Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
cool, i’m gonna try and make it up to the show then. hey anybody in philly who has a fone number for a decent cab company that serves that area after shows, could you e-mail it to me at squeapler@yahoo.com . anthony i e-mailed ya off list seeking same, thanks to everybody for your help so far and to anyone who can send me a cab company fone number…just trying to avoid another cab horror like i had in another city once where the cab didn’t show up for hours…tx again
yeah thanks for the responses guys, i checked mapquest as well and i see it’s not anywhere near any of the places i usually go up there, unfortunately. is there any public transportation nearby? i worry about getting stuck places that cabs dont want to go after a certain hour.
i am toying with the idea of going up on the train to see j, and coming back right after (i’ve done this with other acts so i know it works). but can you tell me where is this northstar? is it anywhere near the area that has tattooed moms and those other bars and venues, or is it someplace else? how convenient to transportation (like taxis) is it? tia for any help you can provide
Just to follow up on this–the full-up schedule of Cobra Verde dates with J, including a couple dates that weren’t finalized at the time of that previous e-mail, has been posted at the Cobra Verde official website, http://www.cobraverde.com .
hpy hpy hpy bday allison! I assume you’re all referring to DA bears, as in chicagoland…great to hear from more cool show peeples in chi-town, i hope to get out there again one of these days. hope the only thing that blows on your special day are the candles <img>
"everybody lets me down" beautifully expresses a lot of things I’ve been feeling lately—Can’t wait to hear the studio versions of all these tracks, thanks very much for the preview! <img>
Hi guys, Sorry I was slow getting back here—had some work projects pop up. Hey RustBelt, thanks for elucidating your views. I feel more comfortable now that you’ve said you’re not into traditional definitions of "conservative" and "liberal". I saw the defeated nomination of Bork as a sign that Congress wasn’t going to let the S Ct bench get TOO Political. Of course, others see it as other things. While the Court is always going to have political views and you are right in saying administrations try to load the bench with people who follow the "party line", I think the Court tries to avoid getting too involved with politics because it tarnishes its image by making it look too political. Perhaps the disputed election reminded them of that? I hope so, because I really didn’t think the S Ct should even be involved, although like you I haven’t been doing homework on the issue and I was a lot less concerned about it than many political mavens whose jobs were literally hanging in the balance of who got elected.
And, Tom – One thing I like about this bench is that the S Ct in recent years has been emphasizing states’ rights and taking away from the power of the central federal govt to regulate under the Commerce Clause, so it is much more difficult for the feds exercise that power now. Taking the political view, I think the only reason the Commerce Clause power got expanded so far was to allow the federal govt to implement civil rights policy in states that wouldn’t do it on their own. Now that inroads have been made there, I see much less justification for the Commerce Clause power overall.
Hey Rust Belt, back yer arg up then. How in your opinion did they "hand the last election to Bush"? There were dozens of political science majors at my law school and they all have a different take as do many of the lawyers so I’d love to hear yours. I mean that, not being sarcastic. election law is not my main thing, I do intellectual property law and internet law, so it’s always good to hear others’ perspectives on it.
the one caveat I’d make is that people tend to interpret the courts (supreme and otherwise) by the framework they are used to using: in other words if you’re a poli sci major or someone who’s worked for legislatures you’ll see it all as politics. if you’re an econ head you’ll see it as economics. if you come out of a big family of lawyers you’ll see it all as stare decisis. and so on. so explain your take if you would. I tend toward economic analysis because that’s what I was raised up with. I also think that big, major, high-profile court decisions like election, impeachment, etc. for the S Ct and the OJ case for the regular courts are not good bases on which to evaluate the working of a particular court or the judicial system—they’re anomalies. If you’ve studied a few terms of the Court and looked at all kinds of decisions, big small and boring, you get a better sense of it than just citing one case. so do you have other cases to cite as well in support of your view?
apologies for being longwinded, this is a topic of particular interest to me
The Govt doesn’t have jurisdiction over the entire web, which is one big enforcement problem that makes Justice look very carefully at the situation before getting involved. In some cases US can get jurisdiction based on treaties between us and other countries, where we each help each other police the web, or based on the fact that an entity of the US is doing business in some foreign country. but it’s not an easy task and therefore is usually limited to situations where there’s a big harm being done (e.g. hacker is committing espionage or is ripping off Bank of American for a billion dollars and putting the money in a swiss bank acct). furthermore the US Govt/DOJ etc. really doesn’t WANT to control the web—policing it would be a losing battle and it would hamper economic growth too much.
If you are talking about whether the courts can get jurisdiction in a lawsuit between two private parties, e.g. RIAA sues Kazaa, that’s a whole different kettle of fish jurisdictionally speaking. But that is a different question than whether the US govt has or wants to get involved. and that is basically the difference between civil and criminal legal actions. the US Govt has to be very selective as to what it chooses to criminally prosecute, because it has lots of crimes and limited resources. but private parties can sue each other on any non-frivolous grounds as long as they have the time and money to hire lawyers and go to it.
as for your question about whether Morpheus and Kazaa are "different", I think what you are referring to is a network that’s peer-to-peer with nothing passing through a central server. If nothing is passing through a central server, or there is no central server, it’s legally hard to go after the entity Morpheus or Kazaa (grounds are lacking under the current law, although this could be argued back and forth). and therefore RIAA would have to sue or penalize end users which is a pain in the butt since there are lots of small users and it would be costly to go after each one in a private lawsuit and probably impossible to catch everybody. as it would also be impossible for the govt to go after each small user and fine or prosecute them.
I know J and Amma have been mentioned in Mike Watt’s tour diaries. I think one from 2000 talks about J introducing Amma to Watt (she hugged him) and also J traveling with a doll of Amma in a pouch. she is a spiritual guide who makes the bad thoughts come out of your mind. I really appreciate that J is a spiritual person—that is so much healthier than many other performers who seek solace in the bottle or other unhealthy things. not that a little fun is bad but people can overdo it and ruin themselves.
Doesn’t J’s label have a street team that the fans can help out with? I know on other indie band lists, people often volunteer to put up promo posters and spread the word, and get some stickers or a free poster in return usually…
Actually Rust Belt Blues, I can see where you would hold that view that the S Ct votes a "party line" but it’s a bit of an oversimplistic view of the dynamics of the Court. Although they get it wrong sometimes, I don’t think their decisions are "Total crap" and in fact they do a good job of staying OUT of a lot of the stupid politicking making them as a whole one of the more thoughtful and intelligent institutions around Washington in my humble opinion. it pains me that more people don’t take the time to understand what the Court really does or get to know its job a little better and instead have ideas about it mostly based in the media presentation of it, which 95% of the time IS total crap. and O’Connor does not always vote conservative, she’s the swing vote and likes balancing tests. I’ll shaddap now, anyone who is really interested in the S Ct should turn off the TV and either go to a good law school or read a good book or two on the dynamics of the place. "The Brethren" and "Closed Chambers" are okay places to start, but they’re biased—in particular "Brethren" emphasizes the political aspects of the Court probably more than it should. my personal view is that the Court is influenced by 1) stare decisis 2) economics of enforcement and 3) politics as a third thing, fitting in with 1 and 2.
