No do-overs What do you want?: No do-overs

By Rowlf on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 06:23 pm:

    Recalls Are for Cars, Not California Governors
    By Bill Maher

    New rule: No do-overs. Once you elect an official, unless he runs off with public funds or gets caught with kiddie porn, you're stuck with him.

    He's the governor, not some dude you married in Vegas.

    What's going on here in California, if you're lucky enough to not have been following this, is that the economy turned, so we're getting rid of the governor. But what if we drive him out of office and the economy still doesn't get better? I guess we'll have to burn him. And if that doesn't work, we'll kill his dog.

    Yes, in baseball when the team stinks, you fire the manager. But you don't fire him because it rains. And you don't let the opposing team choose a new manager for you.

    And you don't fire him between innings. And replace him with a Viennese weightlifter.

    Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.

    So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.

    And the obvious solution: A Viennese weightlifter. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German.

    But there are still a lot of Democrats with sour grapes over the last presidential election, and they're not collection petitions to replace George Bush with Bernie Mac.

    Now, I'm not saying that I like Davis. Being enthusiastic about Davis would be like saying your favorite food is straw. But he fought for his country in Vietnam and won a fair election, and he's entitled to his term.

    Maybe he's a lousy governor, but he was the one elected by voters who bothered to show up at the polls. Their efforts shouldn't be undone by disgruntled shoppers signing a petition on their way out of Target.

    Anyone who thinks this recall is some great affirmation of democracy should review early American history. This is precisely the kind of direct involvement by the howling masses that the framers wanted to avoid.

    But, hey, let's have the recall. And then the people who voted for Davis can have a recall and put him back in. And then we can throw him out again. It works well in Italy.

    And it'll really help the state economy, too, when investors realize our political system is on par with Belize.

    Oh, and a recall election will cost the state up to $35 million. Money would otherwise just waste on schools and roads. And we'll still have to have a regular election in March.

    But this really isn't about elections at all. This is about a congressman named Darrell Issa, a Republican car alarm magnate who wants to be governor and has spent $1.5 million of his own money to fund the recall effort.

    Think about that as the silver lining the next time a car alarm wakes you up in the middle of the night.

By Nate on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 07:35 pm:

    "Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German. "


By Platypus on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 11:00 pm:

    I've only heard that joke about 8 million times.

    I'm actually pro-recall because I didn't vote for the asshat in the first place. I am not pro-Arnie, though. Flynt all the way, baby! (not)

    It is kind of a childish way of fixing the situation but I think elected officials learn that it's not spicy to fool around on the clock, even if it has to be learned at a cost. I still say we sacrifice him to a vengeful God though.

By Rowlf on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 06:43 pm:

    but don't you see what kind of precedent you're setting here? money buys you in, money takes you out... and now money can take you out before your term is even up. why? just because. just because.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 01:20 pm:

    thats nothing new.

    could it also be setting a precedent of "do right or have your ass recalled" ?

    I too, didnt vote for Davis, so I m happy to see his sorry ass go and the cost of the recall....well....sure, but he's costing us way more by sticking around another 2 years.

    Arianna Huffington all the fucking way Platy.

    Seriously. She could do wonders, I believe that.

By Platypus on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 01:30 pm:

    Yeah, I am sick of people who haven't lived under the Davis regime making fun of us and criticizing us for taking democracy into our own hands.

    Yes, a fair amount of cash went into promoting the recall, but you know what? A fuckload of lazy ass Californians still signed petitions. The only thing I'm hoping for is that everyone actually shows up to vote, since I am tired of the 18-35 demographic never voting and then bitching about the outcome of the election. VOTE, DAMNIT!

    Davis is ruining this state, he needs to go. And politicians need to learn that they can't fuck around on our time. And I totally stand behind Arianna, she wrote a book called "How to Overthrow the Government"! (Which by the way I think should be the next book club selection).

By eri on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:22 pm:

    I haven't lived in Cali for a long time, but I still remember things. I think that for someone who understands that west coast mindset, the precedent being set is that if you are elected and you don't do your job, out you go. I am all for it.

    I don't know enough about the candidates who plan to run to say anything about them, though. I would really be suprised if Arnie pulled off a majority of the republican vote, though. He's way to liberal for most republicans I know and they are already talking shit about him all over.

    I don't seriously think his chances are that great unless the entire state takes a mental leave of absense and elects him cuz of him being a famous actor, which is a bullshit reason to elect anyone.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

    sadly, Arnie probably will win.

