Woman to Woman

By norman

April 18, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Christians should favor immodesty because it forces men to control their urges, thereby favoring individual responsibility. Modesty makes it too easy for sinners and we would never want to do that.

I saw a fine movie this weekend, The Woodsman, with Kevin Bacon. Among things I learned was that probably a rather large number of men with female children has molested them in some way. Not surprising for a Christian, eh?

American men, socialized either in black and Hispanic street culture or in middle class college fraternity culture, have been taught that their hormones take priority over all else.

By Kenneth

April 18, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Is that the “real Norman” or the “fake Norman”?

By Brian Curtis

April 18, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

I’m mostly with Diane on this one (big surprise) in that the “modesty movement” doesn’t matter much to me. Teenagers should dress however they feel most comfortable, and leave it at that.

I do wonder about the undertones of “women are responsible for causing sexual assault by men,” though. While you shouldn’t wander through Piedmont Park riffling through a stack of twenties, it’s still the mugger who’s committing the crime.

By Brian Curtis

April 18, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Given the complete sentences and correct spelling (not to mention the tone), I believe we’re seeing the Real Norman with that one.

I wonder how long it’ll be before Randy shows up to preach about how “all our problems would go away if people would just accept Jesus as I have. Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot. How can you LIVE that way, losers?” And then act surprised that people would be offended by that.

By Denise Noe

April 18, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Three (cautious) cheers for the modesty movement. Both teenaged girls and adult women should be able to select modest attire without feeling “out of it.” Modest dressing need not imply any idea that girls and women are men’s “property.” Rather, it can be an assertion of their freedom. The feminist movement has long complained about the alleged tendency of men to reduce girls and women to “sex objects.” Modest dressing can be a way of saying that we will not be objectified.
Modest dress is also quite compatible with female success in the public, traditionally “man’s world.” From Janet Reno to Condileeza Rice, politically powerful American women tend to dress with modesty. So have women leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir. Wearing a scarf on her head did not prevent Benazir Bhutto from ruling a country. Yes, there is a danger that the modesty movement may unfairly stigmatize those who chose revealing garments and that is a tendency against which it should guard. No matter how a woman dresses, that in no way mitigates the horror of the vicious physical brutality of rape. Neither does it excuse sexual harrassment. Encouraging and enabling modesty is healthy. Stigmatizing and harrassing women because of how they dress is sick. The neat trick is to do the first and not the latter. Let’s hope the modesty movement succeeds!!

By norman

April 18, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Condoleeza Rice had been dressing modestly? She has been wearing Matrix clothing, with black leather coat and high boots, as if ready to shoot to kill. She looks move like the Black Avengeress than a modest church-goer.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Always wanted a daughter…glad I didn’t have one knowing how boys/men think.

By Rene, RN

April 18, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

As a nurse who has seen all aspects of the human body, inside and out, I must comment from a non-religious point of view that lack of modesty of dress in public places and/or the home of one’s elderly relatives represents a complete disregard for the rights of others NOT to be exposed to less than attractive body parts. I, for one am weary of seeing males with trousers below the butt cheeks and must restrain myself from the urge to assist them with pulling their pants up, since this suggests that the wearer of such fashion lacks the mental ability to properly dress himself. I have seen more than I care to of young ladies’ thongs above the waistbands, tattoos and open hiney cracks, and clothing so tight that one would be challenged to PAINT it onto a body. And yet, these same people complain about the lack of modesty of hospital attire when required to wear it? Sorry folks, but most of you who wish to ‘let it all hang out’ don’t have much that is worth looking at, and I doubt that you are ‘comfortable’ when your shirt/pants are too tight to allow the natural processes of breathing and digestion to take place.

By Sir Jesse of Decatur

April 18, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

perhaps Brittany Spears has calmed hem lines down…or maybe it’s the bias of trend reporters pushing their agenda…I like modesty, it leaves much to the imagination…but I also admire gutsy women who can act classy when dressed trashy! ;>)modesty is an attitude!

By smithy

April 18, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

I find it ironic that Shaunti isn’t the one who brought religion into the discussion. It was Diane.

And Diane misses the entire point. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with helping our young girls grow up a slower pace than they are right now. There is something inherantly wrong with an 11 year old dressing sexy, and it has nothing to do with a man’s reaction to it. Children should dress in age-appropriate clothes and an 11 year old girl should dress as such, not as an 18 year old young woman. I would think that women would react just as shocked as a man would by seeing a little girl dressed in revealing clothes. Any parent who allows their little girl to do so is doing a gross injustice to her.

By Archie

April 18, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

I don’t think girls should wear whatever they are comfortable wearing. This is where Dianne is being liberal just for the sake of being liberal because some girls would not wear anything if they could get away with it. Having standards does not mean control the woman it simply means the same thing that it does for men. Heck I don’t want to see the crack of a man’s behind or the crack of woman’s behind. If I want to see half-naked women then I visit a strip club because that’s the place for that. My point is having standards does not inhibit freedom. There is a place for formal and informal dress and Dianne knows this. Dianne tries to inject violence toward women into this but she has standards herself. We already know that men should not violate women but there still needs to be standards of dress for men and women. When men wear clothes that fall down and reveal their underwear they need a more modest approach to dress and the same goes for women.

By Steven

April 18, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

I believe the argument here is not that a total fashion change must occur but that a choice needs to be given. I’m not a parent, but I do work with teens and a lot of their parents complain that there aren’t many choices for them to make. They exist, let’s not lie about it, but the “modest” clothing is definitely in the minority these days.

Speaking as a male who tries to control my urges, it is my responsibility to attempt to do so. My only argument is not an argument but a question: Will you help me? If we agree that men are overly sexual by nature and that it is the responsibility of men to control those urges, where is the evil in helping them out? I would hope that nobody makes it out to be the responsibility of the woman to do so, but it would be helpful.

Also, by dressing in a not-so-modest manner, you set yourself up to face tough assumptions. Like the muscle-bound man who is good at running a football past other people, people will look at you once and assume you are as easy as they assume the jock is dumb. If you’re willing to face that, then wear whatever you want. But to say that you have no responsibility towards the perceptions others have of you is unrealistic. You might think it isn’t fair or “right”, but it is a fact of life and one we all face in one way or another.

I don’t know what is or is not comfortable for a woman. But it does seem to be somewhat inappropriate marketing to sell Mickey Mouse thongs to kids under the ages of 12 don’t you think? Can we at least agree that a thong is by design a more “sexy” form of underwear? Then why is a child being offered the product? Argue as you may, I highly doubt a 10-year old girl is complaining about the comfort of her underwear to the point that she needs to be wearing a thong.

In the end I don’t see this as a religious argument and I think the only reason it was brought up is because it is easier to stir emotions using religion than by attempting to make a strong argument for revealing clothing. It is also easier to argue against religious ideas than it is to argue for revealing clothing. And I hate to break it to you, but this concept of control and the comparison to over-the-top religion zealots like Islam doesn’t hold water in this country. Put on your most revealing outfit and walk into your office and see how long you get to stay there. Just like I can’t walk into my office in a tank-top and biker shorts, you can’t walk into 99% of offices in this country with a ton of cleavage and your thong showing. We all have to live under rules and control if we want to gain certain things like a corporate job with good pay. I don’t think we’ve somehow fallen back to the area of the inability for women to vote strictly because there is a feeling that revealing clothing shouldn’t be the norm.

For as much outrage as there seems to be at times at the “extreme” arguments made by Shaunti on this little forum, I’d like to see the same outrage expressed at Diane’s comparison of requesting modest clothing to the massively oppressive Islamic traditions of third world countries. But I seriously doubt that will occur. Showing less cleavage doesn’t equate to covering your entire body and walking 5 feet behind your husband in my mind. In the end, wear what you want and deal with the consequences of it - whether you think they are fair or not we all operate under those same consequences in various circumstances.

By Donny

April 18, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

diane,

Comments ignore the issue here. This is not about morality it’s about modesty. Is speaking out about the selling of Abercrombie & Fitch’s “eye candyâ€? thong underwear … sized for 10 year olds a bad thing? Or is this the what you want your 10 year old wearing?

By James

April 18, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

I am kind of with Shaunti on this one. (Hard to believe, I know). As a gay man, I am SERIOUSLY tired of seeing women’s butt clevege, belly buttons & boobs. I have a certain standard that I, as a man, am kept to. Sure, you see idiot men with plumber’s crack & t-shirts too short. They are the exception and not the rule. They do not try for this look, they’re just stupid.

Younger females should take pride in themselves and stop trying to look like a hooker. I have seen many of the outfits made for 10, 12 & 13 year old girls, and I am embarassed for their parents. I agree they should wear what they feel is comfortable. But, after knowing many ‘girlfriends’ and how they dress, they DO NOT DRESS FOR COMFORT! Heeled boots, thongs & halter tops are not comfortable! (no-I have not worn them myself) This is the same thing as eating disorders in these same girls. They starve themselves to death (remember Terri Schaivo?) It is all in what is marketed to them. Tell them business suits & sweaters are Cool & they will wear them.

As for men controling their urges, Guess what folks: Men are always going to be men. You put it out there, they are gonna want it. Self control should be expected, but reality sets in, and men are walking hormones (especailly in the teen years). This is no excuse for rape! But, men are going to objectify women in tight/revealing clothing. It is what it is.

By norman

April 18, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

We need to bring Boscoe into this, so hear goes. Is the dress of those cardinals assembled to elect a new pope appropriately modest? Are they transvestites? What about the papacy, anyway? The greatest Italian invention since pasta, opera, and the Mafia; only the Italians could have invented so bombastically absurd an institution like the papacy.

By smithy

April 18, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Let kids be kids, and let them STAY kids as long as possible. They’ll spend the rest of their adult lives longing for those days.

By Boscoe

April 18, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Michael H says are you impaired?.â€? Why the lack of civility and respect towards others who do not hold your views? Does your religion require this such a sanctimonious and self-righteous attitude towards others who have the audacity to actually think differently. No Michael, it has to do with your incessant need to impose your philosophical beliefs on me when I have clearly stated I will not study those who call me the fool for believing what I believe. It is indeed called Catholic Faith, I cannot provide physical evidence as to the existence of God but I can provide philosophical arguments as many as you can provide the He does not exist. Yet you persist , The only impairment that I see in these exchanges is your impaired ability to think critically or maintain an open mind to ALL the evidence that is relevant to evaluating the truth of any religious claim that is connected with or a part of Catholicism. It is this statement which makes me hold fast to my theory about you namely — What your philosophy suggests is that I haven’t looked hard enough until I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong. That’s a no win situation – either I’m wrong or I haven’t searched hard enough to convince myself of that. Michael you absolutely refuse to acknowledge my beliefs because I refuse to open myself up to your hedonistic view point.* I seriously doubt you ever took the time to engage with them, rather than engaging in more confirmation bias in reading only what Catholic writers have to say in an effort to further shore up your preexisting beliefs.* Your statement shows your true nature. I refuse to consider the opinion on those who do not believe in religion and you’re annoyed by that because you consider them to be great me. Alas, I will entertain you and render my opinion on your “great menâ€?. The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas developed as a result of renewed interest in the philosophy of Aristotle. This interest was in part the product of renewed interest in logic and physics which came with increased political stability and economic prosperity. But it was also a result of contacts with Muslim scholars, who had worked to reconcile Aristotle’s teachings with the beliefs of Islam. This reconciliation was necessary since Aristotle was the principle source for logic and for physics in the ancient period, yet many of his teachings contradicted teachings of the Koran and the Church Fathers.The thing that Aristotle’s theory does not consist of that Christian ethics does is the realization that we will not achieve perfection ourselves. Aristotle doesn’t say one way or the other but simply concentrates on the fact that we should strive for perfection. Christian ethics agrees that it is one thing we should do. However, Christian ethics says that we should also be humble and admit that we are incapable of reaching perfection without help from God. I don’t think the Christian must think that what Aristotle said about the magnanimous person constitutes some error. Aristotle spoke, in theory, about a person who was worthy of great things. Instead, the Christian must think Aristotle erred in his exclusion of the important fact that human beings are incapable of magnanimity. God alone may be magnanimous. People who think themselves so are the fools Aristotle mentioned. Kant’s philosophy is generally designated as a system of transcendental criticism tending towards Agnosticism in theology, and favoring the view that Christianity is a non-dogmatic religion. He doesn’t believe! Kant was lacking in the analytic quality by which the philosopher is able to observe what actually takes place in the mind. And in a thinker who reduced all philosophy to an examination of knowledge the lack of the ability to observe what actually takes place in the mind is a serious defect. Hume’s overall thesis is the premise that “causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason, but by experience” — and this leads to the main bugaboo Christians have had with Hume, for he says he cannot believe in the resurrection of Christ, having not seen it himself: (Clearly another NON believer) Hume says, “it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life, because that has never been observed in any age or century.” But, what of apostolic testimony to the resurrected Jesus? No problem: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”. Christian apologetics, of course, has thoroughly answered Hume on half of these points, and the other half are clearly little more than Hume’s personal Enlightenment bigotry (Re: “good sense, education, and learning” — yes, Hume has all the usual references to “barbarous and ignorant peoples”; yet how much “education” does it take to see that a dead man is alive). J.S.Mill, like Hume is nothing more than a hedonist. Hedonists have appropriated the term happiness as an equivalent to the totality of pleasurable or agreeable feeling. The same word is employed as the English rendering of the Latin beatitudo and the Greek eudaimonía, which stand for a concept quite different from the hedonistic one. The Aristotelean idea is more correctly rendered in English by the term well-being. It means the state of perfection in which man is constituted when he exercises his highest faculty, in its highest function, on its highest good. Because they fail to give due attention to this distinction, some writers include eudemonism among hedonistic systems. Hedonism sometimes claims the credit of much beneficent effort in social reform in England which has been promoted by professed Utilitarians; and everywhere movements popularly designated as altruism are pointed out as monuments to the practical value of the hedonistic principle “the greatest good of the greatest number”. But it must be observed that this principle may have another genesis and another part to play in ethics than those assigned to it by Hedonism. Besides, the Utilitarians illogically annexed it, and the fruits it bore in their political activity are to be credited to it in its democratic, rather than in its hedonistic, character. There are those who exclude themselves from the field of reasonable public debate and the rest of us, who choose our beliefs about religion, ethics, and public policy on the basis of evidence, are free to ignore them. And that is what I now choose to do with your posts. And yet time and time again you insist on replying to my posts.

By Lyrazel

April 18, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

BOYS are why GIRLS dress this way, duh. Your daughter hardly dresses for pleasing MOM. Remember also, now that clothing is not manufactured in the United States, we currently receive goods made for smaller women—so those 10 year old size thong panties would fit a woman in Korea, Japan, etc. Our sizing structure differs.

Britany and crew were promoted to a very young audience. Supposedly parents were monitoring Disney kid tv shows and concerts of these Disney childadults. Condem Britany all you wish but her ($400,000 every hour) earnings is based on children being escorted by parents to her concerts, buying her music, going to her movies. Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls and all the stuff of bubble-gum music. Kids got ADVERTIZED TO and if Hillary Duff gets a navel ring—your precious Muffy wants one—and if MaryKate and Ashley dont eat for a week—or if Justin Timberlate—doesnt abstain from sex—why should little Timmy? And in the same period, morality coalitions raged against a little purple Teletubbie…who carried a purse.

…a very wise soccer mom said, “When raising children, parents choose the battles to fight with kids.” Arent battles over better grades more important than daughters wearing thong underwear to impress other girls in gym class that she can?

By Lola

April 18, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Geez, norman. Can’t you just stick to the topic instead of dragging us down into the whole religious thing again? Do you want to drive every single good person out of this blog? You’re on the right track if that’s your goal. Quit trying to be so controvercial and anger-invoking. All you do is instigate the kind of hateful postings we witnessed last week. Would you please give us a break?

By Boscoe

April 18, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Norman you never answered my question from the last forum. How about giving that a shot first.

By norman

April 18, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Lola: I have been sent to throw the apple of discord among the peasants. Would you deprive me of this pleasure?

Boscoe: I cannot remember which pronunciamento pomposo of yours you are referring to.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

norman, Boscoe, et al - PLEASE spare the rest of us from your religion-based arguments which lead to nothing but bashing those who are different, constant LONG posts about theocracies and such, and things which have absolutely no bearing on the other 98% of us on this blog who wish to talk about something OTHER than the constant rantings of those who are anti-religion and those who are pro-religion. It’s very tiresome.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

norman, I don’t want to deprive you of anything, but you deprive the rest of us from enjoying this blog anymore when it becomes nothing but a forum between two or three people who enjoy lashing out in the most hateful and mean ways at eachother. If you want to have those kinds of discussions and arguments, do the considerate thing and have them offline or via email with eachother. This blog is one of the best places for sharing thoughts and ideas, but when it becomes clouded by such abusive statements and postings, it does nothing but turn away people who otherwise could contribute valuable and thought-provoking opinions. Could you please do that? It would be the nicest thing you could do for the rest of us on here.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Gotta bring religion in on everything aye Norm? Do us a favor and ruin a different blog for a change.

By norman

April 18, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Lola: you don’t seem to understand that religion is in one sense the only interesting subject, for it deals with ultimately important things, separates the men from the boys, and provides a good deal of entertainment along with high thought.

Boscoe: your defense to Michael H of your not reading anything which contradicts Catholicism is a good sign that you are: mentally deficient, morally obstuse, religiously ignorant, philosophically impaired, and not someone you would want to meet for a beer. Why don’t you just go into a monastery and stay there for good?

By Jack

April 18, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Who sent you Norman? Couldn’t have been God. Lest ye be a hippocrite (sic)

By Pat Cooper

April 18, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Here we are back to yapping about the latest trend in teen clothing as if it really means something. It doesn’t mean anymore now than it did when my generation was teenagers and shocked our parents with midriff baring tube tops, hot pants and knee high boots. Our choice of clothing was more costume than couture; we decorated our bodies with all the attention to detail as a Broadway star only the local mall was our stage.

I’ve not quite reached the age where I am appalled by what young women are displaying, but I have reached the point of wisdom where I realize the inherent dangers in dangling curvaceous red flags in front of raging hormones disguised as teenage boys. Frankly, I don’t think older women are dressing any better than teens. There has to come a time when a woman looks at her wardrobe and understands that a miniskirt might be a little too young for those middle aged knees and wearing a dress cut past discretion might be sending out the wrong messages to her daughters and sons. A tantalizing glimpse of leg in an otherwise modest gown, or a shadow of cleavage at a clinging décolleté is sexy; it allows for that little spark of imagination to fill in the blanks. And far more intriguing than bared belly buttons and butt cheeks hanging from below closely cropped shorts. Besides, most people (even teens with their firmly developing bodies) look better with some judicious draping.

It isn’t religious conservatism; it’s common sense. We’re talking about young people who are usually suffering from a deficit of skills in proper decision-making. And as long as we’re talking about sexual males, let’s not forget to talk about sexual females. These alleged Lolita-spiders aren’t just trying to attract flies to their webs, they’re trying to find out if they can. Unfortunately for both, often when they find out they can, they’re a little flummoxed as to what’s appropriate after that. If I can bare it, can I share it? How about some help from the parental units in answering that question beforehand- like during the shopping expedition?

Teens have to experiment, find their own way, choose their own path—-pick your platitude-but without the wisdom of a parent’s concern and input, they’re going to make choices that give clothing manufacturers the wrong impression. After all, most of us as kids liked the bright and shiny, as opposed to the dull and colorless- more red balloons in the schoolyard than white. It’s like those horrid slasher movies. We all ask ourselves why they make them – it’s because someone wants to see them. If teens and their parents pointed themselves in another direction, the clothing gurus would do the same. After all, profit and loss is something they understand.

By Boscoe

April 18, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

As usual norman you have nothing useful to say. The post wasn’t directed toward you anyway. Isn’t there a communist youth club meeting today?

By E. Lewis

April 18, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Having a modesty movement is like teaching abstinence-only in sex ed. It’s great in theory and could be terrific if it worked. Unfortunately when there is no follow through, what lurks behind, what is hidden from public is what is real. Just as teeneager who take a vow of abstinence are getting STD’s because uless it is tradition sex, it’s not sex, a woman who seems modest may in fact be a hypocrit behind closed doors.

I would rather my neice be an honor student and all around good citizen who dresses like Britney Spears than for her to dress modestly, yet be a failure in other aspects of her life. Remember, much as we may no appreciate it, parents have to pick and choose their battles. In the end, it is what’s on the inside that really matters.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

norman - you aren’t the only one who determines what the only insteresting subject is. That may be YOUR only intersting subject, but the rest of us have other topics of interest that we’d rather discuss this week. Your topic was driven into the ground last week. How about giving the rest of us the opportunity to determine what this week’s “interesting” topic is? That would be greatly appreciated.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

I am glad that the fashion industry has finally started to allow women with meat on their bones to be seen as chic. Too much pressure is put on females to have the “anorexic” look. Women cannot be slim enough for the fashion designers that have no interest in women to begin with. Women are made to feel unattractive if they wiegh more than 110 lbs. Kirtsie is doing a great service to women.

By norman

April 18, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Well, now Boscoe calls me a Communist. Figures. Catholics have been calling people they dislike Communists for over one hundred years. In so doing, they helped Mussolini and Hitler come to power, helped Joseph McCarthy do his evil, and have created the evil evangelical-Catholic alliance to make our country into a theocracy.

Jack, and other such ilk, you do not have to reply to my posts. Or to those of Boscoe. You can keep on talking about things of little import. But don’t try to shut me up, thank you. Yes, God probably did send me, Jack. He certainly has good taste, he would not bother about the likes of you. He doesn’t like trash.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

E.Lewis - while I agree with you that what’s on the inside is the most important, it is most likely that any young girl who is an honor student and has a good head on her shoulders will see the benefits in dressing modestly (not necessarily prudish, just not scantily) and make the decision on her own to do so. Provocotive dressing has but one goal - to draw attention to onself. It is true that most little girls spend their entire teenage years yearning to be more grown up, but that is where it is the job of the parents to educate their children on the realities of perception and how sometimes things simply aren’t appropriate for certain ages.

By DeltaX

April 18, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

How is it that girls are growing up so fast in superficial sexual ways (clothing for example) but every 30+yr I meet has only recently come to terms with their sexuality? I mean they dress sexy as hell, but are lost when it comes to their own body.

Maybe if we covered the sex ed conversation even half assed, the reality of sexuality (and what it means - in it’s total complexity) would be better present in their minds?

Back to the premise that parents are really messing up. They are teaching the reality they want, not what is - and if I know anything, it is “You have to jump in where you are at!”

By Jack

April 18, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

I love you to Norm. Bless your heart.

By lozen

April 18, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Norman don’t ever stop! Missed you for the past couple of weeks. Why do cardinals wear skirts? Why do a group of celibate men (supposedly) think they can understand and address the problems of normal people and their marriages, sex lives, etc. How can the Pope go to Africa and tell poverty stricken, AIDS victims to have more and more children? To me that was an evil thing to do. Now they want to make a saint out of a man who is just as human as you or I. Aren’t there enough saints already? What would you pray to Saint John Paul for - maybe to solve computer glitches? He was human; he was not perfect. He had his good side and his bad side as we all do.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

That’s fine, Norman. And none of the “ilk” asked you to shut up. I simply asked you to go to a different topic for the sake of all the OTHER people on this blog. But obviously, since you are the most important person here, you have the right to dictate what the remainder of us have to listen to. I will do as you asked and no longer respond to any of your postings. It’s painfully clear to me now that you are nothing but a self-righteous boob who has absolutely no consideration for anyone but yourself.

By anonymous

April 18, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

I don’t think this is a religious or a conservative issue but a social issue. What’s going to happen to these Britney wannabes when it’s time to interview for a job? Or hold a job, for that matter? I like feminine clothing that shows off my (30 something) figure, but I don’t wear it to work because it sends the wrong message.

Besides, fashion changes so quickly floor length sacks will soon be back on the racks.

By lozen

April 18, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

“Being unable to reason is not a positive character trait outside religion” Dewey Henize

By Boscoe

April 18, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Lozen, the Pope did NOT go to africa and tell people to have more children.

By Mara

April 18, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Well Shaunti has evidently never worn thong underwear! (oops, sorry about the visual there) and though James admitted that he’d never worn thongs, or halter tops, he has heard that they aren’t comfortable. Maybe they aren’t comfortable for men but to any woman that’s accustomed to them to wearing thongs, regular panties are constricting, confining, and aggravating. Thongs are the next best thing to going commando. In my opinion, the only really good reason to wear underwear at all is to keep from getting your pubes stuck in the zipper. That being said, why would anyone want to bind their child up in those huge and uncomfortable “granny panties” just because some people think that only strippers and sluts wear thongs? There was a time when bloomers were considered risque and any woman not wearing a corset was considered “loose”. A time when high collars or a fischu were de rigueur, and decolletage was frowned on. Fashion evolves as society evolves. Judging a book by its cover, like judging a person by their dress, is prone to error. Why doesn’t everyone just mind their own wardrobe and let me mind mine?

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Isn’t “modesty” completely subjective? One person’s modesty is another person’s harlotry (this may not actually be a word…).

I’ll agree that younger children in our society try to dress more like adults now, and sometimes I want to throw a big cloak over my neice and then follow her around her high school with a bat, but guess what? My conservative sister not only lets her wear the clothing, she thinks she looks adorable in most of it. It’s the style - it’s not TOO revealing.

Why? Her friends and peers are wearing similar clothes, and it’s pretty rough when you aren’t dressed like your peers at that age. As long as she has a proper grounding from her parent and family, what harm if she’s dressed somewhat more scantily than a girl would have been when I was in high school?

I had an experience a while back that made me realize just how flexible the idea of modesty really is. I was working for a theatre company in West Virginia, running five shows a day. One particular performance happened to be for an entire audience of Mennonite women, around four hundred of them - accompanied by two very harried looking Mennonite men.

At one point in the show, one of the other performers had to put his foot up on a stool to tie his shoe, exposing maybe two inches of bare leg above his sock. I have never heard such catcalls in my entire life. It was like they were watching a stripper.

Modesty is entirely subjective…

By Randy

April 18, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Norman had faith at one time and didn’t have the strength to retain it.

By norman

April 18, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Way to much info MARA. Although I could get into it if you’re willing.

By rocky

April 18, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

My wife once said “I’ve spent my entire life digging my underwear out of my butt. Why would I buy a thong to do the exact same thing?” Mara, you aren’t the one who will be looking at your wardrobe - we are. And I have no problem with women wearing thongs if they so desire, as long as you’re not looking at the strings of them above the pant line. That’s as distateful as those idiots who wear their pants so big they fall down under their butt and they have to walk with one hand holding up their pants. We all have to look at their underwear. It is called UNDERwear for a reason - it goes UNDER your clothes, not to be worn as an accessory. Thongs are fine as long as the rest of us don’t have to see them.

By Hugh G Reaction

April 18, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Mara, you busy saturday?

By Lola

April 18, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

That’s a great example, JMorris! There are definitely many different definitions of risque’ and modesty, and it’s in the eye of the beholder.

By test

April 18, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

test

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

It’s really more important for young people to understand which situations are appropriate for different types of clothing. I mean, obviously we do have societal expectations about dress, and varying expectations of formallity.

Someone earlier said that if younger people dress like Britanny Spears they won’t get jobs. Well, HOPEFULLY, they won’t dress like Britanny Spears to their interviews, becuase they will have been taught better than that. Hopefully, they won’t wear cutoffs and a halter top to the opera, or a tuxedo to steak and shake.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Yeah Norman. And you would know what to do with it I’m sure.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Teaching children when it is appropriate to wear certain things and when it is inappropriate to wear them is a vital part of helping our kids to have a positive self-image. Nothing will freak a child out more than having their friends laugh at them for wearing something inappropriate for a particular event.

By real norman

April 18, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

The fake Norman has been posting again.

Answer to question about sainthood. To be recognized a saint there have to be miracles attributed to that individual. But if someone were to pray to a person not a saint (yet) would that be kosher. I don’t think so. So you have an odd situation where if someone prays for a miracle and gets one, he has prayed to someone he didn’t know was a saint (yet) and probably committed a grave sin. Boscoe could elucidate this matter I am sure with some obscure document from the vaults of the Holy Inquisition.

By Lyrazel

April 18, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Its wonderful reading the comments: boys who wear their pants below their butt only prove they are susceptible to fashion trends just as girls are. Parents who would never do anything gangsta have seen their children so plugged-into the style, hype and language there is more rap/hip-hop alive in the suburbs.

Its so fun to imagine an Edwardian mother confronted by her daughters bobbed hair and her sons racoon coat. Some of us remember when teens abandoned ruffles, gloves and poodle skirts for black berrets to identify to beatnicks, the gyrating hip shaking Elvis-wears-leather trend, or the fab-four moptops, hippies, earthshoes, goth, poofy hair boy bands…..worse was a resurgence of lime green jumpsuits for disco….o how fashion makes people fools…

But ask yourselves about the new surgical fashion trends for teens: implants.

By Mary

April 18, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

I really don’t believe it has anything to do with religion , control or men staring at young girls. Teenagers follow clothing trends whether it is long skirts and turtlenecks or Daisy Dukes with a halter top. In my teenage years I wore short shorts and halter tops but only around the house and certainly not to the mall. At school we could wear shorts in hot weather but not”hot pants” as the school called them. I guess it boils down to your own sense of modesty. As a teenager I would be embarrassed to wear revealing clothes out in public. Perhaps my parents had something to do with it.

By Archie

April 18, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Is the modesty movement necessary? My answer is no but home training is necessary. As Morris said people need to understand what’s appropriate clothing for each situation. I witnessed a young lady walking up and down the steps at a concert in a coliseum—the young lady did not have on any underwear and she was wearing a short dress. She may have had on a thong but the lights were dim. The point is home training should have dictated that she not dress this way. At church I wear a coat and tie most of the time, and at work a shirt and tie are required, but a fitting t-shirt maybe worn to the park. Nowadays it seems as if people want to be casual all the time but it’s not necessary to be casual all the time as I have some suits that I am very comfortable in.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

While I generally think that Diane presents her ideas in a manner that reflects some intelligence, this week seems to be the exception. This topic seems a bit mundane, which I suspect is Diane’s opinion, but COME ON, reducing it to an opportunity to bring religion into it is ridiculous. It’s obvious she has no real opinion on the matter, doesn’t really care, so resorts into norman-like rantings about religion.

Lola, Norman never has anything constructive to say, so don’t be surprised that he resorts to Catholic bashing whether it is on topic or not. Why Lozen or Norman give a rats fat butt how the Cardinals of the Catholic church dress anymore than Fred Flintstone’s choice of a buffalo hat, since they disdain everything about that religion is beyond me. If they don’t like the religion then ignore it! my point is, Lola, if you are expecting reasonable discussion on the topic at hand from Norman, then you are dreaming. he isn’t capable of it

By norman

April 18, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Scott: are you a Republican redneck? You seem unable to do anything but insult the few intelligent posting people here.

You may not care about the Catholic Church. It is, however, one of the most evil institutions in human history. The Southern Baptist Church is evil but hasn’t even gotten close to being important enough to worry about, except somewhere like in Forsyth Co. where perhaps you live.

By Lyrazel

April 18, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Scott, the hat of the Grand Pooba is sacred.

By RS

April 18, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

First of all: Jack, kudos to you for your healthy attitude towards all us females (i.e. MOST of us) who are not supermodel thin. The majority of people aren’t meant to be rail-skinny & society has been disgracefully lax in acknowleding/celebrating the diverse beauty of the human form in general. Boscoe, the Pope (R.I.P) told EVERYONE to keep breeding; sadly, he was way way out of sync with today’s world. As for this week’s topic, on one hand I believe we should have the freedom to dress as we wish, but so many don’t use common sense. For instance, some gals (& guys) for whatever reason, have butt-cleavage that extends up a bit higher than usual, making it not the most sensible idea to don low-cut pants. OK, I myself always wear low-rise pants & skirts, simply because I’m physically uncomfortable with anything gripping me around the waist (except for my husband’s arms!). However, I do not wear cropped tops; I doubt many people would care to see the roll of blubber around my midsection. As for young girls and modesty/lack of, they need to realize that a lot of young men will treat them as “cheap” if they dress like hoochie-mamas. Sounds unfair? Maybe so, but we all know about first impressions. Also, encouraging girls to dress provocatively, subsequently encourages them to devalue more positive INNER qualities & cause them to think of themselves more so as sex objects. I realize as parents, it’s tough to hear “but everyone dresses like that!” My suggestion is for any parent hearing that to contact the parents of their teens’ friends & decide on a comfortable (for all parties) compromise so that all the kids will be on more level ground; that’s where responsibility as a parent should come in.

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Personally, I find Shaunti’s “Because of man’s visual wiring” comment to be incredibly simplistic and basically offensive. Sorry Shaunti, but I don’t lose all self control just because I see an attractive person walk by dressed in skimpy clothes. Yeah, I may think “wow”, but it’s hardly a “minefield”. Sorry, but the analogy is incredibly condescending to men, and frankly to women as well.

It’s the kind of language used to crucify rape victims - oh, she was dressed provocatively so that poor man couldn’t help but try to rape her. Please.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Norman - thanks for illustrating my point by reducing everything to throwing insults out whenever someone disagrees with your juvenile diatribes on religion, especially when the disagreement is simply that you have nothing useful to add to the topic at hand. I post on here for the purpose of debate on intelligent topics. not to push my point of you on religion (or to disparage those who disagree with my opinion) I am neither a republican or democrat, as I believe neither party has the well-being of the american people at their heart. I am not a member of the southern baptist church, nor the Catholic Church, regardless of whether you believe they are evil.

Unlike you, I am able to give an opinion on the topic at hand, and to respect the opinions of others without resorting to venomous statements about their choice of religion, orientation, race or intelligence level. You regard everyone who doesn’t sing your praises as an idiot, proving yourself to be exactly the type of hate-monger you purport to oppose. With the exception of the occassional snipe at you, I haven’t made any insulting comments to anyone on this blog, regardless of whether or not you think they are intelligent

By Scott

April 18, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - LOL! Sorry, didn’t mean to insult fred flintstone there, I realize there may be Poobahs on here! (thanks for the laugh, that was a good one)

I have to agree with Jack that refering to a man’s “visual wiring” is almost setting up an excuse for bad behavior based on what men see. Any man would be responsible for his behaviour regardless of what they see and provacative dress on the part of a woman does not entitle a man to act boorish

By Akeya

April 18, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with Shaunti on this one. I am so tired of seeing little girls walk around looking like Holly Hot Pepper.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

JMorris - sorry didn’t give you credit where credit was due. I attributed your comment to Jack, but in re-reading it, I saw it was you. I also agree that the view that skimpy clothes override sensibility is offensive and overly simplistic

By Stan

April 18, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

I agree about what girls are wearing. They are too young to be wearing what they are wearing. It sends the wrong message to older guys who might think that the girl is older than she actually is.

