MORE BS. Be sure to read the posts from Techs about the article

1. Internet Armageddon?

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?90884:438784

A two month investigation by Sm@rt Partner exposes the truth about the Internet: underneath this sweeping digital panorama is a dirty, little secret--the infrastructure that has become the backbone of e-commerce and a focal point for most businesses is unpredictable, unstable and, in some cases, unsustainable. Find out why, here.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Answers

Name: Mike Craig Location: Maryland Occupation: Program Manager Can anyone spell Y2K? Why is the computer industry so full of fear mongers (people who do nothing to contribute to technology usefullness other than spread fear? Is spreading fear the greatest way to make a living or what? So far, in my 20 plus years, I have been warned that all computers will crash due to uncontrollable viruses, applications will cease to word due to non-standards, and the world will end at midnight, 2000. So far I am still busy working hard provideing solutions to customers. You are busy spreading false fear. Go figure.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Ahh we have a President who is Head of FEAR Incorporated. Does fear sell? Go ask a Bush Zombie if it do.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

I gotta chuckle, Doc. You're like a rabid dog when it comes to politics. Curious though, why you feel the need to inject yet another of your political opinions into a non-political thread such as this one. To coin a phrase; Do try and stay on topic please ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004vb5

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Topic is fear and has a reference to Y2k. The energy behind a Dubya is the same exact energy which drove the ridiculous Y2k deal. Even have the exact same faces supporting the guy.

How many more facts will it take CD, for even one Bush Zombie to even waffle in their support of Dubya? Have an entire thread from them stating their "mild" support is based on the choice of lesser evils round here. Pretty lame when you consider most of these same folks are rabid Bush supporters. Lesser of 2 evils? hardly, ridiculous is what that is. Their replies are an insult.

Poole wants to know how it possible Gore lost Tenn? See FundiMeme angle for your clue.

Bush detractors are summarily tarred and feathered, or mocked as CPR did here. Cherri is laughed off as a kook. I am called all manner of names. The hardcore memes usually reduce the conversation to a personal level. Many threads involve normally clear posters having to ask "did you even read what I wrote?", or the ever popular "now you are telling me what I said or meant?".

Y2k maybe dead, the Meme ain't. This has ZERO to do with partisanship or even Politics frankly. It is about a meme.

GW Bush is about making America into some Fundi-Christian Nightmare. Like Y2k, we have a whole colony of profiteers riding along the meme. Y2k had Mike Adams, Dubya has Enron.

There is no reasoning with the memes. No amount of evidence will sway them. Take for example Unions. To these freaks, Unions are plain EVIL. It would not matter what evidence one presented. What facts, whatever. Bottonline is to a Fundi, it don't matter and the issue is closed.

Problem most of us have is we are talking with memes. Democrats have not a snowballs chance in hell of ever accomplish anything until they fully understand what it is exactly they are trying to reason with. Until a clear understanding of the Fundamental Christian perspective is understood, little will make any sense. Bush is about Fundi agenda. All flows from this. If you think otherwise, return to square one and retrace where you figured differently.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Remarks by Condoleezza Rice at Partnership For Critical Infrastructure Annual Meeting

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

How to read between the Bush Bullshit

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

CRs a "threat" ? Get real, the leader died, his son-in-law Gary Duct Tape North disgraced them after being told by CR leaders that he was absolutely wrong about Y2k and NOBODY listens to their WEIRD BULL SHIT.

The answer to CRs? As Paul T. writes below: PUT ASIDE CHILDISH THINGS (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT 1/2 of CRs pitches are.

LINK

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/comofage.htm

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

SAMPLE

1. Humankind Come of Age
2. The Age of Prematurity

1. Humankind Come of Age

Humankind has come of age. The end of childhood has come, a new era has begun. It is the era of the God who does not require worship from religion, but in 'spirit and truth', the era of humankind come of age, who through religion dies to religion that it might live honestly. It is the waking from sleep, the shaking off of dreams as the new reality dawns. The comforts of childhood have given way to the emerging consciousness of adulthood. The parental gods cannot punish us, no bolt from heaven will strike us, we are free.

While we were young we were told stories, cosmologies, cosmogonies, myths, legends, epics. And like the young we believed them. But now that we have come of age, we have put away childish acceptance. With no easy answers about which traditions to keep and which to discard, we tentatively feel our way along. From some we breathe a sigh of relief--Good riddance!--others we find of much value, still others we keep not being sure about. But this is the price of freedom, the price of responsibility, the price of being alive, of coming of age: no simple answers, some mistakes are terrible, sometimes we are wronged, our own selves we deceive. The journey is uncertain, perilous, wondrous, ecstatic. The journey is alive, we are alive. This is to where we have come, the dawn of a new creation, with all its promises and perils, freedoms and responsibilities.

This global coming of age mirrors the uncertainty of our own individual coming of age. Growth accelerated in many areas at once, and suddenly we were children no more. Although not yet mature, we were thrown upon our own resources, struggling to take responsibility for our actions while still trying to understand them. Returning to the securities of childhood was impossible, come what may, we had to grow through the changes. Humankind has likewise been thrust into its maturity, and must come to terms with its coming of age.

The challenges before us are daunting: We stand at the brink of the greatest species extinction the planet has ever known, at our hand; of ecological collapse and cataclysmic climatic upheaval; of tribalism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This our inheritance to our children.

Just as when we look back upon the many foolish mistakes of our youth and wonder how we could have possibly grown through the challenges, this must be our hope for the future. May the earth be forgiving of our mistakes. But if we persist? Is there anything to look forward to but krisis? Each of us have met many personal upheavals in our own lives. Now we must meet these challenges for our species and for our planet, heeding the call deeper than even religion, as humankind comes of age.

