I had a scary event a year or so ago driving on US 17 in the soutern tier of NY (a 4 lane limited access rural highway).
I was doing 5-10 over the limit(55 or 65, can't remember) in the right lane. There was light traffic, but nothing that was slowing anyone down really. This ass in an explorer gets right on my bumper. I gave them a few minutes to have a chance to go around me, when they got one and didn't take, I took my foot off the gas and hit the clutch. They had a continous oportunity to pass me until I was down to 30 mph. I drove at 30 for 10 minutes until they passed me. When they passed me, I slowly started to speed up again (after they were around me). But they got right in front of me and drove at 30. I tried to be mature about it and let them get their revenge and move one, but they did this for 15 minutes. I flashed my brights. 5 more minutes... Then I tried to go around them, and they tried to block me. I got around them by getting on the bumper of a car wizzing by in the left lane. They chased me down an off ramp, and back onto the highway, the second time I left the highway, I had gotten a car between us, and they missed the ramp.
If I wasn't scared of gun weilding wacko's I would have pulled to the side of the road, and let them have a peice of me if they want it (I'm 6'1" and a pretty lean 200 lbs).
I find it interesting that you quote a bunch of rights that are quite explicit in the constitution, and throw one in that is not. To be precise, the constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, not a "Separation" of church and state, a term coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. It is the same Thomas Jefferson that wanted every public school to teach the Bible.
SCOTUS has ruled that in order to not establish religion, the church and state must be separate.
I would rather be wrong, than undecided.
That is just sad, I would rather inform myself, and then make a correct decision than either of those... (and barring the posiblity of gaining enough knowledge, I would rather delay making a decision).
The left doesn't defend freedom of speech, unless it is leftist speech. In fact, the left is much more likely to shut down POLITICAL speech than the right. The latest is Campaign Finance laws. It is the LEFT that is trying to limit speech, not the right. What about Political Correctness? The whole idea of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is to limit expression of peoples speech.
Open your eyes. It is the left that protects the right of the KKK to protest. And there are no laws forcing political correctness (it is like being polite).
The left is NO defender of civil rights. It is JUST as bad as the RIGHT. Where is the left in defending the rights of the unborn? Oh right, the left has DEHUMANIZED them; calls them "tissue" and "fetus". It is no different than the Nazi's calling Jews animals, the KKK calling negros monkeys etc.
I agree that abortion is wrong, and you have taken the same stance on this issue I take. Unfortunaltly this is not how the right aproaches it. They are incapable of forming the logical argument you have put forth, they choose to rely on religious texts to tell them that it is wrong. And I would hardly call it the same as the racism you site, there is at least a gray area as to when you become a human being. I agree that it is long before birth, but not thinking that doesn't make you as bad as the KKK or the Nazis.
Take my stand on Marriage for another example. You want the separation of church and state? FINE! Let the government get completely out of the church business. Let religion set the terms for marriage. Government shouldn't take marriage into consideration for ANYTHING, since it is nothing more than a relic of religion. Tax law, Inheritance laws, everything should be marriage neutral.
I have been saying for years that the government has no business aproving marrraiges. There are some things for which civil unions are nessesary though. Hospital visitation should recognize people as being interdependant (interdependance is not a religous relic).
And I want all government offices open seven days a week. Being closed on Saturday (Sabbath for Jews) and Sunday (Christians) is a hold over of religion.
As long as individual workers are granted a minimum of 2 consecutive days off per period of 7 days, I have no problem with that at all.
Lets not forget Christmas and Thanksgiving too. I am all for our government being 100% secular. Lets do it, but not just half way.
Fine as long as government workers have enough vacation days that they still have the same amount of down time each year, I am fine with that too.
Personally, I don't think you know what you are really asking for.
Fine, just don't claim to be impartial when you are not.
And by the way (and I mean that, the following is not the point of this post)... The 2nd amendment is the only one that the left is doing a worse job of protecting than the right. It that is a higher priority to you fine, but a gun doesn't give me a great feeling of security (don't get me wrong, I like the second amendment), I would be happier with freedom of speech, freedom to organize, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, the right to a trial by my peers, and separation of church and state.
As a truly impartial observer (Libertarian) the Republicans are not that intimidating.
I read a post or two of yours... you are far from impartial, you may not be a republican, but it is pretty obvious you have nothing but venom for the left.