    In this election, all you have to do is win with the majority. with so many canidates, its possible to win with less than 40%.

    people are so god damn thrilled that that lug on the ballot, they'll vote for him. And because his undefined politics are percieved a bit left of the right, thats EXACTLY the kind of republican many CAians like.

By eri on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:38 pm:

    I can see him taking the left leaning republicans easily. I do suppose there are a lot of them out there. He's not tooo conservative. The fact that he is married to a Kennedy doesn't hurt his game any.

    I dunno. I mean, I don't know if I would like to see him in office. He hasn't done or said enough politically for anyone to get too much of a picture of what he plans, what he wants, etc. The idea of voting him in cuz he's famous just scares me. You don't know what you will get.

    All the people running does seem like a bit of a joke though. I mean some people running for this office have NO BUSINESS and wouldn't have a goddamned clue what they were doing if they did get elected.

    It would be nice to see someone a little more seasoned in politics win this next election. Someone who has a better idea of what they are facing and how to fix it, or at least improve the whole situation.

    You guys are in a pretty fucked up place right now, and if change is going to be made, then the people should make sure it is a definate good change. Though I guess not much could be worse.

    Cali really needs some good people in office there. You guys need and deserve help with the current economic situations. It's utter bullshit that it has gotten this bad to begin with.

By Dougie on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:44 pm:

    Do people in California call California "Cali"? Cuz everytime I see it, I think of Colombia. Carry on.

By eri on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:47 pm:

    I don't know if they do or not, but I have always called it Cali. It may be just me, though, who does that.

By Artie Johnson on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 02:52 pm:

    Velly intellesting...

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:06 pm:

    i dont say "cali"


    first, like every where else in the country, people don't vote.

    hell, people voted to put Gray Davis back in office for another term.

    but the republican alternative was an idiot named Bill Simon. You could have elected slabs of concrete with more intelligence and persona.

    CA, being the 7th largest economy in the world, DOES need someone to bring us out of this rut, but its not going to come fromt he left, nor the right. It doesnt necessarily need to come from the seasoned politician either. I think the opposite.

    Someone who can bring the bitter repubs and arrogant dems in the state congress to the table. someone who doesnt answer to powerful lobbys like the prison lobby. one of the few lobbies to see an increase in funding this past year, mind you while education and healthcare get slashed. hospitals closed, school programs cut left and right. college tuition rates skyrocketing.

    anyway. arianna huffington is a very popular columnist. shes on CNN and NPR quite often. she doesnt cater to either side. in fact, she used to be Newt Gingrich's mouthpiece for sometime. then she did a switch and abandoned the right along with the left, though her politics tend to be more appealing to the left. she's incredibly smart, has an MA in Economics and authored several books.

    Im hoping they have a debate because she would rip Arnie, Gray and Bustamante whomever else new assholes.

By eri on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:21 pm:

    She sounds really interesting.....when I said seasoned in politics, I was refferring to intelligence level, not necessarily previous experience.

    I mean, like, she's known and worked with politicians, and done her own thing. She thinks for herself and sounds like she would know what she was getting into.

    That's what I mean. Not necessarily some idiot who held office before, but someone who is intelligent enough to do the job and who will have some good working ideas on how to get the job done right. A fresh mind, an fresh perspective, but a brain behind it.

By semillama on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:54 pm:

    "But there are still a lot of Democrats with sour grapes over the last presidential election, and they're not collection petitions to replace George Bush with Bernie Mac."

    (lightbulb goes on)


By semillama on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 03:55 pm:

    How exactly has Gray Davis screwed up? Seriously, besides the energy thing, I don't know anything about this guy except that he looks perpetually hosed off.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 04:23 pm:

    the energy debacle is a HUGE reason why we are so fucked today. He came into office with a huge multi billion dollar surplus and has mispent ever since....because of his mismanagment, issues that were supposed to be his strong point, like education and healthcare are taking a beating.

By semillama on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 05:25 pm:

    Wait a minute, are we talking about Bush now?

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 05:34 pm:

    oh good lord sem, you have a one tracked mind.

    There was no "national surplus"
    It was only projected.
    The current recession began in 1999 with gas prices going through the roof.

    As far as Davis goes, here is the short list:
    California Deficit Worst In United States
    Under Gray Davis, California went from a surplus to a record $34.8 Billion deficit - more than the deficits of all other states combined.

