the letter that the Obama campaign sent me regarding his position on telecom immunity. As you can see, he says all the right things but falls slightly short on the promises for action.

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/01/full-text-from-obama-campaign-retelecom.html

Also linked on my sig.

about all the wiretapping and illegal activity thgat would nbot be taking place under his Presxidency. It had considerably less to say about what he would do to curtail the wiretapping and illegal activity that was continuing to take place out on the campaign trail.

For those who might be composing e-mails or letters to the editor, I'd like to suggest one association that to my knowlege isn't being made. The same administration that now wants to grant the telecoms immunity for failing to follow the law is the one that has been systematically ignotring the law concerning e-mail archives and has been routinely overwiting backup tapes. Clearly, ignoring the law AND routinely destroying evidence is pretty much par for the course.

That as soon as they start levelling personal insults, all they're doing is providing more evidence for your initial post. It seems opportune to point out the contrast between John King's response and the way that Karen Tumulty deals with blogger-critics. She not only participiates in the dialog in the comments on her posts but actually once used "the Village" in a sentence.

It's actually pretty easy to see the dynamic that going on in this country, if and only if, you aren't an insulated, self important, jerk.

by pointing out that the term is meaningless.

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Without commenting on whatever your debate is with Scientician, I was noting thet the assertion "you can't prove a negative" is a:False and b:Frequently misused in debates.

In which a pompous English professor stood in front of his class and asserted that even though two negatives can be compined to express a positive, there are no instances of two positives being combined to express a negative.

At which point a sarcastic voice from the bacxk of the room chimed "yeah yeah...."

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

But I think there exist better examples of the misuse of the term "judicial activism" on the part of the right than the "same sex marriage" issue- which abounds with text book activism.

But I can't help but note with irony, that the point of the article is that people are quick to pass judgment on court decisions without bothering to educate themselves to the details.

Your objecting in principle to something that was decided in a particular. The NJ court ruled as it did becuase the state's constitution had a rather broad equal-protection clause. It wasn't the court imposing their preference on a situation and it was unrelated to the nature of gayness, they simply read the law and the Constitution and insisted that they be taken at face value. This is quite unrelated to whether anyone thinks that's a good idea or not. The political process (Ratifying the NJ Constitution) had already spoken on the matter.

if not most, people who self-describe as conservative or who profess to believe in the principles of conservative government.

This is actually a significant point. If you spend time just hanging out with people who describe themselves as conservative, you'd never detect anything unusual about them. It's only those folks who either A: try to influence policy by writing about it, or people who actually implement the policy who do the actual damage. The disconnect between the people just living their lives and the ones busy ruining lives is dramatic.

That's why the press plays such a crucial role in shaping our character as a country and why there's such a disconnect between how Americans view themselves and how were perceived in the rest of the world.

Much of the public is simply unaware of the damage being caused in their name.

that its the left which has taken up the mantle of the "Reality based community" It's self-selection in action. People who value rationality and evidence based thinking are not the sort who gravitate to the far reaches of the wingnut-o-sphere. Unfortunately, as a general rule Judges (even Conservative ones) tend to be the sort of people who value rationality and evidence based thinking as well. Self-selection again. So its completely unsurprising that people who's political identity is based on wishful thinking would have a problem with judges.

Your argument would have more force if you weren't making it up as you go along. I happen to know that the only instances of Glenn banning anyone were quite unrelated to any ideas being expressed (let alone anyone's "agreement" with them and were quite related to the conduct of the individual in disrupting the forum altogether.)

Because its a long thread and the point seems lost. If someone wants me to be a witness on their behalf they can issue a subpoena. Having been served with one, I am therefore compelled to appear. Failure to appear subjects me to criminal sanctions. Notice that I am not myself subject to a criminal proceeding but the threat of one remains in place to insure my compliance.

People who harp on the fact that the Canadian process isn't a criminal proceeding are deliberately ignoring this important point. Just because no one is charged with a crime doesn't mean that the full brunt of the criminal justice system doesn't stand at the ready to insure compliance.

I was relying on this characterization:

It seeks to address (& criminalize) racial, ethnic, gender & sexuality-based vilification, discrimination, bullying & hate-speech in California's public schools.

The bill's summary certainly doesn't read the same.

Of course the discrapancy might be in the meat of the bill. If it is proscribing behavior on the part of school officials, that is certainly different than proscribing the behavior of the students. And of course the real meat of ANY bill is in it's enforcment mechanisms.