Cobol - OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Author

OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cmo66b$oc1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On 6-Nov-2004, "Peter E.C Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
of[color=darkred]
>
> Of course some people assume that if they switch to another tool, that
tool will
> last them until retirement. CoBOL will die - but it may out-live many of
the
> current "popular" languages.
>
I don't disagree , Howard.

The point I have been trying to make is that it is no longer a contest
between languages. It is a contest between design and build philosphies. The
days of writing thousands of lines of procedural code in order to implement
a commercial computer system are definitely numbered. It is simply too
expensive, too error prone, and too time consuming. A luxury that industry
can no longer afford. As long as there was no alternative (most of the
latter half of the twentieth century) there was no choice and they HAD to do
it. Now they don't. MANY companies don't WANT to be in IT. They were in it
because they had no choice. Now it can be safely outsourced and there are
better and quicker approaches than trying to build and maintain systems
in-house.

Sadly, they have woken up to what many of us found out pretty early in our
careers (about the time you found yourself writing the same application in
three different companies...): "Although I may tell myself my business needs
are unique, they are not. My systems have to achieve exactly what my
competitors systems have to achieve. Modern packages can deliver a better
than 90% solution to my core admin. processes. Why would I maintain a costly
IT department for 10% of my needs?"

Add to this the influx of "smarter" business users, many of whom have grown
up with personal computers, and the outlook for procedural computer
programming approaches looks much less attractive.

Don't take my word for it (it's Ok...I know you don't <G> )... just look
around. How many instances of outsourcing, package implementation, and
user-developed spreadsheet/database applications to do the rest, have you
seen personally in the last year? How many major new developments undertaken
in COBOL? (I am talking commercial enterprises here, not institutes of
learning where they probably still teach Latin out of academic interest.)

The computer programming boom is over; the computer usage boom is poised to
start.

I foresee people taking their computers everywhere (just like their
wristwatches), software becoming so user friendly it may be unrecognisable
as software (smart jewellery, for instance... earrings or glasses that
whisper people's names and salient details to you as the person approaches
at a party...).

In the workplace we can look for higher interactivity with software to solve
business problems. Skills in demand will not be programming, rather people
who know the business and its processes, intimately.They will simply
interact iteratively with a computer until it "understands" what they
require and produces it instantly. From then on, the only interaction
required would be when a Business process changes. At last, the dog wags the
tail...

I guess, if I was being unkind, I'd call it "the revenge of the users". For
decades they were put down by supercilious techno freaks, who showed little
patience or understanding, saw users as PITAs who were never happy and were
always requiring changes, and thinly veiled their contempt for them. Now its
payback time... They don't need experts any more. The whole industry has
been (and is continuing to be) de-skilled.

Eventually, ( I calculate around 75 years and am really sorry I won't be
here to see it...) the ultimate goal of software developers will be
attained, the goal that made a group of commercial competitors sit around a
table in 1959 and put aside their petty differences in a desire to build
something that would benefit EVERYBODY in commerce, and bring the dream of
computer resource availability for every single person on the planet a step
nearer. That CODASYL group caught a glimpse of something fine and gave us
COBOL. Eventually, through our own smugness and inertia, we lost it. But
the dream they glimpsed goes on...

"One day, EVERY single human being will have access to, and be able to
communicate easily with, a computer that has the power to help him/her solve
problems and improve their life. The world will be changed for the better by
cyber technology."

We are seeing the beginning of it. We ain't seen nothin' yet...

Pete.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:14:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Sadly, they have woken up to what many of us found out pretty early in our
>careers (about the time you found yourself writing the same application in
>three different companies...): "Although I may tell myself my business needs
>are unique, they are not. My systems have to achieve exactly what my
>competitors systems have to achieve. Modern packages can deliver a better
>than 90% solution to my core admin. processes. Why would I maintain a costly
>IT department for 10% of my needs?"

That last 10% DOUBLES the cost. Several of my recent projects followed
this pattern:

1. In-house system.
2. Management decision to replace in-house system with SAP.
3. Recognition that SAP R/3 cannot handle or is poor at --
rebates/discounts, supply chain optimization (which is why they offer
the APO system, also lacking), environmental regulation, R&D
management, the list goes on and on.
4. Decision to retain in-house system for those functions.
5. Former development programmers now writing interface programs that
feed data from SAP to Legacy and from Legacy to SAP, often
cross-platform which requires new skills (contractors).
Former legacy maintenance programmers still maintaining.

The result is a costly IT department PLUS millions spent on SAP PLUS
interfaces.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

OK, Robert. So who do you blame for this (if we were going to blame anyone,
and we all know that assigning blame is a pretty pointless exercise anyway)?

If managers buy a package from the vendor who bought them the best lunch
<G>, instead of properly evaluating the business requirements against the
package facilities... did they get anything less than they deserved?

Pete.

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:d903p0t5ivups1c5vk21utbcllj5vf7h4r@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:14:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
our[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
needs[color=darkred]
costly[color=darkred]
>
> That last 10% DOUBLES the cost. Several of my recent projects followed
> this pattern:
>
> 1. In-house system.
> 2. Management decision to replace in-house system with SAP.
> 3. Recognition that SAP R/3 cannot handle or is poor at --
> rebates/discounts, supply chain optimization (which is why they offer
> the APO system, also lacking), environmental regulation, R&D
> management, the list goes on and on.
> 4. Decision to retain in-house system for those functions.
> 5. Former development programmers now writing interface programs that
> feed data from SAP to Legacy and from Legacy to SAP, often
> cross-platform which requires new skills (contractors).
> Former legacy maintenance programmers still maintaining.
>
> The result is a costly IT department PLUS millions spent on SAP PLUS
> interfaces.
>

Robert Wagner

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:11 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>OK, Robert. So who do you blame for this (if we were going to blame anyone,
>and we all know that assigning blame is a pretty pointless exercise anyway)?

In politics, assigning blame is everything.

>If managers buy a package from the vendor who bought them the best lunch
><G>, instead of properly evaluating the business requirements against the
>package facilities... did they get anything less than they deserved?

I support the decision to replace in-house systems with SAP. The fault
is in failing to deal with the devil in the details. Turning it over
to middle-managers produces the expected result -- business as before.
Well-managed companies tolerate the legacy system near-term, until the
phase-out plan can be executed .. typically in 1-2 years.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:kis7p09gorss1t3a7j8nqeh6godujnlm2s@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:11 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
anyone,[color=darkred]
anyway)?[color=darkred]
>
> In politics, assigning blame is everything.
>
That's one reason why many democracies are not happy with their politicians.
The avoidance of blame also promotes the avoidance of responsibility.

We have an interesting situation on tonight's news here in NZ. The Prime
Minister was driven at high speed by a number of senior and well qualified
police officers, in order to attend a Rugby match. (You have to understand
that Rugby in New Zealand is not a sport, it is a Religion, (like many
religions, a Big Business...) and the whole country goes into mourning when
the All Blacks lose... It is therefore pretty important to the PM to be
there for a major match).

