May 14, 2012
— Maetenloch
Agreement Groups in the US Senate
So here's a interesting visualization of voting groups in the Senate over the last 15 years. Red is Republicans, blue is Democrats.
Note that in the 110th Congress (2007-2009) there were 10 Republican senators who were actually classified as Democrats in this chart based on their votes - along with a much smaller group of GOP-voting Democratic Senators.
Most of whom are either moderates or closer to the Democrats than to their own party. Charles Hagel was critic of the Bush Administration which he described as "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus - almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. George Voinovich has been known to oppose lowering taxes and frequently joined the Democrats on tax issues. John Warner is a moderate Republican and has centrist stances on many issues, to the point that he once faced opposition of other members of his own party when he decided to run for re-election.
Plus you had the Maine sisters and John McCain.
But of course it's the Republicans who are extremists that never cross the aisle to work with the opposition. </sarc>
Tip for WaPo: Look Into Young Joe Biden
While the media is focusing on Romney's pranks in high school, it turns out that Sheriff Joe himself was a rather prankish brawling young buffoon:
the Washington Post might want to devote some investigative resources toward the background of Vice President Joseph Biden. That's right, "Sheriff Joe" was reportedly involved in a spate of anti-social activities as a child and adolescent, including but not limited to elaborate neighborhood pranks, street brawls, and even an assault on a lowly dorm employee in college....And before that, University of Delaware, where he only screwed around, trying to be Joe College-got probation for dousing the dorm director with a fire extinguisher. . Then there were hijinks from high school, streaking the parking lot. . They were getting back to childhood sins, stuff where the priest says, "Two Hail Marys" . but Joe was still talking.
But what about a reverse-commencement, where young folks tell their elders what they should know? What should be in that speech? [2/2]
- Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) May 8, 2012
An then you have this matching juicebox tweet:
Do we think presidential assassinations would be a common occurrence if there were no Secret Service?
- Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 11, 2012
Just remember that both of these juiceboxers are professional journalists who somehow enjoy (undue) respect and probably make more than you.
The Crashed P-40 Found in the Sahara
This has probably already been covered here several times but just in case...
Recently a P-40 was found in the Egyptian desert in remarkably preserved condition:
The chance find was made by an oil worker exploring a remote region of the Western Desert in Egypt. It is more than 200 miles from the nearest town in a vast expanse of largely featureless terrain.Flight Sergeant Copping, part of a fighter unit based in Egypt during the North Africa campaign against Rommel, is believed to have lost his bearings while flying the damaged Kittyhawk to another airbase for repair. All that is known is that he went off course and was never seen again.
Remarkably, the plane remained almost untouched for the next seven decades - right down to the guns and ammunition found with it. Most of the cockpit instruments are intact, and the twisted propeller lies a few feet from the fuselage.
Crucially, the P-40's identification plates are untouched - allowing researchers to track its provenance and service history. There is flak damage in the fuselage, which is consistent with documents on the aircraft. Historian Andy Saunders said: 'It is a quite incredible time capsule. It's the aviation equivalent of Tutankhamun's tomb.
'This plane has been lying in the same spot where it crashed 70 years ago.
'It hasn't been hidden in the sand, it has just sat there.
'He must have survived the crash because one photo shows a parachute around the frame of the plane and my guess is the poor bloke used it to shelter from the sun. The radio and batteries were out of the plane and it looks like he tried to get it working.'If he died at the side of the plane his remains would have been found. Once he had crashed there, nobody was going to come and get him. It is more likely he tried to walk out of the desert but ended up walking to his death. It is too hideous to contemplate.'
And here are more details on the pilot, Flight Sergeant Denis Copping, who went missing in June 1942.
As always use your moron powers for good.
All you need is some kind of string (dental floss, yarn, ribbon, etc.) or a sturdy rubber band (the thicker the better, so it won't snap under pressure). Both methods require manipulating the material so that the chain end is pulled towards the wider slot that will make the chain fall out, hence unlocking the door.
So How Long Did Cave-babies Breast Feed?
Short answer: Probably for two to four years:
The fossil record provides little indication of weaning times, so the best evidence we have comes from our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees and bonobos wean their young at the age of 4 or 5, while gorillas do so about a year earlier. It's tricky to translate those ages into human years, though.
...Anthropologists have studied the weaning customs of hunter gatherer societies, and found significant variation. The !Kung San of the Kalahari desert stop breast-feeding at around 4 or 5 years of age. The Hadza of Tanzania wean about six months earlier than the !Kung. The Acha people of Paraguay wean earlier still, at around 3 years of age.
And Bookworm points out that if you were put off by Time's recent cover, it doesn't mean that you're against breast-feeding or mother-babyson bonding:
That woman on the cover isn't bonding, she's advocating. She's so "in your face" she practically leaps off the cover, clawing at your eyeballs. This picture can best be analogized to a porn picture. In those, the woman, rather than gazing lovingly at her partner, turns her seductive gaze to the camera - and to the viewer beyond. Just as porn isn't about love, this photo isn't about bonding with a baby. This is one Mom's statement about the "evils" of American culture, nicely captured on the front page of a magazine owned and distributed by vast corporate interests.
4 Artists Who Should Probably Just Take a Break for a While
Case in point - the Johnny Depp-Tim Burton collaboration:
In the last 10 years, Johnny Depp has collaborated with Tim Burton on five films. He wore pale makeup and crazy hair in four of those five (the fifth was Corpse Bride, where Depp's character, while made of clay, still had a pale face and weird hair), and while he was always enjoyable to watch, no character really stands out as particularly iconic; they're all mostly just eccentric, and they sound funny.
...I haven't found a single critic who thinks either Burton or Depp have made their best work together in the last 10 years. I'd go as far as to say that Burton's last great movie was Big Fish, which is suspiciously the only move he made in the last 10 years that didn't feature Depp.
The Yahoo AoSHQ group. Bla bla bla.
And don't forget about the Job Bank.
And my twitter thang.
Tonight's post brought to you by pistols:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Posted by: Maetenloch at
05:45 PM
| Comments (605)
Post contains 1321 words, total size 14 kb.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 05:49 PM (ykSKg)
The fossil record provides little indication of weaning times, so the best evidence we have comes from our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees and bonobos wean their young at the age of 4 or 5, while gorillas do so about a year earlier. It's tricky to translate those ages into human years, though.
Science!
What can't it do?
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 05:52 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 05:52 PM (GULKT)
Quite an amazing shot actually - a hook shot about 100' out of a 3rd story bathroom window in the dorm.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2012 05:52 PM (Lo/y1)
Posted by: Polliwog, Teahada hobbit at May 14, 2012 05:53 PM (X8/ER)
Is this thread being observed from the sky?
No but if you step a little closer I will grope your junk
Posted by: freindly neighborhood TSA agent at May 14, 2012 05:53 PM (kPe9l)
She said the babies were kept in trees, but I still don't know how that worked on the plains of Africa, or with patient predators who hung around the base of the tree.
Anyone know if "serious" researchers have looked into this?
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 05:54 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 14, 2012 05:55 PM (RvlzX)
Posted by: owlpellets at May 14, 2012 05:55 PM (dmEoV)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 05:55 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 14, 2012 05:56 PM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at May 14, 2012 05:56 PM (Gk3SS)
Anyone know if "serious" researchers have looked into this?
I don't think you can consider anthropology 'serious'.
Archaeology, physical archaeology, sure.
But anthropology is a fucking joke.
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 05:56 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2012 05:56 PM (Lo/y1)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 05:58 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at May 14, 2012 05:58 PM (4mPcZ)
I don't think you can consider anthropology 'serious'.
Archaeology, physical archaeology,sure.
But anthropology is a fucking joke.
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 09:56 PM (Br0dO)
--What I'm thinking of goes so far back it's more like zoology than anthropology.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 05:58 PM (ykSKg)
Warning citations will be issued this time.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 14, 2012 05:58 PM (ccXZP)
I asked my wife: How the fuck did we survive in the wild with our babies crying so damn loud almost all day?
I once read that the Sioux taught their infants not to wail by pinching their nostrils shut.
Consider this tentative, as it has not been confirmed by Cooks-Own-Goose Warren.
Posted by: fluffy at May 14, 2012 05:58 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Clemenza at May 14, 2012 05:59 PM (YlSwz)
Posted by: moron #4 at May 14, 2012 05:59 PM (AZ8Mb)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 05:59 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:00 PM (ykSKg)
I once read that the Sioux taught their infants not to wail by pinching their nostrils shut.
It wasn't a chicken...it was a baby!!!
Posted by: Hawkeye Pierce at May 14, 2012 06:00 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: no good deed at May 14, 2012 06:00 PM (mjR67)
She said the babies were kept in trees, but I still don't know how that worked on the plains of Africa, or with patient predators who hung around the base of the tree.
Anyone know if "serious" researchers have looked into this?
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 09:54 PM (ykSKg)
Baby no cried then. Grog spank baby. Baby no cry. Woman say "oh papi" though. Grog hung like brontosaurus. Baby terrified of Grog manhood, so no cry.
Posted by: Grog the Caveman at May 14, 2012 06:00 PM (1grxW)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 06:00 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: moron #4 at May 14, 2012 06:01 PM (AZ8Mb)
Posted by: moron #4 at May 14, 2012 09:59 PM (AZ8Mb)
--Especially when you consider his IQ was even higher back then.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:01 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Clemenza at May 14, 2012 06:01 PM (YlSwz)
Posted by: Ben at May 14, 2012 06:02 PM (UvdzB)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:03 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: MrCaniac at May 14, 2012 06:03 PM (1grxW)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:03 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: John Schofield at May 14, 2012 06:04 PM (kkqvX)
Posted by: Grog the Caveman at May 14, 2012 10:00 PM
Mmmmm, brontosaurus burgers.
Posted by: Fred Flintstone at May 14, 2012 06:04 PM (1grxW)
Hi Hummingbird, hope you had a good day.
For those who've played WoW, exactly how many *weeks* does it take to download those non-critical game updates? I know it says it'll take some time, but this is ridiculous.
Posted by: Polliwog, Teahada hobbit at May 14, 2012 06:05 PM (X8/ER)
Posted by: Ben at May 14, 2012 10:02 PM (UvdzB)
--One thing recommending it is that it's one of the few movies that have the father-son relationship front and center.
Secondhand Lions has a very similar plot (it preceded Big Fish) and I thought it was better.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:05 PM (ykSKg)
A guy walks into a bar and there's a monkey at the end of the bar.
The bartender says "watch this", whips out his dick and goes over and hits the monkey on the head with a pipe, and the monkey starts sucking the bartenders dick furiously.
The guy sees all this and asks the bartender: "hey can I try that?".
The bartender says sure, no problem.
The guys says "just one thing - please don't hit me on the head with the pipe"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2012 06:05 PM (Lo/y1)
Posted by: jenny tries too hard at May 14, 2012 06:05 PM (snRY5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:05 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: steevy at May 14, 2012 06:06 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Clemenza at May 14, 2012 06:06 PM (YlSwz)
Chris was truly pathetic on Jeopardy! tonight. Finished third to Robert Gibbs, Obama's former press secretary, and some CNN reporter named Lizzie something.
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (a5ljo)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: steevy at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (7W3wI)
http://tinyurl.com/869u4zb
Tristan Salazar, a former member of the board of directors who has worked there over six years, says there were several issues, beginning with the fact that management was filming the women through one-way windows - and then putting the video online without their consent.
"There was also what was seen as racist and size-ist scheduling," he said. "You couldn't get center booth space if you weren't skinnier and more light-skinned."
When the business began faltering, the workers purchased it for $400,000, but the poor economy along with online porn sites have taken their toll.
"Since 2008 my paychecks have been going down, down, down," said Bijou. "I'm making half of what I was making when I started in 2005."
She says she's out of the Pleasure Booth and out in the job market, where she hopes to use the doctorate she says she earned in sociology.
Posted by: Armando, who does not go to strip clubs. Really. at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (Pf662)
Posted by: Clemenza at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (YlSwz)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:08 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at May 14, 2012 06:09 PM (Afn7T)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 06:09 PM (+ZI77)
***
As I've gotten older, one of the things I've come to realize is just how ignorant I was as a youth. Not ignorant in the sense of stupid, as common culture uses it now, but not knowing things.
Part of it is the vapidity of public education, but a large measure is just that one acquires wisdom by living and nothing else.
Certainly the leftist worship of youthful ignorance is perverse.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 14, 2012 06:09 PM (3aXbg)
http://tinyurl.com/8776g64
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 10:00 PM (+ZI77)
He's got the nomination now. It's time for the media to begin the death by a 1000 cuts on him. Every bit of his life is vetted, and yet Barack Obama's life before 2004 is unknown.
