Nightingale

even peppers have their stems on the TOP.

I haven’t followed that case very well. I’ve just seen a few highlights on the news. I can’t argue the specifics like you probably can without having read both documents you mentioned. then perhaps you shouldn't use it as part of your argument, if you are unfamiliar with the case? I know you’re ramping up for law school and are probably all over it. I'm all over it because of the subject matter, not because of law school. Civil rights have always been of interest to me. However, speaking from a layman’s point of view, I’d say that until a law on the books is officially declared unconstitutional, the laws on the books must be followed. the problem is, the laws contradict each other. to follow one, you must break the other. If the mayor had followed prop 22, he would be breaking the civil rights law. if he follows the civil rights law, he breaks prop 22. its a no-win situation. Here’s a summary that I found concerning Prop 22. Do you have a reference to the Civil Rights Initiative? I’d like to read it. here's some research: California state constitution, article 1, section 7B: (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. one could argue that marriage is a contract. The california civil rights act is worded the same: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting" you can read the full text here: http://www.acri.org/209/209text.html the City contends that three sections of the California Family Code prohibiting marriage between eligible same-sex couples are void and unenforceable under article I, section 7 of the California Constitution in that they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in violation of the State Equal Protection Clause, and violate liberty and privacy interests protected by the State Due Process Clause. San Francisco is using California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 to request that the court explicitly declare Family Code sections 300, 301 and 308.5 violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the California State Constitution, and are thereby void and unenforceable. you can even go all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866: The Civil Rights Act of 1866 Act of April 9, 1866 An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

LOL... photoshopped... apples don't have stems on the BOTTOM.

Personally, I am against abortion. I would not have one. That's my CHOICE. However, I believe abortion should remain legal, because others have a right to choose differently. Being pro-choice isn't about encouraging people to have abortions. Its about making sure they have the choice available to them and can make an informed decision for themselves.

Actually, Mayor Newsom (sp?) is standing on somewhat firm legal ground. He's stuck between two laws (the Civil Rights initiative, and prop 22) that directly contradict each other. If he followed one law, he was breaking the other. He simply chose the law he was going to follow, and left it to the courts to sort things out, which, is, after all, their job.

at Elsinore, I've seen Karl take a couple of observers up... they always sat in the co-pilot seat where he could keep an eye on them.

Legislating from the bench?? gimme a break. It's the JOB of judges to interpret the laws. They're just doing what they're supposed to. When laws are in conflict with the constitution, judges are supposed to strike them. Kevin Keith explains better than I can: "As for "running to the courts" - that's what the courts are for. The basic idea behind our limited democracy - a constitutional democracy with a bicameral house and separation of powers - is to prevent tyranny of the majority. We have democratic structures, but limits on what the democratic process can do. The reason is that if we concentrated all power in the democratic bodies or processes, there would be no limits on what could be done through the democratic process - which is a bad thing, even if you believe in democracy as a general proposition. The underlying assumption is that there are some things that the government should not do, even if a majority of citizens or their representatives wants to do them. There are, that is, certain core freedoms that should be off-limits to the democractic process, even if democracy is your preferred method of government, or even indeed if it is the best method. ...snip... The major anti-democratic features of our government - non-proportional representation in the Senate, representative rather than direct democracy (even more so originally than today), the checks-and-balances system, the Bill of Rights and the supermajority requirement for Constitutional amendments - are attempts to limit the power of the majority to impose its will against, or over, those central values which the government may not invade no matter how much the people want it, or how many of them want it. The courts - the most non-democratic branch of the government - enforce this central immunity; they draw the lines the majority will not draw against itself. One may agree or disagree with particular court decisions, but the argument that courts should not "make law" because it is non-democratic [carries] no water. That's precisely the point: the court is *expected to act to prevent [democratic decision-making]* when those decisions encroach upon the central core of personal freedoms upon which no government and no majority may be allowed to trespass."

survivor's a strategy game... you make alliances, you break alliances. its how the game is played. I'd think no less of someone for breaking a survivor alliance than I would someone who took my rook in a chess game. its all part of the game.

yup.

course, you could say that Amber played better, because she let Rob make all the enemies, and she just got to ride to the top... seems like she played very well indeed.

I also know that Bush doesn't care much for the environment and women's health, and those issues are more important to me than gun ownership, since I don't own a gun, but I do like to breathe clean air and I am female.

I bought goggles for my AFF 2. I bought my logbook for AFF 3. I didn't buy anything else til I was done with AFF. At Perris, the school will let you borrow jumpsuits and altimeters so long as you're not taking them away from paying students. I jumped in a student suit for at least 15 jumps. Dunno about your DZ. Get a used jumpsuit, til you know how to land. You'll just be pissed if you tear up a brand new suit. Right now, I have a used jumpsuit (tonysuit with booties) and a new jumpsuit (bev hot bod with booties, large grippers, lining, etc...). I wear the old suit when there's no wind, or if I'm landing on grass. I wear the new suit if I'm at perris, there's at least a 5 mph wind, and no mud. =) I bought my altimeter before I got my A. $60 on ebay. Its an Alti Galaxy. the owner didn't want it because it was purple. I wasn't about to pay an extra $80 or so for a new one just so I could pick the color. It works great, and ironically, the used rig I ended up buying is purple and grey! So, I got the jumpsuit to match. What I've suggested to friends, of what to buy, in order: 1. Goggles 2. Logbook 3. Helmet 4. Altimeter 5. Jumpsuit (used with booties) 6. Rig (used) 7. Jumpsuit (new) Oh... when I bring my friends to do tandems, I always buy them a logbook. Most of them can't wait to write in it and have their JM sign it. Its something special, even if they never do a second jump.

when someone who's not republican or democrat wins an election, I'll start to believe you. you must admit, though, that there's no way that anyone but Bush or Kerry is going to win this election.

this is from about.com. it's got the info you wanted plus more. At 20 minutes after quitting: blood pressure decreases pulse rate drops body temperature of hands and feet increases. At 8 hours: carbon monoxide level in blood drops to normal oxygen level in blood increases to normal At 24 hours: chance of a heart attack decreases At 48 hours: nerve endings start regrowing ability to smell and taste improve At 2 weeks to 3 months: circulation improves walking becomes easier lung function increases The worst of physical withdrawal subsided within the first month, and learning how to decipher and reprogram the psychological tugs or urges to smoke is coming more naturally. From 1 to 9 months: Decreases in: coughing sinus congestion fatigue shortness of breath The changes you'll be going through will affect more than your health. Even the health benefits that you thought you'd already experienced will continue to get better. At 1 Year smoke free: excess risk of coronary heart disease is decreased to half that of a smoker At 5 years: from 5 to 15 years after quitting, stroke risk is reduced to that of people who have never smoked. At 10 years: risk of lung cancer drops to as little as one-half that of continuing smokers risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases risk of ulcer decreases At 15 years: risk of coronary heart disease is now similar to that of people who have never smoked risk of death returns to nearly the level of people who have never smoked

He was kidding because your post is there twice. Kelly d'oh. these blank page loads are getting frustrating... I hit "post message" and then get a blank page, hit refresh, and then it posts twice! aargh.

Or you could call the DMV why would I call the DMV? I don't know her friend's name or driver license number.

you can call the DMV.

you can call the DMV. I would. I'd rather have my friend alive and potentially mad at me, than dead or severely injured in a car crash. She's not only a hazard to herself here... imagine what you'd feel like if she crashed into a car with a newborn baby inside?

no... it was that most of your political posts are synonymous with Kerry-bashing. Since, statistically, most of the Kerry supporters are voting for him as a vote against Bush, perhaps you should consentrate your attention on making Bush a more attractive candidate, since he is apparently incapable of doing it for himself.

Most people here have already made up their minds, so threads like this don't accomplish much. I'm voting for John Kerry for two reasons. 1. he's not Bush. 2. I think he'll do a better job than Bush. I really don't put much stock in what he did thirty years ago. what I (and most other voters) care about is what he's done recently, and what he'll do in the next four-eight years. And for the record, I don't give a damn about whether or not Bush showed up for guard duty. What matters to me is what he did as gov. of Texas, and what he's doing now in the White House. People change as years pass. I care about who they are NOW.

hmm.... see if you can get them to send you a color sample if your gear store doesn't have swatches. sometimes, colors on computer monitors look very different than in real life.

go get an x-ray. you could have broken a rib, or you could have "sprung" a rib, which feels similar, but is an entirely different problem. you could probably jump with the latter problem, but let the former heal.

my TM told me to cross my arms, but he didn't tell me to grab the harness.

the thing you haven't addressed: why should those who don't follow your God follow His rules? According to the first amendment, you can't pass laws favoring one religion (or one religion's dogma/doctrine) over another's. There are religions that allow same sex relationships/marriages. Why should your religion be the one to set the standard that ALL must abide by? Doesn't God offer free will to His people? Who are we to take that free will away by legislation?

you can buy ROOT beer, or soda or whatever... the idea is more about sharing social time with others than it is about the booze. oh... my weekend numbers... 4:0:0