Being a teenager in the nineties, I have no problem with a guy wearing jeans that stop below his waist if he has on clean, and I emphasize clean, and sexy boxers.

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Who the heck is Holly Hot Pepper?

By norman

April 18, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

It’s really Holy Hot Pepper, one of the cardinals at the conclave. See if you can guess who.

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

See if I care. Geeze, Norman I’m with everyone else. Can’t you give it a rest?

By lozen

April 18, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

JMorris, right you are, as usual. Shaunti’s comment was offensive to men. Men have been taught for centuries that they can’t control their sexual urges, but they certainly can.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

I was at the mall with my son. I saw a very attractive female wearing low rider jeans. I said wow look at her…he said, Dad she’s in my class. Talk about feeling old and embarrassed to boot.

By lozen

April 18, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I think Norman’s comments are pertinent simply because of all the hullabaloo since the Pope’s death. There’s a big article today about some guy standing on a golden crucifix while carrying on the political shufflings of the catholic church. The catholic hierarchy is anachronistic, anti-sex, and anti-woman and effects our lives much too much whether we are catholic or not. Norman knows a lot about religion and makes very good points although he is too harsh at times.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Jack - LOL! I bet that was embarassing. It does get harder to tell these days, but maybe that is just a sign of getting old? ;)

By Jack

April 18, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

I had to bribe him not to tell his mother!

By norman

April 18, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozen, for your support. Yes, I am harsh at times indeed. I have in my what used to be called by those I loathe “holy anger.”

By Scott

April 18, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAH! How much did that cost you? Now THAT’s funny!!

By chuck

April 18, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Pat Cooper, You said: Here we are back to yapping about the latest trend in teen clothing as if it really means something. It doesn’t mean anymore now than it did when my generation was teenagers and shocked our parents with midriff baring tube tops, hot pants and knee high boots.

HMMMM. It didn’t mean anything when our generation did those things in the seventies? I guess the explosion of teen pregnancies, STD’s, pornography, rape, pedophilia, adultery and divorce over the past 30 years didn’t happen at all? We…just like on Dallas…dreamed the whole thing.

By Brian2

April 18, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

I work in downtown Atlanta and the guys down here don’t just wear their pants below the waist, they are now almost below the cheeks…I don’t see how they walk that way. Pretty soon they’ll just be shuffling around with their baggy pants down around their ankles. When does lookng outrageous just become looking stupid?

By Scott

April 18, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Brian2 - I always thought the low pants on guys was sort of useful…it made them easier to catch when they would run from us! LOL

By RS

April 18, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Brian2, I LIVE in Midtown & see that all the time. YECHHHHHH! These fellows look like they, um, were unable to reach a bathroom in time…Do females really find this attractive???!??!?? There’s an urban legend, I don’t know, it may be true, that this trend originated in prison because the baggy pants allow “easy access”, if you get my drift & also the convicts can hide things in there like files, weapons & drugs

By norman

April 18, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Let me continue with one of Lozen’s observations. We have indeed been subjected to a media blitz about the papacy. Most educated people, Christians, Jews, even Muslim and certainly Hindus do not believe in most of the tenets of their irrational religion. They go along to get along for the most part.

But here we have an ancient institution, the Catholic Church, recently led by a remarkable man of courage, intelligence, learning and compassion, John Paul II. He went around the world, as many here have said, telling people not to use condoms even though they might save your life; to have as many babies as posssible, even though unwanted children are a curse, not a blessing. (There is a new study showing that the decline of crime in NY City was not caused by miracle worker Rudi Giuliani but by the success of abortion in preventing the birth of thousands of children who as unwanted and unloved would have filled the ranks of criminals.) He loved the poor but did nothing to decrease their numbers. He saw the decline of the priesthood in terms of morals and numbers and did nothing that might have solved the problem through the ordination of married men, the end of celibacy, and the possible ordination of women. He was opposed to Communist materialism and capitalist materialism but had only to offer the old bankrukpt Catholic Social Teachings which in earlier times had in fact amounted to support for various form of Fascism. He tried to apologize to the Jews for their persecution but could only refer to individual antisemites, whereas it was the whole church which started anti-semitism in the early Christian years. Protecting the good name of the Church was more important than telling the truth. He seemed to like Muslims but it was only to prevent those impassioned believers from harming Christian interests in the Middle East and in any case the Papacy never helped to solve the Arab-Israeli question in the least. Throughout most of the rise of Zionism the popes were very anti-Zionist, even more so than Mussolini.

In other words — it is hard to listen to all this b.s. about the Catholic Church as its out-of-date out of mind cardinals are locked in the Sistine Chapel without getting a little irritated at the very least. And you thought the Soviets were mysterious, treacherous, enigmatic, and dangerous.

I do long for the day when Christianity is no longer with us because it is a form of enslavement of the human mind and soul — to quote Karl Marx (Boscoe will call me a Communist) and the German thinker Feuerbach: Christianity is an illusion and a form of alienation from reality. That is a fancy way of saying it is a form of hiding from the truth of the human condition. The Catholic form of Christianity is the most fabulous, the most beautiful, the most artistically satisfying. Just compare an old Catholic mass (not the guitars used in modern masses) with a Baptist service of singing and ranting and singing and ranting and you will understand the hold of Catholicism. It is beautiful to contemplate the sorrowful Mother holding her crucified son and being the source of comfort to all of us sufferers. We love to pray to her and to the other saints to intercede for us. But this is beauty without any reality. Jesus was not risen from the dead. He is not our saviour, nor does his blood redeem us from some imaginary fault with that old ogre God the Father. The candles, incense, and singing are beautiful and impresssive — but these are momentary satisfactions. In reality the Church is a mafia-like institution aiming at controlling people and perpetuating itself. It can be admired for certain things but finally only despised.

The new pope will be chosen and it won’t matter who he is, for he will have to continue more or less in the same way. The world will continue in its pain and suffering and nothing will have been accomplished really. In the interim some of us enjoy all the papal pagentry and others of us know it is offensive and meaningless for the most part.

May the God of all consolation console us all. We really need it.

By chuck

April 18, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

That’s true Scott. It’s kind of hard for them to hold a gun AND their pants at the same time while running.

My kids get the biggest kick out of the movie Hoosiers, that I show to my advisement groups (character ed.) at the beginning of the year. They love the short shorts those guys wore to play ball in.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

LOL Scott! I always think the same thing about those guys with the “gangsta” pants hanging off their behinds. It sure must make them easier to catch when they try to run from you, not to mention making frisking easier - just drop them down and you can see what they’re hiding!

By chuck

April 18, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

BTW Norman, I would love to see that purpoted NYC study of yours. Either that is something you made up completely, or is such a lowly form of junk science that it certainly has no possible bearing on reality. Tell us where you found this study so we can read it. The factorial analysis for such a study would be lots of fun for a research junkie like myself to read. I would love to know how they set it up, what instrument they used to measure it, and how they arrived at this conclusion.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Chuck - hahhaah yes it is, and can sometimes be the source of great entertainment. I bet they do laugh at the movie, or even video clips from 15 years ago!

By Lola

April 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

I always get a kick out of watching old NBA clips from the 70’s as well - they all had those short shorts on, the exact same kind we wore in gym class!

By Lola

April 18, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

You are absolutely correct, RS. That “style” did come from prison, which should tell you a bit about the mentality of those who wear it. I do see something wrong with glorifying prison fashions as something for our youth to wear. There should be nothing about prison that appeals to our children.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Lola - yeah it is funny… I cant tell you how many times I have seen one of the guys with pants like that make it about 5 steps into a sprint before going toppling over. Quick story - a friend of mine had a guy run from him that he caught conducting a drug deal that happened to have those pants on like that. The foot pursuit went through several warehouse areas. My friend was calling for assitstance so several of us came to help. By the time we got there we were only needed to help get the guy down…he tried to roll over a chain length fence and got caught by the belt buckle of his pants….he was hanging upside down on the fence with his pants around his ankles….now THAT was funny

By Brian2

April 18, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

They have to hold the pants with one hand, but I also notice that since it’s important for the rest of us to see how low their pants go, they also have to hold their shirt up above the naval…kind of like they just ate a big meal and are patting their belly…it’s quite comical watching them strut down the street…too much maintenance for me.

By chuck

April 18, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

When my younger brother was a cop, he used to tell me how many of them would fall flat on their faces when they had to walk with cuffs on their HANDS, because they would constantly drop around their ankles…sometimes with a little help from a night stick.

By Michael H.

April 18, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Ok, one last time. Nearly every semester I teach about how Averroes and other Muslim scholars were the intermediaries that led to the rediscovery of the Western classical tradition and I clearly know all of that far, far better than you.

Kant was a Christian, whether you accept it or not, and virtually everything you said was wrong or oversimplified, mostly just wrong.

Frankly, you just don’t know what you are talking about and I am not bothering to correct any of it. You wouldn’t pass a course in philosophy at a third rate high school with this BS.

Most of my posts were really intended for those who were willing to listen, not you, and I think they can see where reason resides.

By RS

April 18, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Lola, there is a LOT in the media that glorifies crime, trashy lifestyles etc. Rotten message to give impressionable kids…you’d best believe I have a lot of problems with that!

By RS

April 18, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Chuck & Scott, the scenarios you just described would be perfect submissions for “America’s Funniest Videos”. And any “fashion” (?!?) so ludicrous is supposed be sexy to teen girls? Oh, SPARE ME!!!

By chuck

April 18, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

So RS, are you now advocating censorship?

By Lola

April 18, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

LOL! What a great mental image, Scott! I’ll bet things like that just put a smile on your face that stays there for the day.

These “styles” will pass, just like all the other styles that have. When I was in high school, it was hip to wear jeans as TIGHT as possible. I had a pair of Jordache Jeans so tight, I had to loop a hanger through the zipper, lay flat on my back on my bed and then pull them up with the hanger. Oh how ridiculous that must have looked! Needless to say, sitting down was a real challenge, and it couldn’t have been good for my blood circulation either.

By Bryan

April 18, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

I think as long as it’s situationally appropriate (like for work people should at least dressed decently, while at the pool it’s swimsuites and shorts)then what a person wears should be their buisness and no one elses.

By RS

April 18, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Not neccessarily, Chuck, but a few well-placed disclaimers wouldn’t hurt.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

LOLA - hehehhe yeah, nice to see people cutting themselves from the human herd every now and again

By Jack

April 18, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

When these kids grow up and want to get a real job, they will lose the low rider pants and will try to hide the tatoos & piercings. Most are smart enough to know they won’t get a good job unless they conform. We did.

By kimberly

April 18, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Lola, you and I must be around the same age. Hahaha! Those Jordaches were so hard to get off, they DID serve as deterrent to sex; a drunk teenage boy was not able to get them off without help!

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

RS, not to jump off-topic (God forbid!) but there ARE disclaimers…lots of them. “This show contains…and may be deemed unsuitable for younger viewers”…not to mention the TV rating system that is applied to all programs.

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Lola, don’t get me started on Parachute pants. What the hell were we thinking…

By Lola

April 18, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

You’re right, Kimberly! Those pants were a sex deterant, a pee deterant, a sitting-down deterant, and a breathing deterant! And back then, I thought parachute pants were HOT! Boy, looking back at how we all dressed, I suddenly feel like the smartest person in the world today. LOL!

By Scott

April 18, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Thats the great contradiction of the eighties…raging teenage hormones driving you to jumpo in the sack….while wearing clothes and sporting hairstyles guaranteed to turn off anyone who sees you

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Seriously, it’s amazing that anyone had sex in the 80s…just the sheer amount of hairspray involved would have rendered the act potentially flamable.

By RS

April 18, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

J. Morris: Ha, yeah, I sported a tri-colour spiked Mohawk during part of the 80’s…the few males that had the nerve to approach me did so at the risk of having an eye put out! As to violent rap videos, etc..Apparently the disclaimers aren’t obvious/powerful enough…

By Boscoe

April 18, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Michael H, that’s it? After the length of that post Friday the best you can come up with is OH YEAH, WELL YOU’RE WRONG! ? . Michael, Kant was no more Christian than you are. Norman, you’ll get your wish soon enough. You’ll see then what happens when men believe in nothing.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

JMORRIS - HAHAHHAHHAHAHA!!! SOOOOO TRUE!

By Bryan2

April 18, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

At least some of the clothes in the 80s were comfortable…I was in high school in the 70s. Polyester shirts and bell bottoms (..shudder..). You’d get up from your seat and all the static electricity would keep your pants from falling down normally…

By Jack

April 18, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

How bout the spiked hair done with glue or the mohawk hair styles. Quite sexy.

By Scott

April 18, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

RS - nice motif…kinda doubles as a fashion statement and a self defense weapon, eh?

By Lola

April 18, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Here’s one for you - I had a skunk striped mullet hairdo! I took bleach blonde hair color and striped the middle of my head white, and then had the rest of my head in the shape of a hair helmet! I just can’t figure out why the boys didn’t like me. LOL!!!

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

I was very upset recently when I looked back at my ‘89 high school yearbook to discover that I had a mullet.

By chuck

April 18, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

NORMAN, I’m still waiting for the citation to that NYC study. I guess like most of your posts it was just fabricated from thin air.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Thats a fish…right?

By DeltaX

April 18, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Jack, Your post reminds me of a great line in Simming with Sharks: If you are not a rebel by 18, you have no heart; if you do not conform by 25, you have no brain.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

You know what, Jack? A fish on my head would have been more attractive than this was!

By Scott

April 18, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

hahhaaha…well I guess the worst I can report is shaving my head and growing a goatee senior year…mild in comparison I know

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Deltax, I believe that’s a bastardization of something that Churchill said.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Great quote, DeltaX! And boy, is it ever true!

By DeltaX

April 18, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

J.Morris, I could see Churchhill saying that.

So, the first thing to diagnose may be: Is this benign rebelling? Or does it serve a (neg) function in our society.

I would bet it has little or nothing to do with the fabric of societal reality; but I would have to think a good bit on it. (Hey, there is a good idea for a lot of you - think about your premise before spouting;)

By Jack

April 18, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

I was just a boring long-haired hippie freak.

By RS

April 18, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

See why my parents never had to worry about my virtue? Jack, back in the late 70’s/early 80’s before all these fancy hair-spiking products came out, some of my fellow punk-rocker pals used to spike their locks with Vaseline…yuck! It’s a wonder ANYONE had sex back then, but I guess they did, as evidenced by us seeing 20-somethings out & about.

By RS

April 18, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Oh, Jack, I think hippie guys are HOT!

By Lola

April 18, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

I was friends with the “dead heads” as they called themselves. The long haired hippie freaks who followed the Grateful Dead and wore those knee-high brown laceup boots and earth shoes. There were as many styles back then as there were different groups of kids. I grew up in Texas, so we had the sh*t kicker crowd (cowboy attire), the dead heads, the metal heads (hard rockers who hung out in metal shop), the chicanos, and then the rest of us who didn’t really fit into a particular category. It was a real melting pot of styles, personalities and family structures. Looking back it’s really amazing how different we all were, yet we all (for the most part) got along.

By J. Morris

April 18, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Further research points out that this was falsley attributed to Churchill. No record exists of him having said this, apparently. However, the attributed quote substituted “liberal” for rebel and “conservative” for conformist…(referring to the actual party names, by the way). Interestingly enough, Churchill began as a Conservative party member and then switched to a Liberal party member.

By Lola

April 18, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why it is, but I find Mark McGrath to be the hottest guy ever. What would you categorize his style as?

By norman

April 18, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

That item about NY crime was on the internet yesterday, based on an academic study of abortion and crime. I will try to find it if I can.

By Jack

April 18, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Don’t know who Mark McGrath is. I wouldn’t have found him sexy anyway. Just watched Frida on cable. Was her husband a pig or what?

By norman

April 18, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

For the research on crime and abortion in New York, see the New York Times, April 16, 2005, op-ed article by John Tierney called “The Miracle that Wasn’t.”

By Bryan2

April 18, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Norman,

There was something in yesterday’s AJC about the abortion/crime issue. Steven Levitt is the economist who states that he has done research that shows that the reduction in crime has been due (in part) to the fact that those would be criminals never were born. His data was based on the timespan from the Roe v Wade decision to the early 90s. He has some other very controversial studies as well.

By Tony

April 18, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Since Y’all (Me included) have taken a break from the normal in your face, I thought I might post a small but on topic warranty on a teenaged daughter for you amusement:

Congratulations! You are now the proud new owner of a teenaged daughter. Please read this manual carefully, as it describes the maintenance of your new daughter, and answers important questions about your warranty (which does NOT include the right to return the product to the factory for a full refund.)

IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE RECEIVED YOUR TEENAGER IN ERROR: To determine whether you were supposed to receive a teenaged girl, please examine your new daughter carefully. Does she (a) look very similar to your original daughter, only with more makeup and less clothing? (b) refuse to acknowledge your existence on the planet Earth (except when requesting money)? (c) sleep in a burrow of dirty laundry? If any of these are true, you have received the correct item. Nice try, though.

BREAK-IN PERIOD: When you first receive your teenaged daughter, you will initially experience a high level of discomfort. Gradually, this discomfort will subside, and you will merely feel traumatized. This is the “Break-In Period,” during which you are becoming accustomed to certain behaviors that will cause you concern, anxiety, and stress. Once you have adapted to these behaviors, your teenager will start acting even worse.

ACTIVATION: To activate your teenaged daughter, simply place her in the vicinity of a telephone. No further programming is required.

SHUTDOWN: Several hours after activation, you may desire to shut down your teenaged daughter. There is no way to do this.

CLEANING YOUR TEENAGED DAUGHTER: Having a teenaged daughter means learning the difference between the words “clean” and “neat.” Teenaged daughters are very clean, because they take frequent showers that last more than an hour. They will scrub themselves with expensive, fragrant soaps which you must purchase for them because like I’m sure I’m going to use like the same kind of soap my mom and dad use. When they have completely drained the hot-water tank, they will step out and wrap themselves in every towel in the bathroom, which they will subsequently strew throughout the house. If you ask them to pick up the towels, you are confusing “clean” with “neat.” Teenagers are very busy and do not have time to be neat. They expect others to pick up after them. These others are called “parents.”

FEEDING YOUR TEENAGED DAUGHTER: Your teenaged daughter requires regular meals, which must be purchased for her at restaurants because she detests everything you eat because it is like so disgusting. She does not want you to accompany her to these restaurants, because some people might see you and like I’m sure I want my friends to see me eating dinner with my parents. Either order take-out food or just give her the money, preferably both. If you order pizza, never answer the doorbell because the delivery boy might see you and ohmigod he is so hot. Yes, your daughter’s idea of an attractive man is the pizza boy.

CLOTHING YOUR TEENAGED DAUGHTER: Retailers make millions of dollars a year selling stylish and frankly sensible clothing which will look adorable on your daughter. If you enjoy shopping, you will love the vast selections which are available to you. Unfortunately, your teenaged daughter wants to dress like a lap dancer. You may be able to coërce her into putting on a cute outfit before leaving the house, but by the time she walks in the schoolhouse door, she will be wearing something entirely different.

OTHER MAINTENANCE: Teenaged daughters require one of two levels of maintenance: “High,” and “Ultra High.” Your daughter is “Ultra High.” This means that whatever you do won’t be enough and whatever you try won’t work.

WARRANTY: This product is not without defect because she has your genes, for heaven’s sake. If you think this is not fair, talk to your parents, who think it is hilarious. Your teenaged daughter will remain a teenager for as long as it takes for her to become a woman, which in her opinion has already happened and as far as you are concerned never really will. If you are dissatisfied with your teenaged daughter, well, what did you expect? In any event, your warranty does not give you your little girl back under any circumstances, except that deep down she’s actually still there-you just have to look for her.

By norman

April 18, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Chuck: you won’t believe what doesn’t square with your Christian biases. But here is the reference.

Professors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, economists, wrote a book called FREAKONOMICS in which they counter a number of urban legends including the one which gives Rudi Giuliani credit for the reduction of crime. They hold that the massive decline in unwanted birth owing to abortion was the real cause. Fewer unwanted children growing up into crime.

By norman

April 18, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Kant indeed was a Christian, Boscoe, but you refuse to recogn ize it because he wasn’t your kind of Christian. That is like Republicans calling FDR anti-capitalist whereas what FDR did was to save capitalism. Without FDR we would during the Great Depression have had a socialist/communist or a fascist revolution.

Kant provided a philosophical way that Christians could at once be believers and still not deny the evidence of reason.

By norman

April 18, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Bryan2: you saw the item I referred to in a different place. Thanks. Nice to know someone reads things other than baseball staristics.

But since when will the finding of research persuade people like Chuch and Boscoe. Four hundred years of biblical scholarship have shown orthodox Christianity to be nonsense but it doesn’t penetrate the brains that have been nourished on church-going nonsense.

By norman

April 19, 2005 07:15 AM | Link to this

The possibility that abortion could in some cases be good is worth considering.

By norman

April 19, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this

Some of you don’t believe my stats about religion. Elaine Sciolino in today’s NY Times, “Europeans Fast Falling Away from Church,” offers these mass attendance stats:

Netherlands: 10% France: 12% Germany: 15% Austris: 15% Spain: 18% Italy: 25%

IN ADDITION: The following countries have same sex marriage or equivalent: Netherlands, France, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland. Liberalized euthenasia laws: Spain, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark

It is clear that Europe, at least Western and Central Europe, has abandoned Christianity massively, except for nostalgic occasions. Poland, Croatia, Slovakia will not be far behind.

The US for a variety of reasons will make the same path more slowly.

By J Baker

April 19, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Surpisingly, I am with Shaunti on this one. I’m a 36 year old female and I’m tired of seeing 10, 11, 12, and 13 year old girls being allowed to dress like crack whores. I’m not a prude, but enough is enough.

We should also teach our young boys to respect women’s bodies. Women can’t be responsible for men not being able to control themselves. I also think it doesn’t give men enough credit to say that they are all so weak that they cannot control themselves when a scantily clad woman walks by.

Finally, Diane, I usually agree with you, but you’re full of crap on this one. Low rider pants, push up bras, high heels, and thong underwear are NOT comfortable, no matter what anyone says. The only reason these are worn is for the wearer to be noticed. It’s then a bit disingenuine for the same person to complain that “Men are staring at my (chest, butt, etc.)”

Except for the stupid boys who wear their pants with the waists at their knees so we see their boxers, I have to give it to the men on this one - they clearly are the smarter ones when it comes to fashion and dressing.

By Dboy

April 19, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

When I was 13, girls looked like girls. Today 13 year old girls look like woman and some look like street walkers. Who is to blame? Parents!

Parents need to take greater responsibility for how their children look and dress. As parent, mothers and fathers of this nation need to start taking responsibility for not only how their children look but behave. I think that how young girls dress is a direct reflection of how our society’s parents have lost control of their children. Children should learn their values at home. If you are allow others to teach your child what is acceptable in behavior and dress, then you are a poor parent.

Just so you have a frame of reference and think I am some right winger conservative Christian. I am a 35 year old male. I am a liberal Democrat (liberal by the way is not a bad word). I am Jewish and gay.

People need to take responsibility for their own behavior and stop trying to control and legislate what others do.

By Randy

April 19, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

So now Norman wants us to beleive the extremely liberal NYTIMES. Of course they are attacking the church, they are like you Norman, the dark doesn’t like to look at the light. Does Europe need a revival, Yes, People over there need to stop looking at church as a duty. Do like so many millions of people look at it here, church is a gift from god and a place where we can have a stronger relationship with Jesus.

By Randy

April 19, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Norman since you gone into Europe, why don’t you tell us the statistics in Africa, Russia, India, China and South America, where they are coming to Jesus by the millions. There is a German preacher Reinhart Bonke who personally led 25-30 million people to the lord last year alone. Europe just needs to spice up the church services, like we have done here. The new contemporary music is spectacular here in the USA(groups like 3-day, FFH, Michael W. Smith etc). I don’t see a fall off in the USA as people like you have hit us with(every lie) everything you can think of and we are still strong.

By Michael H.

April 19, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

In this recent editorial exchange between the female columnists I lean towards Ms. Feldhahn’s view about modesty in the dress of young girls. I would ask Ms. Glass what serious person argues that “girls and women who dress provocatively are the guilty ones for inciting sexual violence against them.â€? Certainly not her ideological counterpart. But I find that these columns are becoming rather silly exchanges of straw woman arguments and ad hominem attacks intended to generate heat, not light, or maybe that is all they were to begin with.

Norman

Thanks for responding to Boscoe on my behalf. I was momentarily baffled at why anyone would insist that someone as pious as Kant is not a Christian, but as you pointed out Boscoe, or “Bozo� might be a more apt name, is such a dogmatic defender of the faith that it appears that he thinks that the only Christians are conservative Catholics. When one wonders how the Catholic Church obtained so many recruits for the Crusades, it wasn’t only the prospect of lucre but probably true believers like Boscoe who came forth in droves to battle the infidels. Now they have to settle for being angry Catholic cyber vigilantes searching out the liberals, relativists, humanists, gays, to “take back America,� to use Pat Buchanan’s expression. At least they don’t wield swords anymore, nor ideas for that matter, just cut and paste words that are not their own.

It was coincidental and amusing to return home from a faculty meeting over selecting new texts for the intro and critical thinking courses, and a discussion of the curriculum for the ethics course and read Boscoe’s remarks. We all agreed that the first order of business in an ethics course, before proceeding to the heart of the course, was to deal with the usual “Boscoeâ€? issues, one could call them, at the outset; the view that ethics just IS religion, subjectivism, cultural relativism, and then move on to Plato, Aristotle, that non-Christian Kant, Hume, Mill and so on. But, according to bozo, the word “greatâ€? philosopher, when placed in front of Aristotle, Hume, or Kant requires quotation marks, and I guess that they don’t “believe anything” either. (I think I will call that one the religious believer’s fallacy. If you don’t believe in the existence of God you don’t believe anything.) Too bad the Catholic Church couldn’t produce any philosophers of their rank and that they depended so much on the “pagansâ€? such as Plato in the case of Augustine and Aristotle in the case of Aquinas to put some philosophical content into their religion.

In any event, I became tired of the line by line corrections of his statements and grading papers now is tedious enough. How many ways are there to say you got each and every claim so completely wrong, even his quotations of his own words, that there is no point in correcting them? It’s utterly fruitless to try to engage someone who is so unbelievably ignorant, arrogant, and intransigent all at once. If the Church said the sky was green, bozo would paste it into a post as a “refutationâ€? of secularism and then insinuate that you’re going to hell for trusting your senses rather the Church’s authority. (You read the recent posts, you should read the exchanges denying the existence of the Treaty of Tripoli, a straightforward factual issue.)

Reminds me of our president, what a dangerous conjunction of traits; ignorance and arrogance.

And appalling ignorance at that.

By Tim

April 19, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

I have a 14 year old sister and I have to say that it really bothers me that her butt (which looks like it belongs on a 24 year old not a 14 year old) hangs out of the bottom of her shorts… grown men have commented on how they wished the girls looked like that when they were that age… how DISCUSTING!!! women should be allowed to wear what they want… girls shouldn’t… I took my little sister to the movies a couple months back… she walked out in the shortest tighetest shorts she could squeeze into and a shirt that certainly left nothing to the imagination… I told her that if we were going to the street corner so she could find work she could wear that… but seeing as we were going to the movies she could put something on that didn’t scream WHITE TRASH or PROSTITUTE… she didn’t like that very much (mostly because it embarrassed her to think she looked like a slut) but she went and changed

I am not a prude… if you want to let your daughters wear that stuff by all means let them… I just know if a young lady in my family is going somewhere with me then she can dress ‘cute’ without showing everything God is still developing on her

By norman

April 19, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Michael H: thanks for the support. It is good to have some company when Boscoe strikes. He really is unbelievable. Christianity’s encounter with reason started out as Credo quia impoossibile, I believe because it is impossible, probably the view of Tertullian. It then under Augustine it came to I believe in order to understand, Credo ut intellegam. then perhaps with Aquinas or after him Intellego ut credam, I understand in order to believe. Boscoe comes before all this: St. Paul’s admonition Beware of philosophy and vane deceits. Boscoe is in the infancy of the human race and has never grown up.

By norman

April 19, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Of course Randy does not believe anything in the New York Times, that rag of Jewish Communist traitors. Isn’t the milk of Christian compassion sweet?

By norman

April 19, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Black smoke: indecision White smoke: decision

I want to know what those cardinals are really smoking.

Those old guys in skirts are lucky, in the 15th century they would have had to worry about being murdered by rivals and their mobs. Now they have to worry only that the faithful will become less faithful and the church will be reduced to African tribesmen and Hispanic campesinos. The church does indeed belong in the third world, as does Christianity in general. It rose in what then was the third world — backward Judaea, Galilee and Asia Minor.

By lozen

April 19, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

By norman

April 19, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Iozen, where does that quote come from? It seems to be a takeoff on the Hamlet complex.

By RS

April 19, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Dboy, welcome to the blog! Your post made lots of sense. Now, you may ask where are the parents of these 13-year old girls who dress like prostitutes? Well, the dads (those who aren’t absent, that is) are busy chasing young bimbos & the moms? They themselves are setting a “great” example by wearing slutty attire. BTW, now that you’ve “come out” twice (once as gay & once as Jewish) expect the Bible-thumping contingent on this forum to jump down your throat. As a fellow Jew & a card-carrying “f*g hag”, I’ve had plenty of that here! Tim, that little gal is SO lucky to have you as a big brother, for many, many reasons. If more were like you, we’d be seeing less by way of teen pregnancies, STD’s, crime, truancy & substance abuse. Bless your heart!

By Pat Cooper

April 19, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

No Chuck, unfortunately we didn’t dream it. All I’m saying that is our abhorrent lack of taste was not different from our parents abhorrent lack of taste in their teens or our children’s lack of taste at the same stage in life. It’s our repsonsibility to help them choose a middle road. I daresay that my choices would have been a lot more risque (just to see if I could get away with it) if my parents hadn’t demanded to see what I was wearing before I wore it. Most teen clothing is costume- our mini stage version of “look at me”, “notice me”, “I am my own person, not my parents”. It’s sad but true. And as far as the rest, do you really believe that all of society’s mores will go to hell in a handbasket if a teen wears raggedly cut Daisy Dukes. I don’t think it’s the clothing that does it - I think it just provides an atmosphere of chaos that allows for poor societal choices. And, surprise, surprise, male and female, adult or teen, are equally responsible for the problem. I don’t think the world would end or she would jump into a life of promiscuity (she’s way too sensible) if I’d allowed my daughter to wear blouses that bared her ample cleavage - I just didn’t think she looked good in it and, when I pointed out the fact that something with more coverage was not only more appropriate but more attractive, she went with it. Not wholly without argument, but she knew where her clothing allowance came from too. She learned to make appropriate choices and I learned which of my battles to pick when it came to her right to find her own identity.

By Michael H.

April 19, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Norman,

I thought those European church attendance figures were relatively high but I don’t dispute them. It is common knowledge that Christianity has been declining in Europe for a century. The Pew Global Attitude Survey contains a lot of data about religious belief around the world and is worth having a look at and there are countless other surveys, articles, and books on the subject for anyone who somehow remains skeptical. The future of Christianity is clearly in South America and Africa and they are frighteningly conservative there, millions of Boscoes.

I was in Norway and Sweden this past August and on my last day in Oslo we were driving the city streets. I saw about a dozen people standing in front of a large building and asked aloud why they were apparently waiting there before realizing that it was a church and these people were church goers. The church could have accommodated a thousand people. One Swedish minister said that he received phone calls asking what day was church and whether an appointment was required! I lived in Australia for about five years and religion was refreshingly almost absent from the cultural and political scene.

However, I don’t believe that religion will decline in the United States in our lifetime, in fact it seems to be on the rise. The Pew Research Center on Religion in Public Life has a special study on this and there was a recent conference of academics, religious figures, and journalists on the differences between the United States, the only really religious Western country, and the rest of the West. It featured a lot of interesting stuff.

Although I view religious doctrines from an pistemological perspective and find them all pretty much equally wanting in plausibility it is the behavior and practice of some religious people that concerns me. Men such as Jimmy Carter respected separation of church and state and was a better human being and humanitarian because of his religion. Bush is not. My two closest friends are Catholic and a dean in the Episcopalian church respectively and they are as good as people come. I respect good religion and do not oppose it in whatever form it takes. It is this religious right and their newfound conservative Catholic brethren that constitute the worst of contemporary Christianity and are becoming tyrannical threat to the republic and my religious friends agree with that assessment. These religious conservatives would find it incomprehensible that my Episcopalian friend said that “You live a holy life without theism, while I try to do the same with a deconstructed theismâ€? or that one of the monks at Conyers told me that I was closer to God than most Christians. They have the capacity to recognize the decency in other human beings, rather than merely consigning them to hell because they don’t have the “orthodoxâ€? or “right beliefs.” But largely that is their problem and their moral blindness.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

They really should change the name of this blog to “Lets argue religion”. Each and every week we end up there so why not re-name it. Isn’t there a religous blog for Norman & Zack and his ilk can go instead of taking up this blog time and again?

By chuck

April 19, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

UMMM NORMAN, It seems you have based this little theory on a book by Levitt called Freakonomics. This book has been both roundly praised AND panned as junk science. One criticism of Levitt’s assertion that abortion led to a decrease in the crime rate is this one from a journalist named Steven Sailer.

Steven D. Levitt’s Abortion Cuts Crime Theory Is Back

Freakonomics: You may recall Steven D. Levitt as the celebrated U. of Chicago economist who put forward the theory that legalizing abortion in the early 1970s lowered the crime rate in the late 1990s by pre-natally capital punishing a lot of bad apples.

I demolished Levitt’s theory when we debated it in Slate back in 1999, but Levitt’s still making it the centerpiece of his upcoming book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. He simply doesn’t mention the objections I put forward six years ago — most famously, that the first cohort born after the legalization of abortion, who, under his theory, should have been better behaved than the unculled previous cohort, instead went on the worst teen murder spree in American history during the early 1990s. That this group then committed fewer murders when they got older, as Levitt emphasizes, obviously can’t be attributed to their having been culled by abortion — instead, the real explanation is that a huge fraction of these fellows born in the late 1970s were by the time they became adults already in prison cells, wheelchairs, or coffins due to the crack wars of their teen years.

Amusingly, our debate is the first thing Google brings up if you enter: Levitt abortion crime. So, it’s hard to imagine how Levitt thinks he can get away with it, but you can get away with a lot in today’s flaccid intellectual environment.

Levitt’s publicist contacted me about hyping his book, so I suggested to her that we could generate a lot of publicity for it if Levitt and I resumed our 1999 debate in print or online. She thought that was a great idea, so she immediately presented the proposal to Levitt. This time, however, he refused to debate me.

