Two brothers were determined to stop someone from breaking into their grandfather's Washington County [PA] home for the third time in less than a week, so they armed themselves with rifles and camped out, police said. Sure enough, Brian and Bob Reihner came face-to-face with an armed man breaking into their grandfather's North Franklin Township home early yesterday, township police Chief Mark Kavakich said. The confrontation ended with the arrest of Steven A. Wallace, 19, of Washington, police said. "This is how kids should take care of their grandparents," Kavakich said. "They stepped up and may have saved their grandfather's life."
The Reihners decided to stay with their grandfather, Daniel Denman, after two men confronted Denman in his home over the weekend and someone again robbed the house on Tuesday. The people stole cash, a compact disc player and rolls of quarters. Early yesterday, the brothers were napping when they heard someone forcing their way into Denman's home, Brian Reihner said. The Reihners aimed their rifles at Wallace, who pulled a handgun on the brothers before he ran out of the house, Brian Reihner said. Police later arrested Wallace in a shopping mall parking lot. He was arraigned on burglary, aggravated assault and other charges. "Something had to be done," Brian Reihner said. "I was afraid he'd do bodily harm to my grandfather. He was there for the money and would have done whatever it takes to get it." I love happy endings! Next step: Get Grandpa his own gun for Christmas!
Posted by: Dar ||
12/10/2004 12:30:49 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wallace will be free & looking to get even soon; a happier ending would have been if the Reihner boys had killed him dead as soon as he pulled the handgun.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Very true--there is hope that the creep will get a clue and turn his life around. I do know that if I'd been holding the rifle on him as he pulled out a gun, he'd be in the hospital or morgue right now. I can't believe they allowed him to pull out the pistol while they had him covered, but without being there I can only speculate.
Posted by: Dar ||
12/10/2004 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
Lithuanian border guards have unearthed a three-kilometer (2-mile) pipeline for smuggling in moonshine liquor from neighboring Belarus, the guards said on Friday. The thin plastic pipeline, buried a few centimeters underground, ran under several roads, along a riverbed and ended next to the home of a Lithuanian citizen. There was no news of any arrests.
"Yersh! [Hic!] We been inveshtigatin' it fer a coupla monthsh now! [Hic!]"
It was the fourth such pipeline discovered in the last two years but by far the longest. Moonshine vodka from Belarus is sold on the black market in Lithuania, undercutting prices of legitimate alcohol that have risen sharply since the Baltic nation joined the European Union in May. Yet another reason not to join the EU
UAE President Sheikh Khalifa ibn Zayed Al-Nahayan, in his capacity as ruler of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, has restructured the government of Abu Dhabi by merging several departments and revamping a key committee entrusted with administering the emirate. The move is seen aimed at pre-empting duplication of work and overlapping of responsibilities and services offered to nationals and expatriates. Sheikh Khalifa appointed his step-brother and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed ibn Zayed Al-Nahayan as chairman of the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. The council was revamped into seven departments and nine members instead of 12 departments and 14 members. Sheikh Khalifa himself used to chair the council in his capacity as crown prince of Abu Dhabi until he became the ruler of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE following the Nov. 2 death of Sheikh Zayed ibn Sultan Al-Nahayan.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/10/2004 9:20:49 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile? The question is sometimes asked because one of his wives, Aisha, was a child when he married her. As Barnaby Rogerson gingerly puts it in his highly sympathetic recent biography (The Prophet Muhammad, Little, Brown): "âŠthe age disparity was considerable: she was only nine while Muhammad was 53". Aisha was taken from her seesaw on the morning of her marriage to be dressed in her wedding garment. After sharing a bowl of milk with the prophet, she went to bed with him.
To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's right-hand man, and eventual successor (caliph), Abu Bakr. No doubt he and his family were very proud of the match. I raise the question, though, because it seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to.
As I write, I am looking at a Christmas brochure for Channel 4. It contains an interview with Paul Abbott, author of the "current hit show, Shameless". Clever Paul swears a lot, and proudly tells a story about how, when his brothers held him upside down to help him steal a Christmas tree from his Yugoslav next door neighbour, he was so frightened that he started urinating. Ha ha. There follows a two-page pictorial spread of Paul's characters, the Gallaghers, having their Christmas lunch. The tableau is presented (sub-Buñuel) as a parody of the Last Supper. (Do Paul Abbott and Channel 4 believe, perhaps, that this took place at Christmas?) The first page shows a line of yobs - mimicking the Apostles - beginning their meal in reasonably good order. The second depicts them towards its end, violent and drunk. The "Jesus" figure is lurching forward, halo awry, beer can in one hand and cigarette in the other.
Continued on Page 49
Police found four suspected bombs at the Taiwan capital's main railway station hours on Thursday, just two days before a hotly contested legislative election, a railway policeman said. Police found two packages of suspected explosive devices each at both the north and southern entrances to the station in central Taipei. Earlier, fire had destroyed a number of vehicles in a nearby car park but caused no injuries, he said. "After the midday fire in a car park outside the Taipei Railway Station, police conducted searches within the station and discovered the suspected explosives and called in the bomb squad," the railway policeman told Reuters by phone.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/10/2004 8:56:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
I am an Iranian-Australian and I left Islam just 2 days before I write this. I left Islam because your website FaithFreedom.org has defeated my faith in Muhammad. I cannot see how a man who had s*x with a 9 year old girl would be a prophet of God. I had no idea about this. All this time I was thinking Muhammad was just another Buddha. What an idiot I was. I had no knowledge of the Qurâan until I visited your website...
My dad knew absolutely nothing about Islam either. My dad, a Shiâa, decided to leave Islam and wants to become a Christian too. Now, even my mother has left Islam becuase the influence of my dad on her. No more Muslims in my family! :
Posted by: mhw ||
12/10/2004 8:59:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thats all well and good but if I were Ali Sina I wouldn't give the guy my address just in case.
An Italian school's substitution of a Nativity play with Little Red Riding Hood so as not to offend Muslim children has raised the Vatican's ire and sparked debate on how much traditions should change to accommodate immigrants.
"You people are crazy!" the Papal Nuncio said...
The episode was the latest in a series in recent weeks which made headlines as overwhelmingly Catholic Italy comes to grips with an ever-growing blood-thirsty Muslim population which some see as a blessing for the economy and others as a threat. Pope John Paul, in a message for the Catholic Church's World Day of Migrants, weighed in indirectly, saying Christians had to respect cultural differences but had to proclaim the gospel and defend traditions. Last week, a public elementary school in the northern city of Treviso decided that Little Red Riding Hood would be this year's Christmas play instead of the Christmas story.
I'll bet the wolf lovers are up in arms over that!
The teachers said the famous tale was a fitting representation of the struggle between good and evil and would not offend Muslim children. The school's traditional nativity scene was scrapped for the same reason. In another school near Milan, the word "Jesus" was removed from a Christmas hymn and substituted with the word "virtue." In Vicenza province an annual contest for the best Nativity scene in schools was canceled.
In Reggio Calabria all the wine was miraculously turned into warm milk...
Conservative politicians and Churchmen blasted the moves. "Are we losing our minds?," said Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli, an outspoken member of the populist Northern League.
Hey! That's what the Papal Nuncio said!
"Do we want to erase our identity for the love of Allah?"
Sit down. Take a deep breath. Here, have a glass of warm milk...
The Vatican, still smarting from its failure to win a reference to Europe's Christian roots in the continent's new constitution, said Christians should hold their ground. "It is a perfect example of how not to respect the presence of different people, in this case our Muslim brothers, by annihilating our own identity," said Bishop Agostino Marchetto, head of the Vatican's department for migrants. "We have to accept others but others have to accept our identity," he told reporters.
Actually, you don't even have to accept others. You're doing them a favor, letting them into your country. If you remind yourself of that periodically, the rest will flow naturally. If you forget it, then enjoy watching Little Red Riding Hood every... ummm... winter solstice.
The Vatican has been waging a battle to keep Christ in Christmas. Wednesday it harshly criticized a Nativity scene in London which portrayed soccer star David Beckham and his wife Victoria as Joseph and Mary.
That's actually so stoopid and tasteless as to defy comment...
Cardinal Camillo Ruini of Rome went on national television event Wednesday to issued a battle cry over respect for traditional Nativity creches. "These things can seem small but the spirit behind them is radically wrong and can have very heavy consequences on our young people," he said. Italy, with a population of 57 million, is home to an estimated one million officially registered Muslims, making Islam the country's second largest religion.
... with... ummm... (carry the four... square root of 71... plus 16...) 1/57th of the nation's population. That's 1.75 percent, isn't it?
But social services groups say the number is much higher and growing.
... every night, when the boats disgorge their passengers by the light of the silvery moon.
The controversies have divided Italian Muslims, who are trying to integrate themselves in a Catholic country where they have found jobs. "Those Christmas plays are like forced indoctrination," said Abdel Smith, one of Italy's most outspoken Muslim leaders, who has launched legal battles to take crucifixes from school walls.
Abdel would prob'ly be happier living somewhere else. I'll bet Italia was a Catholic country before he showed up.
