Woman to Woman

By lozen

March 4, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Whatever! Ho hum.

By Randy

March 4, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Who cares!

By Randy

March 4, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

I do want to warn people on this forum, there is a madman who posts here, his name is Norman. He’s nuts. If you believe anything he says, I know some people who will sell you some beach front property in Arizona and the Brooklyn Bridge. He is a good study in someone who may be sane or may be insane, it’s a toss-up. Please beware.

By Zack

March 4, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Hisses. Here’s a woman who committed a major crime and got off easily because she’s in the public eye. Regrettably, I expect the same to happen to Michael Jackson.

What a legal system. Posting the Ten Commandments draws a media frenzy, even though they should be in every courtroom in America (the world, actually), and someone like Stewart commits a major crime and goes to a prison that’s every bit as bad as a luxury hotel.

If we recognized the Ten Commandments, we’d have our priorities in better order and wouldn’t have these types of atrocities occurring. Period.

Have a good weekend.

By Bruce

March 4, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

I’m sure we will find a way to scream and cuss and call each other names with this subject too. Lozen I agree with you Ho hum.

By Lyrazel

March 4, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

So when is it Ken Lay’s time to enter prison or do friends of the Bush family get better lawyers? Seems to me if you get caught you do time…never lie to the Feds, a grand jury or your mother…

By RS

March 4, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, it’s just another media circus. To be honest, I’m more upset about murderes getting off because they happen to be under 18. Great message; if you don’t like someone or disagree with what they say, don’t care for the way they dress, etc & you’re 17, this is your final year to kill & get away with it. These aren’t CHILDREN, they’re soulless monsters

By Bruce

March 4, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Does Ken Lay have the same lawyers as Bill Clinton?

By AllaboutME

March 4, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

…martha is god…I worship the toast she spreads me on…wonder if we will have a show about beading pretty ankle bracelet cozies…or stir muffins…700 ways to serve mac and cheese on a steamtable…what to do with canned peas…my hero….my martha…my god…

By Darla Sue

March 4, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I here all these comments on the different religions, Buddist, Hindu etc. There are 5 Christian radio stations here in Atlanta alone(That I know of). Are there any radio stations in Atlanta, of other religions. This is following up on last weeks format.

By Randy

March 4, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

I want to congradulate the Christians on this forum, your arguments on the 10 commandments were spectacular. Again you have won the debate hands down. Liberals, give it up, you have no case, really your arguments are pitiful(no offense).

By Randy

March 7, 2005 07:38 AM | Link to this

This is a praise for all the Christians, look at article in AJC this morning. Ex-Korn Guitarist Baptized in Jordan River. Brian “”Head” Welch said the baptism washed away his anger and now he wants to hug people. Another person who has found the truth and peace.

By Tony

March 7, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

AKA Texas Lozen

Last weeks forum got pretty intensive, but that does not excuse me for my behavior. Lozen, Last week I called you a hypocrite. I am extremely sorry and remorseful. I hope you except my apologies. Please forgive me.

A 91-year-old woman died after living a very long dignified life. When she met God, she asked Him something that had really bothered her for a very long time. “If Man was created in God’s image, and if all men are created equal, why do people treat each other so badly?”

God replied that each person who enters our life has a unique lesson to teach us. It is only through these lessons that we learn about life, people and our relationships with God. This confused the woman, so God began to explain:

“When someone lies to you, it teaches you that things are not always what they seem. The truth is often far beneath the surface. Look beyond the masks people wear if you want to know what is in their hearts. Remove your own masks to let people know who you really are.

When someone steals from you it teaches you that nothing is forever. Always appreciate what you have. You never know when you might lose it. Never take your friends or family for granted, because today and sometimes only this very moment is the only guarantee you may have.

When someone inflicts injury upon you, it teaches you that the human state is a very fragile one. Protect and take care of your body as best as you can, it’s the one thing that you are sure to have forever.

When someone mocks you, it teaches you that no two people are alike. When you encounter people who are different from you, do not judge them by how they look or act, instead base it on the contents of what is in their hearts.

When someone breaks your heart, it teaches you that loving someone does not always mean that the person will love you back. But don’t turn your back on love, because when you find the right person, the joy that one person brings you will make up for all of your past hurts. Times a thousand fold.

When someone holds a grudge against you, it teaches you that everyone makes mistakes. When you are wronged, the most virtuous thing you can do is forgive the offender without pretense. Forgiving those who have hurt us is often the most difficult and painful of life’s experiences, but it is also the most courageous thing a person can do.

When a loved one is unfaithful to you, it teaches you that resisting temptation is Man’s greatest challenge. Be vigilant in your resistance against all temptations. By doing so, you will be rewarded with an enduring sense of satisfaction far greater than the temporary pleasure by which you were tempted.

When someone cheats you, it teaches you that greed is the root of all evil. Aspire to make your dreams come true, no matter how lofty they may be. Do not feel guilty about your success, but never let an obsession with achieving your goals lead you to engage in malevolent activities.

When someone ridicules you, it teaches you that nobody is perfect. Accept people for their merits and be tolerant of their flaws. Do not ever reject someone for imperfections over which they have no control.”

Upon hearing the Lord’s wisdom, the old woman became concerned that there are no lessons to be learned from man’s good deeds. God replied that Man’s capacity to love is the greatest gift He has. At the root of kindness and love, and each act of love also teaches us a lesson. The woman’s curiosity deepened. God, once again began to explain:

“When someone loves us, it teaches us love, kindness, charity, honesty, humility, forgiveness, acceptance, and all of these can counteract all the evil in the world. For every good deed, there is one evil deed. Man alone has the power to control the balance between good and evil, but because the lessons of love are not taught often enough, the power is too often abused.

When you enter someone’s life, whether by plan, chance or coincidence, consider what your lesson will be. Will you teach love or a harsh lesson of reality? When you die, will your life have resulted in more loving or more hurting? More comfort or more pain? More joy or more sadness? Each one of us has the power over the balance of the love in the world. Use it wisely!”

Don’t miss an opportunity to nudge the world’s scale in the right direction!

Pass this lesson of love on to those you love and those you have hurt, and those that have hurt you, hopefully with each person that receives this, there will be far less evil and a great deal more love!

Lozen, last Friday I tipped the scales of kindness in the wrong direction, today I hope to tip them back and I wish you peace.

By Jack

March 7, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Martha should never have gone to prison. There are several CEOs that should have went instead of her.

By Jack

March 7, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Randy- Just read where you trashed Norm. Shame on you. Are you envious of him? I don’t agree with him on most points but he is higher up the food chain than thee.

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Why do you feel Martha should not have gone to prison?

By Jack

March 7, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

If my financial advisor told me to sell or I would lose a lot of money, I would have sold to. AND if she had not been a media darling, she could have paid the right people off and escaped jail.

By E. Lewis

March 7, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

It’s not the criminal element that is being praised so much as the $$$$$$$$$$$$. Money is equated with success and therefore worth of admiration. Being an ex-con has nothing to do with it.

By Lyrazel

March 7, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Randy, you dont have much experience with stars and their publicity machines do you? Yes, somebody was baptized and camera crews were on the set, and didnt he look very PreRaphaelite Jesus-like? My guess, like Bob Dylan baptized in Pat Boone swimming pool this show of faith, is another show…or else WHY publicity…like Martha Stewart eating humble pie with her cell mates…yes, how to be absolutely fabulous and mingle with the common man…and convince them how they are just like you…its PR. Best not forget that Marthas PR people have been stirring the boiling pot of public sentiments… there is MONEY INVOLVED…My wonder about Martha is: did she get $25.00 and a one way bus ticket out of NC like common folk?

By Terry

March 7, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Hisses!Hisses! Martha Stewart is smart but coniving person. How many people can say that they are richer, financially and recognition-wise, while serving a prison term? Martha went to prison for lying to the feds, who were investigating her for essentially putting the financial screws to others. To make matters worse, the media has decided that the public needs to have a daily, no hourly, dose of Martha Stewart. I noticed that the Gallup poll hasn’t surveyed the public as to how much we want to hear about her. Please ask me!

By chuck

March 7, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

who cares?

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Wasn’t there some lying to a Grand Jury involved? Was she completely without blame? I do not know all the facts about this case simply because as Randy put it “Who cares”. I would go along with, There are several CEOs that should have went “with” of her.

Last week we discussed, amoung other thinks, Judges and how they handle cases brought before them. If money can buy your way out of trouble then would it be safe to say the Judicial Branch of our goverment is broken and needs to be fixed? Do all judges who oversee high profile, (BIG MONEY) cases except kick backs for looking the other way or lighter sentences?

By Tim

March 7, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if Martha did lie or didn’t lie… what I do know is that she was found guilty and she did serve her time… her punishment is over (well now she is on house arrest)… she is now getting back to work and moving on with her life… why are people faulting her for getting back to work and trying to make money? I say good for her for serving her time and now moving on with her life… kisses Martha kisses :)

By Tim

March 7, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Let me also just say that if she did do what she was convicted of doing then she obviously gets HISSES for that… she gets kisses for serving her time and now moving on

By Jack

March 7, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Bruce, In the US, he who has money wins. OJ walked and so will Michael J. If Scott Petterson had had more $ he would have walked too.

By Melisa

March 7, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Kisses…Yes, she lied. Prior to any indictments, prior to the “full swing” of thing, and upon review of pre-trial information, she was found out. She got an appropriate sentance. They weren’t after her for purgery, they were after her for some statements PRIOR TO TRIAL that were found to be misleading.

If everyone that went to jail, are released, are not able to “move on” with their lives…what’s the point in releasing them to reintroduce them to “society”?

By JohnR

March 7, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

A couple of things:

Prison is prison regardless of the conditions. it is true that some are worse than others, but incarceration is the point, and everbody gets their back broken just by being there. That might not suit your judeo-christian ethic about just punishment, but then again I’m sure most of you thought that The Passion of the Christ was perfectly suitable entertainment for children, because obviously the guilty must suffer as your God did.

The fact that minors can’t be executed does not mean that they are getting away with anything, as they will probably spend the rest of their lives in prison. It is beyond me to understand how proponents of Capital punishment cannot see that that being in prison until you die is a far worse punishment.

As to Martha Stewart and Today’s Topic: I concur. Who cares? Good for her. She did the time. We have a President that was a drunk, cocaine sniffing Dope smokin’ moron who gets rehabilitated by sweet Jesus. If you believe that, surely you can get off Martha’s case.

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Yeah I guess you are right. I mean look at Bill Clilnton. He got on National TV and admitted he lied to a Grand Jury. I don’t think they even filed charges on him for that.

This is really a borig subject. I know let’s change the subject matter to something else. Any ideas?

By Jack

March 7, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I do not wish my tax money to be spent keeping someone behind bars for the rest of their life when they have ended someone elses life. It should be “Eye for an Eye”

By Sandy

March 7, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Would Martha’s case have been pursued without her notariety? Would a fine have sufficed? Did she or could she get a fair trial? In my opinion, No. Yes. No. I think she was rather plucky about the whole thing, served her time and didn’t provide any histrionics. She lied probably as a knee jerk reaction, which does not show intention to commit a crime. On the other hand, let’s look at Scrushy with the HealthSouth scandal, who becomes born again and starts his own radio show for support…. Or those other financial giants who stuck it to not only to their stockholders, but to the entire economy. Martha was stoic.

If were going to indict something, we should be indicting our Machieviellian system that worships money, power, and celebrity in the place of truth, fairness, and integrity.

By ed

March 7, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

as far as I can tell you agree for the most part on Martha. I for one think the Government was overzealous in prosecueting her. A simple fine would have done along with restitution for the purchasers of the inappropriately traded stock. If that had been the case public opinion would not be so warm to her now, which would have been much worse punishment for her.

By majic212

March 7, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

First, do not label me. that is what gets us worked up over nothing. Second, let’s hope Martha gives a helping hand to some of those inmates once they leave prison - a job maybe? Third, Martha is privileged to be able to return to a mullion dollar plus career. If Diane ‘s observations were truly on pont, many rehabbed people leaving jail would have the benefit of a job,”normal life”. Unfortunately, those who serve time are stigmatized for life. Celebraties or those that are wealthy are able to continue on without the burden of facing homelessness, losing their children and never regaining thier dignity. Believe it or not, there are some who are oncarcerated and are innocent. They should not be penalized, but they are. For the guilty - at what point does society allow them to return as productive citizens.

By kimberly

March 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Selective prosecution. It’s not just about how much money you have. MOST prosecution is selective. Be careful whom you annoy. Yes, [most of] Bush’s Enron buddies are still walking around free, and their profits far exceeded Martha’s $45K stock deal, about which she was convicted of lying. Who’s your buddy? Who’s your pal?

By Amanda

March 7, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Oh for Heaven Sakes!! Shaunti - get a grip. Steals spices and smuggles them in her bra (gasp)! Was mad that she got caught in her stock wheelin’ and dealin’in the first place (the nerve of the woman)! LYING TO THE GOVERNMENT (can you say - tax time)!!! Martha doesn’t even warrant a hiss or a kiss from me - easily excited quasi-journalist do! A hiss for Shaunti - a kiss for Diane. Now - Shaunti - go back to your kitchen and whip us all up some nice fluffy, conservatively made biscuits - and for pete’s sake - stay in the kitchen WHERE YOU BELONG! When you can write a decent, non-partisan, journalistic column - we’ll let you back out.

By Randy

March 7, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Jack, No one is lower on the food chain than Norman, I’m just giving him some of his own medicine. He wants to attack Christians, he will get it right back. I’m into the eye for an eye scenerio.

By Randy

March 7, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Actually Lyrazel, becoming a Christian has nothing to do with your evaluation(publicity). He quit his band, gave up a hedonistic lifestyle, gave up millions of dollars(associated with the band) to get a little publicity. You don’t recognize a true conversion.

By Michael D

March 7, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Martha deserves more than hisses…A Firm Spanking would do her some good.

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Come on Amanda, tell us how you really feel.

Oh and by the way…. I don’t think it is supposed to be non-partisan.

By Lyrazel

March 7, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Ok, maybe I am a cynic, Randy. No I dont believe and wont believe. PR doesnt help me accept made-for-tv conversions. Pity someone with religious convictions as strong as yours can be so fooled by a press release.

By lozen

March 7, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Are we or are we not our brother’s/sister’s keeper? The program that feeds pregnant women, babies and young children in need will be cut by $658 million over the next four years. That’s assistance for 660,000 women and children. Families who need low income housing assistance won’t get it. By 2010, 370,000 fewer families would receive rental vouchers than this year. Elementary schools (No Child Left Behind) will receive $12 billion less than was promised. Special education programs would lose nearly $7.6 billion in the next four years. Our country’s budget is a moral document. It shows what we care about and what we value enough to spend our money on. This budget is by no means compassionate. And with the huge deficit engendered by runaway Pentagon spending, it’s not conservative, either. Right now the congressional budget committees are debating the budget. Call your senators!

By Jack

March 7, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

We all know that the politicians that spend our money do not live in the real world. Hell, they don’t even pay into Soc.Sec.. All they care about is re-election and our tax money can buy a lot of votes.

By lozen

March 7, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Here’s a website for anyone who wants to see where OUR money goes.

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=jvLUJdP8H&b=315914&msource=ustack

By RWH

March 7, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Very often the public is invited to comment or voice their opinion about certain things; be it people or other subject matter. I have read all of the comments posted on Martha’s “kisses or hisses”. People will say what they think, that’s good because we learn from what others say! Martha is nothing but a human being like everyone within this world. She has to live, die, be acused, lied to, lied on, suffer, get sick like the normal world does. Because we know that one day the bottom will fall from us all, we don’t ponder on those facts. So Martha has paid her just debts; release and she will move on! What we all need to do is….let her set her course to do whatever will make her happy. Finally, we all need to live everyday to the fullest extent beacuse we never know what tomorrow will bring! Out of all of the comments made, I will forward kisses to Martha beacuse she needs to feel wanted and we need to be happy for her. She is someone daughter, mother and grandmother. Money has no eyes, when we are gone, someone will spend it for us; Martha has a right to spend her money while she is here with us!

By Jack

March 7, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

RWH you are too nice for this blog. (just kidding!)

By Lyrazel

March 7, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Lozen, as much as I do love social programs for the betterment of humanity I have long since given up on Georgia and its folksy legislators elected. They had one agenda to win and used anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage legislation to get elected. When the majority of Georgians voted republican, they turned a dull blank eye at all PeachCare cuts all impending social services cuts. By the election results 74% of Georgians dont give a damn these programs being cut by wanted tax cuts over social services…good luck with your rally…it falls on deaf ears…

PS the budget GWB has given congress does not even address military spending. So isnt it just a joke budget anyway?

