User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

A proposal that would make it even easier for children to view deleted (sometimes illegal) material

Please note:

A proposal that would make it even easier for children to view deleted (e.g. illegal) material

There seems to be no discussion of the liability of WMF for child administrators/moderators.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Good morning KW, I hope you had a good weekend. I certainly understand the point of view regarding people under the age of majority not being administrators, indeed, I've never seen one I'd be willing to support. However, I'm a little curious as to what sort of material you refer to here. I understand material which is in violation of copyright is deleted for legality concerns, but the vast majority of deletions are banal. Attack pages and other offensive material is visible to anyone who regularly reverts vandalism. On the other hand, is the objection to do with the very concept of deletion, which removes the information from public view - only available to administrators. The issue there is that the majority of accounts are pseudonymous, I believe there are larger legal issues with that fact than the age of the account. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi David/WTT!

The obvious things are secret information: Who really murdered JFK, evidence of UFOs, who is buried in Grant's tomb, the usual esoterica. ;)

Beyond that, the most important information would be passwords revealed by mistaken pastes (which has resulted in use of administrator accounts already) and other information that identifies persons in real life.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should compare List of The X-Files episodes with Wikipedias deleted edits... though I expect I'll have the FBI knocking on my door before long. You are right, that protecting personal information is an important role for an administrator (or an oversighter), and I could certainly see the argument that a minor may not realise the gravity of the situation. I do wonder though, if there is information that shouldn't be shown to minors, should all administrators identify? I spoke about minors on Wikipedia with Geoff Brigham about six months ago, when I was fortunate enough to meet him. It was enough to put my mind at ease, in any case. I do recommend you take any opportunity you can do meet him yourself! Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz: your proposal has not yet gained any support, and I have removed it again from the proposal page, and moved the commentary to the talk page. Please get a consensus for it, before reinserting it on the proposal page. If everyone added their own amendments, the proposal and ensuing discussion would become hopelessly confused. I hope you understand my reasoning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Whom do you think you are, Kant?

;)

It has not reached substantial support. It has been supported by several persons, whose comments you seem to have missed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 19:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Augmented fourths tuning

Wolfie, if you get a chance, could you have a squiz at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 and verify that the hook is correct? Thanks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye!

The picture needs adjusting. It went with the other hook. I'll suggest something. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I switched the picture. I did some copy-editing of the others. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also had to remove a bad link, which I may have added by mistake. I removed the other link, which is linked in the lede of the article, because I want people to read the article.

Feel free to re-link, or ask me to do so and I should re-link them. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements (re-links, and addition of the tritone link). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. In my experience, you have behaved honorably and set a good example for the rest of us. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

As I warned, you have now been blocked for persistent incivility, here. I strongly suggest you take this time to read WP:REFACTOR and accept the distinction between editing others' comments and refactoring talk pages for clarity. Someone moving your comments does not give you license to make personal attacks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel,

I had no idea that you were behaving like a ridiculous martinet.

I didn't read your page, because you have no interest to me. You violated policy, I informed you. Period. You disappear, because you have no interest. I had no idea you were the same "editor" who misunderstood refactoring policy.

Nikkimaria explained that you misunderstood policy.

I appreciate Hipocrite pointing out your double talk on your talk page.

I really have no interest in discussing anything further with you, but you should understand the contempt with which you are held in the community.

23:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)~

Kafziel beat me to it. I agree that this editor needs to take some time off. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin,

