From bentley at crenelle.com Mon Feb 1 13:12:19 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:12:19 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] OK, this is just WIERD: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons In-Reply-To: <4B65BBA5.5010007@gmail.com> References: <4B5EE8C4.2010202@zarquon.net> <4B647264.6050307@gmail.com> <2b35aaaf1001301046w231fe4d7o32653a8dca3d4eb4@mail.gmail.com> <4B64800D.4070602@gmail.com> <2293.98.226.210.25.1264881323.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <4B65BBA5.5010007@gmail.com> Message-ID: The DM is somewhat schizophrenic. The DM is the universe, and it is also the interpreter of the relationship between the universe and the player characters. It is very, very hard for people to grok how their characters fit into the universe of an FRPG right away. It takes a while, and every now and then even expert players have to be reminded about one thing or another that they themselves have overlooked that their characters would not. You have to close your eyes and listen and learn to think of how it sounds, how cold you are, what the light is like, what other people sound like... "It is dark, the moon is not up, there are clouds impeding even starlight. It is a little chilly, you're looking forward to getting to the Inn down the hilly path. You follow the path around a tall shaped hedge. Suddenly, you are about fifteen feet away from something. You see a silhouette, the 20' wide bulk of...a GAZEBO!" AIEEEE! Anyway, the way the DM works is that the DM sets up a player's entry into the universe with a character. The DM sets things up according to the game rules so that the character is described within the limits of the game, using game metrics. The DM describes the world according to some advanced preparation, the player enters the game with the character, and interactions occur. Any decision made by the player character will happen. The DM does not and cannot override those decisions unless they are physically impossible or they are unlikely to happen because the player is insufficiently playing in character; that is, 21st century 15 year old tries to whip out a cell phone and call the authorities in a midieval setting. Yeah, that'll work. The DM rolls dice and makes decisions that, according to the universe should happen either by the will of the non-player characters in the game interacting with the player characters, the laws of physics, the fictional laws of magic, cartoon physics, the powers and whim of weird deities. The DM CAN MAKE ARBITRARY DECISIONS, and usually makes them to keep the game interesting, keep the group together, salvage the plot line (the DM has written one, even one that says, "has not written a plot line"). There are times when the DM as universe disagrees with DM as player liaison and interpreter. The DM does act on occasion as summary judge (wasn't there a television show by that name?), but the motivation is usually to keep the game going. Other than words, rule books, dice and white boards, there are few props. There often aren't even computers. There sometimes are little figurines and large sheets of paper divided into hexes or squares, scaled to the figurines, 2" = 10' or so. I have run role-play games entirely without rule books, white boards, dice, figurines, computers, maps. If you're really good, none of that is essential. There are grown-up versions of FRPG. I saw the darn things telecast several times a few years ago, where famous personalities, key politicos, news anchors, generals, would sit around a large table and field thoughtful role-play questions by the "DM". Pretend, Peter Jennings, that you are a news reporter in the middle of a conflict between Iraq and the US. You are in the field pursuing a story that takes you into enemy territory to talk to an insurgent leader. You see that the insurgents are getting ready to do a strike, and you learn that they're going to whack a station on the south end of Kandahar in an hour. What do you do? The idea of this really delights me. From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Feb 2 13:59:11 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:59:11 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] [gbruen@knujon.com: [htcia] Germany Will Buy Stolen Swiss Bank Account Data, Schaeuble Says] Message-ID: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> Couldn't figure if this is Goglog, or of general interest on the GT list, but opted for the conservative choice. From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Feb 2 14:42:46 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:42:46 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] [gbruen@knujon.com: [htcia] Germany Will Buy Stolen Data In-Reply-To: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> References: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> Message-ID: There's probably a serious book series on the subject of how to keep your personal, organization, company and corporate data private. I was working up a concept outline and sample chapter for a different book in the same neighborhood. From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Feb 2 14:47:17 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:47:17 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] [gbruen@knujon.com: [htcia] Germany Will Buy Stolen Data In-Reply-To: References: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> Message-ID: <20100202204717.GA20342@dminet.com> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 12:42:46PM -0800, Mike Bentley wrote: > There's probably a serious book series on the subject of how to keep > your personal, organization, company and corporate data private. I > was working up a concept outline and sample chapter for a different > book in the same neighborhood. How about a book series on what to do when governments are willing to traffic in stolen data? Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Feb 2 23:18:01 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:18:01 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Germany Will Buy Stolen Swiss Bank Account Data... In-Reply-To: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> References: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> Message-ID: Dave Ihnat wrote > >>From the HTCIA list; as the poster said there, "So much for European >privacy..." > > Information on secret Swiss accounts held by German nationals could > yield 200 million euros ($278 million) in lost tax revenue to the German > government, Handelsblatt reported yesterday. Tax authorities were offered > a CD that contained 1,500 names in exchange for 2.5 million euros. There is a larger question here. A government can use covert and extralegal means to obtain information outside its borders without violating its own laws (in general), and this is considered legitimate for purposes of military and political intelligence. This primarily applies to countries that have hostile or not-friendly or ineffective governments. One is not supposed to spy on friends. My larger question here is: could the use of extralegal means to gather information outside the country be justified in _criminal_ cases? Buying information stolen by hackers is just such an extralegal means. Criminal cases (or some kinds of civil cases) may affect the disposition of $billions. For instance, suppose a civil suit against an Asian manufacturer for defects in goods sold in the U.S., with several $billion in damages at stake. The liability of the defendant could be established by documents which are held in the defendant's home country, but which the defendant refuses to produce under U.S. subpoena. Now suppose the plaintiff attorneys obtained the documents by a black-bag operation, or by bribery. Could they be used as evidence in the U.S.? And could U.S. government agents lawfully assist? (The government does enforce subpoenas in the U.S., AIUI.) It might be as simple as helping the plaintiff locate the target of document service. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From steveg at swhi.net Wed Feb 3 08:57:20 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:57:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Germany Will Buy Stolen Swiss Bank Account Data... In-Reply-To: References: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> Message-ID: <32687.144.183.224.2.1265209040.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Rich Rostrom wrote: > There is a larger question here. A government can use > covert and extralegal means to obtain information outside > its borders without violating its own laws (in general), > and this is considered legitimate for purposes of military > and political intelligence. Actually this is not so clear. First, there is a big difference between "covert" and illegal (or "extralegal"); second, what do you mean by "extralegal"? I see that term now and then and do not gather it is given any consistent meaning. The only clear meaning I know of for it is that a given subject matter is not a legal subject, e.g., "perjury raises both legal and extra-legal concerns, among the latter being the social, the merely ethical, and the scriptural objections." *Historically,* acts take by US operatives outside the bounds of US territorial jurisdiction were not violations of US law, strictly for that reason - not that they were legal, but solely that there was no jurisdiction. That was not considered to be any protection, because they were fully subject to prosecution in whatever country did have jurisdiction. In more recent decades, that is less and less true: starting (IIRC) with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a series of laws have been passed making various classes of actions overseas by US persons illegal *and within US jurisdiction* if they would violate US laws. > > This primarily applies to countries that have hostile or > not-friendly or ineffective governments. One is not supposed > to spy on friends. > > My larger question here is: could the use of extralegal > means to gather information outside the country be justified > in _criminal_ cases? > > Buying information stolen by hackers is just such an > extralegal means. > > Criminal cases (or some kinds of civil cases) may affect the > disposition of $billions. > > For instance, suppose a civil suit against an Asian > manufacturer for defects in goods sold in the U.S., with > several $billion in damages at stake. The liability of the > defendant could be established by documents which are held > in the defendant's home country, but which the defendant > refuses to produce under U.S. subpoena. Now suppose the > plaintiff attorneys obtained the documents by a black-bag > operation, or by bribery. Could they be used as evidence > in the U.S.? And could U.S. government agents lawfully > assist? (The government does enforce subpoenas in the U.S., > AIUI.) It might be as simple as helping the plaintiff > locate the target of document service. > > -- > | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | > | | > | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | > | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From steveg at swhi.net Wed Feb 3 09:43:57 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:43:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Germany Will Buy Stolen Swiss Bank Account Data... In-Reply-To: <32687.144.183.224.2.1265209042.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <20100202195911.GB18654@dminet.com> <32687.144.183.224.2.1265209042.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <58241.144.183.224.2.1265211837.