Hey! The system works yet again!

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:24 PM

Quote:
Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials

By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=343&sid=614852&sidelines=1

This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:54 PM

Wow. That's huge.

Looks like the Geneva Convention is back in play (at least according to the Supreme Court). Anybody know if Yoo or Gonzales have commented on this ruling?

Since I'm not a constitutional law expert, I follow my usual practice of finding someone who is and then reading their opinion. Glenn Greenwald has written a post on what he sees as the significance of this decision. I'll excerpt a big portion but I highly recommend reading all it. And also picking up a copy of his book (more a pamphlet really) that itemizes how far this administration has diverged from the idea of the executive branch as outlined by the founding fathers. Here's some of his preliminary observations:

Quote:
excerpted from http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/significance-of-hamdan-v-ru
msfeld.html
...
(1) The Supreme Court held [Sec. VI(D)(ii) of the court's opinion] that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees captured in military conflicts, including Al Qaeda members or other "enemy combatants," and not merely (as the Administration asserted) to soldiers who fight for established countries which are signatories to the Conventions.
...
(2) The Court did not rule on whether it could, in the absence of Congressional mandates, compel the administration to abide by the Geneva Conventions. The Court did not need to rule on this question, because it found [Sec. IV] that the administration was required by Congress -- as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") -- to comply with the rules of law when creating and implementing military commissions. Thus, the Court enforced the Congressional statutory requirement that the administration comply with the rules of law with regard to all military commissions, and rejected any claims by the administration to possess authority to override or act in violation of that statute.

(3) The Court dealt several substantial blows to the administration's theories of executive power beyond the military commission context. And, at the very least, the Court severely weakened, if not outright precluded, the administration's legal defenses with regard to its violations of FISA. Specifically, the Court:

(a) rejected the administration's argument [Sec. IV] that Congress, when it enacted the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda ("AUMF"), implicitly authorized military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. In other words, the Supreme Court held that because the AUMF was silent on the question as to whether the Administration was exempt from the pre-existing requirements of the UCMJ, there was no basis for concluding that the AUMF was intended to implicitly amend the UCMJ (by no longer requiring military commissions to comply with the law of war), since the AUMF was silent on that question.
...
(b) More broadly, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the shared powers which Congress and the Executive possess with regard to war matters. Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy expressly applied the mandates of Justice Jackson's framework in Youngstown (the Steel Seizure case) on the ground that this was a case where the adminstration's conduct (in creating military commissions) conflicted with Congressional statute (which requires such commissions to comply with the law of war).
...
(4) This decision illustrates just how critical is the current composition of the Supreme Court. The decision was really 5-4 (because Roberts already ruled in favor of the administration in the lower court). The Justice who wrote the majority opinion, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old, and as Justice Blackmun once famously warned, he "cannot remain on this Court forever." If the Bush administration is permitted to replace Stevens with yet another worshipper of executive power, the next challenge to the Bush administration's theories of unchecked power could very easily result, by a 5-4 vote, in the opposite outcome.

(5) Congress can reverse almost every aspect of the decision as it specifically pertains to

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

Mostly agree here Geezer, but since most of us aren't in positions to get the Supreme Court's attention, engaging in public discussion seems a worthwhile alternative. Persuading that two or three percent of voters who make the difference between majority support or not is the crucial step in booting the neo-cons out and reversing the damage they've done.

It's nice when the Supreme Court does their job as well, but they wouldn't need to be reversing these kinds of policies if they hadn't been inacted in the first place. If those of us doing the bitching and moaning had been more effective, had bitched and moaned louder and more persuasively, we might not be in the situation we're in.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This is how it works. Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

Then why do you continue to do it, then bitch when your proven wrong?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

RUE

Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:45 PM

Quote:
File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:47 AM

Geezer, I thoroughly disagree. DO you really think you can change a system by using the system to change it? OUR system was set up as a RESULT of bitching- or have you forgotten all those infamous diatribes from the Founding Fathers about King George? Ben Franklin's press working overtime cranking out those sheets? "Give me Liberty of give me Death?"

I'm sure, had you been around at the time, you would have told those bellyachers that what they really needed to do was to appeal to some influential Lordships... grease the wheels maybe with a few business deals... you know, USE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WORKS.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sure, had you been around at the time, you would have told those bellyachers that what they really needed to do was to appeal to some influential Lordships... grease the wheels maybe with a few business deals... you know, USE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WORKS.

Which begs an interesting question...

You guys realise you were better off under King George right...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:38 AM

You mean PN is wrong and the US ISN'T under control of the British-Jewish NAFTA CAFTA SHAFTA mafia?

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which begs an interesting question...

You guys realise you were better off under King George right...

Uh. No. Were not. Neener neener neener.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:49 AM

PN wrong, surely not.

I mean, the man who actually makes King George III look like the picture of sanity, wrong?

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:51 AM

Please, as if British rule was worse than George Bush.

The taxes were lower to.

And King George was by far less insane than your current administration and had less power.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:56 AM

* reaches deeeeeep into the bag of dirty tricks *

But. But. But. I like my straight teeth.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:59 AM

*does the same*
Straight teeth for a high IQ? Seems like a bad trade to me...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:01 AM

And nothing starts the day off right like a pot of coffee.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Mostly agree here Geezer, but since most of us aren't in positions to get the Supreme Court's attention, engaging in public discussion seems a worthwhile alternative.

