AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > September > 21 > Entry
Should women still change their last names when wed?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Ninety percent of American women continue to change their last names when wedded despite the many freedoms they’ve gained, according to The Lucy Stone League, a group dedicated to issues of surname equality. Some women tip toe through this nuptial minefield with hyphenated names or use their “maiden” names from 9 to 5. But women haven’t come very far if they reinforce the “accommodating wife” role by changing their last name and then discount this choice as trivial.
It wasn’t until the 1970’s that women consistently gained the upper hand in legal battles where they fought to use their birth names after marriage. A woman’s last name is a legal issue, not a symbol of unity; it is an appropriation of property rights and ownership. Even the marriage ceremony acknowledges this power imbalance. The daughter bride is given by her father to her husband often with the words: “I now pronounce you man and wife.”
We shouldn’t forget that name changing is the product of a not so distant history when a man inherited the property of his betrothed, along with her identity. A change of name not only tagged his wife as his property but any future offspring. As a result, children born out of wedlock were labeled “bastard,” or “illegitimate,” a linguistic tool of social control meant to dissuade procreation outside of male authority.
But times have changed. A woman who marries in America today has no restrictions in marriage, other than those self-imposed. Changing your last name has been repackaged as a show of commitment to a relationship meant to rationalize kowtowing with sweet notions of femininity and wedded unity. But if you ask most men if they’re willing to change their last name in the interest of wedded unity you’ll likely be met with an astonished laugh and curt “No”. Among men, the idea of taking his wife’s name as his is considered a sign of weakness and submission.
Women’s rights are about having choice and I believe women have every right to ignore history for the sake of keeping peace. But women should acknowledge the real meaning behind this tradition and the message being sent to their offspring: Women’s identities aren’t as important as men’s. Brides may not want to take a stand on their wedding day. But a future without an eye to the past is like going forward blind.
Rebuttal
My brother and his wife have been married for ten years, have two kids, and she has never taken his last name. Why? Is she taking a stand for women’s rights? Fighting for female independence? Ensuring that her property rights are protected?
Nope. She’s Chinese. Not Chinese-American; Chinese. And in China and many other Asian cultures — including Singapore, where she and my brother live — women simply don’t change their names. It’s just not a societal convention. Implying that male domination is the “real meaning” behind female name-change ignores the fact that in other cultures — including several in Latin America and Europe — it simply has nothing to do with it. After all, few cultures beat traditional Asian ones for male marital domination, yet even many of those don’t ask women to take their husband’s name.
Few would argue that American women shouldn’t have the right to keep their name if they so choose. What I would argue with is a particular motivation that’s often behind the choice.
Like it or not, female name change is our societal convention. While some women need to protect their name recognition for professional reasons, many don’t. And when those women proactively choose to go against convention and not take their husband’s name, they are actually choosing to signal their independence from him … when interdependence is what marriage is about.
University of Virginia professor Dr. Steven Rhoads, author of Taking Sex Differences Seriously, put it to me this way, “Not changing her name does risk sending him a subtle, negative message. It emphasizes independence rather than emphasizing the fact that they’re connected. Men are used to being independent, and taking the same name is a way of emphasizing that times have changed and we are a team. That sense of being bound together, that she wants to be dependent in some way, brings out the best in men.”
For better or for worse, a woman’s name decision will send some sort of message to her husband. The reality is that a society that exalts independence — and produces a significant number of divorces — might benefit from exalting the benefits of true interdependence.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Zabud
September 26, 2005 07:19 AM | Link to this
Most women, being the far more intelligent of the genders, realize that the only significance of a “name” is its acceptance on the check or the credit card receipt! And even that is soon to become obsolete with xxxxxxxxxxxx-0549 and a PIN number!
By taboga
September 26, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
And to take it a few steps further - should women have to limit themselves to only one man in a marriage? Or should women even be married period? Shouldn’t there just be a way that women can be supported and taken care of by men - without actually being married and be hassled with all of that?
It just seems such a terrible inconvenience, that women would have to have any responsibility in any of this. Of course I am not talking about real women - just those that their next birthday will always be their 13th…
By Brian Curtis
September 26, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this
This is kind of a flimsy topic, and even Diane and Shaunti seems to realize it. The best Shaunti can come up with is that an American woman keeping her name could “send the wrong message” (one of—gasp!—independence), because it violates the cultural norm.
Well, duh. Mixed-race marriage used to violate the cultural norm too, until everybody got over it. And this name nonsense is far less significant. I guess Shaunti felt obligated to make some sort of a stand for “traditional values” to preserve her credibility as a conservative, but you can tell her heart’s not in it.
I notice neither columnist brought up the notion of a man changing his name upon marriage. Doesn’t that send the wrong message of dominance and control, Shaunti?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this
If “independence” were the concern - then why bother getting: Married…?
By Ken
September 26, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this
Marriage isn’t about names, it’s about the commitment between a man and a woman. In the case of my marriage it is also about the vows taken before family, friends and most importantly before God.
My wife does not share my last name, and I couldn’t give a single flip. Her decision was not about independence, or perception or keeping her family name, it was about the hassle of changing one’s name: driver’s license, credit cards, bank accounts, car registration, student loan documents, etc. What a pain in the you know what.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this
If a woman loves the man she marries, she should take his name and use her maiden name as a middle name. NO HYPHEN!
By taboga
September 26, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Do you ever watch any of those Spanish channels on cable? Latin America has a ton of attractive women who enjoy being women!
I think alot of the younger guys should head south of the border for some of these attractive women and let all these independent and fully capable women here - fend for themselves!
By Jack
September 26, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
Tab. My wife has caught me a few times watching the Latin network. She didn’t believe me when I told her I was brushing up on my Spanish.
I see it didn’t take Ophrah long to cash in on the Fulton courthouse shootings. Never liked her. Has to buy her audiences and is oh so pious.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
Sorry. I mis-spelled Oprah.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 26, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
Got a laugh out of this topic. I did not change my name when I got married. When I told my husband of this week’s topic, I asked him if he felt I sent him “a subtle, negative message emphasizing independence rather than emphasizing the fact that we’re connected. Without hesitation he replied, “Nah.”
As far as my “particular motivation,” at the time I was married, a senior in college, I was the last one in my family with this name. I simply wanted to keep this part of my identity and history.
I would not and did not have ask my husband to give up his name for the sake of any feminist agenda, and he did not ask me to for the sake of societal convention. Everything we’ve experienced, successes and failures alike, has been a team effort. We simply don’t ask one another other to sacrifice parts of our essential selves for inconsequential reasons such as what people like Shaunti will think of our relationship and marriage.
We should note that there are men who have taken their wives’ names, most notably John Ono Lennon. Whatever gets you through the night…
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Darn. Thought I could get a bite by taking a swipe at their icon. Still early though. BTW, I caught my 2 sons watching the Spanish channel when they were 14 & 13. They tried the brushing up on Spanish excuse on me. What a laugh.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
But I believe his last name was still: Lennon…?
Instant Karma’s gonna get you…
By taboga
September 26, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
Jack,
I, like you, take advantage of the spanish channels to brush up on my Espanol as well. And some of the best spanish teachers are usually on after 10:00 on Friday and Saturday nights!
And just to show my compassionate and understanding side with regards to women’s rights - I would take Sophia Vergara’s last name were it offered to me. And anything else she would like to give me…
By Renee
September 26, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
I think a married woman should change her name. That’s part of a marriage, taking on your husbands name.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
I think any person, male or female, that has a overwhelming need to keep their surname name has red flag issues.
There should be more important things on a couples mind.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
laughing in the face of love…what on Earth you trying to do? It’s up to you, yes you…
Now I’ll be singing that all day. No problem.
By Winnie
September 26, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
My last name is hyphenated, not out of disrespect to my husband, but because my first name and last name are somewhat similar and my entire name just sounds better with my maiden name still intact. It also helps me keep recognition, according to those old friends from out of state who have tried to look me up, as I moved a lot as a child. I asked my husband years ago if it bothered him, and he could care less - he married me because I am smart, beautiful, funny, hard-working, and resourceful. I also feel like I’m honoring another important man in my life, my father, by keeping my maiden name visible, not in the middle where it would rarely be seen. Plus, I like my middle name, as it is my grandmother’s, and replacing that with my maiden name would actually insult me.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this
Who do you think you are, a superstar? Well right you are!
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
another lame topic in my opinion. I think it’s up to the couple but I personally think that women should change their last names. It’s part of the marraige, the whole “becoming one” idea. My good friend has a very Irish last name and she didn’t want to change hers because she didn’t want to lose that “OH you are definitely irish” response when saying her name and I thought that was a little dumb. I’ve got a definite scottish name but I don’t care. I’m about ready to be rid of it! Its too hard, no one can spell it or pronounce it. I’m still searching for that ‘Mr. Smith’ to marry. ;-)
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this
Maybe John Kerry should change his name to Heinz and James Brolin should change his to Streisand. We know who wears the pants in their families.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
sigh Why are we still debating this? Some women will keep their names, some women will change their names. I’ve done some pretty great things with the last name that I have. I don’t need to change my last name. I would still love my husband. I would not hyphenate, either. WE would still be married regardless of whether or not I “took” his last name. Couples who do not share the last name are not any less in love or any less a couple than those couples who have the same last name. The church where I work happens to have several parents that are in happy, healthy marriages, have children, and the mother and father or mother and mother or father and father do not share the same last name. Let’s bury this, already.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
Bridges doesn’t sound Irish to me.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
See it’s Monday. I meant Scottish. Where is my brain?
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
Jack, in your cloud of obvious sexism you misread that person’s post.
By JD
September 26, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this
Seems sorta like a non-issue. If a woman wants too change her name upon being married more power to her, if she dosen’t want to take her husbands name and decides to hypenate, so be it. I think it’s up to the individual family to determine what is more advantageous. As long as the decision is made between the two people and both agree to live with the decision.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
For all of you who think that it should be “left up to the individuals involved* - of course it is!
Man…
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Jack. lol Like I’m going to put a real name on here! I’m actually scot-irish so you were part right. :) Dad’s family started off in Scotland and went to Ireland then here. The name originated in Scotland but a lot of people mistake it for Irish. So monday or not, you knew what you were talking about! You must be psychic… :-P QUICK what are the winning numbers?
By Bruce
September 26, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Have I missed something? Is there some legal push to require women to change their name upon marriage? If not why is this an issue to be discussed? Like JD said, if the couple agrees on the issue where’s he problem? Diane is trying make this into a domination issue where there isn’t one. As usual the crap she spouts out can be smelled for miles. She really needs a life……
By Jack
September 26, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
Yes it is cloudy today.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Bruce - there’s no legal push on it that I know of.
By Tania
September 26, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
How about one of these choices: 1) the man takes HERlast name or 2) they use both of their last names…. They become Mr. and Mrs. Smith-Jones.
On a side note, I’ll bet alot of folks are trying real hard to figure out how to tie THIS subject into: 1)George Bush is the problem… 2)homosexuals are infringed upon… 3)abortion is the answer… and, 4)why the Christians are at fault!
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Good Point Tania. Who takes who’s name in a homosexual marriage?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Would someone please bring up some religious aspect to all of this - so that Brian Curtis can get back into the discussion!
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Brian has already given his opinion, why keep harping? Bored?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Never mind, I got it.
Didn’t Jesus say that the wife should obey the husband? Or something along those lines…
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Tab. The “obey” is convienently ignored.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
The “obey” was eradicated by post Stepford wives and the pet owners picked it up….
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
yeah but Jesus also said that the husband should leave his family to join the wife. OH and to honor and cherish her… so.. :)
By E. Lewis
September 26, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
It’s something that is totally up to the couple involved. The wife involved may have established a certain amount of business or fame and doesn’t want to change her name. She could also be the only child and want to keep the name of her father. I have a cousin who was a very successful attorney before she married. She and she husband had no problem with her not changing her last name and the children were given their mother’s last name as a middle name. The who family is okay with this and thety are getting ready to celebrate their 15th anniversary.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
yeah but Jesus also said that the husband should leave his family to join the wife. OH and to honor and cherish her… so.. :)
I thought that’s what men do? But anyway, if more women would “obey” their husband - more men would “honor and cherish” them for it. Don’t you think?
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
E. Lewis, Thanks for pointing those things out. I happen to be my mother’s only child and the ONLY person in my family with my particular last name that can carry that last name on.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Taboga- of you want someTHING to obey you get a dog. A wife is an equal partner, not a pet and not a child.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
It’s something that is totally up to the couple involved.
Are we absolutely sure about that?
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Isn’t the Who family related to Dr. Seuss?
By E. Lewis
September 26, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
And my sister, her sister-in-law, my best friend etc, etc, have all taken their husband’s last name and yet they have all been divorced at least once.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that those areas of the country where we cling to “family values” and traditions like we were holding on to a lifeboat from the Titanic are the same areas with the highest divorce rates?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Akeya,
Why would I want to obey a dog?
By Tim
September 26, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
This topic is very amusing… who cares if someone keeps or changes their last name after getting married… both Diane and Shaunti’s responses were quite amusing… when my partner and I get ‘married’ I plan on using both mine and his last name… I just think it has a nice ring to it :)… but again, who cares if a married couple has the same last name
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
Jack,
I thought the “Who” Family was Roger Daltrey, Pete Townsend and those guys…
By Chilao
September 26, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
Finally a SERIOUS topic. LOL And like Tania pointed out, going to take quite the stretch to turn this into anything other than what the immediate subject matter is. Maybe both Glass and Feldhahn want a break from all the other regular Gestapo vs. KGB stuff on this blog.
The only problem I can see with this hyphenated name crap is that when the Alexander-Brantley child goes to school and falls in love and eventually marries Sally Chenoweth-Dresselhaus if they have children, could end up being a surname of Alexander-Brantley-Chenoweth-Dresselhaus. May have to redo some IT data fields, many often have 30 characters for ‘Name’. Not as severe as all the Y2K work, but. LMAO
I personally would have no problem with the wife keeping her maiden name. One did, one did not. Did not matter to me either way. I would rather her keep her maiden name than do some hyphenated crap. That is such a joke.
Interestingly I have had this convo with several relatives. One, a militant lesbian who has also been married to men, pointed out that even keeping her maiden name, the DAD’s surname, also connotes some male domination thing. I went ‘Whateva’. But then her son legally changed his name to be genderless and therefore also less Sexist. Again, I went “Whateva’.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
I bought at a bargain, the best I ever had.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
Hey guys, you know what we could do to make it fair for all?
We could make a law that requires a person to marry someone already of the same name!
BuildingBridges, you have have to marry Beau or Jeff…
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Taboga- okay now your 10:21a.m. post was hilarious!
By Just Being Me
September 26, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
Good Morning, All!
Jack, to answer your question, in a homosexual marriage the options are much the same: one can take the name of his/her spouse (i.e. Jackie and Jane Smith), both can take both last names (i.e. Jackie and Jane Smith-Jones), or both can keep their own names (Jackie Smith and Jane Jones).
It’s no different than a hetero marriage.
By Chilao
September 26, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
E. Lewis - the high divorce rate? One of the disadvantages of not being able to have sex without being married. See it time and time again, “we are getting it on, so we better get married” and then they end up divorced. One guy I know has been married FIVE times, two-times to the same woman.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Isn’t it a bit ironic that those areas of the country where we cling to “family values� and traditions like we were holding on to a lifeboat from the Titanic are the same areas with the highest divorce rates?
I don’t buy that. What part of the country are you talking about? California? New York?
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Jack- those rates are in states in the so-called Bible Belt.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
If a couple does not share the same last name and has children - which last name will the children have?
Will the AJC have to start a whole new topic on that…?
By Jack
September 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
Jack- those rates are in states in the so-called Bible Belt.
I don’t believe that. Show me data.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Akeya,
Let me explain how we wind up having the highest divorce rate down here.
It’s because of all the folks that move down here that are from the North. A man comes down here with his wife and trades up!
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
Taboga.. lol I can actually say I wouldn’t mind having to marry either!
By dee
September 26, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
From By FatMoose: I think any person, male or female, that has a overwhelming need to keep their surname name has red flag issues.
There should be more important things on a couples mind.
Maybe not an overwhelming need to keep their name, but what about just plain, dang don’t want to go through the trouble? The way a lot of marriages are ending now after a few years or a few problems, it would be a hassle to change your name to his, get a divorce, change it back to yours, marry husband number 2, change your name to his, get a divorce……….
By Jack
September 26, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Right on Dee.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
dee- to touch on your point…I kinda think that not changing your name is sort of like getting a prenuptial agreement. Keeping those open doors for divorce. Making it easier. Saying “well I’m going to keep my name and make sure that we have got security for when this all goes down the crapper” instead of giving it all 100%. If someone has the idea that they are going to keep their name in case they get a divorce than they don’t need to be marrying that person in the first place. Granted that divorces happen and a lot of time’s for a good reason, but giving yourself room for divorce is just like expecting it and you know that you usually get what you expect. (not YOU, but you in general)
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
People go through the year+ long hassle of planning a wedding and paying out the butt for extravagant receptions yet they don’t want to go through the trouble of having a couple of documents changed? hmmm…
Probably the same people will be the one’s standing in line for hours to return a $2 item that was in the bargain bin because there was a tiny something wrong with it.
It has nothing to do with the hassle of it, it’s about NOT wanting to do it..period.
By JR
September 26, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Please—couldn’t they come up with something better than this? Who cares about the name? I look at the finger. If the wedding band is displayed, then the person is married. How many couples do you know these days with multiple marriages and children? There can be multiple names within the household depending on the current marital status. We’ve become a society of blended homes and names don’t really seem to matter. I don’t care who takes whose name. With divorce at the current rate it is, it sures can save a lot of money having to re-order checks and change your towel monograms if you don’t change names. I’m being facetious—so, anybody got anything fun to discuss today, or do we just keep circling this dead issue?
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Who cares? Could they possibly have picked a more irrelevent, lame topic if they tried? Maybe they were trying!
By dee
September 26, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
From taboga: A man comes down here with his wife and trades up!
Oooooo you are sooo bad!!!
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
JR - every topic we chose will end up being circled. :)
By Renee
September 26, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Bridges I am 100% in agreement with you.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Building bridges- that post didn’t make any sense. There are plenty of women who “took” their husband’s last name and were subsequently divorced. Those women still have their husband’s last name. The sad part is that when he remarries the ex-wife will just be the first Mrs. Something or other…
By dee
September 26, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
From buildingbridges: dee- to touch on your point…I kinda think that not changing your name is sort of like getting a prenuptial agreement. Keeping those open doors for divorce. Making it easier. Saying “well I’m going to keep my name and make sure that we have got security for when this all goes down the crapper� instead of giving it all 100%
Hmmm I don’t know, maybe. But in my mind prenuptials and keeping last names are in the same boat as life INSURANCE and health INSURANCE. To have them is to feel a level of security — If we don’t have these things in our lives we’re liable to be pretty sorry when the crap hits the fan. I don’t look at as like giving up, but as being realistic.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
All of the topics lately have been lame. Good thing the folks on this blog aren’t. We can always find something to debate/argue over.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Akeya - maybe re-read it. I’m not denying that divorce happens regardless of if you take a name or not.
I don’t believe in “marriage insurance” that’s a silly notion. Yes you should be prepared if something happens (because it certainly can) but I don’t think taking measures before getting married portraits a very stable relationship to begin with.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
Dee,
I would wonder quite a bit if it was too much “trouble” to change a name - once again: for either person to claim.
I would wonder what other “troubles” would be to much for them: Kids, budget, compromise…and I am not going to “plan” for divorce.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Building- then why have ANY insurance? Let’s just cancel our car insurance and trust that we’ll never have an accident. Let’s just have insurmountable faith that we will never get sick and cancel the health insurance. Lt’s just blindly believe that nothing will ever happen to our houses. Kill that home owner’s insurance!!
By dee
September 26, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
From Jack: All of the topics lately have been lame.
Yeah, it’s like Shaunti and Diane have run out of subjects to complain about. Next week they’re gonna start a subject on whether dogs should be allowed to crap freely in other’s yards.
Diane will defend the dogs’ right to crap where it pleases, saying it’s a normal healthy response for dogs and we are violating its constitutional rights if we infringe about their freedom to crap where they please. And Shaunti will blame the liberal media and the hyped up press, (also teen pregnancy), for allowing dogs to think they can run free without recourse.
By JD
September 26, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Although I believe this topic is a really small issue, I’d like to think that most women who decide to marry would be honored to take their husbands name, it’s their husbands name, for crying out loud. Why marry if you think it’s just an insignificant title. I’d want my wife to proud enough of me to accept what I’ve offered her.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
Akeya - your just pulling out of your a* and I have no response to that. :)
By taboga
September 26, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
I don’t believe in “marriage insurance� that’s a silly notion.
No it’s not - women already have it. The insurance company is called: Divorce Court. Should a disaster hit a woman’s marriage, the Good Hands folks at Divorce Court start reaching into the pockets of her husband to pay for all the damage.
They’re alot faster at it - and don’t have to deal with FEMA or the Red Cross either!
By JD
September 26, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
look out….taboga creeps closer and closer to reality….
By dee
September 26, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
From FatMoose: wonder what other “troubles� would be to much for them: Kids, budget, compromise…and I am not going to “plan� for divorce.
I honestly don’t think anyone PLANS for a divorce, but hey, if they have a bad track record with marriage, (Elizabeth Taylor, Halle Berry, Zsa Zsa Gabor, etc.), perhaps it would be in their best interest to PLAN for a good exit strategy…..just in case!
By taboga
September 26, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
FootMouse,
What do birds do when they get married, they keep the same name or not?
Or have you not asked them that question yet?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Dee - LOL about the dog analogy. That’s hilarious!!
Those people with bad track records..maybe they should leave marraige to those that take it seriously and still see it as a cherished and honorable state of union!
By JD
September 26, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Birds fly South so they can “trade up”
By Tania
September 26, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
When did people start using last names anyway??? We know Adam and Eve didn’t have one! I gyess it got too confusing with all the people running around with the same name….. Hey, if we can discuss a silly topic I can get silly too!
To lighten things up……When Bill Clinton was asked as a joke, “How many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?” He replied, “define screw“…..
By dee
September 26, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
From taboga: No it’s not - women already have it. The insurance company is called: Divorce Court. Should a disaster hit a woman’s marriage, the Good Hands folks at Divorce Court start reaching into the pockets of her husband to pay for all the damage.
That’s why a good prenuptial agreement done by a great lawyer will cut out that silliness. And before any of you ladies post a nasty comment to me, prenuptials are intended to be a vehicle for bothe men AND women. If Halle Berry hadn’t had a good prenup in effect when she married Eric Benet, (her last husband), he would’ve taken her for everything she had PLUS child support for a child that was his before he ever even met her. There’s nothing wrong with a prenuptial agreement — especially when it’s done correctly.
By Akeya
September 26, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Building bridges- your argument was equally weak and sad, to boot :D
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
Akeya - yeah..ok whatever.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
That’s why a good prenuptial agreement done by a great lawyer will cut out that silliness.
Dee,
That is, I think I disagree (Jack - a little Lennon from SFF),
From what I understand, it can be very difficult enforcing a PA. The common angle seems to be, in a lot of cases, is that the consenting party (one without the dough), is said to have been “coerced” into something that they didn’t fully understand…
Lawyers are not going to let anything stand in the way of their making money off of someone else’s hardships. You can count on it!
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
No - noone plans for divorce I don’t think but I do think that it is WAY too easy to get divorced now over non-issues or issues that should have been discussed and resolved BEFORE walking down the isle.
in Medieval times, you had to first get invited to the Kings court and then somehow manage to be granted an audience with the King to request a divorce, then after a long long time of observation and consideration the King either granted or denied the request and it had to be severe for him to grant it!
Of course, in those times, a lot of the unions were arranged marraiges for the purpose of land or clans or whatnot but now all we have to do is walk in a lawyers office and say ‘hey, my husband wouldn’t let me change the channel and I want a divorce’
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
Dee and other relationship insurance advocates:
You have insurance for things you cannot contol (weather, accidents, etc.), and people do have control over the relationship they are in and what issues are part of it. If a person finds there are major ‘risks’ in their current relationship; entering marraige with devices in place to mitigate the damage on exit only increases the odds that it will fail. This does nothing to ensure better relationships.
