Fwd: Integrity

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <stephen.carter@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM


Dear Mr. McGowan:

Thanks for your thoughtful note, which happened to catch me at my desk.

Perhaps you are right, and I slightly overwrote.  I think a better way of
putting the point is that lying to obtain information is morally complex.  I
cannot accept the idea of a simple balancing test involving the value of the
information obtained.  I am well aware that law enforcement personnel lie, and
we spend a week on this in my course on Law, Secrets, and Lying.  We also study
lies by politicians (including whoppers on the subject of war by FDR, Lincoln,
Polk, and others).  The trouble is, any one of these lies can be justified if
we ask only about the end in view versus the utility to be gained.  But I tend
to agree with Sissela Bok, who, in her book "Lying" (which stands up very well
over the years), argues that precisely because lies are so easy to justify, it
is important to resist the temptation.  Otherwise, says Bok, we create a
culture in which cynicism reigns, trust is difficult, and ordinary life grows
increasingly coarse.

Again, than you so much for taking the time to write.

Best,

Stephen Carter

Quoting Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu>:

Professor Carter,

  I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough
review of "Integrity".   I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new,
and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your
arguments.

  However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on
p. 99 where you say:

...

Integrity

Professor Carter,

    I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough review of "Integrity".   I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new, and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your arguments.

    However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on p. 99 where you say:
 "That this is so is probably obvious to the reader; indeed, only a journalist or an undercover spy would imagine for a moment that there is nothing morally bankrupt about lying or breaking one's word in order to obtain information".

    I trust you have had others point out to you that this must be among the most outrageous statements in your book.   I see no way to interpret this other than _only_ journalists _and_ undercover spies lie without moral restraint.  I accuse you of lazy thinking.   To go unchallenged, your statement, if true implies the frequent examples of prevarication for information I see on "Law and Order" are the figments of a screen-writers imagination.  Is there not a profession, many detailed in the book, which could not be included in this select list? 

    I think you'd like to update this book, if not to correct this rather absolute pronouncement; there are scant few others, giving your appropriate willingness to characterize some of your frank opinions.   The other area needing updating is your  non-partisan naivete, born of the '90s origin of the book that both political parties are equally culpable in the demise of comity.  We liberal Democrats have been weak and ineffective at responding, and our leaders are still behind what the public demands.   No, I don't _need_ a Bush/Cheney impeachment, but it would be just.  I think the Republican Party owes the republic an apology for their assault on democracy.   As a practicing Catholic, I'm holding out hope that a great number of our bishops will precede their resignations by humble, heartfelt apologies for the damage they have done.   From the Republicans, for equally grave sins in their own sphere, I hold out no such hope or expectation.

   You should know that I come from a family of rural journalists, persons whose integrity i never felt the need to question, notably my grandfather, and father, not to overlook my grandmother and mother.   I also spent my first seven years from college working for our nation's intelligence services.  So I naturally take exception to both sides of your characterization.

-- Marty McGowan   24 Herning Ave
                           Cranford NJ 07016

p.s. i've copied my weblog:   newsdarktime.blogspot.com   and share this with some of my correspondents.

Gas Tax Plan -- An Alternative

there are two ways to cheat.  this detects the least likely way.

where do you get confirmation that you actually _pumped_ 10 gallons?!,

OR so why bother with this one,   Duh?

b.t.w.   here's marty's gas tax amnesty plan.

   ration gas to every social security card holder over the legal driving age in every state.

   send out monthly coupons which give the holder the right to buy

         X gallons,  say  x = 30, at
         Y  $/gallon,  say y = $2.

  the holder would be free to sell said coupons for any price, and when presented at a gas station,
  the station holder would charge the price on the coupon,   collecting
  the coupon with payment.

  the station would be free to charge any price they wanted for gas not covered by a coupon, so...
  the feds would pay the station for the difference, between their average monthly charge and the coupon price, with
  the difference picked up in a tax on the oil companies.

  the oil companies would be free to "pass the cost along" to the consumers, and
  the unrationed price would necessarily rise.

  the free market would work, and
  the people who need inexpensive gas would be subsidised by
  the people who could afford the gas guzzling suv's and by
  the rapacious oil companies.

  the feds would routinely adjust
  the values of X and Y to suit conservation goals and
  the cost of administering the program.




