Who's Next

[Traveller]

>I’m sure he can make a case, lawyers generally

>can, but the Justice Department has some discretion over the

>pogroms they initiate and I can’t think of any reason this

>would become his pet project if not for his personal

>religious beliefs.

 

The Justice Dept. has initiated pogroms. Shit, I've got to get my BF outta the country fast.

 

Later.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>However, when it comes to politics and gay men, if someone

>takes a stance against something they are for, the person

>(John Ashcroft in this case) becomes some fire-breathing,

>blood-dripping-from-the-mouth, holier-than-thou Cotton

>Mather.

 

Just love it when you talk dirty to me!

 

>Don't use silly hyperbole and then expected to be taken

>seriously.

 

"Silly" in your opinion.

 

I never said I expected to be taken seriously. Some will - some won't, you can't win 'em all

 

>During his confirmation he was raked over the coals for his

>beliefs and he swore to uphold the law and not his personal

>beliefs.

 

And we all believe everything a politician and a government official says, right?

 

>I don't think there's anyone here who would want an employer

>to say that our homosexuality would have any bearing on how

>we performed our jobs. So, it would be hypocritical to say

>that someone's Christianity would have any bearing on the

>way they perform theirs.

 

I think you're mixing your metaphores - so to speak - when you compare homosexuality to Christianity in this instance. While he may uphold and enforce the law, he is also in a position to influence, institute and change laws. Do you really believe that his own morals will not be reflected? 67 years ago you would probably have argued that an inocuous little paper hanger in Germany posed no threat to 6,000,000 Jews.

 

>Until there's PROOF, the polite thing to do is to keep one's

>unsubstantiated accusations to one's self and not makes

>statements quoting someone when they've never said any such

>thing.

 

By the time there's proof the game may be over.

 

>And in case you think I wasn't paying attention: the thing

>about draping the statues is silly in my opinion. If it

>makes him uncomfortable to have naked tits next to his head

>while he's talking on air, then go ahead, drape away John.

 

Well if I remember correctly it cost the tapayer around $9,000 just to make Mr. Asscroft feel comfortable. I think he could have moved the location of his press conferances a few feet at a cost of about zero.

 

However - cost aside - if the top law enforcement official in the country feels so threatened by what has been considered a valid expression of art since time immemorial, let us all pray that he never gets the keys to your national museums and art galleries.

You call it silly? I call it censorship and rather frightening censorship at that. And I would argue that it's only one small step from there to deciding that Calvin Klien should not be allowed to produce billboards of hot hunks in tight underwear. It's a slippery slope we're talking about here.

 

As a Canadian I guess it will not directly effect me, one way or the other. But siting back and watching sure makes for good TV.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>It's a slippery slope we're talking about here.

 

 

Ah yes, the dreaded and feared (an oh SOOOOOOO tired) "slippery slope" argument.

 

First it's draping tits and then the next thing you know he has the keys to our libraries and he's mandating book burnings.

 

As for the Oregon death thing, there are COUNTLESS people who aren't "religious" who hold the exact same position as he does. Is it not possible that he feels that way regardless of his Christian beliefs?

 

Once someone "labels" themself as a born-again Christian, they are labeled a right-wing wacko. Are there right-wing Christian wackos? HELL YES! Are there homosexuals who are pedophiles? Unfortunately yes. However, there is no cause and effect at play here. (Or is it "cause and AFFECT"? I can never keep those two straight.)

 

Before the whole confirmation brou-ha-ha, I didn't know squat about Ashcroft. I watched it and tried to see what the Democrats were caterwaulling about. I just didn't see it. Alot of times, you can judge a person by who their enemies are. It seemed to me that all of his "enemies" were the usual left-wing nuts who get their panties in a twist over whenever a Republican is nominated for any high ranking position. If NOW's Patricia Ireland has a problem with someone, they're generally tops in my book.

 

Uh oh! I've brought up Patricia "The Jesse Jackson of the Women's Movement" Ireland. I could go on a tear about that horror but I'll quit while I'm ahead.

 

Exasperatedly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>Ah yes, the dreaded and feared (an oh SOOOOOOO tired)

>"slippery slope" argument.

>

>First it's draping tits and then the next thing you know he

>has the keys to our libraries and he's mandating book

>burnings.

 

 

First it's arresting people for possessing naked pictures of children and then it's arresting them for possessing naked pictures of Rick Munroe?

 

>Before the whole confirmation brou-ha-ha, I didn't know

>squat about Ashcroft. I watched it and tried to see what the

>Democrats were caterwaulling about. I just didn't see it.

