Pilot's Political Orientation

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,


So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?



or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.


Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?

Dave Stadt wrote:

Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

It amazes me how few people really understand this, and the logic behind it.
The nonsense over Iraq is a good example. Everyone speaks of "Democracy in
Iraq" as if this were an absolute good.

Fortunately, the current administration in Iraq isn't quite as foolish as
they appear. They are working to put protection of minorities into the new
social fabric. I've doubts, though, that they can succeed w/o spending a
generation or two in place, and even that may not be enough.

After all, as I wrote above, few people even in the States understand this.
Of the few that do, many of these are against it. The idea of "judges
don't make law", aside from displaying a lack of understanding of common
law, presumes that the democratically elected officials (representing "the
majority") are pretty much free to pass any law.

We here should be especially sensitive to this. The majority would be happy
to do away with GA. In the scheme of things (ie. as compared to other
mandates that would pass a majority poll), this is but a small thing. But
I'd hope it would be enough to sensitize GA participants to the dangers
when the majority is permitted to impose their own moral code - or even
noise preferences - upon the minority in an unlimited way.

- Andrew

G.R. Patterson III wrote:



Newps wrote:

So, federally, the question has to be answered.

Federally, it has been answered. And your State WILL toe the line if
someone married in California moves there and files suit in Federal court.

Right. That's why I don't see the problem that's supposedly outstanding.
Be it marriage license or driving license, the states are mandated to
recognize licensing by other states.

So...where's the problem?

- Andrew

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
conservative administration against the right of people to marry?


It isn't.

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and you refuse to
acknowledge that anything you don't understand can be right. By
definition, unfortunately, you're stuck in your own small-minded little
world.

I know this because in another post you wrote:

Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

Not only is that arrogant, but it's incredibly childish. Tough as it may be
for you to believe, you are not the center of any universe but your own.




I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
couple marries. Why would anyone care?


Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.

I could see your reasoning were marriage being redfined in such a way that
some set of people marriaged pre-redefinition would be not married
post-redefinition.

That's not the case.

Did the right to vote change when it was granted to those not white
landowners?




Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
being "for freedom".


What the hell are you talking about?

Either you don't follow the news (ie. cases before the US Supreme Court) or
you're playing one of your pedantic games. I don't care which, frankly.

- Andrew

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.

The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative today
often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is a perfect
example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate free market
(steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.

I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
applicable.

Unfortunately.

- Andrew

John Harlow wrote:

Who are you to define "marriage" thusly?


It's not my definition.

It's not Merriam-Webster's either:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2)
: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship
like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage

Interesting. The union of (1) and (2) still precludes several forms of
marriage that do or have existed.

I like how mw uses the phrase "traditional marriage" to cover what Steve and
those of his ilk would merely call "marriage", but it's not really
accurate. There are plenty of traditions that have included forms of
marriage with more than a pair of spouses.

- Andrew

Martin Hotze wrote:


welcome to r.a.p. :-)


To be fair, there's a lot of political turmoil around flying. TFRs, rabid
noise haters, illegal damage to runways, use tax, role of government in
ATC, lack of protection from TSA actions, ...

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,

So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?


It's a single-point-of-contact solution. There are many hospitals that you or
your loved one might end up in, and changing all their policies is not an easy
task. It is porably not even possible to get taken seriously. What hospital
in (say) Montana is going to listen to somebody from Georgia who wants them to
change their policy just because one day they might break their leg while
chasing a cow?

There are many benefits that are conferred on "family", of which hospital
visitation is only one example. Some of these benefits are confered by law,
some by custom, and some by policy. It's a hodgepodge, but worked in the days
when everyone was pretty much the same.

Now that people live their lives in more diverse ways, the old rules don't
quite cover it all. When the mind and the customs expand, sometimes the rules
and words ought to also.


or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.

Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?


Yes, in that particular case, maybe, if the hospital chooses to accept such a
document, and the document is drawn up within the guidelines of the hospital,
and you happen to have the papers handy, and the business office is open and
willing to process the papers. Sometimes (personal experience) you have only
hours to have things settled to get permission to visit or talk to the doctor
or be locked out the front door while your loved one dies, and all it takes is
one social worker who got up on the wrong side of the bed to really mess you
up.

For an (imperfect) aviation correlary, consider the case of instrument approach
procedure design in Lower Grasslandia. DHs are set up by law to be 250 feet
above the highest "Official Obstacle" for that airport. Official Obstacles are
defined as buildings, towers, gantries, and other structures located within
1000 feet of the touchdown zone of any runway.

This works for many years, because grass does not grow higher than buildings.
But after one particular international flight, shrubs and trees started growing
near some airports. There was talk about banishing trees, but some people
liked them and planted them near their houses, despite their being viewed as
perverted. But still, instrument approaches had to be designed and modified.
Eventually each approach had a hodgepodge of exceptions, none of them at all
consistant with each other (and some not even consistant with safe operating
practices).

The simple solution is to amend the definition of "Official Obstacle" to
include trees, shrubs, despite the fact that they were "natural occurances" and
not manmade "obstacles". It expands the IDEA of an "obstacle" in ways that
Lower Grasslandia had not even considered, and there was an uproar, which runs
to this day.

Ultimately, people started putting parachutes into their airplanes in case they
ran into an unofficial obstacle-like protrusion, but that didn't really work
very well and it spawned endless debates on their equivalent of Usenet, which
used up all the ones and zeros and brought forth the collapse of their
civilization. That is why you can no longer find Lower Grasslandia on any
atlas.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:
: Tom Sixkiller wrote:
:
: Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can
: be no "conservative activist judges".
:
: Ah....yeah, okie dokie.
:
: No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.
:
: The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative
: today often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is
: a perfect example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate
: free market (steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.
:
: I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
: applicable.
:
: Unfortunately.
:

The conservative* who supported gays in the military ("You don't have to
be straight to shoot straight") would probably be classified a liberal today.

A better term for neoconservatives is neo-Jacobins:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins

"New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
By Paul Craig Roberts

Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.

Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.

These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
administration.

Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.

Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.

Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.

Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world..."


The Bush administration's foreign policy is run by a group of men from
the Project for a New American Century:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
Statement of Principles

"June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have
criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They
have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.
But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of
America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences
over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives.
And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership

[snip]

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not
be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to
build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security
and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

* Barry Goldwater