Liam

(moved post to Lieberman thread)

I was one of the guys who said Lieberman would win, so this is my mea culpa. Lieberman lost for a few reasons: 1. His coziness with Bush. Connecticut is a moderate to liberal state and the primary voters did not like how Lieberman appeared to be an apologist for Bush during the past five and a half years. The key issue here is the war in Iraq. Up till last month, Lieberman seemed to be mouthing the White House talking points on all the success in Iraq. Lieberman should have taken a less pro-Bush position on the issue (I supported the war at its inception, questioned its validity upon learning that the basis of the war was dubious intel, and now want to hold the Bush Administration accountable for making bad choices from minimal troop levels to enabling sectarian violence). 2. It was perceived that Lieberman lost touch with his constituents. After being selected as Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman became a "US Senator", not the "US Senator from Connecticut". He was all over the talk shows, and he took positions attempting to burnish his national image which didn't play too well at home at times. He did good things for his home state, but he stopped going to the state-level party functions, stopped attending the local parades and dinners. Meanwhile, his fellow Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, also a Democrat, became the "go-to" guy for everyone. Want you Social Security check? Call Dodd's office. Your kids needs a letter of recommendation to get into the Naval Academy? Call Dodd's office. Dodd became the worker, Lieberman became the spokesman. 3. Lieberman failed to control the debate. This is perilous for an incumbent. Lieberman could have easily hammered away at the prospects for the state if Lamont won and the Dems fail to win a majority. Who would get more for the state, the seasoned Senator or the neophyte liberal from a small, liberal state? Lieberman never got on top of the issues and failed to make a strong case for his re-election. Lamont's supporters were fired up, Lieberman's went on vacation.

The "melting pot" analogy is not nearly as apt today as it was when the phrase was coined a century (or more) ago. Today, the US is more like a stew pot -- the different vegetables and meats remain some of their original shape and color, but they meld together in a common dish. My ex (who just became a US citizen, he's originally from Ontario) always referred to Canada as a mosaic. While mosaics are beautiful, they are still a collection of separate and distinct parts that only ever really form the whole when viewed from afar. In a mosaic society, there is a greater likelihood of pockets of isolation and permanent distinction from what is common to all. Personally, I prefer the stew pot where some kind of commonality develops and the parts bleed together a bit. (OK, I will stop with any food analogies, as someone jabbed me about in another thread!!) While I disagree with the melting pot notion, I will concede that the US is probably more of an assimilationist society than Canada. I think our immigrants adopt a middle-road identity: very proud to be a Chinese-American or Brazilian-American or Irish-American. And while many immigrants may move initially to their new city's Little Mumbai (or what have you), it is very common to see them display A friend's mother-in-law, a 70+ year old Egyptian woman, just became a US citizen. I think she only speaks a smattering of English, so I do not think English speaking skills are required to become a US citizen. Given some of the immigration issues going on now, however, I suspect that if English is not needed now, it might soon be.

I'd argue that a nation need not be homogenous for its people to be capable to national pride. The US is very multicultural, yet the world thinks we're ridiculous in our national pride.

Valid point. Conservatives often claim to be "pro-life", yet what they mean is pro-life till birth then all bets are off.

Ditto for the impact to future generations with regard to cutting taxes while bloating the size of the federal government.

I'm not saying the %s have shifted significantly since this election year poll (2004), but why did you feel the need to publish something that is 2 years old? Can't find any newer basis for criticism of Americans?

Come on! I thought FIFA would be HUGE in Canada, particularly after constatly hearing how much more "worldly" and "European" you are than your cousins to the south. (not picking on you, RB, just poking some fun)

Clearly, the implication is that this EGALE group is a semi-pedophilic organization... and, by inference, so are all gay people? I can see no other point in raising this issue amid this discussion. (As an aside, as a parent myself, I am shocked to hear that Canada's age of consent is only 14. That's wrong no matter what the orientation of the participants.)

