, at
3:21 AM
RAMPANT LESBIANISM???
AGH! WITCHES AND COMMUNISTS AND LIBERALS!
Eh, at least it's a good way to kick off #100. Though I think Cecania and Sawer have definte possibility, as long as he puts his military training to good use in compensating for his deficiencies. No girl would mind if he dropped and gave her 20.
(I just wanted to be the first to use that joke.)
By , at
3:21 AM
Awwwwww, but I wanted her in a relationship with Harmony :( ... I mean, hey, they both lack certain parts, right :) ? It wouldn't be that different ^_^ ...
Well, okay, it would, but that's beside the point :P .
By , at
3:24 AM
Oh, Pshaw! My hopes of seeing a Harmony/Fairbanks relationship is one of the main reasons I stick with this strip. They're both so delightfuly reprehensible!
By , at
7:03 AM
I wonder if Cheney feels at all guilty about how the stance his party has on gay marriage will probably affect his daughter in the future? Is he being forced to go along with it, or is he just heartless? I know the latter of the two is not mandatory in order to qualify as a politician, but I hear it helps, and it would explain the triple bypass...
I know that not every politician is a complete heartless monster, as impossible as it sounds, even among republicans. However, I think that at least some of them are forced to take this stance on gay rights. Why do I think this way? Probably too much dew, but follow me on this for a minute will you?
As I'm sure most of you know, there's a geographical point in the states (usually the southernmost states) called the bible belt. This is a cluster of states with a population that is deeply tied to their faith and heavily influenced by their church. Catholic or Christian, most of the people who fully accept the doctrines of faith that come with either one oppose all aspects of homosexuality. Now, what does this have to do with the Cheneys and the republicans?
Most of the republicans, and indeed the most high-ranking ones, claim to have a deep faith and to believe in God. While I won't question this, there is no question that a high percentage of registered voters are either Christian or Catholic. So while they may indeed accept either faith, this is also a crucial part of their campaign since the 'faithful' are a large part of their voter base. As such, changing positions on homosexuality could cost the party literally millions of votes, or certain high-ranking members their jobs.
Now, because they cannot or will not change their stance on homosexuality, it may disagree with certain party members who have no other career options at the moment. One other disadvantage is that as long as this party feels it has to use this tactic to get re-elected, and they probably will again this year, the gay right movement will continue to be slowed to a crawl. Not that an immediate change would be great either, since it could cause a lot of b.s and social upheval if done all at once. Still, at this point in history I think there are bigger things to worry about than men marrying men and women marrying women.
Now, I'm not saying that religion is setting society back all on its own. The problem lies in people who have blind faith in the church. The church is run by human beings, who as has been demonstrated since the beginning of organized society, can be both righteous and despicable. The church is not infallable or immune to corruption, just like every other part of our society, so it is a mistake to have blind faith in any of it. Even the bible was written by humans, and after twenty centuries or so, there is no telling how it may have been altered to fit one man's beliefs.
What do I believe in? I have no faith in mankind, servants of God or not, but I do have faith in God. Of course, my God is a little different from most Gods according to the people who keep their temples and churches. My God doesn't discriminate against you because you prefer one lifestyle or religion over another. My God won't cast you into Hell if you ever question him. My God accepts you for whatever or whoever you are and generally doesn't give a damn if you believe in him or not. My God wants everyone to be happy. He/She/It did not tell me so in a grand vision, I think it makes sense is all.
Oh, and very nice Mary Cheney reference in the comic today by the way. Very funny.
By , at
10:56 AM
Soooo... your God is stimpy then?
Happy happy joy joy!
By , at
4:03 PM
ever thought its simpler than all that? that its just them playing the gays against the extremists just like the republicans play against the democrats, the conservatives against the liberals, in order to divide and easier control us all, wether gay straight, religious or not?
Occums razor, power corrupts, etc...
By , at
6:02 PM
To be fair, the Bible Belt is a bit smaller than most seem to think....
The real strength of the Religious Right comes from traditional ethics. Basically, nearly everybody in America grows up with the same grounds for morality- the ethics of the Judeo-Christian faiths. The RR's strength comes from the basic beliefs in the largest and most powerful faith in America- Christianity.
