Re: World Champions 2006

[Julia Thompson]

Horn, John wrote:

St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
 
Man, I like the sound of that!
 
  - jmh


You know, the moon is in a different phase than it was when the World 
Series was won in 2004.  I remember the end of the World Series in 2004, 
and I remember how the moon looked when I got back from my (mostly 
failed) errand run.


I may be the only one here who gives a damn about that, though.

Julia



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: World Champions 2006

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/10/2006, at 2:47 PM, Horn, John wrote:


St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.


*cough* Time they allowed other countries in, eh?

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

World Champions 2006

[Horn, John]

St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
 
Man, I like the sound of that!
 
  - jmh


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/10/2006, at 1:05 PM, jdiebremse wrote:




--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
agree with it.


I am appalled at the way it was handed down.

I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more
twisted that I had thought.


Have you got the full opinion? All I can find is a summary from the  
court, not the full opinion.


First, the NJSC found a right to "equal protection of the laws" that
*doesn't even exist* in the New Jersey Constitution.   (Note: This  
is by

the Court's own admission in its opinion.)

*Then* they interpreted this language that doesn't exist as  
prohibiting

the New Jersey Legislature from providing any special benefit to
heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples, other than the  
word

"marriage" itself?

I've often heard the argument from some liberal commentators that they
don't know what "judicial activism" is, and think that "judicial
activism" is just code for rulings that conservatives don't like.


It often is, and it's massively overused. However, if you're correct  
in your analysis then this may count.


So you disagree with the way the decision was made. Do you disagree  
that gay couples should be allowed civil unions?


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/10/2006, at 12:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote:



And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?



Is it really not obvious to you?


No, it's not.


The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ  
Legislature to

either:

  1) Create gay marriages

  2) Create gay "civil unions" that are identical to marriages in  
every

way, save for the word "marriage."

Neither of these laws existed in New Jersey prior to this decision.


But that hasn't imposed anything on anyone. If you're not gay, it  
doesn't affect you. It doesn't make you you do anything you don't  
want to. It simply recognises that gay couples function just the  
same. It hasn't "invented" anything, it's simply extended the  
benefits of marriage to all couples.


What you are arguing is that gay relationships are fundamentally  
different to straight ones, aren't you?


Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote,
debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that  
the

constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement.


None of the framers of the US Constitution could have imagined mix  
race marriages either. So what?


This is called "bait and switch" and it is inimical to the democratic
process.   If one can have no confidence that the laws one votes for
mean what they say that they mean, what is the purpose of the  
democratic

process?Why bother participating in democracy at all?


Why bother living in a society with gross inequality?




Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in
a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said
it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created?



Actually, it just said that it need not be called "marriage."


OK, "need not". So NJ recognises gay civil unions as a result of  
this? So what's actually changed?


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
> agree with it.

I am appalled at the way it was handed down.

I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more
twisted that I had thought.

First, the NJSC found a right to "equal protection of the laws" that
*doesn't even exist* in the New Jersey Constitution.   (Note: This is by
the Court's own admission in its opinion.)

*Then* they interpreted this language that doesn't exist as prohibiting
the New Jersey Legislature from providing any special benefit to
heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples, other than the word
"marriage" itself?

I've often heard the argument from some liberal commentators that they
don't know what "judicial activism" is, and think that "judicial
activism" is just code for rulings that conservatives don't like.
Well, the twisted-pretzel-logic of this ruling probably makes as fine an
example of "judicial activism" as any - explicitly determining a written
text to say something it doesn't, and then using this invented
determination to find a requirement within the Constitution that would
have been positively unimagineable to the people who wrote, debated, and
voted for that Constitution.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
> >>> by the
> >>> majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
> >>
> >> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
> >> the majority, especially those on separations of religious
> >> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
> >> time...
> >
> > They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
> > They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.
>
> And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?


Is it really not obvious to you?

The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ Legislature to
either:

  1) Create gay marriages

  2) Create gay "civil unions" that are identical to marriages in every
way, save for the word "marriage."

Neither of these laws existed in New Jersey prior to this decision.

Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote,
debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that the
constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement.

This is called "bait and switch" and it is inimical to the democratic
process.   If one can have no confidence that the laws one votes for
mean what they say that they mean, what is the purpose of the democratic
process?Why bother participating in democracy at all?


> Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in
> a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said
> it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created?


Actually, it just said that it need not be called "marriage."

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JDG wrote:
> >Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions
>
> I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally don't know much
> about a progressive income tax's Constitutionality.

The progressive income tax is a classic case of the State granting
different privileges to certain favored groups.

> Regarding rights
> vs. privileges, I'm not sure I understand the difference, especially
> since one of dictionary.com's definitions of "privilege" is:
> "any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern
> constitutional government"
>
> If you could expand upon what you meant by "why isn't this ruling a
> question of privileges and not rights?" maybe I'd take you up on it,
> though I can't promise anything. I'm not quite as into politics as
> most of our compatriots.

I think that one has a basic right to liberty.   I don't think that one
has a basic right to file a joint tax return.

For example, I would have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling that
a constitutional right to liberty protects the right of two people of
the same sex to live together, and to engage in mutually consensually
activity in the privacy of their own bedrooms.   I think that's covered
by the right to liberty.

Privileges, to me, consist of artificial legal benefits.   Tax rates for
example.   Streamlined procedures for obtaining joint title to property
and other legal recognitions, for example.


> Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any
> number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions
> or comments on any topic. This may be tacitly ceding a given point,
> or (as in my case this time) not really understanding the question,
> but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant.

Point taken.  I didn't mean to imply any fault of charachter upon those
who had responded, but to draw attention to what I felt were some valid
questions/responses.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:28 PM Friday 10/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
 - Original Message  From: Robert G. 
Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 
2006 8:30:22 PM Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ 
On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > At 
09:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Jim Sharkey 
wrote: > > > >Ronn!Blankenship 
wrote: > > >Finite amount of time in the day, 
perhaps? > > > >What, you don't have your own 
TARDIS?  :-p > > > >Jim > > > I thought I did, 
but it turns out that the crescent moon symbol 
on > the door meant something else . . . > > 
That is a TURDIS. They sell 'em at Wal-Mart 
xponent Obvious Maru rob 
___ 
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



Eeewww!  I hope that the Dr. Who production budgets never sink that low.



The joke of substituting an outhouse or a 
Porta-Potty™ for a police call box, as well as 
the obvious name for it, as part of a Dr. Who 
parody has been around at least as long as I have 
known about Dr. Who (which would have been in the 
mid-80s when the local PBS station where I was 
living then aired it nightly M-F at iirc 10:30 pm 
local after one of the old Britcoms like "Fawlty 
Towers" or "Good Neighbors" at 10) and Dr. Who 
fandom (which met once a month on Saturday night 
to view episodes someone had taped off the screen 
in England and sent across the pond, and 
apparently copied a few times in the process, 
leaving the final result barely legible). . .



--Ronn!  :)

"Bathroom humor is an American-Standard."



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Obama's New Rules

[Robert G. Seeberger]

http://www.slate.com/id/2152252?GT1=8702


Political assumptions can remain constant for long periods and then 
change very quickly. And so they have in the approximately 10 days 
since the publication of Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. In 
the brief time he's been on book tour, Obama has overthrown much of 
the reigning conventional wisdom about what's likely to happen in the 
2008 campaign, how shrewd politicians ought to behave, and what the 
informal rules of the American system really are. Consider the 
following statements thought true by the political class in early 
October but called into question by month's end.
1. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.
There was a basis for thinking this until Oct. 18, the day Obama 
appeared on Oprah. Hillary has raised a formidable amount of money, 
lined up extensive backing, and has the Democrats' best political 
thinker for a spouse. Obama's bigger advantage is that the party is 
actually excited about him and thinks he could win. Based on an 
unscientific reading of Democratic enthusiasm, Obama, not Hillary, 
will be the de facto Democratic front-runner the day he declares 
himself a candidate. If Obama chooses not to run, he could still sap 
Hillary's strength, the way Colin Powell did Bob Dole's in 1996, by 
reminding primary voters that their most promising candidate isn't in 
the race.