But Hamed Shaari, head of a major Islamic cultural institute in Milan, said it was "senseless" to change the words of a Christmas song that has 2,000 years of tradition behind it. "It's great that people are aware of our feelings but traditions should be respected. This way, we can respect ours as well," he said.
What a Western concept! He must be killed for violating the tenets of Holy Shariah!
Posted by: tipper ||
12/10/2004 9:25:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
NATO said it hoped to find much in common with Russia on Thursday over the Ukrainian election crisis and that a spat over the issue was not comparable to East-West confrontations of Soviet times. "While many in the media have attempted to portray these events as a return to Cold War-era confrontation between East and West, I am confident that we can prove them wrong and find significant common ground here today," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said. "A sovereign peaceful, unified and stable Ukraine is vitally important to every nation represented around this table," he said at the start of a meeting between foreign ministers from the alliance and Russia. "Similarly, the democratic aspirations of the Ukraine people to choose their own leaders, free from fraud and intimidation, should also meet with our common support." There have been growing tensions over Ukraine, with Moscow warning Western nations not to interfere there or in other former Soviet republics.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/10/2004 8:55:21 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nope, no rift at all. Nothing, nichego, rien.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
From the Dept. of Why Bother?
Belgium is to manage the building of a new EUR 400 million-plus NATO headquarters, it emerged on Thursday. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's current base at Boulevard Leopold III was supposed to be temporary, but it has been there since 1967. NATO moved to Brussels from France after Charles de Gaulle withdrew his country from NATO's military section. On Wednesday, NATO's 26 members agreed Belgium's defence ministry should supervise the building of a new site across the road from the current base in Haren. Under the plans, building work will start next year, but probably won't be finished before 2012. Members had hoped the building would be finished by 2009, but America delayed the plans last year over irritation at Belgium's anti-war stance and the 'Universal Competence Law' which saw George Bush charged with war crimes.
Again, our fault. Wonder who's paying the lion's share of the costs?
Architects firm Skidmore, Owings and Merill and the Belgian architect Assar won an international competition to design the building which must house 3,150 full-time workers, including 1,000 from the delegations and military organisations of the 26 member countries.
#10
Should put this in a country that still has soldiers and leaders with enough testosterone to be effective, maybe Poland, Italy, or the UK. I'd rather see it in Iceland than Belgium, France or Germany. Not one dollar should be wasted with the pussies of the Axis of Weasels.
#1
Tis the season to don their gay apparel. Fa-la-la...
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/10/2004 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Personally I think this is the way to go.
Marriage is two fold, the civil law aspect of it and uiltimate the religion/belief aspect of it.
Since it's a matter of religious theology on wether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed then I say let that religion bar it in their midst.
As for the state (which is supposed to be non-religiously slanted) I think they should fill out the friggin forms, and start letting them deal with each other's debts and have to spring butt tons of money for divorce lawyers like the rest of us have to.
I think that gay divorce will do more for gender equaltiy in law than anything else.
and for this, and other more apathetic reasons, I am all for gay marriage.
Long as no religion is forced to be a part of it (against their beliefs) then I could care less.
#5
Honestly, what's the big deal about two guys marrying each other....or two women marrying each other?
It makes me laugh to hear people say that gays are going to destroy marriage. Please.
The divorce rate was heading towards the sky before anyone even seriously brought up the issue. Straight people are the ones having the overwhelming majority of illegitimate kids. In most cases, both parents are free to marry each other, but they just don't want to for some reason.
Look, it's not like they are going to hog all the marriage licences (no state has a limit on the amount they issue per year), or that your wife or hubby is suddenly going to "go gay" the minute it's officially ok.
If a church doesn't want to do gay marriages, they don't have to. Churches and synagogues turn down requests for marriage ceremonies all the time. Even the ACLU won't take that case to court, and they fight for all kinds of crazy things.
And don't give me the "procreation" argument, either.....unless you were asked specifically how many kids you were going to have when you applied for your marriage licence. The state of Nevada didn't care if me and my husband were going to crank out the kids every year, or not have any at all. There were a couple ladies in line with us who would not have been able to have kids (one was in her 80's, God bless her, and beaming with happiness). If procreation was the only reason to get married, Clark County would have turned her and her groom down. They didn't.
Let 'em get married, pay taxes, settle down and have all the legal rights and responsibilities the rest of us do.
#6
Let 'em get married, pay taxes, settle down and have all the legal rights and responsibilities the rest of us do.
So the next step is adoption. And what you get are children who would otherwise grow up heterosexual, believing that bisexuality is whoopy-doo!! Well OK, if that's what you want.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The 'gay' marriage issue is systematically distorted by the media. Society grants (through various mechanisms) financial benefits on married couples, which are justified on the basis married couples raise children. Gay couples (with rare exceptions) do not raise children. Gay marriage is a campaign to get the financial benefits, pure and simple. To pretend otherwise, is a lie.
Arguably the solution is to change systems such that only those who raise children get the benefits, but that requires removing benefits from a lot of people who have them now, always difficult in a democracy.
#8
Gay marriage is a campaign to get the financial benefits, pure and simple.
I completely agree phil. Otherwise, there is nothing denied to them that a civil union can't already provide - except the approval and respect they believe they can DEMAND.
Yadda..yadda. I'm sick of "look at me" gay issues. You'd think a global war on terror against a foe that would love to publically stone, them might have shifted their focus from whining about people who say mean and hurtful things, but nooo...
I could care less what people do in their bedrooms. I'm just sick of their schreechy demands for attention. Live your lives. Eveyone doesn't need to love you.
#9
Most cultures, and most people, realize that the human sexual response is fairly plastic (e.g., it can be molded into any number of differing fetishes), but the plasticity of human sexuality doesnât mean that atypical sexual response patterns are something any society should condone (toleration is a different matter). As I read Blackstone, to the extent behavior is purely private, it remains a private matter between the person and the Creator. To the extent behavior becomes public, the public behavior is subject to the Rule of Law, and the traditions and mores of society. IF HOMOSEXUALS DONâT LIKE THE GRIEF THEY GET FOR TRYING TO FOIST THEIR IMMORALITY ON SOCIETY IN GENERAL, THEY SHOULD JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THEIR DEVIANCY. If you canât take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Homosexuality is, and always has been, deviant.
deviant ⢠adjective diverging from normal standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour. ⢠noun a deviant person.
This site and this site are hosted by homosexuals leaving (or trying to leave) the homosexual lifestyle, and address the issue of homosexual orientation and/or homosexuals raising kids. If these people (who have first-hand experience with the homosexual lifestyle) see problems with the lifestyle, maybe we should too.
The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia. The current âhomosexualâ marriage advertising campaign represents an attempt by the intellectually elite (and the intellectually dishonest) to redefine society and government in terms of their choosing -- and which happens to be pretty damn liberal.
#10
Rafael - the only way those kids would be bi or gay is if they already had that tendency.
I don't recall making the decision to be hetero, and my gay friends never sat down and decided to chase other guys.
There are already kids being raised by homosexuals and lesbians, and they aren't any more gay than the rest of the kids out there. You may not like to hear that, but it's the truth.
phil_b - Those are important, but not the only reasons. There are things like being legally able to visit your spouse in the hospital, being legally able to make decisions for your spouse's care, the ability of either partner to give children health insurance (one has it, the other doesn't through their job.....and the one without it is the biological or adoptive parent of the child. If they could marry, that kid would be eligible for health insurance.) Just for example.
Maybe I'm a bit more sympathetic to some of this, because my husband is not a citizen. We've had to take some extra steps we would not normally have to do if he was a citizen just to guarantee him the same rights as an American. And, yeah, it pisses me off to have to do that. But at least we (or he) can march in somewhere with our marriage license and be able to demand some rights that everyone else takes for granted.
#11
The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia.
Umm.....English translation for those of us not trapped in academia, please?
#12
DB, the legally visiting/deciding for your spouse in hospital issue is regularly raised and has been debunked, If it occurs at all (in the USA) its rare. Otherwise, your examples involve kids which is my point.
My issue here is not so much gays want the benefits, in a democracy everyone has a right to agitate for a bigger piece of the pie, but the fact the issue is always misrepresented. Its hard to sell crass greed, so you have to dress it up as something else.
#14
The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia.
deconstruction ⢠noun a method of critical analysis of language and text which emphasizes the relational quality of meaning and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. â DERIVATIVES deconstructionism noun deconstructionist adjective & noun.
In other words, relativism versus absolutism.
With the advent of âmodern thoughtâ (about three hundred years ago, give or take a hundred) a lot of time honored traditions and concepts were relegated to the trash heap of âoutdated concepts.â The âmodern thoughtâ folks were convinced of their own superiority and believed that they could do better than what was shown to have worked in the past. The funny thing is that the elites werenât able to get the masses to go along with the program -- hence the development of the expression among elites: âthe masses are asses.â One classic case of such failed attempts at social reengineering is communism.
In reality, given that the whole universe of physics exhibits absolutes and constants, the same is probably true of humanity and human character. Humanity and human character (including morality, sexual choices, etc.) are probably also governed by absolutes and constants. The current âhomosexual marriageâ activists are simply railing against the inevitable -- the collapse of their ideals of social reengineering. For them, itâs a hard thing to not be god.