Anyway, half a dozen senior policemen are now charged with dangerous driving
(anything over 120 KPH is considered "dangerous"; these cars averaged 140KPH
for around 90 minutes). They were in the South Island so the risk was pretty
low (You can drive on some South Island roads and not see another car for
over an hour...) but they each stand to lose their licences for a minum 6
months, plus whatever other disciplinary measures their Bosses and/or the
Courts see fit to impose.

Wouldn't you think the PM might say something on their behalf? Maybe: "My
fault, I asked them to hurry..." or some such? Not a bit of it. She is
keeping a very low profile and refusing reporters with: "It's sub judice, I
can't comment."

Her spin doctors are putting as much distance between her and the escort as
possible, saying she was working in the back seat of the limousine and had
no idea how fast it was travelling...

Gives you a real warm feeling to see a female politician who is so caring...
<G>. I'm glad our country is in good hands.

(I guess a lot of my American friends are feeling that way since recent
events there. There were several thousand applications by Americans for
emigration to NZ when the results were announced. Particularly from Gays.
Gay marriage is legal here and socially acceptable. The PM is generally
accepted to be a Lesbian (she neither confirms nor denies, but does admit
that she only got married for the sake of her political career). Apparently,
we are portrayed in the US as an unspoilt natural paradise where Gays can
cavort with Hobbits and Elves, and everything is pink or lavender.

Not where I live. I have one friend who is Gay and he has never come on to
me in any way, so we have stayed friends for years.)

>
> I support the decision to replace in-house systems with SAP. The fault
> is in failing to deal with the devil in the details. Turning it over
> to middle-managers produces the expected result -- business as before.

Only if those middle managers are not properly managed... <G>

> Well-managed companies tolerate the legacy system near-term, until the
> phase-out plan can be executed .. typically in 1-2 years.
>

I thought about this, Robert, and I'm inclined to agree with you. It is a
good (if expensive) strategy. A major corporation I worked with in the U.K.
did exactly that. I was responsible for managing their legacy systems (a
team of around 15) WHILE they implemented the Siebel replacement (a team of
around 40). It took around 18 months. We were not allowed to enhance the
existing systems, but we sure had them running smoothly by the time the
Siebel solution struggled to its feet. On reflection, I think it was a
pretty good management strategy, but they could afford to pay £5 million a
year to keep things running, as well as £24 million for Siebel... Many
(especially smaller) companies couldn't do that.

Packages often fail when they are thrust into companies overnight, without
proper regard for the Business, and are under the control of middle managers
who are resisting change anyway. I think that was your point?

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <2vjbvtF2j3ndaU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:kis7p09gorss1t3a7j8nqeh6godujnlm2s@
4ax.com...
>That's one reason why many democracies are not happy with their politicians.
>The avoidance of blame also promotes the avoidance of responsibility.

Notice, Mr Dashwood, how Mr Wagner responded to a direct question of
'who(m) do you blame' by avoiding it entirely and redirecting the
disussion to a different subject.

DD

LX-i

2004-11-16, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> (Loving vs Virginia was decided on XIV Amendment grounds but it contains
> statements like 'The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
> the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
> free men.' and 'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
> fundamental to our very existence and survival.'; civil rights, as I
> understand them, are not to be readily abridged on grounds of race, creed
> or gender... it may make for a very interesting challenge, I'd say.)

Which is why I'm *so* glad the election came out the way it did.

1. The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
state, husband and wife. (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they? I guess now I've seen
it all...)

2. "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
survival?

<rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
"closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 8:55 pm

In article <217e491a.0411161253.52b5e188@posting.google.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote
>
>
>No. Governments make laws.

Most governments I am aware of, Mr Plinston, are composed of people.

>
>If people made laws then there would be no taxes.

Some of the people who make laws have a sense of Tradition, Mr Plinston,
and that Tradition just might include Alexander Pope's 'Whoever hopes a
faultless tax to see, hopes what ne’er was, is not, and ne’er will be.'

>
>
>No. Courts may modify them, or at least 'clarify their interpretation'
>and set precedent. Only Governments can change them.

See above about the composition of governments, Mr Plinston.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 8:55 pm

In article <IDvmd.211$3K3.9@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Which is why I'm *so* glad the election came out the way it did.
>
>1. The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
>state, husband and wife. (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
>marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they? I guess now I've seen
>it all...)

What was argued was 'marriage'... nothing about the gender of the
participants (and specific reference to 'happiness by free men').

>
>2. "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
>now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
>survival?

My eyes are not what they used to be... can you point out where in the
opinion of Loving vs Virginia procreation is mentioned at all? Given the
logic procreation provides you must be as steadfastly against geriatrics
marrying as you are against same-sex marriages.

>
><rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
>approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
>"closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>

This smells remarkably like the rant issued by the trial judge who
suspended the Lovings' jail sentence on the condition that they leave the
State of Virginia and not return for 25 years:

'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.'

Quite the ''close-minded' person calling it what it is', no doubt... and
no doubt overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
If you want Congress to start bringing a religion into things, Mr Summers,
there's a little bit of the Constitution that needs changing.

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-16, 8:55 pm

In article <cncaen$kv6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-C64B47.02200616112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Zitzelberger, you seem to be ignoring just a few minor laws which
> confer upon a spouse a direct legal status different than any other
> person... have you ever heard of, say, 'spousal privelege' applied to
> abstaining from offering legal testimony?

Does there exist a federal exemption? I have heard of states which have
such things, and states which do not have such things.

>
> There are a few more laws that one might need to attend to, Mr
> Zitzelberger... but that's a *lovely* little hobbyhorse you've ridden in,
> have you painted it recently?
>
> DD

Indeed I have -- it is a bright and happy red color.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

In article <joe_zitzelberger-FAF17E.18560916112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cncaen$kv6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Does there exist a federal exemption? I have heard of states which have
>such things, and states which do not have such things.

Not that the existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change
your view a whit, Mr Zitzelberger, but yes, there seems to be such a
thing. From:

http://www.huskylaw.net/StudyGuides...ilylaw_2000.doc

--begin quoted text:

D. Evidentiary Consequences of Marriage
1. Privilege as to Testimony by Spouses

Historically the common law rule in every state rendered spouses
incompetent to testify for or against each other in both criminal and
civil proceedings. Some states have abolished the spousal privilege
altogether in civil and criminal cases, while a few states still maintain
a complete ban on testimony. In Federal court, the privilege against
testimony may be asserted only by the witness-spouse.

--end quoted text

>
>
>
>Indeed I have -- it is a bright and happy red color.

Mr Zitzelberger, how daring of you... but I am sure the honor to memory
you show is pleasing to others who also think fondly of Chairman Mao.

DD

Warren Simmons

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

I hate coming in on this subject..

The current issue of the IU Alumni Mag. contains
newere information about human sexes. Seems those
x and y's do not always work out in a normal way.
I know few of you have access to this miaterial so
if I can scan the story, I'll think about posting
a portion of it.

Warren Simmons

LX-i wrote:

> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Which is why I'm *so* glad the election came out the way it did.
>
> 1. The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
> state, husband and wife. (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
> marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they? I guess now I've seen
> it all...)
>
> 2. "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
> now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
> survival?
>
> <rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
> approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
> "closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>
>
>

LX-i

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <IDvmd.211$3K3.9@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What was argued was 'marriage'... nothing about the gender of the
> participants (and specific reference to 'happiness by free men').

