GMG - why distract from my question by asking another? Why people shouldn't be able to marry their sister or their cat or their houseplant is a completely different discussion. As it is, nobody can marry their siblings, so that isn't a matter of equal rights. That makes about as much sense as asking why if you believe in the Bible, shouldn't we be stoning adulterers in the town square. Meanw...more

GMG - why distract from my question by asking another? Why people shouldn't be able to marry their sister or their cat or their houseplant is a completely different discussion. As it is, nobody can marry their siblings, so that isn't a matter of equal rights. That makes about as much sense as asking why if you believe in the Bible, shouldn't we be stoning adulterers in the town square.

Meanwhile, why do you think that your peculiar reading of 3000 year old texts from a desert tribe on the other side of the world gives you the right to police other people's personal lives?

DP - the wisecrack about "exploiting children" is a low blow (though it misses the mark) that I would have thought was beneath you. Though we hold different views, you don't know me nearly well enough to treat me with that level of disrespect.

If same-sex domestic partners raising children together were accorded the same rights and obligations (yes, obligations), those children would be more likely to experience a household that is stable in emotional and material terms. It's nonsense to assert that same sex couples can - or should have to - obtain equal rights for themselves and their children by hiring lawyers to figure out which of the hundreds of state and federal rights, protections, and obligations are denied them because they can't marry, and try to gain those rights by special contracts.

I fail to understand why some people are so fascinated, obsessed, and distressed by their own imagination of which appendages go into which orifices but: a) it's pervy that you folks think about it so much, b) it's none of your business, and c) there's nothing that same-sex couples do in their own homes that heterosexual Christian couples don't do (and that's even without including people such as Pastor Ted "Heterosexual With Issues" Haggard).

Add this to your list of questions you refuse to answer: when do the rest of us get to force our religious beliefs on you?less

Same-sex couples have children, whether you like it or not. Does your simple-minded religiosity demand that only suitable breeding stock, er, I mean, people capable of reproducing, are entitled to equal rights? All you accomplish is to make life even harder for same-sex couples and their children. Would you be pleased if your efforts succeeded in breaking up some same-sex couples? Do you thi...more

Same-sex couples have children, whether you like it or not. Does your simple-minded religiosity demand that only suitable breeding stock, er, I mean, people capable of reproducing, are entitled to equal rights?

All you accomplish is to make life even harder for same-sex couples and their children. Would you be pleased if your efforts succeeded in breaking up some same-sex couples? Do you think that if you deprive people of equal rights, people would end their relationships and sign up for heterosexual marriage just to get their rights? Would that be a good thing?

Explain, please — why aren't the children of same-sex couples entitled to the same rights and protections that the children of other couples are?

And thanks, BK and RC, for trying to get that point across to people who chose to ignore reality.less

Well, Hawk, I see that your cut-and-paste skills are still working. You sound pretty hostile, though — maybe you'd like to talk with a professional about that? You can scream "flawed!" "baseless!" at things you don't understand until you're blue in the face (or the fingertips, maybe) but that won't change reality. That you're referring to Newsweek and to Al Gore as if they were some sort of...more

Well, Hawk, I see that your cut-and-paste skills are still working. You sound pretty hostile, though — maybe you'd like to talk with a professional about that?

You can scream "flawed!" "baseless!" at things you don't understand until you're blue in the face (or the fingertips, maybe) but that won't change reality. That you're referring to Newsweek and to Al Gore as if they were some sort of experts or authorities betrays your superficial understanding of the topic. I'd be happy to discuss the issues, the theory, and the data with someone who had a serious interest in learning, but you've already decided that what's good for Shell-BP-Texaco-Exxon is good for the world, and for Jesus.

I see no point in any further exchanges with you on this topic, so I won't be posting any more. But you go ahead and make one last post that will go unchallenged, and you can have the thrill of feeling that you got the last word, no matter how wrong and how uninformed you are.less

People say that it isn't discrimination to prohibit gay people from marrying the person they love. They say that they're just "protecting the sanctity of marriage", that they're not opposed to equal rights. But in Washington state right now, people who call themselves Christians are working hard to revoke the civil rights that were granted to registered domestic partners (including heterosexua...more

People say that it isn't discrimination to prohibit gay people from marrying the person they love. They say that they're just "protecting the sanctity of marriage", that they're not opposed to equal rights.

