h3llfish

Yeah, I think I share your feelings here. On the one hand, suicide was obviously a huge over-reaction to what happened. This evil kid who did the taping is a complete a-hole, but not a murderer. But he did commit a very serious crime, and should be punished for it. There's a guy who went to my high school, who I had met a couple of times but didn't know well, who video-taped a woman undressing without her knowledge, and then put it online. She won a civil settlement against him for 150 thousand dollars. It seems to me that what happened in this case was as bad or worse than that. There was obviously intent to do harm. That is not even debatable. The fact that the harm done seems to be more than he bargained for is unfortunate, but does not relieve him of responsibility for that harm. I think basically that the guy who did the taping and made the online comments should go to jail for a few years, and pay a massive amount of money to the family of the dead kid.

I don't think the Dems are desperate at all. Sure, they'll lose seats, but the party in power nearly always does at midterms. But what's got to have the Dems smiling is the way that the GOP is splitting their vote with these Tea Party candidates. I mean, Christine O'Donnell? Seriously? She took out the moderate Republican, Mike Castle. He actually had a chance to win that Senate seat, one that had been long occupied by Biden. In other words, this is a pretty liberal state. And O'Donnell's insane anti-masturbation stance is going to win the seat for the GOP? I think not. Time magazine has her down 16 points to the Democrat. Way to go, Tea Party. You handed the election to your enemy, Ralph Nader style. And now even Fox News is divided against itself. Did you guys see Papa Bear O'Reilly trashing Beck on John Stewart? Oh, you didn't? Here's what he said about Fox's messiah: Is it just me or did O'Reilly just call Beck nuts? Watch the whole interview here if you dare, conservatives.... http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-27-2010-bill-o-reilly They start talking about Beck about 13 minutes in. Yes, the GOP will pick up seats in November, but not a majority. And in the long term, they are in huge trouble. Their base is grey and not long for this earth... as well as a lot of their ideas.

