dropping names
apr 1

Paulo
"Huis clos"? (Not that I have read it, mind you; I'm just namedropping).
Speaking of whom, two points arise.
1) The tv.cream list has been subjected to another post from yours truly. This time, defending Forrest and Caitlin Moran from critics whose motivation is more jealousy than anything else. Can they name any decent new newspaper writers of the 90s? Let alone who have the wit, panache and soul-stirring abilities of the tweenie twosome? I think we should be told.
2) Remaindered after just five months: John Major, The Autobiography. Evidently Major's fans (Norman and Norma Slightly-Insayne of Surbiton) haven't bought as many copies of the book as the publishers expected.

chris who?
apr 5

Sara
I'll admit that I think most of the spice girls are okay now.
Is that your final answer?

My whole problem with them in the first place was that they were never themselves, they always had to fit one stereotype.
Yet the main point was that they never did fit those stereotypes. They were never more than convenient pegs to familiarise the world with the five as individuals, and as a group.

ps who is Chris Tarrant?
Is that your final question? Don't want to phone a Paulo, ask the list? No?

Things go orange on the screen. Weaver draws breath between his teeth.

"Sara, you had a reputation for hating the Spices, and not knowing much about popular British culture."

It's a long pause.

It's a nasty pause.

"Sara, you just lost your reputation for hating the Spices. The correct question was: which part of Regis' anatomy will Chris kick when he hosts the US edition of Millionaire later in the year? Never mind, you've had a good run."

[UK Millionaire continues on ITV 2215 today, 2000 tomorrow. Late-night repeats on ITV2, too.]

words with...
apr 5

Angela
the King James version (written in old English)
"Yet, Wait," quoth the Weyver. "Haft them a-changed the verbiage, the wordf and phrafes of the King's English over the past hundred and hundred and two hundred more years? And verily, will I yet be able to fpeak of fmooching and fwaying and yet fpeac of succing?"

or the N.I.V. which is written in much more easily understood format.
That's a matter of opinion (;

they're both the same - the passages mean the same thing.
I've not done a first-hand comparison, but others report a change of emphasis in some parts. Little tweaks, remaining true to the Hebrew and Greek originals, but interpreting the words differently.

Context is everything when reading scripture.
Then why oh why oh why (etc) do so many prosletysing Christians insist on quoting solitary verses, as if that was all it took to start, develop and conclude an argument. There needs to be background. There needs to be a logical base, otherwise nothing can be deduced.

Whenever you see a "ministry" screaming about knowing when the earth is going to end- disregard. It clearly states in scripture that nobody will know if and when such an event occurs.
That's why major news organisations hold regular rehearsals of such events as the demise of a major celeb, war in the middle of nowhere, or the end of the world. And if the world does come to an end, there will be full reports on BBC Five Live (: The Archers Omnibus might bite the dust, though.

the IPU visits
apr 7

Sara
I would expect a god(dess) to do some awesome things - as you say, even beyond human logic, but not to invent yourself.
Wait... you've granted your pet deity permission to ignore all the usual rules of logic, yet you don't allow it to break that rule. Doesn't sound hugely consistant to my ear.

because if you invent yourself, you are already there...
According to regular logic, but that's suspended for the duration of the project.

Tell you what, let me refer this matter upstairs, to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
"Hi."
What colour are you?
"Pink."
And can we see you?
"No."
So how do we know you're pink?
"You made me that way, didn't you."
Care to expand?
"I'm the IPU, a creation of your imagination. You have to have faith that I exist, because you can't see me."
That doesn't stop us accepting the existance of air, though.
"Wait, there's more. You have to have faith to believe that I can be both invisible and pink at the same time."
So how can we prove you're pink?
"You can't, otherwise I'd stop being invisible."
"Do you think Sara gets the point?"
I don't know. Let's ask her, and thank our special guest, the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

tip top tips
apr 7

"Pure Shores" - All Saints. European readers will know this one by heart, but there's no license for US release. When it's sorted, watch this cool groove fly. From "The Beach OST".
"If Only" - Hanson. It contains everything anyone has ever liked about the brothers, and still manages to present them in a new light. It's more mature and it's more obviously musical. UK release April 17, the album follows in May.
"Forget Me Not" (album) - Lucie Silvas. A couple of friends caught Macy at the NEC last week, and raved more about the support act than the main star. She's got a huge voice, stunning looks, and has a repetoire of great MOR songs. UK single, "It's Too Late", May 8.
"My Heart Goes Boom" - French Affair. Save this message and look at it again over Christmas, people in the US. By then, the current German #1 might have followed "Mambo #5" and "Blue" into your top ten. It's a hugely catchy track, and it's going to be massive. UK release is laughably scheduled for September 4, but I reckon they'll lose thousands to import copies by the beginning of August.
"Shackles (Praise You)" - Mary Mary. Not only is this a tune that's spinning in the clubs, it's also a classy gospel cut. With a feel-good vibe. UK (and Ireland...) release May 22, album "Thankful" May 1.
And then there's Birtney's new one (just like her last one, unless you're in the US) and Amanda Marshall's launch in Britain (does she look like the medusa or what? Great album, though.)

phil inn
apr 11

Yes! It's time for that great space-filling feature, What Companies Have Paid Carlton Oodles Of Money To Be The Subject Of Fake Questions On Their "Natural Language" Search Engine! Look in amazement as our panel of experts (Dr Hans Boompsadaysi of the University of Neasden, Professor Grammar of the BBC and Bill Bingham, the voice of the Channel Four Daily) answer those oh-so-tricky modern conundra. Such as, what is the plural of conundrum?

