Lobowolf

When Chuck Norris says "WTP? This should be unanimous," it IS unanimous.

I see no substantive difference between this and a "Who cares if the government recognizes that your sexual/emotional/co-dependent bond isn't as valid as one between people of the same race?" argument that could just have readily been made when the Supreme Court was invalidating laws against interracial marriage.

I think the best thing to do is to read/watch biased information on both sides; I do, though, think it's a problem when people who aren't shrewd about politics or the media take information from one source and assume it's neutral...whether that one source is left- or right- leaning.

I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business altogether, but I don't think it's pointless. If I were a tax lawyer, I'd strongly advise you to spend more energy lobbying for tax breaks based on the use of the smiley.

hehe... especially the marriages with lots of fighting, drinking and child abuse... those marriages? Whether the government is right, or to what extent, isn't the issue; I was responding to the contention that "REASON for the government to be involved...is to give tax breaks to some people..." (emphasis added). "Marriage penalty" aside, tax policy is used (in addition to being used to raise money) to encourage or discourage particular behaviors. Tax breaks are a means, not an end.

Ahh marriage promotes stability, now I understand. I guess nonmarriage contracts or being single is less stable....:) IF we made marriage and divorce much much harder I could buy this.....but we do not.....:) Again I am all for getting govt. out of the marrying business, let the religious inst or private contractors do it. :) If government wants to fund basic research in marriage such as they do energy, education and other areas I can understand that. :) Married relationships are more stable than non-married relationships, generally. Yes, around half of them end in divorce, but how many non-married relationships end in break-ups? 99%+? It's not a perfect proxy for stability, but it's an indicator, and stability probably has beneficial side-effects for society in general. Which is one reason (though nowhere near as important a reason as constitutional Equal Protection) that the government should provide for the opportunity for gay couples who choose to to similarly formalize their relationships.

I disagree that Biden's being a "known quantity" should be a determination made by the news media, and thus subject him to less scrutiny; I think the media's job is to scrutinize the candidates fairly equally, and let the readers/viewers determine the extent to which they want to allow for Biden's resume.

I think you have a means confused with an end. The reason government involves itself in marriage at all is that the institution is perceived to be beneficial to societal, by promoting stability.

I agree. I think that's perfectly reasonable with respect to entertainment media, and problematic with respect to news media. I have a hard time imagining a Democrat, a Republican, OR an independent with any intellectual honesty disputing that Obama was disproportionately(*) the media favorite in this election. (*) = as compared with the popular vote ratio.

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

That's one reason, and I think it's a valid one. Another reason that I think is valid is that the members of the media favored Obama by far more than the 52-46 margin that the country-at-large favored him by.

Was Biden running for something, too? Edit: ok, that's a joke. My perception of Biden improved over the course of the campaign. However, I think Luke makes a valid point: The guy came under just about NO mainstream scrutiny (and had more than a few questionable things to say). Having said that, I think he's a good guy who fills some gaps in Obama's resume.

Ghosts are actually caused by Chuck Norris killing people faster than Death can process them. (I know, it's not bridge-related, but it IS my favorite, and it IS the Water Cooler). More in keeping with the original post: When Chuck Norris leads out of turn, you don't have 5 options; you have 1: You WILL accept it.

At a minimum, a Vice President should have a solid understanding of integral calculus, and be comfortable using a slide rule.

It's actually worse than that, in my view. The Constitutional Law perspective and history in this country is essentially that separate but equal is bullshit; "separate" is inherently unequal. Separate but equal was the rule that decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case in which it was held that a (partially) African American passenger could be prohibited from riding with (entirely) white passengers, as long as there was a car for him (and other black passengers). About 75 years later, Brown vs. Board of Education broke from this precedent, with the Court's primary philosophical finding being that there's just no such thing as separate but equal.

2NT rebids by responder are generally not minimal rebids. A main rationale is that with a minimum opener opposite a minimum-range responder, you generally have about half of the points in the deck, making it awfully difficult to take 8 tricks to the opponents' 5. Depending on the auction, 2NT rebids are usually in the invitational range, but almost never weakness bids. On the first hand, I'd've made a negative double at my first opportunity, giving partner the chance to bid either clubs or diamonds, which would increase the odds of finding a fit (though it wouldn't have helped given partner's actual hand). On both hands, I'd've passed on the given auction after 2♥. Of course, I'd've expected a 6th heart from partner, too. Still, 2NT risks partner bidding even more, and even with only 5 hearts between you, 2♥ could still be better than 2NT. The 9 and 6 of hearts can easily score via diamond ruffs in a heart contract, which would bring you up to 7 tricks if the A♦ is onside.

It's possible that having Obama on the ticket had a significant impact on the referendum... As I understand matters, almost every ethnic group in CA voted against the referendum. The one exception was African Americans who broke 2:1 in favor of Proposition 8. Might get a re-changed California Constitution in less than 4 years; assuming that Obama will be on the presidential ticket again in 2012, the mid-cycle congressional election could be a better bet. Gay marriage in California might very well have been collateral damage in the Democratic primary.

Whether it's wrong and short-sighted or not, many, many people do just that (ask Joe Lieberman). Off the top of my head, I know many people who voted entirely on the Middle East, or entirely on abortion (particularly with a toss-up Supreme Court and a couple of appointments probably in the balance). But the poll wasn't designed to ferret out "the only reason" for anyone's vote, but rather the most important reason. The fact that most people have an issue that is more important to them than other issues doesn't imply that it's the only issue their vote is based on. That is why your comment is flawed.

