[How to skip the ads on a DVD]

Yep. This works.

 

One of the flaws in the DVD format specification is something called a user restriction. There are actually three words to describe it, but I can only remember those two.

 

Most all players are required to honor those and the terms for that are spelled out in their CSS license. CSS is the encryption and region coding scheme that governs how the DVD players behave. There is no technical reason why you should not be able to just view any portion of the disc at any time. It's legal.

 

So then, the real solutions are:

 

Obtain modified DVD players, or those DVD players that have special features that omit these restrictions. I believe these are actually illegal in the US, due to the DMCA, but they can be imported, and it's legal to modify one yourself.

 

Build a DVD player. I use Linux for this, and it just rocks. Open software + the DECSS software = DVD player that does exactly what YOU want to be done with the disc regardless of how it was mastered. For years, I used ogle on a stripped down Linux box, and loved it. These days, I don't often deal with it on that level as many discs are much nicer, permitting the kinds of things you describe here.

 

I do have a laptop, running Ubuntu, that performs nicely though.

 

RIP the dvd and play the resulting image. I do this often, and it's a great solution because you don't have to manage the physical disks! Just buy the thing, perform the rip, then archive your master, leaving the easily viewed image somewhere you can get to it and just play on your terms.

 

Happy fun stuff!

 

(and screw those guys)

[Question for Obama supporters]

I will entertain no more false comparisons.

 

Peace my friend. Think hard about what I wrote to you.

[Question for Obama supporters]

Obama doesn't need to validate this crap.

 

This is a classic losers debate move. If he entertains this crap, then he lends credence to it. Losing position. Better to let the facts stand, and the law stand behind them, and let people say what they will.

 

Most people, given the scenario here and the facts at hand, would conclude Obama has met his burden, leaving the rest to just be idle talk, and that's exactly all this is. That's not "doing everything possible to prevent that phone call". It is, tabling what is not a rational discussion so that it's not validated and more of a PITA than it needs to be.

 

Here's the thing. For Obama the matter is closed. For the officials that matter (State of Hawaii, FBI, et al.) the matter is closed. The courts have not been shown anything that would open the matter, so therefore the matter is simply closed. For us citizens, this means the matter is closed.

 

For you, it's an open discussion, but that's you and your deal. It's open because you want it to be open, not because it should be open, and that's the difference!

 

Your analogy is not a valid comparison. All that has been done is the boundaries of the law have been honored. Enough information was published and verified to close the matter. That's all anybody deserves, BARRING SOME NEW INFORMATION that opens the matter for further discussion. NO SUCH INFORMATION exists, therefore the queries for more and more and more information, because we just don't want to believe this guy could be president, for whatever goofy reason, will not be answered.

 

Why won't they be answered?

 

Our discussion here is a case in point.

 

Because you don't want to have enough confidence in this matter, the matter is not closed. Enough information exists on this thread to have such a confidence, yet you ask for more and more and more and more.

 

So, there comes a time where it's no longer REASONABLE to provide said info. It's not REASONABLE, because no evidence exists that you will ever have such a confidence! The why is another discussion. For now, I'm simply stating that I see no return on investment of information and discussion, in the form of you either:

 

1. reaching a point of acceptance in the matter, ie: you are simply wrong about it

 

,or

 

2. providing some NEW INFORMATION that validates your position, thus warranting further discussion. ie: told you so!

 

And that's where it sits. Either produce some NEW INFORMATION that opens the matter, or work on acceptance of the state of the matter. All up to you.

 

Sorry man. It is what it is.

 

Edit: You also continue to focus on the unprovable as some evidence that you could be right in this. The scan published to us is not provable. We both know that. However, it's form and content have been validated. A record like that exists, and it exists in that form, and it exists with that content.

 

Say I was wondering if somebody was born somewhere. I could produce a document like this, then ask if it's valid right? If they said yes, then the form and content of the document is valid. My "copy" or reproduction of it is not a legal copy however. So then, the document is not direct proof as in "prima facia" evidence as it's not legally vetted. That is what we have on the web, and what a lot of us have in personal files here and there.

 

Our employers, for example, would take a copy of an original. Their copy is not legal, however it does capture the form and content of the record, so they can demonstrate their compliance with the law.

 

It's not REASONABLE to expect that everybody who wants to see a valid, legal copy, to do so. What do you need to happen here? Does the guy have to come up to you, shake your hand, bring his family and friends still alive, an attorney, legal copies of everything, and sit down at the table and go through the chain of events from start to finish?

 

Not REASONABLE.

 

Now, let's flip it around. To believe he's not eligable to be President, there would have to exist a coordinated conspiracy involving the officials in several departments in the State of Hawaii, Federal involvement all over the place, FBI, CIA, SS, etc... and extreme complacency on the part of the press, and direct involvement from the press regarding those statements that assert his eligibility.

 

That burden is absolutely HUGE my friend! It's not rational, it didn't happen, it's not plausible.

 

I leave you again, with either acceptance (and that's on your terms of course, I can't help you with that), or a burden to bring NEW INFORMATION to light that opens the matter.

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I went through this with Bush. To me, it's clear we got hosed in 2000. The guy was Selected, not Elected. And put that into the context of the last 8 years and you have one pissed off potatohead! Took me quite a while, but I finally came to acceptance on how the process works and my place in it.

 

So then, I began to work where I could make a difference, and that was productive and I feel a lot better about most of those things. Looking back, I think many of us were lazy, and had we worked just a bit harder (court games or not), Bush would not have made it in 2000 and things would be very different today.

 

I was wrong then to focus on the SCOTUS and their $%(#*&$%#$% decision. The right thing to do was explore WHY that decision got there and WHAT to do about THAT. So it follows that better involvement in political matters was not only warranted, but mandatory, if we were to see the potential for significant change and improvement put back on the table.

 

Obama was elected in a decisive manner, leaving the courts out of it, and the process worked. Many came to the same conclusion I did, clearly.

 

We may not agree politically. That's cool! I like you, so I will offer this post in the best of ways.

 

Surrender this. The guy is President, he was duly elected, he can serve as any American citizen can, because he is an American citizen.

 

Channel your advocacy and your passion into those things that actually exhibit the potential for improving the state of those things you feel passionate about. The world will be better because of it. You will grow stronger because of it too.

[Question for Obama supporters]

From the article linked above:

 

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us."

 

That's it. Done.

 

They e-mailed the copy they had, and that named spokesperson from the Hawaii Department of Health, confirmed it's valid. Others have done this too. Do I need to go and look those up as well?

 

See how this works now?

 

On the Job, the onus is on the Employer to make sure they don't just hire people. They have to check a potential new employees eligibility to work. Some employers do more than others, but all are required to make sure they are hiring legal workers. That is the law.

 

Of course, the workers need to demonstrate that, and that is the law too.

 

Lucky for us, the state facilitates this, by providing us with documents that verify this fact, so that each transaction we engage in does not go through courts all the time. If the state provides a legal document, copy or not, just a legal document, that meets the burden of the employer, then both parties need only look at the document to meet their respective burdens, and the law is satisfied.

