Lobowolf

Wasn't quite there, but I bought Apple Computer at $16/share when they had about $11/share ($4 billion or so with 375 million shares outstanding) in cash sitting in the bank. They had some long-term debt at the time, but much less than the cash on hand. Less than a billion in long-term debt, as I recall.

Maybe so. It really came off like, "Let's reward vets by giving them teaching gigs, whether they're qualified or not." Which, I assume, was not what he had in mind. I don't think any of the major candidates is an idiot, so when any of them sounds idiotic, I try to construe meanings for what I heard that are not the ones that intuitively strike me. Sometimes it's harder than at other times.

is legal vs. illegal prostitution a privacy issue or a statute issue? how about drug use? i don't think the 4th amendment has anything to do with r v. w else prostitution would be legal on a federal level... and while it's true one could make the argument that prostitution has societal effects, one could similarly make the argument that abortion does I think prostitution could reasonably be considered a privacy issue, in light of Roe v. Wade and related rulings. If a recognized right of privacy exists, it should probably govern most sexual choices made between consenting adults. It's a little bizarre to me that 1) I can legally walk up to a complete stranger and ask her to have sex and she can agree to; and 2) anyone can walk up to me on the street and ask me to give him or her money (and I can give that person money); BUT it's illegal for person A to give person B money for having sex with him/her. With respect to the societal effects of abortion, one of them appears to be the reduction of crime beginning in the late 90's. For this and other interesting stories such as widespread cheating in sumo wrestling tournmants, see the book "Freakonomics."

Poor Joe, now everyone knows his secrets. Did McCain really mean that it would be good for education to give returning soldiers jobs as teachers without requiring certification? He must have left out some of what he meant to say. I remember that. McCain certainly sounded weird saying teachers shouldn't need certification. Even other than that comment, they both seem a bit inconsistent on this. "We need a whole lot more teachers! But let's kick out a bunch of terrible teachers." How are we going to get more if we get rid of a bunch? And anyway, won't a terrible teacher who chose to be a teacher probably be terrible at other jobs too? "If you're a vet, you can teach without being certificated" struck me as one of the more bizarre things I heard. I can only hope he meant something other and/or more than he said. It's difficult to fire bad teachers (at least in California). I think that both candidates would favor changing that (though a large part of it is due to the collective bargaining process, so I'm not sure how they'd intend to legislate around it), but at the same time ensuring that good teachers made more money, thus (hopefully) encouraging more (qualified) people to consider teaching as a career. My undergrad major was English. I remember being fairly horrified in one required class that was covering what should have been some fairly basic points of grammar. Subject/verb agreement, subject/object distinctions (e.g. who v. whom), transitive/intransitive verbs, etc. Lots of people didn't get a lot of it, which is fine, but most of them didn't care and thought the distinctions were kind of useless too (which is also fine). THEN the professor said, "How many of you want to be English teachers?" and 2/3 of the hands in the room went up. Save us.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis. Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student... Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions. I'm sure he was an influence, and I'm sure Obama has a host of other influences as well, both legal and extra-legal. When Obama says that Roe v. Wade was "correctly decided," and then deliberately uses the key word "privacy," a key term on which the decision rested, I think it's fairly clear that he's indicating agreement not merely with the result, but with the rationale. Given that a major theme of the book in question has to do with the right to privacy, the two would seem equivalent The question I was addressing was specifically whether Obama's Roe v. Wade support was based on a more direct and literal translation of "privacy" = "4th Amendment protection against search & seizure" (see Tim G's earlier post). My response was that Obama was almost certainly in accord with the Court's more complex vision of "privacy" as set forth in the Roe v. Wade decision.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis. Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student... Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions. I'm sure he was an influence, and I'm sure Obama has a host of other influences as well, both legal and extra-legal. When Obama says that Roe v. Wade was "correctly decided," and then deliberately uses the key word "privacy," a key term on which the decision rested, I think it's fairly clear that he's indicating agreement not merely with the result, but with the rationale.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...e/vote-missers/

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

I believe you are correct that the word "privacy" does not appear. But, to suggest that Obama is making an interpretive leap when he says he thinks the Constitution "supports a right of privacy" is, I think, wrong. MW online gives as one definition of privacy "freedom from unauthorized intrusion". Article IV of the Constitution starts "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It is true that Obama did not use the exact words of the Constitution, but what the Constitution says is the very definition of "privacy". Obama used one word where the Constitution used seventeen and he might well have said it differently if he was writing a Law Review article, but I don't think it amounts to "interpretation" in the sense that you seem to mean; Obama's use of "privacy" is the literal meaning of the passage in the Constitution. The application of this view of "privacy" is not a factor in the abortion debate. The argument has not been that laws banning abortion constitute an unreasonable search & seizure. BTW, your citation is to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, not Article IV. "Privacy" with respect to the abortion debate is inferred from a variety of sources in the various amendments to the constitution (and in a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which was not an abortion case). It's not Obama's interpretive leap, it was the Supreme Court's in Roe v. Wade, but he does ascribe to the decision, and it was certainly a creatively constructed decision, even if it's one that you agree with.

