Neo

Size update, point, is noted. As I read your post, and some others, I see he's become solid. I have "slight" as an outdated impression. Grateful ...

To the learned and the talent evaluators. I'm a fan of Samson and think he was the right pick at the time. My feeling is unchanged. Question: What's your view on physicality and speed at the NHL level compared to hockey IQ, in general? I remember waiting for the breakout from Brian Holzinger, Max Afinogenov and more recently Zack Kassian. Each had a unique physical ability that teased us while we waited for them to get it. Samson gets it. Will his physical skills limit his ultimate upside? Is it reasonable to see a quality third liner, over the long run, in light of his speed and stature? I'm a big fan, but I have tempered expectations.

I never thought of the "validity of information' point ....interesting .... This is all very interesting to me. You can probably see ( I hope ) my respect and JOY for all .... I think we have to be careful about changes to laws. It's almost, and most generally, like cloning and DNA databases. I see utility, but I move very, very, cautiously. Social engineering, biological engineering, each can have good intent and good result ... ... ... slow and steady .... unintended lurks. On a related note, I think (not an original thought) that a great genius in the Constitution is its structural resistance to "quick".

Founding "fathers"?

I'm in.

The purpose is up to the individuals and not an issue I want the state involved with. "We approve this purpose, but not that" would be a regulatory nightmare that restricts choice in my eyes. Setting marriage apart isn't what I object to. Your hypothetical union is an interesting concept for the debate. Would you say the same if you and your sister made the same decision? If you were young widows/widowers? If you'd never married anyone else? Nineteen year old twins? Would you recognize all in a state recognized marriage? In a civil union? If you had children, would the same implications apply with regard to deductions, exemptions, and health care? I asked eleven questions. I'm not expecting answers. Instead, I'm showing where my mind goes when you propose a role for government. Stay out. Aside: long before the gay marriage issue hit the national debate, I considered the role of government in sanctioning any two people coming together. My early on solution was "get government out of it" and not "allow government to issue certificates legitimizing one over the other". My only rationale for government conceivably being involved was an interest in the perpetuation of the citizenry. That wasn't very persuasive to me, but it was the best reason I could imagine. Yes, I noodled that deeply, that early.

You are more clear than me. I meant exactly what you said. From the government, a recognition of civil union with corresponding rights and privileges for all. Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman, a civil union from the state is what you get from the state. Call yourselves what you like. If religious conservatives object, we go back to my "you lost" statement. They did lose. I don't need to poke them in the eye. The other side won. "Civil union" for you all is the prize. Party starter ... Are there civil unions you'd push back against? A few generations ago, man/man was as whacky as brother/sister. Before you argue the reproductive implications of brother/sister, consider that if reproductive implications apply in one case, they apply in both. Not being able to reproduce is a reproductive implication as much as reproducing dangerously. I mention only the grounds for debate, and offer no opinion on what would carry the day. Somewhere between "tinfoil hat" and "I told you so" are legitimate slippery slopes.

For the record, it's not a hot button with me. The traditional marriage people think there's a certain romance with their word, too. I'll choose the path taking government, rights and benefits out off the "feel the certain romance" business in order to accommodate without sacrificing.

I wasn't limiting it to a religion at all. Even among the non-religious, the word had a common meaning among all. If it's important to someone, involves no change from the common practice, I'd accommodate. This is my attempt to find a common ground. Let the change, the new, the evolution, the liberal thinking, take its own word. What's lost if a union not between a man and a woman is referred to by a different word than that which has meant, world wide for thousands of years, as between man and woman? I'd give on this. No right lost. "Let them keep their word". Compromise, accommodation, community, society. It's a hot button for those that had it first. I'm "ok" with that. "We want our union AND your word", changes the landscape not at all for anything legally meaningful, but fails the graciousness test in my book. I make no point about legality or acceptance. My only point is "give 'em a break, for cripe's sake, they're good people with a view as legitimate as yours. You won, move on".

Controversial? I'd remove the word marriage from the law and replace it with "civil union". Let those with deep reverence keep a legitimate word in their minds. There's a many thousand year tradition across cultures around the word. I'm fine with marriage having a conversational meaning, again with deep respect, and "civil union" being the phrase recognized by government for all parties. We can then re-address the board when someone wants a civil union among five people, or among a person and their sibling.