What was argued was attributes of marriage that had "long been
recognized" - I was merely pointing out other things that have long been
recognized as well. One can't take part of the picture, claim
"tradition" validates it, and ignore the other attributes (which
"tradition" would validate just as much), and expect the argument to
stand, based on "tradition".

>
>
> My eyes are not what they used to be... can you point out where in the
> opinion of Loving vs Virginia procreation is mentioned at all? Given the
> logic procreation provides you must be as steadfastly against geriatrics
> marrying as you are against same-sex marriages.

The only quote I have is the one you provided. Still, their argument
that it was *fundamental* to "our very existence and survival" was the
wrong argument. (Seeing your further comments below, it clicked on what
"Loving v. Virginia" was - that was interracial marriage, right?)

>
>
> This smells remarkably like the rant issued by the trial judge who
> suspended the Lovings' jail sentence on the condition that they leave the
> State of Virginia and not return for 25 years:
>
> 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
> He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
> His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
> He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.'

That's faulty logic. In the Bible, the prohibition to intermarry with
other races was given only to the Jews. There were lots of other rules
given to the Jews as well - are we going to codify those into our body
of law?

> Quite the ''close-minded' person calling it what it is', no doubt... and
> no doubt overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

He was calling it incorrectly. :)

> If you want Congress to start bringing a religion into things, Mr Summers,
> there's a little bit of the Constitution that needs changing.

I'm not even talking about bringing a religion in - I'm talking about
the state of the most basic build block of society, the family.

Truly, this battle began being lost when the divorce rate skyrocketed,
shacking up became the "in" thing to do. Argue for stronger families,
and the homo lobby says "We're not mocking marriage, it's the 50%
divorce rate, Britney Spears, and Nicky Hilton who are doing that!"

While this may be true to some extent, the government does have a vested
interest in maintaining strong families. They ensure more stable,
successful children, and a vibrant society.

(And, the

part about this argument is, I've got roughly 60% of the
country behind me on this one!)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
> Joe Z.
> Spokesman for the Red States

You know, I read an article here a while back that certain teachers are
using purple pens to grade with instead of red, because the red was "so
harsh" and it can be "so traumatic to get a paper with red all over it"
- it "looks like blood". But, what color do the networks choose to
identify Republican states? You got it...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote

>
> Most governments I am aware of, Mr Plinston, are composed of people.

Then you must agree that you had made a 'Wagnerism'. Governments are
only a very small number of 'people', certain specific individuals.

> Some of the people who make laws have ...

The 'people who make laws'. That would be the Government, then.

>
> See above about the composition of governments, Mr Plinston.

Yes, it seems to be that small subset of 'people' that makes laws.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:20:06 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>Still the only two things keep marriage anywhere in the eyes of
>government --
>
> Social Security Survivors Benefits
>
> and
>
> Income Taxes (joint filing et. al.)
>
>Kill those two evil FDR-wannabe-Leninist programs and marriage is back
>to a personal and spiritual thing...

The ones you cited (plus immigration) are the primary Federal
benefits, and the reason the US Supreme Court has standing to override
State definitions of marriage, but there are many State-level benefits
such as:

... Family insurance -- health, auto
... Medical decision making
... Inheritance
... Divorce. More a license for lawyers to gouge than a protection.
... Adoption
... Domestic violence protection
... Crime victim recovery
... Bankruptcy (a Federal action that follows State rules)

I don't think government cares one way or the other who's married.
Like abortion, marriage is an emotional issue in which government
tries to gauge what the majority wants, then jumps in front to provide
'moral leadership', whichwas said to be the factor that pushed GWB
over the top in this month's election. It's a side-show that distracts
us from legitimite questions such as fighting in the Middle East.

My proposed solution to same-sex marriage moves it from an issue of
Law to an issue of Equity. Equity (also known as quasi-contracts, not
to be

with home equity) is a poorly-understoon field of
jurisprudence that deals with contract-type situations in which the
remedy at Law is inadequate. In particular, it deals with cases where
the petitioning party has no Legal remedy because no contract exists.
Same-sex unions fall into that category. Marriage is a contract.

Equity provides a money judgment. Its objective is different from the
Law of Contracts in that Equity tries to do what's 'fair', which
usually makes the plaintiff (the injured party) 'even'. Contract Law
tries to provide the same outcome that would have occurred had the
contract been performed. Under Equity, the plaintiff does not get the
profit he or she would have gotten under Contract -- half the increase
in community property -- nor be liable for half the loss, if any.

Since Equity deals with cases lacking a Legal Contract, it seems to me
an Equitable 'divorce' should be possible today. A quick Web search
failed to find any such cases.

Suing government under Equity is more problematical. For instance, to
recover excess income tax. Since the Feds are letting States decide
who's married, they can say your complaint should be against the
State. Citizens are not allowed to sue States under Law or Equity, per
the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

In article <USzmd.242$3K3.32@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
>You know, I read an article here a while back that certain teachers are
>using purple pens to grade with instead of red, because the red was "so
>harsh" and it can be "so traumatic to get a paper with red all over it"
>- it "looks like blood". But, what color do the networks choose to
>identify Republican states? You got it...

That might show how much credence 'the networks' give to opinions
arrived-at by NEA members, eh?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

In article <217e491a.0411162120.69ea82df@posting.google.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote
>
>
>Then you must agree that you had made a 'Wagnerism'. Governments are
>only a very small number of 'people', certain specific individuals.

Mr Plinston, when I can find or be shown a government that is not composed
of people or the result of actions by people I'll agree with that; I can
find 'bad code' that has been written by other than 'mainframers' easily
enough.

>
>
>The 'people who make laws'. That would be the Government, then.

That makes them no less people, Mr Plinston... except for those creatures
who pass down Laws graven on tablets, of course.

>
>
>Yes, it seems to be that small subset of 'people' that makes laws.

That makes them no less people, Mr Plinston.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

In article <SPzmd.241$3K3.127@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>What was argued was attributes of marriage that had "long been
>recognized" - I was merely pointing out other things that have long been
>recognized as well.

Mr Summers, are we reading the same words? What the Court stated was
'The freedom to marry has long been recognized...'... the *freedom*, not
the 'attributes'. If you insist on making up words that the Court has not
applied you can generate a variety of conclusions.

>One can't take part of the picture, claim
>"tradition" validates it, and ignore the other attributes (which
>"tradition" would validate just as much), and expect the argument to
>stand, based on "tradition".

Mr Summers, the argument is not based on 'tradition', it is based on
'vital personal rights'. This can be seen as being similar to the
tradition of 'Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness', 'rights' which
many say are not granted by any government at all.

What might be seen as a 'tradition' above is the *recognition* of marriage
as a 'vital personal right', as this what is called 'long been' done...
but the right is not referred to as a 'tradition' at all.

>
>
>The only quote I have is the one you provided.

You are more than welcome to find the rest of the decision, it is readily
available on the web... and I don't believe procreation is mentioned
therein at all.

>Still, their argument
>that it was *fundamental* to "our very existence and survival" was the
>wrong argument.

'Right' argument or 'wrong', Mr Summers, it is the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States of America... what do they know about law, eh?

