Woman to Woman

By Carlton Wyatt

September 5, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

As usual, Shaunti parrots the same tired schpiel from the right-wing nutcases. And in this case, she probably has less knowledge on the subject than even them. Does Shaunti and her Luddite band think by not using the .xxx suffix that online porn will magically disappear? Is she REALLY attempting to imply that should the .xxx domain be implimented it will cause more divorce? Sorry, Shaunti, you’re going to have to use someone other than Family Research Council, meaning someone who actually KNOWS OF WHAT THEY SPEAK, as a resource to parrot. You get more silly and less credible with every article you purport to write.

By CMaire

September 5, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

How do you two pick your topics, for crying out loud??? Right now, I don’t give a rats arse about this topic, and I have children that I don’t want seeing porn.

Surely there are more immediate Women’s issues that can be brought up because of the flooding. It is women of poverty, women of color, women without support who are some of the most hard-hit by the floods. Did Louisiana get politically short-changed because it’s governor is a woman and/or a Democrat? Were there women who had to choose which child to save? If women were in charge of FEMA, would the response have been faster? How confident is our woman mayor, Shirley Franklin, that Atlanta could rapidly respond to a disaster on this scale? You ladies proport to discuss women’s issues. Let’s make them relevent!

By Chilao

September 5, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Interesting that I was hearing a radio commentary on this very issue this past weekend, Saturday morning. It seems several countries have written to the ICANN, China and Mexico were mention by name, to object to the ‘xxx’ suffix. And yes, in spite of the web being an Al Gore/ USA ‘invention, other countries have a say as well, it being a ‘flat-world’ now after all.

Interesting that the anti-xxx suffix arguments “destroys the family” does not address WHY people watch porn. It sounds familiar “Charlie is spending too much time at the pub, affecting his wife and children, so let’s ban alcohol”. We know how that worked out.

And for every pimp forcing his ‘girls’ into porn, certainly a factor, there is probably a female whose aspirations in life are to be a porn star. Just ask Jenna Jemison(sp?), Nina Hartley, and Belladonna. I personally knew two Australian women who moved to the USA for the sole reason to be in porn and I never heard of their ‘pimp’, they seemed pretty independent. If they ever made it, I do not know, since I do not see enough porn and all blondes look alike to me anyway.

And this software developer IP issue? This guy from Redmond, used to sloppy/lazy programming? Why even bother to find the IP and load into the table if the suffix is ‘.xxx’? Just simply block. Might require three lines of code. (“if xxx display block message’ to do some psuedo-code). Of course lesss code equals less marketing/saleability. Stupid argument. If there is even an ‘xxx’ in a current url, my employers can easily block under the ‘.com’ suffix. And do.

Porn has been around for eons, and will always be around. Get used to it. Having an ‘xxx’ will not open up more urls for porn(well, no more than could be obtained already from the .com suffix) but will allow it to be regulated.

But it does not matter if there is an ‘xxx’ or not. From what I have heard, seems to be enough porn readily available as it is. But with the recent ‘.biz’ etc suffix additions, why not? Most activities, commercial and otherwise, eventually get ‘compartmentalized. The most major dislike for an ‘xxx’ is that it would ‘legitimize’ something already widely available. Or so I have read.

And my congratulations to both Shaunti and Diane for not attempting to ‘politicize’ our current New Orleans tragedy.

By CMaire

September 5, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Chilao-

Thank you for more cogent information in your post! I confess that I had never heard of this issue until today.

You are right, most likely any discussion of the questions I brought up in my post would end up politicizing this terrible tragedy, and that was not my intention at all. While I don’t think Diane and Shaunti would deliberately politicize this sadness, I have seen enough on this blog to know there are plenty of others who would. Thank you for opening my eyes to that.

By Chilao

September 5, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Should have mentioned, there WILL be enough time to eventually politicize the New Orleans tragedy, since the news channels have already started. Our federal bureacracy ‘hard at work’. SNORT Good thing it was not a terrorist’s ‘dirty bomb’.

By CMaire

September 5, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Chilao,

Thank you for your cogent comments. I confess that I have not heard about this issue before today, and I guess it stuck me as incongruous considering the New Orleans situation.

You are absolutely right about the potential to politicize this tragedy. I didn’t think about that angle when I posted earlier. While I don’t think Diane or Shaunti would want to politicize this awful sadness, I have been on this blog enough to know that there are others who would do so. Thank you for opening my eyes to that reality.

By E.G. Salomon

September 5, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Well, congratulations to Shaunti and Diane for picking a rather TRIVIAL AND POINTLESS subject for their “intelligent” debate; did it took you all night to think it over?

Anyway, in my opinion, the only people who would find the .xxx domain useful would be the companies selling them. Other than that, I don’t see how it would make it easier or harder for people to find/block.

Is a known fact that as long as there is porno in the internet, people will find a way to reach it…

And yeah, it makes us glad that you didn’t decided to talk about New Orleans instead; you probably would had done a cruddy job as well.

By Ken

September 6, 2005 07:23 AM | Link to this

Maybe Shaunti and Diane have these topics handed to them, not sure that we should blame them just yet.

But who really cares what they discuss…? This BLOG will be off topic by noon today anyway.

About the topic… I personnally think that a .XXX or some other extension would be an excellent idea. It not only assists parents in monitoring what their children may/may not see, but it also protects the casual web surfer.

For example… Many of these XXX istes will purchase a variety of web addresses targeted for typos made by an internet user. I was recently looknig for a local sporting goods store (the one that bought Galyans), made one typo and “BING - BING - BING” I had fifteen popups with lude and crude images staring me in the face.

By Brian Curtis

September 6, 2005 07:49 AM | Link to this

Not exactly a gripping topic, although I note both columnists are in agreement that porn is something bad to be avoided or caged if possible. Wonder why that is?

Shaunti’s response was somewhat amusing… it seems that the idea of voluntary self-regulation is only good when it applies to corporations, not porn. Typical Religious Reich hypocrisy.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

But who really cares what they discuss…? This BLOG will be off topic by noon today anyway.

At the latest.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s response was somewhat amusing… it seems that the idea of voluntary self-regulation is only good when it applies to corporations, not porn. Typical Religious Reich hypocrisy.

If it was “typical religious reich hypocrisy” - how could it have been “somewhat amusing”…?

By Lyrazel

September 6, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Porn fuels the internet. Few people go to the Al Gore website these days…and leave money. It is the largest area where profit from Internet-only sales was made consistantly since 1985. Porn, not newspapers, not shopping, not blogs. Porn web sites helped make the internet the incredible experience it is today because without such a massive monetary influx into this medium, few people would be reading newspapers, shopping or doing much with books-on-line. One of the most lucrative web jobs is designing and maintaining porn websites.

Governments have established co-operative laws to help bust child pornography sites and perps in multi-country stings…but child porn does not fuel the porn industry and most domains that have adult content avoid anything that would close their site down…because of HUGE profits that can be made. Most child perverts find their victims on ICQ and other instant message domains…and thats not porn either…so…

Protecting little Timmy and his internet experience…thats a parents job. Mommy and Daddy need to be more aware of their childrens use of computers…not me a random surfer. Its not the job of an internet website, its not the job of the government, its the fault of affluent parents giving children too little supervision in their homes.

…as far as Internet porn busting marriages, well isnt it convenient there is an scapegoat? Since 1960 Playboy was blamed for breaking up marriages; I figure if you want to blame something porn is easy pickings. Tidbits: most internet dating services are supported by married men and women. Singles make up less than half the participants…take that to Match.com….and thats not porn, is it?

Porn has never bothered my on-line experience. Cheeky gits with plastic boobies and over inflated sots still wearing their black socks and wrist watches never thrilled me. I get more p** about spam being sent from cookies dropped in by the AJC…and a plethora of other woes like enormous addresses…

.xxx is silly attempt for silly people who need the comfort of regulations in their private life. If you dont like porn stop typing SEX in your search engines….

By taboga

September 6, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Take away Internet access in the schools. Parents take it away at home. Problem solved.

And if porn really were as devestating to the children as pretended - this would have already been done.

By Raylene

September 6, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

the internet already has things to block children from getting onto porn sites. same as the tv has the v-chip so that parents can block certain channels and shows or movies with a certain rating. if the parent sets it up so that when a child trys to get on a porn site(on purpose or accident)it automatically asks for a password. so really if the .xxx was in effect, the parents would have to just add that to the list of blocked sites.

By parent

September 6, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

As vast as the internet is, unless mandatory compliance is required, then the .xxx domain will do little more than give curious surfers a little more direction to go find porn. Curious kids will find it just like the current generation found dad’s Playboys in the sock drawer regardless of domain. My solution is simple—the kids don’t know the password to sign-on the home computer, they use it with supervision, and we teach them how to use it properly. Will my kids get curious one day and stumble upon a site? Probably. Do I want them to? Of course not. Use a good security program and you can limit that kind of event, but without supervision, kids will be kids. That’s why we supervise use of the internet.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

September 6, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Diane and Shaunti,

I’m sure you plan your “topics of discussion� weeks or days in advance. However, with all the problems we are facing at this time and in our region of the country, this weeks topic is a waste of what could be a valuable discussion.

Since you seem to have had a hard time choosing, I will suggest a few:

1.How to help Katrina Victims (schools, money, homes, kindness, love, etc) – not where to go to help out, but a discussion to heal the souls of the people and their communities

2.What can be done to help restore New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast

3.How the country can prepare for this type of devastation in the future, should it be federal planned or by state.

4.Is there a specific group to blame and how to move forward after pointing fingers

Etc, etc…etc.

It would not be a waste, to have these types of discussions for weeks to come, because I believe we will be healing from Katrina for years.

By kimberly

September 6, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Heh… Looks like Shaunti has some issues at home. Hey Shaunti: It’s NORMAL. Instead of trying to shame your man’s natural desires, why not be proactive? When he works up an appetite, serve him a MEAL, knowwhutImean? Then be grateful he HAS an appetite. Geez.

By kimberly

September 6, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Amazed: Yay. Meaningful discussion. I have a comment on helping the refugees. Folks, do you really think shoving your cast off, worn-out, stained clothing into a hefty bag and dumping it at a drop-off somewhere makes these people feel loved? How ‘bout this: 1) Only collect GOOD, fresh, clean, wearable clothes. Use your old ones for rags, whydoncha? 2) Make sure they’re clean and crisply folded, the way you’d want to find them if you needed them. BTW, the clearance racks at TJ Maxx, Marshalls, etc. have some great deals on NEW items that these people need. 3) Sort them by type and gender and put them in CLEAN storage boxes with lids. (IKEA has tons that are perfect for this purpose.) 4) Provide other items that homeless people need like backpacks and duffle bags. 5) Put big labels on these boxes identifying the contents. 6) Don’t forget food. That need renews itself daily.

This way, all those relief workers, who are SWAMPED, can direct your donations quickly and easily, and they are READY for the folks who need them.

By Ben

September 6, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter where you get your appetite, as long as you eat at home!

By lozen

September 6, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

I agree with CMaire, how do these people choose the topics for this blog? We all know that very often we think the topics here are totally irrelevant. This is the height of irrelevance this week. With everything going on around us, thousands of U.S. citizens homeless, thousands dead and missing, controversy swirling about how this tragedy could have happened here in the U.S., the great city of New Orleans destroyed, Woman to Woman wants to discuss pornography, .xxx! It might be an interesting topic at some other time, but NOT NOW! Of course, with our President waxing enthusiastic about how Trent Lott’s wonderful but destroyed home will be magnificently restored and he’s looking forward to sittin’ on the front porch again while there are thousands of people who have never owned a home, didn’t have the money to leave N.O. and can never return to New Orleans, with their dead and missing relatives, and nothing but the clothes on their backs, why shouldn’t we discuss .xxx on this blog this week?

By lozen

September 6, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I get your point, having worked for a shelter for battered women! Amazing what we would find in the bags people left there, dirty diapers for example! I sometimes shop at Thrift Stores and find the same thing - stained, ripped, dirty clothing that should have been thrown in the garbage but someone donated it to help the “poor folks.”

By taboga

September 6, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

1.How to help Katrina Victims (schools, money, homes, kindness, love, etc) – not where to go to help out, but a discussion to heal the souls of the people and their communities

Not too many of them will be browsing the Internet. I doubt they’ll stumble upon all the “healing” out here on the AJC blog.

2.What can be done to help restore New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast

Maybe they can get the water and all the dead bodies out of New Orleans before we infrastructure experts out here start chiming in on what needs to be done.

3.How the country can prepare for this type of devastation in the future, should it be federal planned or by state.

We can start by realizing there’s no magical solution to these types of disasters - by the Federal or state governments.

4.Is there a specific group to blame and how to move forward after pointing fingers

We can blame Mother Nature.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

September 6, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

I was about to become mean spirited, when I read your comments. However, I do not care how mean you appear to be every week, I know that God put people such as yourself on this earth for a reason. I’m sure you will find that reason one day. Love, Peace and Seek Help Taboga.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Amazed,

Yeah, I think he put people like me here to interject a little realism into the hysteria and feel-good nonsense which accomplishes absolutely nothing but make those who spout it - feel good about themselves.

By FatMoose

September 6, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Sarcasm, especially when coupled with general/undirected adolesent anger, is quite childish; and unhelpful.

• but not surprising.

I helped do a 3d model this situation in NO as well as Brunswick [which by the way has a worse situation regarding infrustructure - not people though] and it was known for years (10+) that this would be the situation. The fact is we (america and its administration) has failed these people.

We are able to consider rebuilding without wait bc we already know the pitfalls and situation we would have to remedy/mitigate/overcome - NZealand is creating houses that float and are anchored by pilons FOR EXAMPLE.

Why is this important now? Well, for those of you with no forsight (tab, you must suck at chess!): if we know the cost of rebuilding/etc - we can begin to alocate funds to prepare, we also will know what to tear up when buldozing/etc the area, and what to try to keep intact.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Sarcasm, especially when coupled with general/undirected adolesent anger, is quite childish; and unhelpful.

It wasn’t “sarcasm”.

Have you “Floating Houses” experts got all the *kinks worked out?

Don’t forget to float the gas lines, water lines, electrical, cable, etc..

And all the houses will have to be “floatable”, otherwise some will be moving into the others that are stationary.

And it would be a shame if they sat back down (after flood recedes) on debris such as cars and the like - you might have quite a mess trying to get these floatable houses back on an even foundation.

And how much would these floating marvels cost the low income residents of New Orleans — 300 to 400K for a 3 bedroom…?

By FatMoose

September 6, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

All those things HAVE been thought of (now you think your an expert to say what should be thought of?); and as you ignored, that was an EXAMPLE; hence the caps bc I knew you would attack the easiest part of my post.

Also, when would you expect them to work out the kinks? AFTER they complete all the clean up? Or as people have suggested, and you shot down, now; BEFORE that step comes and we have to make quick decisions?

Think some before you post tab; if not for us, for your self respect.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

FatMoose,

Would you just stop. You run out here talking about “floating houses” for crying out loud…

By lozen

September 6, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

floating houses sounds good to me FatMoose. You do seem to have some education and insight into what “might” work unlike some others who just want to criticize and mock on here but never have any constructive ideas. Unfortunately, I don’t think poor people will ever live in the inner city of N.O. again. It will be rebuilt but not for the poor. Only the wealthy will be able to afford to build there and live there in the future.

By Ben

September 6, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Floating houses? They’re called boats right? They don’t stand up to well in hurricanes — at least I didn’t think they did.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

floating houses sounds good to me FatMoose.

I have no doubt.

By Info

September 6, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Ladies & Gents,

There is a forum listed on ajc.com main page. The title is “Should New Orleans be rebuilt?”. Why don’t you join that one?

By taboga

September 6, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Info,

You would make a great Hall Monitor. But you may have noticed that the “topics” generally have little to do with what is being discussed out here.

By Dusty

September 6, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

I never heard of .xxx domains. Are they floating houses?

By taboga

September 6, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

I never heard of .xxx domains. Are they floating houses?

Yes, for the Poor Oppressed Residents of New Orleans…

By Lee

September 6, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

… the ignorance of some posters…

The idea of using floating houses is similar to having houses in earthquake prone areas to sit on pylons with a bowl shaped dent in the top. Have each corner of the house supported by a little bowl shaped pylon.

====( (==== (side view) What this does is save the whole structure of the house by having the house shake in one piece instead of break apart (which it would tend to do if each pylon were solidly placed in the ground) This has worked well to save houses and buildings. So I can see the value in looking at floating houses. I also see the value in 10 foot waterproof fences. It’s a cost/benefit type of evaluation.

On the .xxx issue; I’d prefer a .xxx location for all the adult sites as this will move many adult sites to a similar domain structure, which is easier for parents and companies to block, and also better for those searching for adult sites.

Shaunti never really gives a reason that this is a bad decision, just argues that it is a bad decision and how bad pornography is. Her “routinely prostitue teenage girls” is an invalid argument for the .xxx issue, as there are already laws regarding underage pornography. If a girl is old enough based on the laws, then it is legal.

Diane’s argument that this will make more companies comply to regulations is hopeful, but untested. Hopefully the implementation of the .xxx domain will have more compliance, but as always, if the .xxx domain is approved, user beware.

By taboga

September 6, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Whatta ya want to bet, that by week 4 of the NFL season, many of the displaced inner city citizenry will be living in Houston — barbecuing chicken, drinking beer and watching the game?

By taboga

September 6, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

So I can see the value in looking at floating houses. I also see the value in 10 foot waterproof fences. It’s a cost/benefit type of evaluation.

Floating houses and wateproof fences…

Why not just build the city back: On the lake…?

By E. G. Salomon

September 6, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Floating houses in a flood/hurricane-prone area…

If that isn’t a Darwin Award opportunity, I don’t know what it is.

By Dusty

September 6, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Aw, come on, Taboga. I thought they were the places where you dropped off those dirty diapers. ( Now Lozen and Kimberly will say that I am not “caring”.) Well, we know one thing. Ben doesn’t eat there. FatMoose, floating houses sound like a wild and crazy idea. Kinda like, the owl and the pussycat went to sea in a beautiful pea green float house. What fun!

By taboga

September 6, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

If we weren’t a society rapidly going insane, wouldn’t it be amazing if anyone thought about all the folks that have lost their homes and businesses that they have worked their entire lives to build?

Loss of life not withstanding, what have those we constantly view on TV - lost in all of this?

By taboga

September 6, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Yeah, I know. And how “caring” it was of Kimberly to inform of all us who have apparently been living in a cave all of this time, that you can actually go out and buy some things at a relatively inexpensive price!

And I was thinking that we still had to order it all from the Sears and Roebuck catalog!

We’re in a quandry Dusty — it seem s that you must be stupid these days, or you not seen as “caring”.

By Dusty

September 6, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Well, Taboga, it is too late and I am too tired to answer the great philosophical questions of life. Maybe tomorrow we could get on to dignity, heart, love, concern,riches—all those things. Tomorrow, maybe.

By taboga

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

So now we have some of the treasured New Orleans citizenry refusing to be housed on: Cruise Ships.

Kinda debunks the old saying: “Beggers can’t be choosey…”

Speaking of accomodations for the royalty - Where are all the compassionate Hollywood millionaires? They should have plenty of room in their Malibu mansions for the most needy among us, right?

By Sandy/Sanhan

September 7, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

“What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this—this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.” Barbara Bush

Yep, those conservatives sure are conservative with their compassion.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

well at least someone in the Bush family knows a few big words. I really don’t see W. saying “overwhelmed, underprivileged, or hospitality” at least not pronouncing them correctly. besides, he is still on vacation isn’t he?

By Jack

September 7, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

The people of New Orleans knew this would happen one day. Instead of blaming Bush, the blame should be placed on the mayor of New Orleans and the govenor of Louisiana. They could have raised the levies years ago but choose to ignore the pending disaster. Now Bush is being blamed from causing the hurricane to playing the fiddle while New Orleans drowned. It is all his fault.

By Will

September 7, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Other than Ken, I have yet to see any other conservative blame Bush for something he has done wrong. I have never seen a bunch of people that refuse to admit when somebody does something wrong. It baffles me and amazes me. I could have sworn that the Republican party stood for self-accountability.

