kena2mi

What I cannot comprehend is how it is that the very same people who believe our government, in the interest of protecting us from potential "terrorists", should have the right to spy on, detain without trial, investigate, interrogate, and curtail the free speech and movement of legal residents that have not been accused of a crime, believe so strongly in the inalienable right of the average person to retain weapons of mass destruction in their homes and carry around concealed weapons designed to kill other human beings. The Second Amendment speaks of a well-regulated militia- i.e. a National Guard-type volunteer militia- and could be interpreted to allow possession of a weapon for self-protection- it says nothing about the scores of heavily armed right-wing cults and anti-establishment militias that operate very similarly to the groups we brand "terrorists" overseas. Does this "right"- as with free speech and privacy- only apply to Christian fundamentalists that share their views?

If he wasn't guilty, why would he not seek legal counsel? Are we to believe that he's really that ignorant as to the way our legal system works, after 2 decades in the legislature, and the legal ramifications of a guilty plea? Furthermore, would it not constitute contempt of court for an "innocent" man to plead guilty- i.e. lie to the court- and is the typical common man entitled to a "do-over" on a guilty plea, at taxpayer expense, as he's prepared to seek? What are the legal ramifications of setting such a precedent- both for others that have entered into plea agreements, and for those currently going through the system- will every misdemeanor now require a court trial to assure that a conviction is final?

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/08/082507haggard.h...

Evidently, Mr. Haggard- a preacher who had a six-figure salary, lived in an almost $1 million home, and had a high-six-figure book deal before being outed by a male prostitute, is panhandling for monthly pledges so he can afford to go back to school. Obviously, we can't expect him to dirty his hands actually doing an honest day's work or take out a student loan. Or live in student housing like the commonfolk, or use the proceeds from the sale of his home, or dip into his personal savings or retirement. Come on, folks, have some Christian compassion for this poor, picked-on (now never-gay, merely confused) millionaire preacher!

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=634

Were people having sex in the aisles? Were boys being molested in the restrooms? Were men running around in thongs and high heels, waving rainbow flags, handing out fistfulls of poppers? Were pamphlets on The Homosexual Agenda handed out to kids with every free ballcap, along with Gay Card applications? The hysterical rant by Richard Thompson (former elected Oakland County, Michigan, prosecutor) would suggest that all of the above were likely, and I'm wondering if the promised "modern day scene of Sodom and Gomorrah" actually occurred.

Incidentally, this particular conservative Catholic-based group was co-founded by Tom Monahan (former owner of Dominos Pizza) and has its headquarters on the Dominos Farms corporate campus- a company that remains at the bottom of HRC's Corporate Equality index long after this man- who rediscovered Jesus about the time his net worth hit a billion dollars- left the helm.

In a world where we have-

- Millions needlessly dying of starvation, AIDS, and diseases every year

- Rampant drug abuse and violence in our homes, schools, and neighborhoods

- Half a dozen bloody civil wars, "allies" that don't believe in basic human rights, and terrorist states that are in the process of acquiring WMD's

- Millions of kids growing up in third-world orphanages, with no access to basic health care, nutritious food, or any hope of a "normal" life

- Millions of kids with no health insurance, even as the Family groups sue governments and threaten boycotts to try to take it away from yet more families

Why do churches and "family" groups devote so much more of their time and resources to punishing people for who they love, and their families, than to relieving some of the pain and suffering in the world? How many thousands of lives could have been saved just with what has been spent "protecting" marriage from those that actually value it enough to fight for it?

For me, it's chatting with my straight co-workers and friends about what my partner and I did over the weekend. Maybe we worked on the landscaping, went to my partner's mother's house for a family get-together, or maybe my partner fell and had to go the emergency room. Much like the way my straight co-workers and friends mention medical issues involving their spouse, what they did over the weekend, who they visited over the holidays, and where they're going on vacation.

Since it would be impossible to carry on casual conversation like this without mentioning a spouse or partner- if you have one- does this mean that my straight co-workers are equally guilty of "flaunting their sexuality", or does this only apply to gay folks- who are evidently supposed to lie about their personal lives for fear of offending someone? Do Fundamentalists actually prefer to be lied to or deliberately deceived?

