NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) oh, totally dealing with snotty college kids always testing your 'authoritay' would suck. amazingly, I have somehow managed to get the people defending the cops AND the people defending the students to disagree with me. I'll just bow out of this discussion now.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:08 PM) sorrrrry, i didn't see that part in the article. i still don't see why the kid was such a baby about leaving, but i guess acting like a spoiled UCLA kid doesn't mean you deserve to get tasered... or does it.... hmmmmm College kids do tend to present a... special problem for law enforcement. I've seen campus guys have to deal with a lot of their crap. Not as much of the serious stuff - more kids being snots and generally making asses of themselves, and trying to push the line. But, like I said, the cops from any department need to be better and more patient than that. As much as we jokingly said we wished we could arrest people for "stupid in public", that wasn't really an option.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 06:17 PM) then don't go to school. Don't you think ID checks are in fact a protection measure to keep you safe? This isnt like wire-taps where the individual is unaware they're being kept track of. The student either was looking for a fight , in which he was definitely a threat, or he took offense because he's sensitive about his ethnicity, which he has a right to be. As I said, if he was offended at their tactics, he should have taken the cops ID number and then filed a report along with anyone else who was there to witness and do twice as much damage by getting the guy fired. That's not what happened and now I have a hard time feeling sorry for this kid. I am in favor of keeping the police in check, I'm not in favor of douche bag college students "making a point" through VIOLENT disobedience. Please look at my earlier post. What I said was that I don't like the "random" or "routine" checks. I'd prefer they just checked everyone's IDs upon entry. That way, its known to effect everyone the same way. As for violent disobedience, I guess I didn't think this kid was violent. If he actually attacked the officers at some point, that certainly does change things. But I don't know that - do you? QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) or call the real poice and have him arrested. These were the real police. Most campus departments at major universities are real PD's, have all the same authorities, and in some cases more, than that of local cops. If you read the article, it refers to them as "police", not "security". Let the campus cops handle it themselves. Otherwise, why have them there?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) Anyone? I'll dive in. I have a 7 point plan for achieving large scale reductions in the use of fossil fuels, reduction of polluting emissions, and moving our country towards energy independence... 1. Stop all tax breaks for oil drilling and exploration, and for that matter, any tax breaks or government funding at all for anything that isn't a renewable energy source. Those tax breaks add profitability to an already high-profit market in oil and gas, and are counter-productive to the greater good. All the money that previously went to those breaks will go to research on alternative energies (like wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, etc.), and also shorter-term transitional energies like hybrid vehicles and high-output ethanol from switchgrass. This puts the incentives, and the goals, in line with getting us away from fossil fuels. 2. In order for the free market to take advantage of the increasing demand for alternate sources of energy, there must be an opportunity for players to enter the market. Therefore, we give the large energy companies an ultimatum - either get to work on alternative energy technolgies in a hurry, or we will release the patent protections on those technologies in the interest of national security. I believe the problem has reached that point. This will either force them to produce those technologies, or, allow other companies to make use of those protected technologies. Either way, someone will put them on the market. The timeframes specified must be short as well, and very specific. 3. Open up the use of pollution credits on an open, cleared exchange. This is done (I believe) loosely and OTC-only right now. Set up a trading system (venue, clearing) for these pollution credits that are granted by the U.S. government. This promotes the reduction of emissions by incentivizing the value of those credits, thereby injecting motivation to get on cleaner fuels (which will, at least some of the time, be renewable energies that companies have been hesitant to invest in). Further, the government can buy those credits as well, which effectively takes more pollution off the table. 4. Our dependance on oil costs us money and people every day - by tying us to the Middle East and other nations. Therefore, the more you use, the more you should pay. As we shift away from income taxes to more sales and use taxes (as I favor), the taxes on gasoline, oil and gas energies should reflect those significant costs. As those taxes go up, people and businesses will run towards alternative energies. This point would probably be the toughest one to get through Congress, because it comes off like a tax increase (even though it is not). But I'd push for it nonetheless. 5. Incentivize utility companies and large manufacturers into using energy from those renewable sources by allowing them to take tax deductions for the portion of their energy derived from those sources. The money could come from those removed subsidies I mention above, and later, from the decreased spending on war and other channels by which we funnel cash to the Middle East. 6. Turn the U.S. into an alternative energy partner and exporter. As we move to the front edge of developing these technologies, be aggressive in building partnerships with other North American nations and nations around the world to sell the energy and technologies globally. 7. Give EPA enforcement some teeth. Hire a whole bunch of new regulators and lawyers in the EPA to crack down on polluters, who currently only get caught some small fraction of the time. Make the fines and penalties enough to not only cover the new enforcement initiative, but also fund the re-purchase of those pollution credits mentioned earlier.

