California Family Code 300: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

California Family Code 308.5 "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Er, I usually don't chime in on this kind of stuff but the judge really can't be serious, can he? :

In his 27-page decision, Kramer ... said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates "the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," and has no rational justification.

PS-I have this hot cousin.....

UPDATE: Meanwhile....as California violates the 'human rights' of homosexuals Saudi Arabia is busy beheading the gays. Saudis Behead Gay Couple

More....more...more....more...

Double PS-I have been accused of a lot of things, but never a social conservative....

UPDATE II: Judge rules traditional definition of 'idiot' not justified simply because such definition is traditional.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:01 PM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

This is the second time The Jawa Report has been used in a lecture on a university campus (as far as I know). Only 4,549,278 more times and I will have caught up to Chomsky!!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Suspended DePaul professor gagged and bound at news conference (ht: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Rusty at 11:27 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to the Sanity Inspector who points out this MSN review of Natalie Portman's Oscar night clothes. What was she wearing? 'Jawa Cloaks'. It looks like she got my care package after all.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:33 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

We orgle. They orgle. You (plural) orgle. I yip. You (singular) yip.
Thus: When I saw them orgling I went to me room and yipped.

UPDATE: Thanks to Dave at Garfield Ridge this link to The Facts of Life theme sung (or should I say orgled) by Chewbacca.

WARNING: Put all fluids down before clicking link.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:21 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

"And why by the way did it take Arabs to do what people here should have done a long time ago?"--Michelle Malkin has the rest.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:58 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

dKos:

Here's the deal -- a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it.

"Oh, well if you're not willing to charge into a burning building to try to put out a fire, then you shouldn't expect a fireman to do it. Same goes for cops. How can you ask a policeman to risk his life enforcing the law if you're not willing to grab a shotgun, kick in the door of a crackhouse, and start making citizens arrests?"

Posted by: Rusty at 08:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

No surprise here. Nor is it surprising that it is a bunch of 'ethnic studies' students who are up in arms over the cancellation. Oh, and when they say they don't wish America to be attacked they aren't lying. Committed pacifists on the Left always deplore violence, even violence against the US. It is not terrorism, per se, the Left hates--it is violence. "9-11 was tragic," and ethnic studies major might say, "but an even bigger tragedy was the US invasion of Iraq, Bush lied, no blood for oil, blah, blah..." See how this works.

hat tip: Jeff Quinton

Posted by: Rusty at 08:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

So how racist are you, exactly?  Harvard thinks they have a way of figuring that out, via the Harvard Implicit Association Test (Courtesy Tim Blair.)

This test purports to discover what hidden biases you might have on race, gender, sexuality or any one of a number of things.  The methodology the test seems to use is based largely on what appears to be the Freudian Slip methodology.  Take it and you'll see what I mean.

The part that I found supremely interesting was that I took the test to determine whether or not I was biased in favor of Kerry or Bush.  Now, I am going to wait a minute for you all to look back through my posting history and form your own judgment on where I stand.  Don't worry, go ahead - I'll wait.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at 04:46 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

Sorry for the absence today, folks. I'm busy throwing together a student trip to Washington, DC. The problem is that I can't find a place at a reasonable price with enough rooms!! The hotel also needs to be near a Metro stop. I'll be in DC from May 14th to the 22nd.

Any ideas out there?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:04 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

In case your wondering, my alma mater won the NCAA football championship this year....Via Mere Rhetoric:

holocust schmolocost.....
that whole thing drives me nuts.
there arent that many holicost surviviers.
most of those guys havent experienced anything -- except possibly excess. its a tool the zionists use... but to be honest wonder how effective it is these days.

Just thought id contribute its fun reading about the holohoax. it probably happened but 6mil is a lot i think the figure was much smaller and yes i think its possible to fabricate such a story. the jews are masters at this and congrats to them for being able to do so. not only do they claim sole bearers to the "anti-semetic" crimes, but they are able to live of reparations forever. smart idea dont you think?

On a paranthetical note, on 9/12/01 I was in a class and we were discussing the events of the previous day. I made the comment that the "Islamist extremists are every bit as dangerous as the Nazis." The Professor's eyes went buggy and he (literally) screamed at me to shut up.

Funny, he never flinched when students would call George Bush a Nazi. (ht: Charles Johnson)

Posted by: Rusty at 03:54 PM | Comments (61) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Supermuhammed!!!

John at Crossroads of Arabia blogs on this Arab News article:

Muslim children from the Gulf states, the UK and Australia now have something new to look forward to: An English-language comic book for kids, described as the first of its kind in the Arab world...

“The aim of this Saudi-Swedish educational project is to wean Muslim children away from satellite TV and expose them to Islamic views,” Al-Hajji told Arab News.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:11 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's been time to tell the Saudis to go to hell for a couple of decades now.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at January 27, 2005 09:44 AM (WsZ4F)

2 We can't ... correction the administration can't ... because the king personally told our administration that they are our friends and our government believes it ... are you blind ... the government thinks its okay! You must be un-American to believe anything the government doesnt!

Posted by: Salamander at January 27, 2005 09:59 AM (V40IZ)

3 Maybe countries with religious freedom allow Saudi Arabia to proseletyze because they've got religious freedom? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and shouldn't be subject conditions based on who's paying for it. Besides, I'm guessing these will be like Islamic Jack Chic tracts. I'd love to get my hands on one.

