selkirk

pulls out soap box, steps up, looks around to see if there's an audience today... If people are hoping that outlawing anything they see as "immoral" is going to fix all the screwed up people in this country they're at best sadly mistaken, or self deluded. Legislation is not capable of lowering the divorce rate. It hasn't been successful ending polygamy. It's not capable of ending cycles of domestic violence. It's not capable of ending cycles of sexual abuse. It's not capable of preventing women from ending pregnancies when they're sufficiently desperate. It's not capable of preventing the increased sexualization of young people, or preventing underage sex. Teaching only absyinance is not capable of this either. (does anyone thing that a single thing a teacher in highschoolsays about sex will slow down the process one iota?) It's not capable of preventing people from forming same sex couples. It's not capable of preventing people in positions of authority from abusing it. (Weather it's catholic priests, christian ministers, or teachers, or cult leaders) It's not capable of making everyone think and believe the same things you do. It won't make everyone like you. It's not capable of preventing your wife or husband from cheating on you. So what are we left with? It is capable of seperating people who are harmful to society from society. It is capable of punishing people for anti-social or dangerous behaviours. However I get the impression that what most people are hoping for is that if they legislate against something that they're going to prevent it from happening in the first place. I just don't think that's possible. The law is only capable of punishing people who've already done something wrong, or making something more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive to come by, while creating another black market. If people want something and are willing to pay for it, then someone will provide the service. End of story, no if's and's or but's. Laws and enforcement didn't get rid of drugs, and they won't. Laws and enforcement haven't gotten rid or prostitution, and won't. Do you want me to keep going? If you want to prevent all of these bad things from happening, then you need to start with individual families, by fixing the problem at it's source. You want to end violence cycles? You should probably start with social programs, give women and children a support structure and a mechanism to get away from it. Provide everyone involved with counseling and a way to grow in positive directions. You want to stop teens from having sex? You had better start teaching them to think for themselves and think clearly, give them enough confidence to avoid peer pressure and a safe and stable home. You want to cut down on the number of abortions? Cut down on the number of pregnancies, by getting young people to realize the consequences of their choices, and making contraception available, and understood. Treating a symptom has never solved anything, even if it does make you feel warm and fuzzy, and that's what arresting someone and/or fining them is, it's addressing a symptom, not the fundamental problem. (Save homosexuality, in which case I think the symptom is the intolerance shown by others towards it) You know what's it's going to take to solve all of these problems in our society? Personal responsibility, and civility towards others. So, either you as a person need to begin supporting those social programs that you think are valuable and worthwhile and educate people effectively, or and god forbid this, if you want the government to solve these problems, then were going to need more money for social services and social programs, which I have never heard a conservative or republican support. It's your choice, but passing more laws, and trying to "legislate morality" isn't going to fix a damn thing. thanks for putting up with me ... steps down of the soapbox.... Someone elses turn?

Thats freakin great! I can't seem to break 800 though!

I've stated this before, but on questions that are so morally cloudy as abortion or gay marriage, (and regardless of everyone's opinion as to their own rightness, these issues are morally cloudy in the sense that a broad spectrum of intelligent people disagree about the basic tenets of the decision) that the government should err on the side of personal responsibility and personal freedom, so long as it doesn't impose itself negatively on someone else. That seems like one of the basic tenets of this country.

is it antisemitic or anti everyone?

To call Arafat unreservedly evil is not to understand him. Like most people i'm sure he did what he felt was best for his people, weather or not you agree with his politics.

I can certainly agree that there needs to be some give and take on both sides. The left wing has some serious whiners and fundies as well and they need to stfu. It's just been my impression that many liberal policies chose to err on the side of personal choice, over government mandate when opinions strongly differ. This doesn't prevent anyone from making a more moral decision. But legislating moral decisions forces everyone into the same box. It often seems the liberal viewpoint allows for the conservative one to exist, while the opposite isn't true.

What a minute, is there really only one right answer to every question?

, either that or he's still successfully supressing his secret life and his "friends" at the lodge, and finds all girls icky.

Republicans can be just as condescending, it's just occurs on other issues. They seem to be under impression that they are the experts and absolute authority on all things moral.