By Tim

April 19, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

RS… thanks :) I just wish mom would jump on my bandwagon also… she seems to think she looks ‘cute’… like I told her… it isn’t cute that by dressing like that she may be increasing her risk of being raped… sucks that that is the world we live in but that is how it is

as for your question ‘where are the dads?’… my little sisters father for some reason does not think he has any say in what she wears… he doesn’t like it but looks like my mom rules the roost so my little sister prances around like a little hoochie mama the majority of the time (as for me I obviously have no problem saying exactly what I think about the situation)… I just hope they don’t have to learn the hard way

By lozen

April 19, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack darlin’, what else is there to say about the modesty movement? If the topics of this blog were more interesting and complex, perhaps we wouldn’t wander off constantly into religion, which to me (and apparently others), is more interesting than “the modesty movement.” Also more complexity might get rid of certain simple minded folks… you know who.

Norman, the quote was attributed to Sir Bertrand Russell.

By Kathy

April 19, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

As the mother of one teenage and one preteen daughter, I would be happy to see more modest clothing available. Regardless of what’s “in”, I refuse to let my daughters go out looking like streetwalkers. I am not a prude or an extremist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have had to teach them that you can be stylish and attractive without looking sleazy. I want them to have a heathly attitude about their bodies, but that doesn’t mean they have to display them in a vulgar way. Case in point: I refused to buy them pants or shorts with writing across the backside. I told them the only reason for putting lettering on clothing is to get people to look at it, and I really see no reason to draw the attention of strangers to my children’s rear ends. My oldest daughter loves Old Navy, which makes relatively modest clothing, but their sizes run so small that my avarage-size daughter has to wear an extra-large just to keep her clothing from fitting like a second skin. Finding clothes for them that I think is appropriate AND they think is cool is a tough challenge. I would welcome any effort on the part of the maufacturers that would make the job easier. And by the way, Diane, I prefer for them to learn that power comes from their brains, personalities and achievements, not from how they display their bodies.

By Amy W.

April 19, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

although i consider myself to be fairly liberal, i agree with shaunti.

however, i have a bigger problem with the unfounded accusations diane makes against religious women:

*Hassidic women shave their hair to adorn scarves or wigs out of religious modesty. Islamic women wear headscarves for the same reason. Both of these religious practices treat their women as property. These religions prohibit women standing out in any way. Their women don’t make the laws or even study the religious practices supporting their own subordination. They are owned. *

does anyone else see the blatant ignorance expressed by diane in this quote? who the hell is she to assert that Hassidic women are considered “property” to their husbands? has she even bothered to go to a religious community and talk to women about their choice to cover their hair after getting married? probably not. instead she had the audacity to make rude and insulting remarks.

i hope people recognize that what diane says is NOT true, and actually takes the time to understand WHY people practice particular beliefs instead of criticizing them. diane, you should be ashamed of yourself.

By chuck

April 19, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Here is a shortened version of Sailer’s analysis of Levitt’s statistics. As you will see, Levitt totally ignored ALL other possible factors in his “study”. Just goes to show you that the old adage about statistics is true. You can make them say ANYTHING you want them to. BTW Norman, I hope you pay close attention to the racial issues brought up by the abortion question. Statistically, black women have 3 times the number of abortions per capita than white women. I have contended for years that MOST proabortionists are just closet racists. I think that Sailer’s characterization of this theory as being in favor of preemptive capital punishment is correct and ought to make all of us shudder. As usual, you have gone off half-cocked and betrayed your true self.

*According to Levitt’s logic, murder should have declined first among the youngest and last among the oldest. Did it? Unfortunately for Levitt, the opposite is true. The murder rate for Americans age 25 and over started falling way back in 1981 (when the youngest person in this cohort was born in 1956) and fell fairly steadily for two decades. Indeed, in contrast to his theory about post-Roe individuals being especially law-abiding, the adult murder rate has only begun to creep back up now that people born after Roe have begun to make up a noticeable fraction of those 25 and up. From 1999 through 2002 (the latest year available, when a 25-year-old would have been born four years after Roe), the murder rate among 25- to 34-year-olds has risen 17 percent, while continuing to drop among the under-25s.

But the acid test of Levitt’s theory is this: did the first New, Improved Generation culled by legalized abortion actually grow up to be more lawful teenagers than the last generation born before legalization? Hardly. Instead, the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history.

Abortion became legal in 1970 in California, New York, and three smaller states. Let’s compare the murder rate of 14- to 17-year-olds in 1983 (who were born in the last pre-legalization years of 1965-1969) with that of 14- to 17-year-olds a decade later in 1993 (who were born in the high-abortion years of 1975-1979). Was this post-Roe cohort better behaved than their pre-legalization elders? Not exactly. Their murder rate was 3.1 times worse.

In contrast, 18- to 24-year-olds in 1993�some born before legalization, some after�committed 86 percent more murders than a decade earlier, while people 25 and up�all born before legalization�were 18 percent less lethal. Back in 1983, 14- to 17-year-olds were barely more than half as likely as 25- to 34-year-olds to kill. In 1993 and 1994, however, this purportedly better-bred generation of juveniles was more than twice as deadly as 25- to 34-year-olds.

Although Levitt desperately wants to avoid talking about race in relation to abortion and crime, blacks make an ideal test case for his theory because, as Levitt himself has noted, black women have about triple the number of abortions per capita as white women. So Levitt’s theory suggests that black teens should have “benefited� more than whites from abortion. Instead, black 14- to 17-year-olds were an apocalyptic 4.4 times more murderous in 1993 than a decade earlier. The black-white teen murder ratio grew from five times worse in 1983 to 11 times worse in 1993, according to the FBI.

The embarrassing truth, as Levitt admitted to me when I debated him on Slate.com in 1999, is that when he dreamed up his theory with John J. Donohue, he looked at crime rates in 1985 and 1997 and paid little attention to the vast crack epidemic that laid waste to urban America in between.

It makes no sense to credit abortion for any subsequent improvement in the behavior of the first post-Roe generation, when abortion so dismally failed to keep them on the straight and narrow when they were juveniles. Instead, the most obvious explanation for the ups and downs of the murder rate is the ups and downs of the crack business.

This generation born right after legalization is better behaved today in part because so many of its bad apples are now confined to prisons, wheelchairs, and coffins. About two million people are now in jail, four times more than in 1972. (Levitt attributes roughly one-third of the recent fall in crime to increased incarceration.)

The leaders in the decline in murder in the later 1990s were black male 14- to 17-year-olds, who by 1998 were killing at less than one-third the rate of their older brothers just five years earlier. These African-American kids born in the early ’80s survived abortion levels similar to those faced by the crime-ridden 1975-79 generation, but seeing their big brothers gunned down in drive-by shootings may have scared them straight.

I believe Levitt when he says he has no political axe to grind about abortion�but he does have a bit of an ego about his ideas. To find a justification for his naïve initial hypothesis, he has been stubbornly straining his formidable cleverness. (Although in Freakonomics he employed the simplest way to deal with these objections: he ignored them completely.)*

By Jack

April 19, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Lozen Darling, the subject could be women in sports and religion would enter the blog within the first three posts. It gets very old after a while. What would be nice is to lock Norman and Zack in a room together and have them go at it. Course after Norman’s comments to me yesterday, I wouldn’t mind being locked in a room with him.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

As long as Shaunti is writing the Conservative viewpoint, religion will continue to color the discussion. As a true evangelical fundamentalist, her every decision and opinion is informed by her religion - she is unable to think without it. If we had a more traditional conservative writing her side, I’m sure we would have more interesting things to talk about.

Michael made some mention of David Brooks a couple of weeks ago - he would be a welcome change. Too bad we’ll never get him, or anyone like him.

By vince

April 19, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Wacky stuff. Just talking about clothing for women reinforces the very subtle control element. Who cares if a woman dresses like a nun or a slut? And some people have supported making women dress in as many layers as possible, disregarding issues of comfort. Am I the only person who sees this as men controlling everything?

Where is the discussion of men’s clothes? Comfort or not? Not to be found, because men fear being controlled.

The issue here is about teaching values to our children. Just as dangerous as preaching abstinence only is teaching a young woman that if she dresses like a slut and is raped, she asked for it.

And, truth be told, corporate America could care less about our daughters, sisters, or mothers. They care about changing fashion trends as often as possible, because getting the money out of their purses makes them very happy.

By RS

April 19, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Tim, looks like you have to undo a lot of damage. I don’t envy you. Your dad needs to think about what goes through hetero mens’ minds when they see skimpily clad women & girls & then ask himself “Do I want males to look at my young daughter & think these thoughts”? I have to disagree with your mom. There is nothing “cute” about a young girl dressing like a 30-something streetwalker & I only hope & pray your sister’s attire doesn’t attract some really negative ttention.

By norman

April 19, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

It’s funny that Hasidic women shave their ordinary hair and buy wigs which make them more sexy than before.

They are after all the Pentecostals of Judaism. So it figures.

By Michael H.

April 19, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I had the same thoughts as Morris when I saw the understandable remarks about religion dominating these posts. But it is partly invited by Shaunti who grounds all normative and policy issues in religion and seldom seeks reasons that would appeal to others.

And it is interesting to note that David Brooks is quite religious. But he doesn’t force it into any discussions where it really has no place. And in spite of his overall conservatism and his support of Bush, he is in favor of gay marriage. I guess that will send him to hell in the view of many religious people, or in Boscoe’s view he is not a real Christian.

By Tim

April 19, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

RS… well he does realize all that… the problem is he doesn’t stand up and say anything… I guess the good thing is that she still is a very smart young lady and has a good head on her shoulders… unfortunately the times she dresses like a hoochie no one is looking at her brain… hopefully as she matures her style will as well… if not I will just have to kidnap her and force my impeccable sense of style upon her!! :)

By Amy W.

April 19, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

fyi, not all Hassidic women shave their head. like christainity, there are different sects of Hassidism.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Vince, Good post. Couldn’t have said it better.

By RS

April 19, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Tim; Hopefully it’s just a short-lived stage & she’s just going through normal teenage rebellion & seeing how far she can push your folks. I’d like to think the “hoochie-mama” stage will be over very quickly

By Scott

April 19, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Jack - couldn’t agree with you more…no matter the topic at hand (though I do think the modesty movement topic is a bit silly) we will shift back to religion. It gets more than a little old.

Do you think we could sell tickets to the Norman v. Zack bout?

By lozen

April 19, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Vince, you hit the nail on the head! So much of the discussion about sexuality, abstinence, abortion, clothing etc. is really about controlling women. Nobody really expects to control men’s sexuality or their choices in clothing. A lot of people are truly upset about the strides women have made in the last 35 years and want to turn back the clock to the time when women had no say and no power at all. That’s why I really don’t have much to say about the way women dress; I think women should be able to dress anyway they want. I am bothered however by the way young women are encouraged to dress right now. They are not dressing this way in a vacuum and where are they getting the idea that they should dress this way? Can we at least try to get to the source of this and it is not teenage girls! These fashions objectify them and turn them into sex objects, but what else is new? Females are always expected to walk a very thin line between being appealing and attractive, but not too sexy. It is still hard to choose between madonna and whore!

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

lozen, Maddona and whore were interchangeable in the 90s - didn’t you see her book? ;-)

By Boscoe

April 19, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Norman and Michael H, Reproduced from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The discovery of Kant’s dislike of Christianity (documented during Kant’s lifetime) is due to the efforts of Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg. Kant’s first biographers were L. E. Borowski, R. B. Jachmann, and E. A. C. Wasianski. Their accounts appeared in Königsberg, in the year of Kant’s death (11 Feb. 1804).* As the three writers knew their subject personally â€â€? Borowski had been his frequent guest; Jachmann had been his research assistant; and Wasianski had been his assistant and executor of will â€â€? their portraits were accepted as authoritative.* All three had degrees in theology; Jachmann held church services, Wasianski was a deacon, and Borowski was a church administrator. They stressed the importance of Pietism for Kant and presented their subject as a good Christian. This distortion was partly due to an innocent projection of the biographers’ preferences, but to some extent, it was also a systematic effort at spinning the facts, especially in the case of Borowski. Borowski worried that his association with Kant would harm his career and tried to preempt critics, for* Kant’s scorn for fundamentalists (Schwärmer) was notorious, and his influence was blamed for the empty churches in town. Kant was cool towards Christianity and did not support its doctrines*. For the distortions of Kant’s relation to Christianity, see Kuehn 2001, 2-16. For Kant’s contempt for organized religion, disbelief in an afterlife, and rejection of a monotheistic God, see ibid, 328, 369-78, 382, and 392. The Church has never relied on Pagan philosophers. Augustine and Aquinas show the errors of their works. It is quaint how you still continue to argue your point without providing references other than your right because you’re smarter than me. That is probably very much so, but at least quote text to show me my error. If you’re smarter this should be easy. What I do get from you is I’m smart, you’re stupid your points are thus invalid. And you’re a bozo. Michael if I remember right you’re the one who challenged my to this discussion and you have failed to provide any meaningful text to refute my points. The French philosopher was your best attempt and all you did was cut and paste an insult. Do you want a dialog to discuss your point of view or do you want me just to heel and say *MICHAEL H is correct about his view points on religion because he is a teacher of ethics *? Because that isn’t happening Skippy. The Treaty of Tripoli, I would like to remind you, does not contain the words about the U.S. not being a Christian nation. That was the argument. I have given you text from the Library of Congress that points this out but that evidently isn’t good enough ay Mike?

By chuck

April 19, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

I thought Michael H might like this little blurb:

In his last book, Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg pointedly titled two chapters “The Unexpected Usefulness of Mathematics” and “The Unexpected Uselessness of Philosophy.” Even the most esoteric math has helped him describe the cosmos. But the only value Weinberg ever found in reading philosophers was when they refuted other philosophers who had clouded his mind. While engineers or farmers or bartenders have all learned a trick or two over the years, philosophers mostly either rehash the same old mistakes or dream up new ones that are even more ridiculous.

If you want to read the entire article it can be found at:

[http://www.isteve.com/Philosophy.htm]

By chuck

April 19, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

text to be linked

By Jimpa

April 19, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

After reading Diane’s article I guess I’m supposed to feel better about the issues I have with my 13yr daughters style of dress. I’ve frankly felt that her showing six inches of her midriff was unacceptable. I guess it’s just freedom and it’s should be considered normal behavior. I still have problem with the low rider jeans. I really think it’s irresponsible for me to let her leave the house with the front of her panties showing. I’m I being reasonable? I’m surely not looking to control her. I want her to make her choices and not think I’m some christian zeolot as Diane suggest.

By chuck

April 19, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

JIMPA: IT IS CALLED BEING A PARENT. GET A BACKBONE

By Jack

April 19, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t have a daughter but it is the responsibility of the parent TO control what she should wear. My daughter would not leave the house looking like a slut or she would not go. She may whine & cry but too bad. When she grows up and moves out of the house, she could dress anyway she wants.

By Scott

April 19, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Lozen & Vince - I think that most of the problem with how young women dress these days is in fact exactly what Vince said reference that coporate America is only concerned with lining their pockets and using their marketing to prey on the minds that might be the most impressionable.

Women can dress any way they please as far as I am concerned and it should not mean it makes them more vulnerable to assault. I think the real problem is the marketing of provocative dress in such a way as to tell young women that is how they will be accepted. I think this limits them and makes it less of a choice rather than giving them the impression that if they don’t dress that way that they aren’t going to be accepted by the mainstream

By Lyrazel

April 19, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Well, I too read the Times—and read the article about the decline of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe—but at the end picked up the part about smaller evangelical churches faring well. Sign of the times: fewer nations are submitting their politics and populations to be dominated by the RCC. I know RCC has traditions but many congregations no longer WANT TO follow the Traditional Way since life interjects changes the RCC cannot accept. Obvious RCC is having a very hard time finding men to become priests. The absolute-faith of catholisism is not working with plugged-in generations who are embraced by protestants. Interesting that many RCC believers find they are condemned by RCC but embraced by other more open sects.

Also read an article on Hassidic women loosing their primary source of wig hair—yes, it is now unfit/unclean to purchase hair from Indian Temples (which was the primary source). Obviously hair shorn in a Hindu ritual is now Unorthodox. And we think our fashion is tough!

My mother would say most women dress like loose women. Well, she harkens back to the time when we women wore gloves—and hats—WHENEVER we went out—no exceptions (including her little daughters). O and hose—when we grew from using anklets—we had hose—not pantyhose. Garter-belt hosery underneath girdles. Mother doesnt own a pair of jeans and would never wear MEN clothes—like pants or shorts. She would scold Shaunti for looking manly and praise Diane for her clean-womanly clothing, that said, she feels open-toed shoes are for slutty women tho— Ah, tradition.

By norman

April 19, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

The Catholic Church is Kaputt! Joseph Ratzinger is Pope. He will cause half of Catholics to leave the church in some fashion; he is a reactionary.

Good! The Church is over.

By chuck

April 19, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Norman, I noticed you didn’t respond to the article that debunked your earlier post. Conceding the point?

By Sandy

April 19, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Can’t really get too passionate about this subject, despite the fact that I have a 14-year-old daughter. It’s sometimes hard to find jeans that are not ultra low, but we usually shop for clothes second-hand anyway. Gotta watch out for those “innuendo” T-shirts, too; she might buy something for the picture on the shirt, but not “get” the innuendo.

Shaunti’s “visual minefield” comment was insulting to both genders, but I’ve found her treatment of men to be rather patronizing anyway—she has a book out about how to feed, water, and nurture men, an opinion formed after a quick perusal of said book.

Anyway, although I usually wholeheartedly agree with Diane, I don’t like that Diane threw religion into the discussion, but since she mentions Hassidic women, I wondered how many of you read Naomi Wolf’s essay about pornography. I found it to be interesting and thought-provoking, and sort of on-topic. It can be found at http://nymetro.com.

By Susan P.

April 19, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Diane, Are you kidding?? Quit focusing on the female body?? I don’t think so! I was sitting behind a 14 or 15 year old girl with her pants so low the crack of her behind was staring me and my husband in the face…Talk about NOT focusing? It almost slapped me in the face. Don’t tell me the group of boys sitting beside me didn’t or shouldn’t be focusing either.

By norman

April 19, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

The new pope has been head of the Holy Inquisition so we can say the Pope is the Inquisitor General.

He was introduced by the Cardinal Deacon, a friend of Augusto Pinochet from Chile — a fascist at least.

By lozen

April 19, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

JIMA, it is so hard to be a parent! Now that I’m a grandmother it’s much easier to see how people should parent, you know! Actually I’m learning a lot by watching “Nanny” shows. You are the one in control when your child is 13 and she should know that. She won’t like it. She will be angry. That’s okay. I’m not saying be autocratic and unfair. Talk with her about how she dresses, what message she wants to send, why it’s good not to be a sheep and do things just because everyone else does it. Tell her how much you love her and that if you didn’t, you wouldn’t care how she dresses. Stick to your convictions, let her voice her opinions and viewpoint! Try to reach some compromise that both of you can live with. See how easy it is for me?

By Tricia Rackliffe

April 19, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Great. Once again women are being blamed for men’s inability to control themselves. I don’t see anyone attempting to get men to cover up. I’m pretty sick of seeing men’s hairy butt-cracks and naked man-boobs but nobody is telling them to put some clothes on. The end of Western civilization is a push-up bra and a thong.

By Mary

April 19, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

I am ashamed of you posters! Almost an entire day into the forum and you have not figured out how to turn this topic around to bash gay people. Surely you people can do better.

By Jodi

April 19, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

When I was a kid, my mother would never let us wear immodest clothing. She would also never give us money to buy such clothing. However, often as soon as my sisters and I would leave the house, we’d change into miniskirts or tank tops as soon as we could. Ah, teenagers! We thought we looked so good, too. Point being, you can’t really watch your teenagers 24/7. They will often do things on their own no matter how strict you are or how well you’ve taught them. All you can do is teach them the best you can, don’t let them use your money to buy immodest clothing, and hope for the best. Most of us usually get the picture that we’re dressed inappropriately, although it may take till we’re 25!

By Janet

April 19, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

So many comments on the topic, but where to begin. I do have issue with some of the clothing that is being worn by the youth of today. It is pretty bad when you are sitting at a tent service for your youth group and your husband points to a young girl (13) and say’s ask her to pull up her pants. The thong and what it isn’t covering because of the low riders are not exactly what you want to see. And when you stop to consider that thirteen-year-old is build like a 24-year-old, it is even more unsettling. But the same can be said for the males that want to show off their boxers.

I am aware that thong underwear are more comfortable for some women (myself included) and for those of us that are shortwaisted (ribs sit on top of hips) low rider jeans are by far a better fit and feel. I also know that under clothing should be that… under something, not visible.

Men are the ones responsible for controlling their urges. Women should also control their urges to be exhibitionist. Clothing manufactures can still make a profit by offering stylish clothing that can cover the torso of a person.
That being said, I do find some of the bare mid-drifts style cute. But there are places that those styles are appropriate. The beach and amusement parks where fun and casual are expected.
Not everyone is built for every style that comes across the magazine covers. Discretion is what is needed and it isn’t being used by many. Parents should exercise some restraint over the clothes they purchase for their children, and what they allow them to wear when out in public. Parents need to get more involved, and quit expecting the teachers, the fashion designers and children’s peers to determine what is acceptable.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Lozen-Right on with that post. I’m waiting for grand kids. I don’t watch the nanny shows because I get so angry at the parents on there that have no backbone. The parents rule the house, not the children.

Nice try Mary. Why do you want to start something? Bored?

By Lyrazel

April 19, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

I disagree. Men dont control fashion to control women. Women submit to trends by purchasing. Women are responsible for most clothing purchases in families: from tube socks to ties. No retailer wants an inventory no one will buy—and seeing how seasonal the clothing market is—no retailer is going to try selling lime green pant-suits if its a trend no one buys into. Its called consumer awareness. Be a wise consumer and run this show—it worked getting women Plus Size clothes that were not mumus, bras that were not cast-iron projectile-enhancing like Marilyn Monroe wore, women got panty-hose and thong underwear…got to wear bustiers (and abandoned them: lol COMFORT RULES). It works with this modesty movement because them who controls the cash controls what will be on the racks…teach your children to be a savvy consumer….and be one. Take responsibility—stop giving it away!

By Abner

April 19, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

That is pretty awful that they didn’t choose the priest from Africa, or the one from Brazil, or Honduras. I guess that you have to be a white, European man with white hair to be pope.

By steve

April 19, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

My wife purchased Shaunti’s new book a coule of weeks ago and thought it was wonderful. I agree completely with Shaunti’s “visual minefield” comment. I do not feel it is patronizing. It is just reality. The idea the men are very visually oriented is not new and I think it is widely accepted. Why is there a Victoria’s Secret in every mall and not a male-oriented counterpart? Why is pornography geared toward men? Because men are highly visual, much more so than women. Nothing new about that.

Now, I must say, I think Shaunti is right that our culture would greatly benefit from a “modesty movement”. I like the idea, I just don’t see it happening. Where is this movement occuring? Not where I live.

By Michael H.

April 19, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Scott,

That was a great story about the escapee or felon who became ensnared in his own loose clothing and belt. I had wondered whether something like that might not happen and it turns out you have first hand experience. Very, very funny.

Randy’s comment to “spice up the churchâ€? music in Europe reminded me of Tom Lehrer’s old “Vatican Ragâ€? song mocking the reforms of Vatican II. No, I don’t think that approach will work in Europe Randy. The cultures are very different and injecting pop culture into religious services will not address those differences nor revitalize religion in Europe. Europeans like American entertainment but they don’t view it as a part of religion or politics. In fact, I think a lot of these elaborate sound sytems, projected texts, videos, television evangelists, and all the rest of it actually trivialize religion. Similarly, with the ubiquitous bumper stickers of Calvin praying, fish, my boss is a Jewish carpenter, and so on. If religion is sacred, then it seems to me that these practices turn it to something profane. As a nonbeliever who still respects much religious belief, I don’t see this mass appeal, no pun intended, as a worthy addition to religious practices and it won’t carry the day in Europe.

I think Morris is quite right in that Shaunti usually grounds her arguments over normative and policy issues in her religion, often quotes the Family Research Council, and other religious advocacy groups rather than offering reasons that can cut across ideological and religious differences and serve in public reasoning. Then the religious back and forth ensues.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

The Pope should have come from a country with the most Catholics in their population. I doubt race played ANY part of the selection. Shame on you Abner for trying to play the race card.

By jd

April 19, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Well Steve, do you want to wear victoria secrets lingerie and silky sexy pagamas and panties? When the market opens up for men’s undies be sure to be the first to transfer your 401K. I’m sure thats a stock option you won’t want to pass up. Most women that wear very revealing clothes do so for the attention. The attention they seek is not the fault of any man it’s just as much a desire for a women to be seen as it is for a man to see…ya see.

By RS

April 19, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

It IS true that women/girls who dress provocatively do it for the attention. Why else? No one can possibly think butt-floss undies, push-up bras & 3” spike heels would actually be comfortable. What really gets me are the ladies who dress like that & make a big production of whining that men keep hitting on them. Well, DUH! If you ask me, they secretly crave the attention, otherwise they wouldn’t dress & act so sexily. Yet, NICE women who respect themselves & their bodies are often ignored by the opposite sex. Um, maybe that’s WHY

By rocky

April 19, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Abner, I’m going to have to agree with Jack here. The new pope was elected by his peers, not by mainstream citizens, and I sincerely doubt they chose based on any kind of racial standard. Sounds like you’d better get that chip off your shoulder.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Spice up? Give me Bach and Handel and Palestrina and Mozart any day. I can’t picture Michael W. Smith or which ever other pop-schlock Christian pop musician that a lot of people in this country prefer rolling off the walls of Chartres and Notre Dame with anything approaching the majesty of the Mass in B minor.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

My understanding of church history suggests that, traditionally, after a particularly long papal reign, the Cardinals tend to elect someone well known and older - the idea being that the new pope’s term will be relatively short, giving the Church a chance to determine in which direction it will continue…the next pope is likely to be either African or South American since that’s where the most Catholics are.

At least, that’s what I’ve been reading lately.

By jd

April 19, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Buttfloss panties? Oh thong underware. Lots of women like them cause they don’t reveal a panty line when they wear fitted clothes.

By Boscoe

April 19, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA! Norman we’re coming for you. The Inquisition might just start with you.

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Gay alert! Ratzie has called homosexuals “radically disordered.” You should be flattered at the attention.

Chucck: I haven’t had the time or desire to check out every detail of the abortion/crime link. I have always been vs. abortion but of late I am more willing to listen. Perhaps selective abortion is good: getting rid of potential murderers, rapists, thieves, terrorists, and yes, Chuckie, Christians!

By Jack

April 19, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Being a man I enjoy looking at attractive women in scantily clad garments but it would not prompt me to do anything out of line. Women do wear these things to get attention and it works. If they don’t want to be hit on by the wolves then they should dress accordingly.

By Doogie

April 19, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Believe me when I say that commercial businesses will sell more modest clothing when there is enough demand. That’s capitalism at its best. Due to the sheer fact that demand is still small, the stores carry little of this type of clothing. As a father of three high school teenage daughters I see little in the way of demand from them or any of their large circle of friends, many with strong religious beliefs. They like showing off their figures, and I doubt anything I say will alter that.

When I look at the clothing they wear, I can see no linkage to any “bad” behaviors. Remember, it’s how you act, not how you dress, that demonstrates you ethics and values.

By Michael H.

April 19, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

How many times do you have to have your butt kicked? Alright, one more and then I am finished wasting my time with someone I now hold in contempt.

“The Church has never relied on Pagan philosophers. Augustine and Aquinas show the errors of their works.â€? Really? Read the Confessions to see how much Augustine relies on Plato and the credit he assigns to him. Read Aquinas’s five variations of the cosmological argument or famous five ways and note that they rely directly on Aristotle’s metaphysics. You can read the Aquinas’s citations, go to Aristotle and read how close his text is to Aristotle’s. Aquinas quotes Aristotle throughout much of the Summa Theologica as an authority on a range of questions. He is referred to as “the Philosopherâ€? just as Averroes is referred to as “the Commentatorâ€? on Aristotle This is uncontested and common knowledge, what is your excuse for not knowing it? You’ve obviously never read any of Aquinas in the original. I teach the synthesis of Catholicism and Aristotelianism every semester and know this stuff inside out.

“The Treaty of Tripoli, I would like to remind you, does not contain the words about the U.S. not being a Christian nation. That was the argument. I have given you text from the Library of Congress that points this out but that evidently isn’t good enough ay Mike?�

No, the argument was not about the text but its existence. You claimed that it was an invention of anti-religious web sites, you claimed you couldn’t find it in the Library of Congress, and refused to listen to or accept my source, the Avalon Law School Project repository of documents because Yale University was pro gay! Then when I found it in the Library of Congress it was as a link to the Avalon project, the very one you rejected! Can you actually understand with any accuracy or memory, what you have read or written? I don’t think so, but if you can I invite you and anybody else reading these posts to go back and read the exchanges. My God you are dense.

You said it doesn’t contain the words about being a Christian nation? Really? Below is article 11 from the Treaty. Seems pretty damn close to me.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

How many more things can you get completely wrong? (That’s a rhetorical question, which means you don’t have to answer it. You would probably find a way of getting that wrong too.)

I have read most of the articles at the Stanford site, though I doubt you have, and some of my professors have written some of those articles, for example my advisor at Illinois, now at Northwestern, Richard Kraut wrote the article on Aristotle’s ethics. In any event, the view described there is still more nuanced than you think, not liking organized religions and certain institutions and particular doctrines doesn’t make one a nonbeliever anymore than it did Soren Kierkegaard. The content of Kant’s rationalistic ethics is clearly informed by his Christianity and no one denies that. The author you cite is in a very small minority and few people accept his interpretations and for good reasons. Why don’t you read around some more and find out for yourself (or heaven forbid read Kant’s work itself fairly and make your own judgment) instead of running to the net to find something that agrees with your preexisting view and then cut and paste it like it is a refutation. And I don’t have to footnote every claim I make though I can back up all my claims. Maybe when you have passed comprehensive exams in the history of philosophy you won’t have to either.

What Alice in Wonderland reality do you inhabit? Is the sky green there? Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Kant was so much an unorthodox sort of Christian that I am willing to take your point and call him non-Christian. So what? All Enlightened people in the 18th Century rejected trinitarian Christianity as absurd. His non-Christian status would not give you the right to refuse to consider him an important thinker, give you the excuse not to read him.

By Boscoe

April 19, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

“Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires” Is the new Pope great or what? This is so weird. If I didn’t know any better I’d think he was speaking directly to Michael H!

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: I have not doubt that you would like to send me to the Inquisition. That is why I battle against theocrats here in the US. But honestly I would be willing, if we lived in a Soviety society, to send you to an insane asylum — or a gulag. Even steven.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one who finds Cynthia Tucker to be a complete and utter idiot? I just read her article on “immigrants” which are nothing but illegal aliens who come into this country with absolutely no regard for our laws and here she is spouting off about how they are so mistreated. I think they should put land mines along the borders and just be done with it. I guarantee the flow of illegals would slow down, if not stop completely.

By Janet

April 19, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

RS, sorry, but there are modest woman that wear ‘butt-floss undies’ because of the comfort. Granted they aren’t for everybody. I have no use for a push up bra, but have been known to wear 3 inch heels… being 5’2” any extra height I can get in a business meeting is good. Do the people in the meeting, or in general, know the type of underware I have on… NO! But for my comfort, and to keep the traditional undies from causing lines or bunching up, I like my thongs. Not everyone has the same body type, and what is comfortable to one may cause discomfort for others.
I don’t think it is the actually panties you have a problem with…. just those who choose to show everyone what they are wearing under their clothing.

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

In Germany they call Ratzinger the Panzer Cardinal!

He will be transitional as pope since he cannot last more than a decade probably. But he will make dissatisfaction with Catholicism even greater than before. American Catholic women will revolt — even those from Irish and Polish peasant backgrounds. Educated Catholics (like Chris Matthews, for instance) will find the mental reservations they have to resort to to stay in the Church increasingly difficult and will emigrate, at first intellectually, then morally, finally physically from the Church. Only the ignorant, the poor, and the deprived — what among Protestants we call the Redneck Christians and the Bible Belt — will continue to go to mass.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Rocky, they are not illegal aliens, they are undocumented migrant workers. LOL!

By jd

April 19, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

What I don’t understand is this impression that some people are eluding too, that some unseen force is making girls wear revealing clothes. THIS is not the case, there are many fashion options available too suit all taste regardless of current trends. I think the “modesty movement” is simply looking for a scapegoat to blame what THEY precieve as indecent on. Many retailers offer clothes that are very traditional and stylish, sexy clothes are not the only things available at the mall, they just might be what catches the consumers eyes.

By RS

April 19, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Jack, these females WANT the attention, no matter how vehemently they claim otherwise; otherwise they’d dress more modestly-and comfortably. Yes, Rocky, I DID read that article today & was appalled but, sadly, not surprised. I happen to agree with you 100%! I know a man who feels they should be shot on sight when trying to sneak into this country; hey, I have no problem with that! And those pieces of scum who took part in the 911 attacks were, largely, in this country illegally & had a history of making trouble. At worst, we’re in for another 911. At best, our hard-earned tax money is going to subsizize them & their multitude of filthy brats.

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Rocky: Cynthia Tucker has a special problem. As a liberal she is compassionate towards the illegals. As a black woman she knows that every illegal Hispanic takes a job away from a black man or woman. I wish she would join the battle vs. illegals. This would be a way for whites and blacks to cooperate.

By Abner

April 19, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Yes, race did play a part in the selection. The other guys, the one from Nigeria, Honduras, and Brazil had impressive credentials. So why weren’t they selected? Catholicism has larger movements in all three countries than in Germany. I seriously doubt that the world would be comfortable with a pope of color. Just like there hasn’t been any president of color or governor of color running. Don’t play naive. That is what kills me about most people, they pretend that racism doesn’t exist. I went to the University of Georgia, graduated two years ago, and I experienced more racism there than in any other time in my life. I was walking down the street, and some people yelled out the “n” word at me. Come on.

As for Cynthia Tucker, she is right. Illegals help corporations make money. Plain and simple. They aren’t going anywhere because the almighty buck is more important than anything else, including religion.

By RS

April 19, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Janet, sorry if I offended. What I meant were women & girls who deliberately wear thongs that protrude several inches above their waistbands

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Rocky, you do realize that land mines are considered an abomination by almost every civilized nation on the planet, don’t you? Please tell us you don’t honestly want to murder innocent people indiscriminately just because they have the gall to want to live in our country. Whatever your views on immigration – I don’t really want to start a shouting match over this – it is never acceptable to wish inhumane conditions or violence on another human being, particularly when that person’s only REAL crime is a strong desire to be a part of your culture.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

You’re dreaming Norman. Look at the flack that Bill Cosby took after saying what should have been said long ago. The race card will always be played over and over again. If it doesn’t fit, we must acquit.

