Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Who will get the whoo hoo?

[repost]

Craig:

"in other words, marriage as a separate and unique legal, civil or governmental concept should not even exist. basic and generic contract law should apply, if couples so choose.

can i say that on cable? or better to keep my trap shut?"

I think you are going down a good road with this one. You can probably say it on cable once you flesh it out a bit more.

I think one obvious answer to many of the points raised on the pro-gay marriage side is the slippery slope argument., i.e., you need to draw the line somewhere or people will marry goats.

I think it is crazy to burden the lives of millions of individuals based on the far-off notion that it will lead to the one guy in Canada who wants to marry a goat to actually follow through.

But actually now your contract idea is making even more sense. It deals with all these slippery slope arguments.

A man can't enter into a contract with a goat or a minor and marriage is an exclusive contract between two people. Case closed.

Nice work trail mix. Now someone just needs to convince max and we can all get some sleep around here...

Didn't convince me, warren. In fact, Max schooled you guys.

goats have no legal standing for making contracts, so i think our solution stands strong, warren

lord blog:

I am truly offended. But in all seriousness - this is usually a debate that people don't switch sides on.

In fact, based on max's arguments - i.e., he is ok with civil unions, ok with adoption, etc. - I think at this point he is only arguing the position against gay marriage because he can and he finds it intellectually challenging.

I mean if you allow everything that "official" gay marriage entails - what is the difference? What "sanctimony" are we protecting?

But don't get me wrong - I don't think he will be convinced.

a standard and enforceable contract between human citizens for any purpose, if they so choose, is already available to everyone. our courts should not be burdened with regulating marriage as a separate concept.

I'm sold.

craig:

and perhaps instead of the govt endowing married couples with certain rights - they should just be in the marriage contract.

For example, this person can visit me in a hospital, can open a joint savings acount, etc.

Actually, I think you're the one whose "intellectually challenged", warren. With all due respect, of course. If you don't understand the purpose of marriage incentives, I don't know what to tell you...

You could be right your lordyship

Nothing personal, warren. All in a days debate. I'm just amused at the myopia of self-proclaimed liberals, that usually expressed beginning with, "I just don't understand..." Make an effort to understand, then.

I can't say I agree with all of the reasons for the restriction of marital rights of homosexuals in contemporary society, and some may in fact be anachronistic, as Craig alluded, but I understand them.

if government "incentives" are the purpose of marriage, then it really is a miserable sham isn't it?

a loving couple of soul mates don't need no stinking government giveaways to be together

max:

"Warren suggestions would lead to several men or women forming a marriage."

Nope. It would be an exclusive contract that could only be entered into by two people.

"And since when did contracts (can they be renegotiated) reflect the seriousness of the bond of marriage or biological reality?"

The divorce point was already made. And I think the seriousness of the bond is reinforced socially and cuturally, i.e., by instilling those values in kids at home, school, church - not legally.

"And who is to say at what age a person can marry? Let me guess....the people!"

Two consenting adults sounds good. 18 works.

"The idea that marriage is just a contract will alienate many people Craig."

As opposed to telling millions of loving couples they can't get married.

"It is about love and commitment and usual the preconditon for starting a family."

Again - your argument is social and cultural - not legal.

"Love" is a marketing term designed to sell you shit, Craig. Up until the 20th century, no one got married for "love".

Hah - it looks like we have another argument between the cynics and the romantics!!

cynics & romantics = two sides of the same coin.

It seems every incoming administration has been appalled by their predecessor's technological incompetence. There will be plenty of time tomorrow for discussion about this thread's video and the notion that Barney-cam was the Bush's "groundbreaking" contribution to Internet communication. But I can already see the topics will be competing furiously, in light of Craig's morning tv appearance which I'm eagerly anticipating.

Actually, I do miss that mutt.

I'm wasted, gang. Evening.

''Love" is a marketing term designed to sell you shit, Craig. Up until the 20th century, no one got married for "love". -- Posted by: lord0bloggington.myopenid.com"

and that's why this century is such an improvement

good night john boy!!

I'm out too...

a cynic is a broken-hearted idealist

nite all, where's Dexter? take the wheel boss

Good luck tomorrow, Craig. I'm sure the boards will light up.

Actually, it's already tomorrow today...

I am here, have no fear!
I had to finish watching left-coast baseball from San Diego ; Dodgers lost. Then I caught the last half of Craig Ferguson; he had Steven Wright on as a guest. Same old Steven.

I think President Obama must have joined Twitter right from the start. I follow his Tweets.

I'm not to fired up this morning, as sports have been taking up all my time. Now that the NCAAs are over , I can watch KO again.

SET HIM FREE !!!! Shoe thrower get 2 years lopped off....

http://tinyurl.com/cvkcr3

As for lively discussions, they are ...lively. It's when they get mean and nasty with names being called that thay are no longer lively.

I've been here about a year and noticed early on that the "threads" don't dominate the discussions. It's one reason I like it here. With the ridiculous variety of talented people here, it would be way too restrictive to demand adherehce to Craig's threads.

We would never have heard about Jack's community organizing or Carol's owls, or...see what I mean?

I'm most frightfully sorry if some people are disquieted at the thought of marriage as just a contract, but they should go back to sleep.

I decided years ago that if I were gay and wanted to marry, I would have a lawyer draw up a contract referred to as marriage, and defy any court to dis-avow that.

But I did read somewhere that one state, I think Virginia, not only outlawed same-sex marriage, but any other kind of contract for achieving that end. I thought that was petty to the point of being scary.

well, they's gone too far now. send out old ironsides once more to rout the scurvy bunch. she cleared the carribean and the barbary coast of pirates and she can do it again. ahoy! avast! to the plank!

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53721Z20090408

http://home.comcast.net/~singingman7/TNOTW.htm

"Patd, I was talking about an expanded NAVY going after those Muslim pirates. In those days, that was a pretty bold move....but then Jefferson saw the best defense a good offense."

max, you win prize for being prescient with yesterday's comment.

re marriage topic

was it ayn rand who promoted requiring a separate, and harder to get license for couples who wanted to have children? sotr of a two tier system. seems like she (if it weren't some other forethoughty type) wanted a nofault and easy divorce capability for the those who just wanted non-reproducing sex and companionship, but none or hard to get divorce for those who established families. the argument had to do with the societal good or some such thing.

NY Times on Vermont:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/opinion/08wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I'd like to get married someday...but I need to get a date first."

Regarding CosmosDeCritic last night:

Too much "Critic", not enough "Cosmos".

I think the first same sex union in Vermont should be "Ben & Jerry's".

Yer up & at 'em early Corey -- lol.

Home from work throwing around comments here and at Facebook.

well.... that was certainly a lively discussion last night..... enjoyed it very much..... yes.... even Cosmos' bit....

Cosmos..... we pride ourselves in being off thread.... and frankly...... I was surprised by that "think inside the box" type statement..... I hope you stick around and get creative about being off thread too.....

"if a union is dependent on government benefits, it's not worth uniting"

Craig..... what a nice sentiment..... and I agree.... but then there's the practical side..... without some kind of contract.... when you die.... all your belongings could be legally claimed by your immediate family members.... your long time partner would have no rights to them..... including your body..... seems to me that if you love someone you would want that person to be legally protected.... you know... the same reason people buy life insurance...

I agree with those that think all partnerships should be civil unions..... and marriage can be a religious ceremony one can choose....

Marriage. What would Hammurabi do?

"My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met." -Rodney Dangerfield

"I agree with those that think all partnerships should be civil unions..... and marriage can be a religious ceremony one can choose.... "

renee, agree but like to emphasize that the religious ceremony one chooses be a separate event, either before or after the civil one... not simultaneous.

Renee, I would like to agree with you, but, the whole legal status of married couples is amplified by administrative law and years of years of common law precedents.

I totally understand what Craig proposes and support him totally as well.

But, this time, I think he's tilting at windmills when, because of the state of the law, there is so much at stake for so many couples who aren't as erudite or thoughtful as he.

Home today taking a mental health day because yesterday at work made me crazy.

I do agree RR that maybe, if the word marriage was avoided, and civil union was used instead it may have already been a done deal. Marriage is just too much of a religious word.

With any kind of radical change you must take baby steps if you want to be successful. Jump ahead too fast and you lose. Change, no matter, how much better it may be, is always difficult. I deal with that problem everyday.

however, a lot of laws will need to be updated and existing marriages need grandfathering in or there will be choas in the streets and in the courts and in the hospitals and in ......

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217530

ct --

Glad you're here to hang out today. My old boss used to call them "slick days." (^_~)

Carol....
so glad to see you posting again..... thanks for the updates on the owls...
and just for you..... {{{{{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}}}}

patd.... I agree that the religious ceremony should be a separate event....
Rick and I never had one..... we were married by a JP at his house.... oh and to confuse things..... some here mentioned last night about marriage being for procreation purposes..... Rick and I have no children.... never wanted children.... yet we very much wanted to be married.... we've chosen what we've wanted..... don't care what others think.....

Flatus.... I understand your point..... but when laws no longer suit a society.... the laws should change.... however... I do think Carol's point about taking baby steps to change is a good one.....

mornin'.

Renee, that would be a change from our current law - perhaps a desirable one, but one that would require changing the laws in each of the 50 states.

I have to agree with warren and craig in general. Marriage is actually a government controlled and sanctioned contract between two people. It is governed by the state and the churches' only involvment in it is at the will and pleasure so to speak of the happy couple. (The commitment between the two folks is wholly beside the point - it is certainly desirable, in most cases essential if the mariage is to last, but it's not a requirement legally)

As pointed out above, goats and kids can't enter into contracts - well, actually, goats can't. From a constitutional perspective the issue is whether the STATE can restrict its marriage contract laws only to a mixed (M-F) couple, which is arguably violative of equal protection. Here's one sticky point - kids can enter into contracts, but they can void contracts they entered into as kids. The "adult" contracting party cannot do the same.

Renee, that property slant you mentioned is governed by laws of descent and distribution in (I assume) all states. That part is outside the contract aspect of marriage, but marriage is one entry portal into those laws.

btw, I heard a great take on the issue from Alex Bennett yesterday - it's MARRIAGE, it's not GAY marriage.

Colorado Bob beat me to this yesterday afternoon, but I just had to laugh out loud when I saw a news story about it in this morning's paper. So in case you missed yesterday's post....

Finally, a vehicle we can all love. Trailmixers, meet the real PUMA:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/cars/blog/2009/04/gm_segway_unveil_puma_twowheel.html

Cultural change has to happen before laws can be changed. Laws that defy cultural mores get ignored, broken or overturned. Right now, we are in the middle of that cultural shift into acceptance of non-traditional relationships -- of all types.

Fanny, Freddie and Braney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/palin-family-feud.html#comment-217190

Lard and C-Bo --

BlueINDallas got to the PUMA early...and wisely warned Craig to stay away from it... lol

Speaking of sex and marriage and relationships, I once had an idea that I thought would make a funny Seinfeld secondary plot -- but unfortunately had it after the show went off the air so it didn't make me rich and famous.

The idea involved George somehow becoming involved with a gay male couple just to enjoy the lifestyle, pooled disposable income, help around the house with errands and chores and everything else that comes with it. He explains to Jerry, Elaine and Kramer that there's nothing weird about it -- just think of them as a "triple" the way you'd normally think of a "couple." The three men live together, hang out at the diner together, go everywhere together, and they sleep in the same bed together -- the only hitch is that since George isn't gay, he won't actually have sex with the other two. He doesn't tell the other two he's not gay -- he just comes up with a hilarious series of lies and excuses to cover it up. Of course, that ultimately leads to all kinds of tension and the two other guys finally get wise and ultimately kick George out of the relationship. So poor George loses out again.

(The same concept would work with the Kramer character -- the only difference would be that the Kramer character would go ahead and have sex with the other two guys...so there would have to be another source of tension to lead to the breakup.)

Cosmo-"Time for Cos to light a fire." Hmm. maybe you might want to think about contributing something positive (like CBobs Corn Experiment) instead of just being a mixer. Enough people here are dealing with loss, illness and just plain struggling. I know I sure as hell don't need anybody going out of their way to stir things up cause they're bored. Besides Craig is the mad scientist in this lab
."I do admire the fire. Now to point it in the right direction."
Posted by: COSMOdeCRITIC | April 7, 2009 10:03 PM
You're the one that needs a compass dude.

Zee Corn zee corn! It finally arrived! Thank you Cbob! Will be posting shortly

Ivy...I must have missed Blue's post. All credit to her for the find!

Dang it all, did I miss Craig already?

Great appearance Craig, excellent point about the word "marriage" and the polls.

To help brighten up your day, and it has to do with sex?

Here is an IKEA commercial that you probably won't be seeing on your TV anytime soon.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4838975964352764788

Craig....
LOVE the tie!
most politicians are chickenshit..... most would never upset the apple cart on such a controversial issue..... Obama is no exception.....

pogo....
oh no.... a real lawyer in the debate..... ;0)
I have no problem with what is happening now..... gay's being able to marry going state by state..... what bothers me is those states who want to not have to recognize said marriages.....

Rick and I were married in Massachusetts..... it 's recognized in all 50 states... if one marriage is recognized in all states..... all marriages should be recognized in all states, IMO....

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53721Z20090408

US ship hijacked.....be interesting to see what we'll do. To many this will seem like a "yawner" but to me our response speaks volumes. Both to our friends and our enemies.

