Mickey

I'm just a wild eyed optimist.

Well, they did raise lots of cash, you have to give them that. They sure are not short of pluck even if they are not overwhelmed with "intellectual horse power" (a phrase that Jen b*tch uses all the time on the Apprentice, I wanted to take it for a test spin). Seriously, Thomas Frank who wrote that "What's the matter with Kansas" book would probably applaud this.

The teacher did get fired though despite the later victory in court. As I said, some win, some lose, most don't sue but just pick up the pieces. Believe me, I didn't list anywhere near all the links I found easily to fired teachers. This is real, it really happens. As for persecution in general, I agree, even if its one it is too much and certainly to that person, it is waaaay too much. My point on supposed christian persecution in the US is in a larger sense. It isn't some national crisis the idea that it is, is in fact delusional. Bib probably didn't mean it that way but I have been running across that assertion all the time. You know, the "why can't we have a nativity scene" thing. As for "unkind statments" I believe I have only made those in response to the same from others or in discussing things with those who, by well known rep around here, traffic exclusively in that kind of rhetoric. I regret having done otherwise if that is the case. Take a look at the exchange between me and AKC in the "role of women" thread. Tell me who went over the top first. I'll even suggest a pass on his first "unkind statement" that Kerry's wives were "lunatics".

As long as he didn't lie about anything, I see no issues regarding integrity involved. If someone asked him if he talked to the soldier beforehand and he lied, that is a problem. It seems like it was a valid issue based on the spontaneous reaction of the troops so I am not too cocerned with the source of the otherwise valid question. What bothers me is that the soldiers might have brought this up on their own and now we will never know. Reporters are not supposed to be part of the story and in that sense, this guy screwed up. It was bad reporting but not in a moral sense where I call in to question his integrity. I also take a little pleasure in seeing a politician get surprised. These guys, left and right, do all they can to engineer events, images and so on to give a false impression. They hire people and pay them tons to do just that. Here a reporter gives a little of it back by answering a set up photo op with an even better set up that caught a pol off guard. Since no one really cares anymore about the canned and scripted image making and the staged events that politicians run incessantly, I can't muster too much indignation over what this reporter did. This time.

The example he choses to illustrate his point is problematic. Jurisdiction in custody cases is always a major legal tussle whether the parents are gay or not. I am sure the one woman in that case moved to Virgina precisely because it would not recognize any custodial rights for her former partner. Its called "forum shopping". There is a law known as the Uniform Jurisdiction and Custody Act that tries to set a national standard for jurisdiction in custody cases so as to discourage parental kidnappings where one parent absconds to another state with the kid where he or she thinks they have an advantage in court. Not all states have signed on. What Virgina should do in that case is transfer it back to the original home state of the parties where all these things happened, where the relationships were formed where the kid was born and raised and all that. It is called "jurisdictional nexus". Virginia, apart from being a beneficial legal forum for one litigant, doesn't have anything to do with the people and the events involved. The Defense of Marriage Act is what makes it possible for States to ignore the orders of other states in this area. If not for it, states would have to enforce them, all states, whether they like it or not. Giving full faith and credit to the rulings of other states, even when the laws are different, has been going on for 200 years or so in this country without a problem (well, there was that civil war but other than that...). If the Act is declared unconstitutional, States would have to recognize Mass. marriages, even the gay ones. It wouldn't destroy federalism any more than having to recognize a protective order issued by a court in another state would do so.