"Carol Vorderman und Richard Viteley" - HB

Shall we get on with it?
"Yes" - BB

How much does a new car from the manufacturer Mazda cost?
"Oh, waily waily! It's far too much! When Mrs Grammar had a slight incident with a bollard that lept out at her the other week, it cost nearly �150 for a new rear bumper." - PG
"Extrapolating from ze cost of a new fender to a complete new car suggests something of ze order of �45,000." - HB

Where can I find tourist information for Italy?
"At a travel agent. Though you might like to know that the Autostrada between Roma and Venizia currently has one lane closed during the spaghetti harvest season. There was a nasty pile-up in 1994 when a ton of newly-cut spaghetti fell onto the road after a combine harvester jacknifed." - BB

Where can I find official census data for employment?
"At your local library. 1991 census data is not on ze veb." - HB
"'Data' is a plural word. You should say that the data are not on the web" - PG

Where can I find a local directory listing for bed & breakfast in Derby?
"I think the question you should be asking begins with 'why'." - BB

Where can I find the newspaper (England) London Evening Standard?
"fzzz crackle veeeyooo fzzz" - HB
"This is London" - PG
"dot com" - BB

Where can I find the dog of the day?
"Follow the sound of barking. If you end up in Barking, listen for woofing. Should you wind up in Kennel Lane, listen for gruffing. If you finish in Catford, worry." - PG

Where can I find ferry information?
"There are no delays expected on the Dover-Calais link, though sailings from Margate to Bologne are currently running six years late. The train from London to Holyhead will miss the ferry to Dublin, as it has done every night for the past two years. To think I read out piddling little travel bulletins every fifteen minutes for a year. Waste of my golden tonsils." - BB

What time is it in Lisbon, Portugal?
"Vot time iz it in London?" - HB
"Right now." - PG
"Zen it's also right now in Lisboa." - HB

Where can I find cycling magazines in the UK?
"At a newsagent. Gordon Bennet, what kind of silly question is that? They never have this trouble on Millionaire, you know." - BB

Where can I find a restaurant in London?
"Valk about at random, and eventually Brownian motion, as modelled by ze Monte Carlo theorem, vill bring you to a restaurant of indeterminate quality. If ze restaurant is not acceptable, iterate ze process." - HB

What does the financial term renounceable documents mean?
"Think about the structure of the word. Re:nounce:able. Re: more than once. :able you can do something. :nounce: a corruption of "nonce", weak, flimsy, easily damaged. So these are documents that you can tear up again and again." - PG

How can I find secret, hidden airfare bargains?
"You can't. If you could, they wouldn't be secret or hidden, now, would they?" - BB

Our thanks to our panel, and the under-employed scriptwriters at Carlton United for the plausible but silly questions. More of this when traffic on the list is so low it becomes a good space filler.

justice danni writes
apr 14

Shobi
a married woman seeking an abortion had to notify her husband (who was presumed by law to be the father - this is not unusual, paternity is assumed as rebuttable presumption in most states, & if it is not rebutted, the child becomes the legal child of the husband)
This begs the practical question, how would such a presumption be disproven - blood tests, DNA matching. It also raises the moral question, should the state assume fidelity in marriage? If it does, then it can be accused of burying its head in the sand and ignoring the realities of life. If it doesn't, then look for vehement protesters in favour of the nuclear family accusing the government of all sorts of misdemeanours.

Once a "natural" baby is in its 3rd trimester, it has rights, so the father could probably enjoin the mother from an illegal abortion on the baby's behalf.
England: Unborn foetuses have no legal rights until they take a breath, so this option is not available to fathers here. However, doctors will not generally cause an abortion after 22 weeks except in clear life-or-death situations.

Moral Q: At what point should a foetus be seen as being a discrete individual in its own right? When it is actually born (40 weeks after conception), at the point where it could be sustained if born (around 25 weeks), the point where it has a 50% chance of survival (circa 31 weeks), or somewhere else?

I have no doubt that many people feel that a man persuasive enough to get a woman to sleep with him will also be persuasive enough to get her to see his point of view regarding an unplanned pregnancy & if he's not, then that is his own problem. Hopefully that isn't why the law is the way it is however.
This position rather bugs me. It's riddled with connotations that womyn are unable to resist the charms and allure of men, can easily be connived into bed, are prone to change their mind on a whim and carry pregnancies to term out of sheer spite. Heck, are you quite sure that this isn't the fundamental axiom of the law? (:

Well the law would require John to pay child support regardless of what he wanted Janet to do re: childbirth or abortion.
[Snip section on the concept of viewpoint neutrality]
The law is (or attempts to be) neutral with respect to the father's preferences. Is it neutral with respect to the mother's preferences? I'd argue that, within boundaries, it is. Mothers are able to cause an abortion (almost) on demand. In England, there are no significant obstacles placed in this path. There is also a full range of after-care, both for those who carry the foetus to term and those who don't.

Moral questions arising from this tend to return to the old "should it be legal to cause abortions" within a short space of time.

if John can't have his point of view honored in the law, why can't he get out of child support? This is just a nicer version of the question "is it fair to assign legal & economic responsibilities to parents of a child regardless of their factual circumstances?" The moral answer is one that each person has to give for themselves.
To rephrase that, in the way I'm interpreting it: should parents accrue rights and responsibilities purely because they are parents? As Shobi points out, this is something that has to be teased out by each individual. Personally, I have no objection to someone choosing to abrogate their rights, and hence their responsibilities, so long as this is an informed choice. My judgement in the original case would ensure that John's choice was informed, and set nothing as final for six months.

he two parents have control of their bodies and that they are in the *exclusive* position to stop children from being born by not having sex. If this type of parental responsibility for offspring were a new thing, Mark could have a point about this being sprung on men.
Taking parental responsibility is not a new thing. Being able to control fertility, cheaply and effectively, is new to society. It's less than 40 years since the contraceptive pill was first marketed. Womyn are now able to decide whether or not they will bear children at any given moment in time. This is a fundamental change in gender politics, and the construction of societal gender roles. Though it's changing year-on-year, society still hasn't really caught up to this change. And if society as a whole hasn't made the adaptation, the law will certainly remain behind the times.

As a for instance of the speed of change, clinics in some areas of England handed out "morning-after" pills to young girls before last New Year. The tabloid press, traditional reactionary guardians of moral conservatism jumped on the back of the clinics. Their "crimes"
a) Giving out abortificants to girls who are not pregnant.
b) Accepting that people will have sex outside marriage...
c) ...and under the legal age of consent...
d) ...and without using contraceptives.

