I'm shocked--Shocked!!

May 31 13:03 UTC 2002

From the New York Times:

"In Washington on Wednesday, President Bush sat next to his brother Jeb 
Bush, the governor of Florida, and vowed to spend $235 million to buy a 
number of highly unpopular oil leases in a state where his brother is 
running for re-election and that handed him the presidency in 2000 by 
the slimmest of margins.  Jeb Bush acknowledged that he would probably 
gain politically from the plan. But he and the president insisted that 
it was also sound policy because the move would protect beaches and 
wetlands.

All of this has prompted officials in California, a heavily Democratic 
state that President Bush lost by a lopsided margin, to ask why saving 
their beaches and sensitive environment was not as high a priority, 
particularly since many here have been fighting offshore oil leases in 
the Santa Barbara area for decades."

...and...

"Last winter, the Justice Department took months to decide whether a 
redistricting plan for Congressional seats in Mississippi that was 
supported by blacks and Democrats met the requirements of the Voting 
Rights Act. The effect of the delay was to block the Democratic plan and 
allow a plan drawn by federal judges and favorable to Republicans to go 
into effect.

Now, the Justice Department is promising to rule quickly on a Florida 
redistricting map that was drawn by Republicans. The effect of the 
speedy decision will be to undermine a main element of a Democratic 
court challenge to the Florida plan."

response 2 of 29:

May 31 15:01 UTC 2002

Interesting, too, how now it's finally coming out that the California
politicians were right -- Enron and other energy companies *were* creating
artifical shortages and jacking up trading volumes to increase energy
prices.  I hope, given this evidence that we can't expect these companies to
behave when left to their own devices, Michigan and other states will
abandon their deregulation plans.

response 4 of 29:

May 31 21:01 UTC 2002

re #0: Oh my God!  You mean the winner of an election can make 
decisions, and has influence that he can use to benefit his political 
friends, and he can further his political principles?  I had no idea.  
Now that a Republican is in office, this has got to be STOPPED!  NOW!

response 6 of 29:

May 31 23:56 UTC 2002

re #5: Did you say that 4 or 8 years ago?

Politics drives the world.  People form alliances and hope to further 
their own interests; if they win the election, they get stuff they 
want.  If they lose, they don't.

response 8 of 29:

Jun 1 17:41 UTC 2002

Bush's Cuba policy is another example of the same thing.  The only
consideration that went into it is the knowledge that it'd win his party
votes in Florida.  If he really had a moral problem with economic contact
with countries that stifle political debate and imprison people who disagree
with the ruling party, we wouldn't be trading with China.  In fact, the
logical gap here is pretty obvious -- the stated reason we trade with China
is that it will encourage democracy, the stated reason we *don't* trade with
Cuba is it will prevent democratic reform.  How stupid does he think we are?

response 10 of 29:

Jun 2 04:19 UTC 2002

Stop this unpatriotism, or I'll call in someone who will.

response 12 of 29:

Jun 2 13:10 UTC 2002

I think Phil has taken my advice and given up sleeping.

response 14 of 29:

Jun 2 16:18 UTC 2002

#6> Do you mean, Did I excuse Clinton's corruption on the grounds that
Republicans are corrupt? I don't believe I ever did. I *did* excuse Clinton's
marital infidelity on the grounds that some of the Republicans chastising him
for it were guilty of same, but that's not the same thing, because marital
infidelity is less relevant to his job than repaying political cronies.
 
Next time you try to accuse someone of being a hypocrite, John, make sure you
have the documentation to back it up.

response 16 of 29:

Jun 2 18:53 UTC 2002

<shrugs>  There are some of us who call it fighting dirty when either side
does it.  There's a shocker for you.

response 18 of 29:

Jun 3 00:37 UTC 2002

re #16: There are very few who do so evenly.

response 20 of 29:

Jun 3 04:58 UTC 2002

#15> My problem with Bush is a lot more complex than the letter in parantheses
after his name. I think Carter, a brilliant and compassionate man, was a
terrible president. I think Reagan was a fairly good president. I think
Clinton was a passable President, but a terrible liar (in both senses -- he
lied too much, and he lied too obviously) and blatantly corrupt. I could do
without Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). I loathe Gov. John Engler (R), but I also
resent that he's leaving office because of term limits and not because the
voters of Michigan were given the opportunity to come to their senses.
 
I'm Libertarian, John, so if you want to accuse me of blind partisanship, you
can kiss my hairy brown ass. (That's a Libertarian joke. ;} )
 
If you were just asking me a harmless, meaningless question, John, why did
you then accuse me of what you had just denied accusing me of: Making
judgments based on party affiliations, not on general princples (which is,
in my view, hypocrisy). Voting on principles is like this: You have two
candidates to choose from. There's some policy -- abortion, say -- that you
feel strongly about. You choose the candidate that best reflects your view
on abortion. If that candidate wins, you expect them to follow through on that
viewpoint. Supporters of the losing candidate shouldn't act surprised
(disappointed, yes) when the winning candidate fails to support their
viewpoints as readily. But the affiliations should be based on principled
lines, not on geopolitical ones -- giving special consideration to voting
districts that voted you in isn't supporting your supporters, it's corruption
(unless those voting districts are INEXORABLY tied to the issue, such as a
Democrat Governor of Michigan supporting the auto industry -- he wouldn't be
supporting the tri-county Metro Detroit area as a geographic unit
deliberately, but rather by the happenstance that that's where the bulk of
Michigan's auto industry is).

response 22 of 29:

Jun 3 06:43 UTC 2002

re#8:  The reason we started trading with the PRC was because it
started to move in a direction that we approve of and because of
the practicalities of the situation, PRC was/is self sufficient.
Doing business with the PRC does tend to move things in the right
direction as far as we are concerned.  It is in our national interest.
It wasn't that long ago that the US shut down chinese newspapers
in the US merely for carrying ads for PRC banks because that
was 'trading with the enemy'.  

Cuba on the other hand is not self sufficient and only very recently
started to move in a direction that is in our interest to encourage.
It is unclear how 'free trade' with Cuba would benefit anyone
other than those few oligarchs currently in power.  Indeed, 
substituting our support for that of the former USSR would only
prop up and perpetuate the existing regime rather than encourage
much needed reform.  It is in the US interest to maintain the status
quo.

I'm sure if California had a GOP governor it would get the same
attention and benefit from the current administration as Florida.
Just as I'm sure when the situation was reversed the same thing
happens.  Its part and parcel of the way the game is played,
for better or worse.  It is interesting to note that the current
GOP administration has good relations with the current chicagoland
administration - one could hardly mistake Daley for a republican.

response 24 of 29:

Jun 3 21:55 UTC 2002

Cuba would love to trade with us.  They'd love it even more to become a
US tourism destination (they were once before, in the 30's).  They'd
certainly love to export cigars to us.  They already do all these things
with Canada.