tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6786083304816079374..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Santorum Part II: More Choice Samplings of Culture WarDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57369388435705776502012-03-01T14:41:04.364-08:002012-03-01T14:41:04.364-08:00@rewinn, please note that 1952 was prior to the Gr...@rewinn, please note that 1952 was prior to the Great Ideological Swap. Today's Republican Party is, literally, Republican In Name Only -- they were hijacked when the Dixiecrats decamped en masse from the Democratic Party, taking their corruption, racism, and religious intolerance along. And the GOP welcomed them with open arms because doing so would give them the Southern states.Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71627646223545292112012-02-27T13:43:08.916-08:002012-02-27T13:43:08.916-08:00However, whatever fundamental tenent of that Faith...<em>However, whatever fundamental tenent of that Faith impels its hierarchy to intervene in legal affairs to deny equal treatment to any "other" then, yes, I feel it is quite appropriate to reprove my brethern and sistern on this matter of morality.</em><br /><br />Sorry, that's so full of assumptions-in-controversy that it's just unacceptable to me. It's actually a study in examining assumptions. "tenet of faith?" "intervene in legal affairs". I don't agree with the conclusions implicit there, and I think you're depicting a received narrative which is not properly true. <br /><br /><em>Are you saying that in order to teach children that something is contrary to belief, that thing must be made illegal?</em><br /><br />No, in part because what is under discussion is not going from a legal to illegal state; it is on the opposite trajectory, from illegal to enactment. It's that the further mainstream society moves away from a place a large minority won't go, the scarcer the commonwealth, because there is less "in common". Very fundamental. <br /><br />There have always been a minority willing to withdraw, but the push against *redefining* marriage from a century of consensus is itself also very fundamental. Which percentage of the populace is large enough to comprise a rebellious minority? In Washington, we're at 47% opposed over this. That's a large minority. It will take a long time to move that needle below 40% opposed. <br /><br /><em>What "right" is trammeled by marriage equality? Seriously, it is not going to affect your kids</em><br /><br />I'm thinking more along the lines of great-grandkids, generational, not so near term. By then, that minority will have withered, or there will be an enclave of families more comfortable with home-schooling than with public schooling. <br /><br />Extend that generationally, and you lose commonwealth; those kids won't have enough of the same outlooks or dispositions to come together on anything worthwhile at all. <br /><br />Denying the effect is optimistic activism at best, dis-ingenuity at worst. One can't look at the efforts of GLAAD or other activist groups, or the efforts of television writers to depict their truth, without acknowledging that their central mission is to affect the kids. <br /><br />I've seen the curriculum kits; they're just as impressive as the kits offered by Toyota or other corporations seeking to advertise points of view in schools. (Many parents around here don't want the GSA in middle schools (unless the kids self-organize) in numbers similar to those who don't want various religious groups meeting as clubs there.)<br /><br /><em>BTW I do appreciate the polite conversation.</em><br /><br />As do I. It's refreshing to be able to talk about it.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49360881237768487972012-02-27T12:26:07.937-08:002012-02-27T12:26:07.937-08:00@Rob
"... I reject the equivocation between ...@Rob<br /><br /><i>"... I reject the equivocation between LDS leadership and the Vatican ..."</i><br /><br />If I implied that those two groups were the same, then I was unclear and I apologize for that. They aren't the same.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Do you sense that such people are predisposed to hatred?"</i><br /><br />The bad news is that, yes, people who are personally very pleasant can also be predisposed to hatred of "The Other". Some of the nicest people in the world have rained bombs down upon "gooks". <br />Hatred need not be spittle-laced ravings and in fact the most pernicious form of hatred may be the sort coated in kindness - the kind that says, "I love you but I don't think you should have the same rights as I do." <br /><br /><br /><i>"...As systematically as a college football team?"</i><br />If you're suggesting that college football's systematic protection of criminal-atheletes or criminal-staff is immoral, then I must agree. IIRC the Seattle paper did a series a year or two back on exactly this problem. <br /><br /><br /><i>"... "The organization is immoral" implies morality in a structure. That doesn't make sense to me; it's like claiming that a scaffolding is moral..."</i><br /><br />Organizations of humans are different than organizations of inanimate matter. The latter are indeed amoral because morality requires, at the least, volition.