NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington. Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart. I'm skeptical. The environment is something that tends to be the ugly stepchild. The consequences of abusing it are staggeringly negative, for the entire planet. But it's not something right in people's faces (most of the time), so they choose to ignore it. If people knew more about it, like for example, how our environmental policies made Katrina way worse than it needed to be (talking about the flood plain and alluvial fan and reefs here, not global warming), then they might pay more attention. I think the environmental lobby will start to migrate away from the Sierra Club model (complain, grandstand from the extreme and beg for money), and move towards the Nature Conservancy model (buy, analyze, recycle and conditionally sell land for protection). It's in their best interests. As far as marketing goes, most of the environmental lobby is pretty inept. That will need to change as well.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) The concerns of the many over the concerns of the few. I can see that point of view. Myself as well. As they say, act locally, think globally. Environmental issues are inherently global. It's interesting, it used to be the GOP that was the party who did a lot of the early protection of wilderness areas and parks, and was more environmentally conscious. It goes well with the Republican ideals of leaving things alone, and dealing with the concerns of the many, not the minority. Somehow, around the middle of the 20th century, the issue migrated over to the Democrats, who have succeeded in blundering it to death.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection. So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back.... Just for my own edification... what makes you think they treat their people badly? I knew a clerk there at one time, she seemed to like it there. I haven't read anything negative. I'd be curious to hear about this.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) I don't think he did, for the very same reasons we're talking about here. He was just as allusive... and quite on purpose. Well, fair enough. When it comes to subtle differences in speech like that, there is certainly some interperetation to be had. I saw a difference; you did not. I guess we can't get much further on this subject.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:53 PM) I don't think he's complaining, I think he's saying what definitely appears to be the case in the leftist's eyes. To me, that argument is a cop-out. Paint the other side of an argument as extremist, thus they can be dismissed as being unbelievable. Sure, I see a few people here and elsewhere who think everything is Bush's fault. And I see a lot of people who think Bush can do no wrong. But I don't use either fact as a block, throwing it at people here as if to say "see, you are an extremist, so I win."

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Um... Alito pretty much said the same thing - and that he knew that he had to "have an open mind" about any case that came before him. His words were different in a sutble, but in my view important, way. He did say he'd be open-minded, but his statement also seemed to indicate he didn't want to say anything about his opinion of Roe's standing. Roberts did. That's a key difference, to me.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) Did we forget that the ABA said he was well qualified? Oh, they are part of the Bush cabal, I forgot. Why bother adding that second sentence? It just makes it look like you have no intelligent argument to present, and you just like complaining that everyone seems to hate Bush.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) What is his view on abortion??? That Roe v Wade is the part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it stands for itself. Any new cases would be judged on their own merit, but with that precedent in hand. I think he was pretty clear - as much as he can be without a complete scenario, anyway. With Alito, he pretty much dodged the question entirely, from what I saw.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) Tell me the last Scotus nominee that answered all questions to your satisfaction? Roberts was pretty darn close, as I noted earlier.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) I can't tell you how much I agree with that statement. The radical left turns me off to the Democrats so very much. A centrist Democrat would almost certainly get my vote. Candidates who toe the party line, even when it flies in the face of logic, turns me off. In either party. I have always liked candidates who were willing to make the right choice, even if it left their party "lines". People like McCain, Tsongas, Lugar, Powell (when he was considering it), Clark (though he had other problems) and even Kucinich. Those candidates may seem to be all over the board ideologically, but they all were willing to do the right thing, party affiliation or not. They had political cahones. I appreciate that type of courage in politicians. If the Dems could put up a candidate who could demonstrate a history of and desire for fiscal discipline, is good at building real compromise (NOT the same as flip-flopping) and is willing to take the GOP to task on their far right wing's religious fanatacism and hatred, would sweep into the White House. That's whay the Dems need. They don't need to kow-tow to social conservatism - they need the courage to stand for their convictions (not just b**** and moan), and the willingness to take responsibility for the business (fiscally and ethically) of government.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) I'm really torn as to whether to shop there. It's not cheap - that's for sure. But they're right on so many issues. Yet, they treat their employees like s*** and unionbust. If I'm shopping at Whole Foods, I'm doing it for social reasons - not for price or even necessarily selection. So this wind power thing has got me on the fence about going back.... Thing is, while its not cheap, it seems to me the mainline grocery stores are getting much more expensive lately. Meanwhile, Whole Paycheck and Trader Joe's are about the same. Just my experience.