People are being aressted en masse in NYC for peaceful assembly. That is intimidation.
I have only flown planes with zero electronics (Schweizer 2-33). So I am not an expert on the workings of small powered aircraft. Couldn't an EMP F up the function of the magnetos, and cause loss of spark and engine failure?
I know an EMP can mess up an alternator. Aren't the mags just like small alternators?
Just spend the money to setup private voting booths over there. Travel from company to company and allow our guys to vote.
The most dangerous thing you can do in Iraq right now is travel from company to company. I am all for making voting easy for the soldiers, but I would prefer a method that doesn't incur huge risks (if at all posible).
I have no problem with non race based afirmative action... I think it is a good thing. But giving the child of a black doctor preferance over the child of a white welfare recipient is nothing but racism.
I agree that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have disadvantaged children, but it is only cooralated with race, not caused by it. I the long run the only way to get rid of institutional racism is to have institutions ignore race. Do majority people from a poor background not deserve help?
I am a first generation advantaged child. My dad was born in a mined out western maryland coal town, and his dad died when he was 4. He and my uncle had to work while my grandmother was in the TB hospital, so that the family could keep eating. Nobody in his family had ever been to college before he went. Do you think that the color of someones skin is a bigger disadvantage than that?
The hard core of the issue, bigotry, still remains.
Nobody said it was gone. They said reduced......and I read your journal, do you think that 40 years ago the hispanic women would have been able to move into your apartment complex? Do you think that if they had they might have been assaulted physically rather than verbally? Do you honestly think nothing has improved in the last 40 years?
If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.
How is "Make it illegal to have a 'race' field on college applicaitons" equivilant to "require X% of admissions to be Y", or "being Z earns you W more points towards admissions"?
The point is you can't discriminate based on race if you are unaware of someones race. It is not practical for any process containing an interview, but for a paper process (like most college addmisions) it is bullet proof.
The moller skycar will supposedly get 28 miles to the gallon with a cruising speed of 350+ mph, that's a little bit better than a suburban.
That is 28 mpg "highway". My estimation is that if you used it for flying to the grocery store and going to work the milage is closer to 1.
The problem will occur when traffic gets bad enough to need the grossly inefficient hover mode, or if a substantial part of it's use would be in take off and landing (or looking for a parking spot).
The energy economy of a personal flying vehicle whould make a suburban look like a prius.
Airplanes do alright, but they don't have the ability to hover which would be a necesity for any urban personal air transit. Until an energy efficient way of maintiaing a position in 3 dimensions is developed I really don't think personal flying vehicle will be adopted on an appriciable scale...
Correlation is evidence, it is just week, and it cannot stand on it's own as proof. This is just part of the scientific process, the hypothesis is being tested. I supose you think that eating box causes the inner ear to change? I acknowledge that it is posible, but I think it is far less likly than both being led to by some other underlying difference.
I notice you still have not presented evidence to the contrary.
I also find it interesting that after I dismantled your "research" your tone changed.
You changed your tone in responding to the reports.
At first you were defiantly claiming that no evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality existed with no facts supporting your claim. You then responded addmitting that there was evidence, but claiming that it was week (somewhat effictively...).
As for the dismantling of the research... I can't dismantle any research showing that homosexuality is a choice, if you don't show it.
Before, I was ignorant, but suddenly you're willing to consider my point of view.
What I said is that you are ignorant (or ill informed) if you deny the existance of evidence for a biological basis of homosexuality, not if you don't believe it, I even said that explicitly in my post.
If we agree to the very narrow terms of what make one a homosexual you posted earlier, you are right. "Who you fuck" is a choice, I am just not so sure who you want to fuck is a choice.
Despite what you claim, it's pretty obvious you've made up your mind.
It is equally obvious that your mind is at least as made up as mine.
Animal studies have long been considered a valid basis for biological research, they are not rock solid, but they are often indicative.
And on the inner ear study. Biased doesn't mean wrong. The conclusions are suspect, but the facts on which the conclusions are based are not invalidated by this, there is an anatomical difference in the inner ear of lesbians.
I never said that brain strucure change couldn't be caused by homosexuality, but to assume it is, is just as foolish as to assume it isn't.