The old-fashioned press vilified what I thought was a reasonable preventative move, far better than the potential consequences.

there is no argument that this is ex post facto or retroactive application of a "new" legal responsibility.
Yet should not this responsibility be reviewed in the light of the changes in society? Is the law permanently to codify a 1930s view of the world?

a portion of Shannon's paycheck goes right *to the state* according to the divorce order and then the state passes it along to her ex-husband. I understand that they do it this way for two reasons: (1) to make enforcement easier by making a whole agency to deal with this & (2) by stressing to child-support-paying parents that it is *the state* that requires child support & it is the state's interest that is served by it rather than the ex-spouse, so the anger about amounts of child-support will be directed at the state rather than the ex-spouse.
This was the model for the British Child Support Agency in 1993. That is a case history in how not to implement the policy. While the basic concept of establishing a separate agency to deal with these matters was imported, there were many flaws. Parents paying support did not see any advantage accruing to their child, but to the state. The state targetted those supporting children whose carers were claiming state benefits. The funding formula did not take into account the variability in outgoings to meet individual circumstances. There were many errors in calculating payments. The system was imposed retrospectively, ripping up agreements that the couples had made and the courts agreed. Some of these issues have been addressed, but the system is still trying to recover from its poor start.

the trend seems to be towards the harsher enforcement of Wisconsin, where a delinquent parent can lose their driver's license, have their wages garnished, and (in extreme cases) lose their freedom & be sentenced to jail.
Again, the moral questions arise. Given that there will be absent parents, how should they pay for their children? Should there be a right of access conditional on payment of upkeep? Should that right cut both ways? What is a good solution for parents who wilfully neglect their payments? Many questions, and I can only propose answers that I like.

So, back to Bailiff Shobi. Is it me, or does he look like H from Steps? If someone would pass me the dodgy make-up and low-cut dress, tonight, I'm going to be - Judge D!

[this is a private joke. Sade might get it, given time. I have no evidence to suggest Shobi looks like any member of Steps. Nor any to suggest he doesn't.]

what, if any, criminal charges do you bring against Jake?
Jake: failing to stop after accident, failing to exchange details. Cruelty to animals.

What about against Mary?
Consider driving without due care and attention. The evidence may support such a charge, though I doubt that from what I see here.

As a judge conducting a trial how would you rule on the Cruelty to Animals count?
The key point is that Jake used some force to move Woofer. Though he may not have intended Woofer to be struck by traffic, this was a reasonably forseeable outcome of his actions. Guilty on that charge.

As for sentencing: though the intent was there, I see no evidence that this is going to happen again. In the absence of evidence to convince me otherwise, I'm putting this down to a spur-of-the-moment, out-of-character act. The sentence would be slightly less had the dog died instantly, it would not have suffered so much. Four months jail - free in two months on good behaviour. Assuming the traffic charges are proven; $1000 fine and license suspended for six months.

Mary sued Jake for
(a) the original cost of Woofer ($200)
(c) the cost of replacing Woofer with a dog of similar pedigree ($325)
She can have one or the other. It is the moral job of the court to put people in a similar situation to the one they would have been in had the incident not taken place. Given that basis, claim (a) is rejected, claim (c) awarded.

(b) the cost of Woofer's vet bills resulting from the injuries ($475)
Would not have been incurred had the incident not taken place; awarded.

(d) intentional infliction of emotional distress for having to watch her dog & long-time companion run over (Mary asks for non-economic damages of up to $30,000 for her pain & suffering and for an additional $30,000 in punitive damages)
Punitive damages are only appropriate where criminal charges have not led to conviction, otherwise Jake would be punished twice for the one crime. That part of the claim is rejected.

Pain and suffering would not have arisen had the incident not taken place, so something should be awarded. Awarding the sum claimed would be the equivalent of criminal injury compensation for the loss of a finger on the writing hand. This seems an unreasonably high amount. Award $4000. Total $4800.

All above awards would be reduced if Mary is convicted of culpable failure to prevent the original collision, by around 35%, to total of $3120.

Jake counter sued Mary for the damage to his car ($1,300)
Awarded in full. Though Mary might not have been criminally at fault, hers was the rear car in a shunt. This award reduced if a criminal court verdict against Mary contained an element of compensation to Jake.

his medical bills for a slipped disk caused by the crash ($5,700).
Could Jake have sustained this injury while lifting Woofer from the car? Scientific evidence cannot resolve this one way or another, so arbitrarily award 30% of the amount claimed.

These awards are not subject to reduction in the way Mary's was, as they relate to something that was not originally Jake's fault.

Next case? do you bring animal cruelty charges against Sam?
Given that Sam has evidence of being attacked by a pig, it is not unreasonable to expect Sam to act in self-defence. It would not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had acted otherwise, so no criminal charges are preferred.

However, once Sam had killed Rufus, retaining the corpse was a clear theft of the animal's body. Consider theft charges on that basis.

Do you pursue a case against Mary for violation of the zoning laws and/or the leash laws?
This is an either-or decision. Either the pig was domesticated, in which case there is no charge under the zonal laws but there is a case under leash laws. Or the pig was not domesticated, in which case the reverse applies. Given the behaviour of the animal, I'd argue that it was not domesticated, and bring charges based on the zonal laws.

Mary sued Sam asking for: (a) the original cost of Rufus ($200); (b) the cost of replacing Rufus ($325);
One or the other again. Assuming that Mary's posession of Rufus was illegal under the zonal laws, and that the court does not wish to encourage breaches of those laws, claim b) is rejected. As the animal was stolen from Mary, the court awards a) in full. The court also awards Mary the cost of meat that would have been consumed from Rufus' corpse, as certified by a competent pig butcher. Or Helen Archer.

(c) infliction of emotional distress for having to find out that Rufus was killed and served to her neighbors
On a similar basis to the previous case, $2500 for the death, and $1500 for the abuse of his corpse.

Sam counter-claimed for his medical bills related to the pig-bite ($1,750);
Awarded in full. It's clear that Mary knew, or should have known, that Rufus was able to escape his pen, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this.

non-economic damages (covering the pain and suffering of the bite, the pain & suffering caused by the rabies shots; & the permanent scar Rufus left) of up to $30,000.
$3500 awarded. The shots were an appropriate step to take after the bite, but the court uses as a benchmark awards of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That body would award around �1800 (say $3000) for visible scarring to the face; this is less severe and on the arm.

Sam also countersued both the City and the Police alleging that they were negligent in following up his complaints about the roaming pig
The police followed their procedure regarding the zonal law, and there was no leash law violation. That claim dismissed in totality.

Given three complaints, it appears City Hall should have made some further investigation. If City Hall records show no such investigation took place, the court holds them 15% liable for the damages. If City Hall took reasonable steps to try to find the owner of the pig, but failed, it will pay nothing.

eurosong 101
apr 14

Over to Eurosongland, and Dunja has staked a claim
I think we should take Euro Song contest seriously, so seriously tht I hope we won't win, because if we win that will destroy our poor budget.
Don't worry about that too much. It's possible for the EBU to part-fund the contest, especially if it would cause the host broadcaster problems.