By Chip

April 19, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

I think there needs to be more modesty in clothing, especially with the young teenage girls. I can’t believe what some of these girls are wearing now. I just stare at them and make sure they see me doing it. They are saying “look at me, look at me” so I look. Funny how you are considered a creep when you look at someone who is BEGGING to be looked at.

By Abner

April 19, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Rocky and Jack, how many of your neighbors are of color? My friend who lives in Alpharetta/Roswell, has no black neighbors. Where I used to live, I had no white neighbors. Integrated? I think not.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Illegal hispanic workers don’t take jobs away from anyone, Norman. Historically, illegals take the jobs that no one else will take. They also take jobs that pay BELOW minimum wage, since an employer who will hire an undocumented person obviously doesn’t pay much attention to regulations. Legal workers don’t take jobs that pay under minimum wage.

It’s a myth that an illegal worker is nothing but a drain on society, as if a piece of paper makes that much of a difference. Yes, they don’t pay income taxes, and yes, they take advantage of medical services sometimes. However, as human beings they also consume. They DO pay sales tax, by the way. More consumers equates with more need for workers, which creates jobs and contributes to the economy.

There isn’t a finite number of jobs out there, you know.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Fear not, JMorris. I was actually kidding about the land mines. But while I don’t blame the aliens for wanting to come here, we do have processes in place for them to come LEGALLY and they choose not to use those, which makes me very angry.

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

J. Morris: if blacks don’t take the jobs Hispanic illegals take it would be because they won’t get off their duff, not because they don’t need them.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Abner, My neighborhood is approx. 40% black. I have found that in this town, racism by blacks on whites is the norm. This isn’t the 50’s & 60’s anymore. I guess you use racism as an excuse for all of your shortcommings don’t you?

By jd

April 19, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Norman-“every illegal Hispanic takes a job away from a black man or woman. I wish she would join the battle vs. illegals. This would be a way for whites and blacks to cooperate”

Is this the only thing you could come up with as a means to foster solidarity between black and white Americans? Real creative, race relations through discrimination. Lord thank god I’m not a gay illegal alien……

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Norman, when everyone was calling you a racist a few weeks ago I didn’t credit it. Now, I see that it is very accurate.

By Boscoe

April 19, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Michael H, the principles which govern the doctrinal relations of philosophy and theology have moved the Catholic Church to intervene on various occasions in the history of philosophy. As to the Church’s right and duty to intervene for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of theological dogma and the deposit of faith. It is interesting, however, to note the attitude taken by the Church towards philosophy throughout the ages, and particularly in the Middle Ages, when a civilization saturated with Christianity had established extremely intimate relations between theology and philosophy. The censures of the Church have never fallen upon philosophy as such, but upon theological applications, judged false, which were based upon philosophical reasonings. It is, in fact, the doctrine which, because it best accords with reason, is most remote from axioms of faith. The Church has never imposed any philosophical system, though she has branded many doctrines as suspect. This corresponds with the prohibitive, but not imperative attitude of theology in regard to philosophy. The library of congress clearly points out that that particular statement is NOT in the original Arabic text. I don’t dispute what the Avalon project says about the text. But why doesn’t the original text say it? Where did it come from? Michael I don’t get it. You told me to read important things and here I read For Kant’s contempt for organized religion, disbelief in an afterlife, and rejection of a monotheistic God, see ibid, 328, 369-78, 382, and 392. This comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That sounds like a pretty reliable source to me. Your professors have even written articles for it. Impressive! What?? That doesn’t count because it doesn’t agree with your opinion? Funny but if you were as intelligent as you think I figure I would’ve heard of you before now? I figured you would be spending you time more wisely rather then wasting it here with us ignoramuses.

By Janet

April 19, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

RS, no offense taken, since on most issues I agree with you. I have no desire to see anyone else’s underware in public, male or female. And for the most part those that show their underware are looking for attention.
I did the snag test on my boys when they thought it was cool to wear their jeans below their hips. They caught on, their jeans aren’t as tight as mine were at their age, but I’m not looking at their boxers either. My daughter is 10, and likes fashion.. and I let her wear stylish clothes… not revealing clothes, but stylish. She is known as a fashion queen at her school, but no one can say that her clothes are trashy/revealing. It helps her self confidence, and I encourage it.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

As a matter of fact, Abner, my neighborhood in East Cobb has several black people living there. They are mostly nice people, about 2/3 of them take care of their yards and the other 1/3 have young punk kids who drive around with their cRAP blasting from within their cars so loudly that it shakes the windows on my house. Nothing made me happier than watching one of them get pulled over by the police in our neighborhood. I have respect for anyone who maintains our property values by taking care of their own home, but I resent anyone, black or white, who doesn’t take on the responsibility of maintaining their property and risking the high value of all the other homes. It’s true that probably 90% of our neighborhood is white, but nobody is stopping black people from moving in if they want to buy a house.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Janet - what is the “snag” test? I may need it for my own son at some point if he tries to leave the house in the pants-under-the-butt fashion some day.

By jd

April 19, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

By norman

April 19, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Rocky: Cynthia Tucker has a special problem. As a liberal she is compassionate towards the illegals. As a black woman she knows that every illegal Hispanic takes a job away from a black man or woman. I wish she would join the battle vs. illegals. This would be a way for whites and blacks to cooperate.

Your post was so thought provoking I wanted to make sure everyone gets a chance to mull it over…..

By Brian2

April 19, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

I moved here in 1986 and there was a lot of construction and other labor based activity just as now. There were plenty of white and black US citizens working at construction sites, painting houses, doing landscaping and a number of other occupations thought to be blue-coller. Now you drive around Atlanta and much of the southeast and it’s not just more hispanic, it’s all hispanic. Did an entire work force just suddenly in the last decade decide to get into another line of work. Construction actually paid decent wages at one time…enough for someone just starting out anyway. Did all of these us citizens go back to school and get white collar jobs. Not likely. There are no jobs that people here legally won’t take…there are just wages and working conditions they won’t accept. The illegal hispanic population has undercut those wages. By the way, I live near Buford Highway and I can see what their consumption patterns are and most of what I see is that they shop from the little shops around the area that import foreign (yes, Mexican) products. They don’t shop at the Krogers or the Publics or patronize the local restaurants either.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Rocky, just try a judicious Wedgie application. If the underwear is out far enough for you go easily wedgie, he flunks.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks, JM. I will tuck that one away for future use if I ever need it. Same goes for my daughter if I ever see her wearing something low-rise and there is a thong coming out of it. Hopefully these awful trends will be long gone by the time they’re old enough to be making their own fashion decisions.

By Janet

April 19, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Rocky, as they walk by you or if they are standing behind them, grab their pants and pull down. If they come down easily, they are too big and must change pants, if they are loose and slip slightly, tighten their belt. It isn’t a good thing when mom sees more than she needs to.

By rocky

April 19, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Good deal, Janet. Sounds like you’ve got your boys right where they need to be.

By norman

April 19, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

JMorris: lighten up, you liberals can at times be just as self=righteously pious as the Christers.

Surprised you haven’t picked up on my new openness to abortion if we can abort the right sort of future criminal.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Brian2, the answer to your first question is, basically, yes. More established groups tend to leave the lowest-echelon jobs and gravitate upward. I also doubt that most of the construction workers you see are illegal. Construction companies are subject to a lot of regulation and scruitiny. Also, I would hazard that the skilled (and therefore higher paying) construction positions are still more likely to be occupied by workers from groups that have been around longer, generationally speaking.

However, the real problem with your argument is that it assumes that the whites and blacks you mention aren’t working at all because hispanics currently occupy jobs you equate historically with other groups. If what you posit truly happened, there would be an increase in unemployment directly proportional to the influx of hispanics. This hasn’t occured.

True, unemployment figures are slightly higher than “optimum” right now, but this is largely attributable to the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. If you want to get really riled up about jobs being taken away from you, get irritated at a goverment that makes it more attractive to outsource than to manufacture at home.

By norman

April 19, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: did you parents beat you? You cannot talk about anything except from an Apologia ecclesiae sanctae romanae catholicae.

Pax vobiscum peccatoribus.

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Brian2 - the Wal-Marts where I live are almost single-handedly kept in business by the hispanic population here.

Norman, you’re a really unhappy, bitter guy aren’t you? Is there anyone except yourself that you don’t have contempt for?

By Art GarlandSr

April 19, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Boy are you sick and ill informed

By Jack

April 19, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

I worked constuction for a time back in the early 90’s. The INS raided the jobsite and I’ve never seen a place clear out so fast. The only workers who were not of Spainish origin were the plumbers, electricians, and heating and air guys. The one guy I talked to made $8.00 per hour and he thought that was a fortune. He sent $1200.00 home and his wife paid for the house in cash. he said he was going to send money to his son so he could buy a house. I have nothing against them comming here to work, they just need to be here legally.

By debbie

April 19, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

I have a 20 year old son who is a freshman in college. He did well both scholastically and athletically in high school and is a good looking young man. Whenever I would kid him about asking any of the girls in high school out, his response was “They are all sluts and I have no interest in any of them. I’m waiting until college.” This was also the same feeling that most of his friends had about the high school girls. I finally realized that what he was saying was true when I attended his baseball games and saw how the girls were dressed. Even in the cold months of February and March, they showed up in mini-skirts and tank tops. Not only did they look slutty but they looked stupid dressed like that in 40 degree weather.

Now that he’s in college, the girls appear to dress appropriately at the ball games and around campus and he’s definitely gotten into dating. I’m a child of the 60s and enjoyed wearing minis, halter tops, etc. but we never wore them to school and I had dates with lots of “nice” guys.

I too am glad I don’t have a daughter these days.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Who is sick and ill informed?

By RS

April 19, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Exactly, Janet! That’s why they call it UNDERwear! Have any of you seen girls with spaghetti-strapped tank tops that do NOTHING to conceal their bras (IF they’re even waering one, that is.)? Yuck. Folks, I DO resent illegals coming here, reaping our benefits, breeding tons of noisy kids & refusing to learn English. American kids aren’t geting enough attention from their schoolteachers because the attention is given to the foreign kids who don’t speak English. Do you know I’ve known plenty of AMERICANS who were turned down for jobs because they don’t speak Spanish. I thought knowing how to speak the language of the country you live in is good enough??

By J. Morris

April 19, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Jack, it WOULD be better if they were here legally, absolutely. They would be documented, taxed, etc. I don’t think that’s in dispute. What I DO dispute is the prevailing attitude that all illegals are awful people who are just flouting our laws and should be abused and let rot. Not suggesting that that’s YOUR attitude, by the way.

I think that people would be very surprised by the impact on our economy and daily life if all of a sudden all the illegals in the country vanished. Historically, the immigrant class, both illegal and legal, has filled a specific niche in our economic system and growth, whether we like having them here or not.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

RS They wanted to make Spanish the official language of South Florida. Don’t they have brass ones.

By Jack

April 19, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

They’re just trying to improve their lives. I would.

By Brian2

April 19, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

I agree that some individuals may leave labor, but there are also new entrants..young people starting out. I don’t agree that a whole population of people have just stopped doing blue collar jobs, and evolved to the upper echelons. I have also had conversations with people in more remote areas (where I myself had property built) and they maintained that they could not get hired doing sheet rock, house painting, basic carpentry with any established construction firm in Atlanta. There may have been other reasons for this, but it wasn’t apparent from a simple conversation, i.e., they weren’t just lazy and greedy.

I am also skeptical of the scrutiny you attribute to the construction industry which is seemly self-regulated, although I admit I put too much emphasis on the legal status of the workers.

Also, unemployment is not necessarily a result of whites and blacks being shut out of jobs in a certain area. They move to where the work is and also accept lower wages. People find work, but my point is why should it be harder for them to find work than for immigrants?

I looked into working in New Zealand several years ago, and it is very hard to work there unless you have a distinct set of skills that they can’t find. It should be the same here…I don’t agree that existing citizens don’t already have those skills.

By vince

April 19, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

Whether each of us agree or disagree with postings here, the passion we hold cannot be dismissed.

With that, I encourage us to stop insulting each other, and start proactively supporting our causes.

Say you oppose an ideal or a cause; so find a way to get out of the house and actually do something about it. This continuous “high brow” attitude only amounts to verbal rows and gets none of us anywhere.

I am starting a non-profit organization, Georgians Preventing Butt Boils. I’ll need people who actually are not glued to their chairs to help me get started.

By norman

April 20, 2005 07:07 AM | Link to this

JMorris: truth is truth, whether you like it or not. Yes, kill the messenger by all means. Blacks need jobs, Hispanics illegal or not have shown themselves more enterprising and energetic at work than blacks. There would be jobs if illegals were deported and prevented from coming back here. Whether the blacks would take these jobs remains to be seen. Whites could join blacks in restricting immigration in the interests of all. Having lived for many years in the SW as well as the SE I think I have seen enough to know I would get better work habits from Hispanics than black. You may not like this, but I don’t give a good goddam.

More ammunition for you: compared to Asians and Hispanics, black women cannot iron shirts for beans!

By Tony

April 20, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Boscoe Not that you need any assistance, but on my way in this morning on the radio they where talking about prayer, so I looked it up when I got in and pasted the results:

In one of the most compelling and best known studies on the effectiveness of prayer, Dr. Randolph Byrd, a California cardiologist, compared 393 patients at San Francisco General Hospital’s coronary care unit. The patients were divided into two groups; one group was prayed for, and one group was not. This study was performed under tightly-controlled conditions. The results were impressive: the group receiving prayer needed significantly less medication, fewer surgical procedures, and experienced more rapid healing. In addition, in many other studies prayer has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to reduce stress and lower blood pressure.

In another more recent study, women at an in vitro fertilization clinic had higher pregnancy rates when even total strangers were praying for them. This study, conducted in a hospital in Seoul, Korea, found a doubling of the pregnancy rate among women who received prayer. This randomized study involved 199 women who were undergoing fertility treatments in 1998 and 1999; all the women were selected for the study based on similar age and fertility factors. (See Journal of Reproductive Health, Sept. 2001.) Noteworthy is the fact that none of the women nor their medical caregivers knew about the study or that anyone was praying for them. In other words, the study was conducted under tightly controlled and unbiased conditions. The women in the “prayed for” group became pregnant twice as often as the women who did not receive prayer.

Another recent study involved 150 heart patients, all of whom were scheduled for angioplasty, in which doctors insert a little device called a stent into clogged heart arteries to keep them open. Patients who were prayed for during their procedure had far fewer complications, according to The American Heart Journal which published the study.

There have even been studies done involving nonhuman organisms such as enzyme cells, bacteria, plants, or animals. None of these could be affected by outside factors such as faith. Sometimes prayers were for growth of the organism, and sometimes prayers were reversed, against growth. Each time, the organisms responded according to the focus of the prayers.

If “directed prayer” is to ask for a desired outcome in specific terms, then “nondirected prayer” is a “Thy will be done” kind of prayer in which we allow God to determine the best outcome. A prayer research institution called Spindrift has shown conclusively that while both types of prayer can be effective, nondirected prayer yields quantitatively greater results.

Regardless of method, prayer is not about getting what you want, but rather about communicating with God and cultivating your capacity for love, gratitude, and enjoyment of life.

God is real, and prayer works!

By RS

April 20, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Jack, I lived in South Florida for 18 years prior to moving to Atlanta in 2002 and believe me, dear man, Spanish IS indeed the national language there, whether or not it’s been officially acknowledged. When I’d be in Miami with my husband and/or non-Spanish speaking friends, I’d have to do all the ordering in restaurants, stores etc because I was the only one who spoke any Spanish and even I’M not that fluent anymore…Sad situation.

By Lyrazel

April 20, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Wow! You folks dont like Hispanics do you? Somehow, the fact any one of them could have been born in the USA never occurs, does it? From landmining our borders (o I am sure Vermont and New Hampshire would love it or did you think our only borders are with Mexico) to confusing the Immigration issue with one race. Did you know Hispanics are not the only Illegals in this country? We have illegal Chinese, Italians, Nigerians, Saudi Arabians, India…but you only decry the Hispanics. Certainly to listen to some of you illegal Hispanics blew up the WTC. You see them, hate them, use them. How? You wont pay for your crops to be harvested by a field-hand making minimum wage. You wont pay for your homes to be built by union carpenters, you wont pay for your clothes to be made at American factories….you just want to yell about immigrants and live with blinders. When was the last time you purchased a shirt made in the USA? What about your underwear, your sheets, towels, shoes? Is the computer you communicate on MADE IN THE US? When NAFTA was signed between the USA and Mexico to bring industry into Mexico, it went well, clothing factories were built and a great many Mexicans were employed. However, the US firms saw they could get cheaper/unregulated labor pools in countries like Bangladesh/Pakistan so they pulled their factories out of Mexico. The high and dry left men and women equal as you trying to find work so you could by cheap designer clothes. Say, name one designer who uses American firms to create clothing lines?

You dont want to pay for social services to Americans either—the I-ME-MINE philosophy really is apparent in this country and in this blog. Is making your money all that you base your moralities on? Until you have your pot o’ gold the morality of how fairly you got it be damned? Its not a racial issue. Its an economic issue. Either America will grow up and pay for the services it recieves or we will continue to wink as illegal immigrants pass the borders to fill jobs Americans wont take without minimum wage.

By norman

April 20, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Tony: your comment about prayer proves perhaps that wishful thinking and self-delusion can be healthy, not that God exists. Prayer may be good if you think it is, whether anyone is listening or not.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

I resent any person of any race who feels they can completely ignore the laws of our land and come over here, have ten kids they can’t afford, and then rely on the rest of us to not only pay for them, but educate them as well. I resent people born HERE who are too lazy to work and would rather just collect that government check, which the rest of us work to provide to them. I find it very funny to see welfare recipients driving down the road in their $500 car with their $15,000 spinning rims, $3,000 stereo system and FUBU clothes, on their way to pick up their five illigitimate children by different mothers. Yeah, I resent each and every single person like that, regardless of race or nationality or whatever. This is America. We are a capitalistic society and a republic. If you work hard, you get good rewards. So yes, Lyrazel, it IS about the money and ME, MINE, etc. I haven’t busted my butt for the last 20 years so that I could have my paycheck divided up by the freeloaders.

By Archie

April 20, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

I like your post Lyrazel especially the part about the me-mine philosophy. Racism is an amazing thing. It runs through a lot of things and is very easy to spot at times by the minority but not acknowledged by the majority even though the majority knows exactly what’s going on.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Why is it considered reverse discrimination when a white person is discriminated against? I consider that term racist since it is just plain discrimination.

By Chip

April 20, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Racism exists today primarily because minorities refuse to let it go. People, like Jesse Jackson for example, would rather b*tch about Good Ol’ Whitey, than actually do something productive to mend relations. It’s a true shame about MLK, Jr. because he understood that.

By Tony

April 20, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Umm Lyrazel, a different perspective: Throughout history, the worst destroyer of economic growth and prosperity has been politicians who panic during an economic downturn. Michigan is in the late stages of a jobs recession, and our politicians are officially in panic mode.

The panic attack du jour is the “outsourcing” or “offshoring” of jobs by U.S. companies to foreign countries. This is contributing to an extremely dangerous outbreak of protectionist fever â€â€? dangerous because, although Michigan is the eighth largest state in terms of population, it is the fifth largest in exports to foreign markets, shipping out some $32.9 billion in merchandise in 2003. As will be seen, we are also a major importer â€â€? of jobs.

Michigan has keenly felt the loss of 300,000 jobs during the past three years. But very few of these jobs were lost because of “offshoring.” Instead, the recession, low productivity growth, and Michigan’s burdensome tax climate, regulations and labor unions are mostly responsible.

The closing of the Electrolux refrigerator plant in Greenville is the most recent cause celebre of the protectionist Chicken Littles, who have claimed that the 2,700 jobs will be lost to a plant in Mexico. This is not accurate. Many of those jobs are going to an Electrolux facility in South Carolina. Sorry, UAW, but you can’t holler “NAFTA! NAFTA!” about those jobs. Their loss is due to Michigan’s poor tax and labor climate.

Gov. Granholm recently contributed to the protectionist drumbeat with a pair of executive directives authorizing new paperwork requirements on state contractors, who must now demonstrate that the state work is not “outsourced” overseas. This will reduce the number of firms willing to bid on Michigan work, raising the cost of government here. Many Republicans have fallen prey to the protectionist malady, and have endorsed the governor’s position.

As political commentator H.L. Mencken famously said, “For every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it’s always wrong.” The angst over outsourcing is misplaced, for a simple reason: The United States and Michigan are “insourcing” far more jobs than they’re outsourcing.

The Organization for International Investment (OFII) in Washington reports that “U.S. subsidiaries [foreign companies with operations in the United States] employ a record high 6.4 million Americans, support an annual payroll of $350 billion, and heavily invest in the American manufacturing sector. Over the last 15 years, total ‘insourced’ jobs grew by 117 percent â€â€? at an annual rate of 7.8 percent; and total ‘outsourced’ jobs grew by 56 percent â€â€? at an annual rate of 3.8 percent.”

In Michigan, the numbers are equally impressive. Foreign companies now employ 244,200 Michigan workers, up 50 percent in the last five years, according to OFII. Of these, 127,700 are manufacturing jobs. Foreign companies that have “insourced” jobs to Michigan include names like Akzo Nobel Inc., Saint-Gobain, Toyota and Volkswagen.

There is every indication that the jobs picture is improving. In February, Michigan lost no manufacturing jobs. A slight decrease in overall employment was due to normal seasonal factors, and will likely reverse itself as the weather improves.

Things are looking up, but we’re not out of the woods yet. The one thing that is absolutely guaranteed to shut down the nascent jobs recovery is misguided new regulations or laws, such as the governor’s executive directives, or a Democratic proposal to punish outsourcing employers with additional fees. Such actions will only prolong the pain by ensuring that potential new employers take a pass on Michigan.

For more information about foreign companies “insourcing” jobs to the U.S. and Michigan, visit the OFII website at http://www.ofii.org/.

By chuck

April 20, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

No Lyrazel, I don’t want to pay for social services for anyone through the government. I like to choose for myself the charities that I give to. Government social services is like a gigantic bottomless pit that we just heave money into with little or no results.

As for illegal aliens not “flouting our laws” JMichigander, what does the term illegal mean to you? If they are doing something illegal they are by definition flouting, or showing a lack of respect for that law. As for their positive impact on the economy, that is true to a degree, but there is an accompanying negative impact. This would include overcrowded schools, additional strain on police, fire, and emergency services, and removing dollars FROM the economy that go to families being supported outside our borders.

George Borjas wrote about this economic impact:

**Many people believe that because a comparatively large percentage of immigrants goes on welfare, the costs to native American taxpayers wipe out the gains from immigration. But this has not been the case in recent years. The numbers show why. The present value of cash welfare benefits (such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children) received by the typical immigrant family over its lifetime is $8,700. With 6.4 million immigrant households, the total cost of assistance programs for immigrants is about $56 billion.

But immigrants also pay taxes. The present value of lifetime earnings for the typical immigrant man is $380,000. With 7.6 million working immigrants (both men and women), total earnings of immigrants are at most $2.9 trillion, of which about 40 percent, or $1.2 trillion, are paid in taxes of all forms. Because 3 percent of total revenues are allocated to cash welfare benefits, immigrants pay about $36 billion ($1.2 trillion times .03) in taxes to fund welfare programs. Comparing the $36 billion that immigrants contribute to welfare to the $56 billion they consume, immigrants consume $20 billion more over their lifetimes than they contribute. Thus, the welfare system causes U.S. natives to lose about $1.1 billion per year (in present value terms). Subtracting this $1.1 billion from the $5 billion annual increase in national income, the United States benefits from immigration, but the economic gains are small.**

You can read the full article by clicking here:

text to be linked

By Gina

April 20, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Okay, this blog went from modesty to illegal immigration and welfare. As much as I disagree with illegal immigration and welfare, we are far off topic.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Jesse Jackson is nothing but a publicity whore. Hosea Williams disliked Jesse because when MLK was shot, Hosea saw Jesse smear some of MLK’s blood on him to make him look good. The good reverend also has children out of wedlock. What a skank.

By chuck

April 20, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Then tell us Gina, what do you want to say about the topic?

By RS

April 20, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

I agree 100% with Rocky’s most recent post. I don’t understand why people call me selfish & greedy because I resent MY hard-earned money going to a bunch of strangers (American as well as foreign-born) who are filthy, immoral drug-addicted criminals that contribute nothing to society unless you count thinning out the population by murdering as many of us as they can get away with.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Gina - immigration is the topic of an article written by Cynthia Tucker, and that makes it fair game. Besides, there is a lot more to say about the people who come here illegally and abuse our system. And yes, Archie. Racism is an amazing thing. It’s amazing that so many people will play that card for any situation, regardless of actual facts. It’s amazing that racism makes it legal to turn down qualified applicants to a college or job in order to fill quotas with less qualified people simply because they are a certain color. It’s amazing that so many “leaders” in the civil rights movement have become millionaires by shaking down corporations under the guise of fighting racism. It’s amazing that an entire generation of people, maybe even two generations now, use the excuse of racism to justify being unproductive and feel they are “owed” a free pass by society. It’s amazing that there are people who are actually trying to get “reparation” money from other Americans because their long-gone relatives and ancestors were slaves to the long-gone relatives of the people they want to pay for it. It’s amazing that people in Sandy Springs are called racist because they want to become their own city and use their hard-earned money to provide services in their own community, rather than being the cash-cow to provide services to South Fulton. You are absolutely right, Archie. It is a very amazing thing.

By Chip

April 20, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

That is an amazing post, Rocky - hit the nail on the head!

By norman

April 20, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Jack: how do you know that Jesse Jackson only smeared the blood of MLKJr. because like the Israelites he wanted to ward off the angel of death? Or like Catholics he wanted a relic?

By Jack

April 20, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Go Rocky go. Well said. Great post.

By norman

April 20, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Of course Hispanics are not the only illegals in this country. Nor are they the most dangerous, I will leave that label to the followers of the Prophet of Mecca. But the Hispanics are indeed the most numerous and it is they who are putting the greatest burden on US citizens, just ask anyone from CA, AZ, NM, or TX.

By norman

April 20, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Since we are way off the modesty topic I feel justified in my daily bulletin about the Holy Church.

The reason Pope Ratzinger (called in Britain Papa Ratzi) is dangerous is not that he is conservative but that he is an ex-liberal. Ex-liberals are very dangerous in Church and State. Pius IX was elected in 1846 as a liberal an an Italian patriot. The Revolutions of 1848 frightened him and made him an arch reactionary. He issue the infamous Syllabus of Errors which denounced every modern idea since 1300. Ratzi was also frightened, in 1968 by the student rebellion in France and elsewhere. He became like Pius IX a fanatical reactionary. He has already begun his own syllabus of errors.

They say that our own neo-cons are ex-Trotskyites. “nuff said.” They have taken Trotsky’s notion of world revolution and made it Bushite.

By Randy

April 20, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

That’s good Norman has a daily bulletin on religious matters. We only have to learn how to speak bigot and hatred. With the outpouring of Christians at both the pope’s funeral and the election of the new pope(in europe)looks like the Christian religion is still as strong as ever. Since that is one of the weakest areas for Christianity in the world.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Jesse Jackson is probably more responsible for keeping the black population down and “vicimized” than all the racism that existed in this country in the 50’s and 60’s combined. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the NAACP lose its tax-exempt status because of the politically loaded speeches made by Julian Bond. There are many, many black churches guilty of the same misconduct, who had John Kerry and other democrats at the pulpit, in front of their parishners, toting the leftist line and bashing our President during the 2004 campaign, and they too should have their tax exempt status revoked. But then, I guess the IRS would be accused of racism, right Archie?

By norman

April 20, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Rocky, rocky, they will get you for what they call racism. Start those prayers again.

By RS

April 20, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Norman, those particular illegals are a great burden on us Georgians too. Look how many there are & not just in the urban areas. I work up in Alpharetta & see so many. They come here in droves & breed like bunnies. They live in filth, multiple families to one apartment, subsequently spreading disease. They refuse to learn English, yet we have to learn THEIR language, lest we (Americans) are turned down for jobs. I have absolutely no problem with individuals of that culture if they come here to WORK, not to sponge, are clean, & learn English. In fact, I think it’s a nice thing to retain one’s native language/cultural mores, but if you move to another country, LEARN THE DARN LANGUAGE, FOR PITY’S SAKE! That’s what I love about people from India who migrate here. They do it LEGALLY, they come to open up businesses & work, they work hard, are clean & while they still hold on to, share & celebrate their beautiful culture, they speak English fluently & don’t try to take over the American media. Plus, I couldn’t live without the sari shops, Indo-Pak groceries & Indian retaurants I’ve gotten used to enjoying!

By rocky

April 20, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

If speaking the truth is racism, then the definition of racism is a lot different than what it says in the dictionary.

By Jasmine

April 20, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

No one here has any freaking right to comment on what others should and shouldn’t wear, and do or don’t feel comfortable. A man who’s going to look at a women as an object is going to do so no matter what she’s wearing, just as a guy who respects women won’t care if she wears a crop top and Daisy Dukes. And as for why women wear revealing clothes, comfort does come into it as well as confidence. Thongs and low rise pants are more comfortable for me, just as I prefer to wear short skirts, shorts and spaghetti strap tanks in the summer. And a woman feels more confident, more comfortable with herself when she shows off something she prides herself on. If she worked her a** off to get good legs, she’ll wear a short skirt. It doesn’t mean she wants to sleep with the next guy she sees, it doesn’t mean she’s trying to get attention, it just means she’s wearing what she thinks she looks good in. And no one else has the right to tell her she can’t or she shouldn’t.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

It makes me very angry to hear such racial bigotry and prejudice. When I lived in the SW, there was no prejudice against blacks and I was surprised having grown up in the south. But there was bigotry and prejudice I soon discovered: the hispanics hated whites and felt superior to the native americans, the native americans didn’t want anything to do with either whites or hispanics, whites thought both hispanics and natives were lazy, drunken bums and hispanics who were raised there were angry about the “wetbacks” taking jobs. I don’t know how long it will take the human race to judge each person on his/her individual character rather than making assumptions about him/her based on ethnic group. Norman, exactly how many black women have ironed your shirts? None of us would be here if our ancestors hadn’t come to this country from somewhere else. My Irish ancestors suffered ethnic stereotyping, your Italian, Jewish, whatever, ancestors did too! This is so incredibly stupid.

By Victor Kulkosky

April 20, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Diane uses a basic rhetorical trick: referring to extreme examples to discredit her opponent. Shaunti writes of girls wanting to wear nice stuff that doesn’t overexpose them, a reasonable request, Diane counters with images of Hasidic women with shaved heads and Islamic women covered from head to toe. I don’t think Shaunti is advocating anything like that. And, while it is worthwhile to be on guard for reactionary attempts to control women, let’s look at this question from another angle. Why is it that clothes for young women (or, I suppose, women who want to look young) are today exposing more and more stretches of skin? Diane is surely aware of the feminist critique of the male gaze. Is the bare-midriff-shoulders-no-rise movement itself perhaps a way of subjecting young women to the controlling objectification of the male gaze? Today, there’s no escaping it, if you wear the clothes pushed the fashion industry. That stuff didn’t just wind up on the shelves by accident. People designed it, tooled factories to manufacture it, and push the clothes through fashion magazines that ruthlessly reinforce whatever discourse is “in” at the moment. Naturally, nobody in this business is going to fess up. They may not even understand consciously what they’re doing. Most girls and women probably don’t think about it, either. They buy what’s on the shelves, or their parents buy it for them. As parents of a teenage girl, my wife and I do exercise some control of what she wears, though it’s a challenge. But if parents won’t do it, who will? Not the fashion business. Diane, you don’t have to be a born-again stay-at-home mom who doesn’t speak in church to demand a better choice in clothes, just a conscious consumer with a sense of personal space and dignity. I don’t hear anybody demanding to take this over-exposing stuff off the shelves, just to make some space for options. These consumer activist girls don’t sound like anybody’s controlling them; they’re resisting control, and exercising their own. Sounds kinda feminist to me …

By Abner

April 20, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Now wait a minute, Rocky. How much of Atlanta’s money is going down to help poor counties in other parts of Georgia? It is not just the “poor south fulton” because if you look there are some wealthy blacks that live in South Fulton. You just assume that all people in South Fulton are poor. In other words, you are talking out of your a*s. Not to mention that you were blatantly talking about African-Americans when you were talking about spinners.

Most of the people on welfare are not black.

The only way that the University of Georgia or other universities would have a diverse population (since most whites from Cobb County, etc. don’t associate with blacks) is by allowing some diverse minds into the university. The world is not all white. A white guy I know, out of ignorance, asked me was ashyness contagious? Another girl, on a bus, was like, “what are the blacks going to do here at the UGA without reduced and free lunch?”

But according the Chip and others, I won’t let go of racism. It doesn’t really exist.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

We didn’t say it did not exist. It goes both ways. White people just don’t have the luxury of blaming all problems on racism.

By kimberly

April 20, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

The biggest group of WELFARE recipients: CORPORATIONS! Rocky, you work hard, as do most of us. Do you think YOU can go down to the Georgia General Assembly’s closed-door committee meetings and say, “Hey guys, I’ve been having a bad year, I’ve incurred some debt. Can you authorize a tax exemption for me for the next couple of years? THANKS!” But that’s EXACTLY what Delta and other big corporations do. Many times they promise to create jobs or improve something in return for the tax break. Do you know who monitors these promises two or five years down the road to make sure they’ve complied? NO ONE, that’s who! I understand resenting those who won’t work. But the burden is ours because so many of the big guys DON’T pay their fair share. Don’t get me started on those people who hide their money in the Cayman Islands… They pay less than you and I do!

By norman

April 20, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

JS, are you putting me on? Indians speak English already, if they are urban and middle class, so it is no credit to them if they speak English here.

Every nation has a right to admit whom it wants. And to exclude whom it wants. We after WWI excluded to a larger extent than before Asians, southern and eatern Europeans.

It is not racist to want to keep your nation in a particular culture context. It is legitimate to demand a certain degree of cultural adjustment on the part of immigrants.

As for illegals, illegal is illegal, and they should not be pardoned or amnestied. And since we are in a threatened world, it makes good sense to keep our borders secure.

