georgesbluegirl

Oh, what they did was legal - hiring a stripper. I meant more the "bad taste," as you put it. I meant that we should consider the context a little bit when looking at the situation. Again, I don't mean to say that they are not legally innocent or that they intended any wrong, but it was bad behavior to hire a stripper in the first place.

I agree with most of what's been said and empathize with the awful situation the three lax players had to endure. However, as a sidebar, let's not forget that they shouldn't have been hiring a stripper in the first place - such conduct is certainly unbecoming of responsible adults. While they are very much innocent of the crimes of which they were accused, they were not necessarily totally innocent in the context of the situation. None of this, clearly, excuses the horror of being falsely accused of rape and persecuted by the media, but it is food for thought.

That and science draws conclusions from observable phenomena (scientific method, anyone?). Given that dinosaurs and people weren't around at the same time (and that we can draw this conclusion from a veritable wealth of evidence), teaching that humans coexisted with and domesticated triceratops for fun is simply unscientific and makes Christians look like a bunch of ignorant nuts. It drives me crazy. Clearly the founders of the museum have a right to it, but given that (I'm pretty sure) most religious people don't believe in saddled dinos, it causes a lot of headaches when trying to talk to others about Creation, evolution, and faith.

You are afforded certain legal rights merely by being a person in the country. For example, you can't kill a German tourist simply because they're not an American citizen... Thanks for pointing that out (besides, non-citizen legal residents have rights anyway).

Yup.

Yeah, I tend to be a staunch purist but I softened up once I had to admit that I kind of liked DJ Danger Mouse playing around with Jay-Z + the white album. I haven't actually gotten to "Love" yet but I've heard excellent things, so I'll definitely check that out. Thanks for the tip! -Kris PS: My screenname comes (loosely) from "For You, Blue," FYI. I might have mentioned that before or you might have just made the leap....either way, way to make a connection! =)

Hahaha, it's not un-manly to read VF, I promise. The issue covers all bases - there's an interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an article about political and economic signs of hope in Kenya (where I'm going next year, yay!), brief statements from all the major Presidential candidates (Dem and Repub) about what they would aim for with US-African relations. And a beautiful series of cover shots featuring 21 people involved with Africa and activism, everyone from George W. Bush (whose Africa policies Bono supports, apparently) to Maya Angelou to Iman. Well worth checking out.

I'm softening from my original position - after doing a little research (don't worry, it was only about five minutes...I'd never put much time into something like this), I found that her sentence was a little excessive given what most people get, so it does seem as if she was targeted a bit. Regardless, I don't have a problem with her being sent back.

Ted, I'm up and down with U2 but I agree that B.B. King is the MAN. Anyway, related - Bono just guest edited an Africa-centered issue of Vanity Fair that is absolutely fantastic. Check it out.

She still gets her time off for good behavior...the sentence remains the same so she'll only serve about 23 days.

That's not specifically what I meant. I was expressing a general sentiment about the state of the world.

God help us.

I'm glad she's back in, too. It makes a mockery of our courts and prisons when a rich, irresponsible socialite can receive such lenient treatment. You don't think prison-bound people cry over their mistakes every day? Please. In less than a month, Paris will be back to her mansion and jet-setting (probably with a book deal). Thousands of similarly-charged people without such money and sway, meanwhile, will serve the rest of their sentences quietly and as the law requires - in normal jail cells, and without hot-shot attorneys arguing for their release.

Haha. I'm a big fan of what Bono's done - I actually don't have much to add to this discussion, I just wanted to voice my support! This is a man who, despite his wealth and the fact that he could very easily live a carefree life of luxury, has really taken the time to educate himself, make himself the best advocate he possibly can, and works tirelessly on the issues he's passionate about. Kudos. I wish there were many more like him.

Haha, I've been called a communist before and I'm sure it will happen again. I'm not though - what I do want is more governmental transparency...

At the end of the day, I still feel like proving that God created the world is impossible - that's a matter of faith. Showing how the world was created is what science can do...confusing the issues seems to yield nothing but bad science and shallow faith.

Exactly. The point isn't that the kids ARE in custody. They may very well be back with their families or off somewhere living their lives in luxury. But they might be in prison, and the US would be responsible. That in and of itself upsets me, the fact that we don't know where they are, that they are not in prison. At the very least, I believe we've said that they were held for some duration of time, which is upsetting enough.

Marnie, just FYI I'm not calling you out on this personally, it's just a quip indicative of a Republican linguistic trend of late and it's worth noting (the Dems do it too, it's just that the Republicans are generally more shrewd about crafting language for better or worse....generally worse...). It's the same rhetorical strategy Gonzales used a couple of months ago (heck, still uses when under fire). PASSIVE VOICE, folks - that kind of syntax that removes the subject. Who made the mistakes, y'all?

From The Guardian (story initially from Reuters - carried in the Times and Chronicle, but in an edited form):

I fly alone most of the time - it's quite a hike from home to college, so I go by air. I'd recommend bringing something to read. If you're nervous, you can be reading from the time you sit down on your seat to the moment your plane stops at the destination gate.

Yeah, the idea is to reduce medical costs for people who struggle the most with medical inflation and booming prescription drug prices. He's also focused on coverage for kids in the past, which is a good place to start. Fun fact: Kiefer Sutherland's maternal grandfather designed the Canadian healthcare system.

Like I said, more cars on the road. Regardless, I agree on principle, as I said before, with repealing seatbelt law. As far as "spiting" the law, though....that's carrying it a bit far. Why put yourself in danger just because you don't agree with a driving regulation? I do, however, think there are more important personal liberties being threatened these days. Wiretaps, anyone?

I'm actually agreeing with you about seatbelt laws. What I was referring to is the fact that children should be required to be helmeted, buckled, etc. There are more cars now. It's more unsafe for those precautions to be ignored, and that should be codified for minors. Adults are free to be dumb.

Glory, I wasn't saying that two species will cross and create viable offspring (most of the time), just pointing out that the definition of "species" itself is vague even biologically speaking. I fail to see how the principles of natural selection in action would lead to "blurring" between species. The whole idea of speciation has to do with ecological niches...biodiversity is how ecosystems function. Can you draw out what you were saying? Evolution doesn't rest on the idea of interspecies breeding at all...quite the opposite.

There are also many more cars on the road now and very different traffic patterns in many places. The "then and now" comparison might be seductive, but it's not direct.