Liberals and the left don't work well together because people are liberal in different areas. You can be liberal about abortion, or stem-cell research, or both. You may be ultra-liberal about women's rights, but loathe stem-cell research so that you can't get behind your stem-cell supporting candidate.
Not to say all RR people agree on the exact same things as I'm simplifying things, but I'm sure.....
Actually, I don't remember where I was going with this. I'm tired and I want San Andreas.... Later.
-Jas
By , at
10:49 PM
I'd say it's a way for both big players to distract from the fact that they're both doing a shitty job campaigning. You lose a lot of your credibility when you start attacking the person and not their platform, so they throw shit like this out there whenever they get the chance to distract from how badly they're fucking up. To paraphrase one of Travolta's characters 'it's all about the art of misdirection'.
Now I'm also tired and also want San Andreas...
By , at
8:03 AM
I can simplify it all ever further: All politicians (the successful ones, anyways) are all assholes who will use anything they can to win an election. Always have, always will.
By , at
8:53 AM
I imagine that many politicians don't start out to be corporate/special interest group running dogs. In fact, it doesn't seem at all unlikely that many of them begin with the same high ideals that I'm sure many of the readers of this webcomic hold dear.
But the fact is that they - like every other person in the world - eventually become swallowed up by "the machine."
I use this reference only as an illustration - a hipster/hippie, I most definitely am not. But one of the hard facts that I think we as young people (and sometimes not so young people) have to come to terms with is the fact that everyone - at least to some degree - is a conformist.
Think about it in simple (high school) terms for a moment. You have two distinct groups, and then a bunch of smaller sub-groups. The big groups tend to be the popular kids, and then the "less-than-popular" kids - see also; dorks, losers, nerds, geeks, etc.
The popular kids adhere to a certain set of behavioral standards - the same way the unpopular kids do.
Break them down into their sub-groups and you get a bit of variance, but not a whole lot.
Let's just go with to of the easiest - the A&F kids and the Hot Topic kids.
The A&F kids are easily identified by their cookie-cutter haircuts, attitudes, and modality of dress (if it doesn't have a name-brand label, they don't want it). On the other side of the coin, you can spot a Hot Topic kid five miles away, because they're either wearing all black, or have five Johnny the Homicidal Maniac t-shirts, or because their pants come with more straps than pockets.
I guarantee you that every person in each of these diametrically opposed groups thinks of themselves as an individual. But humanity doesn't allow for true individuality. The people that really go outside the accepted mold are either pushed aside, or pressured to continue their genius until it breaks them. And so humans adapt - we conform to certain standards of behavior in order to be accepted by our chosen social groups.
We're all conformists - it's just a matter of whose rules we choose to follow.
Same thing goes for politicians. They may enter the game saying, "I'm going to be different - I'm really going to change things!" But eventually they realize that in order to get anything done, they have to give up some of their idealism - to compromise with the party line.
It's sad - but unfortunately, it's not going to change anytime soon. And any one of you that says you'd be different - fine, run for office and prove me wrong. I intend to get into politics someday myself - and I hope I can remain honest with myself and others - but honestly, I'm not sure it'll pan out that way.
WTF? "Christian" and "Catholic" bing used as though they were distinct things?
The word "catholic" with a small "c" means "inclusive" -- "He has quite catholic tastes in literature" i.e. quite inclusive, meaning he'll read anything with text on it. With a big "C" it usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church -- an {originally} inclusive Christian Church based in Rome, following a Creed established by the Council of Nicaea and able to trace its lineage back to the original Apostles.
History lesson. Before Henry VIII, England was as Roman Catholic as anywhere else. The Pope of the day was taking too long granting him a letter of divorce; so H. established the Church of England. Basically he copied everything from the Roman Catholic Church documentation, but s/Pope/King of England/g. The Church of England under Henry VIII was run *exactly* as the Roman Catholic Church in every respect barring that Henry VIII was now God's representative on Earth, at least within the borders of England.
Fast forward to Elizabeth I, by which time the Pope had managed to upset quite a few figures on the Mainland, to the point of nailing papers to Church doors. In a classic case of family rivalry, Queen Bess started reforming the Church of England along more Lutheran lines -- just to annoy her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, a devout Roman Catholic.
