Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
thanks, i have no real excuse--none at all -- Original message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Queueing in third. Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my
[scifinoir2] Jericho Returns Tonight
Well, the fan-resurrected Jericho returns to CBS tonight at 10 pm EST. I must admit I'm looking forward to it, as I became a fan of the show after my first indifferent thoughts on the early eps. I was a little miffed at CBS for not rerunning the entire series recently. ABC did the same thing with Lost. They showed maybe the last ep or two from last season recently, and that's it. Given all the hype on these shows, I can't understand why the networks wouldn't rerun the past season in order to build it up even more--especially in Jericho's case. Yeah, I know you can see all these full eps on the Net, which is cool. But for all those people who don't have high speed connections, a big computer screen, or a fancy computer/TV hookup, that's cumbersome. I do see that SciFi is now airing Jericho season one on Monday nights, starting with a three-hour arc last night. Maybe that's the reason. At any rate, it starts tonight, and if, like me, you missed the last couple of episodes fr om season one, you can wait for SciFi to air them in a few weeks, or watch them online at CBS' site, where the entire season is available: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/jericho/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[scifinoir2] [Fwd: Black Comics: 'We Don't All Draw Alike']
Original Message Subject:Black Comics: 'We Don't All Draw Alike' Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:59:58 -0800 (PST) From: Susan Smith Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: *Black Comics: 'We Don't All Draw Alike'* ** Eleven comics held a demonstration this weekend to show the lack of diversity in the comics section in Sunday newspapers. They each drew their own version of the same comic strip to show that each Black comic has a different perspective. The idea was inspired by Corey Thomas, creator of Watch Your Head, a comic strip about a group of Black friends in college. While Thomas says that it's hard for any new cartoonist to break into an industry where real estate is shrinking, he notes that struggle can be harder for Black cartoonists. When grouping together cartoons based on theme, a lot of people group together Black strips with Black being considered the theme, when that is not a theme at all--the Black strips are as diverse as any other strip, Thomas told National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18854845. They aligned the demonstration with the birthday of Black cartoon pioneer Al Harrington. While the group is saying they are not looking for affirmative action, http://www.diversityinc.com/public/725.cfm they say they do want equal footing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18854845 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[scifinoir2] about the Clintons' shadiest donors
With Friends Like These ... by Marin Cogan, Melanie Mason, and Barron YoungSmith Everything you ever wanted to know about the Clintons' shadiest donors. Post Date Monday, February 04, 2008 It's not that we expect politicians to have squeaky-clean donor lists. You try running for office without, at one point or another, taking money from someone you probably shouldn't. Even Barack Obama, Mr. Clean, has Tony Rezko. But the Frank Giustra-Kazakhstan-Uranium affair, blown open by The New York Times last week, serves as a reminder that the relationship between the Clintons and money has not always been lily-white. Here, a guide to the unsavory characters who have been associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton. THE DONOR Norman Hsu, Hong Kong apparel executive. The ClintonsCredit: Getty Images View Larger Image View Larger Image The Clintons THE GREEN Hsu bundled more than $850,000 for Hillary's presidential campaign and $260,000 for Clinton's Senate races. THE SCANDAL Hsu parlayed his charming, obsequious personality into a spot as one of the top twenty Democratic fund-raisers nationwide. Problem is, he turned out to be a convicted felon, on the lam since 1992 due to a grand theft conviction. Then, this December, Hsu was indicted for running a pyramid scheme that defrauded investors out of at least $20 million and that made $25,000 a year in fraudulent political donations. THE SLEAZE FACTOR (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 somewhat sleazy and 10 stupendously so) 8. Hsu missed his initial (September 5) court date for the 1992 grand theft charge, only to be apprehended a day later on a train in Colorado; he was freaked out, shirtless, shoeless, and holding a suitcase packed with Tiffany jewelry and $7,000 in cash. Now in federal custody, he confessed to running phony companies and leaning on investors to make political donations. THE DAMAGE TO THE CLINTONS (on a scale of 1 to 10) 7. Extensive Hsu coverage stretched out over several news cycles during Hillary's presidential campaign, and the sordid details of the affair--the pyramid schemes, the links to Asian gangs, the eccentric professional con artist himself--stirred up memories of Clinton fund-raising scandals past. Hillary blamed the fiasco on errors in the donor-screening process. ** THE DONORS Marc Rich, fugitive American businessman; Denise Rich, songwriter and socialite. THE GREEN Denise Rich contributed $70,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. THE SCANDAL Over seventeen years after Marc Rich fled to Switzerland to avoid charges of racketeering, illegal trading, and tax evasion (he owed $48 million), Bill Clinton pardoned Rich during his last moments in the White House. His ex-wife Denise's generous donations and Friend of Bill status gave the pardon a particularly rotten stench. THE SLEAZE FACTOR 7.5. Rich has been accused of a long list of white-collar crimes. The classiest: trading with Iran while the country was still holding U.S. hostages. THE DAMAGE TO THE CLINTONS 9.5. As Hillary began her career in the Senate, a media frenzy and investigations in both houses of Congress and the Justice Department were launched to see if Denise's contributions bought her ex-husband's pardon. Though the president was never indicted for wrongdoing, the Rich affair is often mentioned as Exhibit A of Clintonian sliminess. ** THE DONOR Aaron Tonken, former Hollywood fund-raiser, current federal penitentiary inmate in California. THE GREEN In 2000 he hosted a fund-raiser that took in more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. THE SCANDAL Tonken originally drew interest from the FBI for failing to report some donations from the event to the FEC. Although he was never charged for election-law violations, in 2003 he pleaded guilty to stealing from charities, including, according to an ABC News report, the Betty Ford clinic. He is currently serving a five-year sentence for mail and wire fraud. THE SLEAZE FACTOR 9. The self-described con man got his start in Hollywood as Zsa Zsa Gabor's dog keeper. He sold stories about her to tabloids and snuck tourists into her dilapidated, dog feces-ridden mansion while she was out of town. In his memoir, King of Cons, Tonken wrote, In a land of moral imbeciles, I knew I could be king. THE DAMAGE TO THE CLINTONS 4. A fund-raising committee for Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign had to pay $35,000 in fines to the FEC for underreporting the costs of the gala, even though a federal inquiry failed to find any culpability on the Clintons' part. The financial burden to the Clinton campaign was insignificant--the real harm done was in the image of guilt by association. ** THE DONOR Peter F. Paul, renaissance man, jack of all trades. THE GREEN He co-hosted the 2000 fund-raiser with Tonken. THE SCANDAL How did Paul underwrite the gala? According to The Washington Post, by improperly
[scifinoir2] Fwd: 189,000 potential Obama votes not being count in LA