By Zack

March 7, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

I certainly agree with “RS” that it’s a tragedy that those under 18 can get by with things that they wouldn’t be able to if they were 18 or older. I’ll take it a step farther and say that there shouldn’t be any such thing as a juvenile home, as juveniles should be treated as adults.

As children should be treated as adults, so should the wealthy be treated as the average-income individual. Obviously, Joe Taxpayer couldn’t have gotten off this easily, so why should Martha Stewart.

People say I mention abortion a lot on here. It’s because I believe in regaining the freedom that has been removed from this once-free country. We’re not seeing freedom when certain people aren’t allowed to be born, and we’re not seeing freedom when double standards abound in our legal system. A true, free country means that equality has its fingerprints in opportunity AND punishment.

By RS

March 7, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Goodness gracious! I JUST HAD THE SHOCK OF MY LIFE!! Why, I almost swallowed my tongue! Zack actually AGREED with me on something! And yes, he IS right that there should be no juvie homes, at least ones that are not run like a prison

By Zack

March 7, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I’d like to know what Martha Stewart has done to even warrant the question of her deserving kisses. Really, what has she done here? She’s a conniving criminal who didn’t pay back to society that which she owed, and we’re supposed to commend her?

By Jack

March 7, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Now Zack, I imagine that Martha’s company pays many people each month to do a job. She may not deserve kisses but she has contributed to society.

By lozen

March 7, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately Jack you believed an Urban Myth according to Scopes. • It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. Since 1984 they have paid into the fund just as most everyone else does. (A few odd exceptions to the Social Security program still exist, both inside and outside of government, but not for members of Congress.) • It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983. • It is not true that Congressmen “continue to draw their same pay, until they die.” The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also factors such as when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension options they chose when they enrolled in the retirement system) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement. • It is not true that Congressmen “paid nothing in on any kind of retirement,” and that their pension money “comes right out of the General Fund.” Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes. As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Those figures are quite good (about 2-3 times better than the pension collected by the average worker), but not quite the highway robbery these e-mails make them out to be.

By Jack

March 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Lozen set me straight. Sorry folks. I still think that if they were dependant on soc.sec. the politicians would do something about it. Don’t tell me I was wrong about Martha.

By lozen

March 7, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Obviously everybody is really interested in talking about Martha Stewart!

By lozen

March 7, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Surely somebody has some good Martha jokes?

By Jack

March 7, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

I know I’ve heard some but I can’t think of any.

By Whiley

March 7, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Hey Zack !….what about the freedom from forced pregnancies? Will we be seeing your new forced pregnancy prisons soon?

I think it’s a joke Martha was given such a harsh sentence. Problem is, she’s a woman. A successful one. Society today still has a problem with that it appears. Funny how men can get away with rape & murder, & still be able to hold office. Funny how men can have multiple extramarital affairs & get very little public grief over it. Funny how high power men can rape & never get in trouble for it.

Martha gets a stock tip & sells, then gets caught up in the craziness, & suddenly she is picked apart & publicly attacked. Then sent to JAIL??!! Martha is a b!@#, Martha is a hag ! Martha, Martha, Martha. Shame on you. Martha hasn’t traded in spouses like most all successful business men do, Martha hasn’t had multiple kids with different people like most successful business men do. Shall I go on with the double standards? Don’t tell me this country isn’t sexist. That’s what this discussion should be about.

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

What do you have to say about the CEO of Boeing on his “alleged” affair? I guess you missed that one.

By Whiley

March 7, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

I did Bruce. Why this guy? What makes him any different than the millions of other high power/paid men out there that do it?

By Jack

March 7, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Wow Whiley! Sounds like you’re ready to take on Zack AND Norman.

By Bruce

March 7, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

In this day and time do you really want us to believe that it is only the big powerful men that are acting in this manner? Women do it too. The only reason we hear about the men doing it is that there happens to be more men in these type positions than women. Martha got what she deserved, she has served her time and moved on, we should too.

By J. Morris

March 7, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I’m going to disagree with you somewhat on this.

While I do agree that jail time was probably not the appropriate solution to this case - I think that her expertise and ability could have been put to good use and NOT at taxpayer expense - I disagree that Martha didn’t really do anything wrong.

Insider trading is a serious violation of SEC regulations. Martha, as a sitting member of the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange as well as a former trader herself, knew that you can’t legitimately act on insider information.

That said, I think that if it hadn’t been for the fact that the country was still outraged - rightfully so - over the conduct of the Worldcoms and Enrons and the HealthSouths, she never would have come under such fire. She was a convenient target for the outrage, both as a celebrity and a businessperson.

By lozen

March 7, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, Whiley we do indeed live in a sexist society with a double standard. People seem to dislike her just because she’s a successful woman. Someone made the remark a week or so ago that teens in the 50s/60s practiced “self control” instead of worrying about “birth control”. I laughed until I cried. It was just the girls who practiced self control! I spent all my teen years fighting off boys and trying to figure out how to say “no” without damaging his fragile little ego. Boys have always, always been taught to get all the sex they can. Girls have always been the ones expected to keep the boys and themselves from having sex. At least that’s the way it was until the sexual revolution and sexual freedom (?) for females in the 60’s. I bet it’s still that way for most teens now.

By Randy

March 8, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Iozen, You are exactly right about the sexist society, it should be equally the responsibility of both sexes to either partake responsibility or restrain. On Martha Stewart, personally I feel I would have done the same thing she did, having the same information she had, it’s human nature and I’m not a perfect Christian. I think there are much more serious crimes that go unpunished.

By Lyrazel

March 8, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Guess I have to disagree about sexism being a factor. Was she taken down unfairly by Feds for being a woman? No. FAME was the real bone in the trachia…she believed her own propaganda…believed her own power and wealth could shield her. (Her fame was constantly tested to be tarnished like her ex who made money off her fame by cutting her down…which proves only she does not have good judgement about relationships/or like Leona Helmsley…remember her?…Martha had disgruntled employees.) You cant lie to the Feds without concequences. That was her demise. Lying to the Feds.

By Archie

March 8, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Martha Stewart may not deserve hisses but definitely not kisses as she was convicted of lying about an amount of money that would be $20 to someone of her wealth. I have to agree with Shanti on this one. I mean we should not support the media circus surrounding Stewart. Dianne basically tries to change the argument but the straight answer to the question is no Stewart does not deserve kisses as she is a convicted felon. I wish Ms Stewart well but she has alot more than some who serve their time so I won’t be turning on the tv to see what she does next.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

The topic for this week leaves much to be desired. Ho Hum…

By Tony

March 8, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

(AKA Texas)

Crime is crime. When one is caught committing a crime they will have to defend themselves and their actions. Martha is extremely rich. She obtained the best lawyers in the world, however, based on the evidence, she was found without a doubt guilty of her crime.

People whom we may perceive guilty of similar or even harsher crimes, however a court of law says otherwise is innocent. Or no evidence can be obtained to convict a person we believe is guilty of committing a crime. We can shout from the roof tops of the injustices, but to declare some kind of exoneration because someone else got away with something and you didn’t is well just plan childish.

The problem arises within the punishment phase. Crimes have varying degrees of punishment. In Martha’s case, She could have been placed on probation and fined. But I believe as stated in earlier posts, the atmosphere during her conviction was hostile towards her particular crime, add the fact she showed little remorse and she got the maximum penalty for her crime. (I don’t believe Martha deserved it)

Profit from a crime? In murder cases the person found guilty of murder can not profit from their crime. Any money made from books or movies most go the victims and or their families. (Not sure what the law is on victimless crimes). I think if a person is guilty of robbery, and has the goods, they will return said goods to the rightful owner after the trial. As far as Martha profiting from her crime, I don’t believe she is. Martha is profiting from her name and prior accomplishments and a media filled with hypocrisy. Regardless, in my opinion Martha deserves Hisses because Greed over ruled an otherwise accomplished woman.

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

It’s so sad to see the media do their best to paint Martha as a snobby B!@#!.

Because she is a tough business woman? Because she isn’t smily-faced & sweet looking all the time?
Does anyone require Donald Trump to look kind & humble?? HARDLY !

Martha she believed her own propaganda?? Really. How do you know that for a fact?

“her ex who made money off her fame by cutting her down…which proves only she does not have good judgment about relationships” So it’s her fault her husband turned out to be a rat? Who has ever had the power to see the future behavior of a spouse?

I wonder how many out there that are tearing Martha apart for what she did have nothing bad to say about, for example, Kobe Bryant?? I repeat, this is mostly about sexism. If it wasn’t, the press would be tearing men like Donald Trump apart for being an a!@# & trading in wives. All getting younger & younger. Before you know it he’ll be marrying a toddler.

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

I never in the world thought that I would agree with Texas on anything, but I am in full agreement here.

By Michael D

March 8, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Here is a Martha Joke…

What do ya call Martha Stewart in jail? A Jailbird…Get it…LMAO!!!!

By RS

March 8, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Total media circus & a waste of time/money. Tell me, would we devote all that attention to John Q. Tax-Evader had he done the same thing??? Noooo! Yes, it IS a “fame/celeb” issue. By the way, folks, read the “Gay parents Set A Loving Example Children” here in today’s AJC; very empowering. Lozen & Randy, I QUITE agree that ALL teens, female AND male, should take equal responsibility re birth control & even better, abstinence (although THAT’s not likely to happen in the majority of scenarios)

By Tony

March 8, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Thank you Mr. J Morris. On a different subject. I’ve been extremely confused on Homosexuality in the Bible. I’ve found that in the Bible, Jesus makes a comment concerning Eunuchs. Jesus in the context of divorce said “eunuchs are born that way.” I believe this is indeed a passage stating that Homosexuals are born that way. What say you folks?

By Bruce

March 8, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

How can it be all the man’s fault? If these younger women were not making themselves available most men, at least the men I know, wouldn’t pursue them. I the area I live in there are just as many, if not more, women cheating and leaving their husbands as men. Bottom line is it takes two to tango.

I never thought I would be saying this but I agree with J Morris in agreeing with Texas.

By Tim

March 8, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

RS… I read that article earlier… I thought it was very powerful… I emailed it to everyone I knew with the subject like “Who would know better than this young woman?!”

By lozen

March 8, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

When did Whiley say something (what?) is all the man’s fault? I must have missed that.

By RS

March 8, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I agree! In fact, statistics show that 60% of today’s married women are cheating on their husbands (just for the record, I’m in the faithful 40%!). Hey, Tim, YOU’RE certainly on the ball as I knew you’d be!

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

I never said it was all mens fault. What I am saying is men are allowed to basically do anything & the public will still accept them. You will NEVER see men attacked by the press & public about how rude they appear to be. How much weight they’ve gained, how much money they spend. How many affairs they have (as long as the women are beautiful it’s ok) etc.

As far as the problem of old men dating/marrying young women, the men are guilty of bad behavior & have been getting away with it socially for too long. The much older man/married man must be the responsible one to say, “I am much too old for you but thank you, you need to date someone closer to your own age.” OR “I cannot do this, I am married. Happily or not I cannot do this”.

Society as a whole has a clear double standard in the treatment of women & men. Women are forced to a MUCH higher standard. Especially with their “attitude”, looks, & weight. Martha should only have been fined.

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t talking about general cheating & who’s doing it. I think that’s one of the few things men & women are complete equal on ! lol

By lozen

March 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you seem to be saying the same thing we’ve always heard, “If you women didn’t lead us on, we would be good guys! If you women didn’t dress like that, we would be good guys! If you women have good morals then we men will be good guys! But don’t ever expect us to resist any temptation and don’t expect us to turn down any opportunity because we are ruled by something other than our brains…” You know what I’m talking about! Boys need to be taught to ‘just say no’ as much as girls and somehow that unspoken message of (wink, wink, nudge with the elbow, “get as much as you can, son”) needs to be wiped out.

By Dave

March 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

I may make some folks mad, but I do not think it is good for children to be raised by gay parents. If they come out after the children are made, they should live withthe straight parent. gays should also not be permitted to adopt. My reasoning is simple, children imitate their parents. Whatever their parents do, right or wrong, the kids will imitate it and think it is right. I am tolerant with the gay community but a child needs a mom & a dad.

By lozen

March 8, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Well, Dave. I’m sure since you think children shouldn’t be raised by gay parents, all the great parents I know who are gay are just going to take those kids right back to Russia, India, China, and foster homes here in the U.S. (to join the 600,000 already there. Those kids would have to be better off joining the thousands of unwanted and unloved kids we have already!

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

lol Dave you posted on the wrong message board !

lol !

OK back to Martha. Why is she on house arrest & have to wear that ankle thing? Clearly Kobe is the danger to society & needs his were-a-bouts tracked instead of Martha !

By Lyrazel

March 8, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Whiley, If Martha was Oprah would people be shouting racism?

Martha made her mistake when she lied to the Feds. Thus a longer sentence. Part of my saying she ‘believed her own propaganda’ comes from knowing when people reach a certain celebrity income bracket they believe laws are to be modified for their convienence…see hockey stars who can drink drive kill and go free/ or baseball stars with DUIs who still play for the pennant! We all have lists of this celebrity justice being different than ordinary joe justice. But its not sexism.

Donald Trump trading wives? He weds em and he pays em to go, capitalism morality at work in the USA. Not one of his exs ever complains he shortchanged them…and if he ever lied in front of a grand jury he too would be sent to jail.

Kobes case—Unlike the lady against Mike Tyson, this woman did not go to the police after the rape, did not call 911, and had sex with her boyfriend after. I have sheltered women who were raped, and savagely abused first thing done was call the cops…right at the hotel…see? I dont know the outcome of the case.

Tony, castration seldom happens at birth.

By lozen

March 8, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Well, Dave. Now that you have spoken, I’m sure the great gay parents I know are going to swiftly return all those wonderful kids they’re been raising to India, China, Russia and the foster care system in this country (they will hardly be noticed since there are already 600,000 in foster care). It is much better for these children to be homeless and unloved than to have gay parents who love them and take care of them to imitate. I’m sure you think Judge Roy Moore did the right thing when he gave custody to an abusive and violent father instead of the gay mother. Better the kid grow up to be abusive and violent than gay, right Dave!

By lozen

March 8, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Oops! It took my first response to Dave so long to go through I thought I forgot to hit post. Sorry for the duplication ya’ll.

By chuck

March 8, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

eu·nuch (ynk) n.

A man or boy whose testes have been removed or have never developed.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Matthew 19:12 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.�

Jesus was not referring to homosexuals. Eunuchs are NOT homosexuals as you can see from the definition above AND from the context of the verse. These are men who either by birth or choice lost use of their testes.

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I believe Kobe’s victim wanted him to kiss her, not rape her. Big difference. I completely understand why she didn’t go to the police right away. DUH look what happens ! Kobe should be on house arrest because he CLEARLY can’t stop cheating. Come to think of it, all professional married sports stars & rich pompous execs should be forced to wear the ankle bracelet so their families can keep track of them.

Trump is a pig. I doubt his ex’s are thrilled about the father of their children trading wives. What a great roll model. Yes the pay off’s are nice, but nobody wants to be thrown away like they are nothing.

By Bruce

March 8, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

My apologizes for misunderstanding your comments. I guess I am just used to being accused of being sexist becuase I am a man. I don’t think I have ever heard a women called a sexist. Forgive me please. Your point is well taken but please lets’ agree that the younger woman could also say, I am sorry but you are much too old for me, or You are married therefore I just couldn’t. It’s a two way street.

Lozen,

Like I said it takes two to tango. I believe it is both of them who agreed to activily pursue each other. As to which one “Started” it is really not important. I, over the years, have seen very many beautiful, younger (then me)women and yes they caught my eye. But with the help of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I am able to control those primal instincts. If I had a son you can bet that I would be teaching him to respect women and that “none is best” until you are married and once married stay that way.
My apologizes to you if any of my comments have offended you too.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Kobe’s wife should divorce him and take everthing. She must have felt good when he presented her with that 4 million dollar diamond ring in front of the whole world. if she doesn’t divorce him, she is just a highly paid prostitute. ALSO whoever leaked the name of the accuser before court should jailed and all of their assets frozen. The victim may have initially concented, but the moment she said stop, he should have stopped. I could go on but you catch my drift.

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Well, I promised myself I wouldn’t get distracted by off-topic tangents this week, but…

Tony/Texas, I thank you for your effort to at least question the current anti-gay dogma that many churches today have. I think I may have been too quick to resort to insults with you in the past, and for that I apologize.

Chuck, as much as I have attempted to ignore you since last week, you make an interesting point. I think that it’s about as likely that a man would CHOOSE to have his testicles removed as it is that he would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the the abuse and persecution that goes hand in hand with that.