Try something a littel bit more serious next year, like we do... :)
Or just try going one year ahead of the flow. Katrina in 97 led to a raft of power ballads in 98; Dana I in 98 gave disco a boost, and Charlotte last year has led to half the contest sounding like Abba or Steps.

Courtney
call me silly but i have no idea what this eurosong business is about. is it songs competing in europe to be the best one or something like that?
That is the theory. Each of the countries that makes up the European Broadcasting Union is entitled to enter into the annual contest to find the best contemporary song. It's televised each May, and attracts around 700 million viewers across the continent. It's the largest regular cultural event on the planet, with a far larger spectrum of interest than the US Academy Awards.

Because i don't really consider croatia part of europe, but they're entered.
Croatia is as much a part of Europe as Yugoslavia was ten years ago. It's a significant part of the same country. Now, Israel, that's not geographically Europe, but it's a member of the EBU, so gets an entry.

btw, out of curiosity, what's italy's song? I have a fondness for that country in my heart...
Ah, Italy. Good old I-T-A-L-I-A. Sadly for us, she hasn't entered since coming third in 1997, and doesn't look set to enter again. EBU member broadcaster RAI thinks the contest is not a good use of its airtime.

justice henna
apr 16

Henna
First I got to admit that I don't know laws much, and don't know US laws.
Don't let that stop you. There are wider moral principles at large. They transcend national boundaries. In this section, I'm using Henna's comments as a springboard for wider discussion. One that anyone can contribute to.

In my point of wiew Jake and Sam are heartless, cruel bastards.
Nothing like sitting on the fence over the matter. And, yes, this is nothing like sitting on the fence.

I know that some people say that the difference between people and animals is that people can feel animals don't. Maybe, but somehow I still believe that they can feel too.
OK, let's run with this. Clearly, animals can feel pain. No-one will doubt that. It's axiomatic in any human society that the total amount of pain should be minimised; as I see it, that applies as much to animals as humans.

The question arises, can animals feel emotional pain in the same way that humans can? That, ultimately, is a matter of opinion.

I believe that these two animals had a huge part in Mary's life, and they were just like kids to her, so they were no just animals, they were part of her family.
Animals as extended relations. Interesting one. The concept of the family still depends primarily on blood relationships, and voluntary unions. It's being extended from a married-couple-and-two-kids to include gay relationships, adopted children. But it's still a humans-only concept. Should it be opened to include animals?

it would be a warning example to other people that you just can't do whatever you want to animals.
Here we have an example of the judicial process as a means of re-inforcing social norms. Someone breaks the boundaries of what society views as acceptable, society picks them up, makes an example of them, other people are discouraged from doing the same thing.

She crushed to Jake's car, but not badly, damages weren't big. Maybe she should've paid the bill for repairing the car and that's it
I've yet to see anyone argue to the contrary. Mary hit Jake's car, she should pay to restore how it was had she been driving reasonably.

I think that car is not so important that you kill other's dog for that.
Valuing animal life over damage to property. It's an accepted part of the moral calculus in almost all societies.

And that pig was a harmless pet to Mary, and most of her neighbours didn't probably even recognise that the pig existed, So that Sam-person was just an evilevilevilevil person.
Coming off the generalities and hitting specifics again, I don't see how the conclusion follows from the evidence. Yes, Mary found the pig inoffensive. Yet the animal had escaped from her captivity previously, and was not harmless to other residents.

Sam clearly over-reacted - contacting the police on discovering a stray pig would be good, using reasonable force to drive it away if it attacked him would be fine, killing and eating it is not. Yet I don't see how this describes him as evil. Misguided, perhaps, but not evil.

FQA
apr 16

Courtney
Anyone heard the new no doubt CD?
I haven't, but those who have seem to be raving about it. (JK: Shut it. Go promote ASFE.)

Can anyone suggest some good techno to me?
I can offer good ambient techno, but not the hardcore stuff.

Does anyone like Ani DiFranco?
This is the cue for chelle to appear above the parapet.

Should Cameron Diaz and Jared really be dating?
I don't care, really. Diaz seems to have risen through the ranks without any significant show of talent, while Jared always seems to be overshadowed by his female co-stars.

why is the sky blue?
That would be the handiwork of the Blue Sky Mining Corp, which paints the usually light grey backdrop a nice shade of blue. Sadly, they've not yet developed a waterproof paint, which means that it returns to the grey when it rains.

places to live
apr 18

Victoria
We're still not sure where we'll be living. Waterford didn't seem like the place for us.
Bah. Not good.

we stayed in a hostel there next to a cult leader type guy that said he is from another planet and is choosing a few people to go back to the spaceship with him and the bad people will be sent to the police station,
Wait, which is the punishment. The good people are whisked away from their friends, family, and everything that's safe and stable. While the not-so-good are asked to spend a moment with Kling and Klang filling out some forms at the police station. Then, presumably, continue with the rest of their life.

then he said some stuff about the evils of women (all to Brendan, he wouldn't look at me)
[sneering, not unlike spike]
Who's scared of being a man, then?
[/sneer]

and how he started a riot.
All the people who want to be away from him tried to go down the same street at once.

He was from Canada. Craig, do you know him? The One World Leader, if that rings a bell. :)
Doubt Craig would, it sounds like one of those really sensible and in touch Nova Scotians. It must be the stress of living in one of those exact hour time zones showing.

Ireland has a Sirens Goth shop!
There's nothing like a familiar store to make a place feel like home. And Sirens is slightly more acceptable than McDougals.

I'd like to live in Dublin, but it seems too pricy right now. We'll see.
Och, Dublin. At the other end of the Dublin ferry. Obviously.

we've joked about taking off to London.
No, London is even more expensive than Dublin. You could try Scotland, or the Midlands. Or Wales. I was just thinking how we don't have any Welsh listies, and this could make three.

Oh, and Brendan says I drink like a man. Woo-hoo.
Is it that Victoria drinks like a man, or Brendan's frame of reference is such that he drinks like a womin? ITWSBT.