But in Washington state right now, people who call themselves Christians are working hard to revoke the civil rights that were granted to registered domestic partners (including heterosexuals when one of them is 62 or older). Those rights were granted by a vote of the elected representatives, and the law explicitly says that registered domestic partners are not considered to be married.

Larry Stickney, one of the self-appointed Christians working to roll back civil rights, believes so strongly in marriage that he's done it three times. One of his previous wives took out a protection order against him based on domestic violence. Let's protect the "sanctity of marriage" for Larry Stickney and people like him.

Roughly half of all marriages end in divorce. Heterosexuals seem to be doing enough to degrade the "sanctity of marriage" all by themselves.

But you can still go to Vegas, get drunk and get married by an Elvis impersonator on Saturday, and get divorced on Tuesday, all without impugning the "sanctity of marriage."

God forbid that a person be covered by the health insurance of their same sex partner, or that they feel assured that they'll be able to visit in the hospital their partner or the child they're raising together, or that they can rest assured that if their partner precedes them in death they'll be able to continue living in the house they've shared for decades.

No, we can't have that. All of those things are a threat to the "sanctity of marriage."less

Hawk - cool! (pun intended). Hawk says that "This is a political issue. It started out as a political issue." Wrong. The physical principles were worked out in the 19th century, and the possibility of anthropogenic emissions leading to global warming was predicted in the late 1800s. If you don't like the article by Naomi Oreskes, you're still left with the statements issued by the Nati...more

Hawk - cool! (pun intended).

Hawk says that "This is a political issue. It started out as a political issue."

Wrong. The physical principles were worked out in the 19th century, and the possibility of anthropogenic emissions leading to global warming was predicted in the late 1800s.

If you don't like the article by Naomi Oreskes, you're still left with the statements issued by the National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Do you have anything thoughtful to say about those?

You're also left with the fundamental fact that CO2 and other gases we're putting into the atmosphere, such as methane and oxides of nitrogen, absorb heat, thereby preventing it from being radiated into space.

In any case, I really don't see why you think that Jesus wants you to deny the reality of anthropogenic global change.

And, I can google too. Your friend Christopher Horner is a lawyer, not a scientist, and is another professional global change denier.

from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_Horner

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.

Horner is a practicing attorney, and at CEI [...] duties also include being counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, a global warming skeptics group.less

Hawk - Al Gore is a politician who made a movie, not an "expert." The debate among experts that you call for has been going on in the scientific literature for several decades. Here's a summary (from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686): Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes [...] IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In ...more

Hawk - Al Gore is a politician who made a movie, not an "expert." The debate among experts that you call for has been going on in the scientific literature for several decades. Here's a summary (from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686):

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

[...]

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [...] "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

[...]

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Footnotes

5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.htmlless

RB - yes, thanks, I got it. My comments didn't refer to you - you seem to be more in touch with scientific facts than many. I was only illustrating how readily the article you mentioned jumped to completely irrational conclusions.

Hawk - pointing out the professional activity of the Idsos is not an ad hominem attack. They've been hired by the Western Fuels Association, going back nearly twenty years. It's fair to point out that one shouldn't look to them for unbiased information. They might be nice guys but that's beside the point. I don't make ad hominem attacks but I can't prevent people from seeing what they want t...more

Hawk - pointing out the professional activity of the Idsos is not an ad hominem attack. They've been hired by the Western Fuels Association, going back nearly twenty years. It's fair to point out that one shouldn't look to them for unbiased information. They might be nice guys but that's beside the point.

I don't make ad hominem attacks but I can't prevent people from seeing what they want to see.

The Oregon Petitiion project that you refer to (the "30,000 signatures") is a bad joke. It's run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The OISM has no classrooms, no students, and two of the eight faculty are dead.

The source of their "information" on global change is an article published by the founder of the OISM, in a journal "published" by an organization headed by one of the faculty members of the OISM. That is, it's essentially self-published, though they claim it's peer reviewed. The journal is not found in any research libraries nor is it in any bibliographic databases. The article demonstrates a profound lack of understanding and misapplication of statistical analysis.