    California Taxes Going Up
    Last October, Gray Davis told Californians he would not raise taxes. Now he is trying to raise taxes by over $8 Billion!

    California Bankrupt
    When companies go bankrupt, the CEO takes the blame. In covering up deficits and cooking the books in Enron-type accounting, Gray Davis has brought the state to bankruptcy.

    Davis Hid The Facts From Voters Last November
    Because California voters were deceived by Davis last November, they did not have a chance to learn how bad things were. Davis understated the deficit, understated state spending, and misled the public about the state of our economy. Now the facts are in, and Davis deserves to be recalled for misleading the public

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:25 pm:

    spunk, i know where you got that data.
    Republican Rep Darrell Issa's organization.

    and its a bunch of half truths.

    Davis isnt "raising taxes". That phrase implies that you'll expect to pay more of your payroll or property taxes. Thats just not true. What he signed off was an increase in auto license fees, which actually is allowed in a manadate that reduced fees some years ago. the mandate states that rates can be hiked should the government have trouble making fiscal ends meet. such is the case. considering how much of a burden autos are on this state, i have no problem increasing the costs of driving in this state.

    they just expanded the metro rail system here recently to include another 10+ stops. if the increase pushes some peope to abandon their cars and take public transportation, i support it.

    Davis deceived the public no more or less than any other politician. He did it the way your president is doing it right now. Through butt loads and butt loads of money. Davis is a professional fund raiser just like the Bush camp. The only difference, the people in CA have a direct method to correct the problem.

    And lastly if Darrell Issa is going to go chanting the "When companies go bankrupt, the CEO takes the blame. In covering up deficits and cooking the books in Enron-type accounting, Gray Davis has brought the state to bankruptcy." line, id like to see his ass, as a member of Congress work towards that end with Enron. Why isnt Ken Lay in jail Darrell? Issa is such a hypocritical prick, and he knows he'd be shown as one if he continued to run. Smartly, he dropped out.

By Antigone on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:28 pm:

    Joe Conason's Journal

    When Arnold Schwarzenegger gets around to discussing issues, he will probably attack Gov. Gray Davis for the state's energy fiasco. Perhaps then someone will ask Schwarzenegger why he appointed Pete Wilson his campaign chairman.

    Aug. 11, 2003 | Arnold's secret meeting with Kenny Boy

    If you're compiling a list of public figures even less popular in California than Gray Davis, one name is likely to top it: former Enron chairman Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. Voters in the Golden State are behaving like sheep these days, but even the dimmest of them can probably remember how Enron and the other corporate vultures descended on them during the electricity "crisis" of 2001.

    What California voters may no longer remember, however, is that after the third wave of rolling blackouts hit their state, Kenny Boy quietly summoned a select group to the Beverly Hills Hotel on May 11, 2001. And they may also have forgotten that one of the prominent Republicans who showed up at Lay's request was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    On June 21, 2001, the Associated Press reported that "Lay met secretly with California Republicans at the Beverly Hills Hotel and pushed a plan that called for ratepayers to pay the billions in debt racked up by the state's public utilities. The plan contended that federal investigations of price gouging are hindering the situation." According to William Bradley, the L.A. Weekly's sharp political columnist who wrote about Enron for the American Prospect, the meeting revolved around Lay's plans to "preserve deregulation" in California. The L.A. Times noted that Lay was seeking the support of Schwarzenegger and the other GOP luminaries for even greater deregulation. Apparently Lay wanted help in saving a lousy system, squeezing the unfortunate Californians even more, and avoiding accountability for their plight.

    Only those who were present -- including then-Mayor Richard Riordan and convicted junk-bond fraudster Michael Milken -- know exactly what happened at Lay's covert conference. The meeting briefly became an issue early in the 2002 governor's race, after Riordan opportunistically attacked Davis over the governor's telephone contacts with Lay during the crisis. "What is Gray Davis trying to hide?" he demanded. But then, instead of answering pointed questions about the Beverly Hills meeting, Riordan quickly backed off from the Enron angle.

    So the intriguing question put by California's leading consumer advocates last year has yet to be fully answered:

    "What was the purpose and substance of the May 11, 2001, meeting with then-Mayor Richard Riordan, former junk-bond king Michael Milken, and Arnold Schwarzenegger?" To that might be added a few other pertinent queries, directed to the campaign of the leading recall contender: Why did Schwarzenegger go to a secret meeting with Ken Lay in the midst of the crisis? Did Schwarzenegger ever have any dealings with Enron? Did he hold Enron equities in his portfolio -- and if so, when did he sell?