Bronwyn again
yes, i'm getting married. this june. for real iain
Hoo-and-how-totally-rah. If he returns even a smidgeon of the love Bronwyn bestows on everyone, this will be good.

he was the one i was talking about (and constantly emailing) from ShimCity2. we go to school together. we're both in celtic studies and have a bunch of the same interests (music, movies, books etc.)
This is also the guy Bronwyn stood me up for when I was last in her neck of the woods. It's reassuring to know that he's not turned out to be a total [expletive], but as way cool as he sounded.

we have scads of fun together,
This is good.

have lots to talk about,
This is very good.

my family and friends love him to pieces and think that we're perfect together,
This is not at all bad.

and he smells really good.
This would be the clincher. He's a keeper.

so we're getting married in june and then going abroad to grad school together, after a honeymoon for the month of august.
Ah, how sweet. A month on a lush Atlantic island (or one of those wretchedly hot ones off Florida) followed by a move to sunny Wales. Land of the free, home of the brave, and a half-way decent rugby team.

when david is in grad school i'm going to work and when i'm in my masters he's going to work.
My word, Baldrick, this really is a top-notch cunning plan.

this is unless we both get in and go to university of wales at aberystwyth.
I suppose it's the perfect opportunity to hold a listie gathering in Historic Shrewsbury, or Birmingham (Cadbury World!), or somewhere half way from the middle of nowhere.

i don't know yet if that's where i'm going to go. i'll see who else wants me!!!
They would be mad not to. I think you'll find Cardiff isn't too dissimilar to Toronto, while you know Aber is more St John's. Which would, I suppose, make Bangor - as Vancouver - the point at which this analogy breaks down totally.

justice shobi
apr 20

Shobi
In any event, some of you (especially Iain) manage to sound like lawyers anyway (although in his case it should be barrister or something, right?)
Queen's Counsel, dahling (: Shows how good an influence Ted "Slappy" Hoffman was.

very few civil cases, much less criminal cases are tried before a judge. Almost everyone (for very different reasons) insists on exercising their right to a jury trial.
This does raise an eyebrow or two. Under English criminal law, traffic offences are only dealt with by magistrates (lay judges), and the only civil actions dealt with by juries are defamation cases. Jake would probably have gone before a jury on his criminal charges, but all the civil business would be dealt with by judges of some rank. That removes the chance for Mary to play to the crowd.

The pig was contraband & can't be "stolen".
I'll argue this point with my learned friend. English law does not make a distinction between "domestic" and "farm" animals, merely between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" ones. I don't know the precedent, but I doubt a pig would class as dangerous, in the same class as poisonous snakes and lions.

But I digress already. Even if the pig were unlawfully held, it's perfectly legal for Mary to hold a pig carcass. Once the pig was killed, surely the animal ceased to be contraband, and became someone's legal property. Would that be Mary, the keeper of the live pig; or Sam, the butcher?

IMO, it's Sam's intent to permanently deprive Mary of her pig's body, hence that's theft. It's a sneak, it's probably a loophole, but if there's a loophole in the law it must be a badly-written law.

mighty music
apr 20

Mark, let me talk about your all-time favourite singer. Mutterings on the wires from Camp Birtney, where a top exec has said what I pointed out in January, that the UK release "Born to Make You Happy" was far superior to the US promo "From the Bottom of my Broken Heart." Remember where you heard it first (: The annoying voice over in the middle of the newie is producer Max Martin, who (gasp!) speaks. He might be spoken of in the same breath as Phil Spector in thirty years. Or he might not. Who can tell? What I can say is that she's still not tried any grilled cheese. Else we'd know about it.

[rant]
While I'm still playing music controller, a word for British radio stations. I've noticed that you're not playing "Amazed" every ten minutes. Have you suddenly gone deaf or something? The original was one of the best, most obvious crossover tunes of the last year; and the remix that's been promoted to you recently is somehow even better than that. Whenever the group appears on TV, the switchboards are flooded by people wanting to know who and what and when they can buy it. So, calm me down, and just do the following...

Radio: show two fingers to the reticent listener panels, follow your guts, and play the damned tune.

Woolies: this is a single that will race out of your stores if only you would take the gamble to sell it in the first place. Do you want me to start boycotting all your outlets?

In ten years time, "Amazed" will be a classic, mentioned alongside "We've Got Tonight" or the original "American Pie." It would be foolish in the extreme not to make something out of that promise right now. I don't want to point to this post in ten years time and say "I told you so," but I will do.

[/rant]

Randi
Iain, you talked about the song "Amazed" becoming a classic. Blecch!
Aw, don't think she agrees with me. Shame.

It's a shameless rip-off of the music of Bryan Adams's "Please Forgive Me".
Aargh! I was doing my best to forget that wretched track, then someone had to remind me of it. Bry's track reminds me of university discos, masterminded by someone who couldn't string two decent tracks together, and always ending with this slush fest. During which exactly two couples would smooch in each others arms while the rest of us tried our hardest not to barf. And it wasn't the alcohol talking, trust me (:

Honestly, try to hum one without ending up with the other coming out! It's amazing!
[tries it]
Nope, sorry, doesn't really happen for me. In fairness, I am humming along with the mix used on UK radio, which has a lot more steel guitar and a whole different riff from the US radio mix.

I'm telling you, if you haven't already, go get the Bryan Adams cd "So Far So Good", and listen to "Please Forgive Me". (And everything else! *bg*) You'll love it, I'm tellin; ya. *g*
In fairness, the remainder of that CD is good. Even Everything I Do, which I couldn't stand for some years, owing to its sixteen (16) week residence as the UK #1.

hopes everyone won't hate her after this particular popular band/song bashing rant
We may disagree, but I have no hate, just respect for having such faith in your beliefs that you want to shout them out. Good on ya!

real beats mun
apr 22

Henna
Yay's for Real Madrid!!!!!!!!!! Two excellent games against Manchester United!!!! Now we're in semifinals!!!!
I was going to dismiss the game in Spain as dull beyond belief, then I remembered. That was the game in Valencia. That was the game where I fell asleep during the second half. That was the game where Allan Green read from the match programme on the radio commentary to keep himself awake.

Paulo, not celebrating quietly.
YES!!!! WE WON!!!! WE BEAT THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS!!! THE WEALTHIEST TEAM OF THE WORLD
I kinda thought that was one or other of the Italian teams, but I could be wrong.

THE MOST HYPED,
Ah, now that would be Barcelona. Who whumped Arsenal in the first League stage, and came out on top of Chelsea, another London side, this time round. I await the Barca-Real final with a lot of interest.

THE SPICE BOYS' TEAM,
Is that what they're known as? Must file away and use as term of endearment. Erm, abuse.

THE TREBLE WINNERS, AT OUR FEET!!!
Hey, only because the English cup still means something. Unlike France, where fourth-division Calais makes the final.