Taxes, first, and protection under the law for employee benefits, later. I'll let the attorneys add to or correct my post.

Re: Iran deal. I give the administration some slack to the extent that nothing's easy in the treaty realm and nothing satisfies everyone. My wish, here, is that the deal be fully vetted in final form before it's voted on. This wish of mine would apply to any treaty. I don't even know what side letters mean. Side letters make me suspicious, regardless of side of the aisle biases. Clean treaty, clean vote, up or down. For me, war or treaty improperly frames the argument. I acknowledge that weary allies make continued sanctions difficult. There is no international consensus on remedies short of treaty. Inspections are tricky. Look back ay the IAEA and Iraq. I do have an uninformed sense that the deal meant more to us than to our adversaries. Accordingly, we left things on the table.

This isn't a court issue or a legislative issue. It's pure performance management.

Conservative weighing in here: The Kentucky clerk has a choice. It's to accept the government job providing a government service as the government (we, the people) sees fit. She does not get to choose who she provides the service to on behalf of the government (we, the people). Her legitimate moral quandary may make her re-think her job, not her clientele.

I agree, word for word. It's why I support the system, and focus on the integration. Faith. Humanity. We notice the wrongs and feel the outrage because we've made so much progress. We're aware and restless as we try to reconcile identities. I love your identity. Mine's different. Let's get to work. We're American capitalists. I get called naive. I'm not. I may be wrong, but it's not naïveté. Gotta love the French auto-correct! Post Script: The integration I refer to is one of choice - before I get persecuted by the like minded as an apostate.

Stances for outcomes, yes. Identification of priorities, yes. Path to the outcomes, no. I don't want Greece, Norway, or Denmark here. I don't think it works here. I feel our challenge is integrating the diverse, the non-homogeneous, into a successful system. I think the homogeneous, less diverse, populations of the nations I mentioned allow for a middling economic system to muddle along. There are fewer rubs. It's faith. I prefer liberty, choice and capitalism, with all their risks, because on the whole it produces more for the whole of society. Unequal outcomes, of course. Talent, effort, choice and dumb luck are unequal. I have faith that people will succeed and that others will help them. I don't think you can program away talent, effort, choice and dumb luck. His sincerity and graciousness inspire me.

Grateful, LGR ... he seems, still, a principled man worthy of consideration. He remains, still, my most pleasant and thought provoking "new idea" in this election cycle.

Yes, in America, white men. In Europe, South America, North America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, men of those locales and of their respective ethnicities long before there was an America. My obtuse point: I feel no uniquely American shame and no personal shame whatsoever. No implication, mind you, that you feel shame. The history of double standards and "isms" is a human history. I acknowledge it. I am a descendant of the beneficiaries. What I like about America is the affirmative, clumsy, slow, incomplete commitment to acknowledge and address a problem dating back to the beginning of recorded time.

If the "we" is men, I'll agree. If it's white men, or Americans, specifically, I'll disagree. I think double standards have a history longer than America's and belong equally to races other than white. Post Script: I get JJ's sins of the father argument. It's tangential, but I get it.

And, just so that my non-controversial kumbaya moment doesn't ruin my reputation, I'll add a third plague in the same vein .... identity politics. Imagine uniting around values, and not around race, gender, class or religion. I hinted at it months back. This is where my conservatism has its deepest roots. Humanity.

When I lie awake at night, thinking utopian thoughts, I see brown people ... and an end to the twin plagues of racism and and the endless debate of preference. That's the 22nd century of my great, great, great, great grandchildren.

There is none. Accordingly, I give each no quarter.

Unless it was random, I can see that he was shot either because he was a cop, because he was white, or because he was a white cop. I've left out age and gender. Who knows? In the context of the current environment, and without a statement from the shooter, I would speculate it was because he was a white cop. The whole black lives matter debate is based in race, regardless of your point of view. Isn't the premise "White cops don't know us or our neighborhoods" or "cops are racist"? I never heard "un-uniformed lives matter". I hope the truth comes out. Speculation requires low standards, whether you're blaming or absolving. Acknowledged. We all use judgment, from time to time, before the facts are in. It's risky. I don't think the limb is long, here. I hope there's a better explanation than assassination based on race and civil service.

Awesome.

Good advice for all!