If the Security Council is ever expanded, I'd support Japan's membership. There are entire continents that are not represented as permanent members. The parties who established the UN believed Britain and France would be representing not only their homelands but also their colonial holdings in Africa, Asia and Oceania. In addition to Japan, I can see an argument for including India and perhaps a more economically-free Muslim country, like Indonesia. I also think South Africa and perhaps Argentina could be added to round out the global nature of the council. Of course, with more members, the rule that allows a single vetoing member to thwart action would need to change. Perhaps they could amend the rule to 3/5 majority rule or something.

Memo To: Johnny Utah From: Liam Re: Cindy Sheehan Cindy Sheehan is a whack job. The "left" abandoned her more than a year ago.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Not true. We'd rather see an abortion than an execution? Personally, no one has ever asked me and I've never seen polling data surrounding this kind of scenario, so I think you're blowing hot air. I am on the moderate-to-liberal end of the spectrum and am not pro-abortion (or pro-choice or pro-life or whatever the latest labels each camp throws around these days). I think abortion should be legal, but my conscience tells me it should only be used where the baby would suffer a painful, life-ending illness if taken to full term. In that way, I kind of see it as an act of mercy. I suppose I also understand the "life of the mother" arguments for abortion access. But I don't see it as a means of birth control -- nor do millions of pro-choicers, but you can't convince lots of conservatives who think that liberals get their jollies by killing the unborn. Likewise, I can see the merit of having the death penalty on the books for certain crimes, particularly for premeditated murders, terror plots, etc.

tied up 1:1

As a lawyer, I think it is vital that we as a nation follow the law. We need to get some fluidity to the due process of law for these people. We aren't much of a civilized country or a member of the law-abiding and rights-respecting community of nations if we hold people indefinitely without charges. The problem for the Bush folks is that they have continuously hammered home that we are at war with these people. To my knowledge, only combatants wage war and captured combatants are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. (By the way, there are provisions in the Geneva Convention which address non-government combatants and those provisions should be applied to captured suspected terrorists.) So, either we aren't really at war, in which case certain domestic due process laws apply, or these people are combatants who are owed certain Geneva Convention rights. I'm not a fan of these militarists -- not by any stretch of the imagination -- but I firmly believe that we have to prove to the world that we are better than the terrorists and that our system has checks and balances against potential abuse.

I found this link on another message board and find the photos and explanation of what it's like to go into North Korea fascinating. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755

I kind of feel sorry for the guy, as abrasive and devoid of character as he is. I have no interest in the story, but I am sure the local district attorney in Florida is.

Ahh, but Melanie, don't you see? An inherent restriction on us gay people are laws that keep us from getting at your children and indoctrinating them into the life.