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Sorry, my computer interpreted something I did as "send" when I wasn't finished. Rich Rostrom wrote: > There is a larger question here. A government can use > covert and extralegal means to obtain information outside > its borders without violating its own laws (in general), > and this is considered legitimate for purposes of military > and political intelligence. Actually this is not so clear. First, there is a big difference between "covert" and illegal (or "extralegal"); second, what do you mean by "extralegal"? I see that term now and then and do not gather it is given any consistent meaning. The only clear meaning I know of for it is that a given subject matter is not a legal subject, e.g., "perjury raises both legal and extra-legal concerns, among the latter being the social, the merely ethical, and the scriptural objections." If you mean "there is no law that covers it," then you're assuming the answer in the question. Espionage is a very special case: it is a matter of national defense, not law enforcement, and is undertaken knowing that if detected it will *legitimately* be viewed as illegal by the other nation - and possibly as an act of war. Conceptually, the intentional act of one nation in sending a spy into another nation to break its laws *is* an act of war, just not usually considered a very serious one. Whether to go to war over it, or just punish the individual wrongdoer and lodge a protest through diplomatic channels, is a political question. I know of no other legal framework in which to view it. Historically, actions by US operatives *outside the limits of US territorial jurisdiction* were not in any useful sense violations of US law, strictly for that reason - not that they were lawful, but solely that there was no court with jurisdiction. That was not considered to be any protection, because they were fully subject to prosecution in whatever country did have jurisdiction: the legal principle at work was not that it was OK to do such things, but that domestic law had no need to cover it and therefore no business doing so. Most people did not think so, until it became clear that there was a lot of stuff US people did in other countries that they got away with for reasons that neither the US nor the other country considered appropriate, such as the ability of US dollar to subvert the effectiveness of foreign laws. In more recent decades, a series of laws has been passed making various classes of actions overseas by US persons illegal *and within US jurisdiction* if they would violate US laws, in some case even if they do not violate the law of the locale. (E.g. the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and more recently laws on "sex tourism" such as the PROTECT Act of 2003.) Internationally this is also the trend. The International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice are steps to cover some of the offenses - although so far only the most egregious - that all nations agree should be prosecuted but over which the exercise of jurisdiction is traditionally a problem. There is no widely accepted school of thought, AFAIK, that there is a whole class of acts that it's really OK to perform because they are outside your own country. > This primarily applies to countries that have hostile or > not-friendly or ineffective governments. One is not supposed > to spy on friends. I gather you mean breaking the law in a foreign country is more "legitimate" if it is a relatively hostile country. Yes, but I see that as purely a political issue: it is equally lawful or unlawful in both instances (friendly and unfriendly country) , but we are more willing to face the political flak in one case than the other. > My larger question here is: could the use of extralegal > means to gather information outside the country be justified > in _criminal_ cases? IMO, generally No, but obviously not everyone agrees. Again, it depends on what you mean by "extralegal"; but IMO most constitutional restrictions, for instance, and those based on constitutional concerns (such as the Weeks - Mapp - Miranda exclusionary rules), are restrictions on the proper behavior of the Government, not simply rights that a particular defendant can assert. (For that reason I generally see no basis to arguments that they do not apply when the defendant is not a citizen, for instance.) But these are indeed for the most part restrictions on government, not on private citizens, leading to your next issue but one. > Buying information stolen by hackers is just such an > extralegal means. Yes. Actually that might possibly be legal in the US too, *provided* the hackers were acting entirely on their own and not essentially as the agents of the US, and remained subject to potential prosecution for their own acts. > For instance, suppose a civil suit against an Asian > manufacturer for defects in goods sold in the U.S., with > several $billion in damages at stake. The liability of the > defendant could be established by documents which are held > in the defendant's home country, but which the defendant > refuses to produce under U.S. subpoena. Now suppose the > plaintiff attorneys obtained the documents by a black-bag > operation, or by bribery. Could they be used as evidence > in the U.S.? Yes and no. There is no general rule excluding evidence from civil cases, at least in most states (AFAIK) or in the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it was illegally obtained by private individuals - but the illegal acts used to obtain it are still illegal. If it were by bribery, for instance, depending on who was bribed, the persons who offer the evidence in court would risk immediate arrest under the FCPA. Also, a lawyer who encouraged or assisted in obtaining the evidence and then offered it at trial would be at serious risk of disbarment. I don't know what "a black-bag operation" means other than one that is illegal and therefore has to be kept a deep, dark secret. I don't see how it is relevant how secret it was, except that you are probably not going to see the evidence used at trial because then it is no longer a secret, and then the risks mentioned above apply. > And could U.S. government agents lawfully assist? No. That one's easy. Beyond the judicial process itself, they have no legitimate role in the civil suits of private individuals to begin with, and certainly no authority to break the laws of another nation. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Wed Feb 3 22:22:05 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:22:05 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Stewart and O'Reilly Message-ID: <201002040423.o144NjgF012356@mail.zarquon.net> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-oreilly-stewart4-2010feb04,0,7277018,full.story Jon Stewart has made a return appearance with Bill O'Reilly. Excerpts will be on tonight's show. the whole thing will be at Foxnews.com on Thursday. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Thu Feb 4 09:36:16 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:36:16 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! Message-ID: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/ http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redistricting4-2010feb04,0,4978584.story California is putting together the (first time ever) citizens commission that will draw the redistricting lines following the next census. They want applicants. Deadline is 12 Feb. The process is a lot like jury duty, but they want demographic data (sex, age, race, party affiliation, etc). Party affiliation in particular, to make sue the dem/rep mix is 50/50. If you are chosen, you get to draw the lines for the state offices. Not Congressional districts (yet) but State Senate, Assembly, and the tax districts. A once in 10 year opportunity. semi-direct democracy in action. Take the controls away from the pols. Throw the bums out. Etc. Takes about 10 minutes to apply. There are some rules (you can't be an elected or appointed official, party officer, etc.) Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 13:08:49 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:08:49 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf1002041108q525f2016nc144ae6b1d72a114@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010, Bill Taylor wrote: > Party affiliation in particular, to make > sue the dem/rep mix is 50/50. I wonder if the state is 50/50. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From jazz at qnet.com Thu Feb 4 13:28:51 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:28:51 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf1002041108q525f2016nc144ae6b1d72a114@mail.gmail.com> References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> <2b35aaaf1002041108q525f2016nc144ae6b1d72a114@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1265311731.4b6b1ff3e5245@webmail.qnet.com> Quoting Bill Wilson : > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010, Bill Taylor wrote: > > Party affiliation in particular, to make > > sue the dem/rep mix is 50/50. > > I wonder if the state is 50/50. > Oh no. The state is more like 45% Democrat, 40% Republican. But the law on the commission is written that the top two parties each get 5 seats on the 14 member commission. So they split 10, and all the others share 4. Bill Taylor From bentley at crenelle.com Thu Feb 11 15:59:21 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:59:21 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] No idea how real this is. It's funny. Message-ID: From another list. -m --- No matter what side of the AISLE you're on, THIS is FUNNY and VERY telling! It just all depends on how you look at some things... Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory: On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.' So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle. Harry Reid: Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research: "Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed." From ben at bl.com Thu Feb 11 19:50:10 2010 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:50:10 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] No idea how real this is. It's funny. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:59 PM -0800 2/11/10, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ > From another list. -m > >--- > >No matter what side of the AISLE you're on, THIS is FUNNY and VERY telling! > It just all depends on how you look at some things... funny but not true http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 11 20:00:25 2010 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:00:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] No idea how real this is. It's funny. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <361686.49965.qm@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I wish more folks would fact check the information they receive before forwarding it, but I would accept it if more people would fact check the information they receive before they believe it. Janet --- On Thu, 2/11/10, Ben Liberman wrote: > funny but not true > > http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp > From steveg at swhi.net Fri Feb 12 08:17:55 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:17:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think Message-ID: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> "Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly." No, it's not a typo. The writer means it. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Fri Feb 12 09:46:01 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:46:01 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <201002121548.o1CFmSTC030909@mail.zarquon.net> At 08:17 2/12/2010 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > >"Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support >permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer >Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor >of allowing homosexuals to serve openly." > >No, it's not a typo. The writer means it. So the larger majority believes they can serve openly as gays or lesbians, as long as they aren't openly homosexual about it. OK, sure. The gay men and lesbians declare themselves, then pair off male and female and have few if any same sex partners. Done. "I vote for the democratic party They want the U.N. to be strong I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts He sure gets me singing those songs I'll send all the money you ask for But don't ask me to come on along So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal " Bill Taylor From mbcrui at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 10:04:49 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <4B757C21.3000107@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > "Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support > permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer > Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor > of allowing homosexuals to serve openly." > > No, it's not a typo. The writer means it. > I think it shows a LOT about polls and how they're conducted. I had a sociology class some time ago and we spent a couple of weeks actually learning how skewing the questions could get the answers you wanted (we were supposed to learn how NOT to skew the questions... but... you know.. unintended consequences) 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 sarahksmom at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 11:13:44 2010 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:13:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <36663.144.183.224.2.1265984275.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <244332.23629.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I wonder what the poll results would be if they were asked if they were in favor of heterosexuals serving openly? I think congress critters may be getting that deer-in-the-headlights thing when anything labeled "sexual" is involved. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > > > "Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support > permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer > Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in > favor > of allowing homosexuals to serve openly." > > No, it's not a typo.? The writer means it. > > ? ? - Steve G > > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From steveg at swhi.net Fri Feb 12 11:50:57 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:50:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <244332.23629.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <244332.23629.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49536.144.183.224.2.1265997057.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam wrote: > I wonder what the poll results would be if they were asked if they were in favor of > heterosexuals serving openly? That might be interesting. I think this also demonstrates that the gay rights movement was wise to adopt "gay" as a standard euphemism. I don't think most people who answer this question think about the ramifications and the real choices at all even when they do understand the words. For one thing, what do they think "openly" refers to - does it mean that the members go around declaring themselves and their sexual desires in public? Simply that they don't have to pretend? Or that the *policy* is open, rather than the status of individuals? I would be curious to see a breakdown of people who would answer Yes/No to these propositions: (a) homosexuals should be allowed to serve; (b) if allowed to serve, they should be allowed to tell everyone their homosexual status; (c) if allowed to serve, they should be required to pretend they are heterosexual. I would especially be interested in seeing the results if the polling is clearly and convincingly anonymous. *After* getting the results to that one, I would be inclined to issue a follow-up: Sexual assault is illegal and will remain illegal regardless of whether it involves same-sex or opposite-sex assault. Assuming this to be true: (a) If you had a daughter in the infantry, would you have a problem with her having to share a co-ed shower room? (b) If you had a son in the infantry, would you have a problem with him having to share a shower with homosexuals? > I think congress critters may be getting that deer-in-the-headlights thing when anything > labeled "sexual" is involved. Yes, but note this survey was not of Congress. - Steve G From sarahksmom at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 12:44:58 2010 From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:44:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <49536.144.183.224.2.1265997057.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <760275.17683.qm@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Miriam wrote earlier: > > I think congress critters may be getting that > deer-in-the-headlights thing when anything > > labeled "sexual" is involved. --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > Yes, but note this survey was not of Congress. I didn't go to the link... just followed the thread, badly, apparently. My comment could be expanded to include whoever was surveyed. Miriam Solon "Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." --Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra" From steveg at swhi.net Fri Feb 12 13:59:53 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:59:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Don't ask, don't tell, and don't think In-Reply-To: <760275.17683.qm@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <760275.17683.qm@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <13977.144.183.224.2.1266004794.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Miriam wrote: > My comment could > be expanded to include whoever was surveyed. Unfortunately true. - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 14:18:00 2010 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:18:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? | was Re: Don't ask ... In-Reply-To: <13977.144.183.224.2.1266004794.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <140537.85464.qm@web33706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? Janet From steveg at swhi.net Fri Feb 12 14:42:06 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:42:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? | was Re: Don't ask ... In-Reply-To: <140537.85464.qm@web33706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <140537.85464.qm@web33706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40350.144.183.224.2.1266007326.