Fast forward a bit more, various nonconformist sects spring up, disliking the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England {which is still considered not-very-reformed by some of the radicals}. Europe gets sick of them {they seem to have a habit of always saying it's a sin to be enjoying yourself while other people are in misery}, and sends them off West; they settle in what will eventually be called America. Over here in Europe, we carry on enjoying ourselves while other people are in misery, thinking to deal with it before God when the time comes. The gap between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England gets blown out of all proportion, especially in Northern Ireland.
Summary:
Roman Catholic Church = original Christian Church descended from the original Apostles
Church of England = least Protestant of all so-called Protestant Churches (until quite recently, C.ofE. Holy Orders were recognised by R.C.Ch.) and enjoying approximately the same relationship with R.C.Ch. as that between the wolf and the domesticated dog.
Everyone else = heathens
By , at
3:47 AM
It's too bad that all hot lesbians are genetically engineered in an underground lab in Nevada and don't really exist in nature...
I know because I've given my entire life savings to the cause.
By , at
1:25 PM
To respond to the "everyone's a conformist" theory...I don't think that's necessarially true. Sure, I've got my group of crazy/geeky friends that I hang out with more than others. We're not exclusive, though, and I certainly don't do things because of them. There's a difference between conforming and having similar interests/beliefs/habits/tastes/whatever with a group of friends.
Of course, I go to a small all-girls school, so maybe it's different in the real world.
To get back on topic...I don't think the sexual orientation of the VPs daughter should make any difference whatsoever. Obviously, it does. I'm not sure why the Democratic nominees keep pointing it out, and it was getting really annoying for a while, but I don't think that makes them reprehensible or anything. The Democrats want to use Mary Cheney to further their cause, but so does the Republican party. It sucks, but what's the difference between the two?
By , at
2:20 PM
The government is at the very root of the failings and shortcomings of this world.
We must rid ourselves of the government, break the bonds of the tyrant, and live as we were meant to: Free.
Humankind is its own Master, and each person is capable of making their own decisions.
When conflicts arise, they are dealt with swiftly and surely, instead of taking years, if not decades, to resolve.
We must rid ourselves of the government, or we must die trying. This land has been plagued by the blight of the government for far too long now as is.
By , at
4:19 PM
(Okay, this is kinda off-topic, I realize, but I thought I'd throw it out there.)
Capitalism and democracy are good ideas in theory...
But then, so is Marx's communism.
Capitalism and democracy just translate better to real life situations because they relies more on people whole-heartedly working for themselves rather than all working towards the same goal.
The first thing we need to do with the democratic process is to get rid of the electoral college. It's original purpose is now inane.
The second thing we need to do is allow people to vote for multiple candidates...not only would this give people more incentive to vote (they could just vote for everyone, instead of no one) and more accuracy in polls, it would allow third parties to actually have a chance at winning.
The third thing we need to do is fire Bush for using a term like "liberals" as if it's derogatory and denouncing taxes as if they're evil. There's a reason we have taxes! Supply-side economics aren't nearly as sensible as demand-side economics! \_/
By , at
4:24 PM
I think you guys are missing the point with regards to Cheney. You're not looking at the smaller picture.
When I was a child, I went to a school called Rockwood Centennial, in Ontario. There, I was abused for two solid years by a teacher named Larry Lacey. During those two years, he saw to it that he had absolute power over me, and no ability whatsoever to escape him, do him any harm, or even receive help from absolutely anyone. During that time, I learned a lesson which I haven't allowed to slip from my mind for a moment since then: Authority is a form of agression. A rarified form, yes, but ultimately, to want authority is merely to want to hold power over other people.
Cheney is a man who wants authority more than anything else on this earth. This is because, at heart, he is a terribly agressive person. There's no way around this fact. He wants to rule, to control, and to bathe in personal power and influence.
Do you think he gives a damn about gay rights? Do you think he gives a damn about traditional values? They're both just stepping stones for him. Because the segment of the american population which is most easily swayed are the homophobes, these are the ones who he appeals to. If America were a country in which freedom, equality, and happiness for all were prevalent values, he'd be the biggest liberal on earth. He just plays one group against another in the way most likely to play out in his benefit.
Ultimately, it's not power which corrupts. It's corruption which drives people to seek power. It's a drive within one's heart and mind to possess, to own, and to dominate everyone and everything around you. He has enough of that to seek one of the highest offices in the land. A man like that cannot care about anyone or anything else, or else he wouldn't WANT that job.
