Jeepz

Got to love it when they get caught flat footed in the headlights (to mix metaphors)! But I do think they really should rename the site to: Democrats In Action, not Democracy in Action.

Jeepz

Impy~

Visually, I cannot argue your point!

Jeepz

Time will tell if this is a truly valid threat or not. The language and format of the letter is purportedly different from other terrorist letters, so it may be a wind-up, the work of someone or some group opposed to the Islamic presence in France.

That being said, it is just the sort of thing the French government deserves for their intolerant, prideful attempt to strip poor muslim girls of their necessary head coverings. How dare a secular government ignore the rights of a religious group even if that religion doesn't actually require the girls to wear a head scarf.

With the heavy hand of the state removing hijabs, imagine the consternation of the boys indulging in their sport of "tournantes" only to find out that they have indulged themselves in a modest muslim girl instead of a slutty infidel.

One can only imagine their anquish, "How were we to know," said one, "she was wearing a skirt but no head scarf!" Another mutters, "She should have known better than to walk around without her scarf." So the comments go through the group of boys until the last one mentioned, "And she was really cute with great hooters!"

"It is all the fault of the French government!" they cried. "We all are just pawns manipulated by their disregard for our religious and cultural heritage."

The girl from the "tournante" had no comment.

Jeepz

[Note: Please read the above imaginary scenario with a sarcasm tinged filter.]

britmaveric~

You may have missed the discussion mrmnp and I had about "civil unions" versus marriage in another thread. We pretty much ended up agreeing that the only aspect a secular government should deal in is "civil unions".

Marriage is fundamentally a religious ceremony. Some religions don't allow you to "marry" outside the faith, don't acknowledge a civil divorce, and so on. The state (govenment), however, can define those unions as it chooses, limited only by the current law and, ultimately, the will of the people.

In the eyes of the state, all unions, heterosexual and homosexual, should be viewed as "civil unions" since the legal benefits are civil in nature. If the individuals wish a religious ceremony, in order to accrue spiritual benefit, that is fine and they should obey the rules of their church. But as far the state is concerned, the union is a civil one.

Ultimately, religious ceremony or civil, it is still the same catagory of activity, a civil union. The contract entered into by two people is not fundamentally changed regardless of the sexes involved.

No one, not even the state, can or should attempt to force people to "believe" that a homosexual union is identical to a heterosexual union in terms of their religion. But it can legally force people to treat them equally, just as it has for discrimination because of race, country of origin, and so forth.

Jeepz

sbk~

A good report, thanks for posting it. Historical perspective is useful in terms of precedents for legal decisions. Bush is off the mark on this one, in my humble opinion. But like many Christians (and other religious zealots) he wants to make sure that you run your life according to his principles.

If on of the Bush girls was homosexual, it might just give George W a bit better perspective on the whole matter.

Jeepz

KevinN~

Do you think that HenrikDK is a wind up? Maybe, it is hard to tell when someone ask questions or states a goal outside normal experience. I took it that he simply wanted to get away from people he knows now, not humanity in total. Moving to another country is a good way of doing that. Moving someplace that he can live inexpensively might be another motivator.

But I can see a bad moon rising, another drunken poet cussing at his dodgy laptop that just crashed, losing fifty thousand words of his rasion d'etre. What if Van Gogh had been using Photoshop? He was a bit edgy, no? I could see half his work glitched into the ether on a bad night.

But perhaps HenrikDK follows in the footsteps of Gauguin and needs the solace and inspiration of the tropics to focus. However it works out, no reason to hurry the end. He's in the midst of the "if only" demon and maybe Thailand is the answer. I have my doubts but it is his life. So if only he can find an inexpensive, low distraction, enviroment to gab with his muse perhaps the muse will talk back.

And how much shots cost in Denmark is anyone's guess. CDC info:SEA medical guide

Jeepz

I was impressed with the editorial from The Australian.

As Spain runs for cover, as Germany and France try to finagle exactly the sort of sweetheart deal in the Middle East so many people claim was the USA's actual motivation for war, the terrorists will continue to plan and execute attacks on western society.

As much as I truly admire much of European history and culture, I must admit that it seems to me Europe is becoming a bastion of cowardice. Perhaps a few hundred years under the tutelage of Imams and Khatibs will restore it.

