ParanoiA

How in the world did you interpret that from my post? Wink-wink?? You're not understanding. There is no "wink wink" when the word marriage has no legal function at all whatsoever. Kind of like the word "friend". Friend means different things to different people and none of them have any legal appeal at all. Why does the word marriage need to be legally charged? It's a stupid word. It's meaning is arguable and that kind of ambiguity is entirely antithetical to the nature of our laws. We write laws where meaning is clear. We don't purposely choose words that obscure the meaning - that's entirely contrary to the mission statement of writing law in the first place. I'm advocating that everyone be legally the same. Even if we all agreed on the word marriage, it's still an inaccurate word that carries too much extra baggage. (Religious Ceremonies? Intimacy? Two people? Those are irrelevant descriptors also attached to its meaning). And since no one can agree on "marriage", then the word is doubly useless in the face of a dictionary full of superior verbiage. I don't get it. I'm arguing for total equality. No one gets to trump anyone else. And they all get to call it whatever they want. How can you be any more equal under that arrangement? Where's the wink-wink waterfountain, under-the-table bigotry in this arrangement? Right, which is why I prefer to solve problems the right way. The wrong way is to take a word the public is arguing about and force a definition on them. Then the "winner" gets to gloat and rub it in the noses of the "loser", as if they've achieved something. How's that going to help their cause if DOMA gets their way and the entire right wing empire rubs it in their face. How's that a big win for anybody? For what? To force feed lexicographical conclusions on the masses? That's our job now? To rule on dictionaries? Our charge is to write laws, not settle dictionary disputes. We use words that are established to write laws, we don't pick words that don't say what we mean. It's that simple. Marriage is a sloppy word to use to describe two peope in a legally binding committment. Remember, government has no business in marriage. The only thing government has any business mediating, is the legal consequences associated with that institution - like inheritance laws, tax laws and such. The government has no business granting privilege or recognition beyond the legal implications of partnerships. The word marriage provides a lot more than a mere legal recognition of a partner. I saw another good title somewhere else, Registered Partnership. That's another good one. Again, this has to do with the government's jurisdiction. They should not be allowed to see us beyond our legal existence. We are free to worship god, but the government isn't supposed to recognize or endorse god, right? And we don't enjoy it much when they forget that, do we? Why can't we be free to "marry" without the government endorsing such?

Well I sure hope I'm not being naive here, but I really like this. It's respectful without sounding like a lap dog and without the swagger of superpower condescension.

I think you're right on the money about that. But I also think it's the most appropriate solution. It's the only way to treat any combination of the institution equally and denies victory to either camp. It also allows continued debate on the definition of marriage, and further on the tolerance of same-sex couples, without trampling on each other's rights. Both can use the word all they want since there's no legal authority associated with it at all. And what will happen is same-sex couples will call it marriage. Hetero couples will still call it marriage. The DOMA crowd will bitch about how it's ruined their institution, even though they still can't support the notion despite repeated requests to do so. Without any legal consequences they will eventually shut-up and we'll all be left to explain to our kids why, once upon a time, we made a ridiculous stink about a freaking word. But yeah, you're right, that will never happen. Instead, we'll keep doing this tug-of-war ownership of the word marriage, and same-sex couples will continue to do without their rights as the extremists of their cause ruin any chance of incremental advancement in law. The DOMA crowd will...well, they'll be themselves in typical form with the same tired arguments and unsupported appeals to their rights. Oh no, I don't fault them for anything. I don't fault the same-sex marriage crowd for attempting to force the majority to accept them in fighting for their rights either, and it's a similar matter of equality here. I just don't think it's a wise strategy. I think they would better serve their cause if they would achieve access to rights separately from the battle against bigotry. Bigotry is a mountain compared to the wall of our government. We can attain rights long before we stamp out bigotry. It would seem wiser then to pursue Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, whatever, even if they disagree on principle, so that they can get relief in their lives while the bigger battle against bigotry is waged.

He's got a point. It does appear the cause is more about forcing the majority to accept them than it is to fight for their rights. I got no issues with that, except methodology. Keep fighting the majority to continue the movement for equality, that needs to happen and persuasion is the mightiest tool for that. Fighting for their rights should be done tactfully, otherwise it will fail. It pins accessibility to their rights to forcing the majority to accept them. I don't think it serves them well to do without their rights throughout the extra time it's going to take to get the majority to change. Don't let one block the success of the other. Just a suggestion.