 

In fact, if a potential employee having shown the documents (and a birth certificate copy, like the one shown above is one of those documents) to an employer, finds that employer needs more proof, they could then take the employer to court on the basis of discrimination. That is the law too. It's basically there to stop people from trying to question the state.

 

The state of Hawaii is the authority in this. They verified the document. That's it.

 

In this instance, again, Obama has published those things necessary to verify his American citizenship. Therefore; barring any new information that may contradict those things, the matter is closed. If any of the stuff that's been tossed about actually was new information, we would see successful legal motions in courts, press reporting on those, and a burden on Obama to refute those.

 

You have a statement, by a named official, in the public record, that speaks to the validity of the certificate copy so published. It's only valid if the information contained in it is valid, and it's form is valid. So then, their confirmation validates both of those things, without introducing any new information. And that's the way it should be.

 

Now, do you have ANYTHING that might actually contradict the State of Hawaii in this matter

 

,or

 

are you just looking to discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, or some other thing?

 

BTW: I'm not implying that you are. I am just highlighting where the reasoning takes me. Also, did a quick re-read of the article above, and the only thing Hawaii could not confirm is the image itself. Again, the form and content was valid. Whether or not, that is an actual scan of a valid copy was not verified. In any case, that question is moot, unless information is brought to the table that would invalidate the record of the State of Hawaii.

 

Another edit: After having thought about it for a bit. I'm not sure anyone from the State of Hawaii could make that verification. A scan isn't something we can chain back to the document in a legally binding way. Could scan front from one and back from another. Could be the scanner distorts the image some how. Lossy compression could do the same. Stuff stuck to either the document or scanner then could present as a contradictory image.

 

That's about as good as it gets, and thus the conclusion reached at the end of the piece I linked to. What is reasonable?

 

It's the same dilemma you posed with the employer.

 

Say the document the potential employee presented to the employer was damaged somehow. The employer then has standing to ask for better proof. They do after all want to comply with the law, as it's there to protect everybody. The employee, noting the damage, could also see that's an issue, and obtain a better quality document.

 

Of course, the employer could make a phone call too, combine that with photo ID and call it good.

 

Reasonable right?

 

So then, in this matter, I think it's safe to say Obama has done what is reasonable, and that's the crux of the matter isn't it?

 

And that leaves me with my earlier conclusion. You don't have confidence because you don't want to. Sufficient information exists to establish such a confidence. Up to you to process it, and either you do or don't. Your call. However, you go on that, it's absolutely not a burden on Obama to meet whatever expectations people have that extend outside the boundaries of the law.

 

Further, it is mutually agreed that our current legal boundary for these things is sufficient, or we would see these matters litigated regularly, thus warranting reform. No such movement for reform exists to a degree that brings it credence at this time.

 

We then must agree to disagree. Unless new information is presented that would warrant some legal challenge to the facts we have at hand, this boils down to a personal matter of trust in the process and the people involved in it.

[Question for Obama supporters]

Here you go.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...ficate-part-ii/

 

Note, the official in that article did assert that is a valid certificate. That connects Obama to the record in Hawaii.

 

You can also go here:

 

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

 

At the root of that site are Obama's responses to everything asked here and in most other places I see this.

 

The guy published, others fact checked, and what's left is a bunch of people who don't want to have confidence. I can't help you with that, but to link to some good info, and leave you with:

 

It might be a good idea to solidly substantiate any allegations you might have against the President Elect, before airing them in a public forum where you may find your subsequent queries marginalized.

 

This, by the way, is the exact same response I got when questioning the validity of the Bush election in 2000. So, I did the right thing, dealt like everyone else eventually does, and supported him as President, until his own actions no longer warranted said support.

 

Seriously. You can nut up and do the exact same thing here.

[Question for Obama supporters]

He showed a legal copy of his birth record. It's published. Do I need to go look for it?

 

He met the same burden anyone else had to meet. His birth record is in the public record now.

 

As a result, the burden is now on those who don't buy it. Seek and either ye shall find, or not, but it's really not Obama's deal anymore. This is why he published it. This is why anybody running for high office publishes things. When they don't publish them, that's when we have trouble.

 

The legal certificate he showed, is the positive statement. I've got one on file, as do you. That's enough, unless somebody brings evidence to the contrary. To entertain otherwise is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and it's harassment. (go look it up) This is why we have legal documents. They are vetted, and given to people just so we don't have to deal with this crap.

 

We are a innocent until proven guilty nation. That is what puts the burden on those who don't buy it, not the other way around. Knowing this and acting on it is not arrogance, nor is it thumbing down the Constitution. In fact, it's taking advantage of it, just as any citizen would. If we did things your way, nobody would have any peace, as they would spend all their time making positive assertions to anybody who felt they needed one. That could be abused easily too.

 

So, we produce the document, they see it, believe it or not and that's their call, but the law is clear on the matter. Burden met, no discrimination is legal then, unless some other facts are brought into play, see court review, and that document then is invalidated.

 

If anybody doesn't believe he's an American, then it's clearly up to them to post up or shut up. Anyone willing to entertain this crap then legitimizes it, and that's a losing position. I wouldn't do it, and would not expect Obama to do it.

 

That is how it works here. Sorry.

 

This is also the explanation for his behavior. Nobody entertains this crap when they have the high ground. There is no reason to. It's not productive, and it potentially could lead to some other losing position.

 

You don't have confidence because you don't want to have it. It's really that simple. And that is your right, no question there. Projecting that onto Obama doesn't lend credence to your points of discussion however.

 

Something to think about.

[Question for Obama supporters]

I don't get it.

 

The birth records were shared. The state of Hawaii confirmed they issued them. The court case is gonna get tossed.

 

He's eligible. That's it.

 

There is no indication we are headed for disaster, that might be avoided, if we just not elect this guy. There is no Obama doom on the horizon. In fact, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that guy will be a bad President at all!

 

I've watched this with interest over the whole election. In previous elections, it was about this matter or that policy, or the usual stuff. Some people made it about money, others sex, still others religion, you name it. That's the stuff we debate right? Somebody comes out of that the winner, and we are all supposed to step up, see that democracy has moved us forward, lend our support and see how it all goes.

 

That's what I did in 2000. I absolutely knew I was gonna disagree with court justice picks, foreign policy, domestic policy, pretty much the whole deal. But, not agreeing with how it goes down, doesn't mean the end of the world. Sometimes it means we were wrong, and that going down the other road kicked a lot of ass. Sadly, we didn't see that this time. Wish we had though.

 

This election though was different. I came from a small town. Kind of a redneck town. It was flat out asked: "Are you gonna vote for the black guy?" One clown I grew up with responded, "No, just the white half!". This was ugly, but it happened. Happened more than I thought it would.

 

I think it's still happening!

 

Now, instead of voting, which is over and done, it's about supporting. "Are we gonna trust the black guy?". And we go down that road a ways. Maybe we go a bit farther, and we get to "He's not one of us!", and so it all goes... "will he make us pay for all the stuff we did to Black people?". (Yes, I got asked that one! Can you believe it?)

