"Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another. Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion."
I don't believe in rights magically appearing to be constitutional where they never have been before. I believe that if they can magically appear, they can magically disappear using the exact same mechanism. Living in such a world might appeal to you but it does not appeal to me. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me.
"We aren't that heterogeneous any more. Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment. Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be."
Of course we are. I've driven across the country numerous times and lived in several states. Without listing countless examples, I'll cite one. Red states vs. blue states. Different political and economic philosophies.
"Also, thats not why it was set up that way."
Of course it was. Read Federalist 10 and 28. Federalism was set up to aid in preventing tyranny (and thus a civil war) by keeping all power in a central government, as well as to allow various other ideals to be tested and tried. A central authority is not by definition "tyrannical", however when trying to apply the same laws on an entire heterogeneous population with different economic religious beliefs a central single authority will by definition become tyrannical. Example, forcing a business owner to serve a customer for a service of which he has a moral objection violates his religious rights while the customer's civil rights may viewed as being violated. How long until the one who's rights are being suppressed follow Jefferson's observations:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- Jefferson
"All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement."
That statement is profoundly inaccurate. There have been federal courts that have decided on both sides and SCOTUS has yet to make a final decision. Hell, Prop 8 (California) was tossed out because the SCOTUS found the petitioners had "no standing". That was honestly a poor decision and a deliberate dodge. A liberal court may likely decide that the 14th amendment applies, but a conservative court would not. We have a 5/4 SCOTUS right now that have deliberately been trying to avoid making the decision you cite. I think it's inevitable that they will take up a case where they'll need to decide, however.
This is exactly the type of of issue that SHOULD be left to the states until society is more agreeable to it. I believe it's inevitable. If the far left state of California time and time again passed legislation against same-sex marriage and even added an amendment to it's State Constitution to forbid it then it should be painfully obvious that the doesn't come anywhere near the level of acceptance that interracial marriages had in the 60's. Note that Loving v Virgina was a UNANIMOUS decision.
"The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. "
And I think you underestimate how important those differences are or how unevenly they are distributed. I've traveled the US numerous times. I've been to every state in the union (except alaska) numerous times and have lived long stretches (3 or more years) in 5 of them. Trust me, while we have more in common than different, those differences can become QUITE important. Particularly when we paint differences of political and economic philosophy in terms of "good" and "evil".
Moving from state to state *IS* more common that it was, but it is not universal and far from it. About 60% of the population are still residing in the state in which they were born. Of the rest, ~20% are foreign born -- leaving about ~20% "mobile" with the highest percentage of non-movers being in the mid-west. The lowest is the west. And the differences in numbers are profound (about 20+ percentage points different between the two regions).
Look it up. Census.gov is freely available. Or check up on a William Frey -- he published "The Great American Migration Slowdown".
"Real federalism was pretty much dead before the War of 1812 anyway so why maintain the facade of empowered states"
First, it's not really "dead", but very much weakened. Second, and most important, the reason WHY we should maintain "empowered" states is for the various reasons it was set up in the first place. We are not a homogenous nation. We are spread over a huge area, of various races, faiths, cultures and economic interests and yet we haven't torn ourselves apart (came close in the 1860s).
The stronger the Federal government becomes, the more likely the US will balkanize. Want to maintain the union? Limit the powers of the Federal government and let the states dictate more of what is in there interests. Example:
Gay Marriage. States should be allowed to ban gay marriage but be forced to recognize it when performed in states which allow it. You keep those who find it in conflict with their faith happy and provide a solution to those who are homosexual who wish to wed.
What happens over time is that America will change -- SLOWLY and once gay marriage becomes as accepted to the extent that an amendment to the Constitution can pass, you've now created a "right" which was accepted by a supra majority of the states/peoples without putting stress on the Union by it being perceived as being shoved down our throats.
It was DESIGNED to work slow as the swings and dramatic changes of both whim and passions would destabilize a government. And when a population is as heterogeneous as we are -- it would just add more sparks to the fuel of succession.
There WAS a VHS "game" that came out that matched the plot of Caves of Steel back in the 80s... It actually wasn't that bad. That's about as close as you're going to get to film/video right now.
"The device itself is about as reliable as other consumer level networking gear -- meaning you need to power cycle it now and then to make it start working again. It has a remote web admin interface, with no way to remotely reboot it. You have to physically touch the thing to power cycle it."