I admit that Bush has made some mistakes. Causing the Hurricane is so farfetched, and is used only to discredit the ethos and validity of other liberals. “Why believe what he said, he is a liberal, and believes like the rest of the liberals that Bush flew his Airforce one over the ocean really fast and caused Hurricane Katrina.”

By Jack

September 7, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

No Will. It is Bush’s fault because he didn’t want to ruin our economy trying to prevent global warming. After all, the U.S.A. is the only country contributing to it so we should fix it.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

ok, hurricane have been happening long before bush was even born. how could something that happened because of nature or wheather be his fault? now, i do not like bush at all, but even i know that it is ridiculus to think that he caused the hurricane. yeah, maybe he should have given out the money to make sure that the levees were reinforced. in the long run, it would have cost less to give LA money for the past 3 years, than having to put out 40 billion to help the victims. yes, there still would have been severe damage even if the levees were strong and held out, but the flooding would having been significantly less.

By taboga

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

Sandy,

What should the Conservatives in Texas do, give each member of the New Orleans low-income royalty — their own oil well and a 500 acre ranch?

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Jack: So, Bush decided that acting responsibly would be too expensive? That sounds about par for him. God forbid anything get in the way of maximized profits!

By Jack

September 7, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Hi Raylene! I hope you realize that I am being sarcastic. Hope you had a good holiday. I did.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

i know you were Jack, but alot of people are really blaming him. I had an ok holiday.

By taboga

September 7, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

God forbid anything get in the way of maximized profits!

First sensible thing you’ve posted to date!

If not for the “maximized profits”, there wouldn’t be the funding available to house the royalty of New Orleans on Cruise Ships!

BTW, Did you hear about the contractor in Houston who set up a station in the Astrodome - wanting to hire anyone who came forward to help with the cleanup efforts in the Gulf Coast?

I know you will find it hard to believe, but he didn’t have any takers. Everyone was in line at the other stations that were handing out free food, clothes and money!

But of course, he was probably just some rich guy trying to make money “off the backs of the poor”…

By Jack

September 7, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis. You’ll have to argue with Toboga. You have been placed on ignore. Please go to France. They would like you there.

By Tony

September 7, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Actually Shaunti I get it.

We’re overwhelmed by evil! Turn on the evening news and it bombards you with the brutality and cruelty of man. Nowadays we hear about what would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

Kids killing kids. People beaten and killed for next to nothing. People hurting others simply for the fun of it. Some of the worst things I ever heard is coming out of New Orleans. People (actually thugs) shooting at help. Looting hospitals for drugs. It’s awful and terrifying, this capability of evil.

We see corruption in the courts, where some gain great wealth by taking advantage of those who can’t defend themselves. Justice seems to be a matter of money. As someone quipped, “We have the best justice money can buy!”

Evil is all around us, but horrors of horrors… Evil is within us.

Remember the classic story of how a Jewish Holocaust survivor group caught one of the most evil war-criminals? One of them doggedly attended the trail of the ex-Nazi, only later to lament: “He’s just like me!” An ordinary man, guilty of extraordinary evil.

Have you ever had the experience of being high up somewhere holding a baby? Maybe you’re on a balcony or the top of a building and suddenly an unbelievable thought comes into your brain: jump.

Or worse…toss the baby down!

Where do such thoughts come from? I believe it’s entirely possible that they’re whispered into our ear by the evil one.

It’s one thing to know that the times are evil. It’s another thing to acknowledge the abyss in our own hearts. Paul talks about this in his letter to the Romans: Evil is within me, and that which I don’t want to do, I do.

So how do we overcome evil? Or at least keep it in check?

Much of the answer is determined by what we feed our souls. Good input, good output. Bad input, bad output.

It’s like the classic story Bill Bright of Campus Crusade used to tell about the Indian who had two dogs -one white and one black- that would fight each other. One day somebody asked him how he knew in advance which one would win. He answered, “Oh, that’s easy. The one I feed is the one that’ll win!”

And so it is with us.

If we feel the sin nature - with pornography, drug use, or suggestive television/internet-viewing the output will be predictable.

During these wicked days, don’t let evil gain even a toehold in your life.

Starve the bad dog…feed the good one.

It is right and noble to fight wickedness and wrong; the mistake is in supposing that spiritual evil can be overcome by physical means.

By taboga

September 7, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life.”

“If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

-Joseph Stalin

By Jack

September 7, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Good post Tony. It’s too bad that evil has gotten a toe hold on so many people. We can thank the lords of Hollywood for a lot of it. As well as the main stream media vulture scum. More people care about who Tom Cruse is dating or the break up of Brad & Jennifer than the real problems we face. Political correctness will be the downfall of this country and the wolf will have plenty of sheep to eat.

By Dusty

September 7, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Let us now dump on Barbara Bush, the President’s mother. That’s nice. Don’t forget to include the President’s daughters, Sandy.

Decisions, decisions! Shall I build a floating house—or—fill my basement with water and jump on a cruise ship? Somebody’s got to do it.

By Jack

September 7, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Taboga. The extreme left is trying to do what Stalin wanted. Good thing we have middle America. God help us if things were run by the “left coast”.

By Sandy/Sanhan

September 7, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Yep, that’s right Dusty. I’ll kick the president and his mother when they’re down. They are truly, according to the Republicans, the real victims in this disaster…

By Chilao

September 7, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Yep, knew it would get politicized. Blaming the lackluster response on Bush. Like Clinton would have been any quicker. It is a federal BUREAUCRACY issue, independent of any political party.

But it has left the rest of the world shaking their heads. Not that we care about their opinions of course.

By Brian Curtis

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

Sorry, Jack, but I’m a real American with real values (like responsibility and freedom), so I belong right here in the good ol’ USA. Doing my part to bring down the neocon nutjobs and their Religious Reich allies so we can restore some sense and justice to this corrupt system of ours.

Whine all you like; the liberals aren’t leaving this country to you jackals. We’re smarter, we’re better, and —with each passing day’s demonstration of Bush’s incompetence—we’re gaining ground. His little attempt at empire is doomed.

By thom

September 7, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

While listening to the Michael Medved radio talk show on Sept 6, Shaunti and Diane were debating “can christian counseling change sexual preference.” During the discussion Diane said that human beings are no more than animals specifically speaking about sheep. Iam sure Diane fully understand my situation. I love my german shepard and he loves me. Not because I was rejected by a dog or bitten more than once when I was a child, but because we love each. Iam sure Diane would stand beside us when we go to be married. Everyone should recognize our love for each other and we should have the same rights as other married couples. Thank you Diane for your understanding. Also dogs like to have sex in public I look forward to the day.`

By Jack

September 7, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

“the liberals aren’t leaving this country to you jackals. We’re smarter, we’re better” Hahahahahahahah. Good one!

By taboga

September 7, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Hey, you know what would be a great idea…

…Maybe we could start electing competent officials!

You know, instead of electing the incompetent bleeding-heart who gives the best performance on the podium about “Education”, “The Environment” and how the “Children are our futuuurrrrrre”…

…Maybe we could get real adults in these positions who could focus on real issues?

Had a local or state politician in Louisiana, ran a campaign with a focus on restructuring the levees in New Orleans, he would have lost by 40 points to the candidate who promised to institute: A reading program for third-graders!

Instead of all these pop-culture, feel good about ourselves issues, we could think about behaving like adults?

By taboga

September 7, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Hey Brian,

Where is this secret place where you libs are: “gaining ground”…?

Cindy Sheehan found 5 or 6 more freaks like you to join her somewhere?

You guys keep “gaining ground” at the present rate and pretty soon - the Reform Party will be looking down at you!

By Jack

September 7, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Now Taboga, you know that you can’t buy votes by doing the right thing. How can they get re-elected without catering to the various special interest groups that do not have the general populace on their minds?

By lozen

September 7, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

BrianCurtis, you’re right! I miss your posts and learn a lot from you. The government is to blame for at least part of what’s happening in New Orleans. The feds cut the money requested for maintenance of the levees. To expect these traumatized people to line up, ready for work a week after they went through the horror of N.O., is truly compassionate, but it’s typical of the mean-spirited on this blog.

By Argy

September 7, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Thank you for the deep thoughts, Thom.

By taboga

September 7, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

To expect these traumatized people to line up, ready for work a week after they went through the horror of N.O., is truly compassionate, but it’s typical of the mean-spirited on this blog.

Lozen,

I wasn’t expecting them to line up, most of them weren’t lined up for work - before the hurricane.

By Jack

September 7, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

The feds cut money to all states. Not just Louisiana. The state should have ponied up. Our forefathers didn’t want or expect the federal government to be responsible for everything. Maybe we should just give the government all of our earnings, then they can spend it as THEY wish. We can put Ted and Jesse in charge of the funds.

By kimberly

September 7, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: With you, Dude! The neocons’ empty braying and policy of denial-no-matter-what is wearing on even their own loyalists. Nut jobs like Toober-face keep slinging nonsense and wonder why no one is listening anymore.

Thanks for saying it: We are NOT going away, and we are NOT going to be silent. Everyone makes mistakes, and as long as they refuse to admint to ANY… EVER… heh.. We will continue to have plenty to say!

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

As for handling of the post-hurricane damage: there’s no denying (unless you’re a brain-dead neocon) that there were screwups on every level of governmnent.

Some of it happened before the storm: de-funding levees and other infrastructure projects, shipping half the National Guard away, etc. And some of it was p**-poor communications (how can FEMA not know where people are and what’s going on when it’s on the freakin’ news?). And some of it smacks of preferential treatment and “let the animals starve” mentality—this part deserves some investigation too.

But while the mayor AND the governor have made serious mistakes, Bush must bear some of the reponsibility as well. His shiny new Homeland Security department has undergone its first “field test” in a disaster situation, and they’ve failed miserably. We’re seeing conditions and foul-ups that we’d normally associate with third-world recovery efforts, but they’re right here on our own soil.

The rescue workers are doing what they can, but they’re hampered by lack of manpower, communications, and a solid plan of action—all of which were supposed to be in place if the public officials had been doing their jobs.

No, this doesn’t look good for the Bushies at all. Another black mark on their record of screw-ups, cover-ups, and outright denial of reality. But I doubt many Americans are going to continue falling for this line of bull. Too many mistakes (and bodies) are piling up.

It’s a shame that it’s taken this level of damage to expose the lying fools, but at least awareness is taking hold. These guys are goin’ down. And it can’t happen soon enough.

By mary

September 7, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

What’s so great about our country is free speech and there certainly is a lot of it on this blog! We get to speak and show our intelligence and/or our ignorance (prejudice, biases, judgment and arrogance) as often as we want!

By CD

September 7, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

It’s all the local government’s faults. Bush couldn’t have done anything until the governer asked for help. Except the fact that he called an emergency session in Congress for Schiavo. Wow, he was so proactive for Schiavo even though the courts were the only people who had the authority to decide that matter. I wish he felt that New Orleans had the same right to life.

By Jack

September 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Such an idiot. Stalin would be proud.

By lozen

September 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Yes, this is the second test failed by Bush & his puppet masters. They didn’t protect us on 9/11 and they didn’t protect people in N.O. I give them a D for both! They’ve done so well with these two things I really do want them messing around with my social security, don’t you?

By Chilao

September 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Anybody hear about FEMA turning away three trucks(big rigs) from WalMart attempting to deliver bottled water to the SuperDome last Wednesday? Something the Jefferson Parish president said on Meet the Press Sunday morning.

“we have it under control” or something like that.

But that is the only place I heard it.

By Sandy/Sanhan

September 7, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

Interesting reading…

By Ben

September 7, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Here’s a little something for you brainiacs who are complaining about ecavuation and getting people out of NO as soon as possible. While you are running your mental capacity at full tilt, you fail to think outside of the box, further limiting your ability to think rationally.

The majority of the people stuck in NO were exposed to flood waters, among 1 million other things. Do you think it’s possible that relief is slow because those people are being quarantined because of their exposure to things like e. coli and the million other diseases infesting the water?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be a little aprehensive about sending mass amounts of possibly infected people to various parts of the U.S. without being sure.

By Dusty

September 7, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Kimberly and Dude Curtis,

Conservatives are not trying to get rid of you liberals. You are into self-annihilation. We just sit around and watch. Then we go out and vote.

Who’s next on the Democratic ticket? Another big fat ZERO?

By Tony

September 7, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Many are turning their eyes toward the federal government, rather than considering the culpability of city and state officials who are responsible for emergency response to a major disaster. And there is definitely a time for accountability; but what isn’t fair is to dump on the federal officials and avoid those most responsible—local and state officials who failed to do their job as the first responders.

The plain fact is, lives were needlessly lost in New Orleans due to the failure of Louisiana’s governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the city’s mayor, Ray Nagin.

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina.

If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.

A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan. Again, they did not take corrective actions.

In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.

The New Orleans contingency plan is on the city’s Web site, and states: “The safe evacuation of threatened populations is one of the principle [sic] reasons for developing a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.” But the plan was apparently ignored.

Mayor Nagin was responsible for giving the order for mandatory evacuation and supervising the actual evacuation: His Office of Emergency Preparedness (not the federal government) must coordinate with the state on elements of evacuation and assist in directing the transportation of evacuees to staging areas.

Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation.

The city’s evacuation plan states: “The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas.” But even though the city has enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, the mayor did not use them. To compound the problem, the buses were not moved to high ground and were flooded. The plan also states that “special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific lifesaving assistance. Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuation procedures as needed.”

This was not done.

The evacuation plan warned that “if an evacuation order is issued without the mechanisms needed to disseminate the information to the affected persons, then we face the possibility of having large numbers of people either stranded and left to the mercy of a storm, or left in an area impacted by toxic materials.” That is precisely what happened because of the mayor’s failure.

Instead of evacuating the people, the mayor ordered the refugees to the Superdome and Convention Center without adequate security and no provisions for food, water and sanitary conditions. As a result people died, and there was even rape committed, in these facilities. Mayor Nagin failed in his responsibility to provide public safety and to manage the orderly evacuation of the citizens of New Orleans. Now he and others want to blame Gov. Blanco and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In an emergency the first requirement is for the city’s emergency center to be linked to the state emergency operations center.

This was not done.

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people. The plan clearly gives the governor the authority for declaring an emergency, sending in state resources to the disaster area and requesting necessary federal assistance.

State legislators and governors nationwide need to update their contingency plans and the operation procedures for state emergency centers. Hurricane Katrina had been forecast for days, but that will not always be the case with a disaster (think of terrorist attacks). It must be made clear that the governor and locally elected officials are in charge of the “first response.”

If citizens expect FEMA to be a first responder to terrorist attacks or other local emergencies (earthquakes, forest fires, volcanoes), they will be disappointed. The federal government’s role is to offer aid upon request.

The Louisiana Legislature should conduct an immediate investigation into the failures of state and local officials to implement the written emergency plans.

The tragedy is not over, and real leadership in the state and local government are essential in the months to come. More importantly, the hurricane season is still upon us, and local and state officials must stay focused on the jobs for which they were elected—and not on the deadly game of passing the emergency buck.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

“Speaking of accomodations for the royalty - Where are all the compassionate Hollywood millionaires? They should have plenty of room in their Malibu mansions for the most needy among us, right?”

Good point - when are compassionate conservatives such as Toby Keith, Brooks and Dunn, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier, opening their second homes up to the most needy right now?

“Good post Tony. It’s too bad that evil has gotten a toe hold on so many people. We can thank the lords of Hollywood for a lot of it. As well as the main stream media vulture scum. More people care about who Tom Cruse is dating or the break up of Brad & Jennifer than the real problems we face. Political correctness will be the downfall of this country and the wolf will have plenty of sheep to eat.”

It’s called a FREE MARKET, dufus! Companies put out what sells and makes money. Hollywood gives us what THE PUBLIC wants!If everybody wanted “Leave it to Beaver-The Movie” that’s what Hollywood would make!

Tony - you’re scary, do you stand on the corner and preach? People like you make me so glad for my second amendment right to bear arms!

By taboga

September 7, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

I have to admit I was wrong yesterday.

I said that by week 4 of the NFL season, the New Orleans royalty would be back to their standard of living and barbecuing chicken, drinking beer and watching the ball game.

Now that I have learned that the Red Cross is issuing out $2,000.00 debit cards to the so-called “displaced” and the Federal Government is about to follow suit with debit cards of their own — they should be up and running by week 2 of the season!

You have to be willing to admit it when you’re wrong.

BTW, it won’t be long before we’ll be hearing about all the frauds who claimed they were the New Orleans Royalty and got in line for all the money. Aren’t there about 2 million displaced from New Orleans already - out of a population of 1 1/2 million?

By kimberly

September 7, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Tony, thanks for the in-depth insight. Question: how do you feel about leaders who appoint friends and fundraisers to important jobs instead of qualified people?

Neither man chosen to head up FEMA in the last five years was actually qualified to run such an agency based on his education or work experience. Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to pass over qualified, capable individuals in order to return a favor in positions that can, and DO affect lives and property? I mean, we expect the Ambassador to Monocco or Liechtenstein to be a friendly appointment, but FEMA? If that’s not a complete failure of leadership at the highest level, what is? And if it’s not, then can I be Atlanta’s next Police Chief? I have NO experience in law enforcement!

By Ben

September 7, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Tony - Where are you getting this garbage? First of all, DHS and FEMA have the authority to take over without the consent of the governor, mayor or whoever you want to blame. Do you really think Sonny and Shirley could evacuate Atlanta without the help of the federal government?

Please pass what you are smoking — I could use a trip to la la land.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

The real deal with the NO situation is this:

Local and State authorities screwed up big time. It’s their job to evacuate, not the Feds.

FEMA doesn’t inspire confidence - because a terrorist atttack won’t have prior warning. They should know the situation on the ground without relying on the locals - The HUGE department of Homeland security should be on point for everything - or else get rid of it.

The only criticism I have of Bush- is it really doesn’t seem like he gives a sh*t.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

If you raise enough money for the Mayor - you can be the next Police Chief.

By Tony

September 7, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Michael D. Brown was nominated by President George W. Bush as the first Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the newly created Department of Homeland Security in January 2003. As the head of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Under Secretary Brown leads federal disaster response and recovery operations and coordinates disaster activities with more than two dozen federal agencies and departments and the American Red Cross. He also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration, and initiates proactive mitigation activities.

Additionally, Under Secretary Brown helps the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure the effectiveness of emergency responders, and directs the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center, the National Disaster Medical System and the Nuclear Incident Response Team.

Under Secretary Brown has led Homeland Security’s response to more than 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including the 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003. In 2004, Mr. Brown led FEMA’s thousands of dedicated disaster workers during the most active hurricane season in over 100 years, as FEMA delivered aid more quickly and more efficiently than ever before.

Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA’s Deputy Director and the agency’s General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President’s Consequence Management Principal’s Committee, which acted as the White House’s policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, President Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division.

Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Brown practiced law in Colorado and Oklahoma, where he served as a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court. He had been appointed as a special prosecutor in police disciplinary matters. While attending law school he was appointed by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee of the Oklahoma Legislature as the Finance Committee Staff Director, where he oversaw state fiscal issues. His background in state and local government also includes serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight and as a city councilman.

Mr. Brown was also an adjunct professor of law for the Oklahoma City University.

A native of Oklahoma, Mr. Brown holds a bachelor’s degree in Public Administration/Political Science from Central State University, Oklahoma. He received his J.D. from Oklahoma City University’s School of Law.

By Jack

September 7, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Thank you for the post of reason Tony. The left will ignore it fore they are of a one track mind, like a runaway train headed for disaster.

By Jack

September 7, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

WCF. Oh I mean Dufus. Hollywood puts out what the “public” wants? Yeah, the majority of Americans wanted Kerry in office too and Hollywood is run by conservatives. Too bad those that said they would leave the country if Bush was elected didn’t leave.

By kimberly

September 7, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Tony, source please?

The Boston Herald reports: (Confirmed on FindLaw lawyer directory)

The federal official in charge of the bungled New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows.

And before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position.

The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA.

The agency, run by Brown since 2003, is now at the center of a growing fury over the handling of the New Orleans disaster.

I look at FEMA and I shake my head,'' said a furious Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday, calling the responsean embarrassment.”

President Bush, after touring the Big Easy, said he was “not satisfied” with the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation.

And U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch predicted there would be hearings on Capitol Hill over the mishandled operation.