Posted by: MrCaniac at May 14, 2012 06:10 PM (1grxW)
The bartender screams at the guy, "Your monkey just ate the cue ball off my pool table -- whole!"
"Sorry," replied the guy. "He eats everything in sight, the little bastard. I'll pay for everything."
The man finishes his drink, pays and leaves.
Two weeks later, he's in the bar with his pet monkey, again. He orders a drink, and the monkey starts running around the bar. The monkey finds a maraschino cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his ass, pulls it out and eats it.
The bartender is disgusted. "Did you see what your monkey did now?" he asks.
"Yeah," replies the guy. "He still eats everything in sight, but ever since he swallowed that cue ball, he measures stuff first."
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:10 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:11 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 06:12 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:13 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 06:13 PM (HI6wa)
ROFL
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2012 06:13 PM (Lo/y1)
Still laughing about the insufferable prick Chris Matthews getting his ass kicked on Jeopardy today. Playing for charity with a chick and Robert Fibbs, the original Obama butt boy and serial prevaricator.
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at May 14, 2012 06:14 PM (ndqJC)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at May 14, 2012 06:15 PM (Afn7T)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 10:12 PM (R5yLq)
Yeah, rule #462 of AoSHQ. If this story has some spicy parts, those spicy parts must be shared.
Posted by: MrCaniac, keeper of the AoSHQ Rulebook at May 14, 2012 06:16 PM (1grxW)
It may seem like a kid's flick at first, but stick with it, it's kind of part High Noon and part Chinatown and part Eastwood spaghetti western.
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 06:16 PM (HI6wa)
. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 14, 2012 06:17 PM (RvlzX)
The time is long past were we get to bitch and moan. He's our candidate; for better or for worse.
It's Romney, or death for America, so just dig deep and donate.
And anyone who complains gets this:
http://is.gd/IT8hq4
Anyone who donates gets this:
http://is.gd/F5ERFV (NSFW)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 14, 2012 06:17 PM (nEUpB)
project on one of the bathrooms today. I walked in to find him in a
muscle shirt and jeans and wearing a tool belt. He had a huge bundle of
floor tiles over one shoulder. MMMMM! Now that is what I call a
homecoming!
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 10:12 PM (R5yLq)
Yeah, rule #462 of AoSHQ. If this story has some spicy parts, those spicy parts must be shared.
Posted by: MrCaniac, keeper of the AoSHQ Rulebook at May 14, 2012 10:16 PM (1grxW)
Notice she said "started" but did not indicate how much was actually accomplished.
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:18 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 06:18 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 06:18 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 06:19 PM (R5yLq)
http://is.gd/F5ERFV (NSFW)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 14, 2012 10:17 PM (nEUpB)
I'm not so sure that model donated to Romney since she can't afford the top to that bikini.
Posted by: MrCaniac at May 14, 2012 06:20 PM (1grxW)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:20 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 14, 2012 06:21 PM (JlEPB)
before I got off
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 10:19 PM (R5yLq)
That's the title of my autobiography!
Posted by: Zombie David Carradine at May 14, 2012 06:21 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:22 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 10:21 PM (IavxF)
Did you at least enjoy the Survivor finale last night Peaches?
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:23 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 06:24 PM (fU9eM)
I'll just say I hope tomorrow's better, and the day after that even betterer.
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:25 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:26 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: steevy at May 14, 2012 06:26 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 06:26 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: no good deed at May 14, 2012 06:28 PM (mjR67)
Posted by: steevy at May 14, 2012 10:26 PM (7W3wI)
They essentially did that a lot of times. I think you might see some of it in the special features for the movie. The actors acting out the scenes as a stage play.
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:28 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:28 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 06:29 PM (RZ8pf)
----
Ya, WZ will do that to ya. Great site. Especially if you have access to anxiety medication.
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 06:29 PM (P6QsQ)
And, buzzion, I watched the second hour of Survivor. I was underwhelmed. Kim, okay, fine, she won, but I never really liked her. The best part (okay, I watched some of the third hour) was seeing them rake that fucking asshole Colton over the coals.
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:30 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: Toaster at May 14, 2012 06:30 PM (sJKFk)
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 06:31 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 06:32 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:33 PM (ykSKg)
That's a tough one, PGiS! I can't even imagine, but I think it's cool that they're doing something like that. I kinda hope it's the Joe Mantegna (?) character, not very fond of him, but the way my luck is trending it will probably be somebody I like.
And, logprof, sorry for the hassle but just nibble the baby's toes for a minute and it will all fade away. Baby-toes are great for nibbling, if you haven't yet gone there. Or, just smell his head, that's ambrosia right there. What is it makes their little heads smell so awesome?
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:34 PM (IavxF)
Did I read that you are the proud new papa of a bouncing baby boy? Congratulations!
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 10:31 PM (P6QsQ)
--Yes, and thanks!
I hate being away from the little guy, but there's work that needs to be done. . . .
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:35 PM (ykSKg)
The thing about Matthews is, he was openly pissed that he was losing.
Sweet.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 14, 2012 06:36 PM (qPCyi)
I kinda hope it's the Joe Mantegna (?) character, not very fond of him,
?? Isn't that the guy on Criminal Minds?
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 06:36 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 10:34 PM (IavxF)
--Alas, I'm on the road and can't. I love both playing with his feet and listening to his quiet breathing when he sleeps.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:38 PM (ykSKg)
Two more. Hell, yeah!
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 10:34 PM (7yvLv)
It'll cure what ails ya. For me, I love the loss of the rest of the world when focusing in on just hitting the target...nothing else matters at that moment, and the satisfaction of a job well done, if I hit, is all the validation I ever need.
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 06:38 PM (fU9eM)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 06:38 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: KZnextzone at May 14, 2012 06:39 PM (UXEgP)
And, buzzion, I watched the second hour of Survivor. I was underwhelmed. Kim, okay, fine, she won, but I never really liked her. The best part (okay, I watched some of the third hour) was seeing them rake that fucking asshole Colton over the coals.
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 10:30 PM (IavxF)
Well of those left she pretty much was the most deserving, and I didn't mind because eye candy 
. The one I would have most preferred to win was Troyzan but he was out too long ago.
I enjoyed seeing that bitch Alicia break down too. Skank should not be teaching special needs kids.
The next season it should be interesting to see which 3 former members they bring back that had to leave the show
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:39 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 06:39 PM (piMMO)
--------
Isn't it amazing how fast you can fall in love with someone you just met? God bless him.
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 06:39 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 06:41 PM (HJYyV)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:41 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 10:36 PM (RZ8pf)
Oops, yeah, I mixed up my shows. NCIS, wow, gosh, I have no pick for that, I really like them all. 
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:41 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:41 PM (xHWBA)
The thing about Matthews is, he was openly pissed that he was losing.
Sweet.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 14, 2012 10:36 PM (qPCyi
Matthews and Wolf Blitzer. Proving that reporters really are fucking stupid. Can't even do well on the dumbed down celebrity Jeopardy.
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:41 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 10:39 PM (P6QsQ)
--Don't tell my wife, but I think I've already spent more time gazing lovingly at him than any woman.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:42 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 06:43 PM (fU9eM)
Posted by: talking survelliance camera [/i] [/b] at May 14, 2012 06:43 PM (ebPtk)
Red Hot Chili Peppers? From awesome funky aggro rock to a bunch of navel gazing pussies. Seriously, that's some sopping wet queefing vag rock they put out now.
And Seth McFarlane needs to go on some kind of spiritual journey to Tibet and commune with nature with some Buddhist monks or something. Something that'll teach him to use his talents for good instead of evil. Man, what a friggin' waste. That writer hit the nail on the head. Precancellation Family Guy was the tits. Great stories and characters and laughs out the ass. Postcancellation Family Guy seems to be trying to rape that legacy as much as possible. Awful stuff. Awful.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 06:43 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 10:42 PM (ykSKg)
-----
Every kid should have a dad like that in their life. Just awesome.
Posted by: mama winger at May 14, 2012 06:43 PM (P6QsQ)
Maybe that's why they're still hunter-gatherers?
Anthropologists aren't high on the evolutionary scale, themselves.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 06:44 PM (X3lox)
She was fuckin' nasty. Very disturbing to think of her in the catbird seat with a bunch of special needs children, indeed.
And, as long as we're on the subject, Tarzan, omg, what a freak. A relatively likable freak, but jeez . . . That midget guy seemed to be harboring some grudges, too.
You know who kind of redeemed herself to me, after I couldn't stand her on the show? That goofy blonde chick. I started liking her last night.
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:44 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 10:43 PM (fU9eM)
That's what *he* said.
Posted by: Barry O. at May 14, 2012 06:45 PM (ykSKg)
Anthropologists aren't high on the evolutionary scale, themselves.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 10:44 PM (X3lox)
Breast Feeding = Natural Birth Control
Posted by: Grey Fox, returned to his native hearth among the hills at May 14, 2012 06:45 PM (wdlTF)
Peaches, I am thinking it will be Ducky because there was that whole thing with him asking Gibbs to be his executor and him deciding who he is leaving his money to.
but maybe it will be Palmer, since the episode is called "til death do us part"
I'm just bummed they are killing the ME on Hawaii 5-0. At least that's what the previews showed, but maybe he only gets shot, and doesn't die.
And I am super bummed that "The Finder" wasn't renewed for a 2nd season. i liked that show, it was quirky.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 06:46 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 10:41 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 06:46 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 14, 2012 06:46 PM (jucos)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:47 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 10:44 PM (IavxF)
I liked the southern blonde chick. And ace's favority Christina. For uh very base reasons. You know like the immunity challenge that required them to be in bikini's oiling themselves up.
That goofy blonde chick was sort of likeable, but just way too dumb for me. I thought she was going to freak out when they were talking about having their appendices removed after Colton had to leave.
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:48 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 10:41 PM (GULKT)
Note that Matthews was set against Gibbs and a CNN reporter. I suppose Jeopardy was trying to spare anyone of noble journalistic and political ilk the humiliation of losing badly against, say, a late-night talk show second banana like Blitzer did.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: Moonbeam at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (1k4dd)
Why don't ya tell how you really feel about that music, my son???
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (SGRH9)
As far as I'm concerned (and I tried to watch it once, but only once, and not successfully), they could do a jihad on Hawaii 5-0. I thought it sucked.
The show I am most bummed about being canceled is Harry's Law, I'll miss that one a lot.
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 14, 2012 10:46 PM (jucos)
--What's funny is that I think I'd visited there a couple times when I was 17 (I worked with my dad that summer in Beltsville) and had no idea at the time.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (ykSKg)
Not the breast feeding, which is very healthy, but doing it long into toddlerhood.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 06:49 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Ktgreat at May 14, 2012 06:50 PM (8FXqC)
Posted by: Clemenza at May 14, 2012 06:50 PM (YlSwz)
Good evening, good people. Today marked 44 years with the same sweet lady. A nice quiet dinner and a walk around the neighborhood to celebrate.
Either a testimony to true love or an example of endurance.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 14, 2012 06:51 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:51 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 06:51 PM (HJYyV)
Peaches, I watch it for the eye candy (Hawaii 5-0) and it got better, I despaired until about halfway through the first season.
Alcatraz also wasn't renewed but that new Keifer Sutherland, Touch? was. I refuse to watch that show, I am tired of having my heartstrings tugged. I spend too much time in real life sad these days, television is my escape.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 06:51 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Jinxthecat at May 14, 2012 06:52 PM (l3vZN)
Nothing seems to require comment, and I haven't read the thread. I hope everyone's doing well.
Posted by: Dianna at May 14, 2012 06:52 PM (mKMj1)
Either a testimony to true love or an example of endurance.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 14, 2012 10:51 PM (SAMxH)
--Congratulations!
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:52 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 06:52 PM (SGRH9)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:52 PM (7yvLv)
My sister wants to go see a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie if they do one. I told her no. The first gay pirate was funny, but doing the exact same schtick over and over stops being funny, and is just annoying.
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 10:51 PM (HJYyV)
--I want to see the clay animation pirate movie by Aardman. (Can't get the title right; it's different ones for USA and UK).
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:53 PM (ykSKg)
Girl, you're back!!!! I've been wondering about you for days, worried you'd gone to a place without the interwebs. Missed you. waves wildly!!!!
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:53 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 14, 2012 06:53 PM (RZ8pf)
We have a brand new calf, and I am learning to cut hay in the tractor.
