FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2005 -> 09:03 AM) One thing I would like to interject here for some historical reference, many of the arguements that were made against interracial marriage had biblical references that were used to justify them. I believe the main verse used had something to do with marrying people who shared your beliefs? Can someone help me out here? Yes, I believe the biblical reference was something like, "LouAnnne, if you run off an' marry that no-good black boy I'll hit you so hard with this here Bible you won't be able to sit for a year!!"

Powell on Katrina, from the same interview: I agree, both that the heart of the problem is economic disparity and not racism per se, and also that anybody that continues to say 'they were all told to leave so it's their fault if they didn't listen' is seriously divorced from reality.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 10:09 PM) Call me crazy, but as long as we win the Central, I want the Indians to win the Wild Card. I agree. Them or NY. I don't want a west coast team winning the WC, and Boston still makes me a little jittery too.

QUOTE(winodj @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 08:47 PM) you know the first time i saw the david/goliath icon, i thought david was holding a spleen or something. not a slingshot. Oohh, Davey.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 08:14 PM) If you want a perfect analysis of global warming and hurricanes, head over to This RealClimate piece. Yep, and here's the uncertainty angle Big Tobacco exploited for so long:

Wes Granberg-Michaelson, giving God some positive spin. On the climate change stuff though, Katrina's not the place to hang your hat. I'm of ardent belief that the growing body of evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that human activity is inducing global climate change. But is a deceit (or at least "junk science") to suggest the proof of the matter was patently manifest in Katrrina. Katrina made a low Cat5 and struck as a high Cat4, so it's not one for the record books in terms of intensity. As far as the increased activity of tropical storm seasons, yes that is directly tied to a warmer than normal tropical Atlantic Basin. Which may be part of a trend related to anthropogenic activity, or may be simply a function of nature's stochasticity. The case is analogous to that of Big Tobacco in the 90s. Tobacco lawyers could effectively argue that no single case of cancer or lung disease in a smpker could be absolutely tied to smoking activity. One strong, not record-breaking, hurricane that happened to hit the Achiles' heel of the southeastern US is by itself not convincing evidence of human-induced climate change. There is plenty of much more convincing evidence, however.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 06:51 PM) I kid because I care. Actually, I kid to mock FlaSoxxJim Why I oughtta. . .

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 05:08 PM) There was a lot more damage a few blocks west. Trees and lightpoles down. So who the hell in Iowa pissed off the Big G anyway?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) getting the talk back to Arnold and CA, didn't the voters there pass the referendum defining marraige as a man and a woman? If that is the case, then the state lawmakers are going against the very wishes of their constituants by trying to get a law passed that goes against the voters. Is the majority right? Who knows. However, the lawmakers were sent there to represent the people of the state, and the people voted for marraige to mean a man and a woman. Why do these reps think they know better than their voters? Leave it to Dems to think that they know what the people want and need, even when the very people tell them otherwise. Arnold is just following the lead of the voters in California by vetoing this bill. Yeah, that's Prop 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed in 2000 in 52 of 58 counties, excepting those in the greater SF area. Prop 22 was Arnold's out, but it wasn't entirely clear which way he would lean since he is considered to be liberal in terms of social issues. A question becomes who has the right to govern law at the level of the local community. the federal constitution could be argued to supercede the state constitution, and so long as a gay mariage ammendment doesn't make it into the federal constitution, I guess the argument can be made that the federal right to life/liberty/happiness is being unfairly compromixed at the state level. Conversely, for those who see local governance as being primary, the argument can possibly be made that the rights of the heavily gay/gay-friendly SF area are being unfairly dictated by the rest of the state. I dunno. Marry who you want and try like hell to make it work.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) What I learned in school today... -George W. stole a Christmas wreath for his fraternity at Yale. What a doof. -George W. was a cheerleader at his high school, the name I forget. It starts with an 'A'. Adelmine? -George W., at a wedding, devised a plan to push the groom and his father into the pool. The father was a pretty important person, too, though I don't recall his name... (??) -George W. had something like a 3.0 GPA at Yale, which was much lower than guys like John Kerry's (sp?). Bear with me if you already knew this, I found it sort of funny. Did you find out where he's hiding Geronimo's bones?!?

QUOTE(SpringfieldFan @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:37 PM) I think we might start going in circle here, so I will defer. I appreciate your points, as I can see where you are coming from. I just with it were easier for people to see evidence of "religious" based views in logic and by evidence, but it is a very murky muddy issue and often just comes down to faith. I just hope I am not seen as a hate-monger, homophobe, radical, or whatever other terms are used. Hopefully my position will be seen as one held with a thought and caring and a desire for the best for everyone. Peace! Love and do what you will.