Brown - formerly an estates and family lawyer - this week has has made several shocking public admissions, including interviews where he suggested FEMA was unaware of the misery and desperation of refugees stranded at the New Orleans convention center.

Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders’ and horse-show organization based in Colorado.

We do disciplinary actions, certification of (show trial) judges. We hold classes to train people to become judges and stewards. And we keep records,'' explained a spokeswoman for the IAHA commissioner's office. **This was his full-time job … for 11 years,”** she added.

Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures. “He was asked to resign,” Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night.

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president’s re-election campaign.

By Bobb

September 7, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Thom -

You and your companion have simultaneously captured our hearts and provided a much needed break from the hot air in this forum. By the way, if you want to read more on Diane’s progressive ideas regarding the nature of humanity, just scroll down and click the “More Previous Woman to Woman columns” link. One you might find personally supportive is from August 22, 2003 entitled “Do animals have rights?” Here she introduces us to her lizard and shares more of her ‘who do humans think they are’ philosophy. But don’t stop there, there is something to be gleamed from all her columns.

Be looking for you and Shep in the park.

PS - Do the other animals have porn sites too?

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Tony - why did you leave this out.

Prior to his Fema position he was the “Judges and Stewards Commissioner” for the International Arabian Horses Association.

And he was the college roomate of Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s 2000 campaign manager.

-Try being Fair and Balanced and put out the Whole Story

By kimberly

September 7, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Right, Jack. I’m a lefty, so I pulled it all out of my own backside, huh?

Knight-Ridder reports: BY MATT STEARNS AND SETH BORENSTEIN

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted “czar” of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael D. Brown’s background to prepare him for the fury of Hurricane Katrina.

But as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brown now faces furious criticism of the federal response to the disaster that wiped out New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. He provoked some of it himself when he conceded that FEMA didn’t know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans’ convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news.

“He’s done a hell of a job, because I’m not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm,” said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. “The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience.”

Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English. He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules and to investigate allegations against those suspected of cheating.

“I wouldn’t have regarded his position in the horse industry as a platform to where he is now,” said Tom Connelly, a former association president.

Brown’s ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s 2000 campaign manager and an old friend of Brown’s in Oklahoma. When Bush ran for president in 2000, Brown was ending a rocky tenure at the horse association.

Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he’d be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush’s campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel.

“He’s known Joe Allbaugh for quite some time,” said Andrew Lester, an Oklahoma lawyer who’s been a friend of Brown’s for more than 20 years. “I think they know each other from school days. I think they did some debate type of things against each other, and worked on some Republican politics together.”

Brown practiced law in Enid, Okla., a city of about 45,000, during the 1980s and was counsel to a group of businesses run by a well-known Enid family. Before that, he worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., and was an aide in the state legislature.

From 1991 until 2000, Brown earned about $100,000 a year as the chief rules enforcer of the Arabian horse association.

He was known as “The Czar” for the breadth of his power and the enthusiasm with which he wielded it, said Mary Anne Grimmell, a former association president.

The suspensions Brown delivered to those suspected of cheating resulted in several lawsuits. Although the association won the suits, they were expensive to defend, and Brown became a controversial figure.

“It was positive controversy,” Connelly said. “It got word out that we were serious about enforcing our rules.”

But he said Brown could be “abrasive.” Others were less charitable.

“He just wouldn’t follow instruction,” said Bill Pennington, another former association president. “Mike was bullheaded and he was gonna do it his way. Period.”

At FEMA, Brown rose from general counsel to deputy director within a year. Bush named him to succeed Allbaugh in February 2003. With FEMA now part of the Department of Homeland Security, Brown’s title is undersecretary for emergency preparedness and response.

Brown’s old friend Lester said the progression from horse shows to hurricanes was natural.

“A lot of what he had to do was stand in the breach in difficult, controversial situations,” Lester said. “Which I think would well prepare him for his work at FEMA.”

Despite the withering criticism and a promised congressional investigation of FEMA’s performance, Brown still has the support of his most important constituent.

In Mobile, Ala., on Friday, Bush said the response to Katrina was unsatisfactory. But he had nothing but praise for his FEMA director. “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” the president said.

(Stearns reports from Washington for The Kansas City Star.)

Following are excerpts of some of Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown’s remarks about Hurricane Katrina:

_”The federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today (Thursday). … And I - my heart goes out to every - even if they chose not to evacuate, my heart still goes out to them, because they now find themselves in this catastrophic disaster. Now is not the time to be blaming.”

_”I think the other thing that really caught me by surprise was the fact that there were so many people, and I’m not laying blame, but either chose not to evacuate or could not evacuate. And as we began to do the evacuations from the Superdome, all of a sudden, literally thousands of other people started showing up in other places, and we were not prepared for that. We were, we were surprised by that.”

_”We pre-positioned all the manpower and equipment that we could prior to the storm making landfall. And I think once the storm made landfall, it was still at a Category 5, and the devastation became so widespread that it moved further inland and geographically wider than we expected. And so now we’re having to work our way inward from a lot further out than we anticipated.”

_An exchange with Ted Koppel on ABC’s “Nightline”:

Brown: “The people in the convention center are being fed; the people on the bridges are being provided with water. …”

Koppel: “With all due respect, sir, the people, the people in the convention center are not being fed. Our reporters. …”

Brown: “I misspoke. The people in the, the people in the Superdome. I’m sorry, you’re absolutely correct. We’re getting the supplies to the convention center now. But the people in the Superdome have been being fed, that supply chain has been working, and that has been moving along and those evacuations have been continuous.”

_On CNN:

“I don’t make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans.”

“Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans - virtually a city that has been destroyed - that things are going relatively well.”

“I’ve had no reports of unrest, if the connotation of the word unrest means that people are beginning to riot or, you know, they’re banging on walls and screaming and hollering or burning tires or whatever. I’ve had no reports of that.”

© 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Jack, if you think a guy that hears the “voice of the evil one” in his head when he’s holding a baby is the voice of reason, you’re the fool headed for a disaster.

By Sandy/Sanhan

September 7, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Michael Brown worked full time as a commisioner of Judges and Stewards for the International Arabian Horse overseeing horse shows. He was asked to resign this position due to a large number of lawsuits. He was selected by Joe Allbaugh, Bush’s campaign manager when he ran for governor. (As reported by the Boston Herald).

By taboga

September 7, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

All that about Mr. Brown is a lie!

As any liberal can tell you, Brown is nothing but an implant from Kellog Brown and Root - an energy services company.

He was assigned to FEMA by a devilish scheme concocted by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in order to have an energy “inside-man” in the Bush Administration to line the pockets of the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.

You notice that you haven’t seen Karl Rove since the Katrina disaster, have you? While Bush is out pretending that he cares about the citizens that have been effected by the hurricane - Rove is behind the scenes coordinating the contracts that will be awarded to KB&R and Halliburton for the New Orleans’ restoral.

And do any of you really believe that those levees broke on their own? There were a series of explosions heard by some of the residents just minutes after the hurricane past through…

By lozen

September 7, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

What a lesson in stupidity! Say anything you want on this blog as long as it lets dear old religious Georgie off the hook and there are his worshippers who will believe it just because… On the other side there are people who will believe anything as long as it’s critical of Bush & company. It’s too hard to dig for the real truth, maybe impossible, so let’s all just believe what we want to believe and the hell with proof, content, clarification, whatever!

By WCF

September 7, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Jack,

How can i make it any simpler for your pea-brain. Business produce goods that make profits. “Desperate-Housewives is the number one show in America, not “Seventh Heaven.” If nobody watched these movies that “lower American morality,” Hollywood wouldn’t make them, because they would lose money and go out of business. If only you chewed tobacca, skoals would go out of businees. Is that simple enough?

By Ben

September 7, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - You should also mention that Allbaugh now works for Haliburton KBR who amazingly enough, just got the contract to rebuild after Katrina!

By WCF

September 7, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

News flash -LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD is now FORCING people to see their movies, which apparently most of the country doesn’t want to see! They are the only reported industry that stays in business by producing a product nobody wants!

By Brian Curtis

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

WCF: It’s always funny to watch these self-proclaimed “moral watchdogs” condemn Hollywood for the sleazy content of the top-rated shows in the country—the stuff they themselves are watching!

By Scalia

September 7, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

I know. Just look at the top movies this summer: “The Wedding Crashers”, two guys going to weddings to sleep with women. Yeah, that’s moral. “40 year old Virgin”, oh, so this young man isn’t waiting to marriage. He gave up his abstinence practice to have sex. But people don’t want to see sex.

By Chilao

September 7, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Desperate Housewives is the best show that has come on TV in years. Talk about good writing. The first season I watched on CD/s from the show being downloaded from the web and sent to me.

But the second season? Since I get VERY poor reception over-air for ABC, I will be getting DirectTV to get a clearer picture AND see it when it airs, not day/weeks later.

You gotta love Hollywood, FINALLY providing GOOD TV. Best show since, probably The Simpson and before that SOAP.

But I saw that 7th Heaven chick in STEALTH

By Jack

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

Never said anything about being forced to watch anything, Dufus. Kimberly maybe you did pull something out of your behind, I don’t know and wouldn’t want to see it. Tell me society is headed in the right (correct) direction. Say yes and you are a fool.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Which brings us full circle to the original topic. If today’s “conservatives” were real conservatives, instead of pseudo-moral conservatives, they would never want government to censor or regulate industry. They would be accountable for their own decisions (like not to watch porn - or teach their children their values) instead of asking government to do it. So citizens are responsible enough to handle their own retirement funds, but not able to stop their kid from watching porn?

By taboga

September 7, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

WCF,

Most folks don’t watch that trash - a dependable percentage of the market does.

You don’t have to sell hot dogs to everyone in order to make money: Selling Hot Dogs.

And I say: Let’em have at it! Stupid people have to have something to watch too…

By WCF

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

Jackaroo, What are you some sort of conspiracy theorist - gloom and doom, the end of the world is coming. Put down the ” Left Behind” books, and go outside for awhile. The sky isn’t falling, chicken little.

By SteveSC

September 7, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

There’s plenty of blame to be passed around about death and destruction in New Orleans. But trying (as some bloggers do, plus the Wall Street Journal) to lay most responsibility at the feet of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco is sort of like blaming Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki for the deaths on 9/11. Thankfully, Giuliani is looking more and more plausible as a presidential contender in 2008.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

um…. i think once you are 40, you automatically give up the right to wait til marriage. what would be the point in waiting until you get married if you are 40 and arent even headed towards marriage. yes i know you are talking about a movie, but if that happened in the real world…well it would just be sad

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

I love The Simpson’s much better than Family Guy and that new crap American Dad. Those are the worst shows. My little brother likes to watch them, and I’m like “mom, you shouldnt let him watch those” They are so inappropriate for anybody. No offense to those on here that like either of the shows, but no 12 year old should watch it.

By Heather

September 7, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

What in the world are you guys talking about now? You know porn is all over the internet. By accident last week I saw a man’s p*** and this week I saw 2 gays guys doing each other. They were on my coworkers web page. Our company’s filters had no way of blocking them.

This sort of thing is disgusting. Why can’t people think about something besides sex!!

By taboga

September 7, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Does anyone have a tissue?

Having just read Cynthia Tucker’s latest worship to the “poor” - it’s almost more than I can bear.

Can someone answer a simple question for me…

How many people do you know that do not have friends and relatives?

Are we supposed to believe that over a 130,000 people in New Orleans had no means of escaping the city prior to the hurricane?

I can’t remember the last time I met someone who has absolutely no one that could help them. And so, if these people supposedly had no transportation or money to get out of town - that sealed their fate?

These folks had no family members that could have come to New Orleans and picked them up? If no family members, they had no friends that could have done the same? They couldn’t come up with money for a bus ticket or any other type of arrangement to get them out of town?

I guess not. Not according to Cynthia Tucker anyway. Nope, they were just left in New Orleans by everyone else who didn’t care about them because they are “poor”.

So, I have a suggestion. Should a situation like this occur again, tell all the poor folks in whatever city that is to be effected by the impending disaster, that they will receive a couple thousand dollars each at a location a couple hundred miles away. But they have to be there within 24 hours of the notice.

The “poor” will mysteriously find a way to evacuate. I guarantee it. And it will be far less expensive and other folks won’t have to risk their lives to try and save the “poor”, afterwards.

By Zack

September 7, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

No, these sites shouldn’t be approved. In no way does the First Amendment support such sites, and they do nothing but hurt and poison society. I’m not interested in going to them, thankfully, and I hope that never changes. These things are destructive and, again, without support from our Constitution.

People can argue with me on this if they wish, but they have nothing to support any such argument. The government needs to intervene and put a stop to porn of any kind.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Hey I just thought of a good Jerry Springer theme “My baby’s daddy is my mama’s grandpa”

By lozen

September 7, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Raylene, I think that’s funny “My baby’s daddy is my mama’s grandpa,” but a lot of southerners won’t appreciate you making fun of them!

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Well, so much for being “conservative.” The government needs to intervene and put a stop to people writing and photographing things you don’t like, eh Zack? This does not sound like the Party of Smaller Government to me.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

ok, what heather accidentally saw on her co-workers webpage, was not even a porn site. it was on an online journal, and the pics were tiny little profile pics. it wasnt filtered out, because they werent big enough to count. you can google a person’s name and naked women’s pictures will come up.

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

lol lozen. i am so glad that i am not from here. my name might be “Billy-Jo Danny-Jane”.

By Dakota

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

I want to know why there isn’t a religious outcry against Viagra and other drugs like it. If God meant for 70 year old men to get it up, then they wouldn’t have to take medicines to get it up. This is totally unnatural and against the will of God. There are people who don’t want women to have the morning after pill but they think it’s fine for more and more men to have medication so they can cause a “morning after” problem! And why does insurance pay for those drugs but not for birth control pills? xxx.com is not on my top 10 problems to worry about.

By Chilao

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

Try being a fundamentalist, getting web access at work for the first time, contemplating getting a home computer for the kids, and doing a search on “girl’s toys”.

you don’t think TOYS-R-US are high up on the return, do you? Maybe by page 15.

LOL

By TT

September 7, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Actually, Taboga, I did meet someone from New Orleans who was alone in this world. While you and the other “compassionate conservatives” were tapping your kegs of Milwaukee’s Best this weekend, I went down to the shelter at the Tech Coliseum (I know, it’s a long way from redneck suburbia).

There I met Veronica Dedinger, a 74-year-old elderly white woman in a wheelchair. She has medical problems galore…diabetes, arthritis, and she is a heart patient. She is also a widow. Her husband’s been gone for 8 years now; he was a retired Air Force veteran. They had no children and she has no family left in the South.

She has lived in her home in the Gentilly nieghborhood of New Orleans for 43 years. Her neighbors all evacuated; one even promised to call her and take her inland. They never called. She called the Mayor’s Office, 911, and the Police. No one came. She set out for the SuperDome on the Friday before Katrina hit. Along the way, she was aided by several motorists.

She was in the Super Dome for 4 days. She was told to wait in several different lines…one for a bus to Houston, one for a bus to Chicago. The buses never came. Her belongings were stolen. She ran out of insulin strips. When she became so dehydrated from having nothing to eat for 4 days, she lost consciousness. She awoke in an Army helicopter bound for Atlanta. She arrived here one week after she first attempted to leave her home.

She’s not a criminal, a refugee, or a lazy person. She’s a frail old woman who had the good sense to try to make the best of a bad situation. The portrayal of Katrina victims as greedy opportunists is a disgrace to women like Mrs. Dedinger. And it is an attempt to blame the victims rather than the capable people who stood idly by while their fellow Americans were in need.

By joe

September 7, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

It sounds like if you put Bush and Brownie in a “stupid” paper bag and shook it, it would be a toss up as to who fell out first!

By WCF

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

OH MY GOD! People without clothes! Run for cover! It’s too much for us strong-willed, independent conservatives to handle. Let us all gather round and get our Bibles out and pray for forgiveness! A pop up came and it was a naked woman.. and I was so scared..I want to know who is going to protect me! Please, please big brother protect me!

By taboga

September 7, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

TT,

That was awesome: I reference an overall situation of 130,000 people supposedly being left behind and you cite one example of a 74 year old woman…

And although I don’t have time for your childishness at the moment - yes, the Tech Coliseum is a long way from my suburbia. The further the better!

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

WCF- lol. It’s not like kids aren’t going to see sex on TV. Music Videos and Movies, heck, even in Video Games now.

By WCF

September 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Raylene:

Please don’t downplay the sheer trauma your adult co-worker must have faced when that horrific pop-up happened. I don’t know how she’ll pull herself together! I mean who could expect a working, competent adult too handle such a scene! I mean, she could’ve clicked off of it, but analyzing it for its filth was too tempting. In fact, I bet Lucifer is behind this “phenomenon.” The world is coming to an end..naked pictures..; next thing you know people will want to have sex… with the LIGHTS ON!

By lozen

September 7, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

TT, bless your heart! And thank you for the story about Ms. Dedinger. And thank you for having a heart and for the work you and many others are doing to help the poor people of N.O.

By taboga

September 7, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Well, so much for being “conservative.� The government needs to intervene and put a stop to people writing and photographing things you don’t like, eh Zack? This does not sound like the Party of Smaller Government to me.

Brian,

Let me explain how it works so that a dunce like you can possibly understand it.

Imagine the government is a boat with 10 passengers. 5 Conservatives and 5 Liberals. Throw out the 5 Liberals and add 3 Conservatives…

…The quality of government has been increased - and the size of the government decreased.

See how that works?

By Dakota

September 7, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

WCF, funny! And BTW bring on the blood and guts! I can’t stand to see a naked human being but I love the blood and guts and I want my kids to see that too! And hot damn, don’t you try to institute any gun control either. Don’t give em condoms, give em guns, right Zack!

By taboga

September 7, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

lol lozen. i am so glad that i am not from here. my name might be “Billy-Jo Danny-Jane�.

Instead, it’s: Raylene. I can really see your point there…

By Chilao

September 7, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

don’t forget ‘people engaged in perverted acts, fornicators even’

LOL

The marvels of technology, beats carving it into stone like they did in India CENTURIES ago. To still be seen today.

By Raylene

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

“sex with the lights on” bwhahahahahahahaha

By Chilao

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

Where’s the Taliban with howitzers when you need them? (in reference to India’s stone-carved porn)

By taboga

September 7, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Joe,

It’s about time for you to post under my name again, isn’t it?

By WCF

September 7, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

“No, these sites shouldn’t be approved. In no way does the First Amendment support such sites, and they do nothing but hurt and poison society. I’m not interested in going to them, thankfully, and I hope that never changes. These things are destructive and, again, without support from our Constitution.”

Zackie, I’d love your logic - if you used any. “There’s no support for porno in our constitution.” How effing stupid are you? Is there support for baseball games written into the constitution? In fact list one SPECIFIC industry that is directly supported within the text of the constitution.

“People can argue with me on this if they wish, but they have nothing to support any such argument. The government needs to intervene and put a stop to porn of any kind.”

Gee Zackie - What was your argument, or your evidence to support an argument. Oh, I forgot, you just KNOW things that are destructive!

By Raylene

September 7, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

look toe booger, i didnt pick the name. i was born in california, so it isnt southern. and i happen to think that raylene is better than “billy-jo danny-jane”. but i will have to continue this convo tomorrow. bye ppls

By Heather

September 7, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

It was traumatic seeing all that. Who needs that in the middle of the day? What’s wrong with a little modesty guys? Keep it covered up and private.

And Raylene is the name of a very famous porn star!!

By TT

September 7, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Taboga: Mrs. Dedinger wasn’t the only one with a tragic story to tell. There’s a shelter in Newton County if you would like to volunteer to hear many of the victims’ stories yourself. Or perhaps I should list the ones in Gwinnett, Cobb, or Forsyth…since you have so much time on your hands and all. Just let me know which gang or communicable disease haven you live in, and I’ll be glad to give you something to do besides shovel s** all day.

By Tony

September 8, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

By WCF September 7, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this Jack, if you think a guy that hears the “voice of the evil one� in his head when he’s holding a baby is the voice of reason, you’re the fool headed for a disaster. Tony - you’re scary, do you stand on the corner and preach? People like you make me so glad for my second amendment right to bear arms!