And I now return you to the topic at hand.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Please forgive the peling in my previous post, I am at work and tried to hurry and was unable to proof it. Everyone is a little mellower this week. Must have been a good week-end.

By Tim

March 8, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Dave… I honestly do not know where to start… it seems that you are saying that children shouldn’t be raised by gay parents because they will turn out gay… well shouldn’t that mean that since I was raised by heterosexual parents I should in turn emulate their heterosexuality? your reasoning certainly is flawed… another example… both my step-father and my father(not anymore though) drank a lot (maybe too much) when I was a child… I obviously was around this on a regular basis… according to your reasoning since I saw this as a child I should drink too… well I don’t nor have I ever drank (I have tried it before but I don’t drink)… so again your reasoning is flawed… if you had your way the young lady (who seems to be very bright and a very beautiful person on the inside) who wrote that article would possibly be living in a childrens home (actually a VERY good chance of that seeing as it is very rare for people to adopt older childen… especially when they don’t have the ‘right’ color skin)… I will never understand people like you… if it were up to people like you (which unfortunately it is in some states) children would be forced to live with one parent (who in some cases beat them!) simply because they are heterosexual… trust me… a child in a gay home will be loved and cared for just as much as those with heterosexual parents… and sometimes even more seeing as most gay people have to go to GREAT links to adopt a child

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Didn’t Kobe’s wife JUST give birth to his child right before everything went public?

Thank you Bruce, you are a gentleman. NOT who I’m talking about AT ALL ! :)

By chuck

March 8, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I did not say that the eunuch chose to have himself castrated, though that apparently did happen, That choice was made for him. Often times, in the middle east, officials, kings, etc. had men castrated so that they could have them guard the harem without partaking. I think that a man who chose castration for himself, probably did so for economic reasons. They could live a lot better in the official’s harem than they could on their own. Others chose not to make use of the equipment for purposes of serving God.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Remember when that comet came thru and that cult committed mass suicide? The men had all castrated themselves. Not something I would want to do.

By DeltaX

March 8, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

If: all sins are equal, we are all sinners, and you cannot know the heart of another man (only god does). How can christians judge so quickly, claim to know the heart of another, remove (try to) their freedoms based on this; and do it in the name of christianity?

I have begun to refrain from calling myself christian because of this, but my innerself feels that is wrong to short myself of how I try to live - as close to christ as possible (not as his lawyer).

What I would like is for these christians to refer to themselves accurately: Baptists, Prodestants, etc (eg Religions) And the bible reads that religion is a sin.

Does this not make sence to even the simplest of minds? Good luck all.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

I didn’t think all sins were equal. If they were and everyone thought they were…God help us.

By Tony

March 8, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I do not believe God ever intends any of His people to be homosexual. I believe people are gay not because they choose to be, but because all of nature is fallen and out of whack. My practical advise for the gay Christian is change your orientation if you can. If not, be celibate if you can. If not, be as moral (i.e. monogamous) as you can.

We are all sinners my friend, judge wisely, and when I say judge, I do not pretend to know what Jesus meant when he said they (Eunuch) where born that way. There are definitely similarities with homosexuals. If we take everything literally, I am committing adultery because I am remarried. My sin is no different, therefore, my judgment is less hostile.

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

OH MAN HOW did religion get back in this discussion again??!!!

It’s like trying to control bugs in your house, eventually no matter what they come back to bother you.

By Jack

March 8, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

It is much more fun talking about religion. Martha’s hisses & kisses won’t last. This is only Tuesday. Guess Norman got bored.

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Yeah, why talk about religion when Whiley could be man-bashing instead! 8-P

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Jack I find the religious arguments boring & frankly, creepy. It’s amazing people believe what they do.

Did anyone see on 20-20(?) that very popular Hispanic preacher? The one that has millions of followers & is on TV all the time? The one that spends MILLIONS of donated money on vacations to the Caribbean, shopping trips, luxury cars fancy clothes, etc. The show featured him healing people in the name of Jesus, then knocking them on their foreheads so they fall down. TA-DA they are cured ! But none of them were. HOW are SO MANY PEOPLE tricked into believing such NONSENSE !????

And has anyone bought Martha Stewart sheets? Good thread counts.

By RS

March 8, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Dave: Tim brought up an excellent point, as always. I’ve known SO many gay & lesbian folks & w/out exception, they are all the offsprng of straight parents. Bruce: You’re right! If a young woman sleeps with a man she knows has a wife, she is certainly just as much of a pig as he is. J. Morris: Uh, there is a very sick subculture of men who “get their jollies” getting castrated/doing the job themselves. I read about this some years ago. Look, to each his own, but…YUCK!!!!! Jack: Quite true, about not all sins being equal. Sassing your mom doesn’t even compare to murder

By Steven

March 8, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Just a couple of quick questions on the religion/homosexuality thing… I recently read that researchers are very close to identifying the genes that control sexuality. If it is found that there are differences in these genetic regions between homosexuals and heterosexuals what does that mean in relation to the gay people choose argument as well as the associated religious condemnation? Second, if per The Bible eating shellfish is an abomination and homosexuality is an abomination why do groups like Fred Phelps’s group picket high schools trying to start gay/straight alliances, but not Red Lobster?

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

J.Morris what about my post was man-bashing? I was CLEARLY showing examples of double standards. Was NOT man-bashing at all.

By chuck

March 8, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

TEX, It is not a matter of judging in my mind. It is a matter of listening to what the scripture says. A Eunuch, by definition, IS NOT GAY. Eunuchs were used to gaurd the harem. It literally means keeper of the bed in the Greek. This is nothing more than a history lesson. Look at any source, religious or otherwise, and you will see that that what I am telling you is true.

What you are saying is sort of like the new book that just came out claiming that Abraham Lincoln was gay. It is just made up nonsense. We as Christians should be clear about an issue before we speak on it. I suggest that if you want to see what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, that you go to the source. Scripture itself. There are also 2 excellent web sites that have great explanations of the passages that speak to that topic:

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=4635

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1302

Study scripture and you will see what it says on the topic.

By DeltaX

March 8, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

RE: All sin equal

While it is possible on the basis of Scripture to make certain distinctions regarding the nature or “gravity” of specific sins (see, e.g., John 19:11; Luke 12: 47-48), Scripture clearly teaches that all sins come equally under God’s judgment: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” (Gal. 3:10).

Although I will agree that in OUR world they do not seem equal (moot to discuss and it would only infuse confusion) ; the harsh reality is that if you act on any sin (great or small), you will not enter heaven.

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

RS - seriously…I could have gone a long time without reading that. ;-)

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Let me clarify that it does take 2 to tango. I just think that a much older man trying to have sex with a 20 something young girl has the bigger responsibility to say no this isn’t right & definitely not appropriate. I have issues with the fact that if he does get that 20 something year old, he’s a hero. That is so wrong.

Just like the MARRIED person should be the bigger person & put a stop at a potential affair. They are not at the mercy of their private parts.

Women should never date old or married men anyway.

By lozen

March 8, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Speaking of eunuchs: What do you guys think happened to all the foreskins whacked off in the desert when Abraham, his sons, and all his slaves had to give ‘em up for Yahweh? The desert tends to petrify and preserve things. Do you think maybe there’s a big pile of foreskins out there somewhere buried under the sand that archaeologists should be searching for as proof of that story?

By Jack

March 8, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

DeltaX- All sins come equally under God’s judgment does not necessarily mean that he judges each sin the same. Like RS said saain your mom is not murder.

By whiley

March 8, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

I wonder, how much money do you have to give the church before your sins are forgiven?

lol you’re right religious debates are fun !

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

We have GOT to stop the conversations about cutting things off.

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

J Morris I agree ! Some of us are trying to get a bite to eat here !

Why are the religious so obsessed with sin, sex, gayness & private parts decapitation?

By lozen

March 8, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

JMorris and all, Just one more story. The Maya of Mexico and South America practiced bloodletting as a form of prayer to their gods. Numerous murals show kings, queens, and lords puncturing their genitals, tongue, and ears with stingray spines, thorns, or lancets. The blood was then dripped onto strips of cloth and then burned so that the gods could consume the blood in the form of smoke.

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Whiley - they don’t get to participate so they are jealous ;-)

By Jack

March 8, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

What, you people have never smoked blood before? Mmmmmmm…smooth!

By J. Morris

March 8, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

lozen, as long as we aren’t talking about whacking stuff off, I’m good ^-^. Piercings and bloodletting is one thing - avulsion is another!

By Tony

March 8, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Well, Jack I tried it, but I didn’t enhale!!!

By lozen

March 8, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Whiley, you’re right! Women, especially “women of a certain age” should never date old or married men. They should date young, energetic men with a lot of long, free afternoons on their hands.

By DeltaX

March 8, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Jack, You ignored my posting: “Although I will agree that in OUR world they do not seem equal (moot to discuss and it would only infuse confusion) ; the harsh reality is that if you act on any sin (great or small), you will not enter heaven.”

Sassing your mother as well as murder have the same consequence - no heaven for you.

By Steven

March 8, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

the first Bible link references ritual same sex acts and male prostitutes. We can not use the term homosexual nor should you ever see it in The Bible or ancient texts because the word did not exist until several centuries later. The capacity in which we use the term today did not exist or was not used in those times.

There is a valid argument that what Leviticus is about is male/male rape which was and still is used in Arab cultures to degrade men. There is also a cultural understanding of giving a stranger shelter in one’s home. That is what the story is about. Looking at the verses from a Middle East cultural perspective and at the time in which it was written the references to male/male rape would not be comparable to our 21st Century use of male homosexual relationships.

If Jesus was the New Covenant and all the old laws no longer apply, then why the continued use of Old Testament verses to justify the current church position? If the old laws were no longer applied then why is homosexuality still a sin, but not eating shrimp? Why the incredible focus and hate flung at this one group even if there is but 1 reference in the New Testament attributed to Paul rather than Jesus? Why the focus on this one group who likely we will soon find are genetically gay?

By Jack

March 8, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Define “certain age” please. Young energetic men with a lot of long free afternoons are probably minute men with no jobs

By RS

March 8, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

My bad, J. Morris! Sorry! See what I started?!? Lozen, how about young, energetic men with a lot of long, free afternoons on their hands AND a LOT of money? (OK, just kidding!)

By Whiley

March 8, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

How much money do you have to pay a church before they agree to let you into heaven after sassing your mother?

lol LOZEN !

By Jack

March 8, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

If DeltaX is correct, Hell is over-populated.

By Steven

March 8, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

But sassing one’s mother violates one of the 10 commandment just as much as murder.

By Zack

March 8, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Jack—Just because martha has provided jobs for people doesn’t necessarily mean she has contributed to society. Heck, the porn industry creates jobs. Is this a contribution? Of course not!

To those who have the audacity to say Stewart shouldn’t have gone to prison—if you’d call that place a prison—please wake up. This woman is conniving and committed a very fraudulent act, so why defend her?

Let’s not talk about how men allegedly chase after sex left and right, with women being these beacons of innocence. For pete’s sake, women do not dress modestly nowadays, which doesn’t say much for their character.

Does anyone really think Kobe raped anyone? There are millions and millions of guy-chasers out there, who have their daddies thinking they would never look at a guy, and someone in Kobe’s shoes obviously isn’t going to be excluded. Obviously, this woman wanted to have sex with him and then cry rape and try to make a dollar that’s about as cheap as she is.

As for the question about abortion, it’s wrong. Many are willing to adopt. It’s simply wrong to kill an innocent human being, so why try to justify it?

By RS

March 8, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Jack & Lozen, y’all are TOO funny! I shall bust a gut laughing all the way down 400 this afternoon!

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

“Obviously, this woman wanted to have sex with him and then cry rape and try to make a dollar that’s about as cheap as she is.” Zack, is that the same reasoning you used at YOUR rape trial?

I’ve figured it out folks, Zack is one of those lifer prisoners. Hates women & has all day long to read the bible. Women are to blame for his behavior ! How’s that prison food workin for ya Zack?

By Lyrazel

March 9, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

I love my Martha sheets, pillows and stock…but she was guilty.

Yes, I think Kobe did the deed which was a lot more than she was offering. Thats the problem with fans who know you have more money than god…and stars think they are godly.

Why is it people can re-write the bible 100 times to fit modern cultures? I mean its almost comical how revisionists change scripture so often…or at least change meaning of gods laws to suit modern life/business. Big example? Makeup or hatless women owning property without concent of fathers, brothers, uncles. Or working on Sunday…nobody is hung for it anymore. So if you are gay and want scripture to reflect your views just re-write it. Cant say its not been done and its open to interpretation.

The trend to wed young women to old men is well, ancient. Tune in scripture for excellent examples of the treatment of ex-wives, infertile wives, second wives and concubines made from sisters, daughters and maiden aunts. Its the men vs maidenhead psychosis…you know…fresh start…train her from the first…all that stuff to pretend lust justifies bad behavior. We have tons of historical references and modern men still carry forth with vim, vigor and viagra. I think the real wisdom comes 30 years down the road when he is sick with elderly causes and she is stud watching…he ends up in a nursing home and she ends up with his porche, house…and dog!

By RS

March 9, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

I must have taken leave of my senses, but except for our differences re abortion (& we will never see eye to eye on this one, I fear), this entire post is devoted to agreeing with ZACK’s last post! Well, first of all, I don’t consider the place where Martha Stewart was incarcerated a “prison”. Try country club. Yes, I HAVE noticed that today’s women are very, very aggressive. Recently, I was out at a dance club. Nice, harmless, healthy fun. For me anyway. But you wouldn’t BELIEVE how some of these young women act! I regularly see pairs of young women “dance” (?!?) by rubbing up & grinding aagainst each other on the dance floor, the purpose of which, is to “tease” males. Then they whine about being disrespected. DUH! A few minutes later, a young woman approached a man she clearly did not know & started grinding herself against his, um, private areas in time to the music. I’ve never even asked a guy to dance that I don’t already know; not that there’s anything wrong with THAT, but it just isn’t me. And the way today’s young girls dress. Hm, I wouldn’t. I draw the line at low-rise pants, but that’s as far as I’ll go. Fine, there shouldn’t be any laws legislating how modestly one needs to dress, that’s not the government’s business, but I see these girls dressing & acting like the cheapest hoochie mamas, then they act all offended if a man dares to approach them. It’s certainly not the man’s fault if a woman gives off a message like that; what ELSE is he to think? Of course, “no” means “no”, but when a woman comes across as a slut, well, men will try… Kobe… I HIGHLY doubt he ever raped ANYONE. That’s not concurrent with his image at all. And why would a rich, charming, handsome pro athlete need to force himself on anyone? This girl is clearly a cheap, opportunistic gold-digger. The only thing I fault Kobe with is cheating on his wife, which is despicable.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

MOST of the female population doesn’t dress or act as the young women you saw. We don’t teach our young men to respect women & that it’s NOT OK & cool to constantly try to get someone in bed. We don’t teach our women that they don’t HAVE to dress that way. My personal belief is that when young ladies reach that age, they act out due to years of negative sexual influences. Mostly that THEY aren’t allowed to be sexual,they are BAD ! but boys can openly act sexual & do it anytime they want & it’s GREAT !

Are you saying if a woman dresses overly sexy, any man has the RIGHT to have sex with her even if she doesn’t want to?

By Tony

March 9, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Okay, who’s posting under RS’s handle?

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

She was a gold digger? An 18 year old girl from a small town & a good family is a gold digger? OH yes, it is very popular for girls to cry rape to make some spending money. Actually, if you are really good you can get enough to retire on. It happens all the time & quite easy to do. And totally worth making the false police reports & going through the rape exam ! Public humiliation, death threats on your answering machine, websites making fun of you & calling you a tramp. Unable to work because the press is following you & your family. Having all your friends interviewed & having lies told about you. Oh & trials are so entertaining! Especially since the girls are on trial, not the rapist. OH YEA TOTALLY WORTH IT ! And so many rapists are convicted ! Especially famous or rich ones !

By Jack

March 9, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Kobe’s accuser may have been a gold-digger. BUT We were not in the room with them. In my opinion, even if initial consent is given and you are in the middle of the act and the female says no, the man should stop and if he doesn’t it is RAPE. I ahve only 2 sons and have told them this. Always wanted a daughter but my hair would probably be solid white by now if I did.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

I think one of Zacks prison mates is writing under RS’s name.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

It may be an asylum instead of prison.