But that's exactly what you did. It might not have been the kind of physical separation you went on to describe, but it's definitely a symbolic one. What you're saying essentially is "We have marriages, you have this other thing. It's sort of the same, but it'll never carry the same cultural significance of legitimacy." In that particular sense there will always be a "separation" of sorts because a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, will never be a marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing short of gender reassignment surgery will ever really change that, everything else is all academic in comparison. One thing to consider is that often in heterosexual relationships men tend to be far more emotionally volatile. This often expresses itself in the statistics for domestic abuse and other violent crimes. As such, the social dynamic between a male same-sex couple will likely differ from the social dynamic between a heterosexual couple which only has one male, or a female same-sex couple that has no males. I would hazard a guess that if same-sex marriage becomes universally embraced then eventually in the following years we would start to see higher divorce rates among male same-sex couples than among heterosexuals and lower divorce rates in female same-sex couples than heterosexuals. No matter what you call any of these relationships there will always be a "separation" of sorts that cannot be rectified semantically. The idea of "separate but equal" as you describe it seems inescapable. We all have different names, labels, and titles given to us by our parents at birth on up to our employers later in life because articulated nomenclature is the most effective form of individual delineation. We will always be "separate but equal" in that sense and I'm sure people will always question the wisdom of referring to homosexual relationships in such a distinctly heterosexual way on that basis. And just because a different term may or may not carry the same cultural significance, that doesn't mean it can't carry an equal one. As far as same-sex couples being perceived or treated differently, I don't think that behavior has ever been based primarily on what term they use to define their unions; but I wouldn't be surprised if that's changed based on how emotional this issue seems to have become for some people around the country. I guess I just don't think the kind of legitimacy they seek can really be attained through bureaucratic methods is all. Ah, thanks man. I can certainly appreciate a sharper insight into the specifics of the situation. I hear you. I think the matter as a whole is sort of complicated because it represents an intersection between both social and personal issues. For my part, I don't think fixing the social issue will do much to reconcile the comorbid personal issues. The central personal issue that gets raised is a fight for legitimacy, and therefore equality. Given the disproportionate emphasis on semantics that seems to lie at the center of the social issue I think it's reasonable to infer that the primary plaintiffs in this matter are wrestling with personal issues dealing with their self worth and self image. People dealing with these kind of issues often behave in predictable patterns. When faced with these feelings, they tend to seek out some means of alleviating their negative impact. You see this a lot in the military. I think children are the only demographic that actually have fewer rights than service members. Alcohol is often the "medicine" of choice they use to calm their feelings. To an extent a certain level of "dehumanization" is necessary to fulfill the military's goals, but this sometimes amplifies the effects of personal issues like financial struggles or relationship problems. Sometimes external factors make this worse too. That picture you see in my sig line is the tail fin of an EA-6B Prowler. Improvised explosives often include improvised devices for remote detonation to ensure maximum casualties; often garage door openers and cell phones are used. The Prowler patrols the area and jams those frequencies to give EOD a better shot at locating and disarming the IED's in time. My brother took that picture a few weeks ago in Afghanistan. I got a kick out of it because of some personal experiences I've had. Around the middle of this decade I started running into liberals on other message boards who where pretty open and adamant in their belief that since I had willingly served during wartime that meant I had some undeniable obligation to make my way to the middle east and stay there until either everything was restored to the way it was before we came or I died trying. Since Star Wars was popular at the time, it was common to hear these same liberals use it as an allegory for the state of the political situation. George Bush was cast as Darth Vader, rushing headlong into a complicated situation based on blind ideologically based aggression. Dick Cheney was cast as The Emperor due to his behind-the-scenes ties with corporate interests much like Palpatine's ties to the Separatists. Corporate interests like Haliburton and Blackwater were cast as the Separatists since they were initially private businesses who found their way into military matters more and more. And finally, members of the Armed Forces were cast as the clone troopers themselves, often openly regarded as mindless killers who were human only in appearance. Some military members have sort of adopted the clone troopers and the galactic republic/empire as something of a cultural symbol because while some may only see iconic villains, others see shining examples of military professionalism. All that is to say that I can understand why certain groups of people might have feelings of illegitimacy or that they are regarded as "less than" or "other than" human in some way. And I think we've all felt that we've been denied some avenue to happiness by forces beyond our control at one time or another. People often self-medicate to cope with these feelings in a variety of ways. I think we saw this to an extent when Barack Obama was elected. There was a spirit of elation and jubilation surrounding it. A racial minority group who had been oppressed in the past had suddenly found something to alleviate those feelings of illegitimacy they had held for so long. Despite the leap forward in regard to the social issue, it didn't do as much for the personal issues related to it. The state of elation didn't seem to last very long. Eventually the "high" wears off and people go looking for the next bit of "medicine" to make them feel better again. This is one aspect of the behavior that some people try to reference in relation to gay marriage when they ask "where do we draw the line". If gay marriage becomes universally accepted I don't think it'll take too long before the "high" wears off and people realize that a bureaucratic label is only a temporary fix for deeply ingrained psychological issues. Lots of good stuff there to think about, as always. I certainly agree that everyone views the world of social issues through the lens of our own personal experience. And, I get what you mean when you say that gay people and those sympathetic to them are looking for a "high". But that doesn't mean that there are not real social changes that should take place. And in the past, new landmark laws have been a key part of that social change. The changes that happened in our society in the 60's went far beyond those mandated by the Civil Rights Acts. The legitimacy those new laws conferred did make a huge difference, and not just in terms of the things that the new laws explicitly spelled out, but in other areas as well. I think that the way that non-whites are portrayed in the media took a sharp turn towards the positive sometime in the 60's. Racism in general is far less prevalent than it was before those laws were passed, and I think that gay people in general are hoping for something similar. I do acknowledge the somewhat addictive element of this kind of change, and the euphoria that follows a "win". So when the logical and the emotional sections of our brain are both firing off at the same time, it probably does behoove us to set aside the emotions for a time, and really make sure that our ideas hold up in a purely logical sense. The question of "where we draw the line" as far as marriage is concerned is relevant. For me, my personal policy is simple. It can actually be reduced to two words: consenting adults. So what does that mean? Well, two gay people are consenting adults, so if they want to get married, fantastic. Have at it, and best of luck to ya. One can't "marry" a child - they can't give consent in the legal sense. One can't "marry" a dog - the dog is not an adult human being. One probably should be allowed to marry two adults. If three people wish to form a partnership, I don't see any reason why I should forbid that. As Jefferson said by way of Beck, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, nor anyone else's that I can see. That doesn't mean that I support old-school Mormon polygamy, however, as that typically involved adults marrying children. The analogy about the clone troopers is interesting. That's one that never would have occurred to me, despite the fact that I certainly equated Cheney with Palpatine. I think that American society in general, and liberals in particular, have come a long way since the 60's. No one really vilifies the soldiers now, and if they do, they tend to be quickly condemned for it. And we didn't need new laws to accomplish this. It really just took some communication and common sense. That same thing is happening with gay people as well, without any new laws. But I do think there are times when a new law puts down in writing a social change that was already coming. It sets down on paper feelings that people were already having. One more point I was to make is on the meaning of the word "equal". Equal doesn't mean exactly the same. Two plus two equals four, but is not the same as four. They simply have equal value. I think gay people understand that their unions can never be exactly the same as straight people's. But different can still be equal. By using the same word to refer to a gay union as a straight one, that equality is strongly implied. It means a lot to the gay folks I know.