The signatories of the Oregon Petition claim whatever qualifications they like; there's no checking. Currently the website doesn't list fields of research, though it does say "Ph.D." after some names. A while back when I did find a listing of the degrees and areas of activity of the signatories, only a few hundred claimed to be research scientists in relevant fields. Many had BS degrees in fields such as computing or engineering; some were medical doctors or dentists.

In other words, the Oregon Petition would be a joke if it weren't trying so hard to deceive people on an important matter.less

No, babies with Down syndrome won't disappear. The most rudimentary understanding of heredity rules out that possibility. There's not a gene for Down syndrome. Down syndrome is caused by having three copies of chromosome #21. That happens if the chromosomes don't segregate properly when the egg is produced, so the egg has two copies of chromosome #21 rather than one, as it should. It gets t...more

No, babies with Down syndrome won't disappear. The most rudimentary understanding of heredity rules out that possibility.

There's not a gene for Down syndrome. Down syndrome is caused by having three copies of chromosome #21. That happens if the chromosomes don't segregate properly when the egg is produced, so the egg has two copies of chromosome #21 rather than one, as it should. It gets the third copy from the father when the egg is fertilized.

Other chromosome anomalies occur but aren't viable, and are a large part of why something like 50-80% of the zygotes (fertilized eggs) fail to implant and develop. Chromosome #21 is the smallest of the autosomes (non-sex chromosomes), so the detrimental effects are lower.

Improper cell division when the egg is formed is more common as a woman gets older, which explains the higher rate of Downs from older mothers.

People can have extra or missing sex chromosomes (i.e., the x and the y chromosomes). Thus people can be xxy, xxx, xyy, xo (only one sex chromosome) or other combinations. A zygote with only a y chromosome (no x) is inviable. It's also possible for crossing over to occur between the x and y chromosomes when the sperm are produced, sometimes producing fully functional males that are xx or females that are xy. It's hard to know how often this happens since there is no routine screening for chromosomal anomalies in healthy people.less

Hawk - Craig Idso and his brother Keith have long collaborated with their father, Sherwood, who has been an apologist for the fossil fuel industry and a global change denier since way back. In the early '90s Sherwood was one of the key mouthpieces in the pseudo-documentary "The Greening of Planet Earth", put out by the Western Fuels Association. So don't look to them for objective information. ...more

Hawk - Craig Idso and his brother Keith have long collaborated with their father, Sherwood, who has been an apologist for the fossil fuel industry and a global change denier since way back. In the early '90s Sherwood was one of the key mouthpieces in the pseudo-documentary "The Greening of Planet Earth", put out by the Western Fuels Association. So don't look to them for objective information.

I suggest reading the primary scientific literature rather than the popular media. There's no serious question that the global temperature is increasing and that human activity is a significant part of the cause.

steve - the iron "fertilization" idea is terrifying. We've had far too much hubris before. What if it works *really* well and brings atmospheric CO2 down to 200 ppm? How do you get the iron out of thousands of square miles of ocean? That is, assuming you survive the worldwide crop failures and probable drop in temperatures and changes in precipitation.less

DP wrote "Love dares to stick its neck out for the benefit of others." Yes. I thought there must be something we can agree on. At least in some states, domestic violence is a mandatory arrest, that is, if the police are called to the scene, they have to arrest someone (though they don't really always do that). So sometimes they'll just arrest the person who seems most likely to generate a ...more

DP wrote "Love dares to stick its neck out for the benefit of others."

Yes. I thought there must be something we can agree on.

At least in some states, domestic violence is a mandatory arrest, that is, if the police are called to the scene, they have to arrest someone (though they don't really always do that). So sometimes they'll just arrest the person who seems most likely to generate a successful prosecution in court.

Sometimes women in particular, having second thoughts, will under-emphasize the responsibility of of their husband/partner/boyfriend and over-emphasize their own, not realizing that that can lead to their own arrest and detention.

There are a lot of complex reasons why people will stay with someone who abuses them (e.g., the "trauma bond"), so society needs to get educated to get them past the simplistic "if it were really serious, s/he would leave" idea.

Sometimes the only "third party help" that a person has access to is the police/courts/etc.