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Janet Plato wrote: > Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? Well, I hope the people who answered did . . . . Oh, you mean any of us? I hadn't, but Googling turns up this: which has a better breakdown and a link to the complete survey at the bottom. - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 15:35:47 2010 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:35:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? | was Re: Don't ask ... In-Reply-To: <40350.144.183.224.2.1266007326.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <889751.77741.qm@web33703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Steve, So I wonder if survey respondents thought gay men & lesbians meant exactly that, but mistakenly thought homosexual included transgender individuals. The wording and the percentages would make that a plausible result, and not require monumental ignorance, merely normal levels of ignorance. Just a guess, Janet --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > From: Steve Gruenwald > Subject: Re: [Goglog] Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? | was Re: Don't ask ... > To: "The Demagogue Dialogue Mailing List" > Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 2:42 PM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > Janet Plato wrote: > > > Has anyone seen the actual survey questions? > > Well, I hope the people who answered did . . . . > > Oh, you mean any of us?? I hadn't, but Googling turns > up > this: > > which has a better breakdown and a link to the complete > survey at the bottom. > > ? ? ???- Steve G > > > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From bentley at crenelle.com Fri Feb 12 16:50:49 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:50:49 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill Message-ID: Senator John McCain Introduces Bill Attacking Consumer Access to Supplements This bill would repeal key sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which guarantees consumers the right to purchase dietary supplements. Please contact your senators now to tell them not to so-sponsor this Anti-Consumer, Anti-Health Freedom Bill. McCain's so-called Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) would repeal key sections of the popular Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). It would give the FDA unilateral power, with little or no scientific justification, to ban vitamin supplements except for those produced by Big Pharma corporations. If McCain's bill passes, we can look to Europe for a snapshot of what we may be in for: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has sharply reduced the list of available supplements and is in process of reducing potencies to ridiculous levels, such as less beta carotene than can be found in half of a large carrot. Europeans already look to the US to obtain their dietary supplements. If this bill passes, where will we obtain ours? Please take action immediately. Tell your senators NOT to co-sponsor the McCain's anti-consumer legislation and to do everything in their power to defeat it. Then forward this to your friends and family and ask them to do the same! TAKE ACTION From SteveG at swhi.net Fri Feb 12 17:40:12 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:40:12 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> Michael Brian Bentley writes: > This bill would repeal key sections of the Dietary Supplement Health > and Education Act, which guarantees consumers the right to purchase > dietary supplements. Are you asserting this, or merely forwarding it? Do you have any basis to believe or disbelieve it? This looks like the kind of thing that could be accurate or could be grossly distorted, and would probably take a whole lot of reading to figure out which. On the average, it seems to me, when I see an item from a special interest group that says "fight this proposed legislation because it would do X," it's essentially right less than half the time. - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Sun Feb 14 11:13:12 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:13:12 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> References: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> Message-ID: >On the average, it seems to me, when I see an item from a >special interest group that says "fight this proposed >legislation because it would do X," it's essentially right >less than half the time. > > - Steve G I was in transit and wanted someone else to do the legwork this time. My experience is that it is squirrel food 80% of the time, esp. considering the source for the link. This time, however, I believe McCain may be playing to a powerful special interest that wants supplements marginalized. Not that they're worth anything in my view, but Stevia is considered a supplement because it can't be sold as a sweetener; this legislation may kill it completely. From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Sun Feb 14 13:38:15 2010 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:38:15 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: References: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> Message-ID: On 2010-Feb-14, at 11:13 AM, Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > I was in transit and wanted someone else to do the legwork this time. Your wish is my command. According to this web page: ...on McCain's site, this is an enabling act, giving the FDA the power to recall dietary supplements that are unsafe, and requiring manufacturers of supplements to register with the FDA. Might such power be abused? Of course, power can _always_ be abused. Will it? Probably not to a great extent, but that's cold comfort to someone who _knows_ their herb-of-choice is making his life livable, when the FDA decides to ban it. Mark Hagerman From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 15:40:08 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:40:08 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: References: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> Message-ID: <2b35aaaf1002141340x704183aeme2f5dfbebf1aece@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 14, 2010 Mark Hagerman wrote: > their herb-of-choice is making his life livable, when the FDA > decides to ban it. Pardon me for restating the obvious, but some people's herb-of-choice was banned in 1937. Still easy enough to get. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From par at richinn.com Sun Feb 14 16:38:45 2010 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:38:45 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: <2b35aaaf1002141340x704183aeme2f5dfbebf1aece@mail.gmail.com > References: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> <2b35aaaf1002141340x704183aeme2f5dfbebf1aece@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100214163817.04922a18@richinn.com> At 03:40 PM 2/14/2010, Bill Wilson wrote: >On Feb 14, 2010 Mark Hagerman wrote: > > their herb-of-choice is making his life livable, when the FDA > > decides to ban it. > >Pardon me for restating the obvious, but some people's herb-of-choice >was banned in 1937. Still easy enough to get. If you want to risk it. Peter Richardson From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Feb 14 19:23:38 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:23:38 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Accurate? McCain Introduces anti supplements Bill In-Reply-To: References: <90C8BBC351394948A95B058D86FCB71C@StevePC> Message-ID: <20680200633541CA8F53EFF1A11011C1@StevePC> Mark Hagerman offers: > According to this web page: > > c38974978f7d> > > ...on McCain's site, this is an enabling act, giving the FDA > the power to recall dietary supplements that are unsafe, and > requiring manufacturers of supplements to register with the > FDA. - which helps, but of course might also be biased. I don't think I have time to do extensive research now, and am going out of town this week, but this looks like a pretty complete and thoughtful article: and includes a link to the bill itself. A better way to find the current text might be to go to thomas.loc.gov and look up Senate Bill 3002 (S. 3002). (The article above and some of the comments also address a related but somewhat different bill by Sen. Durbin.) We looked briefly at a somewhat similar issue most of a year ago, when someone else said "they're going to ban [whatever it is you like], because they're in the pay of Big Bad Industry," when the bill actually called for only science- based study and eventually science-based regulations. This one is shorter and (at first glance, anyway) simpler than that example. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Wed Feb 17 18:34:33 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:34:33 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: From: Bill Taylor >http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/ > >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redistricting4-2010feb04,0,4978584.story > >California is putting together the (first time ever) citizens >commission that will draw the redistricting lines following the next >census. Damn. I wish Illinois would do that. Of course they wouldn't like me, because I wouldn't follow the racial gerrymandering that is presently required. (I also find it ridiculous that districts must be equal by population as of Census day to with 0.01% or so - even though the population will probably have changed by more than that by the time of the first election under the new map, much less the one nine years later. But no degree of convolution is prohibited, however absurd.) -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From bentley at crenelle.com Fri Feb 19 16:36:00 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:36:00 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: This district here is somewhat well defined. Water to the left, to the right, to the north, to the south. I wonder if the water has any bearing whatsoever... From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Feb 20 12:32:46 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:32:46 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@StevePC> Michael Brian Bentley says: > This district here is somewhat well defined. Water to the left, to > the right, to the north, to the south. I wonder if the water has any > bearing whatsoever... On anything? What in the world are you talking about? From bentley at crenelle.com Mon Feb 22 17:48:43 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:48:43 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@StevePC> References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@StevePC> Message-ID: >Michael Brian Bentley says: > > > This district here is somewhat well defined. Water to the left, to >> the right, to the north, to the south. I wonder if the water has any >> bearing whatsoever... > >On anything? > >What in the world are you talking about? district boundaries. I'm on an island. From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Feb 22 21:33:31 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:33:31 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@StevePC> Message-ID: <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> Michael Brian Bentley says: > >What in the world are you talking about? > > district boundaries. I'm on an island. OK. So? What kind of district? What does it have to do with Californians? I assume you are trying to convey something other than "hey, I'm on an island; anyone want to talk about that?" - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Feb 23 12:01:21 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:01:21 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@S tevePC> <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> Message-ID: >OK. So? What kind of district? What does it have to do >with Californians? I assume you are trying to convey >something other than "hey, I'm on an island; anyone want to >talk about that?" > > - Steve G The thread