Well, wasn't actually a job interview, it was for graduate school in an engineering program at Penn State. I was supposed to fly out Friday afternoon, interview Saturday and Sunday, and fly back monday morning early. (I was at Univ. of Idaho at the time). So I drove up to Spokane, and hopped my first plane to San Francisco. I get there and find out that the plane has mechanical problems and is going to be an hour late, which means that there is no way to avoid missing my tight connection in DC to catch a puddle jumper to State College. So i'm pretty much screwed at this point, the next flight out of DC is the next morning, so I get to kill 12 hrs in the SF airport, fly all night to DC, catch the puddle jumper and finally get to Penn State, only 12 or 15 hours late or something. Anyway, one of the Prof's picks me up at the airport, and starts the interview! I've barely slept in 24 hrs, haven't had time to shower, or change either as everything was in my luggage. He drops me off at the dept. and i'm talking to profs and interviewing all day. The interviews were actually ok, it was just everything surrounding it. For the 2 nights I was there I spent the first night on a grad students couch and the second at the most expensive hotel in town, because low and behold the national collegiate wrestling and swimming championships were both in town that weekend so everythingw as booked. Was a great program, but I couldn't bring myself to move to a state where the highest elevation point is 3,000 some ft. That's the elevations backpacking trips start at!

I still haven't quite figured out why everyone is so worked up about "gay marriage". It seems to me the people who are the most against it are the most strongly religious, and as far as most religions are concerned "marriage" is something that can only happen in a church, and be peformed by a minister. Where as in the eyes of the government, marriage is only a contract, with certain rights bestowed and certain benefits under the law. I haven't really heard anyone argue that the rights and priviliges under the law shouldn't extend to same sex couples, but heaven forbid we let them "marry"??? wtf? Do they just not understand that civil "marriage" and religious "marriage" are two wholly different entities that entail the same legal status, if your religion doesn't recognize same sex marriage so be it, but why should any couple be prevented from joining in the eyes of the law? It seems that in all reality same sex couples could already establish the same "legal contract" (health care decisions, property, inheritances, etc) and are already extended many of the same benefits (health care, though not tax breaks yet) it would just be royal pain in the ass to go through the lawyers and the documents to do it, when we have this handy little institution available, where you swear in front of a judge or a minister and it's automatic.

The problem is halfway decent candidates rarely stand a half way decent chance of getting elected. They typically have things called morals and ethics, and have issues with the type of lying most politicians call "statistics". I'd be happy for a Republican that doesn't come across as a good-ol-boy and can actually look at a problem for more perspectives than their own, or a Democrat who doesn't come across as elitist and disconnected from most of America. Either won would win in a landslide I think.

Ok, who use them? who hates them? are they helpful? And which ones do you like? Thanks in advance!

Injuries are so suck! That's miserable. At least it's the off season The good news is you probably won't loose much of anything between now and next year in terms of moderate outdoor rock. It's 50% headspace, 45% balance, and maybe 5% actual strength. Yoga and martial arts are great for all three! and definitely rest it.... either that or weld on an ice tool and take it into the gym

This would all be solved if we gave the south away, of course who would take it?

Baby killing has a long and happy history... just look at the Inuit, as msmory serves it used to be standard practice to sacrifice children for the good of the tribe. There simply wasn't enough food or resources for a larger tribe, so procreation was very strictly controlled.... seems barbaric to us, but it was necesity to them.....

It's not a shock at all.. it's just nice to know that the the WASP majority is getting thinner and thinner every year.

A bit over simplified and insulting don't you think? Bush isn't dumb (regardless of how he comes across at time), the people he surrounds himself with aren't dumb. They do seem to have a more simplistic view of society and world politics. (They seem to think in black and white, where Dems. see infinite shades of gray). must claim the belated

All depends on how you define "intelligence", but if your defining it as a measure of how successfull you can be in business, or life, or how well you function in society? it's piss poor. It also has no bearing on how valuable a person or their opinion is. However.... knowing things like that, knowing how the vote broke down by religion, by urban vs rural, etc speak to the very general type of people who voted which way. And that can be usefull in trying to figure out at it's most basic level why they voted the way they did, what traits they look for in a leader, etc.

You think that clean air in LA has anything to do with Bush? Remember they voted Kerry... I'd say that's more due to local politics and regulations which are decidedly liberal. The new jobs are good news though

Very good question, Conservatives? How do you rectify the two. The desire for less government regulation and more personal freedoms, less taxation and basically less government "meddling" while being for regulating abortion, union of gay couples, increased surveillance of the populace through the patriot act, laws agains fornication and sodomy (maybe not an issue here, but a girl was successfully prosecuted for fornication in Idaho about 6 years ago), should I keep going?

Come on, what did she do to you?

You can verify that the sytem works just about anywhere theres an open field and you can spread out a bit(camp long, the open fields at UW, etc etc), you'll just need a couple of pieces of rebar to drive into the ground to use as temporary anchors. However you won't be able to practice making deadman anchors unless you find a good patch of snow somewhere.

Nah, they're just in mourning right now.

Didn't we just modify the Wa. election system somewhat? No more 2 party primaries, the 2 candidates who recieve the most votes in the primaries (regardless of party) now advance to the general election?