WE SCORED THREE GOALS IN OLD TRATTFORD!!!!! WE ROCK!!!!
Yes, it was a rather good performance, wasn't it. I look forward to seeing Real three times next month. Beat last years winners? Last time's losers will be no trouble (:

road rages
apr 22

Allan, welcome. Another Brit (:
there's been a major case here in the UK. Kenneth Noye has been convicted of Murder
While this was a case the media jumped on, it was primarily due to:
a) the intense publicity at the time of the murder - this was the first killing attributed to "road rage". The media profile was helped by the photogenic qualities of the deceased's girlfriend - a harsh statement, but it is a fair representation of the UK media.
b) the slight notoriety / celebrity of the accused.
To pre-empt Shobi's question, he was tried under standard murder laws, not under a specific road rage statute.

theres a lot of road rage in the UK caused mainly by crap roads,
I fear this is more of a folk myth than reality. As the police don't collect stats on "road rage" incidents - partly because it's so difficult to define what is road rage - the levels of crime can only be conjecture. Trying to attribute causes for this hypothetical increase is a conjecture too far for me.

That said, it is a fact that transport in general has been woefully underfunded for around 25 years. The roads are over-crowded, but so are the train systems. There needs to be an integrated, coherent, sensible transport strategy in place. After three years of The Party rule, I'm still waiting...

Since Blair toadied up to the Greenies to use them to get in in 1997, he is shit scared of losing their support, and therefore the main road that links Brighton to the Channel Tunnel is little more than a cart track!
I really don't see the causal connection between these two facts, but it's not my home patch. Allan may have local knowledge I don't.

There are some horrific accidents too due to neglected roads.
That said, there are far more horrific accidents following poor driving. Is there pressure to improve the standards of drivers?

married in the morning
apr 22

Shobi
Is there such a thing as getting married too fast?
I wouldn't say so. If it happens, the separation process is going to be pretty darned painful whatever. Getting a legal divorce isn't going to help, but neither is it going to be the main cause of problems.

The embedded question here is: why hurry?
Let me boomerang this question: why attempt to impose any form of timescale on any potential couple? England demands a three working day wait between the issuing of a marriage licence and the ceremony, which isn't applicable in (say) parts of the USA. Is three days an appropriate cooling-off period? Might it be the three weeks required by the Church of England? Six months? No time at all, the pieces will still be just as messy?

do others find it strange that Shannon & I are *not* married, when so many couples who got together after we did have already tied the knot?
No, would be the short answer. Realistically, I see marriage as little more than a public declaration of committment for straight couples, with certain nationality and (in some areas) tax easements. It doesn't change the status of a couple.

Mark
**over half** of all new marriages end in divorce, the majority of which don't even last two years.
25% of marriages are divorced within two years? Care to cite sources? How does this take into account the time between meeting and marriage?

I only wanna get married once,
Darn and blast. I was looking forward to wedding cake every second year for a decade (;

so I'm damn well gonna do everything I can to make sure I only have to do it once.
In all seriousness, this is a perfectly valid point of view. Especially when one remembers that my view of marriage (bit of paper) is significantly different from the common cultural conception (white dresses and black suits and big meal and big cake and excess in everything.) If you're going to throw a big bash, it had better have a great excuse behind it, and 5th marriage tends not to cut the ice too well. Unless you're Elizabeth Taylor, of course.

Bronwyn
"two things can be taken any way you want - statistics and the bible."
It's clearly a sociologist speaking. Properly researched statistics, accurately presented, are clear. It's when people don't do the research, or mislead in the presentation, that confusion arises.

pressures be damned - this feels right.
And if it feels right, it probably is right. Take notes, other newlyweds in the region, as the reverse also applies.

my parents dated for three months before marriage. david's dad popped the question after three weeks. both couple have been married over thirty years.
FWIW, my folks dated four and a half years, and were engaged for three, before marrying. Their 30th comes up next year.

ymmv, baby. i'm not you.
This is good news, though swing it round and I'm so not happy ):

there are no guarantees. marriage is a risk. you have to make a guess essentially, albeit an educated guess for most of us! and i want to take this risk now. YMMV.
I can see merit in both sides. Marriage is a gamble, it's true, and some people like to hedge their bets, be sure of what they're buying into. Others prefer to rely on their instincts and trust their judgement. Each to their own. Oh, and Bronwyn, don't fall off the chair with the next introduction.

So, speaking of marriage, Ali
i'm not sure if this was discussed previously, but what does everyone think of gay marriage?
Like I said earlier, marriage to me is the paper certificate and legal bonuses. It doesn't change the dynamic of the pairing one iota. On that basis, I couldn't care less whether marriage were available to everyone regardless, all straight couples, all couples where one member was over 82. So long as the legal breaks are there, that's all it is.

i know that a prop was recently passed (to my dismay) in cali which basically said 'only heterosexual marriages are recognized in california'.
California. Hmm. The name rings a bell. Ah, yes, wasn't that the name of the hotel that the Eagles sang about one time? Small, insignificant little county somewhere between Vancouver and Tijuana. Who cares what they do there. Small place, small minds. (;

Christy, welcome
The divorce rate makes me think that people look at marriage like a high school fling....you get sick of your husband or wife and just say "screw it, I'll go on to the next one." But it could be many other things, like the emphasis of being married for religious or societal reasons.
Until very recently, the late 60s IIRC, it was very difficult to get a divorce in England. One party had to prove adultery or insanity. Divorces were almost always acrimonious, always expensive, and often carried a lot of social stigma. It's only 63 years since England's King gave up his throne purely because he wanted to marry a divorcee. Now, the heir apparent, himself divorced, wants to marry a divorcee whose ex-husband is still alive. Views on the move seem closely correlated to support for the gentleman himself.

Assuming he succeeds to the throne, Charles will become head of the Church of England. That will, in theory, make him the representative of the Anglican God on Earth. Some argue that it's inappropriate to have their church headed by someone who disregards the conventions on marriage. Others suggest that the conventions themselves are outmoded, and Charles might be encouraged to follow his heart.

eurosong 151
apr 22

Paulo, replying to my Eurosong definition
Bwhahahaha!!!! (Sorry, had to say that).
What's he laughing at, eh? According to the rules (posted on the EBU website) the contest really is to find the best contemporary song. It really is televised anually (don't think that's under dispute) and really did attract more live viewers last year than the Oscars. The last fact, measured strictly by audience appeal, makes it the #1 cultural event on the planet.

Besides, I can post about events at Eurosong on this list the next day and be sure that at least half the Europeans will have caught something of the contest. This may not be much to you United Stations, but Europe is made up of 50 different countries, with 50 national television networks, 50 stations, and 30 languages. It's a major achievement.

