MsGuy

Snotty liberal stereotyping such as in the above quote does not do much to advance the conversation. IMHO.

Jude paints up his fingernails. Conner: "What's that?" Jude: "War paint." ==== Ever the sucker for a boy in blue.

[sigh]

Here's an interesting article on the new Arab Israeli United List and it's place in Israeli politics. Latest polls show the United List polling about 13 seats in the Knesset which would make them the 3rd largest party. By comparison Likud is polling about 22 seats and Labor is polling about 26 (out of 110 total seats).

Now either that's a shopped napkin/napkin ring... Or Grandma has neck muscles to put the Hulk to shame.

OK, so maybe I'm not dead yet... But I'm definitely feeling puny.

Fascinating essay. But don't you think it would be better to tell your readers a little something about Richard Feynman?

Rumors of ill health refuted... Paparazzi catch Putin partying with friends.

To the contrary... the truer, the meaner. Hence the sting you felt when you read my post, my dear Sucky.

It would appear that the Caliphate is having a few problems holding its constituent parts together. Nice to know we are not the only ones butting our heads against the complexity of the Mid East. LOL, I was wondering how they were managing to integrate every Moslem whac-a-doodle with the price of a ticket to Turkey who fancied himself a holy warrior.

The DOJ just filed an amicus brief asking the court to strike down any state law banning same sex marriage. See PDF here. I think it fairly states the good guys version of the case and, for a Supreme Court brief, is not too heavy on legalese. Ultimately all the litigation about gay rights tracks back to two landmark cases from the late 1990s. Romer vs Evans first established that homosexuals were a 'suspect class', i.e. an unpopular minority historically known to be subjected to persecution by the larger community. See PDF here. In his dissent Justice Scalia quite rightly points out that the majority is skating on thin ice, constitutionally speaking, and is deploying a lot of smoke and mirrors to dodge sticky legal questions. Lawrence vs. Evans established that suppression of sodomy was not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify locking up queers in jail. See PDF here. Again Scalia forcefully argues the contrary view in his dissent. He also, correctly we hope, points out that the majority justices were deluding themselves to pretend that Romer + Lawrence did not directly lead to gay marriage equality. On a personal note, I heard about the Romer decision on the evening news and immediately drove to a state university nearby to get a PDF printout of the decision. I just couldn't wait for regular channels and knew that news reports often get the substance of court opinions wrong. For once the reports were understated. I almost cried as I read the majority opinion. From these two cases all our legal blessings flow. Amen.

Kitten Livers with Onion Marmalade Yields 4 servings Ingredients: 2 cup butter 2/3 cup snipped fresh chives 1/2 cup sliced white onion 1/2 cup sliced red onion 1/2 cup sliced leeks 3 large shallots, sliced 2 teaspoons chopped garlic 1/4 cup Sherry 1/2 cup half and half salt and pepper 1/2 LB kitten livers Directions: Melt 1/4 cup butter in a cast iron skillet over medium heat. Add chives, onions, leeks, shallots and garlic and cook until tender. Add sherry and stir until no liquid remains. Increase heat to high. Add half and half and boil until reduced, stirring constantly. Season with salt and pepper. Remove and set aside. Melt remaining butter over medium-high heat. Add kitten livers and cook to desired doneness. We recommend eating kitten livers medium rare. ---- Warning: Don't overcook the liver; there's a fine line between just right and tough & dry. Try it, you might like it (best with organic free range kittens).

Looks fine to me also.

Hmm...but it takes 5 to make a handful. Probably won't appeal to everyone.

Gays do not have a constitutional right to marry anywhere (in the US). What we hope we do have is the same right as any other member of an unpopular class of folks not to be singled out and discriminated against by their government unless it be rationally related to the furtherance of a legitimate and compelling state interest. Whew...that's a mouthful, isn't it. Roughly translated that means that courts are supposed to cast a hairy eyeball on laws that carve out a subset of the population and treat them worse than the rest of of us. It's not that all discriminatory laws are unconstitutional, just that such laws have to serve a legit state purpose in a rational way. That's called 'judicial scrutiny'. Now just how hairy an eyeball a judge is supposed to cast depends on several factors: 1) How unpopular is the class and how well is it able to defend itself in the normal rough and tumble of legislative sausage making. For instance: rich folks are normally deemed able to adequately defend themselves from the howling mob, so clearly discriminatory tax laws go unchallenged. 2) How legitimate is the state purpose and how nasty is the penalty? All states have a minimum age requirement to get a drivers license. Legitimate purpose: safe highways; penalty: not being able to drive a car. 3) How rationally related is the penalty to the purpose of the law? True that most (but not all) 12 year olds make terrible drivers but so do a lot 20 year olds, so... Well, it's a balancing act, it's not an unreasonable effort as part of a comprehensive scheme to make the roads safer, so let it go. Remember that as recently as 25 years ago suppression of buggery was a legitimate public purpose and prison time was deemed a rational way to further that goal. Times change.

I take it this was before California passed all those stalker laws.

Alternatively, it might be another case of everything looking like a nail... :tongue:

What...there's no spell check in Farsi? How barbaric. Clearly we need to intervene them right back to the (sticks &) stone age.

Good point, RA1. But I would bet good money that you would be reluctant to support US regime change if it were foisted on us through armed intervention from abroad. You might even be inclined to dig up that cache of guns you've got buried out back. I suspect that most Iranians would react the same however much they might dislike the Ayatollahs.

Does it seem to anyone else that Netanyahu's speech was at least as much about demanding regime change in Iran as it was about criticising the nuclear program negotiations?

No peanuts? Really? Just goes to show how your prejudices can limit your life choices. Well, it's too late now. I guess I'll have to wait until my next incarnation to sample the wonders of Indian cuisine.

Sprinkle the shroud with some Lourdes holy water and then have the Pope scratch it three times with St. Peter's knuckle bone. If it doesn't burst into flames, it must be authentic. Problem solved.

I knew there was some reason I didn't like Indian food. Nice to know it's not just that they put peanuts in their soup.