 

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:27 PM, davisdj456 <davisdj456@comcast.net> wrote:

I don't know if calibrating a pump is even possible to this degree, but this is one way to find out the truth about it.

 

Cheating at Gas Pumps

This is a true story, so read it carefully. On April 24, 2008 ... 

Re: Wrapping and clinging

 

the "tested by fire" argument is like too many republican arguments;

   "I made him stronger by his having to work thru my hatred".

 

and you must not have seen hillary's latest PA ads:   every negative symbol except willy horton.  (wherein she abused harry truman's phrase: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen")

 

don't tell me how profound or not barak was on his "bitter" quote. just now on the news hour, the central PA reporter, admitting that harrisburg, _york_(*) , etc were conservative, used every word _but_ bitter to describe the rural PA voter:  he said their issues were god, guns, and government, yes, yes, and no!   and he was _hardly_ a barak support _or_ anti-hillary.   he was, if anything, a mccain guy!

 

barak, on this issue demonstrated more insight that george S could ever muster.

 

(*) york:  where kitzmiller vs dover was decided, in which the dover board of ed was sued for insisting the biology teachers paste into their science books a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory.   don't tell me that rural america isn't "clinging" to religion, among other things.  the case was decided when judge jones said the defendant's support for "intelligent design" was based solely on religion, and had no scientific merit.     i would suggest that a _majority_ of america bases its views on the guns and god than good government.

 

 

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Meg McGowan <mcgowan@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

I think instead of making a profound point about American society, Barak was trying to explain to potential funding sources why he is having trouble beating Clinton in PA despite outspending her at least 2 to 1.  He might have been trying to say some Hillary supporters are racists (he did say something about, they are skeptical about a message coming from a young African American).

Yes,  ABC did scour PA for a voter to ask him about the flag lapel pin, and I don't think George Stephanopolous asked John McCain today why he wasn't wearing one.  But Obama supporters have been enjoying and egging on the media trashing of Hillary Clinton and wonder now why media scrutiny is directed at their wonderful candidate.  Joe Conason had the right take on this in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/04/18/debate/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/conason

A small example worse than the flag lapel question, was Steve Croft's interview with Hillary Clinton on 60 Minutes when he asked her at least three times whether she thought Barak Obama was a Muslim.  Her first and second responses were "Of course not."  On the third response, perhaps wondering where the "gotcha" point was, she added,  something like . . .at least, I don't have any reason to think so.  So what was repeated endlessly in the media the next day, Hillary Clinton not sure whether Obama is a Muslim.   And the Obama camp and its "progressive" supporters pilloried her for her response.

Hillary has said she will urge her supporters to vote for Obama if he is the  nominee, but all are worried how he will handle the right wing slime machine like Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis, since he has never really had to face Republican opposition (only Alan Keyes).

On Apr 19, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Marty McGowan wrote:

i used 'familiar', well aware he didn't use any term  like that.  

 he might have said "guns, religion, the flag, ... "  he nailed it perfectly.   the reason
he didn't throw the flag in there was

   a. that would have been _too_ obvious, and
   b. it would have been political suicide.  "how dare you impugn the flag and those who love it."  

what barak is saying, let's be plain, is that when hope (in the government) is gone, people cling to things, simple things, single things, they can find comfort in.  some of this"clinging" is in things not of themselves good, i.e. hating those "other" people. 

but some of the things are not necessarily evil by themselves:   religion, the flag, guns.   some of us
liberals think there is nothing but evil with guns; while i can see no good use for a handgun, a "gun-lover" will defend his right to that gun in the belief that if i can take it away from his  friend, next i'll be coming for his shotgun.  

but, back to the issue at hand;   are there, or are their not people who "cling" to simple, single things, good or bad, out of frustration with some part of their life, expressed (consciously or not) in distrust of the government, and with bitterness.

