RuntheDamnBall

You are on shaky ground here if only because one could come right back at you and say, if someone is born with sickle-cell anemia, is that their fault? Of course not. Your examples are of people with genetic predispositions to be destructive to themselves and to others. A person predisposed to prefer a homosexual relationship is doing no such thing -- it is only a condition, and not one that has proven to be harmful to others. On the contrary, the stigma in this society of being gay and being forced to hold back natural desires has probably proven to be more costly than just letting gay people be who they are. I am not in any way excusing people who have committed deplorable crimes, but if, for example, a gay person did not feel repressed and felt joining the clergy was his only option, he would not even be put into the position of taking advantage of children. If we were open and honest about this in society, homosexuals would feel more comfortable about who they are, and we might not see such a high suicide rate among young gay people. It's time we stopped treating them like second-class citizens.

Something to note about these programs is that they conform to the general stereotype of gays in this country and don't really show any real issues pertaining to being gay i.e. persecution. They only deal with flippant men interested in fashion who have lots of girl friends. It wouldn't sell on TV if it wasn't outrageous and it didn't re-confirm everything viewers already believe about gay people. To show gay people as leading normal lives not driven by sex or fashion would be simply out of the question. As far as incest, polygamy vs. a stable same-sex, two-person relationship being recognized, I don't see what they have to do with one another. Incest, even among consenting family members of age, has proven to be genetically dangerous. Polygamy has proven to be unstable on most counts as it always rests on an imbalance of power -- it isn't outlawed, just not sanctioned by marriage, though I am sure some ridiculous 'religious' organizations are up for it. On the other hand, people have had stable, monogamous same-sex relationships for years. These are all arguments made outside of the concrete "right-wrong" religious argument that will never be resolved. That recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to sanctioning of pedophilia is ludicrous. In our society, we've determined that there is an age of consent, and if one is taking advantage of someone who is not old enough to have a proper understanding of consent, or does not grant it, it's against the law. Period -- whether it's pedophilia or rape or otherwise. Personally, I am a married heterosexual who would just assume see the government disavow itself of the entire marriage process and grant all COUPLES civil unions. Then people can be married in the eyes of God, their church, a justice of the peace or whatever they deem necessary to their relationship. A true separation of church and state.

Go home.

A moderate Arab voice... from today's NY Times Score one for reason.

Not like any other "proud histories." So can I get you right that from your experiences, all those Arabs were terrible, unreformable people? If you believe the first part of your sentence, why make a stupid generalization? Or, why make the generalization your case and then back off of it? And you presume that to be Arab is to be Muslim ("their culture and religion") and to be ethnically Arab is to be part of "Arab culture" -- some Arabs are full-blooded Americans and owe just as much to this as to their Arab background. In addition, you don't need me to tell you that oftentimes LEADERS or what amount to simply the loudest voices, don't speak for THE WHOLE. OK Joe. What do you think some of these voiceless Arab women and children feel? What do you think people who you never hear feel? You just don't know. I don't either. They probably feel some resentment towards what has been portrayed as Western agression, yes. They probably also feel some resentment towards their place in life. You talk about all Arabs being evil and then wonder why the hell they want to blow us up. Which is it, do you want to extend a hand to them, or do you want to name them all "evil" and enter into the war the jihadists want? It is awfully hard to have both. Someone called you out by pointing out that Allawi is an Arab, and you immediately discounted it. It's plain that your reading of history and cultural study is selective and conforms to what you want it to be, even if you do consider yourself a student of such matters.

Joe, how much regard do you have for your fellow man? Judging by some of your comments around here, not much. You seem to get all of your impressions of Arabs from TV and movies. Try getting out and meeting some real people sometime, they're not all as bad as you think. They have real hopes and fears, and *gasp* some of them are even flag-waving Americans. Until you have some real experiences with Arabs you're just another person making dumb generalizations without the faintest idea of what real people are like. It's so much easier to toss about labels and call people names from a distance, isn't it?

NPR, the Daily Show.

What about the life of someone who has wrongly been given the death penalty, and is later exonerated, or even worse, found to be innocent after execution? For me it is too much to have that risk on my hands. There are too many problems with our legal system, namely that it can be had with the best lawyers money can buy while a person of lesser means gets the public defender who falls asleep during trials.

No, I agree. Perhaps it's more a comment on how Bannan has improved his play and Edwards is really back from injury rather than Anderson's progress. It just seemed like hopes for Anderson were a little exaggerated post-draft / preseason.

Noticed Coy Wire didn't even make the active roster, a sure sign he is on his way out. But what of Tim Anderson? A third-rounder and he can't even make active backup on game day? I know we're deep at DT but regardless, all we heard about was how this guy was going to be a world-beater and was having a great camp. Now what? That said, I was very happy with yesterday's game. Don't get me wrong.

Oh, but they do. Look around, these people are obviously not resting on their laurels. They are part of the ENERGY trade now, not just the oil trade, and have diversified, since it is an enormous and lucrative industry. For example, what used to be Niagara Mohawk and is now National Grid is owned by an English corp. with Saudi interests. The power structure will remain pretty similar regardless of the commodity. Many of these people are not idiots -- they see the writing on the wall.