DP wrote "We have this thing called the US Constitution that charges each American with promoting the general welfare and insuring the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

I agree. And equal protection should apply to everyone — black, white, or any other color, male, female and, yes, even gay people.less

DP - one source I've seen said that one out of four females and one out of six males experiences abuse at some time in their lives. So male victims aren't anywhere near as rare as most people think. You're right that the victim can sometimes be arrested and charged. That goes both ways - it's not unusual for a woman to be arrested because her husband or partner was abusing her and she fought ...more

DP - one source I've seen said that one out of four females and one out of six males experiences abuse at some time in their lives. So male victims aren't anywhere near as rare as most people think.

You're right that the victim can sometimes be arrested and charged. That goes both ways - it's not unusual for a woman to be arrested because her husband or partner was abusing her and she fought back.less

DP wrote "We don't really rehabilitate the general population and we don't punish. We just hold people. This solves nothing." I agree that we don't rehabilitate. And holding people under even more harsh, dehumanizing conditions would make things worse, not better. Also, we need to have a different attitude especially with young offenders. People have "BAD" stamped on their foreheads at an early...more

DP wrote "We don't really rehabilitate the general population and we don't punish. We just hold people. This solves nothing."

I agree that we don't rehabilitate. And holding people under even more harsh, dehumanizing conditions would make things worse, not better. Also, we need to have a different attitude especially with young offenders. People have "BAD" stamped on their foreheads at an early age, and it's something they can't get away from.

There are two problems with having prisoners work while incarcerated. 1) It's essentially slave labor, even if you pay them 18 cents an hour or whatever they pay. Also it's unfair competition with businesses that have to pay real wages and benefits to workers outside. 2) It gives the government incentive to put people in prison, i.e., to make money off their labor. Don't think this wouldn't happen. There was a horrible case in Pennsylvania that came to light recently. A judge was referring juveniles to a for-profit juvenile detention center although they'd done nothing to deserve it — he was getting nice fat kick-backs on each referral.

I'm sorry about your situation. I do some work in that area, and I know that men can be victims (or 'survivors', in the preferred language) too. They're probably greatly underserved because stigma and shame prevent some of them for seeking help.

But I disagree: I think beating one's spouse is different (and worse) than assaulting a stranger.

The relevance to hate crime ordinances, if anyone missed it, is that the circumstances matter, not just the limited physical details of the actual incident.less

DP wrote "That's the problem. Our system of justice has become something people don't fear." No. Whether sentences are sufficient to act as a deterrent or whether specifically targeting members of particular groups are completely different questions. But I am dismayed that you think that the U.S. should emulate the worst of the worst. Other developed countries put much more emphasis on rehab...more

DP wrote "That's the problem. Our system of justice has become something people don't fear."

No. Whether sentences are sufficient to act as a deterrent or whether specifically targeting members of particular groups are completely different questions. But I am dismayed that you think that the U.S. should emulate the worst of the worst. Other developed countries put much more emphasis on rehabilitation and, probably more important, they also provide more support and assistance for low income people. Guess what? They have much smaller prison populations *and* much lower crime rates (something you didn't mention in your comparison).

For DP, Polska, and others who think that hate crime laws are wrong, let me try this question: domestic violence is generally treated as an "enhancement" (lawyers, please correct me if this isn't the right word). That is, the perpetrator is charged with whatever the crime was - assault at whatever degree, homicide, or whatever - and under specific circumstances, the "enhancement" of domestic violence is added.

My question is, do you think that domestic violence deserves a more severe penalty than, say, a random barroom fight? After all, if the bruises and broken bones are the same, or the victim is dead in either case, why should it matter whether the victim was a total stranger or the guy's wife?less

GMG wrote "You all are painting this very broadly as a bad thing. Tell me, just what would you do to try to find an answer to the problems people face that lead them to choose abortion. Have any better ideas? Why don't you present them." I already did. Instead of harassing women by making them state their personal problems for the public record, these legislators should be working for programs ...more

GMG wrote "You all are painting this very broadly as a bad thing. Tell me, just what would you do to try to find an answer to the problems people face that lead them to choose abortion. Have any better ideas? Why don't you present them."

I already did. Instead of harassing women by making them state their personal problems for the public record, these legislators should be working for programs that support low income families with children, children's health care, education, etc. They should also be promoting complete and accurate sex education, including information on contraception, and they should make contraception in all forms readily and cheaply available. They should also promote efforts for outreach and education via popular media.

Nobody likes abortion. Anyone I've ever talked with about their personal experience wishes the whole situation never occurred. It's not an easy decision. But no one I've ever talked with had any regrets.

