He sounds like a great mature dog. I had Britneys when I was growing up and the older made a good hunting dog, the other, just chased steers. Loved them both and they slept on my bed growing up.
Don't get another dog now that he's older. He'll enjoy the time with you more and so will you. :)
Yes, but marriage currently involves the "state" interjecting itself into people's lives when it's not necessary. They don't call it a "marriage liscense" for nothing. You need permit to get married.
Oh yes, marriage benefits are very popular. As are the mortgage tax deduction, the dependant deduction, interest payment deductions, etc. What does popularity have to do with consistency and logic? Hey, maybe if america supported everyone having a ferrari f40 we could all have one!?
You made a very good point: "Recognizing gay marriage, makes the state officially recognize homosexuality as acceptable, moral, normal, etc. See Rus talking about how equality is a wonderful thing." except what you're advocating is increasing inequality, because you've increased the size of the group getting a benefit at the expense of the rest of the population.
Do I think it can be done? Doubtfull, but I wasn't making a point about the practicality of doing it.
Oh, I think it's coming boys and girls. The flood gates are opening. It wasn't but a few days after last November's ratificaiton of SSM in a variety of states that posts were going up advocating for this. Frankly, the logic is consistent, the rights and issues are similiar, and to all you had advocated that SSM was ok but now THAT'S the line in the sand, welcome to what the "traditional marriage" folks faced.
"I think plural marriage has a problem that same-sex marriage did not. Mainly, its going to be hard to nearly impossible to come up with legal regime for plural marriage that is both equitable and isn’t a legal cluster fu*k." True, but see above, i'll get figured out.
I think it would have been a lot easier to just end the whole gov't recognized marriage thing in the first place, but no, no one wanted that. We'll, we're going to end up at essentially the same place, with the gov't recognizing everything and nothing...
Not quite,
As someone who's lived in the Mid Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and spent extensive time in the South, it's not that simple. BTW, I've also been to South Africa. So let's compare.
Pacific Northwest: I saw a lot less racism in the PNW than anywherre else. A much more tolerant, or perhaps, more of a libertarian "do your own thing" vibe.
South Africa: Lot of attitudes straight out of USA circa 1950s.
In the other two locations, there was just as much racism in the Mid-Atlantic as the South-racism just manifested itself differently. In the South, you were more likely to run into someone who would spout off racist remarks during a casual convo upon first meeting you or going about you daily life. In the Mid Atlantic, folks "felt you out first" to see if you were "sided with them" before making any racist comments.
Gotta laugh at the whole kickstater thing. Hey, it's their site, they can do whatever....but..
I really think this is a bit overblown. I've read up on some of this stuff..hey, if you're in the market, it's hard not to be seduced by "you'll be banging super models asap" sell points, but there are grains of truth in these approaches/techniques/attitudes.
I know, i've used some of the techniques and they work. I don't know what it is, but a lot of sucessfull women love it when guys are indifferent to them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The IRS has historically been used to investigate "enemies", be they left or right, depending upon who's in power or who's making the request (say an individual senator, etc.)
The only good that comes out of it, is that when one side "discovers" this and there is a dust up, and some heads roll.
I disagree. There is no case for intervention, ever, baring some global crisis, like nukes. Given the reason these places are even more screwed up than normal being past intervention, I see no justifiable reason to intervene. It always ends badly, leaves a mess, costs more in blood and treasure than ever expected, and yields unintended consequences. Let them sort out their own problems.
How would you like it if China decided to intervene in America because of some internal squabble we were having? Stay out of other people's lives and expect the same. I can regret that they can't get their stuff together, but I'm not going to do a damn thing about it. Their problem, theirs to fix.
Call me a monster. I call it cold hard rationality.
Dealing with spill over and related events isn't the same as intervention. More meddling is only going to screw the place up even more. It's one thing to monitor borders for chemical weapons moving out of the country or being sold to terrorists. It's an entirely different thing to give anti aircraft weapons to the rebels, to bomb airfields, and supply soldiers with ammo and weapons, training and "support", by which I mean special forces "boots on the ground".
The reason Syria is a mess is because of Western power intervention from ages past and I see no reason to get into another mess again. Why? It's not "winnable". Second, frankly, I don't give a damn about the the Syrians, the massacre of their children or anything else in the god forsaken part of the world. "The problems of others are not my concern". We've got enough problems to fix within our own borders.
I've been "away from the news" for a bit, but I don't recall seeing any evidence of Sarin gas use. I'm sure the evidence is "classified" so us proles can't see it. I find it unlikely that Assad would use it knowing that that would open the floodgates to our intervention. More likely that it's a set up. That being said, we should not be going in anyway.
That regime change in Libya and Egypt and Afghanistan and Iraq are all turning out so well. Responsibility to Protect? Please, only if it's in our strategic interest, never a goal in and of itself. The whole region is going up in flames and we're fanning it.