Way-back-when, I had an old x-10 serial controller and a power outlet adapter. I wrote a script that would check for gateway connectivity and if it failed it would power cycle the DSL modem and router. We were having issues with line quality during the summer (lead based wire to the home) that presented as a problem similar to what you describe. it worked and made sure my connection came back up automagically within 10 mins of going down.
Wasn't this the basic plot of Serenity? They tried to make some type of "peace" drug and ended turning the population that didn't outright die in to "Reavers"?
"And yet it *IS* conservative groups that are opposing net neutrality. So there's something wrong with your reasoning."
No. There's something wrong with yours. I *DONT* want to see any tiered services. Net neutrality would prevent this. Yet I'm apposed to it. Because I'm against a bloated central government trying to do control a very heterogeneous population (culturally and economically) over a wide geographic area. What works in NYC probably wont in Baker, CA. Let local governments and the market place deal with stuff like this.
The larger our Federal government becomes the more likely we are to see a balkanization of the US. Geez -- we've already fought this battle once and sacrificed what? 3/4 of a million of our kids to preserve the union? 10 years ago the idea of a balkanization would have made me laugh. Yet now there are rumblings that cannot be ignored.
Could it be that there is a record of horrible public school performance over the last few decades that is prompting this "school choice" movement? To allow those locked in to poorly performing public schools a shot at a better performing school? And maybe NOT trying to turn schools in to a business?
I'm sorry, conservatives are not evil. Libertarians are not evil. Liberals are not evil. Jeez. I can have opinions that are different than yours without you being EVIL and trying to control my life -- AND vise-verse.
I drive a 1988 tan toyota pickup. I've received a single speeding ticket in this truck -- 1989 in Santa Maria. Cop was pissed because he pegged me going 85 and he KNEW I was going faster but suspected I slowed down because I saw him. I actually was going about 95 (trying to race a friend back to Cal Poly SLO who had a major exam that morning) -- and slowed down because I entered Santa Maria (where there was a very high cop to car ratio). I just didn't slow down fast enough.
Anyway, I typically drive "as fast" as the cars around me and it is a vehicle that doesn't really stick out in any ones mind (unless you are a Hispanic gardener -- and if you are, NO! My truck isn't for sale! Stop asking!)
"And if you're really in medical need, ambulances will come pick you up."
Costing you more of what you don't have.
That said, I think there's a place for something like this -- but it's being used in an over-bearing way. Set it so that when activated, it will not prevent the car from being started if the car has been not running for more than 8 hours. That will prevent freeway/stop sign activations.
Further, there should be some notice (not saying it wasn't in their loan agreement that they would have SIGNED). But there should be some mailing saying you are x days late -- on date y, you car will no longer start until you make your back-payments.
"As to my fears, I am strongly opposed to the concept of my languishing in a nursing home, bereft of my mind, drugged and draining my accumulated wealth. a pointless existence - possibly painful, likely very unhappy existence - that in my mind is much worse than death."
What's stopping you? off yourself now and save a lot of trouble. My entire point was missed by your inability to see past YOUR nose, never mind your accusations of me not being able to see past *MY* nose. The point being that placing some arbitrary limit of 75 as being a good time to die is flipping lame and your response is "fuck you". Wonderful. For some reason this is a trigger issue for you. I've read your posts in this thread and they are many. You should back up, take a deep breath, count to 10 and exhale. It's not about you.
And WTF do you care if your accumulated wealth is draining if you are in the condition you state? Seriously? If you wanted it to go to your family, you would have made sure they would have had it at an earlier time. If not, then great -- let it take care of you instead of draining your family or living off the state. I for one am not interested in dime from my parents/in-laws estates. Let them use it to take care of themselves in a manner they see fit for as long as their comfortable. It's THEIRS, not MINE. They earned it.
"Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act."
I don't think I "demanded" anything. I did strongly suggest that it's wise to learn to live with our limitations rather than say "I don't want to live not being able to do what I want when I want". I've too many happy 80+ year olds in my life who despite their pain and/or infirmity are enjoying their life and family. And if you can't see that then maybe my "annoying superiority act" isn't an act -- at least where you are concerned.
"There are living fates much worse than death. "
And of course I said exactly the opposite of that, didn't I? Or are you reading your own fears and insecurities in to what I ACTUALLY said?