>(Seeing your further comments below, it clicked on what
>"Loving v. Virginia" was - that was interracial marriage, right?)

As with many decisions there might be ramifications beyond the case
presented; it might not be the first time such a thing happened.

>
>
>
>That's faulty logic.

It was not presented as logic, it was presented as a trial judge's
statement which had a particular 'odor'...

>In the Bible, the prohibition to intermarry with
>other races was given only to the Jews. There were lots of other rules
>given to the Jews as well - are we going to codify those into our body
>of law?

I would say no more than we have liberty to codify the rules given to the
Buddhists... or the Zoroastrians... or the Christians, no; Amendment I and
all that history brought along with it seems a right good idea.

>
>
>He was calling it incorrectly. :)

He issued a judicial ruling that was upheld on appeal and had to be
overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States of America... pretty
good 'sticking power' for something so 'wrong'.

>
>
>I'm not even talking about bringing a religion in - I'm talking about
>the state of the most basic build block of society, the family.

Ummmmm... you do realise that what was addressed in Loving vs Virginia was
the condition of marriage, not family, right?

>
>Truly, this battle began being lost when the divorce rate skyrocketed,
>shacking up became the "in" thing to do.

Naw... 'this battle began being lost' when nutrition and sanitation
changed life-expectancies to the point where 'until death us do part'
could, for a majority, include a substantial amount of time beyond one's
thirty-fifth birthday.

>Argue for stronger families,
>and the homo lobby says "We're not mocking marriage, it's the 50%
>divorce rate, Britney Spears, and Nicky Hilton who are doing that!"

When this 'homo lobby' makes arguments here you might want to address
those; what I have presented is a decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States of America that, clearly and unambiguously, labels marriage
- without any qualification about the chromosomal make-up of the
participants - as 'one of the basic civil rights'.

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

In article <cnebpg$jqd$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-FAF17E.18560916112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Not that the existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change
> your view a whit, Mr Zitzelberger, but yes, there seems to be such a
> thing. From:
>
> http://www.huskylaw.net/StudyGuides...ilylaw_2000.doc
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> D. Evidentiary Consequences of Marriage
> 1. Privilege as to Testimony by Spouses
>
> Historically the common law rule in every state rendered spouses
> incompetent to testify for or against each other in both criminal and
> civil proceedings. Some states have abolished the spousal privilege
> altogether in civil and criminal cases, while a few states still maintain
> a complete ban on testimony. In Federal court, the privilege against
> testimony may be asserted only by the witness-spouse.
>
> --end quoted text

That is interesting, but hardly something most people care about. I
know my spouse is not a criminal. She knows I'm not a criminal. We
have little need to fear being forced to testify against each other.

(Although she has historically told me that if I get picked up at a Dead
show doing anything extra-legal she would refuse bail -- doubtless, she
would also act as a character witness _for_the_prosecution.)

I think 98% or 99% of the population (judging by prision populations)
are in the same boat of never having to worry about testifying against
ones spouse.

>
> Mr Zitzelberger, how daring of you... but I am sure the honor to memory
> you show is pleasing to others who also think fondly of Chairman Mao.
>
> DD
>

Twasn't me -- the network anchors and USA Today decided in 2000 that
henceforth and forever more the red party would be identified as blue
and the anti-red party would be identified as red.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

In article <cne3li$r3j$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <IDvmd.211$3K3.9@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> My eyes are not what they used to be... can you point out where in the
> opinion of Loving vs Virginia procreation is mentioned at all? Given the
> logic procreation provides you must be as steadfastly against geriatrics
> marrying as you are against same-sex marriages.

Did you not see the 59-year-old great-grandmother in south Georgia that
was found to be carrying twins last w

? It made USA Today and a host
of smaller papers.

Granted, 59 is still a few years from geriatrics...

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-33A68C.08595017112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cnebpg$jqd$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>That is interesting, but hardly something most people care about.

I barely know what *I* care about, let alone 'most people'... but your
dismissal seems to give a nigh-prescient air to my preface of Not that the
existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change your view a
whit...'

I
>know my spouse is not a criminal. She knows I'm not a criminal. We
>have little need to fear being forced to testify against each other.
>
>(Although she has historically told me that if I get picked up at a Dead
>show doing anything extra-legal she would refuse bail -- doubtless, she
>would also act as a character witness _for_the_prosecution.)
>
>I think 98% or 99% of the population (judging by prision populations)
>are in the same boat of never having to worry about testifying against
>ones spouse.

[snip]

>
>Twasn't me -- the network anchors and USA Today decided in 2000 that
>henceforth and forever more the red party would be identified as blue
>and the anti-red party would be identified as red.

That seems to be a Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Zitzelberger.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-972C5B.09071317112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cne3li$r3j$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Did you not see the 59-year-old great-grandmother in south Georgia that
>was found to be carrying twins last w

? It made USA Today and a host
>of smaller papers.
>
>Granted, 59 is still a few years from geriatrics...

Good of you to grant that, Mr Zitzelberger... and you might do well to
muse on how the 'procreative' argument fares when applied to those who are
sterile as a matter of biology, sterile as a matter of choice or
voluntarily childless... not that doing such a thing will, in all
probability, change your view a whit.

DD

Howard Brazee

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

On 16-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> 1. The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
> state, husband and wife. (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
> marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they? I guess now I've seen
> it all...)

And for a very long time it was to last a lifetime. The change to allow
divorce was much more impactfull than is any proposal to allow homosexuals to
marry. Divorce effects children.

> 2. "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
> now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
> survival?

Non married homosexuals reproduce at the same rate as married homosexuals. At
least faithful couples do. Discouraging promiscuity is worth while, for disease
prevention purposes.

> <rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
> approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
> "closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>

I want the state out of the marriage business - but provide contractual benefits
for people without regard to what goes on in the bedroom. That means, I could
set up a co-care contract with my mother or with my grandson and the state
wouldn't care.

And let the churches decide whether to bless the union as a marriage. It's
their business - not the state's.

Allowing gays to marry has absolutely no effect on my marriage. I don't know
of any marriages that would be effected by this. But LOTS of marriages were
effected by the change of traditional values to allow for divorce. Lots of
children were effected by divorce.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

On 16-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> My eyes are not what they used to be... can you point out where in the
> opinion of Loving vs Virginia procreation is mentioned at all? Given the
> logic procreation provides you must be as steadfastly against geriatrics
> marrying as you are against same-sex marriages.

Not to mention people who choose celibacy.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-17, 3:55 pm

On 16-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> I'm not even talking about bringing a religion in - I'm talking about
> the state of the most basic build block of society, the family.
>
> Truly, this battle began being lost when the divorce rate skyrocketed,
> shacking up became the "in" thing to do. Argue for stronger families,
> and the homo lobby says "We're not mocking marriage, it's the 50%
> divorce rate, Britney Spears, and Nicky Hilton who are doing that!"

Yep. Allowing divorce was a shocking change to the status quo of "traditional
family values"

> While this may be true to some extent, the government does have a vested
> interest in maintaining strong families. They ensure more stable,
> successful children, and a vibrant society.

