kimmy

Give me moderator powers, and I will make the trains run on time. That's all I'm saying. -k

I'm well aware of what it says. You don't appear to understand it very clearly. The first clause ("the establishment clause") prohibits Congress from doing anything to establish an official religion or to favor one over another. (and was later expanded by the 14th amendment to apply to other levels of government as well as Congress). It's prohibiting the establishment of religion, not preventing laws from affecting "religious establishments". And universities and hospitals aren't "religious establishments" anyway. Chick-Fil-A is owned by Christian fundies... should Chick-Fil-A also be exempt from laws Congress passes? As for the second clause, the "exercise clause", I see no reasonable argument as to how adding contraceptives to healthcare plans is preventing anybody from exercising their religion. -k

Shady, you knucklehead, read the articles. The fetal alcohol syndrome statistic is for the Pine Ridge reservation, South Dakota, which has about 30,000 people and has banned alcohol to try to combat alcohol abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. The town with 10 people and 4 liquor stores is Whiteclay Nebraska, just across the border, outside the liquor ban. And it appears obvious that the only possible explanation for why a town of 10 people needs 5 million cans of beer a year is if they're providing the residents of Pine Ridge a way to circumvent the ban. -k

I think that would be a good idea. I think that if trusted long-time members were given that ability, with the solemn vow that it be used only on advertisements, I think that would go a long way to settling the issue. -k

Annual sales of 5 million cans of beer sounds pretty suspicious in a town with only ten residents... -k

This is getting ridiculous. I know the moderators do their best, but it is a losing battle. Right now there are a half dozen brand new member accounts that all appear to be spammers, and one of them has posted nearly 100 messages already this morning. Unfortunately, I think a tougher policy for new members is required. -k

A blast from the past! -k

That's an angle I'd be interested in finding out more about. I don't know what, if any, money these institutions we're talking about receive from the government. Catholic Charities is one of the groups that is prominently crying that their first amendment rights are being violated right now. Not only for the health insurance issue, but also because they are being asked to provide services that contradict Catholic values-- notably, adoption for gay couples. One might think, well, gay people wanting to adopt ought to go to some non-religious agency. A religious charity shouldn't have to provide services that are in direct contradiction of their religious views. It certainly sounds reasonable to me. Except that Catholic Charities receives over 55% of its money from the US government-- $2.6 billion out of the $4.67 billion budget. How much of Catholic Charities budget comes from churches and church donations? $140 million. 3% of Catholic Charities' budget actually came from Catholic churches and parishioners. The remainder came from user fees, non-church donations, other levels of government, and so-on. A few years ago the Boy Scouts of America were given the choice: end discriminatory membership policies, or lose access to government sponsorship. Their response was "we will renounce government sponsorship". That's fine, they're a private organization and it's their decision. I think Catholic Charities ought to be given the same choice. -k

So, if I recall, in the wake of this debacle, advertising on "All-American Muslim" became a hot buy and sold out, thanks to all the controversy surrounding Lowe's decision to pull their ads. Thanks to the Florida Family Association, a show that was by most accounts really crappy and most people had never heard of obtained immense publicity and sold a bunch of advertising. On a similar note, a group called One Million Moms-- "a project of American Family Association" (one might say a subordinate of American Family Associaiton )-- has decided to help make JC Penny's decision to hire Ellen DeGeneres look like marketing genius as well. This has not gone well for the "million moms". Even Bill O'Reilly, king of conservative talking heads, blasted the group on his show, comparing their campaign against Ellen to McCarthyism. -k

Canada has had some terrible ads over the years. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any that are in quite as bad taste as having an actress of Asian descent standing in a rice paddy talking in "engrish" about how her country is taking over. But certainly, it's not an "American" ad, it's an ad by a dumb-ass candidate. I think that for reasons relating to campaign finance and political party organization, dumb-ass candidates in Canada probably have less independence from the national party to run ads. -k

There's reasonable arguments to be made against it-- why should the state be able to specify what's included in a private entity's health insurance plan? --but trying to spin this as a first amendment issue strikes me as pretty weird, and sounds like an angle that's probably more convincing to people who don't actually know what the first amendment says. Applying regulations to the healthcare plan of hospital staff or university employees is neither the establishment of a religion, nor the denial of anyone's free exercise of their religion, regardless of who owns the hospital or university. Arguing that the owner's right to free exercise of religion is transferable to the business they own as well strikes me as an argument for total chaos. -k

Thanks, I almost peed my pants watching that. (However, I had assumed that you knew that the subtitles weren't the real translation and were posting it to make a funny. ) -k {release the mongoose!}

We had winter a couple of weeks ago. It was a chilly 5 days. -k

When I read the headline, I facepalmed. When I read the article, less so. Rather than "Tribe Sues Beer Companies for Alcoholism on Reservation", the story actually sounds more like "Tribe Sues Beer Companies for Conspiring to Circumvent Reservation 'Dry County' Regulations." I suspect it will be difficult for them to prove, but I am considerably more sympathetic to their position now that I know that this isn't a "man sues McDonalds because he's fat" type lawsuit. -k

I should have made the "Persecuted Christians in America!" thread "Persecuted Christians in North America!" Those horrible liberals start by banning the Lord's Prayer, then keeping the Gideons from coming to schools, and the next thing you know... Auschwitz! -k