Every politician makes a gamble: "I think that the rhetoric I can employ will be sufficient to sway more voters than the rhetoric which my opponent will employ". If they're right, they win. If they're wrong, they lose. Cheney made the safe bet: That the rhetoric of hatred, jealousy and greed would resonate with the majority of americans. That's why he's chosen to employ it. And in the last election, it worked. Maybe it will again. Who's to say? But ultimately, all it is, is a means to an end to him. The substance of it doesn't matter a damned thing to him.
To even try to apply values to a creature like that is to display a dangerous naivete with regards to human nature which ill befits literate folks like yourselves.
-Dave
By , at
4:34 PM
Just a couple quick comments.
First of all I disagree that Cheeny is as hardcore about gay marriage for the sole purpose of enforcing his authority on people. Neither do I think Bush is for that matter. I think that either they truely believe it will be better for our country or that it will get them elected so that they can make other changes they do believe in. I'm sorry if I sound like a jack-ass, because I don't mean to belittle the horrible things done to you by your teacher, but I don't think you've come to the right conclusions in this case.
The reason I think that they either believe in it or are just saying it is that the hard fact of running for senate, a representative, or president, is that you either have to be filthy rich or you have to be supported by your party. And even if you're filthy rich you only have one or two shots at being elected and generally if you're not your political career isn't so well off as before. How many people hear about what non-presidents have done? Not I. As such, you have to have party support. And both parties in our country are very close to each other politically. I mean, most countries have atleast 5 parties. We realistically have two that have a chance at this point. As such, individuals have to sacrifice some of what they believe in in order to make the changes they really care about. I gaurentee you that neither candidate believes in everything they're saying now. However, they're doing what got them the money to run for president.
By , at
10:14 PM
So we all agree that Cheney is a lying, power hungry, cold, heartless fear-mongering biggot? Which means we have a boob and a man with the makings of a middle-eastern warlord running for the republicans? Aren't these the exact kinds of people you DON'T want running a place called 'the land of the free'? And they say the weed is laced with stronger shit in Amsterdam...
When you've got a guy like Cheney 'on deck' for someone like Bush, it means that not only is he actually the one running the show, but it also means that he has a great scapegoat in 'Dubya'. Why would Cheney accept a position like this? Easy, because it allows him to remain a viable candidate for the 2008 elections, if he chooses or even needs to do so by then. His character remains more or less marketable, while Bush is the one who becomes known as the most hated president in American history. Cheney really does have control issues, and right now, he controls the most powerful man in the world...
Only Hilary Clinton can save us now...
By , at
1:42 PM
Ok, for one, there are true non conformists who are bothered by the fact that if you want ot be different you all look the same. (I am one) They're usually the real outcasts because they refused to go on any one side
and for TWO the Catholic Church says one thing, the protestant another. It still stands that the Catholic church has misinformed for centuries, mislead, and even countermanded it's own teachings. Oh not to mentioned MASSACRED those that do not agree. They've burned thousands of old histories, and even if, and htat's a big if, they were the original, it doesn't mean they have STAYED the original.
if it wasn't for the plague, humanity would have never gotten out from under the "enlightened" thumb of the Catholic church and the abuses of an elite priesthood.
By , at
5:06 PM
If more people were Catholic less people would go to Hell when they die. I know that is not currently important to some people, but I have a hunch that they will care a little more once they are actually faced with the prospect after death. Regret is a powerful emotion, but often comes too late.
By , at
3:25 AM
I just got to say... it would be nice if a single one of them were funny. The drawing is fantastic. I've been giving you guys a lot of rope here hoping, that one of you would develop a sense of humor. I read literally a ton of web comics, and yours is by the best drawn, and the least funny. After 100 comics, I have to say, I've given you a chance and it's time to cut this comic loose.
By , at
5:38 AM
Yes, I certainly am afraid of going to hell for not being a catholic.
I mean, Jesus himself said that the end of the world was coming within the lifetime of a single generation of his followers. That means that, since the end of the world has yet to come, some of them must be nearly 2000 years old by now! Guys that old can't last too long! The last of them will likely die any day now, and then... then...!
Then the seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon who wears a crown upon each head named Satan will turn against god, just like it says in the book of Revelation! He'll fall to earth, right after all the fish in the sea have died and all the grass has burned up! It will be terrible!