Looking at the 2006 Supreme Court decisions, many of them aren't what you'd think of as big deals. But they are Constitutional questions.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

I really don't have a problem with public discussion, either, if it's carried on in a reasonably civil manner.

Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring. On the other hand, I wish Soupcatcher would play more often, because he is always civil, and makes some good points. I have to admit that, when provoked, I may get a bit rude every once in a while, but I try to respect everyones' opinions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:09 AM

Coffee is bad for you, besides all the Coffee you drink is Itallian, Mocha Locha I think I'm gonna Choka

But if you want to drink the drink of a nation of people who wear tight trousers, play with themselves in public and build cars with five reverse gears...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And nothing starts the day off right like a pot of coffee.

We have concord!

Coffee makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.
Coffee makes the world go around, when it is freshly ground. It makes the world go 'round.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I thoroughly disagree. DO you really think you can change a system by using the system to change it?

Yes. Slaves are free. Women can own property and vote. Everyone has equal rights to jobs. Accommodation must be made for the handicapped. Hey, the Alien and Sedition Acts are no longer in effect. Slowly, and with many fits and starts, for 230 years, the system works.

What would you put in its place? Your will?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 5:16 AM

Quote:
Slaves are free. Women can own property and vote. Everyone has equal rights to jobs. Accommodation must be made for the handicapped. Hey, the Alien and Sedition Acts are no longer in effect. Slowly, and with many fits and starts, for 230 years, the system works.

No. The changes came about because of protests, marches, sit-ins, riots, and even warfare. Because people got pissed off, talked to their neighbors, stood on soapboxes (or now on the internet) bitching and bellyaching. Because people fought, and many died. Harriet Tubman. Elizabeth Caddy Stanton. Eugene Debbs. Rosa Parks. The Greensboro Four. And, in the other corner... the Confederate Army. Pinkerton Security. Governor Wallace. Most local PDs.

WTF? You think things changed because some old white guys decided one day to change things??? "The system" didn't change itself, it responded to pressure from people. For some strange reason, you think that it's unseemly for people to get involved in changing things when that is the only way things change.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 5:43 AM

And on a related note: I think the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea. But as Ben Franklin said when asked if they had devised a monarchy or a republic: "A republic. If you can keep it".
There is a fatal flaw underlying "democracy", and that is it depends more than any other system on the active involvement of "the people" to keep it working as it was designed to work. Complacency leads quickly to corruption, secrecy, suppression, and all of the thingsthat a democracy is NOT. The problem is that people... well, they don't give a shit about their rights, or the system, or their government most of the time. As long as they have a job, family and some friends, a roof over their head, they're okay. The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.

And the other thing is that even tho the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea of pitting each part of government against the others in a self-interested fashion, they hadn't counted the corruption of all three branches of government by the same agent: money.

Unless people have an immediate stake in their government they won't act. Their rights need to involve a lot of the stuff that really counts to them: jobs, safety, a future for their kids. And they need the same access to government that the well-heeled have on those very issues.

How does one change the system to take it out from the hands of the weatlhy? And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that this is the point on which you'll see the most resistance to change.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
On the other hand, I wish Soupcatcher would play more often, because he is always civil, and makes some good points. I have to admit that, when provoked, I may get a bit rude every once in a while, but I try to respect everyones' opinions.

Thanks, Geezer. I try not to type anything I wouldn't say to someone I was having a drink with. Although I do get a mite tetchy when I think someone is being willfully obtuse. And I reserve the right to incivil behavior. I wouldn't want to limit my potential

.

Which sends me off on a tangent related to the funning back-and-forth I had with Citizen earlier in the thread. To get a bit more serious... One of the great positives of the US system of government, and Signym has touched on this in his post, is that it provides a great starting point. The founding fathers gifted us with a government that provides necessary conditions for unlimited potential. Quite often in our history we have not lived up to that potential. But every so often we break through and make tremendous strides. And that's partly because the system of checks and balances hamstrings the federal government so that any major change takes a tremendous amount of support. It's not efficient. By design. And that's a good thing. So even though I disagree with this administration on most issues and think that Bush is a terrible President - in part because he and his administration are trying to circumvent many of the checks and balances - I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. Because there's always another election. And eventually, with an informed populace, we move in the right direction. And then after about twenty-five years or so there's a backlash (plenty of examples: women's rights, or minority rights, etc). And we regress for quite a while. And then we have to fight the good fight again.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WTF? You think things changed because some old white guys decided one day to change things??? "The system" didn't change itself, it responded to pressure from people. For some strange reason, you think that it's unseemly for people to get involved in changing things when that is the only way things change.

I think things changed because "some old white guys" either saw that the mass of the population wanted them to change, or saw that it was the right thing to do, and passed new laws. "The System" in my view, includes the people and their involvement.

Is calling me names on RWD the best use of your political capital?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:07 PM

I hope Bush pulls and Andrew Jackson. The court has given its ruling, now let them enforce it.

This utterly arbitrary and incoherent ruling won't change anything. For all you pansy ass appeasers to Islamic Fascism who want to think this somehow is a 'win' , you're sadly mistaken.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem is that people... well, they don't give a shit about their rights, or the system, or their government most of the time. As long as they have a job, family and some friends, a roof over their head, they're okay. The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.

Don't you consider this somewhat of an elitist viewpoint?

