Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

pudge (1)

pudge
  (email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)

I run this joint, see?

Journal of pudge (1)

Friday May 17, 2002
06:10 AM

Politicalamity

[ #4993 ]

The Democrats are annoying me. First they get mad that Bush is giving away to donors, amongst other pictures, a picture of himself taken on September 11. I cannot for the life of me figure out, from their words or from a careful examination, what is unreasonable or wrong about that. This is how politics works: you show your good side. On September 11 and in the aftermath, he did a good job. So what?
Now they are launching an investigation into why Bush didn't release information from August about the possibility of terrorist hijackings. Maybe it is because they had no specific information and they get information like that all the time. Hell, on September 16, five days after the attack, Cheney announced in an interview that they had this information, so it's not like they kept it a secret until now.
Attacking Bush for real problems is one thing, but just making stuff up is annoying. They seriously need to get a life.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • if they're gonna win the 2004 Presidential election.

    The senator from our state (John Edwards - (D) NC) is mentioned as a candidate and it personally makes me sick to think he could be President - he was one of those slick trial lawyers that basically smooth-talked the NC folk his way into office. He hasn't even been re-elected (but I'm sure that won't be any problem) and they're pushing him for President?

    Every once in a while, I think of running for office myself, just to establish a separate political

  • I really like the idea of a lottery system. With a few simple requirements, this could work.

    Of course, actually desiring election immediately disqualifies you.

    • But we have to be careful that the wrong lizard doesn't get elected.

    • I sometimes think that a random lottery (with criminals, Monarchs and MPs excluded) for a six or twelve month period sitting in a lower house would be far better than having two elected houses. The first house would need the sort of supremecy the UK house of commons has at present (ie. being able to force things through eventually). The people in the second house would be paid, so that no one is discouraged from standing. This suffers when you remember that, in the most part, the people chosen won't be a

    • We actually have a system like that now in the judicial branches, called Jury Duty. And you see what an unjoyous fit people have when they're selected for that...
    • An idea put forth in a book I read some time back was a chaocracy: Small groups, chosen at random from the populace, and replaced randomly and at random intervals. Those selected are paid an exorbitant fee, to remove the possibility of bribery.

      I think scaling was the problem. I still think my "automatic death penalty for public office" is a workable solution. :)

      --

      ------------------------------
      You are what you think.
      • An idea put forth in a book I read some time back was a chaocracy : Small groups, chosen at random from the populace, and replaced randomly and at random intervals. Those selected are paid an exorbitant fee, to remove the possibility of bribery.

        That sounds so bad, I can't even begin to describe it. It must be one of theose forms of government that make democracy suck just a teeny bit less than "all other choices".

        I think scaling was the problem. I still think my "automatic death penalty for publi

        • Psychiatrists are too easily motivated by money and too prone to prescription solutions. Death is surprisingly final. ;)

          Besides, this wouldn't prevent "The Leaders" from breeding -- it would just prevent them from bleeding pension money and running for office for the wrong reasons.

          Those who believe strongly will do it even with the specter of death; those who don't believe strongly shouldn't be in office, IMHO.

          --

          ------------------------------
          You are what you think.
  • It's hard for me to feel a lot of sympathy considering the way the Republicans similarly unfairly blamed Clinton for the attacks earlier. It'll blow over soon enough, and the Republicans can get back to hilariously hypocritical complaints about the treatment of Bush's judicial nominees.

    People reap what they sow.
    • Well, Clinton was partially to blame. Just as Bush, Sr. was, of course.

      And I don't see how you can call the nomination complaints hypocritical. Sure, Clinton claimed there was a "vacancy crisis" when there were 64 vacancies on the federal bench, but while the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1992, there were 63 vacancies -- only one fewer -- and Clinton said that was equivalent to "full employment in the federal judiciary".

      The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmati
      • The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmation rates. Carter had 93, Reagan had 97, Bush had 93, Clinton had 90. I don't know the count thus far for Bush, but it is far less, probably still under 50 percent. I don't see how complaining about this obvious disparity in treatment is hypocritical in any way.

        (I am totally ignorant of the issues here, but who lets a little thing like that stop them? :-)

        How do you determine that this is "disparity in treatment" (i.e. laying th
        • I'll just say that certainly isn't the case. It's not even really being alleged by the Democrats that this isn't the case. They might say that of one or two candidates, but they don't say it of the slate as a whole, lest their previous nominees get looked at too closely.
      • Chief Justice Rehnquist said there was a vacancy crisis during the Clinton years. Was he just a puppet of the Democrats?

        Whether there's a disparity in treatment, and which direction the disparity goes in, depends entirely on who's tweaking the statistics. And the complaints about treatment of Clinton's nominees had more to do with unprecedented delays than with rejections. In any case, Bush hasn't yet had the pleasure of having any of his nominees kept waiting for years to have even a hearing. That's p
        • You misunderstand either my statements, or Rehnquist's. Clinton said when the Democrats controlled Congress that there was no crisis, and when the Republicans did that there was. Rehnquist said at both times that there was a vacancy problem, in 1993 first, and then again in 1997. I did not say there was no vacancy problem, I said that the Democrats are clearly selective in when they think there is one.

          And no, the statistics aren't up for grabs. They are quite clear. On any measurement, Bush is getting
          • If you're saying that the Democrats are selective about when there's a vacancy problem, then we agree about that. I just think the Republicans are similarly selective.

            None of this is about justice or reasonable treatment of nominees. It's about each side wanting to get their people in and keep the others out, and if we had a Democrat in the White House the two sides would simply switch scripts.

            Tweaking statistics isn't about making up numbers. It's about choosing parameters and deciding exactly what co
            • You seem to be assuming that this situation is symmetrical. That the Democrats put up their nominees and they were blocked and now the Republicans are putting up theirs and are getting the same treatment. And, that Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if the situation were reversed.

              If you check the history, judicial nominees typically have a more difficult time of it later in the President's term (nearer to elections), easier at first. In fact, Clinton had an easy time of it earlier in his te

            • It's about each side wanting to get their people in and keep the others out, and if we had a Democrat in the White House the two sides would simply switch scripts.

              Perhaps, but there's no evidence of that. The record of Republican Congresses supporting Clinton nominees is right there.

              Tweaking statistics isn't about making up numbers. It's about choosing parameters and deciding exactly what comparisons to make. You've decided that the relevant measure is what percentage of a president's nominees have bee
  • Attacking Bush for real problems is one thing, but just making stuff up is annoying. They seriously need to get a life.

    It's not so much about who has vs. who needs a life. It's about getting airtime. No more, no less. There isn't a more pressing democratic issue at the moment, so this one was tempest was created to get some attention. If it resonates with the electorate, we'll hear more about it. If it doesn't, it'll be mostly forgotten in two weeks. Except for the people who remember this kind o