictions exist > > generally mean the majority support them. > > Why in the world would you believe that? Because if the majority didn't, on the average it would be feasible to get people to actively oppose them. Are you saying that as a general principle, elected legislators who plan to get reelected prefer to act *contrary* to the wishes of their constituents than in accord with them? And that people who consistently vote in favor of laws that their constituents oppose are the ones who have the best chance of getting reelected? > Have you ever actually attended a state senate hearing about > a proposed law? > I have. Multiple times. Each time there were about 10x as many > citizens against the law as for it. Of course. Would you expect the sampling who turn up to speak because they have serious issues with the proposal to be representative of the majority? > Well, in the case of one bill that has directly affected me (for the > worse), I have gathered some data. > Mainly by directly asking just about everybody that visits my > place. Ah, now *there's* a representative sample. Were those also the people who showed up at the hearings? You seem to be assuming that because there is a law you don't like, because it interferes with your hobby, and because the other people who don't like it also don't like it, there is something fundamentally wrong with any government that would pass it. If in fact the majority is not getting its way, that's one thing; but if you, John Lussmyer, are not, that something else. You don't seem to know or care which it is. > So, since I don't happen to have the Federal (and State) Budgets > memorized, where IS all the money going? Look, you're the one who said you have too much government. If you are not willing to say what you have too much of and how you would change it, no, I am not going to try to come up with suggestions for you. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 21:03:56 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:03:56 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <200901120233.n0C2XNAO003718@mail.zarquon.net> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com><496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com><94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC><20090111220648.GE8045@dminet.com> <200901120233.n0C2XNAO003718@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <982168BCBAA249B08BF1FD23275E67E0@StevePC> Bill Taylor says: > I think the term "smaller > government" may have taken on a new connotation. Not only can it > mean fewer actual employees of the government and lower actual > cost. It might also mean that the government is involved in fewer > items of contention and has a sharper and more limited focus. It could, but not in this context. John said: > I admit to being one of the people that thinks we pay enough taxes already. Even with government inefficiency, I already have FAR more government than I want. So if the point is to reduce taxes by getting "less" government, you don't do that by refining their focus but by cutting positions, which - once you have set aside inefficiency - means reducing basic functions. I have tried twice so far to get a clarification. It hasn't worked. > The most intrusive I've seen was the City of Santa Fe, where > they mandate Spanish colonial adobe style throughout the city. Actually only selected historic districts have this rule, but anyway: that is surely relatively intrusive, but I would suggest - for that reason - probably is supported by the majority. It is not an obscure rule, or of interest to only a few lobbyists; it is well-known and intrusive and subject to frequent debate. I consider it unlikely that it would stand against general opposition. It may (possibly) be disliked by a majority of new developers (not that I particularly think it is, but if a majority of any group, that would be the one); but it was passed in the interest of property owners who want to maintain property values and the tax support they get from tourism. If they said they didn't want it, would the lobbyists for the chain stores and new developers have a lot of trouble getting it overturned? - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:04:35 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:04:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <440467.78688.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > I ask, of course, because if he will identify some, then we > can try to discuss whether we, and/or most of the population, > would seriously consider making those *specific* changes. > So far I have for many years heard people say "government is > too big" but never "and here is what it is doing that we can > honestly agree it should stop doing." > > - Steve G Yep, if you think the government is large and bloated, then you should be able to identify a piece of bloat, get agreement that it is in fact bloat, get it removed, and then wash, lather, rinse, repeat, until you cannot find bloat. One could argue other methods exist, such as simply closing down departments and relying on the civil service to sort through the carnage, but they are blunt instruments and in my opinion it would be better to agree that bloat exists and to identify and remove it, instead of just making the claim and cutting off a chunk of something hoping it all works out. A serious discussion of government waste would be boring but useful. The fluffy version of the budget is only 179 pages: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/ One possible way to shrink government waste would be to educate citizens about the budget process and then encourage them to look over the budget and try to understand it. Are draft versions of bills are posted to Thomas? They have to be somewhere. Eventually people would either find waste, or they would not, or they would ask to have the budget made clearer, so more people could understand it... any of those results would be good from the POV of having an active and engaged citizenry. Then someone could put together a wiki on government budget arranged in a variety of ways, by department, by bill and so forth along with a seperate blog discussing waste. Sort of a WikiTrimBlog-opedia. Then Stephen Colbert could convince his loyal minions to edit this with false information. [1] Another option is bringing back pay-as-you-go, which contains the bloat and relies on slow steady inflation to expand the size of what people want, crowding resources away from less popular items by forcing the legislature to pay for new programs by ending old ones. I an not sure how well PAYG did at reducing debt and other mandatory budget items though. It takes a lot of work to go through the budget item by item looking for waste and it takes a lot of work to go through the US government organization chart, or whatever it is the federal government calls their version of the militaries TO&E (table of organization and equipment) looking for jobs to cut. I always thought we needed a political action commitee dedicated to going over the budget and exposing waste but I never proposed one because I failed to see how they could agree on a working definition of waste. There are special interests that want things added, and can afford to hire lobbyist to patiently push for them, but few that want things removed and can afford to patiently lobby for removal. There are folks who might even fund this, we could appeal the the libertarians, the fiscal hawks on either side of the aisle or maybe regular folks who think less is more. The thing is, they would never agree on any working definition of waste. Cheers, Janet 1. I do not know this would happen, but I feel it in my gut, and as we all know there are more nerves in your gut than in your brain.[2] 2. You won't find that fact in a dictionary, it's truthiness is in your gut. [3] 3. Stephen Colbert once made a smart ass comment on his show on comedy central to see if people would edit false stuff into WIkipedia. He also made the above smart ass comments about the gut, the brain and the epistemology of gastrononic organs, but he used fewer syllables, for optimal truthiness. [4] 4. Nobody footnotes their footnotes, what was I thinking? From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Jan 11 21:22:23 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:22:23 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <440467.78688.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <440467.78688.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Janet Plato says: > Are draft versions of bills are posted to Thomas? "Drafts" in the sense that they are subject to debate and change, yes, all bills are, but only when presented by a member. There are early drafts in people's offices that do not yet have bill numbers. There is absolutely no reliable way of getting those - and never will be. If the member wants to share it, he/she will. > Another option is bringing back pay-as-you-go, Bring back from where? > It takes a lot of work to go through the budget item by item looking > for waste And that's the easy part. If you can identify something as wasteful by looking at the bill or the budget line, then it's simply a matter of politics to say "shame on you! Stop the pork-barrel spending." I don't know if most waste is actually in such items, that should never be passed to begin with - it may be! - but when most people say "cut government waste" they are assuming that the day-to-day operations of most agencies are egregiously inefficient *and that the inefficiencies can be tracked down, identified, and fixed.* Personally I think efforts of that kind are as often misdirected and harmful as they are beneficial, because agency operations are specialized and complex and there are not a lot of people anywhere outside the agencies with the skills, knowledge *and resources* to correctly determine what is and what isn't being done as well as reasonable allocations of resources permit. That's not to say "don't try," of course, but most correction of government waste of that kind - as distinguished from pork-barrel projects - can only be fixed in a general way, by promoting good and honest management. Good managers get good performance from their budgets and do nor waste their budgets. And no, we are not very good at that either, but IMO that's where the focus needs to stay (again, aside from pork-barrel spending). > I always thought we needed a political action commitee dedicated > to going over the budget and exposing waste but I never proposed one > because I failed to see how they could agree on a working definition > of waste. Right you are, IMO. But there are such organizations - lots of 'em - and don't forget Sen Proxmire's "golden fleece awards," which did some good in this way. - Steve G From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 21:34:00 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:34:00 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <496AA44E.4030503@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0901111756p4d33eee5rcf6733ce30dfd33e@mail.gmail.com> <496AA44E.4030503@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901111934t16a88bf3uf488583ff52835fb@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > Mainly by directly asking just about everybody that visits my place. Not sure what "your place" is, but I'm guessing niche pet shop. Not surprising no one there agrees with the law. If there was a law to ban skiing, I wouldn't care, but the folks at the ski shop would be up in arms. Asking people affected negatively what they think of the law affecting them is a fools errand. And not representative of the majority by which we claim to rule. -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 21:57:32 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:57:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <519955.12984.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Janet Plato says: > > Another option is bringing back pay-as-you-go, > > Bring back from where? > I thought during the Clinton era there was a policy called pay-as-you-go that required new spending to cannibalize old spending in order to keep any new items revenue neutral. > > It takes a lot of work to go through the budget item > > by item looking for waste > > And that's the easy part. If you can identify something as > wasteful by looking at the bill or the budget line, then > it's simply a matter of politics to say "shame on you! Stop > the pork-barrel spending." I don't know if most waste is > actually in such items, that should never be passed to > begin with - it may be! - but when most people say "cut > government waste" they are assuming that the day-to-day > operations of most agencies are egregiously inefficient *and > that the inefficiencies can be tracked down, identified, and > fixed.* > I had assumed the budget would include the payroll of government, by department/division and that the for each budget item you'd have a massive amount of work determining its merit. As an example, I'd exepect there to be a line item for NASA... OK, is that waste? Well NASA has a budget, and that budget has line items... so that mars rover spirit, was it waste? Well spirit had a budget... it's sort of like the old poem: Every flea, has on its back little fleas that bite them. And those fleas have yet more fleas. So on, ad infinitum. And it gets worse. Many, or maybe even most, things are not what they appear. I had some conservative friends laughing about government waste, because, get this, they studied cow farts. OK that sounds funny. Well the cow fart study was to prove that methane from cows (or Chinese yaks) was a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 from industrial emissions, and therefor industrialism was not causing global warming, it was offsetting it. A position they had espoused previously. Where they right? Who knows. But certainly a single study is a single line item in a single budget that is part of several larger budgets which means it could really take an awful long time to determine if it was waste, and then one has to sum the entire budget and determine what percent is waste. But it certainly looked like waste without digging into it, and digging into is must be done on some level, the question is how? > Personally I think efforts of that kind are as often > misdirected and harmful as they are beneficial, because > agency operations are specialized and complex and there are > not a lot of people anywhere outside the agencies with the > skills, knowledge *and resources* to correctly determine > what is and what isn't being done as well as reasonable > allocations of resources permit. > I think we need to try and run a lean government, but I'll be darned if I am sure how to do it. My thought is stay engaged, get to know your represenatives, don't be too quick to assume anything. No matter how complex it looks, it is probably more complex, but complex things are really the interactions of a massive array of simple things, so given time anything becomes obvious. So the question becomes, how do you get time to look at all this? Special interests have the time to patiently push things through, non-special interests have a tougher time. > That's not to say "don't try," of course, but most > correction of government waste of that kind - as > distinguished from pork-barrel projects - can only be fixed > in a general way, by promoting good and honest management. > Yep... Have a nice day, Janet From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Sun Jan 11 23:18:01 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:18:01 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf0901111934t16a88bf3uf488583ff52835fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <94980A293EC14DD48A6A13D00FDCF35D@StevePC> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0901111756p4d33eee5rcf6733ce30dfd33e@mail.gmail.com> <496AA44E.4030503@CasaDelGato.Com> <2b35aaaf0901111934t16a88bf3uf488583ff52835fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <496AD289.4050007@CasaDelGato.Com> Bill Wilson wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, John G. Lussmyer wrote: > >> Mainly by directly asking just about everybody that visits my place. >> > > Not sure what "your place" is, but I'm guessing niche pet shop. Not > surprising no one there agrees with the law. If there was a law to > ban skiing, I wouldn't care, but the folks at the ski shop would be up > in arms. Asking people affected negatively what they think of the law > affecting them is a fools errand. And not representative of the > majority by which we claim to rule. > Actually, my "place" is 20 acres where I live, and happen to have 3 Cougars and a Bobcat. The "visitors" are delivery people, random guests, people I'm buying from (things, not animals), selling to, etc... Very few actually come here to see the animals, but a very large majority who do happen through don't see a problem with owning them. From jazz at qnet.com Sun Jan 11 23:17:52 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:17:52 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <519955.12984.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <519955.12984.