Quote:
And the other thing is that even tho the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea of pitting each part of government against the others in a self-interested fashion, they hadn't counted the corruption of all three branches of government by the same agent: money.

Any reading of American history will reveal that there was corruption, patronage and graft almost from the get-go. Whe it gets too egregious, the people finally get tired of it and kick the bastards out. I think that the people realize they're not going to get a bunch of saints in government. They're willing to allow them a litle on the side, whether from Halliburton or George Soros, as long as they don't get too greedy or go too far against what the people want the government to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:09 PM

Quote:
"The System" in my view, includes the people and their involvement.

If you think that the people's involvement IS appart of the system, then why do you say

Quote:
Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

Whatever happened to voting, and marching, and buttonholing your neighbors (and internet neighbors), and organizing with your colleagues?

Why izzit that even tho you eventually concede that maybe discussion and picketing and civil disobedience (Rosa Parks) is a "valid" form of political involvement, your first reponse is to tell people to shut up and let "the system" work? Seriously. I could go back thru RWED and pick out at least a half-dozen examples of where this very point was discussed with you all the way down to this point. It's prolly obvious to everyone but you that you just don't want to hear complaints. Maybe you think it's disloyal, it obviously rubs you the wong way.

Quote:
Is calling me names on RWD the best use of your political capital?

Did I? What name was that? Are you an old white guy? (Sorry- just couldn't resist.)

Quote:
pansy ass appeasers to Islamic Fascism

And speaking of name-calling... who would that be, 'Rap?

Quote:
The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.
- Signy
Don't you consider this somewhat of an elitist viewpoint? -Geezer

Not really. I'm definitely not part of the elite!

Quote:
Whe it gets too egregious, the people finally get tired of it and kick the bastards out.

But there's a difference between the changing the people and changing the system. One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems to me like "the system" could use some tweaking.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems to me like "the system" could use some tweaking.

You summed up my biggest beef with our present system, all problems in this country stem directly from it IMO. If we could somehow make the corporations more responsible or held accountable...

But mean old men hold on tightly to their dough...

Money makes the blood go around Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to voting, and marching, and buttonholing your neighbors (and internet neighbors), and organizing with your colleagues?
Why izzit that even tho you eventually concede that maybe discussion and picketing and civil disobedience (Rosa Parks) is a "valid" form of political involvement, your first reponse is to tell people to shut up and let "the system" work?

Well, in this case, I was referring to the judicial system, since it was what worked this time.

Campaigning, 'buttonholing', civil disobedience all have their place in the system, as means of winning the hearts and minds of the people and moving them to move their representatives to make change. Getting people to agree on one thing, even though they disagree on others, and have them say "This we want fixed". Telling the people that 85+% of them "...don't give a shit." and "...back Big Brother." is not a strategy designed to develop concord.

Quote:

But there's a difference between the changing the people and changing the system. One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems like "the system" needs some tweaking to me.

But the Founders provided for the people to be able to tweak the system, internally, for whatever came up. If next week enough people decide that corporations have too much influence in government, they'll act to change it. If not they'll let it go until things get bad enough that they get pissed off enough to do something. This has also happened before in American history.

As you noted above, most people are relatively happy as long as they can take care of their families, have a decent income, and expect a resonable amount of security. I don't see this as a bad thing. If most people are relatively happy, something is working right. Maybe not the best of all possible worlds, but one that most people think is pretty good. If enough people don't think part of their world is not running good enough, they act to change it. Our system allows this to happen without having to scrap the whole thing to fix one part. I think that's cool.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

As you noted above, most people are relatively happy as long as they can take care of their families, have a decent income, and expect a resonable amount of security. I don't see this as a bad thing. If most people are relatively happy, something is working right.

On surface, this is a very good point. But when something like Abu-Ghirab happens and is kept quiet- or when it explodes and how it gets spun is the stuff of Big Brother control, denial, rationalization.
No matter how great this country is, it will always be limited to the 'truth of the moment', which will conform to the needs of the owners (who must thank God for the short memory of the public), thus severly hampering potentially near-perfect freedom...

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:24 PM

Slick,
Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Quote:
Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Quote:
Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

QED

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:02 PM

Please Geezer, get off the high horse, your as guilty of that as anyone.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SHADOWFLY

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:05 PM

You should be the last one to talk about being on a high horse.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:06 PM

No you should be the last one to talk about being on a high horse.

Are you going to threaten to kill me again, or just make no sense as ussual?

I mean, all kinds of flattering, you having such a high opinion of me you post in threads just to attempt to insult me, but I don't think of you in that way, I'm sorry. Loves a funny thing I know, making you want to spite the object of your affection ShadowFly, but it really must stop.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:15 PM

Now see, there you go again Slick. When all I did was point out AND PROVE that you lied about me.

And now you're going around acting like the poor little victim. Just another dirty rhetorical trick to avoid actually discussing facts.

QED

Quote:
Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

Rue: Slick, Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Slick: QED

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
On surface, this is a very good point. But when something like Abu-Ghirab happens and is kept quiet- or when it explodes and how it gets spun is the stuff of Big Brother control, denial, rationalization.
No matter how great this country is, it will always be limited to the 'truth of the moment', which will conform to the needs of the owners (who must thank God for the short memory of the public), thus severly hampering potentially near-perfect freedom...

Abu Ghriab was spun by both sides, some people were tried and convicted, some lost political capital. Not a solution to please everyone by any means. Sometimes "close enough" has to suffice. Some of the fallout won't be known until the mid-term elections.