The New Cosmos

Humanity's conception of God, the cosmos, and itself has profoundly changed forever. 'God' has moved from being the God of a particular earth species to the God of all life everywhere in the universe. The 'world' has moved from being the ground and its environs to an expanse so inconceivable we are reduced to an atom's atom. Humankind has moved from being a special creation designed in the image of God to life evolving toward an unimaginable future.

The paradigm of religious fundamentalism was the primary paradigmatic repository for humankind's experience and guidance in its premature age. But it can no longer contain the length, breadth, and depth of humanity's knowledge, growth, and experience. The premature paradigm of religious fundamentalism has been completely outgrown as humankind finds itself existing in nothing less than a whole new reality. This 'new wine' of reality cannot be contained in the old 'wineskin' of fundamentalism. When this is tried, the new wine bursts the wineskin, and both the insights of our coming of age, and the insights embedded in previous worldviews, are ruined. Humanity's coming of age requires new paradigms appropriate to its matured awareness.

Our great religious traditions can be likened to the poetry of the infinite. Like every great poem, they cannot be altered without doing irreparable harm to the whole, and to each and every part. So the integrity of the poem is jealously guarded, as it should be. But the exquisiteness of the expression, the preciousness of the form, must not be elevated above what it esteems, must not capture and destroy what it cherishes and celebrates. The form is not absolute, it expresses I AM WHO I AM, I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE in concrete and absolute form. Our great religious traditions should be appreciated, cherished, and preserved for their profound metaphysical insights. But fundamentalist paradigms must be frankly, openly, and resolutely discarded. Religious fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

Humankind's coming of age has thrust it into maturity whether it be ready or no. It has shattered the underlying selfism, the anthropocentrism, that has largely pervaded and constituted humankind's perception of reality. Humankind is at the threshold of the boundaries between old anthropocentric paradigms, and the future paradigms of its coming of age.

Prior to the Copernican revolution, our kosmos, the Greek word for 'world', was the earth, water, and sky. And this world was 'the creation'. In the Near Eastern cosmology the Western religions inherited, the stars and galaxies were bits of light embedded in a revolving dome extending a few kilometers above the earth. This worldview created many of the present characteristics of Western monotheism: the paternal god, anthropic concern and fuss, the designer, the all-seeing eye looking down from heaven, king and supreme ruler, tribal loyalty, 'man' created in God's 'image', a 'word of God' as a published and irrevocable proclamation of the monarch, etc. But this worldview has been entirely superseded. Our whole way of looking at the world, realities taken for granted for eons, have suddenly been discarded. And we are left having to understand and consolidate these experiences into new paradigms consonant with the new reality of our increased and matured awareness. To turn back to the false certainties of previous ethoes and the false securities of religious orthodoxies would be to simply abandon our coming of age, a threshold we must cross in either the pain of maturity or the pain of regression.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

[Doc] "Ahh we have a President who is Head of FEAR Incorporated. Does fear sell? Go ask a Bush Zombie if it do."

[CD] "Curious though, why you feel the need to inject yet another of your political opinions into a non-political thread such as this one. To coin a phrase; Do try and stay on topic please ;-)

[Doc] " Topic is fear and has a reference to Y2k. The energy behind a Dubya is the same exact energy which drove the ridiculous Y2k deal."

LOL, Doc. Al-D would be proud'a ya.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

See summary at bottom of this page...http://www.politicalamaz on.com/cr.html

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Someone should buy a vowel and fast. GWB WILL SURVIVE ALL THE CRITICS. SO WILL HIS LAST MAJOR FOE: Robo and the minor one: Consumer Man.

AND AMERICA WILL SURVIVE THEM ALL........AND THEIR SUCCESSORS.

THE LAST "GREAT PRESIDENT" WAS PROBABLY HARRY S. TRUMAN. MEDIOCRITY SPAWNED BY TV AND MASS MEDIA AND BIG BUCKS HAVE RULED SINCE THEN (LBJ EXCEPTED because he had some credentials which didn't do much good after he blundered in Vietnam).

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM HAS SURVIVED 200 YEARS OF EVERY KIND OF ABUSE FROM MORONS IN ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND WILL PROBABLY LAST UNTIL GWB IS OUT OF OFFICE AND REPLACED BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE whether GOP or "them".

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT......YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA or the FOUNDING CREDOS.

WE SURVIVED.........REAGAN...(AND SURPRISE...I NEVER BELIEVED THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT (OF ANYTHING BUT THE ACTOR'S UNION)) **HOW WE SURVIVED REAGAN** WHO HAD TO READ FROM CUE CARDS TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT STATEMENT..... is a tribute to the fact that since 1952 NO SINGLE MAN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE "SYSTEM" and the PEOPLE RUN THE SYSTEM HERE REGARDLESS OF THE ETERNAL SPAM FROM FRUITCAKES WHO MUMBLE ABOUT "Rulers" or "The Conspiracy" or "BIG BUSINESS".

CRs are not a BLIP. NOT EVEN A Sneeze in Times Sq. at Midnight New Years Eve. They make noise amoungst themselves to insure that they are not asleep. They are the classic "bear shitting in the woods". Does anyone pay attention to a Fruit Loop like "big dog" with his now daily rants on his own web site instead of periodic snipes with the other BARKING DOGS?

When GN first surfaced in y2k on the tech lists, I researched him and discovered web sites much like the one above. It lead to my exposing him in 1997 on de Jager's list with "Tell us Dr. North, who are you?" some 30ks of quotes of his long record of LUNATIC IDEAS. He posted maybe 5 times in 3 years after that while retreating to his own web site and the censored 'general discussions' from y2kchaos.com (still alive with the same loonies pre-y2k 'crisis".