PLEASE NOTE that I have updated the schedule/rules in the first post to add more details.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) I see no problem at all with the routine ID checks. They do the same thing here, the libraries are open with no ID before 5, and they do a routine ID check when the card-system kicks in. But seriously, if a person doesn't have an ID, you ask them to leave a couple times, and then escort them out. You don't repeatedly tase them. There has to be some measure of proportionality here. And the officers ought to at least be trained on what situations are appropriate for making use of a weapon like that before they're permitted to carry them. I don't like the ID checks, but that's just me. I am sure these officers were indeed trained on how to handle this sort of thing. But cops are humans, and some of them aren't going to learn very well. Plus, some of them will tend to get antsy in a crowd. Ideally, those types of people don't work in law enforcement, but some slip through. If the situation is reviewed and they find the taser was as unnecessary as it appears, then the officer deserves a reprimand, some unpaid leave, and some further training. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) I see no problem at all with the routine ID checks. They do the same thing here, the libraries are open with no ID before 5, and they do a routine ID check when the card-system kicks in. But seriously, if a person doesn't have an ID, you ask them to leave a couple times, and then escort them out. You don't repeatedly tase them. There has to be some measure of proportionality here. And the officers ought to at least be trained on what situations are appropriate for making use of a weapon like that before they're permitted to carry them. From 2004... Link. From This year So, since tasers have been around (the 80's to now), 70 people have died from tasers? That's a very small number. 200 in 6 years according to Amnesty is a little more, but that is about 35 a year. When you look at the millions of police encounters per year, its miniscule. Tasers are not deadly force weapons. I will say though, for the record, that I never used one and never would. I personally think you take too much of a chance, with electrical or chemical weapons, of exposing some underlying health condition and endangering the subject. Just my choice. I wouldn't use them unless I or someone else was in danger. And as I said, more die in simple custody - 50-100 a year perhaps: None of this makes those deaths OK, or good in any way. But when you set up guidelines for police conduct, the premise needs to be that if a subject disobeys a lawful order (which this was, even if it seems petty), that they need to be able to subdue, arrest or remove that person. The method doing so needs to take all impacts into account. Dragging the kid out in handcuffs is just as likely to kill him, and MORE likely to maim him. Do you see what I mean?

I do think its a bit intrusive for the cops to be conducting "routine ID checks" at the library. If you really want only students in there, then have them show ID on entry. Not that complicated. But that said, on most college campuses, the cops are given authorities beyond those of regular street cops for the purpose of contacting and interviewing people - because the campus is private property (of sorts - depends on the college). And they are often allowed to do just that. As for the taser, it seems like that was maybe a bit much, and was a piss-poor way to settle the crowd. The way I was taught, when you have an individual inciting a crowd like that, you remove them from the crowd. In this case, that would mean handcuffs and drag the kid out of the library before more students showed up. Using a weapon against him and making him look like a rag doll isn't going to have the desired effect. I wouldn't call it an unreasonable thing to protest. I cannot even speculate on whether or not race was involved. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) So wait, you're telling me that it's ok to repeatedly use a potentially fatal weapon in response to a person not displaying an ID? They also reportedly threatened bystanders who demanded the officers' badge numbers with the taser as well. OK, hold on. More people die while being handcuffed than with tasers or chem-weapons. Tasers are non-deadly force weapons. I don't agree with the tactics either, but a taser is no more a deadly weapon that cuffs or zip-ties.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) I thought that was being saved for the debates?? We're working on some details offline for the rest of the election. For now, people are welcome to answer any question they'd like.

If the Dems put one of Edwards/Kerry/Clinton out there as the candidate for Prez in 2008, there is a good chance I will be voting GOP (unless they can find someone even worse).

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) With recent standardized test scores showing that students in urban areas are out performed by their peers and the opinion that US students are falling behind in science, what do you think the role of federal government should be in support of strengthening our country's (obvious) floundering in teaching science? Do you support increasing funding to national organizations (Like the National Science Foundation and the National Instutute of Health) or do you believe this is a state's issue? If it is a state's issue, how would you recommend they address this issue? It is my strong personal belief that one of the keys to this country's future, economically and otherwise, is that we move forward and stay on the front edge of global business. That means we invent, design, create, and improve products, technologies, services and ideas. That is where success lies - not in futile attempts to protect low-paying manufacturing jobs that simply make sense to go elsewhere. That being the case, it is imperitive that we have some of the best education facilities in the world. Currently, at the primary and secondary levels, that is clearly not the case. So I am in favor of not only increasing state and local funding of schools, but also of a federal-level corporate grant/tax system. I do still believe that education needs to be handled at the state and local level, because schools cannot be identical throughout our very large country - they need to be adapted to local conditions. But we also need new ideas to bring money to the schools without an undue added burden on the federal budget. Here, I suggest we put a plan in place to encourage more corporate grant money (like Microsoft's recent huge donations) be sent to the schools, incentivized by not only charitable donation tax deductions, but also granting of contracts to said businesses. For example - Motorola gives 10 million to the federal school grant program, they get the tax write-off, and the federal government gives Motorola favored status in contracts for buying radios and other electronics for federal agencies. By doing these things, costs are minimal to the federal government, but we maximize funding and align the success of schools and businesses. Then there is the issue of balance between areas of discipline in our schools. As you point out, it seems we are falling behind in math and science. And I have to agree that we need to spend a little more time on those disciplines, along with other skills that lead more directly to future career success. But, written and spoken language for example is just as key for the same reasons. In order to achieve these goals and not short-change any existing areas, we may have to try to push science and math to younger aged children (pre-High School) more effectively. As I personally wouldn't know how exactly to accomplish that, perhaps you or others in the education field could help me understand how. QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) Please compare two groups that were basically screwed over when white Europeans immigrated, the Blacks and Native Americans, where they started from and where they are today. Any lessons we can learn? That's a tough one. There is so much history there, so much blame to lay, and so much to cringe at... but I will try to be brief. To me, there are two themes in both cases that stick out - progress and fear. In both cases, groups of people got in the way of what was considered "progress". The actions taken to use or abuse those groups were different, but the aim was the same - to create a new country and use any means necessary to achieve that. I think as we grow as a society, we need to be responsible enough to see that no economic gain is ever worth "any means necessary". Progress needs to be seen as more than economic. And progress of any kind always needs to be balanced with fairness and temperance. That leads to the second theme - fear. People will often fear what they do not understand. It is one of the most basic of human instincts. We feared the "savages" occupying the continent, and later, we feared allowing the "lower race" into our day-to-day lives. I feel embarrassed when I think about that conduct. We need to move past this fear, and embrace open-mindedness. Our Constitution assures we allow people to be people - no matter what that means. And I think that if we all open our minds a little wider, we'll find that most of what we fear wasn't worth being afraid of at all. QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) With all of the political discussion, I'd like to know if you have any ideas for making soxtalk.com a more exciting and engaging place? thanks in advance. More cowbell. QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) Despite our many discussions on here, your platform interests me. I am really interested in your answer to Tex's question above, and have a rather odd one myself. Organ donation. Right now, it is illegal to sell your organs. All transplant patients are placed on a list, and assessed risk values and such, and usually first come, first serve. The doctors make money off this every step of the way, but the insurance companies lose, and the the actual donors get nothing. With the serious shortage of donated organs, many people die while on the waiting lists. I have a proposal, that will take some work to get the insurance companies to go along, but may increase the available organs. You start by creating regional districts across the country to serve the transplant lists. Not too practical to ferry a heart from California to Florida. Second, you have insurance companies pay the deceased's estate a fixed amount for various organs that they donate. These are paid by the transplant recipient's insurance. It is optional to donate, not manditory. The amounts are also not too large, to prevent someone from killing a spouse for some quick cash. Say, $2000 for a heart, $1000 