I know a fair amount about research. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I am on the research staff at a very prestigious university. You should notice that I never claimed that these studies were proof, just evidence. You have repeatedly claimed my evidence proves nothing, I never claimed it proved anything, only that there is some evidence, and it points towards a "who you are" type of homosexuality. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I am not asking for rock solid proof, just more than your assertion that it is a choice.
You are afforded equal rights under the law. Neither a heterosexual man nor a homosexual man may marry another man (same goes for two women). What you want is an EXCEPTION, not equality.
No, it is not an exception. Men should have the same rights women have, and vice versa.
A man should be able to marry a man, just as a woman can.
I didn't mean not to say "I had a great fuck last night", I meant you should go an entire month, while you are getting some on a regular basis from the same person, without refering to that person, no "my girlfriend", no "my boyfriend", no "my wife"... I am not just asking you to not talk about sex, I am asking you to not talk about relationships.
First, what evidence? Show me some. I'll be waiting a long time.
There are anatomical diferences between strait people and gay people. The acoustics of the lesbean inner ear is not like that of a straight woman's. Subtle features in the brains of gay men are not in the same proportions as they are in strait men. They have done twin studies, examined homosexuality in the animal kingdom, all uncovered physiological and/or anatomical differences between hetero and homosexuals. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you don't think this evidence is conclusive, fine. Denying that this evidence exists, makes you either ill informed, or willfully ignorant.
Whether gay is what you are or what you do is a matter that is still being debated. Personally, I think that the evedence points towards gay being what you are.
As for your "don't ask, don't tell" additude, that is completely unrealistic. You can't honestly expect people (of any orientation) to conseal such a large aspect of their existance. I have a challenge for you to consider. Go one month without mentioning your signifigant other to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a scary event a year or so ago driving on US 17 in the soutern tier of NY (a 4 lane limited access rural highway).
I was doing 5-10 over the limit(55 or 65, can't remember) in the right lane. There was light traffic, but nothing that was slowing anyone down really. This ass in an explorer gets right on my bumper. I gave them a few minutes to have a chance to go around me, when they got one and didn't take, I took my foot off the gas and hit the clutch. They had a continous oportunity to pass me until I was down to 30 mph. I drove at 30 for 10 minutes until they passed me. When they passed me, I slowly started to speed up again (after they were around me). But they got right in front of me and drove at 30. I tried to be mature about it and let them get their revenge and move one, but they did this for 15 minutes. I flashed my brights. 5 more minutes... Then I tried to go around them, and they tried to block me. I got around them by getting on the bumper of a car wizzing by in the left lane. They chased me down an off ramp, and back onto the highway, the second time I left the highway, I had gotten a car between us, and they missed the ramp.
If I wasn't scared of gun weilding wacko's I would have pulled to the side of the road, and let them have a peice of me if they want it (I'm 6'1" and a pretty lean 200 lbs).
Damn, they were fucked in the head...
I find it interesting that you quote a bunch of rights that are quite explicit in the constitution, and throw one in that is not. To be precise, the constitution prohibits the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, not a "Separation" of church and state, a term coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. It is the same Thomas Jefferson that wanted every public school to teach the Bible.
SCOTUS has ruled that in order to not establish religion, the church and state must be separate.
I would rather be wrong, than undecided.
That is just sad, I would rather inform myself, and then make a correct decision than either of those... (and barring the posiblity of gaining enough knowledge, I would rather delay making a decision).
The left doesn't defend freedom of speech, unless it is leftist speech. In fact, the left is much more likely to shut down POLITICAL speech than the right. The latest is Campaign Finance laws. It is the LEFT that is trying to limit speech, not the right. What about Political Correctness? The whole idea of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is to limit expression of peoples speech.
Open your eyes. It is the left that protects the right of the KKK to protest. And there are no laws forcing political correctness (it is like being polite).
The left is NO defender of civil rights. It is JUST as bad as the RIGHT. Where is the left in defending the rights of the unborn? Oh right, the left has DEHUMANIZED them; calls them "tissue" and "fetus". It is no different than the Nazi's calling Jews animals, the KKK calling negros monkeys etc.
I agree that abortion is wrong, and you have taken the same stance on this issue I take. Unfortunaltly this is not how the right aproaches it. They are incapable of forming the logical argument you have put forth, they choose to rely on religious texts to tell them that it is wrong. And I would hardly call it the same as the racism you site, there is at least a gray area as to when you become a human being. I agree that it is long before birth, but not thinking that doesn't make you as bad as the KKK or the Nazis.
