mattp

I know nothing about this situation and I haven't even tried to follow his link but I wouldn't completely dismiss JohnDavidJr's concerns. It would not at all surprise me to think that free camping at the Gunks is not going to last forever, nor that there could be some behind the scenes discussion that includes some AAC folks whose goal may not be to keep camping free. Is there something to this? I don't know. I've a supporter of the AAC but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they could do no wrong. The Access Fund split off from them decades ago and even the AF might not put energy into actually TRYING to keep a free campground free.

You think I'm dense, DeChristo? You agree with what I said: racism and racial tension are more openly visible in Michigan but Seattle is in reality just as segregated as Detroit. You slam me for a warped view of the entire world because I remember Wallace winning the state in 1968 while in fact he simply won the Democratic primary there in 1972. Your only beef is that you think I must promote or prefer unacknowledged racism to good old fashioned KKK style honesty (or something like that)* and you've been getting all aggro and calling me names for ten posts. If I'm dense, what are you? Pointlessly caustic? Its a lot more fun, in my opinion, to talk about issues than to slam just to slam. Have a nice day. * KKK in Ann Arbor in 1996

Whatever, DC. After all the discussion you've come around to what was my actual point in the first place: it is not really surprising to hear somebody from Michigan say they'd never vote for a black presidential candidate. And you appear to agree with my secondary point: racism tends to be expressed more openly in Michigan than in Seattle. (Scroll up and you'll see that I specifically noted in one of my first posts in this sub-topic that we are just as segregated as Detroit and I didn't and don't dispute your assertion that there is "hidden" racism here.) Michigan. Land of racial bliss. NOT. North. More "enlightened" than south. NOT NECESSARILY.

Yo Fairweather: I was just kidding about the cultural superior part - at least in part. I actually DO prefer the culture here to that in Michigan, but I knew if I put in a line about "cultural superiority" you'd be sure to get wrankled 'cause that has been your schtick for something like 6 years here on cc.com: "You Seattle liberals are all so smug and you drive Volvo's, too... blah blah blah." Relax, dude. Or are you REALLY arguing that racisim and racial tension isn't worse in Detroit?

I realize you hate Seattle, but I bet you are incorrect in this. I don't know what it is like in Iowa, but I bet your average "person of color" in Detroit, or even liberal Ann Arbor, would find attitudes in Seattle preferable - on issues of racial tension or tolerance. I've lived and worked in Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida, New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Washington. What about you? Have you ever been to Detroit? It is not a friendly place.

It could be worse, Minxy, you could be wasting your Friday night on the Internet.

He set me straight on the 1968 election (but Wallace won the Democratic primary in Michigan in 1972 -- is that what I was remembering?). That's not a bad thing but I still have a serious dislike for the culture of SE Michigan. We in Seattle are culturally superior to those heartlanders. You are right, though: Bug noted with what I took to be some astonishment that it was someone in a northern state who said he would not vote for a black presidential candidate and I don't think DeChristo or anyone else can dispel my notion that it is not all that surprising that such a quote would come from somebody in Michigan. Meanwhile, what about that McCain speech? Did he or does he inspire you with hope for a better leader of the free world?

Hey thanks, DeChristo. I've been holding my head in shame all these years for nothing. I was 11 in 1968 and apparently my political note-taking was a little off. Meanwhile, every time I visit I still find the racial attitudes there to be very different from those here in Seattle. I never get the "what the f*@! you looking at, white boy?" kind of reaction around here and I have not encountered anybody here with even close to the racist attitudes of kids I grew up with. Flying through Detroit airport the last half dozen times, and on a fairly recent visit to my father when he lived in Ypsilanti, my wife (a Seattle native) was astonished at what she saw in this regard. We in Seattle are as segregated as Detroit, to be sure, but I don't think we openly display the same measure of racism. Would you agree with this, or do you think your inter-racial social group is the norm in Michigan? Really? Because virtually EVERYBODY I've talked with about this who lives in southern and particularly southeastern Michigan or comes from there has agreed that the West Coast is way less tense in this regard. I just ran into somebody at the gym the other day who agreed -- and if he says so it must be true. Maybe it is different in the UP, where there really aren't any black people, are there?

I am sure that a threat of reprisal is almost certainly a part of the Democrats' vision for the war against terror as well and, clearly, strength and resolve is important in any foreign policy. Acknowledging that we should not have invaded Iraq in no way need undermine those objectives, but it could be a part of trying to rebuild some trust and respect. In private, even a good Republican will admit that Bush's lying about why we invaded and his go-it-alone "you're with us or against us" rhetoric -- especially when the war he led with this as his battle cry has turned into a big mess -- has undermined American prestige and respect, won't they? If we decide that the war is un-salvageable and opt for some kind of pullout, wouldn't a failure to acknowledge our mistake in the first place make us look like we have less strength and resolve? Wouldn't it be better to offer at least what appears to be an honest reason for our actions?