In your first paragraph, you mentioned how it didn't feel right to you that someone might not get to see their long time partner in the hospital, and I certainly share that view. The thing is, that's not one of the better arguments for gay marriage. That was something that happened a lot at the start of the AIDS crisis. It happened to the uncle of an ex gf of mine. He had left home, moved to NYC, and found love there. His family never approved of him, and he had to go make a whole new life for himself. I always admired him for that - it must not have been easy. So flash forward to 20 years later, and it's the 80's, and he gets AIDS. It catches him and his partner totally off guard. His family who hated him can come see him, and make choices regarding his care. The man who loved him for who he was, was shut out. I think most people would agree, that just doesn't feel right. But... The thing is, people are now prepared for this kind of thing, for the most part. There are plenty of fairly inexpensive ways to legally specify what your wishes are, should you become ill. You don't have to get married to make these arrangements. Plus, many conservatives, including just about all of them on this forum, support "civil unions", or something else that is essentially marriage in everything but name. All that is truly reserved for the hetero folk is the actual word "marriage". But that's not good enough for the gay folks I know. They don't want to be separate but equal. They want to be equal. It absolutely is about the legitimacy conferred on them by the word. They feel they deserve it, and I do too. But, if a conservative tells me that they are for civil unions but against the use of the word marriage, it's hard for me as a straight person to get real worked up about that. I feel for my gay friends, for sure. I want them to feel legitimized. But if they have all the rights of heteros, but just not the use of the word marriage.... well, I hope they get what they want, and I certainly voted for them to have that word for their own in California, but I'm not going to take to the streets over it any time soon.

So which is it? Those two statements are not incompatible. It's both. Obviously, we can't know what might have happened. But we can guess, based on what was said. I gave my evidence which demonstrated very clearly that Gore was not happy with Bush's approach to Iraq. So where's your evidence that Gore would have invaded? You have none. I'd say that my guess is on much firmer footing that yours. I've already given my evidence. It was in post #16. Of course it's based on the premise that we invaded Iraq for reasons other than "doing it for daddy" so you probably don't want to know about it anyway. Your evidence is that he would have had a Jewish vice president? Since when do presidents do what their vice presidents tell them to do? I mean besides Dubya! My evidence is what he said he would have done. I think my evidence is quite a bit more compelling than yours.

They have a right to feel that way, but these moral objections are not a good enough reason to prevent people from getting married. I think it's immoral to have more than 2 or 3 kids. The planet is already full, if you ask me. But I'm not going to tell people that they can't breed because of my objections. And gay people are tired of being called "immoral" and "deviant". Since we have a right to free speech in this country, people can go on insulting each other. Since when do we outlaw things just because they make some people uncomfortable? Porn makes some uncomfortable. Shall we outlaw that? Some people don't like country music. We don't outlaw that. It's a free country. On this matter, the way I see it, you are anti-freedom. You are restricting what other people can do just because of how it makes you feel, and that is wrong. I believe you on that score. I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not a hateful person. I just think you're being intolerant on this matter.