I'm unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, but I'm too unsurprised to call myself "disappointed." I never thought it had a chance. I'm actually almost encouraged that it was such a close vote, since when gay marriage was on the ballot while it was still illegal, it failed by more than a 60-40 margin. As a Constitutional question, I don't think Proposition 8 is going to be disturbed. Gay marriage had been illegal in California; it became legal when the State Supreme Court's interpretation was that the ban violated the State Constitution. Proposition 8 didn't just provide for gay marriage to be banned; it provided for a black & white Constitutional change. Best chance is probably a 2010 "re-change" of the Constitution, which might have good chances, based on the dramatic trend between the previous vote and yesterday's.

I had no idea that there was a Sydney in Illinois.

I had no idea that Australians knew so much about Illinois politics.

Yeah, an arguable problem is the extent to which the government says, "We're going to buy you dinner...with X, Y, and Z's money." The bigger problem (and logical continuation) is when they say, "Well, since we're buying, here's what you're going to have..."

Might be next...check out Japanese waistline measurement law: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNLV118ISH.DTL I agree with Mike about the societal benefits, on balance; I just don't think the societal benefits override the autonomy interests.

Of course, you aren't Karl Rove so you are therefore part of the liberal media elite. BTW you sure seem to have a knack for voting for winners. I also had the Giants on the moneyline in the most recent Super Bowl.

Something I wanted to ask you for a while: You say you used to be a Democrat. When you started posting in the political threads in the watercooler, I think you claimed you were an "undecided voter". With the exception of gay marriage, any political opinion you have voiced that I can remember was a conservative one. Everything you ever wrote on McCain and Obama was meant to put McCain in a more favorable light, and Obama in a less favorable. I find this combination very hard to believe. Does my selective memory forget all the positive things you have said about Obama? Or do I misremember about you being undecided/former Democrat? If not, what on earth caused you to check "Democrat" on you voter registration years ago? My comments in this forum have been disproportionately one-sided, as you point out. That's mainly a response to the forum, which is similarly one-sided (pretty much all-pro-Obama, all the time. Yes, that's an oversimplification, but I think a percentage breakdown of a Forum poll would be disproportionately (as compared with today's nationwide results) Obama-heavy). Similarly, when I discuss politics with my conservative friends, they find me overwhelmingly liberal. I'm not making this up. I don't much prefer either Obama or McCain. There are things I like and dislike about both, and while I'll be going to the polls tonight to vote on several state (California) ballot initiatives, I won't be voting for either McCain or Obama. Some of the things I like about Obama include his education, his intelligence, what Josh would call his "style of governance," and his position on some social issues, which I presume will translate to what I view as more favorable Supreme Court nominations. There's also an intangible "vibe" that I'm not sure what to attribute it to...charisma, or genuineness. I like Obama the most of the 4 candidates. My transition from Democrat to decline-to-state/independent was partly a function of the fact that I'm less liberal than I have been in the past, and partly a function of either (both) a change in liberalism/Democrats in general and my perception of them. A couple of semi-recent Supreme Court decisions should illustrate what I mean. One of them is the Kelo eminent domain case from Connecticut, in which the City of New London, CT used eminent domain to condemn a home that nothing was wrong with and give it to a private developer for a commercial project. When I became a Democrat, I never would have considered that the liberal justices would back the city, and the conservative ones the individual (though maybe it should have, with respect to private property rights). The other case is the Oregon medical marijuana case, in which the conservative justices sided with the sick woman, and the liberal justices in favor of the federal government, invoking the Constitution's Commerce Clause, despite the fact that the marijuana had never been bought, sold, or crossed state lines. I'm with most Democrats in thinking the government shouldn't be our bedrooms, but I also think they shouldn't be in my car (seat belt laws), my motorcycle (helmet laws), or my privately owned restaurant (smoking laws). No, I'm not a smoker, but if I don't like it, I'll eat somewhere else. And if enough people don't like it, non-smoking restaurants will open voluntarily. That's still how I think it should be, although at the time California's smoking ban passed, I was a non-smoking bartender in a restaurant that permitted smoking, and the ban benefitted me greatly. All of which is to say, I find about as much government intrusion coming from the left as the right. I also still can't quite believe that Al Sharpton got a featured speaker spot at the DNC. So, I once checked "Democrat" because I used to be more to the left, and the party used to be more to the right. Yes, Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy, but John Kerry wasn't remotely close, either. On other hand, I still don't check "Republican" because, in addition to gay marriage, I also side with liberals on things like abortion, animal rights, most 1st and 4th Amendment issues, and more. But in venues that are overwhelmingly liberal (such as the Water Cooler), it's my conservative side that comes out more. I voted for Bush (yes, the current one) and Schwarzenegger, but I also voted for Clinton twice. During the course of this campaign, I moved from leaning McCain to leaning Obama, but in the end, not enough to vote for him. I'm not a believer (for me, personally) in voting for A just because you prefer him to B; there's a certain threshold for me that a candidate has to be beyond, because I see my vote as not only a preference but to some extent an endorsement. While I like Obama (from what I can judge) a great deal as a person, I neither like him enough as a candidate, nor dislike McCain enough, to vote for him.