Posted by: Eric at January 27, 2005 10:07 AM (hrQvk)

4 I look forward to altering the dialogue and text on these things.

Posted by: Laurence Simon at January 27, 2005 10:27 AM (uBCxH)

5 Freedom of religion of one thing, but that is an INTERNAL matter. If a nation-state means anything than controlling its borders must be an inherent attribute. If that is the case, than a free society can control the influx of money from outside the country. Restricting the transfer of Saudi money to the US to support religion is not a restriction on freedom of religion in the legal sense. If Muslim societies wish to support Islam within our country, more power to them. But the transfer of money from one country to another is a PRIVELEGE dictated by law and not a RIGHT. If they wish to retain this privelege I submit that they ought to offer that priveledge to us as well. If not, then the relationship is inequitable and ought to be altered. If the s

Posted by: Rusty at January 27, 2005 10:59 AM (JQjhA)

6 Should we also block the .sa domain?

Posted by: Eric at January 27, 2005 01:41 PM (hrQvk)

7 How about we let those kids read this comic book: http://davidsonpress.com/islam/ Just an idea.

Posted by: mike at January 27, 2005 07:38 PM (a8b5N)

8 Ha!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at January 27, 2005 09:36 PM (JQjhA)

9 I'll say it and even use it as a platform but you just did it yourself. I would not trust a Saudi for anything in this world and I sure would love to see others follow in that same path. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 28, 2005 06:57 AM (D39Vm)

10 I think it's great. The more Islamic children are exposed to Islamic views the more backward they become. Which in turn means less competition for followers of civilized, modern religions. Better yet, for those who chose not to practice religlion. That way, the west and progressive countries in Asia can continue to get rich selling them our TV's, cars, cell phones, etc. I think getting Islamic children away from TV's is a good idea. They learn to much watching TV. Sitting in the sand, reading comic books is better. What happens when they run out of oil to sell? Do we feed them? Do they return to herding camels in the desert? Makes you wonder. Personally, I liked them better when they ran around the desert killing each other. Beating slaves & women and cooking grasshoppers on camel dung fires. Just seems more Islamic. A natural way for them to be. Maybe, Islamic comic books will help them return to the good ole days. When women were women and camels were camels and the men knew the difference.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 28, 2005 07:20 AM (To5gU)

11 Why do they need more fictional literature based upon fantasy? They already have the Koran.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 28, 2005 10:45 AM (x+5JB)

12 NOW THAT WAS GOOD!!!!!

Posted by: greyrooster at January 30, 2005 10:57 AM (gvOyZ)

13 Greyrooster--I'm STILL waiting for a barrage of criticism from the liberals for my comment!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at January 31, 2005 06:03 PM (4q4yV)

14 Due to my warning, they apparently decided better. Then again, that is exactly what I wished. Sneaky huh.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 01, 2005 03:11 AM (DSbhO)

15 I THANK you, sir!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 01, 2005 06:59 AM (x+5JB)

16 PRESTON TAYLOR HOLMES: That's impressive. I can't help but think a name like that belongs on a book cover. You know, one of those big brown ones with the gold lettering. Any the wife likes the Taylor part. Her maiden name.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 04, 2005 07:36 PM (JHIKU)

17 Way, way, way, way. Spell check first dummy.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 04, 2005 07:38 PM (JHIKU)

18 The name's even better than "Robert E. Lee Priutt" in Jones' From Here to Eternity." Greyrooster: Did you hear about the vadalism to several of the War between the States monuments at Gettysburg? Some sick nut has lopped off the swords of several statues--blue AND grey, I believe. He/she/it should be shot for defiling these monuments.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at February 05, 2005 07:52 AM (ALptw)

19 I'm a Muslim comic book artist. All I got to say is... LOL But I got to add that the Saudi Royal family are nothing but a herd of fascist pigs. Most of Muslims around the world hate them. Why are you affraid of Islamic comic books, the market is full of comics about Christianism. Even in manga format!!!! Dont fear what you dont know deeply. Best regards, Wassalam Muhammad Hassan

Posted by: Muhammad Hasan at April 04, 2005 08:55 AM (PF8YD)

20 wow, you're all so educated.

Posted by: randomcat at April 25, 2005 05:43 PM (uwzOE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

by Demosophist

I posted a few days ago about an unprecedented series of sunspot and solar flare events that would lead to some electromagnetic pyrotechnics in the atmosphere, and it looks like it's coming to pass. For those in the mid-lattitudes who have never seen an aurora this may be your chance-in-a-lifetime. According to an astrophysicist friend of mine:

There is a distnct possibility of auroral activity in the mid latitudes for the next few days. If you happen to be outside, look up, you "might" get a show.

The latest event was another X-level, but it was 7.1 vice 3.8 (bigger numbers are much more powerful).

And he updated recently with this:

WOW! Mid-latitudes are experiencing one right now and did those numbers climb in the last couple of hours.

Do check tonite....... you might actually see one this time. Reports areindicating that those who are currently in darkness are experiencing an aurora in the mid latitudes. Dang.... and it's daylight here!