<br />However, organizations of humans (orgs) do have a form of volition and are capable of making moral choices. Just as some individuals may be predisposed by personality or whatever to make immoral choices, so too orgs may be predisposed to make immoral choices.<br />The canonical examples (...and I am *NOT* stating or implying any equivalence to your or any other church ...) are the Nazis and the Soviet Communist party; in them, we see organizations optimized for the making of immoral choices.<br /><br />Now, the Vatican is well-organized to promote certain immoral choices. Its heretical insistence upon priestly celebacy (...in defiance of Peter's well-known status as a married man...) serves to winnow out the vast majority of priest-candidates who have normal human needs for affection. Systematically the organization promotes only those either lacking that need or willing to subvert it for ambition - with results we have all seen. This structure has resulted in many immoral actions and therefore can fairly be called immoral.<br /><br />I suppose if Mormons ever gave any thought to the matter, they would be grateful that *that* chalice, at least, has not passed to them. <br />However, whatever fundamental tenent of that Faith impels its hierarchy to intervene in legal affairs to deny equal treatment to any "other" then, yes, I feel it is quite appropriate to reprove my brethern and sistern on this matter of morality. <br /><br /><i>"The narrative is nothing more complex than a deep concern about the difficulty of raising children to be taught a parent's set of beliefs..."</i><br /><br />Are you saying that in order to teach children that something is contrary to belief, that thing must be made illegal?<br /><br />That can't be right; there is a large catalog of things that are wrong that are not illegal. But if not, then why single out marriage equality for legal banning? Would it not be better to criminalize something like extramarital sex?<br /><br /><i>"... structure the rights imparted so that other rights aren't trammeled in the process..."</i><br /><br />What "right" is trammeled by marriage equality? Seriously, it is not going to affect your kids. They will be good kids or bad ones, regardless of whether Alex and Pat can marry.<br /><br />BTW I do appreciate the polite conversation. I do think that libertarians would have a chance in some Eastern WA counties if they could get their act together. I think it would be worthwhile putting their ideas to a small-scale test, no?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24977821671802960512012-02-27T01:21:47.768-08:002012-02-27T01:21:47.768-08:00Okay lt's see:
Proposition 1. People listen t...Okay lt's see:<br /><br />Proposition 1. People listen to rght wing talk radio because they support the poltical positions of the hosts.<br /><br />Proposition 2: American broadcast TV news has a definite left-wign bias.<br /><br />Observation: The Big 3 TV news programs attract approximately 20 million viewers per night. <br /><br />That's appproximately 20 times as many as the audience for Fox News most popular program.<br /><br />It's also significantly more than the claimed WEEKLY audience of the rush Limbaugh Show.<br /><br />From all this it would appear to be logical to assume that far more Americans support the political views espoused by the broadcast news programs than tose espused by Fox or talk radio hosts.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36853200104735842072012-02-26T21:01:19.300-08:002012-02-26T21:01:19.300-08:00every Mormon individual I have met is personally p...<em> every Mormon individual I have met is personally pleasant</em><br /><br />At least there's that. Do you sense that such people are predisposed to hatred? <br /><br /><em> If morality has any meaning, it is very difficult to conclude that any organization (such as the Vatican) that systematically protects rapists is moral.</em><br /><br />As systematically as a college football team? "The organization is immoral" implies morality in a structure. That doesn't make sense to me; it's like claiming that a scaffolding is moral. <br /><br />In any case, I reject the equivocation between LDS leadership and the Vatican with its Dioceses. LDS positions on child abuse are very clear, and have been for almost 20 years: no tolerance, no cover-up, report to secular authorities immediately. Such approaches were always implied by 150 years of deference to settled law, but it's now unmistakably implicit. <br /><br /><em> What would be such a narrative?</em><br /><br />The narrative is nothing more complex than a deep concern about the difficulty of raising children to be taught a parent's set of beliefs, in a society which supports most of it. <br /><br />Impart rights, to be sure (We did that! R-71!), but structure the rights imparted so that other rights aren't trammeled in the process. Work the deliberative process. Reach consensus. And if called for, hold referenda and continue to try.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27419272970392610282012-02-26T19:45:22.707-08:002012-02-26T19:45:22.707-08:00@Rob wrote