This legislation is intended as harassment. The goal is to make abortion such a heinous ordeal that no one (they think) will do it. You should hear Kate Michelman talk about what she went through to get an abortion before Roe v. Wade. We can - and should - do better than that now.less

Daniel Paul "That's my point. Laws are to apply to all." Correct. They do. Mostly. Unless money or connections get in the way. DP - what do you think, that the victim of a hate crime gets a free lifetime supply of Snickers® bars or something? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I don't understand why you can't see the difference between goin' huntin' for a particular group, ...more

Daniel Paul "That's my point. Laws are to apply to all."

Correct. They do. Mostly. Unless money or connections get in the way.

DP - what do you think, that the victim of a hate crime gets a free lifetime supply of Snickers® bars or something? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I don't understand why you can't see the difference between goin' huntin' for a particular group, vs. just randomly going after someone.

Both are crimes. But going after members of a particular group not only causes fear in all members of that group, it also suggests that the perpetrator is likely to do it again. Meanwhile, we can all go on thinking whatever we like about anyone, and saying whatever we like as long as it's not intended to motivate other people to commit crimes.

I fail to see why this should be hard to understand.less

And what exactly does the Oklahoma State Department of Health *do* when informed that someone is "having relationship problems"? If the woman states that she wouldn't be able to afford to raise a child, does the State step in and help with the necessary expenses? Are Sen. Lamb and Rep. Sullivan as concerned about babies after they're born as well as before they're born? What legislation hav...more

And what exactly does the Oklahoma State Department of Health *do* when informed that someone is "having relationship problems"?

If the woman states that she wouldn't be able to afford to raise a child, does the State step in and help with the necessary expenses?

Are Sen. Lamb and Rep. Sullivan as concerned about babies after they're born as well as before they're born? What legislation have they introduced to support children?

If they're concerned about reducing abortion, what programs have they proposed or supported to ensure that everyone of potentially reproductive age, young women especially, has accurate and complete information about reproductive biology, including contraception?

This is a transparent attempt to harass and shame women by any possible means.less

GMG - you're wrong. "I read something somewhere a while back..." is not a compelling argument. Our effect on atmospheric CO2 has not been "negligible." It has increased from about 270 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution, to about 310 ppm when you were a kid, to about 390 ppm now. There's no debate that we have been the cause of the increase. In fact, because people pay for ...more

GMG - you're wrong. "I read something somewhere a while back..." is not a compelling argument.

Our effect on atmospheric CO2 has not been "negligible." It has increased from about 270 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution, to about 310 ppm when you were a kid, to about 390 ppm now. There's no debate that we have been the cause of the increase. In fact, because people pay for fossil fuels, we have a pretty good estimate of how much CO2 we've put into the atmosphere. For a while, one of the major questions was, why isn't atmospheric CO2 even higher?

I really don't care what "the latest PC term" is. I get my information from the primary scientific research literature. "Global change" is a better description than "global warming", because precipitation patterns are changing as well, and changing winds and ocean currents might cause some areas to be colder.

It's certainly valid to argue about the effectiveness of different responses. But just because effectiveness is "open to debate" doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all. It means we should try harder. Anything that reduces inputs of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will also reduce inputs of other toxins into the environment.

It's not simple - dams kill fish, windmills kill birds, and large solar arrays take up a lot of space. But that's no reason to pretend that fossil fuels are unlimited.less

GMG - if you think that carbon credits are a bad idea, then argue about that. But it's clear (from the peer-reviewed scientific literature) that the temperature of the Earth has generally been increasing over the last 150 years or so, that the increase in temperature is in part a result of human activities, and that climate change is already showing ecological effects.

We've been through this on these pages many times before... There *is* a difference between attacking a person because you don't like that person, vs. attacking them because they belong to a particular group. Attacking people *because* they belong to a particular group sends a message to everyone in that group, that they are not safe, that they should be afraid because of who they are. It's ...more

We've been through this on these pages many times before...

There *is* a difference between attacking a person because you don't like that person, vs. attacking them because they belong to a particular group.

Attacking people *because* they belong to a particular group sends a message to everyone in that group, that they are not safe, that they should be afraid because of who they are. It's a more serious crime because, although the physical attack may be against an individual, the effect is to victimize the whole group.less