You are writing especially obtusely now. Your feelings about my taking time off are irrelevant to blocking---but perhaps I am engaging in wishful thinking imagining that Wikipedia be run by sane competent administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I am disappointed about Kiefer's remarks, specifically that of being numbered by the beast, a two week block is unreasonable. I fail to understand why he deserves a two week block. I am unsure of why he wanted to have the numbered remark, but was it really a battle worth fighting? Let him number it if he wants to. I understand that Kiefer could have read the page history, but nobody attempted to leave him a remark on why the discussion was moved, some communication on the part of other editors could have solved this whole thing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbering votes and moving discussions are not at issue; what is at issue is his unacceptable reaction to those things. First block for disruption was for a day. Then another day. Then a week. Then a month, shortened to two weeks. Now back to two weeks. This period of time isn't out of the blue; this is how blocks generally work. Maybe I'm just old-school, but to me this is Blocking 101. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe you just like to assume a position of authority, and lecture down to Ryan, because you can? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to taking into account the previous blocks, I feel it is necessary to take into account the severity of the behavior. We are referring to 2 comments on the talk page of David Levy and some disruptive editing at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 where Kiefer wasn't the only editor being disruptive. David Levy was rather curt in his first reply to Kiefer, which could be expected given Kiefer's statement; however, I feel that without the communication breakdown this could all have been avoided. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, Ryan, but we can talk about "what-ifs" until the cows come home (and believe me, I have spent many hours over the years, with other editors, doing just that); the fact is, this was simply the latest in a long string of incivility. Maybe next time Mr. Wolfowitz will get one of those warm fuzzy admins who like to give 6th and 7th chances, but this wasn't his lucky day. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends to a degree on how you view blocks. Makes for an interesting philosophical discussion. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an aspect. I think there is an effective argument in that blocking an editor for personal attacks/harassment prevents them for doing it in the future; however, I don't think a 2 week block prevents future incivility any more than a 2 day block would. What good does the extra 12 days do? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, I suspect the extra 12 days would simply harden the blockee's perceptions about either Admins or the standards of the community (and not for the better). Especially if it can be seen by the blockee as inconsistent or unevenly enforced. In some cases, it might encourage them to evaluate their behavior and make changes that are more acceptable to whatever faction of the community favored/imposed the block. Hard to say, really. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, I thought when editors were blocked they had to have that standard "you have been blocked" template splattered onto their talk page, with that bit about how to appeal etc? Or is this one of those new "close-up and personal, friendly, warm-feeling" blocks? Or maybe there's just no appeal allowed in this case? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates aren't required, and I don't generally like them for registered users. Too automated. So I guess you could say it is one of those friendly, personal kind of blocks. But, sure: Kiefer, if you'd like to appeal your block, feel free to post {{unblock|(your reason here)}} on your talk page. Be sure to give a good reason, and refrain from any further attacks in doing so. Friendly, helpful, and template-free. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

Did David Levy, think that I was accusing him of being a fundamentalist Christian? Would it help him if I had put a "wink", ;), after my remark?

Maybe somebody should explain to those afflicted with hysteria that they should watch Hannah and Her Sisters, and that Woodie Allen places mayonnaise, Wonder Bread, and a crucifix on the table as a joke. 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sick of the American fear of being numbered by the Beast, and I laugh when statisticians state, "This is a method that is used only in the third-world countries, and the USA", because of the lack of a population registry.

There have been enough complaints about the heavy-handed administrative steering of that discussion. In this case, administrators with a need to demonstrate power or intolerant of my restoring my numbered comment labeled my restoration of the number as disruptive.

Is this a joke?

I would not be surprised if JC37 supported such a block, given his urging a block after I had misremembered his user-name as JN37 (after an Indian statistician's initials). I am going to be curious to read the bizarre arguments supporting this block.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? Kafziel, you are just not serious. I have not intention discussing this with you, until you can fill out a block form without tripping over yourself.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The mark of the Beast

Kiefer, I'm a bit curious about your comment about the American fear of being numbered by the beast. Is it a metaphor of some sort? Frankly, I fail to see it's relevance to anything that went on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, you need to talk to your fellow American more. Here is an article from Boston. Let me see what else I can find. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"All numbers are equal, but some are more equal than others." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My word, I'm religious but not a crackhead. It's funny, it is oftentimes people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible who say things like that, but I feel a rather roundabout method is needed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom from Reverend O'Connor:

"When the Devil aims to test you, you'd best be ready and you sure better know which side you're on." "I don't think you people realize which side you're on. I do. You can leave now."

"You think because you're educated you're better than most? You ain't. Unless you're smart down here [points to his heart] the Devil's going to make a fool of you and you ain't even going to know it."

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My use of "Evangelical" was poor, when I intended "fundamentalist" or belief in the inerrancy of Revelation. My uncle was an evangelical who had a b.s. in geology, and most evangelicals I've known are not fundamentalists. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

I just now saw this. I had already withdrawn the proposal due to the various confusions (I probably should have asked WMF to clarify from the start).

I'm merely commenting as an editor: You seem to treat me with a fair amount of bad faith Kiefer. (And in my opinion, repeatedly misrepresenting the truth concerning me or my edits.) Shrugs. I suppose you're welcome to your opinion. I guess we can't be liked by everyone. But regardless, my advice would be to tone down the rhetoric. Pushing your POV in the various ways that you do, really isn't helping the things you want helped, the way you may think it is.

Anyway, you consistently remove any note I leave for you here, so feel free to do the same with this one. Whether you wish to believe it or not, I wish you (as I would anyone) well. - jc37 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jc37,

Your advocacy of a block was original enough for me to remember you.