2. John McCain can beat anyone the Democrats put up.
"Our sense right now is that McCain would beat any Democrat including 
Hillary Clinton, and Clinton would beat any Republican except for 
McCain." Thus spake political guru Mark Halperin of ABC News and John 
Harris of the Washington Post in their book, The Way to Win. Obama 
upsets that equation because of his crossover appeal to independents 
and moderate Republicans. Like John McCain, the candidate he would be 
most likely to face in 2008 if he won the Democratic nomination, Obama 
attracts support more through his style, personality, and biography 
than by his specific positions. Last week, New York Times columnist 
David Brooks, a long-standing McCain fan, nearly announced his 
defection to Obama in an admiring column($). As for McCain himself, he 
would evidently prefer to run against Clinton than Obama.

3. Democrats have a problem with religion.
In 2000 and 2004, evangelical Christians and regular churchgoers voted 
overwhelmingly for George W. Bush. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry was 
comfortable talking about his faith or employing a religious idiom, 
leading many to conclude that Democrats were doomed to function as the 
secular party in a still-religious nation. Obama is the rare Democrat 
who talks easily about faith and values, and who does so without 
upsetting those offended by the mixture of religion and politics. In a 
thoughtful speech last summer that also forms the basis of a chapter 
of his book, Obama explained his own religious motivation and defended 
the use of spiritual language in a political context. He argues that 
his party should explicitly try to win over the spiritual followers of 
more moderate evangelical leaders such as Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes. 
Obama hasn't closed the Democrats' religious gap, but he has initiated 
a productive conversation about how to narrow it.

4. Old liberalism is dead.
Closely allied to the assumption that Democrats can't win because 
they're too secular is the view that they can't win if they're too 
liberal. This assumption has steered Hillary Clinton toward the 
center, following her husband. I tend to share this view myself. But 
somehow it doesn't seem to apply to Obama, who has excited centrist 
Democrats and many moderate Republicans while steering clear of the 
Democratic Leadership Council and earning a perfect-100 score from 
Americans for Democratic Action in his first year in the Senate. Obama 
began his political career as a community organizer and civil rights 
lawyer in Chicago. He is close to unions and voted against CAFTA, the 
most recent free-trade agreement to come before Congress. His domestic 
policies are consistently liberal on issues like national health care 
and affirmative action (though he supports the death penalty in 
certain circumstances and has not come out for gay marriage). He was a 
big dove on the Iraq war. None of this seems off-putting to people who 
would dismiss almost any other candidate with Obama's views.

5. Extreme partisanship works.
Obama can thrive as a liberal because of another paradox: the 
resonance of his moderate, deliberative style and calls for "common 
ground." The lesson of recent elections seemed to be that 
bipartisanship was dead. Congressional gerrymandering, the rise of the 
Section 527 loophole, and a more partisan media have all contributed 
to the current, polarized environment. Obama rejects all of this. The 
main theme of his book is that something has gone wrong with American 
politics because of how divided, absolutist, and bitter it has become. 

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:33 AM Friday 10/27/2006, jdiebremse wrote:




Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs.
In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the secular
ceremony of their choice.   Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?



As I understand it, LDS couples who want to get married in one of the 
temples in England have to have a second ceremony in the Church of 
England before their marriage is recognized as legal.  In some Latin 
American countries, it is apparently necessary to have a ceremony in 
a Catholic church for the marriage to be considered legal.



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/10/2006, at 9:40 AM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:




I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a

civil union, and that should maybe be the

official name.  But I confess that I'd personally

call such things "marriages", just to upset

traditionalists.


Eventually, they'll be called that 'cause that's what they are.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/10/2006, at 12:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote:



Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.


So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on separations of religious
establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
time...


Let's look at that.  The Bill of Rights are amendments to the  
Constitution.

Article V of the US Constitution gives two means of amending the
Constitution.  One of these, the constitutional convention, has yet  
to be
used (we were close to it about 20 years ago).  The other has been  
used

numerous times.  It requires approval of 2/3rds vote of each House of
Congress and 3/4ths of the state assemblies.

Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we  
should see

such a strong vote as indicating popular approval.


You can if you like. It doesn't reflect the history. The population  
at the time was overwhelmingly Christian, but many of the founders  
were lapsed, or deists. Their views on a secular federal government  
were very much a minority view at the time. That they signed the  
Constitution and then convinced the Congress to approve the Bill of  
Rights was testament to their vision and skills of persuasion. And it  
was a pretty fine job they did (oddly placed comma in the second  
amendment notwithstanding... ;-) ). There's no mention of any  
religion at all in the Constitution, apart from to say that no  
religious test may be required as a qualification to hold office.  
This was almost unthinkable in the late 1700s.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Matt Grimaldi]

Hear Hear!  "Marriage" as a word gets to be defined by religious organizations, 
and the legally binding contract retains a different name and much more 
flexibility.