I have missed y'all! I won't be on long tonight, so please pass along my best to Graveyard!
logprof, CONGRATS!!!!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 06:54 PM (SGRH9)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:54 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 14, 2012 06:54 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 06:54 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: Hummingbird at May 14, 2012 06:55 PM (R5yLq)
Posted by: Tami at May 14, 2012 06:55 PM (X6akg)
L Rob, you are to be commended. A happy wife means a happy husband!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 06:55 PM (SGRH9)
Posted by: Peaches at May 14, 2012 06:56 PM (IavxF)
Posted by: Ktgreat at May 14, 2012 06:56 PM (8FXqC)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 10:54 PM (SGRH9)
Cuttin' grass and raising a steak. Sounds cool!
So are ya walkin' fine again?
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 06:56 PM (F79HU)
but doing the exact same schtick over and over stops being funny, and is just annoying.
Well, fuck you too!
Posted by: Lorne Michaels at May 14, 2012 06:56 PM (Br0dO)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 06:56 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: jenny tries too hard at May 14, 2012 06:57 PM (snRY5)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 06:57 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: Thorvald at May 14, 2012 06:57 PM (OhenJ)
I am so grateful!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 06:59 PM (SGRH9)
Posted by: jenny tries too hard at May 14, 2012 10:57 PM (snRY5)
--Really? Damn. I'm a huge Shaun the Sheep and Wallace and Gromit fan, too.
Posted by: logprof at May 14, 2012 06:59 PM (ykSKg)
the baby's toes for a minute and it will all fade away. Baby-toes are
great for nibbling, if you haven't yet gone there. Or, just smell his
head, that's ambrosia right there. What is it makes their little heads
smell so awesome?
I had to give up the toe nibbling crap after I caught hand, foot and mouth disease also called Coxsackie virus. I am one of the few 60 year olds that caught it.
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 06:59 PM (JKNDp)
I can't believe they cancelled Alcatraz. Why do they bother?
Good for you, Iron Grampa!!!!
Posted by: Ktgreat at May 14, 2012 10:56 PM (8FXqC)
But think of the positivie aspect of this. J. J. Abrams will not be able to turn Alcatraz into a muddle confusing unwatchable mess where nothing ever happens like he did with Lost.
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 06:59 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Dianna at May 14, 2012 07:00 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 10:59 PM (SGRH9)
That is awesome. Very happy for you, Tammy. 
But be kinder to snakes!
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 07:00 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: AltonJackson at May 14, 2012 07:00 PM (JMmQ9)
Not that you do not have a point, but I really wanted to know what was going on.
Posted by: Dianna at May 14, 2012 07:01 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at May 14, 2012 07:01 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: Big Boss at May 14, 2012 07:02 PM (RvlzX)
The most interesting fact about Matthews and Blitzer is they both believed with their wide range of knowledge, they would slay the dragon on Jeopardy. Liberals never grasp their limitations or inability to perform, but accept the accolades from peers extolling their brilliance. Today, the dragon proved Matthews a complete nincompoop and pretentious asshole.
Posted by: Doctor Fish ( Posting from Mom's Computer in Texas) at May 14, 2012 07:02 PM (ndqJC)
Persian salad? Nah, not a big cat fan. Pomeranian salad is really incredible though.
And cucumbers... faaaaabuuuuulousssssss!
Posted by: Barky Obama at May 14, 2012 07:02 PM (RzNJH)
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 11:03 PM (Br0dO)
Every day is whacking day for me.
I look forward to Pinching and Spanking Day.
Slapping and Choking Day...I pass on that one.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 07:05 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 07:05 PM (HJYyV)
Abrams will not be able to turn Alcatraz into a muddle confusing
unwatchable mess where nothing ever happens like he did with Lost.
Posted by: buzzion
I don't know did you see the trailer for his new show on NBC "revolution" looks pretty muddled to me.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 14, 2012 07:06 PM (tKFT6)
Open the windows,
Shut the front door,
Best wishes and every happiness,
in Year of Marriage - 44 ...
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 07:07 PM (uqZVH)
Do NOT use bottled lemon juice. Dry oregano is fine in this.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at May 14, 2012 07:08 PM (NAyRn)
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 11:08 PM (uqZVH)
Have fun and try not to get locked in again. Take an employee hostage if you have to in case they try to.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 07:09 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at May 14, 2012 07:10 PM (Afn7T)
Jamie Radtke takes George Allen to the wood shed
http://youtu.be/t1RE6IYnZlk
Posted by: Jose at May 14, 2012 07:10 PM (srIqv)
Yes, yes, must have the sumac in the salad. Also, add some lavash and call it fattoush.
I am really very nice to snakes. My husband and uncle kill them on sight, but I just let them pass. I am very mucha live and let live sort of person.
And I will bid y'all a very good night....hope to get on later this week for longer, but that hay won't cut itself, ya know!
Sleep well!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at May 14, 2012 07:12 PM (SGRH9)
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 07:15 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 07:15 PM (HJYyV)
Be back later.
I expect 300 more comments and some serious talk about fine wiminz.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 07:16 PM (F79HU)
Is marriage a right? Or is it like health care--a privilege freely accorded by society to it's individuals?
That doesn't come from me, it was brought up by a family member a while back. Haven't given it any thought, so no opinion from this corner.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 14, 2012 07:16 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 07:19 PM (1X/a4)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:20 PM (+ZI77)
You know, as in PT109, bad back, and all that.
What a dumbass. I bet he is crying angry tears into his feculent pillow even as I write.
I certainly hope so.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 14, 2012 07:21 PM (qPCyi)
Evening all, in a better mood. Eating hot tamales with my coors light. Interesting combo.
And the lakers getting their asses kicked, yay
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 07:21 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:22 PM (+ZI77)
What a dumbass. I bet he is crying angry tears into his feculent pillow even as I write.
Hasn't he written a book about Kennedy?
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 07:23 PM (Br0dO)
Is marriage a right? Or is it like health care--a privilege freely accorded by society to it's individuals?
That doesn't come from me, it was brought up by a family member a while back. Haven't given it any thought, so no opinion from this corner.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 14, 2012 11:16 PM (SAMxH)
I liked the guy who filled in for Rush today.
Marriage is a right.
It may not carry the civil legal privileges, depending on the society defining marriage.
Any couple can declare themselves married. That doesn't mean the community/state/etc. recognizes it. It's a personal thing, but it's their right to think they're married.
Having said that, I support Civil Unions. I don't think that's marriage.
I'm straight, and over half the "gay community" agrees with me.
Posted by: jwb7605 at May 14, 2012 07:24 PM (Qxe/p)
yeah they'll still vote for the prick
Posted by: Jones in CO at May 14, 2012 07:25 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 07:26 PM (1X/a4)
Now it's the most important civil rights hill to fight and die on.
Gotta hand it to them, they're consistent about their inconsistency.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 07:28 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at May 14, 2012 07:28 PM (eQnzo)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 07:29 PM (1X/a4)
Miller Lite and chips and salsa for me tonight! Are you talking about the hot tamales candies?
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 07:29 PM (xHWBA)
So... I can coun't on your vote?
**crickets**
**muffled cough**
** tumbleweed goes rolling by**
Posted by: Mitt Romney at May 14, 2012 07:30 PM (RzNJH)
The problem as i see it is that marriage is older than our concepts of government and Christianity.
It predates the institutions that formed into our heritage of Western civ. but we seem to have reached a point where older institutions have been shrunk, ie Christianity, divine right of kings, culture, etc, to the point of being only background music.
What to do when some people want to have marriage only be like a contract between two consenting adults? Hard to say that our culture and heritage should be remapped overnight to satisfy modern viewpoints, but then again, our country was founded on breaking some, some not all, some of those institutions.
Posted by: talking survelliance camera [/i] [/b] at May 14, 2012 07:31 PM (ebPtk)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at May 14, 2012 07:31 PM (DGIjM)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:32 PM (+ZI77)
If you can get through the first 3-4 days you'll be amazed at how much the cravings drop off, after that it's more a routine thing than a physical thing, you just have to get used to not smoking at the times you used to.
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 07:32 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: someone at May 14, 2012 07:32 PM (bqjJT)
Don't worry, Obama won't let us forget. Giving further examples of scoamfitude and campaigning are the only activities he's doing lately.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 07:33 PM (AyryN)
Miller Lite and chips and salsa for me tonight! Are you talking about the hot tamales candies?
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 11:29 PM (xHWBA)
Yep, the candy. Chips and salsa sounds good. I made homemade lasagna for dinner and it was one of the best I ever had, patting myself on shoulder.Hubby agreed
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 07:33 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 14, 2012 07:35 PM (RvlzX)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:36 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 07:36 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 07:36 PM (1X/a4)
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 07:37 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 11:32 PM (HI6wa)
I had my femoral artery bypassed, and the surgeon kept me in the hospital for an extra day.
He asked me if I still smoked for the next few visits (a couple of years total), and I said "no".
I told him the nicotine urge was gone, and I'd managed to alter my habits, which was really the hard part.
He was a bit surprised. He had about 60% success with that technique, and made notes on the mental part.
Posted by: jwb7605 at May 14, 2012 07:37 PM (Qxe/p)
Obama walks into a bar and there's a monkey at the end of the bar.
The bartender says "watch this", whips out his dick and goes over and hits the monkey on the head with a pipe, and the monkey starts sucking the bartenders dick furiously.
Obama sees all this and asks the bartender: "hey can I try that?".
The bartender says, "Sure, no problem."
Obama says "Just one thing - please don't hit me on the head with the pipe"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2012 10:05 PM (Lo/y1)
**************
Made it a little more topical...
Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at May 14, 2012 07:39 PM (eQnzo)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 07:40 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: DaveA at May 14, 2012 07:40 PM (ZYrSB)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:40 PM (+ZI77)
"I look at it this way: grantings homosexuals the benefits of marriage is akin to welfare. It's giving them free shit with no responsibility."
Illegals immigrants are getting tax refunds (without paying in), medical care, free tuition, free cell phones, free heating/energy assistance, etc. Welcome to modern 2012 USA
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 07:43 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 11:40 PM (fHyXI)
still need my pack of menthols (prefer Newports but I'm not picky) a day
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 07:43 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:44 PM (+ZI77)
I heard that an illegal just got his unemployment insurance federally extended? Could this be true?
Also, heard of illegals on SSDI without paying anything in? WTF?
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 07:44 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 07:45 PM (HJYyV)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:45 PM (+ZI77)
Patrons waiting outside the bar to get in can get a phone app that tells them who is inside, what is the mix of males to females, what age group, etc.
This is a good list to have as places to avoid...
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 07:46 PM (vtXM/)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 11:40 PM (fHyXI)
still need my pack of menthols (prefer Newports but I'm not picky) a day
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 11:43 PM (tw6Ar)
Oh, so youre the other one.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 07:48 PM (fHyXI)
-----------------
People are tribalists. They abuse religion to clique together and feel superior to others. The morality and doctrine are decorations.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 07:48 PM (oS2lG)
danceslut.net/cgi-bin/album.cgi?gac2
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 07:49 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 07:49 PM (xHWBA)
Now, because it is so thoroughly entrenched in legalisms, gays want to hijack the word in the name of "fairness", regardless of whether this will overturn family arrangements and religion.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 07:50 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 07:50 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 07:50 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 11:48 PM (fHyXI)
I've tried gum, patches and e-cigs and they don't work so I said fuck it. And for all the shit I've done in my life, tobacco isn't shit
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 07:50 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot
--------------------
What responsibility do they escape?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 07:51 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 07:52 PM (+ZI77)
It may soon be time to get government out of marriage entirely. (read this idea on FB) "Why should the social contract between a husband and wife really be a 3-way contract with the government's sticky fingers all over it?" Makes a lot of sense. Get government out of marriage entirely and make all couples write up a marriage contract that works for them and then churches can bless and recognize the unions they wish to.
Posted by: PaleRider didn't read comments at May 14, 2012 07:52 PM (dkExz)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 07:52 PM (2TqDD)
"I've tried gum, patches and e-cigs and they don't work so I said fuck it. And for all the shit I've done in my life, tobacco isn't shit"
What did you do dude?
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 07:53 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Theresa
Please do your best. A few months ago, I lost a very close friend, age 47. He was overweight, out of shape, and had financial trouble, but he smoked like a chimney and I'm convinced that did it. He had begun to eat right (had lost 30#) and exercise, but that the Devil's weed is just rotten. No good comes of it, period.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 07:54 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 11:52 PM (2TqDD)
buying it during lunch tomorrow, I don't feel like hitting up Best Buy at midnight
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 07:54 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: PaleRider at May 14, 2012 07:54 PM (dkExz)
danceslut.net/cgi-bin/album.cgi?gac2
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 11:49 PM (eL1cu)
For those of us unfamiliar with sartorial fashion during the Directory period, would that be "Sam"?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 07:55 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: nerdygirl at May 14, 2012 11:45 PM (HJYyV)
People are tribalists. They abuse religion to clique
together and feel superior to others. The morality and doctrine are
decorations.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:48 PM (oS2lG)
Organized religion certainly sets itself up to be called hypocritical because of that whole only following the beliefs when it's convenient thing.
