Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

clark · 2004-07-30 11:15:39

Character is not relevant to holding public office?

The intimate details of a divorce proceeding are relevant to holding public office then? How does that indicate how someone will serve in office? We can agree on a generality, but we have specific details in this case. I don't believe that Ryan's divorce should have been made available to the public unless there is a strong compelling reason to do so. The only effect it had was to reduce the choice for voters by causing him to drop out. How is the public served here?

Has nothing to do with the "hardness" of the questions. It has to do with intimidation, denial of service, interference with the ability of others to interact with the candidate, etc.

It's messy, I grant you that, but I don't think reporters, or the public, will be better served if everyone plays "nice". If there is real interference going on, options are available to anyone to restrain the rabid individuals who cause problems. We do have laws.

But that's the point, it should suffice, but it doesn't. What then?

WWJD? :laugh: Taking the high road isn't supposed to be easy.

The abilility to talk with other reporters in an equitable fashion, to be efficient in their duties to greet constituents, get from one place to another in a timely fashion, deal appropriately with their obligations to their families, etc.

If they want to talk to other reporters, they can call a press confrence, or give private interviews. If they want to greet constituents, they can have "photo-ops" or private gatherings where the press are not allowed (which no politican really wants BTW). I'm not going to cry if they have transportation problems- anytime a politican wants to go somewhere, traffic for the public usually gets fouled up (damn VIP treatment! ) They could always plan in extra time to get where they need to go. As for their obligations to their family- being in the public spotlight usualy entails requiring your private family to sacrifice. Sorry for the imperfect world, but they can't have it all.

Clark, we should go on the road. You make a wonderful "straight man".

Whose on first? :;):

Palomar · 2004-07-30 11:16:39

Heres]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_deficit]Here's some more good news to perk up your day...

*Also, should Bush drop Cheney from the ticket? I think Cheney's been much more problematic than Bush...but supposedly Bush is the one in command.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-07-30 11:23:27

Living in Illinois, I can say it appeared to me that Jack Ryan was eaten alive by other Republicans who feared that the divorce allegations would undermine a national "moralistic" campaign.

As far as I can tell, Obama agreed that nothing in those files had anything to do with the race itself.

clark, sealed divorce files are a form of VIP treatment. Whether that is appropriate is a bigger question, yet why should famous or rich or potentially famous people get their files sealed while John and Jane Doe cannot?

It is sad Jack Ryan withdrew for the reasons he did, however, the plans were in the works to pay big bucks on the same political hit man Saxby Chambliss used to discredit Max Cleland of Georgia to smear Barack Obama.

Now, if a no-hope nobody replaces Ryan, then to smear Obama in a non-competitive race will obviously be pure destructive politics, and expensive in a no win race.

clark · 2004-07-30 11:34:01

clark, sealed divorce files are a form of VIP treatment. Whether that is appropriate is a bigger question, yet why should famous or rich or potentially famous people get their files sealed while John and Jane Doe cannot?

One, those types of files should be sealed from public eyes (how does it serve the publics interest?), and two, if both parties to this private disolution of their relationship wish to keep it private, I see no compelling reason that their wishes should be violated.

We have a reformed drunk cocaine sniffing ex-frat boy as our leader now, prior to that, a guy who didn't inhale but spilled all over the oval office. Morality and character are lame, just device to be used for quick and cheap points.

BWhite · 2004-07-30 11:53:14

clark, sealed divorce files are a form of VIP treatment. Whether that is appropriate is a bigger question, yet why should famous or rich or potentially famous people get their files sealed while John and Jane Doe cannot?
One, those types of files should be sealed from public eyes (how does it serve the publics interest?), and two, if both parties to this private disolution of their relationship wish to keep it private, I see no compelling reason that their wishes should be violated.

Generally, I would agree, except see below.

Also since Jack Ryan was eaten by his own party he is hardly a poster-boy for the issue.

= = =

What about domestic violence? A guy beats up his wife, gets divorced and later beats up his second wife.