I gotta say, between SignyM's 85% of the population that don't give a shit, and your "owners" (whoever they are) being thankful for the public's short memory, I don't see much respect here for the American population. So, if the people aren't up to running the country, what would you prefer?

And...This "near-perfect freedom" of which you speak: do you think that your idea of what it is will agree with most folks'? What is your idea of near-perfect freedom, anyway?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now see, there you go again Slick. When all I did was point out AND PROVE that you lied about me.

And now you're going around acting like the poor little victim. Just another dirty rhetorical trick to avoid actually discussing facts.

QED
Quote:
Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

Rue: Slick, Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Slick: QED

QED

Argue the issue, Rue. Quit playing word games. Do you think the system works or not?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:31 PM

For anyone coming late to the pissing contest, this is the exchange:

Slick: File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Slick: This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

... Argue the issue, Rue. Quit playing word games. Do you think the system works or not?

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:32 PM

So anyways, I thought I had put in a plug there for free political debate.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyways, I thought I had put in a plug there for free political debate.

Cool.

So, I think that the American system of government works pretty well. How about you? Pretty well? Sort'a well? Not well at all? Any alternatives?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

And...This "near-perfect freedom" of which you speak: do you think that your idea of what it is will agree with most folks'? What is your idea of near-perfect freedom, anyway?

My idea of it is what we would have, right here, right now, if MONEY didn't dictate who wins court cases, gets medical attention, or becomes President. Laws to even the playing field sos a man with good ideas wouldn't be grossly overshadowed by a man w/connections and money but not a neuron to his name would be a fine start. A pool of lawyers chosen at random to prosecute or defend..healthcare payed by our taxes (which would be somewhat higher-okay), influence peddeling punishable by DEATH...

Little things like that...The Constitution's fine as it is.

We're so close Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 7:36 PM

Geezer, the main misunderdstanding as I see it is that you tend to think of "the government" as "the system". When pushed, you eventually get around to including direct citizen involvement in its various forms but for the most part your first reponse is to bark out "Quitcher bellyaching!" and leave it up to the courts, the President and the other politicians to work things out.

I think bitching, whining, protesting, calling up the folks in DC, voting, buying ad time, videotaping, leaking, writing to the editor, blogging, donating to various interest groups, filing suit, civil disobedience, and even occasionally throwing rocks works great.

The government? Not so much. If the government worked so well, we wouldn't need to do all of the above.

And I noticed that you very quietly tried to slide out from under your statements about not whining and complaining, and threw mud at Rue when she called you on it. Not very gentlemanly or very honest either, if you ask me.

But I think I know why you get your hackles up about people who criticize "the government". Assuming that you're not an inverterate Bushite (like Unwrapped and Zero, for whom Bush can do no wrong) I think you're concerned that democracy might be destroyed by too much criticism. If you take the view that democracy is a government and not a process, I can see how you might worry about it's fragility. Me- I see it as a process. In my view the only thing that can kill democracy is complacency.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 7:42 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the system'.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My idea of it is what we would have, right here, right now, if MONEY didn't dictate who wins court cases, gets medical attention, or becomes President. Laws to even the playing field sos a man with good ideas wouldn't be grossly overshadowed by a man w/connections and money but not a neuron to his name would be a fine start. A pool of lawyers chosen at random to prosecute or defend..healthcare payed by our taxes (which would be somewhat higher-okay), influence peddeling punishable by DEATH...

Little things like that...The Constitution's fine as it is.

Not just MONEY. Prejudice, social connections, preconceptions. All of these sometimes have effects on not only the judicial, but the electorial process. China and Vietnam are having big squabbles about government corruption right now, so it's not just a democracy thing.

If you have a workable method of keeping folk with lots of money from having a disproportionate voice in politics, I would truly love to hear it. Massive abridgement of 1st Amendment rights and capital punishment porbably wouldn't pass a Constitutionality test, though.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the system'.

As in "...the American system of government"?

Pretty much that stuff you learned in Civics class. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Separation of Powers. Three Branches of Government. Representative Democracy.

Plus a general knowledge as to how it's worked out over the past 200 or so years.

Also consideration of the country it is used in; a nation of almost 300 million people, very few of whom have the same opinion about everything -spread over a landmass larger than Europe - with a population at least as diverse as any other country on earth.

Does that system - that form of government - work for you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:15 PM

Geezer, you and I are to close to agreement on this to argue...

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:34 PM

I was wondering if you meant the judicial system, the US structure, or democracy in general.

No, I don't think the US system works.

From the beginning to now, it has disproportionately represented the wealthy and their interests. When the Supreme Court gave corporations personhood, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invo
l=26 wealthy corporations also became super-citizens. The general populace and the common interests (the commons) are third tier or lower in the scheme of representation.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:40 PM

I agree with Rue. The USA system was a great first draft, but it's too easily corrupted.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering if you meant the judicial system, the US structure, or democracy in general.

No, I don't think the US system works.

I would have to disagree, but that's been pretty obvious for a while now. So let's take it as read, and move on to the next question.

You propose that the American system of government does not work. What are your alternatives? SignyM, since you agree with Rue, please feel free to propose your alternatives as well. A potentially doable description of how we can get from here to there would also be nice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, you and I are to close to agreement on this to argue...

Chrisisall

I really don't want to argue about this either...but I'm willing to discuss. I will do my best to be good, which doesn't mean I won't disagree, but at least will try to phrase my arguments in a logical manner.