Is divulging state secrets a crime? While not a federal prosecutor, I have to imagine that divulging a state secret is a crime in all circumstances. Perhaps there are gradations given the level of security clearance required prior to being brought in on matters of the highest national security, but I'd imagine that even disclosing routine state secrets is a crime. But what you've glossed over is who is guilty of this crime. It has to be a member of the Administration who leaked the story to the press. The press is not immune from prosecution when they want to protect their sources, so clearly they are outside the scope of those who are charged with protecting secrets. Once someone leaks a secret to the press, a crime has occurred. That's not to say that the media *ought* to publish state secrets once leaked. Surely if an inside source told a reporter at the Washington Post of the plans to invade Normandy, I think it would be exercising the most poor judgment if the WP published what they had learned. The NYT and other media outlets have cooperated with both this and other administrations in not revealing precise details of every state secret they've learned. In the case of tracking SWIFT transactions (the Belgian organization which tracks international financial movements, this most recent case), the Bush Administration is doing two things>> first, they are ginning up their base by playing up their favorite bogeyman, "the liberal elite media who is so out of touch with America and the grave threat that terrorist pose to everyday, good Americans that they will publish state secrets that tip our hand to the evil doers." Second, the Administration is trying to deflect criticism from similar intelligence gathering. If they can shift the focus to the publishing of the story rather than the story itself, the underlying story becomes irrelevant. The Administration's complaints that this injures national security (because foreign bankers might now refuse to help out and that it clues in al Qaeda as to our interest in monitoring $$ flows) in this case are baseless for two reasons. First, the records obtained from SWIFT we obtained by the government pursuant to a subpoena. (For once! The Administration did the right thing by getting a court order to gather intelligence!!) The banks *must* hand over the records or face court-imposed penalties and fines, so the cooperation of the international banking community is not threatened. Second, my earlier point, that al Qaeda already assumes we're watching banks, brokerage firms, foreign currency exchanges, wire transactions and the like. I worked in that industry at the time of 9/11 and I can tell you that it is no secret among anyone in the financial services arena that the government routinely mines for data. In the months after 9/11, there seemed to be stories each day in the Wall Street Journal about questionable money movements in and out of banks and investment firms and international charities and relief organizations. (Did he WSJ reveal state secrets by reporting such? Funny how the Administration isn't going after the largest conservative newspaper in the US.) It is common knowledge and Al Qaeda is not stupid. They know our government is trying to watch their every move. The Times story is not all that earth-shattering.

They must be including areas that Torontonians consider "out there" because I can see no other basis for the claim that Toronto is the 5th largest metropolitan area in North America. Mexico City, NYC, LA, and Chicago are all demonstrably larger than even the 8.5 million that populate the Golden Horseshoe region. The San Francisco Bay area (SF, Oakland, Silicon Valley, San Jose, Marin) is probably somewhere in the 8-10 million range, but maybe on the lower end of that?

Sure, I've wandered in various threads and I understand that this happens quite a bit. I never bothered to respond to the "studies" (put up by the Catholic Church to absolve themselves of their criminal activity during a child rape scandal) primarily because I felt doing so would only push the topic farther afield than it had already wandered (not because I don't find fault with them). I'd be more than happy to debate the findings if someone wants to start that thread elsewhere, but I think this thread has now already morphed into something it wasn't at the start. But let me ask you this then... Even if every word of those studies are true, is the point of posting them to justify not treating gay people equally or is it merely an exercise in character assassination of gay people? Seriously, answer the question.

No. It's a pedophilic organization, and a gay organization. It's men loving boys, not men loving girls. Believe what you will, but answer my question: what does any of this have to do with Somerville, SSM or civil unions? I really have no idea what the point of all this line of discussion is...? Is your point that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that all gay people are sick pedophiles? Or is it that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that it is a reason to deny an entire group's access to marriage or civil unions or that this has any bearing at all on the Ryerson issue?

I never saw anything I or others posted here as an excuse for Saddam. Everything I posted is a criticism of Santorum and Hoekstra... or are you of the mindset that people who think for themselves and criticize shamelss publicity stunts like Santorum's are aiding and abetting (or making excuses for) the enemy?

Exactly. In order to believe that a Times article reporting that US intelligence services have been collecting banking data damages national security, you'd have to believe that gathering such data would surprise al Qaeda. If al Qaeda already assumes that the US is gathering data on the international flow of money, the Times article is nothing new to al Qaeda and is not, therefore, damaging national security. If al Qaeda is so stupid that they don't think the US is tapping phones or watching the flow of money, then I seriously doubt they'll be around for long. I am all in favor of monitoring bank accounts and email and phones, etc., but pursuant to properly obtained warrants. Bush and the GOP hacks all scream that these reports impact national security. Baloney. What it does is expose the administration as a group of people who have contempt for the Contitution's balance of powers.

Yes, it is sickening, but it is a pedophilic organization, not a gay organization. Not one gay group would "sign on" with the likes of NAMBLA. But I have to get back to something I posted earlier -- what does ANY of this have to do with Somerville's receiving an honorary degree? What does any of the have to do with SSMs v. CUs?