now, in case you missed it.   John Stewart, the night before last, pointed the finger right where it belongs.   and think about it.   they easily found a PA voter who was a. clinging, and b. bitter.   not that she came off that way,   abc could easily have interviewed 40 bitter souls and found the one who could sell the phrase "not that i am challenging your patriotism ..." with some flair.   stewart, in his own inimitable way retorted,  "then what _ARE_ you doing?"

i didn't watch the debate, but am going to review shields and brooks take on it on the Tivo in a few minutes.  i hope they are as appalled as the rest of civilized america at abc's performance in the guise of george s and c gibson.   i further hope that the democratic nominee, if not both hillary and barak before the nomination, can say to a questioner in a debate,
  
   "not to be dismissive of your question george, but how does that question advance the public interest?"

or

  "could we discuss first for a moment, my impression your question is nothing but a ratings ploy?"


 The real debate, at least in the primary, is _not_ between the candidates.   That is what the media would have us believe, the real debate is between their (the media's) interests and the public interest.    now, i don't pretend to speak for the public, but stewart also pointed out that it was 63 minutes into the two hour debate when george s asked this question:

  "this is the most important question on the public's mind today: the economy, so what is your take .... "

 the point being that we need not take them (the media's) interests seriously if it takes them over half the debate to get down to our (the public's) interest.

   on your point about obama's flag lapel,   the factcheck.org rep on the news hour pointed out that he's "not accurately representing his original position"  on his reasoning.   to which i'd add that further investigation of his reasoning embarrasses not him, but those who he originally pointed at.   the reason barak needn't pursue that line is he doesn't want to be the source of further embarrassment.

  to wrap up, barak might have substituted  "use a single issue",   in place of "cling",  but the sad truth is, regardless of what you call it, some people do exactly that.   his choice of words was only a political error, not one of insight or judgement.

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Meg McGowan <mcgowan@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

To continue to beat this dead horse, Marty, I don't have Obama's exact response to the lapel pin question, but at least one prominent media scribe, Paul Krugman, did counter Obama's earlier comment, "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

 

Krugman says:  "Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong. . . .Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?" (Is this wrapping themselves in the familiar?)

Data on church attendance shows that although much of the South is both church-going and poor, "some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes."

The complete Krugman column:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now the fact that  Obama  may have gotten his economics/sociology wrong is not going to stop me from voting for him as the nominee.  (I bet even Paul Krugman will vote for him over McCain.)  I just wish Obama's worshippers would take a step back.   And if we are going to criticize the press for trivializing the campaign, we should be consistent and point out all attacks on or falsehoods about all Democratic candidates.  

(Incidentally, I liked Obama's original point about the flag lapel pin, in which he said he didn't wear one because it has become a substitute for real patriotism. He has since backed off from this remark.)

>>> "Marty McGowan" <marty.mcgowan@gmail.com> 4/17/2008 6:49 PM >>>
i just did, too thanks,

i took the time to point out that the "american flag" question proved
barak's point:
when people aren't served by their govt, they wrap themselves in the
familiar.

it's interesting that neither the media, nor the cynics they play to will
admit barak
hit this nail on the head.

--
-=+-. Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016

--
-=+-. Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016

Impeach Cheney now

The allegations that he abused power are credible.

(from the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071227_Impeach_Cheney_now.html)
U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.)

are members of the Judiciary Committee

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

...
---------
follow any Wexler links...

Re: FW: Billion Here, Billion There

you can read this on-line at
   http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com

it was the late, great, illinois senator, Everett DIrksen, who said that first in the present context:

   "A Billion here, a billion there,
    and pretty soon, you are talking _real_ money"

The amazing thing was he said that in the late 50s, and it's still true today.  The only problem is, that now, as your example shows, we speak not in units of billions, but Tens, and Hundreds.   

I taught algebra (and geometry) for two years.  the thing that concerned me the most, is the sort of lesson your example shows.    many of us can (barely) remember a billion seconds ago, so, extending that to minutes, hours and days is an instructive way to make the point that a Billion is a _huge_ number.   