    If and when he gets around to discussing issues, Schwarzenegger will probably attack Davis for the state's energy fiasco, which cost Californians upward of $70 billion over the past few years. And the governor does deserve his share of the blame for the mishandling of the "crisis." But perhaps then someone will ask Schwarzenegger why he appointed Pete Wilson, the former governor who signed the misbegotten deregulation bill that caused the crisis, as his campaign chairman.

By J on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:30 pm:

    I say Nate should run for Governor.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:31 pm:

    I thought ALL dems dropped out???
    Because running against davis would be admitting the recall was necessary.
    Taxes are taxes are taxes.
    They "could be" raised, not "mandated to raise"
    8 billion more dollars out of your pocket and into the governments. Sounds like a tax to me.

    Just like our damn phone bill.
    39.99 a month for service.
    15.00 a month for "taxes and fees"
    Any amount collected by the government from the citizen is in effect a tax, or it could be a punitive fee.

By Antigone on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:33 pm:

    "Because running against davis would be admitting the recall was necessary."

    Not necessarily. Try to think of other reasons.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:47 pm:

    Bustamante is the leading Democrat.

    There are two decisions to be made on the ballot.

    Bustamante's line is, 'vote no on the recall, but if you do vote yes, vote for me.'

    It would be idiotic to rely on Davis to come out of this with a win. He's not going to win. The Dems know this. They HAVE to put someone else up.

    if you want to call auto registration fees "taxes", fine. If you want to dick around with semantics, I'll call "unions" between two men or two women "marriages" because thats in essence what they are. Right?

    driving an auto is not a right, its a privilege. the state's resources take a toll when people drive their cars.

    which would you rather face spunk? serious cuts in schools an dhealthcare for the poor and elderly because thats essentially where the money was going to come from if the auto reg fees werent raised. sorry, but education and healthcare take the cake over driving.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

    like i said, if you want to know why CAians are pissed with Davis, don't drawing up info from Issa's organization.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

    The prevailing thought is this:

    If a Republican wins the recall, the state is so bad off NO ONE can save it before '04.
    If they could, then it is very possible that the party the gov is affiliated with will win the electoral votes for that state.
    But, the more likely scenario is that the new gov will not be able to turn it around until '07 or later. So, this is not really a race for Cal Gov, but rather for the Presidential Electoral Votes for 2004.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 07:39 pm:

    "driving an auto is not a right, its a privilege."

    Sales tax already charged when you buy GAS is supposed to maintain the road. That way only the USERS of the roads are charged. The more you drive on the roads, the more gas you use, the more you buy. the more you buy, the more SALES TAX you pay. You pay $.504 a gallon now.

    You are SO brainwashed.

    Of course it's a right.
    Or do you enjoy the idea only having rights that are specifically outlined in the constitution?
    If so, you have the right to a trail by jury, and that's it.
    It can be inferred, if taken that way, then it can be applied to everything else.
    That is the biggest falacy on earth.
    Rights are God (or nature if you prefer) given and Government taken away.
    And the US Constitution says that specifically.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:03 pm:

    there is no logic, historically, to the idea that if a republican is governor, the electroal votes will transfer to Bush in 2004. None, what so ever.
    Clinton swept CA both elections, and there was a Republican governor in the office for both terms.

    prior to that, CA's electoral votes went to republicans as far back as Nixon while having Jerry Brown in the governors office.

    So there's little to no logic to that "prevailing thought"

    Bush will be hardpressed to take CA in 2004, just as he was in 2000.

    and as far as the "auto tax"...

    its not just maintainance of the roads.

    pollution is another consideration they create. the burden autos make on the healthcare system. there are all kinds of impacts that autos have beyond maintainance.

    those who don't own cars don't don't pay the registration fee. that fits well with your logic.

    it has nothing to do with being brainwashed. if anything...its a bit ironic you say that because no one toes the party line better than you.

    the bottom line is this.

    we're fucked financially, thats a fact.