As I can't seem to find "official" translations for some of the more commonly used catchphrases found in personals profiles, I was wondering if folks could tell me which of these guesses are on (or off) target:

P: "Straight acting and appearing"- E: "I'm a closet case, even though everyone knows"

P: "Not into the whole gay scene" - E: "I'm so terrified someone I know will see me walk into a gay bar that I only hang out at straight bars"

P: "This is a drama-free zone" - E: "Girlfriend, there's only enough room for one performer on this stage, and that's Me, Me, Me!"

P: "No excess baggage!" - E: "I'm just looking for sex, and couldn't care less about you as a person... all the stuff here about wanting a ltr is just to lure you in"

P: "No fems, if I wanted to date a guy that acts like a girl, I'd date a girl" - E: "People might think I'm gay if they see us together!"

Last night on The Daily Show (one of my primary sources of news- LOL) Jon Stewart made the observation that it appears that in a way we've managed to accomplish what we set out to do in Iraq: we've turned it into the country that we said we were invading in 2003. It's become a breeding ground for terrorism, the borders have been destabilized, and we turned a nation that was at peace within itself into a hotbed of civil unrest. Anti-American sentiment is at an all time high, and money and volunteers are pouring into terrorist training camps throughout the Middle East.

Might this not be the Mission we set out to accomplish? The American oil industry is seeing record profits, Haliburton and other administration favorites have absconded with billions, thousands of new Federal jobs have been created thanks to the "war on terror", and we've assured that military spending- long a top Republican priority- will continue to rise as we deal with a whole host of new security threats.

Do they just cherry-pick questions and tell the author what he or she wants to hear? Personally, I cannot resist the occasional sarcastic response to a nonsensical political speech or self-aggrandizing speech, and frequently catch myself trying to reason with the unreasonable.

The Religious Right has argued against everything from local anti-bullying laws to Federal hate crime laws, and everything in between, when expanded to include sexual orientation. They argue that they're unnecessary and will result in increased litigation and bogus accusations, and that it would give special status and protection to gays and lesbians

Given the fact that religion- clearly a lifestyle choice- is already given this special status, and that by their own arguments the inclusion of religion is redundant and encourages litigation, and that unlike sexual orientation, I am aware of no incidents in the U.S. where a person was assaulted, and where local authorities failed to act or prosecute appropriately, due to a person's religious beliefs except when they were inciting a riot. Hate crimes laws permit Federal authorities to step in and offer assistance in instances of a hate crime, which can be more difficult to solve due to its tendency to be a random act by a stranger.

Particularly interested in the views of current members of African descent, and how the former but recent Church policies and the views of many of its most prominent leaders can be justified or explained by their Faith.

Though I'm white, now-suppressed Mormon teachings on the inferiority of blacks and the evils of desegregation and interracial marriage contributed to my alienation from the Church that I grew up in. Such published views were never discussed in the Church in the 1980's so I didn't know that they even existed.

See http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml , or type "mormon racism" into any search engine. For those that don't know, Kimball and Benson were Prophets of the church as recently as the 1980's, and until the late 1970's, there was an absolute prohibition on those of African descent from holding the higher Priesthood. Certainly, other churches held similar views in the 50's, but I'm aware of none that so openly discriminated based on skin color in the late 70's

When one of the most common side effects is depression (!) The FDA wants to add to a warning that these medications increase the risk of "suicidal thoughts and behavior" in young adults, in addition to adolescents. "Antidepressant medications benefit many patients, but it is important that doctors and patients are aware of the risks," said Dr. Steven Galson, the FDA's drugs chief.

I've known people that have taken these types of medications- seems like everyone is "bi-polar" nowadays- prescribed by general practitioners with no associated therapy and infrequent follow-up, and while they reduce the frequency of mood swings- when they bottom out while on the medication, they really bottom out! Seems remarkably similar to the way cocaine was pushed by doctors and used as a cure-all a century ago... until it was determined that the cure was worse than the ailment.

... to long-winded preaching and copy-and-paste encyclopedia entries, just to make the answer "go away" so you don't have to scroll down again? And, is it "wrong" to do so, or justified by an irrelevant or unedited answer?

An ongoing debate in the Great Lakes region is the proposed diversion of water to areas of the country that have grown well beyond the ability of local water sources to support them. And rather than build a couple desalinization plants on their own shoreline, they're fighting for the right to divert freshwater from thousands of miles away, with no apparent regard for the damage this would do to the local ecosystem.