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200901120519.n0C5Jhq4021912@mail.zarquon.net> At 19:57 1/11/2009 -0800, Janet Plato wrote: > And it gets worse. Many, or maybe even most, things are >not what they appear. I had some conservative friends laughing >about government waste, because, get this, they studied cow farts. >OK that sounds funny. Well the cow fart study was to prove that >methane from cows (or Chinese yaks) was a more potent greenhouse gas >than CO2 from industrial emissions, and therefor industrialism was >not causing global warming, it was offsetting it. A position they >had espoused previously. Where they right? Who knows. But certainly >a single study is a single line item in a single budget that is part >of several larger budgets which means it could really take an awful >long time to determine if it was waste, and then one has to sum the >entire budget and determine what percent is waste. But it certainly >looked like waste without digging into it, and digging into is must >be done on some level, the question is how? Waste then comes in two kinds. One is money put to uses which you, or some mythical reasonable lawmaker or member of the public, would consider so frivolous as to be outside the useful function of the government. As in "That bridge to nowhere is a waste". Two would be money that was intended to be put towards some worthy purpose (non-waste) but which was managed so badly that little or none of the money went towards its intended purpose. As in "The Katrina recovery effort money was wasted, since obviously no homes were rebuilt". There is a (marginally well managed) program inside the government called Fraud Waste and Abuse. The goal is to detect and correct the second kind of problem before it goes too far. Unfortunately the people that run it seem to be suffering from the first kind of problem. If the enforcers are not empowered to do the jobs that prevent problems, the problems will continue. Of course the opposite can be true as well. If the enforcers are allowed to put controls of every kind on every process so as to prevent problems, you will get waste anyway. But this time the waste is in triple checking the double checks that the previous generation of risk averse people put into place. Eventually you get a bureaucracy that can run entirely on its own self-generated cross-checks with no new inputs. That is my pet peeve with government. They spend far too much time and effort avoiding risk that is essentially inconsequential. Not that the risks are not real. But the cost of the effort to avoid the risks exceeds the costs of just letting a few happen then cleaning up the mess. Bill Taylor From teacherrtj at gmail.com Mon Jan 12 01:10:39 2009 From: teacherrtj at gmail.com (Richard Jensen) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:10:39 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <89FE05B3BF5B40FB83E57FCE53C65F45@StevePC> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49662964.2050404@CasaDelGato.Com> <21745.144.183.224.2.1231435553.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <496A255C.5050407@CasaDelGato.Com> <84dc99b70901110937s7bfffb5akb32abf9f154a3b65@mail.gmail.com> <89FE05B3BF5B40FB83E57FCE53C65F45@StevePC> Message-ID: <84dc99b70901112310p18183f01r1704ce9fd22a1023@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Steve Gruenwald I wrote > > > > Heaven forbid that we (the gov't) should allow Joe Public > > to have any self-control/determination. After all, we > > know better than he. > > Evidently you think we do, at least in some areas, from some other of your > answers. Are you just parroting a party line or do you have some meaningful > examples in mind? Are you saying, for instance, that obviously vigilante > justice would be an improvement? > Was meant as hyperbole. Although I do think that the government has a long record of creating needless legislation in an attempt to control what happens in private. I forget who wrote this: > > > Get rid of "The War On Drugs", replace it with taxes > on drugs. > I replied as follows: > > But then we (gov't) wouldn't have an outside > > bogeyman/enemy to protect our sheeple from. > Steve asked: > > What does this mean? If it's prohibited that makes it "an outside > bogeyman/enemy"? Outside what? Taxing instead means now it's inside, or no > longer a problem, or what? > I was trying to make the point that governments seem to try to redirect our attention from what they are doing (or not doing) toward some "outside" enemy. Whether that enemy is something like the "drug problem" or something like "terrorists" I wrote: > (after all, if you live in the middle of a plate, you are > very likely to be hit by an earthquake - or if you are > 2000 feet above the floodplane, you are certain to get > flooded, etc.). Steve: And do you know of some government operation that requires earthquake > insurance in non-earthquake areas, or requires flood plain insurance in > non-flood-plain areas? Or of any government agency that mandates earthquake > insurance *at all*? > No, I was exaggerating how some building codes seem to have no basis in actual need (for the overall public good). Me again: > {1} Currently someone is unemployed if and only if they are collecting benefits from the government. Once they use up all their benefits they stop being unemployed. Steve: > > Wrong. We discussed this just last month, but it may have been when your > subscription wasn't working. Go see "How the Government Measures > Unemployment," at Yes, that discussion occurred while my subscription was in limbo. I was operating on incorrect information. Although I have never been polled/called for any such survey, nor has anyone else in my family. I wonder if the state uses the same method of determining state unemployment levels as the above method outline by the BLS? Oh, as an aside, the Capitol Steps already released their "ode to Blago" see: http://www.capsteps.com/sounds/blagojevich.mp3 to download the mp3. Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090112/d7e7feb8/attachment-0001.htm From ignatz at dminet.com Mon Jan 12 07:51:46 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:51:46 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <4DDFDBD40D90437996E32D5B2D8CC120@StevePC> References: <926281.58387.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <496A9F56.6030308@CasaDelGato.Com> <4DDFDBD40D90437996E32D5B2D8CC120@StevePC> Message-ID: <20090112135146.GA9315@dminet.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:43:15PM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Because if the majority didn't, on the average it would be > feasible to get people to actively oppose them. Uh, actually, no. Apathy is the second greatest weapon in the arsenal of the lobbyist. The first, of course, is money--that they have to push decisions their way, that the opposition doesn't have to start any resistance to legislation they don't like. Somewhere in there is organization--lobbyists already have an organization, opposition has to be formed--and communication. Lobbyists have the ear of the legislators, opposition has to usually try to inform a largely-apathetic citizenry to even try to get them to *know* there's something they probably wouldn't like. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Mon Jan 12 08:59:50 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:59:50 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Our Govt in Action! (or at least the lobbyists for a small group) Message-ID: <496B5AE6.5060808@CasaDelGato.Com> Fwded from an exotic owners list. ---- I know some here make items like t-shirts, toys, educational items, etc. (as well as "exposing" children to animals) so you may need to know about this new law. It's also an example of a ploy used against animal ownership (think BSL and anti-exotic laws.) But it's ? for the children! It's happening once again. Amidst the tanking economy, I'm stunned to introduce HR 4040, the Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act of 2008. It is without question one of the most amazing pieces of horse manure ever to get signed into law. Allegedly kind and benign on the surface (after all, it's ?for the children!), in reality it imposes such strict and unrealistic testing requirements for lead and other contaminates on any and all children's products, that in one stroke it shuts down entire industries. We're talking all children's products. Clothing. Toys. Books. Furniture. CDs. DVDs. Anything, in fact, that children will use is now banned unless it's brand new and/or certified toxin-free. You think I'm fooling, right? You think I'm exaggerating? How I wish I were. Read it for yourself. Here's an excellent summary that explains it in English rather than Politicalese: http://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/alert2940.html Here's an L.A. Times article article that discusses it: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thrift2-2009jan02,0,2083247.story This came about after the rash of (mostly) Chinese-made toys contaminated by lead paint that flooded the U.S. last year. Forty-five million toys were recalled. In a knee-jerk response to these legitimate safety concerns ? and rather than doing something sensible, like banning imports of Chinese-made toys unless they passed scrutiny ? our benevolent government decided instead to ban all sales of children's items unless they pass inspection. "Inspection," by the way, means independent third-party testing and certification for each and every item sold. Every single pair of children's jeans that sells at Goodwill for $1.99 must be tested at a cost of oh, say, $150 apiece. Move over to the next pair of jeans on the rack, and unless they are exactly, precisely the same (including the same size), then you're looking at another test requirement. Stooooopid. So if these items can no longer be sold, what happens to them? Elementary, my dear Watson. All these items must be thrown away. Not sold, not traded, not given. Thrown. The environmental impacts are staggering. Walk into any large thrift store and look at the racks and racks of children's clothes. See the huge numbers of books. Look at the shelves of children's shoes. Browse the departments full of furniture. Now gather up every last item ? everything ? and throw it in the landfill. Multiply this by every thrift store in every city ? as well as every mom-and-pop establishment specializing in gently-used children's products ? and you have what amounts to a landfill crisis. This isn't speculation, folks. By law, this is what must happen. Environmentalists should be screaming over this. They have every right to. In fact, someone's been screaming because news just came down that thrift and consignment stores are now exempt from this ban on selling untested clothing. While I'm relieved to hear this rather arbitrary decision, it doesn't lift the law from small businesses that sell new clothing and children's products. Every little home business that makes, say, diaper wraps or cloth dolls or wooden toys or modest clothing for girls is going down the tubes. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85638 ) If you are "caught" racketeering in illegal children's products, you can be fined upwards of $100,000 and receive possible jail time. Craft fairs are going to tank. Grandpa can no longer make toys in his workshop. Grandma had better not sew any dolls' clothes. Yeah, great idea ? let's turn our seniors into criminals. The problem lies in HR 4040's broad wording. Rather than specifying specific problem sources (such as China) and imposing regulations on those sources, it targets every possible seller of children's books, toys, clothing, shoes, furniture, CDs, DVDs, etc. Everything. Yard sales. eBay. Amazon.com. Craig's List. Library sales. Even Freecycle. So in an economy that is shaky to the point of depression, our government ? in one stroke of the pen ? is looking at bankrupting an enormous sector of our population and causing extreme hardship for the rest. The creepy thing is how few people were aware this law existed; otherwise the protests would have started long before this. The term "sneaky" comes to mind. Suddenly, we are faced with a deadline only weeks away (Feb. 10). This is gonna take a lot of screaming if we're going to get this law modified or (better) revoked. There have been some modest concessions. It's been acknowledged ? duh ? that some things just don't contain lead, such as wood, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax and linen. So far, it appears that products made of these items won't require testing. But wait, there's more. Let's say you sew an organic cotton dress for a child, but you use polyester thread. Alarm! Alarm! Now the garment needs testing! And heaven forbid if you put snaps, a zipper, or buttons on that dress. Those individual components will need to be tested. By independent third-party labs. At exorbitant costs. And if you make another cotton dress, then that dress must be independently tested too. See how this works? Naturally, anything made with "mixed" fabrics, i.e. a cotton-polyester blend, will have to be tested. And books, for Pete's sake. I don't know about you, but there's nothing I enjoy more than going to a library sale and buying armfuls of beautiful, used books to enrich my children's minds through literature. But literacy is now less important than the remote possibility my 10-year-old daughter will eat her books and become sick. So books will be subject to testing because of the component parts ? glue, bindings, paper, inks. Libraries can no longer hold book sales because children's books might be sold. Used bookstores would have to dump all their children's selections. Amazon.com has already notified its vendors that they must comply with the new law by providing lead-testing certificates. There can be no more homeschool curriculum fairs because used books change hands all the time. See how this works? This is lunacy. Absolute pure lunacy. Normally I don't put out a call to action in my columns, but this piece of bullpoop can't be ignored. I'm serious, folks ? this will bankrupt huge industries, small businesses and individuals. If you're low-income, it means your children will be dressed in rags because you can't afford to buy new clothes, especially clothes with a jacked-up price tag reflecting the new testing requirements. Remember this ? whenever you hear somebody bleating, "But ? it's for the children!", you can assume they're telling the adults to go to hell. Call to action * E-mail your representative and remind him or her that we don't vote for people who bankrupt our nation. If words fail you, here's a sample letter you can follow. ( https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml ) * Call your senators. Naturally, you won't get to talk directly with them, but an assistant will answer the phone. If you're nervous, prepare a script in advance and always be polite. But these idiots ? er, elected officials will only understand the depth of our anger if we flood the phone lines. ( http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm ) * Send a letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Be polite (cuss words aren't polite, tempting as they may be), but pin their ears back by informing them what compliance with this law will do to the economy. Like they care. ( http://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/info.aspx ) * Sign the petition. Pass it on to friends. ( http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/economicimpactsofCPSIA/index.html ) * Spread the word. Only by passing the word can we multiply the strength of our protests. My deepest thanks to the readers who brought this issue to my attention. Patrice Lewis is co-founder of Don Lewis Designs. She and her husband have been in business for 14 years. The Lewises live on 40 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit patricelewis.com. From steveg at swhi.net Mon Jan 12 10:01:52 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:01:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <808BF114B2554558907F2994AD3C9AEF@StevePC> References: <808BF114B2554558907F2994AD3C9AEF@StevePC> Message-ID: <53283.144.183.224.2.1231776112.