talks about taking the census data and changing the district boundaries to reflect the new findings. I wondered, amusingly, if a geographically based election system is influenced by...geography. It is geographically oriented, using what normally is a painfully political process for well-contested areas. But the district maps often have no basis in real geography. I think that if the election process were less geographic and more representative, it would all work a bit better. We are mostly electing folks who 1) are of similar mind 2) who live in the same area. With district mapping being so exciting and partisan, along with all the checks and balances that go into that process to keep the majority from always steamrolling the minority, we have a system that has seriously ginormous holes in it. Make it less geographic, and we wouldn't have to worry about the stupid district maps. From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Feb 23 12:12:59 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:12:59 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> Message-ID: <20100223181259.GA4161@dminet.com> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:01:21AM -0800, Mike Bentley wrote: > It is geographically oriented, using what normally is a painfully > political process for well-contested areas. But the district maps > often have no basis in real geography. > > I think that if the election process were less geographic and more > representative, it would all work a bit better. Gerrymandering. Good luck. Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From steveg at swhi.net Tue Feb 23 12:04:13 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:04:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net> <34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@S tevePC> <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> Message-ID: <24908.144.183.224.2.1266948253.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Michael Brian Bentley wrote: > The thread talks about taking the census data and changing the > district boundaries to reflect the new findings. My apologies. Because there was no "Re:" on the subject line of your message, and nothing quoted in it, and I guess because I wasn't paying much attention, I didn't realize it was in response to an existing thread at all. - Steve G From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Feb 23 17:28:45 2010 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:28:45 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: <20100223181259.GA4161@dminet.com> References: <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> <20100223181259.GA4161@dminet.com> Message-ID: >Gerrymandering. Good luck. > >Cheers, >-- > Dave Ihnat > ignatz at dminet.com Yeah. For example, leaving the Senate like it is, but having a House that was less geographic and more interest-oriented, would make that body more democratic republic and less geographic. So I would vote for, as my representative, someone restrained in military matters, liberal in tech and education, personal_rights/choice over legally constrained/life, instead of someone who has most of those aspects down, but happens to live within twenty miles from me. I am not sure I care where my rep lives on most issues likely to come up at that level of government. From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Feb 23 20:41:57 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:41:57 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] Californians! We Need You! In-Reply-To: References: <201002041544.o14FiKAd025570@mail.zarquon.net><34215BECFD68445482FED7CE88D2E224@StevePC> <26F6115B6FD14A8698AE901C2B109866@StevePC> Message-ID: <2FD08D95A3EE44E89A77B08E5BD79C0F@StevePC> OK, now that I've caught up a little . . . Michael Brian Bentley says: > I wondered, amusingly, if a geographically based election system is > influenced by...geography. AFAIK, at least at the Federal level (and I would bet at the state level in most states), the only voting boundaries that are still uninfluenced by political/demographic factors are the state lines themselves. (And of course historically at least some of them were also.) Voting rights law is really, really, complicated, and I claim no particular expertise in it. But both before and after the various Voting Rights Acts, district boundaries have been heavily influenced by demographics - before any such legislation, by demographics in the hands of the party bosses of the party in power, and since the legislation, the same thing with the addition of controls imposed by judges. > I think that if the election process were less geographic and more > representative, it would all work a bit better. Better in what sense? You mean that districts should be shaped so as to contain a cross-section of the political spectrum? On a large-scale basis, if that could be done really well, it would mean that whatever party has the numerical majority over a large area - even if only by a small margin - would have a small majority in *every* included smaller area, and thus total domination. And with the fickleness of the American people, that could mean, for instance, that one year the Democrats have a majority of 51% to 49% in almost all districts, and thus near 100% of Congress - and when they screw up, as of course any large majority will, the next election could be exactly the reverse. I'm not saying the current system is good, but I don't know what would be better about any attempt to equally spread voting blocks among voting districts. (This is what is generally known as "vote dilution" and was one of the things gerrymandering was originally for.) > with all the checks and balances that go into that process to keep > the majority from always steamrolling the minority, What checks and balances are those? - Steve G PS - I have no reason to think a citizens' group will be any better at this than the politicians, unfortunately. PPS - My main contact with gerrymandering is that I was interviewed for college by one Elbridge T. Gerry (IV or V or something).