The husband and the first wife say the records should remain sealed and then testify that this 2nd incident (or 22nd) is merely an isolated event, out of character?

clark · 2004-07-30 11:59:28

Also since Jack Ryan was eaten by his own party he is hardly a poster-boy for the issue.

He wouldn't have been eaten if those records were off limits. I don't really care if he was canabalized, that dosen't change the propriety of it all.

What about domestic violence? A guy beats up his wife, gets divorced and later beats up his second wife.

Domestic violence would fall under the criminal courts, no? I'm not talking about criminal proceedings.

The husband and the first wife say the records should remain sealed and then testify that this 2nd incident (or 22nd) is merely an isolated event, out of character?

I'm also not suggesting that all court proceedings be off limits- just removed from the general public pervue. You're also mixing up the issue by introducing a situation where another court proceeding might need previous instances to establish something- that can still be made available and kept from the general public.

If there is a compelling reason to make such information available to the public, then fine. But I fail to see any such case here. They didn't get along, he didn't beat her, but becase "sex" is somehow involved, the Puritan ethic gets offended and he has to drop out.

BWhite · 2004-07-30 12:15:07

What about domestic violence? A guy beats up his wife, gets divorced and later beats up his second wife.
Domestic violence would fall under the criminal courts, no? I'm not talking about criminal proceedings.

In Illinois, Orders of Protection can be filed as civil or criminal. Also, episodes of violence and intimidation are often part of child custody proceedings in circumstances where criminal prosecution never occurs.

Anyway, the Jack Ryan episode is blatantly ridiculous. Its not what he did, its what she says he asked to do (and he denies even saying it) - - at worst he was whacked for a fantasy.

But secrecy isn't the issue, its the "holier than thou" attitude of the Religious Right which drove Ryan off the ballot.

clark · 2004-07-30 12:19:22

But secrecy isn't the issue, its the "holier than thou" attitude of the Religious Right which drove Ryan off the ballot.

Well, when you're personaly talking to god...

Also, episodes of violence and intimidation are often part of child custody proceedings in circumstances where criminal prosecution never occurs.

Sounds like a failure of your criminal system.

Its not what he did, its what she says he asked to do (and he denies even saying it) - - at worst he was whacked for a fantasy.

He said- she said. Somehow I can relate. :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-07-30 12:24:44

Anyway, the Jack Ryan episode is blatantly ridiculous.
...
But secrecy isn't the issue, its the "holier than thou" attitude of the Religious Right which drove Ryan off the ballot.

*Well, we know what happened to Bill Clinton.

Putting the Religious Right aside, isn't this also about image?

Regardless of personal hypocrisies, double standards, etc., politicians represent the people. Most folks want a good image, which flatters them in return.

Which is why, it seems, a morally lax person who can rather effectively cloak or hide their vices may have an easier time in life than someone who flaunts it.

I'm not saying this is right -- I'm just pointing out what seems to be in the mindset and expectations of most people.

::shrugs::

--Cindy

clark · 2004-07-30 12:37:23

midwest morality.

Palomar · 2004-07-30 12:50:07

Anyway, the Jack Ryan episode is blatantly ridiculous.
...
But secrecy isn't the issue, its the "holier than thou" attitude of the Religious Right which drove Ryan off the ballot.
*Well, we know what happened to Bill Clinton.
Putting the Religious Right aside, isn't this also about image?
Regardless of personal hypocrisies, double standards, etc., politicians represent the people. Most folks want a good image, which flatters them in return.
Which is why, it seems, a morally lax person who can rather effectively cloak or hide their vices may have an easier time in life than someone who flaunts it.
I'm not saying this is right -- I'm just pointing out what seems to be in the mindset and expectations of most people.
::shrugs::
--Cindy

*And also what happened to Arnold Schwazzeneger out there in sunny California; the thousands of voters (male and female) who protested allegations and rumors of his inappropriate touching of women and alleged sexually crude comments he made in "Pumping Iron." Not to mention the most recent massive feather-ruffling incident over his "girlie-men" remark.

California morality. ??? Especially interesting, considering it's also the Image Capital of the World. :;):

Yep, they're out there having fun in the warm California sun (playing at Morality Police).