So what is the relationship between what we allow a homosexual couple to call
themselves and this? As long as gays live together without a marriage
certificate, my family will continue to be strong, as will the families of my
children? But if we let gays have that certificate, my grandchildren will find
their families destroyed? Or are you talking about your family? Whose
families are we protecting by not allowing gay couples to have this piece of
paper? What children won't be successful when this is allowed?

Richard

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote

>
> Not to mention people who choose celibacy.

Yeah, but at least it's better than nothing.

LX-i

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <USzmd.242$3K3.32@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> That might show how much credence 'the networks' give to opinions
> arrived-at by NEA members, eh?

Well, the way I saw it, they were right about the color red. But, in
school... *That's the point!* :) Well, there may be less here than
there appears to be - white for uncalled states, blue for states called
for Democrats; that leaves one patriotic color left.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
[huge snip]
>
> When this 'homo lobby' makes arguments here you might want to address
> those; what I have presented is a decision of the Supreme Court of the
> United States of America that, clearly and unambiguously, labels marriage
> - without any qualification about the chromosomal make-up of the
> participants - as 'one of the basic civil rights'.

I'll only respond to this with a dictionary link - that seems to be the
only satisfactory way out of one of these discussions...

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/marriage?view=get

And, for the lazy, what that says is...

=== paste ====

marriage

• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become
husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.

— PHRASES marriage of convenience a marriage concluded primarily to
achieve a practical purpose.

— ORIGIN Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry’.

=== end paste ===

Loving v. Virginia was about marriage, as defined by the OED. The
current day issue is not - it's about a redefinition of marriage.
That's the difference, and why I think the original findings in Loving
v. Virginia was wrong, but the 11 states who stood up and stated what
they wanted on November 2nd were right.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 16-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And for a very long time it was to last a lifetime. The change to allow
> divorce was much more impactfull than is any proposal to allow homosexuals to
> marry. Divorce effects children.

I've stated that that's where it really went south.

>
>
> Non married homosexuals reproduce at the same rate as married homosexuals. At
> least faithful couples do. Discouraging promiscuity is worth while, for disease
> prevention purposes.

So you agree with me? :)

>
>
> I want the state out of the marriage business - but provide contractual benefits
> for people without regard to what goes on in the bedroom. That means, I could
> set up a co-care contract with my mother or with my grandson and the state
> wouldn't care.
>
> And let the churches decide whether to bless the union as a marriage. It's
> their business - not the state's.
>
> Allowing gays to marry has absolutely no effect on my marriage. I don't know
> of any marriages that would be effected by this. But LOTS of marriages were
> effected by the change of traditional values to allow for divorce. Lots of
> children were effected by divorce.

That's a big change - and, that's simply not the way things work in this
country. Judging from the results of this recent election, it's not
likely to change anytime soon.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 16-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> So what is the relationship between what we allow a homosexual couple to call
> themselves and this? As long as gays live together without a marriage
> certificate, my family will continue to be strong, as will the families of my
> children? But if we let gays have that certificate, my grandchildren will find
> their families destroyed? Or are you talking about your family? Whose
> families are we protecting by not allowing gay couples to have this piece of
> paper? What children won't be successful when this is allowed?

Do you really expect me to believe that we had it wrong for 5,950 years,
and only in the recent "enlightened" 50 years we now need to redefine a
relationship because of a *very* vocal minority? This is where the
weakening will occur. I didn't say "destruction", just "weakened" -
and, I didn't say "my families marriages", I was talking about the
institution itself (along with the traditional dictionary definition of
the word).

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert Wagner

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:20:06 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>Still the only two things keep marriage anywhere in the eyes of
>government --
>
> Social Security Survivors Benefits
>
> and
>
> Income Taxes (joint filing et. al.)
>
>Kill those two evil FDR-wannabe-Leninist programs and marriage is back
>to a personal and spiritual thing...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the most important Federal
legistlation on same-sex marriage: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
passed in 1996. It says:

1. The Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage for any
Federal purpose. That includes Social Security, Income Tax and
immigration.

2. States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages approved
by other States.

Text of the act is here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

Out of fear the DOMA would be judged unconstitutional, the Marriage
Protection Act (MPA) was passed by the House in July, 2004. It is not
expected to pass the Senate. In a nutshell, it says the DOMA cannot be
reviewed/overturned by the Supreme Court. An analysis is here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040727.html

Same-sex couples can be legally married today in Massachusetts and
some Provinces of Canada, with no wait nor residency nor medical test
in Canada. Undoing the marriage (or Vermont's quasi-marriage) may be
more than they bargained for. They cannot marry someone else in any
State without first getting divorced, but they can only get divorced
in the place where they were married .. after moving and living there
for one year to meet residency requirements.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

In article <cnfntc$ji6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-972C5B.09071317112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Good of you to grant that, Mr Zitzelberger... and you might do well to
> muse on how the 'procreative' argument fares when applied to those who are
> sterile as a matter of biology, sterile as a matter of choice or
> voluntarily childless... not that doing such a thing will, in all
> probability, change your view a whit.
>
> DD

It seems that you are confusing me with some others. I joined about 1/3
of my fellow Georgians to vote against the gay marriage ban.

(I did so on the small government grounds that no government should tell
consenting people what they cannot do.

And on the equally small government grounds that I think government
should not recognize any marriage as much as it does -- e.g. tax breaks,
retirement perks, etc.)

But you are right, since I think pretty much anyone should be able to
marry whomever they choose, whenever and wherever they choose,
sterility, age and orientation will not change my view.

I mentioned the great-grandmother only as an interesting trivia quirk.

How much is a whit?

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

In article <cnfnnf$o2q$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-33A68C.08595017112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I barely know what *I* care about, let alone 'most people'... but your
> dismissal seems to give a nigh-prescient air to my preface of Not that the
> existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change your view a
> whit...'

I do not mean 'care' as in 'be concerned with', but 'care' as in 'ever
confront such a situtation'.

From the various crime statistics (see doj.gov), we know that most crime
is comitted by late-teen, early-20-something males. As they age, they
are more likely to be married (a function of consent laws) and less
likely to commit crimes.

We also know that most people are basically law abiding, somewhere in
the high 90 percential. (excluding minor traffic violations and the
like)

We also know that most crimes are state crimes, not federal.

So it is quite easy to conclude that only a very small minority of
married people will have spouses commit a federal crime.

An even smaller subgroup will be caught, charged and enter a not guilty
plea.

Of that tiny subgroup, the spouse must have some knowledge of the crime
in question for this right of spousal non-testimony to become relevent.

So perhaps I should have phrased 'hardly something most people care
about' as 'hardly something most people will ever encounter'.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

In article <9KxMJR3PflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>. On 15.11.04
> wrote docdwarf@panix.com
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in cnbguj$r28$1@panix5.panix.com
> about Re: OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
>
>
>d> Once there are laws which confer upon a spouse particular priveleges,
>d> Mr Brazee, then what constitutes 'spousedom' is a matter of law.
>
> And the law should not be concerned if the spouses are of the same
>or of opposite sexes.