I don't know about other countries, but at least in Spain, the Eurovision song contest (as it's also called) is seen as something so completely cheesy, dated and generally "out" (of fashion, not of the closet) that few people actually care about it.
It may be out of fashion to admit it, but the ESC still attracts some of the largest viewing figures. In the UK, last year's contest achieved a figure beaten only by "Coronation Street", "EastEnders", "Walking With Dinosaurs", "Millionaire", and the European Cup Final.

It's also becoming a far more mainstream event in the UK. Winning the contest, and having some massive hits off the back of the contest (Gina G? UK 96.) helped no end.

I remember that, up to the mid-80s, Eurovision used to be quite big here, and there were even cases of people going out to the streets to celebrate the spanish triumph, as if it was a football match.
I didn't know you were around when Spain last won, back in 1968. (:

Eurovision fell slowly from popular favor, and the last time I remember people actually caring about the contest was around 1993-94, when Sergio Dalma participated (then again, that year's song was actually good, and it stood serious chances of winning...).
Unlike last year, when the Spanish entry was all dress and no song. All you need is a couple of decent songs and popularity will follow.

a week away
apr 28

I've been in North Wales, working at an annual gathering of teachers. We've had visits from Theresa May, David Blunkett and television journalists.

I've met exciting people, who introduced me to the character that is Mae Jemison with an infectious enthusiasm. People with a chip on their shoulder the size of Gibraltar, who must have picked up a lack of self-esteem from their pupils. And people whose daily highlight is to spend three hours looking at microbiology reports from Nature, oblivious to the hordes of interesting people who would like some time.

Three things stand out as having a certain relevance to certain contributors. First came the Top Nobs' Gathering. For reasons that were never quite explained, I got an invite to spend an evening with the people presiding over the week's proceedings. As is my wont, I asked for a glass of lemonade, and attempted to add some ice from the container. Only I'm not accustomed to handling ice scoops, and exactly one ice cube made it in. On a second attempt, a falling cube dislodged the slice of lemon poised on the side of my glass and fell into a jug of water. See, I can klutz with the rest of you.

Remember the pigeons in Regent's Park last autumn? They're nothing compared to the seagulls. Those gulls are lethal. If you're ever visiting North Wales, do not attempt to eat your sandwiches on the sea front unless the bread is indistinguishable from concrete. The gulls will swoop down and whip away any sandwiches not tied down with lead weights. A plastic rain mac and hat might also be advisable, even in any fine weather. Not that I'd know much about that, given that it rained pretty much all week.

And finally, those of you who got the Mark Town tape last Christmas will know of the Steinman / Loud-Webby composition "No Matter What." Originally written for Meat Loaf, the song became a massive hit in these parts for Boyzone, back when they were. Their version was nowhere near as good as Mr Loaf's. But right through the week, I couldn't get away from the track. My hotel was visited by a singer who looked a lot like Dana International, though without the obvious sex change. She sang a very poor version before trying - and failing - to turn into Shania Twain. Then the hotel's piped music system clicked in, inflicting a version involving pan pipes. To cap it all, there was an organist one night who kept putting his fingers on the wrong keys. That was by far the worst version of the week. Where's my copy of the decent one?

Ah, no-one can perform Steinman like Loaf.

self-defence
apr 29

Allan
What is the general feeling about the Tony Martin case.
Let us not forget, in the general hullabaloo and hubbub that has been rattling around this week, that a life has been ended. Yes, the burglar was breaking the law. Yet there is no way that it is acceptable for one man to act as judge, jury and executioner. He had, lest we forget, booby-trapped his house in a manner that would likely cause injury or worse to any visitor.

Martin and his villagers had been terrorised by thugs for some time and warned that they would take the law into their own hands if the police did not improve things.
On the one hand, there have been unacceptable reductions in police levels over the past ten years or so. Surely it is now time to think again about the police system, and formalise a national police force to investigate national crimes, and establish truly local forces to police towns and rural areas. There are already private security forces operating in private establishments, and they might like to bid for such police franchises.

It seems British law is now here to protect the criminal and not the victim.
In this case, who was the criminal?

The case of Bob Observe supports this. Bob was stabbed to death by a particularly nasty little thug who, due to a good brief, got off on self defence,
"A good brief," or a jury looking at the facts impartially? Do not underestimate the intelligence of a court jury, for that would be a mistake.

There seems to be a total break down in law & order in the UK.
Stuff and nonsense. Crime is more visible than it was some years ago, but the vast majority of people live the vast majority of their days without being anywhere near a crime. If you want to see a total breakdown of law and order, take a look at the anarchic situation in Zimbabwe.

Dunja gets to the nub of the question
I didn't understand why he is convicted when this boy trasspass and try to rob his property.
The question before the jury wasn't whether the accused pulled the trigger. It was more to do with the level of force - is it reasonable to shoot to kill when confronted by a burglar? What was his motivation?

Back to Allan
Tony has had a really bad press, he is a little excentric, but not the freak the media was portraying him as.
That's a judgement call. I'd be sceptical about anyone who reconstructed their house in such a way as to maim anyone who crossed the threshold. Unrealistic fear, perhaps.

here in England the law is there to protect the criminal, the victim gets a really hard time. For Example: If I was being attacked and pulled a knife on my attackers to defend myself, then I would be the one in trouble.
Again, this hypothetical case comes back to reasonable force. If there were three or four attackers putting a victim under severe physical assault, wielding a knife might well be classed as reasonable. If it's just one attacker, and it would be possible to remove him with a knee to the groin, then pulling a knife would not be reasonable.

The law is not there to protect the criminal, it is there to protect everyone.

together forever
apr 29

Vic
One thing that has always annoyed me is some people's hunger for blame. I think blame and resentment are wastes of energy that only hurt people, not help.
Indeed, blame will get people nowhere fast. (Other correspondents, please note.)

Since they can't talk to me like they used to, they act like it's easier to cut me out completely. I can't even descibe what this is doing to me.
Oh, Vic. [huge hugs all round]

they don't want us to talk to her very much since she's finally stopped asking about us so much.
Maybe, just maybe, this is her way of coping with the situation. Withdraw into her shell, consider things, then come back with a clear head. The waiting is terrible, though.

I think, hope, that once we're on our own it will be better. Because Brendan and I are getting...I can't think of a word for it. Closer than I ever thought possible.
Getting to be a corporate item. Vic'n'Brendan, superheroes of the green island. Faster than a speeding snail. Able to leap tall daisies at a single bound. Fastened together more tightly than a nut to the ground after an elephant's stood on it.