--Cindy

clark · 2004-07-30 12:56:22

Quoting yourself now? :laugh:

*And also what happened to Arnold Schwazzeneger out there in sunny California; the thousands of voters (male and female) who protested allegations and rumors of his inappropriate touching of women and alleged sexually crude comments he made in "Pumping Iron." Not to mention the most recent massive feather-ruffling incident over his "girlie-men" remark.

As a Californian, might I just point out that Arnold is our Governor now... they have a saying... "it plays well in the sticks." No one here took it all that seriously, which is mroe than evident when Arnold has a high approval rating, and took over 50% of the popular vote.

BTW, he called me last night. :laugh:

California morality. Especially interesting, considering it's also the Image Capital of the World.

What morality? Out here on the left coast we are constantly and consistently accused of having none. Face it, we just don't care what anyone else thinks. In fact, we are quite happy to tell you what you should think. :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-07-30 13:46:32

Obama Osama, who cares?

Morris · 2004-07-30 14:58:37

WWJD?

Sorry, I'm not picking up on what this means.

Taking the high road isn't supposed to be easy.

Ah yes, the requisite "character penalty". By this logic we should total the charitable contributions made by our philanthropists and, instead of giving them a deduction, charge them extra taxes.

The abilility to talk with other reporters in an equitable fashion, to be efficient in their duties to greet constituents, get from one place to another in a timely fashion, deal appropriately with their obligations to their families, etc.
If they want to talk to other reporters, they can call a press confrence, or give private interviews. If they want to greet constituents, they can have "photo-ops" or private gatherings where the press are not allowed (which no politican really wants BTW). I'm not going to cry if they have transportation problems- anytime a politican wants to go somewhere, traffic for the public usually gets fouled up (damn VIP treatment! ) They could always plan in extra time to get where they need to go. As for their obligations to their family- being in the public spotlight usualy entails requiring your private family to sacrifice. Sorry for the imperfect world, but they can't have it all.

And so the whole practice of traditional campaigning should be changed for the benefit of a private citizen, not even a reporter whose sole true purpose is the systematic harassment of the candidate. Doesn't sound like "the greatest good for the greatest number" to me.

clark · 2004-07-30 15:06:42

WWJD= What would Jesus do. Liberal elitist godless scum. (just kidding)

Ah yes, the requisite "character penalty". By this logic we should total the charitable contributions made by our philanthropists and, instead of giving them a deduction, charge them extra taxes.

I fail to see how you make this "logical" jump. The playground isn't nice, and the teachers don't care. We can make some new rules to handle this particular problem, and all suffer because of a few jerks in the sandbox. I would prefer not to let one bad apple spoil the bunch.

And so the whole practice of traditional campaigning should be changed for the benefit of a private citizen, not even, a report whose sole true purpose is the systematic harassment of the candidate.

Traditional? In what context?! It used to be traditional to get into shouting matches, fights, or even duels with your opponent. I think we've progressed. :laugh:

If it's as bad as you try to paint it, why can't current legal remedies be employed? Why must we upturn the system? Why must we create new rules and regulations? Why must we stifle obnoxious behavior with a jack hammer?

Doesn't sound like "the greatest good for the greatest number" to me.

How is altering our laws and enforce conduct to suit the politicans the greatest good for the greatest number?

If this was 1950's Alabama, and they were talking about lynching him, ya got a case. A camera following him to document instances of inconsistencies, I'm sorry, but boo-friggin-hoo.

Morris · 2004-07-30 17:41:05

If it's as bad as you try to paint it, why can't current legal remedies be employed? Why must we upturn the system? Why must we create new rules and regulations? Why must we stifle obnoxious behavior with a jack hammer?

As I understand it, a number of CURRENT laws that do apply to ordinary citizens do not apply to individuals who are identified as "public figures" or some similar language. I'm not sure whether this is because the law simply does not apply at all or whether the criteria for applying them to a "public figure" are simply higher than for an ordinary citizen. In any event, it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for a political candidate to successfully sue anyone for slander or libel even if the opponents have used the most blatant of falsehoods. I'm not sure how far this would go. For example, I am not sure whether the ordinary legal definition of "harassment" would be one of these cases. In any event, the only change I was considering in the laws was to remove an exception. To allow politicians and other public figures the same protection of law as everyone else. Thus for instance, if the charges of sexual abuse against Governor Schwarznegger are false, he would be able to successfully sue them in court rather than just having to stand there and "take it".