Renee, you've hit on another constitutional issue - Full Faith and Credit - Art. IV, Sect. 1. I give it no more than 10 years before someone figures out a way to get the issue before the court. There are squarely conflicting laws on the books of the several states, and states that don't. It is a complicated area of the law - with wholly imprecise things such as public policy messing up the rulings. The one case that has recently cracked the door open is the 2007 case of Finstuen v. Crutcher - a 10th circuit case dealing with an Oklahoma statute that precluded recognition of out of state adoption orders issued to same sex parents. Here's what the court said "We hold that final adoption orders by a state court of competent jurisdiction are judgments that must be given full faith and credit under the Constitution by every other state in the nation. Because the Oklahoma statute at issue categorically rejects a class of out-of-state adoption decrees, it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause." It of course is only a Circuit Court decision, but the ball is rolling because it invalidated a statute that reflects the public policy of OK in the same sex couple arena. In the right case, SCOTUS will have to determine whether the decision is correct or not, and whether its reasoning applies to marriage as well.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6213.pdf

just in case you're bored and need that little nudge to make it to dreamland.

The President's techie folks are doing a great job, but can they do messages with sheep?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6KXECVl3lc

btw, I know we have discussed standing here before. The Fuestra case has an excellent discussion about standing in it.

Fuestra = Finstuen (duh).

Fuestra sounds like an impotence medication - or maybe an allergy med.

On the marriage question, what is wrong with the this simple system that would apply to everybody.

Register as a couple, immediately acquire all the benefits and responsibilities that the state can confer.

Go somewhere else for the purely social and religious contract of "marriage" to celebrate with family and friends.

I just don't think it should be such a huge problem. Just because someone's particular "god given rules" don't match those of someone else should not be of concern to the state.

Unless Congress passes a Gay Marriage bill, there is little chance this sort of union will be accepted by many states. The few states that have/will accept Gay Marriage run the risk of establishing colonies, and alienating themselves from other states. Your rights in state "A" doesn't necessarily transfer over to state "B".

Yea, thanks guys. Who knew pirates would take 20 Americans while we slept? It brings home another point I made yesterday. Biden says we are safer now than just before the election. Oh really?

Pakistan worse
Afghanistan worse
Somalian pirates worse
NK worse
Getting Hamas to deal with Fatah worse
Sudan worse
Mexico worse
Iraq worse
Confrontations with Russia and China worse

So what gives with new media not sending that message to Washington? Funny how NYT says no forein policy emerged from Obama's trip. As I predicted, no "tear down these walls". And Europe didn't supply a single new combat soldier. NK fired a rocket with impunity. Hamas broke off talks with Fatah. Iran readies the world for a "nuclear announcement". Meshud tells the press the WH is targeted. Mexico staggers. Sudan kicks out UN observers as someone hit illegal arms shipments in the Sudanese desert. Holy crap.

Warren, your preconditons on marriage contracts is funny. Does that come from your subjective book of preconditions? Now who determines those preconditons? Let me guess.....the "people"?
LB got my view right. I only support the government supported signal established to center the majority (and biological imperitives) of society by making the label of marriage for two consenting and of legal age heterosexuals. You have a stronger case for polygamy than gay marriage based on anthropological record. If you think cultural relativism now can steady our society you would be mistaken about basic anthropology. And you encourage the typical blow back in the next election cycle. And I repeat, I think eventually we should reconsider the "right" for any two heterosexual people making babies. I see no right for couples adding to the world's population without responsibility for the genuine welfare of their children. People who name their kids Hitler shouldn't have them.

Also, once you take biology out of it, why should women decide abortion before the third trimester alone? What does basic biological rights have naything to do with it? Maybe conception requires a contract too Warren. Koh over there at the Department of State is right -the Constitutional reasoning for Roe and confused at best.

Like the Constitution, marriage is something many Liberals like to reinvent in their own minds. Instead, the Constitution has understandable principles informed by basic observations of human nature and society. We might wish these principled constraints to be more realitivistic, but they are not for good reason. The idea that two men imagine they will get married and have children, start a family and live in a society without any clash is absurd. That is like Biden saying that after 100 days of Obama in office we are safer. Gay couples ought to have protections but demanding equality with reproducing couples and extended biological families is like wanting the sky to be pink. Only for a brief moment at sunset....

What Biden blabs out sounds nice to supporters, but far from the essential truth.

RR,
Every state has it's own people and personalities. That's what's so great about our Republic. They still do, for the most part, have the right to set their own rules except for those areas specifically set aside in the constitution. Marriage and it's regulations is still held within "States Rights".

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217554

Or the mess that is left over after a fenestration.

tired of being told what to do....

tired of being bullied around....

tired of getting no respect.....

then try Fuestra..... it'll give you that extra oooomph of courage to tell others where to go.....

side effects may include an erection lasting longer than 24 hrs.... an uncontrollable middle digit.... and a sudden urge to fart in certain directions...

Max

My big problem with your statement is those reproducing couples. You want to limit the right of two men or two women to adopt which would be good for society and all the children in foster care, but you don't want to limit that couple from reproducing more than one child.

If I had my way, no one would get a deduction for a child. If you can't afford it, don't have it, because we sure as hell don't need more of them.

jamie, That system would work - and it's followed by some folks (you know, Spring Break weddings that mama gets pissed about and wants to get all her friends who she bought wedding gifts for their kids to reciprocate). The church weddings are actually just a preacher acting as an arm of the state - for the state to recognize the marriage the parties have to have gone through the marriage license process beforehand - the preacher (just like a JP or a judge - or in my case a lawyer friend) just asks the I wills and I dos questions.

Thanks RR for the hug. Much needed today. Thanks Ivy for the welcome.

I just caught Craig by doing some fast rewinding of my DVR just in the nick of time. I had the TV on mute. He did seem a tad uncomfortable with the subject but did get our point across that the word marriage is one of the big problems.

I don't think though, that it will take 15-20 years for some significant change to happen that is if the world, as we know it, doesn't end in 2012 as some predict. That 2012 prediction is beginning to feel more likely by the day so I had better get my corn planted and some good fishing in. I would hate to think I wasted my precious time here.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217556

TIR

What happens when the "rejecting "states find out that the "collecting" states are richer, have better schools, and a much better educated and talented work force?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217547

DC just extended that full faith and credit to gay couples for any benefits conferred by the district. It has no bearing on Federal Law, but it's another milestone.

For Pogo

“Under current law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by the Bill Clinton in 1996, expressly allows any state to refuse to accept a same sex marriage from another state. That is black letter federal law. The same law prohibits the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages for any reason (such as Social Security benefits, etc).

Now, is the DOMA constitutional? There are arguments on both sides (actually seperate arguments for and against both provisions), but until a case is brought before the Supreme Court and the Court issues a ruling, the DOMA is the law of the land and states are free to disregard same sex marriages from other states.

There is a well-established rule stating that states are not required to recognize marriages from other states if those marriages are contrary to the public policy of the second state. So if two 14-year olds get married in some state where that is legal, NY is permitted not to recognize the marriage. While this rule was originally used as an excuse for states to refuse to recognize mixed-race marriages performed in other states, I believe it is still used to refuse to recognize marriages where the parties were too young (according to the second state's standards) or where the blood relationship between the spouses was such that the second state would prohibit their marriage as being incestuous (i.e., allowing for refusal to recognize cousin marriages or the creepy uncle/niece marriages that Rhode Island allows).

So the states that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states do have an argument -- an argument that could probably survive a Full Faith & Credit attack."

Two comments from a post today on Full Faith and Credit in response to D.C. supporting gay marriage but now recognizing same sex marriage itself in D.C.

NOT recognizng, that is

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217546

That IKEA couple started celebrating their "empty nest" a little too soon. :-)

Nope, I leave open adoption to straight and gay as long as the prove they would be good parents. I know gay couples with adopted kids.

I suggest we limit reproducing couples who have no business making babies. Sorry if I did not make that clear. My statement above refers to the D.C. ruling.

RR, LOL.

TiR, wadr, I disagree. This is an area of const. law that is a gathering storm no less than the anti miscegination laws were. The Full Faith and Credit clause and the public policy exception to it as conflicting with the Equal Protection clause is not something that state statutes (that do nothing more than reflect the public policy of the stae in which they exist) can overcome - or even affect. The only purpose those statues can have is to form the basis of a suit on EP & FFC grounds.

jax, adoption laws are also the "exclusive" province of the states. States' laws are only valid if the conform to the CoUS - well, once they are challenged successfully at any rate. The problem with your statement is that this is an area where questions of fundamental rights are invoked. States' public policy considerations cannot contravene fundamental rights.

You know it is so great that Obama wants to treat everyone fairly and that he is so nice. He seems to try to tell everyone what he thinks they want to hear. It makes him popular with the nice crowd but many we deal with are those who only respond to the kick ass and take names kind. That is sad.

I have never been a good manager/leader in my work situations, even though I have avoided those roles, because I believed and tried to lead with fairness and kindness. Every time I was in a management/leadership role I was run over even by those who I thought would appreciate that kind of leadership.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217562

Pogo

Just take the promises out of the civil registration other than the obvious one of "are you entering into this contract under duress". In towns they sometimes do it in reverse. Have the church wedding and then the whole party of happy couple, relatives and friends parade with lots of singing and cheering through the streets to sign the book at City Hall that makes it all "official". Nice custom.

Pogo, spoken like a true Federalist! In your reading States have little rights at all. Perhaps to pick their State flower?

Max, exactly, although I'm not sure I agree with the FF&C conclusion. And just as state statutes cannot trump constitutional rights, neither can federal statutes (like DOMA, forinstance) - but all statutes, whether state or federal, are valid until they have been declared unconstitutional by a federal or state court of competent jurisdiction. BTW, where is that quote from? I'd like to read the article.

And yes, there are arguments on both sides of every issue that goes before the courts. I get a sense that in this case, ultimately the equal protection clause and FF&C will win out over the contrary arguments.

Maxtrue, your 10:04 AM post,

But we will be liked by the world. LMAO. Actually what President Obama accomplished is telling Europe and the Middle East what the wanted to hear. Middle East views our new POTUS as weak, as does Russia and China. Europe is Europe and have forgotten what the US sacrifice to bail out their butts on numerous occasions. Europe, just like before WWII, is just plain scared of doing anything. They are hoping and praying if we just close our eyes, ears, and mouth, maybe we will be spared a terrorist attack, but they are being held hostage by their own fear. Muslim terrorists hate Europe, as it was Europe where the Crusades sprang from, and for these terrorist time doesn't wash away their bitter memories. The terrorists will hit Europe before America. Several reasons, they hate Europe, logistically Europe is a lot closer to strike, Europe is weak, Europe has many newly arriving Muslims residing in their countries this, this provides them an operating base from within the host country. Europe will be begging for our help sooner rather than later. Now I'm off to the casinos.

max, that's not my position at all. States have broad lattitude, except where their statutes deprive citizens of the US of their fundamental rights granted under the US constitution. I do tend to be a Federalist in the original sense of the word, simply because weak federal powers lead to unreasonable conflicts between and among the states, but I don't take that to the extreme that would deprive states of their rights to act in their appropriate sphere of influence. F'rinstance, states can have restrictions on the passage of goods through them on their highways, but if they unduly restrict interstate commerce, those restrictions aren't valid.

"agree with those that think all partnerships should be civil unions..... and marriage can be a religious ceremony one can choose.... "

Just weighing in on this and the ones that followed...

My daughter and her husband got married at their home, outside...on a beautiful (and warm) day in April. A real music business event -- lots of kinds of music from classical guitar to alt country and bluegrass. Our friend Jimmy had just become a PhD theologian and pastor. But he felt uncomfortable performing a ceremony not held in a church. (It would have been his first) So we got a judge to come. The two, Jimmy and the judge, stood together, Jimmy gave a religious presentation and blessing, and the judge performed the ceremony. My daughter later said it was a perfect blend of church and state.

That IKEA ad is the funniest thing I've seen in years!

The objections to gay marriage is religious --what happened to the separation of church and state? In California, the idea of making all marriages civil unions has been discussed for a while and despite the recent success of prop 8 - the notion is picking up steam.

It is time to reform "marriage" law a lot of which is grounded in times when woman had no property rights.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217554

Pogo --

Hormone replacement. (~/|\~)

I posted the iKEA commercial on my Facebook page...wonder if I'll get kicked off for it....

KC, while religous-based objections to same sex marraige exist and probably are more prevalent than broader, cultural and "moral" (I know, I know) objections, not all cultural and moral positions are religious for establishment clause purposes. (I'm not religious, but I think it's wrong to have sex with animals not of my species - that's a more I have in common with religios mores, and one that probably is based in religion, but it's not a church-state question necessarily). A "moral" principle that cuts across most or all religions and is accepted as valid by secular folks as well isn't going to be a substantial basis for an establishment clause challenge to a law. That recent case of the ten commandments monument in the park brought by the nutcase religion that thinks god drives a spaceship pretty well lays out the limits of establishment clause cases. (I apologize for not providing a link, but I can't recall the names of the parties). Marriage is sort of betwixt and between religion and government, Equal protection is a better legal basis on which to build a suit IMHO.

Pogo

Question,,,,When a law is signed does it go immediately into effect,,if there are no dates given?,,,,Our new Governor,,just signed ( april 5th) a new law that stops foreclosures,,I can't get an answer from any one here. The Gove, Quinn Mortgage Relief Bill,,,,,thanks

Ivy, lol - and you emoticons are inspiring.

Solar, that is generally the case.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217584

That emoticon is Solar's "serious face." lol

If the gay-marriage and gay rights issue was easy, it would be done already. But it's clear the trend is toward liberalization. Where the people want go, the leaders will follow.

