Asymmetrical Information

I imagine it will go something along the lines of why doesn't Bush release his military records or his arrest records or the energy task force records or 8 million other things that the Bush administration doesn't want voters to know about. I don't think full disclosure is a drum that republicans should be beating on...

I don't think Ryan's divorce records should have been released. What people do in the privacy of their own home (or sex-club...whatever) is none of my business. They were consenting adults and I couldn't care less.

Some dems have come out with saying that it goes to credibility, not that he did these sexual acts, but that he lied about them. Who cares? We all lie about sexual acts. And if you say you don't then you're lying.

I am disgusted by the reactions on both sides of the isle.

Besides, Obama was gonna beat the tar out of Ryan anyway.

Democrats who defended the release of Jack Ryan's divorce records are now going to have to explain why the courts shouldn't do the same for John Kerry's.

They shouldn’t, nor should they have the courts have done it to Jack and Jeri Ryan initially. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Frankly I have no interest in either set of records (besides which, people say all sorts of terribile things during a divorce and any allegations have to be taken with a 50lb bag of Morton System-saver) and would advise caution over the hopes that there is anything damaging in there.

The best strategy for Republicans/conservatives is not to get roped into seeming overly-eager to find something damaging to Kerry and risk a backlash as the candidate cites his “right to privacy” (see Bush and the drug question in the 2000 primary which is when his numbers started to rise). Don't petition for the release of the records and let this be a battle between Kerry and the media.

Uhh...Jane...

some cites?

Democrats who defended the release of Jack Ryan's divorce records are now going to have to explain why the courts shouldn't do the same for John Kerry's.

Maybe this will require that patented Jane Galt re-citation of "Democratic" "Defenses" of the Ryan sludge-dredging (?) IIRC, the Obama campaign (the most proximate beneficiary of Ryan's meltdown) has specifically disavowed any involvment, or, indeed, any INTEREST in promoting Mr/Mrs Ryan's marital problems in the press - the "scandal" seems to be a completely in-house Republican issue -

And Jane: you ciTe DRUDGE? for Kerry-campaign stuff after his last ("Kerry-Intern scandal")fiasco? Puh-leeze!!!

Hell, I want to know everything that's in the Kerry divorce file. Maybe we'll find out if he really is BIG John.

What 'Pubs fail to realize is that the Democratic philosophy is a humanist one, so the people it draws for its membership are actually human (as opposed to the simulacra that seem to populate the Republican Party). We know people are screwups about sex (and many other things), and we're OK with that. We want to know about Ryan and Kerry and Clinton and others because its funny and its interesting.

So you find out that Kerry used to cheat on his wife, for example. Who cares - if its OK to be a drunk till 40, its OK to be a cheat in your thirties.

Now get to work, Republican minions, and get that information.

Maybe this will require that patented Jane Galt re-citation of "Democratic" "Defenses" of the Ryan sludge-dredging (?) IIRC, the Obama campaign (the most proximate beneficiary of Ryan's meltdown) has specifically disavowed any involvment, or, indeed, any INTEREST in promoting Mr/Mrs Ryan's marital problems in the press - the "scandal" seems to be a completely in-house Republican issue -

Yes except for that little part about the judge who overruled his prior ruling in order to order the release being appointed by an out-going Democratic governor who enlisted the Chicago Democratic machine in trying to fight the recall.

I agree with Kate above. I'll add to it: Unless there is proof of a felony, I don't care what is in anyone's divorce papers.

I'm no fan of Kerry.

But I wish we didn't have access to anyone's divorce papers -- Ryan's, Kerry's or otherwise.

Lack of privacy is one barrier keeping some good people from public service.

drowsy, given the frequency in which people falsely allege child abuse in divorce proceedings, even the proof of felonious behavior (when "proof" is often defined as nothing more than an accusation) in divorce proceedings should be viewed with huge suspicion. In short, unless alleged felonious behavior has been seperately adjudicated, in which case there should be other public records available, one should be very suspicious about anything said in divorce proceedings, given the motivations of the parties, and the usually cost-free nature of making false allegations.

Felony records (or even misdemeanors) should be open. Divorce records involve another party. Last I heard, Kerry's former wife wasn't clamoring to make her opinion of John Kerry heard, so presumably, she doesn't care to be involved in this political campaign. Even if we all agreed that politicians chose a public life and deserve the scrutiny, her privacy should be respected.

Not that the media shares such scruples. I imagine they'll get the records unsealed.

Felony records (or even misdemeanors) should be open. Divorce records involve another party. Last I heard, Kerry's former wife wasn't clamoring to make her opinion of John Kerry heard, so presumably, she doesn't care to be involved in this political campaign. Even if we all agreed that politicians chose a public life and deserve the scrutiny, her privacy should be respected.