"...if your inclination was to dec...@Rob wrote<br /><i>"...if your inclination was to decide that I hate gays because I'll sign the referendum..."</i> <br /><br />My intent was, as stated, to find out the *principle* behind your proposed action.<br /><br />I had assumed that the principle was fidelity to your religion, since it was in accord with your religion (at least as it is ordained by your Hierarchy).<br />However, you have identified that the principle is Libertarianism (Social) and in particular a political strategy leading to the elimination of the State role in marriage.<br /><br />Well, ok. I take you at your word, although it would have helped if you had been more clear about this from the outset. I don't think this is a strategy likely to effect the specified outcome, because if straights don't vote in support of gay marriage, can you really imagine them voting to abolish straight marriage?<br /><br /><br /><i>"...It is not immoral. Nor do I stipulate that Catholicism's hierarchy is immoral..."</i><br /><br />If morality has any meaning, it is very difficult to conclude that any organization (such as the Vatican) that systematically protects rapists is moral. Are you familiar with the Maciel case? Today's Roman Catholic hierarchy would make Martin Luther ill.<br /><br />I don't know much about the Mormon hierarchy, although every Mormon individual I have met is personally pleasant; I've done some helpful projects with them. However, systematic attacks on sexual minorities is as immoral as systematic attacks on racial minorities; in either case, they are attacks based upon immutable characteristics of the person - characteristics that in each case were established by God Himself, and not open to question by mere mortals.<br /><br /><i>"That fact coupled with the strident insistence that that still doesn't mean we hate gays ought to tease out other narratives than the one that concludes that we do."</i><br /><br />What would be such a narrative?<br /><br />The obvious narrative is that many people don't want to be thought of as a "hater"; they wish to think that they are attacking minorities for reasons other than being squicked out by them. This wish is called having a conscience that knows that the squicked-out person is doing wrong when converting their feelings into action (...one cannot be blamed for involuntary feelings, but one must take moral responsibility for actions.) The more that an organization has to engage in gold medal gymnastics of denial ("we don't hate you - we just don't want you to have equal rights"), the more the color commentary from the conscience desk should be listened to.<br /><br />But this is religion, not politics nor SF. So if you want to drop it, ok.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66650616409897153932012-02-26T17:21:53.395-08:002012-02-26T17:21:53.395-08:00onward. Randy... if you answer please do so in th...onward. Randy... if you answer please do so in the NEXT comments section....David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89609443299635448002012-02-26T17:20:18.292-08:002012-02-26T17:20:18.292-08:00RandyB: "And note what you're defending. ...RandyB: "And note what you're defending. Broadcast news networks, which are supposed to be non-biased, compared to Limbaugh and Hannity bias, who admit upfront that they're conservatives."<br /><br />Sorry, but .... BULL!!!!! The Fox guys claim that their raging, screeching, howling one-sided Goebbels-level one-sided propaganda machine is simply providing "balance" and the liberals started it by utterly swamping the "lamestream" with lefty propaganda. (Financed by GE, Disney etc... riiiiiiiight.)<br /><br />You cannot have it both ways. Either they HAVE TO be that way because they are forced to by relentless lefty bias in the other channels... in which case you should easily be able to find ONE outrageous lefty slant for NINE on Fox...<br /><br />... or else they are what we all know them to be. Goebbels-level screaming snit-artist liars shoveling the line ordered up by Rupert Murdoch and his Saudi prince partners.<br /><br />CHOOSE!<br /><br />There is one reason only, that you won't simply do this and take my money. And that reason is that you know, for a fact that I would instead take your money.<br /><br />===========<br /><br />Rick S despises JFK for promising to keep religion out of politics... something JFK had to do to get past lingering anti-catholicism. Santorum decries and hates it.<br /><br />Okay, then let's as Rick the same question JFK was ask. If you get political "guidance" from the infallible pontiff, what do you do?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13511228797850810642012-02-26T17:16:31.482-08:002012-02-26T17:16:31.482-08:00RandyB:
Remember, fewer people want to listen to ...RandyB:<br /><i><br />Remember, fewer people want to listen to liberal talk radio. Most liberals don't even want to listen to liberal talk radio. <br /></i><br /><br />Not at all true. I was so hungry for liberal talk radio that I listened to Air America as often as possible, even though some of it was insipid. Here in Chicago, WCPT (Chicago's Progressive Talk) has grown enough to expand to three FM stations which are allowed to broadcast longer in the day than the original AM station.<br /><br />The proliferation of Limbaugh and company is not because of demand, but because of forced supply. The station OWNERS are oligarchs, and they don't want people to listen to progressive talk. So they convert profitable talk stations to all-sports talk or Spanish language music stations, not because the progressive talk stations weren't in demand, but because they WERE.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29731115363904742002012-02-26T15:59:46.287-08:002012-02-26T15:59:46.287-08:00"oddly, the judge was a white Republican who ..."oddly, the judge was a white Republican who converted after a tour of duty in an Arab nation. "<br /><br />No the judge is a white Republican Lutheran who misspoke and said "I'm a Mulsim" rather than "If I were a Muslim".<br /><br />It's also a stretch to descibe him as a judge since "administrative judges" are popularly elected officials who don't have to have any formal legal training (and this case he doesn't) who get a brief course in the law and court procedure after they're elected.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Rick Santorum says the separation of Chruch and state is not absolute.<br /><br />http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385430-503544/santorum-church-state-separation-not-absolute/<br /><br />"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum continued to make controversial statements Sunday. The latest is about the separation of church and state, which Santorum says prohibits people of faith from the "public square."<br /><br />"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."<br /><br />He was referring to a 1960 speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy on religion and governance, which Santorum said "makes me throw up."<br /><br />"Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, 'I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute," the former Pennsylvania senator said. "You bet that makes you throw up."<br /><br />Santorum said Kennedy "was trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you.""Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92136005747479756352012-02-26T15:53:37.855-08:002012-02-26T15:53:37.855-08:00For a while I was making the minimal effort of wat...For a while I was making the minimal effort of watching the headlines on Yahoo politics. Mostly based on AP so a possible shorthand version of media watching. There did seem to be something of a trend, counterposed the same day would be things like:<br /><br />Obama takes firm stand on gas prices <br /><br />and<br /><br />Republican state legislator proposes (fill in dumb ass idea) bill.<br /><br />But it is a tedious project with much fluff.<br /><br />Really now, we all have lives to live.<br /><br />Tacitus<br /><br />regards the monkeys, the punch lines just write themselves<br /><br />"Dr Dart! Why I never!"Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6949332757744986382012-02-26T15:45:00.838-08:002012-02-26T15:45:00.838-08:00No, I don't have those kinds of guts. I don&#...No, I don't have those kinds of guts. I don't have the time to scan the broadcast networks, and we probably wouldn't agree on the details anyway. I get my news from the internet nowadays.<br /><br />I did check the Media Research Center. They used to do a great job of critiquing the evening news. It would have made that an easy bet to win. Not anymore, apparently.<br /><br />How would we compare bias, anyway? MRC is currently running <a href="http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/networks-hype-rising-gas-prices-4-times-more-bush-obama" rel="nofollow">a comparison of 2008 and 2012 for stories on gas prices</a>. I wouldn't catch that by watching for only one week.<br /><br />And note what you're defending. Broadcast news networks, which are supposed to be non-biased, compared to Limbaugh and Hannity bias, who admit upfront that they're conservatives.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23321189051182454232012-02-26T14:42:29.821-08:002012-02-26T14:42:29.821-08:00Tacitus said: "I grow weary of politics."...Tacitus said: "I grow weary of politics." Hm... not your year, Doc! But after my next and final Santorum posting I'll relent a bit.<br /><br />Prostitute monkeys, wow.<br /><br />RandyB you keep on doing it. You declare "It's all balanced because the major networks are liberal!" And you do this in order to use the excuse "I know my side is crazy but so's the opposition!"<br /><br />Not. I repeat, not.<br /><br />Rather was caught in a put-up job sting. He was stupid not to check. Nd too eager. And maybe a little biased, because all intelligent people wcould see that W was a slime. But the story was newsworthy in its own right and his fault was being dumb.<br /><br />All of which is beside the point. I claim that nearly all the "liberal bias" in mainstream professional journalism is just smart people seeing how insane your side has become. Think. Fox is waging war not just against scientists and journalists but economists, teachers, skilled labor professors civil servants, doctors.... and on and on. Santorum's anti-college rant is DOCTRINE! <i>Hate all smartypants.