Molly

How? By daring to explore what it takes to reach ' fair'? To suggest that there's such a thing as fairness to victims, too? If a victim won't come forward because prosecution is as traumatic as the assault, that's going beyond 'fair trial' for the accused to giving them immunity! By wondering about our cultural norms, questioning the consistency of some of our assumptions, or wondering what it might feel like if the shoe was on the other foot? Look, I'm darned uncomfortable about Islamic coverings, but I choose not to knee-jerk into wholesale condemnation of them without first clarifying for myself what it is that I'm reacting to. To do that, I have to question some nuances. I'm not completely convinced that jurors need to see faces-- but neither am I unconvinced. Nor am I engaged in 'debate', assuming a particular POV. The point here, for me, is to talk about it, and perhaps come to a better understanding. You seem to have established conviction about it... so... convince me.

Keepitsimple.... all I can say is 'Wow.' But I have to add that it wasn't the journalist who created the tempest. What a jackass answer to a straight question!

Kimmys point would be fine if Goodyear was just the minister of state for technology, but he's not. He's also responsible for the money that goes into pure research- of the sort that won't be bringing products onto the market any time soon, but which illuminate the workings of the world around us. Is that being decided on a theological basis? How goes the funding for the Royal Tyrell?

Stow the pejoratives, Kimmy. You can make the case without 'em, or explain why you feel that way while using 'em, but to just expostulate adds nothing but colourful words to the discussion. __________________________________________ If a visible face, even if intensely disguised, is so essential to ascertaining truthfulness, should the blind, or even the squinty, then be ineligible for jury duty? (Likely let's me off that hook for jury duty. )

Offering tinfoil because you've stocked up on so much of it, Blueblood? (I thought the 'coup' blather, pulling an 'Animal Farm' on the very nature of parliament was as over-the-top as it could get. How breathtakingly wrong could I have been!)

As disturbing as it is to be aware of such a collossal conflict of interest for one of our seniour staffers, it is double disturbing that he refuses to clarify the nature and degree of that conflict, preferring instead to pussyfoot, tapdance, and double-shuffle around it-- hiding behind freedom of concience and of religion to avoid what? Embarrassment? If he is embarrassed by his faith, shame on him. If his conflict of interest was based in personal financial matters, or family matters or what-have-you, we would demand, and recieve, a detailed explanation of the nature of the conflict, so as to judge whether we could accept the risk, or the priorities that someone in such a position would apply. We have the same right to know in this situation. Will funding for projects at the Royal Tyrell recieve fair hearing? Will funding for the U of S biology labs recieve fair consideration? Exactly which scientific 'truths' does his faith demand that he reject, and what impact will they have on his priorities, and his decision-making? We, as the people paying both his salary, and for the projects he approves (as well as suffering the cost of not funding the projects he rejects) have the right to know, in full. Not discussing it-- playing games of semantics, and dismissing the concerns as irrelevant-- is just plain not on.

BTW, in the comments on that article someone said something to the effect of " If 'creation science' is to be taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution , then stork theory should be taught as an alternative to biological reproduction. " Sweet. I liked that.

A little unscientific, Smallc?!! It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the THEORY OF evolution! He's playing a game of semantics--shockingly badly, I thought, though the G&M and quite a few folks here seem to have bought it whole. It's the difference between... do you believe in the existence of God ? and Do you believe in the existence of 'god'? If I truthfully answer yes to the latter, would it be dishonest of me to let you assume that I was a theist after all?

Read the so-called retraction. He said, " We are evolving every year, every decade. that's a fact, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement vs. anything else, whether it's running shoes or high heel;s, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's irrelevant"... Damn straight that's irrelevant. Someone care to show me where he's acknowledging the theory of evolution? I see a creationist 'evolving' into his tap-dancing shoes.