He lives in Arizona, but since there have been flares within the last few hours one would not expect this event to be over very soon. Once it gets dark, take a look outside, weather permitting.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:17 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Remember, the increase in Sun's activity is directly due to George W. Bush's refusal to ratify Kyoto Protocol...

Posted by: BigFire at January 21, 2005 12:32 PM (cZIis)

2 Know we know. Bush won because of Sun Spots!

Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 21, 2005 01:13 PM (fLlQ8)

3 HA HA FUNNY GUYS! The worst part is I don't understand this post and at -1 degrees at 11 pm EST, I'm certainly not going outside. But if it was nice, I could go out and just pluck a star from the sky, it's so close to me here in the northern woods. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 21, 2005 09:54 PM (D39Vm)

4 One below!? During aurora season in Fairbanks, one below is shirtsleeve weather!

Posted by: McGehee at January 22, 2005 02:30 PM (S504z)

5 suherthw\E UH\WA

Posted by: FAfafdjhww at February 28, 2005 09:22 AM (9FRSB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

by Demosophist

My high school alma mater has a unit marching 17th in today's Inaugural Parade, and I just want to congratulate the kids from the Culver Black Horse Troop and Equestriennes who will be in the event. It's the 19th time for the cadets and the 5th time for the equestriennes. (I'm actually not sure whether that's 19 times at the inaugural, or 19 state events. Going by the BHT website this will be the 14th Inaugural.) I was a member of this contingent in LBJ's 1965 Inaugural, and it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. We took the train from Indiana along with the horses, and (at the time "little") Stevie Wonder was on the same train. I barely slept, and it could fairly be called the first "adult" experience of my life. My horse was approriately named "Jughead" and he managed to canter backwards in front of the Presidential Reviewing Stand without any input from me at all. It was quite a circus trick, but really represented a lack of skill rather than any great proficiency. I'm afraid old Jughead was the boss. Still, I did stand out enough as a result of that nonsense to be readily identifiable to my family who were watching on TV.

The parade today starts at 2:30PM EST and the best place to view it is CSPAN.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophiaa and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:16 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

I love Dean Esmay. He's cool. He throws me a link every once in a while and actually reads this blog from time to time. So it is with a great deal of reluctance that I challenge the inferences drawn by the quack Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. over at Dean's World.

Bialy's argument is rather poor on its face, and I'm surprised that any one could be duped by it.

The argument goes something like this. If HIV causes AIDS, then how come the AIDS rate has gone down but the HIV rate has remained constant? If HIV causes AIDS then shouldn't you expect that the AIDS rate and the HIV rate would mirror each other?

The conclusion he wishes the reader to draw is this: Since the HIV rate has remained fairly constant, but the AIDS rate has declined--then HIV does not cause AIDS. Something else does.

This is a clear case of drawing false inferences from reliable data. The major hole in Bialy's argument is that he leaves out the fact that since the early 1990s--precisely when the HIV/AIDS rates began to diverge--several intervention strategies have been introduced which lessen the likelihood that a person with HIV will contract full-blown AIDS.

That is, because HIV is treatable it should be expected that the number of HIV cases will be much larger than the numbers of AIDS cases. These data, then, support the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

What is more interesting to me are the unspoken reasons why so many in Africa are unwilling to accept that fact. Why would so many people go on this insane hunt to find another culprit for the AIDS crisis in Africa?

In my mind such insane theories as advocated by Dr. Bialy are a matter of cultural denial. What are Africans in denial over? They wish to deny the pathologies of their own culture--namely that rape, molestation, and sodomy are much higher in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere in the world.

Those that wish to deny that HIV causes AIDS are in fact denying that their own culture is largely responsible for the pandemic. For instance, it is estimated that 37% of the adult population in Botswana has AIDS. Read that number again--37%!!!

I once went to a campus-wide convocation in which the speaker was a children's advocate in Africa. She spoke of entire regions of Africa where there are literally no Adults. None. Remember that a rate of 37% does not mean that every area of the country is equally affected. Some parts of the country may have much smaller infection rates, in other areas the rate is close to 100%.

She spoke of entering a village controlled by a gang of teenagers because all the adults were dead from AIDS. I couldn't help but think of Lord of the Flies.

She spoke of gangs of men with AIDS who would go from village to village raping little children. How little? Infants.

Why would grown men rape infants? Because they have been told that HIV does not cause AIDS. A popular cultural myth is that the only way to get the AIDS infection out of their systems is to have sex with a virgin.

Another example. In post-appartheid South Africa the police will no longer patrol the streets of some ghettos. Rape is a nightly occurence. Again, rape in these ghettos is of the gang rape sort. The only recourse has been for vigilante groups to lynch those suspected of being members of the rape gangs. Even so, the rapes continue.

Of course, most cases of HIV are probably not caused by rape. Most cases are probably contracted in Africa just as it is contracted in the US--sodomy. The easiest way to contract the disease is to be on the receiving end of sodomy. It is very difficult for a man to get AIDS from a woman. Men usually get AIDS from another man--and women get AIDS from men who have slept with another man.

Denying that AIDS is caused by HIV is part of the cultural machismo in Africa that tacitly allows bisexual relationships among men and in which heterosexual promiscuity is tolerated (as long as it is the man that is promiscious).