In my lower wall street class room, i occasionally get to point out:  if you could fill this room up (you could, barely) with a million dollars, you couldn't fit a billion dollars in this whole building ( it would take 3 forty
story buildings like it),  and it would probably take all the financial district, and lower manhattan.  below canal street, just to  hold a  Trillion.  but, who's counting.

in the forwarded story. the assumption is that the money (however much) would be  evenly distributed.   No, too much of the money is going to rebuild casinos, and manufacturers of flimsy mobile homes.    The new gov. of Louisiana, who ran on a "clean up the state" slate, once elected has backed down on his pledge to not meddle with the legislature's committee chair positions -- considered a major source of the patronage outflow in that state.    

That's "Hope" down there, with her neck in the noose.
<hr>

On Dec 12, 2007 6:24 PM, Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
> The next time you hear a politician use the
> word "billion" in a casual manner, think about
> whether you want the "politicians" spending
> YOUR tax money.
> A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
> but one advertising agency did a good job of
> putting that figure into some perspective in
> one of its releases.
>
>
> A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
>
> B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
>
> C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
>     living in the Stone Age.
>
> D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on
> two feet.
>
>
> E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and
>
>
>    20 minutes, at the rate our government is
> spending it.
>
>
>
> While this thought is still fresh in our brain,
> let's take a look at New
> Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some
> simple division . .
>
>
> Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently
> asking the Congress
> for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans.
> Interesting number, what does
> it mean?
>
>
>
> A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of
>      New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you
>     each get $516,528.
>
> B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
>       New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
>
> C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family
>     gets $2,066,012.
>
> Washington, D.C .. HELLO!!! ... Are all your
> calculators broken??
>
>

Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program?

Keith Olbermann, last thursday night: 12/06, opined on the "what did you know, and when did you know it", addressed to Mr Bush about the NIE report that Iran has not pursued nuclear weapons since 2003.    See this report from Olbermann.

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/06/501450.aspx

I take a different view, challenging the way the intelligence is delivered (as well as the messenger), but importantly, an overlooked aspect on how we are supposed to consume this information.  

Consider this:  we are tantalized by the prospect that "they could resume the weapons program at any time".   Certainly true.  Why no one has thought to ask, "yes, and if so, when would we know it?"   There are only two conclusions to draw from this reasoning:   first, it conceivably would take us another 4 years to  find out the program has been turn on  OR that we might find out about it the day after tomorrow, but we don't need to tell you.     In the first case, we are led to believe the intelligence community is really sluggish in developing a picture, in the latter we must assume the pressure to report is squelched by political consideration.   My personal belief is both have been the pattern of the Iraq years, and now, as Olbernan suggests, we need new enemies.   He carefully analyzes Bush's pronouncements on Iran over the last year, and points out a detectable shift between August 6 and August 9, when he believes a Mike McConnell briefing actually set him straight.   Olbermann, with this evidence, as he sees it, clearly believes Bush has been lying on this one, at least since that time, and used the intervening four months to shift the tone of the story so we might not notice, and could claim, "I was only briefed last week", claim which Olbermann smells a just enough truth.

The NewsDarkTime has for two years believed Bush (and Cheney) were well over the impeachment line;   those who cite congress' low approval rating don't explore the dissatisfaction:  the 77% who are dissatisfied with congress don't necessarily approve of the administration, Probably fully half that number support impeachment, but can't muster the clout with congress.  So we're simply added to the dissatisfied.  

  http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com

Re: Gun Vote

Anna,
   congrats on being a veteran!  be proud of your service.  no one can take it from you, and it sounds like you're justly willing to let it inform the rest of your life.   since you're still asking questions you haven't adopted the all-too-frequent fault of the ex-military:  my country right or wrong -- i don't question it.  

    you question causes me to really consider what i'd like to see.   i used to belong to the "Brady Campaign", and have to agree in principal with them, that there is no good purpose for the pistol in the hands of a civilian.   but they want to ban them, and i'd rather leave the question to interpretation of the 2nd  amendment:   we have to regulate, not abolish firearms.  what i was getting at with the last letter was i'm more concerned with respect for the several bill of rights, as a group, than with any one in particular.   for example, the first and fourth amendments are under greater assault than the second.    1=freedom of speech, now that we've called campaign contributions as speech, this tends to allow corporate money to dominate the dialog.  4=unlawful search and seizure, the administration's lockup of so-called "enemy combatants" without due process threatens free people everywhere.
  
