What you said is very important. I somehow missed your post last night, and was about to write essentially what you did. So, to reinforce one of your points: government regulation of chemicals that have proven links to obesity is essential.

Diet and obesity are certainly connected, but it is important to look at all of the causes.

T0M SAWYER:

" What would the republicans...

...think about a referendum in CA passed by a majority (the Democrats) that stripped them of their right to vote. Would the courts be "activist" and subject to condemnation if they over turned that referendum?"

Chief:

Illogical argument, Tom. This would simply be stopped at the Federal level as begin against the US Constitution as a DIRECT violation of multiple amendments. Now, no ruling has yet been made by a US Supreme Court to determine if same-sex marriage is constitutional per any amendment as yet.

Your example is CLEARLY a violation of said amendments and would be over turned with no activism require by ANYONE's standards.

________________

Um, the majority deprive a minority of the right to vote? Nope, could not happen in a million years. Nice set up TOM.

But the California decision that is the topic of discussion is also based on the (State) constitution, and therefore also should be immune to cries of activism. But it is not.

Anyway, my attempt at humor fell flat. I am sorry.

wrote:

empty legal chatter about the difference between a democracy or constitutional republic or basic civics at the end of the day the type of goverment did not stop the savage behavior of racists or homophobic people on this soil....

A knowledge of the details of how a government works is essential for finding ways to stop such behavior.

No, the rule of law has reduced the effects of racism in my lifetime (60 years). There is no question about that.

Certainly kinder for me. But still, better for you than a century ago.

Wrote:

Mike how would you and I know that since we are not around 100 years ago??

with regard to the lives of whites and Blacks in America that is a discussion for another day..

Even you must realize that we can know something about the relative levels of racism today and a century ago. You display intentional ignorance, among other things.

Glenn is a gay activist here at UT? Please show me some examples. Your last post was not very convincing.

wrote:

Haven't you just described the Electoral College?

My sarcasm fell flat there. I agree that this describes the electoral college. But that was not the intended meaning, which was the limitation of minority voting rights through poll taxes, examinations, and just plain intimidation. More subtle than passing a law that says that some group cannot vote, but similar in effect.

CT:

The aim of the Tribune's Commentary page is to display a wide range of subjective opinions, even those some may consider offensive. Printing a column is not the same as sanctioning it.

That is good in theory, but what about the practice? Do they run stuff all the way across the spectrum, or is the spectrum already pre-trimmed?

wrote:Um, Renzo...

Jimmy can add, subtract and multiply, but dislikes division.

Subtraction is division. The results of division can be obtained by repeated subtraction.

-- L.W.M

Yes, but it all can be done with two input NAND gates. So what? Higher level logical processes are necessary to streamline mental activity.

wrote:

I think he was talking about politics, not math. The politics of division is one thing. When you start subtracting, that's genocide.

But you are the one that made the analogy between math and politics. Do you now mean that that analogy does not work very well? If so, we agree.

It would be better that Harris's change in tune is not driven by any ethical considerations at all. If it is a result of a considered look at which way the wind is blowing, then it is an indication that he thinks the republican dominated press is in trouble. And his change in attitude, if it is backed up by real changes in his reporting, will contribute to trouble for the republicans.

Glenn wrote (update):

The political media focuses on trivialities because it's easiest, because it's what they do best, and because it's the way that they (and the sprawling corporations that own them) avoid alienating those in political power on whom they depend.

That is what is important, and that is what has to change.

the remarkable progress of our mission in Iraq: Consistently overstated in the WSJ for years.

the corruption of the United Nations and the World Bank: Well, one of your kind had a chance at the WB, and it did not improve.

an understanding of international business and market forces: This is hardly a news story, but it is what the WSJ is good at.

the harm done to world economies by government regulation and public corruption: Ah, yes. Bring back the 19th century. There are reasons for regulation. Every time the big guys find a way around it, we see why it is needed.

Found this sentence from your link amusing:

But once again it raises questions over the credibility of material posts on the Net.

It seems that there is an implicit assumption that the credibility of material in national newspapers is above question. It may well be better on average, but it sure is not as good as it ought to be.