On the other hand in Arab Africa, which generally looks down on these behaviors, the incidence of AIDS is much lower. (Yes, homosexual relationships with young boys is probably common in Northern Africa, but the underground culture of man-boy relationships does not allow for grown men to be penetrated--the main mechanism for transmission.)

HIV causes AIDS. To deny this is to buy into the myth that all cultures are equal to the task of addressing the problems before them.

The essay published by Dean does not falsify the hypothesis. On the contrary, these data verify the hypothesis. By adding intervention to the mix, the data does just what it is supposed to do. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:37 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1013 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I agree with you Rusty. It IS causal. ABSOLUTELY. I was just being more than fair since the Harvey crew over at Dean's world have slammed me for this in the past. Repeatedly. I'm willing to grant their thought experiment in that case. My take is that HIV is responsible for the vast majority of AIDS, but some (v. few) cases have other origins. Just to clarify. Thanks for the link

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 13, 2005 04:40 PM (SbnT9)

2 Questioning isn't generally seen as being "duped" but if that's the way you see it, okie dokie.

Posted by: Donna at January 13, 2005 04:42 PM (0yEW+)

3 Another explanation I've heard for the apparent difference in transmission patterns in sub-Saharan Africa is a practice called “dry sex”.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at January 13, 2005 05:30 PM (OLr4c)

4 Admitting I lack the expertise to offer a valuable opinion makes me a wuss? Feh. I've been called worse by people I actually know

Posted by: John at January 13, 2005 05:36 PM (LwJx1)

5 i challenge dean and all of the scientists he cited to take a blood transfusion from someone with hiv but not aids. if they won't then they should publicly retract the posting.

Posted by: reliapundit at January 13, 2005 05:54 PM (mZjms)

6 RUSTY: Now you went and did it. Welcome to the racist club. You told the truth therefore you are a racist in the eyes of the liberals. It's really not so bad once you get used to it. In fact, your fan club will grow.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 06:36 PM (oKjnh)

7 My God is someone saying South Africa in worse now that it is run by blacks? Couldn't be. The whites were responsible for all the crimes. Rhodesia and South Africa are surly better places to live now that the white people are no longer in charge. This is crazy. Sounds racist to me. Love it.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 08:04 PM (oKjnh)

8 I'm a wuss for tossing my husband a link without rendering an opinion? I wonder what I am for accepting his sperm and bearing his child... Pushover, I guess.

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at January 13, 2005 08:36 PM (LOj+R)

9 Dr. Shackleford, I wanted to thank you for your link. I actually want to stand by my "agnostic" comment over on MUSC Tiger, but that may not be quite right since I believe there really may be something to what Dean and his Scientists are saying. Now as for you discussion on Africa, well all I gotta say is talk to Kim about that, who I support fully in his rant about his homeland. (That's Kim du Toit if you are not familiar) PS: LOL Rosemary, You go girl!

Posted by: CInomed at January 13, 2005 09:05 PM (PmWhP)

10 Man, are people STUPID or what? When I can get myself under control; I'll then reply.

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:22 PM (D39Vm)

11 Dean presents one piece of evidence that MAY have the explanation that you propose, and I am officially agnostic on the subject, but your dismissive reaction is probably arrogant, unless you are a research biologist, epidemiologist, or have other expertise specifically related to the topic. Some bright, well-credentialed people have raised questions, and while they well be dead wrong, slapping any insurgent hypothesis down because established science "told you so," if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the challenge ... well, it's dangerous ground. In addition, most people tend to think of states of disease in two-dimensional terms, have it or not, is this or isn't, when in fact many "diseases" are either subjectively defines places on a genetic spectrum or painfully multifactorial. Just a thought.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at January 13, 2005 10:49 PM (2uDpz)

12 Bill, Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality. The only place this theory is taken seriously is in Africa, for the stated reasons above. I am no friend to Orthodoxy, but neither should we question Orthodoxy simply because it is Orthodoxy. The report as published by Dean is flimsy at best and fraudulent at worst. I went to Dean's site expecting this major revelation (as promised) and got THAT? The argument, as published, would get an F in a basic stats class and is a classic example of bad inference from data. And of course you're right about disease definition, but that it's still a pretty pathetic argument put forth by the guy Dean cites. Greyrooster--No, but sub-Saharan societies generally are ill equipped to deal with AIDS and are in denial. QOAE-LOL CInomed, John, Donna-the argument was so poor I can't help but wonder how any one could remain agnostic.

Posted by: Rusty at January 14, 2005 08:23 AM (JQjhA)

13 "Just because a guy has a 'Ph.D.' next to his name doesn't make him bright nor does it make his research of any quality." I completely agree, Rusty. I've run into some pretty dumb (both ignorant and unitelligent) PhDs in my time (uh, no offense, Dr.). I've also seen really poor research based on either: 1) A faulty knowledge or gross error in the statisical analysis. (as it looks like in this case) or 2) Continual maschinations of data until a statisical correlation (or non-correlation) is spit out. (I blame SAS and their software for this that allows complex analysis to be done by people who have no business doing this type of analysis OR a correlation in search of a theory). It's the number 2 point that is scarier in that it's the opposite of classic scientific experiment (i.e. developing a hypothesis, deciding upon a test method to prove this hypothesis and THEN doing the analysis of the data)

Posted by: JFH at January 14, 2005 03:23 PM (fmEeo)