WCF, if you do not believe evil exist, you’re sir are the one being the fool, and if you think evil is the voice of reason, you again are mistaken. Indeed, if you think a potentous post on a forum warrants you to bear arms, I would suggest that you seek mental assistance. In the future sir, if what I post scares you, simply skip past it, as I will do yours! Good day.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this

TT,

Did you take the lady in to take care of her? She living with you now? Or was it that you and a bunch of your freak friends just decided to show up somewhere and pretend you were doing something for someone? Did you get some little stickers or buttons to wear - or just some pictures of your tireless efforts to save humanity?

And no doubt you’ve told everyone who will listen about all your wonderful contributions.

I wouldn’t care to visit those “shelters” you mentioned either. I don’t care to see all the low-lifes coming from all around and pretending they’re displaced victims of Katrina.

Just downright amazing isn’t it TT - as to how many supposed victims there are with no family or friends to help them!

By Tony

September 8, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

That should have been “portentous.” Sorry

By WCF

September 8, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Tony, Are you kidding me? I’m the one that needs mental assistance? As I recall, I’m not the one who FEELS LIKE TOSSING BABIES FROM A HIGH PLACE BECAUSE I HEAR THE VOICE OF THE “EVIL ONE.” What are you afraid to say DEVIL or LUCIFER? You fear you might summon him! Anyway, listen up nuttie, there are bad people who do bad things and maybe you deal with this by saying the devil controls them - I’m ok with that. What I’m not okay with is the “voices” in your head that tell you what to do - that means you’re nuts. Like the Son-of-Sam murderer, whose dog told him to committ the murders (of course, the devil was using the dog as his vehicle). Anyhow, if you’re alone on the hill and a voice tells you to jump…well, you get the idea.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Tony,

Maybe I am the DEVIL and we are engaged in the final battle of GOOD vs. EVIL. Get your crucifix ready!

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

how funny that heather knows that the porn star raylene is a “very famous” one.

By Nikita

September 8, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

I’m completely confused on why Shaunti is so opposed. These things already exist — but now they’re sprinkled all over the place, mixed in with regular internet stuff. While establishment of the xxx domain won’t force them to remain within it, I think it will help create an unambiguous location for pornography, which would be helpful for the rest of us attempting to avoid it.

Also, Shaunti claims that pornography is responsible for the breakup of marriage. I don’t believe that. The implication is that pornography is an insidious force which magically destroys marriage when in fact if an individual’s marriage is suffering due in part to a reliance on pornography, then there are other issues. In other words, it’s a symptom, not the cause.

By Lyrazel

September 8, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

I wouldn’t care to visit those “shelters� you mentioned either. I don’t care to see all the low-lifes coming from all around and pretending they’re displaced victims of Katrina.

taboga, Stay home, bubba. There is a plethora of do-nothing-for-no one people like you. Stay at your keyboard…Your case of chair butt must ache around 5 when this forum closes down…what a sad and lonely git you are… For the rest of the people of the world: the magnitude of loosing a major metropolitan area will be felt in years to come. Is N.O. a fluke or is it a cold warning that our government is incapable of protecting citizens of any major city in a disaster? Would in Atlanta/Chicago/Los Angeles be any different?

Why didnt Barbara Bush show up with cookies as her part of disaster relief efforts?

By Heather

September 8, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

Can someone tell me when Tony said he heard the voice of the evil one and felt like tossing babies? I have tried to wade thru the craziness of this weeks postings and I can’t find it.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

The implication is that pornography is an insidious force which magically destroys marriage when in fact if an individual’s marriage is suffering due in part to a reliance on pornography, then there are other issues. In other words, it’s a symptom, not the cause.

Absolutely right.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Hi Raylene & Heather. Welcome to the fray. I think WCF is really Tim in disguise.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Here you go Heather: a tidbit from Tony’s September 7th, 10:07 post

“Have you ever had the experience of being high up somewhere holding a baby? Maybe you’re on a balcony or the top of a building and suddenly an unbelievable thought comes into your brain: jump.

Or worse…toss the baby down!

Where do such thoughts come from? I believe it’s entirely possible that they’re whispered into our ear by the evil one.”

Oh please don’t try and defend this!

By Opinions

September 8, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Counseling is suggested for anyone who would even consider holding a baby anywhere near a high point. Look at the Michael Jackson/balcony thing.

And then to have the ‘throw it over’ thought in your mind? Committable.

By Whiley

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

Good morning insane bloggers ! hehe I’ve been busy this week gathering things to donate.

As you may guess, pornography has always disturbed me since I was old enough to realize what it was. I believe it is completely out of control & does nothing positive for society. NOTHING. The most distressing part doesn’t seem to be simply learning what is in the videos but knowing that men gain pleasure from what is in the videos. I live in a world in which men — lots of men, not just a few isolated, crazy men — like to watch and master_ to images of other men____ a woman who is made-less-than-human.

If empathy is part of what makes us human, pornography requires that users repress empathy. How else could they get enjoyment out of something that clearly dehumanizes women? (I can’t even type examples because it’s too sad & frankly, shocking) The women seem to enjoy it, but I really wonder how it affects them after the cameras are turned off. Very few are mentally stable without issues from past abuse, drug use. Knowing this (and deep down we all know the real reality of porn) still, millions of men can justify it all & get pleasure out of obvious sadness.

Porn is now mainstream & frankly, too accepted. Despite the rate of sexual assault. Look at what has happened in New Orleans. In the middle of a tragedy women & children have been raped. Does our society need to really encourage this type of material? I say absolutely not.
Porn is not OK because a small percentage of women claim they love to work in the profession.

And what does the existence of a multi-billion-dollar pornography industry say about men ?

By taboga

September 8, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Is N.O. a fluke or is it a cold warning that our government is incapable of protecting citizens of any major city in a disaster? Would in Atlanta/Chicago/Los Angeles be any different?

Millions of us have already known that the government is incapable of that.

There are alot of us who don’t believe in magic. We realize that government doesn’t have a magic wand or a genie they rub - which will perform the miracles that you obviously think they should be able to.

Buy anyway Lyrazel - I am really a displaced victim of Katrina. So could you please raise some money and send it to me? Thanks in advance.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Hello Jack! I am trying to figure out a way to get donations from my work, for a family of about 18 that moved into my apartment complex from Lousiana. They have lost everything, and only have one bed for the 80 yr old grandmother. We gave them some dishes, and clothes for the 2 month old baby. I have some clothes that i can give to 2 of the teenage girls, but they have 5 apartments that they will need to pay for and put furniture in.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Michael Jackson may be alot of things - I don’t know. But that whole episode of him showing his baby to a crowd below - was a whole lot to do about nothing.

There a tons of things people do everyday that put their kids in far more jeopardy than Jackson holding his baby (firmly) over a balcony so people could see it.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

I know what Tony is talking about. Its an awareness of just how bad you could be. I agree with him that it seems to be the devil whispering.

Try this one, it might be easier if you take the baby out of the picture. You see a man’s wallet fall out of his pocket in front of you, out falls $100 and a bunch of credit cards. Inside your head comes the thought that just maybe you could pick up that $100 and keep it. The thought comes into your head. Maybe you think about it for a second, maybe you think about it a little longer.

Most of us would yell at the guy and point to his wallet on the ground. Some of us would pick it up and keep it. But all of us would think about it, even if only for a second. Thats the devil.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Whiley, we finally agree on something. I never thought that would happen. :)

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Women enter porn on their own; and should be able to if they so wish. Also, men do not have the market cornered on porn and fantasy - look at the HUGE romance novel industry and what it teaches women to expect. Look also at who these writers are - women.

Why do guys refrain from being hysterical regarding their depiction in the world? (white horse, saviour, surragate father). We take responsibility for who we ARE, not what people (women in this case) think we should be - it is called being an adult.

Grow up Whiley - sexuality is in our nature, and I do not see it changing soon.

(Are you not the one that was bragging about your big boobs and big hair? Glass houses and stones you know!)

By taboga

September 8, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Raylene,

The best thing you can do for them: Give them a Newspaper!

Then tell them to open it and look for the section entitled: Classifieds. Once they’ve found it - they will see the dreaded jobs that are in there.

Make sure you mention to those victims - that I was the one who showed them the way!

By Renee

September 8, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

These folks had no family members that could have come to New Orleans and picked them up? If no family members, they had no friends that could have done the same? They couldn’t come up with money for a bus ticket or any other type of arrangement to get them out of town?

NO, they couldn’t. WHO would choose to possibly DIE if they had other means to get out. Some didn’t even think it would be bad, this is a city on the Gulf Coast, they get storms all during hurricane season, they don’t want to leave everytime a storm hits.

Luckily the majority of the country does not feel as you do. See, everyone does not have money, resources, family or friends like you may. That does not make them any less of a person and does not make their life any more or less important. George Bush’s life is not more important than mine or anyone elses. (That’s just an example).

And to say their inability to leave sealed their fate. That is true in part but now that we can help, why not help. Why not help another HUMAN in need. See, what happened could happen to me, you, anyone. I can’t even imagine what these people have gone through, will continue to go through.

Our lives can be ripped out from under us at any time, some of these people have nothing left but their lives. I can’t believe the mentality of some people who won’t give a glass of water to someone thirsty because they want to figure out why and how they became thirsty. DAMN!

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

not all of us would think about taking the man’s $100. and if everyone did, why does a thought mean the devil is telling you to do something? if everyone thought about doing things like that then that would mean everyone is “evil”. oh no, i thought about lighting a picture of someone i don’t like, the devil is whispering it to me. GET OUT OF MY HEAD DEVIL

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

taboga- you are such a great humanitarian. ^rolls eyes^ They are getting jobs, but they still need help getting back on their feet. but that’s ok, when you have lost everything you’ve ever owned, and have nothing, but the shirt on your back, i will hand you a damn newspaper. you’re welcome in advance.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Wrongo, Jackaroo. I’m not Tim, but if he thinks like me i like that sumb**tch already.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Raylene, I’m having an exorcism tonight! Would like me to expel Satan from your head, as well?

By Renee

September 8, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Did it ever occur to you that they will look for jobs. But in the meantime they need FOOD and SHELTER. ARE YOU EVEN HUMAN???????????????????

I’m sorry, but mentalities like that get me mad. This whole situation has been heart breaking. I can’t see how people can look down from their warm, dry, hopefully clean house and say “this is your fault, get a job, get yourself together” WTF

By Jack

September 8, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Whiley you are right. Men are pigs. If we can’t do it, we want to look at someone doin it. The internet has made it way to easy for children to view stuff that would curl Larry Flynt’s hair. You should see what they have to offer in Holland. You name it they got it, men, children, animals. Now it is more important than ever to keep our children from viewing this stuff. When they see it, they think it is acceptable and it surely is not. I don’t think it is the government’s role to censor the internet. We have had enough freedoms taken away. That job belongs to the parents.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Does anybody have a kleenex? Whiley’s heart-rendering post has made me see the light! I never knew no one was raped before porn was invented, and there was no sexual assault either. In fact life was a Garden-of-Eden until porn, then came the video games…now it’s the end of the world as we know it!

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

And on the DEVIL subject:

If the CHOICES regarding the wallet/child appear in ones head, and one choice is directed by the DEVIL - the other god - would that not mean for choice to exist; god needs the devil? Those are the only paths your logic sets forth….think.

The above shows me how you all diminish our faith - your arguement actually promotes SATAN as a needed entity for choice.

Dumb religious folk do such harm to religion! And unfortuanately they are the grand majority.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

sure WFC, although, i dont really think the devil is in my head.

Renee- I know how you feel. the family i met last night at least has shelter, and some food, but i mean come on, they dont even have pillows. i just want to help them out as much as possible, and handing them a newspaper is not my idea of helping. especially considering that what they would see on the front page is the damage done to their homes.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

“I don’t think it is the government’s role to censor the internet. We have had enough freedoms taken away. That job belongs to the parents.”

Jack, we can see eye-to-eye.

By taboga

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

Renee,

So you’re saying that because these people made the decision to stay - others need to rush right in and put their lives in jeopardy to help them?

Aren’t the people who have to rescue them - “human” as well? When we have folks wading through contanimated water to rescue those who wouldn’t leave - aren’t they “human” too? When pilots of helicopters are being shot at because they have to try and rescue people who chose not to leave - aren’t they “human” like the rest of us?

There are alot of other people that are “human” too, Renee - not just the unproductive and lazy members in our society who have never done anything for themselves much less anyone else. And now, everyone else has to go out on a limb for them.

And if you really want to help someone - you needn’t pour your pretended heart out on a blog. Go to the overpass at I-20 downtown and you will see several that you could help. Take them in, Renee. Feed them, Renee. Give them that “drink of water”, Renee. Help them get back on their feet, Renee!

Otherwise, don’t come out here and lecture me about compassion when you’re doing nothing but spouting-out a bunch of feel-good crap for applause!

By Heather

September 8, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Raylene, I luv ya honey, but you don’t know that of which you speak.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Jack is right. Porn is so evil and so very very addictive. An ex-roommate of mine had a horrible addiction. There is such nasty stuff out there that most of us would never even consider, women killed and mutilated, children raped, horrible stuff. All it does is feed into our basest instincts. We would be better off without it.

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Heather, Your too sweet for my normal vitriolic attacks: so let’s just say we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe there is a difference between making a conscious moral decision (such as whether to take the wallet or return it)and being tempted by the devil. A conscious moral decision is based on one’s value system and this can be derived from a religion or it may not. IF you need the fear of the devil or hell to make the proper moral decision then I’m glad he is there for you. I however, do not need the fear of fiery netherworld to do what I consider is right.

Furthermore, some entity (sp) whispering in your ear is NOT THE SAME as making a conscious moral decision.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

There is a HUGE difference between romance stories & porn ! They are not even close to being the same. I’d go into details, but I can’t here. Stop defending it. You know what I’m talking about.
I wouldn’t hate porn so much if there weren’t so many disgusting pedophiles & rapists, flashers & peeping toms, men who secretly video tape women etc. ETC ETC RUNNING AROUND ! ! ! A woman in NYC used her camera phone to take a photo of the man on her subway that had followed her, wouldn’t stop staring at her, then started maste__himself right in FRONT OF HER. His photo is everywhere now. He is the owner of a restaurant in NYC. Isn’t that nice?
As usual, instead of admitting what contributes to breeding this type of scum, we deny & defend one of the main contributors.

I believe porn breeds men like that. And he is only one of millions. So yes I have every right NOT accept this garbage.

“sexuality is in our nature, and I do not see it changing soon.”

I have no problem with healthy sexuality. YOU know that hehehe. Porn is different & you know it. Defending it only breeds more deviate sex offenders. It may not affect YOU directly, but what it DOES do is completely affect women’s lives. From the day we are born till the day we die.
So thanks for defending porn. We appreciate it.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, and the people who are wading through contaminated water are doing that to help. They were not forced to, they WANT to. Imagine that, there are people that don’t mind risking their lives to help others.

And I don’t have to shout out what I have done. Because even if I have done nothing it’s more than you have done because at least I have the f_ compassion, which you don’t have. I don’t need anyone’s applause, but if anything I say gets anyone to help then good.

So to answer your question, yes the people that are helping are HUMAN too, evident by their actions. That’s what HUMANS do, they give helping hands. As I will and continue to. And you help because it’s in your heart, not to get APPLAUSE from some INSIGNIFICANT individual.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

“(Are you not the one that was bragging about your big boobs and big hair? Glass houses and stones you know!)”

uh, that was a joke, although it’s partly true.

Let me try to understand, if you are attractive, nice figured, enjoy a satisfying sex life, you have to like porn?

By Jack

September 8, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Sorry. He called me Jackaroo too.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Oh! so once again Raylene is a moron. well yay for me! just because I do not believe the same things as you, Heather, does not mean I don’t know what I am talking about. Can we all lay off the bible thumping on this blog?

By WCF

September 8, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Raylene, the fact that you deny the DEVIL is in your head is a testament to his control over you!! Think about this, it’ll make sense in a little bit.

I guess porn is the “legal” Crystal Meth, doing untold damage in millions of homes across the nation. It’s addictive nature FORCES you to rent another pay-per-view. I’m actually declaring backruptcy because my porn addiction makes me stay home and buy..buy..buy..porn. I think I might need Dr. Phil. But he’d probably say some common sense B.S. like, “turn the TV and computer off.” Well, that’s not in my capability - I’m controlled by porn!

I’ve wathced porn and I’ve never “snuffed” or raped anyone. Did you ever think that people who watch these extreme videos or ALREADY nuttie? Or is the spice channel a “gateway” to eventual hard core gang rapes?

Personally, I think it’s the most sexually REPRESSED and FRUSTRATED who cannot deal with average porn..it sends these losers over the edge. Because, Frankly, if you don’t get any and sit around day after day after day watching porn, you probably will go mad.

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Porn is a symptom, not the cause. Viewing women as objects, and judging us by our appearance and level of sexual appeal is universal in our culture. Look around. If you’re not pretty anymore, you’d better have some $$$$$, or you’d better be reallyreallyreally SUPER nice to everybody - AND a great cook! Otherwise, you’re just a hag, nag, and a drag. Men leave wives of 20 years EVERY DAY to have a younger, sexier woman (or man, tee hee…) and it’s just another day in suburban paradise. Deal, kids. Daddy has moved on and mommy is a bitter old hag. Heh… (Don’t attack ME on this, I divorced my husband after ONE year, so this is not MY story! I see it every day, though.)

Porn just takes that mindset to the next level for the purpose of “self gratification.” If your hubby abandons you for a porn habit, then he would have abandoned you ANYWAY. That’s all it is, folks. Same stuff, different manifestation. Do you really hope the next generation will be better?

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

I don’t understand why so many stayed when CLEARLY they had cars. (which are now all under water now)

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

P.S. That being said, you touch my kid, or try to take a picture, and I’ll kill you in a manner that hollywood would be PROUD to sell.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

WCF, okay I’ll agree to disagree with you. You said I was sweet. :)

FatMoose, I never said that “other god” you did. I am not talking about some guy with horns that we can’t see jumping out of the shadows and scaring you.

What people fail to recognize is that we are all inherently BAD. We are all evil!!! Get that thru your head and then we might be on the same playing field.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Now, to the porn issue. I am a female and I defend porn. There is a difference between ILLEGAL behavior and porn. Pictures of children being raped etc… like Heather mentioned is illegal and anybody that divulges in any raping, indecent behavior in front of women or to women and/or children is a sick individual and has NOTHING to do with porn. This sickos have been around from the beginning of time. Now to say that taking porn away would help, I don’t see how. And parents should take the time with their children and monitor their children it should not be up to the government.

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Whiley states,

I wouldn’t hate porn so much if there weren’t so many disgusting pedophiles & rapists, flashers & peeping toms, men who secretly video tape women etc.

Then go after them and have no problem with porn. There is no connection that is dissimalar to preachers/pedos; they area may attract a type of person, but not CREATE that type of person.

You agree to that but then counter yourself.

You are not mature enough to know what healthy IS! Kids find the same emotional reaction as you do; but adults (i have know quite a few) do not. The (mature) women I have encountered, dating or related, all have their porn stash and vibes too - so do not give me the man vs woman crap: those are preditors you speak of; which MOST men are not (but most preditors ARE men). Can you process that last concept? That is what you are missing; You are unable to hold both in your hands at once.

I AM NOT speaking about pedos, rape, beasts, etc… (although it seems men do not have the market cornered on those either)

By WCF

September 8, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

“Let me try to understand, if you are attractive, nice figured, enjoy a satisfying sex life, you have to like porn”

NO, but it sure does help!

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

“NO, but it sure does help!”

ROFL ! (I still have a sense of humor)

By Renee

September 8, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

just because cars are parked next to homes didn’t mean they worked, or they could afford the gas to leave, I mean with these gas prices I can barely afford to go to work, much less evacuate lol. And some people did leave through other means and left their cars. Some people came back after the storm and before the big flood. Some people got their cars stuck trying to come back.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Aren’t so many of you so glad that all the Katrina theatrics are taking place? Gives you your stage, doesn’t it?

You walk by people in pain - everyday. You see people who are suffering and miserable - everyday. You see people that need help every single day!

They’re right under your noses - like an elephant in the room - yet you do absolutely nothing to help these people. And it’s simply because: You do not care!