Original Message- /Along with 22,000 other concerned Californians, you signed our petition to Registrar Dean Logan about the double bubble trouble in Los Angeles County on Super Tuesday. Now, to build this campaign to Count Every Vote before time runs out, we need you to forward this email and link to your friends to make sure this never happens again:/ **http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEveryVote * http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsE/* Dear Lorenzo, http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/8gpked/VEsF/ *We warned Los Angeles County about the **impending trouble with the double bubble.** Now, the Sacramento Bee editorial board is calling it a major voting disaster. And there is speculation that the outcome could change how many delegates Hillary Clinton and **Barack Obama **receive in California. * 94,500. That's roughly how many people in Los Angeles County voted for Obama and Clinton on Super Tuesday, only to see their votes go uncounted by the now infamous -- and fatally flawed -- double bubble ballot. *Here's the bad news:* Despite a record-breaking turnout of 189,000 voters registered as Decline-to-State (DTS), Dean Logan, L.A.'s Registrar of Voters, is still refusing to physically hand-count these ballots, effectively *disenfranchising 94,500 -- at least HALF -- of DTS voters *because they didn't fill in an extra, redundant bubble before voting for President. *Time is running out to change Dean Logan's mind. Over 22,000 people like you have signed our Count Every Vote petition in just a matter of days. To help the Courage Campaign * http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsC/**deliver as many signatures as possible directly to Dean Logan, * http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsD/**please forward this link to your friends immediately:* http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsA/* * **http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEveryVote* http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsB/* Calling it a major voting disaster and a raw deal for Decline-to-State voters, the Sacramento Bee's editorial board puts 94,500 in perspective: /The scale of disenfranchisement is huge - 94,500 of 189,000 decline-to-state votes. That's half of the nonpartisan ballots. By comparison, in the infamous Florida butterfly ballot debacle in the 2000 presidential election, *19,120 Palm Beach County ballots* went uncounted because of the bad ballot design./ That's right. *Five times as many voters are now being disenfranchised than in Palm Beach County's hanging chad catastrophe of 2000. *The only difference is that Dean Logan, the L.A. County registrar, knew this would happen ahead of time -- because a lawyer for the Courage Campaign warned him in a detailed letter prior to the primary. *22,225 (and growing). That's the astounding number of people who have signed the Count Every Vote petition so far, building a movement for election integrity that could become our largest signature-gathering campaign ever. Please tell your friends, family and fellow activists about our campaign to demand that Dean Logan count every vote today: * http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsO/ **http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEveryVote* http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsP/* Excited by the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, an unprecedented number of Decline-to-State voters rushed to the polls last Tuesday to vote in the Democratic Party primary. But at least HALF of these voters in Los Angeles County -- *20% of the electorate in the largest election jurisdiction in America *-- are now finding out that their vote was rejected because they failed to fill out a meaningless bubble on a confusing ballot. We don't know if -- as the Los Angeles Daily News speculated -- the double bubble debacle could affect the number of delegates each candidate gets -- potentially determining the Democratic nominee for president. *We do know that, no matter the speculation, we can't take one vote for granted. * *Spread the word. Count every vote:* http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsHBQ==/ **http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEveryVote* http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m/6fdffa40f16e2895/OroJRX/VEsHBA==/* The stakes are high. And, with a deadline looming to certify the vote, time is short. Your support will help make sure the double bubble disaster does not disenfranchise independent voters inspired by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. *Please forward this email today so that we can deliver the largest number of signatures possible to Dean Logan *and remind him that the integrity of our elections -- and the faith of people in the process -- depends on counting every vote. Thank you for taking a few minutes of
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: OT: Romney Rumoured to Be Suspending Campaign
yes, dad! :) thanks, seriously, though -- Original message -- From: Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for??? Bosco Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights and the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could see? Bravo!!! Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind: weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve think. Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat, harmful to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling, not helping the people to see what's best for them in times when they don't know it themselves. Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always think of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal and influential minority) of the population wanted something that wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run: when whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't want women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively agreed with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans wanted their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military equally, or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say If only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead of what was popular. After 9-11, this country wanted blood--anyone's blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed dog that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and his gang poin ted us in that direction, then said This is what they want. And all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid to buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader: to see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make decisions based on more information and considered thought than I have. If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she has the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger picture in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her, that won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is proof of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous foreign policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not right for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and I've decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is and then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying to get us to go in cert ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is best for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that leader will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach to illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what it's costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same time, he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the people. A balancing act. But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the mood of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good or bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular thing instead of the right thing? A -- Original message -- From: maidmarian_thepoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job? I am still recalling listening to a This American Life episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions.