I will always push for fixing a problem on the front-end and not after the fact.
You can either calm the stormy waters, or get out of the water, but never should invest in a tugboat so you can only ‘survive’ the trek - life is more than that.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Bill Clinton jokes?
President Clinton stepped off of Air Force One with a pig under each arm. The Marine at the bottom of the ladder with a curious look on his face, asked: “Mr. President, what are those two pigs for?” President Clinton replied: “These are not pigs - these are Arkansas Razorbacks”. And I got one for Hillary and one for Chelsea.”
The Marine looked the Razorbacks over and replied back: “Mr. President, it certainly looks like you got the better of the deal!”.
By Lee
September 26, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
I hyphenate my last name, but my kids have my husband’s last name. I wouldn’t have it any other way, but why should I be ostracized ( by comments such as have red flag issues, ‘support “crap” like hyphenation’, etc…) for not wanting a name like “Tommy Thompson” or “Christy Christen” (my name would sound like that without the hyphen)? I love my husband, he loves me, we both put 100% into my marriage, and my last name is the last thing we’d ever have to worry about. What’s wrong with honoring the traditions and name of your previous family while cleaving to your husband while adding the tradition brought by his (which is important to me). And, yes, the “dog crap debate” comment was the best on the board.
By Tania
September 26, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Next week’s topics could include: 1)white or wheat? 2)why democrats can’t get along with republicans 3)why didn’t Mr.Whipple want anyone to squeeze his Charmin? 4)what’s with hip-hop guys who wear their pants halfway down? 5)why can’t we elect someone like Clark Howard for president who’ll actually SAVE our country money?
By Dusty
September 26, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
“Independent” women not only hyphenate, procreate and separate, they marry YOUNG men. Way to go Demi-Moore-Willis-Kutcher! An old Hollywood axiom: If first you don’t succeed, try, try, and try again.
By Renee
September 26, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
I think that’s where the sancticty of marriage is not taken seriously. Insure your marriage in case of divorce? When you walk into a marriage are you not wanting to spend the rest of your days with this person, in sickness or in health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part.
When you purchase insurance you purchase it in case someone hits you, your house burns down and insurance does not pay usually if it is determined to be your fault. You can control WHO you marry so you should know the type of preson it is and you can control your behavior in the marriage.
My disclaimer - of course some times divorce is necessary
By taboga
September 26, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
You can either calm the stormy waters, or get out of the water, but never should invest in a tugboat so you can only ‘survive’ the trek - life is more than that.
Or, you can buy yourself a “floating house”. A wise old bird told me that FootMouse. Believe it or not.
By WhatTragedy
September 26, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Define tragedy:
President Bush visits a primary school classroom. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks President Bush if he would like to lead the discussion of the word ‘tragedy.’
So the president asks the class for an example of a tragedy.
One little boy stands up and offers: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs him over and kills him that would be a ‘tragedy’.”
“No,” says President Bush, “that would be an accident.”
A little girl raises her hand. “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”
“I’m afraid not,” explains President Bush. “That’s what we would call a ‘great loss’.”
The room goes silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searches the room.
“Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”
Finally, at the back of the room a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet voice, he says: “If Air Force One carrying you, Mr. President, were struck by a ‘friendly fire’ missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a ‘tragedy’.”
“Fantastic!” exclaims President Bush. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a ‘tragedy’?”
“Well,” says the boy, “because it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘great loss’, and it probably wouldn’t be an ‘accident’ either”.
By Dusty
September 26, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Have pity, Taboga. FatMoose cannot talk to the birds today because the wind is blowing the phonemes far far way. So be kind now.
By Van
September 26, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Folks, I am amazed - the men on the whole, don’t have a problems with this, only the women!
When I got married, my wife choose to take my last name - but that was before some feminazi’s said that marriage was a form of rape - some folks are so ignorant.
It all depends on what the women needs, wants or desires, regardless of the consequences, social norms or odd looks their children get when they enroll in school.
But then again, it is just my opinion.
By dee
September 26, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
From tabago: From what I understand, it can be very difficult enforcing a PA. The common angle seems to be, in a lot of cases, is that the consenting party (one without the dough), is said to have been “coerced� into something that they didn’t fully understand…
When I remarried I signed a prenup and I had my fiancee sign one too. We both had our own lawyers to look it over first before either of us signed and it was witnessed by a civil servant who, ( like a will), asked us if we were of sound mind, etc., etc. That way, like you say, years from then, neither of us can claim brain damage or lack of understanding. It works for us; my husband has a thriving business that had been in his family for years, and he also has children from his previous marriage. I have substantial things that I inherited from my aunts, and I also had a child from a previous marriage. If in fact, HEAVEN FORBID, we do get divorced down the road from here, we both want to make sure that the things that we had separately going into the marriage stays in our possession.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
Van- I agree…women are a lot of our problems. I hate that a lot of men are “afraid” if they open a door for me they are going to offend me. There are still some of us old-fashioned hopeless romantics around that still believe in happily ever after. :)
By dee
September 26, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
From FatMoose: Dee and other relationship insurance advocates. You have insurance for things you cannot contol (weather, accidents, etc.), and people do have control over the relationship they are in and what issues are part of it. If a person finds there are major ‘risks’ in their current relationship; entering marraige with devices in place to mitigate the damage on exit only increases the odds that it will fail.
Hmm maybe. But not having anything in place, and throwing caution to the wind by saying, “Love will keep us together”, is a little naive; don’t you think? Some marriages can’t withstand the loss of a child, infidelity, substance abuse, gambling, etc. And it’s not because there isn’t any love there or they don’t care for each other; but sometimes it just doesn’t work out. Now, in saying this, if my husband divorced me because I was fooling around on him with his best friend, do you think our divorce will be fair and equitable or do you think he’ll try to take me for every dime I have now, or will have 10 years from now? So, why not protect yourself with some “relationship” insurance? It’s not saying “I’m giving up before I start”, it’s saying “I hope we last forever, but if this doesnt work out, at least I’ll have credit in my own name.
By dee
September 26, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
From buildingbridges: Those people with bad track records..maybe they should leave marraige to those that take it seriously and still see it as a cherished and honorable state of union!
I think people like that are in love with love. When you’re dating someone you can pretend to be this and that, but when you live every day with that someone it’s harder to pretend. My opinion is that they keep searching for something in someone else that can only be found within. Corny I know!
By Bruce
September 26, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Bridges,
I couldn’t have said it better…..
Now on to another topic. Why did GW have to send another hurricane to LA? Why did the repaired levee break again? whose to blame for that one?
By lozen
September 26, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Shaunti’s “expert” says, “Not changing her name does risk sending him a subtle, negative message. It emphasizes independence rather than emphasizing the fact that they’re connected. Men are used to being independent.” So she isn’t supposed to be independent; she’s supposed to be “connected.” But of course he doesn’t need to show her that he’s thinking about being “connected” because men are used to being independent. What crap! If one person is expected to change their name to prove connection, then both people should have to change their names when they get married.
It is pretty obvious that a lot of people don’t realize this, but things have changed! The grad student or the medical student who works for ten + years to get a Ph.D. or become a doctor, writing and publishing along the way, is not going to change her name! They have established themselves and their credentials under their maiden names and they are not going to change it!
By VoteDemocratic
September 26, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Now on to another topic. Why did GW have to send another hurricane to LA? Why did the repaired levee break again? whose to blame for that one?
Funny that that is brought. I heard just this morning that all these hurricanes are God’s punishment for having Republicans in charge. Believe it was “Vote Democratic, so God will quite punishing us”.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
I always open the door for a lady and have never had one say anything about it. I do get funny looks sometimes. I still open the car door for my wife and that gets strange looks too.
By Brian Curtis
September 26, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Divorce statistics by state and denomination are available at (among other places)
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
You’ll see that divorce rates are highest in the West and Southeast, lowest in New England, and higher among born-again and Baptist adherents than among other beliefs.
Of course, trying to draw conclusions from any collection of survey data is often tricky and misleading. There are usually many more factors than the “reasons” we typically dream up to explain a given factoid.
By Brian Curtis
September 26, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
VoteD: That’s no crazier than Robertson’s declaration that 9/11 was America’s “punishment” for tolerating gays and feminists.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
Ladies, remember when we were teenagers and we spent hours writing “Mrs. John Williams” over and over on notebook paper? I thought about that when I had to pay an attorney hundreds of dollars to be able to use my maiden name again.
By VoteDemocratic
September 26, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
After Jack asked his ‘living in denial’ question, I did a google search on ‘divorce rate by region’ and learned New England’s lower rate is the high percentage of Catholics in that region. (and figured Jack could do his own research).
BC - I figured mine made as much sense as Robertson’s and Falwell’s comments. and just as humorous.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Are they serious? THIS is the topic? What is this, an episode of The View??? Good grief
By joe
September 26, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Some new emoticons that might come in handy on this blog!
(!) a regular a*
(!) a fat a*
(!) a tight a*
(*) a sore a*
{!} a swishy a*
(o) an a* hole (especially this one)
(x) kiss my a*
(zzz) a tired a*
(E=mc2) a smart a*
($) Money coming out of his a*
(?) Dumb A*
By Nikita
September 26, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
I kept my name when we married because a) i am the last of my line, b) my husband’s name is misspelled even more than mine, and c) my husband supported my decision entirely.
I don’t think it matters whether names are taken or not. What matters is people who think that there is a “right” way to handle the names in a marriage. After all, those people are putting their expectations onto the rest of us when they have none of the responsibility for the outcome. They are often the same people who don’t believe women are autonomous.
FYI, there are many alternatives to taking a spouse’s name that are good ones for people who want to make a symbolic gesture without stepping into any of the associations held by taking your spouse’s name. they are taking a mutual last or middle name or taking a name associated with your spouse’s family as an additional middle name.
By joe
September 26, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Oh well hell, the spaces didn’t come out right and it didn’t work.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
Scott, just go play on some sports blog and don’t worry about it!
By Jack
September 26, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
‘living in denial’ question. Funny.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
Lozen - thanks for the maturity…I expect better from you..but that’s my mistake
For the rest of the folks on here - why is this an issue? Clearly this is an issue for individuals and individual couples. A woman chooses which to do, take the name or not, and has the right to do that. I would think they would marry someone who respects their views and opinions on every front. This one would be no different. If a woman has strong feelings about keeping her name, I would hope that would be an opinion she would feel comfortable expressing/discussing with a man she was considering marrying. I have a close friend who wants to keep her name for family heritage reasons and she married a guy that understands that completely. Obviously the right decision for her, which makes it a good one.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Scot. This is not an issue. But then again, I’m in denial.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Joe,
Let me be the first to apply the emoticon to you:
(?) Dumb A*s
But there really does need to be one for the (?) A*s who acts like a child and posts under my name. But for the time being, yours will do just fine!
By Scott
September 26, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Jack - You must be! Can I join you? So what did you think of the Falcons, Braves, and UGA games this weekend? HAHAHAH!
By Jack
September 26, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Falcons did good. Braves will go again in the first round. UGA = Over-rated.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
tab,
Your poking serves only to insult yourself; both of the flaming comments are the result of you not being able to read. And do you not understand you are acting childish in general, as well as the name calling?
By Tim
September 26, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
UGA = Over-rated
you should stir the pot quite nicely with that one Jack :)
By Scott
September 26, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
Jack - Falcons looked better, but they have plenty of room for improvement. Braves might make it to the NLCS, but the road to the World Series goes through St. Louis so I think that is where the train will jump the tracks. UGA has a tough row to hoe, especially against Florida. They need to be more consistent.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
Dee,
where did I say anything to the effect of: But not having anything in place, and throwing caution to the wind by saying, “Love will keep us together�, is a little naive; don’t you think?
I AM saying that people DO know what to expect from a particular relationship - they just do not want to believe the red flags as they go up. Therefore, if someone ‘thinks’ they need relationship insurance; they should question the whole relationship - there are bigger things going on.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Jack - the ONE time my boyfriend didn’t open the car door for me he got that funny look. And I will hope that he keeps that look in his mind whenever he decides to stop opening the door for me! Hahaha. He even opened my drivers door for me when I was driving!
I was raised with my dad still opening doors for my mom and I guess I’ve grown to expect it. :)
By Scott
September 26, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
BB - I bet he will remember it! Sounds like you have a nice guy
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
tab,
But there really does need to be one for the (?) As who acts like a child and posts under my name.*
I concur:
Anyone posting under your name is being very childish, most of all you. Thanks for stepping up and self regulating.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
After that impressive win this past weekend what else is one to think. I always root for Tech just to anger my friends that went to UGA.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Ugag is WAY overrated!! The mutts need to play a real team first then we can talk. But how about those jackets! Thought they did fairly good with a very good team (that included Vick’s brother) and a sick quarter back… OK well…maybe ‘good’ isn’t the right word..hehe.
I’m still sore about their upset with Auburn!
I think Vick is looking (hehe definitely) pretty good!
By sean
September 26, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
I think that if women don’t want to change their name we should not stop there.
Weddings and the whole process is so skewed in the womens direction that the whole process needs to be redone. Don’t stop with the names.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Thanks Scott - I hope to keep him. :)
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Sean - LOL I can deal with that! big screen tv yay! more cake yay! I love power tools! I’m all about seperate rooms as long as they have seperate bathrooms too and regular conjegal visits! ;-)
By Tony
September 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
You don’t have to call me Darlin, Darlin, you never even called me by my name
You know I got married because of her looks, just not the ones I’m getting now. But before we wed, I was know as the man around town, now I’m known as the mouse of the house. She gets on her knees every now and then, but it’s to dare me to get out from under my bed. Even now she complains about the noises I make when I’m fixin my own breakfast. You know I wear the pants in my house, even if it’s under my apron. I gotta go now, she yelling I mean calling me….
So I’ll hang around as long as you will let me…
By Jack
September 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Big problem with #7 Sean.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
But I want the ring… :)
By Scott
September 26, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Sean - okay, now THAT was funny….but I like the first one! Heck yeah, HDTV here I come!
Jack - yes that is sure to infuriate them (your UGA friends) I agree that they haven’t played anyone tough yet, so we’ll see how they do against (speaking of over-rated) Tennessee.
BB - I was happy to see the Jackets starting off so well…and I am sure Ball being so sick didn’t help Saturday against VaTech. But looked pretty good? Wow, that’s stretching! hehheehe
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
Geez….talk about the dumbing down of America…how many more inane topics in a row can these 2 cover? The only more stupid question I read was the one asking whose last name gets used when homosexuals married…duh…we’ve made sure they can’t so it’s a moot point.
Lozen…”If one person is expected to change their name to prove connection, then both people should have to change their names when they get married.” Interesting thought…how about first 3 letters of one last name combined with last 3 letters of the other…couple decides which combo sounds better and that’s the new last name.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
Scott - haha.. yeah ‘good’ was a bit of a stretch. I am still hoping they will have a strong season.
By Bobb
September 26, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
If the woman wants to be traditional and change her name, fine. If she doesn’t, fine. If the man wants to change his name, fine. If the kids want to change their name - probably because their parents embarrass them by obsessing about the same things as Diane Glass - then fine to that too. Change your name or don’t change your name, just leave the rest of us who don’t give a damn out of it.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Sean…rather than separate rooms how about just putting in twin beds like on 1950’s TV shows?
Bridges…go for real estate instead of jewelry…it’s less sparkly, but a much better deal in the long run.
By Just Being Me
September 26, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
SEAN - Why do they have to share a name, but have separate bedrooms? Why not share a bedroom and have separate names?
By Marti
September 26, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
There is nothing that looks more pathetic than this: a car pulls up; the guy gets out, stretches, does the crotch touch (they’re always doing that. Do they think it’s going away?), talks to the valet, and finally wanders around to the passenger side to open the door for a woman who’s been sitting there waiting to get out like she can’t even open her own damn door! I get tired of waiting and I am perfectly capable of opening my own door. If you’re gonna play big romantic knight for me you better hurry your a* up!
By taboga
September 26, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Anyone posting under your name is being very childish, most of all you. Thanks for stepping up and self regulating.
FootMouse,
Was that your attempt at a “funny”? And don’t get to carried away trying to act intelligent — “self regulating” wasn’t applicable. Maybe you were trying to say: self-incriminating…?
I don’t see how I would have been trying to regulate anything with my statement. But then again, the word “regulate” is always right on the tip of the tongue for you Leftists, isn’t it?
By dee
September 26, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
From FatMoose: Dee where did I say anything to the effect of: But not having anything in place, and throwing caution to the wind by saying, “Love will keep us together�, is a little naive; don’t you think?
You didn’t I did. I was just using that as an example, not quoting you.
By Archie
September 26, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Someone did ask a good question about the last name thing,i.e. what last name do the children take? I think it is up to each couple to decide what their last name will be. The tradition of women taking their man’s last name is about order and the view of women as property as Diane says but since 90 percent of women take the man’s name upon marriage then it’s really a non-issue. It appears most women aren’t into the feminist movement as much as Diane but women of today are very independent.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Netbanker - hmm…interesting idea…real estate…. so an engagement apartment..
I don’t know, still like the idea of a white gold band with 0.75 carot oval shaped emareld surround by 2 .25 carot 1/2 moon shaped diamonds. I asked my boyfriend one time if he were to pick me out one without me telling him anything about what I wanted what would it be and that’s about what he described (without stone sizes) and that’s actually pretty close to what I really want.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, that’s a good idea. I’d like to see a show of hands. How many of you men on here would be willing to take a new name to show that you truly want connection with your new wife, first three letters of your name and first three letters of her name?
By lozen
September 26, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Marti, hilarious. I’ve witnessed the “crotch touch” thousands of times but never knew the name for it!
By dee
September 26, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
From sean: Have a groom shower.
Guys do! It’s called a Bachelor Party!!! And believe me, you wouldn’t want to give that up to play “bridal” games for 2 hours while trying to pretend you’re enjoying yourself!
By lozen
September 26, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Maybe someone on here can explain the “crotch touch” to the women.
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
the name change topic is boring. my wife took my name b/c she wanted to. I suggested she not take it b/c it sounds funny. (her first name with my last name) she changed it more than likely b/c of it being funny. My friend and his wife actually took a part of each of their last name and combined them so they both changed their last name. That idea was pretty cool I thought.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
LOZEN - LMAO…I just put mine with my BF’s and it was the most ridiculous sounding and looking name. No way would I take that name!!! lol
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
the crouch touch:
ours is on the outside and from the sitting to the standing positions there needs to be some adjusting sometimes.
as simple as that.
well, micheal jackson is the exception. The dude actually made a dance step with it.
By Marti
September 26, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
Well, lozen, you know the “crotch touch” is only one move. There’s also the “crotch pet” and the “crotch grab” and the “crotch yank.” Watch closely and you will soon see the different moves!
By Tim
September 26, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
lozen… sometimes el penga gets in the wrong position while sitting… when you get up you gotta adjust your muchacho to the correct resting position :)
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Where that’s a cool idea combining the names, and it works for some people, it loses both of the heritage. I know some people don’t care much about that or don’t know the heritage of their name but I do and I’d rather keep it whole as a middle name than butcher it.
By Shane
September 26, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
So, do you also open doors for men…not knowing if one might be homosexual or not? Or do you just open doors for ladies. (Isn’t that kind of sexist?) What if it’s a man dressed as a lady? (Where’s Anne Landers and her ettiquette advice when you need her?) At a gay wedding does one of the guys throw a bouquet…or garter? And are they both called grooms? What does the minister say…I now pronounce you “husband and husband”????
Curious as to how that would work out if gay marriage was legal. Does one guy carry the other over the threshhold?
You know if God had made Adam and Steve instead of Eve there would be no human race. (Just a zany thought.)
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
well boys..sometimes our tatas get a little mis-aligned (especially us more endowed ladies) but you don’t see us going around grabbing our boobs!
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
bb,
i guess you can look at that way. its just a last name though. it doesn’t really count toward the hertiage part in my mind b/c all the women before you changed their name. therefore, the only hertiage you are keeping is your father’s last name. After a while it becomes absolete. Look how many Smith’s there are. you can’t really trace all them back to only one Smith.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Marti, LMAO. I can see this on Jeopardy. the category is Things that come in fours! What is the the touch, the yank, the pet and the grab? Crotch moves! That is the correct question! Ding!!!!
Okay, BB switch it around: try the first three letters of your name and then the first three letters of his. Or the last three letters of yours, etc., etc. If you don’t figure this out, you will be without connection!
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Tab,
Some more assistance for your lack of reading comprehension:
Regulate, To create and adhere to regulations; (like using (?) Dumb A*s) for any post under the name taboga.
Not trying to be funny, but a lot of realities are more odd than fiction: you tend to be one.
And I know you have no ability of memory-retention (or truth), but I am conservative. I voted for bush both time; yet I do now regret it.
This schooling you each day is boring man.
By adultplay
September 26, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
How about 1950’s-style twin beds and turning that guest bedroom, with the large poster bed, into the adult adventures playroom room?
Forget it being a study, library, work-out room, hobby-center, etc.
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
bb,
Oh, yes I do. I have seen many breast and/or bra adjustments
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
True about the ‘smith’ and yes, it is my fathers name, but it’s also my great great grandfathers name that came to america from ireland and it was his grandfathers name that came from scotland….get my drift. I can trace it back to before the 10th century. I can also trace my mothers back that far but I plan to honor those with children’s names. A name is not ‘just’ a name.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Bridges:
well boys..sometimes our tatas get a little mis-aligned (especially us more endowed ladies) but you don’t see us going around grabbing our boobs!
But sometime you girls should! Ever see those googley nipples? Each pointing in another direction?
even my GF LOL at that one!
By Blacksmith
September 26, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
There used to be a blacksmith in every town, and a gold-smith, and a silver-smith, are there any more?
By Scott
September 26, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Buildingbridges - not true on the bust adjustments…they were responsible for many a wreck by men on campus (in cars, on bikes, heck even walking) when I was in college…hahahhhah
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
lozen - so if I don’t find a good combo then I’m screwed with that idea huh? lol
mit - haha. ok.. I stand corrected. and I adjust mine but I really try to be discrete about it if I can’t make it to a bathroom.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
LMAO hahaha… ok ok… so I was FINALLY wrong about one thing! ;-) JK.
Scott - those weren’t adjustements…those were ploys to get you to look….
By lozen
September 26, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Tim, sweetie thank you for your explanation. I should have asked you first. Shane, you are funneeee. Some friends of mine were getting married at the Church of Loretto in Santa Fe, NM. The service was over and they were coming out with everyone standing tossing rice. A tourist who had wandered up had this confused look on her face and said, “I don’t understand; where’s the bride?” My friend said, “they’re both brides dear.” She said, “Santa Fe really is the city different isn’t it?”
By Randy
September 26, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Marriage is a institution made for the protection of women, if a woman wants to dishonor her husband by not taking his last name, he should not honor her by the act of marriage. If you don’t think anymore of your male mate than to not take his name, just live together.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
Marraige was an institution made for the procreation of children… maybe protection is in there but that’s not the main reason.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
And here I was always under the impression that marraige was an institution originally made for the procreation of children.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
BB - ohhhhh ok! I am sooooo weak
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
OH dang - sorry for the double post guys. that first one messed up and it went to a different page and I didn’t think it sent.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
FootMouse,
Well, that is funny. I don’t see anywhere in Websters definition of “regulate”, that fits yours:
To create and adhere to regulations.
Theirs is a lot more along the lines of MY understanding:
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.
You need to quit pretending that you could “school” anyone there Birdman.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Scott - uhmm…I was teasing. And you know as well as I do that us girls are good at using ploys like that to get you boys to look…
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
tab,
Ha! You listed three that = my post.
Good show in idiocy! More please? That is too much!