    if given a choice between cutting education and healthcare, two items that are already being scrutinized considerably (hospital closings, cuts in MediCal, and increases in state tuition fees) or increasing the fees you have to pay annually to drive a frickin car, INCREASE THE CAR FEE! Jesus christ its a no brainer. an illeducated unhealthy public is FAR more a burden than the high price of driving an automobile. god damn.

    this has nothing to do with freedom or encroachment of rights spunk. what is it with you people when you start envoking the freedoms when it comes to automobiles? you arent even making any sense.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

    and if you're so concerned about the whitewashing of freedoms, as you imply with increases in fees to drive autos, you should be far more concerned with whats happening on a national level with John Ashcroft because he's far more a threat to your freedoms than a high car reg fee.

    oh, but wait.

    that involves "security".

    something you support, blindly.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:17 pm:

    Which of YOUR personal, or "civil" patrick rights, has/ve been encrouched on by aschroft, patrick? Are you an illegal alien? Are you on a suspected terrorist list? Have you been doing something that brings you to the attention of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, or NSA?
    Why are you so concerned about what Ashcroft is doing?

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:26 pm:

    yeah, i guess if you were blonde haired and blue eyed, Hitler was an ok guy, right? i mean...what they hey right?

    i think you need to stop and think about what you are saying in that last post. thats probably the most absurd post from you ive seen in ages.

    and while you doing some suggested self-reflecting, you figure out how CA's increased auto registration fees affect you and report back.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:45 pm:

    I am reading up on it more, as we speak.

    I saw us going this way 15 years ago.
    I am suprised it took this long.
    Trying to stop terrorists that live within an open society with privacy rights is the same as banging on a trash can trying to get a scared puppy to come to you. It wont work.
    These people HIDE. Most of them spend years learning how to use the system to hide their actions.
    I bet you if we were spying on the 19 terrorists before 9/11, there would have been a huge "foul" cry.
    Not saying I support giving up rights, I just don't know how else we are going to stop another WTC without strong surveillence.
    How would you go about that? What would you suggest we do, leave everything the way it was before? And when another plane rams into another building, what say you? "hey, that's the price you pay for freedom"?
    Or do you say "Why did the CIA and FBI fail? Why were they unable to stop this?"
    What are you saying now?
    As far as CA's fees goes, what starts in your state ALWAYS finds it's way to the rest of us.
    The legistlators look to california and say "hey, look what they are doing and getting away with, how can we adopt it?" And California economy does have an impact on the national economy. Your state is not atonomous.

By spunky on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

    Bottom line is this:

    If you have nothing to hide, why are you so worried about it?
    Your conversations are not being broadcasted on public radio, your records of where you surf are not being printed in the local paper.
    At worste, you will be questioned if you are surfing bomb making sites or sites that are known to be terrorist linked. If you were just curious, and have no contacts, then who cares if they question you? I would not. I have been through such things with my job.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 08:59 pm:

    spunk, you know damn well the existance of many of the terrorists was well known within the intelligence committee.

    Phoenix Memo?

    In 2 years of limited investigation, just about everything I have seen indicates that they government could have taken steps against the 19 hijackers without the Patriot Act. They just didnt coordinate their efforts, cross reference their data or share intelligence.

    If other states need to increase fees related to driving to avoid deepening an already pathetic and struggling education system, Im all for it.

    Education and access to basic healthcare is a must, regardless. And I would think as a parent you would agree, especially considering all the specialized care your daughter has required.

    There are alternatives to driving if you cant afford to pay for your car. There are few to no alternatives if you cant afford an education or basic healthcare.

By patrick on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 09:02 pm:

    "If you have nothing to hide, why are you so worried about it?"

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

By eri on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:04 pm:

    Patrick, I am not trying to get involved in this conversation. You two are doing just fine in that regard :)

    Just something I wanted to explain, so that hopefully it will make sense for you. In other states (like MO, KS, NE) they charge you separately for car pay $25 for your tags and at the end of the year get a personal property tax that has to be proven paid before you can renew the tags......In Cali they combine both of those fees in one fell swoop which is why you pay so much more there to tag cars, or at least one reason why, because your personal property taxes are paid with the tags, instead of two different bills.

    So that's why Spunky referred to tags as taxes.

    That's all I wanted to say.
    Have a nice day to all.

By semillama on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:26 am:

    Spunky, you are the dictionary definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Now I'm all turned around, wasn't spunky arguing a couple weeks back that you have no rights that aren't in the constitution to support one of his points? Which is it?