-- Matt

- Original Message 
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:59:41 AM
Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ

IMHO I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the marriage 
business PERIOD. As far as the government is concerned, they are ALL civil 
unions, straight or gay. This way you can call it whatever the heck you want...



Damon.



Damon Agretto

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."

http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html

Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h)

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.



Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.  



-Original Message-

From: David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:59:55 

To:Killer Bs Discussion 

Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ



Jim Sharkey wrote:

...

>>From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't 

> really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples

> similar to committed straight couples, in general.  I'm still not a 

> fan of calling it "marriage," but that's my cross to bear, not 

> others'.  



Jim--



I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a

civil union, and that should maybe be the

official name.  But I confess that I'd personally

call such things "marriages", just to upset

traditionalists.



---David



A rose by any other name,  Maru



___

http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Matt Grimaldi]

Eeewww!  I hope that the Dr. Who production budgets never sink that low.

- Original Message 
From: Robert G. Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:30:22 PM
Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ


On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 09:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Jim Sharkey wrote:
>
> > >Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > >Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps?
> >
> >What, you don't have your own TARDIS?  :-p
> >
> >Jim
>
>
> I thought I did, but it turns out that the crescent moon symbol on
> the door meant something else . . .
>
>
That is a TURDIS.
They sell 'em at Wal-Mart


xponent
Obvious Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SPOILER WARNING: Re: Heroes

[Matt Grimaldi]

- Original Message 
From: Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

]Matt Sez:
]> He also seems to understand his powers much more completely.
]> There was mention of "causing a rift"
]>

]*
]The Dialogue:
]
]Hiro: I don't have much time. I'm risking a rift just by coming here.
]
]*

]What's the implication?
]Perhaps that by messing with the past a parallel timeline might be 
]created.
]Crisis on Infinite Earths anyone?

Maybe he's *from* a parallel timeline and wants to influence
the one on the subway?  This could also explain the mention
of a missing scar.






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gay Unions in NJ

[Robert G. Seeberger]

On 10/27/2006 8:16:31 AM, Ritu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
>
> > Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it
> wasn't
> > in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding".
>
> Over here, the simplest way is to garland each other in the 
> registrar's
> office and then sign the register. The elaborate ways last for 
> weeks,
> with the actual ceremony going upto 7-8 hours.
>

Garland?...is that what they are calling it these days?



xponent
No Garland This Week Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



So, we really need to look under the numbers quoted by an advocate.  If
veterans chose the VA system for maintenance, but chose other hospitals
for
high cost options, such as long stays in intensive care, then even a very
inefficient VA will, on paper, be more cost effective than the most
private
health care system.



If, if, if.  I see guys in long stays in intensive care at PAVA, one of the
brain and spinal cord centers near here.  It's not as if there are lots of
empty beds.  We're at war and well over ten thousand of our brothers and
sisters have been seriously injured.

You're not even arguing the other side of this issue.  If you're not
producing evidence of the VA's inefficiency and what's being done to make it
more efficient and thereby justify the funding cuts, you're just making
noise, not speaking to the point.

And there's still no justification for shifting VA revenue from taxpayers to
vets.  That has nothing to do with efficiency.



So, are you arguing that totally free health care should be given to
anyone
who served anywhere in the military?  That program would cost in the
hundreds of billionsand would certainly be a great inducement for
enlistment.  Would this be available only for those who served in war
zones,
or would someone who served two years in the 'States also qualify?



Oh, sure, that's what I said.  Yeah.  And a cookie and a balloon.  Maybe a
free train ride.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:58 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Who REALLY supports the troops
> 
> On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I
> > grew
> > up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was
> considered
> > a
> > very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a
> > last
> > resort.
> 
> 
> How nice for them that they had a choice. 

We're talking about average working class folks in the '60s.  Most had some
form or other of health insurance.  The VA was considered someplace to stay
away from, if at all possible.  

