I think the rocky times are because there is some social progress (and social regress in terms of inequality). Those who don't like it are kicking back.
Actually, a lot of people who do like social progress are being kicked, stamped on, attacked, and demonized by the loudest "advocates" for social change.
It's bizarre. As a lifelong liberal my enthusiasm for liberal reforms has been ice-cooled by the behaviour of so called "progressive" advocates over the last 12 months. Despite my enthusiasm for these reforms, I simply cannot set aside my cynicism as to the motives, ideology and behaviour of the people who have jumped on these bandwagons over the last few years. I find my traditional political boat filled with people who seem determined to steer it into treacherous waters.
Right now the boat is all but running side by side with the old right authoritarians of yesteryear. Censorship advocates and anti-rationalists have grasped the helm, and myself and traditional advocates for cause like gay marraige find our ship being steered in a political bermuda triangle and ourselves at gunpoint. Yes the captain has announced gay marraige reforms over the intercom, but our celebrations in the gallery are a little more subdued that we previously imagined.
It's all feeling a bit Moscow circa 1930, and these five year plans are becoming increasingly worrisome. One wonders whose history our side of the ship is actually going to end up on.
This is one of the most intelligent and insightful posts so far. And for very good reason.
I just had a talk with my daughter, who is very happy that the court ruled as it did. She has many gay friends, so it is an important decision in her sphere. However, after seeing some of the arguments the pro-gay-marriage side is putting forth, she is a bit upset they are on her side of the argument, because they are ignorant on some important points.
So all those gay weddings that took place a decade ago meant nothing to the participants? The churches that conducted wedding ceremonies for gay couples didn't consider those couples married in the eyes of their deity?
It doesn't matter if the government considered those marriages valid. That is only for tax purposes, more or less. Most of the legal issues that are automatically handled by a marriage license can be handled with a few more signatures on the appropriate documents. Marriage is about people being together, not about the government allowing it or not.
You're right. It is only as complicated as managing a staged protest, complete with a willing media to make the "other guys" look bad. Throw out a few insults and taunts, insist that only your view is valid and that any dissenters are hateful bigots, and you have a great leader of a country.
California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain was about two gay cowboys that lived in Wyoming. Insterestingly enough, a foreign version of it's description was "Secreto en la montaña"
So why do the courts get to allow Wyoming and "montaña" tell California what to do here?
I've been saying that since I was in high school back in the 1980s.
And since my wife and I are not the same race, various governments (national or state) would have prevented me from my right to marriage if we had lived a century earlier.
It has more authority that the Constitution. The Supreme Court is a manifestation of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence cannot be superseded by the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President. It can only be superseded by the same action that birthed it, revolution.
It was also well known by that large segment that banning slavery was an important issue for another large segment of the people who wrote the Constitution. Nothing in the document suggests that it was a surprise topic, since it was mentioned and accounted for at least twice.
He means "This marriage is for a term of 10 years. At that time the married persons may renew the contract. If it is not renewed, the marriage contract is concluded and terminated with no further responsibility or obligation for either party."
This is different that a divorce, because it is a known factor at the start, and it is final at the termination date. Child custody and property ownership would be parts of the details, but would simply be part of the contract, instead of something for a judge to have to worry about.
Honestly, I don't know what you are rambling about, or why to me. I don't care if IP addresses or cars point to people. I just mentioned a case where a car license plate will most certainly point to someone. It might be the right person, it might be the uncle or neighbor of the actual criminal, or it might be totally useless because someone stole and returned the car without the owner knowing. I don't care.
So, please, go chew on someone else's ass. Maybe they'll care.
Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I don't know why I thought he was born in India. If the Republicans want him to run for the White House, he obviously is a natural born American citizen.
It was weird back in the 1990s when the Republicans wanted to amend the Constitution to allow Swarzeneggar to run for the office. That fetish vanished pretty quick after Arnie won the governorship of California.
My point was that stealing a license plate is not sharing a license plate. Computers switch their IP address frequently, so can be considered to share them. Same with software licenses that allow 3 people to use the program at one time, and there are 7 people who borrow and return those licenses.
I can see what you wrote. I can agree that people do steal license plates to hide their tracks. But the previous post was talking about sharing an IP address, not physically stealing another person's computer. Pretending it is the same as stealing license plates is a stupid argument.
It is a stupid argument, saying that stealing a license plate is equal to two cars sharing it. Theft of physical property is not the same as sharing.
As for the rest of his argument, I am not saying that you can't frame someone by stealing their license plate, I am simply stating that doing so is not sharing the plate between two cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a lot of people who do like social progress are being kicked, stamped on, attacked, and demonized by the loudest "advocates" for social change.
It's bizarre. As a lifelong liberal my enthusiasm for liberal reforms has been ice-cooled by the behaviour of so called "progressive" advocates over the last 12 months. Despite my enthusiasm for these reforms, I simply cannot set aside my cynicism as to the motives, ideology and behaviour of the people who have jumped on these bandwagons over the last few years. I find my traditional political boat filled with people who seem determined to steer it into treacherous waters.
