JayB

The thing I actually object to *most* in this story is the Congressman's actions. Even if the city council's actions are in breach of Federal law - which I doubt - the proper place to take action would be in the courts, not in a rider attached to an appropriations bill. As far as their opinions are concerned - they are free to make whatever statements they wish. I am free to ridicule and criticize them (and the people who voted them into office) as I see fit, just as I would be if this were a school board passing a motion declaring that evolution is the devil's handiwork, etc. This is no way contradicts my earlier positions. As far as their conduct is concerned - as long as we're talking about a lawful enterprise, be it a strip-club, a bar, a casino, a brothel (in Nevada), an abortion clinic, or what have you - I think it's important to protect people's right to demonstrate and voice their opinions, so long as they don't obstruct anyone's access to the said enterprise, vandalize it, threaten or intimidate the people that work there, etc. If they take the law into their own hands or otherwise take it upon themselves to use coercion deny others the right to exercise their rights and freedoms, then they need to be put in check. This is not the case with the folks from Code Pink so far as I can see.

Seems like a certain percentage of children from homes where they are more or less indoctrinated from birth, and are not encouraged to develop the capacity to evaluate moral, religious, and political issues independently as they mature - tend to react against their environment and careen headlong in the other direction as soon as they have the freedom to do so. Gary Larson had a great cartoon about this a while back that showed a kid sneaking away from the circus to go join corporate America. Seems like a rebelious teen in Berkeley would have a difficult time doing anything short of rape or murder that would distress a set of ideologically overbearing Leftist parents more than joining the Marines...

Depends on the nature of the hand injury and the sort of ice you'll be climbing, I'd think. I've been able to climb mellower/lower angle stuff with a tweak that sounds similar to yours no problem, but once I got on steeper routes that actually got a decent forearm pump going, it definitely seemed to aggravate the injury and prolonged the pain associated with it by at least a couple of weeks.

Sure does. Thanks.

"In Berkeley, push to rescind letter to Marines Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, February 5, 2008 (02-04) 18:52 PST Berkeley -- A week after blasting the Marines as "unwelcome intruders" in Berkeley, two City Council members want the city to back off the declaration that ignited the wrath of the nation's right wing and inspired a Republican senator to try to sever Berkeley's federal funding. Council members Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli on Monday proposed that Berkeley rescind its letter to the U.S. Marine Corps that stated that the downtown Berkeley recruiting center "is not welcome in our city," and publicly declare that Berkeley is against the war but supports the troops. The City Council will vote on Olds' and Capitelli's two proposals at its meeting next Tuesday. "I think we shouldn't be seen across the country as hating the Marines," said Olds, who voted against last week's proposals. "If you make a mistake, like we did, you should admit it and correct it and move on." The brouhaha started last week when the council passed two items condemning the Marine recruiting center on Shattuck Square, which opened about a year ago. The first called on the city clerk to send a letter to the Marines telling them they're unwelcome, and the second item granted Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office every Wednesday afternoon and allowed the group to operate a loudspeaker. After the items passed, the council was besieged with criticism from right-wing groups and military supporters. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed that the federal government cut off funds for Berkeley, including lunch programs, ferry service and UC Berkeley. Olds said she heard from hundreds of people angered by the city's action, including many in her Berkeley hills district. "People are so mad about this. They have relatives in the service, and now they think they're not welcome in Berkeley," she said. "My twin brother was a Marine in World War II. He'd be turning in his grave if he saw this." The council appears split on the idea of backing down. Some council members said the original proposals inadvertently insulted veterans and those currently serving in the military. Others said Berkeley should stand by its convictions. "People are used to Berkeley taking a stand for peace, but you have to do it intelligently," said Councilman Kriss Worthington, who voted against sending the letter calling the Marine Corps unwelcome. "You don't want to slap one group in the face and then, the next minute, slap the other group. I think we have an obligation to be thoughtful and sensitive and not be counterproductive to the cause of peace." Councilwoman Dona Spring said the council should not be cowed by the volume of hate mail and threats. "I still oppose the Marines recruiting in Berkeley because it's one way of protesting this wasteful war," she said. "Our military policy is a shambles. But we're not in opposition to the Marines; we oppose the policy that directs the Marines." Meanwhile, the Code Pink protesters said they were disappointed that Berkeley might rescind its letter to the Marines. "I hope they're not acting out of intimidation," said Code Pink spokeswoman Medea Benjamin. "Berkeley is a city of peace, and a recruiting station does not fit Berkeley's values." Mayor Tom Bates, a former Army captain, said it probably wouldn't hurt if the council clarified its position. "It's a symbol, but there are consequences to symbols," he said. "A lot of people think we're anti-Marine, but there's a difference between the warriors and the war. This is an attempt to clarify that."