By Scott
September 26, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
BB - hahhah yes I know you were and yes, I am aware at the many ploys, but sometimes taking the bait isn’t so bad! LOL
By Tim
September 26, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
lozen… you are welcome :) and I might add that I try to adjust while still seated (little talent I picked up along the way) and that way no one notices… and if for some reason they do they obviously wanted to see the show :)
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
I advise my clients to keep their own names of course. How can they expect their old boyfriends to find them in later years if they change their names? I also advise them to keep their own private living space. Why do we westerners have this uncivilized idea that men and women should live together just because they’re married? If they cannot afford separate houses they should at least have separate bedrooms. We all know that males and females are two separate species and the only reason for them to come together is to produce and raise children. Women have let themselves become too tamed. For some good ideas about women living wildly and freely even when married, I recommend The Ruins of Isis by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Remember women you were once free and wild and untamed!
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Scott - OOhh.. haha. ok good. I was (once again) worried about offending someone. :-P It’s fun for us too.. ;-)
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Cindy Sheehan has been arrested for exercising her first ammendment rights in front of the White House. The Constitution is burning. Does anyone care?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
FootMouse,
Since I am a good guy - I will go easy on your mental deficiency.
If you’ll look at the second word of each of those definitions you might notice: control, adjust and put. There’s not mention in any shape, manner or form about “creating” anything.
But you keeping coming back lightweight and I will let you know when I am tired of making fun of you…
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
“Dr. smythe” I do believe you are slightly un-hinged.
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
you don’t need marriage to have childern therefore it not for the procreation part. women don’t need to get married for protection either. marriage was used to create family ties. Women were used as trades. you give your daughter and I will give you 20 cows and our families will be nice to each other.
That is all. Not today though. so marriage is just two people making a commitment. they don’t have to have children, and my wife’s shotgun will probably protect her better than I can in certain instances.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Cindy Sheehan has been arrested? When is the sentencing?
By lozen
September 26, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I agree with Randy. Don’t take his last name; just live together! Dr. Smythe welcome to this board! We are honored to have you here. I have read “The Ruins of Isis” and it’s thought provoking science fiction that turns the conventions between the sexes upside down. Everyone should read it. And “Herland” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman also.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - remember we weren’t there. There was probably a legitimate reason for her to have been arrested. I hope so atleast. I might not have agreed with her protests but not to be arrested for them.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Ok the biblical idea of a marraige are for none of those reasons. :)
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
tab,
and if you look in the dictionary for “put”; you will find: To assign; attribute: They put a false interpretation on events.
To impose or levy: The governor has put a tax on cigarettes.
So you see, you idiot; if you could see past your first reaction, and down the road ahead; you would not waste my time like this again.
Is this the pretending you spoke of? BC I am doing a pretty good job at providing PROOF of each of my pretend schoolings delivered to you.
By mit
September 26, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
sheehan got arrested for sitting in front of the White House. its illegal to stop in front.
I have never heard that but that’s the reason they gave to take them away.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
and if you look in the dictionary for “put�; you will find: To assign; attribute: They put a false interpretation on events.
FootMouse,
In order to “assign” or “attribute” anything - it must have been “created” prior to.
You’re getting sillier by the moment. And this happens every time you try to wiggle from your own stupidy.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Tab, just for overkill: Def of PUT: To place in a specified location; set: She put the books on the table. To cause to be in a specified condition: His gracious manners put me at ease. To cause (one) to undergo something; subject: The interrogators put the prisoner to torture. To assign; attribute: They put a false interpretation on events. To estimate: We put the time at five o’clock. To impose or levy: The governor has put a tax on cigarettes. Games. To wager (a stake); bet: put $50 on a horse. Sports. To hurl with an overhand pushing motion: put the shot. To bring up for consideration or judgment: put a question to the judge. To express; state: I put my objections bluntly. To render in a specified language or literary form: put prose into verse. To adapt: The lyrics had been put to music. To urge or force to an action: a mob that put the thief to flight. To apply: We must put our minds to it. To force the purchase of (a stock or commodity) by exercising a put option
Def of ADJUST: To change so as to match or fit; cause to correspond. To bring into proper relationship. To adapt or conform, as to new conditions: “unable to adjust themselves to their environmentâ€? (Karl A. Menninger). See Synonyms at adapt. To bring the components of into a more effective or efficient calibration or state: adjust the timing of a car’s engine. In chiropracty, to manipulate (the spine and other body structures) to treat disorders and restore normal function of the nervous system. To decide how much is to be paid on (an insurance claim).
I am done with you. No fun anymore and you are no match of wits.
By Brian Curtis
September 26, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Yep, Cindy Sheehan and several other demonstrators have been arrested (peaceably) by police for demonstrating without a permit and failing to comply with police “move along” orders.
Good for them! Getting arrested at a peaceful protest is a great way to draw more media attention to your cause, and will cause Bush’s approval numbers to fall even farther. This country is finally waking up and heading in the right direction again. What a relief.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
“Stupidity” that is. Don’t want someone confusing me with that no spelling FootMouse…
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Mit- I think I’ve heard that before. Probably for security reasons.
By Just Being Me
September 26, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
I bet the real topic is:
What happens to a group of working-class people of average intelligence when given the opportunity to discuss a meaningless subject for 9 hours every day for one week?
Shaunti and Diane are probably sitting back, shaking their heads, looking at us like we’re fools, while thinking: I can’t believe we pulled off 3 in a row!
By mit
September 26, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
bb,
it seems to only apply to certain things.
protesters against the war and people of the color brown. They play street hockey all day on the weekends in front of the WH. But the ‘they’ are white business men. any person not of the color brown can stand and take pictures of the WH. They still give tours through the WH. simply sitting on Penn Avenue whether for or against the war is not a very good reason im my eyes to waste resources with time and paperwork.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
FootMouse,
I really do say this with all sincerity: You are even more stupid than I originally thought.
You have gone to the stupendous length of posting definitions for words that have no relationship whatsoever to the word: Create. And the fact that those words have no relation to “create” as was in your initial definition of “regulation” - is precisely why I pointed it out. Now, you turn around and post the definitions of them. Extraordinary.
And the sad part is - you don’t even know it. Talking to birds and dreaming of “floating houses” - may indeed be your strong suit.
By mit
September 26, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
why are you two fighting over the definitions of the word create?
create: make something that wasn’t there before. create a painting.
there’s not much there to fight about.
By Chilao
September 26, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
You must continue moving when in front of The White House and apparently Sheehan and others were sitting. I think they are $50 fines nowadays.
JBM is on to something, this is not really a woman-to-woman blog, conservative vs. liberal, it is really an experiment by some sociology types.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
“why are you two fighting over the definitions of the word create?
create: make something that wasn’t there before. create a painting.
there’s not much there to fight about.”
Mit,
This may be the first and only time we agree. If FootMouse could just understand what “create” means, he might be able to move along.
By joe
September 26, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, after all these p** contests between you and T. you finally realize he’s no fun and no match of wits for you? We tried to tell you that long ago.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Good point JBM
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Ms BuildingBridges, what do you bring up the biblical idea of marriage for, pray tell? And which biblical idea do you speak of? The bible patriarchs had many wives and concubines. Have you actually read the bible of which you speak? Are you not aware that Abram gave his wife Sara to the Pharoah to wed so that things would be easier on him? Yes, God’s chosen Abram lied and gave his wife into infidelity claiming she was his sister. (Maybe she was.) Are you aware that God’s chosen, David, had one of his soldiers killed in battle because he wanted his wife? Then he married her. Did you not know that Solomon had 300 concubines. Why? Because of the very practice MIT speaks of. Each time a new land was conquered the winner got daughters or sisters of the conquered to seal the bargain and bring the lands together. It did not matter what the daughter might want or if she loved another. Because females were seen as property to be used by their fathers, brothers, or husbands for whatever purpose they wanted… Ah, we return to the premise stated by Diane in the beginning, do we not?
By Van
September 26, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
kimberly,
From an AP story
Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
She was not sited for protesting or demonstrating, but failing to comply with police.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Tim…what about when the adjustment is needed FOR sitting down? You know…when it’s hot and you’re wearing boxers and then sit down ON important parts or they get caught when crossing your legs?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Dr. Smythe - I am NOT a child so do NOT speak to me in such a “tone”
The ‘so called’ bible I read is the same that you are referring to and YES I do know all of that. But do YOU not know what God proclamed to be the state of marraige between ONE woman and ONE man to become ONE. The man to leave their family to join the wife. Just because THOSE examples did those things doesn’t mean that’s what GOD taught!
By lozen
September 26, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
But gosh Van, doesn’t the government belong to us, the citizens? Why can’t we sit in front of OUR whitehouse if we want?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - glad you are coming to your senses. Don’t want to stoop.. :)
at the risk of being ridiculed for asking… How is Moose?
By Scott
September 26, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Diane just likes to stir the pot by making broad sweeping judgements and statements to get a reaction, regardless of fact. Thats her job and that is why she is on the opinion page. She doesn’t have to be correct or even informed, just literate and opinionated
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks Van for explaining to me that fascism is now the law of the land in the Police States of America. Yes, the man who repeated Cheney’s own senate-floor quote to him a couple of weeks ago was arrested too — in his OWN devasted neighborhood for interupting a Cheney photo-op. Please forgive me if I don’t feel better now.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Sheehan is a real nutcase. A real pawn for the media and the left.
By Dusty
September 26, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Well, there go Kimberly and Brian with their usual flameouts about the constitution and the president and anything they think will make Republicans look bad. Sheehan is their poster child. Organizers for her said they were planning to get arrested. So Sheehan sat on the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and got arrested. You can’t even sit on MY front porch if I and the police tell you at least three times to move. I have no sympathy for Sheehan. She has taken publicity to dishonor her son and others in military service. As far as I am concerned, she is a disgrace.
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
My dear Ms. Building Bridges, excuse me if I offend. I did not know which reference in the bible about marriage you referred to. And it did not sound to me as if you had read the book. So, you have chosen to take only one part of that book as your source, and that is your perogative. Just to clarify, why do you think Abram and David were still your God’s favorites after doing such horrible deeds. I say your god, but then I do not know. Are you Jewish may I ask? You do know that Jesus did not care too much for Gentiles and was speaking of taking his message to the Gentiles when he spoke of “casting pearls before swine.” He was actually calling Gentiles swine!
By Tim
September 26, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Netbanker… uhhhh my only suggestions would be… don’t cross your legs… and wear boxer briefs… or… adjust until you can’t adjust anymore and don’t worry about who is lookin ;)
By Bruce
September 26, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
We also pay for the roads we drive on so why can’t do drive as fast or crazy as we want? Becuase there are laws against it…..
By mit
September 26, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
kim, that was funny when that guy cussed cheney.
He got arrested for that? complete BS.
By Lee
September 26, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
So if you see or hear of a woman with a hyphenated name (just her, not her kids), is she automatically a disgraceful woman who doesn’t care about her husband? She took her husband’s name, but she didn’t drop hers mostly so that she wouldn’t have to sound like someone out of a Dr. Seuss book, not to assert her independence. Why is that wrong?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
“Dr. Smythe” I have read the bible. I do not have the bible with me at work to point to references. I do not choose to take parts and ignore the others, but those parts you are referring to are NOT teachings about God’s idea of marraige, they are things that HAPPENED. As many other things, I can’t explain why certain things were as they were. I am not jewish but I am through conversing with you. I can’t stand the condensending, looking down the nose, attitude which comes from you and I will not stand for it.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
JBM…I now feel like a science experiment.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Should a police officer ever arrest me for breaking the law, might I claim that the “Constitution is being shredded”…?
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Mr. Dusty, excuse me but are you what is called a chauvinist pig? You think government is always right and never to be challenged by the citizens who “are” the government in this democratic country? My goodness. Can you explain please? If Ms. Sheehan is the government, how can she be arrested when she does not move on from the sidewalk which belongs to her and the other citizens who pay the taxes to make the sidewalk in front of the White house which is her white house paid for by her taxes? this is very stange to me. Is this a government of the people, by the people and for the people or is it not?
By Scott
September 26, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Building Bridges - I am glad you have ( and hope you will continue) to ignore that. Some of the comments have been taken out of context and were clearly meant to offend you.
Netbanker - I agree….like a gerbil on a wheel…LOL
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Lee - I don’t see anything at all wrong or disgraceful about that. :) I hate losing my middle name too but my last name is so long it would be excessive to hyphen it with another name.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
FootMouse,
I must apologize for thinking that you are the stupidest person on the board. Dr. Smythe has now taken the championship away from you. Congratulations.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Mr. Dusty, excuse me but are you what is called a chauvinist pig?
Doubt it.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Scott…hasn’t Shaunti done the same thing as Diane when it comes to “making broad sweeping judgements and statements to get a reaction, regardless of fact?” It’s an equal opportunity opinion page.
By Condenscendor
September 26, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
He was actually calling Gentiles swine!
Wonder if this is what caused so many problems in Europe the past couple of hundred years? This looking down upon/better than the Gentiles mindset. hmmmm.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
scott - yeah, not worth the effort. :)
taboga - go right ahead…but don’t worry, no one will listen then either… ;-)
By Scott
September 26, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Netbanker - Absolutely..my point is the same whether you insert Diane’s or Shaunti’s names. That’s their job
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
Dr. Smythe, NOT anymore. It’s now the goverment of the oil companies, by the oil companies, and for the oil companies. The hate mongers here can call me names all day if they want, but that doesn’t change what has happened to America. The hate mongers here have nothing to say that gives me any faith in my people, my government, or their god.
By mit
September 26, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
sheehan is a nutcase but I don’t think she was before her son died. something like that can make any one of us a nutcase. As for what she does and says, she is a citizen of this country and she can speak her mind all she wants.
the media does what the media does. anyone that attracts them can be called a pawn for the media no matter what subject they talk about. She didn’t seem to me to call the media and tell them of her thing in texas, the media just pounced. they get paid to do this, so they do it. she did use the media to say what she had to say but everyone does that. why demonize someone for doing something they think needs to be done just because you don’t think it the way she does. she is called a disgrace with a rational that could be used for anyone for anything. who really cares? you care enough to make a judgment on someone who you don’t know except through media (her pawn or yours i now ask?) you curse an emotionally tormented woman. does this make you feel better about yourself? You curse her because media tells you too. they show all her speeches and any little thing she does. so I guess now, you are the pawn to the media.
By Bruce
September 26, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
If you would listen to God instead of man you would have faith. Try it sometime, it will change your life…..
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
taboga if I wasn’t afraid of coodies I’d hug ya! ;-) lol that was great!
By Scott
September 26, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - What are some ideas that you would suggest to improve this country?
By Just Being Me
September 26, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
NetB - I’m convinced we are all a part of an experiment. Some of us are making bigger fools of ourselves than others…
By Van
September 26, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
lozen,
You can sit in front of the White House all you want, but if a policeman asks you to move along, and you refuse, you might be sited.
If you sit on the sidewalk in front of an abortion mill, you might get asked to move along also.
Try sitting with a group of your friends in front of a Marta gate - you might be asked to move along.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
BB,
I don’t know if Jeff or Beau would appreciate that…
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Mit - very good points made.
I personally feel her actions are dishonoring her sons death, but she also may not be coloring with a full box of crayons right now. Grief can do horific things to one’s mind. I’ll try to be a little more understanding. And yes…the media is known for pouncing!
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Ms. BuildingBridges, I hope I do not offend again but there are multiple websites with every version of the bible, King James, Revised Standard, all the many others. One must Google. You say, “I do not choose to take parts and ignore the others” but, excuse me for saying this, but that is exactly what you are doing. That is what everyone is doing, even your preachers, they just take the parts they like and ignore the many, many other stories that do not neatly fit into their preconceived ideas about the god of the jews.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Netbanker…I have to say I agree…JustBeingMe may be on to something.
As far as Sheehan goes, I think she is very upset, as would anyone be in her position. She is doing what she believes to be right. She isn’t hurting anything, so if she wants to protest, fine.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Oh come on BB! can you really not see it when your leg is being pulled big time? Lighten up a little! Dr. Smythe is funneeee as hell. Of course, ToeBooger can’t figure anything out, but I thought you would be able to see it.
By lozen
September 26, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Dr. Smythe, pray tell me. What is your favorite bible story? Is there a bible story that supports your idea that women are too tame and should remain wild and free until death? What about the idea that women should adjust those googley breasts that point in two different directions? Is there a biblical rule about which way god wants breasts to point?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
lozen - OH I know that. I figured it out. Just like I finally figured it out with Toboga after atleast 2 days of argueing. Atleast it didn’t take me that long with this dr. dude. :)
But no, I don’t find him funny as hell because he’s ridiculing something that I’ve always believed to be something to be taken seriously.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Well if we’re going to be lab rats, I want some cheese!
Kimberly..you’re being awfully narrow minded about this. You’ve completely forgotten the pharmaceutical companies, religious right groups, etc. Follow the money, dear!
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Mr Smythe does not point out that he is either Jewish or Christian. So not sure what Bible-story would be relevant to women born wild and free or googley breast pointing to support ANY views he has.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Besides didn’t Mr. Smythe start off by quoting some science fiction novel?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
What in the world is taking you Liberals so long in making the Gestapo/Nazi/Hitler comparisons with Cindy Sheehan being arrested?
You Libs have go to get quicker on the draw!
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
NB: Haven’t forgotten, Dear. Just sitting quietly today, waiting for someone to say something to restore my faith.. even a tiny bit. After reading today’s news, it doesn’t look like that will happen. Sadly, I know that this admission will bring joy to the hate mongers.
By FatMoose
September 26, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
Bridges,
Moose is getting by; but I believe I need to make an appointment for the vet to drop by this week. Not looking forward to it.
Thanks for asking.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
Know any Liberals who are comparing Sheehan’s arrest to Gestapo/Nazi/Hitler? I don’t.
Guess you can keep the drawl.
By mit
September 26, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
i didn’t know taboga was a liberal. I mean, he is the first to make the comparison. which meant he thought about it that way. he has been lying to us this whole time.
By Scott
September 26, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - When I asked you earlier for suggestions, i wasn’t being a wise@$$
By taboga
September 26, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Take a closer look there Huh
draw! (exclamation)
By Dusty
September 26, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
Wow, I go off a while and I come back reincarnated as a chauvinist pig whom I assume is male. Belive me, Smytheee child, I am neither. My husband will verify that truth. If, in your study of rose petals ,you might find that this is a free country but not one for you to sit upon. We have laws to follow besides the freedoms and that is so we can all live together without anarchy. I don’t know what internet university gave you a degree, but you, sir, mam, or whatever, show no signs of higher education. Dr. Seuss also wrote a book and he was more entertaining and perceptive than you.
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…I know that feeling. You’d think that after this near miss with Rita that some people would wake up about our oil dependence…there’s enough pork in that energy bill that we could fuel thousands of diesels on the reclaimed fat/grease alone.
FatMoose…you hang in there. It may be hard to believe or imagine right now, but you WILL find what you need inside you to get through this.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Several posters have pointed out that Taboga is really a closet-Commie. I could only conclude no one has told the John Birch Society members yet that Communism died. Maybe it is the Alzheimers most of them have, maybe they knew but then immediately forgot. That way, every day is a new day.
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - restore you faith in what?
FatMoose - I’m sorry to hear. It’s one of those things that really hard to not be selfish about. I know you don’t know me from adam but I have been thinking about y’all, I suppose because I just went through it with Sabrina and understand the heartache you must be feeling that goes along with it.
By kimberly
September 26, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Truth would be a start. But if you ask for it, the Bush Family Faithful call you names. If you say, “wait a minute, those number don’t add up” they call you unpatriotic, anti-American, or say you’re dishonoring the soldiers. The rest doesn’t matter, because without truth, you can’t do anything else that matters.
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
Ms. lozen, I hope I do not offend, but it seems to me that you do not take the Bible seriously. Are you not afraid of going to that hell all the preachers spend so much time talking about? How can one live here in the deep south of the Bible belt and be so out of sync with their peers? Surely you attended school in some other part of the United States. What do you talk about at family reunions? What do you say when asked, “Do you know Jesus as your personal savior?” Where do you go on Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wed. evenings? Is that you I saw riding your white horse nude through the woods of Piedmont park during church hour on Sunday? If so Ms. Lozen, I must say, your pentacle was very lovely bouncing between your googley breasts and you are my inspiration for the wild and untamed woman.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
We all see what we want to see, kinda like Commies behind every tree, àla John Birch Society.
Looks like drawl to me.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Was Lozen’s white horse a unicorn, per chance?
By taboga
September 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Yeah, you hang in there FatMoose. Alot of other cyber-aliases who don’t know you and you will never know them - are deeply concerned about you nonetheless…
By Scott
September 26, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - which truth? The truth of perception or inalienable truth?
By Netbanker
September 26, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Kimberly..I fear that will never happen with this Administration because the tactic has worked every time. People get all wrapped up in the name calling and juicy details of the character assassination that they forget that the whole thing started with a valid question that deserves a truthful answer. That the tactic has been so successful scares me in that I fear future administrations and all politicians will adopt it.
By Dr. Smythe
September 26, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Hey, I just got an email about the a* thing! It is great.
(!) regular a*
( ! ) fat a*
(0) a* hole/Taboga
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Truth is in everything. Whether its apparent or not. I know that doesn’t make sense, I tend to be obscure sometimes but I know what I’m trying to say. Truth is what you make of it. You can choose to see the honest truth in things or it can be blinded by prejudice. NOT saying you are prejudice and not even talking about you personally. Prejudice and judgement is in everyone and when you see something or hear something, those 2 ‘qualities’ can cause someone to miss the ‘truth’ in what they are seeing. Just my opinion.
I hope you find what your looking for. Keep in mind that there are some people worth listening to and some not, as well that there are some that are still honestly good people here.
By Huh
September 26, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Taboga has been to prison? Who knew? No wonder he hates gays.
By taboga
September 26, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Dr. Smythe,
All the pretended eloquence went right out the window, didn’t it there my dear man? Perhaps that is your lips I see quivering as your eyes swell with tears, ol boy?
By lozen
September 26, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Why thank you Dr. Smythe. I thought I was alone in the wood! Was that you, the handsome half man, half beast, dancing and playing your flute in the dappled green shadows on the edge of the wood?
By buildingbridges
September 26, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Btw.. I didn’t touch on the administrative because I honestly have mixed feelings. I voted for Bush and I support my president but I am having some mixed thoughts about his actions. I don’t like hearing Bush bashing because I feel it’s disrespectful to the position, but I don’t necessarily disagree with it all, most but not all. That’s all I’m saying about it! :)
By taboga
September 26, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
Huh,
If you would like to be another loser when trying to match wits with me, you’ve got to bring a little bit better to the table than that. That stale joke was worn out over 15 years ago. At least give credit to the author that you stole it from and try your best to come up with something on your own.
Think you’re a big enough boy to handle that?
By Lacy
September 26, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
I don’t consider myself to be a feminazi or anything like that, but I intend to keep my maiden name (unless my future husband has a last name I like a LOT better than mine). :-)
The reason is simple—I have publications in my name already. Most women in the science fields do not change their last names because they have publications under the name “Smith,” and starting a new publication record under a new name is silly and difficult. A labmate who is Lithuanian married an American and took his last name mainly because it is, well, pronounceable. Even she admits that it makes her life difficult, telling people to find her paper under the name of someone else.
Sometimes changing your last name is just more hassle than it’s worth.
By Jack
September 26, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
The only truth Kimberly wants to believe is the truth of the Democratic party. If the occuopant of the white house is anyone other than a democrat, they are scum. Poor woman.
By joe
September 26, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this
Taboga has been in prison and had to get a boy friend to make it there! He was a big ole boy if ya get my drift. I see you know what you talking about when you say “Butt plug!”
By Nikita
September 26, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this
I’m a bit annoyed by all the men who get themselves in a lather if the woman doesn’t take their name. also the men who state that marriage exists to protect women. it does in that it creates advantages to the partner who is doing the childrearing, but i’m not in need of othr types of protection and most other women aren’t, either.
sean, you suggested: “1. Eliminate the engagement ring unless the guy gets an equally priced object in return such as an engagment big screen tv.”
I asked my husband to marry me with no ring. He then bought me a nice, very modest celebratory ring. they’re not required, ya know.
"2. Have the wedding where both the man and woman walk down the isle at the same time."check. did that.
