|
|
|
October 27th, 2008
12:08 am - уловимый Джо
"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were
illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."
/.../
Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney
General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police
Department.
It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's
license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law
enforcement and government business. Это еще одно напоминание, какое количество народу имеет доступ к любой информации, собираемой правительством, и как слабо она защищена от любого злоупотребления. Для большинства из нас работает принцип "неуловимого Джо" - но что, если он работать перестанет - например, кто-то решить задать неудобный вопрос политику?
|
01:54 am - бесполезный факт
Навеяло - первую в своей жизни целиком и полностью мою машину я купил 2 месяца назад за 1500 долларов. Она, естественно, не новая. А новой я тоже никогда не покупал. Может, как разбогатею :)
|
11:12 am - change explained
Обама, интервью 2001 года:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
/.../
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
/.../
Сo i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally you know i think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.
Более полный транскрипт здесь.
Теперь мы знаем, что значит change в речах Обамы, по крайней мере в том аспекте, что касается экономики. Следует ли думать, что hope означает, что redistributive change будет проведен другим путем?
|
01:25 pm - в зеркале прессы
Освещение кандидатов прессой:
Маккейн - 14% позитив, 57% негатив
Обама - 36% позитив, 29% негатив
Пейлин - 29% позитив, 39% негатив
Байден - 33% позитив, 15% негатив
Для иллюстрации, вот два парных репортажа о дне Обамы и дне Маккейна, от AP. Разницу можно начинать чувствовать прямо с заголовка. И до финалов, вот:
Обама:
After saying goodbye to Michelle, who was spending the next day in
Florida, he spent the bus ride to the airport in phone consultations
with campaign staff back in Chicago, as baseball clips flashed on the
giant flat screen. He spent the flight to Richmond, Va., with foreign
policy advisers who were traveling with him ahead of a high-profile
meeting scheduled for the next day. Bedtime: 12:30 a.m. "What an extraordinary day," he had said earlier in Miami, shaking his head as the sun set over the sea of people.
Маккейн:
The candidate then reprised his stump speech for the third time that
day, this time inserting the remarks about western Pennsylvania
designed to win over the audience. The supportive crowd ended up
forgiving his flub, but it gnawed at McCain when he got back aboard his
plane for his flight to New Hampshire.
The group quickly dropped the subject and focused on a few
drinks and light snacks. When it comes to beer, it's Budweiser-only
aboard the Straight Talk Air, out of deference to Cindy McCain's beer
distributorship in Phoenix.
"He's a human being. Everybody stumbles over lines," said
senior adviser Mark Salter, one of those who rides up front with the
McCains. "And it was a long day."
|
|
|