tkyrchncs

He got what he deserved!

I'm thinking that it isn't the system that's in place, so much as it is the apathy of the American people of late. I have a reasonably intelligent nephew, age 24, who does not know the names of any executive officials of the US besides President and VP, and none of the state ones besides governor, nor can he name his congressman or state delegate or Senators or state senator. He has never called any of them or written to any of them or even emailed any of them. The voter turnout here is almost never as high as 50%, and when I ask people why they don't vote, I get snide and cynical answers. Many of them are actually AFRAID of their government(s). It makes me want to cry.

I am not as optimistic about the loyal opposition (I'm a life-long Democrat) as you are, D'Artagnon. The last election was the Republicans' to lose, and lose they did. By NOT unifying early and working effectively for ONE candidate.

By the way, the SCOTUS has stated in a couple of opinions that marriage IS a fundamental right, just like free speech and freedom of religion. I think that is the real basis for the recent decision about same-sex marriage. Some random government clerk does not get to decide whom you can marry any more than they can decide what church you can belong to.

What many other countries have done is formally separate legal and religious marriage. Religious marriage can be performed by anyone, anywhere, according to the belief of those involved. Legal marriage recognized by the government must be performed by someone with state magisterial authority to do so-judges, magistrates; in some places, clerks or the court or military authorities. People in Spain and Japan regularly have religious marriage ceremonies and then appear before the appropriate state magistrate and at that time become LEGALLY married. What is really happening in the US is that states grant magisterial authority to perform legal marriages to certain religious authorities, and one ceremony suffices for both religion and state. We could easily separate the two, with only the legal marriage required for state recognition, and the state taking no notice of the religious ceremony or lack of one. And everyone here is correct: if you will not or cannot perform basic duties of your job, then you cannot have that job. If it is your job to issue licenses, then you must issue them to all who legally qualify for those licenses. If your religion forbids it, then it is your religion that is limiting your job opportunities, NOT your job interfering with your religion! You cannot claim a right to a job you will not do based on your First Amendment rights, how silly!

When people forget that all religion is properly about SELF-GOVERNANCE by each individual, and try to make it into political governance of other people, we are going to have problems, and the brand of religion is immaterial. If you wish for me to follow your religion, set me an example I will want to follow. If you threaten me or attempt to force me, you do so at your own physical AND moral peril. I have traveled extensively in Latin America and in Europe and have in nearly all cases been treated with cordiality and congeniality. A waiter in Spain tried to pick a quarrel with me about Ronald Reagan one time; in spite of being a life-long Democrat and no fan of the Republican Idol, I replied "He is my commander-in-chief. I will not argue with any foreigner about any elected American leader. I am here for a pleasant dinner. Desist." People of many nationalities seated at other tables in the establishment cheered and applauded. In another instance in Acapulco where a table of Americans embarrassed me by being obnoxiously drunk and free-handed with the waitresses, I left the girls an exceptional tip and told them, "We are not all like that." They all grinned and thanked me, and told me it was a pretty regular thing for people on vacation, wherever they were from. I appreciate Dennis P.'s quote; it is one of my favorites also. I am embarrassed by the lengths our government has gone to with spying and re-regulating everything from banking to flying to firearms purchases as a result, all in the name of "security". I think it is a shame that our schools do not have ranges and armories and required instruction in marksmanship and firearms safety and maintenance. I think we should be vigilant about explosives on public transportation, but personal weapons, rather than being forbidden, should be encouraged. I think the intelligence agencies of western nations should combine forces to locate and kill all members of terrorist organizations. Those who would bomb or shoot as a result of expression of opinion need to just be eliminated, in the same way as any rabid animal is, quickly. Those who blow up buildings in America or shoot soldiers in Great Britain or shoot up a magazine publisher in France or murder school boys and abduct school girls in Nigeria need to just be found and put instantly to death. Consistently. There needs to be an understanding that such individuals and groups are not permitted on our planet. Religion is not a sufficient excuse. Nothing is.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. Consensual sex between adults in private is covered under the fundamental right to privacy according to the SCOTUS. The right to own property in common with any other person capable of making his own decisions is fundamental. The right to have children is fundamental, whether natural or adopted. There exists in every state a procedure to change one's legal name (the one registered at birth, in most cases) to any name one wishes, as long as there is no purpose to defraud. Many states follow common law and allow anyone to use any name one chooses to use, as long as there is no purpose to defraud, and to have that serve as a (an additional) legal name. The SCOTUS has already ruled, on four separate occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right, even for those in prison, sentenced to life, or to death. Where are the issues here? Fundamental rights are not subject to votes, by ANYONE, the people, or any of their representatives, elected or appointed. It is the DUTY of the court to abrogate ALL votes, public or legislative, attempting to interfere with fundamental rights; that is one of the primary reasons for the existence of courts in general and the SCOTUS in particular. The SCOTUS has said, "Get Real!" to the majority of the nation, on several occasions, and I think it is past time that they do that on this issue. What is the point of allowing this situation to persist when it gives "conservatives" (?) hope that they might prevail, and causes so much injustice to so many gay couples?

