Mickey

Bingo in the fireside room Chikkie.

Lets see....27-41 and counting. Yeah, I can see why people would want to sing TD's praises. I guess if they stuck with JP we'd praise them for sticking to their guns but since they didn't stick with him, we will praise their flexibility. Me, I'm simple. Win and I'm happy and will applaud the team, coaches and managers. Lose and I am not happy and will not applaud the team, coaches or managers. Radical thinking, I know, but there it is.

You made a valid point and did so in a non-offensive way which I recognize for you is an achievment worthy of note. I defended it that trash bags in a city are not the same as babies in a state plus the proposed vs. considered thing and you thought those differences were not sufficient to warrant a differing view here. All in all a rather reasonable exchange. So we are both on a bio-rythm high today. In any event, the legislation was pulled so Indiana is safe from having to endure my scorn for awhile.

Your replies to my posts didn't cover the Indiana thing at all. In fact, I asked what in the world any of this slippery slope stuff had to do with the Indiana thing and you admitted, not a thing. Again, here is a subject upon which we agree and rather than talking about the price of sex in Indiana, a far more interesting subject, we are dissecting the proper role of slippery slope arguments. How is this relationship ever going to work if we fight when we agree? That's it, I want a divorce.

A valid philosophy upon which reasonable minds may differ. For me, I think its better to use what resources I have on injustices I care about rather than to leap at every Tom, Dick and Harry injustice as it arises. I recognize though that you can get nickle and dimed to death as well.

Check the link that OG provided originally. I have now the same opinion I did then, it was a stupid idea, just not one I was going to get all worked up about. You see, all this fuss is over points upon which we basically agree. Here is another source: Indiana And another link with rumor that the State Senator who sponsored the law has withdrawn it: An end to the madness

No, it is legislation regulating fertility procedures for everyone, not just for those whose medical care is publicly subsidized.

I won't ask what you have in mind to shave. The possibilities are chilling.

Maybe so but I am not losing any sleep over the consideration of taxing trash bags in San Francisco. I see this issue as more important and if I choose to pick my battles, so be it. Rather than dissect the efficacy of the slippery slope argument in modern rhetoric, I was hoping more for a discussion of the legislation proposed in Indiana. I would think that AD would be about as appalled at that kind of thing as I am but rather than talk about that, he chose this oh, so relevant and interesting subject. Where I am concerned, he appears to be interested in nothing besides scanning every post for an angle for criticism. It's his time to waste I guess and the attention is rather flattering.

As long as we are clear that even though you agree with me on this subject, you are going to attack me anyway. You are going to attack me no matter what I post. It is not personal though is it?

I see, so if the state decides to feed a starving person we can't let it do that without conceding it the right to starve others...after all, once they have a say in the process of nutrition, blah, blah blah? There is a big difference between promoting the exercise of a right and interfering with the exercise of a right.

Don't get me wrong, I am against this idea as proposed, not just in the direction it could logically go once you concede the right of the state to get involved in deciding who can and who can not get pregnant. I think it is objectionable enough as is being that it would impose a state designed criteria for eligibility for infertility treatments. I bring up where else it might go just to get those who might think this isn't such a bad thing to think again. If you are one who thinks fags should not be allowed to have kids (i don't mean you), you might be inclined to support this legislation, neverminding the consequences it would have on others now or in the future once the precedent is established.

How odd that you have nothing to say on the issue under discussion and instead take a pot shot at my credibility. Well, it has pretty much become an obsession with you so I guesss I'll just have to get used to it. Do you have any point to make about the legislation in Indiana that would require all women to pass some state designed test before being allowed to utilize standard medical procedures to address fertility problems or would you just prefer to discuss the credibility of my opinions, even when you agree with them as I suspect you do here? Or maybe this is one type of government interference you find commendable? As for slippery slopes, some are more slippery than others. For example, I think the city council in San Francisco deciding to "consider" legislation on taxing trash bags to be just a little less slippery than legislation actually proposed to deny fertility treatments to women based on criteria drawn by the state that includes not only sexuality but religion as well. But that's just me. Then again, I guess if your only goal is to try and gin up some attack on my credibility rather than to discuss the acutal issue, you take whatever scraps you can get. Really, are you going to say with a straight face that the slippery slope argument once made must always be made at all times, on all issues and in all circumstances? Are you unable to recognize that such an argument might be prefectly valid in one instance but not so in an entirely different situation? Here is a hint: it is the difference between dogma and reason. Just for kicks, what does any of this have to do with the point I made that this legislation being proposed in Indiana is a really, really, freakishly bad idea?

By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman who got pregnant by sleeping with a man rather than through a fertility procedure? You do realize that this law is not restricted in its application to just lesbians? It would also subject an infertile couple desiring to take advantage of a medical procedure that would effectively "cure" their infertility. Even they would apparently have to prove their baby-worthiness including that they practice what the state sees as the proper religion. Why should an infertile couple have to go through a state mandated screening process to have a baby while a fertile couple does not? Is there something inherent in infertility that warrants that their reproductive future be placed in the hands of the state? Maybe your position is that the state should be able to interfere in all pregnancies, not just those that originate from fertility techniques? If you beleive the state should be able to decide who does and who does not have babies, say so and we can address that position first before we move on to under what conditions should the state be able exercise the power you would grant them.