14 PHD doesn't stand for common sense. Some have it some don't. Some are dedicated academic professionals. Some are hiding in academia because they can't hack it in a competitive enviroment. Only they know the truth. That is, until they open their mouths.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 07:43 PM (Chchy)

15 RUSTY: And why is that? heh, heh, heh. Spot light on Rusty. Off subject but Greyrooster's first grandson comes home from hospital in morning. Greyrooster's idiot son has chosen to stay in Iraq. Apparently, to be assigned to another unit. I think he's done his share. If I could get my hands on him, one of us would get an asswhipping. Bet on him.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 07:51 PM (Chchy)

16 Without reading the links yet, I did see you Grey Rooster calling Rusty a racist because he was talking about FACTS in Africa and that's exactly what they were - FACTS. Africa has the highest rate of HIV+ and AIDS cases in the world and there are lots of people trying to educate and raise money for the people of Africa to stop the spread of the disease. That does not make Rusty a racist. If you paid attention to news and other reports, you'd know already that what he is stating are facts. What makes me sick is how any man could rape a child must less an infant iet just boggles my mind. And they sure as shit do not use condoms or any other type of protection. Being Hiv-positive, you need to tell everyone you've ever been with so that they can be tested. Some become ill with full blown AIDS because their immune system cannot handle it. And it has to be one of the worst ways to die. You can be HIV positive and never get sick butif you don't protect your partner,he or she could contract HIV+ and get full blown AIDS. It all depends on your body. One thing you don't want to do is pass it on because people react differently to it depending upon their own immune systems. You can also have HIV+ for a long time and never get sick but you can get others sick without protection. They have meds now for early and quick diagnoses of HIV+ virus and itis working for most people. By the time most people get tested, it's way too late. Once you go into full blown AIDS, make our your will, do a power of attorney and a living will. Anyone,despite what their immune dysfuction is - cannot donate blood nor can they be organd donors. I found that out after 9/11 and as disappointed as I was then to know that, I realized I certainly did not want to pass my illness onto other peopl as I have my own sons. There are way too many immune disorders in this country. There was also a point that when the Portuguese from southern MA would fly home. When they returned, they were tested and found there are different forms of HIV and AIDS. Back in 1975 in Readers Digest Magazine,there wasan article on an epidemic regarding AIDS but most people never bothered to read it so it was another ten years before it really become known. If you have no signs of the illness despite being HIV+, consider yourself lucky but you still need to be tested and treated and protected,especially protecting your partner. As to this article, there may be less people coming down with full blown AIDS even though they have HIV+ results. Intervention makes the difference here. So the person who wrote that article is an asshat; what is going to save you from this horrible death is knowledge and if you test positive, don't fool around with it by passing it along. The speading of HIV does indeed cause AIDS but with early help and intervention, some will never get sick and to me that's a good start. Just don't donate blood or your organs. Grey Rooster, be proud of your son for staying in Iraq; many are returning for their third tour of duty there, so he must feel it's worth it. We'll keep him in our prayers and thoughts. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 12:54 AM (D39Vm)

17 CINDY: Read my post again. And think this time. Does a person have to put LOL after everything to place some subtle humor?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 15, 2005 08:18 AM (4npOj)

18 I don't know Grey Rooster, still sounds like you're angry with him for staying in Iraq. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 03:51 PM (D39Vm)

19 To continue on the topic of downward revision of HIV infection in Africa: Estimates on HIV called too high New data cut rates for many nations (BOSTON GLOBE) By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | June 20, 2004 http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too_high/ Study cuts Kenya HIV estimates (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3379707.stm

Posted by: Ed at January 15, 2005 10:04 PM (lgWew)

20 People need to stop approaching this as if it has been proven that HIV causes AIDS. It has never been proven. HIV has never even been isolated in a lab. The test for HIV is also very inaccurate. I have a friend who tested positive, and then got a letter a few weeks later saying that the test was just wrong. Lots of people get AIDS symptoms without being HIV positive. HIV doesn't always mean AIDS, and AIDS doesn't always mean HIV. That's enough to make me seriously question the HIV/AIDS connection.

Posted by: Mark J at January 17, 2005 12:47 AM (ykFk5)

21 Was referring to Racist comment. Get it? Get it? Get it? My point is that if one tells the truth and the truth happens to be a bad comment about any other race than white. You are automatically banded a racist. Please note that Rusty has not answered my (and why is that question). Nor do I expect him to. I wish to be the only racist on this blog. Ha, Ha.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 06:54 AM (paXpx)

22 ED: Speech was nice. Do you have a point or solution? I also stood up at the 37% figure. But why is problem placed on whites. Do blacks begging for money count any better? Could the 37% figure have originally came from blacks begging for money? Exaggeration just a white thing huh! The fear is not youth gangs. It's fear of having to support them later. The same old story. Support us, protect us, feed us, save us from ourselves, and by the way, we hate you white bastards.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:18 AM (paXpx)

23 Gotta love the conservative mind. Bludgeon it with facts and reality for long enough, and it slips into its favorite defense mechanism: "Do you have a point?" coupled with a healthy dose of "Must be racism, and we all know racism is bad *wink wink nudge nudge*" Puh-leeze.