If you don't want to be a financial drain to those you love then you must try to make sure you have assets available for yourself should you require them at that age. Or, when the time comes you move to a state where whatever aid is available to you (SS, SSI, whatever) brings more bang for your buck.
Or ENJOY the fact that your family is taking care of YOU now. The whole circle of life thing.
My mother retired to AZ. She had zero money saved, got a mobile home for $500 in 'decent' condition and had $1700/mo coming in (pension + social security). That's QUITE a comfortable income in Arizona. She lived there until she was 82 (about 10 years) when she came back to be closer to family and entered an assisted living home. Her memory isn't great, can't controller her bladder that well, needs help taking her meds regularly and requires a walker, but she's still truckin'. Still smokes a half-pack a day and walks to the near by gas station store to pick up her cigs if we dont bring them to her.
"What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?"
This is not some "universal" state -- there will be less things to enjoy, but most likely there will still be enjoyment.
"When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want?"
Then you change your expectation of yourself. You DON'T go and do what you want WHEN you want. You rely more on others and your world will grow "smaller". So long as long as the pain can be managed...
"When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?"
That's something else. If you are stuck on a machine completely unable to interact with the world around you, then yes. But that needs to be two-way -- there must be someone on the OTHER end of that (family or friends) who want to interact with you.
"I can see his point easily enough."
I can UNDERSTAND his point. I don't AGREE with it. I'm not saying "forced life" under any condition, of course.
"I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list."
My mother-in-law has cancer. She's 80. Aside from age related dementia (and the limitations that come along with that) she's doing great and enjoying her home, garden, family and life in general.
"I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper."
Ever read "Tuesday's with Morrie"? I like his outlook on life when HE came to having someone else wipe his arse.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another.
Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion."
I don't believe in rights magically appearing to be constitutional where they never have been before. I believe that if they can magically appear, they can magically disappear using the exact same mechanism. Living in such a world might appeal to you but it does not appeal to me. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me.
"We aren't that heterogeneous any more.
Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment.
Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be."
Of course we are. I've driven across the country numerous times and lived in several states. Without listing countless examples, I'll cite one. Red states vs. blue states. Different political and economic philosophies.
"Also, thats not why it was set up that way."
Of course it was. Read Federalist 10 and 28. Federalism was set up to aid in preventing tyranny (and thus a civil war) by keeping all power in a central government, as well as to allow various other ideals to be tested and tried. A central authority is not by definition "tyrannical", however when trying to apply the same laws on an entire heterogeneous population with different economic religious beliefs a central single authority will by definition become tyrannical. Example, forcing a business owner to serve a customer for a service of which he has a moral objection violates his religious rights while the customer's civil rights may viewed as being violated. How long until the one who's rights are being suppressed follow Jefferson's observations:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- Jefferson
"All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement."
That statement is profoundly inaccurate. There have been federal courts that have decided on both sides and SCOTUS has yet to make a final decision. Hell, Prop 8 (California) was tossed out because the SCOTUS found the petitioners had "no standing". That was honestly a poor decision and a deliberate dodge. A liberal court may likely decide that the 14th amendment applies, but a conservative court would not. We have a 5/4 SCOTUS right now that have deliberately been trying to avoid making the decision you cite. I think it's inevitable that they will take up a case where they'll need to decide, however.
This is exactly the type of of issue that SHOULD be left to the states until society is more agreeable to it. I believe it's inevitable. If the far left state of California time and time again passed legislation against same-sex marriage and even added an amendment to it's State Constitution to forbid it then it should be painfully obvious that the doesn't come anywhere near the level of acceptance that interracial marriages had in the 60's. Note that Loving v Virgina was a UNANIMOUS decision.
"The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. "
And I think you underestimate how important those differences are or how unevenly they are distributed. I've traveled the US numerous times. I've been to every state in the union (except alaska) numerous times and have lived long stretches (3 or more years) in 5 of them. Trust me, while we have more in common than different, those differences can become QUITE important. Particularly when we paint differences of political and economic philosophy in terms of "good" and "evil".
Moving from state to state *IS* more common that it was, but it is not universal and far from it. About 60% of the population are still residing in the state in which they were born. Of the rest, ~20% are foreign born -- leaving about ~20% "mobile" with the highest percentage of non-movers being in the mid-west. The lowest is the west. And the differences in numbers are profound (about 20+ percentage points different between the two regions).