IDIOT DEBUNKER DID IT BETTER IN ONE PAGE WITH "GARY NORTH IS A BIG FAT MORON".

There was on in particular that was written by a gay man who knew what the Theology was all about. When I outlined for him what North was doing, he emailed me in effect: "Who cares? They are old news. Even the Far Right doesn't pay attention to Rushdoony or the Tyler Group (North's group).". He kept the site going merely as a resource. He was wrong as were many others about GN's ability to rouse the Loony elements vis a vis Y2k.

However, for all the noise and attention Duct Tape got, it was accompanied by "people holding their noses". And THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC **REALLY** WORKS....(NOT HOW SOME 'THINK' IT WORKS) KNOW THAT THE .......CENTRAL TENSION BETWEEN THE FORCES OF DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLICAN REPREESTATION VIEWS AIDED BY THE "CHECKS AND BALANCES"......KNOW.......AND CAN DEMONSTRATE .......DAILY........

THAT AMERICA GOES ON NO MATTER WHAT. NEITHER BUSH NOR albore......nor even NADER could EVER,EVER do anything that could not be "set straight" and rectified rapidly IF THE PEOPLE WILL IT.

This is not Russia or China or the Vatican where PROPAGANDA insures The Rulers a certain amount of "continuity". ASK THE CREEP IN YUGOSLAVIA how it feels to be lead away to jail and probably Execution for offending the World's sense of RIGHT AND WRONG. AMERICA was part of the alliance that ended him. AND....neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton can be faulted for what they did in that regard or with IRAQ and others.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Oooooo.....Classic Reuben. I did so miss this. Odd how I'm coming from The Other Side now, though.

...REAGAN** WHO HAD TO READ FROM CUE CARDS TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT STATEMENT...

Funny how history repeats itself.

...REGARDLESS OF THE ETERNAL SPAM FROM FRUITCAKES WHO MUMBLE...

Does your statement also cover the FRUITCAKES who insist on posting in ALL CAPS?

...REPUBLICAN REPREESTATION VIEWS AIDED BY THE "CHECKS AND BALANCES"......KNOW.......AND CAN DEMONSTRATE .......DAILY........THAT AMERICA GOES ON NO MATTER WHAT...

Except when the system of "CHECKS AND BALANCES" is, itself, a PARTISAN ENTITY, then "Houston, We Have A Problem".

This is not Russia or China or the Vatican where PROPAGANDA insures The Rulers a certain amount of "continuity".

Nope, this is George W. Bush's America "where PROPAGANDA insures The Rulers a certain amount of "continuity"".

Your protestations to the contrary, CRs and Fundies now have quite a voice in how the US of A is ruled. You can deny, deny, deny all you want, Charlie, but one of these days you will wake up (I still hold out hope for you).

Call me an optimist.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

With Bill and Al running things, Tom Atlee and Dougie could not BUY A VOWELL. Little twirps like Garee and Co had Bennett and Armey by the balls.

Time to awake folks. Time to understand you been dicked professionally. You have been fed so many oughtright lies few of ya have any clue where the truth maybe hidin.

But don't let me stop ya. You know what ya know.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

It must be something about desert air that weakens brains. I noticed the same sort of thing in Santa Fe.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

CLASSIC: Your protestations to the contrary, CRs and Fundies now have quite a voice in how the US of A is ruled. You can deny, deny, deny all you want, Charlie, but one of these days you will wake up (I still hold out hope for you). AND .......YOU, OF COURSE, "Get It"?? As in "G.I."?

BOTH OF YOU ARE ABSORBING FAR TOO MUCH INTERNET CRAP ala: Cherri.

PITY.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

And methinks you're breathing entirely too much Dallas (Texas) Smog, my dear; but I digress.

Please, feel free to "debunk" anything I've written, especially the part that you chose to reprint, yet to which you did not reply (save for the requisite "Right-Wing-Personal-Attack-Because-One- Doesn't-Have-A-Valid-Response"). What do you consider The Federalist Society? Are their more influential members not now the oversight committee for Federal judiciary appointees? Or The Heritage Foundation? Are their more influential members not now thinly- veiled "advisors" to the administration (or at least the pResident and his Daddy)? Are each of these groups not steeped in the notion that the U.S. of A. is a christian nation and should be governed as such? Are each of these groups not chock-full of right- wing "christian moralists"?

You also have yet to address how you can consider Al Gore a "liberal mouthpiece" when his platform was just as conservative as Shrub's (only Gore's math was better).

You also have yet to address the partisan "checks and balances" I mentioned.

You also have yet to address Shrub's requiring of "cue cards" in order to make an intelligent statement. (Did you miss last week's "press conference"? ROTFLMAO! No wonder there won't be any more.)

You also have yet to address Doc's point of why the likes of Atlee and Dr. Doo Doo and The Paula (all "liberals" according to you) didn't have the ear of a so-called "liberal administration".

But most of all, I'd like to know why you can't seem to actually defend Shrub, instead attacking either Gore (?!?!) or Doc or some long-gone Y2K "figure". And now me.

Again, I'm not holding my breath here; you become strangely silent when someone calls your bluff.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

I don't "address" points just because someone posts them. Most of the crap posted online needs not be "addressed". And unlike most mere mortals, I do not need confirmation or refutation from others about issue that have little or no impact on my life nor the lives of others OR......issue that no matter what I believe or feel or think, I can do nothing about. In short, I am most happy to be non- political.

Why anyone would bother trying to accumulate and then redistribute an endless and most boring collection of "snippets" about either albore or GWB or the Family Clintstone is beyond me.