QUOTE(SpringfieldFan @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:15 PM) It is a sacrifice to have and raise kids. How is it discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help" in that noble pursuit but not to a couple that won't have that burden? By the logic, I would assume the rights and priveleges reserved for married couples should be given to all co-inhabitants, and single people as well. Again, I think the sacrifice for children deserves something. Besides, I don't think you need to look at religion to see why it is important to hold family based marriage to a high standard and recognize the harm to society that results when its value isn't understood. It's not discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help." It IS discriminatory to DENY a loving couple the right to a legal wedded union with all it's rights, priveleges, and protections solely on the basis of sexual orienttation. It's a sacrifice to do a lot of things. The sacrifice for children deserves and gets plenty (I'm a father of two, btw. It gets you a federal tax credit that nonparents (even gay nonparents) don't receive. Above and beyond that, it also gives you the love of a child, and the unique joy of being a parent. But being a parent is (ideally) a choice. For gay couples that choice may be achieved through adoption, in which case they too should be lagally entitled to the tax credit. Your second paragraph about seeing the need to hold family based marriage to a high standard IS based on (or at least in keeping with) your religious leanings. Ditto for your feelings on contraception cheapening the institution. There is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely nothing wrong with holding those personal viewpointst (I'm a recovering Catholic going on 20 years). But, again, it is a subjective viewpoint not universally shared, and should not be a basis for laws dictating who should be allowed to enjoy the right to marriage.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:39 PM) Can o worms opening up with this one? Of course it's not like we haven't kicked the doo doo out of this in other threads, huh? True that, we've been down this road before. But, what the heck. "Cab Driver, once more round the bend." Any way you slice it, this is what it comes down to: Denying rights and privileges to a group of law abiding, tax-paying US citizens because of their sexual orientation, based on a non-universally held interpretation of religious dictum is discriminatory. I don't see how it can be viewed otherwise, regardless of how various segments of society feel about the morality of homosexuality. Though largely a Christian nation, we're not a theocracy, and our laws governing marriage should not be derived from subjective interpretation of denominational religious writing. And, ultimately, I'm sure they won't be.

And herein lies the impasse. Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief. Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society. I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:09 PM) Lon Chaney is one of my favorite actors. His acting abilities were astounding. Yeah, I remember back when you had that pic of yourself up as your av and it looked eerily like Lon as the Phantom. . . The stop motion Cthulhu sequences in this upcoming flick sound like they're going to be great. As a rabid ffan of all things Harryhausen from way back, I'm pretty sure i'll give this film a try.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 02:18 PM) I just finished watching the trailer, and must admit I'm not particularily fond of silent films--aside from Nosferatu. You're depriving yourself of a lot of great films, just in the horror/suspense genres, let alone the rest of the silent era gems. Nosferatu, of course, is brilliant. But The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Der Golem, the Chaney Sr. versions of Phantom and Hunchback (among so many others) are also absolute must see films.

I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

Leave the cockroaches alone! :-) Seriously, regardless of whether our future is a cyborg/nanotech future or a live to be 200 years old future or just one very similar to today but with more comfortable shoes, that 'we can kill it so we will win' attitude you just espoused is the thing that will lead us to the grave. Biodiversity is the key to everything, and envisioning a future where we can dispense with it at will is about as dysutopian an image as can be imagined. Those wondrous biotech/nanotech molecular machines that will be able to search and destroy cancer cells in our body – the inspiration for their rational design will in all likelihood come from the living world all around us. Seeing the pharmaceutical promise of some of the biologically-derived experimental drugs currently in clinical or preclinical testing can't help but make you wonder what else is out there to be discovered. More depressing, though, it makes you wonder what has already been lost or will be lost because we're too shortsighted to see the value of preserving biodiversity.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 01:34 PM) Don't worry...the end of the age of oil will take care of that for us. No more oil?!? Then I seriously have to rethink this homosexual future thing. . .

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 01:30 PM) If a church chooses to perform them, is there some reason that the church should be forbidden from doing so? " 'Cuz God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, you Californy ijut" ^^^ Really, really green ^^^

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 01:27 PM) So, you're saying that the majority of the people in the world will be homosexuals in the future? That is correct. Stop the breeders and get this population explosion thing under control!

Civil rights movements start small by definition. Eventually the minority becomes a plurality, and the plurality eventually becomes the majority. Why, I can remember a time here on this very board when chicken plookers and coffee table lickers were considered outcasts. . .

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 12:47 PM) I'll make you a deal. If you quit intentionally trying to ruin everyone else's experiences on Soxtalk, I'll let you make up a new name and post under it. It's not the content, it's the style. People with characteristic posting styles can be identified just by that regardless of what position thay take on an issue. That, of course, will be the failing of this experiment, unless Jugg's can argue alternate positions on issues while using the same posting style. Most likely, the posting style will be toned down under the new handle (kind of the original point, ironically), and so nobody will object to the posts regardless fo what viewpoints are set forth.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 12:38 PM) Wow, so then this: was all for the sake of playing devil's advocate??? Yes it was. Or, more, correctly, Soxtalk's Martyr, an unofficial and self-appointed position held perhaps most memorably by I4E during his short, tumultuous tenure. I trust this will not be construed as a personal attack, since martyrdom is usually seen as quite the admirable thing. Lots of job turnover, true, but nice work if you can get it.

It is indeed amazing to see what the Dead Rehnquist thread has morphed into, but what the hell... The near term future face of nanotech is going to have surprizingly little to do with miniaturizing machines as we typically think of them. It will be all about custom building organic "molecular machines." Nanotech is one of the emerging new faces of biotech.