Repost, maybe, but Puget didn't offer a clue as to what he was posting about. Unless you clicked his link, that is. I agree with Puget, though: there are more important things to worry about at parks. I also think that the global warming argument is pure BS. Parks has been wanting to get rid of the bonfires for years. If they were worried about carbon, they wouldn't be cutting down trees at parks all over town, creating parks like Ballard's concrete commons, and building an artificial turfed tournament sportsfield complex with sportsfield lighting in Magnuson Park. Seattle parks is not at all about green. Well not green as in environmentally green. Bonfires at Golden Gardens are fun!

Agreed as far as the "not necessarily" part but I have a hard time imagining how we are going to be able to talk about what to do next and to repair the damage done without acknowledging, at least, that "mistakes were made."

Michigan has a lot of racism and racial tension. Even in a a routine transaction a clerk at the mini mart is not unlikely to openly display disdain for a black person if they are white, or a white person if they are black. Growing up there, we had race riots in high school. The state voted for Wallace along with seven southern states in '68.

Though it has to be said that the American people seem to want just that: black or white. That is why we're seeing these campaigns built on slogans and cartoon characters. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of the town meeting thing proposed by the McCain campaign - would either of them really subject themselves to unscripted pubic real-time debate?

Its crazy talk, I know, but Scott Harpel is the one who brought up the idea of doing the right thing.

True that, and in the case of Iraq I think that will include showing a willingness to speak truthfully about what is and has taken place there rather than putting a whitewash on the whole thing and offering cheerleader stuff like saying it was a good idea and still is a good idea and we gotta honor the fallen; it will include a willingness to talk to other parties, whether they are for or against us; and it will take a commitment NOT to allow our military to torture prisoners any more -- among other things. I don't see any great proposal coming from either McCain or Obama, at this point, but I wouldn't expect one. I also don't think going on a politically motivated tour over there gives one all that much special or accurate perception of the behind-the-scenes reality or a crystal ball on the future, or that saying "I support the troops" means much without actual support being offered. McCain had a month to prepare his speech, and he could have offered some kind of vision or inspiration even if it might have been offered in a clumsy manner. He did not.

Didn't he come out of the Keating thing tarnished, but not really taken down? I think they found he was only tangentially involved though there could be more to the story than we were ever told. I think these notions of "character" are important but also quite tenuous and our perceptions are easily manipulated. Do we really change everything we think about the man if, in August, we find out that McCain cheated on his income taxes in 2005 or had an affair with his housekeeper? Clearly these are important concerns but they too easily become the beginning and end of the analysis - like "experience" or "vision."

Didn't McCain support the invasion? I think the part he questioned was the lack of sufficient force going in.

I'd be interested to hear if anybody has presented any other rationale for changing his stances on those issues you note. Either you are against torture or your for us, errr...

Aha. I'm with you now.

Did you vote for Bush? He'd clearly demonstrated that he was a failure at pretty much everything he'd ever run and his military service record showed he avoided his responsibility there too. I understand your concern about Obama, but I gotta say I'm equally concerned that McCain may not be up to the job.

Please explain: what is "counterpoint?" It looked to me as if you said the jury hung because the judge lacked competence/balls. I don't know if the judge mishandled the matter or not, but I didn't see much indication of such a problem in any of the articles I read.

So you think a stirring account of how his cellmate was the most decorated veteran in history and McCain too was a pretty solid guy in captivity 35 years ago really has a lot to do with his "character" in a manner that is relevant to whether he'll make a good president now? I'd look more at his performance in the Senate in recent years, myself. You could certainly make a good case that he has been an advocate for reform of campaign financing and that he has on some issues bucked his own party so that shows some measure of independece -- both good things in my view. (Though I think he has not shown that as president he will necessarily continue to demonstrate these traits.) But to say we should elect him because he was a good soldier? I don't get it.

As I understand it, in the French system the Judge is much more active in overseeing the trial: they direct the general course of inquiry and pose the questions. We rely upon two opposing sides, prosecutor and defense, or plaintiff and defendant, neither of which is expected to tell the truth, and the judge is only supposed to serve as referee to enforce rules hoped to keep one side from having unfair advantage.

A major reason for this is that we don't trust judges to exercise broad discretion when sentencing so we have developed all these different specific charges in order that, once a jury decides what actually happened, the sentence is limited to a specific range.

Jury instructions are complicated and confusing to be sure but there is a long history and a lot of thought behind that 67 page packet. All or nearly all of of it is standard language and, in fact, the judge may have a choice between two or three "pattern" instructions on an issue like what constitutes the insanity defense, but absolutely no authority to tell them "factually" what constitutes the insanity defense and anybody who believes that a jury should be deciding this matter in the first place would not want a judge to do so.