I've been so emotionally screwed up and distrustful that I've been waiting for all of you to turn on me.
I hope that you'll be waiting a very long time for that.

any decision I make about the religion now would be out of anger and bitterness and I don't want that.
This is correct. Decide in anger, rue with a clear head.

Mrs M is telling everyone else that I'm just Brendan's girlfriend, not his wife. Which makes me afraid of saying anything that would uncover her lie.
Oh dear. This sounds awfully familiar. She might be in denial about this, but she does need to come round to the reality. Point the fact out to her, it's the only way.

his oldest brother asking if it gave me 'the longing'. Ugh. But hey, they seem to appreciate my sarcastic reply.
Ah, ah, do share. You kinda have to, now.

I've found that singing to the cows across the road is very relaxing. And it's definitely worth the smile on Brendan's face.:)
The word "Moo" springs to mind. As does the word "moo." And "moo."

Since November my typing has greatly improved.
Really? Whatever might have caused that to happen? I think we should be told.

and justice for some
apr 30

Shobi's scene setting
Several cases before you come out of the same judge's courtroom, Judge Judy (JJ)
Hey, unfair on the honourable Justice of Vienna! If the court doesn't mind (and the court doesn't mind) I'll review the rulings of Judge Jules. They need some reviewing (: All summaries have been hacked with my scissors and are not Shobi's originals.

Case 1: Ms C Phillips. The background:
five children found abandoned in disgusting squalor .. Social services took them away .. petition to have them back.. kids would stay in temporary custody.

The appeal:
conditions are overburdensome and in the case of requirement (4) violate Chynna's right to privacy & to control her own body. Asks that all requirements except #2 be struck.

Those conditions in full:
(1) show that the disgusting apartment is now liveable to a certain standard;
What is "a certain standard"? If I uphold the principle, it goes back to Jules to spell out the required standard.

Now, it may be icky to imagine living in a messy place, but would it be damaging to the children's welfare? I think it would, based on potential damage to health; but I'd defer to the opinion of health professionals.

Seek expert opinion from the health service as to the minimum standard that would not damage the children's health. Should that standard be higher than the flat was at when Social intervened, Jules is recommended to set this as condition.

(2) file official guardianship applications for the children that are not hers & have been effectively abandoned by her sister;
This is not being contested.

(3) show with pay stubs or with social services papers that she can afford to care for all five children either with a salary or with help from the government or both;
It is not unreasonable to expect the state (national or regional) to give assistance to rear her own children. Equally, it is not unreasonable to expect Chynna to be self-sufficient if she chooses to add other people's children to her flock.

Therefore: if condition (1) is met, Chynna's own children to be returned. I view the other children as adoptees, albeit on a temporary basis, and uphold the financial requirement for those children.

(4) that she get a norplant contraceptive implant to ensure she would not herself have any more children within the next 5 years.
While this would be a sensible step, and one I might suggest, I cannot impose it as it would be a gross invasion of privacy.

Should Chynna have further children of her own, this would force a review of the financial situation under condition 3, owing to a material change of circumstances.

Next case. Sister Wendy?
Wendy has four children and her only source of income has been state public aid. (food stamps, low income housing, welfare checks.)

Sidebar to consider a locale issue
This is NOT federal public aid, but state versions of the same programs
Local variations on a national rule. It's something that is technically possible under Scottish devolution, owing to the tax-varying powers vested in the Scottish parliament, but it'll never be tried. The going rate in Scotland would be lower than the rest of the UK, and no politician is going to cut benefits and lose votes. They're not (quite) that daft.

Wendy could not get any further benefits because she had a 4th kid.

And we're here because...
the failure to have any increase at all invades the right to family planning & is discriminatory to the poor based on an Equal Protection argument.
The state argues that there is no right to food stamps, housing, or welfare checks & the state can decide how to administer them.

The rules have not changed. Wendy knew the rules, decided to chance her arm, got it burned, and now comes to court looking for a loophole. I'd be happy to review the case looking for gross errors in the handling, but I assume Jules would have found them.

In the wider sense, this is one of the perils of not having clearly devolved government. Is it national, regional, or city money that should foot the bill? The current system is a hybrid, and they do tend to cause a lot of problems. However, given the unsatisfactory nature of the problem, and assuming good intent by all concerned, the appeal is denied. It is not for the judiciary to attempt to impose its will on the legislature. Judges can't make primary legislation.

And finally, Ms Wilson.
health insurance plan offers full coverage for pregnancy and childbirth, but will not pay for birth control or abortions. It will pay for Viagra.
Carnie calls this a form of gender discrimination. Jules ruled that the HMO policy does violate equal treatment & states that the only ways that the HMO can cure the problem is to cut out Viagra or institute coverage for birth control. Both the HMO & Carnie appeal.
Again, a sidebar to note a locale issue. Though it may not look very helpful, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UK Sex Discrimination Act have combined to make a case like this very unlikely. The health insurer would have been advised to settle at the earliest possible moment, probably by funding birth control. The only possible exception would be if it was clearly stated on application that this was not to be covered, say if it was private health care offered by a Catholic organisation.

Furthermore, a blanket refusal to cover the contraceptive pill leaves the company open to negligence lawsuits. There are conditions for which this drug is the recommended treatment, and failure to fund those leaves a huge gap for trouble. I can hear the lawyers counting their money from here...

Returning to the US...
the government should not get involved in what types of medical services &/or treatment are covered unless the government wants to administer social insurance of some sort.
A neat argument, but the government is involved in such matters by the operation of sex discrimination laws. If one part applies, the whole of the law applies.

Carnie argues that Jules' ruling gives the HMO an easy out by allowing them to just stop covering Viagra.
That far I can agree. Viagra is a red herring in this case; the issues have not changed since before the drug's availability.

Carnie argues that it is (or should be) the public policy to discourage excessive procreation & that the government should force all insurance companies to cover birth control because it is in society's interest to keep birth rates down.
Again, a neat argument, and one I have sympathy with. Insofar as failure to provide birth control discriminates on gender grounds, the government has already legislated on this issue. But I return to remarks in the previous case. Public policy is a matter for the legislative and executive branches of government, not the judiciary. If the legislature decides that it did not intend this interpretation of its law, it can amend it to reverse this judgement. Similarly, it is not the place for a court to pro-actively impose its will on the other branches of government.