Pleez bib, if they were pushing gay rights they would have been fired (Gay teacher fired another gay teacher fired non gay teacher fired just for assinging a book that had a gay character non gay teacher fired for teaching about homophobia (sues and wins) gay teacher fired Some sue and win, some lose but most just try and start over. This imagined persecution of Christians on the part of some in the US is beyond delusional. I think it is impractical to focus too much on religion in history classes in public schools. Should the negative history of religions also be covered? How would a parent react to a lecture in class on the role christians have played in anti-semitism throughout history or the number of pedophilic Catholic priests? If you give a lecture on Muslims where do you start, with peaceful passages from the Koran or suicidal jihadists? Should they talk about how some Christians let their children die rather than receive life saving medical treatment? I don't mean to suggest that the history of christianity or any other faith on the whole has been anything other than benign but certainly, it has not been exclusively so. How would you like to have to sit through that school board meeting. Yikes. I think that stuff is better saved for College, too much of an opportunity for people to play out their agendas one way or the other. At that age, presumably you are dealing with young adults who can decide for themselves what they want to learn and sort out the different agendas.

People always say they like a "straight shooter" and deplore the sanitized, poll approved, scripted political speech that is the norm. That is until they actually run across a "straight shooter". Then they pillory him or her for not sticking to the script. On top of that, she does speak with a thick foreign accent which just doesn't fit the mold for a "nationally adored" First Lady. Funny, for a party that claims to deplore class warfare and complaints about the wealthy, they sure went after her for being rich now didn't they?

Coach, you 'aint seen nuthin yet. That was about as reasonable and inoffensive as he gets.

"Ahead" doesn't mean "good idea" in this context. No gay marriages was the state of things in Canada's past, legal gay marriages are, if they ever occur a modern day and future development. As such, the metapor "move ahead" fits quite well to describe a step forward towards the future. Whether that step is one that should be taken is a debate worth having that has frankly been argued to death here. I don't think anyone has any doubt about the relevant positions of most regular posters on the board. What I wanted to focus on was the practical difficulty of handling things in a world where clearly there are going to be places where such marriages are legal. Nice to see you favor gay unions, ie, gay marriages by another name. I am sure you are aware that the Republican party opposed both gay marriages and gay unions.

It is a pretty complicated issue. Most lawyers will tell you that the toughest thing to learn in law school is the "Erie Analysis" which is when there is a debate as to which law applies in a case. These "choice of laws" cases can be a real gordian knot. Conflict of laws is an unavoidable issue when you have a nation set up like ours with 50 different jurisdictions just in terms of States. As far as this particular issue is concerned, the rule was that a marriage valid in the state where it was made is valid in every other state by virtue of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution which requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the judgments and to a certain extent the laws of their sister states. That is why a protection order against an abusive spouse doesn't become unenforceable if the abuse spouse crosses a state line. It is a vital enough principle that it is part of the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act ("Act") was passed by congress to deal with the problem that if any single state made gay marriages legal, other states would be bound to recognize marriages performed in that state as legal despite what its own laws say about the matter. The constitutionality of the Act hasn't been tested yet as far as I know. Those against gay marriages were freaking out that some state (at the time they were most worried about Hawaii) was going to legalize it and then Alabama, New York and everyone else would have to recognize such marriages. The Act was passed specifically to try and short circuit what had been long, long standing law on the issue. Its constitutionality hasn't been tested as far as I know. In one of his more cowardly moments, Clinton supported it as part of his rightward tilt. It was strictly a political ploy on his part. I think he justified it in his own mind by thinking the Supremes will have to strike it down anyway. Completely apart from the idea of whether gay marriage is the worst idea of the century or something else, from a legal standpoint the Defense of Marriage Act is a colossal legal trap. If that thing were ever upheld, it would undermine the Full Faith and Credit clause which has prevented the balkanization of American Jurisprudence for a couple hundred years now. As for reciprocity in general, this usaully requires an actual legislative grant. Such laws usually say something along the lines of "The State of Flux shall recognize a dog license validly issued by any other licensing agency of any other US state fully as if it were issued in New York state provided that the issuing state similarly recognizes as valid within its territory such licenses issued by New York State." Some times the trade isn't straight up. Maybe they won't make you take their bar exam if you are a lawyer but they will require payment of a fee. Those are the basics.

Did the reporter also plant the applause that greeted the question?