for a kidney, etc. Enough organs can cover the cost of a good funeral, and help a family in thier time of need. It also would increase the flow of available organs into the system. Insurance companies may balk at first, but $1000 for a new kidney is cheaper than dialysis for a year. The placement on the donor lists remains the same, so having moeny doesn't (or shouldn't!) put you to the front of the list, like it currently is. Doctors balk at the prospect of donors making money for their organs, but have no problems making money transplanting them. Would you favor, or be open to the idea, of some sort of program to increase the availability of organs that compensated the donors in a small way? I realize that there are more details needed in my plan, but it is a start. That is an excellent question, and I must admit, I hadn't previously considered such an idea. Instinctively, it seems difficult to put a price tag on something so human and basic. If I was a family member of someone who donated, would I feel unclean taking money from that? I am torn on the moral implications. But more importantly, given how difficult it already is to get insurance companies to cover these surgeries, I'd hate to see us ask them for more money. Because ultimately, that would result either in raised premiums for all of us, or even worse, fewer people getting transplants. I see what you are saying about the incentivizing for donors increasing the pool, but, I think ultimately, people will donate or not donate regardless. Therefore, as much as I'd like to support your unique idea, I think I'd have to say no. Or at least, not the exact version of it that you mention. I am not 100% against the idea, if a way can be found to not jeapordize or increase the cost of health care.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 02:46 PM) I still think the strawpoll method would work best. What we would do is on the first ballot have everyone out there for people to vote on. We would eliminate the bottom third of canditates at that point. Then we would have campaigns for a while longer, have another ballot, then elimintate the bottom half of canditates, to leave us with our final election ballot of 3-4 people. In this respect everyone is voting for the canditate that they want, and with only one vote, I don't think it would give much of an ability to skew the tally's towards one party or another. But if it did end up skewing the totals towards one group, that would mean the canditates would just have to work harder to separate themselves from the rest of their competition. Thoughts? Do we want all three rounds? Or just two? Maybe let's see what the final candidate count is and decide.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) If, for example, the three remaining were all liberals or conservatives, you will have a lot of similar opinions. By culling along self identifying labels, we could reasonably be assured some diversity of opinions in the final debates. That was one of the factors that killed the debate thread. But I think we'll do the debate differently here. I have some ideas. I'm going to break out the "I started it" thing here - I don't want the election coming down to party. Unless there is a super-majority here who disagree.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) When is the election. I will work with SS2K5 and Soxy to put together a more specific plan, and update this thread with that info soon.

I think primaries are a great idea, but I do not want parties to be a factor. That was one of the main reasons I wanted to do this - to make it about MANY views, not 2. Let's see how many candidates we get, and then determine what the step-down count will be. Right now, I'd lean towards having a run-off for the top 3 vote-getters. QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) Depends on how realistic we want. I believe the new software would allow a scheme for one vote, but we probably should allow people to vote in each primary. I'll do two polls. One for the primary, then one for the run-off.

So... Balta, are you going to run? I'd hope so. Soxy? Kap? YASNY?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) What is the appropraite level of federal funding in this area? To keep it simple, more, less, or the same as currently? I honestly don't know what the current level is, so that is difficult for me to say. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:42 AM) I'll give you the question that both Dick Cheney and John Edwards totally ducked in 2004. What will you do to deal with the rise of AIDS in the African American community in America? Two seperate things. One, in matters of prevention, its about education. All schools regardless of race, but particularly schools in areas where AIDS is a major threat, we need to educate on the realities of AIDS, Hepititus and other diseases, and for that matter about sex and its consequences generally. The idea of teaching abstinence as the only option is absurd and unrealistic. Abstinence is the most effective method certainly, and that should be taught. But we also need to include real, hard-hitting, non-condescending (adult) information about these things. Two, and this is indeed a federal issue because its a national health issue, we need to make sure our science and research funding has an emphasis on practical application. Searching for vaccines, treatments or even cures for these diseases should be one of the key drives of the scientific community.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) I'll moderate if you all can agree on it. And actually if Balta is not going to run, I would request his help as a "co" mod to keep it balanced politically. I'd be pretty surprised if Balta doesn't run. And a little disappointed. And I'd really like to see Nuke show up as well.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) Considering I know nothing about farming..... "That's alright Headsy, you'd do a heckuva job!"