 

You must have missed the part in which it was explained that Ashcroft had opposed the confirmation of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, the first black member of that court, to a seat on the federal bench because White was "soft on criminals." The truth is that White had voted to uphold convictions in the overwhelming majority of death penalty cases that had come before the Missouri court during his tenure. Ashcroft's opposition was based on the fact that White had voted to give a criminal defendant a new trial in a case involving the murder of a Missouri law enforcement officer. Politically powerful law enforcement associations in the state were out to get White and Ashcroft, facing a tough reelection fight -- which he ultimately lost -- agreed to trash White in order to win their support. It was a rotten thing to do.

 

As Joe Biden pointed out during the hearings, there have been many occasions when Antonin Scalia has voted to overturn convictions in murder cases, and yet Ashcroft never called Scalia "soft on criminals" on any of those occasions. Ashcroft trashed Ronnie White's appointment in order to boost his own reelection prospects. He's a bad guy.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Ashcroft trashed Ronnie White's appointment in order to

>boost his own reelection prospects.

 

Once again, you're assuming those were his motives. Do you have any PROOF those were his motives? Is it possible that he actually BELIEVED what he was saying?

 

I'm not saying that he didn't "trash" White - I don't know, and there's no way for ANYONE to really know - including you.

 

As for White, there's more to that story than you're relating. And frankly, I'm not interested in rehashing the White thing. However, based upon what I read (and I read ALOT about it), it's my opinion that White WAS soft on crime - and I'm not running for office or need to "trash" him for me to get ahead.

 

Let me reiterate, I'm not trying to defend Ashcroft. I'm merely trying to point out that people often engage in hyperbole and throw out unsubstantiated accusations when they don't agree with a person's politics.

 

Ashcroft has been as victim of this.

 

As has Clinton.

 

And I'm no defender of Clinton. In my opinion, Clinton was an abomination and disgraced the office of President.

 

Oh yeah, did I mention he was also a rapist?

 

But that's another thread for another time.

 

Nostalgically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>While he may uphold and enforce the law, he is also in a

>position to influence, institute and change laws.

 

Dear boy, you need to review your Social Studies notes. Only CONGRESS can "institute" or "change laws".

 

So, if you're afraid that you're going to wake up one morning to discover that Ashcroft has instituted or changed laws, you can rest easy - it's impossible.

 

Reassuredly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>>Ashcroft trashed Ronnie White's appointment in order to

>>boost his own reelection prospects.

>

>Once again, you're assuming those were his motives. Do you

>have any PROOF those were his motives?

 

Are you channeling Ethan?

 

>Is it possible that

>he actually BELIEVED what he was saying?

 

No.

 

 

>I'm not saying that he didn't "trash" White - I don't know,

>and there's no way for ANYONE to really know - including

>you.

 

Yes, there is. Ashcroft spoke about the nomination at a private meeting of the Senate Republican caucus and others who attended that meeting later spoke to the media. He made it quite clear that his actions were based on White's decision in that case. No one who knew White's record on the Missouri Supreme Court could accuse him of coddling criminals, unless the accuser was on drugs or lying.

 

In addition, the White case is not the first time that Ashcroft nixed a Clinton judicial nominee from Missouri for reasons that were personal rather than related to the nominee's qualifications. The New York Times reported on at least one other such incident that I recall involving a nominee who had been at odds with Ashcroft during his years as the Missouri Attorney General.

 

 

>As for White, there's more to that story than you're

>relating.

 

No, there is not. There is nothing in White's conduct as a judge that would justify any sane person in calling him soft on crime.

 

And frankly, I'm not interested in rehashing the

>White thing. However, based upon what I read (and I read

>ALOT about it), it's my opinion that White WAS soft on crime

>- and I'm not running for office or need to "trash" him for

>me to get ahead.

 

I don't believe you. The "I could demolish your argument but I don't really feel like it at the moment" trick is the oldest and stalest around.

 

 

>I'm

>merely trying to point out that people often engage in

>hyperbole and throw out unsubstantiated accusations when

>they don't agree with a person's politics.

 

That is true, but irrelevant to this conversation. I've backed up my accusation with specific facts that you have not refuted. So has phage.

 

 

>Ashcroft has been as victim of this.

 

But phage and I are not among those who have victimized him. We have both cited specific and verifiable actions of his, not made vague or unsubstantiated charges. The fact that others have not done so is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

>As has Clinton.

 

That has nothing to do with the subject of this conversation.

[Guest regulation]

>>While he may uphold and enforce the law, he is also in a

>>position to influence, institute and change laws.

>

>Dear boy, you need to review your Social Studies notes. Only

>CONGRESS can "institute" or "change laws".