   but what about the 2nd amendment.  i've already claimed that the rights are individual rights.  some of my fellow liberals would claim the 2nd is only a "collective" right.   unfortunately, the law in the country is only contested, even all the way to the supreme court, as individual cases.   then, depending on how the justices write their opinion, other, lower courts are either directly instructed, or often are able to interpret how widely any decision applies to them.  for example 1954's "Brown vs Board of Education" struck down the 1896 "Plessy vs Ferguson", which said  education could be separate and equal.  According to Plessy, it was possible to get an equal education in separate facilities.  Brown V Board said there was no evidence that in practice, separate was ever equal.  So, while Brown involved a Topeka KS school, and one other,  there was little doubt from the ruling it was universal.   

  i believe the court has taken on cases this term which will test the 2nd amendment, and possibly the notion that it's an individual vs collective right, but i'm not really sure of the issues.   the nagging feeling i have though is that this is an "advocacy case", where there is no actual grievance, but a perceived one.  e.g.  a state may want to "regulate" the access of individuals to say, AK 47s, so they require people to be members of a gun club, secure those weapons, even though they belong to individuals, who are ultimately responsible, but they must accept the
club security.  one can imagine someone can claim damage, but the guy in nebraska who's estranged son "stole" his weapon, and took it to the mall and killed 8 people might have used the help of the locked up gun in the club to secure it's proper use.  

  so, what would i consider effective regulation.   consider the needs of the public, to remain safe in their person: they should be able to go to the mall, and expect to be able to go home without being shot at, wounded, or killed.  also, consider the need of sportsmen (and women) to exercise their interest in firearms.   let me confess, that as high school students, my brother and i took the MN firearms safety course, using a 22 rifle my dad had, and used it enough to qualify.  i never felt the need to pick up a firearm since.   but i don't want to impose my lack of interest on those who do.   so, what to do.    well, those of us who are interested, but otherwise un-informed can see various categories of gun: pistols, rifles, shotguns, military, heavy artillery, ...   going up the scale, various degrees of automatic; manual, semi-, fully-.   there are various calibers, loads, historic, etc...    someone, the Atty General, the ATF,  the FBI, ... will identify the useful categories of firearms, of which there might be a few hundred types.   every personal weapon will need to belong to one of these categories.  no-one (incl the feds) needs to know the identities of all the weapons of every such category.   but some of those categories will be the ones which create more harm to the population at large then other categories, and most of the various categories will be otherwise harmless.  if i had to guess, but i could be wrong, the harmful categories might include 9 mms and certainly the AK-47.  22 rifles, probably not, but the list of dangerous categories would be data driven:  e.g. "these 6 categories of weapon were responsible for 80% of civilian fatalities in the last 3 years",for example.   the federal govt would provide a national registry, federally _funded_, administered by the states and registered gun dealers ( e.g. my NJ driver's license permits me to drive in MN,e.g., since my Toyota dealer "handles all the paperwork" for my new car).  this registry would require periodic renewal for all the firearms in the few designated categories.    this could be handled in bulk, at no inconvenience to the individual through clubs, dealers, ...   so why do this at all?  

  so many of the weapons used in crimes, holdups, .. not to mention fatal shootings are found to be "stolen".  as it stands, there is little incentive to report stolen weapons.   so here's what would happen:   if your weapon is in the few categories requiring registry, you'd better report it stolen.  Why?   if it's found to have committed a capitol crime, the registered owner of the identified weapon (thru ballistics)  is the prime suspect.    my model for this is the all-too-typical shooting of a police officer, Joyce Carnegie, in Orange NJ, in April 1999:
      http://mcgowans.org/marty3/idea/carnegie.html
as we later came to know the shooter had stolen the gun from his cousin in GA, and the gun had legally been bought in VA.   it had been stolen more than 6 months and less than a year before it was used in a holdup, which was interrupted by Officer Carnegie.   were the real owner required to show proof of the safe custody of the gun, it's theft would have been quickly traced to the cousin, who the owner suspected, but had no incentive to pursue, since he had other similar guns, and the cousin had left town some time before.   the point is the owner had no incentive to act responsibly and report this dangerous weapon being at large.