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) Hey! Candidate's can't moderate their own debates, how will those work? Will we submit questions to a third party moderator? I hadn't figured that out yet, but I was thinking of maybe setting up the general rules, and then having someone NOT running actually pick some topics, plus each candidate picks one. I was going to pick energy policy, but I am sure others might have as well. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 07:53 AM) I would like to take a second to announce that I will not be seeking any office during this Soxtalk Election cycle. My simultaneous roles as both father/husband, head of the Bilderbergs, and Dictator for Life at Soxtalk.com do not allow me the time to seek the office of the Presidency at this time. I will however be studying the election closely and do plan to offer an endorsement as long there are worthy canditates. Thank you and good luck, and may God bless Soxtalk. Perhaps you can help me out with setting up the debates. I can set something up that won't require much moderation, but I'd want someone not running to be the point person and choose the topics (from candidate suggestions and/or your own ideas).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) A question for all of the canditates... How would you propose to ween the US off of fossil fuels, while not doing too much inflationary damage to the lowest classes of the US? Damn. That was going to be part of the debate thread.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) You've expressed that the US should do more for the Native Americans. What exactly would you do and who would pay for it? Throwing money at the problem won't fix it - the BIA would eat most of it up anyway. Allowing more casinos or other loosening of laws ultimately helps only a few. Welfare and half-hearted attempts at medical care do not make their lives what they should be. At this point, the best thing the government can do for the American Indians is to release them from bondage. Take 3 years' worth of BIA budget, split it down by capita, and hand the money to the tribal authorities in place directly. For those reservations too small for tribal authorities, issue checks to the individuals. Recognize the existing land plots within the federal reserves as regular land to the state, belonging to the residents (if no plots exist, the tribal authority can work with mediators to split up the land). Negotiate with the states and localities as to jurisdictional concerns, and assure that any existing protections under the law are recognized by those governments (no regression in protection under law), and give then another 2 years' forward of the BIA budget to handle the influx against services and provide links to employment. For larger reservations, the tribal authorities may actually convert to counties or municipalities themselves. And from there, pull the federal government out of their matters entirely. There may need to be a small commission of lawyers and mediators at the federal level for a few years, to ensure the states and localities are not doing anything they shouldn't. But otherwise, you can pretty much just kill off the BIA, and unwind the other federal agencies from the reservation system (the abomination of the Dawes Act). After 5 years, the American Indians will be recognized and protected as citizens of the United States in every sense of the word. And as a nice side benefit, the government will save a lot of money. Will this result in some rough spots during the transition? Absolutely. But in the long run, they will be decidedly better off than they are now. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) Have you ever been in a fistfight with someone not a relative? I used to work in law enforcement. I've been in a few tussles.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) Same as I asked PA: I am interested in my candidates as human beings, and I think that one's answer to the following can be quite telling: What is the worst thing you've ever done, in your opinion, to another human being, that you regret? How about: what's the worst thing you've ever done that you don't regret? What's, in your opinion, the best thing to happen to you? (And please note: "White Sox winning the World Series doesn't count. ) If you choose to say, "these are unpolitical questions," I understand fully, let me say, but I do hope that you answer them and feel comfortable answering. I'll answer these to the best of my ability, but I'll tell you right now that I won't get into names or details out here on the web for all to see (this is where my "candidacy" ends and the real me begins). The worst thing I've ever done was violate the trust of a significant other. I'll leave it at that. If this was a real election and I was out there in public, I'd be willing to be more specific. The best thing that has ever happened to me is my wife. She has helped me become a much more complete person in every important way.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) War on Terror We should work to disrupt and destroy organizations that support terror as a viable weapon. We should also work to discourage future acts of terrorism by working to address the root causes that feed terrorist organizations its human capital. It's not enough to put out the fires that have already started, we need to make sure that the area around it is less susceptible to igniting into flames of hatred as well. I have to say, I like your thinking here. I think we've ignored the non-military aspects of fighting the "War" on terror. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Preemptive Military Action As a doctrine or policy, it is not useful. Military Action should always be the absolute last resort. So you do not see it as a viable option, even if there is overwhelming evidence of an impending attack? QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Size/Scope of Government As big as necessary, as small as possible. Could you expound on this? QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Labor Labor is the backbone of our economy. Organized labor allows workers a seat at the table. This is definitely something worth supporting. What type of support do you see as appropriate from the government?