The Goat Pen

it's made of people...

So, John Edwards was acquitted (1 charge) & dismissed (the other charges)...

Politicians on both sides of the aisle breathed a HUGE sigh of relief, esp Newtie.

The other charges weren't dismissed. A mistrial was declared. They can still have another trial on those five charges. Now, will they do that? That's the big question and an interesting one.

I doubt it, because Young (the "star" witness) was seen as totally uncredible by the jurors. I don't know if the Justice Department will spend the money again for a trial where they have no new evidence and the witness they banked the most on is not seen as having a shred of truth in him.

John Edwards wasn't some podunk attorney before he turned politician. He's very shrewd and skilled. So, I doubt he makes any public missteps (or private conversations that could be recorded) that could help a future case. I think this goes away with the only damage being John Edwards' already tarnished rep...and millions of taxpayer dollars that was spent on a fruitless case.

As I understand it, this was the first time they went after a candidate for campaign finance issues when it was pretty clear he used the money as the "donor" intended.

If people give you money for the campaign and you build a wing onto your home, that is abuse. If people give you money with the intent of hiding your mistress and that is what you spend it on, then morality aside, what is the problem? I assume the case centers around the money being defined as a campaign contribution and Edwards handlers skirting those laws.

They didn't have a much of a case to begin with and their failure to convict is going to make other prosecutors more gun shy about going after more black and white campaign finance abuse.

I have the same belief on the Trayvon Martin case.

Bklyn wrote: So, I doubt he makes any public missteps

well except for knocking up a psycho golddigger while his wife is dying of cancer during his presidential campaign run, but yea, the guy didn't become a multi-millionaire by not knowing how to dance around the law.

"They didn't have a much of a case to begin with and their failure to convict is going to make other prosecutors more gun shy about going after more black and white campaign finance abuse.

I have the same belief on the Trayvon Martin case."

Nice segue from "black and white" issues in the John Edwards case then a mention of the Trayvon Martin case (even though what's his name is a Mex). Nicely done....

Heh

yea that was wasn't it?

Wait....thought that dude was Mexican?????

the attack on fat people begins

NEW YORK - Want to super-size that soda? Sorry, but in New York City you could be out of luck.

In his latest effort to fight obesity in this era of Big Gulps and triple bacon cheeseburgers, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing an unprecedented ban on large servings of soda and other sugary drinks at restaurants, delis, sports arenas and movie theaters.

Drinks would be limited to 16 ounces, which is considered a small at many fast-food joints.

"The percentage of the population that is obese is skyrocketing," Bloomberg said Thursday on MSNBC. He added: "We've got to do something."

It is the first time an American city has directly attempted to limit soda portion sizes, and opponents again accused the three-term mayor of creating a "nanny state" and robbing New Yorkers of the right to choose for themselves.

But city officials said they believe the plan - expected to win approval from the Bloomberg-appointed Board of Health and take effect as soon as March - will ultimately prove popular and push local governments around the country to adopt similar rules.

Can you still get refills?

its only for sugary drinks too

you are free to order a 40oz beer with your triple cheeseburger

You can get refills or two containers. You just can't get one big megasize cup, if this passes.

The war on fat people started in NYC over a century ago, when they built the subway system and have added minimal fat people accomodations (elevators, escalators, more and wider seating) since that time.

I don't drink soda (or any sugary, artifically colored drinks), anyway, so it has no ripple in my life. This is more a legislation against portion size. I'm definitely libertarian about people's abuse of their own bodies (same way I was against the cigarette crackdown Bloomberg did a decade ago), but I understand the argument that this is a health issue that impacts taxpayers directly.

Bklyn wrote:You can get refills or two containers. You just can't get one big megasize cup, if this passes.

The war on fat people started in NYC over a century ago, when they built the subway system and have added minimal fat people accomodations (elevators, escalators, more and wider seating) since that time.

