Wasn't a goodbye, was a wish.

Peace, brother.

(boy, I bet this'll really piss off GregLondon:)

Wow, that fffffffreaks me out, man! Very entertaining. The last set of pics on the linked site made me think this thing might be great for kids having trouble sleeping alone, as long as their big brother didn't convince them it was the bogeyman (big brother speaking here).

#1, maybe Burrows meant a guy who works too hard to GET a girlfriend. There's a lot higher work:benefit ratio in that phase of a relationship than afterwards. Well, for me at least.

There's a Tony Montana joke in there somewhere, but I'm too hung over to trust myself to verbalize it.

Please forgive my total lack of couth, but what is the white stuff with black seeds on it and a yellow ping-pong ball in the middle? Is it something I should recognize from a ball game or from a Japanese restaurant?

Well, a gay marriage measure hasn't come up where I live, so I guess that has to make this hypothetical for me. If one did come up, then just like most everything else I vote on, I'd have to look at its particular details and hope they allowed me to express my hopes for building a more free and fair society without screwing things up too much in the process, with a simple yes/no vote. I suppose if I just gave in and picked a socio/political label for myself, it would help me predetermine my vote based on the larger issue instead of a specific measure, saving me and the folks in line behind me at the voting booth some time and angst. But, I don't think that would necessarily be a good thing.

Government is stupid, but its denizens are possessed of an acute cunning. That's why there's hardly ever a ballot where the choices are something like "equal rights for all" vs "crooked, short-term thinking."

Don't get me wrong, stupid government does have it's place. If properly supervised (big IF), it's excellent for administrating things like dispersement of highway repair funds and large-scale mail delivery. Like my labeler GregLondon said, "The only reason we want the government to do anything at all is for material benefit."

Xopher, you said "...you CAN justify your vote against gay marriage on the grounds of taxes and benefits." Yes, that's pretty much what I said in my first post on this thread. ???? Maybe you didn't pick up that I see the condition of marriage and state-recognized matrimonies as two entirely different things. I have absolutely no bad feelings at all about people wanting to share their lives with whoever they chose (disregarding #90). I just think the government should have as little to do with that as possible. "Separation of feelings and state" I guess you'd call it.

I think my original position on this thread is a lot more prosaic than you're thinking. I just don't like seeing people who are just as able to support themselves as I am get free breaks that I can't ONLY because they have a legally recognized marriage.

I don't see myself as heartless at all. Just the opposite, actually, because I don't want government regulations, which I consider to be mainly the generic will of strangers, to have anything to do with my personal feelings, or anyone else's. I guess that does make me selfish, though.

I would vote against an unfair law that benefited me only because of my marital status, skin color, religion, etc. In a heartbeat.

Maybe our disconnect is just in the methods we prefer. I'd like to reach equality by getting rid of regulatory layers, and it seems you'd like to reach the same goal by making regulations apply to more people.

Maybe I'm just not being eloquent enough. Go read Takuan's post. He pretty much summed up my feelings on actual marriage better than I ever could.

I just realized, you might just be using my posts to sound off against true bigots that you know who aren't here. If so, that's cool.

must...resist...urge to...respond...to personal attacks...with...more...of...same...

I do trust many of my family and friends more than I trust generic government regulations when it comes to personal matters. I realize that not everyone has that luxury, and I'm pretty much always willing to help someone who asks me for it on a personal level.

Xopher, I don't want to discard equality of rights. Like I said back in #100, albeit somewhat sarcastically, I'd like to bring everyone's rights to the same level no matter what group they belong to. And I NEVER said that I thought I'd never marry. Don't know where you got that one. Actually, at this point, I'm pretty convinced of the opposite. What other kinds of things do you hear me saying in your own head?

Oops, sorry, kind of gave in to my urges there...

GregLondon, if you assume I can't be brought to your point of view, why did I have to scroll so far to get to the end of your post that was addressed to me?

I'm not any kind of ian or ist or ism or istic or any other suffix. I use my own judgment. That doesn't mean I'm an outsider, either, just that I live in a relatively free country.

"Why bother having laws about...if marriage is nothing more than a legal contrivance?" You lost me there. Don't legal contrivances have to consist of laws?

"The only reason we want the government to do anything at all is for material benefit." Yep, completely agree with you on that one.

You misunderstood what I meant by collectivism. If I had a living will or pre-nup, then I'd be asking a faceless government agency to adjudicate personal matters, and that would be contributing to collectivism. I trust my close family and friends to help me with those things, and I'm perhaps overly optimistic that the government won't interfere with them too much. After all, like you said, "The only reason we want the government to do anything at all is for material benefit."

Feeling tired, and old, on a Friday night. Going to bed now.

Damn, Takuan. That's so eloquent, I don't think it'd be diminished at all if I used it as a pick-up line ;)

#97:
Well, if marriage as it currently exists was outlawed, then wouldn't we actually be closer to "equal treatment under the law" since gay, interracial, interplanetary, and any other kinds of couples would all have exactly the same rights? And wouldn't those rights then be the same ones that single folks have?

Again, I'm not voting against marriage itself because I think of marriage as an emotional attachment and commitment between people who care for each other that's recognized by their friends and family, regardless of what the state thinks about it. Personally, the only reason I can think of that I would have for wanting some government agency to acknowledge or even know about my commitment to another person would be for material benefits, and those are what I'm voting against.

@95:
I don't like property taxes, either. I'm single, with a traditional job, little debt, and no dependents, so I pay a lot of taxes that I don't like. I can't get rid of all of them at once, but that doesn't mean I won't try to make some kind of difference when I have the chance.

Personally, I would like to see a little less collectivism in this country.

I don't base my own judgment on what has been challenged in court and what hasn't. I can decide on my own what I think is right or wrong without waiting for a lawyer's input.

GregLondon, I can't speak to other people's personal feelings like you're doing, but I definitely know my own. Taxes and benefits are the ONLY reasons I have to vote against gay marriage. If it weren't for those, I wouldn't be able to justify my vote to myself. I assume that I'm not alone in thinking this way, especially since most of my friends have expressed pretty much the same opinion at one time or another.

Assume that everybody who disagrees with you is a bigoted, fuzzy-headed idiot if it makes you feel better about yourself. Because that's all that kind of thinking will accomplish. It definitely won't help bring anyone over to your point of view.

The only id-related problem I have with any marriage is when there's a female involved, and she's hot, and I'm jealous. I'll probably outgrow that one. But I kinda hope not.

Sister Y, I'm definitely not opposed to marriage. Like I said, I'm just opposed to paying more taxes than people who are just as capable of supporting themselves as I am. Yeah, I know that's just how the game is played. But I don't like it when people try to cheat me at cards or basketball, either. I wish I could vote down uneven tax breaks without voting against marriage itself, but so far I haven't seen that option on a ballot. Politicians are way too devious to ever give us a choice that clear-cut. Anyway, I don't feel too selfish because I figure people get at least as much emotional fulfillment from a religious or personal marriage ceremony as from a state-recognized one.

I just don't want to pay for people to play house, whether they're gay or straight. Married people get tax and benefit breaks that I don't, which means I pay a little extra tax to make up for what they don't pay, which means I'm paying for their lifestyle. I'd vote down tax and benefit breaks for all married folks if I could. Nothing personal, I just don't want my tax dollars to support other able-bodied adults who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I think practical concerns like mine are more to blame for the slow spread of gay marriage rights than bigotry. I think most voters are quite a bit more practical and less emotional in our voting habits than most politicians and media types give us credit for.

Spoon, there can't be a perfect marketplace with an unlimited number of micro-transactions because of taxes. They're just like friction in physical systems, which makes perpetual motion impossible, and they'll be around in some form in any society. Anyway, I'd still want to own a book or CD I liked just for sentimentality, even if I could access it for free. If I didn't have enough disposable income to do that, then I probably wouldn't buy it even if wasn't available for free. I'd definitely borrow my friends' copies though:)

DRM tech is pure snake oil. It's made by people who know exactly how useless it is, sold by marketers who have a good idea of how useless it is, and bought by gullible douchebags who are too arrogant to listen to people who actually know how things work.

The only thing we can do about politicians is turn over the bad ones (most all of them) every single election, no matter what party you usually line up with, and hope a few get the point. And make term limits apply to every elected position.

Every calculus class I've taken has taught me to analyze by taking things to their limits (bad English, but didn't want to use "extrapolate"). When I do that with this name-calling thing, I can think of two eventual outcomes. Either everyone in the future will be deeply offended by any word that's used to refer to them other than their proper name, or no one will be offended by anyone's words.

I was thinking the video was purely funny until WHOKNEW said they might just be running into the desert. Hopefully, if they don't have somewhere to go, they'll realize they can just find a border patrol, get deported, and try again later.

You can have my porn when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand. Uh...better make that the other hand.

Su-weet!!! This kid just made a few million people smile.

Like Bonnie, I'm blown away by the photo. If I lived in country like that, I don't know that I'd ever even think about the internet. I guess you get used to it when you're born and raised there, but damn...looks like she could see three or four separate rainstorms while she's sitting in the sunshine.

#31, your wife and other cops are supposed to let people off with a warning if they believe that the offender doesn't pose a danger to the public, not because they're peer-pressured into ignoring a repeat offender who happens to be another cop. It does suck that so many good cops are lumped in with the few that are bad, but it has to be that way or else cops would have no motivation to police themselves.

I got an interesting chart awhile back that breaks down accidents and tickets by profession. Unfortunately I can't cite it or prove its accuracy, I just remember that it came from an acquaintance in the insurance industry. Law enforcement ranked right at the bottom in tickets, and about 3/4 of the way to the bottom in accidents. That shows some disparity, but not as much as I would have expected. There was more disparity in a few traditionally female-dominated jobs like nurse. I don't have a link, I'll just try to copy the text here. Sorry in advance if I mess it up...

Occupation Accidents Rank Speeding violations Rank Moving violations Rank
Student 152 1 87 1 121 1
Medical doctor 109 2 44 20 65 16
Attorney 106 3 37 26 56 24
Architect 105 4 72 5 106 3
Real estate broker 102 5 39 25 56 25
Unknown 101 6 43 21 63 18
Enlisted military 99 7 78 2 99 4
Social worker 98 8 33 32 47 30
Manual laborer 96 9 77 3 112 2
Analyst 95 10 40 22 60 21
Engineer 94 11 51 12 77 9
Consultant 94 12 50 14 68 14
Sales 93 13 51 11 73 13
Military officer 91 14 46 15 63 17
Nurse 90 15 31 36 43 34
School administrator 90 16 32 33 45 32
Skilled laborer 90 17 65 6 89 6
Librarian 90 18 24 40 33 39
Creative arts 90 19 37 28 53 27
Executive 89 20 51 13 73 11
Insurance agent 89 21 46 18 60 22
Banking/finance 89 22 46 17 62 19
Customer service 88 23 55 10 77 8
Manager 88 24 46 16 67 15
Medical support 87 25 35 31 50 28
Computer-related 87 26 55 9 82 7
Dentist 86 27 45 19 61 20
Pharmacist 85 28 31 35 44 33
Proprietor 84 29 37 27 54 26
Teacher/professor 84 30 30 37 43 35
Accountant 84 31 40 23 59 23
Law enforcement 79 32 24 39 32 40
Physical therapist 78 33 36 29 48 29
Veterinarian 78 34 39 24 45 31
Clerical/secretary 77 35 27 38 38 38
Clergyman 76 36 58 8 73 12
Homemaker 76 37 21 41 31 41
Politician 76 38 76 4 97 5
Pilot 75 39 31 34 41 36
firefighter 67 40 35 30 39 37
Farmer 43 41 60 7 73 10
Average 89 45 63

A few weeks ago, I saw a guy I work with doing his internet banking at lunch. He didn't like it when I told him I thought that was a bad idea, and he really took offense when I said that I thought old fashioned written records are tougher to forge than electronic ones because they take some artistry to duplicate, where anyone with some know-how or just a set of instructions can hack electronic records. He got kind of snotty about it, so I had a friend in the IT department take control of his computer and log into his bank account while he was sitting in front of it.

The thing is, this guy is very intelligent and has a very technical job. I definitely got the sense that he didn't WANT to believe me because that might lead him into giving up the convenience, and coolness, of electronic banking.

I don't think our freedoms are really threatened by direct authoritarian attack. I think the slack-jawed, glassy-eyed majority of us will just trade them in for cute toys before any fascists can figure out how to take them from us by force. That's always been part of human nature, which is why the author of this article was able to make such accurate predictions.

Antinous, I don't believe you when you say that nobody could qualify for a loan without lying because I've never had a problem getting a loan. I don't make a whole lot, and sometimes I forget and pay a bill a few days late, but I've always paid my bills and never had any trouble with credit checks. But then, I've also never tried for a loan that I didn't already know I could pay. Has it occured to you that most people who have trouble getting a loan, just maybe, shouldn't be getting that loan? Remember, more people today own their house than ever before. A lot of the people crying about how tough it was to get their home loan today wouldn't even have rated a visit with a loan officer thirty years ago. But Americans don't want to hear that they can't have something they want. Greed didn't cause this mess so much as shortsightedness and immaturity.

Anyway, that's my crabby-old-man two cents. Time to go sleep it off...

How about some skills that are going to be obsolete in another 10 years? My first thought; "texting." At the same time, I'd like to see the disappearing skill of "watching where you're going while you're wandering through the mall" make a come-back. Wishful thinking?

Oops, damn extra "t" on my keyboard. Should've bought American...

Gazing at the same shining start that fascinated Che...

I went to small-town public schools with 100 or fewer students per grade and very little funding. When I see stories about large school districts grubbing after money, I remember my freshman year in college when I found out how much more well-educated my classmates and I were than most of the people who went to large schools with things like Olympic swimming pools and computers in every classroom. I'll never be convinced that tons of money is required for a good education.