Solar, can you find a link to the bill as it was passed? I'll look at it if you'd like, but can't find the text of the bill anywhere.

Pogo,,I hope so,,,someone I know can use the time,,he has been approved for a re-fi,,,but it has been stalled for a few months,,cos,,"lack of funding",,this will help it that is true,,,thanks again

Ivy

We can share it ,,since you made me come up with it,,,I think that anyone that wants to out do you (creatively) is in for a surprise,,,I just got awfully lucky on that one.

(^ _~)

Solar,

It may be serious to you, but it looks a great deal like Monty Python's "I fart in your general direction" to me. :-)

Solar

Here is the news broadcast on that forclosure bill signing

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6746268

Truth, you are probably right. I am more worried about our capacity to carry on until EU wakes up. And the idea that China and Russia no longer present a problem is absurd given who they seel their advanced hardware to.

Pogo, the blog I pulled some comments from.

http://dcist.com/2009/04/council_votes_to_recognize_same-sex.php

And just to be honest, what you push is contrary to what our Founders had in mind. See my comments about Federalism last night on this issue. You inflate equal protection until States have no power and we are all one not so happy family under a one world SCOTUS. Just like Koh imagines.

Abortion was a State affair in 1789.
The last thing our Founders had in mind was the tyranny of a central government prescribing the values we must all accept under the expanison of the Commerce Clause, Equal Protection etc. The concept of dual loyalty is obviously quite foreign to you.

Well, that's just my humble opinion.....

Solar - give me a bill no. and I 'll look at it - iif it's SB 2443 (but I don't think it is), it's effective immediately.

Here is some more detail on how the Illinois bill would work

http://www.dean-team.com/blogs/deans_team/archive/2009/04/07/foreclosure-relief-in-il-bill-mandating-up-to-90-day-delay-signed-by-il-governor.aspx

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217590

Jamie,,,,,,I can't say that you are wrong about it,,,,,,It will have to be seen for what it is ,,by the context of the post,(serious or ? ),,,,,,or maybe we should let the fart,,,experts,,,decide it,,,,numero uno Flatus,,,then Max,,,,and then bringing up the rear :-),,,that little fart Renee,,,hahaha

Pogo,,,I going to try to find the written text,,thanks again.Oh and for payment,,,if you don't mind I will give you a lawyer joke,,,that you have never heard OK?

here is the news stating it,,and the article,,if you scroll down a little

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/rss

Pogo, if religion doesn't inform your rational moral concepts then what does? The strongest arguements against abortion I have heard come from secularists who say the primacy of life and its attendent values places embryos in a rather "sanctified" postion.

Life is of supreme value. Without religion the rationalist must fall back to biology and anthropology. In that realm, your suggested legal fixes run into a whole lot of evidence to the contrary. Again, vist the links I posted last night to Warren concerning the basic principles of altrusitic cooperation and punishment. Isn't it obvious that as you promote one worlder mantras the WORLD can't even stop pirates or genocide? There s a huge disconnect to your line of "reasoning".

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-roots-of-punishment

While we are far to lax in punishing international offenders to the point of it being a joke, here in America, some would like to have a unitary application of values enforced through the agency of a central State.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217592

Max,

Not only were there no abortion laws in 1789, but even the first laws along about 1820 did not consider anything prior to the fourth month an abortion. "Quickening" (the ability of the mother to feel the fetus" was considered the beginning of life even by the Catholic Church. The whole idea of "life at conception" is a relatively new philosophical and religious arguement.

Currently the earliest survivability of the fetus born prematurely even with modern medicine is at that 21 week line and that was with severe physical and mental handicaps. You have to get past 30 weeks to even hit 20% survival.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217594

Jamie ,,,,thank you for the link,,I had all of the info,,but not the actual bill #,,It still is not telling me when it goes into effect,,but Im a lot closer to knowing, There is a st Senator Collins,,that introduced the bill,,,maybe I can try that route.

max

"I suggest we limit reproducing couples who have no business making babies."

And on what criteria would you base this on - income, intelligence, etc.?!

Again, I am amazed that someone who usually supports a position on the conservative side of the fence can talk about such govt intervention in people's private lives with a straight face.

This seems to be a big inconsistency with conservatives - less govt until we decide to mess with people's personal lives.

Solar,

Once signed, it is law and from what I can see of the reporting, it is now in effect.

Tribe's book Clash of the Absolutes discusses this issue. He clearly states Abortion was legal in 1789. The 13 States accepted the Common law practice of legal abortion before quickening, but did not enforce penalties for later abortions. The States did not pass laws against such practice till the 19th century directed at herbal abortion inducers and in the absence of Federal prohibitons or any definition of personhood in the Contitution that would apply to the fetus, people were free to choose. This fact does not detract from the notion that such regulation was within State powers and nothing suggests regulatory power lies in the Fed. MIssing this obervation lead to a poorly reasoned Roe as Koh recognizes.

State law did permit abortion in 1789 by having no laws to regulate or prevent it and by acceptance of Common Law practices left behind by the British..

max, you either misunderstand me or ar intentinally distorting what I've said. If you don't understand that the rights granted by the constitution to the people are superior to the restrictions placed on those rights by the laws of the states - which is all I'm saying - you don't understand the fundamental founding principles of our nation. The founding fathers envisioned a country founded on individual freedoms guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights that could not be restricted by the states, which had certain rights and responsibilities of their own under the same document. The "strong central government" I advocate is only with respect to providing for defense and the general welfare of the citizens, and guaranteeing that the states do not restrict the rights guaranteed by the founding documents, as amended. If guaranteeing rights is more tyrannical than restricting them, then I'll take tyranny.

Abortion is a state's rights red herring. If the right to privacy protects a woman's rights to abort because equal protection does not extend to a nonviable fetus, the permission to exercise of that right does not impose on any person or state any action at all. Tyranny makes people do or refrain from doing those things that are contrary to or incompatible, respectively, with their rights. You hold the separate states' rights paramount to the individual's and disguise that under the rubrick of dual loyalty. That's where we differ.

Oh, I'm fully aware of the concept of dual loyalty - it's the term you're using to paper over the states' rights argument you're making. And I'm fairly familiar with the argument - having grown up in Birmingham in the civil rights era, gone to High School with Bull Connor's nephew and having walked through the same door to register for my college clasess that George Wallace had stood in 7 years before to keep Vivian Malone and James Hood out of the Univ. of AL while spouting his states' rights BS. Dual loyalty does not mean conflicting loyalty - and where the conflicts exist in the areas of rights guaranteed by the constitution, the states lose. It was equal protection then and it's equal protection now that the argument will be waged over. States' rights will be the counter argument, and my money is on EP.

Or at least that's my opinion.

I am not a conservative Warren so your remarks make no sense. Coming down right of "very Liberal" does not a conservative make.

There are people now forbidden to reproduce. And perhaps making such a decison by States renders it less totalitarian for you? People with mental problems or even serious genetic defects should not reproduce. Octo mom, by the way, should never have been allowed all those babies. Period.

Why that is a conservative positon is beyond me.

"It may be serious to you, but it looks a great deal like Monty Python's "I fart in your general direction" to me. :-)"

Jamie....
sounds like you've tried Fuestra and suffered one of it's side effects....

I will say one thing without going to deep into the abortion issue.

My argument about conservatives being inconsistent on social issues - is not as strong when it comes to abortion rights.

Bascially you can take the position that you are protecting the fetus's life against the govt action of allowing its life to be ended.

In other words, if you assume life begins at conception, and that a private individual could not end a life without govt intervention, i.e, the govt saying it is not a crime - then you can make a libertarian argument against abortion.

Jamie

Thanks again,,,,same here,,but my nephew is 6 months behind cos,,,they told him that he was approved,,had two diff closings,,that were canceled,,cos of funding problems,,,I have to find out if the new law will help a situation like his??

and I see hardly anyone has taken up Cosmos' "think in the box" suggestion and stayed on topic.... I'm feeling kinda traditional at the moment.... so let me give it a try....

I LOVE new media..... but if the message is the same ol' shit.... all the shiny new fangled stuff won't matter.....

I don't care who makes the decision that someone can't reproduce - it is still totalitarian.

I don't argue that Roe was well reasoned, but Tribe doesn't say that Roe would have been decided otherwise had it been reasoned differently (it may very well have been, but I do not believe so) - at least he did not say that when I saw him discuss the issue a few years back. He argued that Roe was not well reasoned, and another con lawyer on the panel whose name escapes me now argued that IF the right to privacy exists as a necessity to the other rights, then Roe would have been decided as it was regardless of the decision path. Until states placed restrictions on abortion, it was not an issue to be decided by the federal courts, so the fact that all states allowed abortion in 1789 does not lead to the result that they could abolish it - particularly if it was found to be among the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Xolar - lunch.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217595

Solar --

Seriously, could also be taken as, "I smell a fart coming in my general direction" ... ? You're right, we have to let Flatus clear the air on this one.

P.S. I can't take any credit for creativity, saw that "wink" on the web somewhere. Thanks though.

"If the right to privacy protects a woman's rights to abort because equal protection does not extend to a nonviable fetus, the permission to exercise of that right does not impose on any person or state any action at all."

Lol and it does extend to gay marriage.....

1. define nonviable and be very careful because the bed you make is the one you will sleep in less than a decade out. Pay particular attention to the use of "natural" in the courts decision.

2. a fetus then, is like a chair stuck inside the woman. And the father who will certainly be liable should the chair become a person (when?) has no say in how the chair is destroyed.

3. I don't see privacy mentioned in the Constitution. Mentioned directly. The common law that lies at the foundation here allowed only for abortion before the quickening. Privacy above is the smoke screen you accuse me of and I generally support abortion rights before the third trimester.

As to your other points about federalism, dual, loyalty, states rights, what constitutes "personal liberty" is too long here to argue now given yesterday's bandwidth on the Defense Budget.

You can be sure we will discuss this again. If you think the reasoning behind Roe is sound, then even Koh on the far Left doesn't support you. Expand your set of what constitutues "liberty" and you will always find reason to trump the state with ever increasing Federal Power, even the right to take someone's home and put it to whatever use the local government wants. But then, as I said, that is for another day.......money calls.

Fox...making lemonade out of someone else's lemons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_en_tv/tv_fox_layoff_show

Solar, Calling Quinn's office is the safest way to check. Then if it is in effect already, your nephew can tell the lender he is covered under the mortgage relief program. (I thought itt said it was only good for 3 mos. though ?)

I looked on Quinn's website, and didn't see it mentioned there (unless I missed it).

Yeah Blue, but maybe they're paying for those lemons. (?) :)

So, is this all just a way for state gov'ts to divert attention away from the economy, or, are they hoping the economy is enough of a diversion to make some changes & let all of their citizens have the same rights, as should have always been the case?

I'm sure they are; it probably beats getting a pink slip without a reality series. I think it's probably a lot less real with a camera crew there and, hey, the folks that get the air time will end up with agents and gigs on other reality shows, or maybe even offers for real-world jobs. A real layoff is the ultimate episode of Survivor.

Blue, Maybe it's coming up because we finally have a liberal government in charge, for the first time in quite a while?

Chloe,,,thanks,,,,that's my dilemma,,,not knowing how far back it will cover,,,,yes I have tried Quinns office,,left a message,,and now at the state senator that introduced the bill,last Dec,,or this Jan,,,will get to the bottom of if,,thats for sure,,,,,most people that I have talked to,,haven't even heard of the bill,,not sure about particulars,,etc etc,,thanks

I tried to say hello to you yesterday,,,but I just missed you by thaaaaat much again,,,,going to have to throw a rope around you the next time
everything is fine?

I think you're right. Someone's going to get that pink slip, one way or another. And maybe others, in the same situation, watching it will get some kind of comfort (although that sounds ironic, but as they say, misery loves company).

"Pew Official Disputes Right-Wing Claim That Poll Proves Obama Is “Polarizing”

"Many on the right have grabbed on to the Pew poll’s finding that Obama’s approval rating has a 61-point partisan gap — 27% of Republicans approve, while 88% of Dems do. Pew called the numbers “the most polarized” in decades but didn’t blame Obama."

http://tinyurl.com/cmopux

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217606

Renee - lol That or bariatric surgery

Hey Solar, I 'feel' almost positive that it's effective immediately. (you know about women and their intuition). :)

This may sound strange, but I think the best thing to do is for him to call his lender and ask if he's covered under this new bill. The lenders are the first to know about this and understand completely, I'll guarantee. It's always best to go directly to the source.

Solar, Thanks for asking about Emma (who is doing well, smiling and cooing and all that stuff). Hope all is going well for you and yours too.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217614

Blue, Just the sort of thing a Conservative audience would love. Fox did so much to promote the cause and now they are going to try to profit from the effect. Typical.

Rez, If he's got 88% of the Democrats, maybe 'polarized' isn't such a bad thing. It seems like strange reasoning to me. (Since when do Republicans and Democrats not disagree on most everything anyway.)

max, you are disingenuous. I was distinguishing permission to exercise a right from compulsion to or prohibition of the exercise of a right by the state. That is the constitutional framework I was addressing. It's application to gay marriage is exactly the same as its aplication to abortion - IF the right in question is in the constitution (either explicitly enumerated or a necessary underlying right - or necessary extension for that matter), an argument for its exercise by everyone, regardless of their (fill in the blank) can be based in an equal protection argument.

Viability - it's a term I use intentionally - viability does change as our medical capabilities advance - it is a medical, not a legal judgment to be made, which is where I disagree with Roe and its trimester scheme.