Perhaps, but this makes the decision in the Ryan case even more reprehensible since (a) there was a minor child involved and (b) Jeri Ryan joined her ex-husband in petitioning to keep the records sealed. In contrast, Julia Stimson Thorne has seen fit to give interviews in the Boston Globe over her displeasure over her divorce and annulment with her former husband.

This could all be averted if some reporter would just ask John Kerry when he stopped beating his first wife. Geez.

Somecallhimsomething, why do you engage in I hate 'Pubs speek. It doesn't convert or pursuade anyone.... :)

Barnaby, Bush did release his military records and more. He release that era's dental records and more. Are you saying that it wasn't enough? Arrest records are not something an individual can release. The state has control of those records. Are you thinking that Bush has arrest records in his domain that he can release? The energy task force has people on both sides of the aisle coming to Bush's defense. It is not required that every meeting with a president by every advisor is recorded and released for public consumption. Otherwise nobody would ever want to advise the president. It is similar to Clinton's health care task force that remains "secret" which Republicans were incensed about. Are you in favor of having every conversation between every advisor to the president recorded and released every day? Let us in this post know please. :)

Thorley, remember what Jane said about the CEO of Diebold; we take it for granted that major figures involved in big issues will have a party ID. In this case, the judge was appointed by a Democrat. There is exactly one alternative, which is that the judge would have been appointed by a Republican. Your assumption completely precludes any situation that isn't a corrupt miscarriage of justice based on the judge's having a party affiliation--even if he were a Republican!

Now, when last I checked you said someone should "look into" the ties between this judge and the Chicago Democratic machine. I assume you've looked in on them, now that you're citing them. What did you find? How did the Chicago machine give their orders to the judge? How much money did this judge get from them?

I made a comment on the earlier thread "Gentleman Jack" which seems appropriate for this thread as well. As it was the last comment on the thread, and therefore unlikely to be read by most of you, I shall reproduce it here and then add a couple of additional remarks.

Beginning of previous comment:
As usual, many of the comments here at Asymmetrical Information have increased my understanding of the issue. I really enjoy reading both the posts of Jane and Mindles and the many intellegent comments. Some of the comments, however, bothered me. Jane asked

What was the reasoning behind unsealing these records, and why was it vital to the public interest that this man's marital difficulties be smeared across the headlines?

Well, it looks like we shall have the answer to my final question soon and in great detail. Unfortunately, some of the early comments on this post reinforce my fears of extreme partisanship. Already we have a comment that says

What 'Pubs fail to realize is that the Democratic philosophy is a humanist one, so the people it draws for its membership are actually human (as opposed to the simulacra that seem to populate the Republican Party).

One of the few good things that come out of this fiasco is a test of press bias. I have learned, by reading comments at Asymmetrical Information, that divorce records often contain dubious information. This information was treated uncritically by the mainstream media in the case of Jack Ryan's records. How will the mainstream media treat any such revealations in the case of John Kerry's records?

Finally, I should add that I strongly feel that neither set of divorce records should have been unsealed.

Thorley, I agree with you. I should have stated in my comment that Ryan's records should have remained sealed as well.

Please note also that this is not an operation of the VRWC, unless TRIBUNE has joined us without my noticing.

Just another media move to get to the trash...to the detriment of us all.

Why should politicians/celebrities' divorce records be sealed while us plebs' remain public records?

Or are we advocating an end of the transparant judicial system?

Pat in CA:

Barnaby, Bush did release his military records and more. He release that era's dental records and more. Are you saying that it wasn't enough?

I don't care so much about his teeth, I am more interested about what he did while he was in the Air National Guard and how he was discharged. Bush, under duress, released some of the records but they've only raised more questions than they answered.

Arrest records are not something an individual can release. The state has control of those records.

For you or I arrest records are part of the public record. If your Dad is Bush Sr, your records just seem to disappear. I agree there may be nothing left to release...

The energy task force has people on both sides of the aisle coming to Bush's defense. It is not required that every meeting with a president by every advisor is recorded and released for public consumption. Otherwise nobody would ever want to advise the president. It is similar to Clinton's health care task force that remains "secret" which Republicans were incensed about. Are you in favor of having every conversation between every advisor to the president recorded and released every day? Let us in this post know please. :)

Yes, I am in favour of transparent goverment. Is the inner workings of the energy business a matter of national security? I was no fan of the Clinton Health scam either - mainly for this reason, that plan never went anywhere. Cheney's plans (including which patsy should be annointed to the head of FERC) just kind of happened. I assume that the "in CA" in your screen name means california (or perhaps Canada) -- if that's the case then I think you would agree that Cheney's meetings were not a rousing success for the energy consumer. Largely through the (in)actions of FERC, the state has been saddled with budget problems caused by the energy industry contacts that Cheney let write the energy plan.