Any attainable suggestions for improvement of the US government (overall, not just "get rid of whoever") will be greatly appreciated.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:21 PM

In no particular order:

1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
2) institute a parliamentary system
3) use only public funding for campaigns
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airwaves during prime time

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

No, I don't think the US system works.

I think it works- like an eight cylander engine on nitrous missing three sparkplugs....

The design is good, the product is sound, it's the aftermarket crap and lack of repair...

Slave to the metaphore Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In no particular order:

1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
2) institute a parliamentary system
3) use only public funding for campaigns
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airways during prime time

Yep, a good realistic start, where do I sign?

The Agreer Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:57 PM

Quote:
And speaking of name-calling... who would that be, 'Rap?

I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description. They know who they are. The ruling is basically unconstitutional, attempting to strip the powers of the Execuitve branch of it's Constitutional powers during a time of war.

Sometimes name calling serves a purpose beyond simplistic insults. Sometimes the shoe fits.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Saturday, July 1, 2006 12:06 AM

Hey Unwrapped!

How's that booming economy going?

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 1, 2006 12:07 AM

Quote:
I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description.

Do you include SCOTUS in your list of pansy-assed appeasers?

Just curious!

Can you perhaps tell us all how you linked one attribute (agreeing with the Supreme Court ruling) with the other (pansy-ass appeasers)? I just can't seem to make that leap. Be explicit. Make sure you go step by step... inch by inch... millimeter by millimeter...I don't want to get lost again.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Saturday, July 1, 2006 12:44 AM

I don't want to interrupt the dialogue, but I was thinking - perhaps the SCOTUS is irked by the presumption of a unitary executive. Perhaps they are not protecting citizens, but their own territory - and this ruling is just a turf war.

That would make sense out of their other ruling which allows arbitrary political redistricting (as long racial minorities aren't affected).

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 1, 2006 1:11 AM

Some people just prefer pansy-assed armchair quarter backing

Hooyaa! people who disagree with the war are pansys, I'm a real man cause I watch it on TV! See my chairs rippling Arse groove!

I'm so scared of Terrorists I agree with illegal treatment of prisoners...

Time to change those trousers AU, may I suggest brown one's next time, that way it won't notice next time you cast a shadow...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 1, 2006 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In no particular order:

1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'

I assume to remove corporate voice in the political process. I got no problem with this if there's a practical way to implement it. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

Quote:
2) institute a parliamentary system

Any particular features of a parliamentary system you think are superior? The British system produced Tony Blair, who I don't think is on your "good guys" list. A quick Google shows both good and bad parliamentary governments.

Quote:
3) use only public funding for campaigns

if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?

Quote:
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)

If you have a link to the "Canadian system" you refer to, I'd appreciate it. I'm not up on the latest in Canadian election reform.

Quote:
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airwaves during prime time

Interesting concept, but I'm not sure how this could be required. It seems to be sort of a 1st Amendment "Freedom of the Press" issue. If Foreign news media don't want to cover US news, or don't think it's in their best economic interest, how do you compel them?

I am really not trying to disagree with you on any of these points. Some I really don't have the information I need to form an opinion, and some I'm just asking what I think would be the obvious questions that might arise as to their practicality. I'm really interested in your opinion about these basic issues. I may not agree with all of them, but I'll try to be open-minded.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 1, 2006 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
3) use only public funding for campaigns
if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?

Not so...maybe require that there be no commercial advertising associated with the electoral process, and guarantee equal time on pubic television for registered candidates to speak their piece- PBS wins, the public wins (AND are forced to tune into a better network for a while, it might stick some, and get ratings for NOVA-type shows instead of "Real Life Incestious Treasure Search"

.

Hopeful Chrisisall

RUE

Saturday, July 1, 2006 2:32 AM

Quote:
In no particular order:
1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume to remove corporate voice in the political process. I got no problem with this if there's a practical way to implement it. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

Corporations currently have the same constitutional protections as individuals, including free speech. What I mean is - just remove those protections by removing corporate 'personhood'.

Quote:
2) institute a parliamentary system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any particular features of a parliamentary system you think are superior? The British system produced Tony Blair, who I don't think is on your "good guys" list. A quick Google shows both good and bad parliamentary governments.

Mixed governments (PMs plus presidents) don't fare very well. And though Tony 'Poodle' Blair is not on my "good guys" list, he his, by all accounts, overall preferred to anyone else. To some extent this is due to the weakness of the opposition AND the weakness of challengers from his own party. But overall, the best thing about parliamentary systems is the ability to vote the government out between elections. I am still convinced it helps keep the system honest.

Quote:
3) use only public funding for campaigns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?

I mean run the campaigns as a public service with public money. Debates, Q & A sessions, position statements. Require that media give free equal air time/ column space to all candidates and forbid campaign advertising. (Gives a new take on the notion of 'free' speech, eh?) In case you are wondering, the private use of public airwaves requires that the companies operate in the public interest.

Quote:
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a link to the "Canadian system" you refer to, I'd appreciate it. I'm not up on the latest in Canadian election reform.

Paper ballots, all publicly hand counted, overnight.

Quote:
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airwaves during prime time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting concept, but I'm not sure how this could be required. It seems to be sort of a 1st Amendment "Freedom of the Press" issue. If Foreign news media don't want to cover US news, or don't think it's in their best economic interest, how do you compel them?

