Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You did save the "Displaced Texan" login, right?

I'm holding out for the New Mexico final count. Used to be Texas. Sure, my people settled on the Rio Grande about 1200 miles further south, but I could settle into Taos fairly well....

ETA: Any one have any ideas why cost of living is so much higher in blue states than red states? I'll admit that one of the reasons I'm not thrilled about the prospect of leaving my red state (aside from that stupid Texas pride thing that I share with my state-mates) is it's really, really cheap to live here.... I'm not sure I could afford to move back to California.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Fugee
I'm going to talk to the few folks I know here who are quite vocally passionate about "protecting traditional marriage." ...
I think I will test that by asking about civil unions... Their responses should be interesting.

I will be interested to hear what they say. I have a feeling that, to some extent, the religious objection, though real, is also a convenient way to avoid admitting that they just think it is squicky.

Seriously, I have real hopes that Queer Eye and Will & Grace will result in an entire generation that, regardless of how provincial or closeted their immediate community is, will not have a total lack of familiarity with the idea of gay people, and the idea that gay people are not scary and even admirable. I note that even my Archie Bunker-esq father, having gone into a business recently that has him dealing with large numbers of gay men, has come firmly down on the side of "they are good people, and reliable customers/associates, and they should do whatever they want and no one should give them any trouble about it - so long as they aren't looking at my butt." (Well, he's come a long, long way.)

This reminds me of a discussion I had with some distant relations in Canada when Ontario first punted legalizing gay marriage. This woman was just IRATE about the idea - not on religious or "sanctity" or "tradition" grounds, but purely because "I don't want those gays taking up all my benefits." I'd never actually heard an anti- person take that position before so I pressed her on it a bit. She didn't seem to understand what I was asking until I posed it as: "why should ANY couples, including hetero couples, get the gov't benefits just because they are married?" she stopped dead and got a blank look with her mouth hanging open and held it for about 20 seconds. I'm pretty sure I didn't change her mind, but I apparently gave her something to think about. At least she was honest about her self-interest in denying benefits she already had to others to prevent the dilution of her benefit (though I think she imagined she had stumbled on a more sophisticated justification that, again, just covered her thinking it was squicky).

FWIW, club, I may be even more "liberal" than you on this, and, as I can come up with no convincing argument for why polygamy should be banned, either, other than Sidd's purely practical "how do you deal with the tax/benefits issues with more than two people?" I have given some thought as to how to structure those benefits for 3+ marital units. No answers yet, but I'm thinking about it. I keep toying with some sort of definition of "household" to determine who gets bens ....

Also, FWIW, per recent clinical research on the issue, children born to first cousins do not, through 2 generations of such interbreeding, show significantly increased rates of birth defects. Sibling and parent/child couplings do, but not first cousins. (I've not heard any studies involving aunt-uncle/nephew-neice pairings.) I vaguely recall that most states currently ban first-cousin marriages (including first cousins, removed), but permit marriages between second cousins.

BR(and we should legalize drugs, and seriously means test SS and medicare (but extend medicare to all minors), and have voucher programs, and the FCC should dissolve itself, and shift to a national consumption tax (excl. food, children's clothing, housing costs under caps determined by location, some other stuff) instead of an income tax ... oh, I have all sorts of stuff on my wish-lists)C

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Walter Dellinger makes a few good points:
[list]Before Democrats rush to adopt radically new policies and positions, we need to remember that last Tuesday was the first time in 16 years that the Republicans got as many votes as the Democrats in a national Presidential election. And this time the Republicans may have prevailed only because election errors put Bush in office in 2000, sitting there for the country to rally around after 9/11—as they would have any president.

Without 9/11, Bush doesn't get reelected.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Understood, but surely you would agree that the right to do things in private is not unlimited. So the question is where is the line and who makes that determination, and I think Slave and I are saying that it may make more sense for the line to be drawn by the people, through their reps, than by the S.Ct. I don't like the result that leads us to in this case, but it is somewhat attractive.

