Scott

Marriage is a multi-tasking institution. You mentioned a few of the tasks it covers. People get married for all kinds of reasons. They may be interested in all of the tasks or for their own reasons none of them. Their choice. In the U.S., that choice is only open with full rights to heterosexuals. A few U.S. states offer same sex marriage but with no national rights. I don't think this is the place to diss people who want to get married, gay or straight. Nobody if forcing anyone to do that, shotguns possibly excepted. For people who don't value marriage, you should be working to making it illegal for everyone, not denying it to one class of citizens and not another.

Justices, both conservative and liberal politically, have sometimes indeed been known to make obviously politically influenced decisions. Bush vs. Gore. / Citizens United

To say it is only liberal justices who do that sometimes is complete tripe.

About the tendency for the court to be behind the times. The is a known phenom for anyone familiar with the court. Not sure why we need to waste time here with the known and obvious.

• Quote

  Lifetime tenure. Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."^[182] Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.^[194] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."^[145] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson^[195] and Sabato^[182][196] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein.^[197] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."^[198]
  wiki

As far as the politics of the inevitable historic gay marriage equality case, why do you think it hasn't been pushed forward quite yet? While it is true some gay activists want to push it now, MOST find it wiser to wait longer, working to (now successfully) change public opinion, work on baby steps such as legal STATE same sex marriage which are worthless nationally but which move the issue forward as people realize that the world doesn't explode because a few gay people get married. The reason the impulse for the pro same sex civil rights movement is to wait is because the political makeup of the court is well known and understood. Too many right wingers. Get one or two changes, very possible during an Obama second term, and a historic win in the court becomes very likely. If Romney wins  and gets those same picks, it could easily delay this inevitable civil rights relief 50 or even 100 years. That's the way it is, like it or not, and to deny and fantasize it is all about high ideals is disingenuous.

chuckd, on 2012-05-24 16:50:42, said:

While flattered to be quoted (or at least recycling the Hitchens' quote), there does appear to be plausible evidence that the Megrahi case was flawed and it would thus appear that he was a sacrificial lamb twice, once to benefit the Libyans to enable them to re-engage with the international community, and then secondly by the UK government to facilitate oil, gas and hardware contracts in Libya. as previously stated realpolitik is grubby and not uncommon but it's all about the greater good.

But Megrahi was probably either part of or worked with Libyan intelligence as part of his "security officer" work with the state-owned airline, and Libya still is the likely source of the attack. If there is compelling evidence that puts Syria, Iran or the PFLPGC in the frame please post it.

The Middle East in the late 1980's was a nasty cauldron of state agencies and terrorist organizations up to nefarious activities and all sorts of unholy alliances and marriages of convenience. The 100% truth will probably never emerge.

The really silly and downright mischievous conspiracy theories are those concerning the usual suspects beloved of hackneyed B movies involving rogue CIA agents, drug runners, and even the apartheid South Africans, all a bit too Lethal Weapon! Of course such theories rely on super efficiency and brilliant execution rather than the usual grubby story of cockups and muddling through that are the usual hallmark of such operations.

Also in today's world of wikileaks etc it would be surprising that such a secret could have lasted 24 years without being blown to some degree at least.

Scott

Your first line seems to be a contribution to the discussion, so I need to seek to clarify some questions it raises. What is exactly is your definition of a conspiracy theory? I have not seen the post that was deleted but it would be helpful to know your stance. Because you disagree with a verdict and because you agree with overwhelming evidence that contradicts a verdict does that then mean you are believing in a conspiracy theory? I don't think so. A conspiracy theory is something based on outlandish claims with no evidence to support those claims. In the Pan Am 103 tragedy, there is overwhelming evidence to clearly display that the verdict on Al Megrahi was extremely unsafe. Even the man who has been fighting for the truth for so long, Dr Jim Swire, father of one of the young ladies on the aircraft has stated that he believes Al Megrahi had nothing to do with it. Rather than looking at the wreckage and the bodies, in order to find the truth it is imperative to look at the chain of events leading to that point. For the relatives of the victims to receive justice then no stone should be left unturned. Had Megrahi not been released on compassionate grounds there was to be a full appeal process carried out, which would have disclosed some very inconvenient truths that were not permitted as evidence at the first trial. Megrahi's release saved the UK and US Governments much embarrassment and also sealed some very lucrative energy deals.

This situation is very very different to the 'grassy knoll' concept. There is hard evidence in the Lockerbie case to raise some very serious questions that need answering by the UK and US Governments AND the judiciary. I truly hope that Dr Swire has the energy and fortitude to continue his fight for an independent public enquiry. Most people on TV seem to be particularly lazy in that they want everything spoon fed to them. We are not permitted to quote information under the 'unfair use policy' and no matter what links are provided by people there will be those that always find fault with them. It is easy as an adult to make a rational judgement on a comment and decide whether you wish to research a concept or not. A google of the Times and Guardian will lead to identical conclusions raised in the posts above, if they have more credibility than other sites then fine. If I state that the moon is made of cheese, a quick google will disclose that I am talking rubbish. If I state that the Lockerbie verdict is unsafe and that there was a conspiracy within Government to with hold evidence then a quick google will show a gazillion pages with hard supportive evidence of that concept. The pursuit of the truth when their is hard evidence to support it should not lead to intelligent people being labelled as those who don tin foil hats.

Note today's announcement that Saudi is pumping over $3 billion into Yemen to keep it in business. As the Yemeni Foreign Minister noted:

''This [aid] confirms that the Yemeni-Saudi relationship is special and that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is fully aware that the stability of Yemen is a key element for the stability of the Kingdom."