I did not defend the reasoning of Roe - as I pointed out, Tribe did not defend it's reasoning, but he does support its result. (See his brief in Bowers v. Hardwick - which he lost - and his amicus in Lawrence v. Texas - which overturned his loss in Bowers to see what the thinks of the EP arguments) if you're interested in his position on privacy and equal protection..

And if you support a right to abort in the first 2 trimesters, what do you base that right on?

My inbox this morning from the Wino family in South New Mexico -

" We have two sprouts...photos later...must work."

I am blue with envy.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217611

Pogo,,,I like my new name,,,,,kinda like Darth Vader a little,,,and I completely forgot about lunch again,,,,but here,,,take this (cagney voice again) you dirty rat.,,, (^ _~)

Compassionate Lawyer
>> Know any attorneys?
>> My kind of lawyer! Then again, maybe
>> that's the only kind there is. I didn't know they could be so compassionate.
>> One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his
>> limousine when he saw two men along the road- side eating grass.
>> Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.
>> He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?"
>> "We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat grass."
>> "Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you," the lawyer said.
>> "But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree."
>> "Bring them along," the lawyer replied. Turning to the other poor man
>> he stated, "You come with us, also."
>> The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said, "But sir, I also have a
>> wife and three children with me!"
>> "Bring them all, as well," the lawyer answered.
>> They all entered the car, which was no
>> easy task, even for a car as
>> large as the limousine was.
>> Once underway, one of the poor fellows
>> turned to the lawyer and said,
>> "Sir, you are too kind."
>> "Thank you for taking all of us with you."
>> The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it.
>> "You'll really love my place.
>> "The grass is almost a foot high"

Solar, if I had to make my living typing my own stuff I'd starve. :-)

Old Sea -

They most use a rowboat to the mail out to that island.

Solar, (or should I say Xolar?) LOL.

I hate it when I drop out important words in a sentence.

"get" goes in that last one.

Bob, I hate it when i read into a sentence the important words you leave out. :-)

RR. Since you insisted I did watch the video. Hey I was taking an insane day so I forgot to watch it earlier. Now that I have, what does it mean that the IRS will try to friend me? After some of my comments about their great new leader I don't think I am on their friend list.

Went out to the camp to check and see if the boat I just had fixed was still out in the water, it was. I checked to see if it still starts, it does. Unfortunately I am the only one I know who is off for an insane day and I am afraid to take it out by my little lonesome. I guess I am not quite insane enough or I would.

Max you posts are very interesting and long. If I can't get a law degree when I finish reading them I don't think I can quite make it thru them especially on an insane day.

Pogo,,,,I this might get me in trouble with L B,,,,but Xolar sounds a little like royalty,,,,but my kingdom is not of this world,hahaha

Solar, the second good laugh for the day. The first was that ikea commercial. I'm coming 'round.

Pogo, I wasn't being disengenuous but I will have to reply later.

I only wanted to post this article before I ran...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702167.html

So let's be very clear......as Iran calls a female journalist it is holding since January a spy, as they get Hamas to thwart neotiations woth fellow Palestinians, as their illegal ships of arms to Gaza are bombed in the Sudan, as they declare new "nuclear news" is coming shortly, the 6 nation team representing world interests offers Iran a new beginning to discuss a diplomatic soluton to Iranian conflict with the world...lol

If Obama bungles his way to capitulation (remember his nuke Iran speech from 2004?), we get zip help on Afghanistan, Hamas and Hizb'Allah start more conflict, the new media and old will tear Obama a new one.

And Pogo, what legal Constitutional scholar would EVER suggest that results trump reasoning? By that absurd measure let's just vote on the result we would like to see and forget the reasoning in getting their. Is this what you look for in new SCOTUS judges?

What do I base my decision to justify first and second term abortions? Since such fetuses are not persons in the criteria of science and evidence, they are not due the same protection as lving persons. That doesn't mean they are chairs and we should easily dismiss regulation, but that aborting these particular fetuses is NOT murder. Note I do not base my reasoning on whether said fetus is "naturally" viable outside the womb, but rather on a rational criteria of what you and I might deem a "person". How SCOTUS misses this is beyond me, nor does the Constitution come close to defineing a person as a fetus. Extending a Constitutional definition of person to fetus would require said fetus to display the distinguishing characteristics of a living persons such as awareness, a significant degree of autonomy, personality and some other benchmark qualities.

Had the court built a coherent foundation rather than seek social compromise, we would be in far better shape on this issue. And by the way, our Founders did not believe that the fetus had a soul. This is a leter notion.

Oops, I am very late now......

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217637

ct --

I took it as they need all the friends they can get.

Cosmo,,,,,,,If you think that this blog is boring,,,and since I think that your jokes suck,,,and mostly said to entertain yourself,,, and show us how intelligent you are,,,you are nuts,,,I have to get off this damn thing now and get some work done,,,but it is hard to do,,with all of the fun,,,and informative posts;and interesting people that are here!!

Carol,

,I love making you laugh,,cos it's not easy,,,,I left some jokes behind ,,on past threads,,,but no reply,,,glad that you are coming around,,,like Patsi,,I too would like to see some pics of everything around you,( the owls),,,,,shhhh is it true about all the voodoooo stuff,,,and like Sea,,lets sea some recipes.,Stay busy,,less time to worry about the small stuff

Hi Chloe,

Agreed! I came across that story and recalled a comment or two made here that was apparently misreading that poll. I think you may have disagreed with the comments at the time also. My only thinking was the contrast being made between administrations was not fair, imo, mainly due to the volume of activity, i.e. legislation, over the same time period.

according to "Parade" magazine, a penny costs 1.5 cents to make..................

and a nickel costs 9 cents.........

Does anyone know anything about a so-called "conscience regulation?" I received a solicitation to "take action" to block implementation by HHS of a "harmful regulation issued in the final hours of the Bush Administration that undermines women's access to reproductive health care."

Specifically, "[t]he 'conscience' regulation reinterprets existing laws to allow nearly any employee in a federally-funded health care setting who claims a religious objection to refuse to provide information, referrals, or access to a range of health care services including birth control."

I vaguely recall hearing about this, but had no idea it was close to enactment. If true, I'm outraged.

Solar, if I knew anything about voodoo I would be very busy right now. I also always enjoy your jokes if I see them. BTW I do laugh a lot and as often as possible even though sometimes I am crying at the same time.

"the creepy uncle/niece marriages that Rhode Island allows"

max, are they condoning only uncles who are creepy uncles? and what about creepy aunt/nephew marriages?

pogo, but what does your "wrong to have sex with animals not of my species" have to do with the issue of marriage? most sheep i know can't even sign their name let alone say "i do" ....but come to think of it there are few old goats that try to get their way with innocent young maids.

Ivy,

It was enacted and President Obama is set to repeal the instruction. Here is the WaPo article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html

"The American crew of a hijacked U.S.-flagged cargo ship retook the vessel Wednesday from the Somali pirates who seized it far off the Horn of Africa, Pentagon officials said. But a crew member on the vessel is telling The Associated Press that the ship's captain is still being held hostage. The American says negotiations are under way for his release."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_re_af/piracy

Interesting. Facebook and Twitter to form a revolution?

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=twitter-revolution-10000-protesters-2009-04-08

I wonder if they played You Tube clips while waving the flags and hitting the streets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yq372R4Ts

Max, legal scholars - and judges - often applaud the holdings of cases but criticize the court's reasoning. Happens all the time. One fairly good example, using Roe, would be Potter Stewart, who was on the court when Roe was decided, and John Paul Stevens, who came onto the court 2 years later, and who criticized Blackmun's opinion as having caused much of the controversy surrounding Roe, but not the result. It is commonplace to see a concurrence "in the opinion, but based on other grounds" to a case - particularly constitutionally based cases.

I chuckle at your trying to pin me down on the viability issue - Blackmun's notes made during the Roe deliberations actually addressed that point, noting that his trimester approach was arbitrary, as were viability and quickening thresholds that had been used by other courts and legislatures under common and statutory law. At any rate, I don't mean to take a narrow view of viability or define at what point the fetus becomes viable to the extent that it acquires rights beyond saying that I'm sure the threshold would be somewhere beyond the point at which medical science could merely sustain the fetus' life and somewhere before a fetus could survive independently outside the womb.

Ivy, that "Provider Conscience Regulation" was a reg that Bush signed that would allow any doctor or other healthcare provider receiving federal funds to avoid participating in an action (read abortion and family planning here) that was against his or her conscience. Obama announced that he was going to rescind it back in February. I assume he did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html?nav=rss_email/components

hi all, FYI: i am scheduled to be on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann" MSNBC Tonight (4/8) at 8:50 PM EST (More Palin fun)

pat - the sex with animals thing was simply to point out that there are standards of behavior and mores accepted by the non-religious and religious alike, and that simply because some mores may be based in religion - or at least fairly uniformly accepted by many if not all religions - they do not necessarily invoke the separation clause. (And I do have a white goatee, but it's been more than a few years that I've tried to have my way with an innocent young maid).

Oooooh New Toy for computer stuff

Free Design of a Logo for web pages

http://cooltext.com/

Pogo...found the text for that new law,,it looks like it is in effect,,,a little long,,so don't worry if you don't have the time,,thanks,,,Im going to read it a cpl of times and see if I can grasp it all.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-1047.htm

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217653

Ivy/Pogo

The difference was that there was a "conscience" exception in place for 30 years that gave the freedom to not participate in an action that violated ones' conscience. The difference Bush put in place was that they no longer had to advise a patient of the option or refer to others who would provide that option.

It is the Bush change that Obama will rescind.

re thread topic video,
wh techi macon phillips had a half empty aspirin bottle on the shelf next to his desk...

disappointed that those who asked the legalize & tax mj question were deemed a "subset" of americans (followed by snickers and knowing grins). anyone seen a recent poll showing how big that subset might be?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217654

The trouble with constant, repetitive 24 hour news is that by the time Matthews, Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow get around to the video, it has already been shown every five minutes on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. Anything they or you might say is eyeball glazed boring. Hope you have a new angle planned.

"scheduled to be on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann" MSNBC Tonight (4/8) at 8:50 PM EST"

awww what a way to louse up a good evening. craig's assigned more homework for us again. and this time there's no championship game excuse.

Solar, I ain't gonna read the whole thing - I'd rather have my eyes gouged out. but here's teh money line you aked about:

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.

It became law when the Guv signed it.

Pogo,,,thanks,,,and yep,,,that's where I went to also,,,,what is the bottom line,,,and its in effect,,,

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217659

Jamie & Pogo:

Thanks for the links and info. I am a stickler for "professionalism" whatever your chosen profession may be. My knee-jerk oppositional reaction stems from my interpretation that allowing providers to deny services, and/or access to information about services, "legalizes" personal-bias, conflict-of-interest, and self-serving behavior toward the client, patient or customer. I hold "professionals" to a higher standard of duty toward the client rather than themselves. If you don't like what the job entails, look for a different job.

It may be pro-forma, but rescinding the rule appears not yet a done deal. Tomorrow is the "comment deadline."

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217659

jamie, yeah, I think Obama thought the new protections for workers amounted to the deprivation of services for patients. Methinks that wass its intent. Good, I'm glad O didn't plan to let it stand. The RW is not going to be happy with the Obama admin - tough. They've had their picnic. I just wish Obama would be clear and say that his idea of cooperation or bipartisanship or whatever you have it means that he will listen to and consider their views, but it does not include capitulation to RW positions. If the RW religious nuts are against actions of the O admin, I suspect I'd have to look pretty hard to find a reason to object to them.

Solar, Sections 35 & 70 are the meat of the bill - the rest of the changes are things your friend couldn't care less about. And yeah, it looks like there are 3 30 day periods available to the homeowner as long as they seek mortgage counseling.

Today we had a couple of controversies that elicited many comments about this or that being 'liberal' or 'conservative.' I think such words should mean the same thing all the time, but I seem to be a minority of one.

F'rinstance, In 1781, King's George's 'conservative' Mercantilist economic system was jettisoned by an America that opted for 'liberal' Free Enterprise.' In my lifetime, 'Free Enterprise' has usually been referred to as 'conservative'. However, the 'conservative' bushcrimefamily system of no-bid contracts for the likes of blackwater and halliburton is Mercantilism reborn. 'Free Enterprise' is now something that only backward countries like Afghanistan do, and the buscheneyrumsfeld gang compassed to tech the Afghanis an new and 'better' way.

So, what do these words we toss about so blithely actually mean, if anything ? I have long supposed that these words mean exactly what the Red Queen intends them to mean, nothing more and nothing less.

Speaking of U-Tube .......... My friend's " Art Truck " under construction , one of the sponsors is Excel Energy :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASF2e3l4MNo

Big X -

Here's yer "Atta Boy" ............ A Red Queen reference always get's an "Atta Boy".

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217668

Pogo,

I can understand someone telling a patient, "there is a treatment available that I will not do. Here is someone who will counsel you on the option." I can even understand a Catholic Hospital refusing to perform abortions as long as there is another hospital or clinic available.

What I couldn't support is leaving the patient in ignorance of their options. As far as I'm concerned, that is malpractice.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217672

CBob

What do I get for croquet, flamingoes, "Off With Their Heads!"?

That odd word toward the end of my second paragraph should read 'teach' not 'tech.' The 2 have a common root but different denotations.

While I'm at it, I apologize for apostrophizing 'King' near the beginning of the same paragraph.

I do not apologize for the contraction of 'for instance' or the agglutinations of 'bushcrimefamily' and 'bushcheneyrumsfeld.' The latter are perfectly appropriate in any setting, whether served with a beef or a trifle.