Posted by: someone at May 14, 2012 07:55 PM (bqjJT)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 07:56 PM (2TqDD)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 07:56 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 07:56 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 10:43 PM (fU9eM)
******************
PERSIAN SALAD
4 cups sand
1/4 lb camel dung (fresh has a stronger presence, but dried is acceptable if your grocer doesn't have fresh)
1 cup day old urine
Blend ingredients in a 6 quart plastic bowl
Place in microwave and nuke that motherfucker until it is just a molten, bubbly goo.
Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at May 14, 2012 07:56 PM (eQnzo)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 07:57 PM (2TqDD)
the calming effect of nicotine is the only thing between me and a three state shooting spree
Posted by: Jones in CO at May 14, 2012 07:57 PM (8sCoq)
So if anyone assails you about how dare religion sticks its nose into who anyone should marry, you can always say "Ah, so you agree with the Puritans". Since anyone making that argument is bound to define "Puritan" as horrible witch-burning bigoted sanctimonious idiot who is the very symbol of their Enemy, you can have some fun times.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 07:57 PM (AyryN)
Since some of you have wanted costume period outfit pics, here are some
ones from the April Gaskells ball. I'm wearing the outfit that would be
considered "incroyable" (that's a French term).
danceslut.net/cgi-bin/album.cgi?gac2
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 11:49 PM (eL1cu)
For those of us unfamiliar with sartorial fashion during the Directory period, would that be "Sam"?
Posted by: cthulhu
Oh god no. I am not Sam. Many people thank me. He does have an attractive girlfriend though.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 07:58 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 07:58 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 11:57 PM (2TqDD)
2 weeks, can't wait
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 07:59 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:00 PM (+ZI77)
.
Diablo 3... I will get to you eventually. You can take that to the bank. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 14, 2012 08:00 PM (RvlzX)
Posted by: booger
Good for you. However, you are partially correct. They paid lip service to reducing smoking but they just wanted the $ stream. Their astonishment and angst when the $ dried up because of the reduction in smoking is well documented.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 08:00 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:00 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: StPatrick_TN at May 14, 2012 10:43 PM (fU9eM)
Mix one heaping pile of Persian corpses with a sprinkling of Trachinian traitor, allow to bake in sun, sweat and blood for three days. Serves 300 Spartans and some Thespians.
Posted by: Chef Leonidas at May 14, 2012 08:02 PM (qhHI4)
Ahh, i stopped paying attention to all that stuff when i quit, wasn't aware of that.
Posted by: booger at May 14, 2012 08:03 PM (HI6wa)
-----------------
Then what about older people who get married? People past their child-bearing years who want the comfort of a partner as they pass into their golden time. People like Rush Limbaugh and Cathy.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:03 PM (oS2lG)
able to have children of their own (naturally), they escape the
responsibility of providing society with future generations.
-----------------
Then what about older people who get married? People past their child-bearing years who want the comfort of a partner as they pass into their golden time. People like Rush Limbaugh and Cathy.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism!
Doesn't that argument support gay marriage?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 08:05 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 08:05 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:07 PM (+ZI77)
Her point was who was she to deny others happyness
Why is happiness predicated on government sanction?
Posted by: buzzion at May 14, 2012 08:08 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:08 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: rickl at May 14, 2012 08:08 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 08:09 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: zeera at May 14, 2012 08:11 PM (XtxRN)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:11 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: SFGoth
--------------
By anti-gay-marriage joffen's reasoning, yes. That's why I'm asking.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:12 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: sonnyspats at May 14, 2012 08:12 PM (Qr9Rc)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 15, 2012 12:00 AM (eL1cu)
They drove me to find out that I can smoke, now, for less than it used to cost me 25 years ago - $1.30/pack. Better tasting cigarettes, too. And the state doesn't get jack shit. They should all rot in hell.
Nicotine has the most unusual combination of properties in that it both calms AND enhances alertness at the same time. There is no other drug that has those two effects. And when they ban smoking from places I just stop patronizing them. They can suck wind for all I care.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 08:12 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:13 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 08:13 PM (JKNDp)
SFGoth - James, mayhaps?
Posted by: sistrum
K-rect.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 15, 2012 12:03 AM (eL1cu)
Oh, *THAT* Directory period!
Seriously, dude....the dictionary definition has no picture and says "n. 1. A French fop or dandy of the time of the Directory; hence, any fop." And I'm going, "What, I should know French fops? Historic French fops? Specific French historic period French fops? WTF?"
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 08:14 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:16 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:16 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at May 14, 2012 08:16 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 15, 2012 12:16 AM (+ZI77)
but it sure is fun driving at 14...till you go into a ditch and your uncle tells you to never speak of it again (I fucked that mini van UP)
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 08:18 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at May 15, 2012 12:16 AM (e8kgV)
but Kobe said that the Thunder isn't even good enough to sit at their table in the lunch room
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 08:18 PM (tw6Ar)
This is my hail and farewell -- off to bed soon, then another thrilling day of correcting other peoples' typos. It pays the mortgage.
Posted by: joncelli at May 14, 2012 08:19 PM (708Gm)
A raging case of BDS developed in the hiatus. MacFarlane is just plain nuts when it comes to anything political. The interview he did in Playboy a while back was a prime example. His rationale for why Bush is a bad person is he had wealthy parents and Seth didn't. Get therapy, dude. You can afford a 24-7 live-in team of shrinks to work out your childhood traumas.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 08:19 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot
--------------------
Gay couples would also be a ridiculously small minority of married couples. And of course you know that gay couples can and do have kids. If it's a lesbian couple they don't even have to adopt.
I'm not convinced that gay couples evade responsibility in ways that straight couples don't, and I still say by your reasoning straight couples who marry with no intention or capability of having kids are on the same shaky moral ground as gay couples.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:19 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 08:20 PM (1X/a4)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:21 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 08:21 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Theresa at May 14, 2012 08:24 PM (xHWBA)
Posted by: Ohio Dan
-------------------
Who cares if that's what homosexuals say?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:24 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 08:26 PM (kaalw)
Was there ever another place and time when wearing stockings that transform one legs into candy canes would be considered the height of fashion?
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 08:26 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:27 PM (+ZI77)
Not by my experience. Maybe yours is different?
2.) Nicotine by itself seems fairly harmless on it's own. Buy the gum.
Posted by: runninrebel at May 15, 2012 12:21 AM (N/1Dm)
The gum is shit. Total shit. And disgusting. You buy it.
I like cigarettes. That's my choice and my preference.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 08:27 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 08:28 PM (2TqDD)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 08:29 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: Zakn at May 15, 2012 12:28 AM (2TqDD)
it's those damn bilderbergers in the bohemian grove with their drones in the skies that won't let us speak of anything but politics
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 08:30 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:30 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Johnny I at May 14, 2012 08:32 PM (y0VSd)
I like cigarettes. That's my choice and my preference.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:27 AM (X3lox)
353 I'm going to smoke. Sort out the politics during the day ploxPosted by: Zakn at May 15, 2012 12:28 AM (2TqDD)
I will join you
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:33 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:33 PM (lkdo/)
It's what I've been saying for a long time. The sole involvement of government should be property law and the protection of citizens who cannot protect themselves: children. Marriage should be left to private organizations like churches. If a particular church doesn't allow gay marriage that is their right. They shouldn't be forced by government to accept gays within their membership any more than a gym that want to offer membership exclusively to women looking to avoid a meat market (or seeking a specialty meat market) should be forced to accept male applicants.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 08:33 PM (kcfmt)
-----------------
Totally agree.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:34 PM (oS2lG)
And I know of two gay couples whose relationships ended in hospitalization and jail time.
Welcome to equality.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 08:35 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 08:36 PM (JKNDp)
"And I know of two gay couples whose relationships ended in hospitalization and jail time."
That sounds pretty extreme
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:36 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:37 PM (lkdo/)
Although, there are probably some (small amount) of traditional couples that end up that way too.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:38 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:38 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 15, 2012 12:37 AM (lkdo/)
WTF. If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:38 PM (fHyXI)
Nicotine can do serious harm. Gum and patches have been abused in ways that lead to death. There is a reason most states keep them locked up in the store.
Did you know nicotine is used as an insecticide? Or that there are specific diseases related to tobacco harvesting with bare hands?
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 08:39 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:39 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:40 PM (+ZI77)
"
WTF. If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything"
I think that is a pretty radical statement
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:40 PM (lkdo/)
WTF. If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything
Also, can sometimes end up in jail or worse.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 08:41 PM (lkdo/)
It used to be the national motto until the '50s
But, I always liked it.
From many, one.
It's a good sentiment.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 08:41 PM (vtXM/)
SFGoth -- the cut of your outfit is quite stylin' and suits you well.....are the colors authentic? Also, what French foppin' decade was "Sam" representing?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 08:41 PM (kaalw)
I think that is a pretty radical statement
Posted by: Lampshade at May 15, 2012 12:40 AM (lkdo/)
How so?
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:42 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot
-----------------
I think it's to guarantee each individual's human rights. Social cohesion is a natural and salutary consequence.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:44 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 15, 2012 12:40 AM (+ZI77)
But that's exactly what gay pretend-marriage advocates are fighting for. "If marriage can't really mean anything for me then I'm going to debase and pervert it to such an extent that it has no meaning for you, either." They would prefer that there were no longer any actual genetic connection assumed between family members - that families are nothing more than random groups of people living together.
Leftists try to do this with all traditions in society. They try to do it, rather effectively, with our language, too. Leftists generally like to create such a mess of chaos that their idiocy and incompetence can't be distinguished from the insane society that their crazy, inconsistent and unnatural laws forces to appear.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 08:44 PM (X3lox)
How so?
I don't see the world as "all or nothing". I think there is a range
Posted by: Lampshade at May 15, 2012 12:43 AM (lkdo/)
And I am guessing your range is agree with me, or you are the stupid.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:44 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:46 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:47 PM (+ZI77)
And I am guessing your range is agree with me, or you are the stupid.
yes sir
Posted by: Lampshade at May 15, 2012 12:46 AM (lkdo/
Thats what I thought.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:47 PM (fHyXI)
gettysburgball.com/photos.html
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 08:48 PM (eL1cu)
Which is why "rights" also get redefined. Pretty soon, everything is one.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 08:48 PM (vtXM/)
So ... you're telling me that I don't know how I feel? That sounds like people who used to say, "You only think you're happy, but you really aren't."
Calm is a state of mind. There are some physiological markers, but in the end it's a state of mind. If my heart is racing but I feel calm, then I am calm.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 08:49 PM (X3lox)
Calm is a state of mind. There are some physiological markers, but in the end it's a state of mind. If my heart is racing but I feel calm, then I am calm.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:49 AM (X3lox)
This
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 08:50 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:51 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot
--------------------
Sounds like their problem.
I do wonder, though, why people get hung up on the word "marriage." If gays go through some ceremony and they call it a marriage and you don't think it is, how is that redefining marriage? I know one Catholic couple who separated (can't divorce) and they now permanently reside on separate continents. I wouldn't call that a marriage, but if they call it one, well, shrug.
Lots of Muslim women think they're free and equal. The fact that they're not doesn't redefine freedom and equality.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:51 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:55 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 08:55 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 12:51 AM (oS2lG)
It means that they use the wrong words. Freedom and equality are qualities external to a person. They might be satisfied and content with their situation and that no one can argue with. If they are, they are.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 08:55 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:56 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: navybrat
---------------------
Our founders left us with some pretty broad terms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They never claimed a specific right for straight people to marry.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 08:56 PM (oS2lG)
First comes the "march through the institutions," then the complete destruction. Leftists figure they can fix everything if the pesky old stuff is swept aside and the world rebuilt in their image. But they forget their primary talent is destruction and will be left fighting over rubble.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 08:57 PM (kcfmt)
"Our founders left us with some pretty broad terms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They never claimed a specific right for straight people to marry."
Nor did they forbid it. If so, I could be mistaken, but I see nowhere in the Constitution or amendments that prohibits it, and therefore it goes to the States.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 08:59 PM (vtXM/)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 08:59 PM (+ZI77)
"Liberty is one thing to a man and a different thing to another."
or words to that effect.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 09:02 PM (vtXM/)
"Our founders left us with some pretty broad terms: life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. They never claimed a specific right for
straight people to marry."