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor wrote: > Waste then comes in two kinds. > > One is money put to uses which you > would consider so frivolous as to > be outside the useful function of the government. > Two would be money that was intended to be > put towards some worthy purpose (non-waste) but which was managed so > badly that little or none of the money went towards its intended > purpose. IMO they are not quite as polarized as that, but yes, I do think those are the two *major* and most distinctive categories. There may be others, and are certainly variations on the themes. For instance, Type One unfortunately includes projects that *some* reasonable people might believe the Government should be doing, but from a really objective viewpoint shouldn't be. Also, it includes decisions Congress makes for arguably legitimate reasons, but experts would disagree: for instance, ordering a new fleet of airplanes they decide are the best buy for national defense when the military says a different investment instead would be much better. Either POV may, but also may not, be tainted by "pork barrel" interests; they may just be honest but questionable judgmental decisions. But of course it also includes the "bridge to nowhere" projects that would never be approved but for special interests and party politics. Type Two includes everything from your Katrina example, or the billions of dollars lost to fraud and corruption in Iraq reconstruction, to conferences that needn't be held and IT equipment that is good enough and needn't be replaced (or FTM that isn't good enough and should be replaced). Sometimes it is hard to tell which you are dealing with. > There is a (marginally well managed) program inside the government > called Fraud Waste and Abuse. Yes, marginally, and has been getting worse. This program generally consists of referrals by agency and contractor employees to agency Inspectors General. It catches some small percentage of waste and some small percentage of fraud. Most fraud is caught by other means, such as direct calls to criminal investigators, if it is caught at all (obviously we don't know what we don't know), and most internal (Type Two) waste is either prevented by on-the-scene managers or not at all. > Unfortunately the > people that run it seem to be suffering from the first kind of > problem. If the enforcers are not empowered to do the jobs that > prevent problems, the problems will continue. There are a lot of problems with the system, political and otherwise, but IMO the main problem is that the people who look into issues are (of necessity) generalists and do not have specialized knowledge of all the myriad areas in which waste can occur. Related to this, when an IG says "your agency messed up," the answers come back only from the most senior managers. In my experience they rarely want to argue the point with the IG, because it is politically very unwise to take the risk of *losing* such an argument; or if they do argue, it is often for the wrong reasons. I have seen a lot of agency responses that make me shake my head and say "you just don't get it, do you? Why don't you listen to your own people?" I've been dealing with an issue lately - I can't give details, but the issue is that my agency negligently agreed to let a contractor get paid lots of money that it should never have been paid. The actual fact is that we knew full well it would be wrong and went to considerable effort to issue documents to *prevent* this from happening, but then others (not in the same agency) failed to follow up properly. But no one at the senior levels wants to fight about it, so the public record shows that we really screwed up and the IG caught us at it. (And this despite the fact that the senior managers are technically competent and *do* understand what really happened.) I mention this not to suggest "we're really good, and there is not a lot of waste" by any means, but to illustrate how hard it would ever be, in this huge bureaucracy, to *correctly* identify most waste. And BTW, there are those who would argue that the result in the above case was a good one. Others would say it was gross mismanagement. > Of course the opposite can be true as well. If the enforcers are > allowed to put controls of every kind on every process so as to > prevent problems, you will get waste anyway. Or if you made them hire enough experts to correctly identify all the other waste. > That is my pet peeve with government. They spend far too much time > and effort avoiding risk that is essentially inconsequential. I wouldn't say "too much" but "the wrong kind." Obviously I have no data to support it, but I strongly suspect they could get a lot more reduction in overall cost by hiring better managers (which means paying them a bit more and giving them better job satisfaction), and listening better to first-tier employees and mid-level managers, than they get from an equivalent expenditure on checking and auditing. Incidentally, as far as I can tell most of the above applies just as well to private industry. I hear examples all the time. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Mon Jan 12 10:52:04 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:52:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <34BD3BAA9EE740E48DA3EA35342D5C1F@StevePC> References: <34BD3BAA9EE740E48DA3EA35342D5C1F@StevePC> Message-ID: <56693.144.183.224.2.1231779124.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato says: > I thought during the Clinton era there was a policy called > pay-as-you-go that required new spending to cannibalize old > spending in order to keep any new items revenue neutral. Not only in the Clinton era; this has been tried a number of times - including as recently as 2007. See, e.g., and . I think the 2007 version must have been Section 405 of H. Res. 6, a "point of order" for the House, not a law. The same Resolution also had a section on "civility." It doesn't last. It certainly won't this time. It's a nice concept but too hard. (Like civility.) > I had assumed the budget would include the payroll of government, > by department/division and that the for each budget item you'd have a > massive amount of work determining its merit. Correct. But it also has line items for individual major projects. For a fairly typical example, go here: and select the link in the last column opposite "Defense HR 3222." Then click on "Printer Friendly Display" and start scrolling through. This is the appropriation act itself, so spending for each item in it *must* be accounted for separately, overall by DoD and by each affected sub-agency. > I think we need to try and run a lean government, but I'll be darned > if I am sure how to do it. I get worried when people say they *are* sure. - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Mon Jan 12 10:54:29 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Where does the money go?Re: How much govt can we get rid of? In-Reply-To: <200901120519.n0C5Jhq4021912@mail.zarquon.net> References: <519955.12984.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200901120519.n0C5Jhq4021912@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <496B75C5.4070101@gmail.com> Some sites (all with their own agenda, of course) that explain "where the money goes" http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-518es.html www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/Where_*Does*_the_*Money*_*Go*_2008.ppt http://www.publicagenda.org/articles/where-does-money-go-your-guided-tour-federal-budget-crisis And a google search on "Where does the federal money go" comes up with 1,180,000 hits. Have fun... -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From steveg at swhi.net Mon Jan 12 11:27:28 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:27:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Sick Belgians Message-ID: <26827.144.183.224.2.1231781248.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Apparently Americans don't have some of the worst work ethics . . . . - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Mon Jan 12 11:46:52 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:46:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Our Govt in Action! (or at least the lobbyists for a small group) In-Reply-To: <496B5AE6.5060808@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <496B5AE6.5060808@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <50052.144.183.224.2.1231782412.squirrel@www.swhi.net> John G. Lussmyer forwarded: > It's happening once again. Amidst the tanking economy, I'm stunned to > introduce HR 4040, the Consumer Product Safety "Improvement" Act of > 2008. FWIW, they are talking about a law that was introduced in November 2007 (by Bobby Rush of Chicago, BTW), passed last August (Public Law 110-314, Aug. 14, 2008 - I just looked it up), and has a *variety* of implementing regulations issued since then, some with public comment first, some without. It's an update of previously existing law, and complicated. You can find the regulations at . Select Federal Register Vol 73 (2008), and search for: "110-314" AND lead - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Mon Jan 12 11:48:57 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:48:57 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Sick Belgians In-Reply-To: <26827.144.183.224.2.1231781248.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <26827.144.183.224.2.1231781248.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <20090112174857.GA32500@dminet.com> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:27:28AM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Apparently Americans don't have some of the worst work > ethics . . . Actually, as this article points out, we have one of the most stringent work ethics--at least, WRT sick days. > . That's...strange...it's like one of the scenarios in NationStates. (They usually present you with three or four options to resolve issues--all of which are bad.) -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From ben at bl.com Wed Jan 14 11:29:12 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:29:12 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World Message-ID: Kurt Sakaeda just passed this link to me. It is a 2 hour PBS program based on the book of the same name. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/featured/watch-full-program-the-ascent-of-money/24/ nice treatment of an international and historical perspective on the current global monetary situation -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From ben at bl.com Thu Jan 15 15:06:07 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:06:07 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] communism? Message-ID: to each according to his need from each according to his ability the US Army -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 15 15:18:58 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:18:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] communism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57691.144.183.224.2.1232054338.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Ben Liberman wrote: > to each according to his need > from each according to his ability > > the US Army I don't get it. Why the attribution to the US Army? They may believe in the second line, but AFAIK not the first. - Steve G From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 07:57:19 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:57:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] communism? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <831085.42732.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 1/15/09, Ben Liberman wrote: > to each according to his need > from each according to his ability > > the US Army "...Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840, in "The organization of work", as a revision of a quote by the utopian socialist Henri de Saint Simon, who claimed that each should be rewarded according to how much he works... The phrase may also find an earlier origin in the New Testament. In Acts 4:32-35, the Apostles lifestyle is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need"[4]: 32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35. And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need..." FWIW, I heard that this was also the motto of the Pilgrims. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Jan 16 19:19:45 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:19:45 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Just in case you missed it on the news In-Reply-To: <200901091540.n09Fe7HG006085@mail.zarquon.net> References: <4966E2B8.6090104@qnet.com> <20090109073044.kig9m3iqdcgo4o8c@richinn.com> <200901091540.n09Fe7HG006085@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor wrote: > >GHW Bush was in this position back in 1989, when he declared himself >the winner. That was when they changed the wording a bit, so that >the totals were stated, and then say this was sufficient to declare >the winners. It allowed him to not have to directly say "George Bush >is elected President". Of Vice Presidents involved in the election: Martin Van Buren also announced his own election as President. John Breckinridge, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and Al Gore all announced their own defeats. George Clinton, Daniel Tompkins, John Calhoun, Thomas Marshall, John Garner, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, George H. W. Bush, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney all announced their own re-elections as VP. (All but Clinton and Calhoun also announced the re-election of their running mates.) Richard Johnson, Charles Curtis, Walter Mondale, and Dan Quayle all announced the defeat of their tickets for re-election. Aaron Burr, Hannibal Hamlin, Schuyler Colfax, William Wheeler, Charles Fairbanks, Charles Dawes, John Garner, and Henry Wallace all announced their parties' victories when not running for re-election. George Dallas, Levi Morton, Adlai Stevenson I, Thomas Marshall, Alben Barkley, Nelson Rockefeller, and Dick Cheney all announced the defeat of their parties when not running for re-election. In 1812, 1816, 1832, 1844, 1852, 1856, 1868, 1876, 1884, 1888, 1900, 1904, 1912, 1924, 1948, and 1964, the Vice Presidency was vacant when the electoral vote was counted. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Mon Jan 19 18:38:01 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:38:01 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Idaho's Zone of Death; or, Ignoring the Sixth Amendment Message-ID: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1136301 This link is to "Tabloid Constitutionalism". a paper by Brian Kalt of Michigan State University College of Law. Professor Kalt noticed that Congress, through a careless enactment, created an area in Idaho where criminal actions cannot be punished. Specifically, Congress declared that all of Yellowstone National Park is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting at Cheyenne. (Because Yellowstone is Federal land, it is not subject to state jurisdiction.) However, parts of Yellowstone are in Idaho and Montana. And the Sixth Amendment states In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... IOW, crimes committed in Idaho can't be tried in Wyoming. But under the jurisdiction established by Congress, crimes committed in the Idaho part of Yellowstone must be tried in Wyoming. And the part of Yellowstone in Idaho has no permanent residents. (The Montana section has a few.) Oops. Professor Kalt tried to get Congress to do something about this. He got absolutely nowhere until someone published a moderately successful supermarket thriller in which this legal point was a plot element. (Previous publicity on national TV, in the National Enquirer, even on a Japanese TV show, got no response.) A few years later, a poacher was charged with shooting an elk in the Montana part of Yellowstone, and tried in Wyoming. He raised the Sixth Amendment issue - but the Court dismissed it without even bothering to address the claim, except to note that accepting it would be awkward for prosecutors. So. Is the Constitution really binding. or only when They think it is? -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Jan 19 19:26:01 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:26:01 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Idaho's Zone of Death; or, Ignoring the Sixth Amendment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51F64EFF7C7D4A9CB9ACC34E7E33B89F@StevePC> Rich Rostrom offers: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1136301 > > Professor Kalt noticed that Congress, through a careless > enactment, created an area in Idaho where criminal actions > cannot be punished. Fascinating. And the article is unusually clear and engagingly written, for a former editor on the Yale Law Journal. > Is the Constitution really binding. or only when They > think it is? I would assume it is binding, and so does the professor. One trial judge dismissed the argument for what Kalt argues, and do appear to me, to be inadequate reasons, and the prosecution was then able to get a plea agreement that prevented that issue from being appealed. As he says, this sets the stage for the next crime, prosecution and appeal. I have had similar experience being unable to get Congress to fix a law that was obviously wrong as written, and is causing harm; fortunately in my case it is only fiscal harm and some waste of resources, not a risk of serious crime going unpunished. - Steve G From drsulak at zarquon.net Mon Jan 19 20:27:44 2009 From: drsulak at zarquon.net (Dale Sulak) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:27:44 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Idaho's Zone of Death; or, Ignoring the Sixth Amendment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <497536A0.5060807@zarquon.net> Sounds like a clever way to escape justice, until you realize that instead of trying to prosecute you, they could also shoot you instead. If it isn't a crime for you to kill someone there, then it isn't a crime for them either... Dale. From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Jan 19 21:30:54 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:30:54 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Idaho's Zone of Death; or, Ignoring the Sixth Amendment In-Reply-To: <497536A0.5060807@zarquon.net> References: <497536A0.5060807@zarquon.net> Message-ID: <4E16F180E5AB41DFBCFC873C0B397A5D@StevePC> Dale Sulak says: > If it isn't a crime for you to kill someone there, then it > isn't a crime for them either... Good point. Of course it would get them fired, and there is probably a limited range of jobs for Park Service rangers who got fired for killing someone . . . OK, jobs listed in the "classifieds," anyway. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Tue Jan 20 11:00:30 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:00:30 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials Message-ID: <200901201701.n0KH1CBN018239@mail.zarquon.net> They're late! All the stuff put the swearing in past noon! Get on with it!! Bill Taylor From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Tue Jan 20 13:06:27 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:06:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <200901201701.n0KH1CBN018239@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/20/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > They're late! All the stuff put the swearing in past noon! I remember my father telling me in 1961 that the new VP was technically president if the swearing in of the new Pres. was delayed past noon, until the new Pres. was sworn in, which is what happened when LBJ and JFK took office. On PBS (jeez, I almost typed PMS), they said that the new Pres. is Pres. from noon forward, whether sworn in or not. Yes? No? I'm so confused.... Anyhow, my favorite words in the English language today are: "former Vice President Dick Cheney." As for the length of the ceremonial, Rev. Warren could have cut it a little shorter, I think. Not that I think any of his words were a waste of earspace, but that there were some places he could have said the same things more economically. Despite some of my LGBTQ pals' misgivings about his inclusion in the event, I think it was a canny move by Obama, and Warren acknowledged their differences graciously. OTOH, I could listen to Aretha Franklin and Rev. Lowrey forever. Also, just for fun, if you've never seen the movie, "Putney Swope," see if you can get a hold of it and look for parallels between Obama's speech and the motto of the ad agency the title character of the movie comes to be the CEO of: "Truth and Soul," and be prepared to laugh yourself silly. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From steveg at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 13:34:07 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:34:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam Solon wrote: > On PBS (jeez, I almost typed PMS), they said that the new Pres. is > Pres. from noon forward, whether sworn in or not. > > Yes? No? I'm so confused.... I thought we discussed this once before - I'll have to go back later) and see what we came up with (before trying to research it again. But yes, IIRC the swearing in is mandatory but not a condition of being President. I was a bit curious about the error made in the oath. If I heard right - and I'm sure I can get an accurate transcript but haven't take the time - the CJ flubbed the words, and Obama was briefly confused because he had memorized them accurately. I imagine now some people will start saying he isn't really President because of this. When they stepped up together and started the call-and- response of the oath, I turned to the person next me and said "this may be the first and last time they will agree on anything." > As for the length of the ceremonial, Rev. Warren could have cut it a > little shorter, I think. Like 100% shorter. I'm another person with serious misgivings about having him there, and I'm not L, G, B, T, or Q, just anti-extremism and anti-religious bigotry. I agree that most of his words were actually OK, but I had a serious twinge when he was talking about inclusiveness and all people being blessed and such. I could not take it all as sincere. The rest of it, as you say, was very good. Rev. Lowrey's remarks about black, yellow, red, etc at the end were really, really dated and might offend some, but he gets at least that much slack, especially after the rest of his message. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Tue Jan 20 15:58:24 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:58:24 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting Steve Gruenwald : > Miriam Solon wrote: > > > On PBS (jeez, I almost typed PMS), they said that the new Pres. is > > Pres. from noon forward, whether sworn in or not. > > > > Yes? No? I'm so confused.... > > I thought we discussed this once before - I'll have to go > back later) and see what we came up with (before trying to > research it again. But yes, IIRC the swearing in is > mandatory but not a condition of being President. I brought it up a few months ago. My opinion was that he's not in the job until he takes the oath. Yours was that he is in, but the oath is mandatory. But does that mean he can execise the duties of the office before he takes the oath? Which leads us to... > I was a bit curious about the error made in the oath. If I > heard right - and I'm sure I can get an accurate transcript > but haven't take the time - the CJ flubbed the words, and > Obama was briefly confused because he had memorized them > accurately. I imagine now some people will start saying he > isn't really President because of this. With any luck, when they went back inside the CJ pulled Obama aside with a couple of witnesses and did it again correctly. Before he signed anything. Nothing like heading off a firestorm right at the beginning. Not that it will stop the conspiracy nuts and talk radio blather heads, but it would be nice if things were nice and tidy. After letting Bush be president after the 2000 debacle, this is nothing. > > When they stepped up together and started the call-and- > response of the oath, I turned to the person next me and > said "this may be the first and last time they will agree > on anything." Yep. Bill Taylor From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 16:01:01 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:01:01 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > I was a bit curious about the error made in the oath. If I > heard right - and I'm sure I can get an accurate transcript > but haven't take the time - the CJ flubbed the words, and > Obama was briefly confused because he had memorized them > accurately. Yeah, the CJ flubbed the words ("I do solemnly swear that I will execute faithfully" is what he said) and President Obama (doesn't that sound wonderful?) said "I do solemnly swear that I will....." then paused and waited... then said "faithfully execute" while the then the CJ corrected himself. > I imagine now some people will start saying he > isn't really President because of this. > Sam Paris has something posted on his blog where people are claiming that Hawi'i isn't really a STATE, therefore Obama isn't really the President. I imagine that they'll try and use this one, too. > When they stepped up together and started the call-and- > response of the oath, I turned to the person next me and > said "this may be the first and last time they will agree > on anything." > The talking heads on MPR commented that it's quite possibly the first time that a new President was sworn into office by someone he voted against confirming while in the Senate. > The rest of it, as you say, was very good. Rev. Lowrey's > remarks about black, yellow, red, etc at the end were really, > really dated and might offend some, but he gets at least > that much slack, especially after the rest of his message. > Which was excellent. Mike says that, when Rev Lowrey first started talking, all the kids were joking around and being rude... but as he went on, they all stopped talking and listened... (He watched it while eating lunch between exams). Mike also says that all the rooms that had TV's tuned to the inaugural were full, even tho it was lunch time. That there wasn't any noise when President Obama was speaking... -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 16:21:40 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:21:40 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] The flub Message-ID: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU&eurl=http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2681 I watched it and screwed it up. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From steveg at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 16:34:56 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:34:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials Message-ID: <14260.144.183.224.2.1232490896.squirrel@www.swhi.net> jazz at qnet.com wrote: > With any luck, when they went back inside the CJ pulled Obama aside with a > couple of witnesses and did it again correctly. Yeah, I suspect one or both of them are smart enough for that. > Not that it will > stop the conspiracy nuts and talk radio blather heads Every once in a while I get mail from people saying Obama wasn't really born in the US but in Kenya (this is entirely apart from the allegations that maybe he was, but isn't a real citizen anyway, for more complex reasons), and there's a big conspiracy by people like the Skull and Bones Society, who really own the presidency (both Bushes and now Obama too), to cover this up, and the Supreme Court is supposed to be ruling on this allegation any day now. BTW, I checked, and yes, the oath was - trivially - wrong. It is supposed to be: "I ____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Roberts made it "execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully," and after a pause Obama followed his lead rather than correcting it. No, I do not think it is important. They probably should have rehearsed it; but can you imagine anyone approaching the Chief Justice and saying "we need to be sure you can get this right"? - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 17:34:27 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:34:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > Sam Paris has something posted on his blog where people are claiming > that Hawi'i isn't really a STATE, therefore Obama isn't really the > President. Among the ones out there that I know of: 1. Obama is not a citizen because his mother was not a US resident long enough after she was 16 and before he was born. She couldn't have been, since she was only 18 when he was born. [In fact this obscure statute would only apply if she was not already a natural-born and resident citizen *and* he was not himself born a full citizen. Neither is true. He was born on US soil, and not of parents entitled to claim (and in fact claiming) exclusive foreign citizenship for him.] 2. Well, not really, because Hawaii wasn't a state yet. [Huh? Actually it became one in 1959. He was born in 1961. And his citizenship would have been OK when it was a territory, too.] 3. Oh, but his birth certificate saying he was born then, as seen on the Internet, is probably a digital forgery. [No, independent experts including the state of Hawaii have carefully checked the original and say it is quite legitimate. And of course there's also the birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser in August 1961, when he and the state and everyone who should know say he was born.] 4. But he then became an Indonesian citizen when his mother moved there and remarried. [Actually there is no evidence whatsoever that even his mother became a naturalized Indonesian citizen, either voluntarily or automatically by operation of any law; and even if she had, that would not have nullified his existing US citizenship. He did attend school there and was a legal resident.] 5. There is a pending lawsuit that will prove he was really born in Kenya. The Supreme Court has to rule on this. [Well, there was such a lawsuit, but it was thrown out as frivolous by the District Court in Philadelphia back in October, and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was recently denied. It may technically still be on the Third Circuit docket. And yes, Obama did automatically hold dual US and Kenyan citizenship, but only - under applicable British Commonwealth and Kenyan law - between the liberation of Kenya in 1963 and when Obama turned 21 in 1982. It automatically expired when he turned 21 and did not renounce his US citizenship. At no point was this inconsistent with remaining a US citizen.] There are probably others. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Jan 20 18:01:19 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:01:19 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] WI the President _wasn't_ a citizen? Message-ID: The stupid rattle* about Obama's nationality led me to the following idea for a supermarket thriller (not about the One himself, but some generic fictional President): A President (-ial nominee, -elect, or even ex-) is actually not a citizen - unknown to anyone, even possibly himself. He was actually foreign-born: brought into the U.S. in a secret adoption by a man who needed a supposed child to conceal his homosexuality. The nominal father then died a few years later, the nominal mother disappeared, and the child was fostered by his supposed relatives, who knew nothing of the scam. Many years later, the secret comes out somehow. (The father's associates may still be around, or perhaps something in their old letters or diaries is revelatory.) The President volunteers his DNA for a bone-marrow donor scan, perhaps, and there is, somehow, a "hit" (and also a miss with his supposed family). Political or Constitutional crisis? * Even the rabid right-wing blogs I visit call BS on this. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 18:07:39 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:07:39 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> This link works: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283479-4 -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU&eurl=http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2681 > > I watched it and screwed it up. > > -- > -- > Mary Cruickshank Peed > > > We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. > - Sir Arthur Eddington > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 19:04:35 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:04:35 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> Bill Wilson wrote: > This link works: > No, I meant I watched the Oath and screwed up the wording of the flub... And, when writing about it for my live journal, I had to watch it about 7 times to get the miswording correct... Sheesh. It's in my head one way and that is the way it shall be. I can't make it come out wrong. I wonder how the CJ did? -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From sam.paris at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 19:20:09 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:20:09 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0901201720n79a141b5p77c01437878a8d3a@mail.gmail.com> At a guess, nerves, exacerbated by the little verbal collision at the beginning. On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > > Sheesh. It's in my head one way and that is the way it shall be. I > can't make it come out wrong. I wonder how the CJ did? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090120/bd675ee4/attachment.htm From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 19:30:08 2009 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:30:08 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf0901201730h55f21cefgcdb1e6ea8987e10a@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > No, I meant I watched the Oath and > screwed up the wording of the flub... Yup. Got that. But the link you posted had been removed from YouTube so I posted an alternative. -- Bill Wilson "This message made from 100% recycled electrons." From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 19:56:02 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:56:02 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] WI the President _wasn't_ a citizen? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B50C4F8F51A4724B7A4A61D7FC50EAC@StevePC> Rich Rostrom says: > A President (-ial nominee, -elect, or even ex-) is actually > not a citizen - unknown to anyone, even possibly himself. I think it might make a better story - with good writing, anyway - if none of the history is told, only that somehow a DNA test shows that he is not the children of either parent he thinks he is, and nothing more can readily be determined; that is, there are no objective clues but the DNA as to where he came from. Thus everything is cast into doubt, including his place of birth. (If the DNA conflicts with the story he grew up with as to both parents, his birth records must be wrong.) Then the issue becomes not "will he be ruled eligible," which is an awfully simple quandary, but "Should it really matter whether we can be sure about his birth? Why do we care?" And of course it becomes an issue for him, his wife, his children, etc., not only the politicians and lawyers. But don't make him a racist who turns out to be part the hated race - that's been done enough. - Steve G From sam.paris at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 19:56:37 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:56:37 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> <44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > > > Sam Paris has something posted on his blog where people are claiming > > that Hawi'i isn't really a STATE, therefore Obama isn't really the > > President. > > > 2. Well, not really, because Hawaii wasn't a state yet. > [Huh? Actually it became one in 1959. He was born in > 1961. And his citizenship would have been OK when it was a > territory, too.] Oh, no, no, no. You have not fully plumbed the depths of this particular strain of tinfoilhattery. There is, you see, a Hawaiian independence movement . Some of its adherents claim that Hawaii was never properly admitted into the Union, and is, therefore, already a sovereign nation, and that Obama is therefore a Hawaiian native, not a natural born citizen of the USA. We need, I think, to retroactively disqualify all of the presidents from Ohio under this theory. In fact, if we follow this far back enough, I'm pretty sure we that can safely conclude that the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority, and that the United States consists of only the original 13 states under the Articles of Confederation. Or, perhaps, that the Revolution and the Treaty of Paris were illegitimate and that the proper Head of State of the 13 colonies is the Monarch of England. That is, the proper, Hanover Monarch, not one of these upstart Windsors. Or, maybe, some descendant of Leif Ericson. You know, my grandfather always claimed that we were related to Leif Ericson Sam "And I'm the oldest son" Paris" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090120/d4e5e19e/attachment.htm From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 20:05:31 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:05:31 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com><2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mary Cruickshank Peed says: > Sheesh. It's in my head one way and that is the way it shall be. I > can't make it come out wrong. Same here. Interesting - it's not something you hear that often, of usually have any reason to look up, but I knew right off it was wrong. Yeah, I know, I'm weird. > I wonder how the CJ did? And now it's tempting to ask how many other parts of the Constitution he thinks he knows by heart . . . . OK, that's unfair, but only a little. Remember General Hayden, insisting he knew very well what the 4th Amendment says? But presumably the CJ's law clerks would have gotten it right. - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 20:38:05 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:38:05 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4976499D.3020805@gmail.com><44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <116F17FA20B346C18CA2AEAD759A926B@StevePC> Sam Paris says: > Oh, no, no, no. You have not fully plumbed the depths of this particular strain of tinfoilhattery. I had a feeling. I had heard of the opinion that Hawaii was still a sovereign nation, but not so far in this connection. Where is your blog, anyway? I should know by now. > We need, I think, to retroactively disqualify all of the presidents from Ohio under this theory. - and thus undo all the statutes they signed, right? That would fit the pattern. So we lose Grant, Harding . . . looks good so far . . . but also Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, Taft, and McKinley. We lose some civil service reform, some important civil rights and economic reform legislation, and . . . Come to think of it, if you use that theory to undo McKinley's presidency, you undo the treaty annexing Hawaii, which may or may not have been legally valid anyway, and then it wouldn't have become a state - if it did. So if you extend so far the same kind of reasoning under which Obama isn't really native born, he wouldn't be. Right? Never mind. > Or, maybe, some descendant of Leif Ericson. So we're all Icelanders? Just wait until the Al?ing figures out how to solve their fiscal problems . . . . - Steve G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090120/afdab639/attachment.htm From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 21:37:17 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:37:17 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4976499D.3020805@gmail.com><44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sam wrote: > > We need, I think, to retroactively disqualify all of the presidents from Ohio under this theory. > And I played with it a while. Just so others don't have to look it up, no, there is no very credible argument on this. Arguably* there was no Act of Congress expressly admitting Ohio as a state in 1803. This oversight - if it was one - was not corrected until 1953, when it was enacted retroactively to 1803. This is probably all entirely legal, but even if it isn't, those Presidents who were born in Ohio when it was a territory would still be native-born US citizens. I say "arguably" because it's been argued and not definitively, officially answered. The courts have firmly rejected it but possibly not on very solid grounds. Personally I think it's nonsense. The Enabling Act For Ohio, April 30, 1802, said: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves a constitution and State government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said State, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same footing with the original States in all respects whatever." Some think another Act was required. Personally I don't; I read it as self-executing, and I think it's clear that Congress did too. It has to be, because if this statute required another Act of Congress, you would have one Congress binding itself, or possibly a future Congress, to pass new legislation, which would be blatantly unconstitutional. But in any event, there was in fact another Act of Congress, passed on February 19, 1803, affirming the fact that Ohio had complied with the above, and "Recognizing the State of Ohio" (that's the title of the Act) and establishing judicial districts and the like. It does not say "hereby admitted" but it's content clearly indicates "yes, that's all done." The 1953 statute (Public Law 82-204, 67 Stat. 407, August 7, 1953), refers back only to the Enabling Act of 1802, and says: Therefore, be it Resolved . . . That the State of Ohio, shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever. Sec. 2. This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Of course it been treated as one in all ways since then anyway. I'm inclined to think the 1953 statute should, if anything, have recognized that pursuant to the 1802 and 1803 Acts Ohio already was a state, effective when it formed a constitution and state government, and assumed a name; and clarified that in case anyone was wondering, that was on February 19, 1803. It became March 1 only because Ohio had long considered that their start date, because that was when their new legislature first met. Yes, I know no one asked, but I thought it was interesting. - Steve G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090120/80666715/attachment-0001.htm From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Jan 20 21:40:11 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:40:11 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4976499D.3020805@gmail.com><44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net><9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <61AF9A4A916041708AE4064941723E5D@StevePC> Excuse me. Correction: > It does not say "hereby admitted" but its [not it's] content clearly indicates "yes, that's all done." - Steve G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090120/2cd4cb2f/attachment.htm From andyp at zarquon.net Wed Jan 21 07:21:28 2009 From: andyp at zarquon.net (Andrew Peed) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:21:28 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> <44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49772158.4070006@zarquon.net> Sam Paris wrote: > > Or, maybe, some descendant of Leif Ericson. > > You know, my grandfather always claimed that we were related to Leif > Ericson > > Sam "And I'm the oldest son" Paris" Oh, and look! restorekingsam.org is available! From sam.paris at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 08:12:27 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:12:27 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <116F17FA20B346C18CA2AEAD759A926B@StevePC> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4976499D.3020805@gmail.com> <44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> <116F17FA20B346C18CA2AEAD759A926B@StevePC> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0901210612p3c6700cs5f10f7bd24bec9e5@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Sam Paris says: > > Where is your blog, anyway? I should know by now. > Just a Livejournal page: http://samwinolj.livejournal.com > > We need, I think, to retroactively disqualify all of the presidents > from Ohio under this theory. > > - and thus undo all the statutes they signed, right? That would fit the > pattern. So we lose Grant, Harding . . . looks good so far . . . but also > Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, Taft, and McKinley. We lose some civil service > reform, some important civil rights and economic reform legislation, and . . > . > > Come to think of it, if you use that theory to undo McKinley's presidency, > you undo the treaty annexing Hawaii, which may or may not have been legally > valid anyway, and then it wouldn't have become a state - if it did. So if > you extend so far the same kind of reasoning under which Obama isn't really > native born, he wouldn't be. Right? Never mind. > Oh, but this is excellent; you have a real flair! If that whole being a respected, non-loony member of society thing ever stops working for you, there's a whole new new career just waiting! ;-) Is Art Bell still broadcasting? Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090121/c3d286fb/attachment.htm From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 21 19:35:00 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:35:00 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <14260.144.183.224.2.1232490896.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <14260.144.183.224.2.1232490896.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <1232588100.4977cd44c00fc@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting Steve Gruenwald : > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > jazz at qnet.com wrote: > > > With any luck, when they went back inside the CJ pulled Obama aside > with a > > couple of witnesses and did it again correctly. > > Yeah, I suspect one or both of them are smart enough for that. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-oath22-2009jan22,0,7463098.story Took them long enough to get round to it. Wednesday night. "White House counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts again out of an "abundance of caution."" Bill "You just gotta dot all the i's " Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Jan 21 21:24:00 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:24:00 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <116F17FA20B346C18CA2AEAD759A926B@StevePC> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4976499D.3020805@gmail.com><44354.144.183.224.2.1232494467.squirrel@www.swhi.net><9e8a91ad0901201756l2a37991la7975e3524cbd60f@mail.gmail.com> <116F17FA20B346C18CA2AEAD759A926B@StevePC> Message-ID: <543D04A2369C48C496614D355C8FB2AB@StevePC> Just because . . . > We need, I think, to retroactively disqualify all of the presidents from Ohio under this theory. Sam and I were batting around the "tinfoilhattery," as he calls it, about Ohio not really being a state when the 16th Amendment was ratified. One part of the dumb argument is that if it wasn't, then Taft wasn't eligible to be President, and as President he was the one who first proposed the 16th Amendment. Of course Ohio actually was a state. But as I think I mentioned somewhere, even if it wasn't a state it was a territory, and Taft was still a natural-born citizen, so this is a non-issue too. But for some reason (no guesses solicited), I decided to check the remaining flaw. Aside from the fact that it probably wouldn't matter who proposed the Amendment, it wasn't in fact Taft anyway. Taft "proposed" it only in the sense that he urged the idea in a speech. After that, Rep. Sereno E. Payne of NY, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, actually proposed one version of the Amendment; and in the Senate, Norris Brown of Nebraska proposed a series of versions. The final language was based closely on Brown's last version, as edited and reported out by the Senate Finance Committee. Aren't you glad you asked? - Steve G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090121/7522bc74/attachment.htm From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 21 21:33:09 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:33:09 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> Message-ID: <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> At 13:58 1/20/2009 -0800, jazz at qnet.com wrote: >Quoting Steve Gruenwald : > > > Miriam Solon wrote: > > > > > On PBS (jeez, I almost typed PMS), they said that the new Pres. is > > > Pres. from noon forward, whether sworn in or not. > > > > > > Yes? No? I'm so confused.... > > > > I thought we discussed this once before - I'll have to go > > back later) and see what we came up with (before trying to > > research it again. But yes, IIRC the swearing in is > > mandatory but not a condition of being President. > >I brought it up a few months ago. My opinion was that he's not in >the job until >he takes the oath. Yours was that he is in, but the oath is mandatory. But >does that mean he can execise the duties of the office before he takes the >oath? I just checked the text of that paragraph. It does say, "Before he enter on the Execution of his office..." So the silliness has some teeth. Even if it is a trivial error, the phrase is in black and white in the Constitution. Talk radio, is he? isn't he?, yammer away. Bill Taylor From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Jan 22 00:18:16 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:18:16 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <1232588100.4977cd44c00fc@webmail.qnet.com> References: <14260.144.183.224.2.1232490896.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <1232588100.4977cd44c00fc@webmail.qnet.com> Message-ID: CNN was all whiny about NO video taken at the event, not one of the invited pool journos was a tv or cable station reporter. From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 06:01:36 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:01:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <557553.35943.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I guess they won't be taking any chances. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 06:39:41 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:39:41 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > I just checked the text of that paragraph. It does say, "Before he > enter on the Execution of his office..." It also doesn't have a space for the speaker to fill in his name. Does that mean all those who have done so weren't really entitled to act as President? And more than one President has not taken the oath by reciting it at all, only by responding "I do." > So the silliness has some teeth. Even if it is a trivial error, the > phrase is in black and white in the Constitution. But if you are going to hang on literal words, it says "before" and "he shall," not "unless he takes this oath, he may not." Seriously, yes, I do actually think the best reading is that he must as a precondition or executing his duties (though not of *being* President); but *not* that putting a word out of order, when the transposition does not change the meaning the slightest bit, invalidates it. (Nor adding his name.) - Steve G From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 06:41:13 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:41:13 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: References: <14260.144.183.224.2.1232490896.squirrel@www.swhi.net><1232588100.4977cd44c00fc@webmail.qnet.com> Message-ID: Michael Brian Bentley says: > CNN was all whiny about NO video taken at the event, not one of the > invited pool journos was a tv or cable station reporter. I don't blame them. It's been a tradition to have video since Jackson, hasn't it? - Steve G From sam.paris at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 08:46:30 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:46:30 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0901220646w67bbde0q98123e9e23c1ba0e@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > > Sheesh. It's in my head one way and that is the way it shall be. I > can't make it come out wrong. I wonder how the CJ did? Here's an interesting speculation by the chairman of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&hp The author thinks that Roberts may have been tripped up by a common, if incorrect, convention of legal language. Steve, what's your opinion? Sam "Paging Miss Thistlebottom." Paris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090122/a5077dee/attachment.htm From mbcrui at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 09:00:43 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:00:43 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <49788A1B.6000706@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > but *not* that putting a word out > of order, when the transposition does not change the meaning > the slightest bit, invalidates it. (Nor adding his name.) I was wondering about the transposition and whether it does change the meaning. I haven't had time to sit down and analyze it semantically, but I think an argument could be made that "faithfully execute" and "execute Faithfully" could mean different things. The point is mote, but still an interesting juxtaposition :) -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 10:24:22 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:24:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] The flub In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0901220646w67bbde0q98123e9e23c1ba0e@mail.gmail.com> References: <49764E74.1050802@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf0901201607j41007645vecfc0823d346f455@mail.gmail.com> <497674A3.9050808@gmail.com> <9e8a91ad0901220646w67bbde0q98123e9e23c1ba0e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <40719.144.183.224.2.1232641462.