Actually, "One nation, under God" has its origins in McCarthyism in the 1950's, as red-baiters felt that adding it would further protect our country from the Communist scourge. Look it up. The pledge was not an invention of our forefathers and it did not originally include "under God." I am not saying I am against it, and I am not saying it is a bad thing to consider one's nation to be "under God." That is for each and every American to determine on his/her own. I am just saying you should get your facts straight. Also, Thomas Jefferson held and wrote about beliefs that would today be characterized as Unitarian. Most people don't know that.

I truly wonder what Jesus would think of the leaders who use his name. Here was a man who lived among outcasts, helped those whom society shunned the most, and died for them. He loved our Earth. I truly wonder why issues that drive us apart such as gay marriage have come to dominate the idelogies of those who call themselves religious, when Jesus might put his arm around these outcasts of today's society as He did in His own times. I truly wonder why anyone with a true, deep, personal connection to God would not want to protect at all costs the natural wonders of the Earth that He has given us. I truly wonder why anyone with a real sense of faith in God's power would not use the power He has given us to make life better for the poor, the suffering, the marginalized. That's what Christianity is about. That's what my parents raised me with. I have long since strayed from the church because organized religion is a lost institution that doesn't speak for me and obscures the whole. But I hold these things deep in my heart.

Getting struck by lightning and seducing the "unpaid help" in heaven, my friend.

Nope. It's proven pretty much that it's only capable of selling this country off to the highest bidder. And the worker gets the shaft. Yet we give these people a blank check. If Bush gets this, I will bet the minimum wage is still $5.15 in '08. Will the grumbling masses figure it out and do something about it then? The House is a big problem right now, the way the districts are gerrymandered -- it was never in play. It is set up for a Republican dynasty until the people get sick of it. They won't as they are kept just satisfied enough to not do anything about it. And I would have just as big of a problem with this if it were the Democrats doing it. It runs completely counter to this country's values.

Explain. If I said, a fervently religious voting-bloc spurred on by a campaign of fear would that make you feel better? I fail to see how the religious right is a persecuted 'minority' any longer, if it ever was. It is a serious force to be reckoned with, obviously. It's time for them to stop crying foul when they hold all the cards. And yet no one addresses that the Democratic candidates took the "mainstream" position, aligning with the states on this issue.

Kerry said it should be left up to the states, as it was. He said he was against gay marriage, and the public generally said the same. So can you explain how the Democrats 'went down' with this issue other than being painted into a corner by religious zealots? On the contrary, I think the issue was used by the religious right to instill fear of fellow citizens and whip up the Republican base. It may have worked. One thing that I think was pretty low was that it seems in several states, exit polling revealed that a lot of people who voted for the measures did not realize they were also voting against civil unions and to strike down job benefits for partners offered by some companies, which more people are generally receptive to (though not sure about the figures as to whether it's a majority that is OK with them). Why was this necessary? It's just a further example of the right demonizing a minority and not recognizing them as people first.

And a Nixon yes-man. What a paragon of character.

So you are calling Bloomberg a liberal? I have now officially heard everything. What planet do you live on? And I would take anything Bork says with a can of salt.

Exactly. And if Bush does indeed get the office, and governs completely from the right again, the left will be watching with eagle-eyes for 2006 and 2008. He would have a blank check and a consequence-free lame-duck presidency, and we would see just how well that sits with the public. It didn't last too long with Clinton and the Dems, we'll see how much longer it can go if Bush really does get this. The left will be galvanized as never before if this is what it comes to.

Isn't God too busy willing football players and the Red Sox to victory?

This year I left after the 13th pick to go play football and came back shocked to find we'd picked Losman. Anything can happen... Looking at the Eagles today I could see them being interested in Henry, and given that they stand to make it close to the end this year it wouldn't be a high first-rounder. Behind their line and with his style of running they could certainly succeed. None of their current backs, or prior ones in the past few years, have lasted a whole season. I could see the Raiders being interested, too, but they are all about Wicky. Think the logical destinations for a RB here are Oakland, Philly and Miami, maybe Chicago or Tampa Bay.

I do both. I think UNICEF does a world of good. And I know that even some of the poorest kids here have it a lot better than some of those around the rest of the world. Did anything in my post indicate a sense of self-righteousness? I just believe I have some responsibility to the whole world, it's part of what I believe in, the same way others give to Christian charities -- and I don't go accusing anyone who gives to those of being self-righteous. My point was the UN does some things right, otherwise it would be gone by now. Any completely corrupt or transparent institution falls or is fixed. It's the same with our government. If it did NOTHING good, there'd be obvious revolt. In the meantime, what we have instead is a bunch of complainers who don't take any action, because it isn't bad enough to elicit more than just a complaint.

Guess I'd better flush that UNICEF money down the toilet instead.

Every once in awhile true colors come out in a post like this. Are we in the Twilight Zone? Maybe they should have gotten their stevestojan together and ousted Saddam, too. Maybe our soldiers should just ask any Iraqi for the directions to Zarqawi's house. Right Wing America: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as long as you live your life the way we'd like you to and aren't too stupid to get in the way of our bombs, liberty as long as you're not doing anything that might not fit in with our agenda or that we might deem suspicious, and happiness, well, better luck next time.