I used to live in an Exurb and when (I was married) we moved out there, there were only a few restaurants-An Arbys, a bad Japanese steak house, some Irish pub or American bar/grill and a kebob shop.
We ate at the kebob shop all the time, it was the only decent place. After surveying our neighbors at a party, we were given lots of places to go that were good "for kids". Having none, we steered clear of them, except the Japanese steak house, which was a major disappointment as the kids were running around between the tables making a huge racket.
Finally, finally, a good sushi shop opened up and a Panera Bread. Life became civilized then. Shame I had to leave it.
"YES! Exactly this. It’s pretty much summed up in the NRA-style argument “If we restrict guns, only criminals will have guns.” It assumes a basic divide between ‘criminals’ and ‘regular people’, with the assumption that ‘regular people’ would never commit gun crimes. The assumption is simply untrue."
Of course this is true. If you restrict/ban legal owneship, the majority of folks, being non criminals, will comply. The criminals won't, because by their very nature, they are criminals. And the majority of regular people do not commit crimes. Some do, but most don't. Unlike criminals, which again by defintion, commit crimes.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Bestiality!”
First it was SSM, then Polyamory, now this!
Won't SOMEBODY PLEASE think of the childrens!
On “Murphy at Seven”
He sounds like a great mature dog. I had Britneys when I was growing up and the older made a good hunting dog, the other, just chased steers. Loved them both and they slept on my bed growing up.
Don't get another dog now that he's older. He'll enjoy the time with you more and so will you. :)
On “Next Up: Polygamy”
Yes, but marriage currently involves the "state" interjecting itself into people's lives when it's not necessary. They don't call it a "marriage liscense" for nothing. You need permit to get married.
"
See my responses to that post?
"
Oh yes, marriage benefits are very popular. As are the mortgage tax deduction, the dependant deduction, interest payment deductions, etc. What does popularity have to do with consistency and logic? Hey, maybe if america supported everyone having a ferrari f40 we could all have one!?
You made a very good point: "Recognizing gay marriage, makes the state officially recognize homosexuality as acceptable, moral, normal, etc. See Rus talking about how equality is a wonderful thing." except what you're advocating is increasing inequality, because you've increased the size of the group getting a benefit at the expense of the rest of the population.
Do I think it can be done? Doubtfull, but I wasn't making a point about the practicality of doing it.
"
I don't see how a "marriage arrangement" that a women freely enters into is a step backward for her or those of her sex.
I'd argue it's actually "femminist" to advocate it.
"
Yep, by ending the whole gov't recognized marrriage deal, you ARE expanding rights. And really, is it that hard?
"the US gov't no longer conveys any legal benefits to marriage". Federal agencies: make it so.
I can't image the "dirty work" to change all federal regulations to allow for SSM is simpler than simply removing them.
"
Oh, I think it's coming boys and girls. The flood gates are opening. It wasn't but a few days after last November's ratificaiton of SSM in a variety of states that posts were going up advocating for this. Frankly, the logic is consistent, the rights and issues are similiar, and to all you had advocated that SSM was ok but now THAT'S the line in the sand, welcome to what the "traditional marriage" folks faced.
"I think plural marriage has a problem that same-sex marriage did not. Mainly, its going to be hard to nearly impossible to come up with legal regime for plural marriage that is both equitable and isn’t a legal cluster fu*k." True, but see above, i'll get figured out.
I think it would have been a lot easier to just end the whole gov't recognized marriage thing in the first place, but no, no one wanted that. We'll, we're going to end up at essentially the same place, with the gov't recognizing everything and nothing...
On “Pronunciation Nation”
Well, not in the south, but where I come from "tour" is pronounced "tur".
On “Two Stories About Race”
She should have said,
Yes, I called the black guy who robbed me, sticking a gun to my head, threatening to kill me, a nasty word. Would you have called him "sweetie"?
On “The Pick-Up Apologist: Kickstarter, Reddit, The Awl, and The Real Problem With Seduction Culture”
Actually I'm saying that, in my limited experience, some of the recomendations work.
"
My comments were for one particular element of "game", the indifferent attitude, not the crepo hand on penis part.
On “Two Stories About Race”
Not quite,
As someone who's lived in the Mid Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and spent extensive time in the South, it's not that simple. BTW, I've also been to South Africa. So let's compare.
Pacific Northwest: I saw a lot less racism in the PNW than anywherre else. A much more tolerant, or perhaps, more of a libertarian "do your own thing" vibe.
South Africa: Lot of attitudes straight out of USA circa 1950s.
