georgesbluegirl

Perhaps, but it is their right to drink poison and as long as they don't force me or anyone else to drink poison, I'm ok with that. However, what if in drinking poison they actually incur cost on others (like asking everyone to to pony up money for research to make the poison not poison) The question needs to be, is the cost justified? Not everything happens in a bubble either, what if the research that makes the poison not poison can be applied to other poisons thus saving millions who get poisoned by other poisons through unintentional means? What if intentionally drinking the poison isn't the only means of being poisoned and there are lots of people being poisoned unintentionally by the very same poison? If you are contending that homosexuality should be legislated against based on the monetry cost of an increased risk of STI's (which aren't purely confined to homosexuals), then I think that is a slippery slope. I think the old saying "be careful what you wish for" applies. No, what I am saying is that if people want freedom to behave in any way they desire (even if there are known risks), they should not then come back and ask others to foot the bill for them taking the risk. Along with freedom comes responsibility Who is footing what bill? Lots of tax dollars for programs, research etc. What do you propose as a solution? Should homosexuals not recieve taxpayer funded treatment for sti's? Since I am a tax paying citizen I don't think my money should go to anything that has to do with homosexuals And should the money that homosexual men pay in taxes not be used to fund maternity services? What about taxes payed by men in general, should they be withheld from ovarian cancer research and treatment? Where do you draw the line? The taxes you pay are not for your sole benefit. Well said. Also, pharma discovery funding (R&D) is corporate business when there's a market. The government mostly funds research on less prevalent (and therefore less profitable) diseases. STD research -- say, the process that produced AZT and other antiretrovirals -- is probably mostly done via internal funding, not from taxpayers.

Perhaps, but it is their right to drink poison and as long as they don't force me or anyone else to drink poison, I'm ok with that. However, what if in drinking poison they actually incur cost on others (like asking everyone to to pony up money for research to make the poison not poison) The question needs to be, is the cost justified? Not everything happens in a bubble either, what if the research that makes the poison not poison can be applied to other poisons thus saving millions who get poisoned by other poisons through unintentional means? What if intentionally drinking the poison isn't the only means of being poisoned and there are lots of people being poisoned unintentionally by the very same poison? If you are contending that homosexuality should be legislated against based on the monetry cost of an increased risk of STI's (which aren't purely confined to homosexuals), then I think that is a slippery slope. I think the old saying "be careful what you wish for" applies. No, what I am saying is that if people want freedom to behave in any way they desire (even if there are known risks), they should not then come back and ask others to foot the bill for them taking the risk. Along with freedom comes responsibility Who is footing what bill?

The taxpayers got their money's worth? That's pretty ludicrous. I'm a tax payer and as far as I can tell, I didn't get anything out of the deal. I definitely did not get my money's worth. Since Obama is such an all-around great guy, you think maybe he will do a little something personally, just for me? Nothing extravagant, just so I can feel I got my money's worth too. A couple of more points. If millions of people still would have been there, why spend $150 million dollars on the deal? In case you haven't noticed, our country's economy is tanking. You think spending $150 million dollars on an inauguration party sends a clear message to the country, and the world. It definitely does, and it isn't the pretty "message of hope" that you and KatyAnn are trying to sell. It tells everyone, in a loud, clear voice that America is a country with some really messed-up priorities. As for God-fearing, you and I both know Obama is not a God-fearing man. You can keep trying to tell yourself he is, but the truth is, for some people I guess, a lot harder to swallow. My knowledge and understanding is that Obama is God-fearing. He has said that he is; it is not our place to judge whether he is not. Leave that to God. You're missing the point, regardless. Most of the $150 million was NOT spent on the parties -- and that's what I was saying. It was mostly security -- they had to spend it, knowing the huge crowd that the event was going to command. And that's why I said that the taxpayers got their money's worth -- you, too, could have gone, and been safe, if you had wanted to.

There should be a grand party. Don't you realize that this was also a message to the world? A keynote in history? Millions of people voted for this man because he gives them hope. Hope is priceless. I don't know if you watch what has transpired in Washington for the last 2 days, but I have. I have seen African Americans in tears because at last they can tell their children that they can be anything they want in America....and FINALLY these children can believe it. That too is priceless. I am a conservative and did not vote for Obama...but I really want him to succeed. Not for his sake but for our country's sake. All through the day I have been reminded of Ronald Reagan...the great communicator. Though Reagan had the Iran-Contra and SnL scandals along with a poor economy, he was a well loved president. Why? I remember why. Because after Vietnam Watergate and the Civil Rights, the Iran hostages and gas shortages riots the country was feeling much like it does today...not knowing if the next generation would do as well as the current..let alone better. But Reagan helped the country to overcome this simply by telling us we could, and helping us to believe it. Where before there was almost a sense of "what the use" Reagan helped us to stand up and when we said I'm an American we said it with a renewed pride. From what I can see Pres. Obama has this same gift. That is what the Inauguration was about. You could see it on the faces of the crowd and in the tears of those who feel they are finally really home. Good responding points, but it's not only that. If there were no "grand parties," guess what? Millions of people would STILL BE THERE. This is an historic and monumental moment in America's history, and about two million people wanted to come see it happen. The swearing in, the speech -- not Beyonce, not Garth Brooks, not fireworks: the simple act of an intelligent, God-fearing, well-spoken, and thoughtful black man put his hand on Lincoln's Bible and swear to defend this country's Constitution. In other words -- the taxpayers got their money's worth, as the security was provided so that any of us who wanted to be there could be there, safely.