Plenty of 'foreign' media report on the US for home consumption. These reports could and should be broadcast to the US to break the stranglehold of toady journalism. And broadcast media is probably the easiest entry due to the 'public interest' requirement.

Quote:
I am really not trying to disagree with you on any of these points. Some I really don't have the information I need to form an opinion, and some I'm just asking what I think would be the obvious questions that might arise as to their practicality. I'm really interested in your opinion about these basic issues. I may not agree with all of them, but I'll try to be open-minded.

I'm curious what you have to say.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 1, 2006 2:50 AM

I agree with what Rue says.

In addition, there are issues that the FFs addressed but nobody has looked at since. For example, the role of national versus local authority. It was Adams, to the best of my recollection, that pressed very strongly for national decision-making. In his view parochial, narrow, prejudicial interests could only be cancelled by tossing decisions to the nation as a whole.

The concentration of attention on a singular person (the President). I don't think it's a coincidence that people lose sight of the House. With its many members, power is so unfocused that the impression is that "nothing gets done there". It seems to me that power and money - unlike energy- inevitably concentrates instead of dissipates. Special attention needs to be paid to keep that from happening.

But I'm too tired right now to make a cognet case for anything, so I'll have to get back to this later.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 1, 2006 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Corporations currently have the same constitutional protections as individuals, including free speech. What I mean is - just remove those protections by removing corporate 'personhood'.

I agree, at least inasmuch as it would remove corporate influence from the political sphere. I'd need more detail on other impacts, but since we're talking government here, let's leave that for later.

Quote:
Mixed governments (PMs plus presidents) don't fare very well. And though Tony 'Poodle' Blair is not on my "good guys" list, he his, by all accounts, overall preferred to anyone else. To some extent this is due to the weakness of the opposition AND the weakness of challengers from his own party. But overall, the best thing about parliamentary systems is the ability to vote the government out between elections. I am still convinced it helps keep the system honest.

I must admit one of the things I like best about our system is the possibility of having a President from the minority party. This almost guarantees that nothing too partisan gets done. I do like the concept of a vote of "no confidence" though. Details would have to be worked out. And a PM's question time analogue would sure liven things up.

Quote:
I mean run the campaigns as a public service with public money. Debates, Q & A sessions, position statements. Require that media give free equal air time/ column space to all candidates and forbid campaign advertising. (Gives a new take on the notion of 'free' speech, eh?) In case you are wondering, the private use of public airwaves requires that the companies operate in the public interest.

"...forbid campaign advertising."
I guess my feling about this depends on how you define "campaign advertising". A strict interpretation pretty much takes the people out of the campaign process in any role but voter. No bumper stickers, no 'vote for' signs in the front yard, no political rallies, no grassroots organizing. Seems to cut out the "bitching and moaning"

part of the people's involvement in the political process.

Equal time I have no problem with, to a point. There should probably be some requirement, number of signatures on a petition or some such, for inclusion, or we'd get hundreds of PNs blanketing the airwaves.

Quote:
Paper ballots, all publicly hand counted, overnight.

No particular problem with this, but I suspect that any system can be gamed or corrupted. This might make it harder, or might just let someone find a new weakness.

Quote:
Plenty of 'foreign' media report on the US for home consumption. These reports could and should be broadcast to the US to break the stranglehold of toady journalism. And broadcast media is probably the easiest entry due to the 'public interest' requirement.

If foreign media want to do this, that's fine with me. There's plenty of foreign news to be found on cable now, but in foreign languages. If they want to provide English language service, cool. I still don't see any way to compel foreign media to report on US news, in English. Incentives might be provided, but it would still be their choice.

BTW, I suspect that the "stranglehold of toady journalism" is a transient thing anyway. There's more potential outlets and forms of media out there every day, and pretty soon most anyone will be able to find the journalistic ideology they desire. If journalism isn't free to decide it's own policy, then who does; the government, a board of journalistic ethics? I'm afraid a free and sometimes 'toady' press is one of the costs of freedom.

Quote:
I'm curious what you have to say.

Well, there it is. Looks like we actually agree on a number of points, I need clarification on others, and most disagreement is about ways and means, not basic philosophy. I find this much more pleasant than some past 'discussions' we've had. Can we maintain our civility when it gets down to the nitty gritty? Be sure to tune in for our next episode.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 1, 2006 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Equal time I have no problem with, to a point. There should probably be some requirement, number of signatures on a petition or some such, for inclusion, or we'd get hundreds of PNs blanketing the airwaves.

There's more than ONE PIRATENEWS?!?!?!

Okay, I would take 'advertising' to mean that of the candidates, and primarily on the boob tube. Bumper stickers and such I don't see being regulated. Or articles in papers or magazines, as long as they are balanced, and not really a hidden 'ad' for one in particular...how to manage that?

Rue, HELP!

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 1, 2006 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description.
Do you include SCOTUS in your list of pansy-assed appeasers? Just curious!

Can you perhaps tell us all how you linked one attribute (agreeing with the Supreme Court ruling) with the other (pansy-ass appeasers)? I just can't seem to make that leap. Be explicit. Make sure you go step by step... inch by inch... millimeter by millimeter...I don't want to get lost again.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

5 members of the USSC, to be sure. They completely ignored prior Supreme Court rulings.