    I think it's a shame that spunky has the attitude that because it's unlikely that the potential abuses of the current administration's national security strategy will be carried out against him personally, that he doesn't have to be concerned about it. If the system abuses or has a great potential to abuse citizens, then it shouldn't matter.

By semillama on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:58 am:

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:01 pm:

    "Now I'm all turned around, wasn't spunky arguing a couple weeks back that you have no rights that aren't in the constitution to support one of his points? Which is it?"

    Huh? I have always said that the purpose of the constitution is NOT to "grant" citizens any rights, because it is not the governments business to grant rights. Your rights are not government issued, but rather "god" or nature given rights. The Government has no rights to give.
    What the US Constitution does is RESTRICT the rights of the Federal Government.
    You have the right, per the US Constitution and god or nature, to do anything that is not specifically outlined as a crime.

By heather on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:13 pm:

    then you are fucked because you have NO rights by nature or by god


By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:35 pm:

    how did you come to that conclusion?

By patrick on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:41 pm:

    you're really confused spunk.



    as someone who is proud of American "heritage" you certainly sound unAmerican above in your defense of the Patriot Act and the rights it violates.

By J on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

    Arnold Schwarzenegger voted for a 1994 ballot measure to deny social services to illegal immigrants.He has promoted himself as the candidate in california's recall who can best appeal to the state's politically and ethnically diverse electorate.The GOP-backed Proposition 187 to deny health care and public education to illegal immigrants was passed by a wide margin,although it was eventually ruled unconstitutional. It remains a contentious issue and litmus test for some voters,paticulary Hispanics,to gauge whether a canidate is immigrant friendly.Hmmmm

By semillama on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:45 pm:

    Probably since "rights" are an abstraction of the human mind. Same as "laws" and "rules" - we just tend to forget this fact. Rights and laws and rules are things that large sections of human populations agree on, and have importance in the order outlined above, that is rights are seen as being above laws, which are firmer than rules. Some people believe that God gives out rights. Some people believe that the government gives out rights. Some people believe that rights are only possessable by those who have the ability to exercise them.

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:50 pm:

    Few Americans today understand the true idea and purpose of the U.S. Constitution. They have been taught to believe and do believe that their rights emanate from the Constitution.

    Our American ancestors subscribed to the most radical principles of individualism and liberty ever known to man. They truly believed the ideas set forth by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson that people have certain fundamental and inherent rights life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness and that these rights have been endowed by "Nature and Nature's God," not by government.

    To protect themselves and their property from the violent acts of others, and to provide a means by which people could peacefully resolve their disputes, our ancestors established a national government. But there was one overriding concern: what would prevent our government from becoming destructive of the very ends for which it was formed?

    The goal, then, was to institute a government which could be kept within a very narrow purpose: to protect, not regulate or destroy, the natural, God-given rights of the people.

    So, while the Constitution instituted government, it also straightjacketed it. The Constitution set forth a very specific list of enumerated powers, as well as express prohibitions on the powers of the national government. As Hayek observes, the Constitution did not give the people rights. Instead, the Constitution was a law a higher law imposed on the officials of the national

    In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote one of the most thought-provoking books of our time The Road to Serfdom. Hayek warned that Great Britain and the United States were abandoning their heritage of liberty and adopting the economic principles of the Nazis, fascists, and socialists. It was not a message which the politicians, bureaucrats, and social planners of that time wanted to hear. Hayek, who would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics Science, was vilified as an old-fashioned reactionary.

    No one today can seriously dispute that Hayek was right. Although Americans, for example, continue to operate under the delusion that they live in a free-enterprise nation, for the last sixty years they have traveled the same moral, philosophical, and economic mad as their enemies the road to the welfare-state, regulated-economy way of life the road to serfdom.

    Hayek was also a lawyer. In fact, some of his greatest contributions have been in the area of law. Among his finest books are The Constitution of Liberty and his three-volume work, Law, Legislation, and Liberty.

    Two of the most important legal concepts that Hayek underscored were, first, the nature and purposes of political constitutions and, second, the legal principle known as "the rule of law."

    This is what I meant by saying we have been down this road for quite a while, and the USA Patriot Act was nothing more then further evidence of that.

By patrick on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:50 pm:

    further Arnie has hired former governor Pete Wilson as his campaign manager.

    Pete Wilson was a supporter of Prop 187.

    Arnie's voting record is quite sparce, but he was sure to go out and vote for that prop.