There should be a grand party. Don't you realize that this was also a message to the world? A keynote in history? Millions of people voted for this man because he gives them hope. Hope is priceless. I don't know if you watch what has transpired in Washington for the last 2 days, but I have. I have seen African Americans in tears because at last they can tell their children that they can be anything they want in America....and FINALLY these children can believe it. That too is priceless. I am a conservative and did not vote for Obama...but I really want him to succeed. Not for his sake but for our country's sake. All through the day I have been reminded of Ronald Reagan...the great communicator. Though Reagan had the Iran-Contra and SnL scandals along with a poor economy, he was a well loved president. Why? I remember why. Because after Vietnam Watergate and the Civil Rights, the Iran hostages and gas shortages riots the country was feeling much like it does today...not knowing if the next generation would do as well as the current..let alone better. But Reagan helped the country to overcome this simply by telling us we could, and helping us to believe it. Where before there was almost a sense of "what the use" Reagan helped us to stand up and when we said I'm an American we said it with a renewed pride. From what I can see Pres. Obama has this same gift. That is what the Inauguration was about. You could see it on the faces of the crowd and in the tears of those who feel they are finally really home. Good responding points, but it's not only that. Cobalt, if there were no "grand parties," guess what? Millions of people would STILL BE THERE. This is an historic and monumental moment in America's history, and about two million people wanted to come see it happen. The swearing in, the speech -- not Beyonce, not Garth Brooks, not fireworks: the simple act of an intelligent, God-fearing, well-spoken, and thoughtful black man put his hand on Lincoln's Bible and swear to defend this country's Constitution. In other words -- the taxpayers got their money's worth, as the security was provided so that any of us who wanted to be there could be there, safely.

Amen! (Did you hear the closing prayer with the line about "beating our tanks into tractors"...? I thought it was perfect.) In general -- beautiful. Tears.

Unhappy? Nah. Tired and stressed maybe. But she's about to become one of the most powerful people in the world. She looked triumphant to me. And I thought she spoke really eloquently about the worldwide plight of women, too. Just my two cents.

Aaaaaaaaand THIS is just another reason why nobody good recommends doing this anymore.

really? name one. If you can...I can name a dozen for every one you could vaguely imagine. Nope...the rank and file grassroots citizen who votes Republican will be the FIRST in line to kick them out of office if it happens...while Democrats laugh and celebrate such corruption. These are the people who get nominated in their party for higher office! How about the entire state of Alaska? You can say all you want about Palin, but everything's in the pocket of big oil up there, and its all fronted by the GOP. Be realistic, though. I know you hate the Democratic party, but at least recognize that the culture of corruption is about power and context.

And a further thought, while I'm at it -- you see these corruption scandals in one-party cities, because the Big Stick of power doesn't have to be tempered, and there's nobody really to keep 'em honest. Baltimore and Chicago happen to be the recent high-profile players -- Democratic cities -- but you can bet it's the same story in all-red towns too.

SERIOUSLY. Also, Matt, it's truly unfair to try to pin Baltimore's murder rate on Martin. He certainly didn't help it any -- but come on, Baltimore has been a murder capital for a long, long, long time. Otherwise why would David Simon have been following around all those detectives in the late 80s to write Homicide ? Sheila, if anything, has been reasonably effective as mayor, though I would stop way short of crediting her with the recent decrease in criminal activity. Don't like her particularly -- she can get on my nerves -- but she hasn't done a bad job. Plus, of course it's Dems getting in trouble in Baltimore. Everyone's a Democrat in Baltimore, so you have to be one to get elected! Edit -- this is in no way saying I don't think Sheila should go down for this, if it all carries through. Although I will say Rohrbaugh has been a little crazy over it. Frankly, I'm surprised they don't have more on her, and I won't be shocked if the charges don't stick or keep her out of office. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Oh no you didn't. Them's fightin' words.