AFTER ALL, THEY DON'T SEEM TO DO IT TO YOU. I can't seem to remember any statements from GWB about either you or DP.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Charles- THAT was the best damn commentary on the subject of "talk politics" I've ever read. I have been searching for the right words to describe my feelings and you absolutely nailed it for me.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Why anyone would bother trying to accumulate and then redistribute an endless and most boring collection of "snippets" about either Gary North or Ed Yourdon or the Y2k is beyond me.

You are correct Charlie, we need more posts pitching the latest buggy adware from MS..IE6.01678 was it? Hell more shit that directly affects us like them Pew surveys of braindead AOL(oxymoron?) users on FBI surviellance. That is what I yearn for. Crap that gets a conversation going! gets the neurons firing!

CD, what ya drinking?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

CD,

Yeah, that was pretty well-said. I personally don't believe that Reagan was QUITE that dumb (provided he had his nap every afternoon[g]). But in all, I pretty much agreed, too.

Well said, Charlie.

Patricia,

Whoever recommends the judges, they still have to make it through the Senate, which is split 50-50, remember? Both sides are anxious to increase that margin in the next election, so they're going to be very sensitive to what their constituents think, too.

No one seems to recall that Robert Bork made it through the American Bar Association vetting process, only to be rejected by the Senate. So was Clarence Thomas, who WAS approved -- but only barely. So were Renquist, Scalia, Ginsburg, Stephens, and all the rest.

Blaming any of these appointments on the President is silly. I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Senate of the United States which has the final say-so over whether that person wears the robe and sits on the bench.

If Dubya nominates someone whom you REALLY dislike and distrust, simply contact your Senators and tell them that you won't vote for them if they approve that candidate. Tell your friends and neighbors to do the same. Protest. Git nekkid ... well, OK, that's going a bit far (we leave that stuff to Caldicott and Carmichael[g) ... but you get the idea.

(In my case, gettin' nekkid would be considered Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare in one not-so-neat package.[g])

But that's how the system works.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Hey Poole, Charlie said IT DON'T MATTER.

Course you knew all this since ya dug his rant and all, silly me.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

This is not Russia or China or the Vatican where PROPAGANDA insures The Rulers a certain amount of "continuity". ASK THE CREEP IN YUGOSLAVIA how it feels to be lead away to jail and probably Execution for offending the World's sense of RIGHT AND WRONG. AMERICA was part of the alliance that ended him. AND....neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton can be faulted for what they did in that regard or with IRAQ and others.

http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document- 4.3.2001.1.html

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Charlie (and CD), while I respect your right to think of yourselves as "non-political" on these fora, the fact of the matter remains that it's not entirely true. How else do you Charlie's pontificating on the "virtues" of our current Admin. vs. "albore" -- not political at all, eh? How else do you explain CD's attempts at refutation of many of Cherri's posts on Unk's; not political at all, eh?

But for you, Charlie, to sit there and say that you won't discuss "...issue that have little or no impact on my life nor the lives of others OR......issue that no matter what I believe or feel or think, I can do nothing about..." is just mind-blowing on so many levels.

And not a little disingenuous. After all, you had no problem extolling the "virtues" of GWB PRIOR to the selection, did you? You had no problem extolling the "badness" of "albore", did you? And now that push has come to shove, and "your guy" is making a royal mess of just about anything and everything he "touches", suddenly you're "non-political"?

You lecture incessantly about how much your Big Brain knows about Government (and everything else), yet when you're called on it (as I have a number of times), you retreat to the "I'm non-political" cover.

Bullshit. You make everyone else answer for their words; now it's YOUR TURN.

If you aren't going to answer for your lectures, keep them to yourself. Not every one of us "mere mortals" is impressed by your Big Brain, or your Big Mouth. IOW, I'm calling you on it, Charlie, just as you did to so many during the Y2K "debate". Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does it feel to be backed into a corner?

Put up or shut up, Charlie. That's what it comes down to.

There must be some out there simply ROTFLTAO at this little scenario -- and rightfully so. Oh, but of course you couldn't care less about that.

As to your last line (in bold, nonetheless), well nanny-nanny boo-boo to you too. Some "big brain" there.

Nice of you to jump on the bandwagon, Stephen, and give me an un-needed civics lesson. Perhaps you can take a minute to go back and re-read my post for the true meaning of what I was saying.

Perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm pretty damn tired of you all painting me and Doc and Anita and Cherri and Paul into these neat little boxes you've constructed. And when we don't quite fit and call you all on your bullshit, this is the result. You simply refuse to address the actual issues we raise, instead addressing (as in "attacking") US; attacking our intellects as perceived by you. You nit-pick at one thing you deem "incorrect", or you paint yourselves as "non-political" and run away.....run away.

You want to know the REAL DIFFERENCE between "liberals" and you people? We care about you. You, OTOH, couldn't give a damn about anyone beyond your little sphere, your "religions" notwithstanding.

I'd rather be painted as a liberal, thank you very much. WE are the true "compassionate" ones.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Patricia,

I didn't intend to give you a "civics lesson," and if it sounded like I was patronizing you, I apologize.

(In fact, I decided a while back that you are one of the most intelligent people I've ever met.)

Call it not a "lesson;" consider it say ... a reminder. I was trying to make a point, which I shall now (briefly; I'm tired!) expand.

When Carter came into office, his opponents wailed and moaned that he would destroy this country. When Reagan came into office, his opponents did the same. Same for Bush, for Clinton and now for Bush, Jr.

I've been listening to these high-pitched moans and dire warnings for most of my adult life. Inference, supposition, speculation based on shadowy associations? The Web is filled with them. And I discount ALL of them.

(Did I not say this -- in my usual too-verbose detail -- at the old Roost?)

What counts, at the end of the day, is what happens. NOT what "could" happen, not what "I am afraid will happen:" how the thing turns out in the end.