Right now the boat is all but running side by side with the old right authoritarians of yesteryear. Censorship advocates and anti-rationalists have grasped the helm, and myself and traditional advocates for cause like gay marraige find our ship being steered in a political bermuda triangle and ourselves at gunpoint. Yes the captain has announced gay marraige reforms over the intercom, but our celebrations in the gallery are a little more subdued that we previously imagined.
It's all feeling a bit Moscow circa 1930, and these five year plans are becoming increasingly worrisome. One wonders whose history our side of the ship is actually going to end up on.
This is one of the most intelligent and insightful posts so far. And for very good reason.
I just had a talk with my daughter, who is very happy that the court ruled as it did. She has many gay friends, so it is an important decision in her sphere. However, after seeing some of the arguments the pro-gay-marriage side is putting forth, she is a bit upset they are on her side of the argument, because they are ignorant on some important points.
As long as the next election doesn't have the first black president on the ballot, it is hard to predict the winning side.
So all those gay weddings that took place a decade ago meant nothing to the participants? The churches that conducted wedding ceremonies for gay couples didn't consider those couples married in the eyes of their deity?
It doesn't matter if the government considered those marriages valid. That is only for tax purposes, more or less. Most of the legal issues that are automatically handled by a marriage license can be handled with a few more signatures on the appropriate documents. Marriage is about people being together, not about the government allowing it or not.
You're right. It is only as complicated as managing a staged protest, complete with a willing media to make the "other guys" look bad. Throw out a few insults and taunts, insist that only your view is valid and that any dissenters are hateful bigots, and you have a great leader of a country.
Your public school must not have taught history very well, if you think that the Constitution created the United States.
California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain was about two gay cowboys that lived in Wyoming. Insterestingly enough, a foreign version of it's description was "Secreto en la montaña"
So why do the courts get to allow Wyoming and "montaña" tell California what to do here?
How does the institution of marriage predate the civilization that would be needed to recognize and affirm such an institution?
Why can't you just call it a domestic partnership now? Is that only an option if you wanted to have a male on your insurance?
I've been saying that since I was in high school back in the 1980s.
And since my wife and I are not the same race, various governments (national or state) would have prevented me from my right to marriage if we had lived a century earlier.
That's a distinction with out meaning.
Only if you don't understand the word "within".
The Declaration is not a legal document of the United States, binding on its citizens in any way.
You are fully incorrect in that statement. If you were correct, there would be no United States of America.
Read the rest of his post.
It has more authority that the Constitution. The Supreme Court is a manifestation of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence cannot be superseded by the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President. It can only be superseded by the same action that birthed it, revolution.
Wow. Nice hidden racism there.
It was also well known by that large segment that banning slavery was an important issue for another large segment of the people who wrote the Constitution. Nothing in the document suggests that it was a surprise topic, since it was mentioned and accounted for at least twice.
He means "This marriage is for a term of 10 years. At that time the married persons may renew the contract. If it is not renewed, the marriage contract is concluded and terminated with no further responsibility or obligation for either party."
This is different that a divorce, because it is a known factor at the start, and it is final at the termination date. Child custody and property ownership would be parts of the details, but would simply be part of the contract, instead of something for a judge to have to worry about.
I have worked hard to become an asshole in my own standing.
Congratulations on all your hard work, it's certainly paid off.
Hi! Thanks for noticing. And thanks for the encouragement. It means so much.
Honestly, I don't know what you are rambling about, or why to me. I don't care if IP addresses or cars point to people. I just mentioned a case where a car license plate will most certainly point to someone. It might be the right person, it might be the uncle or neighbor of the actual criminal, or it might be totally useless because someone stole and returned the car without the owner knowing. I don't care.
So, please, go chew on someone else's ass. Maybe they'll care.
Well, the final 'b' is silent.
Eeeeeww!
Actually, after thinking about it a bit, I don't know why I thought he was born in India. If the Republicans want him to run for the White House, he obviously is a natural born American citizen.
It was weird back in the 1990s when the Republicans wanted to amend the Constitution to allow Swarzeneggar to run for the office. That fetish vanished pretty quick after Arnie won the governorship of California.
No, they are claiming the ship is not sinking at all because they stole the deck chairs from another ship.
The submitted post says that he registered his /lush in 2005. So now we are officially not reading even the post, much less the article.
It just happens that conservative organizations were doing it more than liberal ones.
Go on. Pull the other one.
My point was that stealing a license plate is not sharing a license plate. Computers switch their IP address frequently, so can be considered to share them. Same with software licenses that allow 3 people to use the program at one time, and there are 7 people who borrow and return those licenses.
I can see what you wrote. I can agree that people do steal license plates to hide their tracks. But the previous post was talking about sharing an IP address, not physically stealing another person's computer. Pretending it is the same as stealing license plates is a stupid argument.
It is a stupid argument, saying that stealing a license plate is equal to two cars sharing it. Theft of physical property is not the same as sharing.
As for the rest of his argument, I am not saying that you can't frame someone by stealing their license plate, I am simply stating that doing so is not sharing the plate between two cars.