boudy

Thanks for clearing that up pardner, uh ..mate.. er.. dude.. dude's universal eh? Perhaps we should use the proper term "ass-whoppin" when transmitting international communications so as not to appear insensitive and culturally tone deaf. While you're in the translating mode perhaps you can interpret this video found on a British expatriot's site. (I know Sullivan's views are a thread or 10 all their own - just couldn't locate video elsewhere) Is it a prelude to rugby? Soccer? axe-fighting ? WTF are they saying? It puts me to mind of a typical "debate" on S.C. http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/you_want_testos.html

http://dict.die.net/whop/ Whop [syn:whack, wham,wallop, sock,bop,whap,bonk,bash] {that syn string puts me to mind of my AFF landings} Perhaps you were confused by substitution of "whoop" for "whop" (perfectly acceptable according to Longhorn Style Manual in this context - kind like whop +1) Anybody that's got themselves some culture know about "longhorns" and "sooners" don't they? Couldn't get speak more English than football talk. C'mon now.

Rainbo, I look at your hometown, Rockford, as an experiment in independence - an alternate route in response to years of frustration with the arrogance and inefficiency of entrenched politicial parties. Your Mayor, Larry Morrissey, shocked & rocked the entire state's political hierarchy when he won as in an independent - in a landslide no less. I'm prejudeiced, Larry was a good friend of mine in law school and he is one of the best and most talented people I have met in my long life. So regardless of how the independent experiment turns out, I will know there was one politician who had his heart in the bettement of his community above all else. But it gets tough & messy, especially for third parties / independents. The political machines covet their power and love to crush opposition to their dominance . If a guy like Larry can manage to turn a few things around in Rockford by talking past the entrenched intersts & directly to the electorate (instead of catering and caving into special interest demands) then perhaps it can be done on a grander scale. The partisan powers that be are always ready to ambush the principled politician, but perhaps the time is ripe for people of principle to step forward and out of the corrupting shadow of party loyalty and speak truth to the real (Constitutional) power in this country - the electorate.

Congrats. Amazing how recognizing and accepting one's limitations regarding consumption can open the door to realizing unimagined potential and enjoyment in so many other aspects of life. Personally, did not meet Bill (although I was prepared to seek him out ) but I had the good fortune of a few terrific, supportive friends and I was pumped about my life's new possibilities (returning to school). July 10thish 1986 - last drink. Still enjoy having a diet Coke & hanging with friends at bars, parties, around the campfire etc - if pressed to join in the drinking (by those unaware or forgetfull) I merely say I'm just not good at it - gave it a good try but not for me - I find people "get it" now more today & accept you are indeed having fun despite being in control of your faculties. Enjoy

OK I admit I skipped the first 9 pages of the thread. So maybe somebody pointed out already how off the mark that stereotype is. Milton Friedman - the guru of modern free market ideology (conservative, Reagonomics, limited government type thinking) - Analyzes the war on drugs in this 1992 speech & Q/A. Friedman is anything but a wishy -washy criminal fodeling liberal hippy type. Clear thinking, clear speaking - but not politically correct nor always accepted by the powerd that be - particarly when the truth hurts: He calls the Drug War a Socialist Enterprise >>In 1972, almost twenty years ago, President Nixon started a war on drugs-the first intensive effort to enforce the prohibition of drugs since the original Harrison Act. In preparation for this talk today, I re-read the column that I published in Newsweek criticizing his action. Very few words in that column would have to be changed for it to be publishable today. The problem then was primarily heroin and the chief source of the heroin was Marseilles. Today, the problem is cocaine from Latin America. Aside from that, nothing would have to be changed. Here it is almost twenty years later. What were then predictions are now observable results. As I predicted in that column, on the basis primarily of our experience with Prohibition, drug prohibition has not reduced the number of addicts appreciably if at all and has promoted crime and corruption. Why is it that the only observable effect on policy of the conversion of predictions into results has been that the government digs itself deeper and deeper into a bigger and bigger hole and spends more and more of your and my money doing harm? Why is it? That's both the most discouraging feature of our experience and also the most intriguing intellectual puzzle. In our private lives, if we try something and it goes awry, we don't just continue and do it on a bigger and bigger scale. We may for a while, but sooner or later we stop and change. Why does not the same thing happen in governments policy?