Peyton is on a very short list of the best ever. Eli getting a 2nd superbowl ring won't put him in the same ballpark. -k

We call that kind of a dealy a "gingrich". -k

I read an American news story a while back about a parent whose child came home with a Gideon Bible one day. She called the school to ask WTF, and the principal informed her that the Bibles were voluntary, and that religious material from any religion would likewise be made voluntarily available to students if it was dropped off at the school. She decided to test that policy and showed up at the school with a box of pagan literature. She was told that they couldn't take the books and that the policy was being changed. -k

Maybe, but what of it? What's Dan Savage to me? I don't know anything about him, I don't read his column, and he doesn't have any more impact on my life than Ann Landers or any other columnist I don't read. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, wants to be president. I have American friends online and in "real life". I have American relatives. I love the United States. I'd feel really bad if something shitty happened to America, so I certainly don't want to see Rick Santorum become president. I offer him only the same defense I offer Ann Coulter: his responsibility is to his publisher and his readership, not to you or me. -k

Those laws protect peoples' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws protecting people from robbery, violence, and so on, are not an attempt to endorse some moralist idea, but rather an absolute necessity in protecting the fundamental rights that are the cornerstone of western civilization. He lumps homosexuality in with bestiality and pedophilia as abominable things that the law ought to ban. I don't see how you think this gets Rick off the hook. I'm honestly baffled. He's was (and still is) advocating for the idea that states have a right to tell people what they can and can't do in bed together. I'm not a lawyer so I can't weigh the legal merit of his stance, but the underlying idea is reprehensible. He's speaking in favor of laws that would in the not-too-distant past have made you and Mrs sharkwoman criminals for sharing oral stimulation in the privacy of your shark cave. It's despicable. What's unbalanced? I'm confused. What are you trying to balance? -k

Guyser already dealt with all of this very efficiently, but I'd just like to emphasize that the very quote that we've been discussing, which sharkman linked to earlier, is from an interview in which Santorum is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-sodomy law. If you're well informed, then I guess the only explanation is that your head is stuck so far up your "no spin zone" that you're unable to interpret all this information you claim to have. Let us know how that works out for you. -k

Harmless. It could just as easily be The Year of To Kill A Mockingbird or The Year of Harry Potter. Over in Indiana, on the other hand, they've passed a bill that will require creationism to be taught in schools. Although, considering Indiana once tried to redefine Pi, I guess it's not too surprising. -k

Not with Savage specifically, but with the gay community as a whole. Some gay rights supporters took issue with Santorum in more traditional ways... but with less memorable results. I don't see any onus on Dan Savage to respond to Rick Santorum in a way that Rick-- or Shady-- finds "appropriate". Dan Savage isn't running for public office, as far as I know. His job is to sell page-views or newspapers. He doesn't need to be "appropriate" anymore than Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. You can exercise your freedom of speech in ways that are guaranteed to start a fight. Rick did so, and he can live with the consequences. And let's be honest, he's not at all sorry about that, because he knows that his core support is from people who think fags should be shot and that people who support gay rights were never going to support him anyway. That's the understatement of the year. He doesn't *simply* disagree with changing the definition of marriage. He also disagrees that there is any such thing as a constitutional right to privacy, and that what goes on between consenting adults in their own bedrooms *is* the state's business and that banning man-on-man sex is appropriate for the same reasons that banning man on child or man on dog sex is. His support for state sodomy legislation is rooted in the same justification as his support for the idea that states could (and should) ban contraceptives. I know you feel like you have some kind of duty to defend Christians and conservatives, Shady, but have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're sticking up for a scumbag? His belief that the state can and should legislate morality ought to be appalling to anybody who believes in liberty. -k

I am currently playing "Borderlands" on PS3. I don't usually do first person shooters, but this is a lot of fun! You've arrived on a planet called Pandora in search of a legendary treasure. Pandora is some kind of post-apocalyptic world that's a lot like the setting of The Road Warrior. It's overrun by deranged bandits, psychopaths, and mutants, as well as all kinds of nasty creatures. You interact with a cast of odd but likeable residents, helping make their lives a little better in exchange for weapons and tools and information that will hopefully lead you to the mythical treasure. Things I like about it: -great art and music. The art has a comic-book quality that really works. Terrific look and feel. -FPS gameplay is a blast... literally. With an immense arsenal of machine guns, sniper-rifles, pistols, rocket-launchers, shotguns, melee weapons, and even super-powers at your disposal, there are endless possibilities for gore. My personal favorite is the sniper-rifle with the super-long-range scope. You can zoom in on a target who's so small you can barely see him, put the red dot between his eyes, and POW! Brains everywhere! This is hands down the goriest game I've ever played. -vehicular gameplay is also crazy. I haven't run over this many people and critters since I got Carmageddon on my first computer. The bad guys have vehicles too... and if you get caught out in the middle of the desert without your car and an enemy car coming at you... -challenging but not ridiculous. I'm not an FPS expert, but I have been able to learn the controls and do pretty well. The difficulty of the opponents scales really well as your character becomes more powerful. Fast-paced and fun. ... -k

I think you're well aware that people are less concerned with the prospect of Iran starting open war than with Iran's history of supporting terrorist activity. -k