Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...9&section=news

• Car Bombs Hit Police Stations in Iraq's Basra
  
  BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Explosions ripped through three police stations in Iraq's southern city of Basra on Wednesday, causing many casualties, a British military spokesman said.
  
  "There were three separate explosions at police stations at about 7.15 a.m. (0315 GMT)," Squadron Leader John Arnold told Reuters. "They were vehicle-based improvised explosive devices."
  
  He said there were reports of heavy casualties, but no exact figures were available, partly because British troops who control Basra could not reach two of the police stations.
  
  "They are being stoned," Arnold said, adding that no casualties among British forces had been reported.
  
  Arnold said it was too early to say if the attacks were suicide bombings.
  
  Police had earlier said they believed the blasts at two police stations in central Basra had been caused by mortar bombs.
  
  The explosions in the morning rush hour sowed panic across Basra, which had been relatively peaceful during this month's surge of violence in other parts of central and southern Iraq.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Using his influence with the voters as the fulcrum to lever the legislators onto his chosen path? "Governing"?

By its very definition.

If it were merely "toe the line or you will lose the next election because you're wrong on this issue with your constituents," I would agree. But does your state have an initiative process? Unless the answer is "yes," you're talking out of your ass. It's not been proved a healthy thing for representative democracy that fuck-them legislation is enacted based on who has the best 30-sec. spot in favor or against of a policy objective no more sophisticated than "mountain lions bad" or "eating horses bad" or "crime bad." A Frankenstein system indeed.

Remember the throw-down we had over whether the Takings Clause applies to income tax? I think that came out of an NYC "soak the rich" ballot measure. You were running to the Constitution for protection because direct democracy was about to go haywire. Almost all ballot measures are fuck-them measures. That's not a good thing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it were merely "toe the line or you will lose the next election because you're wrong on this issue with your constituents," I would agree. But does your state have an initiative process? Unless the answer is "yes," you're talking out of your ass. It's not been proved a healthy thing for representative democracy that fuck-them legislation is enacted based on who has the best 30-sec. spot in favor or against of a policy objective no more sophisticated than "mountain lions bad" or "eating horses bad" or "crime bad." A Frankenstein system indeed.

I agree with some of what you say in that most voters aren't informed on the issues and the mandatory spending provisions enacted by voters are a significant factor in the CA budget mess.

The other thing that people in this state have to accept is that they have enjoyed practically free high quality universities and the state can no longer afford that. Students in most other states pay a much larger share of their tuition. These students figure out a way to do it, even in states with lower average and median incomes.

[Not Me]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

• DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- A popular Saudi television host publicly showed her bruised and bloodied face and has shocked her compatriots into openly talking about one of the kingdom's long-hidden problems: violence against women.
  
  Rania al-Baz has been hailed as a hero for letting newspaper photographers snap pictures of her face and for frankly discussing her case after she said a beating by her husband earlier this month left her unconscious.
  
  . . . .
  
  Nahed Bashatah, a Saudi who has written extensively about abuse of women, said al-Baz's celebrity has given her case prominence, but "there are hundreds of other abused women who nobody hears about."
  
  Bashatah pointed out that Saudi women need to be accompanied by a male guardian even if they want to go to the police to report abuse.
  
  Saudi law requires a woman to be accompanied by a male guardian -- her husband, or, for unmarried women, her father, brother or son -- on almost any public chore. Saudi women also are not allowed to drive.

Islam, the religion of peace.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it were merely "toe the line or you will lose the next election because you're wrong on this issue with your constituents," I would agree. But does your state have an initiative process? Unless the answer is "yes," you're talking out of your ass. It's not been proved a healthy thing for representative democracy that fuck-them legislation is enacted based on who has the best 30-sec. spot in favor or against of a policy objective no more sophisticated than "mountain lions bad" or "eating horses bad" or "crime bad." A Frankenstein system indeed.

Remember the throw-down we had over whether the Takings Clause applies to income tax? I think that came out of an NYC "soak the rich" ballot measure. You were running to the Constitution for protection because direct democracy was about to go haywire. Almost all ballot measures are fuck-them measures. That's not a good thing.

I think AG's point is that it's not clear yet that Californians should be trusted with a democracy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think AG's point is that it's not clear yet that Californians should be trusted with a democracy.