 

There is lots of trouble if you go looking for it man. Always is. Doesn't matter where you stand, or what you stand for. There are others willing to entertain the worst of thoughts and feed on that and marginalize the good things.

 

I'm not buying any of it. I like what I see, and I see no reason to believe it isn't the real deal. Sometimes this happens! We get somebody who just wants to step up and really do it right. I think that is exactly what drives Obama and it's something we seriously need right now. Given the problems we face, and to some degree those the world faces, it's damn good to feel some hope and see that maybe things can get better, that there is progress and the whole warm fuzzy deal.

 

"Yes we can!" packs one hell of a punch now, don't you think! Another whole class of people now knows that yes, they in fact, can. It's cool! Love it.

 

Most of the world loves it. My oldest adopted Black son loves it.

 

Sorry, but I can't entertain this tin-foil stuff. There will be time to start putting the hammer on Obama, but now is not that time. He's got to build his administration, and start leading. Then we see where he takes us.

 

If it sucks? Well? Then we bring the hammer down and get to work, just like we do for any President that sucks, but that time is not now. Now is the time to be happy we have a new President, that the decision was decisive instead of being a cluster fuck, and to think about what it all might mean going forward.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Isn't it important to also state WHY he was opposed to that legislation?

 

I just did some digging on this one, as it was disturbing to me. Here's what I learned:

 

The law already contained the protection necessary:

 

(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; [...] Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.

 

(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

 

 

Obama was opposed to making redundant law, with potential language issues and some redefinition of what we consider to be a "person". This was a mixed bag, and the limited framing of "Obama opposed protections" isn't really getting at the issue.

[Question for Obama supporters]

I don't like everything about the post above... sorry.

 

There are some elements of the vetting that are not public. I don't like that very much. On the flip side, there are always a lot of people who would do bad things, so maybe there is some balance. Found this in my inbox about the SCOTUS case:

 

What with all the brouhaha about the (moronic) "Obama Citizenship" cases, time for a primer about how the Supreme Court and lawsuits work.

 

1. A federal case begins in a Federal District Court. The trial court hears the case and ultimately makes a final decision on it. Until there is a final decision, you cannot appeal (with very few exceptions). Common final decisions are:

 

A) A grant of a motion to dismiss, finding that the allegations in the complaint are not enough to state a cause of action. A subset of this is how the "Citizenship" cases were decided--in order to bring a case, you must have "standing"--this means you must show that you, personally, are being or will be harmed. If you lack standing, you can't pursue the case.

B) A grant of summary judgment, finding that after discovery, undisputed evidence shows that a claim is legally barred.

C) A judge or jury decision resolving the case after trial.

D) A grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

 

If a case settles, there's no appeal (though there can be exceptions in criminal cases, where pleas subject to right to challenge evidentiary rulings sometimes occur).

 

What's next? After the flip.

 

* profmatt's diary :: ::

*

 

2. As of right, there is an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals must hear it. With the exception of certain types of cases (some tax cases and veterans cases, patent cases, and a few others), Circuits are geographical and regional. The Court of Appeals re-examines the case based primarily on briefs submitted by the parties. It does not hear evidence. Indeed, it can only overturn factual findings of a lower court if those findings are "clearly erroneous." (That's a very very high standard.) Circuit courts may also stay the District Court's ruling pending the appeal, and commonly do where the District Court's ruling requires action by a party (e.g., an order to stop selling certain products because they have been determined to infringe a patent, trademark, or copyright). The court may affirm (say the decision below was right), reverse (say the decision below was wrong), remand (say that the decision below failed to consider certain things and send it back for further consideration), or any combination thereof.

 

3. The losing party in the Circuit Court then has the right to appeal to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS review is discretionary. While you have the right to petition for review (known to law-talkin'-folks as certorari or "cert"), SCOTUS can say "buzz off." SCOTUS recieves dozens, if not hundreds, of cert petitions a week, but only takes 60-80 cases a year on average. Indeed, many parties who have cert petitions filed against them simply file a waiver of response.

 

A party seeking emergency intervention must go first to their "Circuit Judge." The current Circuit Judge assignments are listed here. This means that if your case comes out of the 9th Circuit (West Coast), your application for emergency relief must be directed to Kennedy. The most common "emergency relief" applications are death penalty cases.

 

While one judge can grant an emergency stay, you need 5 votes to grant a full stay. Example--let's say a death case comes up in New York. Justice Ginsburg as Circuit Justice grants emergency stay. For that stay to be continued, she needs four other votes. Here's where it gets weird--while you need 5 votes for a stay, you need only 4 votes to hear a case. Hypothetically, it's possible that Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens all vote to hear the case and grant a stay. The case would thus be heard. Absent a stay, however, the prisoner will be executed (and the case mooted) before the court hears the case. In prior years, there'd be a judge that would swing to grant a stay in such circumstances, but this has not been common in recent years. (The closest we have to that currently is Justice Kennedy.)

 

So what's actually happening with the citizenship case? Plaintiff sought injunctive relief in a District Court. Not only was his injunctive relief denied, but his case was dismissed for lack of standing. He appealed it to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. He filed a cert petition and emergency relief petition to Souter. Souter denied it. He then tried to present it to Thomas. Thomas said "we'll deal with it at a cert conference, but I'll ask it go on the next conference, on the off chance that someone expresses interest, since your case would be moot if we pushed it back further." This afternoon, the Justices will meet for a routine conference to deal with the cert petitions. This case almost certainly won't even be specifically mentioned, but simply added to the long list of "denials" that issue. There won't be four votes to grant cert, much less five votes to grant a stay. An order to that effect will issue Monday or Tuesday.

 

 

 

 

Looks to me like it's #3, meaning we deal, or somebody does some more in-depth discovery to bring a case with standing and merit.

[Question for Obama supporters]

The SCOTUS is going to aggregate these cases, and there are a few, rule indirectly on them, and move on. They will not legitimize this case, probably for #3 and lack of sufficient evidence, should #3 actually be met.

 

Frankly, if they did rule Obama out, there would be blood on the streets, and they won't risk that, unless the matters of law are freaking SOLID, and the EVIDENCE is more than a set of questions and really a plea for more public discovery than anything else. A whole lot of us remember them inserting themselves into OUR process in 2000 as well.

 

Won't happen. Trust me on that.

 

Actually, given the appointees on this court, I am a strong advocate for expanding it again, just to weed out the morons that currently sit on it.

 

There is a chain of people that tie Obama to Hawaii. Hawaii itself has the record, and it has been issued. This is all we need to know, barring some other evidence that actually boils down to more than some questions and confusion over existing law.

 

If it went farther than that, it would have been brought up way before now. There is an early vetting process that one goes through and Obama went through that.

 

And no. Obama is not hiding anything. I've no reason to suspect that. His background in law means he understands perfectly, and arguably better than any of us do, about the conditions of his run for office. Had there been a problem with those, he would not have ran.

 

Nobody likes a President not DULY elected. Just look at what we got out of 2000. No thanks.

 

Our process has it's problems, and the people are concerned about them. There is no way Obama would run, only to end up with the ugly mess that would arise from him running a successful campaign that deceived the people in this way.