“3. Have an equally large grooms cake.”
check. 3 tiers each. mine was carrot cake, red velvet, and apple spice and his was kahlua, mocha, and fudge.
“4. Make all the gifts uni-sex.”
They were. Of course, most were housewares.
Dude, it’s called a bachelor party. But we had a coed shower, too.
“Weddings and the whole process is so skewed in the womens direction that the whole process needs to be redone. Don’t stop with the names.”
Weddings are stressful. I wish I had eloped.
Anyway, I can see that this issue boils down to one’s view of the institution. In my opinion marriage is an outward mainfestation of an inward state. And as such it manifests itself in the bare minimum of legal trappings and whatever significance I choose to give it. We gave it tons of significance — combined houses and some finances, started calling each other husband and wife, and bought mutual things. why is that not enough?
By Lyrazel
September 27, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this
…An interesting thing happened to me when I changed my name after getting married…I was no longer subject to search at the airport; not just at the counter, or before boarding but was able to pass customs with just a stamp to the new passport… I dont know if it was worth the 7 hour wait at the DMV, I never did complete the hassle of changing my billing name with utilities…or change my frequent flyer card because they require a visit, and proof…but my credit score went up 100 points!
Question : if you marry a divorcee and she has her exs name is there an ethics/morality code that says THAT name has to change?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Comrades,
Ready for another day of bashing your country and pretending to be patriotic?
Anyone see all the malcontents and weirdos surrounding that Lunatic Cindy Sheehan yesterday? There was enough material there to make five sequels to: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. You Liberals are the weirdest looking little folks…
And of course, Halliburton is under attack. Yet again. The Cuckoo’s Nest is fit to be tied about the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton to help rebuild the infrastructure in the Gulf Coast. And to make matters worse, the Left is about to find out that there are some religious folks involved in it as well. The suicide rate is bound to go up a tad.
But, it’ll all be discussed out here today amongst the many compassionate and concerned intellectuals. I’ve no doubt.
By Sharon Beauchamp
September 27, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this
Having been married for almost 17 years and childhood sweethearts before that with my husband, I will say this: When I married him, I did not turn into him. I did not expect for him to take my name nor myself to take his. We did become and are a team. However, we did not try to take away each others identity in becoming one. It seems if you have to worry about a name change negatively affecting your partner….perhaps the insecurity issues should be looked at. Is this the right person for you?
By Van
September 27, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this
Scott and Kimberly,
Truth and facts, very confusing for some.
Truth is facts in context.
By Huh
September 27, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
Taboga - there is this joke going around about the Narcotics Anonymous graduates who have to do community service, visiting local high schools and junior highs about the perils of drug use. The most effective speaker is one who simply draws a small circle on a piece of paper, and announces “This is your an&s before prison” and the draws a much larger circle with “And this is your an&s after prison, any questions”.
Since the picture posted by Mr Smythe, with your name associated, looked like a pretty large circle, in relation to the butt cheeks, I thought of that joke.
If it has suddenly become normal to have to give credit to a standard joke, it is news to me. Thanks for the enlightenment. And since you asked, I will state it was told to me by a friend on his deck while we waited for the swordfish on the grill to complete. Credit enough? Now who he may have heard the joke from, I did not ask, maybe I am less of a stickler for that sort of thing.
Why shouldn’t Haliburton be under attack? Prevailing wages, long a Federal guideline, have been suspended by the Feds in the areas needing reconstruction yet there are No-Bids for the reconstruction work. I thought Capitalism was all about Competition. Or is Competition only good when it suits the people in power and making the money? Would Haliburton be screaming competition is needed if they were shut out from the reconstruction work? Of course they would be. Talk about Hypocrisy.
By Brian Curtis
September 27, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Good morning thinkers:
Ready for another day of taboga pretending to have a brain? I guess the Wizard left him out of the loop when he got to Oz.
Remember, folks; taboga is a troll… and a pathetically stupid one at that. He pretends that he can set “rules for debate,” when he wouldn’t even reocgnize a debate until a week after his a* was kicked. Just ignore him—or laugh at him, as the mood strikes you.
Or you can always ask a direct question and watch him run away; that’s sometimes fun. I wonder how shrill he’ll get in his desperate, childish pleas for attention today….
By Brian Curtis
September 27, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
oops, “recognize.” Guess taboga’s stupidity is rubbing off on me, much as he’d like to himself.
By Huh
September 27, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
Oops, should have been theN draws a much larger circle
Nice to be able to say “Gee, I made a mistake”. Now if only The White House could be so manly.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 27, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Sharon, nicely stated. The changing the name issue is a nice acid test from the start. I kept my name, now married for 21 years. Most people who were dismayed at my choice were those who abided by stricter gender roles. Fine for them, but not for us. The women are usually the ones who have to make special arrangements for babysitters because their husbands “don’t babysit.” They also cannot fathom that one would forego a diamond ring and fancy wedding. In doing so I missed out on “queen for a day” but attained “partner for a lifetime.”
I often get the response about how “lucky” I am that my husband is such a great guy. I agree he’s a great guy, but honest discussion about what can and cannot be tolerated in a relationship has nothing to do with luck. The ability to agree on mutual goals, adapt, and empathize with one’s partner is more valuable than luck. It’s ongoing hard work.
Kahlil Gibran wrote eloquently of having “separateness in your togetherness,” a realistic guideline for modern marriage.
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
LOL @ what happens when usually intelligent people have nothing meaningful to discuss….
By taboga
September 27, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Huh,
Is that you Eaton? You back under yet another name - ready for me to run you off again? Well, it doesn’t really matter, looks like you’re ready for another butt-busting! And not the kind that you enjoy either.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Brian,
You trying to be the board moderator again? What does this make, 10 or 11 times that you tell everyone else whether or not they can post to me?
It looks like you’re pretty much ignored out here son, you’d best stick to your religious paranoia and let these grown folks out here decide who they’ll post to or not…
By Huh
September 27, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
Hilarious - Taboga thinks I am gay but I am Straight as an arrow.
Dream On, Taboga. Dream On.
Hilarious, the day’s humor is complete. And it took until about 4p yesterday, with the PrisonerCircle comment, I am still laughing from yesterday.
What’s with this paranoia stuff? Is that you, Eaton, is that you, Joe. How about EatJoe?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Huh,
What happened Eaton - you reformed from your Gayness? Going to try it straight for a while?
By Jack
September 27, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
I see we’re off to a good start this morning. I’m busy, busy, busy. See ya later.
By Dusty
September 27, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
Huh, try to stop laughing. You haven’t said anything humorous yet. Or maybe that doesn’t matter.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
Brian,
Don’t be afraid to post - come on back out. And you’ve got the reformed Gay Huh (Eaton) back out here to help you. Surely the two of you rubes together can give it your best shot!
By Tim
September 27, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
ok… did anyone see the UT v LSU game last night… oh man I would be sooooo annoyed if I were an LSU fan… and would be so pumped if I were a UT fan (I HATE them though… go gators lol)… fun game to watch though… gotta credit Tn for hangin in there
By Huh
September 27, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
I used to be Eaton and Gay but I went to Christian counseling, as this blog recommended recently, and now am Huh and Straight.
Who is Eaton, anyway?
Okay, enough side-ripping humor.
Dusty - Yes, what matters is what I consider funny. If you fail to see it, it just means our concepts of funny are different. Why you are Dusty and I am Huh. Huh?
By OH NO
September 27, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
GET A NEW TOPIC..THIS SUCKS
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
My ONLY comment for the day seeing that I can see what direction everyone is headed in and I have too much to do..
Huh - I went to Christian counseling… don’t be an a*.
Y’all have fun..
By Jack
September 27, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
BB. Yes. He is an a*.
By Jack
September 27, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
The way this blog is going today, might as well go shoot some cans.
By Tim
September 27, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
can we drink the beer out of the cans first… I need a drink!!!! lol
By taboga
September 27, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Huh,
So Eaton, how did you parents take the conversion? You are still living with them, right, or do you have a place of your own now? Anyway, Not having to peek between the blinds to see if Mom and Dad are pulling up while you’re pole-vaulting - is quite the relief for you I can imagine…
Heck, at the rate you’re going now, the next thing we’ll know - you found a job!
By joe
September 27, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
The topic is about women changing their names when they get married. Although we do range around, we come back to it. Nikita, Sharon, Lyrazel and Sandy all had good comments about the subject this morning. If men can imagine how they would feel if the situation were reversed, I think they might understand why this is an important topic instead of trying to blow it off. So you’ve had the same name for 30 years and you decide to get married. You SHOULD according to some, symbolically give up your former identity by giving up your birth name and taking the name of the person you marry. The two become one, right? Which one? Well, we all know which one. And we all know 99 percent of men would not even consider doing it.
By Netbanker
September 27, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Taboga…I haven’t seen the news, but if Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts ALL Americans should be p** off about that. Why isn’t the free market system and capitalism applicable to hurricane reconstruction? If helping the region recover so important why not give those contracts to local businesses to help them? Wouldn’t this approach also lower the amount of aid since people could support their own families with paychecks? Local people have more motivation to get the job done and done right quickly too, don’t they?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Netbanker,
There will be many contracts that will be bid on. No-bid contracts is a practice that has been around for a long time and they are generally applied in emergency situations. In emergency situations, time does not afford the opportunity for the lengthy bidding process that occurs. And Halliburton, the leader in their field, has been used many times in the past for these emergency needs.
There will be numerous contracts that will be awarded as the work continues for many many months. But for now, the Gulf Coast has emergency needs that have to be taken care of.
All fuss about Halliburton is nothing more than the typical Liberal caterwauling that we’re all too familiar with.
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Reasons not use your husband’s last name: Your first name is GAYE, his last name is BUTTS Your first name is SHAYNE, his last name is NAY Your first name is CRYSTAL, his last name is BURGER Your first name is PAGE, his last name is BOOKER Your first name is STAR, his last name is HEAD
I can imagine this delimma is very common.
By Tim
September 27, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Whiley… Shayne Nay… that’s great hahaha… how about a woman whose first name is SHARON and her husband’s last name is PETER :)
By Dusty
September 27, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Huh, if you are the only one that thinks something is funny, why don’t you keep it to yourself? We’d all be grateful.
Jack, got you beat. I’m going to shoot cans —in the mountains. Bye now.
By Tony
September 27, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
Have you noticed ever since President Bush took office, liberals have been rooting from one thing to another in a quest to find that one issue, one tragedy, one scandal that would bring him down. Everything is blown out of proportion, every possible ambiguity is resolved in Presidents Bush’s disfavor, and every possible malevolent motive is attributed to him. The most innocuous of events is treated as scandalous. Hyperbole rules. Panic prevails. Fantastic conspiracy theories triumph. Sober, balanced analysis is absent.
There is no limit to their reservoir of indignation. Everything on a scale to be a 10-rated calamity. No ability to discriminate, to distinguish between minor and serious, the real and the contrived. With the unfolding of any event that carries the remotest chance of damaging President Bush, they wail in unison, decrying this miserable, corrupt, “selected” president.
And then, as with the touch of a switch they become moral exhibitionists in the sensitivity sweepstakes clamoring everyone deserves a fair shake. Everyone that is except for…
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
It appears there are HUNDREDS of reasons NOT to change your name to your husbands:
Gail Storm ?? Heidi Clare?? Penny Wise??? Debra May Dye??? Rose Bush??? May Day???? Olive Yew??
By Tim
September 27, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Tony… hmmmm… almost sounds like what ALWAYS happens with the party that is not in the oval office… doesn’t matter if there is a republican or a democrat in office… the opposing party is going to do what you mentioned
By Brian Curtis
September 27, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Tony: Maybe that’s because there’s been no end to the Bush administrations crimes and foul-ups, any one of which would’ve been more than enough fodder for the neocons to be screaming for Clinton or Gore’s head on a platter.
Maybe the hypocrisy annoys us… or maybe the neocons have gotten so vicious that, now that we’re fighting back on their terms (and beating them), they want to cry about it.
But cheer up! At least you have your cut-and-paste web sources to console yourself as the country turns against you. And if nothing else, remember this: you’re nowhere near as pathetic Taboga the Cowardly Troll (poor little crybaby that he is).
By Nikita
September 27, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
um, hey…what does the partisan mud slinging have to do with the topic?
back on the topic, i’d just like to say that i wish you all happy marriages or partnerships, however you wish to have them.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 27, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Brian, while the Democrats are fighting back, it should be noted they are doing so without the smear tactics that the conservatives are so fond of. Have you ever noticed that that the conservatives cry foul but fail to recognize they are guilty of whatever they accuse the Democrats of having done, most notably to their favorite whipping boy, Clinton.
Of course, they promised to bring dignity and morality back to the White House, but have failed to perform their functions publicly or even above board, so that now they are now under suspicion. Step right up, follow the money, the no-bid contracts abroad and at home, the secret energy meetings, see the cronyism. See the failure of leadership abroad and at home, see the denial of facts, see the scapegoating, see the promotions and laurels given to the Bush faithful despite their failures.
Alas, it would all be entertaining if there was no body count.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Tony,
You’re absolutely right. And in addition to that, see how they’re all cracking-up and how they live in a fantasy world? Take little Brian for example. His quote:
or maybe the neocons have gotten so vicious that, now that we’re fighting back on their terms (and beating them), they want to cry about it.
“Beating us” where? They’ve done nothing but lose ground for 10 years now, but in their imaginary world: They’re beating us!
And to show you just how incredibly delusional these folks are, they are trying to increase the intensity of the very tactics that have caused them to loose in the first place! It’s extraordinary.
And no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, you cannot help but laugh at a bunch of people who put their egg basket on the shoulders of a deranged women, Cindy Sheehan, and think it will be a big turning point for them!
It’s quite a site to behold.
By Scott
September 27, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Tim - yeah I saw that game..I’m not an LSU fan but I HATE seeing Tennessee ever win (or any team with orange as a color generally..e.g. Auburn, Florida, Tennessee) Icouldn’t believe LSU let UT off the mat after putting up 21 points on them. So we were rooting for the same side last night, though I have a feeling we won’t be come Saturday. (ROOOLLLLLLL TIDE ROLL!)
By taboga
September 27, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Woman and Sight.
By james
September 27, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
a woman should take her husband’s last name. true, a marriage is a partnership but it’s not an equal partnership.
and the insurance thing. i thought we had auto, home, etc. insurance to pay for things after bad things happene. if people divorce, neither deserves to be paid for it.
as an afterthought: to the poster that talked about how much time and money it took to change your name back to your maiden name….there had to be something wrong with you. it doesn’t take that much time and money unless you were changeing to escape something.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Just popping in after lunch. I’ve already said my piece on the name change. :) Although I can see both sides to it, I look forward to having the honor (in my opinion) of a man who not only want to marry me but feels that I am the one worthy of carrying on his name through me and our children.
Scott - WAR DAMN EAGLE!!! ;-)
By Scott
September 27, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Building bridges - good to see you today…however, I think I would reverse the first two words of your exclamation!!!!
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
LOL Yeah I hear ya … you’ve got yours right though. That tide can just keep rollin on out.
By Brian Curtis
September 27, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Sandy: Very true! I wonder what actual conservatives think of Bush’s performance in office? We know what his brain-dead army of drones think; they all post here.
By kimberly
September 27, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
James, you and I agree on something: “A marriage is a partnership but it’s not an equal partnership.” That’s not the way it ought to be, IMO, but from my experience and observation, it always is. You don’t procreate with the marriage you want, you procreate with the marriage you HAVE! Haha..
Scott… what BB said: WAR DADGUM EAGLE!
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
heck yea kimberly high five
By Jack
September 27, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
I read they found Lynndie England guilty of abusing prisoners. I want to throw up. They should give her a medal. Everyone of those she “abused” would have gladly be-headed all American citizens they could. And smile while doing it. Guess the libs are real happy about that. Rrrrrrrrrrrrr!
By mit
September 27, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
taboga has a new book coming to a store near you.
So You Think You Can Outsmart Me? The memoirs of a retarded blogger
By USNews
September 27, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
from US News and World Report, October 3 issue: Running on Empty article, page 30.
As far as the deficit hawks in the GOP are concerned, the president has morphed into a bleeding-heart liberal
and
“Congressional Republicans now understand that they are not about to get re-eleceted on this president’s coattails”
and a quote from a conservative ‘close’ to the administration:
“We are looking past Bush,” he says flatly. “This is now the post-Bush Republican Party.”
By mit
September 27, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
jack,
the only ones I can really see enjoying the conviction of england are her superiors. Now they don’t have to take the fall.
By kimberly
September 27, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Actually, Jack, I am sickened by it. Imagine you live in a backwoods place in W.Virginia, and you have a daughter. Imagine your daughter is, unfortunatley, neither pretty nor bright. She struggled in school and was never popular. She learned early on from the mirror that her future would not contain the attentions of men. But you love her anyway. She joins the National Guard and you think this is great, because maybe she’ll find some skills, opportunities, and new friends. Then they send her to Iraq to do a job for which she was never trained. Her supervisor seduces her, because it’s easy to seduce a young woman who has never known any positive attention from men. He knocks her up, a clear abuse of his authority, and then orders her to do disgusting things to prisoners, which she does. This is okay at the time, as it is condoned by their chain of command. Anyone who has been or who has loved a soldier knows that a 20-year-old hick with six months of service wouldn’t CRAP without permission, and would certainly check the army manual for correct wiping procedures first. But since accountability bounces off the top in today’s federal government, and rolls back downhill onto the little folks, this naive kid is now both a MOTHER of a bastard baby, AND a convicted criminal facing prison. A “few bad apples?” Please. Support the troops? Yeah, like their own government does?
If I’m her mother, I’m fixin’ to kill somebody. I’m just sayin’.
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
War Eagle? Keep screamin’ladies….
do ya think it will hurt to get plucked by the GameChickens?
They are slightly better than Ball St. and Western Kentucky (though maybe not as good as GT)
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Scott… we will definitely be rooting for different teams… but I do have to say that my papa was a HUGE bama fan… so if the Gators did lose even though I would be in very bad mood all next week I would be happy for my papa’s sake cus I know he would have enjoyed it :)… but that still isn’t enough to get me to stop the Gator chomps
(I was definitely not rooting for UT last night)
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
and the TIDE will keep rollin’ BB…right over Auburn….HAHA!
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Well Tim, I can at least say you come from good stock, even if you have turned to the darks side. To be honest, I will be pulling for the Tide on Saturday, but they have their work cut out for them.
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
dark side I should say, lest the grammar police smack me
By chuck
September 27, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
Well, Here is my take on this topic. This refusal of women to take their husbands’ names in marriage is all part of what I call, “The Womanizing of America”. Women are trying to turn men into “Sensitive” little women. They go and buy their husbands “outfits”…MEN DON’T WEAR OUTFITS!!! Men are using LOTION because their hands are rough. It’s enough to make a real man cry…
By Jack
September 27, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Ok. Maybe I shouldn’t have taken that swipe at libs. Kimberly I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. They should hang her superior by his nads and let her go. She was doing what she was told. B.C. would disagree but a soldier is supposed to follow orders. Period. They tried to convict another soldier for killing an “insurgent” who was playing dead.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
LOL scott. I don’t think AU has much to worry about with either the chickens or the tide. We will just have to wait and see though. OH and I root for ANYONE playing the gators.
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Scott… my papa would have appreciated that
I hope Bama has their work cut out for them… but I think it should be a good game… I don’t trash talk… I don’t want it to come bite me in the butt later… October could be a great month for Fl… but it could also be a very ugly month for Fl… Bama and LSU away and UGA in Jacksonville… at the very least it will be an exicting month of football for me to watch
By Netbanker
September 27, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
Taboga…I thought no-bid was more driven by security clearances with the time factor being how long that would take. Do we really need security clearances on non-military administered projects? What is it that Halliburton will be fixing that would prevent the federal funds to be provided to the states for them to administer directly since they were responsible for infrastructure maintenance within their own states? Wouldn’t the states already have lists of companies with whom they worked on infrastructure projects previously? Again..wouldn’t trying to work with regional or local companies make more sense from a resident recovery perspective?
By kimberly
September 27, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
Tim, that was an awesome game last night. What an overtime! Still, I was pulling for the Tigers. Football is a great escape mechanism from the misery of mankind. Thank God for Saturdays!
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
I thought we had something special BB… I guess not… see if I take your last name now!
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
amen Kimberly… there is nothing better than Saturday during football season… it’s a great escape
By Marti
September 27, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Yeah, James. Let every woman know marriage is not an equal partnership. First she gives up her name; that’s such a little unimportant thing. Then she gives up her choice of furniture or house or vacation for what he wants; such a little thing; relationships mean compromise. Then she starts picking up his dropped socks etc.; it only takes a little time and she doesn’t want to nag. Then she begins taking responsibility for his laundry instead of leaving it for him, and making sure there’s food in the house because he never thinks about it until he’s hungry. Those are just the things that good wives do! She leaves work at 6:00, runs by the laundry to pick up his shirts for the next week, runs by the grocery to get something to eat, runs home and makes dinner, serves dinner to the man who still has his last name! She cleans up the kitchen, throws a load of laundry into the machine, takes the dog for a walk, and then sits down at the computer to pay the bills. He left work at 5:00, went to the gym to work out and drove home where he caught a little nap until dinner or watched a little tv. Then he decides he can’t stand her best friend’s husband so she doesn’t see her best friend much anymore. It’s just a little compromise. Then she gives up dancing which she loves because he can’t dance; one more little tiny thing. And all this is before the kids come! I wonder how many men took off from work yesterday or today cause somebody had to take care of the kids who didn’t go to school per Sonny’s bright idea!
By kimberly
September 27, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
…all those nice young men in their cute lil’ outfits… Does that thrill you as much as it does me? {;->
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
duh kimberly :)
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
BB - Well, y’all weren’t too concerned about Georgia Tech either, and that turned out so well…hehheeh
Tim - I am with ya on the non-trash talk. I think it’s obvious that UF has a talented team. Bama will have to play lights out defense and really slow th ofeensive game down. If they can keep UF from throwing the big play 70 yards downfield, I think they have a shot
UT was over-rated to begin with, poor LSU has so much on their mind it’s amazing they can play at all…
One question though…how is playing the UGA-UF game in Jacksonville, FLORIDA a neutral site? hahahaha
By Jack
September 27, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Remember Pat Sullivan? (now I’m giving away my age)
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Wow, Jack. Your 2:13 post was cool.
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Scott… Bama definitely has a shot… UF better not go in there thinking they are just going to run away with it
UT was VERY overrated
and to answer your question… I have no clue… very amusing… I guess that’s the best place for the ‘worlds largest outdoor cocktail party’???
By Jack
September 27, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Thanks JBM. Kimberly and I disagree on a lot of things but this is not one.
By Scott
September 27, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Tim - well it is on the beach, so I can buy that
Jack - Yeah bro…did Sullivan wear a facemask when he played?
By Jack
September 27, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Don’t Seminoles eat Gators for dinner?
By Jack
September 27, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
He had a leather helmet! LOL
By Tim
September 27, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
lol @ Jack… you’re good at stirring the pot… but I am not going to bite
By taboga
September 27, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Netbanker,
The Job that Halliburton will have at hand - is a major one. We’re talking about major infrastructure repair and rebuilding: Electrical grids, water and sewage systems and the like - which would be beyond the scope of local businesses to do with the urgency at hand.
However, much of what Halliburton will do, will require sub-contracting out different jobs to local outfits. So, yes, local businesses will be involved. But a project of this magnitude calls for the expertise needed to plan, develop and implement the kind of mass reconstruction that a large company like Halliburton specializes in.
We’re not talking about making pies and doughnuts here.
And why all the fuss? One reason and one reason only: VP Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. And it doesn’t matter to the whackos on the left in the least, that Halliburton has being doing this sort of thing for DECADES now! Nope, they have to pretend that this is a new thing because of: Cheney.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
kimberly - ooohhhhh yeah…
tim - Hhahaha… yeah difference in bama vs. au football is a deal breaker isn’t it..
scott - yeah I was worried about Tech, Only because AU always chokes when given higher ratings in the beginnnig.
marti - I’m a hardheaded brat and won’t put up with crappola like that.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Remember Pat Sullivan? (now I’m giving away my age)
And his favorite receiver who was also an All-American: Terry Beasley.