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:52 pm:

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 01:01 pm:

    You cannot ask the federal government to anticipate a domestic attack without survailance.
    Domestically we will be stuck in a reactionary mode and not a proactive mode.

By patrick on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

    this is why you are such a confused puppy spunk. that editorial was a great defense of my position again Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. you keep posting materials and providing examples that actually COUNTER your stated opinions.

    "Freedom, therefore, means answering only to a well-defined, previously established law, rather than to the arbitrary and discretionary edicts of some."

    .mmmm like the Patriot Act? Prohibition of illegal search and seizure and freedom of privacy sounds a FAR more established law wouldnt ya say?

    the writer goes on to loose me here.....

    "Today, of course, the thinking of the American people is entirely different. Believing that their rights come from government, they believe that government can rightfully regulate or take them away. Thus, since the 1930s, the American people have lived under a political order in which governmental officials have omnipotent power over their lives and fortunes."

    I don't know who he's hangin around, but I see the government as employees of the people and the Constitution as a contract...of which they continually violate left and right. I've never thought my "rights came from government". You're tossing around an idea that doesnt really fit the context of this conversation....specifically the freedom to drive an automobile tax free.

    If its serfdom you oppose, you need to be asking serious critical questions of the Administration you so adore and this guy lays it right out for you.

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 02:54 pm:

    I am stuck in the middle here.
    I see your point.
    I see the administration's point.
    So what it boils down to is, for me, what is more important to me?
    Now I realize this effects immigrants and foriegn nationals as well as domestics. I understand that, and I am not addressing concerns that apply to them, but rather me and mine.

    The ones that were here on an academic visa were taking flight lessons. Perfectly legit, legal flying lessons. They were here legally.
    They took flying lessons, then flew planes into the trace center and the pentagon.
    We ask "what happened?" "why did we not stop them" "where was the failure"
    The failure was to monitor more closely those here on legal educational visa's legally attending classes. These guys had no priors.
    Most of them gave no reason for us to suspect them.
    Put yourself on the spot here and tell me how you would have proceeded? What would you have done, patrick?

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 02:57 pm:

    "specifically the freedom to drive an automobile tax free. :

    What? Huh? man.....
    I never said anything like that.
    I objected to you saying it was a priviledge, not a right.
    I also said that adding additional fees beyond the original sales tax and liscence fee was increasing taxes.
    I never said you had the right to the freedom to drive an automobile tax free.
    Nice attempt to twist, but you are wrong

By patrick on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 04:26 pm:

    how is driving defined as a right?

    how do you support that claim?

    i'll repeat, it was documented that most if not all of the hijackers were on the radars of intelligence community, they just didnt heed the warnings and put the pieces together.

    Interagency lack of cooperation was to blame more than ther inability to detain or evesdrop them.

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 04:36 pm:

    for pete's sake, patrick, THAT IS WHAT THE LINK I PROVIDED WAS FOR!!
    Since when does any Government have the authority to issue rights? Answer: NEVER.
    The can only take away rights by creating laws that make it illegal.

    "Interagency lack of cooperation was to blame more than ther inability to detain or evesdrop them."
    BS, they did not have the power/authority to do that. CIA was for International and FBI was for domestic. INS was talking to no one.
    Did you not pay any attention to why we left bin ladin alone back in 98? Because Clinton was wafting between wether we had a legal case against him or not.
    Once they come within the US, the CIA can be arrested for touching them.
    The FBI only acted AFTER a crime was commited within the US, not BEFORE.
    The Patriot Act was meant to change all of that.

By spunky on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

    By the way, that was NOT an OP-ED.
    It was a legal interpretation of the Constitution.
    For op eds, see the wall street journal.

By patrick on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 04:56 pm:

    interpretations ARE opinions.

    by your logic, ass fucking donkeys in public is an implied right spunk.

    if the government wanted to nab the hijackers, they could have. if you believe otherwise you are incredibly ignorant of the historical capabilities of our Federal government and simply toeing party line to scapegoat anyone but the current administration.

    The problem with the Patriot act is not the inter-agencey cooperation it resolves, but the blatent violations of the Constitution regarding detainment and search and seizure.

    You fail to recognize that governments, as history will demonstrate, do NOT limit use of applied powers as you seem to think they will. Will the Patriot act be disolved once the "War on Terror" is complete? Hell no. They'll just turn to apply their expanded powers elsewhere.