Nor did they forbid it. If so, I could be mistaken, but I see nowhere in the Constitution or amendments that prohibits it, and therefore it goes to the States.
Posted by: navybrat
The problem being when couples move from one state to another.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 09:02 PM (eL1cu)
I would say they likely viewed it as an obligation, really.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 09:02 PM (X3lox)
He probably picked his nic from the last item he had sexual relations with. Hopefully soon he will pop in here with the nic Meat Grinder.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 14, 2012 09:04 PM (ccXZP)
And, yet, any time I say we shouldn't complicate marriage by including gays without fixing it first by changing the laws, I get a bunch of pushback saying I'm an "anti-gay h8er" while not addressing my point.......grrrrrrrrrrr.....
In a perfect world, it would be grand if you could go down to the post office and get a form, where you could put both your original names and -- using checkboxes -- sign up for a variety of conveniences. "Change last name? Y/N -- put new one here ____________." "Mutual Medical Power of Attorney? Y/N -- and initial _____________" "Mutual right of survivorship on real estate? Y/N -- attach list" "Tax averaging? Y/N".....fill it out, pay a $25 filing fee, and that's all. To amend, file a new one; to revoke, file a cancellation. There should be little on the list that couldn't be accomplished under contract today ("tax averaging" replacing the tax code's determination of married just reflects my irritation that the IRS invades the connubial bed at present) -- but it would be helpful to put it in one place.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 09:05 PM (kaalw)
Well GnuBreed, if he had his way he would marry the object of his affection.
I give up, eat dogs, marry dogs, marry your brother, screw your car, marry your sister, hell marry a cabbage, etc. How dare we have any morals. Shame on us for having standards. Live and let live, we have no say.
Wouldnt that be wonderful?
But by god dont smoke cigarettes.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 09:05 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at May 14, 2012 09:06 PM (F0o5k)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 09:07 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot
------------------
I agree we've got to be sensible and establish some limits to the uses of words. But are we at the point of non-existence when some gay couple claims to be "married" and you think they're something else? There are lots of married couples that aren't committed or faithful. I think they harm society in various ways, but how would their particular misunderstanding or abuse of marriage degrade the institution for those who are committed and faithful?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:08 PM (oS2lG)
Did I say somewhere that achieving total calm was the be all and end all of my life pursuits? The most calm state is right before sleep, but I enjoy being awake.
You can continue to tell me that I don't know how to recognize when I'm calm (which is pretty easy to assess by how clear thinking is, etc.). Some people are calm under very high stress (clutch players, say) and others are anxious under no stress at all.
Physiological markers do not say everything about state of mind, and calm is a state of mind and an environment in which thoughts are processed in a logical and smooth manner.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 09:08 PM (X3lox)
I figured lampshade for a troll when I saw the moniker.
First time I saw this one adopt the 'lampshade' sock was on a Holocaust Thread a little over a week ago.
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2012 09:10 PM (Br0dO)
States have been known to pass some pretty messed up laws as regards marriage. That is their right, I suppose. I am not 100% resolved on this issue, personally, I could care less what people do with their personal lives. It is none of my business.
Do the States have the right to pass laws as they see fit or do they not?
The Constitution says they do, as long as they do not go astray of any of the Amendments.
Next up, Constitutional convention process. Now, that IS in the Constitution.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 09:10 PM (vtXM/)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 09:14 PM (JKNDp)
States have been known to pass some pretty messed up laws as regards marriage. That is their right, I suppose. I am not 100% resolved on this issue, personally, I could care less what people do with their personal lives. It is none of my business.
Do the States have the right to pass laws as they see fit or do they not?
The Constitution says they do, as long as they do not go astray of any of the Amendments.
Next up, Constitutional convention process. Now, that IS in the Constitution.
Posted by: navybrat
You know, it's just not that simple. How do you account for the Full Faith & Credit clause? Oh, that's not an amendment. I guess Montana can coin its own money too.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 09:16 PM (eL1cu)
I always loved the character of Odysseus because 1--he was a man of honor; 2--he was always trying to win, win, WIN above all! 3--his home was overrun by parasites while he was off winning the Big War, so upon his return, he, with the help of his young son, utterly annihilated the Enemy at Home.
What's not to love?
Truly mind-boggling to imagine that those novel-length Homeric poems were sung by performers who knew every line by heart...
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 09:17 PM (1X/a4)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 09:17 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at May 14, 2012 09:17 PM (+ZI77)
Posted by: navybrat
-----------------
There ya go. It's for the states to determine. NOW, if people move around, they might have a problem, but they'll just have to work it out. That already happens all the time anyway. You have to get a new driver's license, scrape the darkening off your car windows, get a permit for your gun, whatever.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:17 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: runninrebel at May 15, 2012 01:18 AM (N/1Dm)
You've got more assumptions than words, there. Impressive.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 09:19 PM (X3lox)
Same-sex marriage is the first such redefinition to be allowed to any extent in the US. Utah was only allowed to become a state on the condition of outlawing polygamy.
Without DOMA, if one preexisting state agreed to such a radical redefinition, every state, present and future, would have to accept it.
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 09:20 PM (3yCFy)
Posted by: runninrebel at May 15, 2012 01:18 AM (N/1Dm)
Well, they had a fatal stroke and died, one less person sucking the life out of social security.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 09:20 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 09:21 PM (JKNDp)
Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 14, 2012 09:23 PM (JKNDp)
Then his mask begins to slip and his ranting gets extreme. What he's looking for at that stage is for someone to go 'hell yea'. If that fails, he turns up the extremism even higher, then basically start agreeing with himself. At these stages he's still hoping to rope in any sort of sympathy at all.
Finallu as he gets tired, he just starts posting random nonsense. I assume his boss pumps him full of oral semen shots in the morning to sorta recharge his typing skills.
But this all pure conjecture on my part.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 14, 2012 09:23 PM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Ohio Dan
-------------
Bleah, no to gay dad and son marrying. I don't buy all slippery slope arguments either, though, and there are many narrow arguments put forth for gay marriage that would unquestionably exclude dads, cats, cars, etc. The fact that there are stupid arguments also put forth doesn't invalidate the narrow ones. Lefties corrupt the shit out of things.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:23 PM (oS2lG)
Give it a few generations. That is the long plan. When a generation grows up in a world where marriage is meaningless the leftist believe this will somehow erase innate human behavior. They believe that finding homosexuality repugnant is purely a social construct.
It's the same brand of idiocy that tries to raise boys to be girls by pretending aggressive play is purely an acquired trait and a kid who is never exposed to the concept of a weapon will never have the idea that a thrown rock can produce interesting effects.
A core principle of leftism is to deny all inherent human instincts and flaws derived from what was important to our distant ancestors' survival. It is no coincidence that Sociology is heavily leftist as it still pushes the blank slate belief that has been utterly shattered by our understanding of how much behavior is encoded in our DNA.
Did you know you have a gene that tells you not to bite off your own fingers and eat them? There is a tiny percentage of boys born with a defect in that gene that leads to horrific self-mutilation. (I read a long article about it a few years ago that I believe was written by John McPhee but I cannot find it now.)
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 09:23 PM (kcfmt)
So you're saying that record created in one state should be respected by another.
As a matter of historical accuracy I suppose so.
Moving from state to state does have implications, not the least of which is you should expect to abide by the laws of your new state.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 09:25 PM (vtXM/)
On gay marriage, the president hasnÂ’t evolved, heÂ’s come out of the closet, dragging a ton of campaign cash from his most committed/demented supporters.
What James K. Polk was to Manifest Destiny, what Ronald Reagan was to stopping the advance of Soviet communism, what John F. Kennedy was to Olympic-class fornication – Barack Hussein Obama is to the Lady Gaga agenda.
If the president’s newest position on unholy matrimony is courageous, then his earlier retreat on the issue must have been craven. As a candidate for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama declared “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” He was running in a district that made Massachusetts look like Kansas. By 2004, when he was running for the United States Senate (and in 2008 as a presidential candidate) – and after weighing all of the evidence judiciously for a fraction of a second – the champion of a spurious equality endorsed the view that “marriage is between a man and a woman” a position he’s steadfastly maintained (sort of) for eight years, while teasing us with regular hints that his views here were evolving – based on polling data and fundraising imperatives.
In 2010, a beaming Obama signed repeal of Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell (having engineered its passage by a lame duck Congress), allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. In so doing, the SCFOAMF proclaimed: “This law I’m about to sign will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend.” Little did the men lying in graves in Normandy know that when they died on Omaha Beach it was so that one day their successors could be leered at in showers by members of a “sexual minority.”
Give him the benefit of the doubt, Obama may actually believe that increasing the anxiety of guys serving in combat supports national security. After all, he thinks killing the Keystone Pipeline lessens our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and trillion-dollar deficits lead to prosperity.
Posted by: sickinmass at May 14, 2012 09:28 PM (bcNec)
Notice the Odyssey quote I use at the blog, it specifically refers to the bow...and notice how cool he is as he prepares to slay the suitors. Angry? Yes. Our of control? No.
But for me the greatest scene is when he's rescued on a beach, and he's invited to a banquet, and the court minstrel is singing about, as it happens, the battles he had fought in, and the men who had died at his side...and he starts weeping, but tries to hide it...Quite a scene...
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at May 14, 2012 09:29 PM (1X/a4)
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 09:31 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 14, 2012 09:31 PM (wy+PT)
Reading this bit at the Guardian talking about misandry in culture but let me quote the bit I enjoyed the most.
"There are those, however, who take exception to the notion that men are a downtrodden minority, unable to speak out for fear of ridicule or repression. "It's an idea that's made more comebacks than Madonna," says Julie Bindel, the feminist writer and political activist. "It's total and utter bullshit. There are areas where men are paying the price that male supremacy gives them – there's absolutely no doubt about that.
"My dad, a working-class man from the north-east, had an absolutely horrendous job in a steel mill and he came home bad-tempered, knackered and underpaid. What he could do was come home and dominate – not in a physical way – but he could be the boss over his wife and children, he could go and sink 10 pints in the pub.""
Translation: Waaaaaahhhhhh, daddy was a big meanie! I hate him!!!! Waaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! All men must pay!!!!
Modern feminism, gynelogical supremicism rooted in daddy issues.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 09:33 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 01:08 AM (oS2lG)
And this circles back to the crux of things. A lot of the argument over gay marriage is about societal acceptance, which is being pursued in legislative or judicial contexts. Problem is, judges and congressmen are not social role models. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" did more for societal acceptance than any decision SCOTUS could ever hand down, by cooperating with and demonstrating empathy for straight relationships. Any flop or flip of a congressman on gay issues is seen as cynical pandering -- if not an outright sale for cash a la Obama's $15M Hollywood speech.
There's only one thing more hated than a one-issue zealot, and that's a one-issue zealot that says, "I have a court case, so....in your face, suckas!" It's been almost 40 years since Roe v. Wade -- was the subsequent "calm" worth bloating the Constitution with "emanations" and "penumbras"? On a policy level, I believe that abortion-on-demand is the least bad alternative available.....but RvW is probably the worst SCOTUS ruling since Wickard, has freed the Executive and Legislative branches to conduct all sorts of mischief, inflamed the populace to repeated vigilantism (on both sides), and led to horrors like Sibelius' anti-Catholic rulemaking.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 09:33 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Robert
-----------------
Oh man, you're gonna want to crawl back out.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:34 PM (oS2lG)
And there is my point. The government gets involved for all kinds of reasons, taxation, property laws, family law of all types. There is social engineering of all types, not the least of which is a check box for marital status on your IRS forms, and others for dependents.
You can argue whether these laws (which cover volumes) are just, but ultimately they are there because the authors of them had a desired outcome in mind, usually rooted in do gooderism of one sort or another.
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 09:36 PM (vtXM/)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 09:38 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: epobirs
----------------------
Whoa whoa whoa. Born that way? They don't choose that unnatural behavior? So there's no moral dimension to it? Gee, I wonder what other unusual tendencies and behaviors might be inborn and properly removed from moral judgments.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:40 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Gern Blandsden at May 14, 2012 09:41 PM (4qU0l)
Posted by: navybrat at May 15, 2012 01:36 AM (vtXM/)
And, again -- I'll consider gay marriage under the law (which effects the 5% of the population that is gay), when all that bullshit do-gooderism is rooted out (which effects everyone).
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 09:41 PM (kaalw)
After all, why is incest illegal? Yes, it's icky, but the real reason is inbreeding.
In a sexual relationship between two brothers, it's impossible to produce children.
No breeding, no inbreeding.
No inbreeding, no real harm in it (according to liberals).