</i><br /><br />cBS, NGC, ABC are all owned by major mega corporations who have no lefty agenda. You are parroting nonsense... and here's the test.<br /><br />$100 on the table... right now. You have a week. Scan all major "liberal " big networks. Those three. For blatantly partisan statements by main anchors, made without counterweight.<br /><br />I get to do Fox. You get ten per network I get ten from Fox. Present all to neutral sages. I will pay you $100 if 9 out of ten of the top WORST partisan polemics aren't from Fox. (In fact it will be ten out of ten.) <br /><br />It is called a falsifiable check, fellah. Got guts?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42169805622943993542012-02-26T13:55:19.249-08:002012-02-26T13:55:19.249-08:00I speculate and inquire whether using reason and f...<em> I speculate and inquire whether using reason and faith to overrule the hierarchy (privately if not publicly) may be more difficult among Mormons because religious structures and communities independent of the official hierarchy haven't yet had time or opportunity to develop?</em><br /><br />You may speculate, but I don't stipulate. I am in my religion's hierarchy. It is not immoral. Nor do I stipulate that Catholicism's hierarchy is immoral. I don't agree with the premise that leads you there. <br /><br />That fact coupled with the strident insistence that that still doesn't mean we hate gays ought to tease out other narratives than the one that concludes that we do.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73368278827566113292012-02-26T13:41:42.861-08:002012-02-26T13:41:42.861-08:00A disturbing news item:
Muslim Judge throws out ch...A disturbing news item:<br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html" rel="nofollow">Muslim Judge throws out charges against muslim man who assaulted an athiest for mocking Mohamed</a><br /><br />read a blog on the story here:<br /><a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/" rel="nofollow">link</a><br />or watch the assault on youtube<br /><a href="http://youtu.be/yP-X3hpCfR8" rel="nofollow">link</a> (it wasn't a big assault)<br /><br />oddly, the judge was a white Republican who converted after a tour of duty in an Arab nation.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75506784683050081432012-02-26T10:47:32.741-08:002012-02-26T10:47:32.741-08:00David,
I was merely correcting you about Fox and ...David,<br /><br />I was merely correcting you about Fox and the Fairness Doctine.<br /><br />Yes, we oppose it being applied to talk radio. You're acting as though radio stations would then be adding a slice of liberal talk to every conservative utterance. But that's not how it would happen, and that's not the intent.<br /><br />Remember, fewer people want to listen to liberal talk radio. Most liberals don't even want to listen to liberal talk radio. Radio stations would then be forced to put up an unprofitable hour of broadcast time for every hour of conservative talk. Most can't afford that. The numbers just don't add up.<br /><br />That's beside the fact that the radio stations would also have to put up with legal challenges from liberal groups counting the minutes devoted to each ideology. It would be impossible to satisfy them. The purpose isn't fairness. It's to shut down conservative talk. Talk radio would go back to the way it was before. As much as I like Frasier Crane, I'd prefer the way it is now.<br /><br />I do know how you feel, though. The three broadcast news networks are to the left, and their anchors are all liberals. Conservatives had to put up with it. Just imagine if Rathergate happened before the internet, and before FoxNews.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91325968369963951592012-02-26T10:21:10.077-08:002012-02-26T10:21:10.077-08:00Like Tacitus, I need occasional breaks from the Si...Like Tacitus, I need occasional breaks from the Silly Season of Politics (ie, most of 2011-2012 - I swear, they should extend the term in office for Reps to three years, Senators to eight years, and Presidents to six years, just to give us a break from constant politicking). I found one that was... most interesting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/25/lego-space-station_n_1301017.html?ref=science" rel="nofollow">I give you a Lego International Space Station built on the International Space Station</a>. It's unlikely this model could be built on Earth as it couldn't support its own structural weight and how it was put together.<br /><br />The fascinating thing? It's a fire hazard. They assembled it in a box to keep parts from floating around, and could only keep the completed version out for two hours before disassembly lest the parts become a fire hazard on the station.<br /><br />Still, it's pretty cool, yes?<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51908703411536609742012-02-26T10:12:22.665-08:002012-02-26T10:12:22.665-08:00RE: Monkeys:
Finally, proof that prostitution i...RE: Monkeys: <br /><br />Finally, proof that prostitution is NOT the world's oldest profession - its BANKING.<br /><br />Oh, wait. On second thought...TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72146408922377895432012-02-26T10:00:53.744-08:002012-02-26T10:00:53.744-08:00David - I would like to know by what metric "...David - I would like to know by what metric "the federal govt's share of our economy and expenditures is at its lowest point since 1950"<br /><br />According to white house statistical charts that's simply not true:<br /><br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist15z3.xls<br /><br />Federal expenditures vs GDP hovered around 19 to 22% over most of that period but have increased to over 24% by 2011.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29535564775018880332012-02-26T09:56:10.284-08:002012-02-26T09:56:10.284-08:00@rewinn: Social Libertarianism, and the preservati...@rewinn: Social Libertarianism, and the preservation of the commons. <br /><br />If the referendum fails, marriage advocates on both sides will have to *try something else*, perhaps something that gets the government out of marriage licensure altogether. <br /><br />Then my viewpoints ascend. Duh.<br /><br />I view the "What's it to *you*" line of argument as particularly prejudicial. Y'all know I'm Mormon, and you know I attempt political thoughtfulness and try to recognize complexity. <br /><br />But for reasons I'm all too familiar with elsewhere and to a lesser extent, here, "Mormon" means, apparently, damned if you do, damned if you don't. <br /><br />And here I wasn't even thinking about that referendum in those terms. <br /><br />So, y'know, if your inclination was to decide that I hate gays because I'll sign the referendum, then, it'll only encourage me to seek the referendum out to sign it. After all, if damned either way, might as well make the activists work for it a bit more. It's not like they'll stop frothing. <br /><br />Don't *you* froth. I'm trying to help you win without triggering a massive conservative backlash. Yeah: bigger than the one you've got now. Think!Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36517950180635730452012-02-26T07:36:45.902-08:002012-02-26T07:36:45.902-08:00Courts ruled that GPS trackers on cars require a w...Courts ruled that GPS trackers on cars require a warrant. FBI turned off 3000 GPS trackers currently in use, and now has to apply for permission to turn them back on, in order to find them, in order to remove them.<br /><br />Well, I laughed.<br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/25/fbi-turns-off-thousands-of-gps-devices-after-supreme-court-ruling/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/25/fbi-turns-off-thousands-of-gps-devices-after-supreme-court-ruling/</a><br /><br />--<br /><br />Tacitus2,<br />Re: Monkey money, furry whores.<br /><br />I suspect that the "prostitution" already existing in the monkey culture. Exchanging food, grooming, protection for sex. All the researchers did was abstract one of the payments (food) into money (washers).Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29640261851019223812012-02-26T07:11:56.493-08:002012-02-26T07:11:56.493-08:00Satire is getting to be damn near impossible these...Satire is getting to be damn near impossible these days. How much you want to bet that somewhere in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, there has been some sort of government subsidy already?<br /><br />Infrastructure for roads and such...or given that I once read that a major issue for such dens of iniquity is all the laundry....at a minimum rebates for energy efficient washers and driers!<br /><br />I am not going to put this stuff into my search engine to find out.<br />Better to just assume.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44438323923393293872012-02-26T07:05:32.916-08:002012-02-26T07:05:32.916-08:00Public finance of prostitution? Consider the Wall ...Public finance of prostitution? Consider the Wall $treet bailout, and the recreational proclivities the younger denizens are reputed to practice, already got it.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18258064089937681982012-02-26T06:35:44.022-08:002012-02-26T06:35:44.022-08:00@Tacitus2
Thanks for that link... absolutely fasc...@Tacitus2<br /><br />Thanks for that link... absolutely fascinating! Really cool!<br /><br />I've always felt that Wall Street was run by monkeys anyway and I'm pretty sure a lot of that money is ending up subsidizing the oldest profession as well...<br /><br />Want peace on earth? Forget politics... forget campaign finance reform...<br /><br />WE NEED THE PUBLIC FINANCE OF PROSTITUTION!<br /><br /><i>Giving equal time.... gigolos included!</i>Tom Crowlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04444476865484424912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19949213444145963912012-02-26T06:15:30.048-08:002012-02-26T06:15:30.048-08:00I grow weary of politics. Here is some fascinatin...I grow weary of politics. Here is some fascinating Uplift news. Scientists teach Capuchin monkeys to use money. (acutally fake metal discs, but monkey money is fiat coinage just like ours).<br />Various amusing things occur including the evolution of prostitution for pay.<br />Jesus was right, the love of money IS the root of all evil. Well, monkeys are fairly immoral in an unpaid state too!<br /><br />http://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.com