Your suggestion was interesting, and I supported most of it. I wish that you had read what I had written with greater care and that you had refrained from the word "disruptive".

Thanks for writing. Such communications are usually more persuasive when accompanied by admission of errors---what the totalitarians used to call "self and mutual criticism". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding AGF,

Below would have been a good opportunity to so show even-handedness: To have raised a concern about insults and baiting of Ryan Vesey by the Kaziel-somethingesque administrator. (I would agree that Ryan should show respect to an administrator who has paid his dues, or even a bit more to me---"disruptive", humbug!---but it is really unbecoming for the senior administrator to talk this way to a young RfA candidate.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking merely as an editor: Just as you are welcome to your opinion, they are welcome to theirs.

Just to merely clarify my word usage - which you have mentioned - I used the word "disruptive" to mean "disruptive of the consensus process" (I also noted this there). And I still think it was. Though I have little doubt from your comments that you disagree, I believe I will pass on discussing that with you further.

Anyway, unless absolutely necessary, my intention is to stay out of this current kerfuffle, and particularly am not commenting as an admin. I merely left the note above because you have mentioned me specifically several times, and hoped it might possibly be helpful. - jc37 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But your question at the RfA is really ill-considered. (I restrain myself.) Any look at his editing shows an honest guy who is motivated to what is right. He is intelligent enough to know that his actions have predictable consequences, and his being aware of them has nothing to do with his being motivated by them. This is not a good use of your time or his time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My question was neutral, and was based upon his concern that his recent comments could potentially affect his RfA (as I noted). He should be given the opportunity to clarify/explain. That this is spread out over multiple venues is simply unfair to his candidacy if anyone is attempting to ascertain whether to support/oppose/neutral based upon any recent comments/actions by him.

Remember what I said above about wanting to stay out of this kerfuffle. Perhaps not looking at my intentions in such a dark light may help? I don't know. But I think I'll leave you to consider your thoughts, yourself. - jc37 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't thought that you intentionally behave badly or, here, imprudently. Let me leave it at that. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, these people are not worth your time.

JC37's labeling of my amendment as "disruptive", David Levy's labeling of my restoring the number to my comment as "disruptive"---these are examples of the Courcelles school of misuse of "disruptive"---disruption being a blocking offense with a meaning codified by policy, rather than a label for things that we don't like (or even bad or dumb acts).

I won't even ask whether the blocking administrator ever bothered to admonish his fellow administrators for threatening me with blocking over "disruption" or for heavy-handed and biased refactoring of the discussion.

Just ignore his statement about blocking 101, and other insults in passing.

His baiting you as a candidate for RfA is just further evidence of his character. This is the guy lecturing us about civility---and exemplifying AGF? What an exercise of two-faced hypocricy!

He's not worth your time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kiefer, I'd just suggest that you don't comment on the blocking administrator's character. While I don't agree with the duration of the block, I don't think that Kafziel has poor character. There are a number of things that impress me about him. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is affective adaptability impressive? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Behavior is evidence of character. Let us see good behavior from him. You are a better man than he is. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel's abuse of administrative tools

Due to continued incivility, this user's talk page privileges have been suspended for the duration of the block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of withdrawal of talk-page access

Um, is the "continued incivility" on this page? Or is it elsewhere? Or is it in some edit summaries? Or is it so uncivil that it has already been removed and hidden? Or are other editors not to know? Or has KW been told privately? Or if not, without his Talk Page privileges, how would KW get to ask these things? Or doesn't he deserve to know? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe a block requires an explanation. (See WP:EXPLAINBLOCK) I second the request from Martinevans123 that you explain, via diffs preferrably, the "continued incivility". Thanks -- Avanu (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really not worth the time of anybody serious; it may be the least destructive use of some of the regulars at ANI! ;) I copy-edited my remarks above for clarity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps we'll never know. But I just don't get the logic of not at least allowing you to change or retract comments that you made on your own Talk Page before having your Talk Page privileges removed. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you came to an ANI discussion for exercising logic, you are in for a disappointment.

Take my robe. Give my lamp! Call me Diogenese. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kiefer: I partly agree with you, but either people have too much free time or they're getting crazier than usual. This is the third problematic block I've seen in almost as many days, and I'm getting tired of AN/I having to continually rehash the concept with admins that blocks are a severe and extreme measure and need to be documented and done via a solid policy rationale, not a unique interpretation, and not out of a Contempt of cop emotional reaction. Discretion is understandable, lack of clear and full documentation for a block is not. -- Avanu (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened?