So, we'd quickly start seeing "brotherly love" activism. All those "logical" and "rational" and "open-minded" types would gradually come to agree with them.
And once such relationships got legalized and forced on our society by a handful of elitist judges, then the hetero-incest movement would begin. After all, with reliable birth control and "free" abortion on demand, those couples wouldn't necessarily produce children, either! And it's discriminatory not to let them love who they want to love, see? They're being discriminated against because they're heterosexual!
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 09:41 PM (3yCFy)
-------------------
AY. FREAKING. MEN.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:43 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 14, 2012 09:43 PM (wy+PT)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 09:44 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 15, 2012 01:48 AM (3yCFy)
As a wild coincidence, that's exactly what their names are!
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 09:51 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 09:52 PM (fHyXI)
the law of the land, it's just a matter of time before incest becomes
normalized.
-----------------
I reject the slippery slope argument for all kinds of reasons. Corrupting lefties shouldn't be allowed to ruin things for people with legitimate causes.
My grandma was ridiculously restricted in her young adult life by laws that kept women from owning property, getting credit, etc. And Christ almighty, the way rape victims used to be forced to sit there on a witness stand describing every act of intercourse they'd ever had. The fact that feminazis are insane man-haters doesn't mean those other laws and practices weren't unjust.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:53 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: pat at May 14, 2012 09:54 PM (UFxap)
You bring up an old issue there. Genetics are a double-edged sword. If you can justify something by finding a gene that directly causes it, that gene can be tested for in vitro. Remember all those libs who thought Sarah Palin was horrible for not aborting her most recent child when testing showed it had a severe defect?
What happens when it becomes possible to test for a genetic propensity towards homosexuality? Does the gay community suddenly become militantly pro-life when they realize extinction is at hand? What about post-natal treatments that do what the religious cure organizations can only dream of?
This girl Pandora would like to show you this box. Thanks to genetic intervention therapy you now have an all new interest in a girl and her box.
The auto-cannibalism genetic defect currently has no test because it is very rare and the money just isn't there. But the cost of developing and administering such tests is dropping quite rapidly. The range of things the average person will know about their personal genome in twenty years will lead to unguessable societal shock waves. Our current understanding of ourselves is still pretty crude. But the time and cost to do a complete genetic assay of any person is well on its way to being affordable to anyone with a middle-class earnings level. It's just a matter of time before it becomes a requirement to get medical coverage.
Chances are there will be a mechanism for homosexuality found. It will be very different in males than females. That much has been determined already.
But when it goes from a strongly held belief to demonstrable fact, will those who've long supported the idea be happy about it?
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 09:54 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Gern Blandsden
--------------------
This wouldn't be some "tubgirl" trap would it?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 09:54 PM (oS2lG)
----
The clip of the San Francisco mayor nastily gloating "Whether you like it or not!" after the court's ruling for gay marriage in California was so offputting, I suspect that had as much to do with the "unexpected" results on Prop 8 as anything else.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 09:55 PM (AyryN)
Obama makes me laff. Because is a FUCKING DickHead.
The 2012 election will not be a referendum on gay marriage – any more than on abortion, illegal immigration or the price of gas at the pump. Like most, I expect the election to hinge on the economy. But, beyond dedicated constituencies which do care about such seeming inconsequentials as the value of human life and the family, the president’s embrace of homosexual marriage is another piece of a Twilight Zone mosaic.
Choosing a president often comes down to which candidate falls within voters’ comfort zone – which is why the electorate picked painfully inarticulate George W. Bush over smug smart-ass Al Gore in 2000.
How comfortable will Americans be voting for a man who says there’s nothing special about America, America isn’t a Christian nation, Moslems should be able to build a mosque near the ruins of the World Trade Center, the goal of tax policy is to “spread the wealth,” and if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin?
Posted by: sickinmass at May 14, 2012 09:55 PM (bcNec)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 09:56 PM (eL1cu)
And Lenin once stated that he wanted sex to be an act of no more significance than drinking a glass of water.
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 09:56 PM (3yCFy)
Women owe far more of their modern freedom to technology than they do to leftism. Don't give credit to those who don't deserve it.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 09:58 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Gern Blandsden at May 14, 2012 09:59 PM (4qU0l)
Posted by: navybrat at May 14, 2012 10:03 PM (vtXM/)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:03 PM (4ixH5)
That leads me to another question: who here thinks homosexuality is a choice (and I don't mean intercourse, I mean pure sexual attraction to the same gender)?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 10:04 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 15, 2012 01:56 AM (eL1cu)
Not true, people get married and stay that way for life. My parents were married 49 years. My dad died or they would have made it to 50. People do get married and live their lives together, we just hear about the ones that dont.
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 10:05 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 10:05 PM (tw6Ar)
My grandma was ridiculously restricted in her young adult life by laws that kept women from owning property, getting credit, etc. And Christ almighty, the way rape victims used to be forced to sit there on a witness stand describing every act of intercourse they'd ever had. The fact that feminazis are insane man-haters doesn't mean those other laws and practices weren't unjust.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 01:53 AM (oS2lG)
Just like Bastiat's takedown of broken windows, the slippery slope argues the seen against the unseen. When talking about lefties ruining good causes, the unspoken question is "why should it matter?" Lefties wouldn't be so bad if they weren't also Statists. If they approved or disapproved of granola or armpit hair, you could pass it off as a fashion choice.....but they inevitably want it to become public policy, enforceable by the police power of the all-pervasive State.
There's a lot about the left that I could enjoy -- tie-dye is fun, I try to find creative ways to reuse and recycle, Whole Foods is a blast -- but Lefties in government take Kant's Categorical Imperative entirely way too seriously. Not only would they act as if, by their action, their decision could become universal law.......they expect it. Even when they're completely deluded. So happy, fun lefties wearing tie-dye and dancing aimlessly at Dead concerts become empowered Statist lefties banning shopping bags, light bulbs, and any non-unicorn forms of energy....that's the real "slippery-slope".
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:05 PM (kaalw)
But it's hard to have slopes retain their traction when someone's always eager to pour oil on them for their own purposes.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 10:06 PM (AyryN)
Just remember this: when the family fails, as all other intermediary institutions have been neutralized, the only thing left is the state.
Libertarianism and liberalism both tell the same lie: that we're naked individuals, each against all. The problem is: neither philosophy takes into account the most fundamental human facts, namely, the procreation and raising of children. Without the natural family, the unnatural family of the state will have to take over.
In other words, weakened families = huge increase in statism.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:06 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: Straw Man on fire at May 14, 2012 10:10 PM (4ixH5)
Tammy Bruce was bisexual for a long time, but when she found herself in the early stages of becoming a professional pundit, she felt that she wouldn't be taken seriously like that. She had to pick an orientation and stick with it. She decided to be a full-on lesbian, and she is no longer attracted to men.
And the Spartans specifically raised all their men to be gay. When the time came for them to get married (to a woman!), their brides had shaved heads and wore men's clothes at the wedding in order to ease them into heterosexuality.
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 10:11 PM (3yCFy)
Posted by: Zakn at May 14, 2012 10:11 PM (2TqDD)
Michelle Goldberg, lefty dimwit not related to Jonah, proves once again she needs to learn to keep her trap shut.
http://tinyurl.com/7lsp6bk
Plenty of smart lefties out there. Michelle Goldberg is not one of them.
Thanks for bring that up. It just shows the fundamental ignorance of pundits like Goldberg. The "crown of motherhood" was a quite common phrase in 19/c discourse, particularly religious discourse.
It just shows how far we've fallen that all Goldberg can hear in that phrase is totalitarianism.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:12 PM (AupmY)
Chances are there will be a mechanism for homosexuality found. It will be very different in males than females. That much has been determined already.
But when it goes from a strongly held belief to demonstrable fact, will those who've long supported the idea be happy about it?
Posted by: epobirs
--------------------
We've gone down a few of those paths with things like lobotomy and shock treatment. Before we realize what the hell we're doing with these next advances, we'll probably do some real inhumane shit and parents in China and India will have their kids re-wired for math or music and girls in Egypt will be wired for compliant behavior. I bet quite a few gays or would-be gays will be re-wired by their parents. What would you think of that?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:13 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:14 PM (4ixH5)
-----------------
You're not telling me anything I don't know.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:15 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: cthulhu
A Republican started (or at least gave a big boost to) the modern American conservation of natural resources ethos while most communist countries were ecological disasters, so yeah. On the small scale, a lot of what goes on on the Left is actually small-c conservatism. On the big scale, it's totalitarianism. (Actually, communism is pure laissez-faire capitalism. How's that, you ask? Easy. They won and took your money.)
"Just remember this: when the family fails, as all other intermediary institutions have been neutralized, the only thing left is the state."
Just as long as the concept of family excludes teh gheys, right? Why force a group of people who generally tend to have higher-than-average rates of education and income to hate most social norms because they are excluded from them?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 10:16 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 10:17 PM (3yCFy)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 15, 2012 01:56 AM (eL1cu)
@408:
And, yet, any time I say we shouldn't complicate marriage by
including gays without fixing it first by changing the laws, I get a
bunch of pushback saying I'm an "anti-gay h8er" while not addressing my
point.......grrrrrrrrrrr.....
Seriously, "I hate faggots"? There are legalistic, traditional, religious, skeptical, traditional, "ain't broke, don't fix", child-centered, and societal reasons to think that hijacking the word "marriage" might be a bad idea....why jump to that?
.....and, just to pull back the curtain a bit -- I'm in a hetero relationship that we're not calling marriage because the laws don't work right....and my "sister-in-law" is "married" to her female partner during one of the on-again-off-again California marriage fiascos -- love 'em both dearly, hope for many happy years together. The State has completely fucked up the whole fucking subject.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:18 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: lous a girl at May 14, 2012 10:19 PM (fHyXI)
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 10:20 PM (AyryN)
Then why so blasé about the destruction of the natural family by the legal recognition of sodomitic pseudogamy?
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:20 PM (AupmY)
-------------------
Yup.
SFGoth, to your question, I don't think homosexual attraction is a "choice" any more than heterosexuality is.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:21 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 02:13 AM (oS2lG)
Wait, wait -- isn't that a "slippery-slope" argument?!??!?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:22 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson
-------------------
Because I don't think the natural family will be destroyed if a statistically insignificant percent of the population formalizes relationships that have been existing for thousands of years.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:26 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 10:27 PM (eL1cu)
Of course, the "concept"of the natural family excludes homosexuals: same-sex homosexuals simply cannot form a natural family.
And you really think homosexuals hate most social norms because they are "excluded from them"? It's more obviously the case that they hate the social norms and therefore exclude themselves.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:27 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 02:21 AM (oS2lG)
Actually, I've never felt more homosexual attraction than a few moments seeing Donatello's David in the Bargello when I was 15 [I'm almost 50 now].....it's a "choice", but there are pretty powerful steering mechanisms involved.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:28 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 10:30 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: cthulhu
-----------------
I'm just applying my 10% more cynicism and considering how things have always gone and projecting how they'll probably go. I'm not proposing restraints.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:30 PM (oS2lG)
Then you're missing the point entirely. That's the complete redefinition of marriage from the life-long union of the sexually complementary for the procreation and raising of children to a vague social compact between two adult persons for as long as they're feeling it. It changes the legal meaning of my marriage and everyone else's real marriage.
I will agree that no-fault divorce and contraception and a host of other modern evils have tended to debase marriage, but SSM is the nails in the coffin.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:32 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:33 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 02:28 AM (kaalw)
I You justgave me a great idea. A sort of pornolized Night At The Museum with David screwing the Venus Di Milo so hard he tears her arms off.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:35 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: sistrum
You have no idea. Years ago I was walking home from the gym on a Friday evening, smoking a bowl. Two squad cars blaze (errr, NPI) by. Being S.F., I pay no mind. Get to the top of the hill and exhale. The cops are breaking up a lesbian domestic disturbance (and it was not a slapfest; they were punching). Ironically, the Castro is predominantly male gay and teh male gheys largely hate the lesbians. The lesbians don't much care. The professional lesbians are pretty practical people.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 10:35 PM (eL1cu)
Papa loved Mama,
Mama loved men,
Mama's in the graveyard and Papa's in the pen...
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 10:37 PM (uqZVH)
And if he's an only child, and never has a child of his own, that's the end of his bloodline. This, I think, is the real reason fathers often have trouble accepting gay offspring. It's natural to want your bloodline to continue.
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 10:38 PM (3yCFy)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:38 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: cthulhu
-----------------
HAha! I don't feel attraction for the likes of Angelina Jolie -- I feel jealous.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:39 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 10:40 PM (uqZVH)
Oh, I agree with that in principle. Adultery was still a crime in many states until very recently. I remember during the Clinton impeachment everyone saying that Bubba hadn't broken any laws. But in fact adultery was still a (minor) criminal offense in the District of Columbia at the time.
And as for divorce, yes, I would limit it as severely as possible. I agree with Chesterton that divorce is a kind of "superstition": you either have traditional marriage or you have free love, but the equivocal, compromised, mushy middle ground of divorce simply makes no sense.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:40 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 10:41 PM (4ixH5)
In the 1950's, when you were dealing with a kid who fell down at recess in elementary school, the officials would ask, "who's your mom?" so that they could call her at home. Today, that would be laughable -- and possibly give rise to legal liability if a stay-at-home dad could have assisted with a medical emergency.
What sort of practices would become more complicated, and what costs increased, if a "spouse" could not be assumed to be the opposite sex? Is it worth 95 deaths while looking for a "Mr. Smith" to have a "Ms. Smith" married to Jane Smith?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:41 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 14, 2012 10:43 PM (eL1cu)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 14, 2012 10:44 PM (3yCFy)
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 10:46 PM (uqZVH)
I will agree that no-fault divorce and contraception and a host of other modern evils have tended to debase marriage, but SSM is the nails in the coffin.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson
-------------------
Well, we already had the discussion about older couples past their child-bearing years marrying, but don't forget to include them in the forces of destruction, okay?
I stand by my argument about sheer numbers. What's the divorce rate nowadays? About 50%? There's the death of your institution. SSM isn't the nail in the coffin, it's just a little glitter sprinkled on top.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:48 PM (oS2lG)
But no one wants to do that, for obvious reasons. They rather sneak it in the other way around. That's underhanded and dishonest. Equal Protection arguments apply far more to polygamy than gay "marriage". And Equal Protection arguments for added benefits apply more to single individuals than gay couples. Single individuals should be given the same exact benefits to disburse among whom they see fit (or keep them for themselves, if they prefer).
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 10:53 PM (X3lox)
It scarcely matters what I think about it. But would-be gays? I think you mean something more like 'probable gays' depending on how the mechanism is found to operate. Genes vary in the way they express. Many require external interactions to produce an effect. (Somebody who carries a genetic level allergy may never know if the allergen is never encountered. Societies that wouldn't dream of drinking animal milk don't give much thought to lactose intolerance, unless they're nursing into middle-age.)
The phrase you use suggest more someone having themselves rewired to be gay. Again, an old idea in SF circles. Probably the most famous early example is Joe Haldeman's 'The Forever War.' The story moves into the future by large leaps of relativistic interstellar travel. At one point, the protagonist finds himself in the heterosexual minority. Virtually everyone is wired for homosexuality as a population control measure. The AI that runs things offers to rewire the main character to assimilate into his new culture. After some more traveling the troops find themselves the only remaining humans after the species has merged into a single individual. Consequently, almost everyone gets themselves rewired for heterosexuality to colonize a new world for themselves with dependence on artificial procreation technology.
If it can be done, somebody somewhere is doing it. It may be in secret but the info will eventually come out if it proves useful. Take the 'Bug Jack Barron,' scenario. (Norman Spinrad, 1969) The title character is sort of a cross between John Stewart and Rush Limbaugh. A TV host with huge political influence. He becomes sucked into a billionaires scheme for immortality and takes the treatment before finding out it requires murdering children in a slow, excruciating fashion. Now that he has then the treatment he cannot expose the scheme without exposing his own unknowing guilt.
Who knows what some of the ultra-wealthy are up to in secret? If they suddenly announce one day that for about $100,000 you can have an additional fifty years of vigorous life, are we going to demand to know all of the details of the development process and what form the failures took?
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 10:54 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 10:54 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson
---------------------
I'd go at it another way, and limit marriage as severely as possible. Nigh-unbreakable contracts should be hard to enter.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:54 PM (oS2lG)
Unfortunately, I wasn't here for the earlier conversation or I could have tutored you then.
The law has always looked upon the sexual complementarity of the couple as the surrogate for procreative purpose. Therefore, it hasn't had to inquire further into the health or seniority or intentions of the couple. But it is telling that at common law failure or inability to consummate the marriage by coition was grounds for annulment, i.e., the legal declaration that there was, ab initio, no marriage.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 10:55 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 10:55 PM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: epobirs
----------------
Completely missed my point. I specifically said lefties did NOT liberate women from early injustices, but exploited a legitimate cause.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 10:56 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 15, 2012 02:39 AM (oS2lG)
It's a very interesting work. Donatello, himself, was reputed to be gayer than the Folsom Street Fair -- but he included a plethora of hetero "buttons" into the sculpture....there are even flowers in its bonnet! So was he attracted to men and sculpted effeminate, or was he hetero and extrapolated to David? Having seen it in life, it is a beautiful piece that grabs attention and entices with intriguing curves.....and, then, for a certain 15-year-old, leaves one wondering exactly why.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 10:57 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 02:54 AM (kcfmt)
I'll take it now, and spend part of my next 50 years worrying about it.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:00 PM (kaalw)
Why?
Large numbers of older couples who marry past their childbearing years as a couple have, with previous partners, had children and raised families.
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 11:01 PM (uqZVH)
http://tinyurl.com/7a6zfeg
Posted by: The Dude at May 15, 2012 02:57 AM (tw6Ar)
Which one is you?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:03 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson
-----------------
That was then and this is now. We're in the fight of our life for the institution of marriage. We know perfectly well that people past their child-bearing years are not going to have a family, leaving their union a vague social compact between two adult persons for as long as they're feeling it, which changes the legal meaning of your marriage and everyone else's real marriage.
So let's make sure to include them in the forces of destruction.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:03 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 03:03 AM (kaalw)
the one wearing a corset over a shirt
Posted by: The Dude at May 14, 2012 11:04 PM (tw6Ar)
Agree completely. Polygamy has much stronger historical grounds to demand legal acceptance than SSM. The 19/c persecution of polygamists was severe and encoded into our law and politics. Remember the Republican Party was founded on a platform of opposing those "twin relics of barbarism": slavery and polygamy.
There really are no grounds for supporting SSM but opposing polygamy, except perhaps some magical attachment to or numerological fascination with the number 2.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 11:04 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: Adriane
--------------------
1 - Their history has nothing to do with their new marriage. I'm seeing the argument here that marriage is for having families, not a vague social compact between two adult persons for as long as they're feeling it.
2 - Large numbers are not all. What would you do with childless serial husbands like Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:05 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 15, 2012 03:04 AM (AupmY)
Yep. The idea that 2 is only there because we have two distinct sexes is tossed aside but then they develop some odd fascination with the number 2. The concept that 2 is a distinguished number but the sexes are arbitrary is among the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:07 PM (X3lox)
You've missed the point: the law really has no practical way to police the procreative purposes of marriage except to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, which is what it has always done.
And I don't know why you think an appeal to the temporal fallacy ("That was then and this is now") strengthens your argument. In fact, it quite undercuts it, when we know that now fertility science has vastly increased the opportunities for older women to become pregnant.
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 14, 2012 11:09 PM (AupmY)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson
----------------
Why do you diss pair-bonding?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:10 PM (oS2lG)
You are intentionally confusing general rules that are constructed to delimit some essential concept as accurately as possible (but which allows for some loopholes) with the idea that a rule MUST include nothing but the exact domain, and only that.
Tell me, though, why should polygamy be illegal? It is in our traditions and very natural (ergo the serial marriages) but for some reason it's still illegal. Why?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:11 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 14, 2012 11:12 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 02:57 AM (kaalw)
David was by Michaelangelo.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 03:08 AM (4ixH5)
That's the more known David (and more known gay icon) but Donatello's has a certain slim-hipped catamite appeal.
Posted by: sistrum at May 14, 2012 11:13 PM (AyryN)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 02:57 AM (kaalw)
David was by Michaelangelo.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 03:08 AM (4ixH5)
I've seen that one, too. The bronze is in the Bargello -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Donatello%29
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:13 PM (kaalw)
Other genes are more slippery. Some oncogenes raise the cancer risk all by themselves while others react to carcinogens and raise the risk of exposure for those carrying the wrong version of the gene.
My own father died of an auto-immune condition that is activated by the common cold. This leads the immune system to attack the pericardium and destroy the heart. As such, victims are not candidates for transplants. I and my siblings all have a 50% percent chance of carrying the gene but no test is currently available commercially. It typically kills within three years of becoming active, regardless of age. My father made it five years and my parents entertained the fantasy that he'd somehow beaten it. But not long after Star Wars opened in LA in 1977 (trying to get in to that was the last time I ever went anywhere with my father) he went into the hospital and died two weeks later.
So this stuff carries a certain fascination for me.
You can carry genes that pretty much guarantee you'll be diabetic. You can have genes that make you more susceptible with the typical diet. You can have genes that make it very unlikely you'll ever have that particular problem no matter how you eat.
Homosexuality probably has a spectrum of genetic probability. But I've never met anyone out of the closet who didn't believe it wasn't always with them. On the female side it seems to be different. I've met women who said with a straight face they were lesbians for political reasons, and they could go either way in terms of seeking pleasure. But it seems a lot of men who claim to be bisexual eventually stop pretending. I had one friend who maintained the pretense for years despite rejecting or ignoring every woman who took interest in him. Eventually everyone told him he was full of crap and just stop pretending. Claiming to be omnisexual in SF fandom was a way of staying in the closet. Especially in the pre-AIDS era when Rocky Horror was hugely popular in those circles.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 11:15 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Adriane
-----------------
You are misrepresenting me. Older couples -- whose kids, if they have them, are grown, shall I emphasize? -- who marry are outside this baby-making institution. They're embarking on nothing but a vague social compact between two adult persons for as long as they're feeling it, which changes the legal meaning of your marriage and everyone else's real marriage.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:16 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: sistrum at May 15, 2012 03:13 AM (AyryN)
Heh. Like I said, Donatello chose to include "hot-button" hetero iconography on a male nude. I haven't encountered any male humans that are as attractive as the sculpture.....and almost any female humans are quite a bit more interesting.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:19 PM (kaalw)
I didn't miss your point. I refined it.
The culture has evolved as our knowledge and abilities have grown. To reject the assault of the lefties you have to be clear as to what really drove positive change.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 11:19 PM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 11:21 PM (4ixH5)
Just one reason.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:24 PM (X3lox)
Huh. There's another David by Donatello.
And by the looks of it he has man-boobs.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 03:21 AM (4ixH5)
There are two Donatello Davids. The marble one is unexceptional, where the bronze one is quite striking in person.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:25 PM (kaalw)
If two men want to publicly declare their lover for each other they can buy some ad time on their local TV station. Or make a Facebook page. Marriage is an entirely different sort of declaration.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 11:26 PM (kcfmt)
None comes to mind. The only thing law should concern itself with is property and the protection of minors.
Posted by: epobirs at May 14, 2012 11:27 PM (kcfmt)
Just one reason.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 03:24 AM (X3lox)
Going back to @471 -- why should it matter to the government? What rights or restrictions should the government impose that would be informed by a way of living coupled with a rite?
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:28 PM (kaalw)
-----------------
Because of this:
>>The law has always looked upon the sexual complementarity of the couple as the surrogate for procreative purpose. Therefore, it hasn't had to inquire further into the health or seniority or intentions of the couple.
In the old days I suppose the law could wink at this surrogacy and let the old folks marry as free-riders, but we are in new and threatening times. New technology that allows women to have kids late in life is beside the point. We're talking about people who marry with no intention of having kids, whether because they're too old or they're not inclined.
Now, what good is a surrogate for procreative purpose? Either you get the job done or you don't. Moreover, there are some young people, like Rush Limbaugh and any number of lefty Lotharios, who have no intention of having kids at the time they marry. I vote they're all -- including the old ones -- callously taking advantage of the law in order to enter a vague social compact between two adult persons for as long as they're feeling it, which changes the legal meaning of your marriage and everyone else's real marriage.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:33 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 03:28 AM (kaalw)
The concept of marriage does matter to the government (the federal government, even) because we value the concept of family enough to base our immigration laws very heavily on it, in addition to other issues which are not trivial and are given a default status by the government in the case that particular paperwork was never done.
And even if one goes to the lower standard of just having the government certify civil unions, there's no reason that polygamists aren't entitled to civil union protections even moreso than gay couples.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:36 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: epobirs
----------------
I'm curious what you think initiated the liberation of women like my grandma from laws that prevented her from owning property and obtaining credit, even when she was better qualified than men of her day. "Technology," all by itself, undriven by any human?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:40 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 11:41 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 03:36 AM (X3lox)
Maybe that's the problem.