The local paper ran an article and it said that the plant that armors the Hummvees produces about 69 of them (per month?, year?) while at the same time it makes a lot more available by special order to celebrities like Arnold and also about 1,300 Hummers for the civilian market. Is that all just a lot of crap? I have no way of knowing whether those numbers mean anything, was hoping you do?

Thanks. In fact, in one of your more memorable turns of wit, I recall you referring to me as "Mr. War Monger". It was funny enough and accurate enough for me not to object. I actually wrote a long post (as if I ever wrote a short one) back in the pre-war days that set forth what for me was the best justification for the war. The bare bones of it was that we could no longer ignore people who say they want to kill us. After 9/11, we had to take them seriously. From now on, if a nation's people or government say they want to kill us, we have to believe them and act accordingly. There was a lot more to it than that but not many people care about subtlety or nuance around here so I'll give every one a break and not bother.

Which scenario, the Canadian emigres living and working in the US like my neighbors of yore or the day trippers who get creamed by a semi? I believe there are around a million Canadians more or less living in the United States which probably doesn't include those with dual citizenship. Even if ony 3% were gay, thats still a lot. What do we do with a gay couple where one is an American citizen and the other is a Canadian and they get married in Canada and then move to Toledo? No matter how rare an event is, you have to have some procedure to address the situation. You can't just tell the hospital official looking for someone to release the body to that he just has to make up a rule on the spot because we figured it was such a long shot it would never happen. I have file cabinets stuffed to the gills with things that people thought would never, ever happen.

Read back through the thread and tell me if my first post, my second post, my third post, my fourth post or my fifth post ever mentioned Hannity and company? The sixth did but ony because AKC had ranted at me that I insulted the military, that I was a gutless liberal who had impugned the intelligence of our troops and on and on and on. That is when I brought up those wretches and I didn't bring them up again in my seventh or eight post in the thread. My criticism of those crazies in that context was neither inconsistent nor the product of obsession. Besides, if you can critisize them, what is so terrible about me critisizing them? Is my critique of them off base? Do you disagree with my view of them? Am I only allowed to do so if I am identically critical of everyone else or at least as perfectly balanced as you claim you are? I am not the one trying to say that inorder to be credible in speaking out against an injustice, one has to speak out against all injustices. You don't have to respond to AKC's rant about the nationally adored one and the lunatics to be taken seriously anymore than I have to take on every rant by Michael Moore or Al Franken. Your silence on AKC's point doesn't imply agreement but neither does what you perceive as my silence when it comes to Franken or Moore imply approval of their every remark either. Since that was your apparent point with me, that I can't credibly critisize Hannity, etc unless I also critisize Moore, etc., I turned it around on you and pointed out that you were silent in this very thread on an issue that if you were truly as balanced as you claim, you should have been all over. Rather than being upset with AKC dragging in Kerry's ex-wife and his ridicule of her struggles with depression, or at least upset enought to post on it, you instead were more concerned that I thought Hannity and company were crazy even though you apparently agree with that very same point. I think the salient point is whether my view of Coulter and company is accurate or not. If you want to argue that, have at it. Whose talking about limiting free speech? Calm down a second. My concern is that these people exist and they do because they have an audience, people are listening to them. If they were crazies on street corners ranting at strangers I wouldn't care. No one is saying they don't have the right to spew that hate. That isn't the problem. The fact that their books are best sellers, that they are on the radio 24-7 shows that they aren't harmless clowns providing entertainment which is the excuse I get from the reasonable right whenever I bring up these people. Somebody is buying those books. I think that to the more rational conservatives out there, these people are an embarassment but increasingly, they are driving the republican bus, not the moderates. Michael Moore has about as much influence in the democratic party as Ralph Nader does, who Moore supported in 2000. He really is a harmless clown, a comedian by avocation. Coulter, Hannity, etc., they aren't going for laughs, they aren't entertainers interested in politics, they are propagandists. I don't listen to Limbaugh, I have however read criticism of his work which included transcripts of his broadcasts. On occasion I have been a passenger, captive really, in a vehicle whose driver never missed a Limbaugh broadcast. My sense of manners and desire to be polite mandated that I shut my mouth and bear it. I don't think I have had a measurable effect on his ratings. I know there are many on the right that would like to sweep him under the rug or hide him in the attic while Rudy G. sits in the parlor but I think the influence of Coulter and company, collectively, exceeds his and that of other moderates by a mile. I don't know that my complaining on a message board about these people is comparable to a major network filing a lawsuit with no legal basis in federal court to suppress publication of a national best seller. If I ever do, I'll let you know. And you can burn me good on it. Somehow, I don't think my complaining about Coulter here is going to sell any of her books or even cut in to her sales. Especially since, in this thread, it only came up once in 8 posts until you and I started in on the subject. By the way, the Fox v. Franken shot was a bit of a stretch don't you think? I must really have you ticked. All I can do is make a peace offering. Without agreeing that I haven't, I will try and be more consistent when I run across looney left talk to be sure that I am not being unfair in that regard if you will agree to let me rag on Coulter, etc. as long as they are being legitimately crazy and to respond in kind when someone hits me with the baby killing, gay lover crap. I realize that means I will have to actually start reading posts with "Moore" in the title. I'm all about sacrifice. I avoided them for a long time because I hadn't seen F911 and then when I did, no one was talking about it anymore. Let me start it off right: Michael Moore is funny but wouldn't know "fair" if it fell out of his lunch bag or came in a Pop-Tart box. Ooooh, I feel more balanced already.