I DO happen to believe that our system of government, the only TRUE Republic on the planet, is fundamentally sound. While I certainly agree that Big Business has influence out of proportion, I don't think they "run the show."

(The very fact that Microsoft, the richest corporation in America with LIQUID ASSETS sufficient to buy entire state governments, was finally brought to heel by Da System shows that.)

And just for the record, THAT'S where I agreed with CPR: the system is sound, We Will Survive, and the cries of "Dubya's gonna kill us all!" are NO DIFFERENT TO ME than the SAME IDENTICAL CRIES from all the Clinton bashers over the past 8 years.

Now, if you want to thump Charlie for "changing his tune" and stuff like that, that's different matter.

Actually, I'm getting tired of politics. I'm ready to get back to being my usual cynical, curmudgeony self. It's time for Dweezilor to make a reappearance, I think. :)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Stephen, I don't think the "world" (or in this case, the "country") is going to end. We survived St. Reagan; I'm fairly certain we can survive the pResident moron (though his actions in his first 75 days are about the most boneheaded I can remember; I don't think I can recall ANY other president breaking as many campaign promises in so short a time).

BUT.....(you knew that was coming).....what CONCERNS me (and if you look back to what I wrote it is quite a VALID concern) is that any judge even PERCEIVED to be "left-leaning" will not even MAKE IT to the Senate. They have to pass through THE FEDERALISTS FIRST.

NOW do you see what I was trying to say?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

No, because your view of how "Judges" get to be judges is in error. And you seem to have forgotten how even FDR was stopped when he tried to "Pack the Court". On top of everything else, something strange happens once a Lawyer becomes a "Judge for life" especially at the Supreme Court level. Nobody could predict how Earl Warren or Felix Frankfurter would behave before they went to the SC. And it was the Conservatives who screamed "impeach Earl Warren" (at least the Loony Bin types lead by the JBS in their big money making effort). Lots of Lawyers want to be Judges but a great deal more do not want to be. AND.....those who don't do not want incompetent Yo-Yos deciding cases they will be Litigating. So the Non Judges sit on Screening Committees and local "Review Boards" to screed the marble headed ones out. Some cities even have local Voluntary Committees "for Good Government" and Dallas has one for "Good Judges".

Its surprising you don't understand this process..... because the Italo-Americans of NYC have a long tradition of trying to make sure that at least one of their Lawyer Sons becomes a Judge. (This was useful for aceing out the Jewish In Laws who bragged about their Son, the Doctor.)

Just as Ashcroft's defenders showed that he had voted for many liberal Minority Judges over the years, the reverse is true of the most Left leaning Pols who swallow their "whatever" and vote for the Conservatives because they are TRADING OFF votes for something else. That is just the Fed. level. Before that Local BAR Politics and tradeoffs more or less get you a demographic representative slice on the Benches.

It is imperative to understand however, that few JERKS (real jerks not media painted ones) of any style get past the screening committees for the Fed and Supreme Ct. Plums. Many of those appointments were open and left open for YEARs because the assorted forces simply could not produce Quality Candidates who wanted the Jobs.

Not all Screening Committees are perfect and a lot of potentially good Judges do turn out to be jerks after they get their robes, others get premature Senility and a few end up like Judge Judy or the inverse, Ed Koch.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Once again because apparently I haven't written this CLEARLY enough.....

This is my CONCERN. And it is a VALID CONCERN in light of the tenet/credo/reason for living/whatever-the-hell-you-want- to-call-it of the Federalists. See their Who We Are page for a clue.

They are simply ECSTATIC that they now have a "brethren" occupying the White House. Why do you suppose that might be?

Again, this may be just fine and dandy by you, but it is definitely NOT fine and dandy by me.

Go figure -- a dissenting opinion.

Please don't lecture me on procedures. And if you want to be "surprised" by how much you think I "don't know", go talk to Flint.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Flint Who?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Patricia, Daggone it, I just can't help it. I must be a lemming. OK, I went to that link and read "Who We Are." Tell me exactly what you find wrong with this statement? I've highlighted those comments that I strongly agree with.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

Now, liberals could get nervous about the "traditional values" thing, I s'pose, but what's wrong with the rest of it? What "problem" do you have with it?

Once again, I'm not trying to raise a ruckus, I'm genuinely curious.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Bork is on the thing, what don't YOU get Poole?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Fair enough.

To begin, I have a real problem with the following convenient "label": Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society.

Who says such an "orthodox[y]" "advocates a centralized and uniform society"? Isn't that, in fact, what the Federalists hope to do? Yet once again, it is labeled "liberal" (as in A Four-Letter Word), despite what this "mission statement" goes on to state.

Next up: While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

Again, says who? The LAW is supposed to be IMPARTIAL; not RIGHT- THINKER-LEANING. The LAW is supposed to treat everyone EQUALLY, not just those who can afford the best lawyers.

Frankly, there's no contest here; "LIBERAL-THINKERS" take EVERYONE into consideration. The same cannot be said of the right.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.

No, they are "interested in the current state of the legal order" AS THEY SEE IT, which doesn't necessarily correspond with HOW IT IS.

It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

No, it is their intent to state what the law SHOULD BE. That is QUITE CLEAR from their membership rolls. You can put anything you want into print under the heading of "mission statement" and it doesn't matter a damn.

The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.

Yes, I have a HUGE PROBLEM with "traditional values" because they mean "traditional values" AS THEY SEE THEM TO BE. They would "reorder priorities" AS THEY SEE THEM TO BE, not as the MAJORITY sees them to be.

It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

IOW, they would re-write HOW the law is taught in ACADEMIA. Can you say "thought control"?

In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community

IOW, they've infiltrated everywhere.

Why this DOESN'T make YOU nervous is not actually beyond my scope. You aren't nearly the "moderate" you claim to be. Anita's right; you need to change your party registration, Stephen. Admitting it to yourself is the first step.