Then, when the 144,000 people who will get to live in the gigantic cube which is heavan are chosen, I know I won't be among them, because I comitted the crimes of being born a bastard and defiling myself with the company of women!
Oh! I am afraid! Having read the bible cobver to cover time and again has indeed taught me the terror involved with not being a catholic! But what can I do? I have spoken against the holy spirit, and the bible specifically and unambiguously states that this crime "will not be forgiven"! Oh, woe is me! Hell, hell! It awaits me! Me and all but 144,000 other of all of the people who have ever lived!
Woe!
By , at
7:39 AM
Dude, Japanese Buddhism is the way to go. There's this blessed hole carved in a pillar the size of a statue's nostril, and if you crawl through you get a free ticket to Heaven.
Catholics can feel all the guilt they want! I'm gonna go have sex with my lady in a less than traditional fashion, play San Andreas, and eat a huge-ass steak and cheese, with some grease-soaked french fries. I'm STILL going to Heaven :)
-Jas
(Nam Amida Butsu!)
By , at
8:31 AM
I am not troubled by your sarcasm. I am sad that you allow your soul to fall into such disrepair, but I can not offer any help beyond my simple warning.
By , at
10:05 PM
Organized religion is for those who cannot find their own answers and resort to the teachings of people who died long, long ago, and who were mostly speaking in metaphor. Jesus is great and all, but it demeans his value by calling him the Son of God or God incarnate.
If Jesus was alive today, he'd be shocked by the state of the religion that is named after him. He'd also probably be weirded out by all the paintings of him being caucasian, instead of middle-eastern, as he was.
I suppose if you grew up absorbing all cultural/religious positions, and then chose to believe in, say, Catholicism, it'd be alright. The vicious cycle of forcing one's children to believe what parents believe is just...degenerative.
~Reality Cheque
"Bush isn't stupid...he just doesn't care. 'No WMD's, eh? How about that?'"
By , at
11:57 PM
Personally, I think that it is annoying when people think that catholics and christians are seperate. Catholics are following a particular form of christianity, as are protestants. No difference besides how they worship, yet both tend to feel that the others are heathens. Second, I think that the bible, just like the Torah, the Quran, or any other religious writing, is simply a guide. For the religiously inclined, Jesus said "The way to the father is through me", he didn't say through catholisism, or through any other denomination. Heck, he didn't even say through christianity, which is simply, or at least should be, a guide to faith.
As for politics, they disgust me as a whole, and I think that we need to look at how our party system works, compared with that of countries such as England, where represention is based on percentage, not all-or-nothing.
By , at
6:03 AM
I'm gonna kick hippies, set republicans on fire in the streets, suck down greaseball burgers the size of hubcaps, take a big shit on the whitehouse lawn, then wipe my mouth and ass with the American flag, and afterwards, plan to do the same thing the next day. I really can't say that I care about the laws and traditions of a country that treats a document written over a century ago by white slave owners as gospel. (Although, to his credit, Tomas Jefferson treated his slaves as well as he could.) Not only does half of the world hate the USA now, but no one takes its message of life and liberty seriously anymore. All the good intentions in the world won't save the current administration come end of day, but to those true Americans who still remember what your country is supposed to stand for, I say keep your head down, and God help you.
By , at
6:01 AM
Well, that's the problem. If the US is putting it's head down then there rest of the world is in for nasty shit too. It's not like other counties where if things go to shit it doesn't matter to the US.
By , at
7:17 AM
If my ignorance serves me correctly, England has a pretty screwy system too. The reason the Electoral College elects the US president is because of concerns over states rights. Some people think it’s a dinosaur, but I still consider the issue relevant. I think this is an aspect of the United States that few people outside the US realize, that the US varies a great deal within its own borders. Not just with demographics, but with laws and voting regulation. You really can't understand the United States without realizing this and foreign media rarely explains this in their redundant coverage of the US.
I suppose that this could apply to many other if not all countries as well, but I've seen the intricacies of, say, Swiss regions explained in foreign media. (Just recently, with the vote over immigration.)
Speaking of media too, the country where I've found the greatest variety of opinion over US policy is in the US. Most people I've talked to from countries outside of the US have been under informed and unthinking in their stances. This is my own personal experience, but my suggestion is that if you wish to become more informed about US politics, culture or policies, probably the best person to ask is an informed American. Media is only really only giving you enough information to lead you towards one of two opinions; both asking the wrong question and flawed in their conception.