Props to CNN. They are taking on the right wing emails about "Obama wants your guns" causing a gun buying frenzy.

My only interest is that I am on the receiving end of a lot of these mass mailings by choice because I want to know what some of these nut cases are spreading around. It is getting downright scary in the wording, and it isn't hard to envision some of their nuttier recipients taking drastic action.

pogo, your statute's validity until ruled otherwise argument started me on a goose chase to find the original backup for that general holding. never got to it, but did find something really interesting from doj (1994) that touches on validity fight between the pres & cong. kinda neat to see the internal the arguments in those days.

[Presidential denial of the validity of statutes]. Myers holds that the President's constitutional duty does not require him to execute unconstitutional statutes; nor does it require him to execute them provisionally, against the day that they are declared unconstitutional by the courts. He cannot be required by statute to retain postmasters against his will unless and until a court says that he may lawfully let them go. If the statute is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional from the start.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

Well then Pogo, it seems you would agree then, that science employing a criteria of what is somewhat consistent with the Constitutional notion of personhood should determine (and err on the side of caution) when abortion is murder, mark the defining line (likely somewhere near 25 weeks) when murder is crossed. The court fumbled but based on our concept of person and murder the point of demarcation seems about correct. The damage done by grossly avoiding the rational framework of a coherent and secular decision has caused great political conflict and dangerous off shoots of Constitutional reasoning.

The rest of the issue would be what rules govern the fertilized egg gestating (as opposed to being frozen somewhere) as we both probably consider it far more than a chair. I have no religious sentiment on this matter though an equally passionate position can be framed in a morality of life, a desire to see society reflect the sacredness of life and it’s potential.

That’s why most Liberals don’t like abortion. It seems a travesty of responsibility based on an understanding of the morality of life. Despite such a philosophy however, I am more than happy to see embryos otherwise bound for the toilet, be of service to credible scientists. Remember, that idea about two men creating an embryo?
Or perhaps two women?

The potential and deep symbolism embryos have require certain regulation as cloning, bioweapons, drug production, organ replacement and fertility science steps up to moral thresholds.

I think States have serious rights here as very little of this is enumerated as Federal in the Constitution unless one wish to further expand the interpretation of a few oft used clauses. However the Fed should define where the line of personhood the Constitution refers to is crossed. And that would apply to right to life issues as well.

Here is a another problem. Baby A is going to die for certain. Once they take off her respirator she will die. Baby B needs her heart.(Yes, something like this was on TV lately) If they just let A die (which is legal) the heart might be damaged and Baby B dies with a damaged transplant. Do you slowly let Baby A die with man-made means and extract a healthy heart (encourage brain death) or must you let "nature" let her die (no taking her the respirator did that) so option one is not defined by law as murder? There are a few big issues here.

There are many things in uncharted water, but building results on public opinion rather than forming a result with a consistent framework of law has far reaching affects in both the trajectory of law and the direction of public discourse. You all have noted the Common Law history. The court, I think was right in rejecting the idea a fetus per se is a person as did Common Law. It did weigh in on when abortion was murder, again not so different than the Common Law the Constitution left to the States to enforce on this issue.. It did little however to explain the reasoning for personhood and assigned 1 trimester and 2 trimester fetuses essentially property the woman solely owns and can do with whatever she wishes. Why should men have half the liability and 0% of ownership? Who negotiates that contract? Should there BE birthing contracts?

Pogo, has a living person ever sues ones parent for the harm they caused to them while in the womb? “I’m suing my crack head mom for the damages she’s done”…lol Now would that be in the States power to judge or SCOTUS?

Yep, many permutations and no road map. That's what you get with bad decisions. What if you COULD sue for that in NY and not in CT. Now that would be interesting.......

jamie, exactly, and well put. The hospital I used to work for was formed when a Catholic hospital and a community hospital merged - and because of the Catholic representation on the board at the time, the hospital established a "No abortion" policy - which as you might guess, was a pain in the side of the more secular doctors who practiced in the OB/GYN area - and in the 5 years I worked there, only one doc did not fit that description. As to prescribing and dispensing BC advice, they all did - even the Catholic doctors. They were certain to a person to make sure that the kids - and most were - who came to seek an abortion were informed of which hospitals did that procedure and made sure that a proper referral was made. The Catholic doc, fully aware of her objection and inability to objectively deal with the patient, would just refer the patient to her non-Catholic partner for the discussion.

jamie
It's not the Obama wants your guns issue that has everyone buying. It's the proposed ammo restriction thast has everyone stockpiling it.

While I was buying a 10 round box of 12 guage turkey shot at Academy this last weekend a single buyer came up and bought the entire 2000 round inventory
of .40 cal pistol ammo that the store had. He was at least 70 years old. He said he was was speculating that it would be worth alot more soon.

The store clerk said that another guy had bought 5000 rounds the previous week and that the store couldn't get it in fast enough.

Posted by: warren | April 8, 2009 12:16 PM : "My argument about conservatives being inconsistent on social issues - is not as strong when it comes to abortion rights."

However, when it comes to abortions administered by American landmines left scattered willy-nilly across the planet, 'conservatives' are nearly unanimous in their support of abortion. When it comes to abortions occassioned by tobacco use, mercury, lead, and other metal poisoning, fumes from fuel and solvents, pestacides, or herbacides, 'conservatives' are nearly unanimous in their support of abortion.

In fact, republicans are on record as opposing abortions only if they are to be administered by a qualified doctor to a woman who requests the service.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217680

"he was was speculating that it would be worth alot more soon"

Jax
would that be as soon as he got it across the border into Mexico?

The import/export man

Jack

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217680

jax/jamie, have also heard gun owner friends stocking up on ammo because they are concerned about another depression that goes on for years. they worry that they may be faced with protecting their foodstuff, water supply, fuel etc from hungry and desperate people wandering the streets.

Jack,
Don't think so. This was just pistol ammo and not the high powered round....more of the small personal protection kind.....but hey......you never know.

As I understand it the high grain 9 mil is the pistol ammo for our friends to the south...:)

The gun and ammo companies have been spreading the rumor on the rightwing blogs that the
Dems will outlaw guns and "Obama will take your guns away." The solution, the blogs say, is to stock up now. This is the repuglican way of stimulating the economy. They haven't yet gone so far as to say, "Kill people now, before it's too late," but we should expect that pretty soon.

Jack,
Never looked but which ammo/gunmakers are public....might warrant an investment in the short term.

patd,
Ammo, like alot of other things, goes bad over time. Unless some catastrophe happens there will be alot of ammo going to the landfill.

Traditionally, the courts have held that only entities with 'personality' have standing. The word comes from 'personna' the Greek word for the masks worn in the ancient plays. The import of the term is that the entity is a moral agent in the jurisdiction.

ripuplicans want to rip up this 220 year old tradition, and replace it with the bogus argument that the foetus is human and it is alive, therefore it is a living human being. Whether or not foeti have the capacity to 'be' (the root of the word 'being') is sidestepped with no small amount of sneakiness.

So, we see that today's republicans are anti-traditional, or as we used to say when words still conveyed meaning, anti-conservative.

I have an errand to run for Sweetie, but I'll be back to continue in 1/2 hour or so.

Mr. Colorado,

Thanks for the recognition. I'd like to thank the Academy, my parents, Fred and Wilma, my lovely wife, Sweetie.......

I just did a blog rant on the subject of these over the top reports and emails that encourage hysterical reactions.

http://jdurward.blogspot.com/2009/04/over-top-and-then-some.html

Jax

The problem is how many fools with how much money.

With the economy the way it is I would say the number has peaked so with out any growth in fools/money there is limited growth oppertunity. After all there is a limit to how much money any fool has.
And soon that man that bought those 2000 rounds as an investment is going to need to move them, if nothing else so he can buy another bottle.
Any way it might be safer to buy GM stock at least it has a chance of going up.
Or invest in my favorite retirement investment. Powerball.
;-)

Jack

Jack

max,

This is not really what we were talking about, but I'll go with it. The fact is that murder is a crime that is almost exclusively an issue for the states to decide (there is one federal murder statute I believe). What argues for a federal standard, at least in my mind, is that leaving the definition of when a fetus acquires personhood for the purposes of muder statutes to the states leads to inconsistent and absurd results. I think we come close to agreeing on that point, although throwing a discussion of murder into the mix doesn't do anything to advance the issue and probably is a side issue that has no business being in the determination of when a fetus gains rights bestowed by the constitution. In general, I would agree that science more or less should - and probably has - defined at what point a fetus generally becomes capable of independent life (well, without artificial help at least) outside the womb, and that in general, states must decide whether and under what circumstances an abortion is murder. It is the application of the substantial interest test Rehnquist dissented against in Roe's companion case, Doe.

Murder has varying definitions from state to state, and using the term in its general sense is not helpful. It is used by the antiabortion crowd because of its emotionally charged character. In all likelihood, an abortion that had any consideration of the life or health of the mother would not be considered murder, but might be considered manslaughter in some degree.

The fertilized egg gestation deal is really nothing more than the life at conception argument, which I see as wholly irrelevant to the issues in Roe. Unless they are gestating inside a womb, I'm not aware of any possibility that they will become a person. I do agree that an abortion is normally evidence of a failure of responsibility, but that happens. The fact is, under the scheme that we're discussing - abortion being ok from the standpoint of the woman's decsion trumping the interests of the state up to the point (whether based on viability or some other standard) that the fetus has gained "personhood", the current system works in the vast majority of cases. The number of 3rd trimester abortions is exceedingly small and in almost every case is based on considerations for the health of the mother or the fetus.

And while your objections to abortion may not necessarily be based in religion, I note that you use the term "sacredness" of life - which is based wholly in religion. Value of life perhaps? Sure, you can make the argument, but for about five months after fertilization of an egg, human life doesn't exist outside a womb or at the temperature of liquid nitrogen, so I ain't buying what the anti-abortion crowd is trying to sell with respect to fertilized embryos. You and I do agree that they are of more beneficial use as an addition to the waste stream - which I view as a collossal waste whether it is immoral or not.

Now hear this, I am a liberal (not a particularly pure one, I'll admit) and I don't like abortion. But that has nothing to do with my belief that a woman has the right to choose to abort a pregnancy as a matter of her constitutional right to privacy, not to mention her substantive due process rights under the 14th amendment. - which is a discussion I do not have time to engage in today.

Yes, Max, those are big issues you mention, but they are not issues that are part of the discussion about women's right to privacy and reproductive rights or when an embryo acquires the rights that accompany personhood. They are related in a sense, but involve other issues such as parental rights, etc., and are in some ways more emotionally charged than the abortion issue.

To my knowledge, I have heard of only one suit by a living person against a parent for the parent's behavior when the person was in utero - it was a suit against the father for a battery against the mother that harmed the fetus I believe - but what you are referring to may have happened somewhere. I'll have to do some digging to see. To answer your question - under our legal system, that would be up to the states. Again, not enough time to discuss it today.

But now I have to go - track meet - and I fully expect to freeze my tookus off (and then I'll have to have all my pants altered).

Should have been

You and I do agree that they are of more beneficial use THAN as an addition to the waste stream - which I view as a collossal waste whether it is immoral or not.

Kinda makes that different dontchathink?

One major constituency favoring a ban on abortion is Roman Catholic. Catholics are told by their superiors that a human embryo = a human being. Stated another way, it's human, it's alive, ergo it's a human being. Many, if not most believe this equation.

However, on Friday, although almost all of the same observant Catholics will avoid eating chicken, they will have no compunction about eating eggs. If the human embryo = human being equation is valid, isn't the chicken embryo = chicken being equation equally valid ? Conversely, if one is can eat an egg because it isn't a chicken, then surely one can get an abortion, because it isn't a human.

Iow, what's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the human.

You may object that eggs are not 'concieved.' Well go ahead, it won't do you a bit of good, because, you are only referring to supermarket eggs. The RCC does not distinguish these and the fertilized variety, or for that matter, human eggs.

lest we forget

happy pesach.
all who are hungry, let them come and eat... all who are needy, let them come and celebrate passover.
now we are here, next year may we still be here.
and may we be free.

Cbob- you'd think so. I have received mail from Europe in quicker time than from Georgia. The mail is so crazy here. To mail a letter to a town two miles away, it is shipped off island and even off the Cape to Buzzards Bay, sorted and then sent back. Clever huh? And they wonder why the PO isn't doing well. Regardless my corn will have the distinction of having traveled by boat to reach its final home
.http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217632

Good blog post, Jamie...

For those interested in Passover who have never attended a Seder or who want to know the traditions behind the celebration, go here

http://www.happypassover.net/passover-customs/index.html

"Sacredness of life." It sounds great, but what the hell does it actually mean ?

Should we sacrifice a goat to it ?

What is life, anyway ? There are 6 2/3 B!LL!ON people on this rock, and I doubt that anyone can tell me what life IS. Can't see, smell, hear, or taste it. Although some of us claim we can feel it, I have serious doubts. You can't weigh it, measure it out, analyze it's spectroscopic characteristics, or ID it's chemical make-up. We can weigh air, and analyze it's chemistry. We can detect radio waves, and measure amperage. We have no idea what this thing called 'life' is, even though each one of us is busy with it all of our lives.

Further, let's examine the blanket statement for five seconds. Is all life sacred, or only some life ? If we are talking about Life with a capitol L, are the individuals who have memberships in this set also sacred ? Is grass sacred, or only the life of the grass ? Or, the individual leaf ? Is Tabitha's life sacred, or only the species Felis Domesticus ? Likewise, is Shawn Doe's life sacred, or only Homo Sapiens in the aggregate ?