By RS

March 9, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Oh, goodness, Whiley, of course men don’t have the right to club a female over the head & drag her off for nonconsentual sex just because she’s miniskirted & braless; remember, I’m the one who said “No means no”. All I’m sayiong is when a woman dresses like a prostitute, she shouldn’t be surprised when a man who’s never met her before assumes she has, uh, loose morals. Don’t forget, he doesn’t know her, all he has to go on at this point are her demeanor & dress. An 18-year old small-town girl will be more naiive than her urban counterparts, yes. She probably won’t be looking ahead to the big picture (rape exam, police reports, public humiliation etc) but on the other hand, today’s kids ARE savvy enough to know how to get what they want, be they city or small-town. Not ALL teens of course, but some, yes. I say this from personal experience. An old friend of mine & my husband’s worked at a place once where he once complimented a female co-worker on a new hairstyle. Because she was not attracted to him, she got angry & hit him with a “sexual harrassment” (?!?) charge & got him fired! At that time (the mid-90’s), I’d have questioned his veracity but he IS a very truthful person, plus as time goes on, I am seeing how “political correctness” is often getting out of hand & some people have been known to take advantage of workplace “zero tolerance” policies. Gee, why can’t SCHOOLS be pro-active & adopt zero tolerance policies to abolish the dangerous bullying of kids who are fat, different etc??? Anyway, the point I’m trying to get across is, our freedoms are being stripped from us. What was considered harmless flirting two decades ago can get a person fired or worse nowadays. Jack, as in your case, I wouldn’t get a wink of sleep nights if I had a daughter (well, maybe if she weighed 600 pounds & had a mustache! LOL!) Oh yes, without a doubt, the man should stop whenever the woman tells him too but women, too, need to take some responsibility & think twice before putting themselves into such a precarious position because let’s face it, not all men are gentlemen. What I’VE always wondered is, why did the young woman visit Kobe’s room if not for sex? No one can be THAT naiive..

By whiley

March 9, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

I remember being 18 & making out was my goal ! NOT sex. I don’t think young girls are TAUGHT to say no. That it’s OK to get up & walk out if the guy you are kissing isn’t listening to the word no.

Are you saying girls should never be alone with a guy because he will probably end up being a rapist? How about teaching boys not to rape? Not to be so pushy?

Isn’t it funny how all men being accused of rape always say the victim is money hungry & it was consensual? OH YEA your honor rape happens constantly in this country, every 5 minutes ! But not THIS time. NOT ME, look how good looking I am, why would I rape anyone? (rolling eyes)

Kobe cheated on his wife & rapes a 18 YEAR OLD YOUNG girl. But SHE’S the liar?

If Martha had cheated on her husband, she would have been publicly hung. Kobe gets supporters.

By J. Morris

March 9, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

So, what constitutes dressing like a prostitute? Our ideas of what is and isn’t acceptable dress is incredibly flexible. Hemlines move up and down, necklines move up and down…If skimpy dress is the STYLE, then why should a man assume that a woman dressed like every other woman in the room has loose morals?

It’s easy to fall into the trap of judging a younger generation through the lens of your own. It seems like that’s what you’re doing here.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Yeah. My idea of getting lucky is sleeping all night without having to get up to go to the bathroom.

By RS

March 9, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Girls should always be CAREFUL when alone with a man they don’t know well; actually it’s a good idea to NOT be alone with a man you just met! Unfortunately, even knowing, or even THINKING you know him well, isn’t a guarantee & yes, by the same token, of course boys need to be taught not to be so darn pushy. Whiley, I don’t know how old you are & of course that is your business. I myself am not a kid. So, I remember when the “sexul revolution” was under way; a lot of its pioneers wwent on to raise families of their own & yes, a lot of them are remiss in instructing their male AND female children about the consequences of nonconsentual sex; they need to relaize its’, sadly, a different world out there now. OK, Kobe was wrong to cheat on his wife. As for the 18-year old, if she DID say no at any point (personally, the story always sounded a bit fishy to me) & he didn’t stop, heck, yeah, he was dead wrong. If she did NOT say no & decided to cry “rape” after the fact, well, what does that say? That itself is a crime too, actually a multiple crime; slander, wasting taxpayers’ & officials’ time & money…J. Morris, some girls take provocative dressing a bit too far. I subscribe to the credo “If you can’t sit or bend in it without something ‘illegal’ showing (in today’s vernacular, a ‘wardrobe malfunction’), it might be a good idea not to wear it in public”. Don’t forget, I live in Little 5 Points. I’ve seen it all & right now, in fact, I sport short, hot-pink bangs so believe me, I’m not what you’d call rigid in my manner of attire. But I exercise SOME discretion & do not parade around with my breasts bare practically to the nipples &/or the top of my derrierre hanging out for the world to see. I see stuff like that all the time.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Why do people always blame the female for bad behavior and lack of control of males? Young women do, IMO, show way too much skin these days. But if we were teens we’d be doing the same. To teens nothing is more important than fitting in and that’s the style! Why it is and who started it I don’t know; I suppose it’s copy catting entertainers like that Spears person. So some designers (probably mostly men) are making a lot of money off these girls. And we just want to criticize them for the way they dress! It has always been her fault if some guy thinks she “wants it”. In my generation we dressed very modestly - hell, we couldn’t even wear pants to class. And back then the young men were chasing after sex left and right! Does Zack ever read any of the posts on here or just vent his sick mentality? There are 600,000 kids in the foster care system waiting for placement and he says there are people waiting to adopt? The person who said Zack is either in prison or a mental hospital is probably right.

By RS

March 9, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Lozen, it’s the media who dictates how teens dress, or don’t dress, as the case may be. Britney Spears & her legion of copycats are media products designed to push bland, whiny “music” & provocative attire. Jack, I can top that: MY idea of “getting lucky” is being able to GET to the bathroom on time in the middle of the night!

By Tim

March 9, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Lozen… I do agree with a lot of what you say… boys need to be taught self-control and probably far too many of them aren’t taught this… but I am sorry I really have to laugh at you for blaming male clothing designers… 98% (probably even higher) of male clothing designers are GAY! so I seriously doubt that they make skimpy clothes for girls so they can check them out :)

By Jack

March 9, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

OK. Who was it that decided that women are supposed to look anorexic to be attractive? I and most of the men I know like women with some meat on their bones. I blame the fashion industry and Hollywood. So much pressure is put on young people these days to “look” a certain way that it causes much heartache for those who cannot conform. Teens are now getting cosmetic surgery! Unbelievable. Sorry for the rant.

By RS

March 9, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Oh, Jack, you are SO right! Most of us (women) are not meant to be a perfect size 4, especially past a certain age. Instead of pushing the “heroin-chic” look, the media needs to promote body acceptance for ALL sizes as well as focusing on inner qualities (MUCH more essential!) I always love when a man tells me he likes seeing women with some meat on their bones; I certainly have THAT!

By lozen

March 9, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Tim, maybe they design clothes they wish they could wear. Men can’t wear anything sexy! The only men who show any of their shape at all are gay men, which is why they always look so nice compared to straight men! :-)

By whiley

March 9, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

A good example is that Jim Bulushi show. He has a clear weight problem, and his TV wife is so thin she looks like a starving child.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Lozen… as usual excellent point ;)

By J. Morris

March 9, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

I agree that there is a very unrealistic image of women (and men) as being painfully thin right now. Just check out Abecrombie & Fitch catologs…but is it really any more extreme than historical fashion trends? The urge to change one’s appearance in dramatic fashion in order to meet the current definition of haute coture is hardly a new one.

Women have had ribs surgically removed in the past to fit into outfits with waistlines that would make Barbie jealous, or encased themselves in corsets that broke bones and prevented breathing, or even gorged themselves for hours on end on food when the thin/fat pendulum swung the other way. People have ingested tapeworms…

I guess my point is that doing bizarre and even painful and destructive things to our bodies in the name of fasion is hardly new, and will probably not ever go away. The first primitive that shoved a bone through his ear or…whatever (RS, please no more stories about mutilation!) started it, and I doubt we’ll ever end it.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Lozen… as usual you make an excellent point ;)

Whiley… I made a similar observation this weekend… I was watching ‘Summer Rental’ (I think that was the name)… 80s movie with John Candy… it is a really funny movie… but as I was watching a scene on the beach I noticed that his wife was in a bikini and was in perfect shape… and she is married to him?… you certainly wouldn’t see a really large woman in a movie who had a hunk as a husband… just goes to show you who movies are made for

By Bruce

March 9, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Although I do not think Kobe is completely at fault I do think that the young lady should not have been in his room alone to begin with. Yes, Kobe should not have allowed her in, after he is a married man, but she could have just as easily said no to even going up to his room.

As a man I operate off of the signals my wife gives me. If she comes home from work complaining of being tired or says she is going to bed early I know I not getting lucky that night. However, if she meets me at the door with hugs and kisses or sits beside me and knibbles on my neck, well let’s just say there hope.

You can’t be so naive to think that a man is not going to look at a woman who dresses provocatively and not think he may have a chance. Although I believe rape is the worst thing a man could ever even think of doing to a woman. Women do not asked to be raped, and yes no means no, but you can expect to get burned if you play with fire.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

and so does her sister

By Tim

March 9, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Lozen… as usual you make an excellent point ;)

Whiley… I made a similar observation this weekend… I was watching ‘Summer Rental’ (I think that was the name)… 80s movie with John Candy… it is a really funny movie… but as I was watching a scene on the beach I noticed that his wife was in a bikini and was in perfect shape… and she is married to him?… you certainly wouldn’t see a really large woman in a movie who had a hunk as a husband… just goes to show you who movies are made for

By Tim

March 9, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

sorry for multiple posts!

By lozen

March 9, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Saw Kevin Costner’s new movie The Upside of Anger last night and it was the same, Whiley. Kevin is a little beefy with a slight paunch and the female lead was so painfully thin I wondered if she’s anorexic. I love Queen Latifah’s attitude and the comment that she was not going to starve herself to death to be thin.

By J. Morris

March 9, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Yes, we can all agree that in hindsight and from our adult perspective, that going into a hotel room with a strange man, even if that man is a famous celebrity, was probably not the brightest move that a girl could make.

Now, I’m operating on the assumption that the girl’s motives were innocent here - our system of justice assumes innocent until proven guilty, and unlike Za- er some people, I’m not so quick to rush to judgement about a person’s innocence or guilt or character.

Let’s put ourselves in the position of a young girl - and yes, 18 is still young today, no matter how mature teenagers might TRY to act, they are still young at that age - who has just met and been invited up to a hotel room by a very famous, very charismatic celebrity. Is it so hard to imagine that that girl might not have been thinking rationally at the time?

Now, I’m not saying one way of the other. The civil suit has yet to be decided. I’m just saying that all the arguments thus far have AUTOMATICALLY assigned base motives to the girl in question. It comes back to always trying the victim…she went to his hotel room so she was a whore…even if she did say no, she was asking for it…

Whiley is right…there is a serious double standard.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

But men can go without shirts in the summer and women can’t. That has always made me fume in June, July, & August! JMorris you’re right as always. My friend Bobby told me a long time ago while we were sunbathing in July, “Honey, we have to suffer to be beautiful!” The older I get the more it amazes me, how much we humans will suffer to be whatever the current version of beautiful is.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Lozen… I personally think that Queen Latifah is one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood! but coming from a gay man that may not count ;)

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

And let me add, growing up it was ALWAYS the most attractive successful men that came on to me the strongest on a date. It was like they’ve never been told no before in their lives. Some I had to actually fight off, but I had no problem walking out on a date when someone got like that. Now, when I was 18 that’s a different story. I consider myself lucky. I was alone with pushy guys many times (just making out remember). I would hate to think that I would have been blamed if I had been attacked. Girls today know what happens if you tell. It’s no wonder they are so hesitant to talk.

I suppose the big question is, why do we raise boys this way? Isn’t it neglectful to boys we don’t teach them sexual responsibility?

By Jack

March 9, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t mind if women decided to go without a shirt in Summer. Might cause a few car wrecks though.

By J. Morris

March 9, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

I would just like to make an aside - it’s Wednesday, and no one has really called anyone else stupid, or ignorant, or a heathen, or deluded, or anything else really unpleasant. So…this is what rational debate is like…cool.

By RS

March 9, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Tim, I agree about Queen Latifah & actually, the gay men I know have excellent taste & can be objective so believe me, honey, your opinion counts for a LOT in my book! Yes, it also galls me that female celebs must be rail thin but men can be, er, paunchy. Or, a woman CAN be somewhat less than shapely but she must have a pretty face. Facial features & bone structure are an accident of birth, nothing more & nothing less. Sad how women of all ages are rushing to the plastic surgeons in a desperate attempt to be “perfect” (No gory details, I promise to nix any future mutilation tales!) I also hate that anyone wearing glasses is automtically portrayed as a “nerd”. Whiley, the reason boys are often raised to be so aggressive harks back to my previous post about attitudes in the 60’s & 70’s, also I think the hip-hop culture with its dubious “values” has a hand in it, & then of course there is peer pressure…Bruce, I agree 100% with everything in your last post.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Yeah we all do naive and dangerous things when we’re teenagers. But still, we all know who the evil temptress is! It is very true many girls aren’t taught to say “No”. I was 27 and seeing a family counselor before I learned I didn’t have to always smile and be nice to men no matter how inappropriate their behavior might be. It was part of the double standard I absorbed growing up: that’s just what men do, and they act that way because we do something to lead them on! What crap. When I told my mother about a boss who tried to touch me when I was 15 (I was in his office trying to talk about a problem at work) the first thing she said was, “What were you doing in his office?”

By chuck

March 9, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

JMorris, You are stupid and ignorant.

Just kidding. Didn’t want you to feel neglected.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I love you! You really are an unusually thoughtful and compassionate man. Your post about the naivete of an 18 year old girl is amazing, especially for someone who never was an 18 year old girl! And you’re right this has been a pleasant change this week.

By chuck

March 9, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Maybe the extra load of civility stems from the fact that nobody really cares one way or another about this Martha Stewart question.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

I’m angry about the media not catching any grief when they leaked Kobe’s accusers name.

By Tony

March 9, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

C’mon y’all this ain’t no fun!!!!

First of all, look at who’s posting. Y’all are singing the same song. That’s why nobody is YELLING! (I’ll fix that).

Second, on the matter of Kobe. On the Rape charge, it was dropped. Therefore, Kobe is innocent. Would y’all like some cheese with your Whine.

Lastly, on the civil suit, they settled. She’s probably a millionaire, (sealed records) she’s pregnant and married. Move on.

BTW how many times have we read “can’t we stay on forum” Whiley?

By Jack

March 9, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

We love you too Tony. How come no lengthy cut & paste to back up your opinion?

By RS

March 9, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Tony, I’m sure she IS a millionaire (“From Jerry Springer material to riches”.) EXACTLY my point. Poor little white-girl “victim” accuses BIG BAD (gasp horror) BLACK MAN of raping her..Why, we all know that every black man is dying to sleep with blondes. (Yeah, right)

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

lol Tony ! I tried to stay on topic but nobody wanted to talk about Martha. It seemed more fitting to discuss double standards. (and anything is better than talking about religion again)

KOBE WASN’T found INNOCENT! He wanted the case settled out of court because a lot of evidence about ALL his affairs was about to become public & WOULD have been brought into court & used against him. AND there was a growing chance he WOULD be found guilty of rape. (dispite the fact his “group” was doing everything possible to publicly discredit the victim.)

By Bruce

March 9, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Are you really going to complain about men being able to got outside without shirts on?

I would say I agree with Jack, about not having a problem with women doing it but if I do I will be called a sexist…

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

If I were her I would have gone for money too. I know good & darn well an average looking lady like me couldn’t convict a clean cut (ha ha) famous athlete of rape even if there were WITNESSES IN THE SAME ROOM.

I would have gone for the money too. Otherwise it’s another athlete getting away with sexual assault.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

You’re not sexist Bruce, just normal.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Lozen, if women were allowed to go topless, then people like Zack would have a field day “that’s the reason women are raped & they deserve it” WE are blaimed for crimes against us for what we are WEARING as it is !

Women going topless isn’t sexist, it’s just not appropriate because we need support. lol !

By RS

March 9, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I’d like to comment on n EXTREMELY valid point you just raised. The reason this “lady” (& others like her) have gotten away with what they have is because they’re pretty. Under circumstances like that, I actually consider Kobe the victim. Disgusting how beauty is rewarded but God forbid a woman should be average looking or below; she is punished & if she tries to get away with the same behaviour, she is raked over the proverbial coals. Sends a very negative message as to what counts in this society.

By Bruce

March 9, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

I hate to say this but if the charges are dropped then he must be innocent. In our country thats just the way it is. I agree with RS on this one. If anyone is old enough to vote they are responsible adults. Also, there is a big difference between an affair and rape.