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Sam Paris wrote: > The author thinks that Roberts may have been tripped up by a common, > if incorrect, convention of legal language. Steve, what's your opinion? I think it's silly. If Roberts were a Middle School English teacher, I might believe it. But the fact that the Texas Law Review has such a rule for its writers has nothing to do with quoting statutory or constitutional language. I'm quite sure their Manual on Style does not say anywhere to avoid split verbs in quoted text. Lawyers are very much used to quoting words precisely the way they are written, not rewriting them; judges more so; and Constitutional judges yet more so. You don't rephrase what someone else wrote when reading a statute, a contract, a witness statement, a precedential case, or anything I can think of in law, unless you are doing it very explicitly, e.g., "I interpret these words as follows." How many times, do you think, Justice Roberts has said to an attorney, "but what it actually says is . . . "? If the CJ *instinctively* rewrites Constitutional language - to accord with modern stylebook usage or for any reason - thus of necessity *assuming* it means precisely and unequivocally what he thinks it means - that's worrisome. It's also unlikely. IMO he just screwed up. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 10:24:26 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:24:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] The flub Message-ID: <41207.144.183.224.2.1232641466.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Sam Paris wrote: > The author thinks that Roberts may have been tripped up by a common, > if incorrect, convention of legal language. Steve, what's your opinion? I think it's silly. If Roberts were a Middle School English teacher, I might believe it. But the fact that the Texas Law Review has such a rule for its writers has nothing to do with quoting statutory or constitutional language. I'm quite sure their Manual on Style does not say anywhere to avoid split verbs in quoted text. Lawyers are very much used to quoting words precisely the way they are written, not rewriting them; judges more so; and Constitutional judges yet more so. You don't rephrase what someone else wrote when reading a statute, a contract, a witness statement, a precedential case, or anything I can think of in law, unless you are doing it very explicitly, e.g., "I interpret these words as follows." How many times, do you think, Justice Roberts has said to an attorney, "but what it actually says is . . . "? If the CJ *instinctively* rewrites Constitutional language - to accord with modern stylebook usage or for any reason - thus of necessity *assuming* it means precisely and unequivocally what he thinks it means - that's worrisome. It's also unlikely. IMO he just screwed up. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 11:00:48 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:00:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <49788A1B.6000706@gmail.com> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com><21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net><1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> <49788A1B.6000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49387.144.183.224.2.1232643648.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: > I was wondering about the transposition and whether it does change the > meaning. I haven't had time to sit down and analyze it semantically, > but I think an argument could be made that "faithfully execute" and > "execute Faithfully" could mean different things. You have a point. Conceivably they could, though I don't think the difference is meaningful in this case. "I faithfully will perform my daily duties as a security guard" might mean "you can count on me reliably, every day, to perform my duties"; while "I will perform my daily duties as a security guard faithfully" might be intended to mean instead "when I perform my duties as security guard, I will do them in a faithful manner." "I will faithfully perform my daily duties as a security guard" seems to be slightly ambiguous between the two. But - a. I don't think you can find two substantively different meanings in regard to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States." Why is it different? Because "execute the Office" it's not a periodic function. There would be no sense to a promise to do it "faithfully" in the sense of "every time he's supposed to." I can see no reasonable meaning of the clause, no matter how arranged, that is not "I will execute the Office of the President in a faithful manner." b. The distinction probably would not have been recognized at all in 1789. The writers were much closer to Latin then, in which the order of these words would have been 100% irrelevant. As far as I know the "will faithfully execute the Office" part of the oath was part of the original version of it presented to the Constitutional Convention, and was never questioned or debated, so there is no help there. (There was some discussion of whether a specific provision was needed at all, and some slight editing of the "best of my Ability" language.) - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Thu Jan 22 10:52:12 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:52:12 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <200901221710.n0MHAT55008606@mail.zarquon.net> At 06:39 1/22/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > So the silliness has some teeth. Even if it is a trivial error, the > > phrase is in black and white in the Constitution. > >But if you are going to hang on literal words, it says >"before" and "he shall," not "unless he takes this oath, he >may not." > >Seriously, yes, I do actually think the best reading is that >he must as a precondition or executing his duties (though >not of *being* President); but *not* that putting a word out >of order, when the transposition does not change the meaning >the slightest bit, invalidates it. (Nor adding his name.) The difference of just taking 30 seconds to do it over, vs spending 20 years arguing about the validity of every law, regulation, and executive order makes it a simple choice. Sure, we know most people would like some kind of civility in politics and law, even in disputes. But there are plenty of people willing to magnify the most ridiculous little nibs of points, if it can advance their agenda. And again, look at the birth certificate and statehood people for examples. I may tell the Sovereign Citizen scam story when I get some more time. Bill Taylor From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 11:31:43 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:31:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <200901221710.n0MHAT55008606@mail.zarquon.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> <200901221710.n0MHAT55008606@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <33162.144.183.224.2.1232645503.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor wrote: > I may tell the Sovereign Citizen scam story when I get some more time. Yes, that will take time. FWIW, the Wikipedia article on this topic links to a very well-written article on it (footnote 1) and a great reference course (footnote 5). - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 11:59:56 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:59:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Damn ceremonials In-Reply-To: <33162.144.183.224.2.1232645503.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <478502.56428.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <21109.144.183.224.2.1232480047.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <1232488704.4976490084952@webmail.qnet.com> <200901220340.n0M3evwV018224@mail.zarquon.net> <200901221710.n0MHAT55008606@mail.zarquon.net> <33162.144.183.224.2.1232645503.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <25609.144.183.224.2.1232647196.squirrel@www.swhi.net> I wrote: > and a great reference course (footnote 5). That's course, of source. From mhagerman at att.net Thu Jan 22 13:58:01 2009 From: mhagerman at att.net (mhagerman at att.net) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:58:01 +0000 Subject: [Goglog] WI the President _wasn't_ a citizen? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <012220091958.3788.4978CFC900024F1100000ECC22230647029B0A02D29B9B0EBF020E039D0A090E0803@att.net> Well, if he knows he's foreign-born, he shouldn't run for the office in the first place. I can't say from personal experience, but I doubt any candidate was ever (quite) so slimy as to completely disregard the Constitutional limitation. If the truth surfaces before his election, then I believe the Electoral College would be Constitutionally bound to reject him, though they might decide to elect his V.P. candidate instead. (Can they do that? I don't know the rules that well.) If it happens while he's in office, he resigns and his V.P. takes over. If it's after his term(s) of office, I presume it'd be a moot point (in the legal sense). -- Mark "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken -------------- Original message from Rich Rostrom : -------------- > A President (-ial nominee, -elect, or even ex-) is actually > not a citizen - unknown to anyone, even possibly himself. He -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090122/fd27e746/attachment.htm From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 15:37:45 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:37:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question Message-ID: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> What happens in the case where a person who doesn't believe in god or has objections to saying the word on religious grounds has to swear or affirm something? What am I gonna put my hand on and what happens if I don't call on the deity if I'm being sworn into an office where the language of the oath is prescribed to contain that formulation? Miriam Solon From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 16:41:52 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:41:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam Solon wrote: > What happens in the case where a person who doesn't believe in god or > has objections to saying the word on religious grounds has to swear or > affirm something? That's the difference between "swear" or "affirm." "Affirm" in no way implies an appeal to God. That's why it's in the Constitution, and is used in courts as well, so that people whose religious scruples don't go that way are not disadvantaged. (Originally the main motivation was to cover Quakers, who do not believe in calling on God for such matters, but it would equally cover an atheist.) > What am I gonna put my hand on In your pocket, if you like. Using a bible for this is just a tradition. (So is "so help me God.") Obama in fact didn't have a bible in his "do-over" ceremony. - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Thu Jan 22 18:10:01 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:10:01 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <20090123001001.GA9460@dminet.com> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 04:41:52PM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > (Originally the main motivation was to cover Quakers, who do not > believe in calling on God for such matters, but it would equally cover > an atheist.) How about an agnostic? "I don't really know for sure, but I'll try not to piss off any possible deities..." -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 19:52:05 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:52:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <20090123001001.GA9460@dminet.com> Message-ID: <22660.5834.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 04:41:52PM -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > (Originally the main motivation was to cover Quakers, who do not > > believe in calling on God for such matters, but it would equally cover > > an atheist.) --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: > How about an agnostic? "I don't really know for > sure, but I'll try not to piss off any possible deities..." so help me Ganesha. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jan 22 19:56:52 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:56:52 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] WI the President _wasn't_ a citizen? In-Reply-To: <012220091958.3788.4978CFC900024F1100000ECC22230647029B0A02D29B9B0EBF020E039D0A090E0803@att.net> References: <012220091958.3788.4978CFC900024F1100000ECC22230647029B0A02D29B9B0EBF020E039D0A090E0803@att.net> Message-ID: <92F193B51DF34E489DCE88493B39EDF3@StevePC> Mark Hagerman writes: Well, if he knows he's foreign-born, he shouldn't run for the office in the first place. I can't say from personal experience, but I doubt any candidate was ever (quite) so slimy as to completely disregard the Constitutional limitation. You had me confused until I realized this was in response to Rich's hypothetical. I can think of some Presidents who probably would have been "slimy" enough, but not who would expect to get away with it. Of course, it's possible that someone did and we don't know it - maybe Chester A. Arthur. He was rumored (but not proven) to have been born in Canada, and if so his parents might even have been Canadian citizens at the time. Among major candidates, George Romney was born in Mexico, and John McCain was born in Panama. In both cases, they were born to US citizens and were not entitled to (nor did) claim citizenship where born, but only US. There has been some disagreement (and litigation) on the subject, but the consensus view is that "natural-born" for this purpose means "born a US citizen, not naturalized"; and US law recognizes US citizenship for people born overseas in a variety of circumstances. And of course the first seven Presidents were not born in the US, because it didn't exist, but that's a different issue. If the truth surfaces before his election, then I believe the Electoral College would be Constitutionally bound to reject him, Yes, seems so. There is a procedure in Title 3, US Code, ?15, for objections to electoral votes, and I think the consensus is that that's the clearest opportunity to make such a challenge. Individual citizens do not have standing to challenge it in court, but electors certainly would. though they might decide to elect his V.P. candidate instead. (Can they do that? I don't know the rules that well.) No, not any more. But I would say that one of two things would happen (this would fall under the 12th Amendment): - those who would otherwise vote for the ineligible candidate, who otherwise would have been entitled to their votes, instead vote for the next runner-up in their states; or if any still vote for the ineligible "winner," their votes are invalidated, so that the national runner-up becomes the one with the most electoral votes; - no candidate has an absolute majority, and the House of Representatives elects the President from the eligible candidates. The first is less obvious but I think more likely to happen.* And strange, come to think of it: that would be the only circumstance I've heard of under current law in which the President and VP would almost inevitably be elected from different and opposing tickets. * Most state laws would normally bind the electors to vote for the candidate who won their electoral votes; but I suspect most electors would consider themselves absolved of this if the result would be to disenfranchise all, rather than only some, of their constituents. It would certainly be controversial. No, I don't think it would be a very good novel. Steve G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090122/ba8402b9/attachment-0001.htm From steveg at swhi.net Fri Jan 23 15:33:17 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:33:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] A little (mildly) political humor Message-ID: <33278.144.183.224.2.1232746397.squirrel@www.swhi.net> From sam.paris at gmail.com Sat Jan 24 07:34:13 2009 From: sam.paris at gmail.com (Sam Paris) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:34:13 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <9e8a91ad0901240534x6634bf83hc80dc06ce0acde00@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Miriam Solon wrote: > > > > What am I gonna put my hand on > > In your pocket, if you like. Using a bible for this is just > a tradition. (So is "so help me God.") Obama in fact > didn't have a bible in his "do-over" ceremony. John Quincy Adams used a book of constitutional law. Rather a better choice, I think. Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090124/bbe14dbd/attachment.htm From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 08:05:35 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:05:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0901240534x6634bf83hc80dc06ce0acde00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <757731.62081.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 1/24/09, Sam Paris wrote: > John Quincy Adams used a book of constitutional law. Rather a better > choice, I think. Lovely. I think I'd try to get a hold of that and ask Frank Zappa's, Lenny Bruce's or George Carlin's widow to hold it. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Jan 24 09:19:14 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:19:14 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <9e8a91ad0901240534x6634bf83hc80dc06ce0acde00@mail.gmail.com> References: <448757.35506.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25980.144.183.224.2.1232664113.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <9e8a91ad0901240534x6634bf83hc80dc06ce0acde00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21DADF49E9864215BF853BBCC20B3A42@StevePC> Sam Paris says: > John Quincy Adams used a book of constitutional law. Rather a better choice, I think. Debatable. The idea of an oath is to bind the conscience of the individual as far as feasible, so that he would not be willing to violate it. Traditionally Christians view an oath with a hand on the bible as an oath to God, so that "He is watching" and they would have a hard struggle to do something they have sworn not to do. Without meaning to be insulting, I'll call this a superstitious feeling - that the placing of the hand gives some supernatural force to the act of taking the oath, so that it actually matters more than a promise otherwise made. That's why it is used in courts - not because the courts are in any sense promoting religion, but because they are promoting the truth, using whatever tools will help ensure truthful testimony by the individual. John Quincy Adams believed strongly in *complete* separation of religion from public life, and this is pretty clearly why he did not want to swear the Presidential oath on a bible. However, he was raised a Unitarian Congregationalist and toyed with (may have converted to) Calvinism for a while. Later he was one of the founders of the First Unitarian Church of Washington DC. He probably did not view the bible as reliably the revealed word of God, but evidently had some strong religious (theistic) feelings. (Read his little volume "Poems of Religion and Society.") While he had qualms about involving religion in the ceremony, I doubt that he would actually have felt *more bound by* the oath taken on a book of constitutional law than one on the bible. If you view the use of the bible in the Presidential oath as endorsing religion, then yes, it's clearly inappropriate. If you view it (more subtly but more correctly, I think) as asking the individual to swear by whatever he considers himself most bound by, then maybe not. - Steve G From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Sat Jan 24 14:06:32 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:06:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <21DADF49E9864215BF853BBCC20B3A42@StevePC> Message-ID: <622558.7367.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Sam Paris says: > > > John Quincy Adams used a book of constitutional law. Rather > > a better choice, I think. --- On Sat, 1/24/09, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Debatable. The idea of an oath is to bind the conscience of > the individual as far as feasible, so that he would not be > willing to violate it. Traditionally Christians view an > oath with a hand on the bible as an oath to God, so that "He > is watching" and they would have a hard struggle to do > something they have sworn not to do. Without meaning to be > insulting, I'll call this a superstitious feeling - that the > placing of the hand gives some supernatural force to the act > of taking the oath, so that it actually matters more than a > promise otherwise made. That's why it is used in courts - > not because the courts are in any sense promoting religion, > but because they are promoting the truth, using whatever > tools will help ensure truthful testimony by the individual. Shoot, I'd swear on a stack of Beatles' albums if that's what it means. But even if the superiority of the symbolism of JQA's use of the Constitution in place of a bible is debatable in your mind, it carries a lot of weight for me, much more than any religious text or object (other than aforementioned albums, perhaps), and the people I cited (Lenny Bruce's, George Carlin's and Frank Zappa's widows) are one degree removed from three of those in my living memory who acted in the public arena with great courage to defend as sacred the freedom of speech, apart from anyone who actually went into combat believing that's what he/she was defending. I don't attach any superstitious meaning to touching a "sacred" object: bible or Constitution or "Rubber Soul." It's symbolic, as correctly pointed out. Whether the symbolism is heartfelt or hollow depends on who is being sworn in, right? I'd take Jimmy Carter swearing an oath with his hand on a can of Spam any day over Richard Nixon with his hand on a stack of bibles. Of course, other people may think god's gonna get me for this. Fine, I say, bring it. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Jan 24 15:09:29 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:09:29 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] oath of office question In-Reply-To: <622558.7367.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <21DADF49E9864215BF853BBCC20B3A42@StevePC> <622558.7367.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Miriam Solon says: > Shoot, I'd swear on a stack of Beatles' albums if that's what > it means. You mean you would feel particularly bound to tell the truth if you did so? Unusual. > But even if the superiority of the symbolism of > JQA's use of the Constitution in place of a bible is > debatable in your mind Did I say one word about the symbolism being debatable? Or about the symbolism at all? > and the people I cited > (Lenny Bruce's, George Carlin's and Frank Zappa's widows) are > one degree removed from three of those in my living memory > who acted in the public arena with great courage to defend as > sacred the freedom of speech - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. > I don't attach any superstitious meaning to touching a > "sacred" object Then you are not the person the process is intended for. We were talking about Adams, and generally about people for whom the swearing-in process was intended historically, not you. If this ever comes up in court, a judge may look for other assurances instead that you will take seriously the requirement to tell the truth. > It's symbolic, as correctly pointed out. So far by no one but you. If you have some reason to think you are "correctly" saying the use of a bible in oaths is merely symbolic, I think you are mistaken and need to look into the subject. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Sat Jan 24 23:23:43 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:23:43 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] The Stockdale Paradox Message-ID: <497BF75F.9030106@qnet.com> http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/battlestar_galactica/sometimes_a_great_notion_1.php For those of you that like the current incarnation of Battlestar Galactica, this is a pretty good recap of the restart episode a week ago. For those of you that don't, just read the first page and a half. The rest won't mean much to you, but the intro should. especially the next time you are digging into some military fact or fiction book. Bill Taylor From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 09:25:22 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:25:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question Message-ID: <371660.4118.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the constitutional experts here think? Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 28 10:10:29 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:10:29 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <371660.4118.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <371660.4118.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200901281612.n0SGCXkD005201@mail.zarquon.net> At 07:25 1/28/2009 -0800, Miriam Solon wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ > > >This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the >constitutional experts here think? Looks almost like Illinois business protectionism to me. As long as a recognized physician is willing to certify the procedure has legitimately happened, that should be sufficient. Or to go a little further, that is was necessary for serious health and welfare concerns of the patient. That it wasn't undertaken on a whim. Beyond that it seems to me the state's interest in having compete and accurate records of births (and genders) would be satisfied. I don't see that any particular person has a right to be any particular sex on demand. But if a person has a right to physical integrity and reasonably good health and welfare, then the state's interests in regulating that would stop at frivolous or dangerous procedures. If that is satisfied, then you just need to decide what is reasonable with respect to accurate record keeping and the procedures and penalties for correcting them. Bill Taylor From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Wed Jan 28 11:06:00 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:06:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <200901281612.n0SGCXkD005201@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <376933.92944.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > At 07:25 1/28/2009 -0800, Miriam Solon wrote: > > > > > > This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the > > constitutional experts here think? > --- On Wed, 1/28/09, Bill Taylor wrote: > Looks almost like Illinois business protectionism to me. Actually, the law states "Illinois or any other state in the U.S.," so it's not exclusively Illinois business protectionism. > As long as a recognized physician is willing to certify the procedure > has legitimately happened, that should be sufficient. Or to go a > little further, that is was necessary for serious health and welfare > concerns of the patient. That it wasn't undertaken on a whim. Beyond > that it seems to me the state's interest in having compete and > accurate records of births (and genders) would be satisfied... That's what I was thinking. What happens to medical privacy in this situation? Miriam Solon From steveg at swhi.net Wed Jan 28 13:54:48 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:54:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <376933.92944.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <376933.92944.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <26602.144.183.224.2.1233172488.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam Solon wrote: > This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the > constitutional experts here think? I think "unduly restrictive" and "constitutional" are two very different categories of question. Also, I agree that it is unlikely to be a matter of Illinois protectionism. I suspect it is not a matter of any kind of protectionism, in the sense of trying to keep business for US surgeons. I don't know, and can't conveniently research it right now, but I suspect the reasons the legislature passed the restriction have to do with things like avoiding fraud and having some kind of medical standard, i.e., when the physician says a certain kind of sex change occurred, others will know what it means, and the physician has a license at stake if he makes false statements in the matter. (Of course that's not to say supporters in the medical profession, or elements of it, didn't also have protectionist motivations.) It seems to me this article raises all kinds of issues, but I don't know of a constitutional one. It does not say the plaintiffs or ACLU allege any violation of the Constitution. It says "violation of state law" but doesn't say what law. The only one ostensibly quoted in the article is (as far as quoted) entirely objective and unambiguous, but refers to where the surgeons were licensed, not where the surgery was performed, and no other references are offered. Whether it is "unduly restrictive" is purely subjective. What restrictions are due is a wide open issue. Personally I can't see why a birth certificate would *ever* be changed because of later surgery; this seems like a falsification of an official record, although state law in fact does permit it under some restrictions. The purpose of the certificate is to record what in fact happened; what happened in these two cases is that two male children were born. That is still the truth. Changing it to say female children were born is a state-sanctioned lie. Once you authorize that, I know of no rational basis for any standard for what is "unduly restrictive." And of course the argument that "a document that says I am male puts me at risk" is ridiculous. No one likely to harass them was likely to see the birth certificate until they made a public cause by suing the state with assistance of the ACLU, and posing for news photos with the ACLU banner. In any event, "says I am male" is a meaningless statement. By birth, she is male. By genetic makeup, she is male. By appearance she isn't, and (I assume) by orientation and lifestyle she is not sufficiently described by "male" or "female." The birth certificate never said anything about appearance, orientation, or lifestyle. It's a vital record, not a social position paper or invitation to the dance. OK, what the heck, a quick Google search led me to the statute. 10 ILCS 535/17 covers bases for establishing a new certificate (not a new copy, but whole new record). Paragraph (1)(d) says: > An affidavit by a physician that he has performed an operation on a person, and that by reason of the operation the sex designation on such person's birth record should be changed. The State Registrar of Vital Records may make any investigation or require any further information he deems necessary. 410 ILCS 535/1 has definitions for the chapter. As stated in the article, > "Physician" means a person licensed to practice medicine in Illinois or any other State. So, *provided* the physicians that performed the operations in Thailand were not licensed in any state, I don't know what the ACLU's alleged violation of state law is. And I can certainly see why the legislature might want the Registrar to only accept affidavits in such cases from US- licensed physicians. This is a restriction with some rational basis but, again, I can't fathom what kind of analysis would make it either "due" or "undue." - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jan 28 21:14:27 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:14:27 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <26602.144.183.224.2.1233172488.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <376933.92944.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <26602.144.183.224.2.1233172488.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <200901290318.n0T3Iloi029013@mail.zarquon.net> At 13:54 1/28/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Miriam Solon wrote: > > > This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the > > constitutional experts here think? > >I think "unduly restrictive" and "constitutional" are two >very different categories of question. > >Also, I agree that it is unlikely to be a matter of Illinois >protectionism. I suspect it is not a matter of any kind of >protectionism, in the sense of trying to keep business for >US surgeons. I don't know, and can't conveniently research >it right now, but I suspect the reasons the legislature >passed the restriction have to do with things like avoiding >fraud and having some kind of medical standard, i.e., when >the physician says a certain kind of sex change occurred, >others will know what it means, and the physician has a >license at stake if he makes false statements in the matter. >(Of course that's not to say supporters in the medical >profession, or elements of it, didn't also have >protectionist motivations.) > >It seems to me this article raises all kinds of issues, but >I don't know of a constitutional one. It does not say the >plaintiffs or ACLU allege any violation of the Constitution. >It says "violation of state law" but doesn't say what law. >The only one ostensibly quoted in the article is (as far as >quoted) entirely objective and unambiguous, but refers to >where the surgeons were licensed, not where the surgery was >performed, and no other references are offered. > >Whether it is "unduly restrictive" is purely subjective. >What restrictions are due is a wide open issue. Personally >I can't see why a birth certificate would *ever* be changed >because of later surgery; this seems like a falsification of >an official record, although state law in fact does permit >it under some restrictions. The purpose of the certificate >is to record what in fact happened; what happened in these >two cases is that two male children were born. That is >still the truth. Changing it to say female children were >born is a state-sanctioned lie. Once you authorize that, I >know of no rational basis for any standard for what is >"unduly restrictive." > >And of course the argument that "a document that says I am >male puts me at risk" is ridiculous. No one likely to >harass them was likely to see the birth certificate until >they made a public cause by suing the state with assistance >of the ACLU, and posing for news photos with the ACLU banner. >In any event, "says I am male" is a meaningless statement. >By birth, she is male. By genetic makeup, she is male. By >appearance she isn't, and (I assume) by orientation and >lifestyle she is not sufficiently described by "male" or >"female." The birth certificate never said anything about >appearance, orientation, or lifestyle. It's a vital record, >not a social position paper or invitation to the dance. The actual standards of care in the field necessitate a great deal of psychological counseling and therapy before the patients gets anywhere near a surgeon. So, ASSUMING the person has followed that course, a psych examination and evaluation has been done several times. At that point they are just in a stereotypical "inside matching outside" problem and need to find a surgeon. On the other hand, if the person has somehow short circuited some of that, either for good, or foolish, or devious reasons, the law makes some sense. The surgeon is pretty much the last line before the person could enter a new identity and evade their past. The state would want a pretty high hurdle to prevent crazy people or criminals from hiding. Or something like that. I'm somewhat with you on the falsifying a public record problem. Changing it is re-writing history. However, to the extent any person in adulthood needs a birth certificate, then there should be a way to perhaps re-issue a certificate that is more conforming to current circumstances. The new one is what most people most of the time would be presented. The true original would be something only a criminal investigation or a probate court would ever need to see. >OK, what the heck, a quick Google search led me to the >statute. 