Here's a link to a story I found on the subject of fleeing AIG talent. I'm not sure how reputable the source is, as I'm not familiar with it. Since I heard about this on the news as well, I'm going to assume it's reasonably accurate. http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=26381 I'm not sure why successful companies that didn't need a bailout would capitalize off the talent churn at AIG and snatch up these guys if they're incompetent and drove AIG into its current condition. These are responsible companies that profit, have weathered the storm thus far, so appeals to their stupidity don't carry much weight. I consider these companies to be more of an expert than myself, or 99% of the public that is crying foul on this. Why are people in the business, successfully, hiring these folks if they are what we think of them? It's almost like they think some of these people did a good job or something. It's almost like they believe not everyone is responsible for the downturn of the whole company. Ha, what morons, right? Yeah, trash their contracts. That's what they get for working for a company that failed. Doing your job right is not enough, you must demonstrate prescience for failure and avoid such jobs or be willing to sacrifice your compensation. That's how we roll, bitches. We're the government, and we're here to help.

I've never heard of bonuses that are contingent on company performance only. It's always about individual performance, which can be measured by company performance in the form of stock price, or not. My company offers a bonus based on the positive change in stock price measured over the year - so that would be a company performance based bonus, which AIG wouldn't have qualified for since they're in tatters. My company also offers a series of bonuses based on our personal performance (they have an ignorant measurement system for this, but that's another matter...). The company can tank, while I still satisfy my personal bonus requirements. As a matter of contract, I want my damn money. I fulfilled my end of the bargain. I'm not particularly impressed with who owns the company now and their excuses for screwing me out of my contract. But that doesn't really address my point. I'm not understanding the attraction to the supposed middle ground here. Why do we LIKE the idea of keeping people whom we claim are incompetent if the goal is to save this company for the foreseeable future? What's the deal, are we employing a new business model in the financial / insurance market where instead of paying top dollar for talent, we go with the Wal-mart method and pay bottom dollar for bottom of the barrel workers? It's not passing my bullshit meter. Something is wrong with this thinking. And I'm getting closer to the issue. Since the government is bailing them out against the background of persecuted capitalism, it's fairly clear the government isn't comfortable taking the risks necessary for private business to succeed. Which is expected since they aren't used to competing for anything. And you don't have to take that as a disparagement either, it's just a clinical observation. I doubt private business has much experience with putting people over profits, so they'd probably stumble trying to play "government" too. Anyway, it just seems we want to bail them out, but then simultaneously get all squeemish about tossing around money the way these businesses do, in order to succeed in this market. But we can't save them, and then restrict them, and expect it to work out. We haven't solved the problem AT ALL. Haven't even addressed it. All we've done in that context, is made ourselves feel better by not letting them fall, and made ourselves feel better about THAT, by not letting them spend it all crazy-capitalist like. The problem hasn't been dealt with. Are they competent or not? Did they run the company into the ground or not? These questions should have been dealt with and answered before any money was provided. Not pretend outrage after the taxpayers find out about it. The financial industry relies heavily on talent. Listening to the news last night, I learned that several of these AIG execs everyone is pissed at, are being sought out for employment by other companies. I'd like to verify that before moving on, but if that turns out to be true, then it's yet another clue that we are acting like idiots, letting our emotions cloud our reasoning. These companies wouldn't be looking for failures to work for them, and since they're actually IN the field, I trust that they know what they're talking about and are aware of details that we aren't, or won't realize. There's more to this. This situation is way oversimplified. And this post is way too damn long. I apologize. Too many thoughts, not enough patience to work them out before sharing.

Exactly. I used to be quite vocal about open border policy until a member here really took me to task and schooled me on why we filter citizenship, why it's necessary to restrict the flow. When that rationale is understood, it takes the edge of what appears to be ignoble. If I can find that thread, I'll link it.

See this whole thing just stinks. I keep coming up with new reasons to be suspicious - our attitudes don't add up to anything sound either. Let me get this straight...we needed to bailout AIG, or so we convinced ourselves. We think, apparently, that they are incompetent, yet we still give them billions of dollars. Why? No restructuring? No one gets fired? No one gets replaced? Oh no...our grand plan was to...not give them bonuses? That's our idea of "saving" AIG? Keeping the same supposed "idiots" there, but taking the froth off the top of their latte? That's stupid. Just plain stupid. Look, they're either incompetent or they're not. If they're not, then they deserve their bonuses, and I suppose they'll do well with taxpayer dollars. If they are inept at this business, then why bail them out? Why give them any money? Where is the logic? When private lenders provide restructuring funds for struggling businesses, they get involved the details of the effort, including salaries and bonuses. We apparently did not do this. Our government missed it, for whatever reason, and now they want to pretend as if it's some back stabbing exercise by AIG. From what I understand, and I'll admit it's somewhat limited, these were contracted bonuses so the records were there. None of this was a secret. I'm still putting thoughts together because emotions are poisoning all of the logic in this situation. Class envy brought to a boil. It's exactly what your politicians want. It serves them well.

I still think one of the easiest ways to deal with this, is to stand up for second class citizens. Like Padren pointed out, we use them for cheap labor and then act all indignant when it attracts more and more and dilutes the work pool, driving wages way down - and it's all based on their illegal status. Anyone who thinks they are fighting for the little guy when they argue against persecuting illegal immigrants needs to rethink the resultant implication that they stay illegal - that they keep from enjoying the rights and privilege citizens demand. It's truly sad to see that we prefer they stay illegal, stuck in that crappy job without benefits, without the protection of labor laws, and without general protection since they are unlikely to involve law enforcement when any of their rights are violated. And politicians actually stand up and pretend as if that's standing up for them. Insane. Stand up for these poor people by prosecuting any and every employer that exploits illegal immigrants. Doing so should effectively end the crazy demand on their cheaper-than-legal labor, which I would hope would resolve much of the issue with illegal crossing. It's a black market. It's cruel. It needs to be shutdown.

I don't think you're off base here at all. And it's partly why I don't like the term marriage used for legislation since it's essentially a lexicographical battle that each side wants to pretend is the government's responsibility to decide. I think it's ridiculous. The government is the last entity that should be defining our words for us. The only reason the government is the least bit valid for this kind of decision is because they have laws that use the term. If they happened to use Domestic Partnership instead of marriage, then our courts wouldn't be tossed in the middle of this definition fight (because it would still be a fight...but there would be no official arbiter, which is exactly how it should be in a free society). It seems obvious to me if we established the first ever marriage laws today, we wouldn't even use that term in any of the legal documentation. And, if we did, it would likely start out with a detailed definition of the word to be applied to the whole document. Either way, it wouldn't stay ambiguous by merely using the term without any attempt at specificity.

So we use "car" to mean automobile in our laws? Really? I've never seen it used that way, and yet I've also never heard my friends say "hey let's take your automobile". Or, "which horseless carriage is yours?" What's with the pretend ignorance to realizing a difference between legalease and common usage? Interesting also that 95% of that rebuttal was Jon Stewart style appeal to ridicule. Funny, but just as worthless. Gay or straight isn't accurate legal speech either. If the word marriage must be used, I would think Homo and Hetero Marriage would be fine. Mainly because most negativity is inferred, not implied, so it's not a problem for lawyers to be too concerned with. Accuracy is more important here, more of a scientist's precision I'd say. Just ask yourself...What Would Science Do?

Now we're talking. I agree. Emotion eats up all of the potential for rational logic on these subjects. When you write a sentence, something technical or with any nod to accuracy you probably take care in the words you use to be sure you're understood. I think that's especially true with law and our laws have no business using words that are at odds with the public (here's a democratic idea we definitely agree on). Something for all to consider... When we write laws, why would we use words that we know are ambivalent, or have enough flexibility that the law is no longer specific and accurate in its meaning? I don't think we'd risk using the term "car", and presume that includes "trucks", even though the law in question might even suggest intention to include trucks. That's just ridiculous. Instead, we use "automobile", or maybe horseless carriage or something - we use the term that accurately states the meaning of the law. Free society can bat around the word car, truck, scooter, whatever they like. The government officially uses automobile. And yet, I don't run around using that term (Padren). I say car or truck. And that doesn't conflict with the traffic laws of the land either. This is no different. We need to drop the word marriage because it isn't accurate enough. It's meaning is entirely arguable and we should never use such sloppy verbiage like that. A Civil Union lacks the ambiguity required to make a stink about its meaning. You couldn't get an argument off the ground that attempted to say Civil Unions are exclusive one way or the other - provided the context doesn't ruin it. That's not to say it never should have been used, but rather to acknowledge that society, like always, is changing - our values, our words, our legal intentions, everything. This word causes too many problems due to its newfound ambiguity and it's meaningless to the big picture.

I agree with you 100%. The reason the families are torn up is because they didn't migrate legally, and that takes place BEFORE law gets enforced. You have to BREAK a law in order to be punished by it. Likewise, all of those murderers are in jail because they committed murder, not because we unfairly enforced homicide laws. (...but please conveniently forget this line of reasoning when I'm fighting for jailed potheads..thanks...) Immigration laws are needed and important.

No, you missed it. I said "at this level" of discussion, I don't give a rat's ass what everyone else thinks. Here's why. Majority opinion is made up of individual opinion. It's merely the sum of all individual's opinions. So, how does an individual form an opinion? Hopefully one doesn't adopt whatever is popular, but rather what they believe is right. This is the level I'm talking about. We're in a discussion forum and we discuss our opinions, among other things. I don't care what the majority opinion is when I'm processing right and wrong and formulating my own opinion. Once that gets done, then my opinion gets tallied with everyone else's and then we have majority opinion, along with any number of minority opinions. My point being that all of your arguments are appeals to majority opinion within the context of FORMULATING and discussing our own individual opinions. No one has said majority opinion doesn't matter, they've said that majority opinion isn't enough to make laws. And they're right. Revisit the constitution if you need reminding - WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. So democratic arguments fail miserably. If the majority wants to hang scrappy by the balls from an oak tree, they can't. Because scrappy is protected by our constitution. This marriage debate is about whether or not marriage rights fall into that same pocket of protection from the tyrannical majority. And they're right, it does. The majority opinion will always trump his opinion unless he can demonstrate a restriction of natural born' date=' inalienable rights, to be protected by the constitution. We didn't. When did you stop paying attention to the "constitutional republic" bit and obsess over the "princples of democracy" bit? What do you think is the function of the "constitutional republic" part? You only seem to revere the democracy part. If majority opinion is so valuable, then why is a constitution needed? We can all have opinions and count the number of hands all day long without that long winded document. I'm against putting this to a test by popular vote, since that undermines the whole point of a bill of rights - a minimum set of rights that the majority cannot vote away. So why in the hell would I consult with that same majority to determine if my right is covered by that principle or not? The courts need to do it. That's their job. Of course, none of that precludes us from discussing the matter and sharing our individual opinions and parsing right from wrong. Pay attention. That IS the constitution, scrappy. That's the nature of our laws and how the constitution was realized. It was based on the notion that democracies oppress as much or more than solitary rulers. This republican experiment was designed with the intention of maximizing liberty; restricting behavior only when it infringes on someone else's "rights"...your rights end where mine begin. You can't exercise your freedom to stab me, since it violates my right to live. It's that simple. And yes, it applies to both of us. You clearly did not understand what I said...at all. You might as well have asked if I like cream or sugar. I described the mechanics of our system - the system you live under. And you don't even recognize it? That speaks volumes... Your reply doesn't even fit in the same paragraph. Try again. Read, this time. Wrong. You got this all screwed up because you didn't understand my previous paragraph. You don't appear to understand how our government works. It's up to those who want to restrict rights, to prove those rights should be restricted. Our government doesn't say "No one will do 'X'" , unless of course you can convince us it's ok". No. Our government says "since 'X' damages the rights of others, no one will do X from now on". That's why the majority opinion isn't incredibly valuable, even at the next level. It proposes to restrict the rights of those, that is currently being reviewed for "natural born, inalienable rights" status (the courts). So if it qualifies, majority opinion is irrelevant. The onus is also on DOMA to show a violation of their rights in order to establish laws on the subject. Again, majority opinion isn't valuable or relevant for that argument. If it's proven not to violate anyone's rights, then majority opinion will matter. Again, democracy is only valid so long as it doesn't step on the constitution. And I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated a refusal to abide by law, so you can drop the flaming indictments. It won't recover your credibility anyway.

Precisely, so why are we doing it to AIG? If it's not good for our public organized crime corporation..er government, then why is it good enough for AIG? This is my issue. We all act like they're a bunch of thieves, yet no one is guilty of any crimes and we don't know what these bonuses are rewarding, nor are we concerned about individual culpability - just burning the whole thing down because they needed bailing out. We're presuming guilt, rather than assessing failure. And that doesn't seem productive at all, although it just feels good to stick it to people who have performed better in trade than the rest of us, I suppose. I'm not really making an argument for or against anything, as much as I'm making an argument for critical thinking. Stop with the witchhunts and explain logically why all of AIG needs to give up bonuses AND how that is a good business model for them to compete with. Tell me how that's a good method to compete in our market. Remember, we're supposed to be "bailing them out"...the assumption being that we want them to stay in business. To stay in business, you must risk and compete - the same things that got them into this mess. If we're not willing to let them compete, then why bail them out at all? How do we know AIG isn't simply suffering the business end of risk in a recessive capitalist economy? There are plenty of insurance companies and there's billions being lost here, somebody has to fail even if they were thoughtful and shrewd business entities. I simply question the motives behind stripping these bonuses. It seems premature, and immature. It fits our emotive objections and that should always send red flags to our logic centers.

Ever since I heard the battery swapping idea I've liked it. Makes the most sense and seems to compliment our low patience, low disciplined nature. No need to obsess over charging time.

Well the pessimist in me just shouted out something about jealous control and too many minds spoiling the intentions of the administration, ruining their "opportunity" to capitalize on a crisis; to take advantage and manipulate the people while they're insecure and fearful. Got to admire someone who advocates taking advantage of fear. Didn't we just have an administration like that? Ah well...

Are they at fault for that though, or is that the model? Remember, our banks are fractional reserve, so they're at fault for the EXACT same thing, and even moreso since I believe they only need 10% of their reserves - which means they only have 10% of the capital requirements for their respective "policies" or accounts. We don't poo on them because it's part of the fractional reserve design, so do we know if AIG was actually at fault for anything or did they just fail? There's a difference. One implies they reap what they sow, the other is simply the business end of risk. I'll tell you, I was initially on the slay-them-all bandwagon concerning these bonuses, but there's some detail lacking in indicting these people. Maybe it's all my personal ignorance, but I'm having reservations and I think it's because I'm guilty of indignant presumption concerning these people. How do I know that all of these people are guilty of bringing the company down? If one guy's merit bonus is based on how effective he can cut costs and he did that successfully, then why shouldn't he get his bonus? He didn't bring the company down at all, and probably saved us money actually. Another point that was brought up yesterday, is why aren't we cancelling the bonuses enjoyed by government employees? Based on the same logic, our budget is in tatters, we're in horrible financial shape, getting worse daily, why does anyone in our government deserve a dime of a bonus? They've failed. They deserve nothing. If we're going to judge AIG's actions, justified by our prominent ownership, then why are we not doing the same with the rest of the failing government entities?

scrappy... Your arguments seem to be predicated by this insistence that we honor some majority opinion beyond the obligations to law. If you're going to argue on details, the constitution benefits from pedantic debate. Otherwise, we're arguing opinions and your rebuttals have been reminders about the majority. At this level of discussion, I'm not sure I understand why their opinion should matter to me. I was actually looking forward to your answer to this question, by Pangloss: And I was anxious when you answered back about the courts, since that misses the point. It's the reason why we're not a democracy, scrappy. There is a scope of freedom inalienable by the government and this may well prove to be in that range. And there is a strong enough plurality to sustain that reconciliation. Your rights end where mine begin. It's not up to me to prove I should have a right, but rather up to you to prove I should not. Our liberties are a non-blocking design. By default, it's cool, until something bad happens - until someone's right is being infringed. Then laws get drafted and our liberties get restricted to preserve the rights of others. How does same-sex marriage violate the rights of others? There's a reason this question keeps coming up and it's because it's relevant to the philosophy of our legal structure. If you are to restrict that liberty, it must be because someone else's right is being infringed. Please share.

You're claiming they're essentially the same - and they are not - by lumping them both as clowns who mouth off about politics. And that's muddying the water to establish an appeal to their being the same, and then following that up with Stewart's "honesty" in casting his show as a comedy routine as opposed to ideological indulgence. Think you what you want about the quality of the merchanise but Rush cleary sells his ideology without any false fronts. In this way, and only this way, he demonstrates more honesty than any corporate information business, or as some call them, the media.

By those standards you're just requiring everyone who doesn't enjoy 99% agreement with the american people to be labeled as "a clown who mouths off about politics". That's muddying the water just to get your opponent dirty. Sorry, Rush openly admits he's trying to push an ideology, claims that ideology to be superior to all others and spends all 3 hours of his show charging through that ideology and its philosophical roots. That's admitting who you are and what you're trying to do. He takes a lot of shit in that seat, and well deserved. Stewart hosts a comedy show that might trot out a single ideological argument codified somewhere in the appeals to ridicule he sells us over and over again. They are apples and oranges. Stewart is not a real political show and Rush is not a real comedy show - although they both utilize the other for their respective shows.

This thread is hilarious. The inability for one to recognize the hypocrisy in demagogue hero worship. This isn't a bad thread to use for study on how humans rationalize double standards that serve them; demonizing Rush while excepting Stewart. Stewart is no exception folks. Stewart is a comedian who uses plurality to make half of his points. His trademark facial expressions entirely depend on the audience to presume his point in order to enjoy the contortions of "confusion". Please. It's see through. This is what I mean by dumbed down comedy-reality fusion. A comedy show that wants to enjoy the reward of a serious political commentary program while not being forced to deal with the consequences of such responsibility. This is how you do it. You sell it as comedy, while you preach politics like George Carlin (RIP). It's the best of both worlds for them. The pretense is that it's a comedy show, so there's no pressure for anything resembling sound reasoning or non-biased approaches to thought and logic - it's all "surface level" elementary school stuff. No different than any NIN cd, or System of a Down's indignation at jailing criminals. Rush has made far more of a difference in the world. And note I didn't say positive or negative. He also did it by bravely stating exactly who he is and what he's doing. He wants to convince all of you he's right. He freely admits he's right wing to the core. He freely admits this is all about politics and accepts the responsibility and charges for the bias he's advocating for others. The only difference between Stewart and Rush is that Rush isn't afraid to admit exactly who he is and take the hot seat, while Stewart appeals to the comedy pretense. Of course you all like him, and I like John Lennon, he's the best songwriter to have ever lived, in my opinion. Doesn't make his politics right. Doesn't make his music necessary political study. If he wants that status, he needs to take a seat with the rest of the political thinkers in the world and support his ideology and take his licks like everyone else. Ducking behind the excuse "but I'm just a musician" doesn't cut it any better than appeals to comedic status.

Which was better than either of the satirical political shows that followed it. I've just never much cared for mixing humor and politics that much (even though I loved Colbert's first season). I know, on its face it would seem like a breath of fresh air and a moment to step back from the battle. But it's never really used that way. People end up using it to validate their political beliefs and it seems to promote thoughtlessness and rewards the lazy intellectual.

No, I don't think that's a fair prediction.

Did you catch Stossell's "Bailout or Bull" last night on 20/20? It's the libertarian mantra, so nothing revolutionarily new, but it was nice to see that opinion presented to the prime time public...(even though it was Friday and many of them were probably out getting trashed). He makes the case there is plenty of opposition from plenty of economists and there is no "everybody knows we need to do this" plurality like they make believe. They made the point that the bailout situation has instigated the "wait-and-see" lethargy by investors. No one wants to make a move on the bear market ( the opportunist's market, which is useful for "priming" trade ) since they're not sure who's getting bailed out, who's taking the money and who isn't. All of this behind the foreground of tentative Obama policies, in terms of which victim group is next to receive exception status from market forces. So, it could be that the DOW is responding to Obama policy, but not so much as a voice of disproval, but perhaps just hesitant with all the shuffling around, making it difficult to predict future events with any sense of confidence. That would make more sense to me. I'd love to believe they're rejecting his socialistic principles, but I'd be kidding myself. Big business loves big government, that's how they create monopolies together. And they sell it using altruistic morality propaganda and fear of falling.