Take my stand on Marriage for another example. You want the separation of church and state? FINE! Let the government get completely out of the church business. Let religion set the terms for marriage. Government shouldn't take marriage into consideration for ANYTHING, since it is nothing more than a relic of religion. Tax law, Inheritance laws, everything should be marriage neutral.
I have been saying for years that the government has no business aproving marrraiges. There are some things for which civil unions are nessesary though. Hospital visitation should recognize people as being interdependant (interdependance is not a religous relic).
And I want all government offices open seven days a week. Being closed on Saturday (Sabbath for Jews) and Sunday (Christians) is a hold over of religion.
As long as individual workers are granted a minimum of 2 consecutive days off per period of 7 days, I have no problem with that at all.
Lets not forget Christmas and Thanksgiving too. I am all for our government being 100% secular. Lets do it, but not just half way.
Fine as long as government workers have enough vacation days that they still have the same amount of down time each year, I am fine with that too.
Personally, I don't think you know what you are really asking for.
Personally, I think you don't know me.
Fine, just don't claim to be impartial when you are not.
And by the way (and I mean that, the following is not the point of this post)... The 2nd amendment is the only one that the left is doing a worse job of protecting than the right. It that is a higher priority to you fine, but a gun doesn't give me a great feeling of security (don't get me wrong, I like the second amendment), I would be happier with freedom of speech, freedom to organize, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, the right to a trial by my peers, and separation of church and state.
As a truly impartial observer (Libertarian) the Republicans are not that intimidating.
I read a post or two of yours... you are far from impartial, you may not be a republican, but it is pretty obvious you have nothing but venom for the left.
People are being aressted en masse in NYC for peaceful assembly. That is intimidation.
... do people focus so much fear on highly unlikely events.
I have only flown planes with zero electronics (Schweizer 2-33). So I am not an expert on the workings of small powered aircraft. Couldn't an EMP F up the function of the magnetos, and cause loss of spark and engine failure?
I know an EMP can mess up an alternator. Aren't the mags just like small alternators?
Here's an idea?
Just spend the money to setup private voting booths over there. Travel from company to company and allow our guys to vote.
The most dangerous thing you can do in Iraq right now is travel from company to company. I am all for making voting easy for the soldiers, but I would prefer a method that doesn't incur huge risks (if at all posible).
I have no problem with non race based afirmative action... I think it is a good thing. But giving the child of a black doctor preferance over the child of a white welfare recipient is nothing but racism.
I agree that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have disadvantaged children, but it is only cooralated with race, not caused by it. I the long run the only way to get rid of institutional racism is to have institutions ignore race. Do majority people from a poor background not deserve help?
I am a first generation advantaged child. My dad was born in a mined out western maryland coal town, and his dad died when he was 4. He and my uncle had to work while my grandmother was in the TB hospital, so that the family could keep eating. Nobody in his family had ever been to college before he went. Do you think that the color of someones skin is a bigger disadvantage than that?
It would be trivial to reduce all identifying information on the application to "applicant number" and review applications devoid of given name.
The hard core of the issue, bigotry, still remains.
...and I read your journal, do you think that 40 years ago the hispanic women would have been able to move into your apartment complex? Do you think that if they had they might have been assaulted physically rather than verbally? Do you honestly think nothing has improved in the last 40 years?
Nobody said it was gone. They said reduced...
If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.
How is "Make it illegal to have a 'race' field on college applicaitons" equivilant to "require X% of admissions to be Y", or "being Z earns you W more points towards admissions"?
The point is you can't discriminate based on race if you are unaware of someones race. It is not practical for any process containing an interview, but for a paper process (like most college addmisions) it is bullet proof.
The moller skycar will supposedly get 28 miles to the gallon with a cruising speed of 350+ mph, that's a little bit better than a suburban.
That is 28 mpg "highway". My estimation is that if you used it for flying to the grocery store and going to work the milage is closer to 1.
The problem will occur when traffic gets bad enough to need the grossly inefficient hover mode, or if a substantial part of it's use would be in take off and landing (or looking for a parking spot).
The energy economy of a personal flying vehicle whould make a suburban look like a prius.
