Guard Dog

Don't go fishing for herring here Sand. To deal with your post. If Philly wants to make the Scouts pay their way, that is fine. It is the perogative of every municipality to run their city as they see fit so tht is hardly a constitutional issue. You passed this off as a violation of the 1st Amendment which is really what this debate is all about at this point. Based on my response, is it? Is it a violation of the first amendment to have the 10 commandments posted in a public place even if not a single penny of state money was used to put it there? The line between a free society and a repressive one is precariously thin. If zealots on either side win out and the US becomes one or the other then they might be happy but nobody will be free.

Neither. Take either one to the extreme and you have a society that is certainly not free. In the old Soviet Union ( a totally godless society), if they found out you were Christian you would either see the inside of the Lubyanka or die in a gulag somewhere. In most Muslim countries (the other extreme) you can expect to be beheaded at any time if you are not Muslim. To paraphrase Aristotle, nature must find the mean.

As expected, I completely disagree with you. The first part of the first amendment (also known as the "establishment clause") states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The way I read that is that the US Government cannot make a law that says "You must be Christian". It does not prevent the government (or it's agencies like schools, police, etc) from allowing VOLUNTARY religious observances such a moment of silence, or a prayer before a meal, nor does it prohibit the display of any religious monuments (such as the 10 Commandments as in the Montgomery AL. case). Nor does it prohibit a public servant from relying on his religious beliefs in a decision making process. Heck, Minnesota elected a devout Muslim to Congress last year and he took his oath on a Qua ran. As you will recall, I said he had every right to do so based on the 1st Amendment. None of these things "forces" anyone to comply with anything. That is all the Establishment Clause is designed to do. As for your example, the Boy Scouts are a private organization and also a 501c charity. I'm positive they do not receive a penny from any level of government. Their issue was access to public facilities. Allowing them to meet in a Community Center does not mean everyone must join the Scouts nor does it imply endorsement of anything the Scouts stand for. If (to steal a line from South Park) the Gay Scouts wanted to meet there, more power to them. If the state prevented one and not the other then you have a case. Technically by denying them access the state has violated the Assembly Clause which states or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The same with the 10 commandments monument. If a Muslim group was prevented from putting up a monument next to it (all of these things have been paid for privately by the way) then there would be a case and I would be the first to point out the injustice. But the law cannot (or should not) be construed to prevent private religious expressions in public. This country was founded on the most basic of Libertarian principles: "Live and Let Live". It bothers me to see the religious right insisting on my compliance to it's world view. It is equally wrong to see the anti-religious left perverting the constitution to force it's world view on me.

Yes. The ONLY circumstance that allows a soldier to not follow orders is if they contravene the Geneva convention. Or the UCMJ. Incidently, Iraq is not a Geneva signitory therefore not entitled to protections. We give them anyway though.

I have this exact same fear. I am a pretty good swimmer and have no fear of water. I once got stranded outside the safety area of the beach on a tube because I was trying to catch the biggest wave that I could and some boats had to come get me. But once I jumped into the waters from a rock and just went deep into the water. I opened by eyes and could see only a dark blue nothingness stretching out before and under and everywhere and I freaked out. It was like something was coming to get me only I couldn't see it. A general feeling of helplessness floating in cold darkness. I've never strayed out into deep water again. Except for the swimming pool There is a place near Ocala FL called Forty Fathom Grotto. It is so named because it really is that deep. It is a pretty freaky place because it is a nearly perfectly round cyndrilical limestone shaft roughly 100 meters in diameter. The water is fed by a very weak spring at the bottom and has a greenish tinge. Anyway, I did my advanced diver class there and one of the dives has you going to the sport limit of 130'. Well, that is still over 140' from the bottom and all natural light is lost at about 80'. So at 130' you float there, your dive light cannot penetrate to the bottom and you cannot see the sides if you are in the center. You defeinitely can't see the surface and it's a little disturbing. Heck, at first I could not tell which way was up. If you turn off yorur light you see nothing! Pretty cool in a scary/zen kind of way.

Grrr, 2nd sentence should read KOTOR2.

For about two weeks now I've been trying to win as the Western Empire in B.I. I've tried stabilizing the revolts in the provinces and have had some success. But by ten years into the game I'm over 200,000 denari in debt and cannot retrain legions of repair cities and cannot get cash flow positive because of it. I've gone on the offensive right away and smashed the celts, franks, and berbers with the legions you begin the game with but end up losing half the empire to rebellion and still wind up in a cash deficit. I've tried rolling back into southern Gaul and italy, abandoning germania, briton, iberia, and carthage. But I then need to cut back the military so much I could not hold off the goths when they came calling. Has anyone managed to save the west on the VH/H setting and what tactics worked?

I would add NWN1 the OC to Category II. NWN2 had an ending, we just have not seen it yet. Once Team Gizka finishes we'll know what it was. But you are correct. I'm finding I have less and less interest in RP games because the stories are so poor in writing, organization and excecution. I think that is why so many of us are still playing BG I & II, Torment, FO, and otheres almost 10 years and hundreds of replays later.

Hmmmm. The only movie I've seen that I found honestly disturbing was The Exorcisim of Emily Rose. Perhaps because it was based (loosely) on a true story. As for what scares me? Well, all of the most dangerous situations I've ever been in, I got into because I failed to use good sense. So I guess what scares me is me. Or at least my own belief that nothing bad will happen if I do ________ (insert dumb action here).

Just curious Sand. In the context of American politics and bearing in mind the text of the 1st amendment, particularly the establishment clause, what does "seperation of church and state" mean to you? I suspect we will have very different definitions.

Not to be a kill joy or anything, but this thread was really just about a funny headline. There is another thread on global warming already that is more condusive to discussion. I guess it makes sense to shut this one down and concentrate everyone on the other one.

You guys are seriously over thinking this one.

To paraphrase Churchill those who would trade freedom for safety will get neither.

No.

Heh, not to go OT on post 7 but it reminds me of a funny story. I'm an avid SCUBA diver and I'm in this little dive shop in Ft Lauderdale getting an air fill. Ahead of me in line is this real loudmouthed jerk buying snorkeling gear with his teenage son (I guess it was his son). Anyway, he buys a dive knife tht was nearly the size of a jungle machete. Now any diver will tell you your knife is good for little else than cutting fishing line if you get entangled. Usually they are pretty short and blunt tipped. The dive shop guy makes a comment about that and the jerk responds "I need this if I have to fight off a shark!" I started laughing out loud at that, so does the dive shop guy. First of all, sharks NEVER attack divers (at least the ones around Florida don't, if you're in North California or Austrailia, different story). So the jerk shoots me a dirty look for laughing at him and I told him "if it comes down to a knife between you and any shark you are already screwed". So he asks us both "What would you do if a shark attacks you"? The shop guys say "I'd get away." So the jerk said "You can't out swim a shark." The dive shop guy answered back "I wouldn't have to, if some guy stops long enough to pull his knife, I just have to out swim him!" Anyway, guess you had to be there. Nice knife Eddo. Nothing says Marine Corps like K-Bar.

True enough there is a process to amend the constitution. And we have not done anything about it in the last 230 years because the large majority of Americans will not willingly give up any right, especially the right to bear arms. Eddo and I have both linked data to this thread that demonstrates that areas with a high rate of private firearm ownership have lower violent crime rates. So obviously not only are we not shooting each other it is apparent it is also a deterrant to violent criminals. Di, your post was the best one on this thread so far. Take a bow!

The dems have been in power for over a month now. Rather than pull the plug on the war (cut funding) they are bickering about how big their private airplanes should be. I've said it before the only thing I find more distasteful than a republican is a democrat. And there is scant little difference between the two.

Wals we are going over the same ground here. See my post 199 for what I think of regulating firearm ownership. I have already conceeded an armed insurrection could not hope fight off the government if the military is against it. But that does not mean it is not worth fighting if the cause is severe enough.

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

"Well trained" and "regulated" I take you to mean the government issuing some kind of license. The rights described in the Constitution are guaranteed. The government cannot go in after the fact and oblige you to ask their permission to invoke your rights. Something you request from the government may be denied. That is why there are so few federal gun laws and we fight so bitterly to ensure there are not more. Now under 10th amendment provisions most states have imposed waiting periods, background checks, and other measures. In Florida at least (and most other states as well) if you wish to obtain a concealed carry permit you will need to take a safety class. If you wish to hunt or shoot on public land or public ranges you will need a safety card. But the difference is the state cannot deny you these things so long as you pass the background check, pass the test and pay the fee. To sum up, one does not ask the government's permission to exercise a right. As to yours and Alanschu's request I'm working on it now. It is pretty definitive IMHO.

You know better than that. But, whatever the Congress authorizes, the President signs, and the Supreme Court does not object is legal if not right. For example, I think the Mcain-Feingold bill is an unforgivable tresspass on the first amendment but it has already been passed, signed and survived a legal challenge. I don't think it is right but it is certainly legal.

Well said!

I'm doing something about it tonight! I'm turning off all of the lights in the house and going outside. I've got a case of Flying Dog on ice in the cooler, a fire going in the firepit in my back yard, and Jimmy Buffet CDs in my battery powered boombox. Good night all!

Article One wonders if the climate would better served if the event did not happen. All these bands, celebrities, promoters, roadies, staff, hairstylists, make up artists, cooks, secretaries, etc are going to need to fly to these cities. Most will go via private plane and burn millions of gallons of fuel. The concert goers will consume millions of gallons of gas and diesel to say nothing of the emissions of all of these planes trains and automobiles and buses. It will take thousands of megawatts of power to light their stadiums. So on and so on. It might be better for the environment if we all stayed home and cooked on the grill that night. Also, Live Aid raked in $1.9 billion US for it's cause all told and the bands played for free. This article did not mention where the money for this event is going. Global warming is not like world hunger. You cannot buy it food with the money. So I'm betting it ends up in other people's pockets.