You might want to check out my favorite former law prof's blog - ProfessorBainbridge.com. He currrently teaches corporate/bus law at UCLA and has written extensively about Sox. I took a couple of his classes at Illinois. He is a devout Conservative and an extremely fair minded on most matters. (although from my left-center view often misguided). Anyway lots of posts, links and analysis there concerning Sox and other Corp/bus law matters, politics, fast cars, religion and dogs.

Ridiculous defense of totally defenseless acts. The PROBLEM IS: this despicable misfit lunatic cult is outrageously violating the most fundamental & self explanatory norms of civilized people: that one lets greiving family members mourn the passing of their loved ones in peace. PERIOD. They should be getting no soap box at the expense of the families of fallen soldiers for their agenda (even if it were the slightest bit sane) - let alone national media coverage. They are merely exploiting the media's penchant for sensationalizing extreme deviant, insensitive and anti-social behavior particulary when it offends our natinonal instinct to honor those who have given their lives in our service. Regarding another assertion: Perhaps you'll find it interesting that the American Jewish Congress booed GOP chairman Rich Mehlman (also a Jew) when he claimed Iraq was less of a challenge now that Saddam was gone. Mehlman was also asked to tell the White House to quit using defense of Israel as an excuse to threaten Iran. Doesn't sound like these Jews were on board with the "let's go to fight Israel's wars" program; maybe it was just another Jewish trick eh? http://www.nysun.com/article/32247

nevermind - in light of Sky's notice that he checked into rehab - I withdraw the question as being irrelevant & too long

Bill, Your assertion is supported by this op-ed by the Major General responsible for training Iraqi troops June 2003-2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19eaton.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Maj Gen Paul D. Eaton: "In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." ... "Mr. Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his cold warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the Army finds itself severely undermanned — cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14." ... of broader scope: "First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground. Perhaps a proven Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman could repair fissures that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and the Pentagon big shots. More vital in the longer term, Congress must assert itself. Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently, so that their opinions and needs are known to the men they lead. Then when they are asked if they have enough troops — and no soldier has ever had enough of anything, more is always better — the reply is public. " About Gen Eaton: http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/07/the_problem_wit_1.html Prof Bainbridge is one of the brightest, most tolerable and most consistent conservatives I know of. I have the distinction to have known him as a favorite professor - corporate law classes at Illinois. While I disagree with many of his political views, he's a great guy. (and of course way smarter than I). He did have a rather intimidating reputation for a while at Illinois, given his sharp (sometimes cutting)wit and devotion to intellectual discipline. He totally exploded his tough image before a group of us when he asked to hold my 7 week old lab pup, Buddy, in the hall one Saturday and gut-laughed as Buddy immediately gave him an exuberant face washing.) Those looking for well-thought cogent legal/political arguments from a digestable conservative - as well interesting perspectives on number of topics (law, wine, dogs, movies, gadgets) should bookmark Prof Bainbridge's Blog. The good prof gives his take on why Judge Posner (7th Circuit judge, professor & prolific book writer, genius) would not be a conservative's choice for the Supreme Court and outlines what constitutes "conservative" in the process. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/06/justice_posner_.html Personally, I think Posner would be a superb choice for the Supreme Court. Despite Posner's lack of inhibition to tackle hot-button issues (not before his court), neither the vast majority of liberals nor conservatives truely understand or trust Posner's politiical views. The smartest person I've ever met clerked for Posner and was blown away by his intellect and dedication to law. But alas he probably wouldn't pass anyone's acid-test. Despite Prof Bainbridge's view, a lot of folks consider Posner conservative. THe Becker-Posner Blog: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

>El Jefe Clintonista was under threat of filibuster, not a filibuster itself. I hope the Dims filibuster, as I said before. It will be a great thing.< AS I understand it, there currently is no practicle difference between a filibuster & the threat of a filibuster under a gentlemen's agreement that has been in force since the Dems were in the majority. You merely announce a filibuster (or "threaten" filibuster) The Senate has dispensed with requiring continous oratory on the floor under the agreement. Morris calls it a virtual filibuster. If the 60 votes necessary to end a "filibuster" can't be mustered, the issue is simply not brought to a vote. All the behind the scenes manipulations & public posturing proceed -absent the embarrassment of having C-Span cover our illustrious Seantors babbling hours on end about soup recipes, bunion cures, etc. Dick Morris suggests the Republicans force what you wish for - a REAL filibuster. That is, forget the arm twisting, and nukular option threat and allow the public to see a real old-time filibuster in action - drop the no-oratory convention & let the Dems have the floor & a national audience. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/042705.html