If the individual human's life is sacred, then how can the moralistas happily tolerate the death penalty imposed on saddam hussein, or the mass-killing that was the bushcrimefamily's Operation Iraqi Fiasco ? If only some human life is sacred, then how are we to know whose ?

If we are going to make sweeping laws based on sweeping language, we had better know just what the hell we are talking about. I don't think that we can even agree on a common diction - which we would need to satisfactorily discuss these Cosmic Law Proposals - let alone agree on the implications, or on a cause for legislative action.

no offense to anyone....

but the only thing I like about this season is the fact I get to watch Yul Brynner play Ramses.....

oh yeah..... and there's really good jelly beans around.... :0)

ROFL, Renee!!!!!

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217706

Renee

See's Candy bon bons

XR,,,"There are 6 2/3 B!LL!ON people on this rock"

6 2/3 Billion and one (me),,I don't ask for much,,,but please count me in huh!!

Happy Passover !

I truly enjoy the song "Dayenu" which lists all the various blessings followed by the repetition of the word Dayenu meaning "That would have been enough" after each blessing. Basically, shut up and be greatful for what you have.

To apply this to modern events: Jews in Afghanistan and Iran will hit each other over the head with green onions. (Let's hope everyone in those countries sticks to green onions).

This may be due to a passage in Numbers 11:5-6, where the Israelites see manna and recall Egypt. "We remember the fish that we used to eat in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic. Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all. Nothing but this manna to look at" It is thought that by beating each other with the onions they teach themselves not to yearn for Egypt or to forget Egyptian Bondage.[1] Another theory is that it is to scold themselves for yearning for Egypt and complaining.[2]

April 27 1914 New York Times headline re labor protest:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9405E2DF173AE633A25754C2A9629C946596D6CF

GIRL SEES BONBONS, ENDS HUNGER STRIKE

There's the right to work and then there is candy ... oops.

Jamie,

The article doesn't state Ms Edelson's age, or discuss her couture, coif, or figure.

Waddahell kinda newspaper izzat ennyhow ???

I certainly hope that she never agreed to allow the grinders to shut her up.

So is it just Roman Catholicism you hate, xrep?

Damn, SolarCrete, how did I overlook you ? I'm awfully sorry. Maybe if you were to write a little louder....

Lord-Blogginton, you obviously have me confused with John Hagee or Pat Robertson.

I don't hate Roman Catholicism. However, my hackles go up when folks rant as if they have a corner on morals and philosophy. The RCC regularly puts it's feet in its mouth and then shoots itself in the foot. It's hard to hate folks who provide so much entertainment.

"I doubt that anyone can tell me what life IS."

.. it's not so much that no one can tell you what life is xrep, it's just hard to find two people who agree on what it is.

Ct - you are so right re taking baby steps.

My stand is that most things which grow fast are dangerous: cancer and weeds being the most obvious.

Tempers can be included and their corollary, mob rule.

"See's Candy bon bons"

See's candy is to die for Jamie. But my favorite are the butterscotch squares. I love those things!

Good point Bethy

Chloe,

You hoist me on my own petard. Sure, people can yak all sorts of drivel at me, and they do. What I meant to say is that no one can DEMONSTRATE just what life actually IS. I always get a kick out of people who say that someday soon humans will be able to create life. Humans don't even know how to begin constructing a life simulator, let alone know how to manufacture the genuine article. Life is ineffable, yet they blab about it all the time as if they actually knew something..

^ (hates babies, too)

I know this is not C-bobs blog but sometimes you need a little break from the serious stuff.

I got to step two in preparation for C-bobs blue corn experiment. Today I got out my baby tiller to see if it would start after three years of slumber and neglect. It wasn't easy but after taking all the screws I could get to out, spraying starter fluid in too many openings, saying a few novenas, cursing, pulling the cord 400 times, I am proud to say I did get it started and I think I can still move. I am not sure about if I will still be able to do that tomorrow.

A little question. Why don't they make gas powered lawn equipment that women can easily pull start? If you say I need a man, well I looked around the yard and couldn't find one.

Well... perception is everything.
So you're right, but so are those people who 'blab about it all the time as if they actually knew something'.

Your Grace, Lord-Bloggington,

I have never met an unborn baby who expressed support for a ban on abortion. At least, none ever mentioned it in my presence. This is not a facetious statement, but rather a half-assed demonstration of just why the courts have never held that foeti, embryos, and blastocysts possess the characrteristic of personality, the prerequisite to standing.

"Why don't they make gas powered lawn equipment that women can easily pull start?"

They do. "Homelite" brand. Won't work if you don't take care of it, though.

Sorry, xrep; it's hard to take your apples/oranges arguments seriously.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217727

XR,

I totally support a woman doing whatever she wants in the first trimester, limitations in the second, and severe restrictions in the third.

If you think for a second that a fetus after about the fifth month doesn't have a distinct personality, you are male or have never been pregnant.

Lord B, Very nice! So much feeling. :)
I'm sure Julia will want to hear it, so I hope it's ok that I'm linking it.
http://www.myspace.com/lordbloggingham

Noooooooooo.....

That's why i sent it to you; 'cuz I didn't want to post it again.

Btw, I disapprove of abortion. However, I cannot judge a woman who chooses to have one, since I cannot know what it is like to have a being inside me, eating my nutrition and sucking the substance out of my bones. In my case, disapproval of the act does not breed disapproval of the person.

I have had cancer once, and wanted it removed the moment I heard the diagnosis. The cancer was of me, but it wasn't me; it ate at me, but it wasn't me. You may say that an embryo and a tumor are not the same, but as a male, I don't KNOW that, and cannot say it with any certainty. Knowing something and philosophing or opining about something are very different activities.

To be continued...

oops, sorry, but its too late
Actually, you sound a lot like this guy

Queen we are the champions
http://www.youtube.com

Posted by: lord-bloggington.myopenid.com | April 8, 2009 7:53 PM : "Sorry, xrep; it's hard to take your apples/oranges arguments seriously."

And yet you take your own apples and oranges arguments so seriously ! I call this overt discrimination on your part,.

XR

I would never tell another woman what to do with her own body despite my reservations about late term except in the case of life of the mother or extreme mental disability for the child. She and her doctor are the only ones who should be making that description.

Now having said that, I have to note that no tumor ever described uses your ribs for a jungle gym and your cervix for a trampoline. :-)

sorry to hear about the cancer xrep. hope it's all ok now.

description = decision

M'Lord,
I figured since it had already been linked once, it would be fair to link it again (I liked it) But I should have asked you 'first'. I've learned my lesson.

Tomorrow.

Sometimes, you read about an artist and you realize what a good person they are. Nice story here:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=3336793&blogId=130830467

In the interest of fairness, I watched Ed Schultz for the last few days. I have to say that the move from radio to TV has been an improvement. Maybe it is the access to experts in various fields as opposed to dealing with call in public, but he has the makings of a fairly good show. He doesn't talk over his guests and he tries to not let his guests talk over each other when there are opposite points of view.

Not sure how much I'll watch anymore than I watch Matthews, but I can't really knock the show.

.

Melody Gardot from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Gardot

I'd make a cheese and roller skates argument, but someone would accuse me of opposing cholestrol and knee injuries.

Some here have written that the Pope (or any celibate) has no authority opining on family matters.

I think that argument is very close to one that denies authenticity to any non-Cathlic or non-celibate who opines about the Pope (or any other celibate).

I say people have the right to opine on any dam' thing, and that their authority stems from their participation in this human experience we all share. As in, "No woman is an Island entire unto herself."

However, when it comes to making laws that limit what others may or may not do without penalty imposed by the State, a higher level of authenticity and expertise OUGHT to be required.

I simply find that the anti-abortion moralsistas, whether Roman, Pentacostal, Chassidic, or Hanbalite, lack authenticity, in part because their rules are all man-(male)-made. On top of which, I find their arguments shallow, specious, inaccurate, errent, or arrogant.

If that doesn't satisfy you, Your Holy Holyness, tough luck.

Corey,

Every once in a while I post links to what my buddy Shelly Tucker in Texas is doing. It's always something simple for one camp for cancer kids every summer with overflow going to the children's wing at her local hospital, yet this one person now has people all around the world waiting to hear what Shelly is going to do next.

It started a few years ago with "care squares" and the crocheted squares poured in until 144 children each had their own afghan with tags saying where each square was made.

This year it is the Medicine bags. LIttle crocheted bags with three "lucky charms". So far 70 bags and 210 charms have come in from all over the world with 70 more to go by June.

http://thiseclecticlife.com/2009/01/26/behind-the-scenes-of-the-good-medicine-project/

Anyone can do what she does. They are simple acts for any group you know. It is just a matter of getting involved and caring enough to act.

Exactly, Jamie. Sometimes, you don't know anything about someone and then when you do, you find out they are amazing.

well, well, well......nize reading today and last night......i like this stuff.......makes me wish i knew more about some of it......

Right now, Yan Can Cook is detailing Curried Crab.
Yan seems to say, "Curried crap." My sentiments, precisely. Perhaps all the cicadas in my ears are making it hard to hear him. Anywhat, I think I'll make a translation to curried flounder.

Sorry, Sturgeone,
I just can't hack crap. Curried crap, blue crap, rock crap, king crap, softhell crap, or Dung-eness crap. It's all crap to me, and better used as fish bait.

someone i know made curried chicken the other night......now i can dig the gospel bird in almost any form but that curry business i just did not care for............

"I'd make a cheese and roller skates argument, but someone would accuse me of opposing cholestrol and knee injuries."

.. or, If you made an argument against cholesterol and knee injuries, someone would accuse you of opposing cheese and roller skates. You can't win around here. :)

but i actually meant I enjoyed the reading last night and today......

it's not whether you win or lose......it's how you play the game

winning isnt everything.....it's the only thing
--lombardi

ah, there's where the rub-ber meets the road and the ice cream turns to sewage........

xrep....glad you left "blues crap" off your list........

one of these days i'm going to make another post for it........lol........I might tell about the time tequila broke my oldsmobile outside of evergreen, colorado...........

either that or the snake man i played the hammond B-3 for.....(most organists have a damn monkey, but that summer I had a snake man).......

Jamie, my friend bought me Melody Gardot's cd for Christmas. The other day, I got an e-mail from the Jamie Cullum website. The e-mail was a heads-up from Jamie Cullum about Melody Gardot. She's one of his new favorites.

rats.....snake man link:

http://www.velociworld.com/Velociblog/Oldvelocity/000374.html

joe's myspace link: video of the savage: (sans snake)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.Channel&ChannelID=248171888

"I cannot judge a woman who chooses to have one, since I cannot know what it is like to have a being inside me, eating my nutrition and sucking the substance out of my bones."

Whatta load of BS. What education level do you think you are typing to, x?

Thanks, Chloe,

The cancer is gone. That's 'cuz I'm meaner'n hell & laugh at pain HAHA ! Besides, I have an Olympic Class Urologist. We make a wonderful cancer-pinning tag team. We pee on tumors. GRRRRRR.

Jamie,

I wouldn't presume to tell any gal to keep any dam' thing that's growing inside her.

I once heard of a GA petition for relief. A 13 year old girl had been raped and impregnated. In GA, a minor needed court approval to get an abortion. The petition asserted that the girl's physical, social, and emotional well-being would be adversely affected if she were forced to carry the pregnancy to term. The shrink appointed by the court reported that upon inspection and interview the girl appeared to be "a perfectly normal pregnant 13 year old."

On the basis of the ridiculous shrink's conclusion, the judge denied approval of an abortion procedure. I was appalled, and still am 40 plus years later.

Well Pogo, I think I've used up my bandwidth so I can't address the many issues. Just answering you know will annoy the moderator...lol. \

As to my first part which was rushed; kill a pregnant mother and unborn baby in the third trimester and you're looking at double homicide. WHY? The idea that abortion in the third is prohibited except in the case of preventing the death of the mother is BECAUSE SAID TERMINATION WOULD BE TERMINATING A PERSON. Please tell me any other reason for such a prohibition? If the court did not hold that such a third trimester fetus was "person enough" to protect, then why the prohibition? To support this notion of personhood, the court said in its decision that a fetus able to survive naturally outside the womb enjoys the protection of the law. Why? Clearly the prohibiton stands in light of preventing the loss of life to more than just a fetus. If you think a mother who abuses her fetus in the second or first trimester should be free of indictment, you haven't talked to enough people. What right does a parent have in taking drugs that can permanently damage the future person? Isn't he/she affected though in the eyes of SCOTUS he/she WAS NOT YET A PERSON? This is an argument about personhood at its core. Your legalese about the blastula being mere property of the mother does not fly with many.

And are you suggesting the idea of the sacred is a purely religious concept? The word was original a purely religious construct?

“worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"

And this use preceded the use of sacred in a religious context just as moral had meaning before the belief in God. So only something related to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim God is sacred? How about I give you my sacred oath not to lie to you? Am I talking about His Holiness? I think not. And this should answer X Republican too.

Each and every embryo is a product of hundreds of millions of evolutionary progress NEVER broken. If you tell me you see no moral difference in flushing toilet paper or embryos down the toilet, sad, very sad.

It should mean something to every human when an embryo is fertilized. It is not the fault of Mother Nature that we humans can’t control our reproductive numbers. If such fecundity wasn’t important, we would birth so much. Jamie is quite right. Many Liberals don't see it that way and more than a few consider anything unborn, an unperson.

XRepublican, try punching a pregnant mother is the stomach. You had better have a very good lawyer pleading insanity. I suppose you never heard a deaf mute tell you that they don't want to die either. For the record, even a two year old child doesn't have a fully aware consciousness. Personality is a spectrum and who are you to decide when a fetus becomes a person? Who are you to say at what point a fetus feels the pain of termination?