In the other two locations, there was just as much racism in the Mid-Atlantic as the South-racism just manifested itself differently. In the South, you were more likely to run into someone who would spout off racist remarks during a casual convo upon first meeting you or going about you daily life. In the Mid Atlantic, folks "felt you out first" to see if you were "sided with them" before making any racist comments.
On “Texas GOP Misses Deadline, Votes Anyway, Changes Timestamp”
Heh, you could say the same thing about Demos in MD and a few other tightly held states.
On “The Pick-Up Apologist: Kickstarter, Reddit, The Awl, and The Real Problem With Seduction Culture”
Gotta laugh at the whole kickstater thing. Hey, it's their site, they can do whatever....but..
I really think this is a bit overblown. I've read up on some of this stuff..hey, if you're in the market, it's hard not to be seduced by "you'll be banging super models asap" sell points, but there are grains of truth in these approaches/techniques/attitudes.
I know, i've used some of the techniques and they work. I don't know what it is, but a lot of sucessfull women love it when guys are indifferent to them.
On “Circling the Drain in the NSA Surveillance Debate”
That's why I'm for ending it. Full stop.
Any power someone has will eventually be abused. We see this all over the gov't. The only way to prevent abuses is to eleminate the acess to the data.
On “Gooses and Ganders”
It already has and will continue to do so.
"
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The IRS has historically been used to investigate "enemies", be they left or right, depending upon who's in power or who's making the request (say an individual senator, etc.)
The only good that comes out of it, is that when one side "discovers" this and there is a dust up, and some heads roll.
On “Waiting for Halabja”
I disagree. There is no case for intervention, ever, baring some global crisis, like nukes. Given the reason these places are even more screwed up than normal being past intervention, I see no justifiable reason to intervene. It always ends badly, leaves a mess, costs more in blood and treasure than ever expected, and yields unintended consequences. Let them sort out their own problems.
How would you like it if China decided to intervene in America because of some internal squabble we were having? Stay out of other people's lives and expect the same. I can regret that they can't get their stuff together, but I'm not going to do a damn thing about it. Their problem, theirs to fix.
Call me a monster. I call it cold hard rationality.
"
Dealing with spill over and related events isn't the same as intervention. More meddling is only going to screw the place up even more. It's one thing to monitor borders for chemical weapons moving out of the country or being sold to terrorists. It's an entirely different thing to give anti aircraft weapons to the rebels, to bomb airfields, and supply soldiers with ammo and weapons, training and "support", by which I mean special forces "boots on the ground".
"
The reason Syria is a mess is because of Western power intervention from ages past and I see no reason to get into another mess again. Why? It's not "winnable". Second, frankly, I don't give a damn about the the Syrians, the massacre of their children or anything else in the god forsaken part of the world. "The problems of others are not my concern". We've got enough problems to fix within our own borders.
Yes, I'm a cold hearted SOB. Deal with it.
On “The Shockingly Small Worth of a Woman’s Life: Texas, Gun Culture, and Black & White Worlds”
Nope, I loathe country music and bluegrass in particular. :)
On “Small Arms in Syria”
Jesus.
I've been "away from the news" for a bit, but I don't recall seeing any evidence of Sarin gas use. I'm sure the evidence is "classified" so us proles can't see it. I find it unlikely that Assad would use it knowing that that would open the floodgates to our intervention. More likely that it's a set up. That being said, we should not be going in anyway.
That regime change in Libya and Egypt and Afghanistan and Iraq are all turning out so well. Responsibility to Protect? Please, only if it's in our strategic interest, never a goal in and of itself. The whole region is going up in flames and we're fanning it.
And folks wonder why I’m an anti-interventionist.
On “Retail Curiosities”
I used to live in an Exurb and when (I was married) we moved out there, there were only a few restaurants-An Arbys, a bad Japanese steak house, some Irish pub or American bar/grill and a kebob shop.
We ate at the kebob shop all the time, it was the only decent place. After surveying our neighbors at a party, we were given lots of places to go that were good "for kids". Having none, we steered clear of them, except the Japanese steak house, which was a major disappointment as the kids were running around between the tables making a huge racket.
Finally, finally, a good sushi shop opened up and a Panera Bread. Life became civilized then. Shame I had to leave it.
On “The Shockingly Small Worth of a Woman’s Life: Texas, Gun Culture, and Black & White Worlds”
"YES! Exactly this. It’s pretty much summed up in the NRA-style argument “If we restrict guns, only criminals will have guns.” It assumes a basic divide between ‘criminals’ and ‘regular people’, with the assumption that ‘regular people’ would never commit gun crimes. The assumption is simply untrue."
Of course this is true. If you restrict/ban legal owneship, the majority of folks, being non criminals, will comply. The criminals won't, because by their very nature, they are criminals. And the majority of regular people do not commit crimes. Some do, but most don't. Unlike criminals, which again by defintion, commit crimes.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.