If illegals/or legals are taking jobs away from Americans, their immigration should be curtailed. It is not easy to know what jobs would and would not be taken by Americans. I get into trouble when I note that blacks should take these jobs first. That is no more anti-black than what Bill Cosby has been saying. If blacks won’t take these jobs and whites won’t either, then perhaps immigrants — legal ones, though — should be allowed in. But I am not persuaded that blacks would not take them — I just wonder, given their track record.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

According to a 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office, corporate income taxes fell from $207 billion to $132 billion in the first three years of the Bush administration’s first term. The U.S. Treasury Department reports that the number rose to $ 183.8 billion in 2004. That figure represents just 9.6 percent of total revenues. And although it is up from just 7 percent in 2003, and only slightly down from 10.0 percent in 2000, it is still way down from 28 percent in 1950. Moreover, that figure ($184 billion) falls $47 billion short of the $230 billion paid to corporations (including foreign companies, repeat lawbreakers, and corporate tax dodgers) through defense department contracts in 2004.

This is the real problem when it comes to our tax money, not “illegal aliens”. But the people who come here to better their lives and the lives of their children get trashed instead of these thieves.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Okay, Archie. Let’s expand on the topic of diversity a bit. I sure don’t see Spelman or Moorehouse or any of the predominantly black colleges promoting more white enrollment in the name of diversity. Doesn’t it work both ways? There is a Black Chamber of Commerce in Atlanta. Where is the White Chamber of Commerce? Why is there a Black Miss America and a Miss America? Why are there black job fairs and regular job fairs? If there were ever to be a White Chamber of Commerce or a White Job Fair or a White Miss America pageant, all hell would break loose. But it’s okay the other way around for some reason. I am fully aware that there are wealthy blacks in South Fulton and they are not the ones who are shouting racism right now because the people in Sandy Springs want to be their own city. How many blacks in south Atlanta do you know who associate with whites? Not many I would imagine. I worked for a black man who had his own company and he was incredibly wealthy, yet, he still felt like he was entitled to use the MBE certification to get business. And the company where I am currently employed was turned down for business because we didn’t “reflect” enough of the ethnicity of the county we’re in. Nevermind that we are the MOST qualified company to do the job. It just reeks of a double standard and I’m sick and tired of having to make concessions in the name of “diversity”. The only time diversity seems to matter is when there are more whites than blacks. You turn the tables and everything is A-OK.

By Boscoe

April 20, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

So exactly how is a reactionary Pope dangerous to people outside the Church Norman? No sarcasm intended, I am interested in your answer.

By norman

April 20, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

It’s reported that Ratzi told bishops before 2004 presidential election to deny communion to Democrats because of their abortion stance. While who gets communion is a church matter, does the fact that it may have caused numbers of Catholics to vote a certain constitue papal interference? In 1960 many people thought JFK would take orders from the pope. Do we now have to worry that Catholic voters will take orders from the pope? Not trying to start a fight, just think this is a good topic for discussion — better than whether showing your butt is ok or not.

I am sure that not letting Catholics vote would arouse Boscoe’s fiery anger. But what about foreign interference with our election. We did not like Russian inteference with elections in Ukraine.

By norman

April 20, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

lozen: corporate taxes are wrong because the corporations simply raise their prices and we all pay those taxes indirectly.

Boscoe: a reactionary pope is a force for evil in the world. Pius IX weakened Catholics and others as a nasty trend towards aggressive nationalism engulfed Europe — leading finally to WWI. Pius XII helped while Secretary of State to destroy the Catholic Center Party in Germany which along with the Social Demcorats could have stopped Hitler. Pius XI destroyed the Catholic Popular Party which might have stopped Mussolini. Hitler and Mussolini obvious had an impact on non-Catholics —by the millions, if you forget.

By Michael H.

April 20, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Here is a little from today’s New York Times article on the new Pope. Though most conservatives won’t read it since it is part of the “liberal media,” it does contain the Pope’s own words as its basis.

“Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism,” he wrote. “In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes.”

Totalitarianism, indeed, critics might say. [This critic would say, a “totalitarianism of the mind� that recalls the burning of heretics such as Bruno for his cosmological views and the Pope’s threat to Galileo of “show him the instruments� of torture to obtain his recantation. At least in the latter case the last Pope issued an official apology in the 1990s.]

Hans Küng, one of the theologians who ran afoul of him, has called his ideology a “medieval, anti-Reformation, anti-modern paradigm of the church and the papacy.”

“To have him as pope will be considered by many Catholics to mean that the church is absolutely unable to reform itself,” he said, “and that you are not to have any hope for the great process of the Second Vatican Council.”

In a Time magazine interview in 1993 in discussing his war experience, Mr. Allen [the interviewer] wrote that he publicly expressed little of the explicit horrors that were around him; of the resistance to the Nazis by groups other than Catholics; or of the anti-Semitism of a prominent great-uncle.

Behind his fearsome reputation lies a “a simple person,” Father Di Noia said. “He chuckles.There’s a simple childlike quality to him.” [From his statements that I have read a childlike intellect would be a more appropriate description.]

With the end of the cold war, Cardinal Ratzinger turned his attention to fighting “relativism.” [Which in his interpretation seems to be any view, secular or religious, except that of the Catholic Church. The bogeyman again, which hardly exists anywhere except in postmodernist circles, but invoking this nonexistent threat does stir up the Catholic masses.]

His congregation’s 2000 declaration “Dominus Jesus” - “Lord Jesus” - said other religions could not offer salvation, and were “gravely deficient.”

Well, the non-Catholic world, which is most of the world, would be free to ignore this increasingly reactionary institution if it would keep its nose out of our politics, which unfortunately it won’t. So we are free to legitimately oppose its ugly influence.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

And spare me the “African-American” label for black people. I’m German-American but I don’t go around referring to myself that way. We’re all Americans. Perhaps segregation still lives today, but it is self-induced by the black community who insists on having their own pageants, job fairs, colleges, caucus, chamber of commerce, clothing lines (FUBU - For Us By Us), etc. 99% of blacks have never been to Africa and could probably not even name one ancestor of theirs who was. Should we all go around referring to ourselves as hyphenated Americans to illustrate our herritage? I find that to be overkill. If I’m a white American, then blacks are black Americans. If someone moves here from Africa and becomes a citizen, then yes, they can call themselves that. But but definition, John Kerry’s wife is an African-American and she caught a ton of crap when she referred to herself that way. I’ve had it with the double standards and I’m calling them as I see them.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you said, “It’s amazing that so many “leadersâ€? in the civil rights movement have become millionaires by shaking down corporations under the guise of fighting racism. Could you please give me examples? Who are you talking about?

It’s amazing that an entire generation of people, maybe even two generations now, use the excuse of racism to justify being unproductive and feel they are “owed� a free pass by society. All, every single black person I know is a hard-working productive member of society. There are many white people who are unproductive and feel they are owed a living - some of them in my family!

It’s amazing that there are people who are actually trying to get “reparation� money from other Americans because their long-gone relatives and ancestors were slaves to the long-gone relatives of the people they want to pay for it. Nobody is doing this; there has been some talk about it but tell me one case where someone is actually trying to do this.

You are just full of generalizations which prove nothing but your bigotry.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Lozen Look no further than the great Reverend Jesse Jackson. He made millions extorting money from corporations by threatening a boycott by the black community. He threatened NASCAR with a boycott and they paid him until they got some gonads and refused to pay him for NOTHING.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Lozen Don’t you agree if there was a white job fair, pageant, ETC, that there would not be a great outcry over it?

By Jack

April 20, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Come on Lozen answer my question. One thing that makes me sick about this city and especially this rag of a paper is that everything is black vs. white. The media in this town is always trying to stir things up and making whites look bad. Rather than try to bring people of all colors together, they want to keep everything separate. What a great town.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

On the topic of Reparations: Would-be Senator Alan Keyes did an interview with BET (yet ANOTHER black-only enterprise) in August of 2004 and stated that he is now calling for a plan that would exempt the descendants of slaves from income taxes for at least a generation.

Tax exemption would give Blacks “a competitive edge in the labor market,” because they would be cheaper to hire than federal tax-paying employee” and allow Blacks to be compensated “for all those years when your labor was being exploited,” said Keyes. This was less than one year ago.

MILLIONAIRE CIVIL RIGHTS “LEADERS”: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both millionaires, thanks to the constant shake-down of corporations and even things such as NASCAR, where they threaten boycott and protest if they aren’t given money to compensate for the lack of “diversity” in the sport or the corporate climate. The Rainbow Coalition is nothing but a front for these kinds of guilt-based deals, and also apparently an ideal place for Jesse to meet the mothers of his illigitimate children.

And yes, it is true that there are more non-blacks on welfare than there are blacks. However, the fact remains that there are now new generations learning how to sustain on the welfare system rather than going out and becoming useful members of society. Look at the illigitimacy rate of black children in this country. 2004 statistics showed that over 70% of black children born that year were illigitimate. Are you going to tell me that all these children being born to single mothers aren’t going to end up being paid for by the tax payers? Maybe some, but the majority will. Don’t get mad at me for stating facts. The truth hurts, but I’m not the one who made things like they are. I’m simply not buying into that PC crap and I say things like i see them.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

John Stockwell, former CIA agent says: The U.S. taxpayer is now carrying a gigantic burden. Nearly one-third of the nation’s budget goes to the military. According to studies published in the Washington Post, 53 cents of every tax dollar goes to the military to pay for arms, salaries, facilities, overhead, and debts from Vietnam and other wars.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

The far religious right, led by a radical right-wing political movement, is now trying to get their own ultra-conservative judges appointed to the courts by a shameless and decidedly Un-American tactic – touting those who differ with their views as anti-faith!

The Family Research Council, an ultra-right wing para-church organization, has organized a telecast scheduled for Sunday, April 24 that will portray those who oppose certain judicial nominations as “anti-Christianâ€? or “anti-faith.â€? The event is entitled, “Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against Faith.â€? Senate majority leader Bill Frist has agreed to participate in an event that portrays those who oppose their choices for judicial nominees as ‘anti-Faith’
Think about it. Can anything be more Un-American? Has radical Christian fundamentalism now become the “state religion?� As people of a rich tapestry of faiths and beliefs, are we ready to roll over and let a fanatical right in power now use religion as a weapon to take political ground? The systematic extermination of public opinion in the name of religion should give us all – regardless of our faith – reason for grave concern. The head of the para-church organization who is heading this event said:

“As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism… For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms.” Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Exercising our right to question our politicians constitutes robbery? Can they really mean it? We who love this country, who value its diversity of thought, its protections under the law, its respect for human dignity, must NOT sit idly by and watch our nation’s leaders use religion to choke dialogue and turn people of faith against each other. The fact that the nation’s Senate Majority leader is a participant in this affair signals a dangerous and unprecedented turning point in our nation’s history. Love is often expressed in compassionate terms. At times love must be expressed by an unstoppable show of courage. This is one of those times. Help us preserve YOUR right to religious expression.

Blessings to you, Vince Isner FaithfulAmerica.org

By Abner

April 20, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

First of all, I am not a crayon. Why should I refer to myself as black? My skin is brown, not black. Just as you are not white, are you? You are probably peach. So come up with another term to describe us.

So there are predominately black businesses and predominately white businesses? What about Abercrombie and Fitch? Pretty much a white business. What about MTV? Oh yeah, let’s go down there shows. There is Punkd (Ashton Kutcher), Viva La Bam (Bam Magera), The Ashlee Simpson Show, Newlyweds, Total Request Live (Carson Daly’s show), Meet the Barkers (the guy from Blink 182 and his wife). CBS. Not a black show on it. NBC. The same. ABC has my wife and kids. The WB with One Tree Hill, The Gilmore Girls, Charmed, Seventh Heaven, has no teen shows for black teenagers. No concessions are being made about that. UPN has all black shows. Two channels out of the dial.

How many white moguls have been made off of black people? Lyor Cohen (the owner of Def Jam where all the black rap comes from), Tommy Hilfiger (off of black people paying their welfare checks), directors (David Myers who directs most rap videos), Justin Timberlake (if it wasn’t for the Neptunes and Timbaland, he would still be a boy band member). Not to mention Hollywood. Every now and then a black movie comes out. How many interracial movies (Guess Who) have come out recently?

By Brian Curtis

April 20, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Jasmine: Thanks for taking a last stab at the topic, but I think it’s DOA for this week.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Thats Hollywood Abner. Its all about money. Don’t you agree there is a double standard? If you don’t explain why.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, in answer to your question: Remember all those years when there were no blacks admitted to the Miss American Pageant? That’s why there are pageants for black women. Remember all those years when whites wouldn’t hire blacks? That’s why there are black job fairs. How quickly we do forget - if we’re white.

By chuck

April 20, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Lozen, Lozer,

First, for your benefit and that of Poor little Kim:

Corporate “income taxes” should not exist at all. Corporations do not have income, stockholders of corporations have income AND THEY ARE ALREADY TAXED FOR INCOME FROM COMPANY PROFITS. Corporate income taxes are double taxation. Taxing corporations robs profitability, slows the economy, and increases unemployment. Another side effect is that of lowering the amount of money spent on capital improvements and expansions. The only fair system for revenue is a single bracket, fixed % income tax. It should apply only to individuals. All other systems are patently unfair. Taxes SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY ABILITY TO PAY.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Lozen, that was then, this is now.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

It’s been forty years since African Americans were first allowed to attend the same schools and colleges as Irish/Italian/Scandanavian/Polish/German-Americans. It’s been forty years since black americans suffered the humility of having no civil rights in this country, not being allowed to vote in many places, being refused service in all-white restaurants, made to sit in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains and use separate bathrooms in public facilities. It’s been 40 years since African-Americans put their lives on the line to improve their lives and gain the civil rights they were entitled to in this country. Heck, they’ve had 40 years to catch up for the 300 years their ancestors spent as slaves and then living under Jim Crow laws! Why can’t they stop with the double standard already?

By lozen

April 20, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

The lesson of the runaway arms race, with its giant expenditures on the military, is that the nation has gone deeply, irreversibly into debt, and every conceivable social service is being sacrificed. We cannot afford guns and butter. To pay for the arms race the nation has to cut thousands of social programs, … The nation cannot go wild on military expenditures and also afford to care for old people, poor people, disabled people, farmers, or students. … the United States has plummeted, relative to the rest of the industrialized world, from its pinnacle of wealth and economic strength. Twenty-five percent of the people in this country are now functionally illiterate. We are sixth in the world in terms of the percentage of children in school; seventh in life expectancy; tenth in quality of education; tenth in quality of life standards; and twentieth in infant mortality. John Stockwell

By rocky

April 20, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Okay, lozen. So what you’re saying is that it’s not really equal rights that blacks/browns are after. Rather, it’s issuing a big serving of payback to the peaches/ivories/tans/fairs for the mistreatments that the blacks/browns of forty years ago experienced at the hands of the peaches/ivories/tans/fairs of the 60’s. Well at least you admit that there is a double standard and that you’re entitled to special treatment because things weren’t fair forty years ago. Gotcha.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

So you don’t want to be called black, Abner? There were many other terms for blacks that were used a long time ago, but they were all deemed politically incorrect. Is negro okay? Colored people? We’re always referred to as white people, so I don’t understand why calling someone black is so bad. Even the NAACP uses the word “colored” in their name. The standards of what is acceptable for you changes every few years, so I’m sure there will be yet another PC name concocted once African-American is deemed unacceptable.

And funny, but not a single one of the shows or stores you mentioned calls itself “white”. Last time I checked, black women can compete in the Miss America pageant, but white women can’t compete in the Black Miss America. Are black job applicants not allowed at job fairs? Why, lookie there. They sure are. Yet, they still have to have a Black Job Fair, which excludes all other races. Should we run down the programming schedule for BET? How about UPN? How many white people are main characters in the Bernie Mac show? Or in the Cosby Show? How many white people do you see working at FUBU? How about the NBA? What is the black/white ratio there? Or the NFL? MTV has a LOT of RAP videos on it, and most of those are blacks. More than half of their VJs are black. TRL has had MANY black musicians on the show. Face it. There’s a big double standard and it just pi*ses you off that people are finally calling you out on it. We’ve tiptoed around long enough under the threat of being labeled a racist. I don’t care what you want to call me. Facts are facts, and there is just as much racism towards white people from blacks as there is towards blacks from whites.

By Boscoe

April 20, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Norman and Michael H, seem to have more of a problem with this new Pope then other Non-Catholics who realize he cannot tax you, he cannot arrest you, he cannot impose marshal law on you, he CANNOT MAKE you do anything. About all he can do is excommunicate you, but first you have to be a Catholic for him to do so. The only thing he really can do is enforce the laws of the Catholic Church, which he says he will do. So what’s the problem? If you don’t want to follow the rules of the Church - then don’t and what he does shouldn’t bother you. He will have no more influence over American Politicians than other countries leaders do. Only about 6% of Catholics are American citizens. He could obviously weld a lot more influence close to home. I suspect it runs a little deeper than that for the both of you.

By pounder

April 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Ok, so back to the original topic: Is the modesty “movement” necessary? Forgive me that I never noticed the “movement”, but certainly a little more modesty would be great. I am a woman, wife and mother of 1 girl and 3 boys. I think at the heart of the discussion is respect. Yes, I care about my body. I work hard to keep it healthy to have quantity and quality of life (who wants to live to be 95 if you are sickly all the time!?). I do this out of respect for myself. But as a married woman, I also do this out of respect for my husband. I want him to continue to enjoy my body (not that I have to look 18 again, but I don’t want to let myself go either.) And AGAIN, out of respect for him, I make sure that he and he alone sees parts of my body that nobody else sees. I understand that men are visually stimulated and I would not want to stimulate someone else’s husband (or son—whatever) out of RESPECT for that man and his wife. Therefore, although I do, for example, wear a thong (yes, there are times when fashion dictates decisions), nobody but me and my husband needs to know.

With my daughter, although she is still too young to be terribly picky over her clothes, we talk about how to dress every day. Different styles are fine as long as she dresses to show that she respects herself and her body and other people around her. I want people (male and female) to know her as a whole person, not just remember her body. I could wear a 2-piece bathing suit to the pool, but I want to set a good example for her. I don’t want my children to see their mom getting “oggled” and I don’t want my sons “oggling” women or girls—it’s disrespectful.

I think so much of why girls wear such revealing clothes is to get attention and affection. It is very interesting to me that Diane claims that the modesty issue is really about oppressing women—-have we really gone backward that far?? Let’s encourage young women to dress to show that they respect themselves and their bodies. Women are forever complaining that men see them as “sex objects” or don’t take them seriously in the workforce—-if women and girls want to be appreciated and respected for who they are and what they think, then they need to stop advertising themselves as one dimensional.

I agree that there is NEVER an excuse for rape, and that just because a girl dresses like a slut does not mean that she wants sex, but then what does it mean? That she can use only her body to get the attention of the opposite sex? How sad.

We are raising our boys to respect girls and women. One of the key things I do is to model that. We do not shop at the mall routinely. There are plenty of catalogues that offer fashionable and even trendy clothes that are very cool and modest (maybe it is just nostalgia from my preppie days!) We model respect in our home. I respect my husband (one evidence of that is my choice to be modest) and he respects me and appreciates that when we took our marriage vows, we vowed to be “one flesh” and that I understand that I can’t do whatever I want with my body—because it is intricately woven with my husband—not a popular idea, I know.

Sorry I have rambled!

A modesty movement is going to be worthless unless we help girls and young women to respect themselves and to encourage them to respect those around them as well.

By chuck

April 20, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

LOZE, If you want to live in a socialist state there are still acouple of them out there who haven’t gone belly up. The function of the Federal government is 4-fold: 1)To establish a system of justice to insure that individual rights under the constitution are protected. 2) Keep peace among the states. 3) Protect the country from outside enemies. 4)PROMOTE the GENERAL welfare (that means to maintain an environment in which free enterprise can prosper).

The federal government was not meant to do anything else. It is my contention that many of the programs to which you refer are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You rail AGAINST the one thing that the government SHOULD be doing, protecting us from our avowed enemies.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

The best thing about the new pope being elected is that now the rest of us who don’t CARE about who is pope can stop having to listen to it 24/7. The pope is no more important a man than every single pastor at every single protestant church in the world.

By chuck

April 20, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I’m one non-Catholic who was pleased with the choice. I thought Pope John Paul was too liberal on some social issues, but he was right on the mark on abortion. I noted with interest that some of the Americans who were on the news because they didn’t like the selection, said they were disappointed that the Cardinals did not choose someone in favor of women priests, divorce, and contraceptives. If you want those things, why in the world would you be in the Catholic Church which has ALWAYS opposed them? Makes no sense to me.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Rocky - We may as well give up. Our children’s children’s children will have to hear how bad the whiteys were and how the African-American community will have to be treated special because of what happened long ago. Because we are white, we’re responsible.

By Abner

April 20, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

I’m not going to reduce to calling you names, but once again, look at the amount of shows, channels that are marketed towards whites. The Bernie Mac Show (that’s one.) The Cosby Show had a bunch of characters that were not just of color (Theo’s math teacher was Brazilian.). The only reason there are black rap videos on MTV is because whites are the largest consumers of rap. And who is to say that whites would not be welcome at a black job fair? And, if I went to a white job fair wearing a nice suit, I had locks, and an African hat, told them my name is Khalid would I get hired? Probably not. I would be deemed an angry black man, and everybody would approach me differently. I have walked down the street behind white women, and they have looked nervously over their shoulder at a 6ft.2 black male.

As for white to black racism versus black to white racism, I don’t think so. On more than one occasion, a friend of mine and I (the guy is dark skinned and 6ft.8) have walked into a bar in Buckhead, all of these separate white guys have come up to us and given us dap and said we were cool. How could they know that when we are just meeting? Or come up and tell me that they watch the Dave Chappelle show or something like that. Or 50 Cent is a good rapper, or Tupac is the best rapper there ever was. Okay. I’m a Biggie fan. I happen to think Eminem is better than 50 Cent, and 50 is slightly overrated. Why come and tell me this when you first meet me? Are you trying to show that you are down?

By Tim

April 20, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

I am just curious… my grandfather is native american… when do we get reparations for the way out people were treated?

By rocky

April 20, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

You know, Jack. I’ve been tempted to give up many times, but it is the silence of the masses that has allowed this kind of double standard to become the norm in America. Everyone is so afraid they’ll be called a racist that they bow down to the demands of more and more and more by the black community. I don’t care if they want to call me a racist. I happen to believe that if we’re all equal, then we should BE equal in every aspect of our lives. If the black community still wants to have its own pageants, job fairs, etc. that’s fine. They should then be forbidden from participating in the general pageants and job fairs, etc. Why is it fair that they can do both, yet we can only do one? It’s not. My children are being raised and taught about personal responsibility, capitalism and how it can either make you or break you, depending on your level of commitment and hard work, and that they should treat everyone equal, but that they also have every right to expect that they too are treated equally. The need for “affirmative action” (i.e. legal discrimination) has come and gone. There are no laws now that exclude blacks from anything that whites can do, so as far as I’m concerned, they are no longer entitled to any special treatment. They are entitled to EQUAL treatment. Period.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Abner, if white people are welcome too, then what is the purpose of calling it a BLACK job fair? Why not just call it a job fair? Why does there have to be a separate one under the guise of being a BLACK one? You certainly won’t ever see a WHITE job fair.

And if I came to a job fair wearing a nice business suit but had on some kind of interview-inappropriate hat, I doubt I would be getting any kind of job either. Hats are not usually appropriate for a job interview, so your example applies to any kind of hat, not just an african one. Same thing goes for someone with locks or corn rows in their hair, or even a big crazy afro. Neither of those are appropriate for job interviews, and if I came with long hair or corn rows in my hair or a big fro, I would safely assume that nobody would hire me either. It’s not about color. It’s about what is appropriate for the environment you’re in. The problem is that the race card has been played so many times in so many unwarranted circumstances, nobody even takes it seriously anymore. Kind of like the little boy who called wolf.

By Jodi

April 20, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Abner—As a woman who happens to be “white” I would just like to say that I look over my shoulder at all men when I am alone. I’m not saying that other women aren’t racist, just that perhaps they’re only looking over their shoulder because you’re a guy and not necessarily because you’re a black guy, per se. I do think it’s pretty offensive for someone to walk up to you and assume based on skin color that you like or dislike something. That’s like asking if you like fried chicken and watermelon! Criminy, people are rude. Highly sympathetic Abner.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

No Rocky I don’t think I’m entitled to special treatment because things weren’t fair forty years ago. You see I chose white parents, just as you did, because I didn’t want to be treated like I had no rights. If you and I had been black a short 40 years ago, we would have gone to second rate schools and used the text books torn up first by the white kids, sat at the back of the bus, our parents wouldn’t have been able to exercise their right to vote, we would have been treated like dirt by some rascist white woman as children because we drank out of the white water fountain before our mother could stop us, we would have had to go to the back door of the shoe store and buy our shoes without trying them on because no white person would buy them if they knew n—— tried them on first. I just happen to have lived through that time before and during civil rights and I empathize with people who were treated so badly for so long. What is wrong with you that you have no compassion or empathy for people who were treated so badly? If it makes me a socialist to care about other people, so be it!

By Jack

April 20, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

That was then, this is now. Before you label me a racist, let me inform you that I don’t dislike people because of their color. I dislike people who feel the deserve special treatment now because of what happened 40 years ago. I’m from the north and we didn’t have to deal with all of this racial B.S. that is constantly being fed to us here.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

I have a lot of empathy for all the mistreatment and unfairness they endured forty years ago, lozen. Is it so wrong of me to want everyone to be equal? I thought that was always the mantra of the civil rights movement. I am saying that I think everyone SHOULD have equal rights. But I am also saying that the wrongs of forty years ago have now been righted and the laws of our nation were changed to protect that from ever happening again, so I see no need to over-compensate for the wrongs that were perpetrated back then. Then it simply becomes a role reversal and white people become the discriminated class. My father lived through the civil rights era and told me all about the different water fountains, the signs that forbid blacks from coming into certain stores, etc., and how detrimental it was to the unity of the people in our country. But it amazes me how we are still so divided even now that those wrongs have been righted. Does it make me such a bad person to suggest that we are all equal and should be treated equal?

By Abner

April 20, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Great. If everybody was treated fairly, that would be great. That is kinda like communism in theory, it sounds good, but it isn’t going to happen. I am 25 years old. Young enough to have been to integrated schools, etc. But when I meet somebody and they say that I am cool for a black guy, or not like them, then it makes me wonder if I am only getting treated equal because I have assimiliated with the masses.

As for the job interview, who set up those standards? Were they black men from years ago? Of course, they were. Why can’t I wear my hair natural. Should I be ashamed of my African texture hair? Why do I have to cut it to appease mainstream America? If my credentials speak for themselves, does it really matter? That is just like what you said about affirmative action. We are on equal footing.

By Chip

April 20, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

A former boss of mine was bl…errr, DARKER skinned (geez)…and she was SO irrate with the Koreans, because, according to her, “they move into our neighborhoods, bring our property value down, and take our jobs”. That was 5 years ago and I still find that funny as hell. The irony, oh lordy, the irony.

By Janet

April 20, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Jack, I too am from the north, and the reason we didn’t have to deal with all the ‘racial BS’ is because there weren’t many blacks up there. It is really easy to say ‘I’m not a racist’ when their aren’t many of another ethnicity around. My mother tells the story of how when she was a teenager her friends would go cruising and looking for black people so they could call out “hey snowball, who s**t on you?” and speed away. But you are so right, the blacks weren’t treated badly in the north………..yeah right.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Corporate America set those standards, Abner. I can’t come into work with my hair any old way I want it just because I’m proud of my German textured hair. I have to keep my hair short because that is what is appropriate for corporate America. As long as we’re in a free society and an employer can use his or her own discretion in whom they want to hire, that’s just how it is. There are rules that we ALL have to adhere to, whether you like it or not. And credentials will only get you in the door for the interview. It is your personal appearance and the impression you make on the interviewer that determines whether or not you get the job. If you want to wear your hair natural and in a 6 foot afro, go for it. But don’t cry racism when nobody wants to hire you. All I can think about when I see those huge afros that seem to be on all the young thugs today is that they obviously have no job and that they look just like Buckwheat. Sorry, but that’s the image it puts into my head.

By norman

April 20, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: ok, only 6%of the world’s Catholics are American citizens, but almost 25% of Americans are Catholic. The pope of course cannot directly intervene in American politics, but with the assistance of American Catholics he can do all sorts of mischief with our politics, as was done in the last election. How’s this for a solution. Once we had a poll tax and other tests to keep blacks from voting. Howabout some way of keeping Catholics from voting? Let’s brainstorm a bit and perhaps we can find a way.

By norman

April 20, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

The first way of preventing Catholic voting which comes to mind is an adaptation from 17th Century Japan. The Japanese feared Christian missionary work. They demanded that foreign merchants trample on the crucifix. The Dutch were perfectly willing. The Spanish, their chief danger from Europeans, would not. It worked. The Spanish were kept out.

For Protestants we could demand they deface the 10 Commandments.

For Jews, use the model of the Sepoy Rebellion in British India: smear the ballots with lard. Would work as well for Muslims.

For Hindus: make voters kill a cow at the voting precinct.

We will leave the voting to Buddhists.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

I’m from Philly Janet. When were there no black people there?

By rocky

April 20, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

You know what, Chip? That is funny! Sounds like your old boss was racist against Koreans. And here I thought that racism only meant racist against blacks. Guess racism rears its ugly head in all communities. I personally would have no problem with a group of people who move into my neighborhood, started businesses and contributed to the community. My problem is with the people who move in, don’t take care of their home or their yard, have old bikes and non-running cars sitting in their driveway, or have their punk kids driving around with the rap so loud that it shakes the windows on my house. Sounds to me like your old boss had it made and STILL wasn’t happy.

By Brian Curtis

April 20, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Actually, the Constitution says nothing about free enterprise or capitalism; that’s your personal interpretation of “promote the general welfare.”

As to taxes on corporations: Again, that’s your personal opinion, not a fact. Don’t announce a statement like “Corporate taxes shouldn’t exist” as if it were inarguable truth. It most certainly IS arguable, and I’d be glad to do so (in an appropriate forum).

Briefly: Corporations are a legal fiction, a convenience to avoid personal liability for business actions. They exist at the sufferance of government (i.e., us) and can be dissolved whenever we wish.

“The only fair system for revenue is a single bracket, fixed % income tax. All other systems are patently unfair.” Again, your opinion only. Actually, a progressive taxation system has been in place for about a century now, and it was working great (particularly through the conservatives’ much-beloved 1950s) until Reagan started messing with it.

“Unfair” would be not requiring more recompense from those who our system (and their workers) have made wealthy. Those who have more, OWE more—especially since a larger portion of their wealth is rightly called unearned income (inherited estates, investment income, etc.).

Now, we DO need to roll back the regressive payroll taxes; I’m 100% on-board with that one. But rolling over to give even more breaks to the 1% of the country who already control over half the wealth? Nuh-uh; not gonna go for that one. And exempt corporations from taxes? What’s next, exempting them from fines when they’re negligent? (After all, they’ll just “pass those costs on to the consumer,” right?)

I assume you’re not a Christian, Chuck, since no one can be a follower of Jesus and still support a flat tax system. Heck, take out everything Jesus said about caring for the poor, and the New Testament could pretty much be a pamphlet! And it’s not Marxism to expect more contribution from people who have gained the most from society’s beneficence: “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.” Luke 12:47

By Jack

April 20, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Janet - Sounds like a problem your mother had. We never ever considered doing anything such as that. You don’t know me or how I was brought up. In Philadelphia we didn’t have to look for black people, they were everywhere and we got along fine.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.� Luke 12:47

That’s nice, BC. But what about for everyone to whom much is EARNED? Why is it so popular here to penalize the productive citizens of this country and reward the unproductive ones? Our system has not MADE anyone wealthy. The majority of the wealthy people in America WORKED for their money and made GOOD DECISONS that allowed them to achieve their goals. They educated themselves and made wise financial choices, which then resulted in their financial success. You act like these people were just lucky and stumbled upon their wealth by accident, thereby making it only “fair” that they share the wealth with the “less fortunate”. Gimme a break.

By kimberly

April 20, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Amen. I’ve always told my little girl, who is smart, pretty, and sought after by the other children who want to be her friend: “From whom God has given more, He EXPECTS more.” I told her that her brains, her good health, her pretty face, her confidence, and her sense of humor are ALL gifts from her creator (not me in particular!) She may USE those gifts to work, succeed, and go far in life, but she must remember those who began with less. The starting gate is NOT the same for everyone. If you are blessed, it’s your job to bless others with your actions. At least that’s the way the words of Jesus Christ came across to me. But then, I’m not a member of the all-empowered American Christian right wing, so what do I know?

By Chip

April 20, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

The problem with America is that we, collectively, are too soft. We shouldn’t have to change everything to make one group of people happy. If you don’t like it here, LEAVE! BYE! C-YA! ADIOS! You don’t like the president and want to move to Canada? DO IT! BYE! C-YA! You think other countries would put up with the whining and b*tching that we do? Heck no.

By norman

April 20, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

To Brian Curtis: Don’t think it is a good idea to quote the New Testament about economics. What would a labor union think if you paid a worker who came one hour before closing the same wages as the worker who came at the beginning of the day?

By kimberly

April 20, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Rocky, The only way that a “self-made” man truly made all his money all by himself, through his own hard work, is if he physically cranked that cash out of his own arse. If you’ve worked to make your own fortune, it’s because you live in a society where people could afford to buy your product; where you could find educated, capable employees to make your product; where both your employees and product could move safely through an infrastructure to get to work or to market; where those in your community had a standard of living enabling them to shop and purchase your product. All these things are supported by TAX money, because they are for the benefit of ALL of us! If your money subsidizes a poor family, and those kids are able to get an education and grow up and DO something, then they’re less likely to grow up to steal your stuff, or to take your tax dollars from a prison cell. That benefits YOU too!

By Gina

April 20, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Since we are going to talk about race, I will get into the fray. As far as my race, I prefer to be called a “woman of color” because as most people of color with African ancestry, I am a mixture of many races and cultures. However, America views me as Black. Forty years of so-called equality can’t begin to start the catch up game for the years European descent people had on us to build wealth. And no, I don’t want special privileges because my test scores, etc. and work experiences, education can equal anyone’s.

There are leaders who take advantage of their minority status just as the robber barons of old and new (Corporate CEOs) take advantage of people. Nor, can minorities blame everything on European descent people. My attitude is if the playing field is truly equal, then let it be equal. Don’t call your buddy from the country club to give your son a job when my qualifications are better!

By rocky

April 20, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

I have no problem using my tax dollars to help a family that is in crisis or has come upon hard times. Bad things do happen to good people and I think the welfare system should be in place for those people until they get back on their feet. I do, however, have a problem with my tax dollars going towards paying for that seventh illigitmate child from the seventh different man because the welfare mama couldn’t keep her legs closed and loves getting that free check from the government to pay for all of them. Welfare should be a safety net for those who have fallen and need help getting back up. Not for those who make it a lifestyle and never spend one moment trying to make a contribution to society. Does that make me selfish?

By kimberly

April 20, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Chip, the right to b**ch is fundamentally American. Our founding fathers started this country on it, and encouraged it for the rest of us, didn’t they? Chip, why do you hate America?