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:42 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 03:41 AM (4ixH5)
Yeah. That's the usual argument. That was the argument that Texas gave for stomping all over the rights of the polygamists in their compound ... based on what they knew was a false accusation. Everyone knows that is bullshit.
"in practice". What does that even mean? People can't be trusted to enter into consensual polygamous marriages? They shouldn't be given the right to choose because YOU think they will be abused? Is that your final answer?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:46 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 15, 2012 03:42 AM (kaalw)
I would disagree. The biological family is the building block of society.
But, if someone wants to change the definition of marriage, then they had better change the immigration laws and all the other family-based laws, first.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:49 PM (X3lox)
So it all boils down to this...I get to vote for same sex marriage or marriage to multiple women....Voting for multiple women.
Posted by: sTevo at May 14, 2012 11:51 PM (VMcEw)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:51 PM (X3lox)
--------------------
Well, now you're talking -- almost. Ancient literature is packed with the familiar distinction between romance and marriage. Silly-ass notions of undying love and the stars above and pick up a glove etc. are all over classical mythology.
Nowadays we divorce like mad, but societies have always had "escapes." I can't remember where I read the statistic, but the number of prostitutes in Victorian London was astronomical. Married men simply screwed around. That's one example.
I'll grant, however, that we think less of marriage and family now, which is not a healthy thing, and we are not encouraged to adjust as the magic fades.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 14, 2012 11:52 PM (oS2lG)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 03:49 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: cthulhu at May 14, 2012 11:53 PM (kaalw)
Actually it wasn't. The argument was that all accusations of child abuse must be investigated ...
Posted by: Adriane at May 14, 2012 11:53 PM (uqZVH)
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 11:55 PM (4ixH5)
I imagine some women might start to like the idea of having a bunch of husbands, too. And there are women who can get a bunch pretty easily if they wanted.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:55 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Adriane at May 15, 2012 03:53 AM (uqZVH)
Dammit, Adriane, stop bringing facts into this.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 11:56 PM (4ixH5)
Posted by: Adriane at May 15, 2012 03:53 AM (uqZVH)
They knew the phone call was a fake before they started that whole travesty where they removed every kid, threw the whole bunch into one hearing (which was unique, as I understood it) and basically stomped all over any rights based on the idea that "polygamists are abusers - of women and children". It was bullshit. Everyone knew it. It was a travesty what they did.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 14, 2012 11:57 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 03:55 AM (X3lox)
I dunno. Most married women do nothing but complain about cookiing and cleaning for one man, I think they'd about die having to do it for two or three.
Posted by: Robert at May 14, 2012 11:58 PM (4ixH5)
The police / prosecutor knew there wasn't enough evidence to charge George Zimmerman ... Look where that got them ...
Posted by: Adriane at May 15, 2012 12:01 AM (uqZVH)
Bullshit. This is just opinion with no basis in history. Men pursue as many wives as they can get, if left to their own. Not every guy, but if you offer a guy 500 wives, chances are he'll take them.
marriage contracts are contracts of exclusivity
Huh? Polygamy is exclusive within the group. You have no point, here.
and polygamy is in practice a form of sexual slavery.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 03:41 AM (4ixH5)
I answered this before because it was the usual argument offered and shows how people will go out of their way to try and find reasons why polygamy should be illegal. It doesn't hold water.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:02 AM (X3lox)
That use for immigration is just an update of the former structure tied to indentured servitude. There had to be somebody on the receiving end to take responsibility if the immigrant was a person of independent means.
Sending a young woman across the Atlantic into an arranged marriage was once quite common. (Still is among Pakistanis in the UK and I suspect in the Detroit area.) A lot of our current immigration system is quite archaic.
A concern has always been that the immigrant not be a new addition to the homeless population, becoming part of some gang roving the countryside. One of the requirements used to be that you couldn't get it without a minimum of cash on hand to cover necessities for a certain period. So some people made a business of lending a wad of bills to newcomers who couldn't muster enough. My maternal grandfather dealt with such a person.
He left the Kiev region when he was fourteen and worked his way across Europe for two years before finally catching a ship in France to join his family in the US. It had been decided he was old enough to shift for himself at the time they left. Bringing him would have been too costly, so he had to wait. None of them were near the major port for immigrants by the time he arrived, so he was treated as an individual on his own and had to make the show of means.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 12:06 AM (kcfmt)
I might have made this connection if the election were between Ann Romney and the Flotus. Mostly the Flotus, I can see that.
Posted by: sTevo at May 15, 2012 12:09 AM (VMcEw)
If people want to change it then they should. But they have to realize that the definition of marriage has ramifications in those policies. Better to clean those up before pulling the rug out from under a concept they heavily are based on.
You get your place in line based in large part on a family relationship with a citizen. That should be changed before marriage is put through the ringer. (Not that we have any rule of law, anymore, but just in case it ever comes back ...)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:09 AM (X3lox)
Polygamy should be illegal because it is a statistically very dangerous environment for children.
Polygamy should be illegal because it encourages the detachment of young men from heterosexual marriage.
Polygamy should be illegal because it prevents the attachment of young women to heterosexual marriage.
Robert - if a good quality copy is available, watch Raising the Red Lantern, if you already haven't ...
Posted by: Vegetarian Bob Marley at May 15, 2012 12:11 AM (uqZVH)
No basis in history, save for the history of marriage and the fact that people pursue romantic relationships to the exclusion of all others.
Huh? Polygamy is exclusive within the group. You have no point, here.
I restate, Marriage is an exclusive contract between two individuals to the exclusion of all other individuals. I'm still trying to figure out if you're arguing anything at all.
I answered this before
No you didn't.
It doesn't hold water.
Because you said so.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 12:14 AM (4ixH5)
That's all fine (not that I agree with all of it) but it defeats the purpose of the exercise, which is to find reasonable arguments against polygamy that allow for gay marriage, at the same time - since I am asking for anti-polygamy arguments from gay marriage proponents.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:15 AM (X3lox)
This is true, the kids get run over by the jack boot thugs coming in to break up the party.
Posted by: sTevo at May 15, 2012 12:16 AM (VMcEw)
You offered opinions, not concrete arguments. What did you expect?
Why do you not trust consenting adults to enter into a polygamous marriage? You don't think they have the right to decide who they love?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:16 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 15, 2012 12:18 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Zakn at May 15, 2012 12:18 AM (v4K1v)
I offered concrete arguments, you blew them off. I expect rationality and honesty in return. Instead you've been flippant and disrespectful.
Oh fuck it, there's no point in arguing with lying assholes.
I'm out.
Posted by: Robert at May 15, 2012 12:29 AM (4ixH5)
Posted by: The Dude at May 15, 2012 12:30 AM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: jc at May 15, 2012 12:31 AM (ufJKx)
I'll tell you what my grandmother thought was the most revolutionary invention of her lifetime: the motorized washing machine. Keeping up with a large family's laundry was once an immense chore. For people who couldn't afford servants or sending the work out it was a huge change in women's lives.
Technology has always shaped us culturally. Some looking at ancient human history believe it shaped us as a species. The hypothesis is that what we call ADD today was once the human norm. Being too focused was a good way to get eaten. The species lived that way for tens of thousands of years. Far longer than the time since we started making stuff.
As we learned to do a few simple things, acquired knowledge became far more important to success. The ability to focus and learn a new skill quickly became a major asset. Those who couldn't were at a disadvantage, lacking the cool new tools the weird guys were making. Pretty soon those weird guys were better fed and getting more chicks. The species changed and things have moved ever more rapidly since then.
Technology ended slavery. Abolitionists had been a strong and vocal group from before the founding but it was the industrial revolution that made slavery as practiced int he US obsolete. Where slaves were once a major capital investment the shift going toward investing in machinery operated by skilled labor. You couldn't entrust that to a man you'd treated as little more than an animal. Even without the Civil War the US form of slavery could not continue for long without economic disaster for the South. Technology provided a better way and this meant freedom for an oppressed class of people.
The nature of labor and employment changed for men, with vast numbers leaving the farm for factories. It was only a matter of time before it would have the same effect for women. When it became practical for women to take on new roles in society, plenty of men found they liked it. Free women were far more enjoyable wive than drudges. Changes to laws that had once been scorned were now treated as serious ideas.
Consider one of the big memes from WWII: women entering sectors of the blue collars work force were they'd previously been non-existent. This wouldn't have happened in a previous era dependent far more on sheer muscle to get things done. Power tools and other motorized items changed the nature of what roles women could play. It didn't change the preference for what kind of labor the genders were likely to pursue but it showed what new things could be done when circumstances demanded it.
Technology meant a new array of jobs that didn't depend on physical strength and many became dominated by women. Telephone switchboard operators, for example. Interaction with the operator was once quite common and TPC soon found a female voice was much preferred. This sort of thing gave women far more economic power, educational opportunity, and free time for political agitation.
There was no lack of women in 1880 who felt they should have the vote. What they didn't have was the conditions than made men agreeable to the idea. That wouldn't have happened if the world remained technologically frozen. Things change for reasons. Many ideas are quite old before conditions allow them to become realized.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 12:35 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Zakn at May 15, 2012 04:31 AM (2TqDD)
I gots credit at Best Buy, should have gone to the midnight sale but I was lazy
Posted by: The Dude at May 15, 2012 12:37 AM (tw6Ar)
Posted by: The Dude at May 15, 2012 12:38 AM (tw6Ar)
It mainly sucks for teenage males. If they aren't the eldest son they are often cast out when they get old enough to be viewed as competition for females. Certain parts of the Southwestern US have a significant number of homeless teenage boys for this reason where in other regions they'd be almost universally runaways.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 12:39 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 12:42 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 04:35 AM (kcfmt)
=====
In the sense of open air slave markets, yes -- and based on the standard definitions presently in vogue.
But slavery never really goes away, it just changes forms. All that is required for some form of slavery to re-emerge is the desire to gain more time in one's life by stealing time from someone else.
The slavery party is alive and well and working very hard to return to its roots.
Posted by: jc at May 15, 2012 12:48 AM (ufJKx)
Actually, it's worse than that. When labor meant muscle there were practical reasons for slavery, in all its varying forms. (Imagine how different things might have been if we'd adopted the Roman model.)
Those who most want to create slavery today aren't seeking any functional form of labor management. They just want everyone to be under their command out of a pure sense of entitlement. They know what is best for everyone and you fools should be happy to let your betters tell you how to conduct every aspect of your lives.
More evil than the traditional forms of slavery, this is driven by the resentment of independent thought that does not agree with the self-appointed Master.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 01:00 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 05:00 AM (kcfmt)
===
'Entitlement' is exactly the word and it is not an accident. A lot of deeds grant someone "the full right, title, and interest" in a piece of property. By using the word 'Entitlement' the pro-slavery forces in our society have argued (successfully to this point) that people have an ownership interest in the lives of other people. What better definition of slavery could there be?
Posted by: jc at May 15, 2012 01:15 AM (ufJKx)
Thoughts of the history of the gear in Chaos Manor - I wonder if any of the machines I read about in the early 90s are cluttering the place up?
I have been thinking about "computing nostalgia" lately, fruitlessly cruising craigslist for interesting old machines I shouldn't waste time with - in fact I should sell my G5 Powermac, but I haven't yet...Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 15, 2012 01:27 AM (bxiXv)
I'm currently proofreading the recovered text for the April 1982 column. This is the debut of the Osborne-1. He took it to Cal Tech for the Voyager II Saturn flyby and made every other writer there immensely jealous. A suitcase sized machine that was really usable for real work was a big, big deal.
Much of the column is a debate over what to get to supplement the aging Ezekial, a Cromemco S-100 system. (Now in the Smithsonian.) Among the candidates is that new IBM PC but the software availability is still a big question mark.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 01:44 AM (kcfmt)
Still works!
Much of the column is a debate over what to get to supplement the aging Ezekial, a Cromemco S-100 system. (Now in the Smithsonian.) Among the candidates is that new IBM PC but the software availability is still a big question mark.
Posted by: epobirs at May 15, 2012 05:44 AM (kcfmt)
Heh. I had a Cromemco once. Never used it for anything, it was an antique even then. Someone else dropped it off the back of a pickup when I was moving! (O.O).
I sold the Polymorphic Systems Model 88, though. That fetched a pretty penny when I needed it. So I guess I do believe in "excess hardware," a little.
I hope Mr. P. is doing well. If it occurs to you (and you read this), let him know of another fan who immensely enjoyed his columns and later website version of CM. He was even part of the reason I wanted to be a writer, a not-inconsequential part!Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 15, 2012 03:09 AM (bxiXv)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3497 seconds, 733 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 14, 2012 05:46 PM (piMMO)