Look it up. Census.gov is freely available. Or check up on a William Frey -- he published "The Great American Migration Slowdown".
"Real federalism was pretty much dead before the War of 1812 anyway so why maintain the facade of empowered states"
First, it's not really "dead", but very much weakened. Second, and most important, the reason WHY we should maintain "empowered" states is for the various reasons it was set up in the first place. We are not a homogenous nation. We are spread over a huge area, of various races, faiths, cultures and economic interests and yet we haven't torn ourselves apart (came close in the 1860s).
The stronger the Federal government becomes, the more likely the US will balkanize. Want to maintain the union? Limit the powers of the Federal government and let the states dictate more of what is in there interests. Example:
Gay Marriage. States should be allowed to ban gay marriage but be forced to recognize it when performed in states which allow it. You keep those who find it in conflict with their faith happy and provide a solution to those who are homosexual who wish to wed.
What happens over time is that America will change -- SLOWLY and once gay marriage becomes as accepted to the extent that an amendment to the Constitution can pass, you've now created a "right" which was accepted by a supra majority of the states/peoples without putting stress on the Union by it being perceived as being shoved down our throats.
It was DESIGNED to work slow as the swings and dramatic changes of both whim and passions would destabilize a government. And when a population is as heterogeneous as we are -- it would just add more sparks to the fuel of succession.
There WAS a VHS "game" that came out that matched the plot of Caves of Steel back in the 80s... It actually wasn't that bad. That's about as close as you're going to get to film/video right now.
They should be called HBOO (with a little dot in each "O").
Good thing it's Asimov and not George R R Martin...
Hari Seldon would have been killed by a classmate before he ever developed psychohistory.
They have the "ability" to cheat. Being "able" to do something does not make it a "right".
"This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators)."
Absolutely agree! It "breaks" the reason WHY we have a bicameral legislature in the first place.
So you can print to your kodak diconix battery operated ink-jet printer, of course!
Heh... break out the soldering iron and put a relay between the battery contacts. We'll teach that pesky router!
"The device itself is about as reliable as other consumer level networking gear -- meaning you need to power cycle it now and then to make it start working again. It has a remote web admin interface, with no way to remotely reboot it. You have to physically touch the thing to power cycle it."
Way-back-when, I had an old x-10 serial controller and a power outlet adapter. I wrote a script that would check for gateway connectivity and if it failed it would power cycle the DSL modem and router. We were having issues with line quality during the summer (lead based wire to the home) that presented as a problem similar to what you describe. it worked and made sure my connection came back up automagically within 10 mins of going down.
Wasn't this the basic plot of Serenity? They tried to make some type of "peace" drug and ended turning the population that didn't outright die in to "Reavers"?
He's a mad man with an evil mind!
Nope. It was Electra woman and Dyna girl. And maybe Wunderbug.
Dementia can wreak havoc on someone's ability to do stuff. Cues like "smell" would certainly help someone who isn't too far down the dementia path.
"And yet it *IS* conservative groups that are opposing net neutrality. So there's something wrong with your reasoning."
No. There's something wrong with yours. I *DONT* want to see any tiered services. Net neutrality would prevent this. Yet I'm apposed to it. Because I'm against a bloated central government trying to do control a very heterogeneous population (culturally and economically) over a wide geographic area. What works in NYC probably wont in Baker, CA. Let local governments and the market place deal with stuff like this.
The larger our Federal government becomes the more likely we are to see a balkanization of the US. Geez -- we've already fought this battle once and sacrificed what? 3/4 of a million of our kids to preserve the union? 10 years ago the idea of a balkanization would have made me laugh. Yet now there are rumblings that cannot be ignored.
"that's why they do it."
Could it be that there is a record of horrible public school performance over the last few decades that is prompting this "school choice" movement? To allow those locked in to poorly performing public schools a shot at a better performing school? And maybe NOT trying to turn schools in to a business?
I'm sorry, conservatives are not evil. Libertarians are not evil. Liberals are not evil. Jeez. I can have opinions that are different than yours without you being EVIL and trying to control my life -- AND vise-verse.
I drive a 1988 tan toyota pickup. I've received a single speeding ticket in this truck -- 1989 in Santa Maria. Cop was pissed because he pegged me going 85 and he KNEW I was going faster but suspected I slowed down because I saw him. I actually was going about 95 (trying to race a friend back to Cal Poly SLO who had a major exam that morning) -- and slowed down because I entered Santa Maria (where there was a very high cop to car ratio). I just didn't slow down fast enough.