Posted by: BanzaiRabbit at February 25, 2005 10:55 PM (ztw8g)

24 I think it is highly unreasonable to argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. It is so unreasonable that it doesn't even warrant discussion. To the above poster who seems to argue that reports of higher incidence of AIDS in Africa are part of some "white" conspiracy, please try to get a grip on reality. Knowing definitively how many people have AIDS would require a thorough and well-funded study and a population willing to cooperate with researchers. Neither of these conditions exists. Whether it is 37% or 15% shouldn't really matter. Either way AIDS is an epidemic that threatens the future of many of these countries. I don't buy your population estimate argument at all. You cite figures from 1980 and 2004. I think if you examine the figures more closely you would find very high population growth until the mid-90s when a large number of people started dying from AIDS and then much slower or even stagnent population growth since then. An incidence of 37% HIV and a growing population at present are not at odds with each other as we know that the disease is usually present for several years before if untreated it results in death. So, I'm afraid to say it is not conservatives that need to be bludgeoned with facts, it is you my friend. You also seem to deny that cultural attitudes about sex in this part of sub-Saharan Africa may have something to do with the growth and difficulty in containing the epidemic in that part of the world and then cite that "The problem is that none of these ideas are supported by actual sociological or sexual research." What is you basis for this claim? I think you assume this to be the case but you're actually quite wrong. Many sociologist and anthropolgoists have chronicled the fact that promiscuity and a diminished respect for women's sexual rights (i.e. the need for their consent) are present in many African communities (although the opposite is true in others). The practice of migrant workers and truckers spreading the disease to their families after having sex with prostitutes is also widely established as a primary cause of the spread of the disease in Africa. When I was in South Africa I was told that it was estimated that something like 75% of truck drivers were HIV positive. This isn't by chance. There is a lifestyle that supports these rates of transmission and it isn't one of monogomy or absistance. While drugs and money will be indispensible in the fight against AIDS in this part of Africa, a critical piece in figthting the epidemic also must be education and reform of the population and their attitudes about sex. There is no denying that AIDS feasts on promiscuity and activities such as prostitution. There is also no denying that cultural prejudices against wearing condoms and against restraining sexual appetites also fuels the epedimic. While is may offend you liberal sensibilities to hear such reason that contradicts your cultural relevatists, anti- anything that smacks of Christian morality (i.e. monogamy and abstinance), progress in reducing the spread of AIDS must address people's sexual practices. The campaign to educate people in this country about AIDS did suceed in doing some of this in the late 80s and early 90s as people rationally saw the connection between promiscuity, wearing condoms, contracting HIV and dying. Comprehension of such a clear logical connection would help in Africa. This must be done in a way that is sensitive to the stigma that attaches to women especially from this connection (i.e. they or their partner were promiscuous) especially since many times women are at the mercy of their partners.... Blaming it on the white man doesn't only fail to accomplish anything useful, it deflects attention from the real issues at hand. Futhermore, it is an intellectually indefensible position.

Posted by: manofreason at February 27, 2005 12:48 PM (pZiwh)

