Daily Kos

View Story | 410 comments

  •  Tip Jar n/t (3.99 / 130)

    The Reality-Based Community Our Truth - Our Soundtrack

    by Vyan on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

    •  The law is strange (3.91 / 12)

      A woman in Kansas City was once prosecuted for practicing "random acts of kindness," by putting money in parking machines about to run out of time.  Apparently it's a crime to do that for other people and of course the city loses out on the revenue for all those parking tickets.  It's the same sort of twisted logic.  They make an example, in this case, squeal and you will be prosecuted.  

      Winning without Delay.

      by ljm on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 11:23:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is often... (none / 0)

        ...because cities have time limits on how long cars are allowed to be parked at a meter. By doing this, the woman was allowing those cars to be parked past their allotted time, since the meters are the only way to track that.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian

        by Sparhawk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:01:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand. (4.00 / 3)

          How does her action screw up their records, where the people themselves would be just as able to put in more money?  The meter presumably doesn't know who is putting in the money.

          Unless we're talking about the sort of meter that accepts credit cards, where I could see a hard limit in place..

          I'm still an Edwards supporter, and a Patriots fan. Not having the best year here...

          by Stymnus on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:33:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (none / 0)

          If there's a limit, then there's a limit.  It can't be overridden by someone other than the owner of the car dropping money into the meter instead of the owner of the car -- which is all that happened.

          by jqb on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:27:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Just finished my printed letter, (4.00 / 2)

      and it will be off in the mail this afternoon.  I've never written a letter to a DA before.  Will letters like this honestly make a difference?

      I listen to Thom Hartmann

      by RhetoricalRubberneck on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 12:00:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why is Arnold afraid to have an honest election? (4.00 / 12)

      Just as Schwarzenegger needed anabolic steroids to win his bodybuilding competitions and achieve success in Hollywood, he now requires the help of a corrupt voting machine company to assure re-election in California.

      When will this outrage stop?

      by QuickSilver on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 12:25:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Arnold and steroids (4.00 / 4)

        From Wikipedia (with footnotes):

        Steroid Use

        Schwarzenegger has admitted to using performance-enhancing anabolic steroids while they were legal, writing in 1977 that "[steroids] were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest. I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up." However, some bodybuilders who used the same steroid cocktails as Schwarzenegger in the 1970s dispute the notion that they were used merely for "muscle maintenance." Even Schwarzenegger has called the drugs "tissue building."(1)

        In 1999, Schwarzenegger sued Dr. Willi Heepe, a German doctor who publicly predicted an early death for the bodybuilder based on a link between steroid use and later heart problems. Because the doctor had never examined him personally, Schwarzenegger collected a DM 20,000 ($12,000 USD) libel judgment against him in a German court. In 1999 Schwarzenegger also sued and settled with Globe Magazine, a U.S. tabloid which had made similar predictions about the bodybuilder's future health. As late as 1996, a year before open heart surgery to replace an aortic valve, Schwarzenegger publicly defended his use of anabolic steroids during his bodybuilding career.(2)

        Schwarzenegger was born with a bicuspid aortic valve; a normal heart has tricuspid valves. According to a spokesman, Schwarzenegger has not used anabolic steroids since 1990 when they were made illegal.(3) In bodybuilder slang, steroids are sometimes referred to as "Arnolds".(4)

        Schwarzenegger has had facial plastic surgery. Here's an interesting before-and-after comparison (including some of Arnold's early nude photos as well).

        by QuickSilver on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 01:00:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Steroids (none / 0)

          Is a name for a large group of drugs.  Each drug serves a different purpose.  Yes, there are those that are for maintenance, "cutting", and "bulking".  When you're "on", you take them as a group, or "cycles" - for instance, a bulking cycle could be for 6-weeks, etc.  

          Arnold had the genetic structure suited for bodybulding.  Granted, he got "bigger" all of a sudden when he was 19.  But waaaay back then, athletes didn't take the amounts taken today and the drugs were VERY different than what is available now (and the last 15-years).  After the Iron Curtain fell apart, you had steroids coming to this country of such purity.

          Anyways, I could go on about steroids, but really it has nothing to do with this topic.  What does fit well with this topic is Arnold's corruption and bad, bad governing.  I miss the days when Arnold was a charismatic ex-bodybuilder, action movie guy.  During the 80's he brought attention to a (at the time), a fantastic sport (bodybuilding) and while I was initially piqued due to Lori Bowen, Deborah Diana and Rachel McLish, Arnold really showed me that bodybuilders could go on and be successful in other areas.

          So, when you come here and speak about politics, keep it within that realm.  The lot of you on this site know practically nothing about steroids, or even bodybuilding.  Mind you, this ain't a rub:  it's just the goshdarn truth.  Sites like Wikipedia (even though I love that site), will continue to generalize steroid use - what athlete has entirely spelt the beans on steroids?  Oh, yeah:  NONE.  And it constantly grates on me when I come here and expect some type of enlightening discussion and well, see something like this:  a topic that has nothing to do about steroids and is all about politics.  And no, past steroid use has nothing to do Arnold's inability to govern NOW.  It's just Arnold's inability to govern.  There are plenty of ex-athletes who have taken steroids who go on to live upstanding lives.  And I don't see any of 'em constantly berated as Arnold is about this. At least Arnold had the balls to admit to past steroid use.  Geez.

          Also, there's  only a few things I trust Arnold on:  his knowledge about weight training.  He knows LOTS about that; as for diet and supplements?  Ick, wouldn't listen to him.  I think he followed whatever Franco was doing on diet.  That's it.

          O 4 O: Oregon for Obama!

          by smugbug on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 04:11:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  oops, point taken (none / 0)

          My own reply about steroids was meant for another discussion, so sorry about that -- it hijacked the thread. If a couple people zero it out, I wouldn't mind.

          by QuickSilver on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:14:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  legal defenses (4.00 / 4)


      1. Lack of criminal intent.  One of the elements of many crimes is intent.  There are lesser included offenses, e.g. killing someone without intent isn't murder, but is prosecutable as manslaughter.  

      2. Competing harms.  This is the legal basis by which e.g. you don't get convicted of burglary if you broke into the house to save the baby from the fire while its parents were away.  In the present case, saved the voters from massive vote fraud while the public officials weren't looking.  

      3.  Having established (1) and gotten the charges reduced accordingly (i.e. if the state decides it can't prove criminal intent), will probably make it easier to use (2).  

      And meanwhile, if Diebold's law firm was in cahoots rather than advising their client to clean up its act, someone should be prosecuting them for participating in conspiracy to commit fraud and possibly for suborning perjury.  A class action civil suit by voters would also be interesting.  

      by G2geek on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 01:28:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he didn't remove the documents accidentally (none / 1)

        He clearly intended to take the documents, so I don't see how you can establish (1).  Whistleblowing is all about (2), not (1).

        by jqb on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:15:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  good point but... (none / 0)

          i would think that motive in a robbery would have to include some kind of a gain on the part of the thief. did he intend to steal the documents to enrich himself? it doesn't seem so. why can't he argue that he thought that he was, albeit unwillingly, going to be put in the position of aiding and abetting what he thought was a crime? therefore, he was protecting himself.

          I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

          by nonnie9999 on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:43:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there are no requirements of motive (none / 1)

            Demonstrating motive isn't a requirement, only intent.  Stealing is a crime even if it's selfless.  The theft is morally justifiable, but the law is a different matter, and the legal argument of intent is what I was addressing.

            > why can't he argue that he thought that he was, albeit unwillingly, going to be put in the position of aiding and abetting what he thought was a crime?

            Well, he can argue it but it obviously isn't true.  He neither was going to be in the position of aiding and abetting a crime, nor did he think he was.  He was simply a temp typist -- not a criminal enterprise -- who came across some documents that he thought indicated that a crime had already been committed.  The documents were part of a defense strategy for addressing a criminal charge.  Mounting a legal defense is not itself a crime.

            by jqb on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:04:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No actually... (none / 0)

              from what I can tell, the crime was ongoing.  Diebold was attempting to hide their failure to meet certification requirement from the Attorney General.  So it was both past and future criminal activity that Heller disclosed.

              The Reality-Based Community Our Truth - Our Soundtrack

              by Vyan on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:15:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where is the document that Heller encountered (none / 0)

                that demonstrates that attempt?  In any case, Heller wasn't aiding or abetting a crime by working for the law firm or neglecting to steal their documents.

                by jqb on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:32:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The LA Times said the following... (none / 0)

                  Link.

                  In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified voting systems violated California election law and that if Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract.

                  The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were exploring whether the California secretary of state had the authority to investigate the company for alleged election law violations.

                  The Reports were published by the Oakland Tribune  (I haven't yet found a copy), but the Times went on and described events after that publication (which were in fact future events)...

                  A subsequent report by the secretary of state's office found that Diebold had marketed and sold its systems before gaining federal qualification and had installed uncertified software on election machines in 17 counties.

                  So the memos document that installing uncertified machines violated election law -- and even when warned Diebold went on to do exactly that.

                  Vyan

                  The Reality-Based Community Our Truth - Our Soundtrack

                  by Vyan on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:44:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You didn't answer my question. (none / 1)

                    Where is the document that Heller encountered that indicated that Diebold was attempting to hide their failure to meet certification requirement from the Attorney General?

                    You link indicates that an attorney opined that doing something that violates California election law violates California election law -- whoopee.  And that if Diebold did something they could be sued for, then they could be sued for it -- whoopee.  These are neutral in regard to whether Diebold broke a law or could be sued.

                    You then mention a report by the secretary of state's office -- but that's not one of the documents that Heller saw at Jones Day.  I guess you offered this to demonstrate that the crime was ongoing, but you already made that statement and I didn't challenge it.  Instead, I asked a quite specific question, to which you did not respond.

                    by jqb on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:53:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  How is that a "crime"? (none / 0)

                Show me somewhee in the law where that's a jailable offense.

                Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

                by Adam B on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:16:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

View Story | 410 comments