#16
Ok, cingold, nice dictionary.
However, you are conveniently forgetting all of the other "threats" to marriage that have been in the past.
One of the more recent is interracial marriage, ie. the wonderfully named Loving v Virginia case. The very idea of blacks and whites getting married had a long history of people being against it. It used to be called miscegenation, if I am correct. Critics of the practice railed about how it was going to destroy marriage and society as we know it, bring about the Apocalypse, and all other kind of horrible plagues and abominations.
Didn't happen.
Look, if you want real "traditional" marriage, then I guess polygamy floats your boat. It's been around for centuries.....it's in the Bible....and it's still practiced in parts of the world today.
It'll probably make you puke, but just because something has been accepted for generations does not necessarily make it right. Some social engineering ideas have been correct (abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote and be treated as equals, the list goes on.)
All I am saying is that I haven't yet seen any argument that allowing two gays to marry is going to invalidate or destroy my own marriage. I keep hearing that allowing them to do what I did is going to destroy America.
Y'know what? Straight people are doing more to destroy marriage than gays ever could. We treat it as something disposable (heaven knows how many so-called Christians are on their third, or more, marriages), we don't give a damn about the kids being ripped apart while we "find a relationship that fulfills me", and somehow ol' Steve and Frank who have been together 30 years and want to make it legal disrespect marriage?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Steve and Frank?!?!? Oh, in that case, congratulations!
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2004 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The same thing that ticks me off about gay's is the same thing that ticks me off about Muslims. I have nothing against the individuals going about living their own lives...
But... their, often self-appointed, "representatives" saturate us with "poor me" stories about how intolerant everyone else is toward them and their beliefs and in the very process of doing so they show the most extreme intolerance to anyone whose beliefs don't jive with their own.
Take for the issue of the Boyscouts. Imagine the millions of disadvanted poor children who benefit and get great joy. But gay activists are more than happy to deprive MILLIONS of poor children the chance to participate just to prove how intolerant everyone else is. Bleh.
#20
Apparently, I've been a typical guy and forgot all "our" anniversaries....Ummmmm, Steve who?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#21
If a homosexual's personal ego can't even see his/her way clear to abide by the simplest rule of having a hetero relationship in order to be married why should society grant this tiny group an exception.
DB you 'can't see anything wrong' with granting state recognition of homosexual marriage, which is your right. So, tell me what is right about it?
And the answer is there isn't anything right about it. It is wrong. It is considered wrong by every society extant on earth from time immemorial, and it is wrong in this society as wel...
There are some things in this world which are wrong and they are immutable. Murder, rape amd robbery, all codified as wrong by law just like homosexuality until last year when SCOTUS found that everyone has the Constitutional Right or have fellatio or cunniligus, etc; The decision is wrong on the face of it because I defy anyone in the world to find the right that says that you have the right to engage in sex however you want and to have the state recognize you as a personl with special rights no one in the world can possibly ever have.
You find nothing wrong with it? Good for you. Now, find soemthing right about it. The fact is, you can't. Homosexuality is as deviant as the legal logic which made it a Constitutional Right.
#22
BTW, short and sweet on my part - marriage, no - civil union OK - adoption and raising of children no
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#23
And what you get are children who would otherwise grow up heterosexual, believing that bisexuality is whoopy-doo!! Well OK, if that's what you want.
Yes, you are right -- the real issue is not just about some legal "right" to marriage but rather about the societal acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality as normal and morally acceptable behaviours. And since that's indeed what I want, I think I'll keep on supporting same-sex marriages.
As a sidenote: Besides Canada, in the last weeks we've also had United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel accepting some sort of civil/domestic unions/partnerships between same-sex couples (different terminology in each country but concept's the same). Ireland's debating it, same sex marriage in Spain is already under way, and one of the two main presidential candidates in Romania (runoff takes place on Sunday) has also vowed to legalize same-sex marriage if elected. And in the last case he used adoption as an argument in favour of same-sex marriage, not against it.
But... their, often self-appointed, "representatives" saturate us with "poor me" stories about how intolerant everyone else is toward them and their beliefs and in the very process of doing so they show the most extreme intolerance to anyone whose beliefs don't jive with their own.
That's kinda the way I feel about conservatives and their "poor-little-us" stories about everyone persecuting their traditions and wanting to destroy civilisation as-they-know-it.
#24
In the last week we've also read that doctors can decide to kill children up to 12 yrs of age in the Netherlands, without their parents' approval or involvement.
So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?
Pfeh.
Posted by: too true ||
12/10/2004 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#25
In the last week we've also read that doctors can decide to kill children up to 12 yrs of age in the Netherlands, without their parents' approval or involvement.
So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?
Pfeh.
Posted by: too true ||
12/10/2004 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Oh and blondie? Your little canard about marriage being on the ropes?
My parents each had two partners, Their parents had two partners. Their partners' parents had two partners. Now, that is three generations in my family which went through divorce/changes over a 100 plus year period.
Now, you are telling me becuase the statistics taking is better to account for divorces making it look worse than it ever was is your justification for allowing homosexuals the same right?
This new 'right' is closer to a lawyers' full employtment bill than to anything that could conceivably benefit society.
Homosexual marriage/civil unions is wrong on so many levels.
#27
RE: #16. Please take this in the spirit it is intended, a rant and civil discourse. : )
One of the more recent is interracial marriage, ie. the wonderfully named Loving v Virginia case. The very idea of blacks and whites getting married had a long history of people being against it. It used to be called miscegenation
LOL. That sounds terribly incriminating against those old religious zealots, donât you think? The thing is this railing against interracial marriage was mostly an invention of the elites. They were the original eugenicists. Cattell even offered to pay people to âmarry up.â Termin wanted to exterminate the Mexicans, Blacks and American Indians. These eugenicist guys were all deconstructionists. Remember that Arch-Conservative Traditionalist Book called the Bible? It is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice. There is even something about âin Christâ no male, no female, no Jew, no Greek . . .
Look, if you want real "traditional" marriage, then I guess polygamy floats your boat
Hmmmmmmmmm. Yes that sort of thing is mentioned in the Bible. Just like the sun rises and sets, clouds are in the sky, etc. No everything in the Bible is a moral command. Quite a bit of the Bible just tells the story of what was going on at different points in human history. The actual doctrines appear to encourage one man, one woman marriages. In fact, in the New Testament, you canât even be a deacon if you have more than one wife. In the Old Testament, Adam only married Eve -- thatâs about as far back as the Bible goes . . .
It'll probably make you puke, but just because something has been accepted for generations does not necessarily make it right. Some social engineering ideas have been correct (abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote and be treated as equals, the list goes on.)
I RESPECT YOUR POINT OF VIEW -- but I think youâre totally wrong. The bastions of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness find their bedrock in Judeo-Christian principles and nowhere else.
Whoever said that commitment to traditional, and biblical, concepts of human morality somehow make people immune from shortcomings? I thought it was the Bible that taught that everybody falls short, but encourages all to forget what lies behind and press forward for better things. Also, whatever gave you the idea that homosexuals are some ultimate affront to morality? Thatâs certainly not what the Bible teaches. Iâm sure there are a lot of gays out there that are better people than I am, and I wish them well. THAT SAID, THEIR DEVIANCY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SOCIETY SHOULD ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE -- ANY MORE THAN SOCIETY SHOULD PROMOTE ANYTHING LESS THAN EXCELLENT.
#29
Jeebus Ship! close with /sarcasm or we'll never know WTF is going on
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#30
badanov> you 'can't see anything wrong' with granting state recognition of homosexual marriage, which is your right. So, tell me what is right about it?
It's right that two people who commit themselves to mutually supporting and sustaining each other through better and worse, declaring themselves to be one before the world, to have this union of theirs accepted and sanctified by society.
Now, find soemthing right about it. The fact is, you can't.
I just did.
The decision is wrong on the face of it because I defy anyone in the world to find the right that says that you have the right to engage in sex however you want
Ah, there we go at the core of this debate. According to you, something needs to be granted to the peopel as a "right" before they can be permitted to do it.
According to me however, people are free to do anything you wish, UNLESS there's proper justification for why they should be forbidden to do it.
"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
to have the state recognize you as a personl with special rights no one in the world can possibly ever have.
Not special rights. Common rights. Your only way to justify lack of same-sex marriage is if you introduce the need for childbirth potential in hetero marriages as well-- that means that someone who finds his spouse to be infertile should be able to declare the marriage null immediately. It would also means that women past the age of menopause couldn't marry. It makes a mockery of marriage, a mockery, I tell you!
#31
Gosh, you know Aris, maybe you are right. Maybe the majority members of this Christian nation should act in the same manner and deprive all people who don't believe like they do access to public property. And the 90% of the families here that celebrate Christmas should do like they do in the Middle East and use their pulpits call for the extermination of anyone who doesn't practice their same beliefs.
#32
Remember that Arch-Conservative Traditionalist Book called the Bible? It is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice.
Much of the Old Testament is condemnation of marriages between Jews and non-Jews.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Aris, SCOTUS took the right away from the states to regulate behavior. States have rights just like individials.
