likearock

Not strictly true. They claim they wish to pursue a civilian nuclear program in order to develop nuclear power. The big concern over all of this is that actually they wish to purse a military route even though they say they do not. So kind of back to the he-said she-said but with more at risk. Not exactly he-said she-said. The fact that Iran is so adamant about doing uranium enrichment on their own soil is a sure "tell" about what their ultimate goal is.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose. "There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly." Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan. Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant. Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail. "What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started." State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case. "The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said. Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said. 'This is so politically incorrect' Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion. "Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt. "Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say." "The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility." Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child. "If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative." The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. "None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

You mean where Caligula stuffed the ballot box?

Meh, a minor league Oscar. Kinda like best...sound editing or some shit. Best Director is only 2nd to best movie in their minds I think Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorcese, both of whom were passed over for this "minor" award, would disagree with you.

You know I'm probably showing my age here but back when I was in high school, history, geography, and current events were all taught in a single class, social studies. It's not unreasonable to believe that some districts still allow the subjects to blend together no matter what the actual course title says. Geography is a living breathing thing. There's a reason those boundaries are drawn where they are. Wars were fought to make them that way. Current events are constantly threatening to change them further.

Right now it sounds like much to do about nothing. It's remarkably difficult to perform uranium enrichment with the intent of creating a weapon, and have the operation look as though it were involved in research and refinement for use in power plants or other industrial applications. ??? Looks like North Korea did it without too much trouble.

I'm not going to lie to you. What this guy says disgusts and offends me. He's clearly an apologist for Al Qaeda as well as being anti-Administration. However as I said earlier, that is not the issue. I don't have the right to not be offended. If you listen to the tape, you'll see that Bennish does allow for an extended discussion with a dissenting student (timecode: 9:30 to 20:05). From the volume of the voice, I'd guess the student was the same one doing the taping. That student asked some good hard questions. I found myself agreeing 100% with his point of view. And the teacher, though he mostly stuck to his guns, addressed these questions (some more directly than others) and even made some small concessions to the student. Clearly, this teacher does allow viewpoints to be expressed that run counter to his own. Sure, he's not going to change his own mind, but he does permit a free exchange of opposing views in a way that is a lot more civil and respectful than that in other forums (including this one). It's also clear that he not only allows but also encourages this discussion at several times during the class with statements such as: "You've got to figure these things out for yourselves." "I'm not in any way implying you should agree with me." "What I'm trying to get you to do is to think about these issues more in depth." And finally, at the end of the ten minute exchange with the student, he says: "I'm glad that you asked all your questions because they're all very good, legitimate questions and hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about those things too." Perhaps that isn't enough for some people here. For them, the fact that he expresses such objectional viewpoints at all is sufficient to condemn him. I disagree. The purpose of school is to learn. It's not to feel warm and fuzzy about your preconceived beliefs. And the students in that class will learn a shitload more about real issues in today's world than the ones in some generic, everything from the textbook, type class.

That's what it looks like to me. As I said before, I myself was offended by such Hitler comparisons but I still don't think the teacher should be disciplined solely on the basis of having made such a comparison. Geography/History/Social Studies classes in high school thrive on the lively interchange of ideas and opinions. Without that it's a sure perscription for terminal boredom. Students tend to learn a lot less when they're bored than when they're interested. The only relevant question is whether or not the teacher allowed for the expression of opinions running counter to his own and that cannot be determined unless a full, unedited version of the tape is produced.

A student.... one... who recorded him because the teacher does not suscribe to his particular viewpoint. I listened to the student this morning on Fox News.. Kinda reminded me of how the students were required to report on thier teachers in 1930's Germany.. BWAAAHAHAHA! never fails... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Doesn't apply. Godwin's law refers to the first comparison with Hitler or Nazis in a discussion thread. Since the thread itself began by commenting on such a comparison subsequent references are moot. I have two things to say about this. First, high school students are far from mindless zombies that we have to protect from teachers who express strong opinions, even such objectional opinions as were on that tape. Second, in America there is no inherent right to not be offended. That's the beauty of our country and it should be celebrated by all. Otherwise, we become no better than the people who burned those Danish embassies.

Man, hasn't anyone noticed how much worse name brand (Domino's, Pizza Hut, etc.) is than your average corner pizza place? You shouldn't need a political reason to avoid them.

Hasn't the argument for international participation been around for several years now? If I recall, one of the key roadblocks was the administration's unwillingness to give up some measure of control, both in terms of the military and in terms of civilian contracts, in order to secure international cooperation. Has that changed since then?

I'd be very surprised if, a few years from now, this incident is even remembered by anyone other than people who's entire agenda is defined by being anti-gay. Like those idiots who disrupt military funerals. I understand being outraged by these soldiers' actions but in the long run I doubt it will affect the legacy of the 82nd.

Not really. Because, all analogies aside, the biggest nuclear threat is for groups without a return address (such as terrorists) to acquire them. That is much more of a threat than for a country to have them. Mutually assured destruction just doesn't work without a return address.

Congratulations. You've got 'nasty' down well. Unfortunately you don't have 'understanding' down yet. See BillVon's reply then you may apologize to both of us. Congratulations yourself. I would think that the most basic indicator of understanding would be the ability to distinguish between a question (which is what you so vehmently objected to) and a statement.

In this case, the guy who right now has only his fists is just waiting patiently for his good buddy (Iran) who's on the verge of getting some very big guns. That's the trouble with nuclear arms. You can only prevent countries from getting them. You can't do anything once they have them.

Isn't it fun to misquote smart people and put stupid words in their mouth? And it's so much easier than actually understanding what they said or arguing against a position they actually defend. Nice of you to cut off what he did actually say. I guess that makes it easier to understand as well, right? He is comparing the terrorists, who don't have nuclear weapons, to the communists, who do. Since the communists who did have them never attacked us we shouldn't worry about the terrorists. Or is English your second language?

>At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the >terrorists get a hold of some nukes. We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras. So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Interesting that you can trivialize the deaths by terrorism including 9/11 by calling them "small potatoes". At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

That is not what I asked. Does one fatwa cancel another out? And presumably Khamenei is still Supreme Leader. Thus, he controls the military. So does his fatwa, being the Supreme Leader, overpower a lower ranking holy person's fatwa? Or are they all equal and thus negate each other? You tell me. We're dealing with a culture that is ready to start World War III over a cartoon but hardly notices when hundreds of it's own people are slaughtered by other Muslims. You expect logic?

Last summer they hadn't made the strides they've made in uranium enrichment.

Damn. You beat me to it Talk about throwing stones in a glass house. Vale Very original. That similarity is mentioned in the last paragraph of the article or did you even bother to read it? And in case you didn't realize it, a lot of Americans had a good laugh at Freedom Fries as well.

You just can't make this stuff up. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.danish.pastries.ap.ap/index.html Iranian bakeries rename Danish pastries Thursday, February 16, 2006; Posted: 6:29 p.m. EST (23:29 GMT) Tehran, Iran (AP) -- Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed." Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners' union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of the Muslim prophet published in a Danish newspaper. "Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to 'Rose of Mohammed' pastries," the union said in its order. "This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake shop owner in northern Tehran. One of Tehran's most popular bakeries, "Danish Pastries," covered up the word "Danish" on its sign with a black banner emblazoned "Oh Hussein," a reference to a martyred saint of Shiite Islam. The banner is a traditional sign of mourning. The shop owner declined to comment Thursday. In Zartosht Street in central Tehran, cake shop owner Mahdi Pedari didn't cover up the word "Danish pastries" on his menu, but put the new name next to it. "I did so just to inform my customers that Rose of Mohammed is the new name for Danish pastries," he said. Iranians love sweets, often bringing candies and pastries to parties. So-called "Danish pastries" are extremely popular. Some customers took immediately to the new name. But others were less enthusiastic about the protest. "I just want the sweet pastries. I have nothing to do with the name," homemaker Zohreh Masoumi told the sales clerk taking her order. The drawings, which have offended many Muslims, were published in a Danish newspaper in September and then reprinted in European and American newspapers. One depicted the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse. Islam widely holds that representations of Mohammed are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry. At least 19 people have been killed in protests over the past several weeks, most of them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran has cut all commercial ties with Denmark in retaliation for the prophet cartoons. Consumer boycotts of Danish goods, from Havarti cheese to Lego, are costing Denmark's companies millions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries. Iran's Danish renaming wasn't the first time a food name has become a symbol of protest. A Republican congressman from North Carolina helped lead an effort to make sure Capitol Hill cafeterias changed their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries after France opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

best comment so far (but it still remain fun to debate with city boys on issues of how accidents hunting and on the farm and in the woods are handled by small town cops - I think the idealism in some of the comments are admirable if a bit out of touch for some areas) Believe me, I have just as much fun with you slack jawed yokels!

I'm not saying I believe the theory, just that it's not that big a deal that people are asking about it. As far as the 14 hour delay to interview. Let's look at the timeline and see how nuts it is. These are just guesses people: 5:50 (whatever) guys gets shot - Since a doc is on hand there is likely some medical attention applied in the field for a bit, it takes what, a half hour for that and another hour to or so to get to the hospital? 6:15 at the hospital - check in even in the emergency room takes forever. 7:00 guy sees a doctor. At this point, the local cops are called now that the victim is being treated (the first priority is covered) 7:30 the report is taken by the cops - likely given by Cheney's lawyer. It's now the middle of the evening, and the local cops probably have the administrative staff at home. It's an accident, so they aren't all gung ho to come in to take a statement. Set up an appoinment for first thing in the morning. Say 8:00 am (this is a small town so people get up earlier than those in the big cities) 8:00 am statement given let's see the math here - 6 pm the accident happens. 8 am statement given. That about what? 14 hours or so. Nope, doesn't check out. The fact remains that if you, I, or anyone else on the forums were a shooter in a hunting accident or a driver in a car accident where someone was seriously hurt, the police would want to interview us right away. They wouldn't just take our word for it that alcohol or other contributing circumstances were not involved. True, if we were privileged enough to have a lawyer who could get us a delay, we could get away with it. However, whenever that happens there are always lingering questions as to what really happened. The problem with this incident is a lot of people's logic is clouded by the politics involved (on both sides). To try to get away from that, just try visualizing the incident with someone non-political as the shooter and someone you really cared about as the person shot. You'd want to know if alcohol was involved there, wouldn't you?

It seems to mean it would only be advisable if there was enough alcohol in your blood to be detected in a breathalyzer. If Cheney only had a beer during lunch, it's unlikely that there would be any detectable alcohol at 7PM. Why should there be a need for delay?