Tell me something, Stephen. You and Charlie are probably the worst offenders when it comes to using the word "liberal" as a four- letter word. Do tell me what "offends" you so much about a group of people whose main purpose is to obtain EQUAL AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE?

I'll tell you what "offends" you so much; you have been brainwashed into thinking "liberal" is A VERY BAD THING. As I've told you before, the word "liberal" has been completely bastardized by the right. And despite your protestations, we have the Rush Limbaughs and the Great Republican Propaganda Machine to thank for that.

I'd suggest turning off even your own radio station, but I doubt it would do any good.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

"Charlie (and CD), while I respect your right to think of yourselves as "non-political" on these fora, the fact of the matter remains that it's not entirely true." --- "How else do you explain CD's attempts at refutation of many of Cherri's posts on Unk's; not political at all, eh?"

Afternoon, Patricia. Thought I'd try to correct an ongoing misconception you seem to be laboring under...

First of all, It's clear to me that we have differing opinions on the definition of "political" as it would pertain to a person's character. In my opinion, you seem to have a much broader interpretation of the word than do I. My definition of "political" is apparently much narrower than yours and would require attributes which, contrary to what you have been assuming [see below], can not be ascribed to me.

I would suggest there is a danger in using too broad a definition. It makes it too easy to catagorize people and (to borrow your expression) place them in a box they don't fit. For example, in my opinion, your claim that I am "political" would be analogous to labeling my mother a "sports fan" because she once sat through a televized football game. Granted, she made a number of comments during the game and was particularly vocal when she witnessed some unfair tactics which resulted in unsportsman-like conduct penalties. But despite the fact that she made these occasional comments about the game, she really couldn't care less about football or any other sport. Based on her few comments, could we even remotely consider her a "sports fan"? Not hardly.

Moving on... I'm glad to see you've toned down the accusations aimed in my direction [see Chelsea-Jenna thread] but I see there still remains a misperception revolving around my comments posted to Cherri's threads.

To start with, out of the 1000s of political posts written either here or at Unk's (hundreds of which were Cherri's), you could probably count on one hand how many times you've seen my name. Out of those very few comments posted by me, not once will you find me actually "arguing" politics. You will however, find comments made by me on Cherri's threads which either poked fun [see Cherri's Rush Limbaugh song parody thread] or which pointed out what I perceived as blatant hypocricies behind her methods. Regardless of how you or others might interpret it, that *is* the motivation and intent behind any of my posts to Cherri. (And, believe it or not, I wouldn't have "bothered" if I held no respect for her.) They aren't "about" politics. If you take the time to re-read any of them with this in mind, you will hopefully see it in a different light. If nothing else, you will find a complete absence of anything from me which could legitimately be considered "arguing" (or even discussing) a political point of view. If you (or Cherri) can point me to an exception I would be genuinely surprised and I would be more than willing to take back what I have just written. Ultimately it matters not though, because the fact remains; as pointed out in my analogy, one or two comments does not a "political" person make.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Fair enough, and as I have a number of times before, I once again apologize for mis-"labeling" you.

Points well-taken.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Sheesh... I come back to the computer with clenched teeth and all puffed-up to wage battle and I get THIS!!!... An apology and a compliment on how my points were well taken!?!? Do you have any idea how deflating that is!? Now what the hell am I going to babble on about!? (Where's Doc when I need him!?)

Thanks, Patricia. Appreciated.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

John Randle gone...Chris Dishman gone...

Geesh can it get any worse on the D-side, CD?

I expect you to remain in de-nile on this. To change the subject to Moss, or getting Reed back. But face facts, CD, Minni sucks!

Well smartypants, have a reply? didn't think so.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

I'm rollin' on the floor here, Doc! That was hilarious!

(And, sadly, all too true.)

Thanks, I needed that laugh.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Patricia,

My turn to say "sigh." I ask a simple question out of curiosity, and I get a tirade.

I didn't say that I agreed with everything in that statement. I highlighted that part that I DID agree with. I simply wanted a friendly discussion because I was interested in your opinion.

You took my question as an opportunity to launch into a diatribe about changing my political registration and ceasing to listen to the station(s) that I work for (which would be VERY hard to do, given my job!).

And believe me, there is an irony here.

You and Anita have both called me on using labels like "liberal" even though I have explained many times that (a) I acknowledge that labels are inherently inaccurate and that (b) I don't mean "liberal" in the same way as, say, Rush Limbaugh, anyway). You have said yourselves that labels are inaccurate, unfair and misleading.

The irony is, you and Anita seem terribly upset that I choose the label "Democrat." If labels don't necessarily and accurately describe someone's philosophy, why do you care so much? :)

Doc,

I think, at LONG last, that I've figured out your logic. It goes something like this:

Because I know a guy, have been seen with a guy, or work for a guy, or because a guy owns an interest my business, or because me and the guy appeared together at a conference somewhere or are members of the same organization, or because we occasionally exchange email, or etc., etc., I am like that guy (or just as guilty as that guy; same thing).

Right?

The funny thing is, under most circumstances, most "enlightened" people consider guilt by association to be a form of PREDJUDICE.

THAT'S the real reason why I stopped doing the "people and money behind Y2K" expose'. I realized that *I* was using guilt by association and decided to stop it.

Doesn't mean there weren't PLENTY of rogues in the bid'ness. Sure there were. But assuming that someone is a rogue just because he had a link to Gary North on his Website is *PREDJUDICE* and is the height of unfairness.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Stephen, it seems that you use the "Democrat" label with regards to yourself to try to show the rest of us how fair and middle-of-the- road you are.