We seem to be having a rerun of the N. Yemen Civil War of 1962-70 with AQAP playing the role of Nasser and his Egyptian forces. Seems that Saudi will do the heavy lifting for the US in Yemen, as the latter are unwilling to commit much more than drones and a handful of SF spotters on the ground. The last thing Obama needs/wants is another commitment in election year. The notion that AQAP plays a proxy role for Saudi is unfounded.

Re LoonWatch it is about as credible as its counterparts JihadWatch et al, as they all are myopic, reinforcers of bigotry and extremism. Much prefer NYBR anyday as, despite its somewhat left of centre stance (though that of course is by US standards which means it is positively right of centre to Europeans!), it actually produces articles that considers both sides of an argument, rather than just endlessly plugging an agenda without regard for any alternative.

Have I missed the connection?, Sink holes and unauthorised telephone booths?

The BMA ( Bangkok Metropolitan Administration ) say they have found 3 new sink holes....they say they're looking into them.   Oh please yourselves...

Quote

Any chance we could just cut the Bollox ,and just enter into the world of realism ,and  that it could be just  a simple case that  they love each other and have done so for quite some time ,long before the  guy has "made it good" big time and just leave it at that

geriatrickid, on 2012-05-19 09:11:24, said:

"Memorialize" all they want - just don't BURN DOWN ANY DAMNED BUILDINGS

Protest all they want - just don't BURN DOWN ANY DAMNED BUILDINGS

LOL, you guys take the  cake.
The USA is following along with agreed upon international sanctions and is not alone in this.

And therein lies the difference  now. The USA at least makes an attempt to respect international law, whereas Mr. Bush's regime did not.
The US embrace of unilateral action was pronounced under Bush.  Ronald Reagan understood the need to work in conjunction with his allies. Bush the elder  knew that too. Bush the younger relied on dangerous Cheney and his gang.

Oscar2, on 2012-05-17 11:35:20, said:

I do not care much for the ladyboys but I think that I like you even less.

Ulysses G., on 2012-05-17 20:44:33, said:

Ulysses G., on 2012-05-17 20:44:33, said:

How do we get that? Let's say the idea of same sex marriage is dropped. Then what?

Will we win civil unions in all 50 states? NO
North Carolina just rejected same sex marriage AND civil unions. So forget the entire SOUTH.
Will the house, senate (60 votes of 100 needed), and president vote to approve all federal rights of marriages to state civil unions? NO (Even if yes, only applies to states that have them! The state that don't have them will likely approve bans in recognizing other state's ones.)
(All states ALREADY have marriage as a legal entity. Only a few have civil unions.)
Will a constitutional AMENDMENT be proposed and passed (needing super majorities) mandating that all states create same sex civil unions and that all federal rights of marriage apply to them?
WHEN PIGS FLY!

A marriage case win in the supreme court? Very possible. There is a clear precedent with interracial marriage. If won, the decision instantly applies to marriage laws (all states have them) in ALL 50 states.


What you propose as fair is actually a trick that gives gays no hope at all for what you say you will accept, basically politically IMPOSSIBLE. Most gays would accept your proposal, but if you actually think about it, a win in the supreme court for full same sex marriage equality is massively more likely to ACTUALLY HAPPEN. No, not with the current justices. Need a few adjustments there. But still that is within the realm of possibility. A constitutional same sex civil union amendment is in the realm of the unimaginable. And that's what we would NEED to enforce what you throw to us as your so called compromise. Thanks for nothing.

agudbuk, on 2012-05-12 17:38:18, said:

Could be, but not the case. You need to look at the history as to why Thailand was selected as the major clinical trial venue. Back in the 90's Thailand was at risk of a  catastrophic HIV epidemic that had the potential of wiping out two generations. It was intense. It was also a country where HIV was also evident in the heterosexual population and where the  researchers had the government's support to deal with the crisis. Unlike other regions with a similar  health crisis, Thailand  was a relatively safe venue for western scientists. It had a communication and logistics support base and a pool of support staff to draw upon. There were health facilities. As well, it was close to regional scientific hubs in Japan, Singapore and Australia. India and China were closed to the international health researchers and Africa was   just too dangerous and too frustrating to get much done. Thailand offered the perfect clinical trial subject  pool as  every year it had a large number of young males conscripted into the military. This allowed large sample sizes to measure  who was sero positive. The wide scale testing possibility is what originally  made Thailand the place to be.

Now fast forward,  the HIV clinical trials are part of the payback to Thailand for its early support of the research. There is a tacit understanding that Thailand is to be first on the list when new treatments are to be considered. This is only fair considering that Thailand helped make the research possible.

In respect to litigation, you should be aware that lawsuits would be brought in the USA. This is what happens now. You might want to look at  what some of the large pharma companies are facing in India.   The involvement of the USA  makes the clinical trials more likely to conducted in an ethical and appropriate manner. There are only two other jurisdictions in the world that have tougher ethical and legal requirements; Germany and the Netherlands. (The Swiss run a tight shop too.)

The use of Thailand is a best fit because of the  large pool of people at risk and the existing infrastructure that allows for testing and data gathering. It is the ideal place to test for a vaccine, although the results will be skewed towards results in "asians". Drugs and vaccines work on different "ethnic" groups.  The immune mechanisms identified  from the Thai research can be applied for the benefit of other groups though.   One of the reasons why the former east bloc countries are now popular for some clinical trials is because of the genetic profiles they offer. It's why India is popular for testing diabetes treatments. Clinical trials have specific specimen needs and an HIV vaccine trial is the right  fit for Thailand.  It is also why Thailand also sees so much funding for malaria research, even though malaria is more of a problem in Africa.
The fact is that the researchers cannot find the large numbers of people they need for a trial like this in the EU or North America.

Do 'likes' from a Mod count for double ...