 

I'm gonna out and say it:

 

There are a fraction of us, who have a serious problem with a black president. There are also a fraction of us, who want to see the GOP continue power for their own ends, and that same fraction believes that ends can justify means, and should be marginalized as a result. Both fractions are a very significant social problem. I don't know the solution, other than to just reinforce the idea that they are here*, and to keep things rational.

 

Obama is a rational, disciplined person, who has expressed NOTHING but a sincere interest in getting things running better again. On that, I agree with him. He was DULY elected, and therefore gets the same consideration I've granted EVERY president, even this last one.

 

These cases are nothing but sour grapes aimed at marginalizing his presidency. There is a lot of framing being done right now with the same goals.

 

None of this is productive. We need to let the man do his thing, then judge that result, just like we did with every other President. If we can grant this to the current President, we can absolutely grant it to Obama, and I personally expect nothing less. He might really suck, he might kick ass, he might be a marginal President. Won't know, unless we step up, give him the support, and see.

 

Again, we were asked to do this for Bush, and that was HARD. FUCKING HARD. So we can all do it now in like kind.

 

*not here on AA, but here, with us, as people. That's all.

[Question for Obama supporters]

This whole thing is a mess.

 

Hawaii was a state when he was born, that's American Soil, and therefore he's a citizen, period. The other rules being brought up in these court cases, concerning residency, 5 years of citizenship, etc... are all used to determine citizenship if American Soil can't be demonstrated.

 

See Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

He's not even naturalized. He was BORN in Hawaii, when it was a state.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Ugh...

 

I went to one of those schools in my youth. Let's just say it wasn't pretty seeing a fairly rational teen clash with that stuff.

 

Agreed Thomas. The law is a tough thing. It's as much work defending it, as it is working on new elements of it. You are the first in a while to use the word arbitrary in that context. That's really the crux of the matter, IMHO.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Yeah, I can't figure that out either.

 

I know we can cut the numbers just huge, if we work on education. Empowerment brings with it some control too. That's contraceptives and other science related things. And alternatives are important. More women will carry, if there are more options, or at the least more availability to them.

 

Agreed on the science. We just are not there yet. Science will tell us where the person begins, and will cut risk to the mother, and provide education, and empowerment options. The closer we look at the problem, the better this all becomes.

 

I don't support abortion. I don't know anybody that does. It's just choice that remains important in light of the lack of understanding we have, and the risks.

 

The most common objection to education and empowerment is the argument that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and given that there is no reason for promoting these things. If everybody would just see it that way, then we have almost no abortion problem! Of course, that's not gonna work, given only a fraction of us hold that faith. It is that which drives both positions though, most of the time.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

1. So we essentially agree! The earlier the better. Add in as many preventative options, and post birth options and we are golden!

 

3. I think we better ask the woman that. Having to sustain a life, as a result of some crime is probably not as simple as let's just give it up after it's done. There is bonding, the personal stigma associated with carrying a baby to term and other things that most likely we men would not find all that palatable.

 

4. SCOTUS recently defined gun ownership as an individual right. Until that decision, that was a matter of significant debate. For me personally, my body is a "PRIVATE" area. I would expect any woman to feel the same way. If it's inside, we call the shots, period. I've no issue with that, and besides, given we can get movement toward earlier the better, why not just do that and leave the rest alone?

 

Seems to me, given strong education, alternatives and empowerment, abortion can be cut to a very small fraction of what it is now. Additionally, the norms we set during that time might seriously move the conversation forward.

 

That's common ground, and I am personally interested in productive movement that way. Remember, if we make it law, abortions will still absolutely happen. If a loved woman of mine ended up in the rape dilemma and wanted to abort, it would absolutely happen, with my support, law or no, so why bother? Those of us that feel that way, simply will. Those that see it your way, simply will to.

 

Meaning, we really need to get to the problem early, so that the greatest number of positive outcomes are possible, and that's where I remain on the matter.

 

Law is not the only tool we have for regulating behavior. There is money, physics, norms and law. The takeaway here is that law is not absolute. Passing a law to take away what is really a choice, because of physics, is a denial of our physical realities and would then be bad law. I don't like bad laws. Much prefer effective and solid laws.

 

...and since you agree that debate is defensible at the early stages, it's game set match. Solve it early, and everybody goes home as happy as is possible, all things considered!

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

On the rallies, it's very simple.

 

The statements were made, she heard them, was made aware of them, and did not repudiate them. There was enough of that to hit the news, and that counts as being "heard", and where national matters are concerned, strong examples should be the norm. McCain understood this and repudiated the statements. He also closed with dignity and respect for his opponent. (I give him good, high marks for that too.)

 

Palin has not done this, and didn't do it when it was appropriate to do so.

 

We don't allow those kinds of things to stand. There is no casual charge of a member of Congress being a terrorist, nor to kill him, or imply that his race is somehow at issue. These things are not defensible.

 

A casual, ordinary person doing this could probably be characterized as bad form, outside the norm, and self-marginalized enough to be a non-issue. There is a case for some inexperience in public matters coming into play too. Say both of these are in play, meaning we clearly see Palin as not being the kind of person who would endorse these things. Fair enough. I can see that and maybe even buy that.

 

So then, what business does an ordinary, casual person have running the nation?

 

See how that works? It's not good for her either way. And it's extremely difficult to overlook the reporting on the incidents, and repudiations made, and not note the lack of hers. It would have been so easy, and it would have meant a lot, given the national attention those statements and gestures received.

 

Why not do the right thing? I would have. Most people I know would have. Some I know would have moved the mic, and dealt with it right then and there, with a simple, "we don't do that here".

 

Not dealing with it, points to either profound ignorance, or some level of acceptance. Which is it?

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

"What gays are seeking with 'gay marriage' is the ability to compel other people to acknowledge their relationships. "

 

No.

 

What they want is the same access to the rights and responsibilities everybody has when they choose to join lives. That's it.

 

How they marry, who marries them and what they do in their bedroom is really their business. For what it's worth, this is exactly why SCOTUS struck down the sodomy laws. If you have two concenting adults, then there is no harm, and we make laws to address matters of harm and property. We don't make laws because we don't like somebody, or think they are gross.

 

My marriage is between my wife and I. This is true for any set of partners.

 

We went through this with mixed race marriages. Lots of people were not inclined to recognize their relationship, and lots of people eventually got told to suck it up and keep to themselves about it. This matter is no different. And given how the younger generations appear to take it, won't stand all that long either. Younger people don't want to hear about this, in general, PERIOD. They are past it, leaving just us older generations to either pass on, or learn to deal.

 

Only a matter of time.

 

The reality on marriage is that the government does it, not the church. We can go get a license, and be married by a judge, or have a pagan ceremony and that marriage is as valid as a full boat church blessed one is, in the eyes of the government and with regard to public matters.

 

This is what the gay people want. They will use their churches, they will have their friends recognize it, and more importantly, the government will recognize it, allowing them to do the things that everybody does when they choose to join their lives.