The task was to find a use for an empty lot, and the gage of creativity was the number and novelty of ideas. This does not suggest that practicality or profitability was any part of the task, solutions, or evaluation of the results. Participants can "win" by being outlandish and ridiculous. Therefore this study is only suggestive of one that might be conducted in a workplace or business, where those two limiting factors are critical. Those two factors might also supply, in a work environment, the "same page" effect surmised to be produced among students by gender exclusivity. And I think that the reason that the term "politically correct" worked in this student environment when "polite" and "inoffensive" did not is that the latter two terms generally apply to common social standards, while the first comes into play any time any single individual finds anything objectionable, whether most of the group would or not. That is my problem with this phrase in the work environment. I cannot decide to be or not to be politically correct; only YOU can decide if I am. My violation of "correctness" is not dependent on my will, or even my action, but only on the perception of any ONE of a (possibly quite large and diverse) group. In my opinion this is an unfair, illogical, and burdensome standard which potentially grants immeasurable power to one team member for mischief, retaliation, aggression, and abuse of authority.

Who is to judge? Is an illness of the mind, in fact, any different from an illness of the body? If the person is miserable and no longer wishes to live, does it matter if the misery arises within the mind or the body, if in fact there is any real difference between them? At what cost to the person and the society do we keep a "mentally" ill person from committing suicide? Send someone each day, perhaps more than once a day, to administer meds, by force if necessary? Lock them permanently in a padded room, naked? Wouldn't these tactics also work on the "physically" ill? Why wouldn't we do this with them as well? Just because we are pretty sure most of them won't live as long as most "mentally" ill persons could? Isn't the whole argument of those in favor of "permitted" or "assisted" suicide that each person should be able to decide when there is insufficient quality of life to continue?

My question is: can we actually prevent anyone from committing suicide who is determined to do so? Should we as a society have any right, or do we have any obligation, to even try to prevent the death of anyone who wants to die?

if you treat anyone differently because of his skin color, that is racism. It doesn't matter if you love them or hate them because of it, it's still racism. It's making the distinction, for benefit or detriment, on the basis of factors beyond the person's control that's the problem. I have withdrawn on a number of occasions, because I refuse to participate, even tacitly, in racist banter, and I will not be so ill mannered as to quarrel with my host's other guests in his house. I do make it clear why I am withdrawing when I do. I believe that people's behavior, including their speech, should be ruled by their intellect more than their emotions, and that one's emotions require close introspective monitoring in order to avoid making foolish comments like my boyfriend's friend did-no race is demonstrably more trustworthy than any other, whatever her experience might be. And if that is the way she truly feels, even if based on experience, SHE has the same problem she seems to be attributing to another whole race of people.