It's right that two people who commit themselves to mutually supporting and sustaining each other through better and worse, declaring themselves to be one before the world, to have this union of theirs accepted and sanctified by society.
There is no benefit, therefore no sanctity.
Ah, there we go at the core of this debate. According to you, something needs to be granted to the peopel as a "right" before they can be permitted to do it.
SCOTUS took a right away from the states. Therefore the same right can be taken from individuals. It is a dangerous precedent the court has established and the mere fact a Euro like yourself accepts it is all I need to know it is the wrong thing to do.
Remember, Aris. A right was taken from the states. Now, rights can be taken from homosexuals. Be ready for when it happens.
Way to go you, asshole. You just opened up a Pandora's box. Enjoy your life while rights are taken from you.
#34
Much of the Old Testament is condemnation of marriages between Jews and non-Jews. Much? Good grief, give me a percentage. I'll be surprised if it's in the teens. Oh, BTW, that's a religious issue -- not racial. Anyone could become a Jew, regardless of race.
#35
So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?
Nope -- only that very soon anti-same-sex marriage folk won't be able to use the supposed common traditions of mankind as an argument, nor will they be able to claim that all societies find same-sex marriage evil and abhorrent. Very soon now, most free and democratic societies will find the possibility of same-sex marriage normal.
And since mere tradition is the main argument against same-sex marriage, you've put your money on the wrong horse. Atleast with both the death penalty *and* abortion there are actual differing moral philosophies justifying each position.
With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". Either tradition or religion. No secular self-consistent moral argument seems to exist, which is what makes the anti-samesex-marriage position doomed to failure.
#36
As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#37
With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone".
You'd have to be a moron to believe that homosexuality is new.
Oh wait.. Better rephrase that, Aris, or you might lose your Eurostan decoder ring.
Start reading and keep reading. You'll get the idea pretty quit. It's practically the main theme of the Old Testament.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#39
With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". Either tradition or religion.
jeez I feel stoopid arguing with a Greek about historical tradition (/give in to superiority). I shoulda known you'd accept dropping the soap was a societal norm. My answer: civil unions and keep it outta my face, but no perpetuating it
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#40
I meant to say, You'll get the idea pretty quick.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#41
I'VE GOT AN IDEA! Let's take the dictionary, and redefine all the terms. Gay no longer means happy, it means same-sexual. Marriage is no longer a religious sacrament, it's, it's, it's, a social benefit package. **//SARCASM OFF** Ect., ect., ect.
First rule of rhetoric. Define the terms. That is all the deconstructionists are doing. They want to remake society in an image of their own chosing. They want to play god. They want to ignore and flaunt the absolute and constant metaphysical rules of the universe. Take a clue from communism, social reengineering doesn't work.
#42
As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day
Mike you're an idiot. Confusing not-encouraging an established tradition for accepting its' trampling? Jeebus....
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#44
I'd suggest you two get a room to discuss us neanderthals
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#45
2b> "Maybe the majority members of this Christian nation should act in the same manner and deprive all people who don't believe like they do access to public property"
Mmm, are you arguing against yourself? Because that's not a sarcastic representation of *my* argument, it's a sarcastic representation of the anti-gay rights argument, where because gays are a tiny minority they supposedly can have no marriage rights.
badanov> States have rights just like individials.
Oh no. States have rights just like *governments* have rights. Don't forget for a moment that the individual states are just a different level of government, and that they are *NOT* individuals. Only individuals are individuals with inalienable rights. Never states.
The real big deal isn't the division of powers between the federal government and the states, but rather the protection of the private individual from the interference of the government as a *whole*. And if the federal government prevented the state government from imposing tyranny on the individuals that's for the *good* of individual rights.
SCOTUS took a right away from the states. Therefore the same right can be taken from individuals
BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT. Individual rights have nothing in common with state rights. Only statists think that a person's (inalienable) rights and a government's rights (granted only by the consent of the governed and restricted) are at all comparable at all.
Government rights and individual rights are the *antithesis* of each other.
#46
As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day NOT TRUE. PETER (THE ROCK) WAS MARRIED. SEVERAL OF THE APOSTLES HAD âBELIEVING WIVES.â EVEN PAUL, WHO WAS CELIBATE, SPOKE OF MARRIAGE AS A GIFT EQUAL TO HIS GIFT OF CELIBACY. Mike, you donât know what you are talking about.
Start reading and keep reading. You'll get the idea pretty quit. It's practically the main theme of the Old Testament. .ALSO NOT TRUE. WHY DONâT YOU TRY IT, RATHER THAN ME HAVING TO TRY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. READ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE.
#47
The simple fact is that the following is a false statement:
It [the Bible] is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice.
It's especially false when you look at the Bible comprehensively. The Old Testament as a whole is furiously opposed to Jews marrying non-Jews. The New Testament as a whole does not encourage marriage of any kind; it treats marriage as a kind of weakness.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#48
WHY DONâT YOU TRY IT, RATHER THAN ME HAVING TO TRY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE!
ahhhhhhh another trapped in the MS web
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#49
"Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". You'd have to be a moron to believe that homosexuality is new
You have to be blind to read "same-sex marriage" as "homosexuality".
But on another matter I'm intrigued -- what the fuck do the rest of you think about badanov's idea that supposedly taking rights away from the states is exactly the same as taking rights away from individuals?
The funny think is that it's me who's been accused as the statist, when it's little conservative morons like badanov who've been the statist fascists all along.
The fight is just beginning, badanov, indeed, as you said. Your kind once supported "state rights" that in reality meant slavery, now your kind is supporting "state rights" that means forbidding homosexuality. Everything is about the state for you, badanov, nothing is about the individual.
#50
Only individuals are individuals with inalienable rights. Never states. The real big deal isn't the division of powers between the federal government and the states, but rather the protection of the private individual from the interference of the government as a *whole*. And if the federal government prevented the state government from imposing tyranny on the individuals that's for the *good* of individual rights.
Yoiu quoted the `10th Amendment. It specifically mentions the states. The individual states have certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Says it right there in the document.
But now SCOTUS, thanks to gay folks, just said rights that states have can be taken from them. Therefore individual rights can as well. It is how the US constitution works.
He and any other married disciples probably got married before they became disciples of Jesus.
READ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE.
I have read the Old Testament. That's why I know what' I'm talking about. The Old Testament is absolutely saturated with disapproval of Jews marrying non-Jews. I'd say 90% saturated.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 19:31 Comments ||
Top||
#52
The fight is just beginning, badanov, indeed, as you said. Your kind once supported "state rights" that in reality meant slavery, now your kind is supporting "state rights" that means forbidding homosexuality. Everything is about the state for you, badanov, nothing is about the individual.
Aris, the states do have rights. That is why states can take the federal government to court. If they didn;t have rights or standing they couldn't.
And this has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with what indivuals can do as individuals and what states can do as states.
I can tell I am winning trhe argument coz Aris is calling me a moron and he is trying to change the subject racism/slavery.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Wow, Aris and Mikey tag teaming. This thread's guaranteed triple digits. Sorry I had to go out for dinner and am now so pleasantly sated that I'll miss this one.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/10/2004 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#55
Aris, the states do have rights. That is why states can take the federal government to court.
Ofcourse they do have rights. *Governments* as a whole have rights -- rights given them through the mandate of the people.
But what happened in this case is that one branch/level of the government (the federal level) decided that government as a whole (regardless of whether federal or state level) DOESN'T have a certain right.
Government therefore *reduced* its scope. And it increased the rights of the individuals.
I can tell I am winning trhe argument coz Aris is calling me a moron and he is trying to change the subject racism/slavery.
I also called you a statist fascist btw. And it's the exact same subject -- thinking that "state rights" are inalienable, and caring not a damn about individual rights.
And I quoted the ninth amendment, not the tenth. And the ninth amendment doesn't say anything about the states.
And as for "winning the argument" you already lost it when you attacked me of opening the Pandora's box. LOL! Oh yeah, I've never heard that tired fear-based cliche before from people attacking same-sex marriage.
#56
Wow, Aris and Mikey tag teaming. This thread's guaranteed triple digits. Sorry I had to go out for dinner and am now so pleasantly sated that I'll miss this one.
Since they're pro-homosexual, maybe they're just trolling for a threesome. :o)
#57
Mike, just for you, a couple short examples about the Old Testament not being racist, and the New Testament not downplaying marriage. But, I really think you should try reading the Book before leaping to wild conclusions about it.
Ru 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. BUT, BUT, BUT RUTH WAS A MOABITE, NOT A JEW -- WASNâT THAT WRONG? HOW CAN SHE BE AN ANCESTOR OF KING DAVID WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?
Jos 6:25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her fatherâs household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. Mt 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; BUT, BUT, BUT RAHAB WASNâT A JEW, SHE WAS JUST SOME HARLOT WHO HID THE SPIES -- WASNâT THAT WRONG? HOW CAN SHE BE AN ANCESTOR OF KING DAVID WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISNâT HONORING MARRIAGE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY IT?
1Ti 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith . . . Forbidding to marry . . . BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISNâT EQUATING FORBIDDING TO MARRY WITH APOSTASY A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY MARRIAGE?