But your posts speak a-whole-nother language (not that you aren't necessarily "fair", but you certainly aren't "middle-of-the-road").

It's not so much that it "matters" to ME, but it does seem to serve you well when you need it.

You asked me what could possibly be disagreeable about the Federalists' mission statement. So I told you. Sorry if it's not to your liking, but THEY aren't to MY liking and those are the reasons why. It absolutely amazes me that those who consider themselves conservative, Republican, right-leaning, whatever, are constantly whining and moaning about how the Damn Evil Liberals are taking away ALL of their "freedoms", yet they don't seem to see that the ones who TRULY want to take away their freedoms are the very people they support.

One of the inherent differences between the left and the right is that the left is INCLUSIVE. The right is EXCLUSIVE. The left wants YOU to be YOU. The right wants YOU to be THEM.

Astounding that this rather simple concept goes seemingly unnoticed.

Didn't mean it to sound like a diatribe, but you asked (bet you won't make THAT mistake again [g]).

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Instead of trolling for Doc, Poole. Tell all of us why Robert Bork is not the boring old extremist nut he is?

Well go ahead....

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Here is a website Poole to help you explain why Robert Dork and fellow dorks deserve even the time of day from me, have fun.

Bunch of freaking losers. Most ought shut the fuck up and drop dead.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

[One of the inherent differences between the left and the right is that the left is INCLUSIVE. The right is EXCLUSIVE. The left wants YOU to be YOU. The right wants YOU to be THEM.]

Stunning. This statement is precisely accurate except for the labels. To make it fully accurate, we just do a little search and replace, and we get:

"One of the inherent differences between my side and your side is that my side is INCLUSIVE. Your side is EXCLUSIVE. My side wants YOU to be YOU. Your side wants ME to be YOU."

There. Much better now. We can agree with this revised statement without reservation. From my libertarian viewpoint, the religious types are "your side", as are those who think a government program and a barrel of new laws are the solution to all problems.

But I have to laugh at the idea that Patricia's side is so inclusive that she's willing to accommodate drooling stooges like Bush. I haven't seen hide nor hair of this inclusivity from her yet, despite her preachments. Do you suppose she excludes those who aren't inclusive? I wonder how that works? Do you suppose it's possible that the real world isn't quite as binary as Patricia describes? Nahhh...

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Trish-ah,

Stephen, it seems that you use the "Democrat" label with regards to yourself to try to show the rest of us how fair and middle-of-the- road you are.

Erm ... no. I use it because that's what I am. Never forget, love, that I have never been the type of person who cares a great deal about what others THINK of me.

I've never denied being a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. There IS a difference between that and a right-wing Republican, which is why I don't use that label.

You seem to forget, too, that I'm not the only one, not by a long shot. The Democrats I named above are moderate to conservative (especially Bill Hefner).

(Again: I REALLY wish Jim Hunt would run for President.)

But ask me about any 10 "trigger" issues that are precious to Conservatives and the Christian Right, and I'll score on about 6 of them. I am strongly opposed to state-sponsored prayer in schools, making abortion illegal, teaching creationism as science in the classroom and letting HMOs kill people. Those positions ALONE keep me at odds with the Christian Righters. :)

(Like I've said before, I can't win. One side calls me liberal, the other calls me a right-winger.)

I've said before that I am VERY concerned about the "merger mania" that has been the rage for the past decade. Microsoft's business practices have bothered me for years, too. I'm glad the DOJ took them on. They can whine all they want about "innovation" and stuff, but as far as I'm concerned, they haven't had an original idea in 20 years. Just about every idea they've ever profited from, they've stolen from someone else.

The preceeding represents my opinion; your mileage may vary.[g]

On the courts? Yeah, I REEK of right-wing on that one. I agree with the highlighted statement above and I'll never deny it. The rest of it, I'd have to parse and hem and haw over, and this is already too long.

Tax cuts and tax reform? Yeah, I'm right wing there, too. I think the government shouldn't punish success. If someone becomes a billionaire, they'd be paying ten thousand times more tax than me even if we went to a flat rate, which is cool with me.

This is too long and I really am tired of repeating myself, and besides, Sandy's cooking smoked sausage and all other sorts of heart-killing, cholesterol-laden goodies for supper, and I judge that more important.

Life is good. :)

Doc,

I'll ignore the fact that Bork isn't the horned monster that his opponents have succeeding in painting him as. Instead, I'll just point out that there are plenty of other people on that committee besides Bork. One bad person doesn't ruin a whole group.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. You see one or two names that you don't like and say, "the whole thing is jookey and suckey and bad."

By your logic, I SHOULD cease to be a Democrat, because I have no use whatsoever for Snake-Head Carville, Dick "Plastic Soldier" Gephardt or Al Sharpton. Right?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Trish,

Thanks for acknowledging that I'm fair, too. I certainly try to be.

See my reply to Carlos' thread about Global Warming. I still say that sometimes you guys don't understand that I really do struggle with some of these issues.

And when I ask questions, I'm asking because I'm trying to shape my own opinion in some cases.

(And yeah, in other cases, it because I want to be a curmudgeon and disagree. Think I'll deny that?[g])

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Steven G. Calabresi National Co-Chairman, The Federalist Society

Professor Calabresi is a member of the faculty of the Northwestern University School of Law and is a graduate of the Yale Law School and of Yale College. He served as a Law Clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, and he also clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter. From 1985 to 1990, he served in the Reagan and Bush Administrations working both in the White House and before that in the U.S. Department of Justice. At different points he worked in President Reagan's Domestic Affairs Office, as a Speechwriter to Vice President Quayle, and as a Special Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese III. He also worked as a Research Associate for Judge Robert H. Bork on his national bestselling book The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. In 1982, Professor Calabresi co-founded The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies, a national organization of conservative lawyers and law students, and he has served as National Co-Chairman of the Society from that time to the present.

