Disqus - Latest Comments for wswaim

Re: DISTRICT WEEKLY PUBLISHER HITS ROAD!

wswaim — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:47:27 -0000

The "best buy example"?

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:58:24 -0000

Your communications are fine, Will. It's my cognition that could sometimes use a tune-up!

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:38:26 -0000

John: Sorry: For a guy whose job is communication, I didn't make clear my point (vis-a-vis religion and American law)--which is this: Prop 8 attempts to create a legal distinction among citizens, a distinction that is based only (only) on an appeal to religion. (Or maybe religion and prejudice.) I was trying to say that THAT's what's likely to be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. There's no other reason to strip a class of U.S. citizens of their right to lawful union.

Re: PROP. HATE

LB_City_Girl — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:23:09 -0000

Indeed, the careful reader will note that I was somewhat off topic.
For the record, I could not agree more with either of you!

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:01:57 -0000

Will, I'm all for getting the State completely out of "the marriage game". In fact I'm for getting the State out of almost every "game" it's currently botching (which is pretty much every "game" it's inserted itself into). Through your comment you make my precise point; those who choose to marry are exercising their religious freedom. Whatever flavor religion or faith or belief system they happen to prefer doesn't matter because the 1st Amendment makes no distinction and is very clear on the matter. Thus in my, admittedly amateur, opinion Prop 8 is prima facie unconstitutional and even if it passes I believe that the California Supreme Court will strike it down just as it did Prop 22.

I dispute with you, however, that:

1. American law is "based solely on an appeal to religion". American law derives heavily from English Common Law which, in turn, is based predominantly in Judeo-Christian law and beliefs. Thus, like it or not, our law is, indeed, inextricably linked with religion. I don't believe that this is what howardx meant in any case. What he intimates is that we base our legal decisions, in 2008, on what he alleges to be "a set of Bronze Age myths". Assuming he is refering to Christianity, this is a foolish idea since the Bronze Age ended some 1200 years before Christ even came on the scene.

2. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not American law is supposed to be based upon an appeal to religion. All the religion clause of the 1st Amendment does is prohibit Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As previously demonstrated, American law and religion are so inextricably linked that a certain amount of appeal to, or influence from, religion is unavoidable.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:28:45 -0000

Thanks, Gina. I think LB City Girl misunderstands your point (and mine) about money and Prop 8: passing the prop (i.e., banning gay marriage) would limit the cash gays and lesbians have been spending on their weddings. I address my problems with that calculation in the story.

And HowardX raises precisely the point I do: that American law isn't supposed to be based solely on appeal to religion. That's what the First Amendment is about. I'm all for a solution I didn't outline in the story: get the state completely out of the "marriage" game. "Marriage" becomes a purely religious term--like, say, "baptism." The state licenses only civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. You want a wedding--a "marriage" ceremony--you go to the county, get a license for a civil union and then find someone who will marry you. But marriage is no longer a legal construct; civil union is.

Re: EVERYBODY MARCHES IN VET PARADE!

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:28:01 -0000

I don't think sexual orientation was the issue, just whether you were sufficiently pro-war:

http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infect...

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:45:15 -0000

Very well responded, Will, Thanks!

Radicalization:
Ahh...I think we agree concerning the (dubious) relationship between faith and works, thanks. I guess I just never considered the concept particularly "radical". Now I get the reference.

Lawful Basis:
Well, several of my questions on this theme were inter-related and please understand that my sole purpose with this particular thread is to learn something. Here's the path I was following: You cite your ordination with ULC as the authority under which you perform (solemnize) weddings. California Family Code (CFC), Section 400(a) is the legal source of your authority to do so in this State ("Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of
the age of 18 years or older: {a} A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any
religious denomination.). Here's where it gets a little technical and this is why I asked how Randy and David referred to themselves during the ceremony: CFC 420(a) states "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as *husband and wife*. Again, I'm trying to learn here...perhaps this section has been somehow over-ridden or stricken or has been pre-empted by case law...but it seems to me that the letter of the law dictates that, to be lawful in California, marriages have to involve 2 people who declare that they take each other as "husband and wife". No? If this is a technicality, it seems a pretty glaring one and one that needs to be addressed by our State legislature so that it complies with current case law.