There's the rub, Mr Willms... some agree with you, some disagree. The
law, however, is greatly concerned with the that-which-was-done-before, or
'precedent', and in this case it appears that the act of creating a spouse
(or 'marriage') has been clearly and unambigously labelled a civil right
by the highest court in the United States of America; as I noted before:
'civil rights, as I understand them, are not to be readily abridged on
grounds of race, creed or gender... it may make for a very interesting
challenge, I'd say.'

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

In article <r0Vmd.502$3K3.65@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Well, the way I saw it, they were right about the color red.

Ummmmm... which 'they'?

>But, in
>school... *That's the point!* :) Well, there may be less here than
>there appears to be - white for uncalled states, blue for states called
>for Democrats; that leaves one patriotic color left.

Oh come *on*... you mean you're going to allow for a possibility of simple
fact instead of a possiblity that one is being, yet again, hounded and
persecuted?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

In article <joe_zitzelberger-A483DC.02191318112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cnfnnf$o2q$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I do not mean 'care' as in 'be concerned with', but 'care' as in 'ever
>confront such a situtation'.

Oh, *that* definition of 'care'... I should have realised you were using
it as it is such a common one...

.... and I am the King of England, of course.

[snip]

>So perhaps I should have phrased 'hardly something most people care
>about' as 'hardly something most people will ever encounter'.

If the situation is so rare as to be dismissible then what might your
reason have been for asking into it?

A spouse has certain legal rights which no other person has, one of these
is spousal immunity. You asked if spousal immunity exists on the Federal
level and I responded 'According to (citation) it does... (n)ot that the
existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change your view a
whit...'.

You then shift from addressing the documented fact that a spouse has
certain legal rights which no other person has to 'Oh, the situation I
asked about is so rare it doesn't matter'... indicating that the existence
of such a thing has not changed your view a whit.

Do tell, Mr Zitzelberger... if a spouse does not have legal rights that
you believe are 'hardly something most people care about' then what legal
basis is there for caring about who, among the population that is
considered capable of giving informed consent, assumes the status?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

In article <hg5op05grm7dm2bca77msfp51kqnlsa2n5@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:20:06 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
><joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I'm surprised no one has mentioned the most important Federal
>legistlation on same-sex marriage: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
>passed in 1996.

[snip]

>Out of fear the DOMA would be judged unconstitutional, the Marriage
>Protection Act (MPA) was passed by the House in July, 2004. It is not
>expected to pass the Senate.

That's why I, for one, have not mentioned it, Mr Wagner... not because of
this expectation of failure but because a Court challenge has yet to be
passed.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

In article <QwVmd.508$3K3.341@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>[huge snip]
>
>I'll only respond to this with a dictionary link - that seems to be the
>only satisfactory way out of one of these discussions...
>
>http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/marriage?view=get

[snip]

>Loving v. Virginia was about marriage, as defined by the OED.

Leaving aside the fact the decision is about a civil right and its denial
in accordance with Amendment XIV... your assertion does not seem to be
supported by anything in the text; the word 'woman' is used once
(describing the person who married Mr Loving) and 'man' is used four
times, once to describe the person who married Ms Jeter, twice in
quotations from statues from the State of Virginia - neither of which
labels the participants by sex and one referring only to 'cohabiting as
man and wife', again gender-neutral as far as the participants are
concerned - and once in the phrase 'the basic civil rights of man'.

>The
>current day issue is not - it's about a redefinition of marriage.

If this is true then the matter appears to be inconsequential. Marriage,
in a country where church and state are held separate, is a matter of
legal definition and legal definitions change over time... there was a
Constitutionally mandated '3/5ths rule' that was tossed aside nigh a
century back.

>That's the difference, and why I think the original findings in Loving
>v. Virginia was wrong, but the 11 states who stood up and stated what
>they wanted on November 2nd were right.

Those eleven states, according to Loving vs Virginia, wish to allow a
civil right to be applicable solely on the basis of the sex of the people
exercising it; such a discrimination, it seems, has already been declared
to be unConstitutional... which is which I said, a while back, that it
would seem to make for an interesting challenge.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <RMVmd.511$3K3.311@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>Do you really expect me to believe that we had it wrong for 5,950 years,
>and only in the recent "enlightened" 50 years we now need to redefine a
>relationship because of a *very* vocal minority?

For however many years there was chattel slavery, when a person and their
descendents could be held in bondage in perpetuity. (The Old Testament
mandated release of slaves at certain times... but you've already
questioned whether those laws should be applied to the United States of
America).

Your own question then becomes 'Do you really believe that 'we' had it
wrong for those millennia and only in the recent 'enlightened 150 years we
now need to redefine a relationship - master and slave - because of a
*very* vocal minority?'

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-3D09E3.02081218112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cnfntc$ji6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>It seems that you are confusing me with some others. I joined about 1/3
>of my fellow Georgians to vote against the gay marriage ban.

[snip]

>But you are right, since I think pretty much anyone should be able to
>marry whomever they choose, whenever and wherever they choose,
>sterility, age and orientation will not change my view.
>
>I mentioned the great-grandmother only as an interesting trivia quirk.
>
>How much is a whit?

Something smaller than which nothing can be imagined, according to
http://www.m-w.com... and see how much your musing on what I suggestd has
changed your views? My apologies if I seem to have ascribed a position to
you which you do not hold.

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <cnhtaj$nsk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-A483DC.02191318112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, *that* definition of 'care'... I should have realised you were using
> it as it is such a common one...
>
> ... and I am the King of England, of course.

Have you never thought about the origins of the phrase 'why should I
care?' or its gen-x equilivent 'I care.'?

An SUV driver might care about the melting polar ice cap in an abstract,
hand-wringing, ohh-thats-terrible way. But the same persone will _CARE_
when their living room is filled with water.

Care is a good generic word that runs the gamut from 'mildly disinterest
in' to 'deeply invested in'.

> [snip]
>
>
> If the situation is so rare as to be dismissible then what might your
> reason have been for asking into it?
>
> A spouse has certain legal rights which no other person has, one of these
> is spousal immunity. You asked if spousal immunity exists on the Federal
> level and I responded 'According to (citation) it does... (n)ot that the
> existence of such a thing will, in all probability, change your view a
> whit...'.
>
> You then shift from addressing the documented fact that a spouse has
> certain legal rights which no other person has to 'Oh, the situation I
> asked about is so rare it doesn't matter'... indicating that the existence
> of such a thing has not changed your view a whit.

You brought this one up -- not I. I only asserted that there were few
places of federal recognition of marriage. And the two most notable
spousal rights on the list were of the nature of 'benefit
qualifications'.

State law is the vast majority of marital related law in the U.S. Even
the above two recognitions I cited and the testamoney exemption require
a state to actually certify your marriage.

There may well be other federal benefits to being married, but I suspect
the are mostly of the obscure, minor variety. Hardly reasons for two
people to rush out and get married.

>
> Do tell, Mr Zitzelberger... if a spouse does not have legal rights that
> you believe are 'hardly something most people care about' then what legal
> basis is there for caring about who, among the population that is
> considered capable of giving informed consent, assumes the status?
>

'Informed consent' is a function of state law and not always related to
marriage. Various family members are often automatically granted the
implicit power of attorney to decide matters of informed concent. And
in all cases, a person can execute an explicit power of attorney for
medical decisions.

