Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
yes

That is the only non-hypocritical position if you are for gay marriage.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's the newest polling data on the issue.

They asked if you would favor an amendment that would bar states from allowing gay marriage. That isn't what the amendment would do. It would leave the issue to the states to decide for themselves, prevent one state from having to recognize another's same sex marriage, and prevent the federal government from having to recognize same sex marriages.

Ask the question properly and you will get different results.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
No, it is to prevent having to make polygamy legal.

And incest and bestiality?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And incest and bestiality?

If beastiality gets to be okay, then someone needs to update the purity test; as it is, a "yes" to "have you ever done beastiality" really hurts the ole composite score.

[sgtclub]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040225/255963_1.html

Somebody has to have the balls to challenge this under the 1st Amendment.*

*I realize this was a business decision by a private party, but the policy was put in place to head off possible FCC fines and penalties.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I bet Bush drops this mess like a hot potato.

Here's the newest polling data on the issue.


(Opposed - 47% For - 41% Trend - to Opposed)

He doesn't have to drop it--he's not a congressman.

I don't see how the opposers can really lose this one. It will be very easy to pin the proponents into a corner on exactly how radical and sweeping it is, at which point it sinks. If you can't pass a flag-burning amendment, how is something that's more controversial going to get through?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And incest and bestiality?

I fail to see an analogy between consensual adult polygamy and a person having sex with an animal. An animal cannot consent to the sex.

As for incest, if we are again talking about consenting adults here (not child molestation or stautory rape) one man and one woman, given biology what it is, there is a risk that a child would be produced. If a child is conceived, given genetics what they are, the risks of birth defects are quite high if the two people are brothers-sisters, father-daughter. This risk is many times higher than with people who are not related to each other.

This is the reason that incest is disfavored by society. The repulsion most of us feel at the thought of having sex with a close relative was no doubt a characteristic one of our long dead ancestors was born with. The process of natural selection favored our ancestors' survival since this person was less likely to have sex with close relatives and his or her children were less likely to be born with birth defects.

BTW - in several states, like TN for instance, first cousins can legally marry each other.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He doesn't have to drop it--he's not a congressman.

I think that, if this were going to progress, it would only be if he were carrying the water. I'm thinking (hoping?) he never uses the words "amend the constitution" again.

[Not Me]

Excuse my error in reporting that Martha's defense lasted one hour. I just heard on the news it lasted 21 minutes.

Well, at least she didn't add a perjury charge to the mix.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040225/255963_1.html

Somebody has to have the balls to challenge this under the 1st Amendment.*

*I realize this was a business decision by a private party, but the policy was put in place to head off possible FCC fines and penalties.

You surely realize that Clear Channel is the homogenizing, purifying devil. That said, I can't stand Howard Stern so I'm just as happy he's gone.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040225/255963_1.html

Somebody has to have the balls to challenge this under the 1st Amendment.*

*I realize this was a business decision by a private party, but the policy was put in place to head off possible FCC fines and penalties.

I hate Howard Stern and agree with all of Clear Channel's objections to the content of the Stern show. However, I think this case demonstrates just how dangerous it is to allow such a concentration of licenses to the public airways in one company's hands.

So your 1st amendment argument is that since Clear Channel only did this to pre-empt state action, that invokes the 1st Amendment? Not saying it is a good or a bad argument. Just asking you if this is your argument for invoking the 1st amendment.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that, if this were going to progress, it would only be if he were carrying the water.

I'm not so sure. There are always a few firebrands in Congress to move these things. Sure, he might be able to cajole a few votes, but he'll let someone else press the issue for a bit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
So your 1st amendment argument is that since Clear Channel only did this to pre-empt state action, that invokes the 1st Amendment? Not saying it is a good or a bad argument. Just asking you if this is your argument for invoking the 1st amendment.

I'm not speaking in purely legal terms, but this is clearly a reaction to the janet scandal and the FCC fines that followed, plus the congressional hearings. Absent that event, this would not be an issue. The policy was clearly adopted to attempt to avoid FCC liability, and the FCC is apparently now the arbitrator of what is indecent and what is not. So what you have is the government prohibiting what can and cannot be said, and private actors reacting to that.*

This plus the recent campaign finance rulings, and we have all witnessed the death of the first amendment.

*I don't use terms like "indecent" with any legal significance in mind, as I am no expert on the topic.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not speaking in purely legal terms, but this is clearly a reaction to the janet scandal and the FCC fines that followed, plus the congressional hearings. Absent that event, this would not be an issue. The policy was clearly adopted to attempt to avoid FCC liability, and the FCC is apparently now the arbitrator of what is indecent and what is not. So what you have is the government prohibiting what can and cannot be said, and private actors reacting to that.

I actually think your argument has merit. When the government advocates censorship and the FCC licensees are so afraid of losing their licenses or being fined that they act pre-emptively by censoring content, you may be able to say that this constructively is the government censoring this.

I am sure that Clear Channel would not have pulled Howard off if they weren't worried about fines.

[Not Me]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Study: Monkey's Protein Prevents HIV

By WILLIAM McCALL
Associated Press Writer

Scientists say they have discovered why some monkeys are resistant to infection with the AIDS virus - an exhilarating find that points to a new and highly promising strategy for blocking HIV in people.

The discovery capped a more than 10-year search for the answer to the mystery of what stops the virus cold in certain primates.

Carl Dieffenbach, director of basic science research for AIDS at the National Institutes of Health, said the finding could lead to drugs to treat AIDS infection or a vaccine to prevent it.

"This will go immediately in about 15 different directions," Dieffenbach said. "This has been an amazing year in basic research and now we've got this. We're very rich with results and we've got a lot to work on."

The discovery was reported by Dr. Joseph Sodroski and his team of Harvard University researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. It was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Normally, a virus spreads through the body by entering cells, hijacking their machinery, and using it to make new copies of itself.

But monkeys have a protein called TRIM5-alpha that is somehow able to stop the virus from shedding its protective coat after it enters a healthy cell. The shedding of the coating is poorly understood but considered essential to the infection cycle.

Humans have their own version of TRIM5-alpha, but it is not as effective as the monkey version in countering HIV. However, researchers may be able to design a drug that makes it work better, Sodroski said.

Sodrowski said the same mechanism may even work against other viruses.