  an equally sad side-effect of this case was the death (i forget if it was suicide) of an un-involved suspect, arrested because he looked like the real suspect.   the gun was eventually identified by ballistics, but had it been on the "stolen" list, it's identity would have been immediately known and the wrong guy might only have been held overnight rather than nearly a week.   the multiple tragedies in this all-too frequent type of event would have been avoided, many observed at the time, would have been avoided with the simplest registry system.  

   as a self-critique, you may have noticed my too cavalier claim that there would be only a few categories to register.   a natural fear from the gun-owning crowd is the government couldn't resist calling all firearms as "dangerous".   i'd restrict the list, by law, to the identifiable smaller list of categories in the following way:  in any population, as you've probably observed, there's what's called the 80-20 law.   an example is the familiar "20 % of the people have 80% of the money, and 80% of the people only have 20 % of the money".   actually, since the regan ascendancy, barely interrupted by the clinton years, it's now more like 90 - 10!   so, in the case of firearms,
by statute, i'd restrict it to the 5% of the categories of weapons which are responsible for 95% of the deaths, or whatever the number is, but the categories would be severely restricted by law, provided the law was supported by those who i call "responsible" gun owners and dealers.   some of my liberal friends might want the 100-100 case, but, i would observe, if you don't aim for perfection, and are willing to "tolerate" a low level of gun violence,  you will gradually see the "dangerous" categories change, and the total fatalities greatly reduce, to where the visible sources of gun death wouldn't be from these "random" sources. i.e. the problem will have long moved to where the responsible gun owners somehow don't feel they are the threatened ones.

 thanks for the opportunity to think about this.

 i've posted this and other comments on my weblog:   http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/

 please share this with site with your friends.

 thank you.

On Dec 6, 2007 2:20 AM, Lilith Eventide Nightshade < lilith925@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Mc Gowan,
I have been fascinated by your discourse. Please tell
me about your interpretation of responsible
regulation.
I am a veteran. I understand and appreciate the rights
and priveledges accrued to gun ownership.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Anna Ayres

Gun Vote

my favorite part of the 2nd amendment is the "well-regulated militia" part.

the implication being, even if it's an _individual_ right, as all the rights
must be, is that it requires regulation.   today we witnessed an otherwise
law-abiding citizen in omaha take out 8 of his fellow americans (and
wounding a handful of others) before taking his own life, need i point
out, with a legally acquired gun (or could i be wrong here).

if you want to preserve the individual right, as i do,  you will work _much_
harder than you have been willing to respect the "well-regulated part".

it should be up to gun advocates to advocate responsible regulation,
because coming from others, it would be irresponsible regulation.   today's
tragedy is blood on the hands of those who would have _NO_ regulation.

thus, _my_ poll would be:

    [ ] no regulation
    [ ] responsible regulation
    [ ] irresponsible regulation

-=-.. Marty McGowan

p.s. those of you who'd like to hear what i think is responsible regulation,
 please write, and i'll post a response to those who inquire.

On Dec 5, 2007 7:46 PM, Al Telford < alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: "Bob Mills" < bmillsuspsa@charter.net>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:33:03 -0600
Subject: Gun Vote

First - vote on this one.    

Second - launch it to all the pro-gun folks and have THEM vote

 To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below.

 Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

Vote here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

Fwd: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER

Date: Dec 3, 2007 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER



what amazes me is why you'd oppose hillary who's no more likely to advocate a repeal of "2a",
much less make it happen than bush was likely to introduce a repeal of roe v wade, much less
see it happen!?

i suspect most poeple's revulsion of the clintons, not to mention the kennedys is that it's
tough to support people who's view of government is more noble than we'd like.

just a guess.

on keeping your guns:  now that your car(s) are registered, aren't you worried someone's
coming to confiscate them?  or is it the fact you've got a gun on the rack your insurance?

if you're still open for suggestions, here's some more practical issues: 
  trim the federal deficit (= bush's idiot war) so we can afford:
      + education,
      + jobs programs, training,
      + healthcare,
      + infrastructure: bridges!, levees,
      + housing !!!
      + other useful things for people like real crime fighting, ...