Not that I'm all that pleased with the some of the warts of the USA, but perhaps, I am more accustomed to them. And I suspect that I'm just in one of those moods of impatience that occur occasionally.

Jeepz

sbk~

While I am not as "anti-Bush" as you by any means, there are things that his administration gets up to that does just raise my hackles. The scan of medical records along with their view that patients don't have any right to expect privacy was one.

In my current state of residence we passed a "death with diginity" law allowing someone that is terminal (within 6 months of dying) and rational to request medication that would allow them to die peacefully and quickly. Only they can do it and it has to be confirmed by two doctors basically. We passed it once, major political broohahah erupted (as was expected) so it was voted on again (by the people, not the politicians) and passed a second time.

Bush's administration was in trying to threaten doctors with federal prosecution if they obeyed the state law. Which I found unconscienable. States rights unless they don't happen to like those rights.

Now I realize that it is a touchy subject, but having watched people die slow and die quickly, I know what my preference is, and it is quite strong. I also believe that when the people pass a law twice, they are pretty serious about it.

I think that Bush was correct in the post 9/11 situation to go after Afghanistan. I'm more leery of his record in Iraq, but I do not assign it to some preplanned agenda. I assign it to bad intel along with Saddam's unwillingness to actually show they had gotten rid of *everything*.

So Bush, in no mood to tolerate disingenuous dictators, cleared Saddam off the board. That his intel was bad, that there were no discernable links to AQ afterwards is a giant political cowpie for him. But by themselves, they don't make him or his actions despicable. They may cost him an election.

Al Qaeda will be attempting to terrorize the US regardless of what we do in Iraq. They will attack western countries regardless of what those countries do in terms of supporting or opposing the US. There is no free and clear way to extricate the US or Europe from the terrorist's sights. So, if you can't make peace with them, there is only one thing left to do. Find them and kill them. Not a pretty picture and not the solution that "diversity" and "multicultural" segments of society like, but that is the way of it. If I appreciate nothing else, Bush is at least doing that.

Jeepz

Sorry, I should have pointed out, the info in the post above is for "Threads" that overheat.

Jeepz

Sorry folks, I am abashed that I did not offer Georgie-Porgie a welcome back when he first arrived. So I will now, Welcome Back Georgie!

And The Gentleman has returned. Welcome back Gentleman!

