paul - 10/18/08 19:14
Like I said, I am pro-abortion. Only under the "extreme circumstances" of actually being able to care for the baby - should they not abort.

gardenmama - 10/16/08 20:02
I found him painfully dismissive on the health of the mother issue. That's a really hard one for me to wrap my head around. Of course, if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v Wade, that too would become a health of the mother issue for all women who couldn't afford to leave the country to go elsewhere for safe, legal abortion. Back to butchers, alleys, and coathangers, and young and poor women dying from hemmorage and infection - now there's a plan.

tinypliny - 10/16/08 10:09
Does McCain think "health of the mother" is some fictional roadblock to their party's crazy agenda? Good grief. This bloke doesn't even know what the heck he is talking about. :(

tinypliny - 10/16/08 10:03
Hehehe, I was around 1.2 kg (2.6 lb) when I was born, >1 month premature. People thought I was a a big rat when they looked at my incubator because I was apparently very hairy in addition to being small and ugly. Nothing much has changed even now. LOL

tinypliny - 10/16/08 09:57
Good to know they got medical advice on this one. Back home, the "viable" age is 20 weeks ((e:tinypliny,46006) ), nevermind that many babies dont't make it past 1-2 years because of malnutrition and poor care. :(

jim - 10/16/08 09:46
"Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’" The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states."

- Summary of Roe v Wade ( :::link::: )

tinypliny - 10/16/08 09:42
That's the medical viewpoint as well. Has the supreme court ruled on this?

drew - 10/14/08 19:53
awesome.

paul - 10/16/08 13:11
Sony had the dual video card thing for a long time but I thought it was dumb because you had to log out to switch to the power saving one or back. Then Nvidia came out with one that could switch on the fly. Apparently, that is not the one in the new macbook pro. "In fact, it's been revealed that switching between the two GPUs on the MacBook Pro requires the user to log out of Mac OS X. Apparently, other implementations of NVIDIA's Hybrid SLI allows on-the-fly switching between GPUs, so it's not clear if this limitation in the MacBook Pro is a software or hardware issue." :::link:::

jim - 10/14/08 16:17
I pretty much HATE gloss screens. So there is that.

Don't worry James, just window shopping :)

james - 10/14/08 16:07
Damn right you are not looking for an upgrade.

How do you like that gloss finish on the screen?

jim - 10/14/08 09:54
The MBP have two graphics cards, one high power one for normal use, and one low power one for battery use. I think the 15" will also have the option for a higher resolution display, which would be sweet (if I were looking to upgrade, which I'm not).

paul - 10/14/08 09:49
outside of aestethics I cannot see an compelling advantage over the current line. Does it have bluray?

heidi - 10/13/08 19:32
I just want to underscore (e:Lauren) & (e:Jim)'s point questioning a distinction between sexual orientation and political ideology.... The personal is political...

(e:Joshua) - How do you describe the Republicans outside and inside the Florida election offices where the recounts were happening in 2000? I've mostly seen them described as a MOB trying to prevent the careful process of counting ballots. With just that one super-important example, your argument that Republicans are somehow better behaved than liberals goes out the window. And then there's the well documented polling place intimidation, the removal of qualified voters from voter lists...

I'm not at all saying that election and political ugliness is reserved for Republicans. Let's look at Jim Crow laws in the South, or the literacy tests used to prevent Blacks from voting, or... our history - up to today - is replete with examples.

metalpeter - 10/13/08 19:26
I don't want to speak for (e:Joshua) I think he was at first trying to find out if Jim was attacked for being gay or for his political beliefs but I'm not sure. I do know that I was a little bit confused my self. I think the reason why he wanted to make that distinction is because being homophobic or thinking homosexuality is wrong is only a left/right or Demo/republican thing. There are people who don't like gays in every party and every political outlook.

I said something along these lines in my response to (e:joshua)'s post. One thing that people have to consider is location. Location is a big Factor. For example I go to a hockey game in Toronto and Have a Sabres Jersey a few fans might hackle me and make my life tough a little bit, But I where that to a Flyers game, I would be killed or most likely attacked or hit with something, it would be very dangerous (I assume that is still true). If I was a New Yorker out trying to enjoy my day and all of a sudden there is a politcal Rally and it is for some one I like I would chear and call my buddies and take pictures but people I don't like get in my way they get yelled at and get the finger, isn't that the New York way.

lauren - 10/13/08 17:59
"The right is getting angrier and angrier, now that they're out of power. McCain-Palin rallies demonstrate this. Who do you think is going to be protesting in the streets these next 8 years? It's going to swing as the pendulum of power swings. You're just used to seeing the left out of power, not in it."

I think that this is a really good point Jim. We really need to consider WHY people are angry and that anger most often comes out of fear and vulnerability. People rarely (if ever) give up privileges and I don't think the conservatives will go down without a fight.