Others include Nancy Pelosi, who was as giddy as a school girl that the President was dealt a blow ( allegedly ) by the Court on this matter. She's so entrenched in her hatred for Bush that she'd vilify him for doing something right, no matter what it is. SHe puts party over national security, because she and the other Lib Dems know they can't win on this issue.

It is what it is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, July 2, 2006 10:41 AM

ChrisIsAll,

got your msg. came as soon as I found out. uhhhhhh - whatcha need help with ????

RUE

Sunday, July 2, 2006 10:43 AM

Unwrapped - which prior rulings? Links or exact case name would be helpful.

RUE

Sunday, July 2, 2006 10:47 AM

Geezer,

I'm too tired for a thoughtful response.

Later.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 2, 2006 1:12 PM

Dunno if you meant me or not, but here's a few items of interest.

Quote:
5 wrong justices
Updated 6/29/2006 11:25 PM ET
By John Woo

By putting on hold military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes, five Supreme Court justices have made the legal system part of the problem, rather than part of the solution to the challenges of the war on terrorism. They tossed aside centuries of American history, judicial decisions of long standing, and a December 2005 law ordering them not to interfere with the military trials.

OUR VIEW:Suspects deserve fair trials

As commander in chief, President Bush has the authority to decide on wartime tactics and strategies. Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR settled on military commissions, sometimes with congressional approval and sometimes without, as the best tool to punish and deter enemy war crimes. Bush used them to solve a difficult tension: how to try terrorists fairly without blowing intelligence sources and methods.

The circus that was the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui shows the dangers in trying to use normal courtroom rules to prosecute terrorists intent on harming the USA. Bush's decision was supported by Congress, which authorized the president to use force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Earlier, Congress had recognized commissions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and last year it created an appeals process for them.

What the justices did would have been unthinkable in prior military conflicts: Judicial intervention in the decisions of the president and Congress on how best to wage war. They replaced his wartime judgment and Congress' support with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks. Their decision to impose specific rules and override political judgments about military necessity mistakes war — inherently unpredictable, and where our government must act quickly and sometimes secretly to protect national security — for the familiarity of the criminal justice system.

Two years ago, the same justices declared they would review the military's detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Congress and the president expended time and energy to overrule them. Hamdan will force our elected leaders to go through the same exercise again, effort better spent preventing the next terrorist attack.

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, served in the Justice Department in 2001-03. [link] http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-29-oppose_x.ht
m]

And also , there's this...

Quote:
The merits portion of the Court’s holding is even more troubling, as Justice Stevens and the Court majority seem bent not only on ignoring congressional mandates but on assuming to themselves the powers of the office of president as well. Article II of the Constitution makes absolutely clear that the president, not the courts, is commander-in-chief. His power in this arena is particularly strong when Congress has lent its own support, as it did with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted shortly after September 11, 2001. That Act of Congress authorized the president to use all necessary and proper force to capture or kill those who had a hand in the attacks on the United States and to prevent similar attacks in the future. The power to detain enemy combatants has always been considered as incident to the war-making power, as a matter of both domestic and international law. That power has also included the power to try detainees for violations of the laws of war, without having to submit to the oversight of civilian courts in the process. The Constitution even permits trials of our own servicemen in military rather than civilian courts, yet Justice Stevens and the Court majority seem intent on extending greater protections to our terrorist enemies than the Constitution affords to our own men in uniform .
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZmOTBhMzFlY2VlMzI5NjYyNzMzZWVlN
TAwNzZhMWM=

Quote:
There is little or no qu

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 2, 2006 2:26 PM

Auraptor- One of the things that the Administratin has been doing all along has been to use his so-called War Powers to excuse everything he does, from snooping on people's phone and finance records to arbitrarily classifying and declassifying information. But if this GWOT is truly a war, then we need to follow the treaties that we've signed in our conduct of such war.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 2, 2006 2:47 PM

BTW- this is what the President was authorized to do:

Quote:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States

It's pretty narrowly focused on the perpetrators of Sept 11.

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Sunday, July 2, 2006 8:19 PM

Quote:
5 members of the USSC, to be sure. They completely ignored prior Supreme Court rulings.

What I wanted was links and/ or specific case names and numbers to the aformentioned previous Supreme Court rulings.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 3, 2006 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ChrisIsAll,

whatcha need help with ????

I was trying to come up w/a workable idea that would give all candidates equal air time without infringing on freedom of speech- I realized I'm not smart enough on my own to cover it, and you were the first I thought of who could do it- but it's maybe a labour-intensive task, don't feel you must do my work for me...

Chrisisall, of moderate political views AND IQ

RUE

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 6:48 AM

Hey isall

Sorry to get back to you so late. I hope you understand that just b/c it's a holiday doesn't necessarily mean it's a vacation.

Some of what I'm suggesting is already in place. Anyway, I haven't worked all the bugs out, but what I envision is something like this:

First of all, corporations no longer have free speech rights. They may not contribute to individuals, campaigns or parties directly or indirectly, or advertize. They may not fund, commission etc 'issue' ads. In other words, they have no political campaign voice. (YEE HAAA !)

Parties and candidates may not advertize etc. They have a forum and it will put all contenders on an equal footing.

Private citizens and pooled individual donations, and pooled individual donations from non-profit groups may be used for advertizing. No individual may donate more than $250 US total in any year without being a declared (and listed) donor.

And now I have to shag my niece off to bed.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 7:46 PM

Thank you, oh learned Browncoat.