I am glad to see both of you back on board. I hope that it will be for a long and fruitful time. As a sign of my deep regard and concern, I have appended the info below to assist both of you.

~~~~~~~~~Material Time to burst into flame~~~~~~~~~

NOTES (from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Flammable Fabrics Act)

Rayon 3.0sec Cotton 4.8sec

Cotton and other cellulosic fibers (linen, rayon, lyocell, ramie) ignite easily, burn with a bright flame, smell like burning paper, and leave a white feathery ash. Weave density has a big impact on burning time.

Denim 5.0sec

Denim is made from cotton in a twill weave. Because it is closely woven it will burn more slowly, but because of the quantity of material, they burn longer.

Silk 7.6sec

Wool and silk (protein fibers) shrink from the flame, are hard to ignite, smell like burning meat or flesh, sputter as they burn and leave a crisp, foamy crushable residue. Although these fibers have natural flame retardance because they are difficult to ignite and burn slowly, fabrics of these fibers often burn easily because of an open fabric weave or knit and dyes or finishes present.

50/50 Cotton/polyester 9.2sec

Blended fabrics -- cotton and polyester fibers together in one fabric, for example, combine to make a fabric that doesn't burn like either fiber. Blends sometimes are more dangerous than either individual fiber

Polyester* 10sec

Polyester and nylon fibers may be slower to ignite, shrink and pull away from the flame source initially, but eventually will burn with a flame. As they burn, the melting residue holds heat and cools slowly to form a hard bead-like plastic melting residue holds heat and cools slowly to form a hard bead-like plastic residue. A chemical odor is given off. The melting residue is a very high temperature and can cause deep and severe skin burns. Acrylic fibers burn with a flaming, melting drip of molten material. All manufactured fibers burn at a high temperature and *can cause severe skin injury because they shrink as they burn and tend to stick to skin.

Info Courtesy of House Of Poi

Jeepz

Just a small point. Spain's terrorist bombing looks to have been Al Qaeda or an aligned group with ties to them. Spain supported the USA. Do you think if Spain had supported the USA in Afghanistan only, that AQ would not have been interested in punishing Spain? Why does Iraq become the only cause of terrorist activity?

It is the easiest cause to rally western critics around, I understand. But AQ was anti-US and anti-western culture before Iraq. AQ struck at the world trade center, and then it promised to hit other targets after that. But since the US has entered Iraq, it is like that has become the one and only reason that there is any residual terrorism. And that would be a very shakey assumption.

Jeepz

Y A W N ... Well, now that you mention it Bluecat, yes.

Gee, thanks for the votes of confidence there guys. I'm humbled.

Jeepz

I think it is unlikely that Spain would have been chosen now. But that Spain was potentially a target regardless of their participation, yes, at some point. The people (Islamic fundamentalists) that want to run the US and other western powers/influence out of the middle east have mentioned they feel that southern Spain is really theirs and should be reconquered.

It's not on the forefront of their agenda, but more a long range goal supposedly. Small solace to those that were wounded or maimed in the recent attack, even less so for those that loss loved ones.

The current Spanish government has a vested interest in pointing the finger at the ETA until the election is over, at the very least. An attack by the ETA would likely gain them votes among the Spanish population. However, an attack by AQ would cost them votes because the attack would have stemmed (supposedly) from Spain's participation in Iraq.

Jeepz

Somebody ought to set up something along the lines of Netflix, but as a used book club. Netflix, for those unaware of it, allows you to rent (view) as many DVD's as you want, with a limit of four out at any one time. They do it by the mail here in the States. You pay a monthly membership fee. But you could forseeably view twenty or more flix a month for that fee.

A used book club that ran on the same principal for members, say ten bucks a month for annual membership and fifteen a month for 90 day membership would let you take three or four books at a time. Return one, you can take another, return all three and you take three more.

It would depend on the feasibility of books delivered by Thai mail, I suppose. Something I have zero experience with. Shipping would have to be charged too, of course. Dunno if it would fly, but it might, depending on Thai mail costs, and what it would cost to import used books. You can get a ton of them into a shipping container.

Just posting an idea. Might have a storefront and/or maybe do a website to select your books from. The Expat's Book Club or something along those lines.

Jeepz

Blue~

Phht!

Jeepz

Okay, sorry. I was feeling a bit catty there! Good gosh, I know Canadians with superiority complexes. I know Vietnamese that have them, Koreans that indulge. I've run across a Scot or two that seems to feel implicitly superior. I worked for Chinese guy that was known to lapse into the occasional bout of "Too <deleted> Good To Talk To".

Give me a break. You could (or at least I could) say that about any nationality you want to pick. Some people, a significant number, just seem to need to feel superior to those around them. Sometimes just a little bit superior, sometimes a whole lot superior.

There is a whole world of people out there that are barely civil. They seem to be scattered among all the races and nationalities on the face of the earth. But that how I see and feel.

Perhaps he said "Superior firepower"? Was he referencing a military or war enviroment? We occasionally do have superior firepower in military engagements. Sometimes we don't. Normally, we prefer if we do.