pardon me, i'm wound up:  Kerry got laughed off the stage for suggesting bush's war
would cost 200 - 300 billion.  when Cheney and Rumsfeld (snivling liars that they are)
promised it would be less than 50 B, by which time the oil would be paying for it.  my
only complaint with Kerry is he was an order of magnitude too timid.  today, the most
conservative,  thats CONSERVATIVE, estimates are TWO TRILLION (if not THREE).

if people stopped to think what the war is costing them, it would have ended before it
started:  kerry's price-tag was $1000 for everyone in your family.   bush has mortgaged
you to the tune of $10,000 a head, for which your grandchildren will be paying: Merry
Christmas.

there's no point in vilifying hillary over, say bush, unless you value your ego more
than you value your wallet or your family.  but, hey, as we liberals say: i could be wrong.




Cheers,

 -=-.. Marty McGowan

On Dec 3, 2007 7:42 PM, Eileen Burgess < bean@fedteldirect.net> wrote:

I'm unaware of who this is from.  However, thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent also,

 

 

AS A PROUD AMERICAN GUN OWNER, HUNTER AND SHOOTER, THIS "WOMAN" COULD BE THE ABSOLUTE WORST NIGHTMARE YET IF SHE WERE TO GET INTO OFFICE.    The 2A issue is extremely important to me and I will make no apologies for it.

Thank you,

Eileen

 

Who supports Hillary?

you can tell lilith i've only sent money to the edwards campaign.  
  others on my "inside" list are: richardson, kucinich,  & maybe dodd.

nothin' better than a big change, emphasis _big_. 

two of my constant opinions:
   "i've never met a republican who _needed_ my vote"  -- which doesn't mean
         i haven't voted for a republican, and ...
   "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican"

the practical example of the last one, and i hate to admit that i agree with
  ronald regan, but he "predicted": "the government's the problem, not
  the solution".   how did he know george w bush would ever be president?!

On Dec 4, 2007 8:09 PM, Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

mickey.  one of my girl friends, lilith925 ,was very glad i hooked her up with your e mail .  she thinks your the most intelegent person that she has meet on the internet.  she also is a  hilery fan. im not i favor of her as you have probley guessed already.  i dont know who is worth voting for yet.  all i know is that we need a big change in this country.  al

Fwd: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER

Date: Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER
To: Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com>


i couldn't agree with you more.  as you  may have noted, she's no higher than
4th or 5th on my list.     hillary has more 'balls' than many republicans.

what i'd like to know is how is anyone who voted for bush is in a position
to identify who's smart or not.   your last statement is all the truth we
need.  i assume that calling it a "no win situation", you knew, well in
advance of our Selected Acting President ( e.g. SAP for short), that
it wasn't "Mission Accomplished", but Hell on Earth.  

As to Hillary, there are any number of issues on which I agree with her,
but, to me, she is "Cheney light", -- just like Cheney, she is way to coy
with her answers, more like an evasion.   take for example her recent
vote (to support this failed administration) that Iran is a current nuclear
threat.   you should like her more than I do.

to be real for a moment, consider that the republicans have shown
they are incapable of selecting a presidential candidate.   i have a
friend from the last decade who blindly insists bush will go down as
one of the greatest.   i don't write to him any more as i consider him
blind to observable data.   so, you will have to get used to it; the
next president will be the Democratic nominee.  i didn't vote for
Bill twice, and i consider anyone who voted for bush twice in need
of redemption.   i may be lucky enough to _never_ have to vote
for hillary, but, at the risk of getting you started, there is no
republican candidate worth listening to anymore.

 consider mccain.  had he been president, we would likely NOT
have had to deal with iraq.   now he supports an indefinite extension
of the troops.   not unlike nixon, who was elected because of
dissatisfaction with LBJs handling of vietnam, who really prolonged
and deepend that conflict.  there is no other republican who has
_any_ credibility, huckabee and paul included.    there are plenty
of good republicans out there, all of whom are too smart to get
in the meat-grinder bush has made of presidential politics:   colin
powell would have made a much better president than bush, but
i'll bet you didn't hear how b-c made him the lap-dog who would
do their bidding:  they locked the doors of the cabinet meeting
when they told all the others to be there ten minutes early or
get locked out.  