>

>So, if you're afraid that you're going to wake up one

>morning to discover that Ashcroft has instituted or changed

>laws, you can rest easy - it's impossible.

>

 

No, you are the one who needs to review your notes, if any. Who do you think drafted much of Title 18, which contains the federal criminal laws, if not the Attorney General and his staff at Justice? Do you think the members of the House or Senate Judiciary committees do it? They don't even have the time to read their own mail. The drafting of federal criminal laws is done by the Attorney General and his staff and by the staffs of those two Congressional committees. Ashcroft has as much influence on the final form of those laws as any committee member, so stating that he doesn't "institute" or "change" laws is mere sophistry.

[phage]

>As for the Oregon death thing, there are COUNTLESS people

>who aren't "religious" who hold the exact same position as

>he does. Is it not possible that he feels that way

>regardless of his Christian beliefs?

 

Well, I can’t disprove your assertion any more than you can prove it. All things are possible, but my personal experience with people who oppose a person’s right to control their own death makes me think it is unlikely.

 

I have been involved with the local Hemlock Society for a number of years and virtually ALL of the people that I have encountered who actively oppose these rights, do so because of their religious beliefs. There is an occasional “slippery slope” individual, but I’m sure you’ll agree how “tired” that argument is. There is also an occasional activist for the disabled who thinks the practice will be extended past the terminally ill, but that’s just more slippery slope so we can’t count them either….right?

 

Virtually everyone I have ever met who is against ending the suffering of the terminally ill does so because they believe that it must be left in the hands of God. There aren’t any compelling scientific reasons, so why else would a rational person conclude that someone should continue to suffer even after they have determined that their life is not worth living anymore? Who else would presume to think they know what is best for another person except someone who believes they know the unknowable?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>While he may uphold and enforce the law, he is also in a

>>position to influence, institute and change laws.

>

>Dear boy, you need to review your Social Studies notes. Only

>CONGRESS can "institute" or "change laws".

>

>So, if you're afraid that you're going to wake up one

>morning to discover that Ashcroft has instituted or changed

>laws, you can rest easy - it's impossible.

 

For the rebuttal pls read Regulation's following post. He understands exactly what I was saying - good Lord, Reg & I in agreement. Must be the moon :-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>The New York Times reported on at

>least one other such incident that I recall involving a

>nominee who had been at odds with Ashcroft during his years

>as the Missouri Attorney General.

 

And of course we all know that the NYT isn't even one teensie weensie bit unbiased in its reporting. If The New York Times says it's so, it must be!

 

Please, the NYT is becoming the Pravda (circa 1980) of the looney left.

 

Editorially yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>The drafting of federal

>criminal laws is done by the Attorney General and his staff

>and by the staffs of those two Congressional committees.

>Ashcroft has as much influence on the final form of those

>laws as any committee member, so stating that he doesn't

>"institute" or "change" laws is mere sophistry.

 

It's not sophistry, it's factual.

 

The Attorney General cannot institue or change laws.

 

The implication of that original statement was that Ashcroft could INDEPENDENTLY create laws. Can the Attorney General have imput into the formation of new laws? Sure. But for that matter, so can you or I if we make a big enough stink. A perfect example of this would be James Brady. But just because we can influence lawmakers does not mean we can actually change or institute laws. Only Congress has the power to do that.

 

Exactly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>And of course we all know that the NYT isn't even one

>teensie weensie bit unbiased in its reporting. If The New

>York Times says it's so, it must be!

 

You are now making exactly the sort of unsubstantiated accusation you earlier claimed to deplore. Can you point to any purported statement of fact, as opposed to opinion, that The Times made in its coverage of the Ashcroft confirmation that was later shown to be false? One statement? Even one? Just one? I don't think you can.

 

>Please, the NYT is becoming the Pravda (circa 1980) of the

>looney left.

 

Slurs like that aren't a substitute for facts. I assume that if you had any facts you would have mentioned them by now.

[Guest regulation]

>It's not sophistry, it's factual.

 

No, it is not factual.

 

>The Attorney General cannot institue or change laws.

>

>The implication of that original statement was that Ashcroft

>could INDEPENDENTLY create laws.

 

That "implication" comes from inside your head, not from the statement to which you replied. If you have to alter the post to which you are replying by adding words that aren't there in order to come up with a reply, it would be more honest to admit that you don't have a reply.

 

>Can the Attorney General

>have imput into the formation of new laws? Sure. But for

>that matter, so can you or I if we make a big enough stink.

>A perfect example of this would be James Brady. But just

>because we can influence lawmakers does not mean we can

>actually change or institute laws. Only Congress has the

>power to do that.