Anyway, I typically drive "as fast" as the cars around me and it is a vehicle that doesn't really stick out in any ones mind (unless you are a Hispanic gardener -- and if you are, NO! My truck isn't for sale! Stop asking!)
Lucky for them. All that money they save will help fight the lawsuits they'll have for accidents on freeways and intersections...
"And if you're really in medical need, ambulances will come pick you up."
Costing you more of what you don't have.
That said, I think there's a place for something like this -- but it's being used in an over-bearing way. Set it so that when activated, it will not prevent the car from being started if the car has been not running for more than 8 hours. That will prevent freeway/stop sign activations.
Further, there should be some notice (not saying it wasn't in their loan agreement that they would have SIGNED). But there should be some mailing saying you are x days late -- on date y, you car will no longer start until you make your back-payments.
"As to my fears, I am strongly opposed to the concept of my languishing in a nursing home, bereft of my mind, drugged and draining my accumulated wealth. a pointless existence - possibly painful, likely very unhappy existence - that in my mind is much worse than death."
What's stopping you? off yourself now and save a lot of trouble. My entire point was missed by your inability to see past YOUR nose, never mind your accusations of me not being able to see past *MY* nose. The point being that placing some arbitrary limit of 75 as being a good time to die is flipping lame and your response is "fuck you". Wonderful. For some reason this is a trigger issue for you. I've read your posts in this thread and they are many. You should back up, take a deep breath, count to 10 and exhale. It's not about you.
And WTF do you care if your accumulated wealth is draining if you are in the condition you state? Seriously? If you wanted it to go to your family, you would have made sure they would have had it at an earlier time. If not, then great -- let it take care of you instead of draining your family or living off the state. I for one am not interested in dime from my parents/in-laws estates. Let them use it to take care of themselves in a manner they see fit for as long as their comfortable. It's THEIRS, not MINE. They earned it.
"I have one thing to say. Fuck you. "
An excellent point. I must be wrong.
"Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act."
I don't think I "demanded" anything. I did strongly suggest that it's wise to learn to live with our limitations rather than say "I don't want to live not being able to do what I want when I want". I've too many happy 80+ year olds in my life who despite their pain and/or infirmity are enjoying their life and family. And if you can't see that then maybe my "annoying superiority act" isn't an act -- at least where you are concerned.
"There are living fates much worse than death. "
And of course I said exactly the opposite of that, didn't I? Or are you reading your own fears and insecurities in to what I ACTUALLY said?
If you don't want to be a financial drain to those you love then you must try to make sure you have assets available for yourself should you require them at that age. Or, when the time comes you move to a state where whatever aid is available to you (SS, SSI, whatever) brings more bang for your buck.
Or ENJOY the fact that your family is taking care of YOU now. The whole circle of life thing.
My mother retired to AZ. She had zero money saved, got a mobile home for $500 in 'decent' condition and had $1700/mo coming in (pension + social security). That's QUITE a comfortable income in Arizona. She lived there until she was 82 (about 10 years) when she came back to be closer to family and entered an assisted living home. Her memory isn't great, can't controller her bladder that well, needs help taking her meds regularly and requires a walker, but she's still truckin'. Still smokes a half-pack a day and walks to the near by gas station store to pick up her cigs if we dont bring them to her.
"What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?"
This is not some "universal" state -- there will be less things to enjoy, but most likely there will still be enjoyment.
"When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want?"
Then you change your expectation of yourself. You DON'T go and do what you want WHEN you want. You rely more on others and your world will grow "smaller". So long as long as the pain can be managed...
"When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?"
That's something else. If you are stuck on a machine completely unable to interact with the world around you, then yes. But that needs to be two-way -- there must be someone on the OTHER end of that (family or friends) who want to interact with you.
"I can see his point easily enough."
I can UNDERSTAND his point. I don't AGREE with it. I'm not saying "forced life" under any condition, of course.
"I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list."
My mother-in-law has cancer. She's 80. Aside from age related dementia (and the limitations that come along with that) she's doing great and enjoying her home, garden, family and life in general.
"I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper."
Ever read "Tuesday's with Morrie"? I like his outlook on life when HE came to having someone else wipe his arse.