Supporters say it's a way to make a few bucks, while addressing a real need in the southwest. They claim it's just like oil, a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. Global warming is just a crock, and they'll stop before it affects lake levels.

Opponents claim it's raping the environment and destroying an irreplaceable natural resource, not unlike stripping coral reefs. Lake levels have been dropping as average temperatures rise, and are projected to drop further, even without the diversion of water, affecting both the ecosystem and the local tourism economy.

Are they just giving in to all the whiners and complainers? Did they move their headquarters to China?

I ask because I just went there, and find that my account has been "permanently disabled" after a year or so of collecting favorites and friends. Not a single violation notice, not even a termination notice, so I haven't a clue why it was closed. The only two clips I had online were G-rated amateur clips that have been there for at least six months. I can only assume that someone didn't like my favorites, or disagreed with a comment I left (had to be months ago), and decided to target my account. If all the major players in the internet community, even the blog servers, have become obsessed with censorship of free expression, pandering to the complainers, and caving in whenever they get a letter from an attorney, what's to become of the Internet?

(Heck, I'll probably get censured for asking this question)

I've seen his show a few times recently, but he appears even more wooden than usual, and is so easy on his guests that he might as well not even be there. Do they just prop him up, or is his image just airbrushed in- along with pre-recorded random responses? It might explain why, whenever a guest starts to say something controversial or nonsensical, he fails to challenge them and tries to change the topic. Like when Bette Midler started getting herself in trouble stererotyping gay men, his response was "I saw you in Fiddler..."

Will he resign in disgrace, like so many of Bush's appointees and their staff members, or will the Administration finally step up to the plate and accept responsibility? Once again, Rove's fingerprints are all over this scandal, and it seems very typical of his (and Cheney's) past political maneuverings. It seems highly possible that this could have all been going on in the background, and that if Gonzales was even aware that it was occurring, he was being encouraged to keep his mouth shut.

Or, is the whole story about prosecutors being encouraged to go after Democrats (and take it easy on Republicans) untrue- in which case "someone" in the prosecutor's office would need to be held accountable for falsifying the consistently superior employment reviews received by those that were recently fired for "poor performance"?

I'm referring to the surviving relatives of the family of the 14 year old girl who was gang raped by U.S. soldiers and then shot in her home, along with her parents and younger sister, before burned the home and blamed it on insurgents. A second soldier has now pled guilty, with two others implicated. The only "good news" in this story is that it was evidently other servicemen that blew the whistle.

Should the rest of the family just chalk it up as just an unfortunate stress-related incident, and just be grateful to us for "liberating" them? Should we do as Conservatives suggest and downplay such atrocities, for fear of being "unpatriotic" and damaging troop morale, and are concepts like compassion and the value of human life only applicable to Ideal Families, fetuses, and the brain dead?

Finally, are incidents like this really "isolated", and if not, how many of the bodies attributed to "insurgents" and "terrorists" are of our own doing?

U.S. Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.

Two members of the U.S. Supreme Court claim that current salary levels are insufficient to attract the best-qualified candidates. Yet, I've not heard of a single instance in which a proposed appointment was turned down based on salary. Are they underpaid, or are lawyers in general overpaid?

Do we really "want" jurists who are in it for the money, and by "best qualified" do we mean in terms of political and business connections, book knowledge, experience level, or basic common sense? It would seem to me that all of these qualifications except common sense and book knowledge would be more of a hindrance than a help for someone deciding Constitutional issues independent of outside influences, and they have staffs to provide them with book knowledge.

I'm near Detroit, about 20 miles west of Dearborn where he announced his bid for the Presidency earlier today. We were supposed to get blasted by a winter storm starting this morning, yet until a little while ago- probably about the time his flight took off- there's been a bubble in the vast field of white on the radar screen, roughly centered on Dearborn, where it wasn't snowing. "Dry air", says the news, but I'm skeptical. Is it coincidence, or empirical evidence that it's the Conservatives themselves that are responsible for the whole global warming thing? And if it's the latter, can we reverse the trend simply by shipping off Romney, Pat Robertson, Marilyn Musgrave, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, et al to Mars? I say it'd kill two birds with one stone... no more global warming, and in a few years, Mars will be warm enough for a proper colony!