WELL SAID!!!!! I agree, except for one thing -- McCain's nomination didn't HAVE to be a fiasco, or a mistake. He has spent most of his political career being the person that he talked about being; unfortunately, the closer he got to a legitimate shot at the nomination the more he put himself on the party line instead of holding true to what he'd been saying for years. The pattern continued through his run against Obama, and I felt like by the end he'd just laid down and let strategists run the campaign for him. I didn't get the sense of sincerity from him in the last couple months of the campaign, just frustration, really. If that wasn't apparent while it was happening, it was when he gave his concession speech. That was the best McCain showing I'd seen in months, and I thought he looked more relieved than anything else...but he spoke eloquently, and was pitch-perfect. If he had been THAT McCain for most of the general campaign, he might have won.

Yeah, you're right to point out that the system is difficult for the victim for a reason...but, if you follow the news on sexual assault cases at trial (if they're reported...), you also find plenty of instances of unnecessarily traumatic procedure. Given how few men actually get convicted and how minimal so many of their sentences seem to be, I can easily see a woman just not wanting to put herself through all of it. Sigh. As for your second paragraph, hm, that's sort of what I'm talking about. I absolutely agree about the horror of rape -- this fundamental violation of agency, of control over your own body. But purporting ideas like "A girl who's been raped is often almost incapable of forming relationships with men, unable to enjoy sex or otherwise function normally on a personal level" is just another way of letting rape continue to take away that agency in the social world. Recovery from rape happens. A woman isn't "damaged for life" by her rapists -- recognizing that is a major step in moving on. Like undergoing any other traumatic event, you'll feel the aftershocks for a long, long time. But many, many, many women survive rape and go on to form perfectly healthy, trusting, loving relationships. It depends on the person and their own process.

Rape isn't really about sex, it's about power -- castration isn't the answer, because it says that the problem lies with the rapist's genitals rather than their head and abusive mentality. This case is utterly horrifying. I can't imagine what that girl will be going through for the rest of her life. David, a couple of things -- it does bother me when the "crying rape" thing gets brought up in the same breath as discussion about the criminal process around rape (although I realize you're not bringing it up the typical way -- just bear with me). While this is a scenario frequently spoken of, quite frankly, it's not at all common. It just doesn't happen that often -- the facts don't bear out. If a woman is willing to put herself on the line and say she was raped, then it's pretty safe to assume that she was...God knows, neither the US nor the UK's system is particularly kind to the victims. Rapes are VASTLY underreported in both countries, and the conviction rates for even cases that ARE reported are low -- in the US I've seen numbers as low as 13%, sometimes even lower for the UK. And rapists often get off with pretty lenient sentences. Also, I'd like to humbly submit two more things -- rape leaves a brutal wake behind regardless of the age, sexual experience, gender, etc etc etc of the person affected. It's savage. But it is also something that is about healing, and a process of moving on and learning to deal with it. Yes, it is both horrific and savage. Yes, there is going to be fallout for the rest of the victim's life, most likely. But just be careful about how you discuss rape victims, because too often I hear sympathetic words play into the notion that rape leaves a person "damaged goods," that they are somehow devalued because of it. Again, I don't think that this was what you're saying...just be cautious. It's a really, really tough issue. So thanks for talking about it. It shouldn't take a terrible, tragic, violent instance like this one to get us talking about rape, though. Sexual assault happens all the time, frequently between people who know each other. It's awful, but true. OK, then what would you suggest, given that you think most sentences are lenient. Death? Life in Prison? Tatoo their forehead? Endless hours of psychotherapy? Your right that rape is a power trip, but to suggest that the rapist does not become sexually aroused is incorrect. A sting operation reported in newsweek, back in 1982 revealed that up 85% of sexual assault cases were total fabrications, the motive being revenge. Another factor is federal funding, in that in order to continue receiveing funding you have to generate convictions. According to the newsweek article, this played a huge role in the caseworkers assisting the so called victims with their stories. I'm guessing that if the US and the UK castrated the next 25 convicted rapist with solid dna evidence you'd see a change of attitude. Now I could be wrong, but what's being done now doesn't seem to be working. Okay...a few things. I'm not saying that rape doesn't involve sexual arousal. That would just be stupid. In asserting that rape is about power, I'm making a point about what constitutes a rapist -- it's not just somebody who has a sexual organ that he (generalizing into "he" here, because let's be real) has used to hurt someone. The physical body of the rapist matters less than their intent to harm. Which is why castration doesn't really solve the problem. To put it bluntly, you can rape someone without genitals. And now -- please give me this sting operation that you cite. Fact is, that's just. not. true. "85% of sexual assault cases were total fabrications?" How about 1 out of 4 women in America will be sexually assaulted. I don't know how you came to believe that most rape charges are trumped up, but the data is not going to bear out that assertion. Ever. As David rightly pointed out, rape is WIDELY under-reported.