By Tony
September 27, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Cheney donates every-bit he receives from Hallibuton to charity!
By Ben
September 27, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Marti- Sounds good to me!
By Scott
September 27, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Good grief Marti - who are you married to?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Tony,
Don’t you know that VP Cheney’s charitable contributions are made to a front-man?
Once the money has been laundered, all Republicans meet at a resort in Cancun (built by Halliburton) and cut the pie!
Karl Rove is the organizer of the scheme (behind the scenes of course) and funnels all the money to the front-man in Texas who used to be President Bush’s Coke dealer.
Dan Rather is investigating this story as we speak and is certain that there is ample evidence to prove it.
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Marti. You are performing a valuable service by taking care of your children. No it is not fair but would you like to change places with your husband? The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Marti,
And you might want to make it snappy getting all those bills paid - he might need a little extra-curricular before calling it a night!
And I saw no mention of you preparing his breakfast to get him started on a long day a work. Pick it up just a bit, how bout it…
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
How many hole does it take to fill the Albert Hall?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Back on topic.
What is all this nonsense about women “giving up their names”? Women’s names are not theirs to begin with - it’s their Father’s.
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Was it ever stated how many? I really can’t remember, but I think it goes: Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall…
I can’t remember, trying to replay it in my head…
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Who was “climbing up the Eiffel Tower” in” I am the Walrus…?
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Tab. Yes. That was after they counted them all.
By Marti
September 27, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
I would change places with my husband in a flying second Jack! It would be nice to have a wife to pick up after me, do my laundry, cook my meals, do the grocery shopping, take out the stinking garbage (oh, honey, I’ll get to it when the game’s over…) and contribute half the household income. It would be so nice to have one job instead of two or three. Why is it a perfectly healthy man who’s been doing his own laundry, picking up his own underwear, and making his own bed and meals for years suddenly thinks he is entitled to free maid service once he gets married? You are so right James. Marriage is not an equal partnership and don’t you women forget it! I guess this is why most divorces these days are being filed by women, huh?
By lozen
September 27, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Shaunti asks, My brother and his wife have been married for ten years, have two kids, and she has never taken his last name. Why? Could it be she doesn’t want anybody to know she’s related to Shaunti?
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Gonna have to go home and listen to it. Kookookatchoo!
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
Your post led me to believe that you were a stay-at-home mom. If you work, he should contribute toward the household chores. That is the right thing to do. He should change his behavior if he wants to remain married.
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
LOL Lozen
Marti - for the record, not all women are resentful of taking care of their spouses, regardless of what that entails. In my home, I make twice (2x or 200%) of what my partner makes. I do all the cooking, all the laundry, all the grocery shopping, take care of the kids, pets, and house, and do most of the house cleaning. I manage our investments, savings, financial planning, etc. In fact, the only “chore” my partner has is to take out the trash and manage our checking account/bills.
It is absolutely my pleasure, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
By Jack
September 27, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Wow Just Being Me. Too bad you’re spoken for! LOL
By taboga
September 27, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Marriage is not an equal partnership and don’t you women forget it! I guess this is why most divorces these days are being filed by women, huh?
Divorce Courts are the main reason women file for divorce. Clever lawyers, clever indeed, have devised a system whereby women can win in divorce court. This attracts women who might be dissatisfied with their marriage. And when it does, they run out and grab a lawyer. Causing men to have to get one as well.
Both Lawyers make money in the deal, the Judge keeps job security, the woman gets some (though not as much as the lawyers lead her to believe) and the man has to open his pockets for the confiscation of all of it.
About half the people in the country get a divorce. Women make up half of that amount and the other half who are not involved in divorce don’t care. So, 75% of the population are just fine with the current system.
And oh - the children. Their lives are degraded in many cases because the courts automatically awards them to the mother, who cannot support them fully; even with Child Support, so they pay the biggest price in all of it.
But have no fear, everyone in the Judicial System will rail on and on about how the children are what’s important in all of it (and of course they’re really not - to the court, that is), and it will satisfy all the rubes in our society that see no problem in ALL of this…
By Truth Hurts
September 27, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
It’s sound to me like you really don’t need him. Let’s be truthful, if you were to leave him, who do you think would have to pay alimony?????????
By Marti
September 27, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Scott, why do you act as if this is unusual? Every woman I know, young, middle aged or old, says the same things about their husbands. I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard women complaining about their husbands being so selfish and expecting to be waited on hand and foot. I heard that crap about “women need marriage but men have to be independent” all the time I was growing up. You know what? Out of all the couples I know who have gotten divorced it’s the men who are remarried in six months, not the women. The women feel like they are free at last from having to take care of two people! The men want another free maid!
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
UH HELLLLLOOOOOOO Just Being Me ! Knock knock anyone in there???? !!!! Honey if that is true, you are a happy doormat & your husband is a leachy loser.
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
But, for the record, I would never (and have never been asked to) give up my preference for furniture, vacation, or a house… we usually decide on something we’d both like. When that doesn’t work, I usually win. :-)
By Jack
September 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Marti. If you are so dis-satisfied, why don’t you kick his a* out?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard women complaining about their husbands being so selfish and expecting to be waited on hand and foot.
Marti,
There are a lot of men who wish they had every nickel back - from women who think they grow on trees!
By Jack
September 27, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Hey Whiley. How are ya?
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
I look forward to taking care of my husband and kids but luckily so far my boyfriend is awesome about helping with my household chores (even though he has a place of his own). He’ll load and unload my dishwasher. Walk my trash out if it needs it. Just little things. He cleaned up where their had been a leak in the bathroom after a weekend away. The one thing I’m HORRIBLE at is financial things, so I hope he’s good at that and will be the one to take care of things like bills and checkbooks and stuff.
I grew up with my mom taking care of everything except for grilling out, all of the rest of the meal my mom took care of. When my sister and I moved out he started taking care of meals more often. I think it took my mom many years to get through to my dad that she wasn’t his maid.
By Renee
September 27, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
Why does that make JBM a doormat and her “husband” (haha) a leechy loser. If JBM chooses to take care of hers, whats wrong with that. I make significantly more than my partner and I take care of most bills, I don’t cook or clean that much, but every household is different. If JBM is happy with what she is doing, what is the problem????
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
LOL Jack!!!
Calling someone a doormat implies that they are being walked all over. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I have never been ordered to do anything. I’ve never been told to do anything. I am rarely asked to do anything. I offer. It is my pleasure. I love my family so much, that I delight in cooking for them. I delight in folding their clean clothes and putting them away. I delight in having my partner’s or daughter’s friends over to a clean, well-maintained house.
On the flip side, I’ve never had to ask to be taken out to dinner. I’ve never had to ask to be taken on vacation, or for pocket money or for my gas tank to be filled. Well, once I had to ask for the gas tank to be filled… lol. I’ve never had to ask for a back rub, or for my feet to be massaged. I’ve never had to ask for my car to be washed. I’ve never had to ask for heavy bags to be carried upstairs…
Whiley, it’s not necessary to be condescending. I’m not a doormat, and my partner is definitely not a loser.
I love what I do. And, I’m always appreciated for it. I have never ever done a single load of laundry without being thanked for it. I’ve never cooked a meal, or gone grocery shopping without hearing thanks, Baby. Every single day, no matter what I do, I am told how much I am appreciated. That is payment enough for me to keep doing what I do.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
JBM - I LOVE how your marraige sounds and I hope someday I’ll have one similar. It sounds like you have a good partnership! I stress that because not all partnerships mean splitting the physical work 50/50.
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Thanks Renee. ~waving~ I didn’t see you over there… thought you were taking the day off today! LOL
By Demona
September 27, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
You frigging idiot Taboga; what leads you to believe you’re an expert on divorce or any other subject? You spout your ignorant crap just like it’s the God’s truth because you say so. Ha, ha, ha. Nobody wants to hear your stupid brain farts all day long! Lord, you smell to high heaven. I think it’s time to put these good people here out of their misery. Watch you back on dark streets little peepee.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
AS MUCH AS Taboga drives me insane with the pot stirring… he actually had some fairly intelligant comments about the bidding process (something I know about) and was honestly surprised that for once he didn’t sound like a sniveling bitter 12 year old that doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks BB. Like most couples, we have our share of problems, but we do have a good partnership, like you said.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
You can’t have any kind of relationship without problems. Even the stepford wives had issues with their hubbies.. :)
By Scott
September 27, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Marti - because I don’t have, nor have I ever had, nor do I have any friends or family who have had or were brought up that your wife is a “maid”…Sorry that it’s your bitter reality, it just isn’t mine
By taboga
September 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Now those are the kinds of responses I love to hear!
And if one of you want to show me where I am wrong about any of it - have at it!
But, I don’t think you will. It is much easier for you folks who know very little of anything, to just run out and claim I don’t know “my butt from a hole in the ground”.
So you go right ahead their Demona and refute anything I said about “Divorce Courts” and we will debate the FACTS.
Think you’re up to it?
By Renee
September 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Yeah I’m here JBM, just chose not to comment on a lot of mumbo jumbo going on. I handle a lot in my relationship but my partner gives a lot in other ways. I choose to take care of things financially and I have a lot of love in return, respect, other important things. A person is only a doormat if they are allowing someone to take advantage of them, being walked over etc..
By Just Being Me
September 27, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Exactly, Renee.
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
I called him a loser because only a loser would sit back & let ANYONE wait on him hand & foot & not contribute. OK so she does it because she LIKES it? OK whatever floats your boat I suppose. Sad, but whatever. lol Stepford is another word for servant in my opinion.
If both spouses are working outside the home the housework & everything that it includes should not be done by just one person. Otherwise somebody has just volunteered to be a doormat.
By Tim
September 27, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
when we moved into our new home I was doing all the inside cleaning and my partner was handling all the outside work… well I got tired of spending 6 hours cleaning every Saturday… so I begged and begged and begged for a cleaning lady and promised to help with the outside chores… ain’t compromise great! :)
By Tim
September 27, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
Whiley… JBM is waiting on a woman hand and foot
By lozen
September 27, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
JBM, how long have been together?
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
maybe they just have a more ‘traditional role’ idea about a household than some. I don’t consider someone a doormat for doing nice things for their partners especially when gratitude is expressed. It’s when the gratitude ends when it becomes a chore. I would also be very surprised if JBM was to say her partner never lifted a finger to help.
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
JBM honey what’s going on?
By taboga
September 27, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Well, the day comes to a close with all the Fems beside themselves over Just Being Me.
That whole Pro-Choice thing flew out the window along with all the tolerance of the views of others that you Libs are so fond of lecturing everyone on…
Quite the crowd.
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
taboga - I’ve only seen one person that is giving JBM a hard time about her choices. The others of us are defending that choice.
again… butt from a hole… learn it, it could come in handy some day.
(seriously.. you seem intelligent enough on occasion…whats the deal?)
By buildingbridges
September 27, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
night everyone!
By Whiley
September 27, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
‘traditional role’ is another phrase for put up & shut up, I’m not doing any housework & I need a free housemaid. lol I’m so lucky to have an equal partner as far as that’s concerned. We complain the same about all the things we have to take care of around here. hehe
By Jack
September 27, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
There is a bit of a trade off. I kill bugs, deal with rodents, snakes & anything else creepy. I make sure I’m between her and anything that will hurt her. (in the street or woods) I volunteer to clean up the grossest stuff. (IE.Puke, poop, whatever.) I also take care of the outside of the house. Why shouldn’t I enjoy having her cook for me and do most of the “inside” stuff?
By lozen
September 27, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this
Taboga, You must have a really sad and empty life to be such a bitter person. Isn’t there anybody in this world who loves you? Anything or anybody you care about or anybody who cares about you? Anything you are grateful for or appreciate? Is there anything that gives you pleasure besides making fun of people and pretending to be superior to other people?
By taboga
September 28, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Comrades,
Well, at the risk of offending all you Liberals — Congratulations to the Braves!
And yes, I know, the Braves are not as important as School Teachers who “teach our kids”. They make millions of dollars for playing a “kids game” while children go to bed “hungry at night” and will never have “Health Care” - not to mention a “College Education”. And no doubt we should be giving our money to the “victims” of Katrina - rather than wasting it on millionaires that drive luxury SUV’s causing an increase in gas prices that hit hardest on the “Poor” and “Elderly”…
14 and counting!
By Ben
September 28, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this
Two days off of school = one person killed by teen who stole truck; one stabbed; and one shot. I may have missed one, but I guess it could have been worse.
And just a note for you bitter women. You choose your role in the household. Whether you like it or not is up to you. Unless you are forced to wash your husband dirty drawers, get over it. As a matter of fact, you chose your husband too.
By Jack
September 28, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this
Stir it up Ben.
By Whiley
September 28, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this
Ben to a point you are correct. One cannot be taken advantage of unless they allow it. However, you can’t MAKE someone get off their lazy arse & clean up after themselves. Nagging is the only thing we have unless we can whip them with sticks. So, bitterness is created.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this
Whiley - The deal is, women want it done right now; men want it done when it needs to be done. If my wife chooses to do laundry twice a week, that’s her choice. But if she didn’t do laundry at all, I would wash my dirty drawers when I didn’t have any. Or go commando. If the garbage is almost full, I’ll push it down. If my wife chooses to take the bag out and put a new one in, that’s her choice. If I come home and I’m hungry, I’ll make a sandwich or a can of ravioli or something. But if my wife makes dinner, it’s her choice. We (men and women) just see things differently.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 28, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
Lozen, I cracked up at your 3:39 post yesterday. I was thinking along the lines that although Shaunti’s sister-in-law does not share the American cultural convention, she probably still has to put up with the judgment of Shaunti and her ilk, for the name issue and and other reasons.
Jack, I am the egg man, they are the egg man, I am the walrus-Goo goo goo joob.
As for choosing spouses (or “spice” as we call them in our family) hopefully you choose each other, that way you’re equally responsible in ways you see fit for your lives together: kids, laundry, finances, car and home repairs, dealing with in-laws, the whole deal. Then you can approach marriage and family in terms of what works well and what can be done to make things that don’t work better.
I can’t paint a rosy picture here; the details of my home are not much like JBM’s, but generally we love, care, and respect each other. When we don’t, it’s usually a sign that one or both of us are overwhelmed, so it’s time for venting, introspection, adaptation, and ultimately growth. We’ve weathered some major storms in dealing with the slings and arrows that life provides, but we’ve never blamed each other. Our cohesion is mutual even if our last names are not.
By SUZAN
September 28, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
this is the goofeyest and most non relevant issue these two ave come up with yet I dont even care to comment on som ething so trivial
By Nikita
September 28, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
hmm. i guess i’m the man in the relationship. or that’s what it sounds like, anyway. i do everything when it has to be done. and i do what housework i like to do, which is gardening, dusting, organizing, smashing bugs, lopping and brush cutting, hiring a cleaning service periodically, and cooking 3 days a week (which fulfills all our food needs for the whole week). it’s all about what you negotiate, IMHO.
My mother-in-law once made some silly comment implying that if I were a real woman and if i really cared about my house I’d clean it myself. But i’m arthritic, i grew up with a cleaning service, and i really hate cleaning. So it gets done, but I don’t do it. and I think we’re all happier that way.
By Jack
September 28, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
The subjects they pick on this blog is an insult to women. They don’t think more important things can be discussed or are they going after the 3rd grade level people?
By Whatdis
September 28, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
Does that mean the daily regulars here operate on a third-grade level?
No need for an answer.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
Lozen, next week will make 3 years that we’ve been together.
Whiley, for the record, my partner does not require me to “clean up after her.” She doesn’t leave dirty underwear or socks laying around, doesn’t leave the sink wet, or the garbage overflowing… she’s not that type of person at all. She doesn’t know how to cook - I do. She doesn’t know how to make the laundry smell good - I do. No one is being used here. We just recognize each others’ strengths and weaknesses and pitch in where we can.
Like Jack said (keep it up, Jack and I might get a crush on you… lol), my baby stands between me and the bugs, me and the rodents, pigeons, midgets… and everything else I have an irrational fear of! :-)
By Lyrazel
September 28, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
We grow to old too late smart. I have a very different perspective reading how many of you think relationships are servant-master type marriages if you bend and pick up pants from the floor or cook dinner after work. Life goes by very quickly and the whole reason to marry is not for lust but for companionship in the worst of times. There are parts of a vow: in sickness and health, for better or for worse… Those Stepford Wives could have learned a bit from me ;-) about being there to have and hold up a mans life…like a sacred duty. I had to wise up beyond prejudices learned from my mother and grandmother. I realized it when the man I was wed to for umpteen years abandoned me while we slipped into poorer…sickness… It was time to take the old gal somewhere where the old Pintos and Ramblers waited driverless with their blistering paint and rusted bumpers before being hauled off to the big recycler in the sky. I got a slightly used male with a great transmission and hes not out of gas and has ability to make me laugh when the windows dont roll up the way they used to. He keeps the house, does the cooking and mowing while I work the grind crossing off on my calendar until retirement. We talk about growing old, about failing health and other things like lust fit into place…now he is an old converted batchelor so he still does not fold the laundry, stuffs the drawers has burned dinner as much as I did newly wed…but when I think about these twilight years I feel more secure than ever that he will be there to pull the plug at the hospice if I need him to…
building bridges LEARN to understand the financial stuff! Learn it like your life depends upon it…not saying take control, just be aware of the how, why because YOU become vunerable if you do not understand how to manage finances…ask questions…he may need your wisdom even now…
Question for the women: Is it in your experience when a southern man marries he expects the wife to be his next mother/maid…and all his independence, ability to do chores and the like that attracted you vanishes with the wedding band…was for me. Im trying to see if its southern male syndrome or just generational southern male syndrome…
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
I just remembered a (not-so-funny) funny story.
A few months ago, some friends decided at the last minute to have dinner at my house - everyone was to bring a dish. I started rushing to get things together, and sent SweetDarlin to the store to get some baked beans and smoked neckbones (for my collard greens). BIG MISTAKE. SweetDarlin comes back with a 10 oz. can of beans and fresh (yes, raw) neckbones. It’s funny now, but it sure as heck wasn’t funny then!
This is why I do all the grocery shopping and cooking…
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - Thanks for the encouragement. It’s not that I don’t know how to take care of finances..I just don’t LIKE to. I’ve been on my own for a good number of years having to take care of my own finances, I’m just not that great at it. I have a hard time passing up impulse buys. He’s a little more frugal and practical. I’ve done ok though. Have a savings account and started reading “smart women finish rich” trying to learn more about investments and such. It’s a slow process for me.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - to answer your question (which is a bit insulting to the southern men) but none the less, I think that the south is a little bit less “refined” and more “old fashioned” when it comes to some things and I don’t think that it’s where they think you become their maid and lose all attractiveness with the wedding band, I think it’s just years of watching family and how they are together. There’s also the “good ole boys” which I personally LOVE, but they are a little more primative with relationships.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
BB, your 4:50p post was right on target. My partner almost always offers to help, but I usually decline the offer. It really is my pleasure to do what I do. When I need help, or want help, I accept the offer. It’s that simple. But, for the most part, I hate to have people in my kitchen while I’m preparing dinner; I have a very particular way about things - and I have a fit if things aren’t done the way I want them done (laundry, putting dishes, groceries and clothes away, etc.).
And, the sincere gratitude is what motivates me to keep going. If I ever thought for a moment that they didn’t appreciate what I do, it’d probably change my mentality. I’d probably consider my role to be a burdensome chore. But, until then… :-)
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Sandy/Sanhan - it sounds as if you have a great partnership with your spouse as well. All great inspirations. I refuse to become a bitter wife that resents taking care of a household. If you don’t want to do that…DON’T DO IT! We all make choices, there’s no gun to my head (today…). :)
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Whiley there is always the trash can method. If it stays on the floor for 3 days it goes into the trash can. They’ll either learn to start picking up or end up naked.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
JBM - I’m VERY picky about certain things so I understand. Just one small example: I absolutetely HATE when my dvd’s get out of alphabetical order. My BF will tease me saying “uh-oh..you have an E movie in the M section”. So I don’t let him mess with the DVD’s. haha.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
Netbanker… either way it’s a win win… if they pick up their clothes… great you don’t have to do it anymore… and if they don’t… you get to see em naked all the time… wooohooo… sounds good to me :)
By Tim
September 28, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this
bb… I HATE that too… and I also organize them by genre… my partner moved the dvd’s… he was smart enough to know to keep them in order… but he mixed all my disney dvd’s with the other movies!!!!! it was the first thing I noticed… I was like ‘what did you do???’… he told me to go take one of my pills lol :)
and NO ONE is allowed to fold clothes but me (or do laundry b/c for some reason some people forget how to read and don’t look at labels!)… there is a specific way everything is to be folded and a specific way it is to be placed in it’s spot
and a very specific way that the bed is supposed to be made… if I have made the bed NO ONE is allowed to get on the bed after that… I can IMMEDIATELY tell if someone got on the bed and tried to fix it… I told my partner that if he ever decided to cheat on me to make sure they ‘do it’ on the floor or I will notice as soon as I see the bed that someone has been on it :)
By Renee
September 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
JBM the neckbone story is too funny. That’s like when I send her to the store, I NEVER get what I wanted, and if I do I get a million calls from the cellphone with descriptive explantions and asking me “is this what you want?”
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
JBM _ i wouldn’t have had any idea what a neckbone was or what to get either. lol too funny!
Tim - that’s me! haha. I can always tell when something is different and I can know at a glance what’s missing.
By Jack
September 28, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
What’s funny is when we try to wait each other out on something. One time a half cup of coffee was left in our bedroom til it turned green cause we’re both stubborn as hell and niether wanted to bring it the 25 or 30 ft to the kitchen.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Oh my goodness, Renee! I always end up fussing, “Baby, nobody in this house drinks skim milk - not even you! Why on earth would you buy skim milk?” or “Baby, have you ever seen me buy Kroger-brand cheese? EVER????!!!” lol or my all-time favorite, “No, Baby, turkey wings do NOT look just like chicken wings. Not to mention, there is a LABEL! Hello!!!!!”
BB - I used to be the same way about CDs… its the one battle I lost. :-(
Tim, I think you may be my long-lost brother! I am the same exact way (except with the bed - I’m usually the one to mess it up after it’s been made). There is a specific way for clothes to be folded, and I am very VERY anal about the way my groceries are put away - I’m talking cans all facing the front, boxes facing the left, cereal on the bottom right, snacks to the left… I even re-arrange the fruit basket each time someone takes a piece out!
I’ve had to resort to buying separate toothpaste, lotion, etc. because I hate for the tips to get gooey!
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
JACK - Umm, whose cup of coffee was it?
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
hahahahah.. JBM - I really hope I don’t lose that battle. I’m the same way with books and CD’s. I’m majorly anal about the way a table is when we go out to dinner. I always rearrange the table. I had a waiter come and move a bread plate back that I had already put in it’s “spot” and it drove me nuts. I had to put it back in it’s “spot” immediately. He didn’t try to move it again.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Also, Jack, did you ever see the Everybody Loves Raymond episode when Ray and Debra both refused to bring the luggage upstairs? HILARIOUS!
By Ben
September 28, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
All of those examples are exactly what I’m talking about. Guys will pick up Kroger cheese, because to us, cheese is cheese. We’ll pick up Sugar Puffs instead of Sugar Smacks because they are the same thing.
We don’t pick up that coffee cup, because there are probably 10 more in the cabinet so we don’t need it.
We don’t care about making the bed because we are just gonna get in later.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
LOL Ben! Pitiful… just pitiful! True, but still pitiful!
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
That episode was hilarious!!! It’s not an everyday watched show in my house but I did see that episode and it’s too funny.