By , at
7:33 AM
Yeah, I read that thing about everyone being a conformist and it was realated to high school pear groups. My high school was nothing like that, in fact, the only place that high schools like that exsist are in the movie or in the heads of a vocal minority of high school students and educators.
By , at
7:39 AM
At least in the UK we know we don't have to worry about voting-machine manufacturers not letting members of the public inspect the machines upon whose correct operation the fate of democracy itself rests -- call me a communist if you like, but I just happen to believe that the people's right to choose their own representatives outweighs any corporation's right to keep secrets about how their machines work.
See, we still count our votes by hand. And a few hours' work for a bunch of volunteers is a small price to pay for democracy not being subverted by secretive corporations.
By , at
1:44 AM
Ummm, somehow i doubt the UK has a perfect voting system. The fact of the matter is that none of this would have been a problem in the US except for how close of an election it was. Has the UK has an election determined by so few votes, ever?
As for the electronic machines. They keep the information secrect so that hackers aren't given information on their operation, or, at least, that is their obtensive reason, which is perfectly valid. But, yeah, there could be a lot of problems with electronic voting. But you're pretty far off-base if you think it has anything to do with patents. I do agree with you that there isn't a great deal of accountability with the machines and more steps should have been taken to prevent tampering. The obvious people would political parties, but hell, i'd do it just to fuck with people. Wouldn't that be fun?
-Gabe
By , at
3:46 AM
The sight of two women in a loving embrace is the most beautiful thing in the world. - Infamous 370
By , at
7:25 AM
...until they catch me looking through their window and call the cops. - Infamous 370
By , at
8:00 AM
No perfect voting system exists. (No, I do NOT believe the old USSR "elections" were perfect nor fair or free. My, ain't I a cynic?!).
Anyways, I just wanted you fellows to know that this here little colonial election of yours has drawn quite some attention from us insane, alcoholic, suicidal norsemen here in the frosen wastelands of Sweden. US-election specials in all major newspapers and magazines (including the adult ones!!), not to mention every single TV-channel.
Now, I'm no great fan of Geor-Geor Bush or King Ketchup Kerry, but either way I hope the election goes well and the next term of presidency too.
Because, as it is said in "Apocalypse Now": In the end everyone gets what he wants.
Good luck to all you USAnians over there.
/Karlsson the fat man from Sweden
By , at
11:22 AM
Just like George Lucas should do with that horrible character, the republican party needs to cut Bush loose as soon as it can. He is far too great a liability and as we have seen, his administration sent him on vacation just to keep him from screwing anything else up just by opening his mouth. We will probably see Cheney run in '08 as Bush just slowly begins to fade away... I'm foreshadowing both a cause for panic and a cause for jubilation at the same time. Aren't I a fatalistic optomist?
By , at
12:50 PM
Here's something interesting (but old). Indian voting machines compared to DieBold
http://techaos.blogspot.com/2004/05/indian-evm-compared-with-diebold.html
- Valacosa
By , at
4:16 PM
If the Vice-president dies the speaker of the senate takes the place of vice-presidency. Just to let you know, there are at least 14 people to take over any presidency.
By , at
4:18 PM
You're deluding yourself if you think that keeping the operation of voting machines secret from the people makes them at all secure in any way. The evidence is on the Internet. Over two-thirds of all web sites are served by Apache httpd, which is an open-source project: anyone can look at the source code. Yes, that means bad guys can look at it; but it also means that good guys can look at it too. And bad guys are *vastly* outnumbered by good guys. Microsoft IIS -- the source code to which is kept a closely-guarded secret -- is used by fewer than a third of all web sites; yet it has by far the lion's share of exploits directed at it.
If the blueprints, source code listings and basically every piece of information required to construct one of the voting machines were on display to the public, the bad guys might spot an exploit. But, seeing as there are more good guys than bad guys, it's far more likely that a good guy would spot something that a bad guy could exploit and bring it to the attention of the world, before the bad guy gets a chance. Even obscure compound faults that the original designers never considered will be looked at, if only because some people's sense of merionesian curiosity knows no bounds. Plus, if you knew that everyone could potentially be scrutinising your design, wouldn't you take extra care to get it free of stupid mistakes, right first time? If you spotted a daft mistake at the eleventh hour that would take a lot of hard work to put right, but you knew nobody else would ever know it was there, wouldn't you be tempted to leave it alone and hope nobody notices?