Rape isn't really about sex, it's about power -- castration isn't the answer, because it says that the problem lies with the rapist's genitals rather than their head and abusive mentality. This case is utterly horrifying. I can't imagine what that girl will be going through for the rest of her life. David, a couple of things -- it does bother me when the "crying rape" thing gets brought up in the same breath as discussion about the criminal process around rape (although I realize you're not bringing it up the typical way -- just bear with me). While this is a scenario frequently spoken of, quite frankly, it's not at all common. It just doesn't happen that often -- the facts don't bear out. If a woman is willing to put herself on the line and say she was raped, then it's pretty safe to assume that she was...God knows, neither the US nor the UK's system is particularly kind to the victims. Rapes are VASTLY underreported in both countries, and the conviction rates for even cases that ARE reported are low -- in the US I've seen numbers as low as 13%, sometimes even lower for the UK. And rapists often get off with pretty lenient sentences. Also, I'd like to humbly submit two more things -- rape leaves a brutal wake behind regardless of the age, sexual experience, gender, etc etc etc of the person affected. It's savage. But it is also something that is about healing, and a process of moving on and learning to deal with it. Yes, it is both horrific and savage. Yes, there is going to be fallout for the rest of the victim's life, most likely. But just be careful about how you discuss rape victims, because too often I hear sympathetic words play into the notion that rape leaves a person "damaged goods," that they are somehow devalued because of it. Again, I don't think that this was what you're saying...just be cautious. It's a really, really tough issue. So thanks for talking about it. It shouldn't take a terrible, tragic, violent instance like this one to get us talking about rape, though. Sexual assault happens all the time, frequently between people who know each other. It's awful, but true.

Haha, he probably bid the 10K himself. Pretty solid.

no, she doesn't. for that reason, I think she deserves more slack than someone who does. 'Scuse me? I'm a Christian. A Catholic, to be specific.

Probably closer to the truth than you know. An Obama supporter came to my door the saturday before the election. I knew he was an Obama supporter because he was wearing a T-shirt with "Obama" emblazoned across it. I looked at him and said "There is no way I am voting for Obama" before he could even speak. He gave me a glassy stare, squinted at the last name on my mail box and began busily writing something on his clipboard before scurrying back down the steps. A) I canvassed and phonebanked for Obama. And I am 21. I like to think you'd have enough respect for those of us who put some blood, sweat, and tears into working on election not to characterize us all as mindless idiots. And if somebody talked to me like that (there's gotta be a nicer way to say "no thanks"), I might have given them a glassy stare, too. B) When you canvas registered voters, you usually have a sheet with names and addresses and then space to write in voting preference or make quick notes that might be of relevance to the campaign. The kid was probably writing down not to bother you again. It's a shame that people are turning what was actually an incredibly well-organized, enthusiastic ground game into a horde of mindless Obama zombies (Zombamas? Obambies?). Just because they/we disagree with your views doesn't mean we're Hitler Youth, and I'm pretty horrified by the comparison.

They were both on the same education board. That doesn't mean that Ayers is part of the Obama administration, or has any active role. In fact, it doesn't even mean that Obama feels the same way that Ayers does! Also, the thing that nobody remembers to bring up in addition is that the board on which Ayers and Obama sat was an Annenberg board. The Annenberg Foundation. As in the conservative Republican Annenbergs. Friends of Reagan. It's time for even the hysterics to let this one go.

Um, Obama. Pretty much. In Europe and most/all of Africa, at least.

I don't mean to be contentious, but the semi-unspoken thing is always going to be race. Every candidate deals with their share of crazies, but realistically, Obama does face an additional risk for targeting. And that's all I really want to say about it, because it makes me sick to my stomach to think about something that horrible.

A bit? We just can't even think along those lines. While I was nowhere near Keith Olbermann's spitting rage when Clinton brought up RFK's assassination back in the primaries, even that struck me as grossly inappropriate. Of course, 1968 and plots like these are exactly why candidates get Secret Service protection...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dn...0,4412547.story Two excerpts: The LAPD alone has a backlog of 7000 cases. 7000! And now the prosecution deadline has lapsed for 200 of those cases (which it wouldn't have if they followed the notification law). Of course, this is only an example of a much larger problem with funding and staffing -- there are about 169,000 unprocessed rape kits sitting around nationwide. It's no wonder that so many women who have been attacked are hesitant to report it and go through the rape kit process (which is usually very emotionally taxing), given the odds that their evidence is just going to sit around anyway. This needs to become a funding priority. Check out the editorial in the same issue of the Times, too. Thumbs up.

Lame attempt at a joke, Axx. I feel about Powell the way a lot of other Democrats feel -- that he's a good man that got caught up in the whole convoluted war charge. There were definitely initial feelings of betrayal after the information he presented to the security council turned up erroneous (yellowcake, anyone?), but Powell became openly critical of the war push and admitted his deep shame about it. There are fewer hard feelings than you think.