Backlash city. Nobody is for anything anymore, they are just against something or other. Against Bush, against gay marriage, against Bledsoe. It never ends.

Clearly you haven't been to Syracuse lately, we are knee deep in Canadians. I have a friend I always give grief to because she is Canadaian, you know, demanding to see her green card and such. In doing some family history research I found out that my Great Great Grandfather emigrated from Scotland to Canada in 1820 and that my Grandfather, despite having been born in the US in 1900 served in the CEF, Cavalry, Fort Garry Horse, in WWI at the age of 16. It turned out I had some Canadian roots. I was mortified. Justifiably, my friend was thrilled to learn of my shame.

That was just one example of the difficulties. Plenty of married Canadians live and work in the US. My next door neighbors growing up in CNY were Canadians but have lived here since 1965. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine gay Canadian couples living in the US running into all sorts of problems because they aren't "married" under US law. Reciprocity is an old and time honored legal concept that usually is used to resolve these kinds of potentially impossible conflicts. For example, I don't have to take a bar exam to be admitted in anyother state as long as NY would do the same for a lawyer from that other state. That is reciprocity. It is the grease that keeps the machine of jurisdictional commerce and intercourse (no pun intended, really) from grinding to a halt. Most nations have a law that recognizes the validity of marriages performed in other nations, if they are valid there, they are valid here. It is simple another version of reciprocity. If you recognize my citizens, I'll recognize yours. By exempting gay marriage, justified or not, from that comity, we run the risk of retaliation. Canada could say that it will not recognize as valid any marriage performed in a country that won't recognize the legitimacy of the marriages of its citizens. Again, I don't want to bother people with my moral take on the issue anymore than I want to be beat over the head with theirs. It is the practical repercussion of policy in this area that I am interested in.