By Renee
September 28, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
My grocery lists (and this is only when I’m in the middle of cooking and can’t go)
Milk - 1 gallon Mayfield (yellow jug) Cheese - Velveeta 6 oz package Sara Lee White Bread (I might still get rolls, or french bread, especially if the store is out of what I want)
By Jack
September 28, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
She thought it was my cup and I thought it was her’s. Ben is telling it like it is.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Like I always do Jack. Like I always do! lol
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Ben - you sounds like my dad. I suppose 33 years of marraige has trained him a little. He doesn’t leave his coffee cups anymore but he does still leave his jogging clothes draped over the tub. Drives my mom nuts!
I was staying at my parents and I had forgotten my body soap. (another thing I’m picky about). Mom put it on the shopping list so we didn’t forget to get some. Well dad went shopping for us. Even though we bought me soap while at wally world he got me some too… the most inexpensive off brand soap.. I mean, soap is soap right? It was so sweet of him to get it for me that I didn’t say anything but come on already! But he knows how incredibly sensitive my skin is and he picks up an off-brand soap.. sigh I guess some things just aren’t learned..
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
My grocery lists (and this is only when I’m in the middle of cooking and can’t go)
Milk - 1 gallon Mayfield (yellow jug) Cheese - Velveeta 6 oz package Sara Lee White Bread (I might still get rolls, or french bread, especially if the store is out of what I want)
Which brand of “rolls” do you get?
By Ryan
September 28, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
When my girlfriend and I get married, we have decided to take a third, unrelated name.
I don’t want to take her name, she doesn’t want mine. So we’re going with a third. If she had a … less ugly last name, I would take that instead. She would do the same.
Pretty cruddy topic.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Men are just different. We don’t care about the little stuff.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Maybe I should try being more specific on my grocery lists so I don’t end up hearing, Well, I thought all brown bread was the same…
By Tim
September 28, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
JBM… yes all cans have to face forward in the pantry… but actually that is my parnters department… he has an exact place where everything is supposed to go… so he puts the groceries away :)
lol @ Jack… the coffee story was great
we have a rule that whoever cooks the other person cleans… my parnter does almost all the cooking so I obviously usually clean… but every now and then I cook… the only problem his he whines and complains about having to clean the kitchen (like last night)… but fails to realize that while I was cooking I was cleaning behind myself… so now all he has to do is wash 2 pans and put 2 plates in the dishwasher… but he still asks for help… he turns into a 2 year old… one time he just said he wasnt going to wash the dishes… I said ‘fine they will sit there until you decide to clean them then because I REFUSE to wash them’ (they were washed that night… by him)
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Tim,
Who mops the floor and who does the dusting in your relationship?
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
I have 2 words for most of you…CONTROL FREAK! That’s the affection term we use for my partner. He gets WAY particular about certain things and not about others that would seem to be similar. It’s like living with dual personalities. Can someone help me understand why would it drive him nuts that the clean dishes in the drain board aren’t immediately put away, but he’ll toss the covers back when getting up in the morning and then NOT make the bed? Leaves on the pool deck are a no-no, but his desk in the office can look like a disaster zone? He doesn’t cook, but is like Sally (When Harry Met Sally) about how some foods are prepared? What is THAT?!
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
My wife bought a fresh ham the other day and it sure was good. Any of you eat ham? And if so, what kind and where do you or your husband/wife/partner buy it?
By Tim
September 28, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Taboga… we have a cleaning lady… so she mops the floors and does the dusting
By raylene
September 28, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
somebody give me a new job! please
By Ben
September 28, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Taboga - Ham is for Easter. It’s like turkey, you only eat it once a year - that excludes leftovers of course.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
Tim,
How long have you had the “cleaning lady”? Does she come everyday or just a couple days a week?
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
netbanker - I admit with little remorse that I am a control freak. I can’t explain why though.
Taboga - IF I buy ham, I buy honey baked ham from the resturant.
raylene - I am RIGHT there with you!
By raylene
September 28, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
I eat turkey and ham more than once a year….
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
Taboga - IF I buy ham, I buy honey baked ham from the resturant.
Any particular restaurant…?
By Tim
September 28, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
taboga… the “cleaning lady” comes often enough to keep the house clean
By Lyrazel
September 28, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
You people are great…
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Raylene,
How often (in an average year) would you say you eat ham — weekly, monthy, etc…? Thanks.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Raylene - You are abnormal. lol
By raylene
September 28, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
I eat ham at easter and sometimes christmas. i eat turkey at thanksgiving and christmas. and when my dad makes makes this really good turkey every once in awhile.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Raylene,
I eat turkey on Thanksgiving and Christmas too. And sometimes I make sandwiches from the leftovers. Do you do that?
By raylene
September 28, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
am not! lol just weird. normal people are the strange ones. and there are very few of those left.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
NetB - If I didn’t know better, I would swear you are my partner in disguise. That’s exactly what she says about me. I am undeniably anal about some things, but will leave makeup dust on the vanity without fail… I don’t even see it! Can leave three weeks worth of McD’s trash in the car, will step on a piece of dog food, say ouch, and keep right on walking! But, let somebody not stack their shoes neatly and I’ll freak out! Let someone not open the blinds perfectly and I’ll have a fit. Let someone put the big pot on top of the mid-sized pot and it is on!!!
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
I eat ham and turkey often. of course those are deli meats.
the ham and turkey I suppose y’all are talking about I eat on holidays.
taboga - uhm..can we say DUH.. the name of the resturant IS honey baked ham. rolling eyes
By raylene
September 28, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
not really. i dont do left overs unless i have too.
By james
September 28, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
marti, what’s the deal? tru, i said marriage wasn’t equal but the picture u painted sounds like a bad sitcom. if your husband doesn’t wanna pick up his dirty underwear and u don’t either, leave it. he’ll need it before u do.
as far as the name thing. i’ll stick with convention. my wife was gonna take mine or not get married (to me that is). she has all the freedom and independence she could want. along with my last name.
all of these reasons given for not changing the last name of the wife sounds like a bunch of junk thought up when no real reason is available.
lastly, for now. why is it a lot of women sound off about how men and women are equal? they’re not and never will be. don’t quite remember the post but someone (a woman) said that she can protect herself and doesn’t need a man (husband) for that. well, you can protect yourself up to a certain point. when that point comes, i’m sure you would want a stronger male (or female) there. but i was keeping the hetro.
anyway. good day to all.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
This is too funny!
By Zack
September 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Yet another example of men being insulted by our sadly-ever-more-increasingly-egalitarian society.
Egalitarianism is a stupid, stupid, stupid belief system, and unfortunately, that which is stupid is held in high regard nowadays by the general public.
I’m tired of men getting mistreated by women nowadays. Although I have my differences with him, I’m tired of seeing our president get run down left and right—-especially when Hillary or any other woman probably would be free from such treatment. (I’m not endorsing anyone being made fun of; I just hate the double standard involved, and to be perfectly honest, while I’m on the subject, a woman as president wouldn’t be a good fit, as women can’t take charge and lead like men can. A woman in power quickly would call her husband if she were in trouble—which wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually—and at least if Hillary were to get elected, she could call someone who knows what it means to be president.)
Don’t like what I just wrote? Tough. I don’t like how men are talked down to ALL THE TIME in the media. I’m sick of it. This treatment is discrimination being welcomed with open arms.
Yes, by the way, women should change their names to their husbands’. Such a question doesn’t deserve to be dignified by responding to it, but I did anyway.
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Bridges…neither can he although I think it has to do with a somewhat unstable childhood home. One controls what one can in those situations and that sets a pattern for life. Where it ultimately gets me is when I start hearing the whining about how he can’t do it all…as if he does in the first place, but that’s beside the point.
The Honey Baked Ham store is great! And why would one only eat ham once a year? Try a nice ham steak on the grill with teriyaki sauce brushed on…yummy!
I have to chuckle about the cleaning ladies. My partner owns a cleaning business and we had a cleaning lady prior to his buying that business. Now we’re back to being our own cleaning ladies. When in that mode I call up my alter ego, Margerine. If she’s not available I try her sisters…Tangerine and Listerine.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Zack - It should only bother you if it’s true. You know, if the shoe fits … that whole thing.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Zach - I’m a woman and agree with a lot of what you said. we’ll just leave it at that.
Netbanker - I agree..why limit yourself to something so great just once a year!
I didn’t have an unstable childhood so I’m not sure I agree about that. From my own personal research and such, there are 4 main types of personality profiles. D, C, I and S. (I do have backup on this that I can get tonight if anyone wants, there’s a personality profile test to take to determine what you are but I’m not sure that analysis can be done online or not.)
D - dominating, controlling and all around wanting everything the right way, not too interested in details but looks for the quickest and most efficient way from point A to point B. Not usually the most personable person (not the sentimental type).
C - calculating, detail oriented, very organized and good at keeping books (payroll, checkbook, etc.)
I - only way I know to describe this person is “look at me!” very in the moment, needs constant reassurance that they are doing the right things.
S - sweet, soft-spoken, rarely speaks opinions unless it is in agreement with the person speaking to.
I am a HIGH D personality. My dad is a high D, my mom is a high C and my sister has a good mix of D and I. Where I do think that the way you are has to do with your environment theory has a lot going for it, I don’t think it all pans out. I do think a lot of it is the environment your born in but my sister and I were both under the same conditions and we are nothing alike. It might have a lot to do with the way you like your beans cooked but as far as personalities go, I don’t think that’s something someone can teach you.
By Archie
September 28, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
First of all I would like to say that it is not just the men that don’t like to pickup or cleanup. Women seem to have strong,aggravating inclination for clutter. As a man who does cook and clean it sets me off when I hear some of things said by the women here. Last Saturday I fixed a big breakfast then cleaned out the refrigerator but then I notice clutter in parts of the house and there’s nothing done until I complain about it. Both men and women have issues. It seems a greater percentage of men cook and women don’t and I am speaking about generations here because couples born before the 50’s have a different feeling about gender roles. I do like women’s lib but it doesn’t mean you get everything you want, it just means your husband can be expected to do domestic work around the house and I no problem with that but women still have to do some domestic work around the house.
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Zack…boohoo for you. Men are finally being treated the way they’ve treated women and can’t take it.
Women can’t take charge and lead? Some of the most powerful and respected leaders in the past have been women…Nerfertiti, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Joan D’Arc. Personally, I think the world would be better off if we had more women leaders…especially in the middle east. Women are much better at collaberation and would likely try a hell of a lot harder to resolve issues before starting wars.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it England that has had a Queen as a leader for …. how long now? You don’t see them in the messes we are now!
no offense guys a lot of guys spend so much time measuring their little johnsons that they forget what they are in office to do. Women tend to be too emotional… so what is the solution?
By Archie
September 28, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
“I think the world would be better off if we had more women leaders”
I agree with the aforementioned statement but the female leaders should be evaluated and talked about just like the male leaders. When you have an incompetent Michelle Brown in charge of FEMA,she should get the same treatment that this Michael Brown is getting. I have a female boss and I think she’s just great so yes,women would make great leaders just be ready for critique that comes with leadership. I saw that show last night with the female president and it was interesting.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Archie - I watched that too. I’m not sure what my opinion is on it.
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Archie…that’s a good point about everything being a 2 way street. My Dad was pretty much in charge of breakfast every morning and he went all out Sunday morning. He cleaned up after himself when in the kitchen. My parents had the philosophy that a family is just like a team. We all have our roles to play, but when one team member is down we all take up the slack until they’re back on their feet. I found out homework was an exception one time when I was sick and asked he could take up the slack for me.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
I thought Commander in Chief was awesome… I will definitely be watching that show… and it doesn’t hurt that her son on the show is a hottie… he was on Manhunt… the search the the next top male model lol
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
Wait a minute… what time did CIC come on?
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
JBM - 9pm
By taboga
September 28, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it England that has had a Queen as a leader for …. how long now? You don’t see them in the messes we are now!
The Queen of England doesn’t lead anything. You might have noticed the Prime Minister - Tony Blair - in the news quite a bit for the past several years.
What “messes” are we in? And isn’t it just so extraordinarily amazing BB, that for a country that is the cause of all evil in the world, responsible for slavery and racism, poverty, unspeakable oppression of women and all minorities in our search for capitalisic and militaristic domination of the world, that there is a line of people years long - just dying to get over here?
Under the blue is an amazing thing, wouldn’t you agree?
By kimberly
September 28, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Zach… are you saying that Hillary Clinton has escaped repeated public bashing because she’s a woman? Hahahahaha! On which planet? Hahahaha! HAHAHAHA!
By taboga
September 28, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Hillary shouldn’t be bashed just because she’s done nothing in her life but ride a man’s coattails.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
BB - Okay, I feel better. Wouldn’t have missed House for the world…
By WhatThe????
September 28, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
If most of the men on here were to make generally insulting statements about women, they would be jumped on by the Feminazi crowd on here and their supporters….but it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to southern men as cretins, lazy good for nothings…talk about how men are pretty much worthless every chance you get…and then stand on your pious soapbox, pretending that your obvious hypocrisy is an “intellectual fact”
Whiley, Lyrazel, Lozen —- BOO effin HOO
By Renee
September 28, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
JBM -Isn’t House the best? We love that show!
By Scott
September 28, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
BB - The Queen of England, and all the royalty, is now more of an ambassador role. Parliament and the Prime Minister do the governing
By Scott
September 28, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Renee & JBM - House is a great show. My wife records it so she won’t miss it..hehehe I definitely like the characters…same channel different show — have you seen that prison break show?
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Taboga - whatever. You know as well as I do that there is a lot of mess here. I wouldn’t leave the US for anything but I get tired of a lot of the rig-a-maroo that goes on.
By kimberly
September 28, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
WhatThe??: Feminazi crowd? Oh, now that’s original. Did you make that up yourself? Way to meld words to create a meaningful term. I must write that down. You could be a “journalist” with that kind of cleverness.
But regarding your assertion, and speaking only for myself, I don’t think that all men or even all southern men are worthless cretins, etc. If I have ever made such a reference, it was only regarding the men that are attracted to ME, as that appears to be my “usual type.” There are many fine, honorable, admirable men on the planet — all of them married to someone else, except the gay ones, of course, because worthless cretins think they shouldn’t be allowed to express their love legally.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
I haven’t seen the prison break show yet… but I do want to check it out (the partner loves prison shows)! Did anybody see Part 1 of the two-part Law & Order last night?!!!!!!!!! How crazy was that?????
By taboga
September 28, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
BB,
What you call a “mess” is really nothing but “life”. There exists nowhere the things of life that fit some idealistic perfection. That’s why it’s called: Idealistic.
El Salvador has a “mess” - the United States is far from it!
By WhatThe????
September 28, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - Thanks for the compliment on my “cleverness”, but I have to disagree on the journalist part. I’d have to have a complete brain and conscience removal to even apply.
I have read the references you have made and gave you the benefit of the doubt. But if I made some of the comments against women that are ROUTINELY used by the FEMINAZIS on here to slander men, there would be now limit on the foul vile terms used to describe me.
Try not to hurt yourself climbing down from your high horse
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
JBM - I can’t believe I missed that!!! L&O is probably my favorite show!
By WhatThe????
September 28, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - Thanks for the compliment on my “cleverness”, but I have to disagree on the journalist part. I’d have to have a complete brain and conscience removal to even apply.
I have read the references you have made and gave you the benefit of the doubt. But if I made some of the comments against women that are ROUTINELY used by the FEMINAZIS on here to slander men, there would be no limit on the foul, vile terms used to describe me.
Try not to hurt yourself climbing down from your high horse
By ASHLEY
September 28, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Zack, I agree with you. That’s why I stay home with the kids. Women weren’t meant to be in leadership positions. Men work better at making decisions, and handling technical difficulties and problems.
Men should be honored for what they contribute, and not talked down to. I appreciate it when my husband talks down to me, and keeps me in my place. That’s the way that the good book wanted it.
I have no problem picking up my husband’s unmentionables off of the floor, and cleaming up after him. In each household, there is a role. I’m perfectly content with my role.
P.S. I took my husband’s last name.
By Scott
September 28, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
JBM - as cheesy as it sounds, it actually isn’t that bad. By the way, Tim, even as a straight man I can say the guy who plays the lead is good looking, so you might enjoy the show too…LOL
I missed the L&O last night..what was up with it?
By Tim
September 28, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
JBM… what happened on SVU???? I was too sleepy to watch and didnt feel like figuring out how to work the tivo lol
By Educate
September 28, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
“Feminazis” is one of those Rush Limbaugh favorite terms.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Scott… you have VERY good taste lol… you can pick out men for me anytime lol… that guy is HOT lol… I have watched that show :) it’s good
By Scalia
September 28, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
There is nothing wrong with southern men. The accent, the tight jeans, the cowboy hats, the boots. There are a lot of good qualities in southern men.
Prison Break is interesting. The lead has some piercing eyes next to Paul Walker.
Matthew Fox is the man. What a hottie.
By Scott
September 28, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Tim - hahahhaahh happy to oblige ya
By kimberly
September 28, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the feminie perspective Ashley. I’d love to stay home with my kids too. Would be thrilled! But there’s the pesky little issue of mortgage and insurance payments. Unfortunately, men are also really good at walking away from their responsibilities — especially those born after 1955 it seems. Big kids, most of them. “WHAT? You’re not going to bring home half the money? Well I just quit my job, so now you’re bringing home ALL of it.” I’ve watched my friends’ marriages drop like flies, one after another, because their husbands felt put-upon to have to pay bills all the time, and DANG, so few vacations, and HEY… not having fun anymore! (Mine was the old fashioned type, though. He just drank every night, repeatedly nailed one of his young employees, and offered me LOTS of loving, constructive criticism. God bless him…)
By WhatThe????
September 28, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Educate - how about I borrow one of Kimberly’s fdavorite terms as a substitute instead…”hate monger”
I am in no way a fan of Rush Limbaugh..but thanks for the poor attempt at discrediting me…
Loser
By Renee
September 28, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
I haven’t seen the prison break show but if it is worth watching I will.
By Educate
September 28, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
rattle rattle rattle
By Scott
September 28, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Renee - I thought it was intriguing. I’m not sure how they will drag it out for an entire season, but I thought some of the ideas ( like the fact the main character had the blueprints of the prison tattooed on him so he could break out) were interesting
By Jack
September 28, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
I won’t watch comander and chief because Geena Davis has her nose so high in the air it probably fills up when it rains.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
L&O SVU - Part I of II (Part Two is to be aired tonight on regular L&O)
Okay, it opens up with this suicidal young pregnant girl on a ledge. Mariska Hargitay (I forget her character’s name) tries to bond with her, by asking questions about the baby. The girl confesses that the baby is a rape baby. When asked, she says she’ll name the baby, “Sarah” after her mother who died a year ago from breast cancer.
Mariska gets her off the ledge. Later on, back at the station, Mariska talks her into filing charges against the dude who, 8 mos. prior, impregnated her forcibly. He turns out to be a rich, married, old-enough-to-be-her-father dude. He claims he doesn’t remember raping her, in fact, he doesn’t even remember sleeping with her at all - so he says.
They go to court. While under cross-exam, the defense atty asked her why she agreed to accept the $500K settlement if he had raped her. She burst into tears. Mariska got angry with her. She agreed to explain it in detail the next day, maintaining all the while that she never intended to take the money anyway. The next day in court, she doesn’t show. Mariska gets a call from Elliott. They found her car burnt to smithereens.
The alleged rapist is accused of her murder (found supplies from his lab at the crime scene, hydrogen peroxide used to clean the blood stains off her couch, and the light thingy that detects blood found blood stains on her wall). They accused him of killing her at her apt. and putting her in the car to make it look like she had an accident. Of course, he denied this. Then, they found out that the two had dinner the night before. He claims he came straight home after giving her $500K. His wife couldn’t provide an alibi since she left him after the rape allegations….
By Scott
September 28, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
Jack - I saw about 3/4 of it (no, I didnt have much to do last night) and I have to say, I was kinda unimpressed with the writing
By Jack
September 28, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
I can’t watch SVU. I get to p** off at the perps.
By Scott
September 28, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
JBM - Wow, sorry I missed that…Thanks for the update! That was great!
By Dayum
September 28, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
JBM - and you are not even 1/2 way done with last night. I had to alter this evening’s plans to catch the regular L&O that continues from SVU. Shucks. I could record it but then I would never watch it, historically.
in a nightshell, a mom/daughter grifter combo Psychos from Hell
Linda Carter(ole Hottie, yowser!) plays the Mom.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Scott… I thought the whole tatoo thing was very cool
JBM… I saw up to where they found the car… thanks for the recap… I will really have to either try to watch tonight or learn how to work the tivo
By Dayum
September 28, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
NUTshell
By Tim
September 28, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Jack… I have to turn some of the episodes also… there are some I just can’t watch
By Scott
September 28, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Jack - yeah I hear ya. I would have a very hard time being a sex crimes/child exploitation detective. homicide I could handle but the other would aggravate me too much
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
The girl’s mother then came to the police station to see what was going on. Huh? Thought the mother was dead? So did Elliott and Olivia (yeah, that’s her name). Turns out the girl had problems since childhood. Her mother (who’s name wasn’t Sarah, had 6 husbands, and her daughter didn’t adapt well to all that change. They wondered what the girl would’ve done with the $500K, if in fact the rapist gave her the money. The mom said that the daughter had spoken of a safety deposit box. Miraculously, they found the bank, found the box… and found scores of photos - big ole 8x10s of handsome, RICH guys…. including the rapist!!!!!!!!!
After they investigated all 13 guys, they found out that all of them had dated the girl (oh yeah, I just remembered her name, it’s April), she bought each of them a drink… and not one of them remembered anything other than waking up in their bed with her gone. One, a baseball player, reported that after he spent that evening with her, he was subjected to a random drug test and tested positive for (some drug I can’t spell). Turns out she used this for ALL the men…. and a cattle-prod to get herself pregnant when old dude was passed out.
Back at the station, there are about 8 couples who confess to paying April $50K each to adopt the baby. They each heard a different story from her, one was that her husband died in an accident and she couldn’t afford to raise the baby alone…
By Tim
September 28, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
JBM… daaaaaaaang… I did miss a lot… that sounds goooooooood
By Ryan
September 28, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Wow.
Just when you start to think that so many boring, inane topics had been covered in Woman to Woman that the AJC would be forced by default to cover something of current, real substance, we get: should married women change their last names?
As the AJC seems to determined to keep up this parade of pointless, may I suggest:
Was giving women the right to vote a good idea? Is it wise to allow women to drive? And the oh-so-hot topic… should women wear pants?
By Waytogo
September 28, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
A Texas grand jury charged Rep. Tom DeLay with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.
By Scott
September 28, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
JBM - Wow, that is meeessssed up! How could I have missed that?>
By Nikita
September 28, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Zack, I agree with you. That’s why I stay home with the kids. Women weren’t meant to be in leadership positions. Men work better at making decisions, and handling technical difficulties and problems.
That’s your decision, but I don’t believe this is true for all women. I wouldn’t be happy raising kids and not making decisions. I do very well at my job, and I love it. Not only that, but I would argue that I do better at it BECAUSE I am a woman. So why should I submit to someone else’s idea of what I should be? Incidentally, this has quite a bit of relevance to our society as restrictive roles limit all of us from benefiting from women’s experience and expertise.
Men should be honored for what they contribute, and not talked down to. I appreciate it when my husband talks down to me, and keeps me in my place. That’s the way that the good book wanted it.
If my husband attempted to “keep me in my place” he’d find himself in a place outside while the locksmith changed all the locks. And shortly afterward he’d meet me in a very special place — my lawyer’s office. As it is, he seems pretty happy that I support us monetarily and through my work in the home. Which is why we selected each other — because we’re happy with the roles worked out so that each of our strengths are leveraged.
*I have no problem picking up my husband’s unmentionables off of the floor, and cleaming up after him. In each household, there is a role. I’m perfectly content with my role. *
That’s fine — just don’t expect that your role suit anyone but you.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
At this point, they meet April’s real father, who is then accused of killing April. April’s father is some weirdo who had April stealing sperm from these smart, rich guys to “save the population.” He believes that smart people aren’t reproducing enough, and stupid people are making too many babies! To prove that he didn’t kill his daughter, he gives her up.