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISNâT THE ADMONITION TO MUTUAL LOVE AND RESPECT BETWEEN A HUSBAND AND WIFE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY MARRIAGE?
#58
Aris, your protestations about my fascism notwithstanding, you should know that states and ggovernments in the US all regulate behavior, good behavior and bad. They do it through proscriptions or maybe through tax policy, but make no mistake there is such a thing as rights that are involved in that. The states have the right to impose taxes, and pass laws 'not enumerated' in the Constitution. That is a right, amoungst many many others and it has exactly nothing to do with the issue of slavery. That fact in no way makes me a fascist either for pointing it out or for supporting the rights of states.
I understand your need to trash my country because of long past mistakes but we don;t even try to deny we were some bad people in some of our policies, albeit in the long, long distant past. But this country has evolved into soemthing much better and we want to keep it improving. I seriously doubt that by denying homosexuals their now Constitution right to use their genitalia is ways others than what is right and proper will change what our nation is.
Now, homosexuality has nothing to do with race. It has to do with behavior, for ultimately it is their very behavior that distinguishes a homosexual. And it is behavior that the states and the federal government seek to regulate, whither by tax policy or by proscription or some other means.
But for all the canards you use, for all the attempts to change the subject, for all the irrelevent arguments you try to throw nothing changes the fact that homosexuality is a behavior. It is imminently changable behavior and it is desireable that that behavior be changed to heterosexual behavior. It is desireable because it is a goal of society to demonstrate the behaviors that the states seeks to encourage.
You have to understand my point of view. If a homosexual lacks the judgement necessary to help society along by marrying and raising a family, what does that refusal say about that person's judgement? Do we want to grant them a right by virute of their behavior, and to tell the rest of society that the governemnt now believes that homosexual behavior is a beneficial as heterosexual behavior?
Aris, get a clue. You want to throw arguments at me that have nothing to do with homosexuals seeking the right to have their unions condoned by governments and that is just aint happening. It won't change my mind and you are simply antagonzing this debate.
#59
#51 PETER (THE ROCK) WAS MARRIED. He and any other married disciples probably got married before they became disciples of Jesus.
Probably????!!!!! Huh? Read the Early Church Fathers. Marriage is a cool thing. There are even whole Church services where people get married -- dating way back to the beginning of the Christian Church. The Bible and the Early Church often spoke about how the relationship between God and his people was like a relationship between a husband and a wife. For a proof text in the New Testament, how about this:
âMy answer to those who are judging me is this. Have we no right to take food and drink? Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?â (1Co 9:3-5 BBE)
So, Paul could have married a wife -- he just didnât, and that was OK, too.
#60
I understand your need to trash my country because of long past mistakes
Don't be again absurd. I am *praising* your country when it moved to stop itself from having homosexuality be illegal (when you attacked it instead). And three of your fifty states offer either same-sex marriage or civil unions -- California seems soon to follow, and so may Washington State so that may soon be five states.
Yeah, USA may be behind large chunks of Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere but it's still more progressive than most of the rest of the world. So yay, America.
And it is behavior that the states and the federal government seek to regulate, whither by tax policy or by proscription or some other means.
Behaviour must be forbidden only when it's *harmful* behaviour. People have still not managed to argue any innate harmfulness in homosexuality. Other than that it's "icky" ofcourse. Or that it doesn't lead to breeding children.
"homosexuality is a behavior."
Yes, homosexual sex is a behaviour. But I think the state has no business forbidding behaviour that isn't harmful.
If a homosexual lacks the judgement necessary to help society along by marrying and raising a family, what does that refusal say about that person's judgement?
It probably says that he doesn't think people are cattle to be bred, and that human beings serve other functions than just bearing young.
But as for having a family and raising children, that's what the whole issue of adoption rights for same-sex couples is all about, I think.
You want to throw arguments at me that have nothing to do with homosexuals seeking the right to have their unions condoned by governments and that is just aint happening.
Sure it is happening -- as I said: all over the world, such unions are being condoned by governments. In the United States itself, 3 states down, 47 to go. And a majority of Europeans I think lives in countries that recognize or are preparing to recognize same-sex marriages or atleast civil unions. Here you go.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#62
Good point Frank. This discussion is all well and good, but looks like it will all be for naught (for the Euro community that is).
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/10/2004 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#63
Sharia seems more likely to be declared on North America first, the way I see it. All that "regulating behaviour" because it "isn't desirable", according to badanov.
#64
WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?
I didn't say that. I said the Old Testament said that Jews should not marry non-Jews.
THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISNâT HONORING MARRIAGE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY IT?
The New Testament mentions marriage several times. It mentions the issue of circumcision many, many more times and with much, much more interest.
Marriage was tolerated. It wasn't really criticized. Those people who got married were not condemned for it. It didn't matter much. Very soon the world would end, so marriage was just a temporary state until then.
In the following centuries, of course, the Church developed strong encouragement and guidelines for marriage. Most of the people who wrote the New Testament, however, did not encourage people to get married and did not think it was an important part of life in the remaining days. Whether or not men should get circumcised in the remaining days was much more significant.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/10/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#65
No, Mike Sylwester, you're just plain wrong. Try citing some support for your lame positions.
#66
Cingold? Could you be a little more clear? Please present evidence and footnotes why....... (ACCCCKKKKK!!!!!)
LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 22:35 Comments ||
Top||
#67
Oh my dear sweet God, this has gotten strange.
First of all, badanov, whatever two legal-age, consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of the damn government's business. I don't care what you and your church believe. It is a matter strictly between those two people and whichever deity they choose (or not choose) to worship. I'll be damned if some legislator is gonna tell me what I can and can't do with my husband. Deal with it.
And, yeah, I do happen to think that so-called Christians marrying and divorcing over and over again is a disgrace to Christianity. We have a real doozy in my own state legislature. She's been married five times. She's never been widowed, always divorced. She was always trying to get legislation passed to protect "the family" from things like sex toys. Her own family is a friggin' train wreck, but she's going to protect mine? I think not.
And for once, I'm agreeing with Mike Sylwester and agreeing again with Aris.
Wow.
I don't know the specific Bible verse, but I recall that St Paul wasn't too cool on the whole idea. Wasnât there a verse that said(I'm paraphrasing here), "tis better to marry than to burn", meaning more or less, "if you can't control your lust then ok, go get married"?
#68
BTW, cingold, nothing personal. ;) I respect your right to your opinion, and whatever way you want to read the Bible. I just disagree with how you interpret it.
Ain't it great to live in a country where we can debate this instead of shoot each other?
Now, excuse me, you wonderful people, but I got a hot date I'm late for. ;)
Hat tip LGF
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We stole bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats. "For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."
Under McAuliffe's leadership, the message said, the party coddled the same corporate donors that fund Republicans to bring in money at the expense of vision and integrity. "In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
Pariser urged MoveOn supporters to help support a DNC chair with a bold vision to represent Democrats outside Washington. Democrats will vote at their February meeting in Washington on a successor to McAuliffe. DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera declined to engage in a tit-for-tat with MoveOn, but praised McAuliffe's efforts. "Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of," Cabrera said. Among those vying for the party chairmanship is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, an early darling of MoveOn's cybernetwork of activists when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Posted by: Korora ||
12/10/2004 12:04:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Can't wait till the denunciation posters start going up...Damned wreckers! Capitalist tools all! Long live Howie Dean, Hero of the People's Revolution!
#3
"Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of,"
Sure. And the crack dealer at 135th and Lenox Ave also can raise huge sums in short order. But how did you spend the money, sweetheart, and to what effect?
Let's see: Dean burned and crashed after blazing through $50 million in a matter of weeks. And then during the fall campaign, you bought scores of redundant and utterly pointless ads in the bitterly contested state of... New York. Full pagers in MSM publications targeting... loyal Dem supporters. And all while Rove was out-registering and out-hustling and out-organizing you sh*theads-- and with 1.4 million volunteers.
MoveOn, the dotcom version of a political organization. DreamOn's more like it.
#4
He then went on to say "The rich, especially those who didn't earn their money and don't work are the real Democratic base, especially celebrities who are paid obscene amounts of money for just turning up somewhere. People like (fill in your own names here). These are the intellectual driving force behind the party ....."
#6
A surplus of money was the worst possible thing that could have happened to the Dem organization in this campaign. If they'd had less money and more intelligence, they'd have done as Rove did and developed an organizational model that relied on sober, intelligent, disciplined adults working for free rather than paid union hacks with bullhorns and idiotic kids looking to show they too can waste millions on ads that preached to the choir.
#7
Note to FRED: Ads by Google's not very intelligent, is it?
I mean, advertising on Rantburg for (see right side of this page)"Beat Bush Gear" and "Don't Blame Me I Voted 4 Kerry.com" and Emily's List ?!
#11
I for one welcome the prospect of more Republicans = Hitler ads (this time with "official" Democrat Party label firmly affixed), more calls for US defeat in Iraq, and more demands for the media to be less "conservative" in their coverage.