 

That is false. Congress cannot enact laws without the consent of the president except by a two-thirds majority of both houses, which very rarely occurs. In areas in which the president delegates his authority to the Attorney General, which he does in almost all matters of criminal law, the Attorney General is in effect an equal partner with Congress in the enactment of laws. The process by which the new anti-terrorism law was enacted after 9/11 is a good example. The starting point for the process was a series of provisions drafted by Ashcroft and his people, not by anyone in Congress. He then negotiated with key members of the House and Senate committees until a compromise version was created and enacted.

 

I really see nothing that you can achieve by taking a narrow slice of the point another poster is trying to make and expressing disagreement with that narrow slice while ignoring the rest. On top of everything else, it's boring as hell. Please stop it.

[duke37]

OK phage I have to challenge you there. I am against assisted or medical suicide provisions because I am extremely wary about giving the power of life and death so explicitly to anyone. Even someone so civic minded as doctors. And even if the person really wants to end their pain. It just not a burden that should be borne by anyone other than the patient. Not to mention the inherent conflict of interest in having doctors try and save people and then give out the means ( or administer the means) to end the lives of these same people. Yes, I know there are safeguards built into the Oregon law and all other similar proposals. I for one am not convinced. And my reluctance has nothing to do with God. I'm just very dubious about my fellow humans.

 

Sure I have no problem with people commiting suicide, and the barbaric criminal penalties associated with it should be repealed. Of course I hope no one ends up committing such a final act.

 

And to answer your question. Yes, I am opposed to the death penalty as well. If I don't trust doctors with the means to end life I surely don't trust the govenment. While it is possible that AG Ashcroft opposes the Oregon law for similar reasons I am waiting for him to join me in opposition to the death penalty. OH well I can hope.

 

Jeff

[Traveller]

>I really see nothing that you can achieve by taking a narrow

>slice of the point another poster is trying to make and

>expressing disagreement with that narrow slice while

>ignoring the rest. On top of everything else, it's boring

>as hell. Please stop it.

 

Coming totally from the peanut gallery and not even remotely going to join the fray, I have to admit that this has really been a fun one to watch. The best subsequent to T2's departure.

 

Later.

 

PS. F3 is completely right, and reg, I've never seen you bend so much to try and make your point. Please continue.

[phage]

I understand what you’re saying and because I’ve been involved with this for so long, I’ve heard and had time to think about your points.

 

In my response to FFF, I was careful to say ‘active’ opposition because I have run across many people like you who are just uncomfortable with the idea and would vote against almost any initiative. (If I’m reading the tone of your response correctly.) It’s unfortunate for those of us who feel passionately about this, but it’s a far cry from the type of active, organized opposition that we routinely face. I’m not going to indulge in name-calling but you can imagine that I’m not very fond of those people.

 

>And even if the person really wants to end their

>pain. It just not a burden that should be borne by anyone

>other than the patient.

 

It is a burden and not all doctors will be up to. They certainly shouldn’t be forced to participate, but the ones who can handle the burden should be allowed to do so. In almost every initiative that has been proposed, the doctor is a passive participant. He or she writes the prescription (after multiple checks and balances) so that the proper amount of drugs are taken. The patient takes the drugs at a time of their choosing. In Oregon, they have found that only half of the people actually take the drugs. Just knowing they have the option and final control over their life has given them peace of mind.

 

> Not to mention the inherent conflict

>of interest in having doctors try and save people and then

>give out the means ( or administer the means) to end the

>lives of these same people.

 

I would suggest there is a problem with the mindset that doctors must “save” everyone. It’s that kind of thinking that has led us to people being hooked up to life-support machines and putting their families through the agonizing decision to “pull the plug.” I think doctors often take it as a personal challenge and will go to any length to postpone death so that they “win.” I, personally, believe they should care for people and sometimes truly caring for them will mean letting them go.

 

>Sure I have no problem with people commiting suicide, and

>the barbaric criminal penalties associated with it should be

>repealed. Of course I hope no one ends up committing such a

>final act.

 

Don’t you see the problem with this point of view? If you think people have a basic right to end their life, why should they be forced to blow their head off or put a plastic bag over their head? Why shouldn’t they have access to the proper amount of drugs so that it can be accomplished in a peaceful and certain manner? Have you heard any of the stories of botched suicides? It truly is barbaric.

 

>And to answer your question. Yes, I am opposed to the death

>penalty as well. If I don't trust doctors with the means to

>end life I surely don't trust the govenment.

 

I also oppose the death penalty but I don’t see the issues as related. One is a State imposed punishment while the other is a matter of limiting the State’s ability to make decisions for you.