Are not the spouses of diplomats also issued special credentials to keep
them out of trouble in the host country? Is this a federal benefit of
marriage that most people care about?

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <cni5u6$ech$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Something smaller than which nothing can be imagined, according to
> http://www.m-w.com... and see how much your musing on what I suggestd has
> changed your views? My apologies if I seem to have ascribed a position to
> you which you do not hold.

No problem. It was a reasonable belief given my known rightist
tendancies and my recent gloating.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-BF3B05.09331318112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cnhtaj$nsk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>There may well be other federal benefits to being married, but I suspect
>the are mostly of the obscure, minor variety.

Your suspicions seem to be based on admitted ignorance, Mr Zitzelberger.

>Hardly reasons for two
>people to rush out and get married.

Hardly reason to deny them based on gender, equally.

>
>'Informed consent' is a function of state law and not always related to
>marriage. Various family members are often automatically granted the
>implicit power of attorney to decide matters of informed concent. And
>in all cases, a person can execute an explicit power of attorney for
>medical decisions.

Non-responsive, Mr Zitzelberger. Second request, then: if a spouse does
not have legal rights that you believe are 'hardly something most people
care about' then what legal basis is there for caring about who, among the
population that is considered capable of giving informed consent, assumes
the status?

DD

Howard Brazee

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> Do you really expect me to believe that we had it wrong for 5,950 years,
> and only in the recent "enlightened" 50 years we now need to redefine a
> relationship because of a *very* vocal minority? This is where the
> weakening will occur. I didn't say "destruction", just "weakened" -
> and, I didn't say "my families marriages", I was talking about the
> institution itself (along with the traditional dictionary definition of
> the word).

Our definition of "marriage" changed considerably when divorce was allowed.
The impact of divorce upon the family and the institution of marriage was
profound. Our definition of "marriage" that allows divorce is not 5,950 years
old. We also have had cultures, that have allowed polygamy. Dictionaries
discuss what is currently being used - not what is right or wrong. When
Abraham's wives are mentioned in the Bible, do you pull out your dictionary and
then condemn him as weakening the institution of marriage?

You agree that my marriage and your marriage aren't being weakened by allowing a
homosexual couple to have that piece of paper. I'm not sure what you mean by
"the institution of marriage", so could you explain what it is, and how we
measure its strength? Would it be stronger if we proscribed divorce? How
would it be weaker if we allowed a homosexual couple legal recognition of their
status?

Allowing divorce (for good or for bad), weakened lots of marriages.
Allowing homosexual couples to marry won't effect traditional marriages at all.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

On 18-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

> It seems that you are confusing me with some others. I joined about 1/3
> of my fellow Georgians to vote against the gay marriage ban.
>
> (I did so on the small government grounds that no government should tell
> consenting people what they cannot do.
>
> And on the equally small government grounds that I think government
> should not recognize any marriage as much as it does -- e.g. tax breaks,
> retirement perks, etc.)
>
> But you are right, since I think pretty much anyone should be able to
> marry whomever they choose, whenever and wherever they choose,
> sterility, age and orientation will not change my view.

At least the state shouldn't be in charge of determining who can marry whom.

Get the state out of the business of recognizing marriage for anything at all,
this should be the domain of the churches.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> So you agree with me? :)

I believe that discouraging sexual partners from marrying is discouraging
fidelity. Allowing an explicit commitment discourages promiscuity.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-317CA7.09383918112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cni5u6$ech$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>No problem. It was a reasonable belief given my known rightist
>tendancies and my recent gloating.

And now I am accused of believing 'reasonably'... will wonders never
cease?

DD

Jeff York

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>Allowing divorce (for good or for bad), weakened lots of marriages.

It did, however (in the UK at least), serve to reduce the murder rate.

>Allowing homosexual couples to marry won't effect traditional marriages at all.

Nor the murder rate, one hopes.. :-)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cn22es$sbo$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <2vjbvtF2j3ndaU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
anyone,[color=darkred]
anyway)?[color=darkred]
politicians.[color=darkred]
>
> Notice, Mr Dashwood, how Mr Wagner responded to a direct question of
> 'who(m) do you blame' by avoiding it entirely and redirecting the
> disussion to a different subject.
>

Yes, Doc, I did see that.

However, it doesn't bother me. I try to keep perspective in CLC discussions.

Robert responded to my observation on assigning blame. That's fine.

Pete.
> DD
>

LX-i

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> (I guess a lot of my American friends are feeling that way since recent
> events there. There were several thousand applications by Americans for
> emigration to NZ when the results were announced. Particularly from Gays.
> Gay marriage is legal here and socially acceptable. The PM is generally
> accepted to be a Lesbian (she neither confirms nor denies, but does admit
> that she only got married for the sake of her political career). Apparently,
> we are portrayed in the US as an unspoilt natural paradise where Gays can
> cavort with Hobbits and Elves, and everything is pink or lavender.
>
> Not where I live. I have one friend who is Gay and he has never come on to
> me in any way, so we have stayed friends for years.)

Are the Hobbits still there? ;)

That above sentiment is what irks me about some folks - all we hear
about is how "democracy" is so great - it's your choice - etc. (The USA
is a republic which happens to democratically elect its representatives
- but we've been through that in here before.) Well, the "democracy"
they so cherish has spoken, and spoken quite soundly, and now people are
heading for the hills.

Ah well - I guess, if they feel that way, our republic is better off
without 'em.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:CVdld.899$aW.179@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
Gays.[color=darkred]
admit[color=darkred]
Apparently,[color=darkred]
can[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> Are the Hobbits still there? ;)

Absolutely. "Hobbiton" (where the Shire was filmed) is around 30 minutes
drive from where I'm writing this.(It is called the Waikato Valley, the
township was "Matamata" (although I believe there are moves afoot to
officially rename it "Hobbiton"). You can go and see Bag End, and it is well
worth a visit.
>
> That above sentiment is what irks me about some folks - all we hear
> about is how "democracy" is so great - it's your choice - etc. (The USA
> is a republic which happens to democratically elect its representatives
> - but we've been through that in here before.) Well, the "democracy"
> they so cherish has spoken, and spoken quite soundly, and now people are
> heading for the hills.
>
> Ah well - I guess, if they feel that way, our republic is better off
> without 'em.
>

Hey hold on a minute!!!! What about OUR republic?!!!<G>

There was an interview on TV here with a Gay American who emigrated two
years ago (well before the Bush -Kerry contest) with his partner, because
same-sex marriage was illegal in the state they lived in. They got "married"
in Wellington.

I couldn't help feeling some sympathy for their point of view. Why we can't
we just live and let live? (Well, here we do... but it would be really

if the world could do it too...). That is not to say we are paradise or have
no problems. But we are working on them and we try to do it fairly.

Actually, Daniel, I completely agree with your sentiment regarding
democracy.

There was a time when "democracy" meant the majority ruled. (With due regard
and respect for the minority). If you lost the election (and felt passionate
about losing) you set about changing minds by debate and reasoned, unheated,
persuasion so that you (hopefully) didn't lose next time. If you eventually
came to the conclusion that the population at large were NEVER going to
agree with your viewpoint, you had to consider either changing it or finding
somewhere a bit more liberal to live (I think that's what the Gays are
doing...)