McCain misspoke, btw; it was Roberts & Alito whom Obama rejected. Breyer was an early Clinton appointee, long before Obama was in the Senate.

Josh - Thanks for posting that lengthy excerpt.

Then we have the question if states with legal abortion can allow clinics in their jurisdiction to perform abortion on women from non-abortion states. I think it would be a legal mess to try to prevent it. OTOH I can imagine anti-abortion people in the non-abortion states would feel kinda screwed if it just meant that the business moved across the border. That's a non-issue. They'd certainly be permitted to (and just about as certainly, required to). Similarly, Nevada doesn't check for state I.D.'s to let you gamble.

Was listening on the radio at work, but had to miss a few minutes right after they were asked if they'd ever appoint a justice who disagreed on abortion. Caught McCain's answer; missed Obama's. Anyone?

If you're of retirement age, and you've been consistently putting money in index funds since you started working, and paring back the amount in stocks as retirement drew closer, you're probably pretty happy. The S & P is about 20x what it was 45-50 years ago.

If I took over the auction here, I probably would; if it were my hand in the first place, I'd have bid 4♣ rather than 4♥ in the hopes that partner would be better placed to know what to do over 4♠.

I don't see "3rd hand" as a valid supportive reason for the bidding. Maybe it's just my connotation, but I view "3rd hand" actions as situations where the only hand that hasn't passed yet is the opponent behind me, thus justifying my taking some liberties (including openings, preempts, and psyches). When RHO opens the bidding, the fact that my partner went first doesn't help justify any goofy actions on my part. Back to the original question "what now?" I'm passin'.

One of the variety of instruments used by federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, in constitutional interpretation is something like "well established in American tradition," or something to that effect. I'm forgetting the exact phrase, but it came from a Supreme Court ruling in a particular case, and became one of the benchmarks that the Court refers to. Essentially, the number of states in which something is either prohibited or permitted can be used as leverage in prohibiting or permitting it in other states. I may be misremembering, but I think this analysis was used as partial justification for the ban on capital punishment for people under 18 when they committed their crimes. Essentially, most states banned it voluntarily, then in one of the states that didn't, a 16 or 17 year old was looking at the death penalty, and his lawyer makes an argument that it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and part of the decision is the fact that 42 of the other 49 states have banned (or whatever the case may be). So, part of it may just be to make what the people in the other state perceive as a better country, but another part of it may be that legal gay marriage in California may eventually undermine the ban on gay marriage in Utah.

Churches should be banned, they are a bigotted load of idiots and they are the ones we should make laws against IMO, in 21st century USA at least, churches are the subject of at least as much bigotry as they direct outward. FWIW, I am not a theist.

Also worth noting that although the immediate effect is the same (no gay marriage in California), a key difference is that unlike Proposition 22, Proposition 8 proposes to change the California Constitution. Proposition 22 was shot down because a small majority of justices chose to interpret the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage bans; should Proposition 8 pass, there won't be any such leeway -- the state constitution will explicitly say "No gay marriage."

I've only seen one of the Yes On 8 ads that referenced one of these things, but the one I saw said not that schools would be required to teach small children about homosexuality, but that if a school chose to teach about gay marriage, parents wouldn't be able to stop it. The ad cited some case I wasn't familiar with and didn't get the name of, apparently for the porposition that teaching about marriage and family with within the province of schools, or school districts or boards or whatever. With respect to Phil's original post, on my general philosophical (largely small-L libertarian) principles, I think this is a WTP? Interestingly, much of the gay marriage debate seems to be about whether there should be a "gay marriage amendment" that would prohibit gay marriage nationwide, or whether states should be allowed to permit it or not as they see fit (the position I believe Obama ascribes to). I actually adhere to neither of these positions; rather, I don't think states should be permitted to prohibit it, largely on the same 14th Amendment grounds that ended bans on interracial marriage. I think the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as unconsitutional as well, in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. I'm generally a small government/local government guy, but I don't see this issue as a remotely close call.

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=skhktxdqtxxct9xxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1S-(2H) to you in 3rd seat.[/hv]

I'd dump the 6-3 and go all-in on the next one.

You must have gotten that from Fox News. What really happened is, with McCain and Palin exhorting them on, it was the entire crowd that repeatedly chanted it.

If this is intention irony, it amused me. Hard to tell online sometimes. If it wasn't, please disregard this message.

That's definitely true. On the other hand, I didn't get the impression that she was lying.