>I suspect you'll find that the
> problems they ran into were not caused by the VA wasting money.  
>More likely it was wasting their time fighting the rules and regulations
>that make many vets reluctant to fight for their rights.

Well, that's not what they said.  They said "I hope I never end up in a VA
hospital."  Now, I'll admit that's a snapshot, not a national survey.  But,
don't you think that the vets that I knew wanting to stay away from the VA
is meaningful?  If not, why not?  

Also, it appears that you don't believe that Weber's law is valid.  Is that
true? 

> 
> It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a
> hard
> > to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
> > work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has
> had
> > years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking
> our
> > Veterans."
> 
> What sort of reform did you have in mind? 

In general, I'd have every level of the bureaucracy reviewed by folks who
are well respected for their expertise in care. 

> As a health care provider, the
> VA is very efficient, delivering more quality health services per 
> dollar than any other large health care organization in the United States.
> I refer you to Brad DeLong, for example:

Actually, you are referring me to Paul Krugman...Brad just posted his
column.  He is a liberal political columnist.  He does have an advanced
degree in economics, but he has chosen to be an advocate instead of neutral.
That's certainly fine, but I take all columnist columns with a grain of
salt.  Citing a comment by one side does not constitute proof. 


> http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/paul_krugman_on_1.html.  Yet those
> brilliant Republicans in Congress can see that they're elminating "waste"
> by cutting its budget!

In fact, if you look at some of the responses, you will see some interesting
counters.  First, Dr. Krugman argues that the overhead is close to nil,
because all veterans are eligible. But, there appears to be priorities that
determine who is served established by intricate bureaucratic rules.


One of the things Krugman says isn't even true: There's one "advantage" the
VA has that other government health care systems don't have -- they get to
pick their patients, and can limit the number of patients based on their
budget. Contrary to popular belief, not every military veteran is in the VA
system -- the VA sets eligibility requirements in order to make sure that
the number of patients they have is limited to what thay can fit within
their budget. In fact, only a minority of former military personnel are in
the VA system.

Krugman says, the VA is "highly successful in containing costs, yet provides
excellent care." True, but the do it by containing their patient load.
Krugman also says something that is flat-out false: "Because it covers all
veterans, the system doesn't need to employ legions of administrative staff
to check patients' coverage ..."

On the contrary, it does not cover all veterans, and it does have "legions
[pun intended?] of administrative staff to check patients' coverage." They
have an entire web site devoted just to eligibility which states, in part
"All Veterans are Potentially Eligible" (emphasis mine). There is an
eight-level system of "priority" detailed here. It has categories like,
"Veterans with service-connected disabilities rated 30% or 40% disabling"
(priority 2) and "Veterans who agree to pay specified copay with income
and/or net worth above VA Income Threshold and income below the Geographic
Means Test Threshold" (priority 7 -- which has FOUR "subpriorities," only
two of which are currently in use.

Does Paul Krugman really believe they can determine eligibility under such
complete rules with fewer administrative staff than it takes1 another health
system just to look at someone's ID card and take down their policy number?


Second, the use of the VA is interesting.  Use for outpatient has been going
up significantly since the mid-90s, even though the number of vets has gone
down...and the number of old vets has gone down even quickerBut, in many
facilities, hospital beds are empty.  

Re: London

[Medievalbk]

 
In a message dated 10/27/2006 10:18:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I am  going to London from Sunday 2006-10-29 to Thursday 2006-11-02.

Any good  suggestions? How cold is it? Remember that I am Tropical,
anything below 20  Celsius is f freezing!



!. Read something good on the way there and back.
 
2. Ignore anyone who tells you to try out the famous echo in the 
Reading Room of the British Museum.
 
3. Drop a Brazilian coin into the river. Help confuse a future 
archaeologist.
 
Vilyehm.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

London

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

I am going to London from Sunday 2006-10-29 to Thursday 2006-11-02.

Any good suggestions? How cold is it? Remember that I am Tropical,
anything below 20 Celsius is f freezing!

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I
grew
up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was considered
a
very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a
last
resort.



How nice for them that they had a choice. I suspect you'll find that the
problems they ran into were not caused by the VA wasting money.  More likely
it was wasting their time fighting the rules and regulations that make many
vets reluctant to fight for their rights.

It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a hard

to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has had
years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking our
Veterans."