Does the guy really need to list specific people who accused him of being a racist? Its also unbelievable to you that he could have received death threats as well? Apparently you underestimate the stupidity of some people in this country. Washed up actor Scott Baio recieved death threats over a joke on twitter earlier this year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/scott-baio-tweets-michell_n_431214.html In my neck of the woods some ultra sensitive types are upset over a wall in a local shop. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/sep/04/eve-samples-anti-obama-wall-of-shame-alienates/ How do I know Baio actually got death threats? Because he says so? Why believe him? You find that guy credible? This is a washed up former child star who has only 5000 Twitter followers. My fourth-grade teacher has more followers than that. So obviously, he's got a vested interest in trying to get some press attention. You can believe these guys if you want to. I don't. Has anyone ever been killed because they made fun of Obama? One single person? Or even beat up? Does any evidence of that exist whatsoever?

Again, NO IT IS NOT. I do NOT have to prove that I have a religion to get married. I do NOT have to get married in a church. It is a CIVIL union. You can CHOSE to do it in a church with your religion involved in it, or not. In the eyes of the LAW, religion is NOT required for marriage. This is not up for debate. It is a FACT. You take YOUR idea of marriage from the bible, but the government does not. Marriage is actually both religious, and civil, in many if not most cases. People go and have a ceremony in a church, temple, or even just the great outdoors - that's the religious part. But we all know that you're not legally married (the civil part) until you sign the piece of paper. The religious marriage, marriage in the eyes of God as you understand him, starts when you say "I do". Civil marriage starts when you sign on the dotted line. But Mongoose is absolutely right, because we are not talking about marriage in the eyes of God here. No one suggests that we force churches to perform gay marriages, any more than we force Catholic Churches to marry divorced people. When we talk about legalizing gay marriage we are talking about the civil part of marriage, the legal part. There are already plenty of churches where you can go get gay married in the eyes of God. You don't need anyone's approval to do that. You don't even need an official holy person. There are no legal requirements at all for a religious marriage other than those imposed by the participants, because that kind of expression is not governed by the government. I think a lot of the hard feelings that seem to exist on this issue have to do with people confusing these two distinct definitions of marriage.

Judge Walker felt that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause. That's article 14, section 1:

He doesn't deny the "born that way" theory. He just believes that they should be denied their "pursuit of happiness" and not be permitted the same rights and privileges as other people that engage in sexual relations with other consenting adults, which is the fundamental difference between homosexuality and the "other sexual behaviors" he likes to compare it to. A difference that he continually ignores in his efforts to paint homosexuality as dirty and evil. You know, this is one issue where I agree with Glenn Beck. Let me quote that lovable scamp, talking to his good buddy Papa Bear O'Reilly: This is an issue that I believe the conservatives will flip on - eventually. The divide here is not so much between liberal and conservative, but between young and old. The GOP can't afford to alienate large amounts of young people, and so will soften their stance over time. I agree with Beck that when something doesn't directly harm me in any way, or anyone else, it's very hard to see why it should be illegal. And I also agree that churches must be free to oppose gay marriage. That's their first amendment right. Gay people can find plenty of other places to get married, so there will never be a need to force a church to perform a gay marriage - ever.

That was a pretty good article. I agree totally. If one believes in freedom of religion, then that means that religion-based objections to other people's lifestyles are simply not valid. I didn't see anything that said who the author of the article was, but it must have taken some courage to take a stand like this.