Glad to see it. The more money goes into alternative sources, the more development they can do, the more efficient and accepted they become.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Bush has already compiled well over $2 trillion in debt. At the end of 2000, the debt was something like $5.7 trillion, and it currently stands at $8.1 trillion. Bush's legacy will more likely be something like $3-$4 trillion in additional debt, not 1 trillion. Source. One of the big reasons why I am surprised that more Republicans (or should I call them "rightists") are not more up in arms with the guy. Regarding anything fiscally related, he is as far from being a conservative as Ted Kennedy.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) You'll notice that I have so ffar managed to stear well clear of the current religion kerfuffle. Seems some people are giving us atheists a bad rap over there. I like the word "kerfuffle". And you are smart to stay out of there. I am sure you'd bring some intelligent arguments to the table, but you REALLY don't want to be on that side in that thread right now. AF93 has guttered that thread like no other I've seen in a while. Nothing good can come of any posts in there anymore.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) I see the thread has been filibusterized. That's cool, but I posted it more as a news item and to get people's opinions on it, not to politicize it in any way. NorthSideSox72, I assume your opinion is very much the opinion of mainstream RC. But the question remains as to whether Judas' will, or Peter's, Pilate's, etc., was really free if their actions were foretold and pretty much had to take place to further the events of the Jesus Saga. This question is more one of a theological/philosophical nature than one of the historicity of New Testament events. But I think that, without having to formalize tthe thoughts, a lot of Catholics see Judas a a sympathetic character caught up in events much larger than himself. I suppose one can never know for sure if there is a plan. But I believe strongly in both free will, and in people taking responsibility for their actions. Pilate is a fascinating character, and I see him as sort of the opposite of Judas. Pilate was a moderating force in a strong arm regime, trying to battle against the influences of Rome and the masses. Judas was in with what he saw as the savior, and chose to betray him. But I must admit, those are just my takes on things, and I am nothing like an expert on the history of the time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 06:33 AM) Linked for more information. So you're saying we need to start now? This reminds me of that website where you can figure out when to try to conceive, so that the birth of the child doesn't interfere with any major sporting events.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) Keep talking.... Missed SS2K's song reference.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) The system is making them political animals. We parade potential SCOTUS judges onto TV and ask them a bunch of questions about hot button political questions without any legal indications which would be surrounding a real case. They go in front of the biggest political group in the world to answer questions about politics from people looking to get reelected based on the chance that their soundbyte makes the difference in them getting back to Washington again. They get asked a minimal amount of questions on the law, and instead they get asked what they personally think about laws... subtle, but there is a difference. I don't know what else is to be expected with the way the process is handled. All true. And I think that it should be the role of judges to push back against that. Realistically, all will have to cave to an extent. But if you look at Roberts versus Alito, I see two different animals, specific issues aside. Roberts seemed more dedicated to the law than Alito does, in my opinion.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) by your logic: in the beginning man felt meaningless. Man creates religion and "god" to bring meaning to his life. Man spends centuries at war. In hindsight man blames religion on those wars. In the end, what was at the core of man, was not religion, but war and conflict. Man=War, not religion=war. Nicely put.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) I think it's bull s*** when every single move is "political". She cried. WAAAAAAAAH OMFG she's ACTING!!! Put the theatrics away about the theatrics, ok? Yes, his ass needs grilled, it's important. But grill him on things that matter, not on some stupid application from 30 years ago that has been vetted to mean nothing. Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I actually was not referring to the crying as the political act - i don't even want to touch on that, because I have no idea if those tears were real or not, and I don't really care. That's why I said I feel no pity towards her or her husband, even if they DID feel badly. I am referring more to Alito's lack of solid responses to some important questions. I am trying to point out that judges should not be political animals, ideally. All of them are to some extent, but I seek candidates who are less so. Is that more clear?