How the Hell did you manage to get yourself blocked again Kiefer? Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Hell"? A joke about the number of the beast, as far as I can tell. That was a joke, wasn't it, Kiefer? (hums an Iron Maiden tune) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer

File:Example of an Evil Clown.jpg

It was about the 4th complaint/threat I was "editing in a disruptive fashion". My disruption including the following

(1) by proposing an amendment,

and---this would beggar belief in every place but this clown academy---

(2) by signing my "support" with a number,

1. My original support. (Disruptive)

• My support, edited (repeatedly, despite my complaints).

1. My restored support (very disruptive)

Comment: "Disruption" has become ever more elastic, following the civility cock up and the Courcelles cock-up.

I left a reminder on the talk page of administrator David Levy, that he should not alter others' talk page comments. My message was firm, but to leave David Levy smile in wonderment, I made a dada joke about the American fundamentalist fear of being numbered---which is one of the reasons that statisticians around the world joke about American public statistics.

Then, responding to my request that he fix his inappropriate edit, the administrator David L. replied with a "no", which imho did not satisfy the requirement for explaining the administrator's editing my comments. I left another firm message, commenting on behavior, but using the behavioral descriptor "editing like an asshole", for emphasis. (On second thought, I'd have been happy to remove that descriptor but I wasn't asked.)

Then two administrative clowns came by to block me, one because "I needed a rest" and the other for "personal attacks or harassment". The first is bullshit, and should embarrass a person who can write. The second is bullshit, but is standard among blocking heads.

However, I did get to enjoy reading Scottywong/Snottywong commenting on my incivility, which is almost as entertaining as his offering advice about paid editing.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Copy-edited for clarity with subsection header added. 12:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If only I could write, I'd probably be embarrassed. But I'm still looking for, quote, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches.. " from an uninvolved admin. Even from an involved one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you were short on time, I suppose. :)

I wrote above that I slipped with the "editing like an asshole", which I would have redacted, if asked. It is a pity that no administrator has ever redacted an accusation of "disruption", which is a blocking offense. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ryan

Malleus and Pedro, I'm glad you recognized Ryan's virtue.

I think that he was one of WTT's students, and he did something that irritated me. (I think it was because I got stronger glasses, without bifocals, and had trouble reading. Mostly, it was a misunderstanding, I think about leaving a template warning a new editor, a Scandinavian academic, but it was worse because I had trouble reading the details.) Given my just having been blocked, I will censor my comment that "All of WTT's students look the same to me". ;)

Anyhow, the next time I see him, he takes my side in some argument. He is a guy who is concerned about doing right, he has almost no ego corrupting his judgment, and he has a lot of curiosity and willingness to help. I'm glad that you guys supported him.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As you probably saw I initially opposed his RfA, but I take my hat off to anyone with the balls to weigh in on what they perceived to be an injustice during their RfA week. He obviously wouldn't be just another toadying administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And THAT is my my main criteria for adminship :) Everything else is optional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a waste of time for him to be here. He should be helping the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party! ;) Knocking on doors would be a valuable experience. :D

I quote Justice Black's dissent on the Anastaplo case, to celebrate the fourth of July.

Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar.11 It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law—men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France12—men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots13—men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party14—men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think.15 This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to read all of this, but its funny that you should think me a DFLer. My dad's a republican, and I was a republican all my life. Now I'm nothing, I'll support the best candidate in a given race. I find political parties completely unnecessary for politics at the state level. Rod Hamilton could knock on every door in his district in a month. I probably be running as a DFLer in a couple of years though. It depends on which party the incumbent isn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My family had supported Republicans, but then I read that Reagan Republicans had passed legislation making ketchup a vegetable for poor kids' school lunches and were funding terrorists in Nicaragua.

In a sense, you are correct, at least about American political parties. We don't have a parliamentary system, and party platforms are less predictive of legislation than is a knowledge of the majority's staffpersons.

On the other hand, given the re-districting abomination, some say the bastard formed by the unholy union of Black Elected Democratic Officeholders (BEDO) and the Republican Party, the parties are much more polarized than before. When I was a kid, there were many moderate Republicans, and many midwestern Republicans were good on civil rights, etc., and of course many Southern Republicans were courageous champions of civil rights in the 50s and 60s. (Consider reading Bayard Rustin and Tom Kahn's From Protest to Politics, along with Kevin Philips's The Emerging Republican Majority, or The Emerging Democratic Majority, which is more recent.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "unholy" unions in American politics, there's one "dark horse" candidate in the running this year. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If Satan is good enough for God, then he's good enough for me. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)