 

And just like the interracial marriages, the rest of us can just STFU, like we should anyway.

 

IMHO, this is a mistake positioning the churches as some authority on marriage. It isn't the law, and we grapple with this over and over and over as some of us are always offended at what others among us believe. We have public lives where we have to deal with money, taxes, death, etc... and we have personal lives.

 

The church is about our personal lives, not our public lives, unless we want them to. Marriage is exactly like this, but for the fact that we have not really gone back and thought about just who actually marries us, and why they do so.

 

I suspect this will change over some time too.

 

Would be much better to differentiate the two. One can be married to another, and the government does not discriminate on that, just like it's not supposed to discriminate on any of the things we can't change. Sex, gender, race, height, beauty, etc...

 

The church then acknowledges that marriage, if it's important for those so married to have it do so, and that's the end of it right there.

 

All the problems solved, everybody is happy.

 

In fact, if anyone isn't happy with that, they have a control issue, plain and simple. If any of us has a problem with what's going on in the bedroom of somebody else, we know too much for one thing, and we want to make them conform to some behavioral standard we choose to conform to, and the reality is they simply don't have to do that, given that there is no demonstrable harm that results from said behavior.

 

Kids from gay parents don't end up gay because of that. Gay people are not harmed by gay sex, anymore than straight people are harmed by sex. We know these things. The problem simply is acceptance of these things. That's the control issue.

 

I've had to deal with mine. Go do some digging on this forum for a good explanation of how that works. I've posted on the matter before, it's ugly, but it's doable.

 

There is no excuse for passing a law simply to avoid having to endure a measure of personal growth, and that's all this matter ends up being in the end.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Before I go farther down the road on Dominisim, I need to know we can still be friends after that. There is going to be some rough stuff said, and perhaps it does not need to be said at all to answer the core question we have arrived at; namely, "Is Palin an appropriate leader?".

 

I like most people here. In fact, I enjoy the diversity very much. I don't want to impact that, because I also really enjoy the conversation too. You let me know, and I'll go away nicely, with no worries.

 

I think we are safe on gay and abortion, so...

 

On abortion, it's more complex than most paint it out to be. Advances in science have pushed back viability quite a bit. However, such viability does require enabling technology to be realized, meaning we have a person who can stand alone, but still needs help. Just not always from the mother.

 

Also, getting to that viability does pose a significant risk to the mother, and here's the thing: It's her body, her life choice, not ours. She does have the control on this, in that she could elect to end both lives. That's harsh, but that is how it is. I consider my body a soverign place. It's MINE. I'm sure most all women and gay people, for that matter, think exactly the same way.

 

I'm not inclined to legislate those life choices. Take it a different way. Say we are on a cliff, and a rope is all that seperates us from death. Does everybody on the rope have the right to live? Who chooses who to cut off, or how many to cut off so the remainder survive? The answers to those questions lie with those people on the rope, do they not?

 

What if there was a LAW saying that we must cut the lowest off, and continue in succession, or failure to do so would result in a charge of murder? Seems kind of goofy doesn't it? Some of us would choose to end our lives, some would not. Others might agree mutually to share the risk. It all depends. Also, we don't know if death is certian either. Perhaps they would live anyway, the perception of danger being greater than it really is.

 

With the mother and child, their lives are intertwined. Removing the child early, because it could be viable, might kill the mother, might leave her unable to have other children, etc... All of that could be done and still we see the child die too.

 

My point in this isn't to invalidate your beliefs in this matter. It is to highlight the fact that we don't have solid, absolute kinds of answers where we could then make laws that are justified.

 

I'm anti-abortion. In fact, EVERYBODY I've ever met is this way. Nobody wants abortions to happen, so let's just make that clear right now.

 

The ambiguity in these things, as well as the interconnected lives, and to a degree the scenarios under which we get here, all mean tough choices for people. The earlier the choice is made, the better all around too.

 

Say my wife is raped, and becomes pregnant. Do we really want a law that says she must have the child, and that we must either care for it or have somebody adopt it?

 

What about the girl, who gets slipped a date drug, wakes up potentially pregnant, with her whole future potentially changing? Do we really want to deny her the options we know we can bring to the table for her? She could take the morning after pill, or the very early abortion pill and be done with it, early, and ideally whole, not harmed and maybe a bit wiser about how she does things and with whom? The clowns that did it, see some jail for the exact same reason.

 

Mother faced with a very strong chance of death, should she carry a child to term. Maybe it's a tube pregnancy, or she has some problem where going to term could kill her. So, we know we could grant viability in some cases, at a personal cost, or we could abort too, if she wants to live. Risks abound in these scenarios, and who really wants to legislate that? I don't. It's the kind of thing we do to animals, not people.

 

These are very tough choices. Nobody wants to be in the position to have to make them. Nobody wants to be forced to make the wrong one.

 

I hear personal responsibility brought up a lot, as if women were walking around just asking for the dilemma. Perhaps some of them are, but I think men could be held to the same standard being able to get the personal gratification without the risk.

 

What I don't hear so much about is redemption. Say we've got somebody going down a bad path, and they get a second chance at doing it right? Don't we want that, just in case it's us? I do. Legislating moral choices for people denies this, or criminalizes this.

 

I can tell you that any woman I know and love has my absolute support in these things. I trust them, because that's who they are and their station in live more or less demands they give these matters consideration, and said consideration has real and personal consequences! Sorry, but that more or less makes it not my call.

 

You believe what you believe, and you are entitled to that. Have you ever considered the simple reality that most all discussions of this kind are phrased as questions for a reason? That reason is simple: We don't have definitive boundaries because we don't have definitive understanding! Where we have that, we have absolutely no business trying to put it in to the law.

 

Others do not believe as you do, and until we have a greater understanding than we do right now, we have only choices!

 

And this, not some pro-abortion stance, is why I feel compelled to support choice. Given the ugly nature of it, and the personal responsibility that must be factored in, I also support complete and total education, early and often. The last thing we need is a bunch of taboos getting in the way of people making rational choices. It's a trinity of solutions really. We educate, we empower, and we then realize many more good choices than we do bad.

 

One other thing too. For all the discussion about the rights of the unborn, how come we don't see more pro-life organizations working to provide options that make sense, as hard as they work to deny choices?

 

Seems to me, greater acceptance of the reality of the situation means open discussion on all sides, and if we are gonna push for the lowest number of abortions possible (and that is the only realistic goal, given people will do it law or not), then education and prevention must also be followed with post birth options as well. Then the scope of choices and the field for advocacy about them is complete!

 

Anybody that doesn't want to abort, has the max number of options, and anybody that does, does it early, and does it being fully aware of the alternatives on the table. We will get more solid choices from that, than we will any other way. At the least, I could live with that, knowing there are checks and balances pressuring people to think it through and get it done in the best way they can.

 

Getting back to Palin then. She courted the Religious Right, who have made it extremely clear this is their goal. That's support! There isn't any real discussion on this point, or she would have spoke with more complexity about the matter, just as the others who do support choice are compelled to do. They must do this because an honest and thoughtful answer is always more than "ban it, it's murder / wrong / ungodly, etc...".