The 2006 midterms beckon, and MoveOn is ready to tell all those red state rubes just how evil and stupid they are. *eg*
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
12/10/2004 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Call me crazy..." No problem!
Posted by: Tom ||
12/10/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#13
pass some of that popcorn, Gromky?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#14
"Well, I for one welcome our new moonbat overlords."
#16
"Yeah! We lost by a very close margin this time....let's see if we can lose by a landslide in 2006!"
Grass-roots contributors = George Soros and that Progressive Insurance guy.
Must be the new math.
#17
Mr. Soros paid good money for you, so assume the yoke of your indentured servitude like a good little moonbat now.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/10/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#18
In 1997, arch-lefty Thomas Frank bit the hand that fed the American Left when he published his remarkable expose of the commercial media culture, The Conquest of Cool. This remains a landmark of cultural history and the best exposition yet of the real nature of the dominant media culture.
Tom was still in his 20s at the time and his attack on this particular form of corporate dominance may have been just a fit of youthful idealism, but this could also be part of a larger pattern of gradual self-destruction on the Left.
Move-On's attack on its own power-base, corporate donations, would fit the same pattern; the fantasy ideology directed against itself by people too arrogant and too deluded to avoid being taken in by their own propaganda.
It is fatal hubris.
To accentuate the positive, since MorOn says that it can control something it paid for, does that mean they support people who want to develop the land they paid for?
Thanks for the popcorn, gromky. Next batch is on me. ;-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/10/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Emily's list?
You mean Our Emily has been financing the Democratic Party?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/10/2004 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake -- Napoleon.
Moveon, you just keep doing what you are doing... And Mr Soros, keep cutting those big checks and claiming its "grass roots" that finance things for your bought and paid for organization. Keep on fooling yourself - you keep getting the great results like you got this time, especially after you run off the professionals in the party that can run a campagin, leving you with demagogues and dimwits like Oliver "What-chu-talkin-bout" Willis.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
12/10/2004 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake -- Napoleon.
Moveon, you just keep doing what you are doing... And Mr Soros, keep cutting those big checks and claiming its "grass roots" that finance things for your bought and paid for organization. Keep on fooling yourself - you keep getting the great results like you got this time, especially after you run off the professionals in the party that can run a campagin, leving you with demagogues and dimwits like Oliver "What-chu-talkin-bout" Willis.
#25
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake -- Napoleon.
Moveon, you just keep doing what you are doing... And Mr Soros, keep cutting those big checks and claiming its "grass roots" that finance things for your bought and paid for organization. Keep on fooling yourself - you keep getting the great results like you got this time, especially after you run off the professionals in the party that can run a campagin, leving you with demagogues and dimwits like Oliver "What-chu-talkin-bout" Willis.
(2004-12-09) -- Howard Dean, the former potential presidential nominee, said today that if he's selected as chairman of the Democrat party, he'll lead "the first genuine effort" to make the DNC a national organization, appealing to voters beyond its historical roots in a few urban areas along the continental coastline.
"During my campaign, I discovered that large sections of the southern and midwestern territories actually had been settled by British and European immigrants and had been divided up into states some years ago," said Mr. Dean. "As chairman of the DNC, I would send expeditions into these regions to learn about the folkways of their inhabitants and to attempt to build peaceful alliances with them."
Mr. Dean said many Democrats would be surprised to learn that the natives in the so-called "red states" are primarily Republicans, not Indians.
"Perhaps it's fantasy to suggest that we can bring our intellectual, flexible Democrat ideology to this primitive, dogmatic alien culture," he said. "But it's no more unlikely than my presidential campaign, and if we use the right words -- you know, small ones -- we just might win."
Posted by: Korora ||
12/10/2004 12:02:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We're going to Iowa! And Nebraska! And Kansas! And Indiana! And then... you know what? We're going to Idaho and take it back from the Russets.
Diplomats Fear U.N. Reforms May Be Impeded
U.N. diplomats say they are concerned that calls for Secretary-General Kofi Annan's resignation and allegations of widespread corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq could derail plans for a sweeping reform of the United Nations. "We had a complete makeover in mind - lots of new committees and stuff - it would've been swell!"
When a blue ribbon panel, after a year's work, released a report last week on how the world body should tackle wars, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, poverty and other threats, the spotlight should have been on its 101 recommendations. But we have an agenda! We padded it out to 101 cuz that sounded really important...
Instead the report was eclipsed by headlines that Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., was calling for Annan's resignation over the oil-for-food allegations. And now this brash undiplomatic upstart Senator is spoiling everything!
Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali said "many are concerned ... because we are distracted now (and) we will not be able to focus on the panel report." We are so confused!
"There is a growing movement to defend the secretary-general and the United Nations, because member states feel that the attack is not only on the secretary-general but on the U.N.," he said. So. They do get it. Good.
Posted by: .com ||
12/10/2004 3:38:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
UN reform=ah yes,a new and improved circle jerk. Wonder who they had in mind to be the pivot person(must be pc,ya know)
#2
(1) Make the new UN Secretary General a Japanese fellow. (2) Tell him his nation will get a seat on the security council when the corruption has been cleaned up and not a moment before. (3) Sit back and watch the fun.
From the Dept. of Stupid Americans Won't Sign The Treaty Again
Political parties are the public institutions most marred by corruption, an international watchdog group said Thursday in a new global survey marking the United Nations' first International Anti-Corruption Day. Berlin-based Transparency International [released its] Global Corruption Barometer, which surveyed more than 50,000 people in 64 countries. TI chapters around the world were pressuring governments and parliaments Thursday to ratify the U.N. Convention against Corruption. The convention was signed in December 2003, but only 12 of the 30 nations required to ratify it before it can take effect have done so. The United States has not ratified the convention.
"International Anti-Corruption Day is an excellent opportunity for governments all over the world to prove that they take the fight against corruption seriously," said Cobus de Swardt, head of international programs for TI. "We invite them all to sign and ratify the United Nations convention and to take into consideration the clear message sent by public opinion in the world: Corruption strongly affects the life of every person," he said. "It is time to act."
#1
TI does good work and as usual their survey makes interesting reading.
Corruption get worse as you go south and east in Europe. In Western Europe, corruption is a particular problem in France and Portugal. Media seen as corrupt in many developed countries, especially anglophone. Large parts of Asia do well in the survey, Africa and Latin America are the worst for corruption. Brazil worst country.
#4
After sharing tips on high rates of return and anonymity of favorite Barbados bank accounts, the UN delegates adjourned to a five star lunch hosted by Kofi's son-in-law, insuring to double park their large limousines outside the resturant. As the lunchen wrapped, a ceremonial burning of employee harassment complaints was greeted by a round of civil applause. Delegates took a leisurely drive back to the conference to attend the next item on the agenda, Congo: Pediaphilia - not just for Priests.
Posted by: Don ||
12/10/2004 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
ah..nothing to start off the day like a good cup of coffee and something to laugh about.
#10
Jules, official statistics on corruption for fairly obvious reasons are not reliable. So asking people if they have been exposed to corruption is generally accepted to be a more reliable (but not perfect) way of measuring it.
#11
Phil-Makes sense for an overall take on corruption. I just wondered whether it would be as good a gauge for comparing the corruption of one country to that of another. The first item that made me pause was the one showing Estonia in the below 50 bracket and the US in the +50. I doubt it. And how about the amount of "corruption" a populace views as "normal"-it must vary by culture/government/history, right?
Thanks all the same, though, for your answer-bit of a 'duh' moment there for me. ;)
"I was just in the editing room, working on the last piece," Bill Moyers says. "I thought: `I've done this so many times, and each one is as difficult as the last one.' Maybe finally I've broken the habit." It hasn't been so much a habit for Moyers as a truth-telling mission during his three decades as a TV journalist. But come next week, he will sign off from "Now," the weekly PBS newsmagazine he began in 2002, as, at age 70, he retires from television. "I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee," says Moyers. "I mean for gosh sake! Look at fox! Giving people both sides of the story and letting them decide for themselves instead of what we tell them to think.
"We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people." That explains memogate and the energy the MSM put into soddomizing the Prison Abuse Scandal while ignoring other items (Sudan, Mass graves, Rape rooms, etc...) in order to attack the Republicans and Bush....
For that, his absence after the Dec. 17 "Now" will be all the more keenly felt: Moyers' interest has always been the American people. In 1971, he came to public television as host of "This Week" and "Bill Moyers' Journal," and, next, joined CBS News to do similarly civic-minded programming. Then in 1986 he and his wife, Judith Davidson Moyers, became their own bosses by forming Public Affairs Television, an independent shop that has not only produced documentaries such as "A Walk Through the 20th Century," "Healing and the Mind" and "A Gathering of Men with Robert Bly," but also paid for them through its own fund-raising efforts. "Judith and I will take several months to catch our breath," says Moyers during a recent conversation at the soon-to-be-vacated office he rents at Thirteen/WNET's Manhattan headquarters. "Then I will think about the Last Act — capital L, capital A — of my life."
Continued on Page 49
#2
Ah, Brokaw, Rather, and now Moyer... It's shaping up to be a pretty good Christmas!
Posted by: Dar ||
12/10/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"We have an ideological press thatâs interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press thatâs interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we donât have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."