Also, as hinted in the sarcasm of your final statement, I think this whole "republicans" "democrats" nonsense is silly and ultimately unproductive. I hate to say it (especially during this crucial time) but democrats and republicans are pretty much the same.

oh and (e:joshua) I want to make it very clear that your "distinction" between sexual preference and political ideology is seriously lacking. I'm not ever sure what your point is. That you can't "see" someone's politics? What about when you can't "see" someone's sexuality? What about when someone says some homophobic shit to me cause I "look" straight? And I question your focus on the fanatics or "Jesus Freaks" as different that your average person walking down the street. Do these people really have that different of ideals that others who don't show up to these rallies? Would you be that surprised if random person X started spouting anti-gay nonsense if they thought you agreed?

This was intended to be a short comment :)

jim - 10/13/08 16:55
Said to me, wearing a kerry shirt in '04:

"If you want to vote for those dems, you should just leave the country since you hate it so much."

That is concrete, that is real. Said to my face, unprovoked, by a conservative. It happens all the time, not on Elmwood sure or in NYC, but in Salt Lake City, (to me, that time). In the south, in rural areas.

It might not be as organized, but it's just as angry and confrontational.

james - 10/13/08 16:53
wait, so it is appropriate to be a dick at things like gay pride parades or rallies because they are scheduled.

But it is not appropriate to yell the same things at a passing parade?

jim - 10/13/08 16:48
Those times I was referencing being personally confronted weren't at gay rallies. I mentioned that in a previous comment.

I am talking purely just walking down the street minding my own business.

jim - 10/13/08 16:43
My argument is theoretical? My argument is explicitly concrete. What are you talking about?

Yes, Joshua, two of those times it was for mildly political t-shirts that I was wearing (ie, generically pro-democrat), while otherwise minding my business.

joshua - 10/13/08 16:13
If you were accosted on the street, was it because people were picking on your sexual preference or your political ideology? Which is it? If you are telling me that people have randomly come up to you out of the shadows to belittle your faith in liberal orthodoxy, I'm skeptical.

I know damn well you guys deal with a lot of BS from people at gay rallies, and I'm sure they have all kinds of colorful names for you. I've lambasted those people in the past - we all know they are evil people. You said I can't dismiss them as not being conservative - actually Jim I never did anything of the sort. I was interested in your comment about a stereotypical characterization of conservatives though. You're suggesting that the video I posted was cherry picking when it was ridiculously obvious that it wasn't... which is exactly why I posted it. You're building your argument of contrasts and comparisons on a case that can't be made credibly. This wasn't a rally, it wasn't a campaign stop, it wasn't a protest - it occurred on the streets of Manhattan's UWS. Find me a non-rally, non-campaign stop, non-protest example that can be paired with what I've posted and we'll talk. Otherwise I'm not comparing apples to oranges.

And the answer to your first question is no, for the reasons I've already explained in the comments section of my journal. It isn't a matter of being blind - it's a matter of understanding the political DNA of the people you are talking about. There is always an example of one asshole out of many, but as a rule the GOP don't behave like caged animals in the same way that liberals do, and it is a well-established method of expressing their views that liberals have clung to since the Vietnam War. The GOP is not the party of the loud-mouthed protester/activist nor will it ever be. Your argument is theoretical and mine is not. You are making the mistake of believing that liberals and conservatives behave in the same manner. It is not true, nor has it ever been true in America!

I still find it curious that no self-avowed liberals can acknowledge what they've seen in the video I've posted.

jim - 10/13/08 15:29
So, you would say in very conservative areas no one would ever yell anything at someone wearing an Obama t-shirt, just walking down the street? You are blind.

My photo is of a conservative protestor at a parade, yes, but the times that I reference being accosted on the street, I was just on the street and randomly harrassed by strangers. Randomly. On the street. By passers-by. Thank you very much.

So - who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? I've lived through what you dismiss, and I can tell you, you are wrong. I know this from what I've personally seen and had to deal with, not something off of youtube.

joshua - 10/13/08 15:25
Jim, you're being entirely too simplistic. I've already made the distinction between what you are talking about and the everyday man on the street that the McCain/Palin supporters were dealing with on the Upper East Side. It's an important distinction that can't be ignored. The people you are highlighting are the craziest among them, and the people you saw in my video are everyday people on the street. You can't credibly compare the two, Jim, because of obvious reasons, the most obvious being the differences between a Jesus Freak specifically showing up at gay rallies and those just walking down the street in NYC.

fellyconnelly - 10/12/08 09:39
there are so many comments I could make, but they all come down to how disgusted I am.

tinypliny - 10/11/08 21:12
Sick. :/

paul - 10/11/08 20:57
That is really evil.