I'm tired of hearing people use the word 'troops' to describe U.S. military personnel. Every time I hear it, it reminds me of the stormtroopers from Star Wars. The singular form ('troop', as used in this article... is that even grammatically correct? I thought a 'troop' was a group of soldiers, not an individual) is even more cringe-inducing. Can we call them 'our soldiers' or 'our men and women', or really anything else, instead?

Okay, I'm done nit-picking now.

-Jeremy

Just because something is "naturally occuring" doesn't make it morally right.

That's very true -- rape is also a naturally occurring phenomenon, and nobody argues that rape is morally right.

So how do we decide if something is immoral or not? We can study the effects of the action to see if it causes harm, or we can look to tradition to see what tradition says about it.

In this case, the two methods conflict: several parts of the Bible condemn homosexuality, but all (disinterested) scientific studies of homosexuality say that it is a normal sexual characteristic of a significant portion of the population and isn't harmful (other than the persecution or discrimination that the homosexual might face -- but that's a symptom of the persecution, not the homosexuality itself).

The problem with the "Bible condemns it, so it must be wrong" approach is that the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) also condemns a lot of other things (eating of seafood, working on the Sabbath, and divorce, to name a few) that we as a society accept routinely with little or no censure. So it's clear that even devout Christians regard the Bible as something where they can pick and choose which "rules" to follow and which to ignore as outmoded.

So then the question becomes, is the prohibition of homosexuality like the prohibition of eating seafood, merely an anachronism whose time has passed? Or does it still serve some useful purpose in our society that makes it worth the suffering and discrimination it causes to homosexuals?

My opinion is that science has clearly demonstrated that homosexuality is a legitimate part of the human condition, and that trying to outlaw it or proscribe it makes no more sense than trying to outlaw or proscribe left-handedness or red hair. Given what we now know, there is no moral justification for condemning homosexuality per se.

-Jeremy

vaporland writes,

I have worked with information technology for thirty-five years and I trust electronic voting about as much as I trust electronic slot machines.

I trust the electronic slot machines a good deal more -- the slot machines in Vegas are heavily regulated and standardized, and what's more, the operators of the slot machines have an economic incentive to make sure their machines operate fairly (otherwise their casino would get a reputation for being stingy and their customers would go elsewhere). Electronic voting machines have none of those qualities.

The role of computers in elections should be limited to helping you fill out your ballot card, or (optionally) checking your ballot card for errors. They should never be used as storage devices, because they aren't transparent.

-Jeremy

... and now I'm creeped out by the thought that wherever I go, one of those corpses is right there with me.

Hey "Try Again Later",

You sound awfully angry and bitter about something. What's wrong?

-Jeremy

name one profound personal conviction bush has demonstrated with any degree of consistency at all. anyone?

Okay, snidely, I accept your challenge. Here it is:

"Wrong and strong is better than right and weak".

Bush has stuck to that philosophy like glue ever since 9/11, and possibly before as well. Although to be fair he may just be following Rove's advice.

-Jeremy

The bird made to disappear has actually been crushed to death in a collapsing trick cage sent through a trapdoor into the table, and another bird in an identical cage is produced.

Yikes! It takes the enjoyment out of watching magic tricks when you find out that animals are being crushed to death for your amusement. :^(

In 2004 we all swallowed our ideals and voted for the "electable" candidate... who then turned out to be, well, unelectable. I'm all for pragmatism, but at some point you end up compromising away everything that makes a candidate worth voting for. Perhaps sometimes you just have to take some risks?

Personally, I think the "Hillary is unelectable" meme is one that the Republicans have been deliberately spreading on for years, because privately they know she is electable -- Hillary clearly terrifies the Republican Party. Based on that, I think she could indeed win if she had the backbone to run a non-neutered campaign.

-Jeremy

Scott K -- I don't believe you for a second ;^)

"No problem" is a good response to an apology -- it's meant to reassure the other person that they haven't caused any significant harm. A better response to "thank you" (if you're tired of "you're welcome") would be "sure".

That said, it's kind of a trivial thing to gripe about. I think Mr. Keillor may be entering the flower of his curmudgeonhood.

I don't really care who finally gets the message through to the American public about the ride they've been taken for, as long as the message gets through.

Honestly, does it really matter who gets the credit for the story? The only thing that matters is that the cancer that is the Bush admistration is neutered and removed as quickly as possible, both to minimize any further damage it might do and so our nation can begin healing itself.

-Jeremy

Even if torture were effective, it would still be morally unacceptable. If Bush could somehow fight terrorism by killing babies or worshipping Satan, would he do those things also? (Answer: probably)

To hear Mister "we must stop stem cell research because every human life is sacred" Bush defend torture is nauseating, and his doing so while proclaiming to be a Christian is a profound insult to genuine Christians everywhere.