Here is another seniero, maybe she just got caught with her hand in the cookie jar (boyfriend, Dad, whoever) and needed a good lie to get out of it. That lie got out of hand and she finally had to tell the truth.

By RS

March 9, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you’re right (re your most recent post). She needs to be prosecuted for slander/libel & taking up the time & money of the law AND us taxpayers.Yes, I did hear she made up that story to cover up the fact she had consentual relations with a boyfriend/guy she willingly “hooked up” with but she wouldn’t have gotten money out of HIM. At least she had the brains (more like a low animal cunning) to use her looks to come out on top & get what she wanted

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

I know RS, makes my heart so sad sometimes. If I remember correctly, the public has made FUN of how the victim looks, she’s not all that, why would Kobe have sex with that?…etc

I think men have a really hard time because of the very bad behavior of some. The ones that are committing murder, rape, molestation, abuse & other crimes. Women don’t know who to trust anymore, there’s no way to tell. A lot of hostile women are walking around trying to figure out who is going to hurt them & who are real loving men they can love & appreciate.

I’m so sad for the young folks these days.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

A dropped case does not mean it did not happen. Read the law.

A chid molester’s case is dropped for whatever reason does NOT mean the molestation didn’t happen.

By RS

March 9, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Whiley, like you, I try to be fair, no matter what the person’s gender. It’s refreshing to hear another woman bemoaning the rough time GOOD men have because of the bad behaviour of some of them. I would NOT want to be a young, single girl in this day & age, you really DON’T know who to trust & you hear about date rape drugs etc. Want to hear something REALLY sad?? I have a close male friend I think the world of & for good reason. He is a gentleman in every sense of the word & even treats me better than my own husband does! But-sorry to say, this sweet, lovely man, who is dying to be in a relationship, can’t seem to find anyone. Women overlook him because he doesn’t have a “glamourous” image & doesn’t have the finances to support a woman. Makes me cry sometimes…

By Jack

March 9, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Kobe had sex with her because she was young willing (maybe) and different from his wife. If polygraphs were given to all married men & women who are Hollywood actor/actresses, sports figures and politicians and they were asked if they have been faithful throughout their marriage, how many do you think would pass that said yes they were faithful?

By RS

March 9, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Not only celebs, Jack, but cheating is just as rampant among “ordinary” folk as well…Sad. Someone always gets hurt

By lozen

March 9, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Okay, lunch over, back to my internet addiction disorder… I visited a naturist camp once with a friend and everyone was nude, of course. It was a shock at first — we humans really do jiggle a lot — but then became easy. And it’s amazing how unsexy people look when they don’t have on any clothes at all. I came away wondering, why are naturists/nudists the only adults who are obsessed with playing volley ball?

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

17

By RS

March 9, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Lozen: They THINK (??) they look sexy??

By Lyrazel

March 9, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Quite the contrary Tony, the subject stays with the path of celebrity justice and we are engaged in discussions of our misfortunate celebrities Martha, Kobe, Michel, Robert and of course our discussions are broadly painted to include mention of bibles, media-indfluenced teen fashion and behaving badly.

What really bothered me about the Kobe trial was the media. TV in my face news—tv reporters making news by paying off county clerks to get access to sealed information. I was appalled by the fact viewers stayed tune! Commentators who make fools of people seeking justice—make them evil for being rich—make them golddigger whores if less wealthy— WORSE it was a trial of rape. Had it been maybe a car accident—sure—but the most cruel and unforgiving act a man can cause a woman being discussed as if meat. I turned them off, even the newspapers were goulish.

Whiley, having worked with women who were raped, my callus comments were conclusions drawn after the case was closed, when I could stomach reading facts. The hardest thing for me to accept was her having sex after the fact—the same night—as she had been raped. Not one—not one of the women we assisted—were so untraumatized to want sexual encounters the same night. I understood the late call to police, even understood staying at work for the money. I had a hard time with the room visit…thats against all employee policy at hotels. You dont go socialize with patrons in their rooms, what boss has not explained that?

Being ugly I never had to bother with too much attention from boys and older men. Ugly women dont get on tv, or the movies. Even the ugliest is beautiful on tv. Tv has a serious problem: viewers. Viewers wouldnt watch a tv show about ugly women. Ugly men dont seem to be a problem…

By Jack

March 9, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

RS, tell your friend to start acting like a slob, not to bath, belch a lot, and then he will find a woman. I had the same problem. Women don’t like “nice” guys. Don’t know why, they just don’t. My wife went out with me because I was a long-haired hippie freak. I got it cut the day before we went out. After we were married she said she was very upset about my haircut as she wanted to anger her parents.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

WHAT happened to all the KMARTS? I would like to go purchase some Martha Stewart products to show my support, but I can’t seem to find a store.

Where are the Kmarts in Atlanta?

By Jack

March 9, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel- It sadens me to hear anyone refer to themselves as ugly. Never laid eyes on you but you are NOT ugly. If one is only concerned with looks, you don’t need them. They are superficial jerks.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

We females do like “bad boys” for sure. Also we are told that the love of a good woman can save you guys, no matter how bad you may be! But - not to bathe? Yuk. Belching! Yuk. It’s not stuff like that; it’s .. an undefinable thing but a good example is the lover in Unfaithful. Oh my! Ohhh, forgot I was a grandmother for a second there.

By RS

March 9, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Whiley, a lot of K-Marts went out; you might want to check locations, online. Lyrazel: EXACTLY! The fact that she visited his room AND had sex right after the fact IMMEDIATELY sent up a red flag; I found that difficult to swallow. Yeah, on TV you HAVE to be beautiful. I must confess, your post disturbed me a lot; I hate that you (or any woman, really) refers to herself as “ugly”. Is there a reason you feel that way? I always considered myself “ugly” as well until a wonderful friend ( a gay man who used to be my roomie) told me to always think of myself as “uniquely beautiful” so I am passing this along to you & to any other ladies on this blog who feel that way. Anyway, not even 2 weeks after my pal gave me this lecture, I met the wonderful man who I’m now married to! Give thanks! That other friend of mine (the man who can’t get into a relationship) has told me not to be so down on my appearance, that I look “great”. I know I’m lucky to have friends like that in my life but believe me, girlfriend, I had to go through years of H—- first. So, Jack, you think my friend should model himself after my husband? (JUST KIDDING!) He DOES have long hair but that is offset by his sweetness & kindness.

By RS

March 9, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I’m glad to see Jack, as well, is lecturing you about your negative self-image. Honey, you are NOT ugly. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know you’re pretty on the inside & that’s what counts. Any man who can’t appreciate that is a pig, & stupid, to boot. NOT good enough for you by a long shot

By Jack

March 9, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Reading that post from Lyrazel makes me want to hug her. Have an internet hug Lyrazel. Know you are beautiful.

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

I read that the victim did NOT have sex after the attack. Who knows what the truth is & what the press has made up.

I heard there was enough evidence to convict because she had to get 7 stitches on/in her a!@#!@#. I don’t think she signed up for that kind of fun. Not at 18 years old. That’s just a kid. I’m more likely to believe her, not a lying cheating athlete.

Maybe one day the truth will come out. I would love to hear her side of the story. The real evidence, not what the press says.

Women do NOT like bad boys at all ! We love the handsome ones. Most really good looking men are jerks. NOT fair ! he he

By lozen

March 9, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Do we know of a king who was monogamous? We all know powerful, wealthy men of the past were not monogamous, don’t we? There’s a theory in history that the rich and powerful don’t pay attention to the sexual mores of any society and neither do the very poor. It’s only the average/middle class/working class/whatever the equivalent of that is, that follows the sexual mores in any society. Artists have always been somewhat freer (some would say “looser”) morally and sexually than the average person. Artists thrive on experience and need it to produce their work. Human beings have never really been monogamous - except for the women. Now women are no longer being virginal and monogamous. And so it goes. In at least one native american tribe, women weren’t considered marriage material until after they were proved fertile by becoming pregnant - and it was not considered necessary for her to marry the father of the child!

By lozen

March 9, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Only KMart in the city that I can think of is on Piedmont in that shopping center with a Home Depot at the back.

By RS

March 9, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Ha ha ha!! Lozen, I know this is “yuk” but my hubby & I have belching contests! He’s no slouch at it but I can often out-burp him! Believe it or not, that’s one element of a good marriage; the ability to get “silly” & playful. Not that our marriage is PERFECT by any means, no one’s is, but I have so much fun with him & that’s important; it helps you build a history together

By Jack

March 9, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

There is a Kmart just outside the perimeter on Buford Hwy.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Oh RS you all must be from the Nawth! I cannot imagine a southern woman, uh, make that a southern girl, who would ever admit that she belches let alone have a belchin’ contest with her husband! Today you are the hoot!

By Lyrazel

March 9, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Jack, RS—with many obsessed by beauty I am happy to be unique and not a part nor a supporter of an industry that demeans its customer base to sell products. How many billions are spent on makeup, wrinkle creams and weight-hair-loss products? (To be blunt, if consumers stopped selling themselves to the beauty-weight industry in less than a year every starving child on the planet would have 3 meals/day with a roof over their head, factoid.) They wont. I love my ugliness! I love me, obviously. Beauty is so overrated, so is weight, so is sex, so is money, fame and being on tv. Im proud of being ugly and will keep my wrinkles and saggy self just to annoy… I am happy being ugly and old. Never had to deal with handsome cads, never had to fend off ladies at the mall wanting me as a test subject, and Victoria Secret models got nothin on me…mines real and too ample to fit in their tiny training bras!

By lozen

March 9, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

I was channel surfing recently and lo and behold there was Charles Stanley preachin’ about sex. He was telling his congregation they didn’t need sex. He said “…they will tell you you need sex but you don’t. All you need is your relationship with Jesus.” Didn’t he get caught having an affair with one of the women in his church? Didn’t his wife leave him because of it?

By RS

March 9, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

(I’m proud to say I do, indeed, ‘know Jack’!) Whiley, I read the same thing about that female needing 7 stitches you-know-where, but, in keeping with everything else I’d read, the news stories I heard regarding that was the same night Kobe allegedly raped (?!?) her, she slept with another man & encouraged him to treat her roughly so she could blame it on Kobe & collect a large sum. You’re mostly right about good-looking men being conceited jerks. I’ve also known some that weren’t much in the looks department but had more than their fair share of “bad boy” glamour/dark charisma.

By Zack

March 9, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Whiley—Your posts against “religion” not only offend and repulse me, but they also discourage me because it shows ignorance on your part.

First of all, every single person on this planet follows some sort of “religion.” If you’re a Christian, that’s your religion. If you’re an atheist, that’s your religion. If you believe life is all about gathering as many material goods as possible and then dying, that’s your religion. If you’re a communist, socialist, fascist (there’s that word again), that’s your religion.

What is your problem with Christianity? I have no doubt in my mind that it is the one, true religion (this is NOT meant to antagonize anyone else in here, so please don’t take it that way). Christianity is about perfect love for all and perfect intolerance for evil (which raises the question of why the Christian church has become so insanely tolerant of evil. Many “Christians” are more concerned with whether their SUV is nicer than their neighbor’s than they are about seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.

How in the world do you say that women are treated less than men are? Nowadays, there’s a blatant short end of the stick handed to men nowadays, and white men and black men receive it in different ways. Now you’re acting like Martha Stewart is an innocent person. Since when is the act of conniving able to be classified under the category of “innocent”?

You act as though women are innocent and that men are sex-starved? I know many men whose walks down the straight and narrow are not helped by how many women today dress, not to mention how many women are more than willing to jump at sexual immorality. (I even had an incomplete in a college class once, and my professor told me I could come by her house and study if I needed to—while her husband and kids were out of the country for two weeks. Yeah, that’s innocence.)

I guess you think Monica Lewinsky is innocent, that Anita Hill was innocent, etc.. What we saw in these cases was the media double standard against men. Oh, and now we’re seeing it against Bill Cosby also. You’re innocent until proven guilty…but that is very much challenged by certain people against certain others…like certain woman against certain men.

You said Kobe raped that girl. Really? Where’s the proof? There is none. There is, however, substantial evidence that this woman (notice I didn’t say “lady”) is very cheap and had a ton of sex partners.

I certainly am not downplaying the fact that Kobe had an affair. That’s extremely wrong. I will defend him against the allegation that he raped that woman because THAT is a tough one to believe.

Let’s just not spout off this myth that women are generally bastions of morality and that men chase them. Honestly, I think it’s more the other way around.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Zack got out of solitary confinement/the strait jacket!

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Hi Zack ! I see they reopened the prison library. What happened? Was there a riot amongst the serial killers?

I wasn’t aware that sex offenders had access to computers. We should write to our officials about that.

By Jack

March 9, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

I heard that she visited the room to bring him something. He made a pass at her and she accepted. Then after the action started, he wanted to go thru the “back door” and she declined and he did anyway. It was also brought out that another female that he had relations with also had to have stitches in the same place. He may have settled rather than have all of his dirty laundry brought out.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

RS… you sound like my kind of gal!! :) sometimes when we are eating at home my partner (I really don’t like that word but cannot think of a better one) will say that I need to act more proper… so I belch and tell him that is what I think about acting ‘proper’ at home… when he glares at me I tell him I did it to make room for more food ;) (no idea why in the world I am sharing that with you)

By RS

March 9, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Lozen; I’m originally from the NY/NJ area. You’re generally right, but I used to know a Southern born/bred gal who was SO crude she’d put most men to shame! But she was very sweet & lots of fun. Lyrazel: It’s sad how so many desperate females buy into the beauty supply myth, chasing that one magic purchase that will transform their lives. The one thing that CAN do it would be society becoming enlightened enough to celebrate the innate beauty in every woman; think that’ll ever happen? I doubt it…From what you say, a lot of women would envy you for being naturally buxom (I’m, er, well-built in that way too & my husband claims he can tell real from fake & that fake turns him off)YOU GO, GIRL!!

By Zack

March 9, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen and Whiley—You’d better watch your comments against me. You two basically call me a male whore although you know absolutely nothing about me. You say I’m against women, along with all the other tons and tons of nonsensical rhetoric that spews from your mouths. The recent posts you’ve had have ticked me off. Well, you’d better be careful about trying to slander someone, even on a blog, because there are laws in this country against that, and you two hardly would get the same special treatment that your little hero Martha Stewart got.

Some people just can’t be reasoned with, and you two certainly fit that description. Even Norman can be reasoned with to a certain degree.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

RS… it is quite simple to tell the real from the fake… if they look like they belong on a drag queen… they probably are fake ;)

By RS

March 9, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Bless your heart, Tim! I bet your burpies can strip wallpaper! Why are you sharing that with me? Because you know you CAN. You’ve got to have fun & always exercise that childlike (notice: ChildLIKE, not childISH) part of yourself; life is too short to take yourself all that seriously. There’s an old urban legend that in some Eastern country, you’re considered rude if you DON’T belch after a meal. It means you didn’t like your host/hostesses’ cooking (Obviously my husband loves mine!)& in that case, you are never welcome in their home gain

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

ewwww the woman-hater is getting angry ! No one has EVER accused you of being a whore ! We would all be shocked if you EVER had sex (with a woman’s consent)

You slander yourself dear. Go back to your cell. No one is afraid of you.

By Tim

March 9, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

if that is the case… then I am very polite :)

By Whiley

March 9, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Zack seriously some of us are really concerned about you. You are one angry male. I’m sorry but your tone is identical to someone that hates women so much we wouldn’t be surprised at all if you have raped or murdered & are sitting in jail right now. How many times have you been arrested for stalking or abuse? Murder?

You might want to try a post that can help you with your anger & your really aggressive negative attitudes concerning women.

This is supposed to be a female friendly post. Hence the NAME.

By lozen

March 9, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Zack, you make me think of the greek religious myth about Sisyphus.

By Bruce

March 10, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

O.K. It is Thursday and so far we have controlled ourselves but I would much rather be in a heated discussion about ANYTHING other than someones burping habits. I don’t mean to sound harsh but I was wrong when I thought Martha Stewart was going to be a boring subject. No offense intended but I really do not care nor do I want to hear about who can burp the loudest or if women should burp or not. Geez! talk about getting off the subject. I am sure with all teh internet has to offer you could find a blog to discuss that subject on.

What this whole subject boils down to is RESPONSIBILITY. Can we as adults except the responsibility of our actions? Or has it become so easy to blame everyone, eveything else when our live does turn out the way we want it too becuase of the choices we make? Martha knew the risk she was taking, and anyone who says different is questioning her intelligents. She didn’t get where she is today by being stupid. She just made a wrong choice!

