Posts Made By: James Brown

Russ Carroll said:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/politics/secret-service/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Sick...really sick.

Hi Russ:

I don't understand your commentary; "A New Low for a Narcissistic Society."

Prostitution is considered the oldest profession after all. I'd guess that this type of thing has been done before by the secret service maybe it was even routine? History is pretty clear that prostitutes have always had dealings with soldiers stationed away from home. Heck, JFK, WJC and no doubt many other presidents have entertained courtesans in the White House, if these liasons were not exactly prostitutes, the line is very fine.

Like Patrick, I do not want to wink off the security breach or condone the use of prostitutes. What I don't get is your "new low" commentary.

Jim

I love it Jim! The galaxies look almost 3D.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/divider-in-chief/2012/05/03/gIQAMPR0zT_story.html

"What else to run on with 1.7 percent GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8 percent-plus unemployment (38 consecutive months, as of this writing). Slice and dice, group against group.

There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama’s pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is “not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.�

That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore’s famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many."

That's a fine column.

Jim

Jim Thommes said:

Here is an image of NGC4725 and it's lesser cohorts NGC 4747 and NGC 4712. There is that interesting feature of NGC 4725 of it being a one armed galaxy. Image and details are at:

http://www.jthommes.com/Astro/NGC4725.htm

Scope - C8 at f/6.9
Camera - ST8300M (Baader LRGB filters)

Nice. You do galaxies with smaller telescopes as well as anyone I've ever seen.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman (over 30 states now have amendments in place banning same-sex marriage with large majority support):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

politicians and courts negate the democratic will of the people.

No wonder the WP Poll showed so many people thought democracy isn't working. This is one of those rare times when a Constitutional amendment is called for in defining marriage.

Russ:

I'm not sure why you are in favor of the will of the majority being use to justify institutionalized discrimination. That's not a particularly libertarian stance you know. Generally you don't endorse government meddling in the lives of citizens...

Anyway, certain ideals woven into the very foundation of our Nation's being trump the whim of the majority;

[COLOR="Blue"]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[/COLOR]

The Declaration of Independence

[COLOR="Blue"]"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."[/COLOR]

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Good Luck with the marriage definition amendment. Obviously the GOP would have to carry the ball. I'm not sure if you've talked with many young people, but the "majority" opposed to gay marriage is dissipating rapidly and will be ancient history in a decade or two. Are you willing to destroy the party and any hope for conservative fiscal policy in exchange for making an absolutely doomed-to-failure "statement" based entirely and exclusively in your personal religious faith? Are you really in favor of this being the topic the next few election cycles are decided upon?

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman (over 30 states now have amendments in place banning same-sex marriage with large majority support):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

politicians and courts negate the democratic will of the people.

No wonder the WP Poll showed so many people thought democracy isn't working. This is one of those rare times when a Constitutional amendment is called for in defining marriage.

p.s. Are you really interested in deciding this by the "will of the majority?" Are you then in favor of repealing DOMA so that states that choose to grant marriage licenses to gays can do so unfettered by the Feds? In a decade or two when 40 or so states have legalized gay marriage are you going to be OK with that?

J

I liked the thread title better...

These gay marriage threads always shock me because so many otherwise libertarian/conservative types are not willing to extend the whole package that is "civil marriage" to a well defined and fairly large class of citizens who are as capable of love and commitment as the rest of us.

There is never any more than a vague hint of harm to society and no real argument that it is necessary to keep civil marriage confined to a man and woman other than "that is the way we've always done it."

Obviously, the reasoning behind most everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a religious conviction that homosexuality is immoral and thus the state should not be sanctioning immorality. No one ever says it that plainly though, I suppose this is because most of you acknowledge that there is nothing remotely like a consensus that homosexuality is immoral. You also acknowledge that this is a weak argument when the issue is civil marriage and equal protection under the laws.

Mark raises an interesting point regarding the state's authority to ban discrimination against gays in adoption, and thus effectively force the Catholic Church to adopt children out to gay couples. I think that the state might in fact have that authority because the state's interest is in the child and there is no evidence that gay parents are detrimental to a child merely because they are gay.

In this case the welfare of the child might trump the religious convictions of the adoption agency. Sometimes a state interest does trump religious freedom under the Constitution, for example JW parents are prohibited by law from denying their own childred transfusions. Even so, if the Church were to ask for an exemption, they'd probably get it.

Russ is always a gentleman, Jim, Brian, Doug, Mel - it's been fun and refreshingly civil.

I've no kind words for David... the "do you know right from wrong" schtick is a pain. I'm pretty sure that such cutesy sophistry reflects more poorly on you than it does me though...

Anyway, I have to say adieux to this thread now. It has been a huge time drain and soon Herb will come along and delete the whole thing. He always does.

So I'll part with a link to one of my proudest AstroMart moments - the day I changed Jim Babcock's mind on this issue. We have not heard from Jim Babcock in a few years, I hope he's OK. Some time ago he suffered a stroke caused by a blood clot released as he recovered from a serious leg wound caused by a terrorist IED in Iraq. Jim is a patriot, a libertarian and an extreme conservative.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=680047&poll_id=&news_id=&page=

If only some of the rest of you were as reasonable.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

http://buchanan.org/blog/the-antietam-of-the-culture-war-5074

"But Obama may also have just solved Mitt Romney's big problem: How does Mitt get all those evangelical Christians and cultural conservatives not only to vote for him but to work for him?"

What's funny is that I was buying the line here that this would help Obama, but my social liberal friends thought just the opposite (as this article points out.

Hi Russ:

I'll accept that Obama's changed stance may hurt him somewhat overall, but Antietam...?

Obama did the calculus on this move a long time ago. (Even though Biden apparently blurted early.) The calculus being money from Hollywood plus motivated youth voters, plus motivated social lefties vs. motivated religious righties and money from motivated social conservatives to Romney etc. It's tough to tell whether this will hurt or help Obama in the long run. The bottom line is that this will be a subtle strategic shift though, unless you believe like Buchanan does that Christian America is a sleeping giant just waiting to be awakened. Pat's view of the overwhelming power of the religious right is obvious BS. Just ask presumptive R nominee Rick Santorum... Oops.

On the other hand, I do believe that anything that Obama does that deflects attention from the economy helps him. So...

Some side notes:

I wish more anti-gay marriage people were as forthright as Buchanan. He pulls no punches with his Christian Nation - War Against Secularism BS, but at least we know where he is coming from. Pat is at least as much a disciple of PT Barnum as Christ. Even so it is good to see someone comfortable expressing his true motivation, whereas the politicians who agree with him on this issue are so much more circumspect and dodgy.

Final point, Buchanan's preemptive attack on the Supreme Court is historically misguided, and woefully shortsighted. (Just like O's preemptive attack on the Court regarding Obamacare) As if the will of the people automatically trumped the Constitution! Those sentiments of his, played to the hilt by his opposites and enemies, could some day in a dark distopian future United States cause religion to be criminalized. Way to go Pat.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

It may not be the best, but it is first 8)

Not bad...

I was set up with my Traveler, a proper filter, the Digital SLR...

Well, you know how these things go.

7:35 MST Golden, CO

Jim

8)