Seems like deciding to follow Deuteronomy would be the foremost mistake of them all but - let's leave Jesus and the deity under discussion out of this one, and say that a given person faithfully adheres to the injunctions in Deturonomy 13 99.999% of the time. In your estimation (not your understanding of Jesus or the said deity's judgment), would this person have lived a moral life?

How about we take the whole Pascal's Wager bit off of the table and stick to Deuteronomy. In your judgment (not that of the deity in question...Would following these injunctions lead to a good life? How about a set or moral principles to base one's life upon?

Powerful rejoinder, BTW. Makes me recall a conversation I had a while back about whether it was possible for a degree to actually have a negative lifetime value for the said degree-holder.....

Hopefully this will prompt Chavez to: -Invoke "Bolivarian" principles to justify seizing the property owned by all ISP's operating in his country. -Attempt to create a "BoliNet" that offers both substandard services and distribution under price controls that guarantee that the cost of offering the services is less than that required to provide them. -Blame nefarious forces out to undermine the revolution when the 14kbs network remains off-line for months at a time...

You've just re-stated Pascal's Wager with the day-o-judgment bet-thing. There are many responses to this line of thinking that you can peruse at your leisure. My question is this: if a supreme being exists that would grant a chap like the Green River Killer a VIP pass to heaven if he accepted Jesus as his personal savior a few minutes before dying, but would condemn a just and decent main to everlasting agony and torment for his failure to do so - should such a being be revered or held in the utmost contempt? But what about Deuteronomy? Would following these injunctions lead to a good life? How about a set or moral principles to base one's life upon? "Deuteronomy 13 1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. 12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God."

Isn't this what inspires you to reject evolution? Acknowledge that its claims about the origins of life - human and otherwise - are little more than ancient folklore and this opens the possibility that the same is true for everything else in the book? Incidentally - how do you feel about the admonitions set forth in Deuteronomy as a set of principles to base one's morality on?

"on evolution, my feeling is science explains the worldly and religion explains the spiritual, completely orthogonal to each other. i don't know why so many american christians get defensive against evolution" The fact that this debate exists is a testament to the fact that your feelings on this point are not widely shared. Do you really not understand why "so many american christians get defensive against evolution?" Maybe R.G. Ingersoll can help you out here: "Many of the clergy are now ashamed to say that they believe in devils. The belief has become ignorant and vulgar. They are ashamed of the lake of fire and brimstone. It is too savage. At the same time they do not wish to give up the inspiration of the Bible. They give new meanings to the inspired words. Now they say that devils were only personifications of evil. If the devils were only personifications of evil what were the angels? Was the angel who told Joseph who the father of Christ was, a personification? Was the Holy Ghost only the personification of a father? Was the angel who told Joseph that Herod was dead a personification of news? Were the angels who rolled away the stone and sat clothed in shining garments in the empty sepulcher of Christ a couple of personifications? Were all the angels described in the Old Testament imaginary shadows -- bodiless personifications? If the angels of the Bible are real angels, the devils are real devils. Let us be honest with ourselves and each other and give to the Bible its natural, obvious meaning. Let us admit that the writers believed what they wrote. If we believe that they were mistaken, let us have the honesty and courage to say so. Certainly we have no right to change or avoid their meaning, or to dishonestly correct their mistakes. Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths. It is impossible for any man who believes in the inspiration of the Bible to explain away the Devil. If the Bible is true the Devil exists. There is no escape from this. If the Devil does not exist the Bible is not true. There is no escape from this." http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/devil.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll Anyone care to guess his political affiliation?

