MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

In article ,
wrote:

On or about Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:29:05 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:32:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Having said that, what really should have happened would have put Gore
in
the White House.

A couple years earlier. It's not clear whether he would have stayed
there in 2000, though as an incumbent, he probably would have been
tougher to beat.

Not what I meant. It was apparent in the days following the election
that the
vote in Florida was well within the margin of error. The state
legislature
should have stepped in quickly, and assigned the electors based on the
"will
of the people" which was clearly divided. Thus, half should have gone to
Bush
and half to Gore. (Bush should have gotten one more since we've got an
odd
number and he did marginally win. That or just send an even number, with
one
abstention.) The reasons that would have been impossible are left as an
exercise, but it would have been the proper solution.


Elections are not quantum events that end up in an indetermant state--
someone wins. Which is why there are elaborate rules on how they are
conducted. Margin of error does not figure into it, any more than a
majority of the popular vote determines the president. (And
statistically, the winner of the first count is the winner of recounts,
unless the errors are have a cause other than random chance (such as in
places like Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia and S.D. Indian
Reservations).) Control of a legislature is also absolute. You are
either in the majority and control everything, or the minority, and get
to vote in a losing cause. (Yes, there can be absolute ties resulting in
power sharing arrangements, but they are fragile, rarely anything done,
and usually result in a Jeffords causing their collapse.)

If the Fla. legislature had been allowed to do their job, they would
have voted on strict party lines for the majority party's slate. Anyone
expecting anything different is self-deluded, or a sore loser. (The only
time you see someone buy into a fairness argument it's so-called
"moderate Republicans," people who seem to take pleasure in screwing
things up. You never see a Democrat do something so stupid as
voluntarily giving up a hard fought (or stolen) victory.)

LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:58:56 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
People who fantasize that George Bush won the election fair and square,

Um, he did.

The US Supreme Court decided the outcome.

and that it was *Al Gore* who tried to steal it, should not throw

It was.

Gore had every right to request manual recounts in the areas where he
was strongest, as did Bush in the areas where *he* was strongest.
Bush's lawyers decided that manual recounts were a losing strategy
though, so they stonewalled every attempt. When the Florida Supreme
Court ordered a statewide manual recount, Bush's lawyers appealed to the
US Supreme Court and got it stopped.

Gore tried to reverse the original result by requesting manual recounts,
but that does not constitute trying to "steal" the election. Had the
shoe been on the other foot, Bush's lawyers would have done exactly the
same thing. Bush's lawyers were better than Gore's, so they very likely
would have won, fair and square.

Having said that, what really should have happened would have put Gore in
the White House.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:16:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:58:56 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
People who fantasize that George Bush won the election fair and square,

Um, he did.

The US Supreme Court decided the outcome.

No, it just decided the timing of the outcome.

and that it was *Al Gore* who tried to steal it, should not throw

It was.

Gore had every right to request manual recounts in the areas where he
was strongest,

No, he did not. There was no basis further hand recounts.

In article ,


http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID...1-125104-3165r

WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) -- NASA may borrow a development approach from the
U.S. Air Force and seek to build multiple prototypes of its proposed new moon
landing craft, and then test competing designs against one another in a
celestial version of an airplane designers' fly-off.

Retired Adm. Craig E. Steidle, the new head of NASA's office responsible for
developing the crew exploration vehicle, or CEV, has suggested that a fly-off
competition might yield a better spacecraft in the long run, with the agency
choosing the best-performing design over its closest competitor.

-- end excerpt --

Interesting article, more than just this excerpt is worth reading.

This decision, when it's actually made, is sure to generate some traffic
around here (alt.astronomy trimmed from my reply, BTW):

"Meanwhile, Steidle has said he will choose a launch vehicle for the CEV
by the end of this year. It could include new versions of the existing
Delta and Atlas rockets, or an entirely new booster. An all-cargo
version of the space shuttle, which replaces the winged orbiters with a
cargo pod, also is under study to supplement the CEV with a heavy
lifting, cargo-only capability."