25 To manofreason, it is not a question of a 'white' conspiracy, or even a question of blacks 'begging for money' as one above post put it. The point that was being made by Ed, I believe, is that there are far too many inconsistencies in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that is all it is - a hypothesis, and far too many inconsistencies in the 'African AIDS Epidemic' story which has been perpetuated by the media. As far as I am concerned, all statistical data regarding AIDS in Africa is massively inaccurate at best. I would like to know how such data is compiled and whether or not it is independently verified by any third party. Just because data comes from a supposedly reliable source such as the WHO/UN or a nation's government, does not make it true. Regarding the 37% infection rate in Botswana for example, I find it highly improbable first of all that this figure could be calculated anyway in a country as sparsely populated as Botswana is. And secondly, I wonder as Ed points out, how Botswana, along with other African countries alledgedly hard hit by AIDS could manage to grow at such high population growth rates if people are supposedly dying in such large numbers from AIDS. And if, as you point out, they are only infected by HIV and not necessarily dying, then that calls into question the whole theory that HIV=AIDS=death. On the subject of a 'white' conspiracy, I do not believe in such things as conspiracy theories, but I will say that the Western nations tend to be extremely one-sided in their view of most things African. Little or no attempt is made in the Western media to report posiive news from Africa, whilst wars, disease and AIDS tend to be 'hot' news. Being black or white has nothing to do with it. Black and white people exist in the West, and black and white people coexist in Africa also. It is very interesting to me though, that the African countries which tend to shun the West, or at least are not afraid to publicly stand up or speak out against them seem to be those with the highest HIV infection rates, whilst the inverse seems to be true for those countries in favour with the West. Botswana and Zimbabwe have both, in different ways, shunned the West in recent times and are rewarded with high HIV infection rates, whilst countries such as Uganda and Kenya, who have in recent times received praise and support from Western countries for economic and democratic reforms, have seen their HIV rates declining On the question of promiscuity and 'diminished respect for women's sexual rights' as you put it, there is no way one can make a quantitative judgment over whether one culture is more promiscuous than the next. One may appear to be more promiscuous, but that does not necessarily make it the case. I think it is disrespectful in the extreme to imply that AIDS has spread in Africa because of promiscuity whereas it has not in other parts of the world. You mention truck drivers, but it is very naive to think that African truck drivers are more or less promiscuous than truck drivers in other parts of the world. By the nature of the work, where ever they are in the world, truck drivers may feel the need to... how shall I put this... ammeliorate their loneliness. As regarding education, as someone born in Africa, and who has regularly visited there over the past 20 or so years, I can assure you with my hand on my heart, that the average African is far more informed about AIDS and its alledged causes than the average European. Huge roadside billboards advertising condoms and safe-sex are commonplace in Africa. There are numerous educational programmes on the subject of safe-sex both on television and radio. These are things which I have not witnessed living in Europe. The last advert on television regarding such things I can remember seeing on British TV was perhaps around 1990 or thereabouts. I do not wish to pour scorn upon anyone, but the idea that AIDS is the scourge of Africa is not my own opinion having visited there many times, and being culturally involved with the people. Yes, people are dying, but of what we don't know. To take an example, one member of my family recently died in a rural part of Africa from where my family hail. It is not known what she died of. The explanation I was given was 'malaria', but I can tell you that malaria is used often in the sense that 'flu' is used in the West, or at least in Britain. People when they get ill say they have the flu, but that does not necessarily mean they have the influenza virus. There are countless cases like these where people die of tropical illnesses and have no official diagnosis of what they died from. In a land where poverty is rife and doctors charge such high fees, there is little incentive to visit a doctor in your illness. The idea that cheap and reliable HIV testing is available and done in Africa is laughable. Therefore, causes of death are very often a matter for speculation. This is from my own personal experience. To say that so many are dying because they have been infected with HIV and developed AIDS is an easy answer. No argument is so unreasonable as not to warrant a discussion, as you suggest at the top of your post. It has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS conclusively, regardless of the media's attention to this philosophy, and it is therefore sad in my mind that Africa has been tarnished with this brush of being the victim of an 'epidemic'. All science needs to be challenged, and there have always been alternative ideas as to the origin of AIDS, yet they have not always been treated fairly, just as Africa has not been treated fairly over this subject. Africa, anyway is a land of over a thousand different cultures and attitudes to life, to women and to sex. Even within one country, there are different communities with different cultures and opinions. It is easy for the Western media to oversimplify the situation so that Westerners can 'understand' the situation, but oversimplification it is. To me, your position of saying 'blame the white man' is intellectually indefensible is oversimplistic and patronising to Africans. It is neither the white man nor the black man's fault that so many die from disease in Africa, it is however, the Western community (which includes blacks) who have decided (without reason in many minds) that Africa is suffering from an epidemic which in their own countries only afflicts those at the bottom rungs of society - homosexual men and intravenous drug users.

Posted by: jimbo at June 23, 2005 07:45 AM (HTTxf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

by Demosophist

The issue of Hiroshima/Nagasaki comes up whenever the left or the Islamofascists get around to listing the "crimes of the US." In the past I've tended to agree with the critics, because by and large I was as uninformed as they about what was actually going on within the Japanese High Command in those last days. Well, we now know that using nuclear weapons was probably the only way to get Japan to surrender, and even that almost didn't work. From John Hawkins' interview of Victor Davis Hanson: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:53 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

Sex education + the daily special + 1 billion Chinese = Hilarity. Via Simon this New Kerela article:

Our service is to bring convenience for customers by combining sex education, sex counselling and free condoms into a one-stop shopping experience," said Tao Lin, director of the city's family planning centre, whose idea it was to turn the original sex education centre into a cafe.

Shhhhh!! Quiet, or every one will want one.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling. In my absence Jeff at Beautiful Attrocities has been parousing the Ask the Imam site. The Ask the Imam site is obviously run by those crumudgeonly Sunnis. For instance:

Q: What are the positions allowed for intercourse? Can wife sit on top of husband?

A: An Aayat of the noble Qur'aan states, 'Have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the front opening & not in the hind opening.'

Question: My question is, what does the holy book Quran and prophet Mohammad (pbuh) say about anal sex even if the wife agrees to experience this with her husband?

Answer: As deduced from narration anal sex is permissible; but it is strongly undesirable. Permission is bound to wifeÂ’s agreement and consent to anal sex. If she is not consenting, it would be impermissible.

Question:What is the definition of Zina?

Answer:Zina does not take place without penetration.

Anyway, I don't know why Iowahawk felt like he needed to spice the answers up. I mean, you have to admit that's some funny stuff left alone. As usual, though, Iowahawk does the improbable and makes the funny funnier:

Q: I look like a famous person in England called David Baddiel (he is a comedian). People call me Dave all the time. It is really annoying & depressing. I don't understand why Allah would give me this curse.

A: Remind the people around you that you are not a kafir & you are a Muslim faithful to your Deen. Also, cut off the kafir comedian's head, as this will reduce your confusing resemblance.

PS-A not so funny fatwa from Ask the Imam:

You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.

Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.

Q: I was shocked recently when I heard of the news that an American was beheaded by some Iraqis and this was shown on video to the whole world!! I just couldn`t digest it that a live human was slaughtered like an animal in front of the whole world!! This would certainly damage the already deterioting position of Islam in front of the west. It reminded me of a similar case of Daniel Pearl`s murder in Pakistan about 2 years back. This is really disturbing to see Muslims doing such acts of violence. I agree that the people of Iraq are also suffering at the hands of the invaders and the resistance they are lodging against them is legitimate but I don`t think that Islam permits this kind of violence. What do you say about it.