But let an event come along like Katrina and all you self-righteous blowhards come crawling from the woodwork - prentiousness abound!

Oh how your “heart goes out”! Tell everyone who will listen about how much you “care” about all those “poooooor people”. Offer to peel an orange for someone who was effected by it and then run out an tell everyone how much you’ve: Helped. Donate a few dollars to a charity and make sure that there’s no one you run across who doesn’t hear about it!

It’s sickening. Pure sickening how so many people can take a real tragedy and turn it in to an opportunity. Sickening to the core!

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

The problem with a lot porn is, you see everything on the woman, but have limited visibility of the man things. I don’t wanna see her breasts, I wanna see the man things! Or am I just watching the wrong movies?

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

I really want to make some important points, but I CAN’T because making certain examples are too, uh, nasty to talk about here. How can I do this & make my points?? hehehhehehe ! ! Jack, help me out here ! :)

FatMoose, I guarantee the few women you know that have their own stash of porn don’t have the same kind of porn men use. I’ve busted several over the years. Porn fires make the best bonfires did you know?

Can healthy normal fun people use porn for enjoyment? Of course. Are most people healthy & normal? NO. lol

By Heather

September 8, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

I never called you a moron Raylene. I think you are very smart.

I am talking about the Christian view of the evil in this world. You are not interested in Christianity and so haven’t studied the Christian view of the devil.

As for all the “bible-thumping” leaving this blog, it was here long before we came along and it will be here long after we lose interest posting here.

By Jack

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

Kimberly I think you may be watching the wrong movies. Whiley. Are you talking about snuff films, barnyard fun ETC.? Those two choices are MAJOR bad but can be available if you have sources overseas. Those that sell that stuff and view the stuff should be made to star in the same type of film without lubricant. (Sorry. I had to throw that in.)

By WCF

September 8, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

You’re attractive, nice-figured, enjoy a satisfying sex life and have a sense of humour too! I’m beginning to like you more and more!

By Renee

September 8, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Yes, you walk by people in pain everyday. Usually, it’s not the extremity of this. And personally, this is something that moved me. Yes, I walked (when I was in Atlanta) by homeless people on a daily basis and I have my own feelings about homelessness. You get kind of numb to it. But this was devastating. As was 9/11. We are not used to seeing this kind of widespread devastation in this country. Seeing people on TV looking like they were in a 3rd world country. People wading holding babies. Babies who haven’t eaten in days. Children who have no mothers. I’m sorry, but I haven’t seen a Katrina situation in my lifetime or anything that matches in it in this country. Maybe I haven’t had my eyes open. Maybe this situation opened my eyes.

I do believe that Katrina is not going to be the last devastation to the country, to the world. I think we are seeing the last days of this world as we know it, but that’s just my personal opinion. I think few will live to tell the stories.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

WCF we can both agree to that.

By Dusty

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

What a blog! On the topic PORN, I agree with Whiley. It is nasty stuff produced by nasty people and watched by nasty people.

Katrina—if Americans work this one out we’ll be the wonder of the world. We will, if we don’t kill ourselves fussing about it.

And blogs are educational! I now know (Google) that the Dutch ARE bulding floating houses. Instead of driving water out, the Dutch are trying to live on it. Are you listening New Orleans?

By Jack

September 8, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Dusty. Those floating casinos fared well didn’t they?

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

FatMoose, I guarantee the few women you know that have their own stash of porn don’t have the same kind of porn men use. I’ve busted several over the years. Porn fires make the best bonfires did you know?

So only the type of porn that women stamp as OK is non-destructive? What about the possibility that that is the only porn that you have yet accepted bc of maturity?

I really do not see how a person can be objectified, but I think that must be because I am not that TYPE of person - And I like sexuality, always have.

BTW - my girlfirends porn is to hard for me; She LIKES the fantasy of 3-5 guys and 1 girl, video and stories. You think this is rare? Look for personal sites and you will find different (and not [young]women in need of $$$).

I have trouble with the idea that children/teens are so influenced by music/games that it can be a lawsuit againsts the performers/programmers (how they were raised set them up for their ways IMO) - So I could NEVER apply that same logic to an ADULT.

Being I am an ADULT, I should have those ADULT freedoms while being expected to act like one - that is the whole of it.

No Excuses!

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

I’m talking about what is now considered “mainstream” porn. One women, usually very young looking & several men. The “terms of endearment” they use toward her, the…uh….”shower of _” she gets from each man & the way….. The….uh…. I CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT HERE ! ! YOU KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT ! ! I can’t see how this does anything but depress the viewer. How sad for the young women, that THIS is what her life has come to. Is she drunk or high on drugs to be able to do this? Is she being controlled & coerced? Does her family know? What sexually transmitted diseases has she been exposed to? To think men get excited by this is horrifying to me.

Hence my original question, “what does this say about men?” Lets have a serious discussion & not brush this one under the table & label it man bashing.

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Renee, it’s natural to go numb on the plight of the poor people when you’re busy and have your own life to attend to. That’s why SOME of us feel (felt, at one time) more comfortable when the government includes some type of safety net so that even the sickest, poorest, stupidest among us don’t die in the street in a pile of their own feces. Unfortunately, most of our government has now been taken over by people who DON’T give a damn about the most vulnerable among us — hence the whole “helping people is immoral” and “looking out for number one is a virtue” rhetoric. Here’s why people blame the victim: Because if you blame the victim for whatever tragedy befalls them, then you create the (false) sense of security for yourself that this can never happen to you. Simple simple simple psychology, folks. If you acknowledge that “there, but for the Grace of God, go I,” then that’s just a little bit scary. Um-hmmm. Americans, generally, want to accept nothing less that the CERTAINTY that we’ll all die of old age, wealthy, and surrounded by loved ones and testaments to our many accomplishments.

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Whailey,

Can you relize it says NOTHING about MEN, only those PEOPLE who watch it, first off.

THEN, maybe there can be a discussion.

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

I know a LOT of women who like the gang videos and have broken up with more than a couple bc I was not into BSM.

By Opinions

September 8, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Interesingly, many of those female romance novels, especially those historical novel types, when the time period was Elizabethan or even Feudul, involved some spoiled rotten landed gentry kid, raping the cute villagers/lower class, and eventually it was decided that it was LOVE. It seems many women really enjoyed being ravished like that, for the book’s purposes. Today it would be called rape. But was fine in the book.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Most of the women doing these porns enjoy it. They are not under the influences of drugs and/or alcohol, they simply enjoy sex or the money they are being paid. These women are not coerced nor do they have a gun to their head (the legal movies of course).

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

FatMoose …. NO, because porn IS about men, for men. Porn breeds bad behavior & dysfunctional sexual appetites in MEN. MEN commit 99% of all sex crimes. MEN who commit sex crimes most always have huge libraries of porn. Yes, I’m obsessed with what makes men do the things they do because it directly affects me & my safety. I do have better things to do with my time, but I’ve realized I HAVE to push these issues, because very few will or have the guts to say “ENOUGH ! ! ” And just because you MAY know a few females that like to watch gang bangs (sic) doesn’t make it OK. I’ll bet your “female gang bang” friends like it only to please some guy. (sic)

By Raylene

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

yes the devil is in me. and he is forcing me to help others. he is telling me to help out this family from lousiana, to get donations from other people i know. i can really see how that is the work of the devil. it that was true, then how is the devil bad? i am not saying he is good, but trying to make a point

Heather- you’re right, i have no interest in christianity. but the christian view is not the only one, and there is nothing that says that it is the right one. so once again, you cannot tell me i dont know what i am talking about.

By Whiley

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

Oh Renee, the fact that you can say that with a straight face is,well, I don’t even have the words. You can’t honestly believe that. Or, you’re really a man, or you’re a stripper, or you’re on drugs yourself, or you’re an alcoholic married to a porn user, or you have your own porn site & that’s where you get your income.

COME ON PEOPLE you know what I’m talking about. Stop denying.

BTW I have 2 shelves filled with romance novels. The raunchiness of sex in all those books does not COMPARE to lets say, the porn movie “the big bang I & II”. The sex in romance novels is NOTHING like the demeaning garbage in porn.

The level of denial here is huge. It’s unbelievable the extent some will go & excuses used to defend porn.

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Jack, those casinos were totally wrecked, on land, on top of houses, etc. But the Dutch really are building floating houses. Not the prettiest things I’ve ever seen but supposedly able to withstand water and storms.

FatGoose, tell us no more about your adult life before we draw some unsavory conclusions.

Renee, where do you get your information?

By Gigolo

September 8, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

So all those single and sometimes married women who contact me and want me to arrange gangbangs or even BDSM activities have some guy pointing a gun at their head when they write? Wow, never knew, the guy sure never showed up. And they sure seemed to be enjoying themselves. Some even want it filmed for a momento.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Fatmoose(although I love the name it’s funny !)& Renee are trying to justify something they can’t, debating them is a waste of time.

Fatmoose, you’ve dated women who actually like porn??? Why would you date someone like that? Why would anyone date anyone, male or female that uses porn? What a turn off !

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Gigolo, yea right. In your dreams (please keep them there)

You’re another porn defender no matter what lies you have to tell. Why do some say anything to defend something so damaging? Is that something to be proud of?

By Jack

September 8, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Whiley. I told you men were pigs. Porn has been around since they scratched it on the walls of the caves. The women who start do it for the $$$. Not defending it, but it isn’t going away.

By Gigolo

September 8, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Whiley - not lies, but now who is in denial?

I do not find gangbangs appealing, so often will refer these women to elsewhere. No, not lies.

By Ben

September 8, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Hi, my name is Ben, and I am a porn defender. My wife, on occasion, will watch it with me, so is there a place where we can be HELPED to end us of this affliction? Maybe Christian counselling is an option, please help. We are headed down a horrible path and if we don’t get help soon, who knows what will become of us.

By Gigolo

September 8, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Whiley - if it gives you comfort to live in a world of denial, then go for it. You might want to hook up with Heather, she has the ultimate in comfort.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

PAA meetings ben- Porn Addicts Anonymous they will help you through your problem and not judge you for it.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Don’t cry for me Argentina….

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

lmao Jack. there you go again.

By Ben

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

Thanks Raylene! Do they have a porn-for-cash exchange or something so I can get rid of the stash?

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Gigolo… may i ask: what WILL you agree to for these women? {;->

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

I am not sure, but I think they will give you information at the meeting. =)

By Gigolo

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

Kimberley - now let’s not go there, the customer often rght after all. Not the time and place. I just wanted to point out that things are more complex than some of the simple thoughts expressed here.

By taboga

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

Well whattaya know!

Listened to the news for a few minutes and learned that there are some big problems in the Astrodome.

It seems that many of the folks in there lining-up for all the handouts - are not displaced victims of Katrina after all!

Who would have thunk it!

By Ben

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

Ok good. I just want to act fast because I don’t want to become a pedophile or nothing like that. As a man, you know it’s my fault that stuff happens, and I have finally seen the error of my way.

By Brian Curtis

September 8, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Whiley: All you’re really saying (in various ways) is that you don’t like porn. Fine. But what does that have to do with whether other people should have access to it, and ways to secure it from children?

Unless you’re actually suggesting that porn be outlawed simply because you find it distasteful. You’re not going there, are you?

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe a word Gigolo says. He sounds like the type that can’t be in a normal loving relationship because they are overbearing, controlling, or let themselves go. Fantasy Island is all they have. OR he is really attractive & one of those players that use woman after woman, probably infested & spreading disease. I wonder what he pays per month in porn fees & sanitary wipes?

People talk big here, but can they really say mainstream porn is NOT sad & pathetic? How can anyone view it & think “yes, this is good for our society despite the number of sexual predators out there”.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Oh Renee, the fact that you can say that with a straight face is,well, I don’t even have the words. You can’t honestly believe that. Or, you’re really a man, or you’re a stripper, or you’re on drugs yourself, or you’re an alcoholic married to a porn user, or you have your own porn site & that’s where you get your income.

Nope, not in the porn industry at all. But why do you think all the women involved are these helpless victims caught in this life and the men who are involved are these rapists?

Dusty what information?

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

You still miss the point that would have to be cleared before adding to the mix.

For you, I will repeat it slowly: Most preditors are men, but most men are NOT preditors

Until you can grasp that FACTUAL concept, I am not spending time on spin-off topics.

EXAMPLE:

85% of emotional disorders are in women, but that does NOT mean 85% of women have them. Can you see how I can apply it healthly? Where-as, if I was you; I would say that means the majority of women are afflicted with emotional retardation - resulting in the frustration of man, leading to death and suicide. I would also claim, being you, that this emotional retardation is reflected on you, seeing as you are a woman and is your responsibility. Also, man is therefore repressed by your subvertive coded mean spirited adgendas; based in that same emotional retardation.

But you see, I like to keep MY options open. So, I do not catagorized people based on race, gender, etc; but for WHO THEY ARE. This way, I find the most supporters possible; not alienate them.

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Um, Whiley, I think Gig is a pro.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Ben- I am very proud of you! It is great that you realized that you don’t want to be a pedophile or anything. Good Luck at your meetings

By Jack

September 8, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

He probably doesn’t use sanitary wipes. Porn is bad but outlawing it will not prevent predators from doing bad things.

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Jack,

ALL men are not pigs (except the ones who look and act like Hogzilla). The males at my house are all decent people and I love every one of them.

By Brian Curtis

September 8, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Whiley: Okay, I’ll say it. Ahem:

“Mainstream porn is not sad and pathetic. I can view it and think, ‘Yes, this is good for our society because it has nothing to do with the number of sexual predators out there’.” Ta-daa!

If you don’t like it, no one’s forcing you to watch it. But don’t claim the right to tell other people what they can read, write, and watch. America doesn’t work that way.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Dusty. Slap a porno tape into the VCR then try to have a conversation with them while its running. See who they pay attention to.

By taboga

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

Whiley,

You seem to be tangled in the Liberal web.

You have to remember, that the more of a decadent society we become - the more freedom we actually have!

See how Brian ran out here wanting to know: “You’re not going to go there, are you?”

If we would allow porn to be banned, then the next thing you know, the Christian Reich will be beating down your door at night to take you away to a dungeon…

…just for looking at women in their underwear in a Macys catalog!

It is a must that we become a corrupt and decadent society with no morals, values or traditions and no mention of right and wrong.

That’s how we can show how much “freedom” we have and how many “rights” we have!

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Jack has a point. It would probably get worse, because they wouldnt have any other outlet for their sexual frustration, and they would go on rapeing sprees.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Calling this discussion spin off only is an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable realization that some find hard to finally admit outloud.

It is simple: men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. Men wage war. Men beat, murder, stalk women significantly more often than women commit these behaviors, and when men do it, it is more severe.
Men rape about 500,000 women per year, that is not news. One woman kills or severs a man’s p***, that’s news.

My concern is why there is so much sexual violence & why nobody is doing anything about it. Admitting that todays mainstream porn is worse that ever, that only snuff porno is worse, tells us there is a serious problem. Admitting porn has a direct negative affect on most men is what needs to be done. If everyone got proactive in making porn NOT so acceptable, I believe is the first step. How can anyone defend something so damaging?

Have to go for a bit, the trucks are here & we are loading up clothing & items to donate.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

My son isnt a pig…. at least not yet. he is only (almost) 1.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Why is it so hard for so many women to admit that female porn stars, strippers and the like - enjoy what they are doing?

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Renee,

I mean the information that you are putting out that is similar to what is floating in the water in New Orleans. Fatgoose seems to have access to the same material.

By FatMoose

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

The ONLY people I have had argue against porn like whiley does are either:

• VERY VERY unhappy with their appearence (ignorantly or not)
• Or VERY VERY blinded by religion

Who is who on here, I wonder? No, do not tell me; I would rather dislike you just a little, not a lot;)

(Do not want to hear it? Do not read it;)

[Yes, I date (and am dating) a girl who likes porn. We will frequently download something for the other that we run across they would like - even though we do not like necc the same type. I find this VERY adult, but know: Most people find opposing views, especially sexual, too much of a threat to their comfort level. Kitchen too hot, get out;)]

By Brian Curtis

September 8, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Whiley: I think the problem you’re having is what religious fundamentalists often encounter as well: an inability to even conceive of a different point of view.

That’s why they say inane things like, “You KNOW Jesus exists, but you’re trying to deny it” or “You KNOW abortion is always murder—why do you pretend otherwise?”

Similarly, you keep repeating that everyone absolutely must know that porn is evil… because that’s what you believe. And you can’t understand why anyone would try to DENY what they MUST know is true.

Of course, that’s not the problem. The problem is that you’re presenting a personal opinion as an absolute truth, and not everyone’s on board with that. That, in your view, seems to be “denial,” but it isn’t. It’s a difference of opinion.

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Jack, I will have to borrow one of Ben’s stash. Would “Mary Poppins” do as well?

By Ben

September 8, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Whiley - I would venture to say that watching porn has a positive affect on most men. I would be more inclined to agree with your argument if you said “a few” men.

Taboga - You aren’t paying attention. All strippers and porn stars are forced to do what they do — they are victims of man’s evil desires. If not by hand, by abuse or neglect.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Hey Whiley. You do know that Mr. Bobbit made a porn flick after his member was re-attached and was probably paid handsomely. Toboga is right, the more freedom, the more decadent. Remember what happened to Lott’s wife. I think that is what Renee was talking about.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

What information is that Dusty? That women who do porn like it? What makes you think otherwise? What makes you think that behind the scenes there are trays of drugs and men with guns making them perform these acts.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Dusty. You will have to select the XXX version of Mary Poppins.

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Sorry, FatGoose, but I am not an ugly nun and I doubt that Whiley is. You, sir, are not in the kitchen. You are in the garbage can.

By kimberly

September 8, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Whiley… one day you will, as I have, resign yourself to the fact that you can’t change the nature of the beast. It’s like some overpaid jerk pointed out: you don’t go to war with the army you want, you go with the army you have. Poingnant truth from a satan-spawn. The men in our society see what they see and want what they want. The ideal world in our heads may be FAB, but it ain’t what we wake up to every morning. I try to focus on things I CAN change, for example: one person’s day, a situation for one of the kids in the neighborhood, a congressional campaign if I work really really really hard, my own dress size, or how I let my (now ex-) boyfriend treat me.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

I repeat, can normal people watch porn & it doesn’t affect their families, wives, or anyone else in a negative way? Of course. Are most people normal? NO. Now, do you “get” what I’m talking about now? If I ever implied “all” that’s not what I meant. I have a lot going on over here & I can’t always spell check or proof read my points. hehehe I’ve watched porn before here & there in my life. I’ve seen porn images online. It’s very disturbing & I’m a fairly free thinker here. The only feeling I get when I see a very young girl bent over in front of a camera, saying “I’m a slstick your __in my__, I’m depressed. How sad & pathetic. Men that view that type of porn frequently can’t have a good opinion of women. They get enjoyment out of this, that is what is scary.
I have to associate with these users of porn. I’m sure I’ve shook their hand on occasion, used the same computer, touched the same doorknobs, they work in restaurants, teach your kids, coach sports, etc. (SIC) Why should porn be defended as a freedom when it causes so much harm to women? Can/should we outlaw it? No, impossible. Can we make it more socially unacceptable & make men more accountable for sexual violence? YES !

By taboga

September 8, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Ben,

I must have been a temporary coma! You are absolutely right, we awful men are responsible for everything that women do!

Isn’t it funny, how it’s the little girls who want to kiss the boys in elementary school?

And how young boys are more interested in their sports and things - while the 12 year old girs have the posters of their latest heart-throb on their walls…

Then you have the teenage girls who can be on the phone forever talking about how “cute this guy is” and “who’s dating who”…

Women who watch soaps to find out who’s going to bed with who and how often…

…Women basically start at a very young age with their preoccupation with romance and sex. Then turn around and accuse men of it and blame us if they aren’t good looking enough to use it to their advantage — and demand they not be treated as sex objects.

Funny as hell!

By Jack

September 8, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

If the boyfriend doesn’t treat you right, kick his sorry a** out. There are plenty of fish in the ocean. Do Not think that there aren’t. Too many female aquaintances of mine stick with scum because they don’t want to be alone. You won’t be alone for long.