.........Wilbur... did you read the question and answer? HE, not we, interpreted a question about the validity of the theory of evolution as a religious question, and in so doing proposed that his religios views were incompatible with accepted science. The journalist was most certainly trying to hand him a grenade-- but HE grabbed it, and HE pulled the pin.

It must go beyond that, Toadbrother... Forgive me. Words just fail me in light of this.... this archaic redneck idiocy. I've been pretty smug over the last couple of years, watching the US destroy it's science chops and replace it with 19th century theology. I believed that it couldn't happen here- that we are far too rational a bunch to grant more than benevolent tolerance to the pathologically ignorant. Obviously, I was wrong. I'm about 14 steps past dismayed, well beyond horrified, and a good way into damned angry. These guys are some kind of horrible joke. They have to go.

This appointment far, far exceeds just this mans inappropriateness. It says paragraphs of unspeakable epithets about anyone who could consider him a rational choice!

Oh, get a grip! Not agreeing is not an option, Alta! THAT answer from a science (or education) minister-- that there might be any serious doubt about evolution-- is not only unacceptable, but deeply, deeply embarrassing to us all.

.. like preferential ballots. Now THAT's democratically nuanced enough to bring out a result that people like best, and eliminate what they can't stand.

I'm not even seeing it through the lens of freedom of religion-- the religious basis is doubtful, even if that is how one wants to argue it-- just, where, really, should that line be drawn? How important is this precept, and if it's so important, then why don't we go a little more whole-hog on backing it up? Why all those other false images and not this one?

...........the apocalypse is upon us. Un-freaking-believeable.

Come into my makeup room. Would you like to be a CEO, or a bum? 15 years older, or 15 years younger? It's EASY to make your appearance into an outright lie.

At least it sounds like she was likely a volunteer and believed in what she was doing. During the last election, a student living at my house worked part time as a telemarketer. One of her assignments was to make campaign calls for the Conservatives. Dunno... she sure as H-E-double toothpicks didn't vote Conservative, but would you call her a Conservative party worker?

That's the same point I was getting at, Rue. Glasses? Makeup? Wigs? False teeth? At what point do we believe we've truly revealed the individual? (Don't laugh at the false teeth thing. The shape, number and condition of teeth have HUGE implications with regard to the credibility of the person wearing them... Consider perfect, pretty teeth, vs. gumming , vs. 3 in the front, vs. buck teeth...) Unless we eliminate ALL image manipulations, centring on this one of neutral covering is.... very doubtful.

Finding new ways to be offensive is the usual for them. Those who already have their stomachs turning in disgust will continue to be dismayed. The Conservative faithful will insist that it's brilliant politics on their part, and skullduggery on the part of anyone who asks them to clean it up a little. (Should one blame a scorpion for acting like a scorpion?)

It occurred to me to wonder if cable companies would choose to carry the local stations at all if it cost them anything to do so. Is anyone likely to cancel their cable contract because local programming is unavailable? Is anyone else going to step in and compete while carrying it? Didn't think so.

Oleg, the day that men have a right to an equal say in abortion rights will arrive the day men risk death in childbirth. 'Til then, your opinions will be 'taken under advisement'.

Eyeball, that's certainly a notion to give one the shudders, but has more 'legs' than I'd guess a lot of folks grant it... until they are in the position. My kid in high school served a detention in the company of another who spent that time ranting about the vice-principal who levied the punishment to both of them. In my kids opinion, the ranting crossed a line, had a thin possibility of being more than talk, and it seriously worried him. He would have liked to 'put a bug in someones ear' about it, but the near certainty of official crazy overreaction to what was most likely (but might not be) just enthusiastic venting, stopped him. That circumstance leapt to mind on reading your comment, so it's not an imaginary concern. Call, and who's going to show up? A peace officer, or a dangerous enforcer? It has to flit across the mind.

I have a great objection to MANDATORY SENTENCES period, regardless of the 'crime'. They are a sure-fire guarantee of miscarriages of justice.