Religion and Law:
Yes it makes perfect sense and why it's clear to me that you truly earned that degree in theology that you mentioned early on. My point, of course, is that those who cite equal protection under the law as a basis for defeating Prop 8 are really not nearly so far removed from those who cite religious fiat and practice as a the basis for upholding Prop 8. They seem, to me, to be arguing from opposite sides of the same extremely ironic coin, as it were. This in no way resolves the argument, of course. I just happen to find it moderately amusing.

Ex Post Facto:
I think any attempt to invalidate marriages that are currently legal after Prop 8 passes (and I pray it does not) would be a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto laws (US Constitution, Art. 1, Clause 3). There does exist a Supreme Court case (Calder v. Bull) that restricted the definition of ex post facto to apply to penal and criminal statutes only.

A paper recently published by the Cato Institute, however, concluded, in part, that: "Due to the Supreme Court's error-ridden analysis in Calder v. Bull, the prohibition against ex post facto laws has been applied only to criminal laws. As an analysis of United States v. Carlton and significant policy considerations indicates, this prohibition deserves to be extended to civil laws. Retroactive laws should be permitted only if just compensation is paid to harmed individuals."

Meanwhile a review of Federalist 44 indicates that relevant passages strongly suggest that the authors of the Federalist Papers intended the prohibition against ex post facto laws to apply to both civil and criminal laws. So I think a cogent and convincing argument on this challenge could be made in Court if necessary.

Re: HOW RACISM WORKS: McCAIN v OBAMA

LB_City_Girl — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:59:48 -0000

Indeed, Will, what we have in common is that we are all hoping the most qualified person wins.

Re: HOW RACISM WORKS: McCAIN v OBAMA

howardx — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:36:51 -0000

sure will, i'll admit to getting carried away at times. i'll tone it down. sending that email.

Re: HOW RACISM WORKS: McCAIN v OBAMA

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:26:17 -0000

Howardx: I'm no fan of our new comment system, either. Can you email me (will@thedistrictweekly.com) and tell me why YOU hate it?

Also: I'd feel better if (a) we didn't attack each other personally, but assumed that we're all struggling for the truth (even when it looks like we aren't struggling very hard); and (b) if you sense that someone's really dicking you personally, here's my advice: see (a) above and assume that they were typing without thinking for just that moment, and then you handle their claims.

I know this runs totally counter to most of the animating impulses of the web, but I'd seriously feel like a failure if something I helped set up with honest intentions (to create a place where we can all talk about profound, serious stuff) turned out to be, I don't know, like a firing range. And look at it this way: with a few exceptions on the far, far fringes, we're all people who represent a tiny fraction of the country: people who read and think seriously about the future of the country. We have that in common, right?

Having said that, can I just say that, Laurence, you scare me. Don't know if that was your intention. But that's what happened. Your lead response here is so nearly devoid of (what's that called?) fact that there's just nothing to respond to but the nightmare you've created for yourself, which, seriously, yikes. I get this, though: if you really believed half of what you write about military and political service, you'd have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:12:48 -0000

John B: Thanks for your questions. Randy (of Randy and David) already answered a few; I’ll answer the others as best I can (limited time).

Why "radicalize North American Christian churches"? Because my parents (though conservative) come from a kind of Catholic Worker (i.e., visit the sick and those in prison, comfort the elderly and poor) perspective. So I grew up believing that faith without works is dead, and etc.

Why perform wedding ceremonies . . . that have no lawful basis?” I don’t understand the question: in California, marriage between consenting adults is legal. Even if gay marriage weren’t recognized by the state, I’d still want to help my friends (gay or straight) solemnize their relationships.