Calabresi on Ronnie Reagan

Today, twenty years after Mr. Reagan's inauguration, his vision is the predominant one throughout the world. Reaganite free market policies are on the ascendancy in the U.S., in Western and Eastern Europe, in Latin America, and even in Communist China. While much work is left to be done, it is fair to say that the Marxist ideas that were in vogue twenty years ago have now been left as Mr. Reagan said "on the ash heap of history." There can be no question that Mr. Reagan was one of the greatest visionaries since Lincoln to occupy the presidency of the United States.

Out of Order Yep it is all at this link. Guy is a radical nut pawning himself off as some constitutionalist.

Here, a peer, trys to make sense of the Fundi-babble of Calabresi

David M. McIntosh National Co-Chairman

MEMBER PROFILE David M. McIntosh (R) Indiana

Guy is a typical Repub. He is where he is by running against Clinton and not his opponent in the Indiana Congressional Race(what a surprise). He also does dirty tricks(doctoring documents to deceive) while preaching the standard BS that we need to get America honest again, blah blah. Labor gives this guy a ZERO rating, so do most consumer groups. What else does one need to know this guy is a paid rep for business? end of story.

So there you have it Poole, Borks buds at the Federalist Society. AS I said before, if Bork is in, count on the fix as well.

I will not even address your explanation of my logic since it is ridiculous. But do keep trying ;)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

How about some more Poole?

Calabresi(Director of the Federalist Society on Special Prosecutors

Some Structural Consequences of the Increased Use of Ethics Probes as Political Weapon in 11 Journal of Law and Politics 521 (1995). This article describes the harm done to the presidency, the judiciary, the congressional leadership and the nation as a whole by unaccountable scandal mongering ethics probers. I argue for the importance of using open, public fora, and the political process, when ethics probes are needed. I argue that the Independent Counsel statute is seriously flawed when evaluated by these criteria and that it raises a serious danger of leading to McCarthyite outcomes because of the lack of political accountability of the Independent Counsels themselves.

Take a look halfway down the page at what Calabresi thinks of Ken Starr's work and impeaching a President ---FOR LIFE--- based on scandal mongering ethics probers. I bet this creep would vote to FRY Clinton if he could weasel the "laws" into existence.

Guys is a freaking Political Hack, Hypocrite and lying disrespectful egomaniac who will do whatever it takes to promote Calabresi. He could give a flying f*ck about anything else, period.

Federalist Society? gesh give me a freaking break.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

You know, it doesn’t seem to matter WHAT I say, Flint. You’ll find something wrong with it anyway. If it’s not WHAT I say, it’s HOW I say it; or it’s my APPROACH; or it’s my SOURCES.

You almost always find SOMETHING to bitch about. (There is that exception on the other thread. Stop the world; I want to get off.) I can’t keep posting the same explanations to you over and over and over….. You say that I see things that aren’t there. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe YOU don’t see things that ARE there? No, I don’t suppose it has.

You honestly believe you're looking at things objectively, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Yet, you positively will NOT allow that of anyone else. It's impossible to have a discussion when the ground rules are exclusively YOURS.

You don’t WANT to see my side of this. You don't want to see ANYONE'S side of ANYTHING but your OWN.

I'm sure we'll continue this nonsense somewhere down the road (again). Bur for now, I (once again) give up. You win (again). Congratulations (again).

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Maybe Splint would care to comment on the Kosovo information buried in this expansive thread? Or is aggravation is goal?

Funny,,,the information contained in said link makes the Monica thing look like a grain of sand at the beach. Wonder why the silence by the RightWing detractors?

Here is information which basically says Clinton and pals started a War over a fabrication(how they sold it to us). Was he just "fooled" by bad information? Assume he was, then what does one make of an organization such as Human Rights Watch which all but floated complete Fiction to the World about massacres at Racak? They had interviews? Ya and so does the Weekly World News have documentation.

Who is HRW? Oh just your average Foundation tax scheme shell run by guys who give speeches at the Council on Foreign Relations, financied by the poor old American Taxpayer. Guys who went to school where ALL these crooks do, YALE. Guys who used to run publishing houses like Random House. This but info gleaned in 10 minutes using google.com What horrors lay uncovered?

At what point was BillC going to come clean on Kosovo and tell the world he had been fed BS? That the NATO bombing of OIL infrastructure did not yield any murderers? That these targets killed way more innocents than even fabricated massacres in abandoned villages controlled by drug running mercevaries left over from Contra initiatives.

At what point did GW Bush decide he too would just "play games" in Kosovo even though many of the reasons for such have been exposed as pure baloney? Genocide? maybe, and it does not take much to understand it be Western Bombs which has done the damage. Did GW even decide? Do any of these people decide shit?

What in the hell is going on People? Is Kosovo about who will control access to Caspian Sea OIL Fields? Where the pipelines will be laid? I have read stuff saying exactly that. Gist is the West cannot allow this OIL to flow thru Iran and be controlled by the Russians. Thus the Balkans Operation by the West(NATO-USA).

I would submit orgs like Human Rights Watch but slimy fronts for Mobil-Exxon/BP Amoco and the OIL folks who basically run the freaking world. What many of us think of as legitimate seperate issues are really about OIL guys fighting for marketshare and supply. Bin Laden? oh give me a freaking break.

If you ever wanted to understand just how UN PRESS like THE press really is, this story is it. They are not Liberal. Hell they are not even a Press. What they are is mouthpieces for MultiNational Corporations...end-of-story.

But do continue to bicker Splint. TPTB are counting on the good folks of this nation to remain polarized and asleep to the truth. To spend our time debating BlowJobs and bad TeeVee appearances.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001