When they find her, the humble, pregnant, scared rape victim is GONE, replaced by some (sexy) arrogant, deranged, fearless not pregnant chick… The only way she agreed to tell where the baby is is if she gets off. They agree to let her off, and she directs them to her mother. They find her mother (with the baby) at an Amtrak station giving some sob-story about how her daughter was killed and someone stole her purse… They took the baby and handed her over to the accused rapist-turned-father.
He began babbling about how brilliant April’s father is, and how brilliant he is, and how the baby would have the perfect genetic mix….
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Dang… Okay, I’m done, but I forgot to mention that in the end - it turns out that the mother/daughter pair are in cahoots.
Don’t miss the conclusion tonight, Tim!
By Netbanker
September 28, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
As it turns out I will be starring in the role of the pot in “The Pot Calls the Kettle Black - Control Freaks at Work” I was just called a control freak by a self-professed control freak team mate on a project that she and I have taken control of from the incompetents who were running it. Could it be that CF is a relative term?
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Dayum - Isn’t Linda Carter a hottie???!!!!! I fell in love with her at 5 years old!
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
LOL NetB!
By Brian Curtis
September 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Yep; Tom Delay’s been indicted! Wahoo!
http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20050928/433a15403ca61552620050928366778598
And yes, Lynda Carter is one of the most beautiful women imaginable.
By Archie
September 28, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I didn’t mean to imply that all women born after 1955 don’t cook or clean,it is just a sore point with me because I do work outside on the yard and inside cooking and cleaning and sometimes I need a little more help in the housekeeping area and I run into women that ask me to buy them a drink but the other way around rarely occurs. I just wonder when the equality thing kicks in. I know that women do alot of things more than the men but in relationships people contribute different things at different times which is why you have “for better or worse”. It just seems as if the older generation of women would have more to complain about since they had to work hard to pave the way for today’s women much the older blacks paved for blacks of today. I don’t want a trophy just acknowledgement.
By Brian Curtis
September 28, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
NetB: “CF” can also stand for “childfree”… which would, I guess, be a non-relative term.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
I think that the folks who are saying that women should stay at home and the man should work are basically saying things need to go back to the pre 60’s way of life. It’s the pre-sexual revolution lifestyle they’re talking about. When people got married and stayed together. The woman worked at home and was there for the children while the man made the money to pay the bills. Kids were raised by mom instead of the folks at Kids R Kids. There wasn’t a strip club on every corner and free love and sex everywhere you look (due to censoring of the media for one thing). Nowadays anything goes sexually and otherwise.
When you break apart the foundation of marriage and make sex no big deal then all the other things follow like: alimony, child support, struggling single moms, abortion, promiscuity, daycare centers and their high prices, broken homes, emotional issues, etc….
But then in the 50’s you didn’t even have to lock your house or car because theft also was not a problem…according to my mom who was born in 1947.
Our society has gone done a slippery slope to where even mothers killing their children before they are born is looked upon as a constitutional RIGHT! Men can go to any street corner to find a “club” where they can watch naked women dance for them or sit on their lap. Video games depict people blowing other people’s heads off…and the more realistic and graphic the BETTER! Language on TV and the radio has gone from Ed Sullivan telling Jim Morrison not to sing the lyrics,”we couldn’t get much HIGHER” to saying anything except the “f” word almost. Now, you’re called a bigot if you don’t agree with the homosexual “lifestyle” and kids in school are taught that being gay is normal. Funny how all of these changes began after the government began slowly but surely allowing God to be removed from schools and the public.
I wonder what society will be like 20 or 20 years from now? And that’s the scariest thought of all!
P.S. Just MY opinion. Maybe you guys like living in Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) but I don’t. From what I’ve heard from people who’ve been there, New Orleans was the most degenerate city in our country-all about sex and drugs. Sex clubs on every corner with the most perverse live shows you could imagine. Maybe God had enough?!?! JMO
By taboga
September 28, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
The Libs are now getting their panties wet over Delay.
And this silliness will blow over as it did with Karl Rove.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
JBM… I wont miss tonight!!!… I love the Wonder Woman spin (Linda Carter is the one who actually thought of doing that)
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
( I meant 20 or 30 years from now.) And let’s not forget the STD’s…especially AIDS!
By ASHLEY
September 28, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Amen Sherry, preach.
In twenty years, things will go right back to the way that they were. The pendulum always ends up swinging the other way once it has gone so far.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Ashley, do you REALLY think so? I can’t see society going back to the was things were…you’d have to change an entire generation’s perspective. Great thought though.
By Ben
September 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Sherry - I was with you until about the third paragraph. You lost me with the ‘Holy’ roll down the hill crap - and bashing strip clubs of course.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
I sure hope it goes back to the way things were… I am tired of having to share water fountains and bathrooms with the blacks
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Sherry - state your opinions, but for goodness’ sake, don’t try to guess God. Who on earth are you to try to figure out what a sovereign God is tired of, or what He’s thinking????
By Ben
September 28, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
But what would we do with the Mexicans Tim?
By Dayum
September 28, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Tim - don’t forget the stonings
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Ben… good question… I’ll look into that
By Jack
September 28, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Oh if we could only go back to the “Leave it to Beaver” days. I would like it.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Mayberry would be just heaven… ahhh the good ol days
By Ben
September 28, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Tim - If us black folk can’t use the same water fountains and bathrooms as you white folk, we damn sure don’t want to share wit dem mesicans.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me-I am a child of God so I have the right to guess at what God’s thinking.
Tim-I wan’t advocating taking away the rights of blacks.
Dayum-I wasn’t aware that people were stoned in the 50’s. (Of course, plenty of peopple were STONED in the 60’s!!!
By Jack
September 28, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
LMAO Ben:)
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Sorry…proof reading is a great thing I guess! LOL
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
lol @ Ben… that was great :)
Sherry… you want to go back to the good ol days… well ‘Child of God’ that was going on in the good ol days
I wasn’t aware that people were stoned in the 50’s… you’re right… most were just shot… or dragged behind a truck
By Archie
September 28, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
“P.S. Just MY opinion. Maybe you guys like living in Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) but I don’t. From what I’ve heard from people who’ve been there, New Orleans was the most degenerate city in our country-all about sex and drugs. Sex clubs on every corner with the most perverse live shows you could imagine. Maybe God had enough?!?! JMO”
Sherry you must get out more often because what describe sounds a little like Columbia,SC and watch tv because there’s a place in Nevada where brothels exist. Sherry,sin is everywhere. Societal greed is one of things that causes marriages to breakup because people have always committed adultery and abortion has been around longer than we care to acknowledge. I support women’s rights and hopefully the women on here don’t think because I complain that I am not supportive, I am just not a drone. By societal greed I am thinking of the oil companies and thank goodness Bill O’reilly is starting to question the pricing tactics of the oil companies as well as a guy named Schumer from New York. Money is the number one reason marriages break up. Some women and men want to take the part of pre-women’s lib ways that they like and combine with today’s values that they do like and it doesn’t work. To today’s men I say today’s women aren’t going to cook and clean like mom and to today’s women I say today’s men aren’t going to fix everything and pay everything the way your dad did. When necessary things aren’t so high and gouging goes out of style then people will spend less time working and more time paying attention,without stress to their spouses. Americans save less than ever and the middle and lower income people have lost ground in the last 5 years. Also Sherry from what I’ve heard they have an abundance of strip clubs in Miami,and nudist colonies in North Carolina so I don’t know why New Orleans would be singled out—please read more.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
For the record, I never said I advocated racism or mistreatment of black people. Only that the American family has been slowly blown apart by the sexual “revolution”. Nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin. I wish family values of the 50’s were brought back…not the hanging of blacks.
By kimberly
September 28, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Archie: You come handle some yard work for me, and I’ll give you some serious acknowledgement, appreciation, a cold beverage, a hot pork roast, and something way better than a trophy! {;->
Sherry and Ashley: That’s all very nice, but I’d like to point out that I NEVER HAD THE CHOICE, nor did any of the women I grew up with! Why do the old-fashioned types act like it was a lifestyle choice? I either work, or go on welfare and become the topic of much vitriol on these boards. (BTW, I know women who thought their men were taking care of them, and they woke up buried in debt and on their own.) So again, HOW IS IT OUR FAULT IF WE NEVER HAD THE CHOICE?
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
kimberly… it is your own fault cus you obviously didn’t have one of dem good christian men as a husband… you go to church and pray reeeeeeeeeeeal hard for one and God will bless you with one so you don’t have to work anymore
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Archie, actually the comment about New Orleans was made by several co-workers who’ve been there. They said it was an exceptional place compared to other towns in terms of perversion and blatant sexuality. I took them at their word since they’ve seen it with their own eyes and were stunned. (One of them was a 24 year old guy-hardly prudish!)
By kimberly
September 28, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Yes Tim, you’re right. Even when I was still pure of body, all the godly men could see that I was a slut in my heart. I’m still waiting for Chuckie to tell me which church he attends so I can go repent.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
They said it was an exceptional place compared to other towns in terms of perversion and blatant sexuality
cool… I hope they rebuild soon… I need to visit!
By Jack
September 28, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Kimberly. Bet you don’t have any problems finding someone to do your yard work. :)
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Sherry, or Child of God - the Bible says that God’s ways are not our ways, neither are His thoughts our thoughts. It is a waste/misuse of your time (which really belongs to God anyway) for you to try to figure out what God is thinking… especially since you’ll never get it right anyway.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
JBM - OMG I can’t wait to see it tonight!!!
I don’t think our society is anywhere near reverting back to the family style of mayberry, but I do think that it has the potential too, fraid it won’t be in my lifetime though. :)
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
well kimberly I am sure if you pray enough God will take the slut out of your soul
JBM… actually Sherry had a pretty good point… the hurricane did hit just before Southern Decadence… coincidence… I THINK NOT!… God was tired of dem queers!
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
bb… my nephew looks just like Opie (sp) Taylor… maybe it’s a sign of things to come!
PRAISE JESUS
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
I also believe there is somewhere in the bible where God actually says to not be so vain as to think you know what He is thinking. I am OF COURSE paraphrasing but you get the gist.
By Jack
September 28, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Aunt Bea…Call the man!
By taboga
September 28, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Sherry,
All the “tolerant of others” have now come for you. You’ve expressed an opinion that they don’t agree with, so the “tolerance” has been thrown out the window.
And the little pretentious twits are throwing their heavy intellect at you with: Blacks and water fountains. Well, in all fairness - not just that. One poster did suggest that most were “shot and drug behind cars in the 50’s.” So I guess that genius should be credited accordingly.
But there is a funny side to it — they haven’t the slightest clue as to what you stated in context. But, that won’t stop the little morons from laughing amongst themselves - at you. And then pat themselves on the back for being: intelligent.
That’s the entertaining part!
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
Tim - LOL Hey that might be a good sign!! I’m glad to know that!
OH and I’m sure everyone knows the song “I miss mayberry, sitting on the front porch drinking ice cherry coke”… I LOVE that song!
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
sorry… Ice COLD cherry coke. missed a word.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, who said it was your fault? I am a single working mother. I never had the choice either and wish things were different. I know things are not like Leave It To Beaver. I only wish that society would value the family over free
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
bb… :)… he’s a cute lil guy :)
that’a good song
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
No I’m very tolerant of her thoughts but not when she is passing those thoughts as God’s thoughts.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
No I’m very tolerant of her thoughts but not when she is passing those thoughts as God’s thoughts.
Like I said, when the “tolerance of others” crowd does not AGREE - tolerance goes out the window!
By Tim
September 28, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
actually it was dragged not drug… but I am being quoted… I feel so honored and humbled… I would like to think all my family and friends who helped me make it this far… my manager… the director… the producer… the fans… of course the fans… without you I wouldn’t be here… oh and most of all my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ… who continues to bless me… thank you everyone… I will truly cherish this :)
By Renee
September 28, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
I just managed to catch up and Tim you are on a roll…lmao…lmao
By taboga
September 28, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
would like to think all my family and friends who helped me make it this far…
You might want to thank them as well…
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I couldn’t think of that one verbatim, BB… but you’re right.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, who said it was your fault? I am a single working mother. I never had the choice either and wish things were different. I know things are not like Leave It To Beaver. I only wish that society would value the family over free sex.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
Renee… ;)
taboga… yeah that too… must of messed that one up because I was being drug behind a truck
By taboga
September 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
taboga… yeah that too… must of messed that one up because I was being drug behind a truck
Nah, that was only in the 50’s when that happened to everybody!
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
ROFL Tim! Next time thank your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ first! LOL
By Renee
September 28, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Okay you baited me Taboga. You talk about other people not being tolerant, unless they don’t agree. I think that would pertain to you first and foremost since you are not tolerant UNLESS you agree.
By Tim
September 28, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Nah, that was only in the 50’s when that happened to everybody!
oh ok… then someone must hive just swatched the I ind the A on my keyboird
By taboga
September 28, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Renee,
The difference is - I don’t preach tolerance. I happen to think that the whole common notion of “tolerance” is utterly ridiculous.
What I am pointing out, is that the people who demand tolerance from others - are the very ones who have absolutely no capacity for it at all when it comes to folks seeing things different than they do…
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
kinda funny that someone sent this to me and this is what we are talking about…
http://j-walk.com/other/goodwife/images/goodwifeguide.gif
By Tim
September 28, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
JBM… crap… you’re right… I will remember that next time :)
By taboga
September 28, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
A don’t thank so Tam. If thit would hive hippen, your nime would be: Tam!
By Tim
September 28, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
not necessarily b/c the computer remembers my name and I don’t have to type it in everytime I post
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
taboga-thank you! I was thinking the same thing.
building bridges-I never said that I spoke FOR God. He speaks for Himself rather well. I am free however, to draw conclusions and ponder His thoughts. I am in awe of Him and that’s why people study the bible…to learn more about Him. He is AWESOME!!! But, I do not speak for Him but I can speak as a follower of Christ and a child of God. (By the way, why do you criticize my use of that term? Is it not in the bible? I never said I was the ONLY child of God-just one among many.)
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Oh, alright already, I’ll take the bait too (conveniently just before I slip out the door!) :-)
Who demands tolerance from others? Whoever does is just wasting his/her time. I can demand you tolerate me because I’m black, or because I’m gay, or because I’m Christian… heck, I can demand all day long. Doesn’t make you tolerate me any more. You can’t force a person to tolerate you, so it’s a waste of time to try. Most of us realize that already… I doubt anyone is demanding tolerance from others. Perhaps encouraging people to be tolerant is a better description…
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Sherry - why do you criticize my use of that term? I don’t ever recall criticizing your use of that term. I’m a child of God as well and I can ponder his thoughts all day but I would never verbalize them because it’s not my place to.
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
And personally, my problem (which, admittedly is a personal one - based on my profession) isn’t that people see things differently. I just have no capacity for people who get these opinions and thoughts and ideas and try to blame them on God! That’s what I don’t tolerate.
I’ve seen way too much of that in my career, and I absolutely abhor those manipulative acts that only serve to misrepresent God.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
JBE,
You, are going to actually pretend that no one is demanding tolerance? Demanding tolerance is at the very CORE of most every argument that the Left makes!
Yet, Sherry states her opinions and the ridicule flood-gates are opened towards HER. And from who? Why you Leftists of course!
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
building bridges-get over it already…I do not speak for God, nor ever presumed to.
By taboga
September 28, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen way too much of that in my career, and I absolutely abhor those manipulative acts that only serve to misrepresent God.
That is YOUR opinion. So, quite naturally, anyone who disagrees with YOUR opinion is WRONG. And since THEY are WRONG, YOU do not have to “tolerate” THEIR views…?
By Just Being Me
September 28, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
Taboga, I’m not approaching this from a political party view… in fact, I’ve never made any comments indicating an adherence to or preference of right-leaning thoughts and ideas or left-leaning thoughts and ideas.
I’m not pretending that no one is demanding tolerance. I’m simply asking who has demanded tolerance. I’m not referring to political leaders, I’m specifically inquiring about those who participate in this blog.
And again, my problem isn’t with Sherry’s opinion. If you check my record, you’ll see that I tend to tolerate anyone’s opinion whether I agree or disagree. My problem is with her implication that she has even a clue as to what God is thinking, or why He made the decisions he made.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Sherry - HAHAHAHA…LOL…. OH what attitude when I say what? TWO little comments that aren’t even that big of a deal?!?! OH wait.. your right… I disagreed with you.. Or was it because I stated something that you do isn’t necessarily something I would do… hmm.. that was my mistake.
Honey I’m over it cause honestly I never cared one bit about it to begin with. Maybe YOU should be the one to get over it.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 28, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
And speaking of Tom DeLay and Sodom and Gomorrah, maybe we can get a twofer, not only for his current indictment, but because of his illustrious work in the garment industry in Marianas Islands, (US protectorate) where Asian women are forced to work as indentured servants and sex slaves after being promised jobs in the US. These women pay to go there, thinking they are going to the US, and live in barracks in deplorable living conditions, some forced into prostitution; those who become pregnant are forced to have abortions.
This came to light when a bill was proposed to protect these women under US law, stating that if the clothing manufacters put MADE IN THE USA labels on the clothing, the workers should be protected by US labor laws. (I believe that Anne Klein and Banana Republic are among the brands that are made there.)
Tom DeLay made sure the bill never made it to committee; one of the big shots in the industry is on tape as stating that DeLay would block the bill. DeLay is also on tape telling the larger factory owners that this was a good model for business in the United States.
Makes Whitewater seem like the nothing that it was.
By Sherry
September 28, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
just being me-you stated,“I absolutely abhor those manipulative acts that only serve to misrepresent God.”
What “manipulative act” did I commit? And how did I misrepresent God exactly? By saying that morals and values were a GOOD thing? Or maybe it was saying that families should stay together or that abortion was wrong? I suppose you think God is “pro-choice” and doesn’t care if babies are killed in the womb. Or maybe God thinks sexual perversion and violence are great things. You’re right-it was a real stretch to assume God wouldn’t like those sort of things. (NOT!)
But hey, at least we’re not fighting over the original topic of which last name to chose! LOL
By Ryan
September 28, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
The whole “you have to be tolerant of intolerance to be consistent” argument is asinine and absurd. Being tolerant of black people doesn’t mean you cannot criticize the klan. Being tolerant of gay people doesn’t mean you cannot criticize people like Sherry with their Sodom and Gomorrah clap-trap.
By buildingbridges
September 28, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Have a great evening everyone!
By Christina
September 28, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
A woman keeping her family name can also have to do with her offspring. My fiance and I have decided to keep our respective last names and to give any male offspring my last name. A lot of this has to do with the fact that his last name is very common with many males on his side to carry on the name. On my side however there are no males in my generation and my last name is quite uncommon with only 500-600 people with this name remaining in the USA. Therefor it is not always about dominance or tradition.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Comrades,
Did anyone read the SHOCKER in the AJC Opinions this morning?
The shocking revelation is: Overall violent crime is down but remains high in the Poor communities!
Imagine that!
And guess what else was discovered: Blacks involvement in crime is highly disproportionate to their percentage of the citizenry!
Wonders never cease!
Let us all give praise once again to the tremendous accomplishments of Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and the endless list of government programs and handouts designed to help the black folks.
Tremendous progress indeed! In only 40 years we have managed to: Break apart the black family (75% of black children born out of wedlock), increase their illiteracy rate, incarcerate them at a higher rate than ever, have more of them drop out of school than ever before, get millions more on Welfare, involved far more in drug usage and distribution, created far more black gangs…
…and have created such poverty for them in the inner cities that they don’t even have the wherewithal to make it out of a city that has a monster hurricane bearing down on them!
But there is hope folks!
All we have to do to fix all that is to: Create another government program! Get all those Confederate Flags out of everything, have another Black History month, name another street after Martin Luther King, never stop talking about Slavery and the N_Word and erect a statue for Rosa Parks once and for all - because she sat on the front of the bus and got to drink from an all-white water fountain!!!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this
Look everybody, the Grand Wizard is removing his hood.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this
Ben,
Is that what you really got from what I stated…?
By Renee
September 29, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
blah, blah, blah
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this
Change has to come from within the black community. Listen to Bill Cosby as he hits the nail on the head in his speeches. Speak proper English and stop dressing like gang member/rappers. Stop spray painting everything in the community! (I went to a local K-Mart yesterday in North Gwinnett and there is graffiti all over a main wall now.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this
Renee,
Nothing will penetrate PC, will it?
By taboga
September 29, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
But as long as no one had a Confederate Flag in that mall - that’s what is important!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this
Taboga - I read your post a couple of times trying to figure out what you were gettting at. But I took into account that most of your posts are somewhat condescending and that’s the tone I read it in. If that wasn’t your intention, my bad.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
taboga, Right! Let’s not have the disrespecting white folks protesting the “graffiti” all over their neighborhoods. But, bring down those racist flags!…It might offend someone.
By Ben
September 29, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
Sherry - and I’m sure the black people are responsible for the graffiti.
By Huh
September 29, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
BEN is a man-of-gospel, telling it like it is. Grand Wizard revelation indeed.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
Ben, do you not see graffiti mostly in black neighborhoods? Doesn’t the black youth mostly dress with their pants halfway down so you can see their underwear,with big gold chains around their necks, $200 sneakers, shirts and pants 10 sizes too large, with a bandanna on their head (or doo-rag?)…looking like a regular gang member. Now, if the style that’s in fashion is to dress like a gang member then how do they expect to be treated? (Please note that I am generalizing and I know not all black youths are like this.)
By Greg
September 29, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this
Taboga, you pompous piece of sh!t. It’s so nice of you to say that stuff on the safety of a blog. Say that out in the street to some black people and watch how fast you get pistol-whipped.
Black people,we, don’t need you telling us how it is…we see what’s going on in our neighborhoods. We will make changes from within. You stay in that ivory castle of yours waving your confederate flag and talking that bullsh!t.
By Ben
September 29, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Sherry - At least you admit you are generalizing! I see graffiti in all kinds of neighborhoods. I live in a mostly white community and I see graffiti - but I’m sure you think it HAS to be the black kids that are responsible for it.
Yes a lot of black kids dress with their pants halfway down, big chains, expensive shoes and all that other garbage you mentioned. They dress like that because it is a fad, a fashion statement. It’s not because of gang members but because of the music of their choice - rap! They probably expect to be treated like kids or teenagers.
Should I assume that a white lady in a polo shirt white a sweater tied around her neck, wearing khaki shorts, driving a BMW wants to be treated like a snobby b***?
And I see plenty of white kids running around with no belts and their Abercrombie and Fitch drawers hangin out. What am I to think about them?
By Renee
September 29, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Actually in addition to the “vast” numbers of black teenagers dressing like that there seem to be an extraordinary number of suburban white teenagers wearing the same things, doing the same things. I’ve recently moved to a state where there are hardly any black people and lo and behold, these same things are occurring. There are teenagers writing graffiti, in the white neighborhoods no less, wearing saggy pants, even “doo rags”. I’m still scratching my head on that one.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
Ben,
What I am really getting at, is that the continuing decline of the Black community is not by happenstance, but rather by: Design.
Most folks should be familiar with the term: Uncle Tom. And of course it originated from Slavery to identify that black slave who was used by the master to keep the rest of the slaves in line. Of course the slaves, at the time, did not realize that he was an “Uncle Tom”, right? Had they realized what he was doing - the strategy would not have worked.
So, the slaves thought that “Uncle Tom” was looking out for them and therefore they trusted him. And of course he never really helped them - that was all just a ruse to keep them in line.
And when white Liberals saw that Blacks were making far too much progress in this country and would soon become fully integrated - they had to stop it. And they stopped it with Civil Rights!
Their “Uncle Tom”: Martin Luther King and the so-called “Black Civil Rights Leaders”. The white Liberal slave owners of the 60’s offered the new “Uncle Toms” a room in the big house if they would convince Blacks of their so-called movement to “help” the Blacks.
And what a wonderful job they have done, right?
By Greg
September 29, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Sherry, you sound so Cobb County. There is a lot of graffiti in the black neighborhoods. And how often do you visit them? Do you go over to that neighborhood to attend church? Do you have a bible study with the black youth that wear their sagging pants, 200 dollar shoes, and gold chains?