Ah.  Shifting the costs onto the veterans is cutting waste, is it?  How is
that so?  If there's waste, now it is more of the vets' money that is
wasted, rather than everybody's money wasted.  How do you justify that?

Back in my dad's day, there was a unhealthy co-dependant relationship

between some of the vets and the VA.  I suspect the same still
exists.  What
is really needed is someone with the political courage to reform the VA
systembut that won't happen because it would almost automatically
guarantee they will lose the next election.



What sort of reform did you have in mind?  As a health care provider, the VA
is very efficient, delivering more quality health services per dollar than
any other large health care organization in the United States.  I refer you
to Brad DeLong, for example:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/paul_krugman_on_1.html.  Yet those
brilliant Republicans in Congress can see that they're elminating "waste" by
cutting its budget!

There's a lot of call for reform of the VA... but it is by people who are
sick of Congress and the executive branch taking away more and more of
veterans' rights and services while demanding that they pay a greater
share.  How about reforming the incredible delays and denials that vets
face... but that would cost more, not less, since more vets would actually
be able to use the system.

Those who want to keep the VA costs down are opposed to real reform because
they know that the budget would have to go up if they removed all the
obstacles that prevent or discourage many vets from taking advantage of the
benefits they earned.

Yeah, reform now.  Eliminate the efficiency with which the rules and
regulations deny and discourage vets from receiving the benefits they've
earned.

It is sad that people accept the conservative propaganda that says to assume
that any large government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient.  The VA is
a fine example to the contrary in terms of delivering quality health care at
low cost.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]

[Horn, John]

> On Behalf Of jdiebremse
> 
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Most of the things I'm reading call him "Horned Rim Glasses
Man"
> > or HRG for short (or sometimes HRM).

I doubt it.  The hotel lady didn't know what happened to FlyingGuy
in the morning.  Unless she was a very good actor, I suppose.

 - jmh


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Dan Minette]

> How do you spin the shifting of a big chunk of the VA budget onto the
> veterans through increased fees, copayments, etc.?  The increases are far,
> far more than inflation would account for.  There is no change in how the
> money is spent, only who it is collected from.  How do you justify that?
> Especially during a war?
> 
> We support veterans... just not with money.  Phooey.
> 

Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I grew
up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was considered a
very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a last
resort.

It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a hard
to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has had
years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking our
Veterans."  

Back in my dad's day, there was a unhealthy co-dependant relationship
between some of the vets and the VA.  I suspect the same still exists.  What
is really needed is someone with the political courage to reform the VA
systembut that won't happen because it would almost automatically
guarantee they will lose the next election.  


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in
2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001
levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was
using, what it has used it for, and how effective it has been are all
good ones.



In 2001, we weren't at war.  We didn't have 10,000 troops who had been
injured in combat, many of whom suffered traumatic brain injury -- and more
every day. In previous wars, traumatic brain injuries accounted for about 20
percent of all injuries.  In Iraq, it is estimated at 40 to 70 percent...
and the reason the number is uncertain is that medical science is unsure
about the effects on the brain of the kind of explosions our troops are
being exposed to.  And that's why the research is important.

If you want to justify the vote, it would be very convenient to presume that
the research is ineffective.  But that's not even what the Republicans who
voted against it said.  They said there wasn't room in the budget.  And then
they boast about how they cut taxes and how the economy is doing so well
under their leadership.  And $20 million for a victory party.

And that's just one out of 154 votes against veterans since 9/11.

What does "support the troops" mean as a member of Congress?

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gay Unions in NJ

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:25 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ
> 
> 
> On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
> 
> >
> > Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
> > by the
> > majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
> 
> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
> the majority, especially those on separations of religious
> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
> time...

Let's look at that.  The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution.
Article V of the US Constitution gives two means of amending the
Constitution.  One of these, the constitutional convention, has yet to be
used (we were close to it about 20 years ago).  The other has been used
numerous times.  It requires approval of 2/3rds vote of each House of
Congress and 3/4ths of the state assemblies.  

Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we should see
such a strong vote as indicating popular approval.


One other point is that the first amendment, by itself, only applies to the
actions of the Federal Government.  It is:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. 


We see that the law specifically states that 'Congress shall make no law.'
There is no prohibition of individual states making such laws.  It takes the
14th amendment (section 1) for this to take place:


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. 


At the time, this was not thought to apply to the teaching of religion in
schools.  It took a Supreme Court Decision (1940s I think) to combine these
two amendments to prohibit the establishment of religion in state sponsored
schools.  

As an interesting aside, as I was typing this, Breyer and O'Conner (a
Supreme Court justice and former justice) were discussing this very issue.
:-)

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true.   I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are probably on the road to the
answer



Yeah, and I'm sure that the other 154 votes were just examples of good old
fiscal conservatism and don't for a moment mean that the majority of
Republicans consistently voted against the interests of veterans.

It's not cold-heartedness.  It is hypocrisy.  It is saying one thing with
their words and quite another with their votes.  It is irresponsible to
start a war and then cut veterans benefits because you say there isn't
enough money, especially while boasting of your tax cuts.

How do you spin the shifting of a big chunk of the VA budget onto the
veterans through increased fees, copayments, etc.?  The increases are far,
far more than inflation would account for.  There is no change in how the
money is spent, only who it is collected from.  How do you justify that?
Especially during a war?

We support veterans... just not with money.  Phooey.

Nick


--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gay Unions in NJ

[Ritu]

Charlie said:

> Yeah, you can do that in England now too. I think you're now allowed  
> to marry in the open air too, which you weren't even after they  
> relaxed the "registry office or place of worship" rule.

*g*

Here, Hindu marriages are *supposed* to be held in the open air. The
only exception to that rule is if you get married in a temple.

I got married in a garden at the rents' home, then in a chapel in Korea,
and then in a vast hall in J's family's gathering house. But we got the
legal certificate this June, when the MHA demanded one.

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gay Unions in NJ

[Ritu]

Charlie wrote:

> Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't  
> in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding".

Over here, the simplest way is to garland each other in the registrar's
office and then sign the register. The elaborate ways last for weeks,
with the actual ceremony going upto 7-8 hours.

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/10/2006, at 11:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:



On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:

Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?


Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it  
wasn't in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding".


Not in Scotland.  I married Mrs Wife in the hotel where we had the  
reception. Very convenient.


Yeah, you can do that in England now too. I think you're now allowed  
to marry in the open air too, which you weren't even after they  
relaxed the "registry office or place of worship" rule.


Claire and I married in a restaurant. That was convenient too. :-)

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[William T Goodall]

On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:

Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?


Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't  
in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding".


Not in Scotland.  I married Mrs Wife in the hotel where we had the  
reception. Very convenient.


Less Travel Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire  
and he will be warm for the rest of his life" - Terry Pratchett



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Jim Sharkey]

Charlie Bell wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any
>>number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions
>>or comments on any topic.  This may be tacitly ceding a given point,
>>or (as in my case this time) not really understanding the question,
>> but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant.
>
>Lack of interest in pursuing that line, unwillingness to split the  >thread, 
>lack of time to answer all details of a thread, meaning to  >reply to it later 
>but the discussion moves on, or just forgetfulness.

See?  Had I taken a little time to think, I might have come up with 
those reasons.  Maybe we should number them all and then when a set
of questions comes up, just reply with a number indicating why a more
thoughtful response is not forthcoming.  :-)

>I never take it as a snub.

*Snubs Charlie, then spreads a nasty rumor about him, just like in
a bad nighttime soap opera*

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/10/2006, at 9:48 PM, jdiebremse wrote:



So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006.   Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.


...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in  
2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001  
levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was  
using, what it has used it for, and how effective it has been are all  
good ones.


Charlie
Oh No I'm Agreeing With JDG Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. So much for
"well-reasoned"
>
> Yes, those are anecdotal, of course. But did we forget the wee matter
of
> 155 Senate votes on veterans issues since 9/11? Or is that just 155
> anecdotes?


Again, proof that you can make Congressional votes say "anything."


> > Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
> > benefits.
> > > During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is
that
> > > spin?
> > >
> > > Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/
> > 
> >
> > Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a
problem
> > by how much you spend on it.
>
>
> Oh. My. Goodness.
>
> I'd like to see how long you'd survive with the family of a soldier
who has
> a traumatic brain injury when you defend the GOP senators' votes
against
> funding research into those types of injuries.