Canada's highest court has approved the expansion of marriage to include gay couples by the government Canadian Ruling I wonder what effect, if any, that might have here? It would certainly cause problems for Canadian emigres. An example of the type of practical problems that might cause: A married Canadian gay couple travels to the US and during the trip, one of them dies. Under the laws of most American states, only the closest kin, ie a spouse, would have the right to claim the body, authorize its transport, get a certified copy of an autopsy etc., etc. If the deceased was estranged from his family, not unlikely given the way some families are torn over a memebers homosexuality, there would be all sorts of problems and conflicts caused by America's refusal to recognize as valid here a marriage that is valid where it was made. Forget the moral arguments here about your respective views on homosexuality and gay marriage. This is strictly a question of the practical legal matters that can be put in disarray by our refusal to recognize as valid a marriage valid in Canada. Just because it is valid in Canada doesn't mean that we should recognize it here. After all, if Canada allowed 10 year olds to marry, would we be compelled to recognize that marriage as a legal one while they are here on US soil? Of course, that might not be a valid comparison since the numbers of 10 year old marriages to have to worry about would likely be negligble but the numbers of gay marriages could be potentially huge. From a practical matter, it would be easy to treat as a nullity a handful of marriages while treating as a nullity the marriages of thousands and thousands would be far more difficult. I feel the cool breeze of possible compromise. I think maybe we would be willing to recognize as valid here a marriage made in Canada between two gay Canadian citizens but be unwilling to recognize as valid here a marriage made in Canada between two gay US citizens. Basically it mollifies Canadians who would want their married people to still be married when they crossed the border and at the same time keeps gay Americans from storming the borders and banquet halls of our northern neighbor in a flurry of gay wedding mania. Random thought: Businesses have long recognized that gay men and lesbian women are a significant group when it comes to purchasing power. You see plenty of advertising subtley targeting that demographic. It has something to do with disposable income and all that marketing stuff. The business community has supported Bush in impressive numbers. At some point the pursuit of gay dollars and opposition to gay friendly legislation, be it out and out marriage (no pun intended) or some sort of civil union thing, are going to collide. In a battle between money versus real or pretended moral outrage, I'd bet on the money.

I guess we are both disappointed. I would have thought that a post calling a former wife of a politician, no longer active in politics, a certified lunatic because of at one time in the past having been treated for depression or some such disorder would have drawn your fire rather than your protection. Even the mafia stays away from families. I would have had nothing to say if he simply made the point that Laura was more likeable than Theresa and that might have helped Bush. Instead, he had to go that extra partisan mile by making Laura "nationally adored" and labeled not just Theresa but even Kerry's first wife as "lunatics". Maybe you see that as moderate, enlightening debate, I don't. It is the exact type of overstated, overheated, mean spirited rhetoric that makes civil debate here or elsewhere so difficult. I went through this with BJ a few weeks ago where we ended up agreeing that the problem was that too many on both sides insist on seeing the other as: gay bashing nazis or baby killing sodomites, depending on their point of view. How do I have a civil debate with someone who sees me as a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, a baby killer, a gay lover etc., etc.? I can't. For those who discuss things with me rationally, I get along fine even when we sharply disagree. For those who want to call into question my patriotism simply because I voted for John Kerry, sorry, I am not going to take that crap laying down, I am going to give it right back to those Limbaugh clones and Coulter echoes that lurk around here in such numbers. Something tells me that if someone called you a coward, you would respond and you wouldn't be too concerned with civility. As for complaining about Coulter and company, I think the problem is that they exist and are listened to, not that there are people like me who, in their own very small corner of the world, call them out. What concerns you more, these people and their tactics or my complaining about them more often than I have in the past? By the way, I have complained about this crap from both sides but I don't keep a tote board and my concern is pretty proportional to their influence. Again, I don't feel an obligation at all to have to complain about every injustice or none at all. I accept your assertion that you have slammed Hannity, etc. on occasion out of respect for you though that has not been my perception. I don't keep a scoreboard of your posts either. I have complained about things democrats have said and done often enough and if you don't want to accept that assertion, that is your perogative. I am not going to argue my credentials with you.