By semillama on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

    I read a great line today:

    California: Putting fantasy back where it belongs - in politics.

By Platypus on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

    How is the recall fantasy, sem?

    This is what I mean about people constantly ragging on California. Fuck. I like how the entire fucking world things this is one big joke. Really, I do.

By Rowlf on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 09:57 pm:

    I hope Gary Coleman wins...

    "watchoo talking bout, energy crisis?"

    let this not only be one summer of limp Arnold Drummond political humor. 3 MORE YEARS!

By semillama on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 09:46 am:

    247 candidates sounds like fantasy to me.

By Platypus on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 03:00 pm:

    The problem with the recall is that there is a lot of garbage surrounding it and this is what the media is choosing to report. Step back and think for a moment beyond the biased and jaundiced coverage it has been receiving.

    As a state, we decided that we did not want Gray Davis through 2006.

    We said so.

    Now we get to vote on who we want instead.

    I fail to see the fantasy or humour here and, as said before, am sick and fucking tired of being made fun of. Look at the candidates we have who actually might make good choices for California instead of walking around with your hand up your ass going "ha ha silly Californians electing a body builder."


By spunky on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 03:15 pm:

    Platy, that is the point of the media circus.
    It is by design that it looks like a joke instead of a serious problem being addressed.
    By making it a joke, you take the spot light off of "why" and put it on "who". You also take the credibility of the recall off of the table.

By J on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 03:25 pm:

By spunky on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 03:54 pm:

    oh gawd my eyes!

By spunky on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 03:54 pm:

    oh gawd my eyes!

By eri on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 04:44 pm:

    Yeah are just wishing my melons were that big!

By Platypus on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 10:30 pm:

    uh, yeah spunkster, NO SHIT.

By patrick on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

By Nate on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:06 pm:

    I would just like all you Californians to please vote for Georgy Russell. She's a good bay area democrat, so that should appeal to the general liberal vibe around here.

    And I'd rather look at her in the news than anyone else who is running, porn stars included.

By spunky on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:13 pm:

    I with Nate on this.

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:43 pm:

    Ya. Read her slashdot interview today. On top of being smart, she's a total babe.

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:44 pm:

By spunky on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:47 pm:


    I figured out why Nate supports her (other then her looks):
    From her website:

    Legalization of Marijuana

    Evidence shows marijuana is no more harmful or addictive than alcohol. Legalization would make marijuana use safer, and it would reduce costs incurred in arrests, trials, and incarcerations of many non-violent criminals. It would also allow for new revenue from a tax like that on cigarettes. This is both a budget issue, and a common sense issue.
    There you go, Patrick

By spunky on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:49 pm:

    BTW, this is also her death nail.

    You are not going to get the DEA to surrender portions of their budget because mary jane is off the no-no list.

By heatehr on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

    she looks about 13 years old on the site

    i watched crossfire starring janeane garafalo
    [sp?] with my ultra-conservative dad. a

By TBone on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:53 pm:

    Death Nail?
    You mean a nail in her coffin?
    Cryptic Nail of Death +3

By patrick on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:55 pm:

    call me crazy but id still rather schtoooop Arianna.

    i dig bright older women.

    younger women just have too many god damn hang ups. older gals got all the filth

By spunky on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:57 pm:

    her guberatorial bid's coffin, yes.
    The last nail to be put in the coffin.
    Death Nail.

    I don't think the DEA would snipe her....

By spunky on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:02 pm:

    Results from a poll on her website:

    Weekly Poll...
    Who is the best replacement candidate in this race?

    Arianna Huffington 94 (4.5%)
    Arnold Schwarzenegger 505 (24.1%)
    Tom McClintock 84 (4.0%)
    Bill Simon 32 (1.5%)
    Cruz Bustamante 116 (5.5%)
    Georgy Russell 1535 (73.2%)

    Of course she is ahead since it is HER website, but interesting results follow her name.

    I think Cruz is going to take it.

    My official "prediction" is that Cruz will barely beat Ah-nold for gov of ca.

    Is that pronounced like Jerri, or Gorey?

By Nate on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:57 pm:

    george E.

    i like her because she's cute and the governor is always in the media and i don't want to look at some ugly governor.

    and marijuana is already legal in california.

By heather on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 07:56 pm:

    i'd vote for her

    if i voted

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS . torturechamber . . receipts . contact