Here's a question for you Nick - what is the optimal level of research
funding into brain injuries?   $20 billion?   $200 billion?   $2
trillion?How do you decide how much funding to devote to brain
injuries vs. breast cancer vs. heart disease?How do you decide how
much funding to devote to research vs. actual programs providing
benefits to the poor?


> The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding
war-related
> brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war —
from $6.5
> million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the
> appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a
tight
> budget this year.

So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006.   Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.

Care to take a guess as to how many federal programs have received a 95%
budget increase from FY 01   to FY 06?

Now, what you haven't considered in this situation:

  -How effective is the Brain Injury Center program?   Did it receive a
"Moderately Effective" rating or higher from the Office of Management
and Budget?   Does it have outstanding issues from the Government
Accountability Office?

  -How much money has the Brain Injury Center been able to actually spend
over the last five years?   With such a large budget increase, it would
not be surprising to me if it has large amounts of unobligated funds.
Under the proposed FY 07 budget, what would the trend in actual
expenditures look like?

I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true.   I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are probably on the road to the
answer


JDG

  -



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:




--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea


Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the
legal and religious portions.


How does that differ from the current situation?


Make the legal agreement that allows
for joint ownership, automatic powers-of-attorney, visiting rights,
protection of children just that - a legal contract. You can sign it
at the end of a church wedding, or in a hall, or in a lawyer's
office. Just a contract. Civil unions for any two people who wish to
organise their affairs that way.


Of course, one wonders why only two?


Indeed. Why only two?


  In any case I don't see how this
proposal is different from creating civil unions for same-sex couples






If you want a wedding you can have
it, but it won't automatically confer the legal rights.  That way,  
any

religious ceremony or none at all can be held, which has meaning to
the couple.


Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs.
In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the  
secular

ceremony of their choice.   Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?


Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't  
in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding".



Churches can protect their marriage in the eyes of the
Lord by offering weddings to heterosexual couples and not anyone else
if they choose. Marriage will mean exactly what it always has, which
is exactly what the two married people think it means to them and no
more.

Australia has gone part of the way - marriage no longer automatically
confers a name change for a female partner. Not far enough though.



All of this also seems true in the US as well.


So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to  
agree with it.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/10/2006, at 9:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:



--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:

Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.


So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on separations of religious
establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
time...


They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.


And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?

Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in  
a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said  
it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created?


How is allowing all committed couples most of the same legal  
protections as offered by marriage "imposing" anything? It doesn't  
change the rights of anyone else. It doesn't change the meaning of  
"marriage" (which means different things to different people anyway).






JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last
questions


'cause I'm "abortioned out".


Not, for the record, that I recall mentioning abortion


"Many people have attributed the entrenchment of anti-abortion activism
in this country to the fact that abortion was not legalized through
democratic processes in the United States, as it was in most other
democracies.   I can't help but wonder if the same thing isn't happening
here"

...was the bit of your previous post that I bypassed 'cause I can't  
be arsed opening that one up again just yet. :-)


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
> > marriage
> > isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
>
> Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the
> legal and religious portions.

How does that differ from the current situation?

>Make the legal agreement that allows
> for joint ownership, automatic powers-of-attorney, visiting rights,
> protection of children just that - a legal contract. You can sign it
> at the end of a church wedding, or in a hall, or in a lawyer's
> office. Just a contract. Civil unions for any two people who wish to
> organise their affairs that way.

Of course, one wonders why only two?In any case I don't see how this
proposal is different from creating civil unions for same-sex couples

>If you want a wedding you can have
> it, but it won't automatically confer the legal rights.  That way, any
> religious ceremony or none at all can be held, which has meaning to
> the couple.

Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs.
In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the secular
ceremony of their choice.   Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?

> Churches can protect their marriage in the eyes of the
> Lord by offering weddings to heterosexual couples and not anyone else
> if they choose. Marriage will mean exactly what it always has, which
> is exactly what the two married people think it means to them and no
> more.
>
> Australia has gone part of the way - marriage no longer automatically
> confers a name change for a female partner. Not far enough though.


All of this also seems true in the US as well.


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
> > Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
> > by the
> > majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
>
> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
> the majority, especially those on separations of religious
> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
> time...

They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.


> > JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last
> > questions
>
> 'cause I'm "abortioned out".

Not, for the record, that I recall mentioning abortion


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l