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm Kennedy, et al: an interesting analysis regarding the subject of this thread may be found by visiting the linked site & scrolling down to the April 6 entree "Scalia Dissents by Kevin Ring." Mr. Ring is a Scalia fan and also quite proud of his conservative credentials but he takes aim at the current manical frenzy to "rein in" the judiciary. The video was rebroadcast on C-Span early AM. I thought the author covered the topic in a thoroughly intellingent, engaging and plain spoken matter. Kennedy, you seem to be seeking an even handed & insightful analysis of constitutional issues. The article you posted satisfies neither criteria. The discussion linked above illuminates why the judiciary bashing & "historical" analysis is off target. The author explores the value of Scalia's strict constructionist approach from a conservative's viewpoint. (I don't always agree with Scalia but he does strive for consistency.) Ring then proceeds to expose the conflict between Scalia's view & the current uproar over "activist judiciary." As noted in posts above - Ring believes the "anti-activist" movement is a thinly disguised thrust for activism for conservative agendas (likely to backfire in the long run). Succesfully intimidating the judiciary (whether from right or left) would jeopardize traditional federalist & balance of power principles. It's well worth the time I think. For a historic backdrop concerning constitutional actors I found the book "Founding Brothers" enthralling(I actually listened to CD's while rehabing my ACL). It's amusing how often those referring to the founders' intentions obviously have done scant research. On the matter of judges: An interesting view into the workings of one of the keenest legal minds may be found at the Posner-Becker blog. (google it) 7 th Ciruit Judge Richard Posner has forged an economic analysis of the law - his decisions are discussed in law classes across the country.

>>Guess I'm hellbound.

Right. Searching for quick refresher on WWW reminds me of how incredibly much I've forgotten re stats (everything), but I did find simple calculation for Margin of Error : MoE = 1 / (square root of sample size). In this case it is 1/335 or .3%. If I've gotten this correct, and the poll was designed properly, that is an incredibly low margin of error - eh? Good reason for citizens of all political persausions to be alarmed.

If anyone cares to research the context of Cavuto's rant, the following two links provide background information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39753-2005Jan26.html from this article: "UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 26 -- The United Nations' top elections official, Carina Perelli, sharply criticized U.S. military forces in Iraq Wednesday for distributing material urging Iraqis to vote in the country's elections Sunday. Perelli and other U.N. officials are concerned that such U.S. military involvement is compromising efforts to convince the Iraqi public that Iraqis are directing the elections." The issue was NOT - as Cavuto contends - the message conveyed in the leaflets. The UN itself encouraged all Iraqi's to vote and criticized those threatening violence. The official worried that the image of US soldiers "getting out the vote" would bolster the propaganda of the anti-American/anti-government forces in Iraq - and encourage the perception promoted by insurgents and others that the US was pulling the strings in the Iraq election. http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050127-103013-7621r.htm The UN decided to retract the complaint the next day - the day before Cavuto's release of his vitriolic commentary. The UN did not want to contribute to devisiveness concerning the electoral process. (think a star at a premiere 24/7 news service couldn't get the latest buzz before commenting on this story?) From Jan 28 Wash Times: >>But yesterday, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said that Miss Perelli "misspoke," and said "she did not intend to criticize the military's profile." "We all know it is a sensitive time before the election. We don't want anything we say to be misinterpreted, distract from the main focus and become a divisive issue," Miss Okabe said. "Everyone agrees that we want the Iraqi elections to proceed.">Informed Wednesday evening of Miss Perelli's comments, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, seemed mystified that troops would be involved in get-out-the-vote activities. "Millions of Iraqis are going to go vote because they want to vote, and American soldiers do not have the mission to get the vote out," Gen. Abizaid told reporters.