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:16:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:58:56 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
People who fantasize that George Bush won the election fair and square,

Um, he did.

The US Supreme Court decided the outcome.

No, it just decided the timing of the outcome.

Running out the clock in other words. The outcome was still decided by
the courts, rather than the voters.

and that it was *Al Gore* who tried to steal it, should not throw

It was.

Gore had every right to request manual recounts in the areas where he
was strongest,

No, he did not. There was no basis further hand recounts.

Read the law.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:49:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The US Supreme Court decided the outcome.

No, it just decided the timing of the outcome.

Running out the clock in other words.

No, that assumes that providing the illegitimate process with more
time would somehow have magically resulted in a different outcome.

No, he did not. There was no basis further hand recounts.

Read the law.

Unlike you, I have.

This is a pointless argument. Get over it.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:49:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The US Supreme Court decided the outcome.

No, it just decided the timing of the outcome.

Running out the clock in other words.

No, that assumes that providing the illegitimate process with more
time would somehow have magically resulted in a different outcome.

Manual recounts were an entirely legitimate process under Florida law,
which has long held that ascertaining the will of the voters takes
precedence over all other considerations. Florida courts had wide
lattitude under Florida law to fashion remedies for errors or abuses in
the electoral process, and when a corrupt elected official abuses his or
her public trust for a blatantly partisan purpose, such as determining
the outcome of an election, the courts are obliged to intervene.

Under the most reasonable sets of conditions Gore would have won the
manual recount, but even if Bush had won, that would not have mitigated
the magnitude of the offense committed by the majority of the US Supreme
Court when they shut off the manual recount.

No, he did not. There was no basis further hand recounts.

Read the law.

Unlike you, I have.

Wrong. Unlike you I have read *all* of the applicable law, not just a
snippet or two. Plus several books and dozens of articles and web
sites.

This is a pointless argument. Get over it.

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts, and when the
highest court in the land renders a blatantly partisan decision like
that, it is a matter of considerable importance, regardless of how many
people try to sweep it under the rug. As the saying goes, an unjust
court is worse than brigandage, and there has probably not been a Court
decision since Dred Scott that has received such *scathing*
denunciations, from virtually all sides, as the decision in the 2000
presidential election.

When the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited anyone from bringing any
future cases based on their decision in the 2000 presidential election,
they tacitly admitted that their decision was baseless. You get over
it.

Or did you mean that arguing with *you* is pointless?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts

It was.

and when the
highest court in the land renders a blatantly partisan decision like
that,

laughing uproariously

And the SCOFLA's decision's weren't partisan? The Chief Judge himself
was appalled by them, and strongly dissented.

It's time to Move On.

On or about Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, Dick Morris
made the sensational claim that:
Manual recounts were an entirely legitimate process under Florida law,
which has long held that ascertaining the will of the voters takes
precedence over all other considerations.

The "will of the voters" was clearly divided. So the electoral delegates
should have been as well.

Under the most reasonable sets of conditions Gore would have won the
manual recount,

Reasonable for whom? Can you provide any cites which indicate Gore would have
won? Cherry picking districts to recount sounds an awful lot like trying to
tip it over the rim. Which implies an underhandedness I find extremely
distasteful, and did at the time.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:59:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Elections are supposed to be decided by voters, not courts

It was.

Except for those who were disenfranchised by the US Supreme Court
decision, of course.

and when the
highest court in the land renders a blatantly partisan decision like
that,

laughing uproariously

Non-answer noted. Why you are not embarrased to present such lame
responses?

And the SCOFLA's decision's weren't partisan? The Chief Judge himself
was appalled by them, and strongly dissented.

First you complain about the fact that Gore requested manual recounts in
only a few counties (which used the error-prone punched-card ballots)
rather than all of them, then the Florida SC orders a statewide recount
and you complain about that. Make up your mind.

It's time to Move On.

Yes, it's time to dump Bush and Move On.