527 This, Mofo

The Washington Post reports that George W. Bush's attempt to scuttle 527 groups has been rebuffed by the courts. Special in-your-face bonus: Ken Starr is the decision's special guest star.

[Da Judge] said he was rejecting the request for the injunction based on "an impeccable decision by Judge Kenneth Starr . . . speaking when the shoe was on the other foot." That decision by Starr, while he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals, ruled that the court had no authority to order the commission to act more quickly when a Democratic congressman was seeking action.

Well, whaddya know? Freer speech wins--and in an election year, to boot. The next thing you know, maybe they'll invalidate campaign finance "reform" laws altogether.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

Hoorah!

[Lowdog]

Good news, indeed!

And since Gary commented first, I never caught the end of the 'is Gary Jean?' saga (if indeed there has been an ending). The funny thing is, thoreau posted a url to some old hit and run postings in which Gary supposedly 'slipped' and said something about living with Jean (if you were in the specific thread I'm talking about, you'll know what's up)...the funny thing is, when I tried that url, I couldn't get it to come up.

Not to bring the whole damn thing up again, but I thought it was curious that I couldn't get that url to work.

Conspiracy? 🙂

[thoreau]

The link is

http://reason.com/hitandrun/005286.shtml

It worked on Friday. Over the weekend they did some more web maintenance, so that's probably why old comments aren't accessible.

More interesting is a link that somebody else provided on Friday:

http://www.free-market.info/main9906b/messages/597975988.html

In that link, "Jean Bart" uses the same email address that Gary uses on H&R. Sure, any idiot could post somewhere with the name "Jean Bart" and Gary's email address. However, I did some googling of my own after that link was provided on H&R, and in 2003 I found only 1 forum where Gary and Jean Bart were both active: This one. And at the time when that message was posted on the other forum, H&R wasn't requiring email addresses. I didn't check all of Gary's posts in 2003, but in a random sample of them he didn't supply an email address.

Also, the "GG=JB" controversy didn't start here until May or June of 2004. Why would a prankster do that posting in August 2003 and then wait 9 or 10 months for the controversy to start? And wait another 3 or 4 months for the prank posting to be revealed?

So, there are 2 possible explanations:

1) A very patient prankster who somehow got Gary's email address before he started supplying it regularly on this forum
2) A guy using 2 different aliases slipped up last year and combined the name of one alias with the address of another

[Lowdog]

Yeah, the other link worked fine, but once again, yours is not, thoreau. Hard to say for sure, but I thought Gary and Jean were the same very early on, but sometimes Gary throws you a curve and makes you doubt. All the makings of a good conspiracy, eh?

[thoreau]

Try this link:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/05/french_beef.shtml#005288

Look for Gary's comment at 3:44 am.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Be afraid.

[Rick Laredo]

A fart by any other name is still a fart. Er, Jean Fart that is. He is still the southern end of a north bound horse./R

[crimethink]

Must we discuss JB=GG in every frickin thread?! This is getting to be almost as bad as Janet's tit!

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

Well, I've already suggested in another thread that thoreau, & now mona's, obsession with it is rather, well, disturbing.

thoreau,

A very patient prankster who somehow got Gary's email address before he started supplying it regularly on this forum...

That's easy enough to do, especially if it were you thoreau. My e-mail address floats about the net in any number of ways, many of which aren't associated with blogs.

However, I did some googling of my own after that link was provided on H&R, and in 2003 I found only 1 forum where Gary and Jean Bart were both active: This one.

Which of course means nothing by itself.

I didn't check all of Gary's posts in 2003, but in a random sample of them he didn't supply an email address.

Now I'm really calling bullshit. A "random sample?" Was it really a "random sample," or merely a sample that you plucked my statements from? Come on thoreau, you're a physicist for fuck sake.

BTW, here is a URL where I use my e-mail address, and its from June of 2003. That took me all of three minutes to google:

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/007531.html

[John Galt]

Who is Jean Bart?

[Gary Gunnels]

John Galt,

A French architect and part time corsair. 🙂

[Alex Trebek]

Ohhhh. I'm sorry.

The correct question is "Who is Gary Gunnels." I would also have accepted "Who gives a fuck."

Moving on to Final Jeopardy, we have Gadfly running away with it at $13,600, followed by joe at $4200. Sen. Rick Santorum (R) Pa. is in last place with $600.

[Rick Barton]

As a result of thoreau's investigative work and his handling of the evidence that another provided, I now think that GG=JB. GG contended that all of it is "circumstantial and easily discounted evidence":

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/09/hearing_aid.shtml#comments

It is circumstantial, but it is certainly not easily discounted. In fact, the evidence is so strong that the burden of proof now resides with one who contends that GG is not JB. If it was a "prankster" responsible for using "Jean Bart" with GG's email...

http://www.free-market.info/main9906b/messages/597975988.html

...this prankster would likely also have to be psychic as well as very patient! Unless it was this same patient "prankster" who was the one who initiated the GG/JB speculation!

Also, in the thread where GG appears to slip up and answer a question posed to JB as if he was JB, and then when asked about it, he explains that they "share a house and an office upstairs."...

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/05/french_beef.shtml#005288

...I think that perhaps this was not originally intended as a joke, but rather as an alibi..."same office" so same computer so same IP address.

So, I now think that Gary Gunnels is the same person as Jean Bart. So What? I think that we should still address Gary Gunnels as Gary Gunnels.
That's the name he's using and it is not respectful to him to do otherwise. Also, some people use alternate aliases rather more dishonestly; to manufacture someone who agrees with them. This is not the case for GG/JB. BTW, I always thought that people who resort to that kind of thing are implicitly conceding the weakness of their argument and try to make up for the weakness with numbers.

GG's posts should be judged on their merit, as with all our posts. I think that the points Gary Gunnels makes are often interesting and on target. Of course, I also know that Gary is ridiculously and needlessly abrasive with other posters from time to time. I got into it with him before as well. I even enjoyed the combative exchange that ensued but I also believe that his (or anyone's) comments that attack the person rather than the content of the posts are not nearly as stimulating.

In light of the thoreau's assemblage of the evidence, the GG=JB theory is quite interesting, but so is the content of many of the posts made under the names GG and JB. In view of GG's contention in this matter, and also the fact that GG does not use the posts of JB to support his own; I think that although this speculation is fair game on these threads, it is not respectful to directly confront Gary Gunnels with it or ask him about the matter.

[Rick Barton]

Oh yeah, on the topic of this thread: I second Gary Gunnels' Hoorah! But as to Nick's hope that .they'll invalidate campaign finance "reform" laws altogether. It sound good but I'm dubious since it's already been to the Supremes.

[zorel]

Rick Barton,

Now that you have said it, we will hopefully move on!

- - totally unrelated - -

Kofi stated that the Iraq War is illegal.
NOW, I am convinced 🙂

[Gilbert Martin]

"The next thing you know, maybe they'll invalidate campaign finance "reform" laws altogether."

Who is "they".

Seems to me that the Supreme Court has already taken a pass on it.

Don't look to the mainstream press to agigate for an invalidation of them. Those prime benficiaries of free speech were all in favor or restricting everybody else's speech in pursuit of the lofty goal of curbing the power of "special interests" - as if they weren't one themselves.

[Gilbert Martin]

"The next thing you know, maybe they'll invalidate campaign finance "reform" laws altogether."

Who is "they".

Seems to me that the Supreme Court has already taken a pass on it.

Don't look to the mainstream press to agigate for an invalidation of them. Those prime benficiaries of free speech were all in favor or restricting everybody else's speech in pursuit of the lofty goal of curbing the power of "special interests" - as if they weren't one themselves.