“Does not all codified law ultimately originate from one religious teaching or another?” I guess as human society evolves, sure, you could argue that much of what we call law has been expressed in religious terms. But that wouldn’t explain why Christians (for example) observe some of those laws (homosexuality is an abomination) while ignoring others (all dietary restrictions). For the explanation of that evolution, you might have to allow that, at least since the Enlightenment, we’ve begun to acknowledge that some of the laws we expressed in religious terms (Thou shalt not murder) remain reasonable for practical (and, sure, therefore spiritual) reasons, while others (e.g., the numerous places in which the Bible actually supports slavery and just appalling bloodshed and the murder of innocents) are clearly outrages to human dignity. Make sense?

Gay couples’ feelings vis-à-vis non-recognition in backward states? I can’t say. But I think you’ve got a great idea for a story.

Would Yes on 8 violate “prohibitions against the passage of ex-post-facto laws?” Another great story. What do you think?

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:41:47 -0000

JohnB: Thanks for understanding that, of course, I went to the heart of your question which was really (I figured) about how to reduce the prison/jail populations. Hence Three Strikes--which you credit with the falling crime rate in mid to late 90s; I notice that that trend coincides with (hey, hey) the Clinton economic boom. Could be, right? Could be that crime rises in tough times?

I can't assure you that drug users won't commit crimes, John B. But how about we agree that punishing drug users because they might commit another crime is kind of Philip D. Dick nightmarish. How about we just punish people for the crimes they commit, rather than criminalize behaviors we think MIGHT lead to crime? That jurisprudential philosophy (along with restoring the independence of judges, rather than tying their hands with sentencing requirements) could cut corrections spending dramatically. Now.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

LB_City_Girl — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:31:13 -0000

I think changing one's stance is more admirable than saving face and clinging to a previous poorly made decision. Well done, Will.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

John_B — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:30:46 -0000

Will: Just for the sake of clarification, which specific crimes would you advocate that we remove from those that require a prison or jail sentence?

Re: RACE: WHY COLIN POWELL REALLY ENDORSED OBAMA

wswaim — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:38:27 -0000

Dennis: You're right that McCain is, himself, a moderate. That's what makes his choice of Palin so politically difficult for him: They disagree on far too much that's essential. McCain was once pro-choice; now with Palin at his side he's calling for the overturn of Roe v Wade. He was once for campaign finance-reform; now he disavows that. He and Palin both say they oppose "spreading the wealth" because that's so clearly socialist, and yet Palin herself jacked up the tax on Alaskan oil drilling near the peak of oil prices, captured the revenue and sent it out to Alaskan residents. When the history of this campaign is written, it is likely that Palin will be fingered as the reason for McCain's loss. She's been terrific at solidifying the Republican base--yes, because she is pulling McCain rightward--but she's undermined McCain's reformer credentials.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

otay90 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:56:55 -0000

Wow. I had no idea editorial decisions were so, um, physical in nature. Never saw that on Lou Grant.

And there is nothing unAmerican regarding changing your mind based on new information. For instance, I now think Johnny Depp is a fine actor and that Brussles sprouts are delicious.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:47:42 -0000

Andy: There was nothing easy about this change. Griley kicked me in the testicles while Dave Wielenga and Theo Douglas worked my kidneys. Food critic Miles Clements cooked the testicles and one kidney (diced) in a lovely red-wine and shallot reduction, strained it . . . . is this going anywhere?

But seriously: You sound good shouting "hold the presses."

And seriously seriously: the problem with measures--including this year's--is that voters are working in zero-gravity, without context. For instance, I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail) and use the savings (in new prison construction and corrections budget) to build something really useful like a railroad (of course, we could go back to the 19th century and use prison labor to build railroads). But only legislators could work that sort of budgetary and political magic; we use the referendum system to treat discrete symptoms with, like, no attention to how this stuff is interconnected.

And I understand that--um, what did you call it?--flipping on an issue is un-American (along with changing one's mind when presented with new information, striving for a superior education, language skills). And I know you're not saying this, Andy. But too many papers, pundits and politicians (pardon the alliteration) chain themselves to positions and declare themselves unmovable. Open-mindedness, pragmatism used to be the hallmarks of what passed for American philosophy; now our philosophical code is stubbornness dressed up as moral rigor.

And let me just add one last thing, Andrew: I really admire your comments. Thanks for them.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

otay90 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:56:36 -0000

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, there...hold the presses if you're going to flip on the issues that easily.

Now I totally understand the fiscal crisis argument AND the very valid philosophy behind not borrowing your children's money, but Prop 1A is an infrastructure bond that has tangible economic benefits to the state immediately...i.e., jobs, which are going to be harder and harder to find. Plus, there is a potential revenue stream or tangible asset to sell once completed.

While bonds for education and puppies are no less important, in times like these jobs and consumer spending will pull us out of this mess.

Please don't flip so easily on this issue by lumping all bond measures in one big sack.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

Greggory — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:19:57 -0000

Will, didn't I just say vote YES on 5?! Now you're supposed to change The District's position, and that's that! Okay, seriously, while Prop. 5 obviously isn't a true fix, by lessening even a few of the penalties imposed under a bad set of laws, it lessens the injustice done by those laws. Even if Prop. 5 does NOTHING else, it seems to me that alone makes it worth voting for. And while it might not make any difference to most of us, it certainly might make a big difference to an unfortunate few. After all, as Thomas Merton says... (Inside joke. Apologies to anyone else who read this.)

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

John_B — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:02 -0000

wswaim: Certainly we can regress in time all the way back to the Codex Hammurabi or the Decalogue if you like.

I was simply trying to keep the discussion in the context of current California law, which, of course, is what these Propositions would be affecting.

Jeepers, Will, “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” Really? So laws concerning lesser crimes are, what, unnecessary? Frivolous? Solely intending to “create criminals”? By that standard should we then erase theft or battery or burglary as legitimate crimes since they don’t represent “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” I will concede your point…none of the crimes in Prop 6 sink to the level of “murder/slavery/rape” but, in my humble opinion they will nonetheless prove beneficial to many law abiding persons, yourself included.

Here’s a few I particularly like:

1. Gang members convicted of home robbery, carjacking, extortion, or threats to witnesses would be subject to life terms in prison (Currently they are not. I like this revision because gang members as described in PC 186.22 are “knowing and active participants” not merely hangers-on or wanna-be’s, thus they earn no mercy from me for committing the listed crimes as gang members).

2. Doubles penalties for inmates who commit a felony as part of a gang (They get convicted and then commit additional crimes in jail or prison in furtherance of their thug-dom? They’re done).

3. Generally prohibits probation for a conviction of car theft if the offender has multiple prior convictions for car theft. (Probation after multiple convictions? I don’t think so).

4. Ten additional years in prison for possession of a concealed weapon by certain convicted felons. (The sole purpose that a convicted felon has for carrying a gun is to harm other victims…in my opinion this enhancement isn’t nearly harsh enough) and one last one;

5: Up to four-year prison term for intimidating a witness, judge, or other person for participating in a court proceeding. (Attempts at undermining the criminal justice system in this manner must be dealt with harshly and rapidly.)

How’s that, Will?

There are many additional potential benefits to this Proposition having to do with increased funding and support for all levels of law enforcement, but that’ll do for now I think.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:25:15 -0000

Some really great points raised here. We were considering what a number of you (LB City Girl, John B, DWR) said about bond debt, and you're right. So in the print edition we're changing our recommendation on Prop 1A. We love the trains, but this ain't the year to add more debt. Like LBCG, we absolutely despise the spend-and-debt mentality that drives so much of California's politics.

John B: You pick the easiest crime statute to trace when you choose murder--which was illegal in California before the establishment of state statutes, before California was a republic, under the Spanish and (I'm now guessing) probably frowned upon in aboriginal cultures. Prop 6 isn't asking Californians about anything so obvious as murder. Or slavery. Or wife-rapists. I think we can agree that those are pretty much universally reviled, and that we're not talking about those. What is it in Prop 6 that you'd regard as, like, lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape? I'm not seeing it.