By Lyrazel

March 10, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

Yes, Chuck Stanley and his wife divorced. It caused a riff in his audience because preachers of his sect are to be only married once and must maintain the relationship to preach gospel. Its an odd double standard the south is famous for and he too had his share of celebrity justice. Newspapers kept tabs on his case. Again, my disgust was not with the poor preacher man but with news coverage. Is it my business? No, why make it so? Because sex sells to an audience begging for titilation and the puritanical local viewers rely on tantilizing tv/newspapers to get their jollies. Why was Justice Thomas and Lewinski so popular? Sex inuendos…o if America showed its true colors it was certainly then; could anyone avoid it? Our media has a cowboy style of reporting—we would be really following news coverage in Iraq if we were fighting insurgent orgies…instead men and women are there without any plans made by our government to get them out—and is news following that? Heck no. How about media coverage of the US building 14 permanent bases in Iraq and neighboring Tajikistan and what promises we made to Uzbekistan? Why are government officials p** about Iran having potential of nuclear weapons when the data they received about Iraq was wrong—faulty—erroneous—and where does Fearless Leader expect to get more troops..excuse me…supplied, trained and ready to roll troops to invade his list of evil nations, North Korea, Iran Syria… These stories and not some pedophile superfreak interest me and I can find information in the BBC and non-english papers, but our press is agog with stuffy ex-housewives doing time, gun toting beauty pagent queens…and pedophile supersomething who is a one-? peep show. Sign of the times…

By SteveB

March 10, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Just want to jump in for just a moment because I think it is important to clarify something mentioned earlier. Charles Stanley did not have an affair. That was not the reason his wife divorced him. I am not defending Charles Stanley except to say that we need to be careful to know the facts before we start rumors and spread gossip.

Back to your discussions…

By Jack

March 10, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

I had to laugh at Zack’s hollow threat to sue us for slander. How can you slander someone when you don’t use or even know their full name Zack? I could call you anything on any blog and no lawyer would touch it. Sue me.

By Angelica

March 10, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

I’ve often gotten a kick out of reading the various posts and observing people’s view points, whether I agree with them or not. This particular forum, however, has caught my attention, mostly from some of the asinine comments on here.

First, why, Whiley, do you feel a need to make fun of Zack, i.e. calling him a “rapist”, “murderer”, asking him if he has access to prison libraries, etc.? Personally, I do not agree with a lot of Zack’s views, but hey, it’s a free country, and we’re all entitled to blab about our views, beliefs, etc., hence this forum. However, when a person resorts to ridiculous name-calling and immature cattiness in an attempt to make a funny at someone’s expense, then your original point is moot. You talk about Zack being “angry towards women”, one could turn that around and say obviously you have a lot of animosity towards men, in general, based on your comments. Btw, Zack, I don’t think those previous posts could be considered “slander”, seeing as how anything in print is considered “libel”, and the internet, group forums, chat rooms are generally the exception to all of that. Could be wrong on that, but oh well. No sense in getting in a tizzy over someone’s teen-aged mentality/sense of humor.

Personally, as far as Martha Stewart goes, who cares? She committed a crime, got a slap on the wrist, it’s over & done with. She lied under oath, that’s what bit her. And you say “men” don’t get dragged through the mud about lying under oath and adultery? What about good ol’ Billy Clinton and his “smoking apparatus adventures” with that whaler, Monica Lewinsky? The right-wingers were all but jumping & down about his lying under oath (which he did), and subsequently, he was impeached for it. Even as a woman, I certainly don’t buy the “it’s because she’s a woman & he’s THE MAN” excuse, I think it’s more directly correlated with how rich and how many connections someone has to get them out of a tight spot. No pun intended.

As far as Kobe Bryant, we can all speculate on this or that, but fact of the matter is, unless you were actually there, you ain’t gonna know, honey, what really went down in that room. I’ve had a couple of loved ones who were raped violently, and the first thing they did was go to the cops. However, on the other side of the coin, I’ve also known of a few girls who would cry “rape” at the drop of a dime, and ruin a guy’s life forever, when nothing really happened. Whiley’s comment of “I would’ve gone for the money too” I found pretty weak. If anyone goes through something as traumatic as an actual forced rape, I sincerely doubt the last thing they would be thinking about is money. One would assume that the victim already feels cheapened by what happened to her, why make it worse with monetary demands? It would never repair the damage that was inflicted, physical, mental or otherwise.

Whiley, you started off with some interested points, but lost my interest once you got on an overboard feminist soapbox, much like I lose interest in someone who shouts out scripture instead of having an intelligent, civilized debate over different issues.

C’mon, Martha Stewart?? We’ve wasted enough time beating that old horse! :)

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Angelica, How can pointing out sexist double standards be “going off on a feminist soapbox?” You must be a man posing as a female. Maybe one of Zack’s cell mates? Zack rants like a serial killer or rapist ! His religious rantings & views on women remind me of the ramblings of a woman hater sitting in jail. Blaming women for his problems. A real man that is secure with himself does NOT speak such horrible things about women.

You are either Zack posing as someone siding with him, or you are a female that is married to a sexist man who mistreats you. Maybe you are unable to stand up for yourself.

BTW, Bill Clinton should have been the responsible older person & told Monica “honey I’m an old man, President, & married. I am flattered you are attracted to me but you need to date someone your own age.”

If I knew for a fact my famous RAPIST was going to drag me through the dirt & I probably couldn’t convict him, I would hurt him any way I could. These guys are only affected by their pocketbooks. DARN RIGHT I’d go for money. I’d go for PRISON time for the rapist first. That’s the most fitting punishment. But lets face facts, it’s VERY difficult to prove rape. Everyone knows how common it is, but everyone is so quick to scream “she’s just trying to get attention !”. “WHAT?!” Yea right.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Did someone say Monika came on to Bill C.? If you look at Bill’s track record I would say visa-versa.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Angelica, obviously you haven’t been reading this forum for long or you would understand why Zack gets the response he gets from Whiley, RS and me and anyone who spends any time here. I really hate it when someone drops in and starts criticizing w/o knowing what’s been going on. Please go back and read some previous columns and Zack’s comments, then you might understand.

By Archie

March 10, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I agree with Angelica’s comments about Whiley. I was disturbed that this Whiley did not want to blame women for anything and to me if you can’t accept blame or criticism then you cannot be equal.
The Kobe situation is something that I can’t say I know this or that because I was not in the room but I do know that Michael Irvin and Eric Williams were accused of rape years ago and it proved to be false. Thus we know that there are false claims made against athletes which is why some tape their sexual encounters. Martha Stewart was convicted of lying just as men are convicted of lying and there some men that get away and there are some women that get away. The thing about Martha is that she is known to be a tightwad even though she is worth millions. Neither Kobe nor Martha should have been in their situations as Kobe could have flown to the place in Nevada where there are legal brothels and paid much less than he paid the other day and Martha lost her freedom for about 50,000 dollars when she’s worth 650 time that.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

I apologize if I gave the impression that “women can do no wrong.” I was focusing on the double standards.

Zack is extremely sexists & speaks with hatred, so he brings out the fighting Lady in me. he he

I would like to say that even though women have come so far, we still have so much more work to do. A good example are the double standards that we face & witness on a daily basis. A lot has changed since I was a young girl. We are on our way. Unfortunately a lot of old bad traditions still exist & probably will be around long after I’m gone. Zacks rude rantings concerning women are a good example on who & what we have to fight against. Don’t believe all the negative things you hear about feminism. If you critisize feminism, you attack the very group that helped to give you the right to vote, have your own bank accounts & credit, your own property, reproductive & birth control access & rights, more equal protection under the law etc etc. Don’t ever forget that. You should have been around when I was a child. Completely different world.

Thankfully most men are good, thoughtful, respectful, make perfect husbands & fathers, & even cook better than us ! (My brother is the chef his family)

And Martha we are all glad you are out ! Get out there & grow your empire ! (And thank you for such good quality products)

By Tony

March 10, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

You know Angelica is 100% right. Zack does not deserve to be called names no matter how much you disagree with what Zack posts. This is a forum where opinions are posted. If you disagree with Zacks opinion, than state so and why or simply ignore it. But to stoop to name calling is plan disrespectful Period!

By Lyrazel

March 10, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Archie, Martha also lost: right to vote, right to own a gun, also her driver license will be changed to accommodate felon status as will her passport/visa. She cannot move to a different state without contacting parole boards, she cannot associate with known felons. All this for a stinking stock trade…

By lozen

March 10, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Archie, were you upset that Zack and others did not want to blame men for anything? It’s just so unusual to hear a woman standing up for other women isn’t it? And she is equal whether she thinks like you think she should or not. We are all equal; we’re born equal and it doesn’t matter if we are stupid, which I guess you’re saying both Martha and Kobe are, if we wear revealing clothes or baggy unattractive clothes, if we’re male or female. There will be plenty of others who will criticize women; Whiley doesn’t need to. Are you upset that Angelica called Monica “the whaler”? Don’t think so. It hurts me more to hear that kind of sabotage of women from a woman than from a man.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Tony, Referring to women as whores, murderers, no morals, dressing badly, etc is what he continually does. No matter what the topic. THAT is name calling. THAT is disrepectful. Don’t you think he speaks like a really angry woman hating guy that probably has a history of at least domestic abuse? Most men don’t think the way he does. His violent thinking is not normal & I believe gives men a bad name.

Why does he post on a Woman to Woman site if all he wants to promote is hatred to women & negative religious rants? Go back & read his posts. Quite frightening actually. Or maybe he’s just a kid that gets a kick out of putting women down. Trying to disrupt a female friendly blog.

By J. Morris

March 10, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

I know that I am not innocent by any means in the name-calling arena. I have a temper and I lose it some times. But Tony, when has Zack ever been anything BUT insulting and abusive to others?

Post an opinion he doesn’t like - he calls you ignorant or says that “your words don’t reflect well on you”. He has refered to virtually every woman who posts regularly on this forum as “slutty”. He hates jews, gays, muslims, foreigners, women…His every post absolutely oozes with vitriol and hatred, and he absolutely never contributes to any conversation. He is a maglignant tumor of a human being - how’s that for name calling.

I agree that we need to be nicer to each other on the blog, and I will certainly work harder to do so, but some people just don’t deserve respect. I may disagree with some of you, and I may even get into it with a couple of you, but at the end of the day I still believe that most of you are emotionally stable, relatively decent human beings. Zack, on the other hand, is a dangerously unstable person.

And I eagerly await the response from Zack…I am wagering he will question my intellect, my parentage and my reasoning skills. He will claim that I am “attacking” Christians because, obviously, a dislike for him implies a dislike for Christianity. He will call me a bigot for discriminating against him, and then threaten me with the absolutely hysterical threat of a libel lawsuit.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I agree with you. People who criticize feminists do not appreciate what feminists did for all women. I remember the days you spoke of. When I divorced in 1970, I had no credit and couldn’t get credit. I was the one who managed the finances and paid the bills in the marriage but everything had been in his name so… no credit record for me. Fortunately, I had a female dentist who co-signed for me to get a credit card so I could afford dental work I needed. She will always be my hero. Back then I worked in a teaching hospital and there were no female residents at all. Now at least half of each residency group is female. It’s a shame that credit is not given where credit is due.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Whiley, no need to apologize for any comment you made about Zack. He is an angry, hateful man. We really should feel sorry for him having to carry that chip on his shoulder all the time. We just need to be glad he is not king.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Your post warms my heart lozen. Who are these horrible feminist everyone speaks of that want to break up the families & disregard the importance of fathers?? , who want to take rights from men?? What is everyone so afraid of?

There does need to be some change in family courts. I am so sorry that some good men have gotten caught up in the battle. Instead of being angry at women’s rights groups, get angry with the fathers that make it harder on everyone else. Despite the turmoil, I see SO many more dad’s more involved with the kids & daily household duties. NOW THAT is a positive change !

And Ah I wish I was young again. This is a much better time to be a woman. (birth control wasn’t that great when I was a girl ! lol)

By Angelica

March 10, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Well golly-gee-willikers, I had no idea that Whiley, in all of her infinite message board wisdom, would actually think I’m a man. Before you go off on your finger-pointing tirade, honey, I assure you I am a woman, not involved w/ a sexist pig of a male, matter of fact, I’m almost 6 months pregnant with my first child, I work everyday, I don’t go banging a bible or forcing my opinions onto others’ lives, I’m not considered “right-wing” or whatever label anyone wants to slap on. As I said, just because I don’t agree with Zack’s viewpoints, doesn’t mean I’m going to resort to petty & childish name-calling, as you & Lozen seem to prefer, regardless of what kind of hate-fueled bile comes out of his, or anyone else’s, mouth. Wouldn’t that be basically sinking down to his level, anyway? It would seem to me that sincerely intelligent and classy ladies such as yourself & Lozen wouldn’t even give silliness like that the time of day. However, it seems you’ve proven differently. Especially all the while touting what wonderful things feminism has accomplished, and then berate me in a juvenile manner and insist I’m a man or I’m some spineless jellyfish with an ogre of a man! Laughable!

Lozen, sorry you “hate” it when someone just “drops in and criticizes”, but if I recall, this IS an open forum, not some exclusive club. If you don’t like it, don’t read/respond to my comments. Actually, I’ve been reading posts on here for quite a few months, and yes, I most certainly have noticed there are some rather “extreme” opinions and passionate views on things, but again, why sink down to that level, when I’ve seen before you can express yourself in a much more intelligent manner?

And how sad I called Monica Lewinsky a “whaler”? Honey, she’s no babe in the woods. I personally think Clinton was a pig for doing what he did, and SO WAS SHE. Sorry, but any gal who leaves (ahem) “DNA-leftovers” on her dress as a souvenier is disgusting, pure & simple. All I was trying to point out, is that there’s always another angle to things. Just like the old saying goes, “There’s three sides to every story: his, hers, and the truth.”

Just wanting to join the discussion here, so there’s no need in shaking high & mighty fingers at me. Yes, there are a lot of inequities in this world, yes there are sexist double standards, but it doesn’t account for every single misdeed in society. Sticking up for your rights as a woman isn’t a “soapbox”, but accusing everyone under the sun of being “RAPISTS” and taking your views, whether they’re pro-feminist or pro-religious, to an EXTREME, most certainly qualifies as soapbox prattle.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Monika should have sold the dress…to Bill

By Angelica

March 10, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

LOL, right on Jack. See? THAT would’ve been good entrepreneurship!

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

If she had not kept the dress with the “proof” on it, Mr. Bill would have gotten away with everything.

Why wasn’t Bill put in jail for lying, but Martha was?

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Angelica, How would you feel if someone were to refer to YOU as a whaler?

I never referred to everyone as a rapist, I clearly said there is no way to know WHO is & who ISN’T. THAT is a fact.

Seriously, congratulations on your pregnancy. Remember there is a better chance than not that your daughter will be sexually molested or attempted before she is even 18. And usually it is by a family member or friend. Remember that. I suggest you visit your state sex offender registry. See how close the convicted are to you. Then notice how many women are convicted sex offenders. Don’t tell me not to be wary.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

They didn’t jail Bill cause everybody loved him. Many still do. Angelica is a beautiful name. If you are having a girl you should name her after you.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Angelica, of course this is a public forum and anyone can post here. Do you think it would have been a little more diplomatic to make your first post something general instead of immediately criticizing someone else? I cannot judge Monica because I really don’t know what happened. I can’t judge Bill Clinton; I really don’t know what happened. I don’t feel I can judge Martha; if I’d been in her place I don’t know what I would have done. I can, however, judge Zack’s posts on this board and I believe he’s either very immature or emotionally and mentally handicapped. He is totally irrational and extremely angry. He does really hate women, and I believe he may very well be dangerous.

By Angelica

March 10, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Jack! Although “Angelica Jr.” has a nice ring to it, I think one loud mouthed “Angel” in this world is enough! lol

Whiley, thank you for the congrats on my pregnancy, but a “aw c’mon” for the molestation scare. “There’s a good chance my daughter will be molested by the time she’s 18?” Geez. How about something more like, “So what colors are you doing your nursery in?” or “How ‘bout those godawful maternity clothes that resemble small circus tents?” I’m already well aware of the horrors that can befall small children and young women, and yes, I’ve already checked w/ the sex offender registry. But I’m not going to instill paranoia into my child. Let them be kids, leave the worrying to me instead.

