Our lives are so safe these days that I think we are in danger of forgetting how dangerous these diseases can be. Even a cursory search for information on measles, mumps, polio, smallpox, HiB, rubella, diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, and bacterial meningitis reveals a long list of painful and dangerous complications. Several of these diseases (e.g., diptheria, polio, tetanus, bacterial meningitis and smallpox) have very high mortality rates, especially among children. (There's a reason why smallpox was eradicated using a risky vaccine: the disease was so dangerous that the risk from the vaccine was judged to be tolerable compared to the risk of the disease and the benefit of eliminating it worldwide.)

When you compare visits to older cemetaries and modern cemetaries, it's striking how many gravestones there are for children under the age of 5 in the older cemetaries. A great many of these children died of diseases that we now vaccinate against. And Americans are just a plane flight away from places where these diseases are still endemic.

The same day I read Midred Loving's obit, I also read that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania is dead on arrival in the state house (after having passed the state senate judiciary and appropriations committees). It's discouraging to see how many politicians are enthusiastic about denying gays and lesbians their civil rights. (The amendment would not only have forbidden marriage and civil unions, it would have eliminated many of the legal protections that same-sex couples can now obtain on the grounds that they are a "semblance of marriage.") Reading their arguments, I was struck by how much they sounded like a retread of the ones Mildred Loving and her husband heard against their interracial marriage years ago. And yes, I do think this is a similar issue of bigotry; if these politicians weren't prejudiced against homosexual people in the first place, they wouldn't think it was such a big deal if same-sex couples were permitted to legally marry.

Problems with marriage aren't the fault of gays and lesbians. They're the fault of straight people, who have pretty much trashed it as an institution. If these politicians were really serious about protecting marriage, they'd be pushing things like mandatory pre-marital counseling, crackdowns on spousal abuse, and making divorces harder to get. Yet I hear not a peep out of any of them about these issues.

I'm not conflating two different issues. I was remarking on the rhetoric that's used to promote these so-called marriage protection amemdments, and how similar it is to the rhetoric that supported anti-miscegenation laws. It is my belief that they stem from the same root: prejudice.

In any case, healthyskeptic is indulging in sloppy thinking himself (or herself) by conflating marriage and childrearing. Marriage as an institution goes beyond raising children. Modern marriage is about the social and economic recognition of a partnership between two people. It includes many economic benefits and legal rights (such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation and the like) that do not involve children at all. Nobody is forced to have children when they marry and plenty of married couples do not have them; are their marriages less valid than those of couples with children?

Forbidding same-sex couples to enter into marriage (as the Pennsylvania amendment would have done) states that same-sex partnerships are not as valid as opposite-sex partnerships and are therefore not worth recognition. This is a value judgment, not a scientific rationale, and it's one that is increasingly being viewed as being as biased as the anti-miscengenation laws. Also, the Pennsylvania amendment went beyond merely forbidding same-sex marriages and civil unions; it would have invalidated laws that permitted same-sex couples to enjoy some of the rights of marriage. In effect, it would have rolled back what civil rights same-sex couples currently enjoy.

As for whether a same-sex couple is less fit to raise kids than an opposite-sex couple, I've seen several long-term studies that claim there's no difference in outcomes; the quality of relationships within the family seems to be more important.

What's the fuss?

Personal responsibility is only for poor people and women, not defense secretaries!

That was part of its charm. Even as kids, we thought it was ridiculous. As adults of a certain age, though, we're fond of Speed Racer because it makes us nostalgic for our childhoods.

Trying too hard to recreate something ruins its nostalgic feeling. though. That's probably what's happening with this movie. Maybe it's best to leave Speed, Trixie, Spritle, Chimchim and the gang as memories.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have a dress code for events like a prom. Kids need to have boundaries, limits and guidelines for what's appropriate and what's not. We can't depend on people automatically knowing these things by common sense any more because pop culture has pretty much defined it away.

Did the school state what was appropriate prom attire ahead of time? The article didn't say. If they didn't, I don't think she should have been punished for wearing a skimpy dress, no matter how much of a fashion emergency it was. However, if the school did say what was appropriate attire and she knowingly violated the dress code, then yes, there should have been some kind of penalty.

In any case, arresting her was a complete overreaction. School officials should have just called a parent/guardian to pick her up and ignored any scenes she might have been making.

At age 39, he's pretty much jelled. Barring an internal epiphany, he's going to continue being his environmentally unconscious self.

You can accept this and agree to disagree on environmental issues. Or you can end it if this is distressing enough to you you that it makes you overlook his good points. But don't hang on in this relationship thinking you can change him. It ain't gonna happen.