By rocky

April 20, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

You’re right, Kimberly. And I have no problem helping out poor families on a temporary basis so that they can get themselves out of the bad situation they may find themselves in. A temporary basis is the key here. Nobody should have to stay on welfare for longer than three years, and even THAT is a generous amount of time. And anyone who gets a welfare check that is ABLE to work, should HAVE to work. Clean bathrooms, cut grass, pick up litter, whatever. Contribute to society while society pays for you and your family’s bills.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Welfare was created by the government and in order for a poor family to receive assistance, the head of the house, the man, had to be absent. Also, radical feminists helped brain-wash women to think children didn’t need a two-parent home and men were baggage.

This started a cycle of entitlement. We need to educate our young people that having a work ethic is an important part of a productive life. Having child after child is not the answer. They do this because having babies is the only thing they have control over.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Amen, Gina! We actually agree! The playing field SHOULD be equal and level for ALL Americans. Period! If someone is the most qualified for a job, it should be theirs.

By kimberly

April 20, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

No, Rock, that doesn’t make you selfish. It’s totally reasonable to abhor that kind of ongoing irresponsibility, and I think most Americans agree. The issue then, is the approach to dealing with such problems. Pointing fingers is easy, but solves little. (Those children aren’t at fault, but I’ll bet you they’re hungry!) There are no easy answers to complex questions. Still, I have to reiterate: insurance company and energy company executives pocket more of YOUR money every year that poor people do. But they WANT you to point fingers in somebody else’s direction. I think we should try to work together more for real solutions, but that seems to be getting harder to do with every year that passes. Sadly…

By Jack

April 20, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Try to get a contract with the city of Atlanta if you are white. The only way is to bring in a black to serve as a minority partner. That really is equality isn’t it. Many of Maynard’s friends got airport contracts because of their race. They gave Bill Cambell a Lexus for doing such a fine job as mayor. Give me a break.

By rocky

April 20, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

With so many families waiting years to adopt children, perhaps the solution would be to remove the children from the homes of those adults who can’t afford them and have never done anything to TRY to afford them, other than collecting that welfare check, and putting these children into good homes with parents who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure they are fed, clothed and educated. Why in the world would someone have child after child they can’t afford, and then claim to love these children? That isn’t love. The children are simply a way to get more zeros on that big check and they would be better served in a home with loving parents who genuinely care about their wellbeing.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

I think if people realized with the decision to have additional children, they would be responsible for “their” decision, some of the sense of entitlement would decrease. I have a problem with women who repeatedly have children and with men who do the same and expect assistance.

The children shouldn’t have to suffer for their parents mistakes so we have to stop the cycle with them through volunteer work, intervention programs, etc. to show the children a different way.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

We need to remove the insentive to have more children to get a “raise”

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Jack,

It is a clique just like the good ole boy network. It just happens to be Black. I probably have the same chance of getting work with the City of Atlanta as you do. We have had a hierchy in the Black race just as the White race in America.

By Brian2

April 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Rocky,

I remember a business school economics class I took a few years back the the professor talked about the reasons that the poor often have many children, they they obviously can’t afford. His take on it was that their was little “opportunity cost” to have more children when you were already poor. Those of us that can afford to raise children realize that with each child there is a cost, i.e., reduced opportunity to do other things, so it does become an economics issue which responsible people plan for. But the poor have nothing more to give up with each child because they have nothing in the first place. This theory always made sense to me.

By lozen

April 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, you are so right. There are many, many factors that contribute to someone accumulating wealth and being successful. Being born with the “right” skin color, the “right” looks, the “right” IQ, the “right” talents, etc. That’s all luck and we have nothing to do with getting it or not getting it. Being born into the right family is a big one. And I don’t mean being born into a family already wealthy although that certainly never hurt the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushs, etc. I mean having a family that loves you, wants to see you succeed, encourages you to achieve, makes it possible for you to do that by seeing that you get an excellent education and are willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to make that happen. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who do not have that kind of luck at the starting gate, as you say. The best parent I have ever known is a woman who has paid thousands of dollars every year since her son was in kindergarten for private schools, piano lessons, summer classes in things he was interested in, etc. They travel every year so that he gets to know this big world and so he’ll be comfortable in it. She knew that he probably would not be on a level playing field, being a person of color, and she was smart enough to make sure he has the background he will need to be successful. She has sacrificed much to make that happen. I don’t know many people who are so dedicated to good parenting.

By Brian2

April 20, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Man I didn’t realize my post was so hard to read…sorry about that. They need a grammar and spell check on this blog.

By Abner

April 20, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Amen Gina. I don’t see anybody complaining about the white led industries doing favors for their friends.

By norman

April 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

If whites and blacks cannot get along, why not try two separate nations?

By RS

April 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Gina & Rocky, you are both right. But with the system making it so easy for lazy welfare mamas to collect a larger & larger check with each illegitimate baby, where is the incentive to get out & make something of her life?

By Michael H.

April 20, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Norman,

One of your earlier posts opened with the comment that the percentage of the population in the U.S. which is Catholic is obviously more relevant for the U.S. than is the percentage of Catholics who are American. You are certainly right and it is almost as obvious as the color of the sky. The point is why doesn’t Boscoe grasp that. I have left him to you, since you don’t mind engaging his inverted or irrelevant comments. He has proven himself to be a total idiot in every exchange with me. I doubt he can follow modus ponens, the most elementary rule in deductive logic, though he does need a class or two in what is called “relevance relations.” I just prefer intelligent Catholics like Garry Wills on the left and David Brooks on the right, to the moronic ones like Bozo, Hannity, and O’Reilly.

I agree that we have to follow this issue of Papal selection and its outcome because of the power and influence of the Catholic Church here and abroad, though we don’t need to exaggerate it. But I don’t find it intrinsically interesting either.

By Jack

April 20, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Norman- That was tried in the 1860’s. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.

By norman

April 20, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Notice that the topic at hand gets diverted even when we do not bring religion into the picture. People will discuss what they care about. It seems today race relations is the topic. Not surprising, we are here in the South which has race relations no worse, perhaps better, than elsewhere — if only because people are more honest, not entirely, but for a good part about their feelings. In New York and Boston everyone is for good relations and fairness — and the conditions are no better than in the South.

Calling people racist serves no purpose because behind a statement that seems racist any number of things may lurk, including benevolence and compassion. Behind a statement of liberal tolerance any number of nasty things may lurk.

There are racial problems because everywhere the differences between people can (may or may not but can) serve to divide them.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Norman, We can get along, we just need more honest communication with each other and why we feel the way we feel. We shouldn’t be afraid to express opinions for fear of offending someone. We need to come together to solve problems and not separate into “races”.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

RS, I must say I don’t have the answer except to stop the money incentive to have children.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Okay, okay, so I’m dreaming huh? :-)

By norman

April 20, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: you may have missed the fact that I am glad Ratzi was elected. It will destroy the church that much sooner. Of course he is an old fellow and will not last perhaps even ten years. So my hopes and your hopes, different of course, may both be dashed.

By norman

April 20, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Jack: I meant, give the blacks their own homeland. (Excluding of course the Georgia coast!!!)

By lozen

April 20, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard all the stories about lazy welfare mothers too. I just don’t necessarily believe that it’s true. I’ve heard all the stories about people on welfare driving big cars and spending their checks on beer but I don’t know if those stories are true either. I think that sterotype has been fed to the public by right-wing politicians for a long time: an urban-dwelling (usually black) single mother of six sitting in front of the television while collecting fat tax-funded checks. It was Ronnie Reagan who invented the mythical “Welfare Queen,” during a speech in the 1980s. It just isn’t true and it’s rascist. According to the U.S. government, the majority of welfare recipients are white, live in the suburbs, have two kids, want to work, and stay on welfare an average of only two years.

By Gina

April 20, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Rocky,

I competed in “White” pageants and won many of them. However, my Mom was honest with me. If I had more negroid features, I probably wouldn’t have won the pageants. In fact, many of the girls were visibly upset when I won. In fact, once a contestant told me I was a “Black China Doll” thinking she was giving me a compliment. However, at that time, on a national level, the pageants weren’t ready for a “woman of color” to win a pageant.

By norman

April 20, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

I will try to give the inspirational guide for tomorrow when I get up. I know you need it.

By norman

April 21, 2005 07:05 AM | Link to this

In one of the Gospels Jesus is quoted as saying, “many will come saying in my name….” Today’s word to the wise: Beware of Christian Fascists.

By norman

April 21, 2005 07:22 AM | Link to this

I will stop talking about the pope. We have had several weeks of medievalism and superstition. Time to stop watching those men in skirts mumbling their Latin prayers and trying to return to the past.

Remember the poem by Edward Arlington Robinson, Miniver Cheevey. One line went:
Miniver loved the Medici, albeit he had never seen one. He would have sinned incessantly could he have been one.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

lozen - it is absolutely true that there are welfare queens out there with six or seven kids from different fathers. The judge who was recently assasinated by Brian Nichols had instructed a woman on welfare, with seven kids by seven men, to not have any more children or else she faced losing them and jail time. I watched a town hall meeting in New Jersey with their mayor and members of the public and a black woman on welfare actually stood up and said (and this is a direct quote) “It’s my job to keep having kids and it’s your job to pay for them.” With that kind of mentality, those kids are going to learn that they aren’t responsible for themselves and that the state/government is responsible for supporting them. I’m not going to say that ALL women on welfare are welfare queens, and your statistics proove that. But there are definitely many, many women out there who live on welfare and have absolutely no desire to change that or to go out and make their own living. Why should they? It’s easier to just keep on sleeping around, getting pregnant, having kids they can’t afford and having the government (i.e. you and me) pay for them. I’ve been behind a welfare mama at the grocery store with her four VERY unruly children, and she’s paying for her food with WIC or whatever that is called, and she has some top-shelf brand names she’s getting. I think if someone is on welfare, they should be forced to purchase ONLY generic brand foods. Why am I paying for this woman to eat better than I do? It’s just wrong.

By Boscoe

April 21, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Norman you make a good point. The number of Americans that are Catholics is actually closer to 20% but that’s irrelevant. The point I was trying to make, which Michael H has missed and has instead resorted to name calling, is the limited influence Pope John Paul II or any other Pope has. Let’s take your percentage of American Catholics - 25%. More then half of them favor a more progressive Catholic Church. Taht brings the number down to 12.5% of the population. Recent polls taken suggest that 60% or more of American Catholics will use there own conscience rather than the pope’s guidelines when making decisions about morals. Thus from 25% the pope’s sphere of influence is reduced to 10% of the population. Of those 1/2 did not vote in the election. 5% of Americans who are Catholics equals less than 6 million Americans. Of those 6 million polls show most had made up their mind prior to the Church’s decision to deny the Catholic rite of Holy Communion. How does the Church’s decision to deny Holy Communion influence people to vote for Bush?

By Lyrazel

April 21, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

RS…breeding like bunnies…….that is a new low. And here we have many posters who demand birth control NEVER be taught—and rage against such policy—then rage against families that overbreed. Many here advocate (by insisting on tax cuts) ending educational programs that could teach English—whatever. Ok, sorry I brought up the racism. I cant help but see it. However, know that every nation in the world is having Immigration problems and those dirty—-(fill in blank) ravage the pocketbooks of moral folks planet-wide sucking dry liberal-hearted social programs.

Back on topic: new article in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/fashion/thursdaystyles/21denim.html?8hpib

discusses new fashion trend of $600 jeans. Obviously not everyone is on welfare in USA and those with fashion-fixations are being sold a PT Barnham bit concerning butt-pocket embroidery. Is this trend funded by/for teens with divorced parents who use guilt to get what they demand, or is there such a considerable wage difference between people who shell out $375 for jeans and those people buying 19.00 jeans? In the end if the article readers left with: if it doesnt look good on the butt no one will buy it.

Butt-logic? Or is it really just we have reared a generation of dumb clucks willing to buy whatever has a logo for an image instead of savvy consumers who know companies that sell jeans@$300 make 900% profit? Or are they worth 600.00?

By Brian Curtis

April 21, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

I see the age-old tactic of turning the working class’s anger against those with even LESS power is still working just fine. Yep, it’s those durn welfare cheats that are the reason I’m not doing better! Surely not the ultra-rich elite openly buying and selling legislation and rigging the system to benefit themselves while screwing the rest of us.

Nope, nope… it’s those dang people on welfare. Personal welfare, mind you; not the corporate welfare that adds up to a heckuva lot more of the annual budget than the paltry amount we blow on social spending.

Or wait: maybe it’s not the folks on welfare. They’re citizens, after all; they still have SOME rights. No, the real culprit must be those illegal aliens—the ones with no rights whatsoever! THEY’RE the real reason the middle class is disappearing from the U.S. Not the kind and benevolent CEOs who only want What’s Best for America. Let’s all get mad at the people who don’t control ANYTHING in our politics or economy—because THAT will fix the problem.

By chuck

April 21, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Well Brian Curtis, You’ve shown your true colors as an obvious SOCIALIST. If you would take just a moment to read what I wrote and to read what you wrote, that should become obvious to you.

First, In a single bracket flat tax, RICHER people WOULD pay the SAME percentage as POOR people. By definition, they would pay more in taxes. 10% of $100,000 is MORE than 10% of $10,000. The difference would be that under MOST of the proposals I have read, the first $40,000 or so of income would be exempt from taxes. The net effect of that would be that poor people would pay little or nothing under a flat tax system.

Second, As a very devoted follower of Christ, I HAVE read the Bible from cover to cover, more than a few times. While I am NOT a Biblical Scholar, I do have a pretty good working knowledge of what the Bible says AND means. There is NOT a commandment from Jesus, that the government should take care of the poor. His commandment was to His followers…Christians. It is not commanded by Jesus for government AND it is not a function of Government under the Constitution.

Third, The wealthy, of whom I am decidedly not a part, don’t gain their wealth from society’s beneficience, they gain it from working harder or smarter than the rest of us or in fields that are valued by the rest of us. Why should they work all of their lives to earn wealth, just to give it to the government. THAT MY FRIEND IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH…A socialist idea.

By Lyrazel

April 21, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

they should be forced to purchase ONLY generic brand foods…rocky, are you for real? Why not just create new welfare prisons, since America loves institutionalizing? Why condem someone who buys the best she can for her family? Are they somehow evil because they use foodstamps in your market and so ought to dumpster dive? Pretend if you died, and your wife needed social assistance to raise her kids…wouldnt you despise a comment like that?

By Brian Curtis

April 21, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Ah, yes. Any time a modicum of (Christian) concern is shown for the poor, the cry of “Socialism!” rings through the skies. As if throwing a label around somehow defeats the idea.”Redistribution of wealth is a socialist idea,” huh? Funny; it’s also a Christian one.

Yes, the wealthy in this society often worked hard as part of their rise to the top; and just as often, they enjoyed benefits such as inheritance, racial advantage, connections (It’s not what you know—it’s WHO you know), and flat-out luck as well.

But more importantly, every CEO and director—every one of them—has benefited from the infrastructure that our society provides them. Education, roads, mail service, the Internet, protected borders, Federal Reserve policy… the list goes on and on. No one—NO ONE—“makes it on their own,” despite the fervent desire of many rich folks (and rich wannabes) to believe otherwise.

So yes: if you’re rich, it’s because you’ve benefited more than most by what society (and your employees—remember them? The ones who did the actual WORK?) has provided to you. And you owe a great deal in return for the privilege of being allowed to operate a business in this country. Not to mention the even greater debt you owe to the community in which you were permitted to operate.

Capitalism is not the cornerstone of the U.S.; democracy is. Capitalism is simply an economic system that we can operate and tinker with as we see fit, for the maximum benefit of society. We permit corporations to do business to exact extent that it benefits the country, and no further.

Finally: The snag with the flat-tax rate you propose is that it addresses only “income”—conveniently ignoring the other sources of wealth that would be exempt from any taxation (inheritances, stocks and bonds, etc.)—wealth that invariably is controlled by the elite, superrich few. Coincidence? I’m sure it is.

Truly has it been said, ‘There’s no such thing as a smart, poor conservative.’ If you make less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican… well, the conclusion speaks for itself.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - growing up my family was VERY poor. We ate generic brand foods that literally said “Cereal” on a white box with black letters, my mother used a box that said “Detergent” to wash our clothes. There were no name brand foods, no high-quality snack items and we made do with what we could afford, which wasn’t much. But we were never on welfare, and if we had been, I can tell you that my mother would have rather gotten MORE with the foodstamps by buying the generic brand, rather than spending more on name brands and getting less for the money. I never suggested that anyone should dumpster dive. I just think that if someone is going to be on welfare, there should be certain guidelines and standards on what they are allowed to purchase with OUR money. I know cigarettes and alcohol aren’t permitted, but neither should be high-ticket items like rib eye steaks (which I saw the woman in front of me buying) brand name marinade. Sure sounded like they were living pretty high on the hog for a welfare family. Yet, these kids were loud, out of control, and obviously had not been bathed or groomed in a while. Their hair was wild and uncombed and their faces were dirty, as were their clothes. Why isn’t she spending money on soap and toiletries instead of steaks? Obviously she had her priorities. Not to mention that her nails were meticulously polished and obnoxiously long with little stones on them. Funny, I always thought that kind of thing wasn’t covered by welfare. Seems like she’s got enough money for her nail care. Again, it’s just really annoying to see something like that and then look at my paycheck and how much money has been stolen from it to pay for these people.

By Lyrazel

April 21, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Considering the USA military budget is 418 BILLION for this ONE year—at least everyone really knows where their money is going—but lets ignore the truth our troops still do not have protective armor on vehicles—seems odd hearing screams against welfare, education programs—that collectivly get 13.4 billion total funds—want to make a bet Delta will declare bankrupcy this year and will be subsidized by our government? Wink. Wink. How much did we subsidize Amtrack to build the Aceta—the highspeed train that does not run? More than welfare got. Wink. Wink.

By Boscoe

April 21, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Well said Chuck. There are those who take advantage of the governments welfare system and there are those who rely upon it to survive. Why doesn’t the government require those on the system to work for the government. The only way to cure the ills of the system is to make people accountable for themselves. Why shouldn’t the govenment get some value for the money they’re giving out? People want or need government assistance should earn their keep. It’s no different than the rest of America does every day.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

I’m curious, Brian Curtis. Why do you hate the wealthy so much? Is it jealousy? Bitterness because you yourself are not wealthy? Or is it just the typical liberal hatred towards anyone who feels that they should be allowed to keep what they WORK for, rather than having it forced from their hands to redistribute to people who have made bad decisions in their life and have nothing to show for themselves? You’re extremely transparent. I am Republican and I don’t make $100k a year. But I do work very hard for my money and I work hard so that my family and I can reap the benefits of that hard work. And we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We are a capitalist society and that means being responsible for your own sucess as well as your own failure. Again, I don’t mind helping people out with my money as long as it’s for people who truly have gone through some rough times and need a TEMPORARY hand-out to get themselves back on their feet.

By norman

April 21, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Chuck is right, Jesus does not talk about giving the poor anything special. The poor you have always with you, that was Jesus’justification for Mary Magdalene’s wasting precious oil on his feet rather than giving the money to the poor. Brian Curtis: the chief tactic for deluding the working class is not to have them attack those below them, it is to force them to a false consciousness through religious and/or nationalistic appeals. The working class has always voted 30-40% for conservative politicians out of religious and or nationalistic motives. The churches must love having poor around because they recommend having as many children as possible, not aborting, etc.

Boscoe: if you are right that we have nothing to fear from the voting power of American Catholics, then I am relieved indeed. I do fear evangelicals and fundamentalists much more than Catholics.

By Lyrazel

April 21, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Boscoe how can you a good catholic rant against welfare mothers when the catholic church refuses to support any kind birth control? You, chuck, tony and rocky should be singing the joys of having so many new babies to bring to christ! I mean, this is the end result of removing sex education from schools, limiting birth control, ending abortion. You folk should be dancing on the streets! Why are you complaining about having to support families that comply with gods word?

By rocky

April 21, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Actually, Lyrazel, more than 90% of our tanks DO have protective armor, and the budget contains money for the remainder of them to get it. Seems like you conveniently ignored THAT truth.

By norman

April 21, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: be ye not troubled! The contradictions in Catholicism and in Catholic Social Thought are too numerous to mention.

Medieval Catholic authorities prevented Jews, for example, from any economic activity except money lending, and then they condemned them for money lending!

By rocky

April 21, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Having seven illigimate children with seven different men is not the result of removing sex ed from schools, limiting birth control OR ending abortion, and it is not complying with God’s word. It is the result of a promiscuous lifestyle that is not only endorsed by many in the black community, but outright encouraged. If LaQueesha could keep her legs closed until she got married, THEN she would be complying with God’s word.

By Boscoe

April 21, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

First of all Brian, explain how redistribution of wealth is a Christian idea? So yes: if you’re rich, it’s because you’ve benefited more than most by what society (and your employeesâ€â€?remember them? The ones who did the actual WORK?) Brian, you don’t know jack about owning and operating your own business do you? You seem to imply that everybody who owns a business is responsible to the workers because the owner sits on his duff barking orders or spend all day on the golf course. Since most of the businesses in this country are small businesses, it is the owner of those businesses that DO MOST OF THE WORK. Those owners may not work on the assembly line any longer but they know every aspect of the business because they’ve built it, designed it, operated it. Small business owners develop the companies business plans, coordinate finances, INVESTS THEIR OWN MONEY! The owner pays their debt in full and then some by providing jobs and paying more taxes then all the companies’ employees combined.

By norman

April 21, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Rocky: do you think blacks can control their sexual urges?

By RS

April 21, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Gina, yes, you’re dreaming. So am I…Lyrazel, I support birth control 100%; it’s available, it’s out there, there are bc clinics for poor women, but these women know what’s best for them & worst for us; breeding & breeding (by different fathers) & getting a bigger check for each child. These folks contribute NOTHING to society and I do have to go along with Boscoe’s suggestion that welfare recipients should work for the government in exchange for benefits. Rocky, I work hard, alway did & am NO stranger to generic products. I see the same thing you do; those people live better than us. Yeah, a lot of those women skinp on soap, shampoo etc in order to spend their welfare checks on those hideous, vulgar manicures

By Michael H.

April 21, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

Steven D. Levitt is a distinguished economics professor at the University of Chicago and the original study on abortion was done with a law professor at Yale. They claimed to account for only 30% of the drop in crime not all of it as Sailor appeared to claim. Their study was peer reviewed when it was published and is still highly regarded by their professional peers. (The Bush administration even wanted Levitt as an advisor on crime until they learned of that particular study.) In contrast, Sailor is a conservative crackpot who has no reputation nor credibility except among similar minded ideologues. He is not a trained economist, (Sailor to the contrary not withstanding, an MBA doesn’t qualify), has not institutional affiliation, has conducted no funded studies of any sort, and has published nothing in any peer reviewed journal. That is probably why he sits on the margins and yaps at real economists—because they don’t pay attention to him. And that is why Levitt wouldn’t waste his time with him. It was not because he was seriously concerned about the possibility of being “refutedâ€? by him, any more than the oafish and ignorant Bill O’Reilly refuted the Princeton economist Paul Krugman when they appeared on television together on Russert’s program. Why would one subject themselves to an aggressive, vociferous blowhard?

The fact that it appeared first on a Google search means nothing. Google matches by popularity, not by an attempt to measure quality and rank order accordingly.

You seem to think posting the opinions of a Nobel Prize winner who disparaged philosophy as useless followed by a juvenile comment of your own somehow constituted an argument. In fact, it only commits a fallacy, the inappropriate appeal to authority. (You can look it up.) I use examples of the misuse of Nobel Prize recipients as if they were authorities in other fields nearly every semester and I can add that one to my stock. (Einstein, certainly a greater physicist than Weinberg, valued philosophy and thought his study of it helped inspire and illuminate his work in theoretical physics. And that is an illustrative example of the value of philosophy.)

I will pass on the link, I’m sufficiently familiar with the detractors of philosophy, and have more worthwhile reading projects at the moment.

And I prefer John Maynard Keynes remark, made in 1935, “…the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct economist or philosopher.â€?

You might ponder that one for a while, along with the fact that both Adam Smith (the author of the Wealth of Nations, you have heard of it?) and Karl Marx were both trained as philosophers.

By RS

April 21, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Rocky; UNTIL LaQueesha marries?? Why would you think she’d even WANT to? That would mean the end of her benefits! And living that lifestyle (7 kids, each by a different “baby daddy”) isn’t exactly going to increase her chances to find a man willing to marry her & take on such a burden. Oh, this will amuse you; a few afternoons ago, my husband & I had to drive through a not-too-swift area of town (Old Fourth Ward/Reynoldstown) en route to an appointment &, I kid you not, within a radius of 2 blocks, we spotted 4 different teenage girls with visibly pregnant bellies, each already with several small children; all were dirty, loud & unruly. Surprised??

By RS

April 21, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

P.S: Regarding my last post, and this ties right in with our “modesty” topic, 2 of those very pregnant teen girls were wearing low-rise jeans. Made me feel a lot better about my own modest “spare tire”, let me tell you!

By rocky

April 21, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

That’s a really silly question, norman. Of course they can. Anyone can! My wife is very good friends with a black woman who is very intelligent, a wonderful person and waited until she was married to ever have sex. Nobody is MAKING these women sleep around. That is their own personal decision.

By Boscoe

April 21, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Ranting about welfare mothers? Lyrazel, where in my post did you read that,? The Catholic Church’s position on birth control has nothing to do with the inability of a women to keep her pants on. What the Church does say over and over is don’t do it until you’re married. Married people statistically have BETTER incomes. If then these young women would listen to what we say perhaps they wouldn’t wind up on welfare would they? All I said in my original post was for the government to reform the welfare system, in such a way, that it would better serve itself by receiving services for the checks it writes rather then just giving the money away.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Nope. Not surprised at all, RS. There are those on this blog who want to argue that these things aren’t true, but stereotypes usually come from something true, and while the truth is painful, it is what it is. Again, I believe it is the silence of the masses that has allowed this situation to become what it has. People should be outraged about an 18 year old girl with three kids, but the moment you step up to call them out, you’re labeled a racist. I am not lumping all people of color into one category at all. There are MILLIONS of them who are hard working Americans just like the rest of us. But the facts speak for themselves. Look at the illigitimacy rate of births in the black community for 2004. Over 70%! Look at our jails. What color are the majority of the inmates? Like I said, the truth hurts, but it is what it is.

By RS

April 21, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well, Rocky, statistics do point to the truth but even that truth has never made me hate black people, no matter what anyone on this blog might think. I have friends who are black & NONE of them live remotely like that nor would they be caught dead in such a neighbourhood. I feel bad for my friends because welfare abusers, sadly & unfairly, promote the stereotype of all blacks being “lazy”, and that isn’t the case. It’s the lazy ones, of ANY colour, I have a problem with. Don’t forget, the working blacks have to support those bums with THEIR taxes too

By lozen

April 21, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Yes, there are people who will take advantage of any system. Besides, that AFDC check is so much money! Why it makes me want to quit my job and have six kids and take care of them all day long and be lazy and live high on the hog buying canned Dole pineapple! This is sickening to me to see how completely people fall for Republican propaganda. Would any of you change places with those welfare queens? If you forced them to go to work for the government, who would take care of the children? There’s no way to pay for childcare with a welfare check! Yeah, maybe these women have nothing in their lives that gives them any pleasure except sex. I can see that. Yeah, maybe these few (remember the statistics about welfare) women have IQ’s of 90 or they’re learned very stupid behavior from somewhere. Let’s just eliminate them! Cut them off! Let their kids starve because they shouldn’t have had them anyway! Lyrazel and Brian spell it out: how much of our tax money goes for the military. We have a military budget millions and millons above any other nation in the world. Corporate welfare far exceeds anything we grudgingly give to the poor. 70% of welfare recipients are white, have two children, want to work, and are off welfare in two years!!! But we want to believe there are thousands of welfare queens running around out there who are the reason we are taxed so heavily. We don’t want them to have abortions and we don’t want them to have birth control information. We want them to be punished for daring to have sex by having all those kids. Then when they have them we rant and rave about them having all those kids! It is always easy to blame the powerless for all our problems. And it keeps us from looking for the real reasons this economy is tanking doesn’t it?

By rocky

April 21, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Absolutely. And believe me, as a Christian Republican, I am painfully aware of how people are lumped together into one group and labeled as being all the same. We’re not, and neither are they. I judge on an individual basis and anything I’ve said here is aimed at ONLY those people on welfare of ANY color, who keep on having kids they can’t afford.

By Bruce

April 21, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

You asked “who would take care of the kids”? Have some of the women on welfare become babysitters for those on welfare. Pay them for the service preformed. That was simple.

By RS

April 21, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Oh, gosh no, I sure would not want to change places with anyone on welfare. Know why? I couldn’t, in good consciousness, live with myself if I stole money from my country’s working people. If these women want to spread their legs for any man that comes along, so be it but at least be responsible & go to the free clinic for birth control first. Yes, I am a very firm advocate of birth ontrol. If a woman can’t put a rein on her, um, urges, that’s one thing. But there’s no need to bring kids into the world that she can’t care for. I certainly do want them to utilize birth control & there’s no way in this day & age they don’t have that info, they just choose not to use it; no babies, no welfare checks. Maybe a lot of these women aren’t particularly brilliant or educated but they are not stupid, by any means. In ways, I consider them a lot smarter than me as I’ve never found a way to get something for nothing

By RS

April 21, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Bruce, that babysitting idea is right on target!

By rocky

April 21, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

And do you know WHY our Military spending is millions and millions more than any other nation? Because we are the world’s SuperPower, not to mention that we are fighting a WAR right now. So get off your high horse about military spending. It is our military that keeps us free and I will GLADLY give money towards that cause. And the AMOUNT of my money that goes to welfare isn’t the issue. It is the fact that ANY of my money goes to support slutty women who can’t afford the kids they have, yet keep having more. Maybe we should have a law that if you have a child while you’re on welfare, you give that child up and a couple who CAN support them is able to adopt them. You’re right, lozen. A child should NOT suffer because his or her mother is a worthless slut who can’t keep her legs together and would rather have her nails done than buy soap for her kids. So let the kids go to a nice home where they’re loved and cared for. No, we don’t want the women to have abortions and I never said they shouldn’t have birth control. But not sleeping around is the BEST way to make sure you’re not popping out babies every year without a way to support them.

By Tony

April 21, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

I was parked in front of the mall wiping off my car. I had just come from the car wash and was waiting for my wife. Coming my way from across the parking lot was what society would consider a bum. From the looks of him, he had no car, no home, no clean clothes, and no money.

There are times when you feel generous but there are other times that you just don’t want to be bothered. This was one of those I “don’t want to be bothered times.” “I hope he doesn’t ask me for any money” I thought. He didn’t.

He came and sat on the curb in front of the bus stop but he didn’t look like he could have enough money to even ride the bus. After a few minutes he spoke.

“That’s a very pretty car,” he said.

He was ragged but he had an air of dignity around him. His scraggly blond beard keep more than his face warm. I said, “thanks,” and continued wiping off my car.

He sat there quietly as I worked. The expected plea for money never came. As the silence between us widened something inside said, “ask him if he needs any help.” I was sure that he would say “yes” but I held true to the inner voice.

“Do you need any help?” I asked.

He answered in three simple but profound words that I shall never forget.

We often look for wisdom in great men and women. We expect it from those of higher learning and accomplishments. I expected nothing but an outstretched grimy hand. He spoke the three words that shook me.

“Don’t we all?” he said.

I was feeling high and mighty, successful and important, above a bum in the street, until those three words hit me like a twelve gauge shotgun.

Don’t we all?

I needed help. Maybe not for bus fare or a place to sleep, but I needed help. I reached in my wallet and gave him not only enough for bus fare, but enough to get a warm meal and shelter for the day.

Those three little words still ring true. No matter how much you have, no matter how much you have accomplished, you need help too. No matter how little you have, no matter how loaded you are with problems, even without money or a place to sleep, you can give help. Even if it’s just a compliment, you can give that. You never know when you may see someone that appears to have it all. They are waiting on you to give them what they don’t have. A different perspective on life, a glimpse at something beautiful, a respite from daily chaos, that only you through a torn world can see.

Maybe the man was just a homeless stranger wandering the streets. Maybe he was more than that. Maybe he was sent by a power that is great and wise, to minister to a soul too comfortable in themselves.

Maybe God looked down, called an Angel, dressed him like a bum, then said, “go minister to that man cleaning the car, that man needs help.”

Don’t we all?

By lozen

April 21, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Writer Lin Neumann says, “The rhetorical question is this: Have we grown so mean as a people that we now turn on the weakest members of our society for someone to blame? The answer is yes.” Not a day goes by without outrageous attacks on the poor. Official American social policy on the national level has seemingly become: Poverty isn’t the enemy, the poor are… As a nation, the United States of America seems to have taken to heart the bitter ironic humor of George Bernard Shaw, who once wrote, “I hate the poor and look forward eagerly to their extermination.”

By rocky

April 21, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

That was a nice story, Tony.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

The poor are not the enemy. The unproductive members of society who bleed the system dry are the enemy.

By Abner

April 21, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you are about to make me vomit. It irks the heck out of me that you talk about “people of color” on welfare, and how you judge on an individual basis, but never have you once mentioned any white person on welfare. Give us a story about one of them. All of your stories have been about blacks/browns.

RS, it was nice of you to take a field trip to the black neighborhood. Did it make you feel better about yourself after seeing those poor, desperate black women walking around with those kids and pregnant again? Trust me. I feel the same disgust at looking at soccer moms with their unruly kids calling her stupid, and her telling little Brad that he shouldn’t talk to Mommy like that. Or when I am in the store, and hear sweet little angel girls telling their mother to shut up and how much they hate her.

As for Christian Republicans, they are the most hypocritical bunch of self-righteous, arrogant people that I know. They do one thing, and then do all sorts of unchristian things at home. “Don’t have sex until you are married. I didn’t do it, but you should.” But, I have nothing against Christian Republicans. I have friend that is a Christian Republican that works hard, goes to church, and is one of the nicest people I know. I judge on an individual basis and anything I’ve said here is aimed at ONLY those Christian Republicans of ANY color, who keep on trying to force me to follow their agendas.

By norman

April 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

It ain’t no shame to be poor. It ain’t no blessing neither.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I guess that’s a basic difference in our thinking Rocky and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’d rather my money went to help people who need help. We do less in this country to support families and children than any other industrialized country. By support I mean time off to spend with our children, subsidized childcare, insurance for children, time off for new parents, etc. I could go on and on. Of course we need to spend money for defense. But do we need to spend so much more than any other country? Or is that that defense contractors have so much money to hire lobbyists and poor people don’t?

By lozen

April 21, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Rocky why do you talk about the slutty women who have so many children and not a word about the slutty men who run around impregnating them?