My positions on numerous issues are all over the board, but believe myself to be a Liberal in the true, old-fashioned sense of the word: protector of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and enforcer of equality under the law. That makes it practically impossible to vote for any recent Republican candidates for National, and lately even State office, and difficult to vote for Democrats. I also have had a great deal of problems with our last Republican Presidents' foreign and economic policies, though it appears Obama has had his own fubars in the foreign policy arena too. Nobody's economic policies are sound: Republicans favor the rich and their policies do not "trickle down" wealth, but concentrate it in the hands of fewer and fewer, and the Democrats increase the welfare class with government give-aways that keep people out of the work force. I am heartily disgusted with our national policies in the Middle East altogether, both in Congress and the Executive branch, and think we should just bow out, and should have a century ago. Period. Provide aid in natural disasters, and buy resources from anyone strong enough to hold them long enough to sell them to us. That's it. No politics. No soldiers except to aid earthquake victims or similar. Americans should be able to have firearms, as many as we would like, that fire as rapidly as they can be made to fire, as long as you are not demonstrably insane, and carry them anywhere we choose to. Whatever anyone's moral stand, it is beyond the scope of GOVERNMENT to decide AT ANY POINT that any citizen must bear a child. Gay people are only an issue because straight people choose to make them one, but good Americans do not believe that people's rights are subject to mob rule. I work the polls, and have for years, but each election makes me sicker. I want one election before I die in which I have trouble deciding which GOOD candidate would be BETTER for my nation instead of always trying to decide which crook will hurt us least! And we are subject to countless Executive Orders because the Congress refuses to do its job, and has for decades!

Yes, political correctness has gone too far. To argue that "all lives matter" insults or demeans anyone is CLEARLY unbalanced. And yes, there is absolutely a bit of "just get over it" in saying that in response to "black lives matter", (NOT what Dr. McCartney did, by the way). That is what we all have to do. We all have to get over prejudices held by our parents, grandparents, and American society in general, INCLUDING Black people. I was at a dinner party a few years back, in Denver, the guest of my then boyfriend, and the only Caucasian there. A fellow guest, a black female, said, "I just don't trust white people like I trust black people." There were a few agreeing voices, so I did what I have always done in Virginia (I am an 8th generation Virginian, and still live in the Old Dominion) when racist comments come to the dinner table: I stood, thanked my host for his hospitality, and stated that I would not remain at table for racist conversation, and left. Did I disrespect her feelings? YOU'RE DAMNED STRAIGHT I DID! They're not respectable feelings! It isn't just these recent cases; everyone seems to have a chip on his shoulder these days, be it based on race, religion, politics, gender (including identity and expression), politics, or whatever. It sometimes seems impossible to speak without offending someone, and the older I get, the less I care if I do. Those who take offense where none was intended are creating their own misery, so feel miserable if you want to: MERRY CHRISTMAS, BOYS AND GIRLS!

It is the STATE that requires auto insurance, for the PRIVILEGE of driving a private vehicle, if in fact it is required. In Virginia where I live you can pay an uninsured motorist fee and not have insurance. Which means that when you buy insurance, you need a rider to cover uninsured drivers, if you want to be sure you can do something about your car if you're involved in an accident with one of them. And the STATE is the entity issuing the license. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even HINTS that the Federal Government may require me to purchase anything from a private vendor, and the fundamental concept there is that the Federal Government is explicitly FORBIDDEN to do anything it is not SPECIFICALLY authorized to do. There are a number of options in terms of health insurance, and care for the uninsured. We could choose not to provide health care at public expense for anyone not Social Security eligible. If the hospitals or doctors take in charity cases, let it be with their OWN charity. We could also choose to provide health care for everyone, and raise the taxes to accommodate that. I don't see any practical difference between a tax and a required purchase.

It is a problem for me that the Federal Government thinks it may require me to purchase something, ANYTHING, from a private vendor. A BIG problem. And it doesn't matter whether or not any branch thinks it's constitutional, or even if it actually IS constitutional. It definitely should NOT be, and that is a problem for me. As Ken has said, there are ways to guarantee universal care. And Lord Roland, those of us with insurance have ALWAYS paid for those who don't. Why do you think a hospital room (just the room) costs $800 a night for those who can pay (either privately or with insurance)? It certainly isn't because that's how much the space costs per person per night.