How would I feel if I were called a “whaler”? Probably not so hot, but you know what, though? If I don’t act like a pig (Lewinsky) rutting around with other pigs (Clinton), chances are I probably won’t get called one and therefore have hurt feelings/remorse, and write a crummy book for monetary gain about it later. But good point, nonetheless, and well taken. Clinton got away with not going to jail because a.) he was impeached (supposedly) instead, b.) the only thing they would be able to jail him for is perjury, not for fooling around with an intern who was of age and knew exactly what she was doing. Like I said before, they’re BOTH gross, but oh well. Martha, violated SEC regulations, lied, and subsequently was jailed for it. If it’s unfair to you, fine, then let’s scream at the justice system for picking and choosing punishments, only for the simple fact of (as I said before) financial/social status and financial/political connections.

That’s why a president will not ever do jail time but a business-owner who peddles cheap wares at KMart will. Sorry to put down KMart, but I’m a Target gal, myself!

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

So what are you colors? Girl or boy? Did you get your diaper genie yet? A must have.

By Carey

March 10, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

For sheer propaganda value, it doesn’t get any better than the United Nations women’s conference, which wraps up this week in New York City.Everything was scripted, right down to the snappy slogans and approved list of grievances. Once you heard UN secretary-general Kofi Annan give his welcoming speech, you knew you were going to be hearing a lot about “gender equality and women’s empowerment.” Of course, it’s all a ruse. When the Sisterhood speaks of “equality,” equal opportunities for men and women are the last thing they have in mind. In fact, “equal opportunity” appeared to be on the conference organizer’s list of banned expressions. Feminists don’t like the O-word because it implies women might need to operate on an even and fair basis with men. So when feminists claim to be in favor of gender equality, they are really referring to a genderless society. “Gender equality” means “genderless society.” Get it? To achieve their gender-free utopia, the rad-fems employ tactics that are hallmarks of totalitarian societies: revamping the traditional family, mass re-education programs, gender quotas, and discriminatory laws that promise to “re-engineer” society [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1037397.cms]. Mind you, the feminist rendition of “gender equality” is always a one-way street. Around the world, men have a higher death rate than women [www.who.int/whr/2001/main/en/annex/index.htm]. The victims of worksite deaths are almost always male. Men’s suicide rate is three and a half times higher. [www.who.int.whr/2001/main/en/chapter2/002g.htm] But the problems of men will just have to wait. Then there’s the mantra of “women’s empowerment” â€â€? that one is even more disingenuous. Feminists think of “empowerment” in the neo-Marxist sense â€â€? inducing women to become angry and resentful, thus driving a wedge between the sexes and undermining marriage, the most fundamental unit of society. Propaganda is a slippery slope. Once you tell an untruth, you have to come up with more falsehoods in order to be consistent. These are a few examples of the lies that filled the halls of the United Nations this past week:

Eduardo Sevilla, acting president of the UN General Assembly, alleged that women are “discriminated against more than any other minority.” That statement contains two absurdities. First, women represent a majority of the world’s population. Second, Sevilla’s remark flatly ignores the ethnic-cleansing that has been directed against minority populations in Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Then Munir Akram, president of the UN Economic and Social Council, repeated the old myth about women being the main victims of war. Apparently Mr. Akram never got around to reading the UN’s recent Report on Violence on Health, which documented that 310,000 men, and only 77,000 women, died of war-related injuries in 2000 [www5.who.int/violenceinjuryprevention/main.cfm?p=0000000682].

Next the ever-shrill Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), stepped to the podium and claimed that “violence against women has become routine as a weapon of war.” That hyper-inflated remark ignores the fact that women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men [www.mediaradar.org/mrunemperor.php]. Really, how can so many well-educated, highly-placed UN officials say so many stupid things? After listening all day to the ideological slogans, factual distortions, and emotional harangues, one almost begins to believe they are true. That’s how brainwashing works. The history of 20th century Europe offers a cautionary tale of social movements that promised a better future, but in truth were fueled by lies and anger. Looking back, no one doubts the sinister nature of those movements. Now in 2005, the face of modern-day evil is beginning to emerge. That face wears the mask of radical feminism. And slowly but surely, that divisive ideology is taking hold at the United Nations.

By Scalia

March 10, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Men’s problems are put aside because men are taught not to have problems, for that is a sign of weakness. You are reared to not display any form of emotion other than angry. That is why men probably commit more suicide, and have more problems, there is no outlet. There is an excellent book about how boys are raised, and it talks all about this sort of thing.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Antifeminist, Anti women propaganda. What are you afraid of? That is a pack of lies. It’s so sad. People like you do everything and anything to keep women from seeking justice, safety & equality. When we speak out we are quickly put in our place. WHAT IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF??

You are clearly a scared man. Real men recognize lies & also appreciate a real feminist.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

I don’t know where you got your stats from but men commit way more acts of domestic violence than women. In war, men are killed, women are raped repeatedly and then killed. Why do you have a problem with women being equal? Are you threatened by it?

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

“In fact, “equal opportunityâ€? appeared to be on the conference organizers list of banned expressions. Feminists don’t like the O-word because it implies women might need to operate on an even and fair basis with men.”

REALLY? I’ve never heard of that one before. Not tolerating abuse or cheating really mean women are undermining marriage???

“Around the world, men have a higher death rate than women The victims of worksite deaths are almost always male. Men’s suicide rate is three and a half times higher.”

Maybe that’s because men will only go to the Dr’s when a limb is broken off. You can’t blame accident & suicide rates on women. Do I really need to go into details why women are angry & have finally had enough??

YOU have it CORRECT that women are very discriminated all around the world. I can’t believe I may have to EXPLAIN THIS ONE ! ! You know what, I won’t. Women around the world are treated like dirt in many countries. That I don’t need to prove.

” women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men”

OH REALLY? sigh…so much work we women still have to do.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

we ladies love you Jack !

Thank you

By Carey

March 10, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

I provided links to the sources of information. Look them up yourself.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t believe them if I did.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Carey, what conservative far right rag did you copy and paste from?

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

I have better things to do with my time, such as, read this blog ! he he

By Bruce

March 10, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Whiley and Lozen,

At the risk of facing your wrath I tried to point out to you earlier this week that your post was sounding a bit like you were taking your case a little too far in the men bashing department. I thought it was just me but it seems others are beginning to see it too. Apparently you are just as passionate about double standards as we Christains are about the 10 Commandments. But if we try to express ourselves we are haters and intolerant. And I am not talking just about how Zack was treated today. Just go back to last week and see how disrespectful things got.

By Zack

March 10, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Lozen—When reading your comment about a “far right rag”, I thought about something Rush Limbaugh said this week. He referred to how liberals act like their beliefs are mainstream and that conservatives are extreme—-when it’s actually just the opposite.

Of course, the word “extreme” carries an unfair, negative connotation to it. If you are doing the right thing, you can never be too extreme (why settle for mediocrity?). “Extreme” can be either positive or negative.

Actually, we suffer in society from, among other things, the left pushing its extremely-wrong agenda on the rest of us. We have the lies of evolution and safe sex in textbooks, combined with the bigotry against Creationism and abstinence. The left is very adamant about there being no balance but instead ONLY its side being shown. This is ludicrous. What’s even worse is that, as mentioned before, many “Christians” today do nothing about it and instead are worried about who has the nicest SUV, as though that’s something meaningful.

As for Martha Stewart, Lozen, you and Whiley have shown bigotry against men this week, and any statement that Stewart has had it too hard is preposterous. This woman is a lying, cheating conniver, and she deserves to be in jail for life. Instead, she was sent to a luxury hotel, essentially, for three months.

As I also mentioned, let’s not speak this myth about men being sexual deviants and women being these bastions of morality. Even in elementary schools, there are more than a few female flirts—who, of course, play the innocent act later on. Anita Hill lied through her teeth about Clarence Thomas in an attempt to get him impeached. Monica Lewinsky, while maybe not a liar, did nothing to show that she isn’t a whore, to be bluntly honest. She’s not alone; there are plenty more out there. Let’s just not shine the spotlight on the Kobe Bryants. Kobe had an affair, which is terribly wrong. Did he rape anyone? Let’s be realistic here. Of course not! Whores are not hard to find, especially when you’re a guy with a lot of money in the bank.

By Archie

March 10, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

First of all,Lyrazel I like most of your posts but Martha knew that what she did was a crime that’s why she tore up memos and spoke in codes to certain people. The crime that she was convicted of required jail time but she’s out. There was a story about a woman who went to jail for not having her kids in a seat belt. The story was published in this newspaper so people do go to jail very minor things and I know that personally, but Martha did something serious and although others do it they haven’t got caught. I also like Angelica when she assigns some blame to Monica Lewinsky who already had an affair with a married person before Clinton. I especially like it when Angelica says there are 3 sides to a story. Something about those sentences sounds logical and thoughtful versus you ought to like feminists. A true feminist should be the first to step up and accept blame just as you would take the credit for something good. I have seen this Zack persons’ posts but I don’t read every post on every topic because like Angelica I feel as though there are extreme opinions on the left and right and some things are too asinine to respond to.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Well, Carey I did read the India Times article you refer to and as usual, you pulled one line (which you consider to be negative) about “re-engineering society” from a very positive article about the injustices women have lived with in India and a government effort to redress those injustices. Men will pay slightly more tax than women on property because, “These fiscal measures could reverse a centuries-old pattern of gender oppression.” I don’t really feel compelled to chase down the others because I know where you’re coming from. And again I ask you, “What right wing rag did you cut and paste from?”

By lozen

March 10, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Also Carey, you say, “Eduardo Sevilla, acting president of the UN General Assembly, alleged that women are “discriminated against more than any other minority.â€? That statement contains two absurdities. First, women represent a majority of the world’s population. Second, Sevilla’s remark flatly ignores the ethnic-cleansing that has been directed against minority populations in Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere.” I wonder if it just slipped the mind of the person who wrote this that at least half those minority populations are females? But yes, they are right … women are not a minority in numbers, but we’re certainly a minority in terms of power in the world.

Gee Bruce you said we should talk about something we feel strongly about. And there are plenty of people who will say Whiley and I are “femi-nazi’s” for being for our sister human beings. You poor christians really aren’t the only ones who are criticized in this world.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Zack - That was the nicest post you have done. You get more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar.

By lozen

March 10, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Zack, as usual all you do is repeat yourself over and over and over and … Why am I not surprised you are a Rush fan? That’s where you get all your ideas, isn’t it? You have absolutely nothing to say but you’re determined to say it anyway.

By Zack

March 10, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Archie—You can knock my posts all you want, but it’ll do you no good since you have no credibility from your own statements.

If you honestly pay attention to my posts, you’ll realize that I’m about fairness. People say I’m against women, which is preposterous and does nothing but show how desperate my opponents on here are—and that they resort to name-calling because they don’t have concrete evidence to support their thesis statements.

Yes, I’m about fairess. I go to work and see a handsome, married, 26-year-old man being flirted with by a 23-year-old single woman who has absolutely no concern whatsoever about sexual morality and/or him, his wife, or daughter. I see this sort of thing and then hear that women are innocent and that men are the instigators. I point out the double standards and refer to people like Anita Hill and Monica Lewinsky, both about as cheap as they come. When I stand up for the unborn, I’m told that I’m against women and that a baby is allegedly the property of the mother, which is no different than saying that Jewish people were the property of Hitler.

Let’s wake up and smell the coffee—and swallow our egos when swallowing said coffee. In other words, let’s quit trying to rationalize and be man enough to admit when we’re wrong—as opposed to making excuse after excuse after excuse—which could lead others down the same sorry path.

By Whiley`

March 10, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

The whore obsessor is back! Must be your turn on the prison computer. AND YES I will continue to address you as a criminal because your hostility gives you away as one.

Anita Hill was a liar??? What’s more likely, a guy hitting on a pretty woman, or her flat out lying for no gain for herself. Don’t forget, she never said anything till she was ASKED. If ya don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question I say. (rolling eyes yet again) If we had all made public everytime one of our bosses made sexual innuendoes to us over the years……

Kobe is a rapist. OJ is a murderer. Justice Thomas was hitting on Anita Hill (not sure if that should keep him from getting his position) Men commit the vast majority of violent crime. I’m sorry, it’s true. Women who have sex are not whores. Women who have sex for money are whores. (hmm what does that make the men that pay for sex) I know ! Athletes! Martha Stewart should not spend the rest of her life in jail. What an idiotic comment Zack. Of course she needed some sort of punishment though.

Stop posting here Zack, go back to your cell.

I was NOT MALE BASHING ONE LITTLE BIT ! My goodness no wonder so many don’t speak out !

By Jack

March 10, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t aware that Hitler was going to give birth to all Jewish people and decided to abort them. Are you man enough to admit you are wrong or are you asking me to. I am man enough to admit I’m wrong, when I believe I am. In this case I do not. I tried listening to Rush but I got tired of him spouting about how great HE is. Boortz is better.

By J. Morris

March 10, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Apart from the fact that he continues to call women whores…

By Archie

March 10, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Zack I never mentioned anything directly about your posts that would be evident if you could read and comprehend. I said I have seen your posts and there extreme opinions on the left and the right. Please read or ask questions. I have been posting about the comments of Whiley. Apparently Whiley is more capable of reading and comprehension than yourself(Zack). Whiley was critical of me but she did read and Angelica is my idol on this forum because she speaks with an air of good judgement and non-extremism. I have implied in my posts that Kobe and Martha both could have made different choices. I have a problem with feminism only when it is extreme but not otherwise since there are many brave women responsible for the freedoms of today. I would be angry if my spouse asked for permission to buy a pair of stockings, translation, I am not from the far right but I do think everyone can take the blame when they mess up and I do agree with Zack that there are women that cozy up to men even though they know the guy is married. Anyway the main thing is read and comprehend before responding.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

lol J MORRIS

I KNOW HE LOVES WOMEN SO MUCH ! ! ! HA HA HA HA !

By Jack

March 10, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Maybe Zack should have his own talk radio show, he knows how to p** people off.

By Bruce

March 10, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen, You yourself have done a great deal of Chirstian criticizing and I have only been reading your post a couple of months now. Last week, between you, J Morris, RS and the gang, I felt like a peice of raw meat in shark infested waters. Go back to last week and read for yourself. Just because my opinion was different then yours on the 10 Commandments I had to get out of the discussion. Remember this, “I am taking my dog out of this hunt.?” And even after I left the discussion you continued. Go back and read it for yourself!

I have tried to understand and respect you all better this week but I beginning to get the feeling that is not enough. Will blood do? Will that make it all better?

By Vincent

March 10, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t hiss or kiss Martha Stewart. Hissing is childish, and she doesn’t turn me on enough to kiss. I don’t think anybody has a solid opinion on this issue. After all, she’s a rag to riches American story. The kind of story we dream of; yet, she made a boo boo and did some time. We Americans only want to believe in the dream part. We do not care about breaking laws or cheating people, but we don’t like getting caught. So, if you kiss Martha, you raise suspicion, if you hiss people think you are anti-woman, anti- American, blah, blah, blah.

As far as the accusation the media is liberal, I need proof. Jeff Gannon got one day of coverage, Monica Lewinski continues getting coverage. Folks, a gay man lied to the CIA and the Secret Service and got a White House Press Pass for two years. Monica made cigar sales sky rocket. Which is really more concerning? Our security breach right into The White House, or sexual cigars.

I really wish we would open our eyes and read what is there, and what is not there. Reading what you want to see is dangerous.

But, back to Martha. Walter Elias Disney worked for the government and was instrumental in bringing forth testimony of people he felt were Communists. Mr. Disney, like any other human being, was flawed. But, should we hiss at his company? The product he and his legacy created prior to King Eisner’s Reign resonates in American culture, and whether you like Disney or not, the reverberations marked advancement in technology and entertainment that we value today. We have to remember none of us is perfect, we all screw up, and seperate the person from the label.

By J. Morris

March 10, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you weren’t content with having a different opinion - you felt it necessary for us to know how much God hates us, and how horrible and derranged I and the other gay participants in this blog are. You want to know why I criticize you? That’s why.

This is the difference between us that I have tried time and time again to explain that you never get…I have no desire to change how you life your life. I simply don’t care. You, on the other hand, would happily legislate me out of existence. Until you come to grips with that, then yes - blood may be required.

Unfortunately since fundamentalists shed a lot more blood than anyone else, that blood is far more likely to be mine that yours.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Blood will do Bruce. Lots of it. Haha!

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

This could go on forever back & forth. Discussing sexism & unfair social pressures is not supposed to draw men & women apart.

The lesson learned is that ladies, young & old, you are on your own. You have GOT to make better decisions & not get carried away by a cute face. You are going to have to be smarter about who you choose to date & get pregnant with. It could cost you your life if you don’t.

Ignore those who scream WHORE because you want the same sexual freedom as your male friends. Always remember that birth control is YOUR responsibility. Do not ever be alone with a man unless you are completely sure who he is. Do not feel guilty for anything as long as you are using your best judgment. Enjoy your sex life.