Yes, your original opinion was that the wife of the candidate you supported was "nationally adored" and that coincidentally, both the first and second wife of the candidate you despise are "lunatics". You find that position to be one of moderation, balance and free of hyperbole. I see it as nothing but hyperbole and partisan spin. If you had simply stated that in general people like Laura more than they like Theresa, we wouldn't be arguing because that is a simple fact. Maybe you think it is a moderate, centrist position to conclude that anyone ever treated for depression or other mental illness is permanently and forever a "certified lunatic" but I do not. By the way, is that a technical term you can prove is applicable here with a link of some kind or is it simply a convenient insult you are willing to use to slam a perfect a stranger to make a point? Again, perhaps you think it is the height of moderation to use the personal, medical struggles of a former political spouse who is no longer involved in politics simply to make a partisan point. We will just have to disagree there. Bush won the election 51% to 48% and his supporters have claimed that as a massive mandate, an overwhelming victory. Kerry won the women's vote by the same margin, 51% to 48%. Should I therefore conclude that Laura Bush is a plastic fembot with about as much depth as rain puddle and that Theresa is "nationally adored"?? Perhaps I should include your objective, scientific findings that Laura is adored and Kerry's wives are lunatics and conclude that even with that handicap, Kerry carried the women's vote by the same "powerful mandate" that Bush carried in the general vote hence women must really, really, hate Bush. That would be stupid, an overstatement of the highest order and nothing but spin but it would be in keeping with your logic.

How about some yourself? When is the last time someone complained about Moore and you were critical of them because they didn't also, at the same time and in verifiably identical terms, denounce Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, Liddy, North, Shlesinger, O'Reilly and the rest? I don't believe I have an obligation to denounce either everyone or no one and if you and others feel you do, that is certainly not what is refelected in your posts. I don't see a valid comparison with Franken and Limbaugh at all. I don't see that calling Limbaugh a liar (Franken) and calling every democrat in America a traitor (Coulter) as the same. Partly that is becuase Limbaugh is in fact a liar and in fact democrats are not traitors. Of course, that would be a retreat into facts which are not very popular around here.

Sorry KRC, we have ignored those jerks for decades now and accepted the explanation offered by their listeners that they don't take them seriously, that it is just entertainment. Its all a big joke. They have millions of listeners and their books sell out and on top of that, I can attest myself to the fact that people really do believe that tripe. You see it parrotted here often enough. The ultimate irony is that their biggest fans are now complaining about the nasty rhetoric of the left and how it has coarsened debate. Accordingly, it is perfectly acceptable, just a goof, a hearty laugh to call democrats latte swilling, eastern elitist, limousine driving, gutless baby killing "gay lovers". I got that one just this past week, "gay lover". If the similarity between that slam and "!@#$ lover" isn't chilling, I don't know what is. Fortunately there are enough debates around here where people are digging out information and linking it to keep it from becoming just one big chorus of "You're a Nazi, You're a Commie".

"Passionately hate Bush"??? You have concluded that everyone who disagrees with you is a left wing Bush hating, gutless liberal so I guess actually giving you a vague idea of may actual political positions would be pointless wouldn't it? For example, did you know I supported the war and that my oft expressed opinion of it by election time was that I was going to vote based on who I thought had the best chance of winning it? By the way, what is so insidious about eating raisins? I have no problem with Laura Bush as our First Lady nor would I have had with Theresa. I also eat a raisin now and then myself so what the eff do I know. Forgive my confusion, I haven't heard Matthews or Russert rant about "liberal bastions" or "gutless liberals" or complain about the nefarious eating of raisins by political spouses. Maybe you could point out some of your posts complaining about the right using just the same level of vitriol and undisguised rage that you so generously spew at the left so that I can see first hand that your a "moderate"? Again, if you can point out any posts of mine where I used the phrase "right wing conspiracy", please do. Until then why don't you argue with me over what I have actually said rather than making things up?

Yeah, your down the middle all right, keep telling yourself that your an "independent". Label yourself whatever makes you feel good. Your posts here are relentlessly sycophantish to the right and critical, in the extreme, of everyone else. Really, "favorable view" = "nationally adored" and "unfavorable view" = "lunatic". Do you really think that was spinless objectivity?