Democracy only works if you have an informed electorate. Nothing even close to an informed electorate exists in CA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I guess I made a mistake in rising to the bait instead of Not Ignoring all of that crap about Gorelick and the memo. Faced with substance, some would rather Not Post. As I say, my mistake.

As for the poster formerly known as Just For Fun, I personally preferred the previous synthetic personality, which was quixotic in her choice of issues and, while libertarian, harder to place on the political spectrum. Between the Laffer Curve and charter membership in the Ashcroft Fan Club, this personality is more than a little less interesting. Time to disappear and molt this skin for another?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I guess I made a mistake in rising to the bait instead of Not Ignoring all of that crap about Gorelick and the memo. Faced with substance, some would rather Not Post. As I say, my mistake.

Umm, huh? What do you want from me?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As for the poster formerly known as Just For Fun, I personally preferred the previous synthetic personality, which was quixotic in her choice of issues and, while libertarian, harder to place on the political spectrum. Between the Laffer Curve and charter membership in the Ashcroft Fan Club, this personality is more than a little less interesting. Time to disappear and molt this skin for another?

Well, if fucking Gorelick isn't off'ed by May 1, I'll be taking a leave for sure.

I think you underestimate me. How easy is it to place on the political spectrum a pro-environment, anti-abortion, anti-religion, anti-tax, rabid feminist (with breast implants no less)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Umm, huh? What do you want from me?

A response?

I think you underestimate me. How easy is it to place on the political spectrum a pro-environment, anti-abortion, anti-religion, anti-tax, rabid feminist (with breast implants no less)?

Your enthusiasms used to be more varied, but they're getting more formulaic and predictably conservative. Probably not intentionally so, but there it is.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A response?

Oh. I forgot the question. Was it something about how Gorelick only codified the wall that was already in place and Ashcroft's admin approved it or something? FWIW, I was planning a response but life and my drinking got in the way. Can you forgive me?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Your enthusiasms used to be more varied, but they're getting more formulaic and predictably conservative. Probably not intentionally so, but there it is.

What about the feminazi stuff?!?!?! FWIW - I really am a feminazi. That is one aspect of my personality I cannot hide.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think AG's point is that it's not clear yet that Californians should be trusted with a democracy.

If so, he's wrong. It's been clear for years that they should not be.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wasn't there a long term stand off at one reservation when agents came to arrest a guy, but couldn't enter the land? Minn or ND early 90's.

You mean Waco?

I don't recall any standoff that was stymied because it was on an Indian reservation. The folks up in Idaho, who shot a couple FBI agents and were themselves shot (while using their baby as a shield), were simply resisting arrest.

Or maybe it was the RI tobacco sellers who refused to submit to state taxation rules for sales to non-Indians?

Or something altogether different?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me


Islam, the religion of peace.

http://www.memri.org/video/segment8_program.html

Maybe take this with a grain of salt, since the above is MEMRI, which is liked by the lgf guy, but evn this says the Koran doesn't authorize hard beating- first you are supposed to attempt to admonish, then if she doesn't change you are supposed to kick her out of bed for awhile- only then can you beat and you're not supposed to cause facial injuries- bottom line her husband's got some explaining to do-

And I'm just posting this Atticus. It could be a hoax, or just one interpretation- and Brazilian husbands beat shit out of their wives so its not an Islamic only thing. I just thought it interesting, okay, pls. don't call me a stupid racist fuck, okay?

May 9, 2002

Program on Imposing Discipline in the Family: Hosted by Jasem Muhammad Al-Mutawah, Expert on Family Matters

Host Jasem Muhammad Al-Mutawah: Imposing discipline within the family is the right of the husband towards his wife, as it is the right of the wife towards the husband.............. .........The proverb says: The rod… Ah? The rod for whom? 'The rod is for the disobedient.' ...............The Koran states: First o all guidance, advice, and admonition; then, banishment from the bed, and then 'beat them.' When the Koran presented this verse, it did not present it for all cases, but for one case out of all ways of female behavior - the case of disobedience. ..........…We all know that Allah has given authority to the man, including admonishing and guiding the wife in cases of disobedience, banishing her from the bed, and then - the beatings. What is your opinion on the matter?…

Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the Jordanian University: We in Islam see the family as an institution, an institution that must succeed. ...................The issue is who directs this institution, because two people cannot drive a car - there must be one driver. Islam has given the wheel of this car, the car of the family, to the man. The verse discussing the handling of problems that may crop up in the family is included in the passage discussing guardianship: 'Men are the guardians of women,' and then Allah says, 'Admonish those of them on whose part you fear disobedience, and banish them from the beds, and beat them. Then, if they obey you, do not seek a pretext to hurt them.' The order that appears in this verse is a wise order. It is not possible to move to the second stage before the first stage, or to the third stage before the second. The wonderful thing in this verse is that it mentioned this solution for the case of disobedience.

Host: Meaning, a specific instance…

Guest: Exactly. We are not talking about a man imposing discipline every day, asking any little thing of her, and she refuses, and then he banishes her or beats her. Such a thing does not exist in Islam at all.
...................
Host: And the admonition continues for a long time, not a day or two…

Guest: No, no. Obviously, the admonition cannot end in a day or two. It must continue for a significant period, during which all means of persuasion are exhausted.

Host: The admonition must be done with words, or the [husband] can use a cassette, a video film, a book, a meeting, a course, a magazine…

Guest: All these means are included in the method of admonition, which can include also enticements through money or gifts…

Host: He can get her an Internet program, so she will learn… ...........................

..........sometimes even for years, with her refusal and rebellion here is revealed the wisdom of Islam: another means must be introduced. This is the means of the not-hard beatings, and the condition 'not hard' appears in the texts, it is not an interpretation. It is said in the Hadiths of the Prophet that we are talking of 'not-hard' beatings…

Host: What is the difference between 'hard' and 'not-hard'?

Guest: Hard beatings are those that leave marks on the body or on the face. Thus, beating on the face is prohibited, because the face is a combination of the features of beauty, as it is said. It is forbidden to beat the face, it is forbidden to administer blows that leave fractures or wounds this is what our sages have said in their books.

there is also a difference in how the married couple can discipline each other

Host: Doctor, the Koranic verse directs the husband in how to deal with a disobedient wife while if the husband is disobedient, let us assume now the husband is the rebellious one, the husband does not listen, the husband is neglectful, and the husband… rebels! The wife does not have the right to treat the husband in accordance with the three steps stated by the Koran. The wife, as it has been written, is restricted to admonition and guidance. She cannot banish him from the bed, and she cannot beat him. Do you not find inequality in this?

Guest: No, I do not find inequality in this, because as I said from the outset, the ultimate responsibility for managing the institution of family is given to the husband and therefore when the wife encounters disobedience on the part of her husband, or negative deeds, there is no doubt that she must remark on them and express her dissatisfaction with these deeds; she can go to his friends, his relatives, or her relatives so that they will take care of the problem…

then some commentary to the west- which I think is a pretty good point to chill the blame Islam crown (hi Sidd! )

Host:...............................In contrast, they (edit- Westerners who question Islam's treatment of women) are without verse, religious law, or law, and despite this, every 12 seconds a wife is beaten by her husband! What is better?!

and for those of you who have stuck through this, a smile....

Second, when they come and say to us that Islam gave the wife the right that her husband will banish her from the bed, but the wife does not banish the husband - Who said so?! The wife, in two instances, has the right to banish her husband from the bed. The first instance is if he asks to have sex with her in a place forbidden by religious law, let's say the anus and the second instance is if he behaves towards the wife in an offensive manner during sex. Then she is permitted to banish him from the bed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I didn't realize that distinction had an effect on taxation status but it's malum in se.

I'm not sure I trust that site. Here is the example they give:

"murder, rape, burglary and robbery are malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar crimes" are malum prohibitum."

White collar crimes are malum prohibitum?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree with some of what you say in that most voters aren't informed on the issues and the mandatory spending provisions enacted by voters are a significant factor in the CA budget mess.

The other thing that people in this state have to accept is that they have enjoyed practically free high quality universities and the state can no longer afford that. Students in most other states pay a much larger share of their tuition. These students figure out a way to do it, even in states with lower average and median incomes.

It's that entitlement thingy.