I don't drink soda (or any sugary, artifically colored drinks), anyway, so it has no ripple in my life. This is more a legislation against portion size. I'm definitely libertarian about people's abuse of their own bodies (same way I was against the cigarette crackdown Bloomberg did a decade ago), but I understand the argument that this is a health issue that impacts taxpayers directly.

but its not going to work. The argument that this is a health issue is a failed one. Its one thing to keep dioxins out of our drinking water but to start limiting what Americans choose to consume because someone in the government believes there is a standard for health that must be met by every American is overreaching to the extreme. And that standard for health wouldn't have even been considered 50 years ago when the life expectancy was in the 60's.

As a libertarian, I can see the argument against smoking. I shouldn't have to breathe air filled with second hand smoke. But saying I shouldn't have to sit next to a fat guy on a plane isn't on the same level. Its an inconvenience, not a health hazard.

If you want to solve the obesity issue in this country, then make it pay for play. Just as smokers must may a premium for health insurance, make it the same for the obese people and then you'll see incentives for people to lead healthy lifestyles and make better food choices.

But the counter argument is that this is not limiting what a person chooses to consume. It is limiting the amount a person can purchase in one container.

The thing is, a person can still go to a local bodega and buy a two litre of Mountain Dew, screw open the top and go to town. A person can also go to a movie and buy two 16 oz colas and drink it up. They just can't buy a 32 oz container.

The thought is that even when a person buys two, they'll still only drink one...and be fine with that portion. It doesn't forbid someone from consuming as much as they want...they just can't do it from one large container. I don't see it as the same as San Fran killing the Happy Meal. That was a true nanny state move. This...not so much.

(I hate that I'm kinda arguing for this...because I think it's stupid. But, I think the mayor will get away with this)

The "nanny state" mention perks my ears up. I don't really have a big opinion on this particular issue, but I always chuckle when people get so upset about things that city/local government does in kind of the libertarian way. IMO, the local governement is where all of that stuff should happen, the local government should be actively involved in shaping the community, making reforms and changes, trying to make life better for the people that live there. Most who know me would probably be really surprised how far left I am when voting for City of Houston officials compared to what my conversations are with them about national/statewide elections. This is kind of simplistic, but I feel that in general people usually have the option of simply moving to another municipality if they really disagree with their city decisionmakers, and move somewhere else that suits them better, unlike statewide and national stuff where the decisions they make may or may not make sense when applied to individuals all over large and diverse geographic and demographic areas, and mobility is likely much more limited. Its easy for someone to vote with your dollars and feet and move from Houston to Cypress, far harder to move to Florida from texas, or Singapore from the United States.

Some examples of Nanny state rules...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47631869?slide=2

In otherwords, I think unlike citizenship of the country which shouldnt really impede our personal freedom, belonging to a city is a personal choice that we make to either take advantage of what that city offers, or move somewhere else, rather than governmental interference.

aTm wrote:The "nanny state" mention perks my ears up. I don't really have a big opinion on this particular issue, but I always chuckle when people get so upset about things that city/local government does in kind of the libertarian way. IMO, the local governement is where all of that stuff should happen, the local government should be actively involved in shaping the community, making reforms and changes, trying to make life better for the people that live there. Most who know me would probably be really surprised how far left I am when voting for City of Houston officials compared to what my conversations are with them about national/statewide elections. This is kind of simplistic, but I feel that in general people usually have the option of simply moving to another municipality if they really disagree with their city decisionmakers, and move somewhere else that suits them better, unlike statewide and national stuff where the decisions they make may or may not make sense when applied to individuals all over large and diverse geographic and demographic areas, and mobility is likely much more limited. Its easy for someone to vote with your dollars and feet and move from Houston to Cypress, far harder to move to Florida from texas, or Singapore from the United States.

Other than geography you have no argument between states' rights and municipality rights?

isn't it the states who allow the municipalities to exist?

Who cares. All Im saying is I prefer statewide politicians who stay out of my life, and local ones who try and make the a city better place to live and work (and are competent which isnt always a given)