Recently a woman had an abortion at 23 weeks I believe. The doctor pulled out a fully formed baby alive. The mother freaked. He killed it and is facing charges though he was not there. His staff did it on his orders. The woman to avoid suit is saying she had no idea her baby could meet the criteria of living outside the womb naturally though the doctor warned her how developed her fetus was. And yet he aborted it anyway.

We are talking about our essential humanity here. Forget the billions who believe a soul inhabits the fetus; even secularists can appreciate the distinct human uniqueness of the embryo, the fertilized embryo. The crass way we treat the symbol of our evolutionary survival is quite amazing.

Pogo doesn't like abortion. Why? It’s just like a chair until it suddenly becomes worthy of protection. And since men contribute half of the information that allows the fetus to live and share half the liability should the fetus be born, why do men have so little say about their co-created property? I guess Pogo will tell you, possession is 9/10 of the law......

2023. Robbers cut the power to the West Latham Mall which resulted in the death of 24 embryos gestating in BIOCON's artificial womb bank whose power was also interrupted as a result. Lawyers Pogo and Herzfeld will be defending defendant from 24 counts of manslaughter. Three of the plantif couples are men, two are women.....go figure.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217735

Lord Bloggington makes no false comparisons. More unsubstantiated drivel.

max.....said dr got paid to do an abortion and did the abortion.....when, exactly did the woman "freak"?

"Recently a woman had an abortion at 23 weeks I believe. The doctor pulled out a fully formed baby alive. The mother freaked. He killed it and is facing charges though he was not there. His staff did it on his orders. The woman to avoid suit is saying she had no idea her baby could meet the criteria of living outside the womb naturally though the doctor warned her how developed her fetus was. And yet he aborted it anyway."

--Max

I don't know who the hell you think you are,
Patsi. If you have a correction, just make it. This passive aggressive shit of yours, making other people guess what the hell you are snapping out about is both inarticulate and offensive.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217759

XR

The one and only person who should have made that decision is the 13 year old and her doctor. Period!!! Not because a 13 year old isn't capable of having a child or deciding if she should have a child, or deciding that she wants her baby, but because NO MALE OF THE SPECIES should make that decision for her.

You are absolutely right to be appalled.

Not sure why x is an x with some of remarks.....

Note the reaction of females here, and that of men. Bravo.

Unfortunately popular culture on the Left doesn't consider much sacred anymore. In the past they would be out in force demanding the release of the female American journalist the Iranians are holding. They would blast Sudan for the murder of blacks. They would be angry for our woman envoys covering their faces, or our President kneeling before the King of Saudi Arabia.

I have never seen such weakness cast in the name of saving our reputation. What reputation? The one Bush injured or the retreat of Liberal internationalism championing liberty and the defense of human rights? I guess if Liberals knew then what they think they know now, they never would have forced the Soviets to allow so many Jews immigrate to Israel...lol

But then, this is not a funny observation.

What exactly DOES inform our humanity and morality?

I like the smell of honey in the morning.....it smells like........Killer Bees.

http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_policy/life_issues/when_does_it_stop_being_abortion_and_become_plain_old_homicide

Here you go Sturg

A good writer possesses not only his own spirit but also the spirit of his friends.
Friedrich Nietzsche

All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche

All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.
Friedrich Nietzsche

All truth is simple... is that not doubly a lie?
Friedrich Nietzsche

Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt.
Friedrich Nietzsche

max.....that's very weird.

XREP -- Surely you are smart enough to understand what "load of BS" is about following one of your loaded comments about babies sucking the nutrition from their mothers. But YOU wouldn't judge them...LMAO.

Just keep on with your not-so-subtle anti-choice meme.

I am not sure how this applies Sturg.

Her's another:

Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isn't.
Friedrich Nietzsche

maxtrue,

Your argument that these laws prove the personality of foeti needs more work. The double homicide charges stem from legislation passed in the last decade in attempts to bolster claims that feoti (not embryos) are persons. For the previous 210 years in those states that passed the bills, and in many other states from 1787 to today, the double homicide rule did not/does not apply. If your argument shows the personality of foeti, it must only do so on a state by state basis.

"President kneeling before the King of Saudi Arabia."

Max,

He didn't kneel. Your arguments are more worthy if they happen to have a small element of truth.

According to tradition and on recommendation of State Department protocol, he bowed and kissed the kings ring in greeting.

Exactly the same greeting that would be extended to the Pope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01381/obama_bow_1381505c.jpg

The trouble with the right is that they believe a cruel lie rather than a reasonable truth.

Excuse me. I just read up on it. The President bowed while grasping the king's hand with two hands. A traditional greeting.

It is a shame that the Right Wing thinks traditional courtesy is some form of national betrayal.

sorry.......wasnt looking for application.....just threw out a few i saw and liked while perusing...........i enjoy reading his stuff......

Patsi,

I see. You are just hallucinating.

Take your meds.

Patsi,

XR is arguing FOR choice not against.

Neetch's parable:

Those thinkers in whom all stars move in cyclic orbits are not the most profound: whoever looks into himself as into vast space and carries galaxies in himself also knows how irregular all galaxies are; they lead into the chaos and labyrinth of existence.

[one of the pre-cursers of existentialism, i presume]

It isn't women's fault that SCOTUS so poorly conceived their Federal solution to abortion. They avoided murder, when a fetus becomes a person and defended women by making the fetus before 26 weeks nothing more than something traveling down their bowels. Sloppy and caused so much unnecessary political chaos.

I support a women's right to choose before the 26th week but I would humbly suggest that the father ought to play SOME role in that decision. I suspect that once artifical wombs become vogue and spare some women the need for form deforming changes...lol, of pregnancy, the situation will change. In any case, if we elevate the biological aspect of birthing to protect women's rights, I fail to see how the biological aspect of marriage can be ignored. So in this, I hope I have finally brought these two issues together. As I said, our biological reality very much informs our law, our morality and the cultural benchmarks government helps to support.

XR

Don't insult Patsi. She just misread your statements. She is ardent in her defense of women and felt you had attacked them.

A man's maturity---consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child

it was subtle of god to learn greek when he wished to become an author---and not to learn it better.

--neetchman.....

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217779

Max,

The day a fetus can be transferred from a female to a male is the day he will have a say as to whether or not that fetus must be carried to term.

It is still very, very true that no woman is closer to death than when she is giving birth. When a male wants to take that risk and it is scientifically possible for him to do so, then he might have a say so in the matter. Until then, sit down, shut up, and wait for her to decide.

uno mas

Our vanity desires that what we do best should be considered what is hardest for us. Concerning the origen of many a morality.

fwn

Oh his knee went down. I saw the video. The King would have just as easily accepted Obama's hand. And given the topic we are talking about, I see no offense in the King understanding the President doesn't bow. Others didn't. Watch the video. And I hardly say this as a conservative NEOCON, so be careful.

Just take a look at who the King will have replace him. Don't think Obama doesn't know this.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1518581,w-obama-saudi-king-bow040809.article

There is another video which shows an even more pronounced kneel. Please don't tell me Obama wasn't trying to send a message. And FYI, prior to this, Obama was surely briefed that the Saudis intend to create a new militant group in Gaza to compete with Hamas. This attitude by Obama flies in the face of what goes on in the Middle East. You know, these guys have far more respect for strength. They see this as weakness.

And because many men died or came close to defend our country, should women shut up and sit down. Try making a baby without male sperm. Right now I could pay for an embryo to be fertilized and place in a woman other than the biological mother. Then what say would you have about the care and delivery of that fetus? And when an artificial womb allows pre-mature birth after only 20 months, should abortion after that date be prohibited? Despite the birthing, women still outlive men....lol'''What do you say when confronted by women who have had many children. Shut up and sit down?

Now don't start. I don't think we're really on different sides. If God had switched things around, you would be in Iraq and I would have a big belly.

Max

I watched the video, he didn't kneel. It was a traditional slightly bent knee and bow over the hand. Is it total ignorance that inflames the right? There are traditional greetings all over the world to figures of power. Just because Americans don't have a clue about most of them is no defense for your argument.

I am absolutely sure that the President was instructed prior to his meeting with the king as to what was expected in order to not give offense.

Maybe that is what bothers me most about the Right Wing. They think that ignorance is a virtue.

as if on the brink of doom i crossed the room and asked her for a date. Instead of laughing right out loud she politely asked what on earth made me wait?

--bongo seville

Jamie,

To be precise, I think it is a woman's decision. With the advise of others, IF SHE CHOOSES. No man can ever know what a pregnant woman is going through.

Maxtrue's argument is that the woman's body belongs to the collective, and that the collective gets to decide what she may decide regarding her body. He disguises this as a moral decision based on evolutionary precedent and an alleged multicultural recognition of a positive value for blastocysts.

Maxtrue is making arguments. His Holiness, Lord-Bloggington is only wholesaling light snarkery. I think that sums up the "Thou Must Shalt Birth" School.

Btw, I've read the Torah, the Gospels, and the various Scriptures a number of times, and the lines that detail a woman's duty to whelp, and a society's duty to punish non-whelpers has so far eluded me.

Would someone please supply me with the chapter and verse that mandates jailing Lord-Bloggington if ever gets pregnent and has an abortion ?

I don't think that's what he's doing. He talks both sides, but keeps going back to strange conclusions. Of course, I may have confused his posts with max's...both convoluted. I keep having this fear that these kinds of minds are in congress and that's why nothing ever gets past the talking stages.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217786

Max,

Many women have defended this country both as soldiers and as auxillaries and even those who pretended to be men in order to do it all the way back to the Revolution.

What we are discussing is choice and the conditions that exist today. If you want to hire some woman to be a womb for your constructed fetus and she chooses to do so, it is still her choice.

“Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals,” said the conservative Washington Times.

An Obama aide speaking anonymously denied that the president was bowing.'

Seems the former is true and the latter denies even what you saw. At first they explained it was because of Obama's height. What President other than Obama did this. And Michelle touched the Queen....ooops and there was no bowing on Obama's part.

I guess anything the Right has claimed is therfore a Right Wing idea. Oh, I hadn't realized that.

Mr. Fish enters the fray to save the day and reminds me of a lovely event: by Leigh Hunt:

Jenny kissed me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in.
Time, you thief! who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in.
Say I'm weary, say I'm sad;
Say that health and wealth have missed me;
Say I'm growing old, but add-
Jenny kissed me!

Posted by: maxtrue | April 8, 2009 10:30 PM :
"If God had switched things around, you would be in Iraq and I would have a big belly."

You seem pretty sure that somebody would want to get you pregnant. Don't you ever worry about the sins of Vanity and Pride ?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217789

It got cut out in Nicea. Sorry.

Excellent and timely video topic. I so love the multi-media capabilities of the internet now compared to when it first became graphical.

Looking good tonight, Craig.

tt

Maxtrue,

She can't tell the difference between us. Don't you think we should both be insulted ?

Yes, women have certainly given their lives for this country. The toll on men have been horrendous. I am going to stop this now because on a political level I support the center positon on a women's choice. We can argue about these issues another time, but it is absurd men should be liable if the women decides and excludes the man from the decision.

As far as Obama kneeling, I don't believe any other President has. I supported Hillary because I hoped she would take shit from these fickled and women abusing people. You know they whip rape victims.
Maybe we should leave this aside too and I take my place in the sheep section rather than be vilified as a conservative. Nope, I am a Jewish Left of Center New York American and I don't swallow the crap on either side of the divide.

Lardie will tell you it's my high school education. You might think that is where my eduction stopped....LOL

When I saw the video of our Prez bowing to the Saudi king, I was sickened.

What I saw wasn't a nod of respect, but a bow of subservience. It was inappropriate for that occasion as it would be inappropriate had he done it in deference to any other monarch or potentate or pretender.

To be honest, xrep, it's pointless to argue with you because you distort facts, employ flawed argumentative techniques and double-standards, and won't concede when you're wrong. Waste of time, quite frankly. Lord Bloggington will stick to that at which he is suited- busting your ass.

I was in kindergarten with Leigh Hunt. Beautiful gal.

It was probably 100 years after your the Victorian Leigh Hunt, Jamie. But, my memory was of that lovely she-Leigh, not Jenny, and the emotion was just the same.

"but it is absurd men should be liable if the women decides and excludes the man from the decision."

Max, If he used protection and it failed then he might have some voice. If not because it was "her business" Oops too bad.

As to greetings by other Presidents, save it for another day. The State Department handles such things and will advise.

XRepublican, I wasn't being anti-choice nor you. This topic inflames observational abilities on both sides. I understand and perhaps we should all chill. I will say this to Craig. We have managed to have some real debates in a far more civil and intellectual way than I witness on conservative blogs. Pogo, Warren and others have made good points. Perhaps by tossing things around we progress and see where we share views.

I hope people don't take things too personally. My relationships have always been with strong feminst-leaning women so I'm used to the kicks..........

If this had been the primary Hillary supporters would be playing the Obama kneeling thing on their websites....LOL.

oh man........hot chicken bog.........whadda woild.......

.hot chicken bog.

Is that a two-step?

it's actually closely related to "The Buzzard's Lope"

Several books including Robert Hindes Why good is good, Michael Sshermer's The Science of Good and Evil, Robert Buckman's , Can we be good without God (imo= damn right we can,,who the hell needs god?), and Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, have argued that our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past!!!

"Now don't start. I don't think we're really on different sides. If God had switched things around, you would be in Iraq and I would have a big belly."