With the current system of "security through obscurity", if a bad guy discovers an exploit by chance, and the necessary information is not on display to the good guys, then it's quite possible that nothing will be done about it -- at least, not until it's too late. Sure, if he pushes his luck and creates an obvious false result, there will be an investigation; but, as long as the bad guy manages to evade detection, someone has a way to force an election.
Put simply, *any* voting machine that can be manipulated to produce false results by someone just knowing the details of how it works, is unfit for its purpose.
By , at
3:04 AM
I agree. Bush is a liability to the party and for sure alienating far too many people within his own party. Damn it, I wish McCain had won the nomination 8 years ago.
By , at
3:40 AM
I think i might be late on this topic, but i live in arkansas and i, for one, HATE it here. Just want to let everyone know that there IS intelligent life here. Me and...maybe about 7 other people, but anyway, I am NOT against gay marriage. Everyone else down here IS. What the %*&$! If a gay couple is married, who does it hurt? No one. Ask anyone here why they're against it, I gaurentee they'll hide behind some stupid religion. I have no religion. The way i see it, they're all flawed.
By , at
7:33 AM
I've also arrived late on the subject but have always wanted to chip in. If God's supposed to be the embodiment of love... then why the hell is an abomination for two people in love to be of the same gender? Isn't that akin to second guessing GOD? Cripes! I'd hate to see what happens when hermaphrodites try to get hitched. No religion for me either thank you.
By , at
5:55 PM
Um, I have an intelligent aurgument against gay marriage that isn't based on religion. It creates a system that's easy to subvert. I mean, I could marry a buddy of mine to get a tax break. I guess this wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a tax break for married people (children too), which there shouldn't be. Families are strong enough to not need government subsidation and if they're not then they won't exsist anymore.
As a side note, not everyone who is against gay marriage hates gays, they just think marriage should be between a man and a woman. This isn't just a religion thing, this is how every culture has been for all of civilization. You can say that Greeks and Romans thought homosexuality was fine, but not for marriage. I don't agree with this at all, because culture and society are shit, but I know that a lot of people who get really offended by the whole deal do think society is something that should be respected.
I really don't think we need a constistutional admendment for it though. Seems kind of a strange thing to have next to right to vote at 18 and the banning of segragation. "Marriage for man and women..."
I think it's just funny that anyone gives a shit in the first place.
-Gabe
By , at
7:43 PM
Come on, you know thats all just bullshit to cover up the fact that it grosses you out :D
By , at
9:42 PM
I really just don't care. I doubt there would be rush of same-sex marraiges to subvert the income tax system. I'm just saying there are other aurguments beyond "Jesus said so." and "shut up, you probably go gay-bashing in your pick-up truck and throw up everytime you accidently watch Will and Grace which is the best show ever, look at how many emmies it won, gays are great. I have like 52 gay friends and they're all perfect people in every respect"
I mean those are stupid aurguments.
By , at
8:08 PM
I find it funny that you use the societies of all civilizations, past and present, as an example of how life should work. If there's one thing you should understand its that people (although not leaders) seem to be getting more open minded. Ever since the onset of Christianity, the idea of homosexuality has been automatically deemed evil. As you said, this is entirely because of the "Jesus said so" argument in which people go along with the ideas of the church without thinking for themselves. Therefore, most of the societies we have knowlege of obviously condemned gay marriage. As an example, the one society you mentioned that came before was ancient Greece, which did not dislike homosexuality, but didn't want marriages with it. I beleive that this has something to do with the idea of creating families, something which is impossible to do under that situation. However, if someone is gay, they are not likely to raise a family anyway, so who are we to deny them something like marriage. All marriage is is an affirmation of two people's love in the eyes of the government. People don't need marriage in order to love each other. Preventing gay marriage will not stop homosexuality. It will just keep them from being equals in the eyes of the people.
Anyway, to get back to the point I was originally trying to make, past presentation is not a good standard for moral thinking.
A Brief History of Marriage in America
By , at
7:34 PM
News archives | March 2004 | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004 | July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008