I would direct you to the excellent Frontline episode Blackout on the manipulation of the energy markets and the Bush / Cheney administration involvement in them.

"Democrats who defended the release of Jack Ryan's divorce records are now going to have to explain why the courts shouldn't do the same for John Kerry's."

Because that's good strategy.
If the records are just released, it will embarrass Kerry.
But if there's a fight, the Dem's can blame Bush for starting a big fight over nothing much (assuming Kerry did NOT try to have sex in public). They will blame Bush even if a newspaper breaks the story.

why doesn't Bush release his military records or his arrest records or the energy task force records or 8 million other things

Goalposts? What goalposts?

ron-

What "right" do any of us have to know the contents of anyone's divorce records? Unlike arrest records, which could indicate a person is a danger to a community, there is no good reason, besides pure nosiness, to know the details of an agreement between two people with whom we have no connection.

The insane part of the Ryan release and the possible Kerry release is that media requested it in order to sell some papers, so to speak. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous...

> The insane part of the Ryan release and the possible Kerry release is that media requested it in order to sell some papers, so to speak. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous...

I hate to tell folks that there's no Santa Claus, but "selling papers" is the only reason media does anything. (This shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone who wouldn't show up for work if there wasn't a paycheck dependence.)

Goalposts? What goalposts?
Yes, that would be like subliminally comparing Kerry to Hitler...

Yes, that would be like subliminally comparing Kerry to Hitler...

Gosh! Thank goodness no one's done that to Bush!

Barnaby -
I looked at the link you provided. I've also (as a Californian) done a lot of research on this issue. There was no meat in the link you provided that added up to what you concluded. I hope to actually educate you somewhat. So I'll try.....

Point 1:
California during peak energy usage imports more than 20% of it's energy from out of state sources. This is due to many reasons. 1) Not having new power plant built in the state for the last 15 year 2) Population increasing 3) Power consumption increasing

Point 2:
In 1996, there was so called deregulation. In actuality it was extra-regulation. Everyone called it deregulation but it was the CA state government telling power companies how to split up, how energy contracts could or couldn't be purchased (couldn't make long term contracts - that was a problem), etc.

Point 3:
Washington State wouldn't allow any of it's power to be sold because of it's semi-drought that year that caused hydro electric plants to be of less use

Point 4:
Laws of supply and demand.... When there is more demand and less supply, what happens to the price. During the night prices were ok. During the day during peak usages, prices for electricy shot up to 100 times the norm as bidding for energy escalated. Nobody wanted blackouts.

Point 5:
To stop the blackouts Gray Davis purchased energy
for the next 10 years to the tune of $60 Billion dollars. I can't remember what amount over the market price it was but it was over the market price. Everybody laughed at his lack of negotiation skills for one and was in horror of the fact that the state entered into this 10 year deal with nobody allowed to say , "HEY STOP!". Talk about unilateralism. :)

Point 6:
Everybody wants to turn their head and not look at the common sense explanation of supply and demand and blame a) the oil companies b) the energy companies c) Dick Cheney. But those who do show their colors and are way off base.

On Bush's military records. What in the world do you need or want to see that he didn't show? I was in the military for 6 years. There is very little paperwork. I have a 1" or 2" set of papers in a box that mean very little and don't show daily attendance or any stupid thing like that that you may be looking for. What is it that you are accusing Bush (specifically) of witholding?

Bush has released everything and more. Yet it seems to be a visceral dislike for the man coming from you. It colors your judgement on topics like CA energy and whether or not Bush is extreme or not when Bush is to the left of conservatives.

They shouldn't have been released for either person - that's private.

Energy task force and military records, however, should be available as they are related to the government.

Since Jane was against the release in Ryan's case, I presume she is just as against it in the case of Kerry. She is, right? Right?

Otherwise, I thought these games of "gotcha" went out on the sixth-grade playground.

Um it wasn't Demcrats who asked for those records to be unsealed, nor was it Deomocrats who hounded Ryan off the ticket for the crime of wanting to have sex with his wife (the horror!).

This is pure Republican fratricide.

The Dems have just been standing aside and sniggering.

Zach:

You stated above that "military records, however, should be available as they are related to the government."

Excuse me, but how does the fact that something is "related to the government" automatically qualify it for public release without the consent of the person involved?

Social Security or IRS records are related to the government. Should these qualify for public release on demand? How about college academic records (currently precluded from release by Federal law) if the student was in receipt of federal educational loans/grants/other aid? How about VA or military medical records? Records of receipt of welfare, VA compensation, or other government benefits?

Suppose someone asked for the public release, for publication, of all of the federal government's records associated with you, no matter how peripheral the connection?

If you want to release this information, fine; it's your life. My point is that the release should be YOUR call - not automatic.

Democrats? Consistency? What planet are you on?

Comments are Closed.