Now, painting Americans as "superior" or rather "having a superiority complex" because the current political leader does this or that is, well, short sighted at best. Do I think every Frenchman is in lock step with Chirac? Does every Brit poodle walk in time with Blair? (Whom I like, by the way, poodle or not.)

And even if I agree with some things Bush does, do I then have to agree with every single thing he does or says?

If I can understand some of the concerns about western culture's effect on Arab society, does that make me a supporter of Al Quida?

If you are against the Iraq war and American intervention in the Middle East, does that mean you support the re-establishment of a Caliphate in Southern Spain?

"Wait, Wait!" you say. "These are long jumps of logic with little or no support. Baryshnivkov should be able to make such leaps!"

And I would be forced to agree. Bush might not.

Jeepz

Ermm ... uhmm ... might try Angara at New Petchburi Road Soi 41. 1500 baht includes ... uhmm ... everything, so I hear.

Jeepz

Superior, did I say anything about superior? I don't for a moment feel superior to anyone (except my boss when he's being really dense). If some Americans feel superior to other people, they are mistaken. We all feel justly proud of where we come from, that's normally a given. So I don't take it bad if someone really likes the fact they are from Queensland or the Lorraine or Milan or where ever you want to point your finger at on the world globe.

And I don't take it amiss if you don't agree with us all or any of the time. I might not send you a Christmas card, but that's about the extent of it. Heck, some people blame us for starting WWII because we wouldn't sell oil and steel to the Japanese so they could continue to assemble their "Co-Prosperity Sphere" in China. Viewpoints differ. The Chinese thought it was rather nice of us to cut the Japanese off. But others feel we forced those Japanese to attack us, drove them to it, if you will, because of our short sighted, self-oriented policies.

In the words of that great sage, "So it goes."

And yes, nothing is forever.

Jeepz

Bluecat~

Sorry, I didn't mean to be incomprehensible. But I'm not sure what the problem you had with tutsi and my exchange. Swap simply means to trade items. A "straight swap" means one for one trade without any other consideration (money).

Tutsi~

Many bookstores offer credit, but normally I've seen something on the 2 for 1 line, you give them two used books, you get to take one used book home. I must come from the Ebenezer Scrooge school of business. Ideally, each transaction should make a profit. If I'm not taking cash payment on a trade, I need to make money not only on the item I sold, but on the item I accepted in trade as well.

Jeepz

People hate yanks because for all our warts, we are still willing to tell them to piss off if we need to. I think it is something we got from the French. The British surely never told anyone to take a flying whatever at the moon. The Aussies and New Zealand contingent are all very proper and extremely sensitive to such a faux pas. No way they would indulge in anything remotely like that. So I'm pretty sure it really has to be the French.

Well, maybe the Germans. We (people in the States) almost spoke German instead of English at one time. The Germans sometimes like to tell people what to do. Well, they used to. Wasn't it a pudgey brit bulldog of a politician that said, "Germans are either at your throat or your feet"? So maybe it is a German influence, or a German-French influence. Or maybe it is just unique in the human experience that Americans actually permit themselves viewpoints without seeking permission from everyone else on the planet. How very self-indulgent of us!

Jeepz

Good luck tutsi, I don't know many book sellers that can keep their doors open by doing straight swaps.

Jeepz

The french or continental cheek kissing doesn't bother me at all. The lip to lip thing makes me a bit fidgety. So I would be fidgeting alot while the Russian men did their thing, but I'd probably stick it out to see those cute female gymnasts.

It is really my personal view, not something I'm defending as who can do what where. And rules of conduct are a bit variable. I expect a bit of lip locking at some places, dimly lit bars catering to young or the park in the evening. But in general, I agree with mrmnp and most everyone else. Serious displays of affection should be private.

Jeepz

Closer to 20%, according to the data I've seen.

Somebody must have left the closet door open, eh?

Boon Mee's comment about PDA's (Public Displays of Affection) pretty much runs true for me. I don't have a problem if a guy and gal kiss (versus major tongue wrestling) but get a tad uncomfy if two guys do it in public. Not saying that is right or wrong, it is just how I feel internally. Now two gals do it, and I'm not nearly so offended. Gosh, wonder why. No one said life was fair.

Jeepz

Ulysses G~

Sorry, I didn't catch you were quoting Thomas Sowell. So please don't take anything I said personally, but who wrote it doesn't really change anything in my reply.

I applaud the fact that Blacks (Afro-Americans/People of Color/etc etc) have varied political viewpoints. None the less, Mr Sowell's arguments are less than persuasive.

A rehash of my discussion with mrmnp in a thumbnail is: the government, a secular body, should be concerned only with "civil unions" as it has little or no pervue over religious affairs. Civil unions are simply those relationships legally recognized by the state. The state can, by the will of the people and the law of the land, recognize those relationships it wants. All marriages are civil unions (provided they have the license), but in the eyes of some churches or rather religions, not all civil unions are marriages. The same holds true for divorces. Not all churches or religions recognize a civil divorce.

That has the effect of negating a separate but equal problem that seems to disturb so many people. One, that does not disturb me nearly so much, but is easily dealt with.