I do agree with you that adding on laws to cover exceptions is usually a poor way of handling things. And I surely don't want government officials to have greater protection of law than the rest of us have.

If this was 1950's Alabama, and they were talking about lynching him, ya got a case. A camera following him to document instances of inconsistencies, I'm sorry, but boo-friggin-hoo.

Hmmm. I have been feeling that I wasn't communicating effectively, but I couldn't put my finger on the problem.

My objection to Mr. Warfel was the fact that he was CONSTANTLY "barking questions", getting so close to the candidate that it was interfering with his ability to communicate with others and generally do his job. If Mr. Warfel stayed 50 feet away (quite practical with modern directional, high gain, noise cancelling microphones) and mostly kept his mouth shut then he could "document instances of inconsistencies" to his heart's content. I think he also should be able to do the same with judges, police officers, etc.

In fact, the issue with police officers helps make my point. A cameraman should not have the right to interfere with the police in the performance of their duty, but should have the right to photograph and record all they do when no interference is involved.

Morris · 2004-07-30 18:09:48

WWJD= What would Jesus do. Liberal elitist godless scum. (just kidding)

Are you referring to me, or to Jesus? You don't have to answer that.

But if to me, lets take them one by one. Liberal -- I'm a very complicated creature politically. Liberal on some things, conservative (traditionally, not neo) on others, and libertarian on some others. I voted for Dole and the current Bush (though I strongly oppose returning him to office for a second term), and belong to the Libertarian Party, though I explicitly refer to myself as a "small L" libertarian because I think the LP platform is ridiculous on some issues.

Elitist - probably in some ways but very much not so in others. I strongly favor equality of opportunity, social justice (not social favoritism) and am very proud that a prominent Middleton (a local alderman) fought on the peasant side in Wat Tyler's rebellion. You may remember that Parliament warned the monarchy of the potential consequences of their grossly inappropriate taxation (on businessmen and peasants alike) but they didn't listen. Later the peasants, acting in a stunningly organized fashion and led by many local businessmen, made the point more emphatically. The next Parliament instituted a number of the requested reforms and they were at least partially implemented.

Godless. Wrong.

Scum -general pejorative term- no content, cannot evaluate. Though I do notice that my rather complex combination of views often gets me in trouble with both "sides" on an issue.

clark · 2004-08-02 09:03:30

Morris, you may be taking me a bit too literaly. Most of what you replied to was a tongue in cheek remark.

Morris · 2004-08-02 11:45:14

Morris, you may be taking me a bit too literaly. Most of what you replied to was a tongue in cheek remark.

Thanks for the comment.

Some language is pretty volatile, even with "tongue in cheek".

On the other hand, I got to talk more

clark · 2004-08-02 11:51:05

Some language is pretty volatile, even with "tongue in cheek".

Failure of the written word. We are all tone deaf here. When two thirds of all communication occurs on the non-verbal level, discussions without the natural cue's is an invitation to misunderstanding.

Mundaka · 2004-08-13 01:18:00

Morris · 2004-08-13 01:24:22

Game theory wonks have proven that cooperation often beats competition, but not always.
How can cooperation -- if you define it as something other than competition -- beat competition, unless its in competition with, er, competition, in which case its not cooperation . . . :;):
(Not even sure what "Obama" is yet, just started reading this thread.)

<chuckle> I see what you mean. In the classic and intensively studied "Prisoner's Dilemma" game a "tit-for-tat" strategy gives the highest payoff. You cooperate if your opponent cooperated on the last trial, and "compete" if your opponent "competed".