I'll say now what I said when the decision was whether or not to keep Drew or let him go and start JP this year. The coaches should start whichever quarterback they have on the roster who they feel gives us the best chance to win. Period. The regular season is not a training ground. Learning is what practices and preseason is for. If JP gives us the best shot at winning this game, this weekend, then start him. If the coaches think that KH gives us a better chance at a win, then start him. If they don't know who give us the best chance, then they should bench themselves. I am willing to trust their judgment on this assuming they have made a judgment.

no legislation proposed vs legislation actually proposed Besides, I see a big difference between taxing trash bags in a city like San Francisco and the State Senate of Indiana telling people they can't have babies. I think one warrants far greater and earlier concern than the other. Then again, your particular need for large numbers of trash bags might be of greater concern to you though I hesitate to imagine why this would be so.

Last week Caesar's sister-in-law, a wealthy wench who is screwing half the senate, gave Caesar's mistress a male slave as a peace offering since they have been quarelling. Her son Octavian questioned whether the mistress would accept a gift from her. Puzzled, Caesar's sister-in-law said: "Why would she not? A large penis is always a welcome thing." It's a great show and always has at least one scene of wealthy Romans going at it like rabbits with slave girls fanning them with palm fronds because, after all, that kind of alliance building is hard work. Probably banned in Kansas.

When I saw the source for this story I knew I was asking for trouble linking to it. I know you are kidding but seriously, I bet that some state senator in Indiana is thinking right now about whether he should let this thing pass or vote against it and risk being called gay or gay friendly by his opponent in his next election. I can see the oppo-ad now: "Senator Blufnfuss voted in favor of sexual perverts raising test tube babies. Isn't it time for a change?"

Which is why we mock out California all the time. Now its Indiana's turn. What is your opinion on the law? Good, bad, indifferent? Constitutional or not? Suppose the laws of physics were suspended and the space time continuum suffered a massive rupture which together resulted in you being named to the Supreme Court, how would Chief Justice Wacka rule?

This isn't just adoption we are talking about. They are writing laws determining who can and who can not avail themselves of various fertility techniques. These are used by infertile couples to try and get a viable pregnancy going. They are also used by women for other reasons, such as lesbians. My wife had a history of miscarriages so we saw a fertility specialist who was also good at helping women carry to full term as some of the techniques are helpful to prevent miscarriages. Two kids later, I became a big fan of these specialists. Don't kid yourself, the application of this law won't be limited to lesbians. The idea that a husband and wife who are having fertility problems would have to demonstrate their baby-worthiness and that they have the right religion before they would be allowed to undergo a medical procedure designed to overcome their fertility problem is plainly freakish. But then again, since to some there is no constitutional right to privacy, how would it be stopped if it was passed? Withholding medical treatment based on one's religious affilitations or lack thereof, yeah, who could "quibble" with that?

I'm thinking that heterosexual transmission of std's is probably a much bigger problem when it comes to taxpayers footing the bill in terms of numbers than homosexuals. Does that mean there is a lot wrong with heteorsexuals?

The idea that if you concede to the state the right to force a pregnancy to come to term, you cede to the state the right to forbid a pregnancy to continue or even to start has, in the past, been met with incredulity because "it'll never happen.." Apparently "never" has come sooner than we thought. Indiana is seeking to control who can and can not use fertility techniques to become pregnant. Lesbians will not be allowed and in fact, all women seeking to use these techniques will have to fill out an application to demonstrate their baby-worthiness to the state. I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. Forced abortion perhaps? Maybe let the pregnancy come to term and then just take custody of the baby from its mother in the delivery room and hustle it off to be adopted by a good christian family? Nah, it'll never happen. Indiana, salt of the earth

Who are "the Big 2" which so haunt you?

It could be if Jeb inherits the throne or if George goes on to become emperor. You'll have to forgive me, I have been watching "Rome" on HBO so much I tend to see everything in terms of Senate factions, coups and naked slave girls. After a victorious campaign in Gaul, er....I mean Iraq, Gaius Georgius may cross the Potomac with his legions intact, forcing the Senate to proclaim him Proconsul for life so that he might protect Rome, er, um... America, from its enemies, er... I mean from terrorists.

That conflict didn't seem to bother him last year, or the year before that or the year before that or the year before.... Is a conflict okay if the legislation is minor as opposed to major? How about if it is medium schmedium (its a technical term)? This is being investigated and about all that can be said is that maybe he did something wrong and maybe he didn't. Lets wait and see. Too early for the left to hang him or for the right to exonerate him. Besides, even if he is totally innocent he is still a laughing stock in my book, despite some of his better qualities, due to the role he played in the Schiavo freak out.