Tell that to Tammy Duckworth....last I saw,,women were dying at Iraq,,,and Max,,,science has advance major steps into the making of human life,,,they have chemiclly duplicated some of the dna sequence ,,I will look up link ,,from, the science chanell that show labratory work on it,,,and proven to be real,,,we are chemicals with a skin bag that holds it all in,, thats all,,,it will be just a matter of time,,before we have a fully man made,,,bullshit politician.HA!

The lucky ones that see this,,,see God!!,,,the ones that look into themselves.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217778

I KNOW ALL OF YOU PEOPLE WANT/NEED TO KNOW THIS!

At five minutes and six seconds after 4 AM on the 8th of July this year, the time and date will be
04:05:06 07/08/09

Flatus, my feeling exactly. So please understand that Obama refused the French plea to visit Normandy. Instead he stroked the Turks, thanks US soliders for giving Iraq a real chance at Democracy and knelt before King Adullass. Together I was quite upset. Then the Gates budget which I have had time to read. Not as terrible as I first thought, but the idea he secluded himself from military experts is another troubling thing. And today Obama gives more gestures to Iranians. 60 minutes last Sunday show exactly the terrible oppression Mullahs beat their people with. Where is the message we are sending.

Many experts are convinced Dennis Ross has sent the message we are willing to end objection to enrichment. I will SO blast all those who laughed when I warned Democrats Obama would strike a false Grand Bargain with Iran. It was largely my case fr Hillary. It pains me to see Hillary taken to the side lines. Gates is a foil.

And yes, even Liberals can decry the stupidity from within. Murtha, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Daschle, Blago, Rahm, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Spitzer.... ah the list is so long. Why has the left produced such weak and meager leaders.

Oh, and I did predict Holder would have to respond to the Stevens case. What tells me nothing was learned? What a total witch hunt. It helped the Democrats and the media never said a word. Imagine the same thing happening to Kennedy?

once you've demolished a lion's share of chicken bog, can sweet repose be far from view?

Oh and X Rep, even as a man I have been screwed many times. As a woman, I hope it would be far more enjoyable.

sleep, that knits the ravelled sleeve of care......
--shake de spear

http://www.chickenbog.net/templates/System/default.asp?id=30610

Sturg?

that's funny....the man's name came from his forebear being one of the crowd to whom the command was addressed:
"when you see my goddam signal.....ya'll all start shaking and rattling your damn spears....."

jamie....a good representative site in exposition of why the near-royal chicken is down here known as the gospel bird...........

Posted by: lord-bloggington.myopenid.com | April 8, 2009 10:49 PM : "To be honest, xrep, "

Now that is funny.

"As far as Obama kneeling, I don't believe any other President has"

Well Max, You are wrong.

American representatives and Presidents have extended traditional courtesies to royalty of various countries for the past 230 years. It is a fairly recent concession that in England the Ambassador does a head bow to the Queen and only a hand shake but only if she extends her hand first. That is why the "hug" for Michelle that the Queen initiated was sucha big deal in Britain.

When JFK died, hailie selassie as an "emporer" walked ahead of all the other countries in the procession.

The rules they are a changing, but countries take these courtesies seriously.

Jamie, ironic that I was thinking of how those times come up from .... time to time.

tt

i would kinda think that obama knows quite well how to act ......it's almost as if I--by golly--trust him or something...........

Maxtrue, a Jew ???

You've got to be joking ! You're posting on a blog on Pesach ??? Was it for this that Ha Shem brought you forth from Mitrayim ? Go drink your wine.

MAX,,,said

..." ah the list is so long. Why has the left produced such weak and meager leaders."

History demonstrates that allegations of whether a president will be bellicose or an appeaser often turn out to be dead wrong. Alleged Crusader-President, babybush, talks through mediaries with the Taliban (al queda in Afghanistan) and directly with kim jong il. Alleged hard case, ronald reagan, ran away from hamas terrorists in Lebanon. Alleged tough guy, nixon, talked to red China. Alleged strongman, Eisenhower, talked with north Korea, and supported Egypt over Britain France, and Israel in the Suez crisis. On the other hand, perceived weakling, Harry Truman, used the Bomb on Japan, defied stalin over Berlin, and fought the combination of the stalin, mao, and noth Korea. Perceived weakling LBJ invaded Dominican Republic, got us into wretched war by refusing to talk with north Viet Nam, and supported Israel to the hilt in the 6 Day War. Alleged weakling W. J. Clinton bombed al queda bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, attempting to eliminate bin ladin and his entourage. Clinton also shattered Belgrade and bombed the Serbian military in Kosovo to end the genocide. Alleged weakling, Obama, says he'll talk with Iran. So what ?

and those hashemites were no ones to trifle with............

During and after World War I
Emir Feisal I (right) and Chaim Weizmann (also wearing Arab dress as a sign of friendship) in Syria, 1918.

Sharif Hussein ibn Ali rebelled against the rule of the Ottomans during the Arab Revolt of 1916. Between 1917 and 1924, after the collapse of Ottoman power, Hussein bin Ali ruled an independent Hejaz, of which he proclaimed himself king, with the tacit support of the British Foreign Office. His supporters are sometimes referred to as "Sharifians" or the "Sharifian party". His chief rival in the Arabian peninsula was the king of the highlanders on the highland of Najd named Ibn Saud, who annexed the Hejaz in 1925 and set his own son, Faysal bin Abdelaziz Al Saud, as governor. The region was later incorporated into Saudi Arabia.

Seriously, Max,

The trail will still be here in the AM. Have wine and remember freedom. You deserve the holiday.

Hussein bin Ali had five sons:

* Ali, who briefly succeeded to the throne of Hejaz before its loss to the Saud family.
* Abdullah, later became the king of Transjordan, and whose descendants rule the kingdom, that has been known ever since as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
* Faisal, was briefly proclaimed King of Syria, and ended up becoming King of Iraq.
* Prince Zeid, who moved to Jordan when his brother's grandson was overthrown and murdered in a coup in 1958.
* Hassan, died at a young age.

uno mas:

History

The Hashemites trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf (died c.510 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the descendants of the prophet's daughter, Fatimah. The early history of the Hashemites saw them in a continuous struggle against the Umayyads for control over who would be the caliph or successor to Muhammad. The Umayyads were of the same tribe as the Hashemites, but a different clan. This rivalry eventually would lead to the split between the Sunni and Shia. After the overthrow of the Umayyads, the Abbasids although, would present themselves as representatives of the Hashemites, as they claimed descent from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, an uncle of Muhammad. Muhammad's father had died before he was born, and his mother died while he was a child, so Muhammad was raised by his uncle Abu Talib, chief of the Hashemites.

From the 10th century onwards, the Sharif (religious leader) of Mecca and its Emir was by traditional agreement a Hashemite. Before World War I, Hussein bin Ali of the Hashemite Dhawu-'Awn clan ruled the Hejaz on behalf of the Ottoman sultan. The Sharif of Mecca and his descendants had to convert to Sunni Islam during the Ottoman rule in order to remain in their position. For some time it had been the practice of the Sublime Porte to appoint the Emir of Mecca from among a select group of candidates. In 1908, Hussein bin Ali was appointed Emir of Mecca. He found himself increasingly at odds with the Young Turks in control at Istanbul, while he strove to secure his family's position as hereditary Emirs.

Sturg,,,looks like a little bit of history in that area no?,,,and to think,,,to some that all doesn't count,,its not relevant.

Solar, stick to what I said. This present Democratic leadership is no Turman or FDR and hardly Kennedy.

Bush talked to the Taliban....eh? He allowed Afghnaistan to talk to the Taliban and they responded with an offensive. Yep, tell me how Bush was the great appeaser.

Reagan got blown out of Lebanon?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing It was Hizb'Allah with orders from Iran. Something Obama seems to miss in his study of Iran. Reagan opted for Israel to restart their operations. Note the international support of Reagan and their decison to leave as well.

Eisenhower? Now that's funny.

Nixon talked to China but indoing so applied some leverage on Russia. You see China and Russia didn't like each other. Nixon may have talked but he made no Grand Bargain.

And from your skewed filtering you then draw some lesson that Obama is following...lol

He certainly isn't following Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower, JFK, Clinton or Nixon. In fact. Obama is word unto himself.

Passover doesn't prohibit blogging. Oh, and did any of the leaders you mentioned bow down to the Saudi King. Rabin sure as well wouldn't.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217828

Sturgeone,

And Kamal ibn Saud almost started an international incident when he asked my father for his eight year old daughter and daddy said no. :-)

Back in the 50s the Saudi Air Force trained at Williams AFB in Arizona.

Unfortunately, Kamal died in Korea. He was a kind to a young girl and I still remember him fondly more than a half century later.

Drive by post -
Bob got an Easter Egg from Dallas ... Yum !

But please, don't send me stuff ..... except guitar picks, I am taking guitar picks. warp them in a dollar bill. with your message to Buddy written on it. OR ........... take some dog food to the pound.

Will be up dating the experiment page next , " Blue Letter Day " for the
experiment . Results have arrived on Buddy Holly Ave.

Film at eleven .

Turning the ITunes on and logging in .... Google here I came.

Yeah, Passover. That time when God induced the Egyptians to let the Jews be free. Unfortunately, God ain't gonna rain down on Iran, or Hamas, or Hizb'Allah. Given the streak surfacing on the Left, Israelis tonight contemplate actions they will have to make alone. My heart goes out to them. No wonder they are planning to launch rockets from the Russian space center and are working on a drone deal with Russia. The US is making it clear, Japan, Israel, even Korea and Europe will have to rethink their security. How many Jew tonight contemplate results far worse than Carter.

Thank you Dodd, Edwards and Richardson. Thank you Caroline and Daschle, Blago and Biden.

"When JFK died, hailie selassie as an "emporer" walked ahead of all the other countries in the procession."

I was under the impression that it was because he was the longest serving head-of-state. Jamie, not trying to be argumentative, how confident are you in your source for this statement, "...Presidents have extended traditional courtesies to royalty of various countries for the past 230 years."

If you meant traditional courtesies such as playing of national anthems and numbers of guns in an arrival salute, I agree. If you mean bowing and scraping, I simply don't recall it happening.

I have a recollection of Mrs Kennedy paying homage to the Pope by kissing the papal ring, but I don't recall Mr Kennedy doing the same (which doesn't mean it didn't happen).

Mr Roosevelt couldn't bow, I don't believe Mr Truman would, nor Gen Eisenhower or Pres Johnson--all three had too great a sense of history. Carter, I don't believe would bow to anyone except his God.

So, I suppose what I'm asking, are you aware of photographs of such bows, or contemporary newspaper descriptions? And, I'm not calling such things as Elizabeth's nod to Diana's passing casket a bow, but a graceful acknowledgment of her existence and passing.

Well, enough of this. I'm off to bed. :)

moses wrote the story and would have one believe that god come down ex machina and whopped them egyptians into freeing the childerns but not without a final fight......but what if actually the egyptians had to make them leave because there became so many and because there were no real big employments going on...........oh well, quien sabe.........

Max,,,If you think that just because Pres. Obama knee led or whatever,,the rest of the world see's us as weak,,,,or that he lost face,,or that he is a weak Pres, thats fine,,,Im sure that the rest of the world,,does not,,,,they know that there are many people over here to set him on the right road to war,,if need be,,,can't have it both ways,,,he's like Bush,like you say, or not? is he going to continue Bushes foreign policies or not? You should be cheering him on if he is....they know that if they misjudge him and take that as a sign of weakness,,they still have nothing to gain..if he did make an error,,it won't happen again,,,he will learn from it,,imo,,,and I did not vote for him,,,I vote indy,,alway's...later

jamie......blues brothers:

"How much for the little girl?"
--Joliet Jake Blues

Actually ,,,this is not far from the truth,,,The story of Ramses tells it a little diff way,,will get link from taped show about it,,,Moses,,is not all what they made him out to be. quien sabe,,,tu sabes :-) good night

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217837

Flatus,

I'm sure about the Hailie Selassie statement. Emporers out rank kings and queens. Admittedly 1963 may have been more protocol conscious than 2009, but it was true at the time.

As to the bowing and scraping, I'm absolutely sure that Franklin and Adams at the very least did a whole lot of it in France and England. Let me see if I can turn up some pictures of Wilson who did a great deal of international work.

For the most part, we have been so insular as a country that our Presidents rarely made international contact in a formal sense where bowing and scraping was expected.

The 5 books of Moses ,,,from Genesis to Deuteronomy, ,, was written by a lot of other people,,other than Moses,,just saying....

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/04/new-media-meets-old-washington.html#comment-217839

Sturgeone, It was really quite innocent. Kamal and his brothers thought "babysitting of the Colonel's daughter" meant buying out the PX. Dad was thoroughly embarrassed but couldn't really turn down the gifts.

Kamal was my favorite and shared a love of horses. I'm sure we violated all sorts of protocol by riding on the Arizona desert. I probably should have had female chaperones in attendance by their mores if allowed out at all.

It all ended well. He gave me a cupie doll with his name written on the belly. Can't get much more innocent than that, and what does an eight year old know about such things? I didn't even know about the proposal until I was 16 and my dad told me what was going on behind my back.

Besides, I would have been the second wife. :-)

Good Night All

4 weeks ago tonight I blurted out here about blue corn ...... And for some reason, I went and did it. We have sprouts out of the ground in 2 locations folks. I've passed out a quarter of a pound seed, 15 at a time.

Nice work guys . I'd have felt really stupid . and been really worried if no one had taken me up on this meaningless experiment.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Blue Letter Day
http://cbhopibluecornexperiment.blogspot.com/