 

Anybody, who would push to appoint more conservative justices to the court, knowing some of the ones we have now are interested in overturning that decision, clearly and unabashedly supports legislating other peoples choices for them. And with me, that's just not indiciative of the kind of leadership we should have, if we are to step up and really honor the idea of this nation being a free nation, and not some theocracy.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

I took some time before replying to this. It's better that way, IMHO.

 

For me, Palin's general ignorance about how the government is supposed to work is a big problem. Her "first amendment rights being infringed by negative media" comment is absolutely scary! Think about the implications of that.

 

And it gets worse:

 

Palin would absolutely support those who would overturn Row V Wade. I have a wife and daughters and there is no way I could look them in the eye, pretend I understand the position they could be in, and support legislating their decisions for them. Some of us believe life begins at conception, others believe it's at birth, still others go for viability, and some of us just don't care. I personally am in the viability camp.

 

The hard reality on this is that we don't have a solid answer for that. A coupla cells isn't a person. There isn't a self there, in the sense of how we think of people. If there is no self, we don't have murder. On the other hand, I'm confident that we have a person in the third trimester for sure! That's viable too, double whammy!

 

Science has brought us closer to knowing, and theology has brought us ways to cope with not knowing. We really don't know though, and that puts this matter in the realm of choice. In particular, it's the womans choice! Without some very solid, mutually agreed upon realization of when we have a person and when we don't, this then is one of those choice things we all have to make and then live with.

 

Legislating the matter isn't a solution. Any woman, who does not want to have the baby, simply won't. She could end both lives, and that's that. Putting the matter into the black markets again, won't help us either. Better to focus on all the ways we know how to avoid the problem in the first place. If we face the problem, we do it early to avoid it as much as possible. I'm up for that, as I'm not up for abortions period. The fewer the better, and maybe someday we won't have to have them happen at all!

 

That's the sensible way to do things, because it leaves people free to choose how their lives go. It's a common goal too.

 

These people, who just want it outlawed, will let the world burn, if they think that's even a remote possibility. This is not defensible, and frankly, this view held by our President, is a dangerous one. National Security could literally be put at risk over something like this, and that's a disqualifier right there.

 

So that's one answer to legislate choices away. I've another:

 

Palin has connections with Dominionists. Dominionists seek to control society in that they want their belief systems to trump the others, and the only real reason I've seen to justify this is they happen to think theirs is the "right" one! They want to saturate the political process, democratic process, the courts and the media, such that they can make majority decisions toward this goal. That's not how Americans do things. You can't just buy consensus, and we don't pass laws because "Pastor Bob says God says so."

 

Palin supports both of these movements, and to a degree they are connected. Maybe I'll just say she supports these people and call it good.

 

If she had more power, these people would have more power, and that would diminish our ability to exercise our choice of religion.

 

Enough of that.

 

On the matter of hate.

 

I am deeply disturbed at her fanning the flames of bigotry in rallies, without talking people down. Now, McCain did this! He went down that road, saw what could happen, and stepped up and did the right thing! Got flack over it too! In this nation, I find it difficult to believe we even have this discussion, when it's a settled matter that bigotry and racism are not ok. They are not defensible, we know it and most of our law reflects it.

 

To sum that up, it's a wink and nod toward hate. This too is unacceptable in our leaders. We are better than that.

 

On a related note, many of these dominionists consider gay a sin. Focus on the Family poured half a million dollars into a campaign in CA aimed at amending a state consitiution to take rights away from people! We don't do that either, and the ACLU and others will eventually toss that one out as it's not really a proper amendment. Now, I think that's gross generally. The idea of marriage is not pleasing to me either, but it's not MY marriage, nor is it MY bedroom, so I know I can just deal. Our leaders need to do the same, and we as citizens need to do the same.

 

That matter is hot right now, with lots of debate and we are struggling with acceptance, just as we did women voting, blacks, etc... It will pass, but it won't pass, if we choose to elect leaders like Palin.

 

And that brings me to character.

 

I don't think a solid case can be made for Pailin to be a person of good character, given the above matters surrounding her. I think a case for ignorance can be made, but... that's not really an excuse for allowing her to lead. I do think it's an excuse for character, but ONLY UNTIL THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO HER ATTENTION, at which point any solid, but ignorant person of good character, is going to step up, do some learning, some growth and get over it, just like the rest of us solid people, of good character did.

 

These are basic things that many adults struggle with. No question. I'm not going to fault somebody for being sucked in there somewhere, really struggling with their life choices in terms of belief, and the reality of things. We are just people, and we all try to be better people. However, our leaders set the bar, they are the example, they are people we look up to, respect, and strive to match their example. Leaders are not perfect either. However, imperfect they may be, they need to be demonstrating the core elements of good character or they will take us all down a bad road already traveled. This is how I see Palin.

 

I don't have to agree with somebody to respect them, even follow them. Those differences can be significant too! An example would be my pro-life friends! They advocate for that, and I advocate for choice only, and I share advocacy with them for women to not have abortions. That's our common ground. Nobody I know, that has good character, would ever consider actually legislating that choice!

 

No woman I know, who has any measure of self-respect, would legislate that choice.

 

This is how it is supposed to work. We disagree on things, and we keep the society permissive so that people can make their life choices and live their lives out in the best way they can. I'll go to the mat for that, even with somebody I don't agree with, or like very much. I think it's reasonable to expect the same in like kind.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Regardless of Palin's fiscal ideals (whatever they are, and they may indeed be conservative) I think the nation was much more frightened of electing another evangelical. If the GOP wants to reinvent itself, I think they would be wise to purge themselves of all of these polarizing social issues.

 

One of the things I've thought Gov. Palin should do would be to make a campaign ad showing her supposed "mission from God" quote in its proper context. I wonder how many people have any idea what she was actually saying, or the way that Charlie Gibson and the liars at ABC have misrepresented it?

 

Agreed on the wedge issues. Don't need 'em, can't afford them.

 

If those were not represented properly, seems to me she has plenty of room now to clear that all up. I would be very interested in that. I want to know why she fanned the fires of hate and bigotry and how she justifies that, given her stated religious position.

 

I don't think that's defensible.

 

Her mission from god is her deal, not ours. Frankly, I don't care how good, or defensible that mission is, if it's a running point, that's a no vote from me. Religion governs our private lives, and government governs our public lives. One of the core things behind this is our freedom of religion. We have that freedom so that people can allow their religion to govern their private lives. This is good and healthy. This also means we just don't legislate these choices for others.

 

I used to be very religious. I'm pretty much not religious today, and it's because of this issue. We can't have the freedom of religion, and with it the freedom to follow god as we see fit, if we go and try to make other peoples choices for them. We also can't have these things if we embrace bigotry, hate, theocracy, and a bunch of other social matters. None of those are defensible.

 

When I got told who to hate, and what values to support in government, that was IT. I abandoned the whole mess, and that's what I see Palin doing. Can't support it.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

We clearly will see where things go. I personally am giving Obama the exact same consideration I gave Bush, and that was not easy. So it's his show and perhaps it will go well. I'm hoping it does, and am not going to entertain trouble at this point.