I have to sort of agree with Rex here. The GOP'ers in this thread are being awfully whiney, defensive and, frankly, sound like their own stereotyped versions of "leftists". I'm sorry but I don't feel one bit badly about Alito getting grilled or his wife being in tears. This man is looking to be nominated to the highest court in the land - I would expect BOTH parties to grill Alito like a steak at the family BBQ. We need to. He's not exactly being forthright, or open about his background and views. And frankly, while I don't think he's way-right (as some Dems seem to fear), I do think he's far too politically minded and wishy-washy for SCOTUS. Just my take. I don't see in this guy what we saw from Roberts - a man dedicated to the law with every bone in his body. And that's what I'd want from anyone on SCOTUS.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:26 PM) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...-RSS&attr=World Pretty much how Rice and Lloyd-Webber portrayed him 30+ years ago? The Rosencrantz and/or Guildenstern of the Jesus Saga, with little say as to the role into which he was cast? Is anyone other than me distrubed a little bit by the responsibility angle in this re-versioning? Think about this for a second. If we now say that Judas (one of the most obvious and well-known examples of a man who CHOSE to commit a grave act) wasn't really so bad, what is the consequence on learning about responsibility? If some kid in CCD learns that Judas chose to be evil, but hey that's OK because it was God's plan, doesn't that sound to him/her like it aleviates their guilt in any evil act? This one scares me. As soon as they say that we have no choice, it's all in the plan, blah blah blah... the church takes a step away from personal responsibility of it's people.

In previous parts of this and related threads, I have defended those who try to keep Walmart out of their neighborhoods, due to some of the negative effects the store can have on a community. There are of course positive effects too. But in any case, this Maryland law is one of the most ill-advised corporate laws I have seen in some time. Completely ridiculous on many levels. It goes completely against the grain of a capitalist society. And now the state of Maryland has stepped in a deep pile of doo-doo, because they have essentially announced to the state that the government is now in the union business. They'll end up regretting it.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) Chomsky has a definitely interesting point of view, but I think that oil is only part of the equation as well. I think Chomsky, master linguist that he might be, didn't fully say that as well. Perhaps because he sees a coming resource war and control of resources = power. I agree on the resource war. And while we are distracted by the oil thing, we are forgetting about a big one plaguing the world and getting worse: water. Just recently, the BLM made a bizarre decision regarding oil and water. In New Mexico (where water is a big problem), there is a place called the Otero Mesa. Otero was found to have a huge acquifer, capable of sustaining the freshwater needs of all of NM and west Texas for 100+ years. No exagerration - that was the conservative estimate. But the BLM chose to stop the water plan that the state of NM proposed, and instead allocated plots of land all over the mesa for natural gas testing and drilling. That drilling, BTW, would make the acquifer non-usable due to specific water regulations (something about possible toxicity, and reverse, the possible effects on the gas if water is extracted). So, we chose to drill for possible nat gas (and not that much of it on a market scale), instead of providing all of NM and west Texas with 100 years of water. Can someone tell me why that makes sense?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) You want gerrymandering? check this out. http://home.wlu.edu/~journalism/J203/nc-12.htm OK, that is quite possible the most ridiculous looking district I've ever seen. Wow. I can see why you'd want to split Durham from Raleigh, but what is the deal with the tail on that thing?! Something to keep in mind, though. That bizarre shape may or may not be helpful to the Dems, which i think is what you are getting at. It may in fact make other districts more Republican. Or not - I have no idea. Just saying it may not be so obvious.