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Fortunately. I don’t know what goes on “behind the scenes”. You seem to know, Renee. Just wondered where you got your facts? Or is it as Curtis said..” just a personal opinion”?

By Ben

September 8, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Taboga - Now you are back on track. lol

By greenie

September 8, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Fatmoose - the more you say ‘adult’ the more I think your an 18 year old kid that likes to ‘feel’ adult by watching adult films. Watching a porn film doesn’t make anyone feel adult, it might feel erotic which is what porn films want people to feel is adult, but it’s not, its just a state of mind.

to use your logic, 100% of mature adults make decisions, not 100% of the decisions are mature.

By Jack

September 8, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Whiley. They cannot make people more accountable unless they come up with a proven way to tell the truth from lies. When they do that, convicting predators will be easier. Look at that case in NW Georgia last year when that football player was convicted of child molestation but not rape, then the judge threw the case out because the community felt that 10 years was too much time for the offense. They say she was willing. Willing or not if she was my daughter he would be a dead SOB

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

You did not state ALL accidentally. You have posted the same view now a number of times.

So, when you are ABLE to see the truth; we may talk.

Someone remind me why girls wear lipstick! I think it should be outlawed, seeing as it objectifies the mouth as genitallia! And how about implants? Genital cosmetic surgery (females only here - and it is all the rage!)? Facelifts? Nose jobs? Mini/Micro skirts?

Nope - the only REAL option is GROW UP!

By greenie

September 8, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

women who aren’t good looking enough to use it to their advantage ????

WTF?

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

There is a huge difference between giggling about boys, watching romanic tv shows, & the fact a lot of guys ENJOY watching the sexual abuse of women. Women want men to be attracted to them, they DON’T want to be groped at, leered at, yelled out using vulgar language, or used just for sex.

THAT is not FUNNY AT ALL.

Is that the best defense you can come up with to defend your gang bang library? Do you use sanitary wipes or antibiotic soap? If not please do.

By Fedup

September 8, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

I usually lurk on this blog but there is just something I have to say.

It amazes me that people would come on here and brag about all the great things they are doing for the Katrina victims. You want to help people? Do it quietly!!

The only reason someone would come on this blog and announce all the great things they are doing for these poor people is so that they can get a pat on their backs and feel good about themselves.

I bet most of you “saints” will be complaining about how all these poor people are taking all the available jobs in about six months. You will probably complain about how your taxes are being used to help people from other states.

Hypocrites!!!!!!! Thats what most of you probably are.

Oh, look at me!!. I am helping the Katrina victims. I’m such a great person. Give me a break.

The suffering of these people is just an opportunity for you to feel good about yourselves.

If you were doing so much, how you got time to come on here and post??

By greenie

September 8, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Someone remind me why girls wear lipstick! I think it should be outlawed, seeing as it objectifies the mouth as genitallia! And how about implants? Genital cosmetic surgery (females only here - and it is all the rage!)? Facelifts? Nose jobs? Mini/Micro skirts?

Uhmm…. because of the topic at hand maybe?? Girls have been told from day one that if they aren’t pretty enough or sexy enough, they won’t get the attention they want and deserve (withOUT being groped or disrespected). We’ve been told by media, magazines, porn, men, etc.

I wear lipstick because it makes ME feel feminine, I wear skirts cause I have great legs and I feel good in them. I got over the “man’s” idea of sexy a long time ago. Luckily there are a few out there that aren’t pigs. :)

By Dusty

September 8, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Ben and Taboga,

Sorry about your sad, mistreated lives, beaten to pieces by those sex-saturated women repelling your innocent amorous advances.

Mercy! I am going out and sit on the porch of my floating house and get some fresh air.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Romance books are very different from porn. In these stories, people are at their romantic best. Men are made to be heroic and strong.

Porn is degrading to women. There is nothing heroic about it. There is usually no plot and everyone is using each other.

Apples and oranges folks.

By Renee

September 8, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Well if you have any information to substantiate that “behind the scenes” is this forceable rape scene, please enlighten ME, since this might just be an OPINION. You should also let the AUTHORITIES know of any illegal activity you have first hand information of.

It seems awful hard for people to believe that women are not forced into this life. Yes, there are movies made with women and children being forced to do things, but that is ILLEGAL. There is such a thing as legal porn. I am a woman, I enjoy some porn sometimes. I don’t find it degrading. It’s not me, it’s not degrading me. If some woman wants to show me some a__ and I am in the mood to look at it (and it looks good) I will.

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Oops!! I had the wrong user name down. Greenie is me. I use that for a different discussion group. Sorry! Anything previously from “greenie” is from me. :)

By Ben

September 8, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I’m sure that’s exactly why Greenie. You don’t put on the makeup or the clothes because you want someone to notice you, how dare men think that.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

THANK YOU Heather. Well said. (& you & I never agree on anything lol)

Why is this so difficult for so many to understand? Is it they are grasping for anything they can to defend their abuse enjoyment? Probably. Tell you what, if more men were romantic like the ones in the books, they’d probably get unlimited sex from their SO’s/wife ! (ok it would help if they LOOKED like the guys on the covers too hehe) We can dream can’t we??

By Ben

September 8, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

My amorous advances are directed toward my wife and rarely rejected Dusty, but thanks for the concern.

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

(was greenie). Ben - no of course just like natural instinct the first physical impression is important so I like to look nice and attractive, but I don’t WANT to look like what society has made us believe is acceptable. I do what makes ME feel good which will in turn bring on confidence which I have found has attracted more than if I did those things for the sole reason of attracting people and had no confidence or self respect.

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Whiley - I’m all with you on the romance novels. Have you seen the commercial with the guy and the girl on the kitchen island and it’s saying ‘has he been reading your romance novel’? or something like that? I told my boyfriend that guys needed to read them! We like being sweeped off our feet.

then again Whiley, you making the comment that it wouldn’t hurt for them to look like that is just as degrading as them wanting us to look like porn stars. We all want to be with someone that is attractive.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Fed-Up - You are ignorant. I personally am helping this family I met because they need it, and I can help them. I will not complain about them ever. I don’t care if I get a pat on the back or not, that is not why I am doing this. As for “If you were doing so much, how you got time to come on here and post??” Most of us that come on here do it while at work. and we can help out without it taking up our whole day. I have been asking people at work to help this family.

By Tim

September 8, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

if more men were romantic like the ones in the books

Whiley… that’s a problem in the gay community too… I can’t tell you how many times I hear ‘you wanna go do it’… oh yeah big boy that really does it for me! NOT lol :)

By taboga

September 8, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Uhmm…. because of the topic at hand maybe?? Girls have been told from day one that if they aren’t pretty enough or sexy enough, they won’t get the attention they want and deserve (withOUT being groped or disrespected). We’ve been told by media, magazines, porn, men, etc.

No you weren’t - you were “told” by your Mother. And just exactly what “attention” do you supposedly “deserve”…?

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

ROFL TIM ! How romantic !

By Heather

September 8, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Why can’t men be like the ones in books? They have integrity and honor. Even the stories where the men start out bad are about men changing their ways and becoming every woman’s dream guy. I think if men actually acted the way they are in romance books, they wouldn’t have to look like the guys on the covers. And what about how most of the guys who do look like that are either complete jerks or gay?

Of course, I bet most men would love it if more women acted like the women in porn movies too, huh?

By Ben

September 8, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

I see what the problem is. Some of you have never been satisfied! But as long as you are so uptight, it will probably never happen and you will stay in fairy tale land waiting for Prince Charming to come sweep you off your feet and make love to you in a field of daisies. Not all girls want that, trust me!

By Brian Curtis

September 8, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Whiley: You’re having a hard time selling this point because it’s an opinion, not truth. You claim that porn is degrading to women… how so? (And why isn’t it equally degrading to the men who appear in it?)

Likewise, you claim that porn is the same as abuse… but do you have any evidence to back that up? Or are you simply disgusted by it, and assuming that should be enough to make your case?

Heck, I find a lot of things offensive—but that doesn’t give me the right to shut them down or insist that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Does some porn involve crime? Yes; and it should be prosecuted as such. But for all that, some churches are involved in crime too—does that mean all religions should be condemned?

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Tim - LOL talk about your foreplay!! how sad is that.. I had a guy that I was just starting to hang out with and kinda wanted to date, tell me “I’ve never had a girl to be able to get me off before, I can only do it with porn and my right hand, but you wanna F anyways?” I swear on my great-grandmothers grave, that’s what he said. We didn’t date (I would add obviously but it might not be so obvious). I would have prefered the “wanna do it?” line!

By Mini-Dubya

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

Dance, puppets, dance!!!

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

“making the comment that it wouldn’t hurt for them to look like that is just as degrading as them wanting us to look like porn stars.”

Actually, it’s only degrading if we expect them look like book covers, AND bend over up close in front of a camera begging to be __ed. (yea like that will ever be the norm) lol !

By Ben

September 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Heather - why can’t all women be like porn stars, or the chicks on Girls Gone Wild.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Ben, all girls want that. Trust me!!

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

How DARE you a* hole bring my mother into this. My mother never ONCE told me that! It’s because of my mother that I accept and am just fine with the fact that I’ll never look like the models and not feel like I need implants and cosmetic surgery to enhance what is already pretty darn good. She taught me to eat right, use makeup to bring out the features I like most and dress like a respectable lady. I couldn’t have asked for better parents and I will never accept anyone talk about them in a negative way again.

most people don’t deny that media plays a large roll in the problems women have with accepting themselves.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Because its degrading Ben. Why would you want them to be? Women grow old. You want to marry some woman who at 75 is acting like the Girls Gone Wild? I bet you’d be telling her to cover them up by then.

By Fedup

September 8, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Raylene, thats why you are doing it? Why are you coming on here talking about it?

By Jack

September 8, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

buildingbridges. That guy had to be insane! How can you prefer Madam Palm and her five daughters over the real thing? Jeez. He probably never had a woman who did it with him if he tells them all that!

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Ben - I guess I wouldn’t say ALL girls want that but a good majority would probably smile and say “hmm, that’d be nice” then would come back to reality. Just like asking a guy if he would want a specific type of girl, a model or actress or something. The response would be ‘wouldn’t that be nice’ but you know it’s not reality.

tab - the attention I’m talking about is respectable attention. Positive attention as opposed to the groping and leering and ‘hey baby wanna do it’ type things. But you already knew that didn’t you. And YES, everyone DESERVES that kind of attention.

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Bridges, Re-read my post to see your error in assuming you understand my use of ADULT. I know you did not.

FYI - I do not think that most adults are mentally ADULTs. Those that are, understand porn for what it is; the grown children of the world are a different story.

I do wish there was an adult to discuss this with, bc I do wonder (cognitive/adult replies welcome) what is the best way to weigh porns influence. For I understand there are many people out there that will always be to immature to understand that the porn-stars are willing adults acting out fantasy. And those idiots WILL base decisions on what they read/witness without real thought - but they are vulnerable to much more than only porn (think - these people that are not normal can: Drive, Own a gun, Online-date; many things that put us “normals” (like Whiley can educate us on what is normal - or anyone for that matter, geeze). So the question I have is: if porn, rock music, violent pc games promote negitive behaviour in SOME; and the others do not - Should the unaffected choose to give up freedoms for those lacking?

Whiley, There is no slavery. No one is forced. There are no guns. It is ALL free will. When one associates what is imagined (governed by your past, so quite biased) with the real - there is no use continuing this topic.

{want to look to sic people? Look at the white collar men AND women who are buying kids for housecleaners and sex slaves; right in atlanta. What industry do you think is profiting from that? Govmt? Police? Storage sites? One things for certain - not the porn industry.}

By buildingbridges

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

Jack - LOL great response!! I’ve got to admit I’ve never heard it called that before… learn something every day! :) Yeah I told him that pretty much. I think I said something like ‘that really makes a girl wanna jump in the sac with ya’. I don’t know what his problem is. He’ll probably be “married” to jena jameson (forgive if I spelled wrong! I can’t even remember if that’s the name of the person he said he liked so much)the rest of his life.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

How DARE you as hole bring my mother into this. My mother never ONCE told me that!*

Oh really. So I guess, at about the age of oh, say, nine - it was the MEDIA telling you to look good for the boys? Or maybe it was MEN who put those ideas in your head? Or maybe it was all the PORN you were watching at the time?

Most girls are in full swing trying to make themselves attractive to boys in their early teens. And we’re all supposed to believe it’s because of the influence of “Men, the Media and Porn”…?

By buildingbridges

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

FatMoose - I wasn’t referring to just that one. There were several that you emphasized adult. If I mis-interpreted the last post, I’m sorry.

Your right though, the problem is that the responsible adults that enjoy a little erotica as a form of entertainment is not the normal audience of porn. I don’t like porn, I think it’s disgusting, the thing is, it’s degrading for men just like it is for women, although men are studs and women are sluts. ;-) age old argument I know.

I do agree though that if it weren’t for the one’s that were consumed by it and their addiction to it was the outcome of distruction in their lives, this wouldn’t even be a topic.

I do like to read romance novels, I personally tend to skip over the detailed sex scenes, I know where he puts it, I don’t need it spelled out for me. Same with porn videos…I know where it all goes, don’t need an instructional video. ;-)

By Tim

September 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

buildingbridges… oh that is great… lol… the other one I hear is (while grabbing himself)… you want some of this?… my response… how bout you just keep holding on to that and ‘take care of business’ yourself :)

(I must say that he usually says these things joking… but I am sure in the back of his mind he is hoping that one day it will work lol)

By Gerardo

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

Please don’t lash out at me for my lack of education on thi subject… Why can’t they just enforce pornographic sites to move there homepages to the .xxx domain?

By buildingbridges

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

tab - You don’t know much about girls do you? Of course you don’t. To answer.. actually yes media… you know, the teen mags, the teeny bopper movies, the teen pop stars. The 13 year old ‘britney spears’ of the world that entice us to dress and act that way because it’s “cool”. Scientific fact that girls mature faster than boys. It is in human nature to try and attract the opposite sex, it might be someone’s parents telling them they aren’t good enough it was NOT mine though.

By Fedup

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

Sadly, taboga that is exactly what it is. 9 year old girls have seen and heard way too much by that time. Now as for seeing porn? I think I was about 13 before I saw a porn movie. I was fascinated by it. Kids find ways to get to it earlier and earlier.

By buildingbridges

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

LOL Tim - everyone has a little erotica in them. haha. I believe I’d have a similar response to that. “uhmm.. nah, not wanting any of that, thanks for offering though”

By Brian Curtis

September 8, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Gerardo: The simplest answer is that enforcement would be impossible, for a variety of reasons. One is that there are MILLIONS, if not tens of millions, of porn sites. Another is that many, many sites are hosted in countries other than the U.S., and are therefore not bound by U.S. law.

By Whiley

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

Years ago I saw a show that wanted to see how a group of men reacted after they dressed in practically nothing & performed the same poses that porn stars did.

Initially they rolled their eyes & were completely convinced that there was nothing wrong with porn & it hurt no one. Over the course of an hour the group of around 5 had posed in many unusual & degrading poses in front of photographers & a few other people. Many of these “positions”were not filmed due to the graphic nature, but you could hear what everyone was saying. Even though they were clothed (barely)the shock of it all was overwhelming. They were mentally drained & visibly saddened. Does anyone else remember this?

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Fedup - EXACTLY! I was actually in my 20’s first time I saw anything porn related, but yes, 9 year olds know a lot more than they should. I’m not blaming the media, but that is where a lot of the lack of self-confidence in women come from. It’s been recently that the not so thin and not so perfect actresses, those with curves, have become acceptable and beautiful.

An example, Friends, those that watched it, remember the first season? Jennifer anniston had a nice figure, not too thin, definitely not big, just right. The producers insisted that ALL the girls lose weight, but not the guys… Matthew Perry (chandler) and Matt Leblanc (Joey) both got pretty hefty, but one of the girls put on a pound.. and they were threatened with losing the roll! So tell me…how would that not affect the image of a young girl watching that show or reading about that in people and thinking “wow, if she’s not skinny enough for the show, there’s no way I would be!”

By buildingbridges

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

Whiley - I don’t remember seeing that but it’s interesting. I’m like you, I don’t see how anyone could actually be happy with that lifestyle. The self respect I would think would be non-existent.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

This conversation reminds me something.

Penthouse was holding an audition of sorts for new models back in the mid 90’s at Daytona Beach.

At 5:00 am, there were over 500 women lined-up for the chance to be exploited. Or maybe they were all single mothers just looking for a way to feed their children?

And of course, those women don’t have a problem with any of this stuff. It’s just most of you who couldn’t get a nude spread in National Geographic - that are all upset about it.

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Could the real issue be that women only know how to compete by way of LOOKS and SEXUALITY? Therefore pigeonhole themselves? Hmmm…lets explore that sometime.

Of course not you will say: The media taught them, and the media is controlled by men, and men want to control women!

Men have conspired this whole gender thing, remember tab? We had that meeting back in 500bc, right when we got past grunting? That is when it all started (sounds like the reverse demonization that the bible does to women - 180 degrees from sick is still sick).

Or, maybe, men and women dig each others bodies? And, they dig seeing adult-play in its various forms? And what I find extreme, you find ho-hum - because (like the gay issue) adults cannot act like ADULTS when it concerns anothers sexuality.

By Raylene

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

Fed-up - I said “that is not why i am doing it”. learn how to read, moron. I posted it on here, because i was talking to someone who actually cares what i have to say. if you dont like what i have to say then dont read it.

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

FatMoose - I don’t think the media is controlled by men and they want to control women. I do know some women that think that way. But men have always been the “stronger” sex (sorry ladies, I don’t mean that in a sexist way) in that they do tend to have more control over things.

And yeah, we do have to compete with the idea that men have of the ‘perfect’ body and the ideal look, etc. But there was a time (before movies and models) where men preferred the curvy women. HECK there was even a time with movies and models where they did (marlyn monroe?). And years ago, the “ideal” body type was the boy body, no hips or boobs. Well sorry guys, I’ve got both! Luckily, recently, the actresses have started to come with a little more meat (in the right places) making more women “acceptable” in the eyes of men. I’m sure you won’t agree, but where do you think people get the idea of an “ideal” woman?

By Fedup

September 8, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

You seem to be a little selfish and self-centered Raylene.

You obviously can’t think thru what I have said so I will make it a little easier for you.

You are giving to them because you want to. But why are you here talking about it? To make yourself seem like a good and decent person? To feel good about yourself? I doubt any of the victims are reading this blog today. So it is certainly not to let them know someone is there to help them. The topic is pornography. You came on here with the whole “look what I am doing thing”. I simply called you on it.

By Heather

September 8, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

There are some kinds of pornography that are truly sick, dead people, animals, children. I doubt people start out looking at this sort of thing. They start small and work their way up to it. Like any addiction it feeds on itself until it is out of control.

The sad thing is that people are getting rich off of other people’s addictions. Something needs to be done about this. It really does need to be shut down.

By Raylene

September 8, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

I am not selfish or self-centered. i was not going “hey look at me, look what i am doing” i was telling some one what i was doing and that was all. and if you have ever been on this blog before, or read the previous entries, you would see that the topic always changes. once again, if you dont like it dont read it. and you can kiss my a$$, if you dont like that either.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Moose,

That’s right - men are responsible for everything that happens to women. Women have absolutely no control of anything.

Until they don’t get a raise or a job. Then, they’re the most qualified, strongest of character and leadership and can do everything that a man can do!

Until they get into Divorce Court. Then they’re a poor, defenseless and incapable lot.

Until they run for political office. Then they are of steel will and determination - earth-shakers if you will.

And if they look good - they use that to their advantage. If they’re not so good looking, then they demand that looks not enter into anything.

Way beyond “Having their cake and eating it too”…

By FatMoose

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

I remember two books on one of the psychiatrists shelves that worked for my dad in his private practice: - The book of sex: which had EVERYTHING in it one could imagine with explicit b/w photos

• How to teach your catholic wife to talk dirty: Boy did we get a kick out of that one!

But the saddest thing in this topic is that so many guys out there do not know what it is like to be with a self-assured/self owning female! They have little to no hang-ups on their body (my gf is not a model, but I am in love her; and whatever her body may look like at any age we get to [Bridges: this is what I mean by ADULT thinking. I know the difference bw IDEAL, FAKE, AND REALITY. Another way to put it; I can read superman without trying to jump off a building afterwards]). They also enjoy the HUMAN body - heck my gf points out girls and vv; we both are SECURE in our relationship and selves.