By chuck

April 21, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, You obviously have never read the Constitution. Capitalism IS the cornerstone of both the Constitution AND our way of life. Without capitalism, democracy is not possible. You have forgotten or never learned some basic concepts of American Government.

First: Natural Law gives us the right to life, liberty, and PROPERTY. It is the responsibility of government to protect those rights. The only political systems that advocate confiscating property to be used at the discretion of the government are SOCIALISM (and their counterparts in the U.S., democrats) and COMMUNISM. Both of these systems as I pointed out in an earlier post, have fallen apart because by definition they kill the incentives for WORK and productivity. I am curious as to what kind (if any) work YOU do. I don’t have much, but what I do have I WORKED FOR. It seems incomprehensible to me that you and others like you would take what I have EARNED and give it to someone else’s children. I work hard for MY family not someone else’s. It is the RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS TO MY PROPERTY, NOT VIOLATE THEM.

Second, The federal government oversteps its bounds when it gets involved in social programs. I have long contended that the 10th Amendment prohibits federal involvement in welfare, housing, healthcare, AND education. These powers are clearly not enumerated in the Constitution as powers of the Federal government and are NOT prohibited to the states. If I were a lawyer, I would probably spend much of my time fighting these programs in Federal courts.

It seems that your deficiencies in terms of knowledge about government, extend to the Bible as well. According to the Bible, IF A MAN DOES NOT WORK, HE SHOULD NOT EAT. In Biblical times, just like today, as Boscoe pointed out, there are people who try to take advantage of the generosity of others. Where do you get the idea that others who have nothing to do with earning my money, should share it, OTHER THAN BY MY CHOICE. I do contribute to many causes to help the poor, but I CHOOSE THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT MY MONEY GOES TO. I was at Goodwill yesterday dropping off items…and I did NOT get a receipt, because I don’t think that the government should subsidize my giving either.

I am wondering about something else in this regard. Don’t you think it is patently hypocritical for you to require that the government follow the teachings of the Bible when it comes to “helping the poor”, when you have consistently railed against any OTHER religious involvement in government? Can we expect you now to come out against homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce, fornication, creation science and every other Biblical principle? Am I the only one to see the inconsistency here?

Let’s take a poll.

If you think Brian Curtis has been hypocritical in his recent posts, post the word “AYE”.

If you think he has been consistent with his history of posts, post the word “NO”.

By vickie

April 21, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

For me, it’s not about modesty or religion - after all I was going to school in the 60’s when Twiggy set the length for us. Talk about “showing your a>s”, this generation has nothing on us. My problem, is the elementary schools have a different code than the middle schools and the middle schools have a different code than the high schools. We are in the middle school stage where skirts have to be below your fingertips and absolutely no cleavage. Yet next year from what I’ve seen and heard the code goes right out the window. I don’t get it - can we please have a little consistency? I guess the bottom line is it falls back on the parents - my daughter will have the freedom to choose knowing full well MOM has and will continue to have the VETO power.

By RS

April 21, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Abner, I feel disgust looking at poor teen girls who pop out kid after kid because they’re too animalistic to keep their legs closed for 5 minutes (& no, that is not exclusively a “black thing”) just as, in your case, I feel disgust at the way soccer moms allow their brats to talk to them. But at least they’re not promoting child abuse by breeding 10 kids to grow up in filth, with a succession of “uncles”. I don’t understand why I (Rocky, etc) are such “monsters” because we’d rather have our money that WE work for help our own families than a bunch of strangers, who, whether folks are willing to face it or not, would just as soon carjack/shoot us as thank us. Having to help that sort of “poor” is NOT a privilege, it is FORCED ROBBERY.

By Brian Curtis

April 21, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

quote from Chuck: “Brian Curtis, You obviously have never read the Constitution. Capitalism IS the cornerstone of both the Constitution AND our way of life. Without capitalism, democracy is not possible.”

That’s some funny stuff, Chuck! Would you care to quote exactly where the Constitution makes mention of free enterprise or capitalism at all? Capitalism is an economic system—one option out of many, and with many different settings.

Too many conservatives seem to have convinced themselves and each other that the primary function of government should be “to promote and support business”… to the point where our corporate welfare has skyrocketed completely out of control, and industry bailouts and tax exemptions are the norm. Then we wonder why the government isn’t taking care of “the little guy”? It’s because the Big Guys have bought and sold our government to their own advantage!

“Confiscating property?” “Natural law?” Sounds like you’ve been drinking the libertarian Kook-Aid recently. For your (obviously limited) enlightenment, EVERY government “confiscates” a certain measure of property and wealth from its citizens in order to operate the functions of government—republic, democracy, kingdom, theocratic empire, whatever. ALWAYS. Taxation, despite the best efforts of fervent anarcho-capitalists to pretend otherwise, is NOT theft. It’s the entrance fee you pay for the services you enjoy, including living under our society’s protection, such as the military you claim to love.

As for your perception of hypocrisy: Unlike Norman, I don’t hate religion. I hate fundamentalism, which is the opposite of real Christianity (as well as the good principles espoused in many other faiths). I’m not claiming the government should be involved in social programs because it’s the “Christian thing to do;” rather, I’m pointing out that opposition to social programs is inherently anti-Christian in nature, making the self-proclaimed Christian Right the hypocrites.

If there’s anything else you don’t understand, just ask! I’ll be glad to explain it you.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and with enough power behind it and it will come to stand for the truth. So it is with welfare. Ever since Ronald Reagan delivered images of “welfare queens” getting rich off the federal t**, America has been moving toward a culture of greed that allows us to abdicate responsibility for social ills such as poverty and homelessness. If you are not rich, if you are not making it, then you are the only one to blame. The myths of welfare are easily debunked, but that has not stopped them from motivating policy. Take just a few: • Irresponsible women have babies in order to get more money. Repeated studies have shown there is no correlation between benefit levels and having children. A mother on the old welfare program—Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)—received about $90 in additional benefits if she had a child. The average AFDC family has 1.9 children, about the same as the national average. • Welfare is a way of life for most recipients. Not true. Government studies show 50 percent of welfare recipients are off the rolls within one year, and 75 percent are off within two years. Only 15 percent of welfare recipients stay on the rolls continuously for five years or more. • * The middle class stands on its own. *Not true. Additional children born into middle-class families earn their parents an annual $2,450 tax deduction. Is that not a form of public assistance?** • Anyone who wants a job can get one. This is a comforting myth, but unemployment in this country—by virtue of federal monetary policy—will not dip below 5 percent to 6 percent. When it reaches those levels, as it has recently, the federal reserve bank raises interest rates to keep the economy from “overheating” and to prevent rising wages. Everyone currently on welfare and due to lose benefits if they do not find a job is not going to find a job. It’s just not going to happen. Fueled by myths and pablum about lazy good-for-nothings who need to be taught to get out of bed in the morning, welfare reform has been sold to us.

By Tony

April 21, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

(Washington, D.C.) Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today rebuked the steadily amassing list of egregious pork-barrel projects in the $80 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (H.R. 1268), passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week and scheduled for floor debate this week.

“Because this is a must-pass bill, it is vulnerable to manipulation by members of Congress bent on bringing home the bacon, even if it has a negative impact on our troops,� CAGW President Tom Schatz said.

The bill contains many provisions that were either not requested or greatly exceeded the President’s budget request, added by Senate appropriators, or are clearly not related to an “emergency� military spending bill:

$103 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program;

$55 million, on top of the $53.4 million budget request, for refugee and migration aid; $55 million for wastewater treatment in Desoto County, Mississippi; $26 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration to transfer materials from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Device Assembly Facility in Nevada; $25 million for the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery in Montana; $10 million in excess of the President’s budget request for assistance for former Soviet Union independent states, totaling $70 million ($60 million of which will go to Ukraine);

$4 million for the Office of Science, including: $3,000,000 for health science equipment; $500,000 for a desalination technology program at the University of Nevada-Reno; and $500,000 for the oral history of the Negotiated Settlement Project at University of Nevada Reno and the Fire Sciences Academy in Elko, Nevada.

$3 million for the University of Hawaii to replace research and materials lost in a flood in October, 2004;

$2.5 million for the Department of Justice Inspector General;

$2.24 million in excess of the President’s request for tsunami warning centers and other resources at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an agency notorious for wasteful spending and mismanagement.

These projects will add to the 13,997 pork-barrel projects already appropriated in the fiscal 2005 budget, at a cost of $27.3 billion, as detailed in CAGW’s 2005 Congressional Pig Book, available at www.cagw.org.

By norman

April 21, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck: funny to hear you talk about the Natural Law. Do you remember the beginning of the Declaration of Independence? We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT…. Do you know why they are called self evident? Because they cannot be proven to exist. The Natural Law is a pious fiction used for various purposes. The real Natural Law is the Law of Nature — which is entirely materialist. The 18th Century philosphers, based on the Scientific Revolution, changed from a Natural Law based on metaphysics (which means, on nothing) to one based on Nature.

The Marquis de Sade showed through his awful novels that natural could be interpreted as whatever is possible in nature — which would not be ipso facto moral at all.

By vickie

April 21, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

I had to scroll all the way back up to just remember the original topic/question. It’s amazing to me how we went from modesty in our children (and very few of you actually hit on the topic)to religion, race, government, welfare, military, etc……..talk about rhetoric! So little accomplished in so much time.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Can’t we at least give “welfare mothers” a little recognition for the fact that they do stay with their kids and take care of them? And if the men who father those kids were made to support them, there wouldn’t be a problem would there? If I were an alien who was here to observe humans, I swear I’d think women get pregnant and have children all by themselves.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Women are a mans property and should be TREATED AS SUCH.

By kimberly

April 21, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Tony, I’m feeling you, man. Great story, and great information. Lozen, truth. Blame someone else for everything. Repeat over and over. Point the finger the other way, so no one looks at you. Mass distraction. What are we NOT supposed to look at? Rock… Dude. Why do you harbor such passionate feelings about the poor black women who reproduce with multiple sires? Their existence: stipulated. Abuse of the system: Concurred. Their numbers: Not as prevalent as the b**ching that goes on ABOUT them. Unwashed, unruly children: Yes, that annoys the crud out of me, too! But I’m worried. If you were to list all the enemies of our society, our way of life, and our values, and then prioritize that list according to the level of threat, don’t you think there’d be numerous factions, groups, or individuals ahead of the well-manicured welfare multi-mom? And with ALL these groups on the list, shouldn’t we look at causes when thinking about solutions? Finger-pointing and disgust just don’t HELP!

By Jack

April 21, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Long ago, I was laid off and we were about to lose our home. Since we had assets worth more than $1400. We were not eligible for assistance. The day I found out we couldn’t get any help, I went to the grocery store to get a few things for the kids. In front of me in line was a couple with 2 children. The all had high-end clothes, shoes etc. and a whole cart of food. They paid with food stamps. I was ready to puke. Some posters think this is alright. I don’t. I’m doing fine now but i don’t want to support people who do nothing but have children in order to make a living. Rocky I am in complete agreement with all of your posts. keep up the good work. Those who want the govt to give them everything should move to the Soviet Union. Please use a 1-way ticket.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Vicki, you are free to write whatever you want to say about the modesty movement. There are many people on this blog who addressed that topic and then went on to others. There are some who don’t care about the original topic and just jumped to other subjects. I personally have been enjoying the variety and I’ve learned a lot about people by hearing what everyone has to say. I think it’s educational to exchange ideas on all these topics. Sorry you don’t think so.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly…that was a STUPID reply to Tony…now SHUT UP and get back in that Toilet.

By Jack

April 21, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

That wasn’t very nice Michael D. She is entitled to her opinion as well as you.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Perhaps the black women who, as you say, “reproduce with multiple sires,” should be more choosy regarding these said “sires.” Perhaps then we wouldnt have so many illegimates fostering the same system for which they so loath.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I loved your last post. Michael D. you must have gotten kicked out of class today. How are things in the 6th grade at your school?

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Or perhaps the “sires” should learn to keep it in their pants!

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

PS…”Sires?!!” Thats a laugh…more like deadbeats, losers, theives…etc.

By Vince

April 21, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

This is actually related to this modesty debate. Today, Jeb Bush is considering spending millions of dollars on electronic bracelets which would be mandatory for sex offenders to wear. What the heck is happening to this country? Eventually the “A” is going to come back, and then every criminal will be wearing something to alert folks of what they did.

The last time we did this was during Hitler’s Nazi Regime.

Why suddenly is this country becoming so puritanical? And just where is one person so pure and innocent to allow electronic bracelets to be required?

I mean think about this, how does that bracelet really help anything? For one thing, there would be a dramatic decrease in willing priests to deliver mass.

Why is this always “someone else’s” fault? Granted, what happened to children in this country is horrific, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but how come none of this is the fault of the parent? Why aren’t we forcing the parents to wear “I’m a dumb, lazy, self absorbed parent” t-shirt?

Look at this Michael Jackson mess… these are children at the center of this trial. Children who cannot drive cars. Why isn’t anyone in the courts asking the parent how their child got to Jackson’s ranch, and why did the parent allow their child to spend the night in the first place?

Wait, wait, wait, here’s a perfect example. The next time someone is biten by a shark, or even killed by a shark, I think the victim’s family should sue the ocean.

If you don’t want to get eaten by a shark, you stay out of the ocean. If you don’t want your child abducted by a sex offender, you hold their hand, put alarm systems around their rooms, and do something really novel…. you protect your child every second.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

“Perhaps then we wouldnt have so many illegimates fostering the same system for which they so loath.” You really need to be a good boy and stay in class Michael so you can learn to write an intelligent sentence.

By kimberly

April 21, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Michael D’s testosterone-driven barking and obvious dominant male superiority complex turn me on in a disturbing sort of way. A likely result of undeniable hetero female bio-chemistry. Fortunately MD, I am already OWNED! hee hee

By lozen

April 21, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

It does not bother me at all (and I’m a bleeding heart liberal ya know) for sex offenders to have to wear electronic bracelets for the rest of their lives, if we’re going to let them live!

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, A “Disturbing sort of way…” LMAO…good one!!

Such a fragrant flower you must be yet already to have been plucked. Alas…a good sub/maso is hard to find. tee hee!

By kimberly

April 21, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Child molesters/murderers in Florida should be fed to the alligators. This might save some of the beloved family pets that fall prey to these beasts every year. At least, it might save the children! We CAN make this happen, you know. I’m just sayin’.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Well good luck with your ankle bracelet Lozen…I hear talcum powder will keep down the chafing.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

When is the Shaunti/Diane mud wrestling contest…?

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Agreed Vince…if ya dont wanna get wet then stay outa the rain TOILET.

By chuck

April 21, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

BC, I’m sure with your high school education you could explain a lot to me. I notice you didn’t answer the question about your own work. That says a lot as well. What kind of government check do you receive? Every poor person in this country can get a free education, free housing, free food, free utilities, free job training, low cost small business loans, and on and on. Capitalism is the one system that leaves everyone free to rise by his own efforts. The history of capitalism provides countless instances of people who improved their lives through work and ability. There are the millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle classâ€â€?or higher. One of the great historical examples was Andrew Carnegie, who rose from a penniless sweeper at a steel mill to revolutionize the steel industry and make one of the largest fortunes of his day. It is no coincidence that 19th century Americaâ€â€?the most purely capitalist era in the nation’s historyâ€â€?brought us the phrase “from rags to riches.”

the following web site excerpt from text to be linkedsums up the Constitutional basis for capitalism. You can go to the site and read the entire article which does go into more detail. I doubt that you have any real desire to learn, but the information is available if you would like to take advantage of it.

Implicit in the spare, matter of fact prose of the Constitution are embedded three specific economic values deserving of comment.

The first of these is the right to private property. It is assumed, in the Lockean tradition, to flow from the law of nature itself. It is not a concession by those governing to the governed. Along with the right to life and to liberty, the right to property is natural, unalienable and essential to meaningful existence. Government’s responsibility, its very purpose, therefore, is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of their natural rights and to secure their persons and property against infringement or violence.

A second economic value implicit in the Constitution is support for private entrepreneurial activity. The Constitution provides for defining the national economic interest in relations with other nations, regulating interstate trade, creating a reliable money supply, securing copyright and patent rights, granting corporate charts, and protecting the sanctity of private contracts. Increased trade and commerce always improve the life for both workers and proprietors.

A third value of special significance is the rule of law. No power can be exercised except in accordance with the procedures, principles and constraints contained in the law. The vibrant economic growth which the Constitution was intended to promote are to be controlled by law. The inherent limitations of the legal order are understood to be fundamental.

Robert Tracinski is a senior editor at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. He wrote:

In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That’s what “free trade” means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don’t expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith’s famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs “by mutual consent and to mutual advantage.” It is common to condemn this approach as selfishâ€â€?yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student’s goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are “too many” specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of “society.” And since “society” consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of othersâ€â€?those who claim to be “society’s” representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union. A system that sacrifices the self to “society” is a system of slaveryâ€â€?and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And “mixed” systems, such as today’s regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale. Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Only capitalism protects the individual’s freedom of thought and his right to his own life. Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a “necessary evil,” but as a moral ideal.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Agreed Vince…if one wants to stay dry then one should stay out of the TOILET.

By Vince

April 21, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Feeding sex offenders to alligators does not prevent future criminal acts. There’s a new one born every day, with no criminal record, and thus free of any electronic jewelry.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Diane and/or Kimberly have a belly piercing?

By lozen

April 21, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Vince, I should have asked what the state of Florida defines as a “sex offender”. If they’re talking about pedophiles then my comment stands. However, knowing Jeb and his cronies I now realize I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I was recently in Florida and could not believe the anti-abortion, “Jesus loves you,” “Thank God for Jeb and George Bush,” and “Saturday Night! Tractor Pull” signs.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Agreed Vince…butt it does keep the gators belly full.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Okay. I will gladly correct myself and apply my statements about welfare mamas to include ALL races who suck the system dry and abuse the money we give to the government to help those who really need it. I don’t know any welfare mamas personally, and I only go by what I’ve seen. I’ve never been behind a white woman paying for food with food stamps, but if she had the exact same things going on (nails done, dirty kids, top-end items, etc.), I would have the EXACT same feelings about her: Resentment and anger.

kimberly, you’re a good woman. And you’re right. The list of our country’s enemies is a long one, and welfare mamas don’t fall very high on that list.

lozen - I hold the men who impregnante all these girls just as responsible for their behavior. But when I hear about a pregnant girl having to get a DNA test in order to find out which one of four men is the father, that doesn’t exactly give me a good feeling about her level of choosiness or self control. Also, you said Additional children born into middle-class families earn their parents an annual $2,450 tax deduction. Is that not a form of public assistance? Actually, no. It is not. It is THEIR MONEY to begin with, so how can being able to keep it be consdiered assistance? They EARNED that money and SHOULD be allowed to keep it. It’s not coming out of anyone else’s paycheck. It’s money they worked for and money that should be theirs. Period.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Hey lozen…you forgot the “Friday night Finger-pullin contests…” POOT!!

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Rocky…in this case, I dont think “working” on the street corner counts. Eh? d; p

By Bruce

April 21, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

I would like to know how Diane gets the modesty movement is a form of female control. I live in the house with three females. I grew up in a house with three females. I am an expert (by experience) on the fact that if a female makes up her mind to do something a man has no control over her. Women are only limited to what they allow men to do to them. There is no such thing as controlling a woman. Now this does not count violence such as rape so don’t go there.

By Jack

April 21, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Anyone who messes with children or the elderly should be immediately removed from the gene pool. (and they should suffer the same as their victims before they go)

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

www. pullmyfinger .com www. spankinthemonkey .com www. tiava .com <<——for Kimberly www. alt .com www. denofiniquity .com

By rocky

April 21, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

I became almost physically ill when I read the details about Jessica Lunsford today, and what she went through before she finally suffocated after being buried alive by that disgusting animal who raped and killed her. Putting bracelets on these people is the LEAST of what we should do to them. They should be castrated and have “molester” tatooed on their forehead. A scarlet letter? You bet. These creatures pray on our children, and no matter how much you do to protect your kids, there is always a way for them to get around that. She was kidnapped from her own room while her grandparents were there!! There is no 100% sure way to keep your kids safe, and the best we can do (if we won’t execute them) is at least label them so they are easy to spot and people can keep their children away from them.

By Crystal

April 21, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Attn: NEWSBREAK

Norman has just been elected Pope of the Blogs. Right from the Vatican city of Savannah.

Which reminds me of my old fishing friend, Blake. As we were fishing in the May River near Calibogue Sounds (sorta Savannah area), he would mention “You have to hit ‘em with a ‘fliction stick.” He was referring to catfish. Some posters seem to feel the same about the “poor”. But as Norman I has said, “..it aint no blessing” to be poor.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Agreed Bruce…butt then again ya cant rape the willing.

Old mother hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch rover a bone. When Ms hubbard bent over, rover took over and gave her a bone of his own…

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Crystal…what are you wearing?

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Why does the polish navy have glass bottom boats? So they can see the old polish navy.

What do you do if a polack throws a grenade at you? Pull the pin and throw it back.

Why were the Nazi’s able to take over poland so quickly? Cuz they marched in backwards and the poles thought they were leaving.

How do you know when you are flying over poland? Cuz there is toilet paper on the clothesline.

How does a polish mother instruct her children to put on their underpants/panties? Yellow in the front and brown in the back.

Who says screen doors on polish submarines are a bad idea? Hey…they keep the fish out.

Why did they close the polish national library? Someone stole the book.

By Tim

April 21, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Vince… I honestly cannot believe you are blaming parents for their children being molested… how about a girl who was molested by her uncle for years… do you think that girls parents thought their brother-in-law would do such a thing… I highly doubt it… but it is the parents fault because they didn’t hold their childs hand 24/7 is that right???… I think it is a WONDERFUL idea to make the pieces of crap wear electronic bracelets! actually I think they should cut off every part of a child molestors body that could be used in a sexual manner toward a child (arms, legs, tongues, private areas, or anything else deemed appropriate to cut off!!)

p.s. the girl I was talking about was my aunt (who 20 years later finally has come to terms with what happened to her)… and now my grandmother has to live with the fact that her daughter was molested by someone she left her child with… when it WASN’T HER FAULT… stop blaming everyone except the person who actually committed to crime!!! my grandmother certainly does not need people like YOU telling her it is her fault her child was sexaully abused!

By RS

April 21, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Whenever I hear about stories such as the Jessica Lunsford case, I have nightmares…Sorry to disagree with you on this, Lozen, but I don’t think a woman who has 10 different kids by 10 different deadbeat losers (yes, the men are just as much at fault) to collect taxpayer checks should be given any credit for raising children in an atmosphere of filth, danger & crime. As for welfare recipients getting free medical care, etc, that really burns me up! My husband is an independant contractor & works his derrierre off. Not only does he pay his own taxes but he does NOT get health insurance. Nor can he, at this point, afford to take out his own BECAUSE HE HAS TO SAVE THAT MONEY FOR THE IRS SO HE CAN PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR A LOT OF LAZY WORTHLESS CRIMINAL LOWLIVES WHO CONTRIBUTE NOTHING POSITIVE TO SOCIETY. Sorry, but I cannot think of a reason why those dregs deserve a free ride when working people go without. Welfare abuse should be treated like the crime it is.

By Jack

April 21, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Savannah is a very nice place. Wish I could live there. Good hunting, fishing and good hospitality.

By RS

April 21, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Oh Tim, I am SO sorry about your aunt! Is she ok now? That must have traumatized her for many years…Molesting scum like that always bully/threaten the children so that the poor kids remain silent. Darn right these pieces of #$@% need to have their __ cut off! Granted there ARE a few parents who’ve set the wheels in motion for that type of tragedy though…case in point, Jon Benet’s parents, who dressed that child like a miniature prostitute & paraded her around

By Crystal

April 21, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

To Michael D.,

I am wearing a anti-microbial mask while reading your putrid posts.

By Abner

April 21, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Why does that sound like blaming the wrong person? Why don’t you direct that anger at the health care system and insurance companies? They are the ones that are making it so hard to get insurance, and won’t cover this or that. They are the ones making a profit to give to their CEOs, which no matter how people say it, no human being, CEO, athlete, is worth millions of dollars. Sorry. Your work cannot possibly be that good. Alex Rodriguez makes 125 million dollars. That is absurd. There is no way that he can ever spend that money, and it sure is not going with him when he dies. So why does anybody deserve that kind of compensation?

By majelix

April 21, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

RS: <>

Health insurance is deductible for independent contractors. It’s right there on line 31.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

By Tim

April 21, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Thanks RS… she is actually now one of the most ‘put together’ people I know… she did go to counseling for a while to help her and now she is doing very well… since I was a child she has always been my hero and I have always strived to be like her because she is one of the most amazing people I am fortunate enough to know

I agree that there are definitely some parents out there who need to be more aware of their children… example… even if Michael Jackson is innocent… sorry but my children wouldn’t be going to Neverland Ranch… I know you can’t protect your children from absolutely every situation but use good judgement people

By vince

April 21, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Tim - I am saying that when adults have children, they must protect them.

Isn’t the reason why gays can’t adopt children because God blesses the sanctity of marriage, and that hetero marriage is what’s “best” for our children?

I am sorry about what happened in your family, and while I am not qualified to answer your question, I can say that as a victim of rape, after many years of research and therapy, in my case, the family members who did know it were too afraid to say anything, as he was a violent man. Was I angered they knew and could have protected me? You bet.

Having sex offenders wear electronic bracelets is lulling people into a false sense of security. Sure, you can stay away from those offenders, but who is protecting children from the one who hasn’t started the crime yet? Or, from the one who never reported anything and found a way around it?

We have to assume that everyone is a sex offender, bracelet or not and protect our children.

By Jack

April 21, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Jon Benet’s parents really acted like they were innocent didn’t they? The cops had to make an appointment to interview them. If they had not been rich do you think an appointment would have been made. He who has money can buy their own justice.

By Scott

April 21, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Wow…I am gone one day and see what I miss!

By Bruce

April 21, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

I agree Rocky, if a woman has to have a DNA test to find out which man she slept with is the father then all blame is on her. As some have put it men are pigs and to them women are only sex objects. That is why I can’t understand why women would want to dress so provocatively. It is as if they are saying here it is come and get it….. Then they get all bent out of shape when a man looks at her.

By Gina

April 21, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Rocky,

Your comment about the kids playing rap so loud it shakes your house. In the past few months, I have been around several cars playing music at the maximum level of the car stereo. When I turn around, they are either a white male or white female. The hip-hop generation is not a race, it is a generation.

Also, as far as afros as a hairstyle, they can be just as professional as any european hairstyle. Hair groomed properly, regardless of the hairstyle is what should be important.

By Beamer

April 21, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world’s nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

T he American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don’t care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not p** us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we’ll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country’s oil needs for decades to come. If you’re an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, “darn tootin.”

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won’t forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America. Thank you and good night.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

First of all I’ve never known a woman with 10 kids on welfare and it’s kinda like UFO’s: I’ll believe it when I see it. I have had three white women friends who had to go on welfare for a time. And I know how easy life was for them while they drew that huge check! Have you personally ever known such a woman, or are you swallowing without question the political propaganda fed to us to keep us looking in the wrong direction for the reason for all our problems? If such women do exist, where you see scum, I see women who were never taught their worth and who were never loved. I feel sorry for those women instead of hating them. Basically, I just don’t see it as one of our burning big problems. Corporate welfare is what I don’t want to pay for. A military budget way out of proportion to any other country makes me mad. I don’t want to pay my hard earned money for those things which take much more of the pie than AFDC.

By Tim

April 21, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Vince… I am very sorry about what happened to you… and is terrible that people in your family would know and not do anything about what happened… they should be partly held accountable… and you obviously have every right to be angry

but I do have to say that that is not the case in every family… my grandmother certainly did not know what happened until years later when my aunt had the courage to finally say what happened… so to blame parents for their children being molested is in my mind absolutely rediculous

obviously those bracelets would not help against people who have not committed the crime yet… but is sure as hell helps protect children from those who already are child molesters… I don’t think it gives a false sense of security… I think it just gives parents another way of helping protect their children

I personally think the best protection would be to hang these child molesters people from their testicles (if it is a woman then hang her by whatever else would be appropriate) until they fall off… but I do think these bracelets are a good idea (I can’t believe I am supporting something that good ol Jeb is considering… what is happening to me????)

By Archie

April 21, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

I appreciated the comments made by Brian Curtis at 11:27 a.m this morning. Kimberly did very well at 12:30 pm. I only point these two out because they seem to be engaging in some sound thought processes.

By Bruce

April 21, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Tim,

I have said before bring back public hangings and you will see crime go down. And put ALL sex offenders at teh top of the list.

By Scott

April 21, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Actually, yes I have seen a woman on welfare with 10 kids…she didn’t seem scummy, just ignorant and a bit misguided

By RS

April 21, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Majelix-thanks! Tim, I’m so glad your aunt is ok! Vince, how awful about what happened to you; I am so sorry. Bruce, that’s what I’ve been maintaining all along; I always see women dress/act provocatively & then make a big production out of complaining men hit on them; oh please! Gina, I, too, have noticed as many white as black kids play rap. I had an Afro for a short time, in the 70’s. My hair is naturally nappy so it worked well for me. Lozen, I don’t see welfare as an exclusively black issue by any means. Those white women you mentioned are proof; Lazy is lazy, no matter what the ethnicity. I was never loved till age 39 but I did have pride in myself. I guess something like this is proof that no 2 people will handle the same situation the same way. It depends on your values, what your conscience tells you, etc

By RS

April 21, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Michael D, why don’t you just roll in mud & be done with it? Although I did chuckle at your Polish jokes & I myself have a good deal of Polish ancestry in me

By lozen

April 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Yeah let’s do bring back public hangings. Then let’s make a big picnic lunch and take all the kids to watch. That would solve everything. Let us start with all the politicians, lawyers, corporate CEO’s from Enron, etc, Washington lobbyists, and televangelists. Yeah, right!

By Tony

April 21, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

I’m absolutely Positive that whoever was posting under Michael D was NOT Michael D!

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

POOT

Smell dat?!!

By Scott

April 21, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Agreed…but can we start witht he ACLU lawyers first?

By Brian Curtis

April 21, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Oh, for pity’s sake… the AYN RAND Institute? What are you, thirteen? I know a lot of folks who went through a Rand/objectivist phase; then they graduated high school and realized that no, raving irrational selfishness really ISN’T a virtue. Teenagers love Rand because she seems to justify their wholly self-absorbed, “nobody tells me what to do” worldview.

But if they’re smart enough, they eventually realize what pathetic tripe that is. Rights, “natural” or otherwise, have no validity without a government to back them up. Corporations don’t exist without a government to recognize them, and trade cannot occur without a societal context to make it happen. Again, nobody has earned their wealth “all by my lonesome.” Everybody owes something to the society they live in and the government that ensures they have any rights to worry about in the first place. A right unrecognized by government does not exist.

You’re right, I haven’t answered any questions about my personal life, religious beliefs, income, education, or work. That’s because they have no bearing on the issues we’re discussing; they only serve as fodder for invalid ad-hominem accusations (like the ones you’ve already been making).

But if you absolutely MUST know… I have a master’s degree. I’m employed full-time and in the upper 20% of U.S. individual incomes. And while I respect true Christianity and many other faiths, I have zero tolerance for the idiocy and inhuman evil that calls itself “fundamentalism.” Satisfied? Does any of that have ANYTHING to do with what we’re discussing? Of course not.

You can declare “property” the most absolute and sacred of all rights till the cows come home… but you can’t use the Constitution to justify that claim, because it just ain’t in there. In fact, the free market already takes a hit because of Congress’s specific authority to regulate trade and commerce!

So do you have anything further to complain about? Any lingering questions? Or do you understand now that government is not “the enemy” (as so many greedy idiots like the Objectivists and Libertarians pretend), but rather the tool that makes democracy possible and rights enforceable?

By rocky

April 21, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Gina - I do see more white kids playing that cRAP in my neighborhood than black, that is for absolute sure! And it is annoying no matter WHAT color the driver is. It’s disturbing the peace and they should be ticketed for it. I would take issue (and do) with any person or persons who move into a nice neighborhood and then neglect their yard and house maintenance, putting a bad spot on the otherwise nice neighborhood (and property values). And there are plenty of white people who do just that in my area. It’s not exclusive to blacks by any means.

As for the hair, I’m going to have to disagree with you. Even if an afro is well groomed, it still doesn’t look professional and if I were doing the hiring, it would put me off. I’m not allowed to let my hair just grow and grow as long as I want it, even if I keep it brushed and nice. The fact is that there is a corporate standard and long hair, afros, corn rows, blue hair, whatever, do not fall within that standard.

Children aren’t responsible for growing up unloved or with no sense of worth. But once you become an adult, it IS your responsiblity to raise yourself out of that frame of mind and MAKE your own self worth. My father had a terrible childhood with a drunk mother and a very violent step father. He left home at 15 and delivered milk and bread to make money. Today he is the only one in his family to not only graduate high school, but to get a MASTERS degree. His two sisters were married by the time they were 16 and both have had tragic lives. Why was he able to make something of himself and they weren’t? Because he made the effort to MAKE his own luck and MAKE his own future, rather than just accepting the hand he was dealt as a child. It IS possible for people to raise themselves up out of whatever situation they’re in. I don’t pity men or women who never make that effort and simply live life being a financial burden on society. There’s no excuse for it and I don’t care HOW bad their childhood was, how unloved they were, etc. Once you’re an adult, you have the means to do anything you put your mind to.

By rocky

April 21, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Amen to that, Scott! The ACLU and anyone who is a race-baiter and polarizes the public. And lozen, I can’t say I disagree with a single one of the kinds of people you listed for the hanging either.

By Michael D

April 21, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

I just dropped the kids off at the pool…”ker-SPLASH”

By Bruce

April 21, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

So we should just pat them on the back and say, it’s ok just don’t do it again? Give me a break, anyone that preys on innocent children and helpless women should not be allowed to live. And yes please begin with the ACLU after the sex offenders are all gone. The only reason we should have the sex offender list is so we can find them when it is their turn.

By chuck

April 21, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, First I never said that government was the enemy. I believe that government is bloated and is extending its powers beyond what the constitution allows. I said that this extension of powers into areas that should be in the purview of the states has caused the formation of a confiscatory tax policy that punishes hard work and success. I further stated that that confiscation of MY money for the funding of programs that are beyond the scope of the constitution is wrong. Since YOU are so successful, you have all kinds of discretionary money that you can donate in any way that you see fit, I assume you do that.

It’s real easy for you to sit back and spend OTHER people’s money. I assume that if you were due a refund last week (since all the tax cuts went to the wealthy), that you refused it? I think that information would be very relevent to this topic. Further, I assume that you send extra money to the IRS each month because you believe so strongly that GOVERNMENTAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE BETTER THAN LOCALLY CONTROLLED NON-BUREAUCRATIC PROGRAMS THAT HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THOSE THEY HELP.