BWhite · 2004-08-13 07:58:58

Game theory wonks have proven that cooperation often beats competition, but not always.
How can cooperation -- if you define it as something other than competition -- beat competition, unless its in competition with, er, competition, in which case its not cooperation . . . :;):
(Not even sure what "Obama" is yet, just started reading this thread.)
<chuckle> I see what you mean. In the classic and intensively studied "Prisoner's Dilemma" game a "tit-for-tat" strategy gives the highest payoff. You cooperate if your opponent cooperated on the last trial, and "compete" if your opponent "competed".

Its an "identity" question or a level of observation question - - who is the player we measure by?

Sports example - Kobe Bryant leads the league in scoring yet the LA Lakers fail to win a ring.

John Wooden's classic knock on Michael Jordan was that he was the most talented/gifted player but he wasn't a team player and therefore would never win an NBA title. Now, MJ is probably one of the most competitive human beings on the planet. It seems that MJ heard about Wooden's criticism and then vowed to become the best damn "team player" he could and the Chicago Bulls won six rings.

= = =

In one game of Prisoner's Dilemma, always "Defect" - - when playing 100 games or 100,000 games in series, learning how to always play "Cooperate" increases everyone's score. What I mean is get in sync with your opponent/partner communciate well and you can both maximize your score.

In high school, I had a really hot social studies teacher (I think she was just a year or two out of college) who tried to teach us this lesson. She divided the class into groups of 4, with two teams of 2 and had us play a variant of Prisoner's Dilemma.

Each table competed with each other until the end of class, when she announced that the goal of the game was to be sitting at a table with the highest score. In other words, we had actually been divided into teams of 4 and were playing "against" the other tables.

She was annoyed with me because I played "Defect" early on and then browbeat the other players into always playing "Cooperate" thereafter. We had one round of "Defect" vs "Cooperate" which gave me an untouchable lead then I established a benign dictatorship (nods to Cobra) and every subsequent round was "Cooperate" vs "Cooperate" and our team score was 5 times as high as any other.

= = =

Asking which is "better" -- competition or cooperation seems to me rather like asking an electrician whether the ( + ) or ( - ) wires are "more important" than the other.

= = =

Another way I look at it, always ask: "What game are we really playing here"?

Morris · 2004-08-13 10:29:51

John Wooden's classic knock on Michael Jordan was that he was the most talented/gifted player but he wasn't a team player and therefore would never win an NBA title. Now, MJ is probably one of the most competitive human beings on the planet. It seems that MJ heard about Wooden's criticism and then vowed to become the best damn "team player" he could and the Chicago Bulls won six rings.

The best darn cooperator on the planet! I love it!

Asking which is "better" -- competition or cooperation seems to me rather like asking an electrician whether the ( + ) or ( - ) wires are "more important" than the other.

Spoilsport! You take all the fun out of arguing <chuckle>.

Another way I look at it, always ask: "What game are we really playing here"?

Always the real question

BWhite · 2004-08-13 10:47:47

Asking which is "better" -- competition or cooperation seems to me rather like asking an electrician whether the ( + ) or ( - ) wires are "more important" than the other.
Spoilsport! You take all the fun out of arguing <chuckle>.

Okay, you want to argue on these boards? Simple-minded libertarians annoy me with their shallow reasoning.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-30 11:15:39

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#27 2004-07-30 11:16:39

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#28 2004-07-30 11:23:27

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#29 2004-07-30 11:34:01

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#30 2004-07-30 11:53:14

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#31 2004-07-30 11:59:28

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#32 2004-07-30 12:15:07

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#33 2004-07-30 12:19:22

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#34 2004-07-30 12:24:44

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#35 2004-07-30 12:37:23

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#36 2004-07-30 12:50:07

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#37 2004-07-30 12:56:22

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#38 2004-07-30 13:46:32

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#39 2004-07-30 14:58:37

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#40 2004-07-30 15:06:42

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#41 2004-07-30 17:41:05

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#42 2004-07-30 18:09:48

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#43 2004-08-02 09:03:30

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#44 2004-08-02 11:45:14

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#45 2004-08-02 11:51:05

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#46 2004-08-13 01:18:00

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#47 2004-08-13 01:24:22

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#48 2004-08-13 07:58:58

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#49 2004-08-13 10:29:51

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#50 2004-08-13 10:47:47

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

Board footer