10 ILCS 535/17 covers bases for establishing a new >certificate (not a new copy, but whole new record). >Paragraph (1)(d) says: > > > An affidavit by a physician that he has performed an >operation on a person, and that by reason of the operation >the sex designation on such person's birth record should be >changed. The State Registrar of Vital Records may make any >investigation or require any further information he deems >necessary. > >410 ILCS 535/1 has definitions for the chapter. As stated >in the article, > > > "Physician" means a person licensed to practice >medicine in Illinois or any other State. > >So, *provided* the physicians that performed the operations >in Thailand were not licensed in any state, I don't know >what the ACLU's alleged violation of state law is. And I >can certainly see why the legislature might want the >Registrar to only accept affidavits in such cases from US- >licensed physicians. This is a restriction with some >rational basis but, again, I can't fathom what kind of >analysis would make it either "due" or "undue." The problem for me would be that the particular physician who makes the affidavit must have actually performed the operation. That would certainly be sufficient, but it should not be necessary. If a qualified physician has made an examination after the fact and seen that the surgery was in fact performed, and is willing to swear to it, that should be enough. bill taylor From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 29 08:39:33 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:39:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <200901290318.n0T3Iloi029013@mail.zarquon.net> References: <376933.92944.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <26602.144.183.224.2.1233172488.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <200901290318.n0T3Iloi029013@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <43612.144.183.224.2.1233239973.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor wrote: > The surgeon is pretty much the last line before the > person could enter a new identity and evade their past. The state > would want a pretty high hurdle to prevent crazy people or criminals > from hiding. I don't see a serious issue of criminals hiding. A birth certificate is not itself proof of identity anyway, only that there is (or was) such a person born as listed on it. And AFAIK someone who has had sex change surgery still has the same fingerprints, retina, DNA, etc. > I'm somewhat with you on the falsifying a public record > problem. Changing it is re-writing history. However, to the extent > any person in adulthood needs a birth certificate, then there should > be a way to perhaps re-issue a certificate that is more conforming to > current circumstances. Why? The problem - if there is one - may be with the birth certificate being used for things it's not intended for. But when was the last time you had to present one for anything? I can think of three instances (I may be forgetting something): - To get my first passport, or a later one if I had let the previous one lapse. This seems to make sense; the point is to match the current photo ID to a person reliably known to have been born in the US. Since normally that's enough for citizenship. Otherwise I'd have to provide other proof of citizenship. - For military/other Federal ID. See above. Combined with other required ID it is also proof of age, which is mandatory for military service. - For a marriage license. See above. The marriage license process overall serves a variety of purposes, some of them debatable, but including eligibility, including date of birth. That's what the birth certificate is for. And whether you agree with the law or not, existing law in most states is that only a man and a woman may marry, so you're not going to argue that a person has a *protected right* to get a birth certificate that misstates the sex. Of course if the law were changed in this respect, then that would mean using the original, unchanged one would be fine - except that then the individual might not be able to deceive the intended spouse. Should this be a legally protected right? So, in what context should anyone (a) reasonably expect to have to show a birth certificate, but (b) have a legitimate interest in concealing his/her original sex? Not date and place of birth, not length or weight, not parents, but original sex? Otherwise, if birth certificates are currently required in contexts in which they shouldn't be, that's an entirely separate problem. If there *is* a legitimate reason - and I'm not saying there is - to have a birth certificate that is "legal" but does not falsify the record, the obvious solution is to provide for one that is marked "amended," and limit access to the un-amended original. > The new one is what most people most of the > time would be presented. The true original would be something only a > criminal investigation or a probate court would ever need to see. You are arguing for the implementation of some ID people can show restaurants, hotels, creditors, potential employers, movie theaters, bars, etc., etc., other than the birth certificate. That already exists. If the driver's license or substitute state ID card is not enough, you are arguing for a Federal ID card. Good luck with that. > The problem for me would be that the particular physician who makes > the affidavit must have actually performed the operation. That would > certainly be sufficient, but it should not be necessary. If a > qualified physician has made an examination after the fact and seen > that the surgery was in fact performed, and is willing to swear to > it, that should be enough. Agreed, in principle. But that's a more complicated rule, because it would require some standards as to the "qualified" physician and/or the examination, because (legislators might reasonably think) there are plenty of doctors out there who would take the patient's word for it. So they took the easy way. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said, back when the law was debated, "wait - what about people who get these operations by doctors who are not licensed here?" The short and dispositive reply - aside from the above concerns about implementation - would have been: "Do you really see a serious need to protect people's right to go offshore to get surgery, probably by unsafe doctors and in unsafe facilities, without FDA-approved hormones and other medications, and likely without psychological screening or counseling, because they can't get such shoddy services here in the US?" - Steve G PS - I'd suggest that people should be able to get altered birth certificates as to date and time of birth, when they get biorhythm therapy, or to avoid discrimination on the basis of astrology. From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Thu Jan 29 11:37:00 2009 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (Miriam Solon) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:37:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <200901290318.n0T3Iloi029013@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <932983.31837.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > >Miriam Solon wrote: > > > > > > This seems unreasonably restrictive to me. What do the > > > constitutional experts here think? > At 13:54 1/28/2009 -0600, Steve G. wrote: > > > I think "unduly restrictive" and "constitutional" are two very > > different categories of question..., but I suspect the reasons > > the legislature passed the restriction have to do with things like > > avoiding fraud and having some kind of medical standard, i.e > > when the physician says a certain kind of sex change occurred, > > others will know what it means, and the physician has a license at > > stake if he makes false statements in the matter... > > > > Whether it is "unduly restrictive" is purely subjective... Personally > > I can't see why a birth certificate would *ever* be changed > > because of later surgery; this seems like a falsification of > > an official record, although state law in fact does permit > > it under some restrictions. The purpose of the certificate > > is to record what in fact happened... Changing it to say female > > children were born is a state-sanctioned lie. Once you authorize > > that, I know of no rational basis for any standard for what is > > "unduly restrictive." Miriam responds: That's where you lost me, Steve. If the state already permits a birth certificate to be changed when a gender is surgically reassigned by a U.S.-licensed surgeon, what is the reasoning for not permitting it when the surgery is performed by a non-U.S.-licensed surgeon? It's not spelled out in the law. It seems arbitrary to me. Have I misunderstood what you're saying? > > And of course the argument that "a document that says I am > > male puts me at risk" is ridiculous. No one likely to > > harass them was likely to see the birth certificate until > > they made a public cause by suing the state with assistance > > of the ACLU, and posing for news photos with the ACLU banner. Miriam responds: My goodness, that's awfully presumptuous. Transgendered individuals have been, and are, subjected to intense scrutiny and harassment if any of their former gender characteristics remain even subtly apparent. Illinois birth certificates are in the public domain and easily accessed online. I could open up another can of worms with this, but I won't do that right now, because the legal point under discussion here has to do with post-op. transgendered people, but if you think the transgendered community and its allies are stopping at the threshold of surgery, just wait. > > ... "says I am male" is a meaningless statement. > > By birth, she is male. By genetic makeup, she is male. By > > appearance she isn't, and (I assume) by orientation and > > lifestyle she is not sufficiently described by "male" or > > "female." The birth certificate never said anything about > > appearance, orientation, or lifestyle. It's a vital record, > > not a social position paper or invitation to the dance. Are you then repudiating the established medical protocol on transgendered individuals? If so, on what legal basis? The state of Illinois already allows for the alteration of birth certificates, just not for those whose gender reassignment surgery was carried out by non-U.S. licensed surgeons. --- On Wed, 1/28/09, Bill T. wrote: > The actual standards of care in the field necessitate a great deal of > psychological counseling and therapy before the patients gets > anywhere near a surgeon. So, ASSUMING the person has followed that > course, a psych examination and evaluation has been done several > times. At that point they are just in a stereotypical "inside > matching outside" problem and need to find a surgeon. > > On the other hand, if the person has somehow short circuited some of > that, either for good, or foolish, or devious reasons, the law makes > some sense. The surgeon is pretty much the last line before the > person could enter a new identity and evade their past. The state > would want a pretty high hurdle to prevent crazy people or criminals > from hiding. Or something like that. > > I'm somewhat with [Steve] on the falsifying a public record > problem. Changing it is re-writing history. However, to the extent > any person in adulthood needs a birth certificate, then there should > be a way to perhaps re-issue a certificate that is more conforming to > current circumstances. The new one is what most people most of the > time would be presented. The true original would be something only a > criminal investigation or a probate court would ever need to see. > The problem for me would be that the particular physician who makes > the affidavit must have actually performed the operation. That would > certainly be sufficient, but it should not be necessary. If a > qualified physician has made an examination after the fact and seen > that the surgery was in fact performed, and is willing to swear to > it, that should be enough. Miriam responds: I think that would be a reasonable compromise in this case, in that it would ensure equal treatment to the extent of the existing law's provisions for permitting such a change of birth certificate by making no functional distinction between those whose surgeries were performed by U.S.-licensees and those whose weren't. But I think this is truly effective only as long as the original documents are sealed to almost the same degree that adoptees' original birth records are sealed. Adoptees have to get court orders to unseal their records. It would, of course, not make sense to require transgendered people to get court orders to see their own birth records. However, to the same extent adoptees' original birth records are not available to the general public, a tansgendered person's pre-op birth record should also not be available to the general public, IMO. My friends on the other can of worms part of this issue would not agree that this sort of modification of the law goes far enough, but it might be accorded the status of a step in the right direction. Miriam Solon From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jan 29 14:12:10 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:12:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Illinois law question In-Reply-To: <932983.31837.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <932983.31837.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <33009.144.183.224.2.1233259930.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam Solon wrote: >> Personally >> > I can't see why a birth certificate would *ever* be changed >> > because of later surgery; this seems like a falsification of >> > an official record, although state law in fact does permit >> > it under some restrictions. > > Miriam responds: That's where you lost me, Steve. If the state already > permits a birth certificate to be changed when a gender is surgically > reassigned by a U.S.-licensed surgeon, what is the reasoning for not > permitting it when the surgery is performed by a non-U.S.-licensed > surgeon? It's not spelled out in the law. It seems arbitrary to me. > Have I misunderstood what you're saying? No, you're jumping ahead. I said here I don't know why state law does allow for it, and given that, it's hard to see what is either "duly" or "unduly" restrictive. I address whether this distinction as to physicians has a reasonable basis briefly in the quoted message, a bit more in a later one. >> > And of course the argument that "a document that says I am >> > male puts me at risk" is ridiculous. No one likely to >> > harass them was likely to see the birth certificate until >> > they made a public cause by suing the state with assistance >> > of the ACLU, and posing for news photos with the ACLU banner. > > Miriam responds: My goodness, that's awfully presumptuous. > Transgendered individuals have been, and are, subjected to intense > scrutiny and harassment if any of their former gender characteristics > remain even subtly apparent. I don't doubt that sometimes they are. But regardless of the fact that certificates are available to anyone who takes the trouble to find and pay for them, the likelihood of someone whose intent is to harass making the effort is slim. If such a TG individual voluntarily makes herself a public figure, specifically addressing her TG status, with photos, for her to then say there will be harassment if she can't get an altered birth certificate is nonsense. > Are you then repudiating the established medical protocol on > transgendered individuals? I have no idea where this thought comes from. "Repudiating the established medical protocol"? What in the world are you talking about? > A tansgendered person's > pre-op birth record should also not be available to the general > public, IMO. There is a distinctly more reasonable argument for that than for changing it; see my later e-mail. - Steve G