 

That's the donation bit, character, unknown, all of it.

 

A year from now will tell all, and it's a smart wager, IMHO.

 

I did want to comment on where are the real conservatives supposed to go?

 

Sadly, we have a two party system. I really support the idea of changing that. Here are the options:

 

1. do exactly what progressive democrats did. Get into the party, and move to elect more and better democrats. That move is very successful. The party has seen lots of new blood, and so far has changed significantly. I'm highlighting that because that's the primary move that a well organized group of conservatives could do to get established.

 

2. run aggressive primary politics. This speaks to third parties. At any given time there are weak and lame office holders. Libertarians, for example, need to fundraise and get some seats, instead of taking pot shots at the Presidency. The latter is political theatre and sometimes costs us. The former means forcing a third party discussion. Clearly that's got a lot more potential.

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

"The effect of class warfare is that the people who actually earn their wealth by making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money end up being brought down; this discourages other people from making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money, while it protects the elite from competition."

 

Not really. (sorry, I don't like managing the quote tags

 

The problem we have is that we have opened up too many elements of our own markets to others. When we apply the idea of unrestrained trade between nations (which is often called free trade), we no longer have control over those markets. Corporations then are free to exploit differences in currency, and market rules. Market rules are defined by governments, and in our system of government, the idea is to make sure the worker is not over exploited. Outsourcing puts us at an unfair disadvantage as other nations do not have those same sets of rules! China, for example, has a lower standard of living, and allows considerably more exploitation of it's people for profit than we typically would.

 

I've watched entire industries leave this nation, one by one, as the doors were opened to international labor. This is wasteful, in that fuel for transportation is consumed when it doesn't need to be. It exerts strong wage pressure, in that what used to be a balance in our local economy is suddenly seen as an excess, compared to other economies and rules, and once the door is open, either we are forced to deal with making a whole lot less buying power per hour worked, because those companies producing overseas have a serious cost advantage over those producing here.

 

I don't have a big problem with that, as globally there are some serious advantages to doing that, but only if we are innovating here, investing in people here, so that we are producing better / faster / stronger / unique goods here! There then is a nice effect where known good, stable processes, means and methods are done at the lowest cost possible, while we continue to lead in a lot of things.

 

This was not done. Lots of good paying jobs were lost, and that starts an ugly cycle to the bottom.

 

Those people unable to make the buying power per hour worked they used to, end up depending on the lower cost goods overseas.

 

This ripples out from industry to industry until we really don't offer all that many good paying jobs!

 

We are there now.

 

If, as a nation, we are not building wealth, then we cannot compete and our currency will devalue and we will come to depend on other nations more and more. Where do you think the money comes from? Wealth is labor and innovation applied over time. At some level, we convert sweat into goods and services that have value, and doing that a lot builds wealth in terms of infrastructure, means, methods, processes and understanding.

 

We have sold all of that, leaving us butkis to build wealth with!

 

In the 60's through the late 70's maybe 80's, 70 percent of our GDP was manufacturing based. Now today, 70 percent or more is financials! That makes us extremely vunerable to the kinds of things we are seeing right now. And of course, we are hurting about it too.

 

So we have over valued a lot of things, and done a lot of things on credit, counting on essentially trust in our currency, our global position and control, and ownership of things to "pay" back that debt. There is a problem with this, and it's ugly. If we don't really make anything (and we don't), what exactly do those holders of US dollars buy with them? They can't buy goods and services, because that's only maybe 30 percent of what we make available. That leaves buying us!

 

And they have. Foreign ownership of our land, infrastructure and our corporations is happening at a scary rate. What happens then when we use these things to build wealth? It leaves the nation, and does not stay here. We are literally selling our future, yet we spend and borrow as if we still were a nation where 70 percent of GDP was manufacturing.

 

This cannot continue.

 

Obama has made it clear he understand this. This is why I am going to give him a chance. He's the only one who ran, who got this stuff and got it big.

 

The only way we have out of this financial mess is to double down and build wealth. That means building new infrastructure, investing in new technology development, new manufacturing and making sure that wealth stays here. It does not matter so much that it moves to the top. That happens, and it's fine. What does matter is that we do not outsource those jobs, nor allow foreign ownership of them, so that we are producing goods and services that can pay solid wages, so that the middle class is making enough buying power per hour worked to pay down debt, start small business, invest in their retirement, etc...

 

This isn't about soaking the rich. Nobody really cares how rich the rich are. (ok, so a few of us do, but only because we really, really hope we might be rich too) EVERYBODY cares about making a wage good enough to support a family and take care of it the way we should, without running a credit balance, or draining the value from homes every year to keep up.

 

This isn't a spend out of it scenario. It isn't a military scenario. It isn't a bust the unions, or labor is out of control scenario. None of that matters. What does matter is how we compete as a nation and how that impacts our worth. 70 percent of GDP on financials means we are not carrying our weight globally, and that will continue to bring us pain, or force us to surrender ownership of our lands, infrastructure, and future until we either have nothing left, or it hurts enough to force some change back to building a good national economy again.

 

"The biggest 'regulation' that's needed.." Is a return to conservative financial policy. That means banks act like banks and are very secure, stable, and moderate investment devices that are insured. Investment banks need to avoid complex derivative devices where we leverage the same asset only a very conservative number of times, not so many times that one lost mortgage costs us millions in these bizarre credit default swaps. These complex and questionable financial devices have allowed us to present the illusion of wealth and growth, when the reality is our "growth" is largely paper growth, not real growth in wealth, in terms of our GDP and how it is valued. (lack of manufacturing)

 

We can't have rich people getting richer, unless we have a good, solid source of new wealth being generated. That means people working, building things, etc... and those people deserve a living wage for their efforts. So long as we are forced to compete with nations where that is not the case, we won't accomplish that goal.

 

 

"What do you know of Obama's record? By all indications, it's amazingly scant."

 

Absolutely it is! And this is a great reason to support him. Of the things we know, we know he is a great organizer, is capable of acting rationally and intelligently in pinch situations, knows how to work with people, and has lived a modest life. More importantly, he really doesn't owe anybody but the people. This is notable as we have a lot of bad money in politics. Obama won with minor donations from the people that wanted to see him get his chance. This means we are highly likely to not have to suffer as we have major industry interests writing laws and applying pressure to give us more of the same crap that got us here in this mess in the first place.

 

Frankly, the trickle down economic ideas gestated about the time of Nixon and popularized with Reagan, have done nothing but devalue us and weaken us for about 30 years. I've had enough of it, having had to change career three times to keep ahead of the outsourcing waves, finally reduced to sales, consulting and other people to people oriented jobs that are very difficult to outsource. I would much rather be making things, but we've sold that overseas.

 

It's getting to the point now where I don't have anybody to sell to or consult with. (I work with engineering software and am focused on improving or empowering the product design and manufacturing process) We don't design all that much, and we don't make much, leaving me with a few aerospace, automotive and defense customers, where we used to have a robust field of manufacturing companies combined with product design companies all providing good, solid work for people to retire on.