So in my state the law say a marriage license will be granted to males 18 and over, and not encumbered (already married) and females 18 and over, not encumbered. It does not say " one male and one female". It does not specify a man and woman. Just that men and women, eighteen and over, can get them.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, if the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a "civil union" (one that is a distinctly different legal entity) are identical to marriage, except for the genders of the individuals invovled, is it discrimination? This is a different "civil union" concept that the one I proposed above. And since it is not available to everyone, it is obviously discriminatory. Whether that discrimination works any real hardship is the actual question.

If benefits were offered for one and refused to the other, then it would. If, for example, marriages could adopt, but civil unions could not, then there would be an actual hardship caused by the distinction. If people were hired by preference of one versus the other, that also would qualify.

So the existance of a civil union for gays versus a marriage for straights does not by itself create a hardship, but it might open the door for their occurance. That is seen occasionally with employment forms that simply ask if you are married or single or divorced. People have been denied jobs simply because they fell into a catagory that the employer did not see as desirable for the duties involved. That it was illegal didn't matter, since the employer would rarely give their real reason for not hiring the individual.

That hasn't kept the question from being asked, because that is information an employer needs in order to provide benefits to their employees. But I can forsee an employer (or their insurer) making actuarial charts on health care costs for marriage versus civil unions (perhaps with an eye toward HIV treatments or some other supposedly identifiable risk factor) and then assessing their costs as a selection criteria.

So I think we should find a solution that limits or negates that potential. Which means we need to lump all of them together. Do we bring the homosexual unions into the "marriage" definition and totally tick off the fundamentalist/traditionalist groups? Do we recognize "civil unions" as the secular aspect of marriage and simply license those and leave the "marriage" aspect to the various religions?

Back to you, Ulysses G.

Jeepz

Ulysses G~

While I agree with you on the duties and responsibilities of an elected official obeying the laws of the land, the duties and responsibilities of a judge are not the same, in this context. They were performing their job, not subverting it. Now, I realize you probably don't like their take on the law in question, but looking at that law in the light of the state constitution and coming to a decision was in their job description. Nothing subversive about that.

Marriage is not specifically about procreation. Not everyone that gets married (under current heterosexual definition) have children. Why they don't varies. A seventy year old man marries a sixty five year old woman. No serious expectation of offspring there. Would you argue they should not have the benefit of matrimony? Probably not. Nor would you argue that a man or woman physically incapable of conceiving be barred from the sanctity of wedlock. Or would you?

What you are argue, it seems, is that centuries old custom (or tradition) is under attack. But I fail to see that attack. There is nothing in the extension of legally recognized bonding to homosexuals that prevents heterosexual couples from enjoying the same benefits of matrimony that they do currently.

There may be religious reasons for denying homosexual rights, or even tolerating homosexual's existance. But those reasons do not have a bearing in a secular society. Perhaps under a Sharia based legal system, you could have a more appropriate argument.

Custom and tradition by themselves are not sufficient for the denial of those benefits to homosexuals. Historical precedent is a slippery slope, as I have pointed out to advocates of homosexual marriage rights. Previously wives and children were the husband's chattel. Women couldn't own property, children had no rights what so ever. That was in place for a long time, but it is no more.

You may look back wistfully to that period when a man was king of his own home and women were legally subservient and could not be beaten with a stick larger than their husband's thumb. Personally, I don't, though I occasionally question why we extended the vote to women. Usually that occurs when I'm discussing a point of politics with a female who has a radically different viewpoint. But then, I get the same stab of remorse when arguing similar points with males of suspect political views. However, I have resigned myself to fact that they all get to vote, whether I think it is good thing or not.

The argument about granting the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage (or civil union) is actually, at its heart, about recognizing whether homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. Older citizens in the USA have a bit of a problem with this due to the enviroment we grew up in. Younger citizens generally do not. (Yes, that is a fairly large brush I'm using.) The older group worries that recognizing homosexual relationships will promote a lifestyle and sexual identity they view as suspect at best and often as simply perverse. The young tykes generally see it as a civil rights discussion, not a moral one.

If homosexuals are allowed to be who they are, without legal suppression of their sexuality, then there is no reason that they cannot create legal relationships between themselves just as heterosexuals do. The older generation may be uncomfortable with that, but only for awhile. We are older and not all that far down the road it won't really matter if it ticks us off or not.

Jeepz