You just have to be extremely discerning today to find an ADULT. Otherwise, expect to live with a child (stomp stomp “Its not fair!!!” More stomps down the hall)

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

heather - I am by no means a porn - supporter so I’m not argueing against you about what you said, BUT… if you want to shut down everyone that is getting rich off of people’s addictions… BOY that’s a fine line to draw. Cigarettes, alcohal, material possesions like cars can be addicting, self-pleasure, music, movies, a tv show (I’m absolutetly addicted to Law & Order, it wastes a lot of my time and I don’t get other things done, so I guess it would be bad for me and should be shut down), discussing on the blog can be addicting!, e-mail, surfing the web (non-porn related), etc, etc…

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Heather, That is not porn you are reffering to.

But are you about to make the case that normal porn is a gateway material to necro/pedo/beast???

You are bent.

By buildingbridges

September 8, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

FatMoose - THAT is a definition of Adult that I can get on board with. I have to say I agree with that 100% and with what you said about not being with a self-assured lady. There does tend to be a problem with that though, a lot of the boys (yes boys, they are truly not mature enought to call men) can’t deal with the self-assured and confident woman that doesn’t need their reasurance that they are perfect just the way they are. admit it guys.. you enjoy being the hero too… right?

btw..any girl that makes snide remarks about another girls body or anything, is usually jealous (NOT ALWAYS) but usually, the secure women, they can compliment another woman without feeling insecure and competitive, nor are they fishing for compliments like “aw, but your prettier baby” blach

By Heather

September 8, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

buildingbridges, I agree, we can’t take away everything that might be addictive. This blog would have to go because it sure seems a lot of people are addicted to it as well. But I think steps could be made to make destructive behaviors less accessible and maybe minimize the harm they can cause.

By Naimah

September 8, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Is this a really big issue facing America’s women today. There will be porn sites regardless of there ending prefixes…..If Shaunti and Feldhan read these blogs PLEASE START COMING UP WITH BETTER AND MORE RELevANT TOPICS CONCERNING WOMEN!

By taboga

September 8, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Fedup,

That’s what all these folks are doing. They’re putting on a show of compassion and want everyone to applaud them for it.

They make a mockery of tragedies just like they do minorities, the handicapped and the disabled — anyone or anything that they can use as their prop for pretending to be so compassionate and concerned.

So do what you’re supposed to do and give them a loud round of applause!

By Heather

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

What is so bent about that Fatmoose? Where did you come up with that name anyway?

Have you ever known anyone who was into these sorts of pornography? Have you even seen any of it? They usually get started with a playboy in the back of dad’s van.

Am I saying that all people who look at porn are going to end up looking at pics of mutilated women being ggbged? Of course not. But for those people who do have something wrong in their head it can lead to that.

By taboga

September 8, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Of all the millions of dollars that are made on sex toys - mostly for women - are MEN making you women buy these as well?

By FatMoose

September 8, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Bridges,

And at no point in time will I argue with you that there are a lot of little boys out there! I keep myself in check regularly by reminding myself that I am dealing with the oppisite sex 99.999% of the time in these issues; and imagine the guys out there to think/be like me.

Cheers and have a good day.

By Whiley

September 8, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Sex toys for WOMEN have absolutely NOTHING to do with porn & it’s negative affects on MOST people. Naked men aren’t splattered all over the Internet, in the check out line of every gas station. What if tomorrow, MEN were posing & making porn, the Internet saturated with naked men with their privates being invaded up close to a camera. Only men were the ones being attacked in all your gang bang movies you seem to love so much. All the while 500 thousand males were being sexually assaulted per year. Porn won’t be that fun anymore now would it?

By buildingbridges

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

FatMoose - My profession is a “man’s” profession so I deal a lot with boys. :)

Have a great evening! It’s 5! time for that drink…

By FatMoose

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

FatMoose is what I call my cat. His name is Moose (Kinda Short for Mustifa - not Lion King, but Akkad; a turkish name). He is currently ill with liver problems and at the vet.

Yes, I have seen many types of harsh acts online. I have to say though, ALL the beast stuff is women (that I have SEEN) - not sure what women dig about dogs, but they obviously do. Check the forums online if you want confirmation. I did a paper on it in Soc, for my thesis. Tricky stuff if your honest!

By TT

September 8, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Indirectly, yes, men are reponsible for women purchasing sex toys. Because most men don’t know how to please a woman. I’m sure your cousin can relate.

Have you taken in any hurricane victims today? Or are you still sitting back pretending they’re all millionaires. Must be nice to live in make believe world, T. I find it hilarious that someone who is on this blog 24x7 has the nerve to tell call others lazy or tell other folks to pick up the Classifieds and get a job. Guess not everyone is fortunate enough to live off the hard work off their parents.

Such a strange universe you inhabit where helping others and having friends makes one a freak and sitting home alone in front of your computer brewing hate makes you normal. I think the Skol has started to eat away at your two remaining brain cells, you neanderthal.

By Ben

September 9, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Only men were the ones being attacked in all your gang bang movies you seem to love so much. All the while 500 thousand males were being sexually assaulted per year. Porn won’t be that fun anymore now would it?

Whiley are you serious? Are you asking how a man would feel is 5 women wanted to do him at the same time? I hope you don’t think that question is making your point. Porn wouldn’t be necessary if that were the case.

By Rod d'Bree

September 9, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this

Plenty of blame to go around, folks. Try reading a variety of news outlets instead of only special interest and partisan blogs that support your preconceived notions.

This From Brett Hume’s column,

“But The Washington Post reports the Bush administration has granted the corps more funding than the previous administration over a similar period and that Louisiana has received far more money for civil works projects than any other state. The paper says much of the funding has been spent not on flood control, but on lawmakers’ pet construction projects, including a brand new $750 million canal lock in New Orleans unrelated to flood control.”

“Neither the administration or its critics are saying this, but one reason anti-flooding measures failed to stop Katrina from inundating New Orleans is that some environmental groups successfully resisted new flood control projects. The Sierra Club (search) and other groups sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees because the plan would jeopardize Louisiana forests”

“And the New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported that “Save our Wetlands” successfully sued the corps of engineers three decades ago to stop construction on floodgates to block storm surges from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontchatrain (search), saying they were too damaging to the lake’s eco-system”

Plenty of blame to go around, folks. Try reading a variety of news outlets instead of only special interest and partisan blogs that support your preconceived notions.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this

No TT, it’s just nice to be someone smart enough to have made enough money so that I can afford to make fun of little rubes like you - at my leisure.

“Helping someone” doesn’t make anyone a freak. You are just a freak pretending to help someone. See the difference?

It’s the only reason you pranced out here with that detailed story about the 74 year old woman you met. When all you really had to say:

Everyone applaud me for being so compassionate because I helped hurricane victims!

And you still haven’t answered my question: Is that 74 year old woman that you care so deeply about - living with you now?

By taboga

September 9, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

And so now we learn that the Red Cross had food, water and other emergency supplies - ready to be be moved in as soon as the hurricane passed.

BUT, the Louisiana State Government wouldn’t let them bring it all in because they didn’t want people coming in mass to the SuperDome?

I guess the Bush Administration (who hates the poor) must have gotten to the Red Cross and forced one of their spokesman to make that claim? And put the same information on their website? And willing to go public with logs of phone calls made, with direct orders and by whom within the Louisiana State Government?

Karl Rove must have put that all together.

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

“Are you asking how a man would feel is 5 women wanted to do him at the same time? I hope you don’t think that question is making your point. Porn wouldn’t be necessary if that were the case.” (such a misogynist answer) LETS TRY to imagine YOUR world is NOT male privileged anymore now can we for a moment?

If porn was helping to fuel the attackers of 500 thousand raped MEN in this country alone (that’s per year, the reported ones) , & you were helpless to stop it, and nobody was doing anything about it. (except tell YOU how YOU can maybe avoid it) I doubt very much you’d think kindly of porn.

By Ben

September 9, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

I doubt very much that I’d be raped either!

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

I have seen pleanty of reports Whiley, and NONE state that porn fuels rape.

That is absurd. You are once again bound by your simplistic logic of: Man rapes girl, rapist owned porn, porn caused rape.

You are just plain wrong Whiley; Get a spinal cord and grow up please!

By Whiley

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

“I doubt very much that I’d be raped either!”

Must be wonderful to have such male privilage & to be free of sexual violence your whole life. Thank you for trying to understand. (eyes rolling)

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

“I have seen pleanty of reports Whiley, and NONE state that porn fuels rape.”

Reports from Penthouse & Husler don’t count. Please stop preaching lies. And stop twisting my words.

By FatMoose

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

Whiley, Your ignorance on the subject you feel so “passionately” about is without bounds. Do you not see that you have no effect on what issues ARE present bc you fail to be able to look at the without bias. You have a point that is FUELED by your OPINION, and to see the truth you would have to put that agenda down - which you are incapable of.

Others [who are not even picking a side] have tried to point out that your opinion is not fact - no matter how insanely passionate you may feel.

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

“You are just plain wrong Whiley; Get a spinal cord and grow up please!”

Translation: Yes men rape women & children at a horrific rate. Porn is a contributing factor but we won’t admit it because frankly we enjoy hard-core porn. We won’t do anything about rapists because it’s not really our problem, you deal with it. We’ll do anything to protect our porn so shut up & deal with it. We don’t care that the threat of rape affects your lives. Stay inside then.

(THIS is why we women need to take over the world. Until then, nothing is going to be accomplished) Jack & Tim will be in charge of the Supreme Court.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Please stop. There’s no way under the sun that 500 THOUSAND women are raped every year!

And how much longer do we have to keep hearing the incredible tale, that thousands of rape incidents go “unreported”…?

If they’re “unreported” - how can anyone know about them?

And does anyone really believe, that there are thousands of women who have legitimately been raped - and yet they don’t report it and let the rapist get away with it?

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Not lies you offensive idiot.

Gosh you are stupid.

By Ben

September 9, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

When you step back and look outside the box Whiley, only then will you see that are problem is the fact that you are attributing rape to porn. But I guess to you, anyone sick enough to watch porn is sick enough to rape a woman or child. If you were anymore illogical I’d think about tightening the straight jacket.

By Jack

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

Thank you Whiley. :)

By Whiley

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

Are you people serious? Are you that ignorant of what’s going on in this country? The world? Never mind then if you are going to be in denial this much. It is certainly a man’s world isn’t it. If men were being raped at the level women & children were, maybe things would be different.

So my answer to this original topic is, no amount of porn should be encouraged. Even having their own xxx domain.

Tonight on the news when they report another women “sexually assaulted” (why don’t they even call it rape anymore?) think about the ones that weren’t reported or on the news.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Whiley, Whatever you want. You are going to believe what you want without even looking to substantiate it; and there is pleanty of proof for what I am saying.

Between my parents professions (my mom is a doctor you idiot - I was raise by a woman that you will never aspire to; Dad was a Psychiatrist) I KNOW what I am talking about - where as you feel strongly about what you THINK.

I have FIRSTHAND knowledge of what you want to talk about, but you have no knowledge to share - only vauge anger. I have seen women like you ruin programs for REAL victims by stating what they think, not know, and bringing support groups to screaching hault. Mothers/sisters like you that instill more damage that the man (and woman) did to the child with their violence! I have seen just under half of the rape/abuse victims be assaulted by MOM - and the mental damage mom does has NO comarision to men [More info above your head: The most destructive behaviours are onset by MOMS messing up their kids - look it up and learn!]; you want to talk about that for a while? Or do you want to sweep that under the rug bc it involves women? The numbers are staggering, but you would not know ANYTHING about that would you? - bc you are not in the practice of healing, but breaking down.

Go get educated.

By Snorter

September 9, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Like rape is even related to sex. Thought the woman’s movement argument was that rape was a power/violent act against women, and had nothing to do with sex. But is manifested via the rape.

Bet there are many child-molestors who do not even have porn collections. Or did child molesting only start in the past 30 years or so?

By Brian Curtis

September 9, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Whiley: You said, “If porn was helping to fuel the attackers of 500 thousand rapes in this country alone… I doubt very much you’d think kindly of porn.”

Yes, you’re correct. If it were causing rape, I wouldn’t think kindly of porn. IF that connection truly existed.

But you have yet to post or link to anything proving such a connection. I could easily point to hundreds of deranged murderers who claim the Bible as their inspiration, but that wouldn’t prove the Bible is evil. You haven’t even done that much.

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Twisting my words again? Fact: There is a serious problem of men raping women & children. Fact: Sex offenders most always have a large library of porn. Fact: Porn is one of the main ways women are oppressed and degraded in this society. (I don’t buy the excuse that men need it, it’s natural) Fact: Men as a group are a threat to women & children. Nothing is being done. Fact: WE as women have a right to be angry about this without being labeled hysterical or ignorant.

By Snorter

September 9, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Even Camille Paglia, the ultimate feminist-lesbian, likes porn. Gotta love her, but did before I knew that anyway.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Men as a group are a threat to women & children.

Does it get any better than that?

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

OK I’m done here. Defend your porn no matter who it hurts. Have fun.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Whiley, If I take the time to rip apart your “FACTS,” will you learn? Or will you just shut your ears as you have with all the other posts?

If you were wrong, would you even want to know?

No? Even if that means you can help us, who ARE combating violence?

[Unless you begin showing you KNOW something on this topic; you ARE ingorant. Look it up. www.dictionary.com]

By FatMoose

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

Whiley, Would have rathered you learn, but stomp on down the hall.

By Brian Curtis

September 9, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Whiley, that third ‘fact’ (that porn is one of the main ways women are oppressed and degraded) is an opinion.

The problem continues—you keep stating your personal opinions as fact, and then getting frustrated that other people could deny this “obvious truth.”

And you still haven’t posted anything to establish a causal link between porn and sexual assault. Yes, some rapists are porn consumers… some rapists also eat cereal. Plenty more porn consumers never rape or attack anybody. So where’s the link?

By Ben

September 9, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Fact: Porn is one of the main ways women are oppressed and degraded in this society.

How are women oppressed and degraded in this society because of porn if they perform and watch it voluntarily, under their own will. If you walk around with your left boob hanging out of your shirt, am I a pervert for looking at it? Am I oppressing you for looking at? Am I degrading you for looking at it?

By Duh

September 9, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

I guess Whiley will not be supporting a ‘.xxx’ domain name structure. Like its absence will decrease porn and the “obvious” ending result of RAPES.

Ooop, gotta go watch some porn, and go on a raping rampage.

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

FatMoose - He is currently ill with liver problems and at the vet - I’m so sorry!

I just reading back and saw this about your cat. My cat, Sabrina, is at home fighting liver disease. We had to insert a feeding tube last week and she and I are working hard to get her nutrients back up. She lost like 5 lbs in the past few months and had a kidney infection as well. I completely feel your concern and I hope Moose gets well real soon!!!

I know this is off topic but I wanted to send my thoughts to you and your kitty.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

BC, Topic for decent debate (I have opinions on both sides of this, so am open to comments) Something that my GF and I were discussing:

My Neices want thongs. They are 13yrs. I keep waffling bw:

• the idea that sexuality/femininity should be able to be exrpessed at any age (not action mind you, but the emergence of feeling good about your body in a slightly charged way - seeing as there is not point that people go from innocent to adult, it is a process that begins earlier than most would want to admit) and it is OUR assotiations with thongs that carry over, as short skirts or such was appalling to past generations

• And that such “expressions” are too mature for girls that age; and will icrease the likelyhood of sexual issues - be it from boys, or girls and their judgements.

Opinions? Facts? Comments?

By Duh

September 9, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

and all this time I never knew it was expected of me to go on a raping rampage after viewing porn. I better get started. Wait, I could never do that to ANYONE.

By Renee

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

Whiley, where do you get your facts that most sex offenders have a very large porn library.

Please explain how porn = rape, child molestation & beastiality.

Many people watch porn that do not rape, molest children or anything else. Hell, I’ve watched porn, and am yet to rape a woman, molest a child or anything else ILLEGAL.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Bridges,

I really appriciate that; so will Mr. Moose! (Frequently called Momma Moose bc he takes care of (and keeps in line!) everyone (two ferrets, another cat, and a yellow lab) - including me.)

Hopefully he is coming home today while we wait for the rest of the results.

Good luck with your extended family too!

By taboga

September 9, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Are you aware that most sex offenders have had consensual sex before they ever committed a sex crime?

So should we ban consensual sex in order to prevent sex crimes?

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

FatMoose - OH I’m glad to hear that he might get to come home today! Somewhere that he’ll be comfortable and start the healing process.

LOL that’s quite a herd! ;-) Sabrina is the veteran of our family too. The old lady if you will. She’s 7 and I adopted her when she was 9mo. My dog that she grew up with passed away last year not long after I adopted a 1.5 year old cat. A few months ago I adopted a 3 year old greyhound. Sabrina is the queen of the house and they ALL know it.

I look for an update next week during the discussion. :) My pets are my ‘kids’ and from what I can tell, it seems that yours are the same to you.

By Nikita

September 9, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

FatMoose, tough question. I assume that they’ll be the only ones seeing them, right? Another factor that should be considered is that they’re underwear and they function differently than other types. And there’s really no reason to limit their underwear choices. I guess the question is are the thongs connected to sexual activity or is it just a desire to try a grown-up clothing item?

A question for us as a society, and one on which I disagree with many conservatives: How do we maintain a society that is reasonably protective to children while being meaningful for all of us? There are many conservatives who believe that society should in effect be made safe for children — i believe, to the contrary, that society doesn’t exist solely for children, but it should be safe enough that children aren’t being harmed by adult pursuits.

By Brian Curtis

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

Moose: Wish I could help, but I have NO expertise in the area of kids—particularly teenagers.

My best hunch is that “it depends on the family you’re in.” How much do the parents trust the girls? How much do the girls know about sexuality and safety? How mature ARE they—age alone doesn’t determine that? Are they dating? etc.

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Moose - My opinion. If the parent is buying the clothes, then they have some say in what is being bought. If the parent isn’t comfortable with buying a 13 year old thongs, then I would say no to buying them. Of course there are instances where the parents don’t have much control over what their kids wear so that might be an issue here. Like Brian Curtas said, it depends on the family.

I personally, at my church no less, have seen the young teens around that age, wearing the ultra low rise jeans with their undies hanging out. I don’t know why that has become such a trend but it’s nasty. I personally think that children are growing up way too fast and where being shielded isn’t necessarily the best way to go, but I do think that regulations in some areas is proper. (i.e. thongs, R rated movies, internet supervision, etc.)

By buildingbridges

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

Nikita - I’m a conservative, I’ll give you my take on what you said.

I believe that society should be safe for everyone. Children are the most defensless of us all so I do think it is necessary for us, their protectors, to do what is possible to make this a safe society for them. I don’t think their safety should be compromised for my enjoyment. Now I don’t know if that’s what you’ve heard from conservatives and I just reiterated what you disagreed with, I just thought I’d tell you my thoughts. :) No arguements intended.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Nice that a topic has a couple posts and no slander….we all get a smiley face!!!

As for my neices; they are quite mature and want the thongs bc of the “it” factor (they are twins, and one has had her first kiss last year - so not looking to be active soon).

But where does the curve stop? Or doesnt it? As micro shorts/skirts get ho-hum; do they always get shorter? Seems to haev a finite end, then what?

Nikita, I believe this line of thought will merge with you concern of a society for children or adults. I would like to also pose the question: Is there REALLY a difference? [most adults I know still live by the same reactions as kids, just colored slightly to be appropriate]

By Dusty

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

Obviously, I do not understand the attraction of pornography. It seems to make something normal and special between two loving people into somethng gross, abnormal and often vicious. Why would normal people enjoy that?

Whiley feels strongly about this issue. I don’t believe that all of her figures are accurate and I certainly don’t believe that men are one big evil crowd. But I cannot see any good points about pornography.

Some people declare that this is my free choice of entertainment. That is true. If it is detrimental to society—who cares!! Right? And there goes anything “moral” right out the window with another —Who cares? It is still your choice to be a 3x type person in society.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

It’s all good. Now, we’re opening “Mega Centers” in Atlanta for all the victims of Katrina.