 

I am so done with that! I'm not sure where I would jump next, other than to finally have to break down, learn a language and help the overseas people better consume us. Really don't want to go there, and I'm sure nobody else does either.

 

He taught law, and that's better than our current President who appears to not fully understand what being President means, nor how our government is supposed to function. We don't elect kings here, but nobody told him that. Obama knows that, and additionally has the unlimited power handed to him. Betcha they didn't really think that through did they?

 

(which is why we don't pull that crap)

 

Now that it's done, we just have to trust Obama now don't we. Thank the Republican party for that dilemma. Hope Obama does us right, because we don't have the outs we used to, largely because of how this administration just ignored the checks and balances that are supposed to marginalize these worries for us.

 

"radically left"

 

I was a Republican for 20 years, until I realized that they were no longer conservative. I like conservative where fiscal policy is concerned. I'm a centrist on foreign policy, socially left big time, and kind of all over the map domestically. (Believe we need a mix of things to get rocking again, and have no ideological exceptions getting in the way of evaluating rational proposals.)

 

Again, we wouldn't have to worry about how left we go, if we didn't have the Republicans handing all the power to the President. They really didn't think that through did they?

 

Oh well. The New Deal was a kick ass time. That was a lefty move, and I think it's time for a New, New Deal, so let's see how it goes. It can't possibly be worse than the Right has brought us.

 

That's a Republican economy, Republican war, Republican corruption, Republican Torture, Republican abuse and bastardization of the law. Man, that's a lot of Republican boiling to down to a lot of bad. Left isn't a dirty word. Progressive, Liberal, Left, all good. Again why?

 

Because we know what passes for the right just sucks. And that's coming from a 20 year Republican, who can't even recognize the party anymore, now Democrat and proud of it. Just think of it as the Bush legacy. You are welcome!

 

"Bush wasn't a conservative"

 

Absolutely agreed. He didn't realize any conservative spending policy at all, embraced a lot of questionable social policy, trounced states rights repeatedly, expanded government to a large size, borrowed more dollars than all the other Presidents combined, etc...

 

So, perhaps this is a referendum on Bush, and conservative got taken for a ride. I think that's fair, but here's the deal:

 

If we have that many real conservatives, who understand how American government is supposed to function, then where were they? Why didn't they stand? I thought about this a lot, and have come to the realization that we just don't have that many real conservatives, and what we do have passing for conservative is harmful. Very harmful, so they are out.

 

Rather than worry about how far left we are gonna go, why not focus on building an actually conservative Republican party, that we all can have some respect for, and get it done sooner rather than later, so we can fix the law, restore the balance of powers and once again govern largely from the center, with the occasional jaunt left or right when it makes the best sense?

 

Until then, it's the lefties turn. Right leaning people gave it their shot, had the keys the kingdom and hosed it so badly that Republican might be a dirty word for the next 20 years.

 

(and that's not personal supercat. Always liked your posts, always will, but man, you are talking to one very frustrated American, who has very little confidence in the established pool of ideas that have been running us for 30 years. Time to change way up and see where that leads.)

[I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama]

Greets all!

 

Re: Class Warfare.

 

Letting people keep what they earn -vs- we've just lived through 8 years of class warfare.

 

One thing missing from that "my money is mine" bit, is one's obligation to abide by the social contract. A significant fraction of that earned money was earned in an environment where a lot of risk was pushed down onto ordinary people, and that's the middle class and lower class, bottom 75 percent of people, combined with significant downward wage pressure and devaluation of the national currency.

 

That's an ugly scene for most ordinary Joe and Jane Americans!

 

I've been fortunate and able to make more each year. Those dollars devalued more than my gains though, leaving me with less overall buying power per hour worked, and the push down of risk came home to roost too. Wiped me out totally. Couldn't remain self-employed, forced to work for health care family reasons. That's tough building wealth for somebody else when clearly I could be building it for myself.

 

Funny how that works.

 

Anyway, from where I stand, I'm totally for keeping that money earned, but that can't be combined with over exploitation of those making the wealth in the first place. There must be a balance in this, and that balance was tilted way toward the top.

 

I wouldn't mind getting closer to the top, but that's tough in an environment where we've sent the good jobs overseas, leaving us doing laundry and nails for an economy. Oh yeah, we tell stories and make heavy things like toilets that cost too much to ship.

 

As a nation, we need to be making things, building things, or we are not building wealth for the top to accumulate. When we outsource jobs, we need to be back filling them with the next big thing, and we didn't do either very well. The result was most people selling their future to maintain their standard of living, and that's the financial bubble, housing mess right there. I suppose it didn't help to deregulate the financial, mixing the good money with the speculative money either.

 

This has been the worst 8 years I've seen!

 

Make no mistake either, I want the rich to get richer, but I also want the basics for people to be solid, and risk to be moderate, or they cannot save and handle their affairs and that costs us in the longer term. That's the part of the contract that's been abused.

 

One other thing that's often missing from the keep what you earn deal is that infrastructure and society must be paid for. Those things empower us to do business. Without them, business would be impossible, high risk, low margin, etc...

 

I'm willing to give Obama a chance to bring some discipline to government. Agreed on the savior thing. That's just nuts! The guy is rational, appears to be smart, can hold his own around other people, and he can inspire. Say what you want about warm fuzzies, having one right now is not a bad thing. Motivated people produce better than hopeless people, and Obama knows that and will exploit that. There are far worse things in this world.

 

I'm not opposed to the economic ideas that we've been running under, but I don't think any of it works well, unless there is discipline attached to them. That means regulation and a careful balance so we don't see too many people fall in the cracks and become costs to us later on. Bush didn't grok this. Maybe Obama does. If so, we will be fine over some length of time.

 

Finally, there is Bill Mahar: Bush was so bad that the American people said, "Yeah, a Black guy with a Muslim name sounds good! That's who we want!" --->so true!

[What's In a Name?]

If they are having trouble, why not wait until he's born?

 

A name will just pop up in a very short time and it is highly likely to fit better than some name just picked too.

 

Never understood the pressure to name somebody we don't even know yet!

[I've had it!]

It's gonna be Forest Grove. When I did have better finances, I helped my brother in law buy a duplex. At the time, I thought it might just come in handy! Well, we are gonna call in the marker and live cheap for a while.

 

That's a damn good idea! Let's keep in touch. This burn-out crap will pass, and we can have some fun then!

 

Not that long of a drive, right?

[Operation BitSave]

Hey, that's cool.

 

Having lost some archives to bit rot, I can totally understand. Every so often, it's good to look back at the pixels and bits from the past.

 

I suspect we do this for the same reason people keep photos.

 

For just a moment, you can go back there and remember and that's worth something --even if it's only perspective!

 

Lost a nice chunk of my SGI archives to disks that won't spin up any more. Maybe I'll do some extreme stuff one day, but right now is not that day. Lost another chunk to a move, and another to cheap ass CD-R media that rotted in about 5 (freaking 5!!!) years.

 

Have fun man. Snag some good thoughts and memories along the way. Maybe you have something nobody else does and it will matter someday.