The way I see it, this guy is putting self-promotion ahead of anything else. It's all about him making some money and becoming a "star". But my attitude on this is the same as the ground zero mosque: both are not something I would want to be a part of, but the government must take no action to prevent it. Both are religious expression, and free speech. Well, the bigger problem happens when news media covers this thing, because then they become complicit in the event. If no-one shows up to broadcast this, it takes a lot of wind out of the sails. I mean its just some books being set on fire.......so covering it as a news event is relatively meaningless in terms of SEEING it. There's doubtlessly been, and are going to be many more Quoran burnings taking place that are just not covered. The problem as we see with this one is the grandstanding of it. If the news media stays away, not a lot happens because its only word of mouth that the event happened at all........really.........but if they cover it and there is a visual record broadcast....then you have a instigation. There is NO reason for this event to actually be covered and broadcast by the media. As far as government interference, they should interfere. Burning books is NOT a religious act of worship , its an act of vandalism, and in this case, mischief. ( I seriously doubt there's any tenet in ANY relgion--certainly not the one Jones claims to practise-that says one is directed to burn books of different faiths) The government has grounds here to intercede because of the THREAT to lives, a threat that has a basis in previous recent historical record. That places the public and military safety ahead of peoples beliefs, which is justified here. Intercede and stop Jones, and then let him take the government to court over it, and have the courts adjudicate whether or not the intercession was justified or if Jones' right were indeed violated. It cools/slows things down, and give everyone involved time to calmly look over the matter. It doesn't deny it, just delays it, if its to happen at all. You make some good points about the government getting involved. We don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because other people's right to not get trampled to death outweighs the right to free speech in that situation. So, if you want to make the case that the right of our soldiers to not get killed outweighs this joker's right to be an a-hole... well, I hear what you're saying there. I just tend to be more libertarian on issues like that. There's no direct cause and effect that could be proven, if the books had been burned. We already have a lot of troops dying, so who is to say that burning a Koran or two made it any worse? But really, when we talk about freedom and rights, there is always a compromise to be made. None of our rights are absolute. In this particular situation, it seems like the public outrage is what stopped the burning, and that's a good thing in my book. Far better that decent folk just speak up and say "bad idea, knothead", rather than have the Feds get involved.

College liberals can indeed be pretty annoying. They sometimes live in a world where everyone around them is liberal, and anyone non-liberal becomes the bad guy. That's not how it always works, but I have met that kind of person, and felt like they were pretty hypocritical. But from the point of view of the angry customer in DJ's story... if we suppose that DJ is right, and gay rights were the primary issue on this person's mind, then in his own mind, this customer was reacting to intolerance, not being intolerant. To this person, perhaps it feels like Fox is part of the system that keeps them second-class. They look at Glenn Beck, and they see the fact of the jerk who teased them in high school for being not quite manly enough. So they react with rage. I'm not defending the guy - he acted poorly. But, I guess I might be inclined to tell myself that he's being a dick because other people have been a dick to him. In fact, that's usually what I tell myself when anyone gets uncool. It's just something that helps me deal with the morons!

I'm a 9/11 baby too. It's weird, because people always feel sorry for me, and I'm like... I didn't die in those towers, don't feel sorry for me. But at the same time, it does sorta suck. Every time some bouncer or bank clerk looks at my id, they want to talk about it. So you don't just get to talk about 9/11 on your birthday - you end up talking about it with strangers all the time. They want to tell me where they were on that day, and then I talk about it, and then we shed a few tears, and hug it out, and it's a special moment, and I'd really rather just skip it.

Yeah, sad but true about principal Rooney (actor Jeffrey Jones, who was seen more recently in Deadwood). He got some 14 year old boy to pose for sexy photos. Not the worst sex crime ever committed, but still, pretty high on the gross meter. As far as the Beetlejuice guy... sad. I hope he wasn't scared or in pain for his last moments in life. At least we know he got to do some cool stuff while he was alive, so he was luckier than some people.