"The SLA is thought to have only ever had about 12 members. Six, including the group's leader, Donald DeFreeze, were killed in a police shootout later in 1974. The remaining five members lived quietly under assumed names for over 20 years, until the FBI tracked them down. The last SLA fugitive, James Kilgore, was arrested in Cape Town in South Africa in 2002. All are now in jail"

Hahaha. More good news here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7217817.stm

Considering the Salomon Scarlet for my wife, but not sure if the 154 or 164 would be the better size. Ski Dimensions are: 154: 130/90/122 164: 130/94/123 Wife's dimensions are 5 four and a half, ~120-125 lbs. I'd classify her skill level as advanced intermediate at this point. Recommendations for other women's all mountain fat skis (especially those that behave well on hardpack) would be welcome. Many thanks.

And I thought it just climbed well. Yeah? Well that was just a snap shot. Check this out...

What is the homeopathic remedy for a bacterial infection of the lungs? Dilute suspension of Streptococcus pneumoniae administered via inhaler?

had obligaciones, mujer. i'm amused at how up in arms people get over insults thrown at some schmuck who offers up his frickin' FIANCEE, woman he LOVES, blah blah blah, half-naked, to a bunch of strangers on the fucking internet. shit! some schmuck is bragging about his hot gf, and actually posts a photo, and challenges these strangers with a "jealous?". you gotta be kiddin' that you'd get offended if someone throws shit at him. i'm surprised, that you, as a woman, wouldn't be pissed at HIM for posting photos of her without her even knowing. maybe they roll that way, i don't know. you know what though? i don't even think he's legit. notice how he's disappeared? although he may have sobered up, and is now mortified? perhaps. i don't think he's legit, cuz he'd have taken the photos down, if it mattered to him. If these were your motivations, it seems odd that you would have taken the tack you did, instead of starting off with something like the above. All in all, I think that would have been more in keeping with the SC (the deft touch, the elision, the rhetorical fencing)that we all know and love than the "I think it's dangerous and reckless for an adult to let their kids play in a busy street so I'll run their kids over to teach them a lesson" rationale than starting off with the "Your girl is a nasty ho" angle.

Hmmm... Not sure if any resemblance that I can see (hard to tell how much exists) is greater before or after the male pattern baldness and other ravages of time took their toll... Will have to check with the wife. If there's really a resemblance, then next year's halloween costume is a no brainer....

Who said I like fat bitches? There is a difference between fat and healthy…….You’re the one posting pictures of anorectic women. So since you are so quick to critique, lets see some pictures of your wife and her "healthy" physique. 111's fiancee is far from "anorectic" and I think his enthusiasm for his new bride is cool. Why piss on him?

Sounds similar to the results they found with vitamin-A and vitamin-A deficiency in children in parts of Asia. Ligands for nuclear-receptors that can turn a particular subset of genes on in a massive-way. Probably best to steer clear of mega doses.

Exactly. She's hot. 111 is stoked, and should be. He's going to marry a hot chick that climbs. I'd be willing to bet that most of the dudes taking potshots probably wouldn't even be able to make eye-contact if they met a woman like that in a bar, and have no business critiquing anyone's physique either.

last time i was with her, she had this nasty drip and wanted me to go down on her. blech. has it cleared up yet? Classy. Why the hostility and vulgarity?

Preemptive vow testing...

I can't say that I'm jealous, since I'm very happy with my wife and I think I'm actually more attracted to her as time goes on but - I will say that it looks like you've snagged yourself a pretty, fit, and athletic gal that looks like she climbs as well, so you are a lucky man for sure. Now - what I would propose is this: show her this post. If she laughs and gives you a punch in the arm, then it's clear that you've won the equivalent of the chick lottery, and you should propose immediately....