gadgetlady

Thanks, jrob. I still haven't had the chance to see it. My parents went and suggested I NOT bring my kids (ages 7 and 10). Because we're out of town with them right now, I don't have someone to babysit them while dh and I go. My mom, who's pretty much incapable of sitting through a movie (she gets restless and bored easily), said the movie was incredible and she would see it again. For her, that's saying a lot. Anyone else see it yet?

Anybody see the "abortion as art" story that's going around the news? It was released yesterday (see Yale Daily News - For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse) and then today declared a hoax. Interesting reactions from all sides on this one -- I read somewhere that NOW denounced it (I can't find the link anymore). I wonder why?

THAT is profound.

Bravo, green! Well said. Knowledge and information never hurt us. It is ignorance and the suppression of information that are cause for concern in all corners of the world.

Even though you're an athiest, I think they'll still let you in :rolleyes2:

Newborns don't have (intelligible) voices either. Many handicapped people can't speak for themselves. It isn't the voice that makes a person a person. In the words of Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person no matter how small."

The problem arises when one person's "belief" about when life begins leads to another person's death. As I have pointed out in this thread in the past, there are very learned men and women, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner, who believe that a newborn infant isn't "alive" (or at least worthy of life) until it passes certain standards. Can we / should we / do we tell them they can't kill their infants, even though they hold to a belief that those infants aren't "life" yet? And how do we have the authority -- dare I say audacity? -- to tell them they can't live their own lives according to their beliefs? When does or when should science trump an individual's belief? Especially when that individual's belief -- if incorrect -- is causing the death of another individual? As I have also said on this thread, the "belief" that a black person was 3/5 of a person allowed a whole group of people to enslave those whom they believed weren't fully "life". It is much easier to feel justified in denying rights to a person or group of people when you define them as "less than". But that doesn't make the oppressor "right", just because he's stronger, has the power to do it, and has managed to make it more palatable by altering the terminology.

This movie is coming out on Friday. I'm out of town so I don't know if I'll have the opportunity to see it (I'm going to try but it's been a busy trip thus far). I did just see a commercial for it. If anyone goes to see it, would you please post comments?

OK, sure. I'm against the death penalty. Now I really am signing off :-)

Here you go: I don't support Bush's record of social spending. I'm really going to try to be done for the night now and go spend some time with my kids :-)

LOL! I guess I should read all the way through before I start answering posts! California is backing down, somewhat, in that the decision was vacated. The ultimate resolution remains to be seen. The teacher's unions in CA would LOVE to eliminate homeschooling, so the war isn't over yet.

Yeah, I got that. I'm not dense. The point I was trying to make was twofold: 1) that the article itself was actually credible: Jesse Ventura DID say that and presumably he believed what he said, and 2) that even though the reporting of the article was accurate, it wasn't too difficult to reason through that Jesse Ventura isn't a demolitions expert. I get that snuffy was implying that I take the approach that if I read something on a right-wing website, it therefore must be true.

Jack, there's a thread on it in R&R which should give you a bunch of information on the subject. The California Court of Appeals has vacated the decision and granted a motion for a rehearing on the issue. Everything is status quo right now, until the rehearing. There are a lot of positive things happening and CA homeschoolers have good sources of support, but until the courts reach a decision we really don't know what will happen. If you need more info about it just ask and I'll post some links (hope posting LINKS are OK :thumbup:) to give you that info.

Sheesh! Thank you. Reading from oldest posting to newest, I was starting to feel pretty trampled. I think you'd be surprised at how I feel on some issues, as well. I was registered Libertarian for many years, and I do take issues on a case-by-case basis as well -- even though most people on this board think I'm a toe-the-line Republican.

Yeah, because the stuff I posted about the mercury in the light bulbs was all conjecture, right? After all, everything I read is from right-wing sources so therefore it can't be true. (Wait! Is MSNBC a right-wing source?) I can't singlehandedly ruin Al Gore's reputation. I believe history will do that for him. I am hoping to spark discussion, which clearly I have :thumbup:

Believe what you want to believe about me. When I tried to get answers about Gore's portfolio -- precisely so I could evaluate the claims -- it wasn't an easy process. It's your prerogative to believe that I don't REALLY want to do the research or that I will ONLY read what right-wingers believe about the subject, but if I didn't want to research the issue I wouldn't have asked the question as to how to garner the information.

Uh, yeah, so do I -- but he certainly has enough money to pay someone to head up the project for him. In California, where the permitting and building process is quite oppressive, you could bring a house down to its foundation and build up a whole new house again in a year. In less lenient states, that could take as little as 3-5 months. I don't find it persuasive that a remodel would take 4-6 years, especially if that remodel involves something that someone is so passionate about.

What do you find credible in this article? You have some choices: 1) the reporting of the fact that Jesse Ventura SAID the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition, or 2) the proposition that because Jesse Ventura believes it was a controlled demolition makes it true. If #1, I think it's relatively credible that he said it. If #2, I think you have to ask yourself if he is a controlled demolition expert or if he arrived at the conclusion without much backup. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. One does have to use powers of reasoning to determine if it's credible; then again, going back to sources.

I hate to post and run, but I have some down-time with a mani-pedi scheduled. Here's another interesting snippet I just found. Again, it's all in who you choose to believe: BillHobbs.com - Blogging about politics and media from Nashville.

So you're saying Gore OWNS this investment firm (based in London)? I don't know. I didn't write it. Do you have proof and evidence that he's not? Unless you and I can dig down into some public record (and even then, we have to assume it's right) to cull the facts ourselves, there is a certain amount of reliance on outside sources. We all have to choose whether our sources are credible. We can use basic logic and reason and try to find tricks or confusing verbiage within the sources to gauge their reliability, but the bottom line is at some point we CHOOSE to believe one source over another. We also have to factor into this our life experience, which has an impact on those whom we choose to rely. You are choosing to rely on a certain subset of sources, and I am choosing to rely on another. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that my sources are not credible, but to do so I'd like to see a little more than someone jumping up and down and claiming and screaming at me that I'm trying to ruin someone else's reputation.

You're the one who's been beating me over the head to investigate things before they're posted, so now when I ask how to get to the core information needed to investigate, you get all huffy. This isn't what I'm looking for. This is a filing by Generation Investment Management, LLP. How would I know 1) how much Gore has invested with them, and 2) that this is his sole investment company?

My goodness! I'm just trying to understand. I've never seen an F13 form before so I don't know how to negotiate my way around one, or around the site that talks about them. Further, I don't see anything about an F13 form in the news article that I posted. Pretend I've never done this before. How would I find a public and comprehensive internet listing of the investments that Gore makes?

How will I find specifically Gore's investments here?

But how can one be sure it is current and comprehensive? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is under no obligation to disclose his portfolio publicly. Therefore, how can we be assured that what he does disclose is comprehensive?

Where does one find a copy of his current investment portfolio and how can one be sure it is comprehensive?