Didn’t I see that guy parking cars at the Braves game a couple of nights ago?

By Ben

September 9, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Maybe they can get a first look at the aquarium too?

By taboga

September 9, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

And I am sure we’ll see a group of the victims seated at the Dome on Monday night.

By Zack

September 9, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

I find it no coincidence that the people who defend porn are also the people who defend flag burning and oppose Creationism in schools. Talk about having a terrible set of beliefs!

WFU—Are you sure you’re not Norman under a different name? You sound about as bigoted and ignorant as him, if not more so, and it’s obvious that if you’re not ignorant you’re in denial, and I’m not sure which is worse. (Ignorance isn’t so bad if it’s held by someone SEEKING the truth, because in that case it should wear off, but to someone in denial of the truth, it very much compounds the problem.)

So, you don’t think the Constitution opposes porn, huh? Ever heard of freedom? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Porn attacks this and is very destructive to individuals and society as a whole. (YOU’RE the one not doing research, my friend. If you did, you’d KNOW that serial killers and prison inmates in general all got started in porn.) You stand back and defend something that you have absolutely no defense for, proudly displaying your lack of reason and common sense, and then compare it to baseball. Do you not see just how off-base you are?

I’m guessing you also support the legalization of drugs and prostitution. My goodness, people are becoming sicker and sicker all the time.

As for condoms, again, do some research, my friend. They DON’T WORK. Even if they did, they wouldn’t affect the moral aspect of sex. Of course, you don’t think about this, do you? I guess you think every decision in life is flippant and carefree and that there are no long-term consequences to anything. That’s an extremely-shallow way to think.

As for guns, guess what? Do some research yet again. Look at the crime rate in Kennesaw, where guns are embraced, and see your incredibly-naive (at best) opinion totally refuted once again. Everything you said is, at best, incredibly naive.

I liken you to Brian Curtis. You’re both ignorant to the truth, probably willfully, and you become very hateful to those who believe in God because you KNOW deep down that we’re right. You would like to believe that truth is relative and that therefore what you do is perfectly okay. When you get around those who don’t share your insane thoughts, in other words, those who know and welcome the truth, as opposed to those who live in denial and in their own delusions, you become very uncomfortable and insensitive.

I guess you and your ilk also were cheering the likes of Eminem and their anti-war songs last night. (Eminem is quite possibly the biggest piece of trash of all time, although the WFUs of the world are tough competitors.) We don’t need to hear these uneducated rubes talk about how war is wrong, especially when, even though this war, may be wrong, there are many more problems in society that these “people” ignore.

To WFU and Brian, I encourage you guys to mature and flee from your delusions. You really need to. Oh, and don’t you ever speak to me the again the way you did earlier, WFU, you uneducated waste of humanity.

clausentowashington@yahoo.com

“It is hard to communicate with those on the left when you use reason.” -Rush Limbaugh

By FatMoose

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

Dusty,

I can understand your concern, the problem I have though with where you start is with a “but if…”: it is detrimental to society

Where can a conversation start that explores this “if” to see whatit actually consists of? I am up to kicking it around…

By Ben

September 9, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Somebody tighten Zack’s straight jacket. The loonies have left the bin. Good God.

By lozen

September 9, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Ben, your comments this morning to Whiley made me angry and they are so typical of a lot of men. That’s one of the reasons all you guys get lumped together at times in these kinds of discussions. There’s been a lot of indignant response from men on here because you all get accused of being this or that. But the way you think, typified by your comments this morning, makes it difficult for women to separate the good ones from the bad ones. Perhaps we should be more sensitive to you exceptional men! But your comment was certainly insensitive to every woman who’s ever been gang raped don’t you think? I realize it’s difficult for most males to imagine what it’s like to be female in terms of sex, and also for women to imagine what it’s like for men. The folktales and religious stories of some indian tribes that men and women are two entirely different species makes a lot of sense in sexual terms. I am not against porn, have enjoyed it at some times in my life, didn’t become addicted or some kind of pervert because of it, and don’t equate porn and rape (although there may be some connection, I just don’t know). But Whiley is making important points (understood by most women immediately)about rape, violence against women, the objectification of women and their body parts, things that take place all the time in pornography and in the day to day lives of women and girls. You believe it would be great to have five women forcing you to have sex? That’s because, for you, that’s nothing but a fantasy and never will be anything except a fantasy. How about closing your eyes for a second and imagining five men jumping you on your way home from work, holding you down, forcing themselves into every opening of your body, using you, laughing at your pain and humiliation, hurting you, tearing you apart, calling you names, laughing with each other while doing this to you! This happened to a woman I know. Does that sound like a dream fantasy to you? For women, rape (by groups, by family members, by family friends, by husbands, by boyfriends, by dates, by strangers) is stark reality that we worry about and guard against every second of every single day; there is nothing pretty or sexy about it. I have known two men who were raped - by other men. They aren’t so flippant about rape! Most men will never understand rape, sexual harrassment, or being seen as nothing but an orifice to stick it in, because it just doesn’t happen to most of you.

By Duh

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

So much for my stupid belief that people get so offended about any questioning of their chosen God for the reason that it is not called Faith for a reason. All this time I thought they got upset because they themselves know it is questionable and theory at best.

and with the Right’s Michael Moore quote, we bow down, now that is AUTHORITY.

By Dusty

September 9, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

FatMoose, the “it” is pornography and you know it. You have already made your choices and I have made mine. No need to kick it around.

By E.G. Salomon

September 9, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

So, you don’t think the Constitution opposes porn, huh? Ever heard of freedom? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Porn attacks this and is very destructive to individuals and society as a whole.

Oh kay… Do everyone a favor and elaborate on this, because I REALLY don’t see your point.

(YOU’RE the one not doing research, my friend. If you did, you’d KNOW that serial killers and prison inmates in general all got started in porn.)

Just like murderers got started on violent TV and videogames, just like drug addicts got started on aspirins, just like alcoholics got started on Niquil, just like chain smokers got started on chocolate cigarettes, just like obese people got started on McDonald’s…

Seriously, do you review your stuff before posting it?

By FatMoose

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

Not even going to read lozens posts. She is Whileys role model for bad logic and denial.

By Jack

September 9, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

I’m glad to be a man because I can physically defend myself against other men. I can see it being difficult for a woman in certain situations due to their limitations physically vs. men. Some men do take advantage of this. These are the types of men that give us a bad reputation. Only had to defend a female once, the guy was tough when it came to women but quite a wuss when confronted by another of his gender.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I see you have to go on the attack so fast you missed that in: FatMoose, the “it� is pornography and you know it. You have already made your choices and I have made mine. No need to kick it around.

That “IT” was an “IF,” learn to read before being on a WRITTEN blog.

By Duh

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

I thought all those prison inmates and serial killers got started on Mama’s milk, or at least cow’s milk.

Maybe it was the infant formula.

By Ben

September 9, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Maybe you need to re-read what angered you so much because I never said anything about gang raped. We were talking about the gang “bang” videos she was so upset about. Gang “Bang” movies as in porno. And like I said, I will never be raped and if it’s the scenario you present, I stick to it. The only way five guys are going to rape me is if they are raping my dead body. At which point it doesn’t really matter - now does it?

See the problem with some of you on here is that you have a very DIFFICULT time with reading comprehension. I never condoned gang raping, or raping for that matter. I simply find it laughable that someone, or some people, associates rape of any kind with pornography.

Don’t worry about separating me into the good or bad guy category as I have already been judged, found fit and married by the only female that matters to me, other than my mother of course.

No one is arguing with Whiley are her points and observations about rape. Only that she is adamant that rape and porn are synonomous (sp)!

So get over it!

By Brian Curtis

September 9, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Zack, you’re still refusing to let any thoughts penetrate your Wall of Faith. That’s your choice, of course, but it makes it kinda pointless for you to come around here attacking and insulting everyone for not embracing the “warmth and love” of your god. If a god exists, I’m pretty sure he wants nothing to do with spittle-spewing, hate-filled, raving zealots like yourself.

And once again, turning your own lame arguments back at you:

“Zack, you are ignorant to the truth—probably willfully—and you become very hateful to those who think differently because you KNOW deep down that you’re wrong. When you’re exposed to people who don’t share your superstitions and delusions—in other words, people who can think for themselves and don’t live in denial—you become very uncomfortable and insensitive.”

“Zack, I encourage you to mature and flee from your delusions… you uneducated waste of humanity.”

Yep, I’m in a real hurry to sign up with your church, all right. After all, it produces such wonderfully sane and compassionate people as yourself.

By Duh

September 9, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

I must have ‘missed out’, not to call it that as I have ‘missed’ nothing, on all the violent porn, the animal stuff, the child porn, since that seems to be the only porn around, if you were to believe this blog.

Never knew those 2/3 people I saw and one was really underage or an animal. Looked like HUMANS to me.

But I think those serial killers and prison inmates all started from abusing their pets. So therefore the logical conclusion, per this blog, is to not allow children to have any pets.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Right Jack, A MAN (you) defended a woman.

What gets me is the slander to all men, although men have been defending women the whole time. So, in effect; Whiley et al will alienate guys, but only guys who would otherwise protect - for the killers and rapist will still do what they do. Only now the “good guys” (3-4 of them is what et al would have us belive and that there is a serial rapist somewhere inside each man) are affected by their accusations and split on them; therefore creating the defensless positions they find themselves in and saying we do not care.

By lozen

September 9, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Rod d’Bree,

Plenty of blame to go around, folks. Try reading a variety of news outlets instead of only special interest and partisan blogs that support your preconceived notions.

You believe Brett Hume isn’t special interest and partisan?

I don’t see that you’re following your own advice.

By FatMoose

September 9, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Bye all.

Have to go get Moose from the vet.

Good luck.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how the minds of some women work.

Women apply for jobs as strippers - there’s no shortage of them.

Women in droves, will line-up for a chance at an audition for a photo shoot with Playboy and Penthouse

Porn films are in the millions - no shortage of women ready to “do it all” on camera.

Personals have about 5 times the amount of ads by women than men.

Multi-million dollar businesses have been created by selling sex toys to women…

…And it’s all MEN’S fault!

Many women will accuse men of being obsessed with sex at the drop of a hat. But who is it that is really obsessed with it?

And then you have Whiley out here, blaming MEN for porn. She doesn’t blame the women, who are the ones participating in it (by the droves), instead she blames ALL men for: “Liking it”. And since ALL men “like it” (implying that women *don’t), it is the fault of MEN - rather than the WOMEN who are actually doing it!

It gets even better…

So, since men like the porn that women play in, and since most rapists like porn (her claim), ALL men are a threat to women and children! Because if ALL men would quit “liking” porn - the rapists would have no porn to watch and might not rape women!

And in this convoluted and confounded reasoning of hers, there is no blame whatsoever for the WOMEN who participate in it - and for which there would be no porn without! Gays not withstanding.

So it ALL men are at fault for enjoying something that women DO that might cause some men to want to rape women!

By lozen

September 9, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

BC, there is no getting through to poor zealots like Zack, but I always appreciate the responses anyway! Zack makes me laugh (then I feel a little guilty and sad), every time he posts. He really believes every word he says is truth although every word he says is just another of his freaky black and white, simple beliefs. It’s very sad to confront such blind ignorance and I feel bad about laughing at him.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Why do you say that Zack has “black and white, simple beliefs”…?

If you are CONVINCED that his beliefs are “ignorant” - isn’t that your “Black and White, simple beliefs”…?

I am only asking the question in a rhetorical sense as I already know the answer.

By lozen

September 9, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

BC, and then there’s the one operating on about 2 cylinders who really and truly believes he’s more intelligent than anyone else in the whole world and, therefore, people actually care what he thinks. He makes me laugh too, and he makes me feel sick but I don’t feel sorry for him. He is so full of hate, just knows everybody in the world (New Orleans right now) is a vandal and a crook and out to get everything they can and shouldn’t be our concern. They’re sorry and lazy or they would already have a job and be working 10 days after the trauma they’ve been through. There is not one admirable or redeeming quality in that sack of s**!

By taboga

September 9, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

BC, and then there’s the one operating on about 2 cylinders who really and truly believes he’s more intelligent than anyone else in the whole world and, therefore, people actually care what he thinks.

I never claimed to be the most intelligent person in the world.

Just far more intelligent than people like you.

By Jack

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

Lozen. Big T has casted the bait and is reeling you in. What pound test do you use Taboga?

By lozen

September 9, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Jack, maybe the Big T isn’t as lacking in intelligence as we thought. He immediately knew who I was talking about! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

By Heather

September 9, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Why are all you people beating up on Zack? He doesn’t agree with what you say, he has different ideas than you, so it is okay to flog him to death? Reading some of your comments is almost like watching a gang rape.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all about free speech and all that. How about a little human kindness? If you all think you are so great and what you think is so great, then show some greatness and quit it.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Jack,

A lightweight monofilament. More sport in it that way.

By Ben

September 9, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Heather - Are you serious?

By taboga

September 9, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Of course I knew you were talking about me - you’ve only stated those same things about me at least a dozen times out here on these blogs!

I tell you what you need to do. Go stand in front of a mirror and repeat ten times: “I wish I were as smart as Taboga”

It will make you feel alot better…

By hahaha

September 9, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Heather are you a blonde? I just see you walking into walls holding your bible.

By Jack

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

Leave Heather alone. She is sweet.

By Scalia

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

Most things that are illegal are the ones that make the most money. I’m not saying legalize it, but think about it. The US makes more money off of porn because sex is so taboo a subject. Drugs are illegal and make tons of money.

Time to go have some beer, watch some football and baseball (check out the pitchers and athletes in spandex), and enjoy the sunshine outside. Have a nice weekend, and don’t watch too much porn:)

By hahahaha2

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

Lozen

make sure you do not also do:

“I wish I was as UGLY as Taboga” when you do it.

one extremely ugly person on this blog is more than enuf

By taboga

September 9, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Where is TT…?

I’m about ready for some more of her stale attempts a wit!

Well, she’s probably at one of the many hurricane victim centers doing her part to save humanity — so I shouldn’t be too hard on the little rube I guess…

By lozen

September 9, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Mirror, mirror on the wall: I wish I were as smart as T….????? HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA. ROFL! Oh PLEASE, stop! HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA! LMAO! HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA!

By lilith

September 9, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Jack, why am I not surprised you like your women sweet and dumb?

Too-bother, suck my dick you idiot!

By Zack

September 9, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—I apologize. You do antagonize me quite often, but I apologize. That was mostly directed toward WFU, who’s the main antagonist of the blog. Name-calling is wrong, yes. I’ll be the first to admit I’m not perfect. I apologize again.

Taboga—Posing in a magazine like Penthouse is wrong, and it doesn’t matter how many people are willing to do it. If all six billion people in the world think murder, for example, is okay, that doesn’t make it okay. WE do not vote and decide what is true; God already has ordained that.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

And now we have hahaha2 coming out to play.

Apparently no one has advised it of the first rule of this blog: You *must be original with any attempt at wit or humor.*

It’s a mandatory but yet simple rule. But one you Leftists have extreme difficulty adhering to.

By taboga

September 9, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Lily,

I think I’ve asked you this question before, but how does someone that goes by Lilith, even have a Richard…?

By Jack

September 9, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

I’m surprised someone named Lilith has a dick. And I like my women sweet, not dumb.

By taboga

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

And for the sake of perfect timing…

Unless you are Gay - why would you want a man to suck your Lil’inch…?

By hahaha2

September 9, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

I never could have thought of my post as ‘wit’, ‘humor’, or ‘original’. Just a Jack Webb.

Live by my own rules, feel free to post more of your blog ‘rules’ so I can go out of my way to break them.

By taboga

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

Zack,

I didn’t comment one way or the other as to whether posing for Penthouse is right or wrong. I just stated that it was happening. Not that you would think I needed to - but some people…

By Jack

September 9, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t have minded being on the beach that morning! LOL

By lilith

September 9, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Ever see the movie G.I. Joe? It’s not to be taken literally you ignorant moron!

By Renee

September 9, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Isn’t ignorant moron kind of redundant?

By Jack

September 9, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Ohhhh. Talk nasty to me. Li’l one.

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Renee - I think that would fall under the “double negative” catagory so that can be translated to “genious”? Right? ;-) jk.

By Jack

September 9, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Almost beer-thirty. Everyone have a good weekend. (don’t do anything I wouldn’t do)

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Actually renee - now that I’m a little curious about that. I don’t think it’s redundant. I actually think it’s contradicting. (ignorant - adjective of a person lacking of knowledge on a subject, moron - insulting noun of a very stupid person).

ignorant - adjective destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

moron - noun 1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person 2 : a very stupid person

vocabulary lesson for the day so that all the ignorant people out there don’t make similar mistakes. ;-)

By Renee

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

yeah, unless there are some intelligent morons out there…lol, just being silly, right now

By lozen

September 9, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Zack, there are people posing for Playboy, Playgirl, Hustler, and worse every day. You think it’s wrong but what are you going to do? You can’t stop it. You think stripping is bad but there are strip clubs all around you Zack and nothing you can do about it. There are teenagers having sex and using condoms every night of the week in the back seat of cars parked all over the U.S; it’s gonna be happening everywhere tonight Zack; it’s Friday night! It’s not going to stop Zack no matter what you think. Women are having abortions every day Zack and you can’t stop it no matter what you think. How can you possibly believe your god is stronger than your devil Zack when you look around you at what’s going on? Thousands of people are wearing condoms Zack and having sex and they’re not married. Thousands of people will be watching porno films and having fun this weekend, Zack. And all you can say is “god’s gonna punish you and you’re going to hell when you die.” Please. Teenagers can’t even imagine ten years from now; they certainly aren’t going to give up something that feels so good now for the threat of hell when they die! It ain’t gonna stop Zack. The devil is winning Zack …

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

intelligent morons? haha. ok that concept is completely lost on me! that would make me ignorant on the topic of intelligent morons. :)

By lilith

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

I still like the sound of it ;-} Ignorant moron!

By Renee

September 9, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

lol bridges, I didn’t see your research until I had already posted….that was the lesson for the day!

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen - wow…thanks, you completely turned me away from my God. sarcasm Now that you have informed us that it’s a losing battle. Whatever you may believe is fine, whatever, but Christianity is a way of life for some people whether you agree or not. Some people aren’t going to chose to have sex unmarried, some aren’t going to be watching porn, some aren’t going to be having abortions, some don’t even know what it is that they would be giving up because they believe in the promise of waiting. Christianity is out there and there’s nothing YOU can do about it.

JEEZ, the problem isn’t what people believe, the problem is the shear volume of people that do nothing but harp on what others believe instead of living what THEY believe!

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

hahah.. yeah it’s got a good ring to it!

By Whiley

September 9, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

My last thought of the day: It’s no secret why I hate porn. It’s also no secret I believe porn negatively affects the way men think & treat women & contributes strongly to the bigger problem. Violence against women & children. (I can’t believe I even have to defend this point) It’s not rapists alone who are the problem. there are so many men out there who sexually harass women (without raping) in public, it feels dirty and creepy and scary too. Like that dickwad feeling himself up on the subway train, and the girl took his picture on the cellphone. I have either witnessed or experienced this sort of thing so many times, I’m not even sure any more if these sexual harassers are a minority among men, and it just makes my blood boil. urgh! Then a couple of turds come along chanting, “porn has nothing to do with it (huh??). let’s move on.”, or “women are oppressing men”, or whatever. and all i can think is, “you fing’ turd. Don’t give me that bullcrap until I and all other women on this planet can fing walk outside without a man holding our hands, and we don’t get sexually harassed in one form or another. we’ll happily give you your porn when self-defense classes are as equally emphasized for men as they are for women, when we can step outside feeling confident that no male dipsh_ is going to honk at our asses, or whisper in our ears if we want to get in bed with them, or show us his ugly, hairy balls, or grab us from behind a bush and rape us. let’s wait for that day, and then we won’t say a word about your precious porn.

Have a safe? weekend.

By buildingbridges

September 9, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Well this intellegent ignorant moron grin is leaving for the day. Have a great weekend everyone! Until next time. ;-)

And remember kids… Don’t watch porn, it could save your life! No no.. Uhm, bucke up, it can cause rape! No that’s not right either. EH just be safe! :)