Greggory: Please, god, really, the communication on drug-treatment is already so complicated that we don't want to start hauling cardinal-colored, really malodorous fish across the issue. Prop 5 assumes the law is just. Naturally, if a law ain't just, Prop 5 won't do anything to fix that.

Favorite line thus far: Animal Lover's question.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

John_B — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:35:00 -0000

wswaim: Always good to dialog with you.

I would caution you against assumptions. My observations concerning Props 6, 9 and 12 were just that, observations…an attempt to offer another political perspective. I never indicated I would be voting for them. In fact I intend to vote against any propositions that bear an adverse fiscal impact and have done so, and consistently, for the past three (3) general elections. In the context of our current fiscal realities, adding additional spending and debt, however noble the cause may be is, in my humble opinion, a level of nobility we simply cannot afford right now.

The various “Props proponents” need to get back to us when our State legislators can stop squandering the vast amounts of money we already entrust to them each year.

Concerning crimes: With respect you are only partly correct. To assert that an act or omission is not criminal absent a criminal law forbidding or commanding it is to say that crimes against humanity are not crimes or that crimes against nature are not crimes. It is to assert that murder or rape did not occur in California before we enacted Penal Code Sections 187 and 261 (in 1872). Clearly this is not so.

You are overlooking the distinction between “mala prohibita” (bad because it is prohibited) and “mala in se” (bad in and of itself). Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, if we had no statutory laws, we would have no crimes. Clearly this is also not so; crimes would still occur, they would simply not be codified.

Prop 6, in part, more clearly defines some crimes and creates (codifies) others. We, as a society, must be able to do this. Had we not done so, for example, it would still be (statutorily) lawful to rape one’s spouse or to rape a person who is unconscious (amendments to the original statute that were added far later).

Lastly, we are not “running a Democracy”. In a true Democracy there exist no co-equal branches of government, no elected representatives and no “unalienable rights”. In a true Democracy, slavery could be lawful simply because a majority of the voters decided it should be so. In a true Democracy women could be deprived of the right to vote simply because a majority of the voters decided it should be so. That both of these injustices were corrected here, in the US, was a function not of a Democracy but of a Representative Republic.

I would humbly refer you the U.S. Constitution; which in no Article or Section references the term “Democracy” but, in Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every State “a Republican form of Government.”

Concerning Prop 4: This proposition isn’t about abortion but about responsible adult notification. I’m decidedly pro-choice; I hope folks will “choose” life whenever possible but it should be their choice to make. This proposition simply requires, with certain exceptions, a physician (or his or her representative) to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant *un-emancipated* minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This Proposition does not require *consent* merely notice. Nor is it a parent that need always be notified. Under certain circumstances the adult so notified can be an adult brother or sister or even a first cousin and even *that* notice can be waived by a juvenile court. This proposition explicitly protects the minor against coercion. The clear intent is to afford an un-emancipated pregnant minor the opportunity to consult with an adult who cares about her before proceeding with her planned termination of pregnancy. It does not prohibit her from having an abortion and does not permit anyone else to prohibit it either.

I think it’s important that we, as responsible citizens, seek out and understand the facts of a proposition before deciding upon it one way or the other. Thanks very much for linking to the official voter guide so that your readers can more easily do so.

Re: BEST OF: NIGHTLIFE & LIBATIONS

LB_City_Girl — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:02:17 -0000

This is the problem with the written word versus an in person conversation--it is difficult to read the intended irony at times-- where as in person, the listener would gain many verbal and non-verbal clues as to the true intent of the speaker.
I must admit, I missed Mike's irony, but it is rather obvious when placed in the overall context of the post.

Re: BEST OF: NIGHTLIFE & LIBATIONS

wswaim — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:17:19 -0000

Everybody: Mike Ruehle is clearly joking. Nobody would take seriously a joke in which we tell our readers to go to bars that are part of an effort to boycott the District--and then encourage those readers to tell the bar owners we sent them. It's funny. Mike gets that. That's why he wrote this very tongue-in-cheek response pretending not to have a sense of humor. Seriously. I'm crying. Because it's all so funny.