This concept seems to have been lost on many people today. If they lose,
they decide (as a minority) to bomb and terrorise the majority into
submission. The idea is to destroy democracy because it didn't go their way,
and they have more chance of achieving their goals if there is anarchy.
Leaving the country, when viewed against this alternative, is a much more
civilized course of action.

(I just would hate to think of everyone here wearing pink and lavender...<G>
It is a very green place...)

Pete.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:53:10 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:kis7p09gorss1t3a7j8nqeh6godujnlm2s@
4ax.com...
>anyone,
>anyway)?
>That's one reason why many democracies are not happy with their politicians.
>The avoidance of blame also promotes the avoidance of responsibility.

I used 'politics' in a broader sense, which includes employment.
Politics determines the fate of individuals.

>You can drive on some South Island roads and not see another car for
>over an hour...

West Texas is like that too.

> Apparently,
>we are portrayed in the US as an unspoilt natural paradise where Gays can
>cavort with Hobbits and Elves, and everything is pink or lavender.

The image I've seen involves lots of sheep and picturesque hills. I'd
not heard an association with gays.

>
>I thought about this, Robert, and I'm inclined to agree with you. It is a
>good (if expensive) strategy. A major corporation I worked with in the U.K.
>did exactly that. I was responsible for managing their legacy systems (a
>team of around 15) WHILE they implemented the Siebel replacement (a team of
>around 40). It took around 18 months. We were not allowed to enhance the
>existing systems, but we sure had them running smoothly by the time the
>Siebel solution struggled to its feet. On reflection, I think it was a
>pretty good management strategy, but they could afford to pay £5 million a
>year to keep things running, as well as £24 million for Siebel... Many
>(especially smaller) companies couldn't do that.

That's why big companies prevail over smaller ones -- because they
have the resources to effect conversions.

>Packages often fail when they are thrust into companies overnight, without
>proper regard for the Business, and are under the control of middle managers
>who are resisting change anyway. I think that was your point?

Middle managers' goal is the keep the ship afloat and keep their jobs.
The path of least resistance is often running the old system until
there is time to replace its functionality, particularly its
custom-developed queries (CICS screens).

I wouldn't charactarize them as obstacles to change. They are
pragmatists. Unfortunately, their 'techie' side does resist change.
The result is brand new Unix programs written to thirty year-old
mainframe standards which don't even apply on z/OS.

James J. Gavan

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

LX-i wrote:

> That above sentiment is what irks me about some folks - all we hear
> about is how "democracy" is so great - it's your choice - etc. (The
> USA is a republic which happens to democratically elect its
> representatives - but we've been through that in here before.) Well,
> the "democracy" they so cherish has spoken, and spoken quite soundly,
> and now people are heading for the hills.
>
> Ah well - I guess, if they feel that way, our republic is better off
> without 'em.
>
The democracy they so cherish - that's why the Daily Mirror (in the UK)
, queried, "Why can some 59 million people be so wrong ?" ( It's a UK
daily tabloid and definitely a Labour/Socialist newspaper, cleverly
crafted over the past century keeping to small words to convey their
message to blue-collar workers. Currently its circulation is seeing hard
times, so provocative headlines are "in").

I take their point; while it is a majority it is nevertheless almost a
50-50 split.

Your blog indicates you are both right-wing and an 'evangelical' -
nothing wrong with that - but you have to consider the middle ground.

You and I both *volunteered* for the military putting in roughly the
same number of years I guess. In both cases, a USAF programmer and RAF
secretarial/shorthand-typing - we were, because of our training, not
*assets* to be wasted lightly by being pushed into the front-line at
Fallujah..

If someone does volunteer, then they have to take it as it comes.
(Subject to military rules you may be able to buy your way out of your
'contract' - but I doubt that's possible during a war situation). Now
what I do strongly disagree with is two US volunteers, who concluded
they didn't want fun and games in Iraq and opted to slip across the
border into Canada - s

ing immunity.

However, if the situation is such that 'conscription' is introduced,
then in all conscience, young men have the right to consider their
country's political situation - and if they don't agree, then, as
during WWII, they can become conscientious objectors - with the
penalties that can entail. Given your current situation, in good
conscience, they have the right to opt out. In practical terms that may
mean making a physical break with the US, and perhaps more
significantly, their family members left behind. (In practical terms, I
doubt the actual exodus from the US will be any great numbers).

Saved this for you - because in a previous message you tried to
segregate 'Islam' from 'terrorists' in your mind. I'm paraphrasing to
keep it short :-

Sunday Nov 7, 2004 - Hussein Dakroub AP, Beirut :

SAUDI SCHOLARS SUPPORT HOLY WAR :

"Some 26 prominent Saudi religious scholars have called on Iraqis to
support insurgents waging holy-war against the US-led coalition saying
fighting the occupation was a duty and a right. (In a letter posted on
the Internet on Saturday). It was "legitimate" resistance. They issued a
fatwa, prohibiting Iraqis from offering support for US-coalition against
rebel strongholds.

"Fighting the occupiers is a duty for all those who are able. It is a
jihad to push back the assailants... Resistance is a legitimate right. A
Muslim must not inflict harm on any resistance man or inform about
them. Instead they should be supported and protected".

**** Remember I previously mentioned Israel. Put a rag head on American
TV and ask him about a problem like increasing the productivity of
growing dates - sure as eggs is eggs - although not relevant to the
topic - the word Jew will spew out of his mouth !
**** Now I continue quote :

"The scholars said inter-Iraqi fighting would cause 'great damage to the
Iraqis and give a free service to the Jews who are infiltrating into
Iraq and to the coalition forces which exploit differences to
consolidate their domination".
******

I would suggest Ruben Goldberg has got to be out of his tiny mind if
he's currently thinking of setting up shop in Iraq - oil or no bloody
oil ! I'd love to see some Muslim give me a set of quotes from the
Koran, where it authorizes killing anybody. And what religion in the
name of Allah or nationalism can send a 16-year old boy/girl on a
suicide mission of self-destruction. (The boy is supposed to get some 72
virgins when he makes it up stairs. Not confirmed, but I suppose the
girl gets 72 studs ?)

I'm afraid the words 'Muslim' and 'Arab' mix just like vinegar and olive
oil.

Jimmy

Robert Jones

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pvgld.210666$%k.192508@pd7tw2no>...

I'd love to see some Muslim give me a set of quotes from the
> Koran, where it authorizes killing anybody. And what religion in the
> name of Allah or nationalism can send a 16-year old boy/girl on a
> suicide mission of self-destruction. (The boy is supposed to get some 72
> virgins when he makes it up stairs. Not confirmed, but I suppose the
> girl gets 72 studs ?)
>
> I'm afraid the words 'Muslim' and 'Arab' mix just like vinegar and olive
> oil.
>
> Jimmy

Message snipped

While I agree with much of what you say, it is arguable that the words
Caucasiand and Christian also don't mix for similar reasons. What a
small minority of any ethnic, political or religious group get up to
is not necessarily a fair reflection of what the vast majority think,
though comments from other groups making such generalisations might
tend to polarise opinions.

Robert