Thrown out of an FBO...

Yes, the Field of Dreams is still there. I got photos of it this past
summer and placed them at http://www.securitybulletins.com/fod/ . There
were players on the field and a game going on at the time I flew over.

Doug

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800
"karl gruber" wrote:

Jay,

Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on
an
issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an
opinion on
the same issue.

Remarks about gay marriage? Do you have a citation, please?

Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible
to
be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
Jews) should be equal before the law?

It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced
personal
biases in the issue.

Does a simple public statement that gays (or blacks or Jews) should be
treated equally before the law automatically disqualify a judge from hearing
civil rights cases regarding the group in question, in your opinion?

How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial
couples
to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?

Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous
nonrecognition
of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate
facilities to deal with that.

There are indeed, including the judicial overturning of laws that
unconstitutionally trample individual rights.

I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your
logic,
the
13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely
harmful
to
make.

Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass)
that
singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that
the
13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure
to do
so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the
appropriate
procedure to do so.

You're exhibiting a most peculiar form of reasoning here. I said that event
A is harmful because it has property X. You're replying that if that were
true, then it would somehow follow that event B is also harmful (even though
B does not have property X) because A and B share some other property Y.

(A=anti-gay-marriage referendum; B=13th amendment; X=referendum to repeal
basic constitutional right of a minority group; Y=amendment enacted
according to prescribed procedure)

If
there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to
create
this
"right?"

At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not
favor
gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage
legislators
were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of
that
view.)

If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a
constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that
process followed.

The "shutting down" was itself accomplished by a lawful, constitutional
process (namely, a majority vote of the legislature to adjourn).

And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent,
and
governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was
legal.)

Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every
state in
the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world.

In the moral sense, absolutely (just as there is a moral right for
interracial or interfaith couples to marry, or for women to vote or drive
cars, even if local laws abrogate those rights).

Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
(and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to
vote,
could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain
facilities,
and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights.

So in the absence of those injustices, you would not have considered it
appropriate for the courts to overturn laws that prohibited (or imposed jail
sentences for) interracial marriages?

Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than
average
income and have a political power much greater than their their population
numbers, compared to other people.

Huh? Jews, on average, have higher than average income and education too.
Does that mean that a constitutional amendment to prevent Jews from marrying
(or otherwise curtailing Jews' civil rights) shouldn't be construed as a
serious violation of equal rights?

Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has
decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school
students not enjoy the same right to go there?

No, your representation is wildly false. The Harvey Milk School in NYC was
established to provide an environment that is safe for gay students
(shamefully, not all public schools have that property). But there is
absolutely no requirement to be gay in order to attend the school.

By what measure do they determine if someone is gay or straight?

They have no such measure because they make no such determination because
they have no such requirement. You're just making that up (or passing along
someone else's fabrication).

Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived
her
opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts
supreme
court
would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it
in the
decision, of course.

Where is the alleged remark documented, please?

Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
AGAINST
the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself.
(How
is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are
ridiculed as
merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is.

Your question just above clearly asserts some connection between the
dissenter's sexual orientation and the legitimacy of the right that I
allege. But now you're backpedaling, claiming you were just rebutting
someone else's accusation of bigotry in some other conversation (even though
I myself made no such accusation about you).

Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes.
If
Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per
plate,
would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming
otherwise
after the fact?

The question is whether an annual bar association dinner (that incidentally
charges an admission fee) counts as a "fundraiser" for purposes of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, according to previously established precedent.

To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face
and
pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded
(in
fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
assault).

A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not
pointing a
weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely
essential
to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that
they
are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy.

First, we're talking about a binding referendum, not a debate. Nothing
prevents debate from continuing.

Second, you're misconstruing my analogy. Of course the referendum is not an
assault in the legal sense, and of course attempts to hold the referendum
should not be subject to any sort of legal penalty. My point is simply that
in both cases, an attempt to injure others (whether physically or by a
repeal of civil rights) can be harmful in and of itself (contrary to your
claim), even if the attempted injury is not accomplished.

But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage!
There
would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay
marriage if the process was followed.

In the absence of an adjournment, only 25% of the legislature would need to
vote for the referendum in order to put it on the ballot. The majority of
the legislature voted instead to adjourn. Whether or not you believe in the
legitimacy of that maneuver, the vote was clearly a proxy for the question
of gay marriage rights: there'd be no reason to vote for adjournment except
to protect those rights. So the vote clearly shows that a majority of the
legislature supports gay marriage rights.

--Gary

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote in message

Frankly I am just tired of trying to normalize deviancy.

And I'm tired of bigots crying 'deviancy' whenever others don't "know
their
place" as assigned by their race or (in this case) gender.

Some of [us] so-called bigots have [no] quarrel with 'deviancy' or
whatever but are
merely dismayed about a trampling of process and judicial codes.

Assuming I've correctly reconstructed your typo-mangled sentence above,
please note that my remark was clearly directed at Ron, not you. As much as
I disagree with many of your views, you have not resorted to bigoted slurs
or other personal insults in our conversation; you present contentful
arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, I understand that there is a legitimate procedural concern
regarding the vote to adjourn. But I believe there is also a legitimate
principle that basic civil rights should be respected even in defiance of a
majority; and therefore a repeal of a basic right for a particular minority
group is not properly subject to a referendum. These two legitimate
principles conflict here. For me, the latter principle prevails, but I
understand how a reasonable person might disagree.

--Gary

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize
that
there
were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
hastily.
And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their
friends
in
Italy, Albania, etc. first.

But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately
after
Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
other parties of your choice.

So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared
war on
USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have
gone to
war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that
story.

There extensive alliance with Japan might have sufficed. But there was no
alliance between al Qaeda and Iraq; if anything, they were enemies.

--Gary

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news

The best you can hope for is a *dead* Muslim...

You are beneath contempt.

Not at the moment.

Though you might want to try snipping and top posting.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

If you say so. Any other accusations that you would like to make from
your pulpit of "tolerance?" :-)

karl gruber wrote:

Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the
mountain strips in the west.

What bites the pilots is not taking the T.O. or landing weight into
account when doing so. Not simply carrying it around.

John

You do realize I'm talking about breathing?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.

mike


mike regish wrote:

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck

No such thing as a non-radical in any religion AFAIC.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


mike regish wrote:

No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

Nice generalization, Mike. But what would Pete say?

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used. There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

[...]
If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6c40345ef84ce4

"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true. And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

Pete