So go ahead Brian, spend all of YOUR money you want to. Just leave mine alone.

You keep arguing that Everybody owes something to the society they live in NOBODY is denying that, no matter how many times you say I am. NOBODY is advocating that we should have the wealthy quit paying taxes altogether…no matter how many times you say that I am. Your view is that wealth is an excuse to confiscate property…a decidedly socialist view. You can deny that you are a socialist if it makes you feel better, but your words tell the real story.

You can misrepresent the teachings of Christ if you want to as well. You cannot deny that in previous posts you have claimed those teachings to be out of line in terms of government adhering to them, yet in this post you said:

I assume you’re not a Christian, Chuck, since no one can be a follower of Jesus and still support a flat tax system. Heck, take out everything Jesus said about caring for the poor, and the New Testament could pretty much be a pamphlet! And it’s not Marxism to expect more contribution from people who have gained the most from society’s beneficence: “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.� Luke 12:47

And while I have great respect for those who voice their opinions intelligently and with dignity, I have zero tolerance for whiny, hypocritical, liberals who feed off of the wealth of this country then run it down every chance they get.

By lozen

April 21, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

Rocky, I understand what you’re saying but…. I grew up with uneducated country parents who thought they were doing their job by keeping a roof over our heads most of the time (many times we had to move in with the in-laws) feed us most of the time, and tell us to finish high school. Other than that they ignored us as much as possible. Both of them were wounded from terrible childhoods; I could say they should have done better but they did the best they knew how. My sister and I did finish high school but my brother had some kind of learning disability; he never learned to read. He failed grade after grade and as soon as he was 16 he quit school. He did not choose to have the learning disability. He did not choose to have parents who refused to go to the trouble and expense of having him tested and solving the problem. He was so excited about “Hooked on Phonics” when he was 40! He died when he was 48. He never learned to read and he could never keep a job with the combination of his reading problem and emotional/social problems learned from my father. He tried to the best of his ability. We all had a very low opinion of ourselves, again learned from my parents, but we were taught that we should do great things. We weren’t taught how to do great things and I got the message very early that I could expect no help from them for college. My sister had polio when she was young and spent years in and out of hospitals, looked different from others, felt even worse about herself. Fortunately for me, I was born with a lot of curiosity and some intelligence, no learning disabilities and no childhood illness. I read everything I could get my hands on as a child and basically reared myself. Neither of my siblings did that. My sister, of course, was pregnant when she married a man who beat her and humiliated her because she thought so little of herself. My brother lived off my parents (as my parents lived off theirs a lot of the time). I was the only one who escaped. I’m the only one who went to college, traveled, and created a good life for myself. I had emotional help because I’ve fought depression most of my life. Neither of my siblings ever had any kind of help emotionally and they weren’t as interested in learning and as determined as I was to escape. I was the fortunate one (and the black sheep of the family!) but I cannot take responsibility for having an ability they didn’t seem to have to realize what was going on. So I understand your father’s story. But what I learned from that is that everyone is not equal in every way. Most people never go beyond what their parents expect of them and what their parents teach them. At least in lower class blue collar families who tend to stick together against the world. I was an exception, partly because I was lucky and healthy and had no learning disabilities. Other than that I can’t explain it. Both my siblings did the best they knew to do with the abilities and limitations they had. We do not grow up in a vacuum and if a child is taught she/he is worthless, powerless, and can’t do anything, that’s what 99% will believe when they’re grown. I don’t think my sister and brother should be called scum or brushed off as less than human for being limited in their ability to overcome their childhood and family. They never really saw anything to overcome and they loved and honored our parents in a way I could not. So I don’t believe anyone can do anything. I believe some people can pull themselves up and others can’t. “There but for the grace of the universe go you and I.”

By Brian Curtis

April 22, 2005 07:15 AM | Link to this

Oh, chuck, chuck, chuck…. you’re still so confused!

You’re still wrongly assuming that I want the government to be entangled with religion. If I were suggesting that government should do anything for religious reasons, you’d be right; that would be hypocritical of me.

Of course I’m doing no such thing. I’m pointing out that, since Christians have a primary duty to the poor as their first—and pretty much foremost—instruction from Jesus, that opposition to social welfare programs constitutes hypocrisy on THEIR part. Not mine; theirs. (And since you claim to be a Christian, yours as well.)

Do I contribute privately to charities? You bet I do, and I assume you (a good Christian) do the same. I also regard paying taxes as my due for being a member of this society, and I pay them cheerfully and without complaint. Again, I assume you do the same. And I actively promote and campaign for government programs that will help the helpless and provide a safety net for all our citizens, PAID for by all citizens.

And yet you do not; this is where we part company, and yet YOU’RE the one claiming to be a fervent follower of Jesus. I just don’t get that. Surely you don’t think that private charities and churches alone are able to reach and help everyone in our society who needs assistance, do you? (Or DO you?)

“Spend your money all you want; just leave MINE alone.”

That’s what you’re not getting, Chuck; it’s not “YOUR” money. It’s money that’s been given to you: partly in exchange for your work, yes, but also partly due to luck, connections, and the efforts of others, particularly government. You OWE a substantial portion of that money to the rest of society, and government is what enables us to collect and distribute it fairly… making up for the inherent unfairness of capitalism through the superior justice of democracy.

“I have great respect for those who voice their opinions intelligently and with dignity.”

Really? This is from the same raving, hate-filled bigot who spent all last week thinking up childish grade-school names to call JMorris? Somehow I doubt your credibility there.

By norman

April 22, 2005 07:22 AM | Link to this

I don’t think that non-believers should preach to Christians how they should practice their religion. Their religion is no guide to behavior because as far as we can tell (See Albert Schweitzer’s classic book The Quest of the Historical Jesus) Jesus expected the approaching end of the world and did not teach anything practical for the long haul. You cannot find economic recommendations in the Gospels, in the Old Testament there is a concern with social justice but without specific programs. Christians have always found their own favorite notions in Jesus and Paul whether they had expressed them or not.

By norman

April 22, 2005 07:30 AM | Link to this

Someone yesterday mention Ayn Rand. It is true that her “libertarianism” was popular in the 50’s and ‘60’s because the justification of selfishness is always appealing.

But one needs to have a little compassion for that unfortunate and pathetic woman. Growing up Jewish in Tsarist Russia she had several options: believe in Judaism, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, become a Marxist or other sort of revolutionary. She loathed Judaism for the obscurantism it was. She loathed Eastern Orthodoxy because while it shared with Catholicism a beautiful liturgy it was mired in ignorance and superstition. She lived briefly under Lenin’s rule in Petrograd and hated the experience, with good reason. What was left? Only liberalism of a classical sort which she made into a religion. She justified unregulated capitalism and the morality of selfishness. The only good thing about her was her distaste for all religion, which made her hated by the Christian Fascists like William F. Buckley, Jr. of National Review. But given her lack of a good choice she made the best of it. She can be disagreed with easily but deserves some pity. Her novels are unreadable potboilers. Anyone today believing in her is a fool and a knave. Alan Greenspan, by the way, was a disciple. More’s the fool!

By Randy

April 22, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

Saddleback church in california(Rick Warren’s)had 45 thousand people there last week. All were holding up signs,”Whatever it takes” and “It changed my life”. That church is really leading thousand to the lord and his book “The Purpose Driven Life” is reaching millions. It’s so great to see all these people come to know Jesus. I thinking next week we should all post our favorite bible verses. I’ll see you monday.

By Lyrazel

April 22, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

…welfare mamas of ALL races who suck the system dry and abuse the money we give to the government to help those who really need Actually Rocky I do agree with that one up to a point. The derrogatory terms used, of course belittle the many women who have sprung forward off public assistance. How many companies in Georgia do not pay employees decent wage—for instance—how many employees of Wal-Mart are receiving public assistance medical care: PeachCare—yet working full time! Service industry is also guilty! Full-time part time has become a way huge corporations avoid paying employees their full due part, keep many off insurance-qualified rolls and save billions that YOUR STATE TAXES has to pick up tabs on.

We have in this country a wealth of resources, we are despite how we sound, an extremely compassionate as well as generous country. Its up to older people to teach younger generations to care for disposessed and those generations who will be conceived after older generations die. My generation has retired as one of the wealthiest, its also the generation that has paid the most into those social programs like SSI, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and all assistance. We were a very blind generation and it took younger generations to pry open our eyes for social justice and reforms. Why do eyes want to shut now? Why do hands want to slap away the needy because they invade my hard earned stash of cash? Even the poorest of our poor lives better than poor of other nations—and yet—its those most impoverished who are making our 200.00 shoes for a dollar. Looking away does not ease my consciousness- so—I watch how and where I spend.

Savannah has a lot of poverty beneath its belle exterior. I know her well. I know many poor come of homes you would consider unfit—the amount of crime is horrendous and a well guarded secret—but my guess is most of GA is this way—a belle—only when I realize she uses these belle skirts to hide the desperation of so many.

I find it very odd so many want only good babies. Babies from well established homes with 2 parents and dog. You know, the only way we get there is by education and changing current policies. Yes, there are women who have to take care of 10 children on welfare…these are her daughter, neice and grandsons children. These are foster parents getting crack-junkie infants, toddlers rescued from meth addicts. Be very respectful of these elderly women and families who open their homes. It takes a lot to love a child conceived by anothers folly…sometimes it takes government money.

PS learn spanish. When you are in the nursing home you will be able to communicate with the workers who will bathe, nurse and care for you…Good luck. Happy Friday.

By norman

April 22, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Randy: here is a bible verse just for you. “Woe, ye scribes and pharisees.”

By norman

April 22, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

It is good to have a “purpose driven life.” But as Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed 250 years ago Christianity does not have a this worldly purpose but a purpose in another world, hence it is irrelevant and probably harmful to a good Republic.

By Archie

April 22, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

There was a guy named Michael that discussed healthcare 3 weeks ago as well as myself. Someone gave the standard lines about government… Anyway it’s good to see Brian Curtis point out that government is not the enemy as I tried to point out weeks ago. Someone at work is asking for money for a relative that lost his job that needs a liver transplant. There is an account setup. Everyone is not charitable but if you had a universal system then this poor man would not be at the mercy of someone’s whims. A man is sick without insurance because he lost his job partly because of illness. With all the Bible talk on this forum as christians we should want people to be taken care of when they are sick,poor, or being mistreated. There will always be rich and poor but as christians we should constantly look for fairness. We will never achieve it completely but we can do better. As for the hair discussion there are many individuals wearing corn rows that work daily. I saw a young working for the post office a few weeks ago. Times are changing and so are standards.

By Crystal

April 22, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

lozen,

Just a comment on your last post of yesterday. Although I don’t always agree with you and might not again, I will always think of you as a woman of strength.

By Brian Curtis

April 22, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel makes a good point that’s often overlooked in the rush to attack the powerless: many people receiving federal assistance are working at the same time.

That’s right: many of these people are holding down a full-time job, or even multiple jobs, and STILL not earning enough to live on. Some of the folks on federal assistance are even military families! How’s that for national pride?

By norman

April 22, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Health Care: we pay the most for it of the advanced countries and the least for it. Why? Because of the great expense in preventing National health insurance. The cost of all those employed by Insurance Companies and their profits could be eliminated by a German or French system and we would have better and cheaper health care. But no, we listen to advertisements on tv from the insurance companies (Ted and Louise, or whatever their names were) and believe them. Hilary Clinton’s plan had flaws but was better than what we have now.

By norman

April 22, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: what you say about Savannah is interesting indeed. Savannah, Georgia’s first city, has a black population very much like it had 200 years ago, only worse. It is very poor, very badly educated, crime ridden (largely black on black crime). Racial integration in the schools here is a joke since all that integration accomplished was to destroy the public school system. All the whites here who are not impoverished entirely send their kids to private (alas, mostly Christian) schools where they get a better and safer education but are taught a lot of nonsense about creationism and such. Savannah is just more traditional than the rest of Georgia’s bigger cities, but all of the South sees this pattern. Schools are not officially segregated but in fact are mostly black and poor white. They are very deficient school, whatever amount of money is spent. And naturally white families don’t want to spend public funds on schools they don’t use. At the risk of being called a racist, I would say that blacks here were better off under slavery.

By Michael H.

April 22, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

You probably missed my late response to your use of Sailor in criticizing Levitt’s study but it is there if you are interested as well a rebuttal of the common disparagement of philosophy. You might like the quotation I used from John Maynard Keynes about the reliance of practical men on the ideas of economists and philosophers.

It was also a little humorous to see you talk about the uselessness of philosophy and then invoke the authority of a pseudo-philosopher in the person of Ayn Rand. The Ayn Rand Institute by the way has become a cult center, a virtual religious institute devoted the worship of Rand. The psychologist Michael Shermer devotes a chapter to it in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things.�

“Property� is a philosophical as well as an economic concept and economics grew out of philosophy only in the 19th century. In any event, talk about property is hardly as simple as most Americans take it to be, least of all our benighted president with his “it’s your money� line. Let me borrow an argument from a real philosopher in Thomas Nagel of NYU. (The Myth of Ownership, Thomas Nagel and Liam Murphy, Oxford University Press, 2002, now considered one of the best works on this subject in decades.)

The great philosopher John Locke, to the contrary, property is not about “mixing our labor,� with natural objects. (A theory of property that was also used by Karl Marx in his view that capital appropriated from the worker’s labor.) Ownership is not a relationship between a person and a thing. It is a social convention, and in societies with a legal system, it is defined by the law. Modern societies are not like Locke’s example of gathering acorns and berries from an unowned forest as long as I leave enough for others they are mine.

Instead of gathering acorns or berries imagine that I work for General Motors on the assembly line. The corporation’s stock is listed on the national stock exchange, and it has financed its modern factory by issuing bonds. The corporation could not make its cars without a legal system that fosters and protects mining rights, private ownership of land, an accepted currency, systems of transport, the production and sale of energy, the existence of an educated labor force, corporate oversight, the protection of patents and the prevention of monopolies, judicial resolution of disputes, national defense, and the protection of trading routes. A system of government is conceptually prior to property rights and a system of government requires taxation. The utter simple mindedness of views like Rand flies in the face of empirical facts of modern societies.

Last night Bob Dole, a very decent man, appeared on the Jay Leno show. He talked about his autobiography and how he became a lawyer through the G.I. Bill of Rights. When asked what he would have done if had not been severely injured in 1945 he said probably have gone to school on the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill a big, bad government creation, through taxation provided the money for about 250,000 men to train as lawyers, engineers, (which you so delightedly tried to contrast with philosophers) and business graduates. These government programs provided the opportunities for people who formed most of the American middle class of the 1950s. Their individual efforts are certainly a part of that story but so is the indispensable role of government and taxation.

Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize winning economist and here, unlike your example, the award is relevant to the argument because it is in his field, estimates that the proportion of income in wealthy countries that is the result of social capital, including technology and organizational and governmental skills rather individual effort is at least 90%.

Inequality in wealth and income in the United States exceeds that of any nation in the Western world. Why is it that when someone like Brian points out that fact, and its incongruity with the Christian ethos, that the response is a personal attack. His socioeconmic status has no relevance to the truth of his claims or the validity of his arguments and conservatives do not undermine such arguments with personal attacks, talk about “that’s class warfare,â€? or William Buckley’s stock line, “the politics of envy.â€? No, it is not the politics of envy it is justified indignation over a shameful situation. And one wonders why so few conservative Christians, especially our politicians, quote the Sermon on the Mount, or talk about the obligations we have to each other. And that is what ethics is about, how we treat each other and our responsibilities and obligations to each other, not the supposed “virtue” of “selfishness.â€?

By lozen

April 22, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks Crystal. I guess I’ll never completely understand where the strengh and awareness came from. And I’ll never understand people who seem to want to look at those who are not blessed with as much strength and awareness as failures who are less than human. We’re all really doing the best we can with what we have. (Sometimes I do forget that too!)

By Crystal

April 22, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Err, Norman,

I assume that you are not using American money. After all, every piece of it is imprinted with “In God we trust.”.

By norman

April 22, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Crystal: you have seen the sign, In God we Trust, Everyone else pays cash!

Seriously, what does In God We Trust prove? That there is a God? That our money is our God? That God is like money? You’re cute but not convincing.

By Abner

April 22, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Norman, your 10:34 post is highly accurate, except for the slavery part. The lashings, the overseers, etc., is not a good option by any means. Teachers have to play catch-up with these children because they don’t have the luxury of stay at home parents. Most of the kids only receive medical care when the dentist, etc. visits the school. How sad is that.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

MichaelH, It is wonderful to have someone who loves and studies wisdom and enlightenment and understands ethics on this board! I learn something from you every time you write.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Norman, how in the world could it even cross your mind that people would ever be better off as slaves than as free people? As slaves people were forbidden to learn and it was a crime to teach a slave to read. As slaves women could be raped and there was nothing anyone could do. As slaves people could be beaten and there was nothing anyone could do. Their children were sold and they never saw them again. Their wife or husband could be sold and never seen again.

By Crystal

April 22, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Norman & “In God we trust”

Americans put it on their money because that is the belief of the majority. You could protest by not using the money.

And …thanks, I AM cute. (My husband said so.)

By Ben

April 22, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

A few notes: Black-on-Black crime = Crime period. Reverse Racism = No racism at all.

These two terms, along with a few others, only identify and facilitate the racial divide some of you are speaking of.

And lastly, Rocky you make very valid points about Equality and the double standard. After reading a lot of what you wrote on last week’s board, I never thought I’d agree with you. Not totally in this case, but you make very valid points. HOWEVER comma comma your opinion’s don’t make you a racist in my eyes, your numerous examples and references to only “black/brown” or however you describe “them” when talking about welfare and government assistance. You make it sound like it’s predominantly black people who litter the system.

By norman

April 22, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

lozen: blacks in Savannah cannot read. They are beaten, raped, and killed rather frequently, usually by other blacks. They are lucky if they find work at all. Their children are not sold as slaves, they are sold to drug dealers and pimps. Hispanics are arriving to work in the building trades and blacks are still not employed. Under slavery there were many different experiences for blacks, not all as bad as you think though certainly not as good as real freedom. You know, some even say that blacks benefitted by being brought from Africa where their lives would have been even more brutal and short; I am not sure I should want to go that far.

Atlanta is not the whole of the urban South, you know.

By Brian Curtis

April 22, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Crystal: Actually, no god was mentioned on our currency until a few panicky legislators during the Red Scare of the 1950s rammed through the new slogan and ordered it printed up on all our coinage—a clear violation of the Constitution, of course, but a fairly trivial one.

The will of the majority is a wondrous thing, but it doesn’t eliminate the rights of minorities to be treated equally. That’s one reason we have a Constitution, after all.

So, as minor and unimportant an issue as it is, the god-stamp on our money IS a violation of religious neutrality and IS, technically, against the Constitution.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Crystal and Lozen should kiss and make up!!!

Crystal…what are you wearing?

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

The statements made by the majority here are so riddled with pre-disposed opinion and media slant that they render themselves to nothing more than informed stupidity.

Havent you philosphers ever had a clear, honest thought about anything? State of Denial rules this silly blog.

FLUSH

By kimberly

April 22, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Don’t underestimate the power of denial. Look what it’s done for Bush!

By norman

April 22, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

michael d: please splain.

By norman

April 22, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

In Iraq every day Shiites are being victimized, with their mosques blown up, their people kidnapped and murdered. The Sunni insurgents are trying to start a civil war and may well succeed. Shiites have so far turned the other cheek (which is appropriate for the most “Christian” branch of Islam, indeed for people closer in some ways to the earliest Christians than Baptists in Macon or Catholics in Houston) but they cannot be passive for ever. And when the civil war comes we shall either get involved, a disaster, or chicken out and leave, a disaster for the Iraqi people who will be worse off than under Saddam. What hath Bush wrought? Hell!

By Gina

April 22, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Norman, I can’t even believe you stated Blacks would be better off with Massa beating us and raping the women. Either you are playing Devil’s advocate or you just plain senile. I should even address such ignorance but the comment was asinine!

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Perhaps our legal tender should state…

In the TOILET we Trust or I am woman hear me bore or Foe is me or Saw my legs off and call me Shorty or 95% of the female population are blathering emotional IDOITS…FLUSH or Hey Woman…shut up and get me a beer or Hey Fem…shut up and get me a beer or

Yes…I like those much better.

By Michael H.

April 22, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Thank you for your kind comments.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

WOE…Kim comes out swinging…

“Don’t underestimate the power of denial. Look what it’s done for Bush”

I knew I could count on Kimberly… ; )

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Kimberly…Do you prefer the paddle, whip or flogger? tee hee!!

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Before ya say it…yes, I know its idiots instead of idoits.

Ok…ya got me on a spelling infraction. OUCH!!

SPANKY TIME!!

By lozen

April 22, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Okay MichaelD, I haven’t heard a clear, honest thought about anything from you, just a bunch of 12-year-old potty talk seeking attention. How ‘bout it, little dude! Put up or shut up, as they say.

By norman

April 22, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Gina: come down here to Savannah and see how your people live. You might then prefer a well-run plantation with a good massa.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

This little diddy is sung to the tune of Helen Reddy’s “I am Woman…”

I am woman hear me bore, with my butt stuck in the door, eatin bon bons and drinking diet coke…

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

If you need too come spank me anytime, I smell strong I am invisible I am woman

OK…take it away kids.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Oh Lawd Massa…hep mi!!!

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Dont fall for it Gina…Norman is just trying to sucker ya into a cheap, sleazy one night stand. I bet his wife knows all about it too.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

I like Diane’s ReBUTTal…..

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Subject: Chinese Sick Leave

Chinese Sick Leave

Hung Chow calls into work and says, “Hey, boss, I no come work today,

I really sick. I got headache, stomach-ache and my legs hurt, I no come

work.”

The boss says, “You know Hung Chow, I really need you today. When I feel

like this I go to my wife and tell her give me sex. That makes everything

better and I go work. You try that.”

Two hours later Hung Chow calls again. “Boss, I do what you say and I feel

great. I be at work soon…You got nice house…

By lozen

April 22, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Norman, Norman … Your arrogance knows no bounds. You think you’re qualified to tell a woman of color what she needs to understand about people of color? What an ego you have. If this is the real Norman, I appreciate your insights about religion but you have the southern great white male patriarch blinders on.

By Randy

April 22, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

I don’t think you have to worry about Norman being married. I would however worry about the chip on his shoulder.

By RS

April 22, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Michael D: It’s ok, honey. You’re among friends. You can come out of the closet. We promise not to spank you. Oh, but you’d probably love that.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Some people would say and I have heard them say that “women are all oatmeal north of the eyebrows.” I must categorically disagree with this statement…cmon, think about it.

When it comes to cleaning the toilet, scrubbin the floor, cookin the food, changing the kids diapers, waxin the floor, dusting the furniture, vacuuming the carpet, shopping for the groceries, peelin the carrots and bringing her man a beer…women have it all over the men.

Women…cant live with em…pass the beer nuts!

By norman

April 22, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

lozen: I am not sure Gina knows how blacks live in Savannah. What I told her was close to what our black mayor said last week. In any case, I don’t think it is your responsibility to monitor what I say. Like all liberals you have a tendency, perhaps an atavistic religiosity even if formal observance has ceased, to see the splinter in others’ eyes and not the beam in your own. In other words, to continue the biblical analogy, you may be after all is said and done a Pharisee.

By Bruce

April 22, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Michael D,

I am not sure what you are trying to do here but your comments about women have gone on long enough. Please show some respect and if you can’t do that SHUT UP! We men have a hard enough time communicating with women without one of us carring on like you are. Besides if I want one I’ll get my own beer.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Ruh Roh…Norman has stoked the fire now.

“And Ive been putting out fire….with GASoline…”

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Here is Brucey’s mama tawkin…

“Brucey…OH BRUUUCEY…its time to come inside and take a bath…the water is warm and so is Paw Paw…”

Here is Michael D tawkin to Brucey’s mama…

“SHUT UP AND GET ME A BEER…”

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

From Brucey’s last comment I must gather that he is able to “Cummnicate” better with men than doing same with women.

Remember…Brucey likes to bathe with Paw Paw…

Hey Brucey…does Paw Paw want you to pick up the LifeBOY? Oh YEA…HUMP HUMP HUMP…thumper…spankin it…AW YEA!!

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

As Robert Conrad once said on those cheesy commercials…

“Hey…pull my finger…Cmon…I dare ya…pull my finger.”

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Hey…remember that sayin…”If a bear farts in the woods and no one is there to hear it…does it make a sound, does is have a smell?”

Well…does it?

By Sandy

April 22, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—Nice post at 9 am. “So shines a good deed in a troubled world.”

By Jack

April 22, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

What do you call 1000 French men with their arms in the air?…The French Army.

What do you call 1000 lawyers laying at the bottom of the ocean?…a good start.

99% of the lawyers give the rest a bad name.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Butt-Mud, Brown Gravy, Black juice…

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

How do polish mothers instruct their kids to put on their underpants/panties? Yellow in the front, brown in the back.

Whoever smelt it dealt it.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Some women are better at “knob-shinin” than others.

By RS

April 22, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Hey, y’all, I bet Michael D. is that pig who sometimes posts as “Hugh G. _” (he wishes…)

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

What is one of Michael Jacksons favorite sayings…

“Attention Kmart shoppers…little boys underpants now half-off…”

By Crystal

April 22, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Oh, come on, Norman. You need a new word. ‘Pharisee’ is worn out. You do love to pick a fight. Watch out for those splinters and beams.

Please tell Brian Curtis that I love spending good old “violating religious neutrality and constitutionality” money which still says “In God we trust”.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I also want to say your 9am post was compassionate and showed what an insightful woman you are. Muy bien.

By Bruce

April 22, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

OK who is responsible for given Michael D his medicine today. It seems he missed his daily ridilan.

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

RS mom makes the following announcement in the middle of a dinner party…

“Please…excuse me y’all as I have to go change. I thought that was just a poot.”

What a Sicko. Ya Freak!!

By Tim

April 22, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

dang I hate it when that happens at dinner parties

By Michael D

April 22, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

This is dedicated to RS mom…

“Wheeeww that smell…cant ya smell that smell…wheeeww that smell…the smell that surrounds you…”

By Boscoe

April 22, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Of course I’m doing no such thing. I’m pointing out that, since Christians have a primary duty to the poor as their firstâ€â€?and pretty much foremostâ€â€?instruction from Jesus, that opposition to social welfare programs constitutes hypocrisy on THEIR part. That is not true Brian. What the Catholic Church teaches is that the differences between men are an inevitable result of the natural differences in their capabilities. Different classes must work together in harmony and preserve social justice. Doing what you say makes me a slave to those that don’t have as much as I do. In itself, money is a necessary invention of man to represent his wealth, a mere useful tool of representation. Private property and private ownership of the means of production is necessary and is consistent with personal liberty. Private property should be distributed as widely as possible but not necessarily equally. Depriving anybody of private property deprive them of personal liberty. Society requires that a man should be free to employ others if he is capable of paying just wages, and can provide good conditions of employment. You view points are right out of Communism 101.That’s what you’re not getting, Chuck; it’s not “YOURâ€? money. It’s money that’s been given to you: partly in exchange for your work, yes, but also partly due to luck, connections, and the efforts of others, particularly government. You OWE a substantial portion of that money to the rest of society, and government is what enables us to collect and distribute it fairly… making up for the inherent unfairness of capitalism through the superior justice of democracy. Communism teaches: The right of the individual has to be sacrificed for the material good of the community.The means of production should be owned collectively by the community and no individual should have rights over material goods. Personal liberty does not exist; man’s actions are controlled by economic forces. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the, (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” Thomas Jefferson Too few Americans realize why Christian Statesmen wrote into Article I of the U.S. Constitution:Congress shall have the Power to Coin Money and Regulate the Value Thereof. They did this, as we will show, in hope it would prevent “love of money” from destroying the Republic they had founded. We shall see how subversion of Article I has brought on us the “evil” of which God’s Word had warned. Despite the rantings of America being unfairly wealthy, Americans, living in what is called the richest nation on earth seem always to be short of money. Wives are working in unprecedented numbers, husbands hope for overtime hours to earn more, or take part-time jobs evenings and weekends, children look for odd jobs for spending money, the family debt climbs higher, and psychologists say one of the biggest causes of family quarrels and breakups is “arguments over money.”

By Jack

April 22, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Too much ritalin probably.

By Boscoe

April 22, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

As far as this weeks topic is concerned. The beginning is the pornography and immodest dress which portrayed women as advertised sexual objects, that is, as willing objects of self gratification for anyone — instead of half the human race, people, with duties, functions, and moral priorities. Self-gratification was thus exalted and worshipped as a personal right of the individual sensate human being, who had become a law unto himself. The judicial crimes that legalized pornography and immodesty are indirectly responsible for promoting sexual crimes of all sorts. Almost all magazines, newspapers, or any literature or pictorial entertainment had semi-nudity on display. For a person of any age not to be exposed to this was virtually impossible. The healthy emotional and social development of children and adolescents in regard to sexuality was severely disrupted and misdirected by this premature sexualizing.

By Jack

April 22, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Don’t pick on RS. She is one of the more sensible posters on this blog. And so is Crystal, Gina, Lozen, Lyrazel, and Kimberly. Pick on me instead….Beat me captain, beat me!!!

By Jack

April 22, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Got work to do. Love everyone. Have a good weekend!

By Brian Curtis

April 22, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: I was considering debating your points, but then I saw that you’re still stuck on the notion that there were Christians writing the Constitution.

Some folks just need too much remedial teaching to accomplish on a little ol’ weekly blog.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

No Norman you’re right, it isn’t my job to monitor what you say. It makes me angry when all people get lumped together and sterotyped. Some blacks (not all blacks) in Savannah can’t read, get into drugs, are unemployable. Some whites in Savannah can’t read, get into drugs and are unemployable. But what really makes me angry is when someone whose ancestors did not experience being bought and sold and bred like animals says, “Slavery really wasn’t so bad”. The treatment of native americans and african americans in this country is a huge, bloody stain on U.S. history.

By norman

April 22, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

lozen, I haven’t said slavery wasn’t so bad. I implied that little has changed for many blacks and that some might indeed have been better off before that glorious war which killed hundreds of thousands of young men.

By RS

April 22, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Aw, thanks Jack, but I’d love to go one-on-one with Michael D. Generate. But knowing him & his filthy mind, I just know he’ll take that comment the wrong way. He should only be so lucky.

By Scott

April 22, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Jack - have a good weekend!

Boscoe - not being Catholic, I have no idea the stance of the RCC on this but…if all things were created by God, the universe is his tapestry, all things happen according to his will….then you don’t actually own anything, right? You are merely a steward of His resources. Since God “gave His only begotten Son” for your benefit, would it be a lot to ask to take care of the poor, who are also his creation with His money?

By norman

April 22, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Boscoe is right about Catholic Social Teaching. But the problem with that teaching is that it seeks at the same time to oppose capitalism and socialism/communism, which often lands it in deep doodoo. Corporatism, the organization of society not by classes but by roles and occupations, was favored by the church because it allegedly existed in the wonder age of faith, when men were men and women lost their heads and the clergy ran everything. But of course corporatism also could be advocated and was by Mussolini. Fascism often was the only alternative to capitalism or socialism and the church favored fascism, mostly indirectly and on occasion directly. So Catholic Social Thought can be impressive theoretically but in practice can be less golden. In America Catholic Social Thinkers generally supported the New Deal. In Europe, some were leftist and some were rightist. But all in all, the idea vs. class struggle and in favor of class cooperation favors capitalism. It is probably close to what Marx meant by utopian socialism.

By Randy

April 22, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Norman you have a vivid imagination. Quit comparing apples and (I don’t know worms). Nothing you say has any validity. The catholic church has done more good throughout history and especially today than all other organizations combined. Thank God for them and I am not a Catholic.

By Crystal

April 22, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

lozen, I cannot imagine being a slave or owning one.

Are you familiar with the works of Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He traveled over Africa and wrote about it. Gates is an African-American. He was awarded a medal for his study by the King of Benin. That country became wealthy in slavery times because that is where Africans sold other Africans into slavery to make their fortunes.The king discussed it openly. Gates traveled on to Mali where he interviewed a slave at work. There has been much controversy about Gate’s presentation.

My point is, there is still slavery in this world. There have even been reports of ships loaded with children being sold as slaves (with pictures). Present day slavery doesn’t seem possible. It certainly should be of great concern to all of us.

By chuck

April 22, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t have much time…Michael H. I’ll get back to you next week.

Brian Curtis, hoever, I can answer quickly. Jesus’ ministry was a personal one, NOT one to be accomplished by the government. It is certainly NOT hypocritical for a Christian to minister in the same way. Jesus said “If you have seen me, you have seen my Father” I think I’ll follow His example and NOT YOURS.

I earn EVERY DIME I MAKE and then some. I grew up poor as dirt and WORKED FROM THE TIME I WAS 12 TO PAY FOR MY OWN SCHOOL CLOTHES AND SUPPLIES. i WORKED FULL TIME TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY WHILE I WENT TO SCHOOL FULL TIME TO EARN MY B.S., MY 2 M.ED DEGREES, MY 2 ED.S DEGREES AND MY DOCTORATE WHICH WILL BE FINISHED IN THE FALL. I NEVER TOOK A DIME OF CHARITY FROM ANYBODY, I DIDN’T GET ANY HELP GETTING A JOB FROM SOME GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK BECAUSE I WASN’T A PART OF ONE, AND I HAVE FOUGHT FOR EVERY ADVANCE I HAVE MADE IN MY LIFE.

Now that I am through yelling, I don’t expect you to understand this, but then again, you probably don’t see people sponging off of the system every day…like kids wearing $150.00 sneakers and getting free lunch. Jesus said the poor we would always have with us. I think the reason He said that was because He knew what kinds of choices they would make. The only reason we have the poor in America is because they choose to be that way. (That does not include those who, through no fault of their own, hit a rough spot and need temporary help or those who CANNOT, because of serious physical disability, work to support themselves). The government cannot seem to tell the difference, AND EVEN WORSE, created a huge, expensive, self-perpetuating bureacracy that does little or nothing to move people from poverty to prosperity. The checks they receive come FROM ME…AND YES IT IS MY MONEY.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

The Vatican is the oldest and most secretive autocracy in the world.

By norman

April 22, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

lozen, dear. Only the Italians could have invented the Vatican. Like opera, a bombastic, ridiculous, but still under certain circumstances appealing anachronism.

By Michael H.

April 22, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I tried to post my thanks for your kind comments before but it seems that it didn’t appear. So thanks again.

By lozen

April 22, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Weekend! Weekend! Hope it doesn’t rain out the Inman Park Festival parade. Have a good one all you fine people.