A: The incident that you have written about is indeed shocking. However, it is extremely important that we do not lose hold of the bigger picture because of our emotions. DoesnÂ’t it seem strange that throughout the Iraqi war and so many months of oppressive occupation, it is only when the US army has come under fire from the entire world because of their gross indifference to humanity that only now the Iraqis decide to publicly execute an American?

Posted by: Rusty at 12:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 5 kb.

- SFGate

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.

This law is not only against the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't make any sense. Guns used in homicides are overwhelmingly purchased on the black market. Very few guns used in homicides are legal guns, therefore what good is a law to band handguns going to do considering there are many more illegal guns used in acts of violence than the legal guns they will now ban?

After I read this story, I thanked God I live in a state where you can apply to carry a concealed handgun, not a city where only the crooks can carry them.

Update:
The only other city in the United States with a handgun ban is Washington DC, which banned them in 1976. Homicide did go up in Washington DC and DC still remains the city with the highest homicide rate in the U.S. despite a ban on handguns. Guess what is the weapon of choice for murderers in DC? Guns, not just handguns though.

Cross-posted at In the Bullpen

Posted by: Chad at 01:56 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

Ever wonder what a professor thinks during a final? Here's your chance to find out!! I will be live-blogging the final I will be giving at 10:30 a.m. (Central) right here. Good times all-around!! Other than that, blogging will be light.

Scroll past the pic for updates.

10:45 Just gave out finals. Since I'm heading out of town I decided to go with an all multiple choice exam. I know it's kind of a cop out, but there's just no way I can grade that many tests before my plane takes off. At least it's comprehensive.

10:50 What really surprises me about this class is how many students show up for the final who never--NEVER--come to class. What are they thinking? This is the first time I've taught this particular class. There's no Frat/Soror test bank they can cheat from. I just finished making the exam an hour ago. Sent to the photocopier half an hour ago. No way to cheat.

10:52 15 minutes into the test and one person done already???? Was it that easy??? It was 55 questions long!!!

10:55 Scantron test vs. essay. Multiple choice tests suck to write. Can I hear a shout-out about that y'all?!? Seriously, they suck. For each question you have to come up with four answers, and a good multiple choice exam So the major disadvantage to them is they require a lot of prep time. The advantage is that they take next to no time to grade.

Essays take almost no time to write but FOREVER to grade. The major pitfall in an essay test is that if you're pressed for time you stop actually reading the things and start scanning for key words.

10:58 Screams of exhaltation in the halls. Poked my head out. Not one of my students. Good. The screams seem to be from a student who just aced a final in another class. Why do they feel they need to share their joy with every one on the floor?

11:00 50% of students done now. I sense that I made a huge error in judgement on the difficulty level of this test. Way too easy. It was designed to be a one hour test.

11:02 I hate it when students wear hats on a test day. Way too easy to conceal answers on the inside of the cap's bill.

11:03 Here's a bonus point question for your amusement. This is an actual question. Can you guess the answer?

#54--How much does freedom cost?
a) $1.05
b) $10.95
c) $1,115.95
d) $1,095,05.05

11:05 Another bonus question
#51--Patty and Selma Bouviere worke at what government bureaucracy?
a) the Springfield lottery commission
b) the Springfield DMV
c) the Springfield Motor Speedway
d) the Springfiel Isotopes' front office

11:10 All students done. Are you freaking kidding me?? WAY TOO EASY. Man, I have really misunderestimated the difficulty of the test.

Two general reactions from students.

The Bullshitters. This group moaned when they heard that there would be no essay portion of the test. I usually include one or two essays for all my tests. This group knows how to BS so well that they always do especially well on essays. Their use of the English language is usually spot on and they usually write well. The two strongest reactions came from the two students preparing for law-school. Oddly enough, one of them is a cheerleader. You don't often find a cheerleader heading for law school. The other one is on the debate team. No shock there.

The Slackers. This group let out whoops of elation on hearing the news. The way they figure it, they've got a 1 in 4 chance of guessing the answer right. This includes most of our Criminal Justice majors and the odd person out of the Education department. Are CJ majors this bad at all schools?? The thing is that the CJ profs here seem pretty tough and both have rigorous academic training and publication records. But how come all the dull students seem to congegate toward that major??

Last note. One of my top students asked if it would be alright to not turn in a term paper. The paper alone is worth 20% of the grade. He says he just doesn't care about the grade in the class and he had too much other work to do. Of course I told him it was his grade and I would sleep fine at night with him getting a C. But I must admit that this bothers me some. He's the guy that set the curve--literally. On the one hand I know that other priorities must sometimes come before school, but on the other hand it shows that this class means little to him. That my lectures meant little to him. That I mean little too him.

So, if you ever sluff off doing a paper or taking a test do us all a favor--come up with a lame excuse. Our egos are tied to these things. We do take it personally. Look, no one I know got into this racquet for the money. We do it for a number of reasons, but at some level I think all of us enjoy seeing students learn. If you don't value what we're doing keep it to yourself. It may be less than honest, but at least you'll be making me feel better.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:51 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 901 words, total size 5 kb.