Actually, I don't agree, except in the most extreme cases, like incest, abuse, rape, and murder. In each of these instnaces, the distinuisihing factor is that the rights and freedoms of the victim are being grossly violated. If you limit the conversation to things that take place between two adults capable of consent, then no, there is no limit.

It is the right and duty of the courts to overturn the tyrrany of the majority where the legislative branch does try to draw lines. One of the biggest perversions of Federalism in this era is the loss of the belief that there are simply some things that are beyond the purview of the government, state or federal to regulate, absent some compelling police or health risk.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You're forgetting that we don't look like this:
One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

I think you're forgetting that a rising group seems to care more about the

under God

part, and then defines the liberty and justice part accordingly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice spin:

• Still, the unemployment rate (search) edged up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent in September, but that was because more people joined the search for employment, a potentially hopeful sign.

I was being snide, not spinning.

I'd rather have employment go up than down, of course, but what I want to see from Bush is a sustained and structural building of the employment base and the economy.

But, frankly, I think Bush is of the school that says the unemployment rate is not a particularly critical measure of the economy. I don't think they mind a jobless recovery, as long as the corporate profit reports and the consumer/market confidence comes back.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
BR(and we should legalize drugs, ...C

Speaking of which, this is absolutely ridiculous:

Last year, 755,187 people were arrested for marijuana violations in America, according to an FBI report released Oct. 25. The number of annual marijuana arrests has doubled since 1993. This year’s total is the largest in history.

http://uwmpost.com/products_detail.a...bleID=products

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, but I don't think its right for you to molest a 2 year old infant, even in the privacy of your home.

But the distinction here is that the limitation is proper because of the harm to the child's rights. It may be disgusting, but it is not unlawful for someone to fantasize or desire to molest a 2 year old, as distatsteful as that is.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Without 9/11, Bush doesn't get reelected.

Had you put up someone other than a NE liberal (most liberal Senator) who did unscrupulous things during war time and a trial lawyer, you might have won.

Don't kid yourself. The problem was your candidates.

Put Hillary on the ticket in 2008. No one can energize the conservative base to get out and vote better than she can.

Your candidates sucked. That is why you lost the election. Your own party didn't even like Kerry. They just hated W more.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm holding out for the New Mexico final count. Used to be Texas. Sure, my people settled on the Rio Grande about 1200 miles further south, but I could settle into Taos fairly well....

ETA: Any one have any ideas why cost of living is so much higher in blue states than red states? I'll admit that one of the reasons I'm not thrilled about the prospect of leaving my red state (aside from that stupid Texas pride thing that I share with my state-mates) is it's really, really cheap to live here.... I'm not sure I could afford to move back to California.

The blue states tend to have higher employment rates and higher incomes. The red states generally retain fairly traditional economies with significant amounts of surplus labor that keeps wages down.

But, they're all pretty happy anyway because they know God loves them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Bad_Rich_Chic
I vaguely recall that most states currently ban first-cousin marriages

Not NY, but then again, you and your cousin knew that already ;-)

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
Without 9/11, Bush doesn't get reelected.

Without Howard Dean, we would be speaking about President-Elect Gephardt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think you're forgetting that a rising group seems to care more about the

under God

part, and then defines the liberty and justice part accordingly.

We worship an awesome God in the Blue States.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If the people of Alaska disagree with you, you can move, no?

Look - we have a sliding scale of "rights" here. What is causing the great divide in this country is an apparent slide past what many Americans are willing to agree with.

No. You're wrong. We are a republic, a confederation of states, bound together by the common recognition of certain universal truths and rights, together with sertain duties and obligations. What makes us great as a nation is our collective pledge that we stand for the right of all citizens of this nation to be free in their own homes from the will of others when it comes to what we have defined as our inalienable rights.

[LessinSF]

From yesterday, but I enjoyed it: