Walsingham

Glow in the dark sugar-gliders. Swooping around the house.

What annoys me is the hypocrisy. As I understand it - and I'm ready to be showed otherwise - the grounding is mainly Leviticus. But Leviticus also says that we should take people of other faiths and stone them to death. And it is also an abomination to eat shellfish. So, if this is religious Cali should ban lobster thermidor. On the other hand I know plenty of military types and rugby players who are homophobic, and they're as religious as a pile of puke.

Yes. Fine. Nobody's perfect. But there is a gradient, mon amis. Perpetuating a system of social structure where wealth governs loyalty, and enterprise is not perfect. but it is - to my bourgeoise thinking - different from a system where you get dragged out of your house and raped. Or where you all live in terrified silence. But then I've been described as 'vaudevillian'.

Surely it could be retroviral? I though that rewrote living DNA.

You say that like it makes logical sense. *notices ze children* ahem.

Hold right ****ing on. Are you saying that I can glow in the dark?

And? Have I ever suggested that Southern States were in any way healthy during that period? Is it a coincidence that Mississippi Goddamn is one of my favourite songs? You should be both flattered and (hopefully) insulted that I was expecting better. This is a poor rejoinder.

I eventually got invited to join the 169th Soviet style group. They seem pretty cool, although I am a bit worried about having to use fixed tactics. I'm just not convince that sensibel real world tactics are optimal, even if they are quite good. For example, where in the real world would you have someone dancing around a building, stabbing people, leaping out windows, dodging back in, chucking grenades etc? Or, as I do, getting into a tiny and fast Russian tank and hiding in a hedge to kill passing Tigers and Panthers?

Being any sort of research analyst is partly academic and it pays quite well. Your teaching skills could come in hand explaining stuff to clients. I'd recommendd commercial intelligence. Plenty of cash if you can get into the right firm. I did some quasi-private eye work too. I'd steer clear of journalism, though. Huge amounts of balls, and you're too old for that.

But if they're super smart, you can kick them out by the age of 5 and save a ton of money. They will rule the streets of Rotterdam /Ender's Shadow reference Like hell. The swines would certainly kick me out.

Children are evil. Who wants super smart evil children? I want mine glowing, so I can see the sneaky little buggers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...nsons-cure.html Glow in the dark transgenic marmosets. Now, apart from the fact that is an awesome statement in itself, I want to ask: am I the only person who reads that and immediately wants this technology applied to his children?

My sign would have read : "Equal rights under law [not equal to sign] different rights to marriage" and my sign would suck.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here. I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better.

What is she? A puma?

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem. I am, however, increasingly swayed by the notion that there has to be a limited acceptance for rough edges before any new system beds down. If I condemn a socialist Venezuela then what can I say when the democratically elected government of Iraq gets a bit squirrely, as it does? On the other hand, we have to also have some cutoff point for bedding down. Zimbabwe and North Korea have escaped their honeymoon period by a few eeks, I think.

I like to think of Iowans as being more phlegmatic, like the British used to be. Just because you're slow to adapt doesn't mean you refuse to. Slow and steady. Once it emerged that being gay didn't cause more tornadoes or flooding (surely you've had less in the last ten years of heretical acceptance) I reckon they were fine.

Woah. Lets' be clear. It's a democracy. So, like I say, if people want to be up front and say they don't think gay people have the same protection under law as anyone else then that's their right. But they have to be clear. I personally think that would be a repellent notion, but that would be coherent. This doesn't seem to me to be coherent. Which makes it stupid on two levels. EDIT: I nearly forgot. I am however, opposed to the notion of marriage. It seems to me to be a strange and mainly unworkable arrangement to enter into. I think the divorce stats back me up on this. In almost every other contractual area of life we have witnessed a trend towards shorter more flexible commitments. Committing to a lifetime was hard enough in biblical times. Doing it in an era of career obsolescence, lifespans in the 80s not uncommon, and global environmental shifts - not to mention children who grow up to be total bastards - is sheer lunacy. So I'm not saying gay people are missing out.

I'm kind of sick of these movies, and of the whole mentality. There was a Celtic Rangers match recently which wound up with one guy hospitalised, and another feller dead. Bloke was just near his house, in the 'wrong' neighbourhood. Can anyone tell me what the **** beating up a forty year old man minding his own business has to do with being hard? I get all Daily Mail when I think about this sort of thing. Someone reckons its law of the jungle they should ****ing well have to be judged by it. Sorry, pal, but you and your pathetic mates were slower and less heavily armed than us, so we burn you alive.

Being elected doesn't make you spiffy. I think we all get that. But there are degrees of un-spiffitude. Closing all media that disagrees with you, nationalist tub-thumping, these are worrying signs. And before anyone points it out, I am also worried about Berlusconi. And he's just next-door.

I would certainly agree that there apears to have been a worrying trend over the years for appellate courts to refine constitutions to the point where they are effectively creating policy. I'm not an expert on US politics, but my feeling is that this trend has been exaggerated by the appointing authorities trying to pack the judging panels with partisan appointees. If it isn't that, it may be simply that the system itself is flawed. Maybe circuit courts should have the power, and use the power to refer a case back to the legislature at the appropriate level. Of course THEN you'd have a speed bump in the checks and balances, where there should be a gate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7779770.stm I thought this was agreat video on lots of levels. Firstly it shows some cool footage of police training. I always get a childish thrill out of guns being fired. However, more importantly it raises some important questions about how we expect our security services to rpotect us against fanatics. Quite simply, the police used no warning because giving a warning could have resulted in massive deaths. More importantly, the video explains that all our police are being trained to use hollow point ammunition and to shoot directly for the head only. Which I think merely underlines how seriously the government is taking the probability of a zombie outbreak.

I don't want to presume too much upon your opinion, but the purpose of an appeal court is to rule on the legal coherence, not policy. To my untutored eye it looks like the court made an error in this duty. If the constitution - the higher legal document - states that all are equal whatever the gender orientation, then an inferior document cannot supercede it as it has here. The people are perfectly within their rights to amend the constitution and THEN pass a law banning same sex marriage, but not until then. But I guess that would require people to face up to the rather unsavoury suggestion that gay people aren't people like us. Not really. It's either hypocrisy, bigotry, or simple laziness to do otherwise.