Don’t let double standards dictate how you live your life. Never.

And don’t trade stocks unless you know exactly what you are doing.

Lets talk about guy double standards. What SPECIFIC things do you experience? Doesn’t have to be about women.
(Zack stay out of this, try to listen to real men)

By Jack

March 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Can’t think of any that wouldn’t make me sound like a whiner.

By Vincent

March 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Well said Whiley. Barbra Streisand said it this way, “I don’t care what you say about me. Just spell my name correctly.”

There are no double standards for men. Men wrote the rule book. And while most men are as dumb as rocks, they are smart enough not to allow double standards.

By Tony

March 10, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

A woman was explaining her theory of putting her children to bed: “I never tell bedtime stories that begin with ‘Once upon a time,’” she said. “If I really want to put them to sleep, I start off with, ‘Now, when I was your age…’” It’s nice to understand people so well that we know just what to say! Here is a mother who could speak her children’s language.

The story is told of the most famous elephant in the world — a huge, beautiful and gentle beast named Bozo. Children extended open palms filled with peanuts for the Indian elephant, who gently plucked them from little hands and seemed to smile as he ate his treats.

But one day, for some inexplicable reason, Bozo changed. He almost stampeded the man who cleaned his cage. He charged children at the circus and became incorrigible. His owner knew he would have to destroy the once-gentle giant.

In order to raise money for a new elephant, the circus owner held a cruel exhibition. He sold tickets to witness Bozo’s execution and, on the appointed day, his arena was packed. Three men with high-powered rifles rose to take aim at the great beast’s head.

Just before the signal was given to shoot, a little, stubby man in a brown hat stepped out of the crowd and said to the elephant’s owner, “Sir, this is not necessary. Bozo is not a bad elephant.”

“But he is,” the man argued. “We must kill him before he kills someone.”

“Sir, give me two minutes alone in his cage,” the visitor pleaded, “and I’ll prove to you that you are wrong. He is not a bad elephant.”

After a few more moments of discussion (and a written statement absolving the circus of liability if the man should be injured), the keeper finally agreed to allow the man inside Bozo’s cage. The man removed his brown derby and entered the cage of the bellowing and trumpeting beast.

Before the elephant could charge, the man began to speak to him. Bozo seemed to immediately quiet down upon hearing the man’s words. Nearby spectators could also hear the man, but they could not understand him, for he spoke a foreign language. Soon the great animal began to tremble, whine and throw his head about. Then the stranger walked up to Bozo and stroked his trunk. The great elephant tenderly wrapped his trunk around the man, lifted him up and carried him around his cage before carefully depositing him back at the door. Everyone applauded.

As the cage door closed behind him, the man said to Bozo’s keeper, “You see, he is a good elephant. His problem is that he is an Indian elephant and understands one language.” He explained that Bozo was frustrated and confused. He needed someone who could speak his language. “I suggest, sir, that you find someone in London to come in occasionally and talk to the elephant. If you do, you’ll have no problems.”

The man picked up his brown derby and walked away. It was at that time that the circus owner looked carefully at the signature on the paper he held in his hand — the note absolving the circus of responsibility in the case he was injured inside the elephant’s cage. The statement was signed by Rudyard Kipling.

People also become frustrated and angry when they are not understood. But great relationships are formed by parents who learn to speak their children’s language; lovers who speak each other’s language; professionals who speak the language of their staff and clients. When people understand that YOU understand, that you empathize with their heartaches and understand their problems, then you are speaking their language! It is the beginning of true communication.

And that my friends is it for me and Martha this week. See y’all next week. Be Good and God Bless You All.

By Whiley

March 10, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

I always got the impression you guys hated the fact you always had to act like a tough guy all the time. That you couldn’t appreciate anything even remotely feminine for fear of being called a sissy.

Certainly was the case when I was growing up.

One example :)

By lozen

March 10, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Bruce, what are you talking about? Yes, there are a number of us who disagree with your version of christianity. I don’t understand what your point is though.

By Jack

March 10, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

The man really pulled a thorn from the elephant’s foot!

By Jack

March 10, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

I would never wear pink.

By Shelly

March 11, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

I’m just wondering how educated we actually are about the whole MS issue…for example, how many of us have read any of the legal proceedings? Do you know what the lie is: “I don’t recall…” and did you know that the lie was “proved” by a person who was getting immunity? Did you know that Martha was NOT convicted of insider trading (no case) so the only thing left for the government to try was lying. Have you ever lied to the government? I’m pretty sure a majority of people have (a little cheat on the taxes, a little weight decrease on the drivers’ license). Did you go to jail for it? I have no great love for Martha Stewart - her shows bore me to tears - but I think the government wanted to make an example BECAUSE she was a big celebrity. When they couldn’t prove the case on Insider Trading, they took what was left. Was justice done? I don’t know - I’m not thrilled that my money was used to keep a woman in jail who “lied.” So - if she’s rebounding from it and making money, I personally could care less. I think the whole thing was a sham from start to finish - this is a case that should never have been tried, and had it been anyone else, it wouldn’t have been. If you care enough (and really, who does) to get the facts, then you may see a lot of discussion on Insider Trading in the trial transcripts when the issue was actually barred from the trial because she was never convicted of that crime. Don’t you think that in order to prove you lied about killing your cat, somebody should have already proved their case and convicted you of killing your cat (if that’s illegal)? How can you say somebody lied about something they did if you don’t prove they did it? And why do we let the government get away with wasting our resources going after trivial issues like this? OH - I know, it’s the principle..

By the way - I am simply amazed at how EVERY topic that is on this forum is turned into a religious discussion even when it has absolutely no bearing on the topic! And nearly always it’s started by the “Christians.” All I have to say to Christians is “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Tolerance of other human beings is a fundamental Christian tenet and I’m amazed at how many hypocritical Christian people feel they can pass judgement on the behavior of other people and not be violating their own religious principles … but, hey, to each his own. As long as you don’t lie about it to the government, you’ll be fine.

By Lyrazel

March 11, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Leave for just half a day and all the fun is over—what a pity.

Archie, I said previously Martha was punished for lying to the feds and YES it was what ANYONE deserves, dont mess with the Feds. I listed the things she gave up, rights so many of us average folks take for granted: like voting.

Jack, pink is the color men wear when their wives shop for their clothes. It is not a color most men are attrated to, but with the right skin tone you might be dashing or end up looking like you stole the sheets off your daughters bassinet. Women actually have covert plans to remake mens clothing…see we start with the necktie, then work our way through shirts…and stoon it will be Louis XIV!! Powdered wigs, and brocades, poet shirts and thigh high boots…yes women do have an agenda.

Sometimes, I think half the readers of the blog are here just to infect others with a bad attitude. Other days I read and wonder am I the only ignorant git in GA? Keep it up folks, you all are quite amusing.

Sexism vs Women are Majority: the women of the world are not treated as well as the ladies who might pass on 285 every morning. There is a case of a woman in Pakistan who was raped by fourteen Elders of the community—because her father refused to cooperate with them. This is a country USA is pouring money into. Should our money be spent with a consumer consciousness that tries to bridge gaps of equity between the poorest of the poor nations and the wealth of a country as grand as ours? After all the cheap goods we import from Pakistan shouldnt we as consumers be aware of who is profiting? Many Pakistan women are enslaved by traditions other developed nations abandoned 4 decades ago. Sometimes we must look beyond our comfortable shopping malls to discover truth and justice do not mean the same in every country.

The UN has brought awareness of the plagues of AIDS and global poverty, their inspectors found no WMDs in Iraq—before we invaded—and after we invaded we found no WMD despite our government saying there was. The UN sponsors programs to assist women in nations where their value is less than cows. It has brought awareness of practiced rituals where womens genitalia are removed, of starvation of children created by rape in guerilla wars and abuses in prisons run by well-established nations…its not a perfect organization…but until a unity of nations brings us something better its what we have to work with. WE as a nation ought to be very aware of how much of other nations resources Americans use…blind consumerism has kept America rich at the expense of others—small wonder rebellions smoke everywhere we have been. Happy friday, long may we rant.

By Tim

March 11, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel… I think pink is a great color for men… there are so many shade so there is a shirt out there for every skin tone :) but the new color this year for clothes and for the home is turquois… it is the new pink :) but I am sure Martha already knows what the new hot color will be this year

By Vincent

March 11, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Jeff Gannon people.

By Jack

March 11, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Shelley: Ditto.

By lozen

March 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Shelly, thanks for that information. I didn’t pay much attention to the Martha trial and I really didn’t know what she was convicted of and why she went to prison. Now you have informed us all what really happened. And you’re right, how many of us haven’t lied to the guv’ment?

By Jack

March 11, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Thank God its Friday!! Going to a play near Little Five Points. Where should me & my wifey go to have a drink or two beforehand? (I’m old but not quite a senior yet)

By lozen

March 11, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack, me too, Pearls? My friend and I will just wait until we get there, stroll around and people watch, and go where we feel the vibe, man! Actually, he thinks there’s a restaurant (mexican maybe) near Stephens with tables in the alley; that sounds fun. For a drink maybe the place on the east side of the point with the outside tables? There are two new places south of there Front Page News and a Mexican place that have nice courtyards too.

By Jack

March 11, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Yes we’re going to Pearls. Hope its good. Went to Santaland Diaries last year and it was good. We went to the Vortex but want to try something different this time.

By RS

March 11, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Jack, you’ll be in MY neighbourhood! Try El Myr, right on Euclid, right in the heart of it all. They also serve stuff like tacos & burritos. Or, the Brewhouse on Moreland at McClendon (across McClendon from Zestos) Anyway, have fun! Oh, Lozen, a friend I work with, and I, have eaten at Front Page News. Good place!

By Jack

March 11, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Thanks Lozen & RS. I’ll be sending you good vibes!

By james

March 11, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

martha didn’t lose her right to vote. it depends on where you are convicted of your felony whether or not you lose your right to vote.

double standards….why do i have to let the toilet seat down? are women to weak to move the seat of the thrown themselves? what about the notion that’s it’s okay for a woman to have males friends because he doesn’t look at her that way but a man can’t possibly have female friends without trying to bang them.

rape is such a touchy subject. place the accused and the accusers pictures side by side in paper and go from there. who knows what goes on behind closed doors.

women are as shadey as men. just because a woman says rape doesn’t mean she should be believed.

By Zack

March 11, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—I just read your recent post about me. You show your hypocrisy when you attack my controversial statements but not the ones made by others, in other words, the ones who agree with you. Why does this not surprise me? As for calling women “slutty”, I haven’t called any woman on here that. I’ve said that some women have defended slutty behavior, which has been the case. Promoting casual sex is doing just that.

Whiley—You’re still on your anti-male, anti-conservative soapbox, aren’t you? You’re still saying Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill and that Kobe Bryant’s a rapist. (As I recall, you defended Martha Stewart and said, as I recall, that she was given TOO STIFF a sentence—which is crazy; she should be in jail for life.)

You said I wasn’t a real man. I take no offense because you don’t strike me as one who would know what a real man was. As for Thomas, think about your logic: This woman was so offended that she said nothing at all for eight years, and then when her and her sore losers were disappointed at this man being appointed to his position, here came the allegations.

As for Kobe, let’s again look at your logic: This woman apparently had sex with a different man every night, and you think she had consensual sex the other 364 nights of the year but suddenly didn’t want to have sex with Kobe (with consensual sex apparently resuming the following night)? Please think before you speak.

You talked about who women should avoid. My friend, there are indeed many men who women should avoid. There also, contrary to what you would like to admit, many women out there that men should avoid. Jezebels aren’t hard to find, especially, as I said, if you have a lot of money in the bank. (I’m so sick and tired of this “Blame the man in all cases” rhetoric that we hear constantly.) You can post all your little petty insults the rest of the day if you’d like, but why don’t you, Lozen, J. Morris, and anyone else like you, decide to surprise everyone and make sensible, reasonable posts as opposed to childish bickering and name-calling, followed by accusing the other person of doing just that to you?

Have a good weekend.

By Bruce

March 11, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Let us all join in a moment of prayer, or slience if you do not pray, for the families of all those effected in this morning killings at the courthouse.

By Tim

March 11, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

BRUCE… AMEN… ALL OF OUR THOUGHTS SHOULD BE WITH THE FAMILIES… AND I PRAY THAT NO ONE ELSE IS HURT FROM THIS MONSTER!

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Hey Zack, is that the same women hating nonsense you told the judge?

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

women are as shadey as men. just because a woman says rape doesn’t mean she should be believed.

You are no doubt a man. You have no idea what it’s like to live the life of a woman in this world. Of course you think that.

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Interesting this shooter this morning. He was on trial for a horrific rape, but there was a mistrial. Something to do with the fact he raped a woman that was a long term girlfriend.
Sound like they didn’t believe the victim. If they had, this monster would already be behind bars.

Good going. Next time believe a victim first.

By Angie

March 11, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

I do not have the patience to sift through the muck. I have been on vacation….it was lovely thank you. I come back and see the column is regarding Martha’s outcome…is it deserved or not? Yet I find that yet again….religion has come into the picture. As I said, I have neither the time or the inclination to read it all. But I think it is safe to say that Zack had something to do with this spiritual spiral. Must every topic turn into a religious debate? Are we not intelligent enough to at least make up something? For the love of Pete! As for Martha……I don’t think she did anything that the average person would not do. Sad, but true. It seems the more money one has, the more greedy one becomes. But seeing as how no one was harmed…no deaths came about as a result, no children were taken advantage of, and no animals were tested…..she has payed her debt.

By J. Morris

March 11, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

How in the world did Zack draw the conclusion that Martha Stewart should be in jail for life? Talk about irrationality…

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Well said Angie.

And Welcome back !

By lozen

March 11, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Zack you do not know the true story about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. You do not know the true story about Kobe and the woman in that case. How would you know if the woman accusing Kobe had sex with a different man every night? You don’t know that. That’s why we say you hate women. You are ready to jump to the worst possible conclusion about any woman in every situation with no real knowledge of the facts. Even if she did, if she said “NO” to Kobe, then there should have been no sex. The post by Shelley this morning about the facts of the case, did not make it sound to me as if Martha needed to be in jail for life. She didn’t murder anybody and she isn’t a threat to anybody. Jezebels? I haven’t heard a woman called a Jezebel for a long time! You are so “sick and tired” of so many things Zack. I feel sorry for you and I’d like to contribute to a fund to send you somewhere where life is simpler and more to your liking - maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran where women cover themselves and can’t leave the house and really believe in God.
And you wouldn’t know “sensible” and “reasonable” if it bit you in the a**!

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

J Morris lol You can’t be surprised Zack said that. He’s obviously nutty as a xmas fruitcake.

I say we all ignore him.

Anyway, the computers in the prison library aren’t available after 5pm. He’ll be gone soon enough.

By RS

March 11, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

I literally ache for the victims & their families, of this AM’s tragedy. I hope that monster gets what’s coming to him…you also kind of wonder what his ex-girlfriend was like..IF he showed signs of being a psycho from the jump, then why was she with him? It’s sad how some women are so desperate; I’d rather be alone forever than with anyone like him…YUK!

By Jack

March 11, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

We really should feel sorry for Zack. I’m no shrink but he must have been hurt really bad by a woman at some point in his life. Why else would he hate women so? Have a good week-end folks. Jack is leaving the building.

By Whiley

March 11, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

I agree RS ! He probably slowly over time terrorized her. She was probably too scared to leave. I’ve seen it too many times to count. How can you raise girls to be smarter about these things without appearing like you are male-bashing? seriously.

We’ve all been hurt by the opposite sex. Part of life & the game of love. I will never hate all men because of the behavior of some. I love them too much to do that ! Especially the men who will wear pink. he he

By Angie

March 11, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

This lunatic was able to escape because he benefited from our unfortunate affair with all things politically correct. Our courts are much more concerned with the comfort levels of the criminals than with those of their victims. The jury in his case knew full well he was a risk of some sort…..or he would not have been there. I really don’t think their sense of legality would have been tainted had he been dressed in normal prison attire. His escape would have been quite short lived had he been easier to notice.

By J. Morris

March 11, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

By Jack’s logic, Zack must have been seriously hurt by everyone in his life, since he seems to hate everyone and everything :)

By lozen

March 11, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I’ll never forget this cartoon I saw somewhere: A female anchor on tv is telling the day’s news. In the first frame she’s saying “3,000 women were killed today by their boyfriends” A man sitting in front of the tv is snarling “She’s such a man hater!” 2nd frame, “10,000 men were arrested today for violent crimes against women.” He says, “Why do these women hate men so much?” And on and on. Don’t worry about people thinking you were man-bashing earlier.