Reality-challenged Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 7:54 PM

UUUUHHHHHHHHHHhhhhh - it really IS true: "Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others". Think of me as a cockroach for ideas.

(And even at that, there are others much better than I ...)

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 6, 2006 12:22 AM

I agree with everything that Rue suggests. Politics is utterly corrupted, and that stems from needing wads of cash to run for office. It would be the simplest thing to make the so-called {sarcasm on} "public" airwaves {scarcasm off} broadcasters do what their FCC license REQUIRES them to do: provide for the public good by providing free campaign airtime. If it wasn't for financial $trangleholds on campaigning we would see a far wider array of candidates vying for public office. And that is EXACTLY what the corporations don't want, and although it would be simple and effective that is exactly why it will NEVER HAPPEN.

Corporate media has a hand-in-glove relationship with the politicians that they helped elect. They are lazy and profit-driven. You will almost never see serious investigative reporting and foreign correspondance because (a) it's difficult and (b) it costs$$$$.

Instead, they're fed tidbits from various officials- anything from the local dog catcher to the WH... and if they're REALLY compliant then they get exclusive sweet nothings whispered in their ears from highly placed sources. Consider the NYTimes. They kissed Bush's bush and became a favored outlet. It never occurred to them that Rove would feed them lies (silly them!) and so they and their neocon groupie Judith Miller took a major credibility hit. We need to create distance between the media and those in power. Perhaps the way to do that is to simply make ALL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TRANSPARENT. No secret dealings, no leaks, no special favors for special relationships. (The "other side" already knows what we're doing anyway, the only people in the dark is the American public.)

Ballot counting: by paper. Overnight. By hand.

-------------------------------
On a more theoretical basis, there are some things that should be revisited. Power- in the form of hundreds of thousands of employees- inevitably concentrates in the hands of "the" excutive irrespective of party diifferences or no-confidence votes. Do we REALLY need "an" Executive? But elected Boards (eg school Boards) aren't any better. They're subject to political whims because few voters will take the time to understand complex or techical issues. (FWIT I never know which judge to vote for.)

Strangely, bureaucracies work rather well. If there was some way to make each "bureau" (school board, health department, regulatory agency) a true meritocracy it might function without a political appointee or an elected board "telling" it what to do. Maybe they should make their case directly to the public for their budget and programs, direct-democracy style.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

RUE

Thursday, July 6, 2006 1:27 AM

Keep the politicos out of management - now that's an interesting idea. I think anyone who's done technical work in a government aqency will light up on this one.

GEEZER

Thursday, July 6, 2006 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First of all, corporations no longer have free speech rights. They may not contribute to individuals, campaigns or parties directly or indirectly, or advertize. They may not fund, commission etc 'issue' ads. In other words, they have no political campaign voice. (YEE HAAA !)

Good. Enforcement may be fun, especially with large corporations which may suggest to their employees that a good XYZ Inc. worker will want to contribute to the "Business Buddies of America" non-profit or some such.

Quote:
Parties and candidates may not advertize etc. They have a forum and it will put all contenders on an equal footing.

I'm guessing that this applies only to comercial ads; TV, radio, print, billboards, telephone. Individual party members should still be able to express their opinions through bumper stickers, yard signs, buttons, etc.; although size limits will become inevitable after folks start putting up yard signs the size of movie screens. Maybe un-compensated door-to-door canvassing, 'Please support my candidate' stuff. Most anything that requires personal involvement and is done without recompense should probably be okay.

How about political rallies and candidate public appearances on the rubber chicken circuit; kissing babies and pressing the flesh?

Quote:
Private citizens and pooled individual donations, and pooled individual donations from non-profit groups may be used for advertizing. No individual may donate more than $250 US total in any year without being a declared (and listed) donor.

I'm torn between 1st amendment rights to free speech and the reality that a George Soros can make a lot more noise with his billions than can Joe Sixpack with his spare change. I guess in this instance equality may trump freedom of speech.

What's the down-side of being a declared donor? Some folks are rich enough to afford fines if they consider it worthwhile. It'd also be a massive record-keeping excercise to monitor all contributions to make sure no one exceeds teir $250.00, especially if they spread it around. (Probably get dumped on the IRS, like monitoring the Section 527 organizations did.)

Maybe I'm getting a bit ahead of myself thinking of implementation difficulties, but it does sound mostly reasonable to me. Let's do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, July 6, 2006 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Strangely, bureaucracies work rather well. If there was some way to make each "bureau" (school board, health department, regulatory agency) a true meritocracy it might function without a political appointee or an elected board "telling" it what to do. Maybe they should make their case directly to the public for their budget and programs, direct-democracy style.

As an ex-civil servant and husband of a current civil servant, I can tell you there have been times when...

Government bureaus not only enforce or implement the laws and promulgate regulation based on those laws: they also enact the policies of the party in power, which was put in power because the majority of voters (theoretically

) wanted those policies. The politically appointed Secretaries, Commissioners, etc. that head bureaus are the ones who insure that their party's policies are being applied; "telling" them what to do, if you will. I can't figure how, within a democratic system, they can be totally removed.

This is not to say that the various bureaus might not run more efficiently with less political intervention, but just that they might not run as the people actually want them to.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, July 6, 2006 1:49 PM

Quote:

Thursday, June 29, 2006 06:24 TIMES READ: 666
Hey! The system works yet again!

Yeah, 666... Read Revelation 9:11.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv