likearock

The lifestyle is a choice. Don't confuse being gay with adopting the lifestyle. You don't have to be gay to engage in the lifestyle and a lot of people who are gay don't subscribe to it. Wyane

I don't think so. The study's results are consistent with either nature, nurture, or a combination of the two being the determining factor. All it shows is that something outside of a person's will determines their sexual orientation. Emotional and even physical reactions to stimuli (including sexual attraction) can be conditioned by events, especially if they occur in early childhood. Wayne

Let's rephrase, shall we? There is a difference though. As skydivers, we assume a degree of risk from the get go and sign comprehensive waivers to formalize the process. A motorcyclist acting like an ass will endanger other people on the highway who I doubt would consider driving to be a similarly high risk activity. Wayne

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/05/04/internet.hunting.ap/index.html

If you were a North Korea leader, would you risk your death or the loss of your position of power (and wealth) on such a crappy bet? Where's the upside? You're assuming sane behavior from a man who is somewhat less than that. Wayne

Even assuming you're correct about traceability, North Korea could still cover their ass by announcing beforehand that the material had been stolen. If it later turns up in a bomb, do we then retaliate? Wayne

It's pretty hard to do - nukes leave signatures that point to a source of origin. Got a reference for that? Just how do you go about determining the source of plutonium from a dirty bomb? Wayne

Everyone's missing the point here. The danger of Iran and North Korea having a nuclear weapon is not that they'd use it themselves. Mutually assured destruction is still in full force, even for countries that don't have nukes (read Japan) but have nuclear possessing allies. The danger is that North Korea, with a known track record of selling arms to terrorists, and Iran, the prime sponsor of Hezbollah, would help get these nukes in the hands of terrorists. A terrorist, not associated with any country in particular, won't care about MAD because who are you going to retaliate against? That's the true nightmare scenario. Wayne

Fixed your clicky. I don't know Mike, it sounds like that rationale still turns a deaf ear to the religious family of modest means that just wants to stop having children after four or five. In your reference, the Vatican itself acknowledges that: But it's also true that the degree of fertility varies quite a bit in practice with some couples having great difficulties conceiving and others having one child after the other. And if a couple wishes to use a condom and withhold that part of the act of love that would tend to make their already large family unmanageable, that strikes me as an example of love in a different sense. Because not only are the two people expressing love for each other, they are also showing how much they care for their existing children who are already sharing limited resources. To do otherwise would be to put those same children in jeopardy. It's difficult to argue with the facts on the ground that condom use has substantially reduced the incidence of AIDS in this country since its outbreak in the 80s. And why should the fact that it will "only" decrease AIDS motivate the Church to dismiss it as a useful tool? Certainly, a lot of Church effort is devoted to "decreasing" the incidence and effects of poverty. There is no argument that since poverty can't be eradicated completely, they should cease their efforts. If condom use can save the life of just one person it should certainly be, if not endorsed, at least considered benign by the Church. Wayne

Then why the prohibition on condoms? They are not exclusively used by people for "sleazy excess", but just as well by a husband and wife who want to be able to care fully for the children they already have. A condom is not, like other forms of birth control, interrupting life after it has been conceived. It prevents that conception in the first place. So why is the Church so adamant with this prohibition, especially in the face of the terrible effects of AIDS worldwide? Wayne

So what was in the suitcases? Wayne

However, if she were unaware of the existence of a morning after pill, she would probably miss that narrow window of opportunity to use it. She'd go to see another doctor and find out her only remaining alternative would be to get an abortion, which could be scheduled anytime in the next few months. Then 3 or 5 months later she gets a real abortion where a semi-developed fetus is extracted from her body. Is this really a preferable moral alternative to that of simply preventing the fertilized egg from developing in the first place? This to me is the crux of this issue, it's not so much a matter of belief in the primacy of life but whether you have an absolutist or pragmatic view of that primacy. The Catholic church, by its very nature, tends towards the absolutist view but that doesn't prevent many Catholics who consider themselves religious from making pragmatic distinctions, for example in the matter of condom use. It is clear to them that there isn't an absolute moral equivalence between preventing life on the level of a single cell and the prospect of forcibly extracting a developed fetus. However, the dogma of church insists that these two scenarios be viewed as equally evil. There are other examples of how an absolutist view of right to life leads to a greater actual injury to life than a more pragmatic view. For example, in stem cell research where experimenting with single-celled "life" has the potential of eliminating suffering and death in a great number of living human beings. And that's what this specific example boils down to. If the doctors at a religious institution were to merely mention the existence of a morning after pill, they could prevent the necessity of a full abortion down the road. I think they should ask themselves whether they're opting for their own personal comfort here at the expense of the greater good. Wayne

Actually, some of those Pro-Lifers might surprise you: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html Wayne

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this. It's just interesting to me all the high and mighty members of Congress intervening to assert their religious beliefs (that's what this is about with them, don't kid yourself) whereas no one is offering to pick up the tab. "We must save this woman, but you pay for it." Hypocrites. Wayne

Wouldn't this question be just as appropriate for Teri Schiavo? Wayne

One thing I've always wondered about this case: She's been cared for in a hospital for 15 years or so. That's got to mean millions in terms of medical bills. Who's paying? Wayne

Wow, you must really hate his music! Wayne

Surelu you do not mean to exclude the possibility that scared 21-year old guys with weapons can make bad decisions. It is probably a tough environment down there. Mistakes can be made. Absolutely. This has happened and has been widely reported in the press. Anyone who's kept track at all of the war is aware that, if you want to stay alive in Iraq, it can be critical to dot all your i's when traveling anywhere there. But doesn't that make it all the more important for those who can to coordinate their movements with the highest levels of the coalition command? Surely, the Italians had the contacts to be able to do that. They should have known that that would have been their safest course of action. Wayne

well ... read back a few posts in this "American thread" and you will find that the first blame was assigned to those who had been shot to pieces - that they had only themselves to blame - before any facts were known. Whatever kneejerk narrow mindedness you're talking about - there's certainly no deficit of it on this side . Really? I can't find anyone who's definitely assigning blame. I myself have been pointing out alternative ways things might have happened the way they did as well as voicing my opinion about the relative likelihood among those possiblities. Nobody will know anything for sure until all the facts are in. Of course if the secret to the Italian's success is that they are willing to pay off the kidnappers to the tune of large sums of money, that would certainly explain the discrepency, wouldn't it? But of course, that would entail other less desireable consequences, such as encouraging more kidnapping. Wayne

It is amazing how many Americans here always jump to conclusions and always assume that their guys never make mistakes.... has been mentioned that somebody probably fucked up - and it might not be the italians.. lets see what the investigation shows. None of us are saying we're sure of what happened. But, as Trent points out, there is one glaring question that the Italians have yet to answer: Wayne

Did you read the rest? Furthermore: I am not saying that I know what happened here. I am just noting that it seems that two different perceptions of this incident exist. It is possible that the Italians think they did everything they could to appear friendly. It is likewise (obviously) possible that the soldiers felt threatened. None of us are in the position to determine the "objective truth". We can just note another tragedy in this war. Please do not try to assign blame from the comfort of your home. (not aimed at you in particular) Peace I'm sorry, I just feel the same way as Trent about the ridiculous efforts to make everything the fault of the Americans. I'm not a gung-ho Bush right or wronger myself, but it's obvious that this journalist has an axe to grind and is not even deterred enough by this tragic situation to restrain herself: Her possible state of mind can also be indicated by the numerous accusations by her collegues on Il Manifesto that the whole thing was "intentional" and an "assassination". I'm just trying to figure out which of the following outcomes is the least absurd:The Americans had a "hit" out on Sgrena.American forces routinely fire indescriminately into cars for no reason.Sgrena, who was so consumed with her Oliver Stone conspiracy paranoia, instructed her driver to stop for no one on the way to the airportPersonally, if I had to bet on it, I'd go with number three. Wayne

Yup. It's already started. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/italy.iraq/index.html Disgusting that she would suggest some conspiracy was involved, but obviously she's someone with an axe to grind. Edited to add: On second thought, the fact that she believed the conspiriacy theory would explain nicely why things might have happened the way they did: Naturally, if you believe that, you're not going to stop for any checkpoints. Wayne

Even FOX News has given up the quest to transcend the expression "suicide bomber" into "homicide bomber". As much sense as it makes, people just don't want to switch. Maybe we can get the people who got us calling homosexuals "gay" to work on it. The problem with calling them homicide bombers is that all bombers are homicide bombers. However there is a distinction between those people who actually carry the bombs on their person and those that detonate them by remote control. Wayne

She admitted to giving oral and taking it out and using it to get pregnant. She never really said that. If you look at the updated story, it says just the opposite: Maybe she's lying. But he could be too. And unless there's other evidence (for example, conversations containing admissions on her part), there's really no way to know one way or the other. Wayne

Ah, ok... I think you're right. I read a little bit more of it and looked at their store, where they have this thong for sale: http://www.cafepress.com/objectivemin.3749749 Also, their Site News contains this interesting link: http://www.normalbobsmith.com/ Cool idea, to cook up a whole batch of interlinked web sites with some condemning the others. Wayne