I don't think that guy handled things too well. He didn't have to make it personal with you by phrasing things the way he did. For all he knew, you were liberal and gay too, and just playing Fox because your boss makes you. But I don't have any problem with the sentiment that he was expressing. It's sorta like the Target discussion we were having. If a business wants to take a political side, then consumers have a right to penalize the business for that by not shopping there, and they have a right to tell the business about how they feel. He just should have been a lot nicer about how he did it. I suspect that you guys must know your customer base pretty well, and figure that if anything, you come out ahead with most of your customers by being showing conservative programming. And if that works for you, then more power to you. For every customer you offend, you probably have more customers who approve, or else you'd have re-runs of Full House playing. So DJ, would you have felt a lot differently about this individual if after asking about Fox being on a lot, he had said "This is nothing against you, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but I have a problem with a lot of the things that are said on Fox, and I'm not going to be shopping here any more because you guys play that. Please pass that on to your manager, ok?". I mean, that's how I would have said it, if I felt strongly enough about it to say anything, which I wouldn't have.

The guy says people have accused him or racism. Who? He says he got death threats. Really? Over that sign? I doubt it. He's just another self-promoter who got an easy headline. Another non-issue.

The way I see it, this guy is putting self-promotion ahead of anything else. It's all about him making some money and becoming a "star". But my attitude on this is the same as the ground zero mosque: both are not something I would want to be a part of, but the government must take no action to prevent it. Both are religious expression, and free speech.

And synch, speaking of Weyoun, aka Jeffrey Combs, did you know that: I did not know that until I looked at his wikipedia article! He's one of those guys that works a lot, but most people don't know his name.

How about Ron "Hellboy" Perlman? He was the Viceroy in Nemesis, and Orion on JLU. And he's about to start season three of Sons of Anarchy, which I think is a pretty good show.

I always wanted to see a show about the Klingons. Doing that would avoid a lot of the issues with continuity that seem to bug people. I mean, you still have issues, but less so, because this is a different corner of the galaxy. Animated would work, if live action was too expensive.

Was that rally sponsored by Fox, or was Fox affiliated with it in anyway, or was it just Beck's deal? If Fox is allowing Beck to talk about it nonstop on their network, then I'd say it was sponsored by Fox. That's a lot of free air time. So when someone comes on Fox and is allowed to talk about their new book, that means Fox News is sponsoring it? If any author is allowed to talk about their book for an hour a day, five days a week, then yes, Fox is sponsoring it. And I never said MSNBC wasn't also partisan. They are. But they also aren't trying to create anti-Muslim hysteria, so I don't have as much problem with it.

Not much interest? I just did a Google news search for "discovery channel gunman", and it returned 3,849 results. If I search for his name, James J Lee, I get about the same, 3,852 results. There are articles from CNN, ABC, and all the usual MSM suspects. That's a lack of interest to you? On the other hand, he's something that happened in my area recently: http://www.ktvu.com/news/24869546/detail.html It looks like this guy killed 5 people - by any measure, a worse crime than the discovery channel guy. A Google news search for "Efren Valdemoro" (the suspected killer) gave me 836 results. So we have a guy who killed more people, but seems to be getting about 25% of the media attention. I don't think that left vs right has a thing to do with it. It's just that Valdemoro's crime didn't involve Kate Gosslin and her litter of pups, or anyone else famous. It's not political bias that is the issue here. It's that TV news is about entertainment.

The attribution of a Creator doesn't need to be the only possible source of Creation. Spontaneous creation is still possible, with the manifestation of a Supreme Being occurring afterwards--in the sense of such a being coalescing and taking up residence herein. The concept of the Supreme being being the architect of the entire Universe......can a bit of a stretch. I think its possible the Supreme Being is perhaps more of just a driver. You can have a Supreme consciousness, and a physical order and structure that originates from random actions and not have contradictions from each other. Hawking looks at the mathematics and physics of it all. In a stark sense, his view is viable. In a equally stark sense, so is an intelligently designed Universe. The question of who designed the designer is similar to one like the classic one: "which came first the chicken or the egg". To which they have the answer: the egg--but it wasn't a "chicken" that laid it. It's true that the universe could have come into being, and then god, who then created man. Hawking didn't say that there is no god. He said that he thinks the universe doesn't require a god to be as we observe it to be. Really though, I think he made a carefully phrased statement that was designed to get some press, without being ultra-offensive. Seems the man has a book coming out soon, and people with books to sell tend to do stuff like that.

Which claim was false?