mattp

Somehow, with the urgency in how you keep saying "clean out your inbox," it almost sounds like there may be more to it than simply that if we fail to clean out our inbox, we will lose those important messages. Really, it is simply this: copy your messages or you will lose them -- correct?

Chris, I don't disagree with that or with Fairweather's statement that you refer to except that I think it is silly to assert that it is only the liberals who have applied a litmus test - as the last few days' news demonstrates. It seems to me that Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate in general are emblematic as much as anything else and BOTH sides are using it where they believe they can use a lightning rod issue to their advantage.

Aha. I stand corrected. And you're right, of course, that there would be some "histrionoics" from the left if he selected someone who announced that they were going onto the Court with the hope to overturn Roe v. Wade. What about his "lie," then? An example of his complete disdain for the American public or simply a "misstatement" or something else?

OK, Fairweather, you'll admit you were only assuming what I thought of her. What about these "historionics from the left?" Where have we seen that today or yesterday?

Mis-worded blunder? It sounded to me more like a poorly conceived lie. You're right, he didn't "control" the press conference well.

Fairweather, I didn't say I was for or against her. You ASSUME I am against her just because he is for her, I suppose, but if that is the case wouldn't you be just as narrow minded and prone to putting words in somebody's mouth (mine) as you so consistently seem to decry in others on this board? I really don't know if she's good or bad (though I would guess the latter) -- but there is another thread on that topic and I started a new one. My point in this thread has been about how completely stupid it is for him to have said he has never, in over ten years, discussed abortion with her.

Fairweather, I don't know if you are watching the same "liberal biased" news reports I am, but so far it appears that the hard right is much more concerned about her nomination than anyone from the left. (What do you think about that statement he made today, though, when Bush said he had never discussed her views on abortion with her despite the fact that he said he'd been working with her closely for over ten years and intimately knew her judicial philosophy?)

I'm with you there, TomTom. The democrats SUCK! Its not just a candidate they need - but a platform and some integrity.

Tom, I do not assert that dems are honest and repubs are not. If there was vote fraud that changed the outcome, it could only have changed it one way. Try another brand of herring. Jay, are you continuing to say that where I offered an off-hand comment that there remains room for skepticism I am veering off into paranoid delusion? What is so scary about the idea that there might remain some lingering questions?

So what's your point here, Jay? If I cannot PROVE there was election fraud and that it actually changed the outcome I should not be so irresponsible as to note that I remain even a wee bit skeptical? Whether you think anything was proved or not, the election had some problems.

All I said was that I am not 100% sure. Are you?

Jay - Aren't you attempting to "prove" any even small amount of skepticism about the 2004 election result is groundless by pointing to what you claim to be an absence of evidence to the contrary - that is you say there is no real evidence of vote fraud? All I said was that I was not 100% sure. Are you?

They certainly think they can tell whatever lies they want and nobody will notice!

That't be good, MEC, but the fact is some folks don't seem to want that. For starters, we could have voting machines that produce a record that can be verified. It is absolute B.S. for the company that makes bank machines to say they can't make a voting machine that produces a receipt.

Maybe you forgot, Jay, but in fact it WAS widely noted that there were substantial impediments to voting in the counties that could be expected to vote for Kerry in Ohio during the 2004 elections, the vote records showed that in at least one or two counties Diebold counted more votes than there were registered voters, and somehow it was only the Diebold states where exit polls did not match the vote outcome. In fact the Democrats DID notice, and they tried to undertake some challenges but they just didn't take it very far. Was the election stolen? I don't know. Am I sure it wasn't? No. (By the way, you wouldn't be jumping on this issue to avoid noting that Bush told a lie fit for an 8-year-old in this morning's news conference, would you?

Oh man.. "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." Richard Hofstadter in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," 1965. Recommended reading for 9/10th of this board. Thanks, Jay. You are absolutely right: they wouldn't THINK of manipulating an election. How could I harbor even the slightest doubt?

Meanwhile, I find it totally absurd that he would say he never discussed her position on abortion with her. I would think it stupid even to try and say it was not discussed during his selection process, but I suppose that might be possible. However, a quick look at some of the press reporting makes it appear that he will not be able to try such a fall-back. He said he did not discuss it with any of the candidates during this selection process but he also said he did not remember "ever" discussing her views on abortion with her. This is obviously a lie and I think he's probably going to have trouble splitting hairs about how he didn't mean to say what it sounded like he was saying -- assuming somebody in politics or in the press thinks that it is an "issue" when our president lies to us.

I am not 100% convinced he actually DID win the last election but that is another matter.

I think you generally want standing dead rather than deadfalls. These tend to be less rotten and drier.

She's worked for him forever. He says he knows Harriet Miers' soul and she shares his values. But in this morning's press conference, I think I heard Bush say he has not discussed her views on abortion with her. Say what?

You have to have a "guide" to climb one of the permitted peaks, and I think this includes the "trekkers peaks" like Island Peak or Thorong Peak, and some of the moderate but slightly higher peaks like Baruntse. I've been there twice, and I would not really recommend either of the guide outfits I contracted with, but the fact is I had two GREAT trips. The first time I just went to Kathmandu and met some people on a message board in the trekker district (Thamel) and we hired somebody on the spot. The second time I booked "over here" and it was all pre-arranged before I left Seattle. If you are excited by the prospect of climbing some big mountains and if you think travelling in an exotic land with wonderful people and meeting travellers from all over the world who are also excited to be there sounds cool, you'll have a great time! Maybe the Maoists have caused trouble for trekkers in some of the lesser travelled regions and perhaps the great value this year is not where it was last year - take whatever advice you get and put it to use - but don't worry: it'll be incredible.

That is admirable, indeed, but you have to have over at thousand posts to make it into the top 100 club.

There was a great article in yesterday's NYT, about how the child tax credit that Bush has been promoting as being such a boon for low income America is not available for half of those families with children because they are too poor to pay taxes enough to benefit from the credit. It closed with a quote from a guy at the Kato Institute or some place like that about how this program was a giveaway to the poor anyway, and it punished people who work: "let me make it simple: we don't want to be like France."

As I understand it, the big suits against tobacco companies were not based simply on the fact that they sell a harmful product. Beyond that, of significant imporance was that they deliberately hid the risks associated with tobacco use or that they marketed their products to children, or both. In either case, they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but did what they did because it made them a hell of a lot of money. Assuming they did either hide the risks or marketted to innocent children, it would seem that we only have three choices here: (1) government regulation, (2) a civil liability system that IS NOT subject to caps or other legal protection for such corporate wrongdoing, or (3) companies do what they want and their (relatively innocent and directly targetted) victims be damned. By the way, I think Ivan is right: every insurance form I've ever filled out asks if I am a smoker. Car insurance, homeowners, and health insurance. Don't they charge more if you check the "yes" box or are they just asking for the hell of it?

How bad is this? In the sun and on a snowslope can you still see what you are doing?