Was he breathing very heavily when he said this?
The true remark should read something like :
"We have a new media press thatâs interested in the truth, and a mainstream press thatâs interested in the the election of Democrats by use of, for example, misinformation provided in forged documents by CBS, and directives of executives like ABC's Marc Halperin to favor Democrats, which has been found out. Therefore, we donât have the ability, anymore, to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people."
#4
I have no problem with Air America et al , trying to peddle their leftist dribble in teh free marketplace. What I hate with a passion is assholes like Moyers using our tax dollars to try and indoctrinate and criticize conservative (or even MOR in his case) ideas. Good riddance to free-loading trash
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He's not going to be hogging valuable airtime on my local PBS affiliate anymore with crap like that Robert Bly garbage?
This is the best news he's ever reported!!!
#6
Bill hasn't been the same since Moskovskiy Kommsomolets was privatized. To think that people like him, Johnson, McNamara, and Ramsey Clark were in power in the 60's. It's a wonder America survived it.
Posted by: ed ||
12/10/2004 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A Gathering of Men with Robert Bly
Drumming, bad poetry and It's Okay to Cry. Yuck.
Posted by: too true ||
12/10/2004 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
echo the great comments! Hey Bill, the real AWOL story was how you and your commrades missed almost all of the real stories of your time and spent your time cultivating victims.
Where were you during the rise of Islamic fanaticism? Talk about BLIND! Other stories you were pathetically AWOL from - The terror of Sadaam Hussein; The starvation of the North Koreans; The genocide against Christians in Africa; Clinton's selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese; Marc Rich's tenacles....I could go on. The bottom line was you guys SUCK as reporters. You rose to your ranks soely because you were partisan hacks.
Don't let the screen door hit ya. As .com says, forgotten already.
For the first time in nearly 40 years, scientists have produced a drug that in lab tests appears to cure tuberculosis, a disease that is one of the world's worst killers.
The antibiotic, called R207910, was developed by a team of Johnson & Johnson scientists who worked quietly on the project for a decade in locales ranging from Raritan, N.J., to Beerse, Belgium.
They unveiled the patented work last night in an electronic edition of Science magazine. The compound, which appears to work better and faster than existing treatments, acts like a switch to cut off the energy supply of the mycobacterium that causes tuberculosis.
"This is dynamite stuff," said Lee Reichman, executive director of the New Jersey Medical School National Tuberculosis Center in Newark. In his 2002 book, "Timebomb," which details the early 1990s global resurgence of killer TB strains, Reichman castigated the pharmaceutical industry for ignoring the disease and failing to develop new treatments.
"I admire J&J for doing this kind of research," Reichman said. "This has phenomenal potential."
Tuberculosis, which kills 2 million people annually, is surpassed only by AIDS as the most lethal infectious disease. It is tied inextricably to the AIDS epidemic, erupting in immune-compromised AIDS patients and often killing them before the AIDS virus does. At least 11 million adults are infected with both pathogens, according to statistics maintained by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, a nonprofit organization... "Dear Johnson & Johnson, Thank You."
#1
This is fantastic news... I recall an article some months ago heralding the research was looking very promising and might lead to this. Bravo!!!
J&J is, indeed, to be commended because, as we all know, TB is not a major problem in the US (where they would recieve full payment for the medicine which funds such research), but is a true killer elsewhere, particularly in the third world (where they will be ripped off for the generic and won't receive dick for all their hard work and research funds expended).
I need a biologist, heh...
If I understand the "DARQs" function, it breaks the Krebs Cycle at the point where ATP becomes ADP - the mitochondrial energy source... How the mycobacteria are specifically targeted - leaving the surrounding cells unaffected - isn't described... but, as the provided link describes, this might be useful in all living things, animals, plants, and fungi.
So, if I "get it", this process effectively turns off the cell's ability to receive nourishment, thus killing it. If the targetting mechanism is (or can be) isolated and tailored. Magic bullets become truly real...
#2
Don't know about the metabolic processes, .com, but TB *is* a problem in the US because immigrants and visitors have been bringing it back here.
My mother had TB when it was prevalent here in the 1950s and it meant she had to give up nursing as a result, since she never tested fully clear of it thereafter. For years I had to have screening tests too, because of her case.
#4
rkb - Now that's truly awful - our first-line responders are always at such unfair risk. They are the reason we survive the myriad traumatic and potentially devastating events.
I am truly impressed with what J&J has done - I hope it can be developed into a spectrum of replacements for our fading antibiotics.
#6
Now, for all those idjets railing against Big Pharma's "obscene profits": do any of you seriously think this would have been funded other than through a corporate R&D budget of >$800M?
#7
railing against Big Pharma's âobscene profitsâ
Ok, OK, Iâm biting on this one.
Pharmaceutical R & D is not profit, obscene or otherwise. Pharmaceutical R & D is a critical component of a vital industry. Also, I donât think most people criticizing the pharmacy industry begrudge the profit taking, at all. The complaint is when pharmaceutical companies deliberately market âprofit makersâ without disclosing known risks. THEY DO THAT BECAUSE DISCLOSING THE RISKS WOULD PREVENT FDA APPROVAL AND/OR LOWER PROFITS. Thatâs obscene profit taking.
Put it in the context of any other product -- a Ford Pinto, for example. When you know you are marketing a dangerous product, but choose to hide the defects from the public eye so that your profits are enhanced, thatâs wrong.
#8
fair enough Cingold, but my Mom retired last year from Pfizer clinical testing, and we've had these discussions. If a drug in testing can cure or otherwise remedy 99.2% of those with a life -style threatening disease or malady, but the 0.8% can suffer disastrous side effects, with the indication which are which unknown, is it a good drug? No. It won't go to market, and the 99.2% won't receive that help, because the 0.8% , even acknowledging they know the risk and freely choose the option, will only make parasitic attorneys rich. Not the family survivors, the Atty's. That drug will never see the light of day. What is an "acceptable" percentage? 99.99999%? Ask an atty, and they'll say NO side effects are acceptable
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
No, thatâs not the law of product liability.
Remember, lawyers donât win cases, facts win cases. And, in the case of a pharmaceutical product liability case, the factual testimony comes from biochemists, physicians, etc. -- who all testify under the penalty of perjury within a reasonable degree of probability for their profession. These experts are subject not only to court oversight, and the penalty of perjury, they also are subject to the oversight of their professions -- they can lose credentials and licenses if they arenât careful. A weak case doesnât win.
Product liability law is highly developed, fair and complex. Some highlights that address your concerns would be the
1. Unavoidably dangerous product. If a product is needed, but unavoidably dangerous, the manufacturer is not liable for any subsequent harm -- as long as the product goes out with a reasonable warning.
2. Learned intermediary. If a dangerous product is being marketed, the manufacturer doesnât even have to inform the final consumer of the product, as long as there is a middle man who is aware of the dangers and stands in a position responsibility to warn the final consumer. Thatâs the case with most drugs -- a learned intermediary (a physician) is actually prescribing them.
What happened with a lot of the prescription drugs in the news (e.g., Fen-Phen, Vioxx, Accutane, etc.) is that the physicians were deliberately kept in the dark by the pharmaceutical companies. The companies actually buried the bad research. IF THEY HAD JUST BEEN ABOVE BOARD AND COME CLEAN, THE COULD HAVE SOLD WHATEVER DANGEROUS DRUG THEY COULD GET PAST THE FDA -- with impunity.
#10
I'll acknowledge your legal expertise in product liability, and the case where the firm knows but doesn't convey to prescribing physicians is a good example for your argument. Those firms deserve to lose, big. But too often juries are swayed by disputable cases, with no clearcut foreknowledge by the Pharm firm...or as in what I cited before, in sympathy to a family surviving a victim of known and acknowledged side effects. Call it a "John Edwards" jury ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/10/2004 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I hear you.
If Big John pulled a fast one, he should lose his license. I HATE attorneys who give my profession a bad name. Most of us work pretty hard to help our clients get fair results.
SEATTLE -- In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court has ruled that a mother violated Washington's privacy act by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.
Privacy advocates hailed Thursday's ruling.
Fomented by the "aroused" ACLU
The mother, however, was unrepentant.
"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days," said mom Carmen Dixon, 47, of Friday Harbor. "My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time."
The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen, who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due to Dixon's testimony.
Can Supreme Court Judges be recalled in Washington State. Can they put a "Chilling Effect" on leftist moonbat judges?
The case started with a purse-snatching that shocked the island town of Friday Harbor, population 2,000. On Oct. 24, 2000, two young men knocked down an elderly woman, breaking her glasses, and stole her purse. Christensen, then 17, was a suspect.
San Juan County Sheriff Bill Cumming asked Dixon, whose daughter was friends with Christensen, to be alert for any possible evidence. When Christensen called the Dixon house later, Lacey Dixon, then 14, took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. Carmen Dixon hit the "speakerphone" button on the phone base and took notes on the conversation - in which Christensen said he knew where the purloined purse was.
The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it prohibits courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.
Of course, these nitwit so-called jurists don't realize that this may result in citizens quietly taking the law into their own hands. A bad direction for the country. But these dodos obviously the live in their own little tofu soaked worlds untouched by American culture as a whole.
Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.
"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.
That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.
"I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Like Savage says (sometimes he goes too far, but on this I agree) prosecute members of the ACLU under the RICO statues. They ARE a form of organized crime.
He noted that parents can find other ways to control their teenagers: "They can restrict the use of the telephone, for example."
As Zell Miller says, "With spitballs?"
In an unrelated case, Carmen Dixon recently pleaded guilty to misappropriating $129,000 from the Postal Service when she was postmaster of Friday Harbor. She admitted in U.S. District Court that she issued money orders to herself and her family from bulk mailing fees and took money from stamp sales. The money was diverted between January 2002 and last May.
And so the mama is a crook too? No wonder the daughter hangs out with purse-snatchers. And because of her reputation, parents in Washington have their hands tied. THANKS A BUNCH EMBEZELLER.
Dixon faces a maximum 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine when she is sentenced April 1.
Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported.
Masseuse? ... Amber Frye ... Scott Petersen ... Uh-huh. It is so eerie that the daughter is named Lacey...
Christensen's whereabouts are unknown, although Sheriff Cumming thought he might be in Alaska.
Hmmm - Ol' Christensen better behave himself. Alaska's Supremes aren't so likely to find an ACLUan technicality. The state pen is probably cold, and north of the arctic circle. NOW THAT IS CHILLING IS'NT IT ACLU?
Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said she'll have to stop that now.
Besides you can't monitor from jail can you?
"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
So is embezzling money orders from the Post Office, idiot!
The case is State of Washington v. Oliver Christensen, No. 74839-0.
Posted by: BigEd ||
12/10/2004 11:55:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Two prominent legal cases battling policies that outlaw public display of the Christian Nativity while allowing symbols of other religions have reached a critical stage. In New York City, arguments will be presented Monday in a federal lawsuit challenging the city's display of the Jewish Menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan in more than 1,200 public schools while barring Nativity scenes during Christmas. In Florida, U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga is expected to rule early next week on a request for a temporary restraining order that would require the town of Bay Harbor Islands to allow a Christian resident to the display the Nativity alongside existing Jewish Menorahs
Both cases are being argued by attorneys with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center. "Christmas is under siege throughout our nation, and the cases in New York and Bay Harbor Islands demonstrate the kind of hostility and double standard being used by officials to deny Christians the right to publicly celebrate one of their holiest seasons," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center.
The New York suit against the city's Department of Education is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after after senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton ruled the city's discriminatory policy was permissible because it was an accommodation of "multiculturalism" and "an attempt to diversify the season and provide non-Christian holidays with parity." In Miami, Law Center attorney Edward White argued in a hearing this week that Bay Harbor Islands is discriminating against Christians by violating the free speech rights of resident Sandra Snowden, who had been denied the right to display her private Nativity in a public forum. 'All I'm asking for is inclusiveness," Snowdon told the St. Petersburg Times one year ago. "I do not know why a baby Jesus in a manger would be so offensive to this town." Defending the policy, town attorneys argue the Menorah can be displayed because it is a secular symbol and not a religious one, unlike the Nativity. Bay Harbor Islands attorney Craig B. Sherman told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel he believes the town will prevail. "All the town's holiday decorations are in compliance with applicable law," he insisted.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/10/2004 9:21:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Either allow the symbols of all religions, or ban all religions. Halfway is clearly and unacceptably discriminatory. Not to mention ridiculous! And only an ignorant fool would argue that the Menorah is not a religious symbol -- it was kept lit in the Sanctuary as far back as Moses' time, when the Sanctuary was a tent in the desert!! Arrgh!!!
A new breed of wearable robotic vehicles that envelop drivers are being developed by Japanese car giant Toyota. The company's vision for the single passenger in the 21st Century involves the driver cruising by in a four-wheeled leaf-like device or strolling along encased in an egg-shaped cocoon that walks upright on two feet. Both these prototypes will be demonstrated, along with other concept vehicles and helper robots, at the Toyota stand at the Expo 2005 in Aichi, Japan, in March 2005.
------------------
The personal transport arena is taking on a new dimension, though, with futuristic devices that augment human capabilities. Toyota's prototypes represent the latest incarnation of wearable exoskeletons in a vehicular form that is specially focused on transport. Powered robotic exoskeletons have been the focus of much US military research over the years and Japan seems to have jumped onto the bandwagon with a wave of products being developed for specific applications.
Japanese Anime will have to hurry to stay ahead of reality
With an emerging range of devices targeted towards the ageing world population, care giving and the military, wearable exoskeletons seem to represent a new line of future technologies that meet an individual's particular mobility needs.
I'm holding out for the first one with a plasma cannon
Posted by: Steve ||
12/10/2004 9:03:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And just what kind of power source would one of these robotic exo-skeletons use???
#2
Lol - good call VAM! The motive for this piece is, apparently, that he had half an idea and he likes the clickity-clack sound his keyboard makes, heh.
#1
Why don't we return the favor and close 1/2 of the schools from L.A. south for "incomplete papers and bad behavior"
Posted by: Theo ||
12/10/2004 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Here in New Mexico we host even more Mexican students who just happen to cross the border and use the resources of the public school system. The Columbus NM school system in particular. If you check the per capita income by state, only Mississippi and Louisiana are lower. Like we can really afford this. Its the same old story of administrators, who get funding per student, don't want to be part of the border enforcment process.
Posted by: Don ||
12/10/2004 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just my luck: my daughter spikes her hair with fire-engine-red hair gel and I don't find out about these schools until they're closed.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/10/2004 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think Mexico is trying to cause an uproar in America so they can claim hypocracy.
#5
Here in New Mexico we host even more Mexican students who just happen to cross the border and use the resources of the public school system.
I'll bet that if anything irregular were discovered there and Mexican kids were sent back, the howls of outrage (from Mexico and U.S. Latinos alike) would probably be pretty damned loud.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/10/2004 12:30:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But they are Holy Men - this is not possible. Like Diane told me when she tested a local Saudi imam and then his wife and young daughter at the Family Clinic in Dhahran - and they all came up positive for STD (a strain of gonorrhea, to be precise)... He said, "I am a Holy Man. This is not possible!" - and refused treatment for the lot of them.
#2
Does Pakistan mean something else? Maybe that should be pack it Stan. The amount of paedorasty and buggery in this cult is beyond the most vile crap some one could imagine in a Robert E. Howard pulp novel knockoff.
Pakistanis believe that the police are the most corrupt institution in the country, according to a new survey released on Thursday by Transparency International. The survey carried out by the polling company Gallup International asked more than 50,000 respondents how they rated their various public institutions for corruption. Political parties came out worst in most of the countries, followed by the police, customs officers and national parliaments.
In half the 64 countries surveyed, "political parties were rated by the general public as the institution most affected by corruption," the report's authors said. Between 31 and 50 percent of respondents in Pakistan felt that corruption had a large impact on political life, while six out of 10 felt that corruption would get worse in the next three years. Political parties in Latin America, India, Indonesia, and certain eastern European states were judged the most corrupt. Ecuador rated worst in its population's eyes for political corruption, followed closely by Argentina, Brazil, Peru and India. Others with low grades included Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Indonesia, Ukraine and Uruguay.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/10/2004 8:24:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Police are investigating 500 cases of alleged child abuse implicating maulvis, a minister said on Thursday. Most of the cases have been reported within the last six months in Punjab, Religious Affairs Minister Aamir Liaqat Hussain told AFP. He said that 14 clerics had been taken into custody accused of child molestation but were released by police due to lack of evidence.
"Yeah. Da witnesses wuz all dead."
He added that the ministry had been asked to investigate the claims with the help of the police and that 500 cases of abuse had been reported. The alleged victims included both boys and girls mostly under the age of 14, he said. "The Federation of Madrassas (seminaries) is willing to cooperate with us because the so-called clerics have brought a bad name to madrassas and Islam."
"And, boy, that took some doing!"
Hussain said not all reported cases implicated clerics from madrassas. Some who teach children at home were also under suspicion, he said. The country has some 10,000 madrassas with around 500,000 students.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/10/2004 8:22:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oops - I commented on tipper's dupe post, sigh. Tricked again by tipper, heh.
#2
Does Pakistan mean something else? Maybe that should be pack it Stan. The amount of paedorasty and buggery in this cult is beyond the most vile crap some one could imagine in a Robert E. Howard pulp novel knockoff.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Police found four suspected bombs at the Taiwan capital's main railway station hours on Thursday, just two days before a hotly contested legislative election, a railway policeman said. Police found two packages of suspected explosive devices each at both the north and southern entrances to the station in central Taipei. Earlier, fire had destroyed a number of vehicles in a nearby car park but caused no injuries, he said. "After the midday fire in a car park outside the Taipei Railway Station, police conducted searches within the station and discovered the suspected explosives and called in the bomb squad," the railway policeman told Reuters by phone.
An Italian school's substitution of a Nativity play with Little Red Riding Hood so as not to offend Muslim children has raised the Vatican's ire and sparked debate on how much traditions should change to accommodate immigrants. 