Airplanes do alright, but they don't have the ability to hover which would be a necesity for any urban personal air transit. Until an energy efficient way of maintiaing a position in 3 dimensions is developed I really don't think personal flying vehicle will be adopted on an appriciable scale...
I would still like to know what I said that was wrong.
Or are you a troll?
Correlation is evidence, it is just week, and it cannot stand on it's own as proof. This is just part of the scientific process, the hypothesis is being tested. I supose you think that eating box causes the inner ear to change? I acknowledge that it is posible, but I think it is far less likly than both being led to by some other underlying difference.
I notice you still have not presented evidence to the contrary.
Cornell
how about you?
Variety helps a lot, but I think that exercise is probably more important.
Before I started weight training I had a sore back all the time, now it feels great regarless of how I sit...
Also any extra weight you are carrying around can make a big difference in your back.
I also find it interesting that after I dismantled your "research" your tone changed.
You changed your tone in responding to the reports.
At first you were defiantly claiming that no evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality existed with no facts supporting your claim. You then responded addmitting that there was evidence, but claiming that it was week (somewhat effictively...).
As for the dismantling of the research... I can't dismantle any research showing that homosexuality is a choice, if you don't show it.
Before, I was ignorant, but suddenly you're willing to consider my point of view.
What I said is that you are ignorant (or ill informed) if you deny the existance of evidence for a biological basis of homosexuality, not if you don't believe it, I even said that explicitly in my post.
If we agree to the very narrow terms of what make one a homosexual you posted earlier, you are right. "Who you fuck" is a choice, I am just not so sure who you want to fuck is a choice.
Despite what you claim, it's pretty obvious you've made up your mind.
It is equally obvious that your mind is at least as made up as mine.
Animal studies have long been considered a valid basis for biological research, they are not rock solid, but they are often indicative.
And on the inner ear study. Biased doesn't mean wrong. The conclusions are suspect, but the facts on which the conclusions are based are not invalidated by this, there is an anatomical difference in the inner ear of lesbians.
I never said that brain strucure change couldn't be caused by homosexuality, but to assume it is, is just as foolish as to assume it isn't.
I know a fair amount about research. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I am on the research staff at a very prestigious university. You should notice that I never claimed that these studies were proof, just evidence. You have repeatedly claimed my evidence proves nothing, I never claimed it proved anything, only that there is some evidence, and it points towards a "who you are" type of homosexuality. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I am not asking for rock solid proof, just more than your assertion that it is a choice.
Would you be willing to accept a study claiming to prove that homosexuality is a choice? I doubt it.
I would... have you got one?
Remember in my earlier post I said that it was a matter not yet resolved, I am not convinsed that it is biological, but I am leaning that way...
You are afforded equal rights under the law. Neither a heterosexual man nor a homosexual man may marry another man (same goes for two women). What you want is an EXCEPTION, not equality.
No, it is not an exception. Men should have the same rights women have, and vice versa.
A man should be able to marry a man, just as a woman can.
I didn't mean not to say "I had a great fuck last night", I meant you should go an entire month, while you are getting some on a regular basis from the same person, without refering to that person, no "my girlfriend", no "my boyfriend", no "my wife"... I am not just asking you to not talk about sex, I am asking you to not talk about relationships.
First, what evidence? Show me some. I'll be waiting a long time.
here is some.
sorry it took so long.
There are anatomical diferences between strait people and gay people. The acoustics of the lesbean inner ear is not like that of a straight woman's. Subtle features in the brains of gay men are not in the same proportions as they are in strait men. They have done twin studies, examined homosexuality in the animal kingdom, all uncovered physiological and/or anatomical differences between hetero and homosexuals. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you don't think this evidence is conclusive, fine. Denying that this evidence exists, makes you either ill informed, or willfully ignorant.
Whether gay is what you are or what you do is a matter that is still being debated. Personally, I think that the evedence points towards gay being what you are.
As for your "don't ask, don't tell" additude, that is completely unrealistic. You can't honestly expect people (of any orientation) to conseal such a large aspect of their existance.
I have a challenge for you to consider. Go one month without mentioning your signifigant other to anyone.
The war in Iraq is just a continuation of the war started in NYC and Washington DC on 9/11.
What does the war in Iraq have to do with the "War on Terror"?
And maybe liberals are caused by inhaling too much pollution. :-)
Or maybe they are caused by not wanting to inhale more pollution.