and on to rudy g:   as he was leaving the mayors office and
facing an opportunistic mike bloomberg take over, he was heard
to say  "there have to be 50 people here who can do the job better
than I".  i agree completely, and it's still true.   where i disagree,
why aren't those people running?

as a liberal, i say, rhetorically, "i could be wrong".  implicit in
that statement is the challenge: "until you show me some
evidence".   i'm not cowed by your suggestion my "support"
for hillary is evidence of ignorence.  take your pick: show me
why, or take the easy alternative:  show me why support for
bush isn't!

-=-.. Marty

On Dec 3, 2007 9:44 PM, Al Telford < alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

mickey,when we were in school i thought you were suposed to be smart.  if you are for hillery, your not as smart as i thought you were.  we dont need a woman leader in this country, at least not her.  what we need is a pres. with a pr. of balls and not an oil man.  irac is just another viet nam.  a no win sit. .
al

Reagan Was Right!

.. when he said "the government is the problem!" and give him credit for his ability to see the future. His administration "morning in America", gave us the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bush family, ... who have given us "government" for the last 7 years (any mirrors breaking?), and nothing but problems. Look for a solution. Just one. Can you think of any? Heck, even Nixon gave us 55 mph, which, at the time did more for our dependence on foreign oil than any effort since!

Your NDT ed repeats his assertion: never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the Republican Party.

The latest cave-in by Sens Schumer and Feinstein on the Mukasey nomination is another low moment in our history. All the discussion about rancor across the political aisle suggests this is a tw0-way street. The recent round (post-Bork) began with the throw up of Clarence Thomas. I blame Joe Biden, then chairing the Senate Judiciary for giving this guy a pass. Talk about greasy slope! While I might support Joe's tri-partite Iraq, and other things, Thomas was the unforgivable sin. As for Schumer and Feinstein, they think they can "build bridges" with this kind of support. That Mukasey wasn't a "loyalist" and shows some competence, he still showed too much political savvy in his hedged answer on waterboarding as torture. Don't even get me started on the administration's offer that "since he hasn't been briefed, how can he know". Let me offer this: First, ask him to tell us what he thinks torture is. Does it comport to the Gonzalez definition: "duress to near death". Somewhere between "Name, Rank, and Serial number", and the electric chair, one could begin to discern elements of torture, to the point of sharing that with Americas elected officials.

So, in the future, I hope a few things happen. Most, that Mukasey's performance comports with the law better than Thomas' hewing to political ideology, and that neither Schumer nor Feinstein need to be reminded that it was their opportunity to prevent the as yet unseen tragedy of another Bush nominee.

Today's Bad News

Steve, John,

let me share this "fan" mail with you both, and then
individually. the 6:32 out of Linden gives me time to
do a thorough job on the Star Ledger, of which you
both are on my regular stops. today's (7.24) was no
exception. now individually:

Steve,
(from the note i penned on the Donaghy-McGrady
photo under your byline): Your article helped me
understand why I stopped following the NBA at the
end of the season ('64?) in which Hondo stole the
inbound pass at the Gahden. The most I've given
it for 30 yrs is the 4th quarter of any Finals round
elimination game. For me, the basketball season
ends in March.

John,

Agent 86 = 2 * Pres 43! how clever. novel comparisons,
which on reflection aren't a stretch. funny _and_
sad. his latest retreat: "we're here to fight al Queda
in Iraq"! permit an observation: anyone who voted
for Bush twice should be forever disqualified from
voting for president. a few weeks back you noted
it's probably too late to remove B & C from office, and
actually cautioned against it. do you really think we
can last that long? i'm ordering my
"President Pelosi" bumper stickers now.

--
-=-. Marty McGowan mcgowan@alum.mit.edu
Bell: 908 230-3739 IM: yahoo:applemcg
USPS: 24 Herning Ave, Cranford NJ 07016
i work the fop floor of the curved blue building!!!:
http://www.pbase.com/jimmski/image/51996052

p.s. to cc'd Steve Politi and John Farmer of
the Newark Star Ledger