In My Memory

Ku, Social freedom is a prerequisite for social freedom. Social freedom is compatible with almost any economic system, from far left-wing environmentalists (like me ) to anarchocapitalists like Libetarians. Theres no contradiction in saying "socialized medicine for everyone" and "freedom to vote and express yourself" at the same time. Many parts of the UK and Australia are much more socialist than America, but they have significantly more freedoms. Not likely. Conservativism and Liberalism in the US today has nothing to do with economics, its confined almost exclusively to social conservatism. Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics, and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place. And economic freedom doesnt equal social freedom in the US. Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than right-wing social conservatives, especially since the religious right hijacked the Republican party. They might enjoy laissez-faire capitalism, but I've been a straight-ticket Democratic voter for years, because I think they want to censor the internet, censor the media, roll back womens rights, roll back civil rights, criminalize homosexuality, criminalize abortion, disenfranchise the rights of religious minorities, and so much more. I dont think my vote makes a difference economically, but socially I think conservatives are scary and authoritarian, so I dont vote for them.

I like your avatar, very buggy

Pangloss, Maybe its a courtesy thing, a way of saying "click here at your own risk" or "not for the easily offended". Sorta like adding the words "not safe for work" next to a link. Example (NSFW).

Aardvark, Not at all' date=' see Things not in the Constitution: A right to privacy has existed in the constitution since the Bill of Rights was written. The constitution doesnt have to use the words "right to privacy" explicitly, all that matters is the right to privacy as an actual constitutional principle (its exactly the same case where the words "separation of church and state" dont appear in the constitution, but its a valiid constitutional principle nonetheless). The right to privacy as a constitutional principle is recognized by Roe v Wade: Notice in the quote above, the basic rights to privacy were recognized as constitutional principles long before Roe v Wade. You're probably right. There are lots of legal protections that people have in this country that I think are positively immoral and disturbing. However, if this goes to the Supreme Court, they wont care whats morally right or wrong, only thats consistent with constitutional principles. However, while you said this system was bad because it "repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional", I dont think democracy really solves the problem (keep in mind that 11 US states unanimously voted away the rights of gay couples to get married). PCS, Oh my, your right. I've been arguing about abortion so for many years, and I've always emphasized particularly strongly on what it means to have privacy rights protecting your own decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've always called it having a right to ones own organs, and over the years I've inadvertantly incorporated the terminology I use into my understanding of Roe v Wade. So, I unintentionally misrepresented Roe v Wade, my apologies Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue. You cant be serious. *IMM waves good-bye to the Ninth Amendment*

Aardvark, Right to privacy' date=' which has been recognized as a constitutional protection in several cases. See FindLaw: Fourteenth Amendment Annotations: Privacy: In Roe v Wade, the right to privacy was extended to include ones own organs, so the state cannot regulate how women must use their organs. So, the right to privacy protects a woman from being compelled to carry her pregnancy to term if she doesnt want to use her organs that way.

AL, I would imagine it passes very easily, South Dakota is very conservative. According to South Dakota House Passes Abortion Ban to Instigate Court Fight, the House members know they cant enforce an abortion ban, but they are deliberately trying to get the measure through to Supreme Court: If the issue makes it to the Supreme Court, do you think Roe v Wade will get overturned?

South Dakota House Approves Abortion Ban: This is unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade has a precedent which extends privacy rights to the protections of ones own organs, and says the government cannot compell anyone to give up or share any of their organs for any reason, even to save a life (otherwise, we'd be abducting people off the street to harvest their organs for use in others). Abortion is protected because the fetus doesnt have a right to use a womans organs, not even for its own life. Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs? Especially if there no exemptions for rape, incest, or health. Theres no way this ban can be constitutional, but I'm not optimistic about the odds of the Supreme Court overturning this ban.

Sunspot, It probably isnt apparent but I'm a very girly girl, and have a closet full of skirts and dresses. I dont wear shorts because they are ugly, and I only wear pants when its cold. *says IMM as she flutters around cutely in her skirt behind her keyboard*

Look,

Transdecimal, Abortions never happen at 9 months. Partial-birth abortions (also known as dialation and extract abortions) take place no later than 24 weeks, in the 5th month of gestation. About 0.1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks, so its pretty evident that this partial birth abortions are not the norm. One of my friends had a partial birth abortion one time, because the fetus didnt implant in the uterus. It implanted somewhere in the fallopian tube, and after a few months of pregancy the fetus grew and caused the fallopian tube to burst. The poor woman was screaming in pain and was bleeding so much, and she nearly died, but her pregnancy had to be terminated to save her life (the fetus had already died long before). She's missing a fallopian tube now, but its better than bleeding to death. Of course, when you starbugs description "The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily", it sounds very grotesque, but do you have any idea why its done like that? Its because some fetuses die in the womb, or they develop a condition known as hydrocephalis (a fetus with this condition is in a permanent comatose state), and the fetus's skull begins to fill with fluid. It swells to several times the size a normal head should be, which makes safe delivery of the fetus (who is already dead or comatose) impossible. So, the description of the D&X sounds gruesome, but the only alternative to that surgery is death.

Aguy2, ****SPOILER ALERT**** I win.

I say let them enjoy making macoroni and cottonball Santas while they can. Now lies in the history classroom... hmmm... are we still telling our kids that Columbus feared falling off the edge of the earth, and that he was the Indian's best friend when he "discovered" America?

Day-trader (Green funds). The only way to keep inflation from eating up the value of your money is to invest it, but not many people know where to start, so they give their money to me and I make the investments for them. I keep a small percentage of the return. (<--- thats my unofficial job description) Generally, as long as people set sensible stop-loss and sell-by's (i.e. sell a stock if it loses 8%, or sell it when it gains 14%), then they can expect to see an average return of 10% on whatever they have me invest within 1 - 3 weeks. Yay money!

Question: should newspapers be publishing those cartoons? On the one hand, they have free speech, they even have the right to blaspheme other religions, and their cartoons have a serious message. And by publishing the cartoons, they are showing that they will not be pushed around by Islamic bullies. On the other hand, Islamic fundamentalists are INSANE and will murder people for those cartoons being published. What to do?

It was an image I put together using Yahoo Avatars, I asked the web designer to use a larger version of that image and to make the background transparent. It actually resembles me quite well.

Update: I have a friend who just happens to be a professional website designer, and he created a very beautiful website for me. http://juliet.pfwh.net/index.php Its exactly what I'm wanted, and for now I'm just writing this post to shamelessly plug my site

Bascule, Yes, but all of those are unbelievably unsophisticated bloggers for my uses. I made a decision between putting together an archive where I model cute skirts all day, or a small encyclopedia of animal rights and vegan philosophy, and I've decided on the latter. And the format I have in mind for my site is a little too overwhelming for Xangas and LiveJournals, because I intend for it to be an academic resource rather than an online diary. I had in mind something like this (that poorly drawn thing on the top was supposed to be a flower, but I think it was mauled by a lawnmower before I finished drawing it in Paint):

Klaynos, I googled for hosts with the keywords "PHP" and "MySQL" in them, and I found this: Zovenet.com Hosting. It says it has 100mb of space (I think it would take me years of writing to fill up 100mb, so I'm happy with that), PHP, and mySQL, which you said should be enough to get me started. I have no idea if this host is any good, or reliable, but I'll experiment with it as soon as I figure out what to do next. Now I need one of these: I want one that will make my site very pink and girly, but I've googled around for these and they all look like blogs and wikis (those are no good for the site I plan to make, they dont have enough features like categorizing and subcategorizing). What would you recommend? You wont have to worry about that, because I'm not even sure what that means

Klaynos, I can format with HTML and CSS, but I dont know anything about PHP or mySQL. How do I get those? And where would I go if I needed to download PHP and mySQL?

Hello! I wanted to create a website to publically host all of my original essays and writings which until now have scattered all over USENET and forums all over the internet. However, I dont know what I'm doing, or even how to get started (and while this is just an experiment for me where I'm not sure how serious I plan to get, I'm not willing to pay anyone to build a website for me). I learned a little about computers by necessity, but after typing and some experience with MSExcel visual basic, I'm computer illiterate. Could you nerds help me out? And please, if you do, go very slow

Is there a study showing most intellectuals (sans randroids) are Libertarians?

Fosters. Its Australian for yech!

Memenaut, I think as a social experiment, capitalism is the best of all possible economic systems. Its possible to make capitalism work without some nasty social ills like child-labor sweatshops or unchecked pollution, as long as we have an effective Congress to compell corporations to observe human rights and environmental laws. Maybe we can find a nice place between socialism and capitalism, such as being civil socialists and business capitalists. I really like that idea, because it means we can have all the free healthcare and education we want, but also let businesses compete with one another in the free market. Here is the real problem with business socialism, when you say:

When I went to take unconscious Bill Gates wallet, I found something else more remarkable in his front pocket...

It was Bill Gates on a motorcycle crashing through the skylight overhead!