You people can only focus on the bad that occurs in the black neighborhood. One would think that you get some perverse pleasure out of seeing the poor blacks. Well listen up: black people have made a lot of strides since the civil rights era. We own our own businesses (pick up a copy of Black Enterprise, Ebony, or any of the other black periodicals.), we make lots of money (not just the P. Diddies, Oprahs, but the Marvin Arringtons, the Andrew Youngs, the Maynard Jacksons, the Baranco car dealers, the Shirley Franklins). So get over yourselves and try to make some changes the poor white neighborhoods. There are a lot of them on welfare, too.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Greg sometimes no response is the best response. What does anybody care what he thinks is going on in the black community. I don’t care if he puts confederate flags around his house, last time I checked it wasn’t illegal. I’m black, I’m gay, I don’t give a f__ who likes it, who disagrees. Black people are not going anywhere, and any person who doesn’t like it or gets mad about it then GOOD!
By Greg
September 29, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this
I know, Renee, but it infuriates me. How dare somebody that doesn’t have a clue as to how it feels to be another race make such broad sweeping remarks?
As for the progress blacks were making, yeah, we would just now be integrated into society. How long did it take for slavery to end? As a matter of fact, if it wasn’t for the liberals at that point, slavery would still be going on, unless you think that the good southerners would have awoken one day and said, “Gee, maybe I should start paying this free labor. I think that it would be wonderful to lose some money because I generally care about Rufus who has no shoes and has to eat the pig/hog leftovers. And you know what, he might just want to marry my virgin, pure daughter. Yeah, that would be great!”
By Renee
September 29, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Furthermore, Taboga, what do you care about what goes on in the BLACK community. It affects you not at all. Just making comments on things that don’t involve you, don’t affect you, and to a group of people that don’t care and won’t implement any ideas from you, much less take you seriously (hopefully).
I’m sorry, I forgot, there is no crime, no problems in the WHITE REPUBLICAN (I have nothing against Republicans, but this is his political interest) community, so you must critique from the outside. Here’s a tip. While you are worrying about the black man walking towards you with baggy pants getting ready to rob you, the sophisticated white man who walked by already has.
By Tim
September 29, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
y’all… please don’t be mad at Sherry… she is just showing us her good Christian (Southern White Christian) values
keep posting Sherry… makes me want to go out and buy the bumper sticker that I have mentioned on here before… I don’t have a problem with God… it’s his follwers I can’t stand
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
My quote for the day:
Sometimes no response is the best response —Renee, AJC/Opinions/Woman to Woman/September 29, 2005
By Renee
September 29, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this
~waving~ hey JBM…Thanks!
By taboga
September 29, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
All you folks need to take all your wonderful observations and conclusions to the Democrat politicians, the News Media and Academia!
Those folks, unlike you all, are continuously pointing out the numerous failures of the black community. And on a daily basis!
In fact, I just heard Congressman Rangle (Black Democrat) stating yesterday that the poverty rate of Blacks in this country is so bad now - that we need to declare it a “National problem”.
By Ben
September 29, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Taboga - now I see where you were going. But I don’t think that it’s the white liberals that fear the advancement of the black race. Civil Rights didn’t begin the decline of the black community. It’s all of the other garbage like AA that kindled that fire. Before Civil Rights and shortly after, black people were focused and hard working. They just wanted equality.
The problem is, that equality never really came, and that’s the struggle that is still going on. It’s the struggle that will probably go on for a much longer time.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
While you are worrying about the black man walking towards you with baggy pants getting ready to rob you, the sophisticated white man who walked by already has.
Renee,
When did I mention being worried about anyone in baggy pants getting ready to rob me? Where did I mention anywhere that I am concerned about how any of this effects me?
You haven’t understood anything that I have stated! All you can see, because you’ve been programmed to do so, is that the Politically correct view of race has been challenged and therefore I must be: Racist!
By I'm black and I'm proud
September 29, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Let me take a wild guess…..Tagoba and Sherry are not black people? Like someone said earlier, talk all the trash you want and hide behind this blog but I just bet you all the money in the world you wouldn’t say that amongst blacks. See, if you don’t know from within, what the struggle is or has been, it’s all an assumption to you….no matter what articles are printed, no matter what perception you make from what you see. Like the old saying goes, it takes one to know one. You may think yourself an expert on many things….being gay, being a God-hater evidenced from all the nasty comments that you type BEING BLACK? We have the patent on that!
By Renee
September 29, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
All you folks need to take all your wonderful observations and conclusions to the Democrat politicians, the News Media and Academia!
Actually they were brought to you, because YOU made the comments this morning. It would be completely asinine for me to take a comment that YOU made to the Democrat politicians. But should I read or hear FIRST-HAND of anything said then I will. I have no problem calling or writing any legislature or senator when I deem necessary.
But I apologize Taboga, because I know you don’t even believe what you said. Just another ruse to get everyone riled up. I am weak today and I took the bait.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
~waving~ Hey Renee! No, thank YOU. When I read that racist commentary, I didn’t even know where to begin with my response… there was so much to be said. After reading your comment, I just decided not to respond at all.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Tim, I don’t recall mentioning God in my last few posts. I was simply commenting on using proper English and not dressing like a gang member in order to be successful (not that these two things ALONE will bring success). The same things Bill Cosby has been saying to the black community. I did not recall bringing religion into the conversation about the need for change. taboga mentioned the article on the black community and lack of progression and I simply mentioned a few things Cosby touched on in his speeches. I thought since they came from a middle aged black man that HE should know what he’s talking about-from the perspective of a black person commenting on black people. But, I guess Bill is out of touch with black folks too. Maybe he’s just waiving his Christian values like a flag in the wind….
By Jack
September 29, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this
The AJC, television and radio in Atlanta feed us black vs. white everyday. Seems everything in this town is about race. Why can’t we move forward. Supposedly the color of one’s skin doesn’t matter. Why don’t we act that way?
By Renee
September 29, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Nor did I call you racist (that’s how you must perceive yourself) I’m sorry, I should have been more specific with my comment on the baggy pants. That was to Sherry, since she made that comment. I should have stated as such.
And unfortunately I am not programmed to believe any way. I make my own conclusions based upon what I see and my experiences. It seems to me, IMHO, that you are the programmed one, because you spout the same rhetoric all the time. Your mind is not open to anyone but you and all that agrees with you, but that is your right (and you use it well I might add)
By LiveinRuralSouth
September 29, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
So I suppose all the trash by the side of the roads in the rural south was left there by the 20percent black population of the county I live in? All this time I thought it was left there by the local white trash. Wait, I even see them throw it out the window, the White folks that is.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
Ben,
The equality would have come. It it would have come NOT from federal laws and programs, not from Equal Opportunity or Affirmative Action, but it would have come from the hard work of Black Folks themselves! And it was happening!
Ever wonder Ben, when anytime there is a discussion about the plight of Blacks in this country, we always hear about the present, the 1960’s and then we go all the way back to Slavery? Ever wonder what happened to the 100 years between Slavery and the 1960’s? Ever wonder why that period of time is rarely, if ever - talked about? There’s a reason for it.
The reason it’s rarely discussed, is because Blacks made more progress in this country during that 100 years than did all the rest of us had made (comparatively speaking) since the founding of the country! And they did it all on their own!
And the White Liberals could not have any more of that!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
That’s part of the problem Jack - people have been acting for years. It shouldn’t matter, but the sad reality is it does. People just hate to admit it.
By Tim
September 29, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
Sherry… you’re right… I’m sorry… your post was totally innocent… just like your post yesterday suggesting that God may have caused the hurricane to hit NO b/c of all the perversion there
By Renee
September 29, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
I agree Jack
By Ben
September 29, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Taboga - I don’t completely disagree with you. Black people made tremendous progress during those years, but the opportunities and advancement made through Civil Rights were necessary. It was like losing weight, you bust your a* to lose it, but their is always that road block or plateau. The plateau for the black community was not very pretty and was slowly eroding, thus the needed push to get over it.
Again, I wouldn’t attribute white liberals with the problem. It was society and people as whole.
By I'm black and I'm proud
September 29, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
@Tagoba (Grand Wizard)…guess you don’t see/know of the mass of young whites that are sooooo impersonating the so-called image of “being black?” “Dating blacks, playing rap, dressing black, talking black”…..you seem to be living in a world of your own. I can’t turn for seeing someone adapting to the so-called “black image.” Now, is there a “black image?” Certainly not. But for so long, being black has been such a taboo that, I believe it’s now the envy of those that are not (and I smile)! That’s what’s really going on. You’re running your mouth but don’t know nothing. You still see us as bottomers, but it’s the young whites today that buys all the “black” cds (‘member, we too po to purchase), and snatching up all the fads, adapting to the language, and so on. Remember, like I said earlier, there’s not an image of being “black”, it seems that way if you’re not. For us that’s born as such, it’s finesse.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Tim, innocent? I said I didn’t mention religion in my posts about change within the black community.
What does that have to do with the hurricane? And, for the record, I take back my comment about the hurricane. God speaks for Himself-rather well.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 29, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
Well, if being PC is not your preference, check out what Bill Bennett the ethics czar, author of the Book of Virtues, gambling addict has to say about Social Security crime, poverty, race, and abortion.
Check out the Media Matters transcript of his show.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
BENNETT: But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
To be fair, this was interview was done regarding the book Freakonomics, which points out that Roe V. Wade has had an impact on Social Security and crime statistics. He did’t just pull out this crime reduction method out of his butt…
I would also point out that of course you can’t abort babies, only fetuses, but then I’m a bit of a stickler for language and scientfic fact. If Bennett is talking about infanticide, we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes that this too, is reprehensible…
By taboga
September 29, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Black and Proud,
You could not be more wrong. Why on earth would I be concerned about a black “image”? And why would I care about whether or not Whites are listening to Rap and the like?
I am not at all talking about all these simpleton notions! I am talking about thousands of people stranded in a flooded city who did not have the wherewithal to get out! I am talking about Blacks being locked-up at a highly disproportionate rate! I am talking about the breakup of the black family which has roughly 75% percent of its children being born out of wedlock!
I am talking about serious adult issues - NOT about “baggy pants” or “images” or whether or not someone can drink out of the same water fountain!
For crying out loud!
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this
And, for the record, I take back my comment about the hurricane. God speaks for Himself-rather well.
Good idea, Sherry. That’s all I wanted to hear.
By Tim
September 29, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
I never said you mentioned religion… so all is well
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Wow - and here comes the racial crap…great. (how DID that get started?)
Greg - you stated good southerners would wake up one day… Something people ‘conveniently’ forget that while the numbers were small in comparison to the south, but there were a number of northerners that owned slaves, there were also a number of blacks that owned slaves. Slavery had been around a hell of a lot longer before it was in the states. Southern Africans took slaves from Northern african nations (or do I have that backwards?). I know that the majority of Southern african’s (or northern if I have it backwards) are of the white persuasion but they are african’s just the same.
I personally have an interest in the black community just like I have an interest in the white community because I have an interest in the people. Each community affects the other, everyone should be interested in both equally. I too see white kids acting out in those ways.
Some of the problems I have are with the “politics” of it all. If there is such a push for equality and ignoring the skin color why are there things like jet magazine and miss black usa? I know what would happen if there was a magazine called whitey and a miss white usa right? Am I wrong in assuming that there would be an uproar if either of those existed? Are white women eligible for the miss black usa competition? (that’s an honest question because I don’t know the legistics of the pageants.)
I mean, I don’t care, have your own things, that’s fine, but I don’t see where if those are allowed why it should be an issue if there were similar things for just white people.
By Atman
September 29, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Sherry - With all due respect, I do believe the only one who has a right to say what God feels/thinks would be his own son, Jesus.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me-I’ve made a liberal happy. My work here is done.
God bless all of you….miss me when I’m gone.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
I am not at all talking about all these simpleton notions! I am talking about thousands of people stranded in a flooded city who did not have the wherewithal to get out! I am talking about Blacks being locked-up at a highly disproportionate rate! I am talking about the breakup of the black family which has roughly 75% percent of its children being born out of wedlock!
The thousands of people stranded in a flooded city should not affect you because you already made your point clear about how you felt about the situation and was not planning on issuing any help. If you are upset about your tax dollars being used towards them then get over it. The government (which you so praise) uses our tax dollars for a lot of things which people do not agree with and will continue to (unless Fairtax is implemented). So you moaning and whining about it will not change. You can feel whatever way you want to about it, but the REPUBLICANS as well as the DEMOCRATS insist on having government in every faacet of our life.
Now, as far as blacks being locked up at a highly disproportionate rate and the black babies being born out of wedlock, what the hell do you care? This affects you because…….????
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Atman, you said I believe the only one who has a right to say what God feels/thinks would be his own son, Jesus.
Don’t forget the Holy Spirit which dwells within believers to guide them into all truth. And what do you think ministers do each Sunday besides teach about what God tells us in the bible-the words and thoughts of God???
And, for the record I NEVER said I spoke FOR God or said God thinks this or that.
By Ben
September 29, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Taboga - Those that remember having conversations about this with me in the past might remember the “circle.” Everything that is wrong with the black community is part of this perpetual circle. The only way out of it is to jump out of it. But even if you do, the circle still spins - sometimes gaining momentum.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Renee - I notice you keep focusing on wondering how these things affect… everything affects everyone in some way. Everyone should be concerned with and curious about the going abouts of different communties. In my opinion atleast.
By FatMoose
September 29, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Bridges and others, The US was founded on principles that favor the minority because that was what the founders were. That is why minority mags, pagents, and such are legal - and even healthy by the standards then.
It is a hypocritical situation america has come into: to want to ensure equality for minorities, but only as long as you are a minority - then to pressure these new minorities to ‘step it up to speed’ oherwise we will complain and short you on your rights.
Organized religions work quite the same way: The most faithful are those who have yet to rise from dispare - and those at the top criticize these new hopefuls.
By norman
September 29, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
hey guys,I think it’s all whitey’s fault that black guys were those darned baggy pants. they can’t afford pants that FIT because their great great great grandparents were slaves you see.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Sherry, you really represent God well.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
FatMoose - thats why I don’t have a problem with any of those things. I don’t have an issue with wanting to connect with your culture and having that seperate from other things, but I do have a problem when my (or any white persons) desire to do the same is sometimes considered racist.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
JBM - Don’t let it get to you.. Sherry doesn’t represent the God I KNOW well at all.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me- I could say the same thing about you.
Start the insults…I’m out of here. Have fun making fun of me for my beliefs…that’s what you guys enjoy the most.
By Sherry
September 29, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
building bridges-maybe you will find the one and only God one day and actually READ the bible…or BUY one.
Off to work…duke it out. My last post…let the party begin…your own Mardis Gras right here in Atlanta…..
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
For the record, Sherry, I never made “fun of” you for your beliefs. I respect your right to an opinion on whether women should take their husbands names. I respect your right to an opinion on all that is wrong with the black culture.
However, I find your self-righteousness, judgmental comments, and implication that you know what God is thinking to be deplorable - nothing to make fun of at all. You have your opinion, I have mine.
You said you’re “out of here.” Have a great day.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Thanks BB. People like that just really get to me.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
BB - One of the reason for Jet, Ebony and Ms. Black USA is for years the magazines did represent only white people on the cover, stories about white people etc. Ebony & Jet and others cover stories which specifically gear towards to the black community. Black health problems, marriage problems etc. As much as we try to act like we are the same, yes we are all people but black and white people are very much different. They should be treated the same but the culture is different. We cook our foods differently (some foods), we eat different foods (some foods). I don’t think that Better Homes and Garden will give the same recipes that Ebony will. Yes, to be concerned about the black community because we are all together in one community is another thing but to look down on and be condescending that is another.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
JBM - they do me too. I’m a christian and actually disagree with something another christian says then I’m not a true christian and need to buy or read the bible (which I’ve done both numerous times, thanks for the suggestion though). Her last post to me was definitely a good testimate of the kind of person she is and is definitely NOT worth my OR YOUR time. It’s that ‘kind’ of christian that gives us a bad name. I never insulted her or her beliefs yet and think I only made like THREE comments to her and she pulled a major attitude and slung insults at me… whatever. good ridence.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Renee - that’s all good, no problems with that at all and I understand the reasonings behind the beginnings and the continued publishing of those things. Better homes and gardens have recipes that I would rarely use! lol Sorry, that mag is a waste of paper. There are different mags for all the regions, (not sure of actual magazine names..these are just examples) southwestern living, southern cooking, etc. It doesn’t explain the continued miss black usa competition, the things that apply to any color but still being segregated.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Ben,
If a child were from Oklahoma and all he ever heard was negative things about people from Oklahoma, how do we suppose this person would grow up?
If everyday, from every angle, all he ever hears is things that suggest that people from Oklahoma are inferior and need help at every turn - what would he end up thinking?
I am not saying that people would actually be saying that he was inferior, but the implication of it.
If people would constantly state that people from Oklahoma need special help in order to get a job - what does that imply?
If it is stated over and over that people from Oklahoma need special help in order to get in to colleges - what does that imply?
If one government program after the other was created in order to help people from Oklahoma - what would that imply?
If law after law were created to punish people who discriminate against those from Oklahoma - what would that imply?
If the very people who call themselves trying to help folks from Oklahoma, were constantly pointing out how people from Oklahoma are being discriminated against - what does that imply?
If every politician that runs for office at every level, has to state how they intend on helping people from Oklahoma - what does that imply?
If, at any time, the prices of necessities go up and there are those who constantly go on and on about how people from Oklahoma are the “hardest hit” - what does that imply?
If it is stated over and over again that people from Oklahoma makeup 1/50th of the population, but makeup 30% of those incarcerated - what does that imply?
If the history of people from Oklahoma was continually taught in schools, and the teaching of it always evolved around how they were enslaved and mistreated - what would that imply?
…I could go on and on about how it is constantly implied that Black people are inferior to everyone else, always need a helping hand, always need a special law to protect them…on and on it goes, never-ending!
And then we have the nerve to WONDER what is happening to the Black Community? We WONDER why so many black youth feel helpless and hopeless and feel like the whole world is against them?
You cannot treat people as though they are inferior and then expect them to have a positive outlook on things!
By Atman
September 29, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Sherry:
Don’t forget the Holy Spirit which dwells within believers to guide them into all truth.
The keyword is guide; I respect that.
However, is there a way to tell those that are indeed righteous from those that simply use these terms as an excuse to be hypocrits?
And what do you think ministers do each Sunday besides teach about what God tells us in the bible-the words and thoughts of God???
Well, as I know, Catholics and Christians ministers also lend an ear when you have problems and give you advice as human beings (quoting the Bible when necessary/appropiate); Christians will be insisting on being part of their group as a bonus.
I dunno about Bapthists though, although I might guess based on what I heard from others, something about how you’ll burn in Hell if you don’t do what they say.
And, for the record I NEVER said I spoke FOR God or said God thinks this or that.
By Sherry September 28, 2005 02:48 PM:
“Maybe you guys like living in Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) but I don’t. From what I’ve heard from people who’ve been there, New Orleans was the most degenerate city in our country-all about sex and drugs. Sex clubs on every corner with the most perverse live shows you could imagine. Maybe God had enough?!?! JMO”
You probably didn’t today or yesterday, but you definitively did in this thread (indirectly stating that God sent the Hurricane as a message); if that were the case, then why Amsterdam (for example) is still standing, considering that is as bad as New Orleans (in terms of prostitution and vice)?
One thing I did learn from little: “God works in mysterious ways”. Maybe he’s sending disasters (natural or otherwise) as a sign to repent and destroy the wicked; maybe he’s sending “angels” in the shape of police officers, firemen, National Guard, even common men during these times to help the needy.
To be honest, I don’t know myself, but if it’s true that he’s a kind and caring God, I do want to beleive it would be the later case…
But yes, you recently retracted from your hurricane statement, but you might want to be more specific next time.
By Jester
September 29, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
your own Mardis Gras right here in Atlanta
Oopps, tornado going to hit Atlanta soon if you heathens do that.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
As far as the Ms. Black America it is the recognization of black women which would ordinarily not be recognized in the Ms. America pageant. Although Ms. America is not segregated, there is a handful of black and latinos who have made it, I see nothing wrong with recognizing solely black women. If the Klan (just using this figuratively) has a Ms. Klan America pageant, they are more than welcome. Just like the gay pageants, they are only for gay people, sometimes people like to do things amongst their own to recognize people in their community.
By FatMoose
September 29, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Bridges,
Put Moose down yesterday. Thanks for the concerns.
Ill check the board after lunch and see if there is anything interesting going on.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Atman - You said “I dunno about Bapthists though, although I might guess based on what I heard from others, something about how you’ll burn in Hell if you don’t do what they say.”
Since you don’t know..don’t speak it. I’m a Baptist here and the church and their preachers are every bit as what you described here…
“Well, as I know, Catholics and Christians ministers also lend an ear when you have problems and give you advice as human beings (quoting the Bible when necessary/appropiate); Christians will be insisting on being part of their group as a bonus.”
Baptist = christian…why did you feel the need to exclude them from your description?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
FatMoose - I’m so sorry! Hang in there. He’s healthy and whole now and playing with my Sabrina!
Renee - You can’t honestly tell me that if someone wanted to have an all white pageant to recognize the beauty of a white women there wouldn’t be NUMEROUS and very angry responses to that. I don’t believe that for a minute. Latino women could get away with it because they are a minority. Native american women could because they are minority. However, for some reason, because white women are not a minority then it’s not ok for us to feel right about having segregated competitions because it might infringe on someone’s rights. It sounds a little bit like a double standard to me.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
As far as the Ms. Black America it is the recognization of black women which would ordinarily not be recognized in the Ms. America pageant. Although Ms. America is not segregated, there is a handful of black and latinos who have made it, I see nothing wrong with recognizing solely black women. If the Klan (just using this figuratively) has a Ms. Klan America pageant, they are more than welcome. Just like the gay pageants, they are only for gay people, sometimes people like to do things amongst their own to recognize people in their community.
Renee,
Great ideas! And then let’s turn right around and have every media outlet and every academic institution lecture us at every turn about how we need to be:
A color-blind society!
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
The wisest thing I’ve ever heard you say, You cannot treat people as though they are inferior and then expect them to have a positive outlook on things!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
Taboga - I agree with that, but it’s only part of the problem - a piece of the circle. The bind that a great majority of the black community is in is the aftermath of the slavery and the pre-civil rights days. A large part of the black community has not evolved from those days - some have. Granted that may be because of laziness in some cases, but a big piece of the problem is a direct result of a racist society.
I don’t believe in making excuses, but that’s how it is. I personally believe that another person’s prejudice is not going to hold ME back. And I believe the opportunities afforded to the black community after those days should have been used as a stepping stone - it’s long past the time for those days to be used as a crutch. BUT it takes some longer than others.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
BB/Renee:
I think it’s all in the representation (or the name). For example, if the Ms. America pageant is supposed to be inclusive of all beautiful, thin, intelligent, talented women, surely there’d be more than just 3 or 4 minority women in that number. If they decide to start another pageant, or call the current Ms. America pageant “Ms. White America” that’s fine with me, and it’ll probably be fine with other black folks.
The difference is that one is supposed to be exclusive. One is not.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
The thing is, I know that blacks have a lot more history to complain about (key word..history) and still have a lot to overcome although I think some of that which needs to be overcome within the black community are self-inflicted. White woman have come through a lot as well and are still having a lot to overcome. Especially in the work environment. You put a black woman against a white woman in a job interview, everything is exactly the same (I know, that’s not reality, but this is hypothetical)…everything equal from education to GPA to knowledge of programs and literature, all equal except skin color… who do you think will get hired?
By Atman
September 29, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
buildingbridges - Well, Catholics are technically Christians as well as far as I know, but for some reason most people treat them as different things.
As for Baptists, I haven’t actually been to a congregation or met one; however, I did heard lots of things about them coming from folks from the South, which led to that impression.
But yes, I do apologize for making assumptions based on insufficient data.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
BB - For years Ms. America was for the majority (white america) Black women weren’t even welcome and then the ones that do make it don’t represent all black women. Would a Black woman with dreadlocks make Ms. America, probably not. Is she beautiful, very much, why can’t WE recognize her. I can’t tell you whether there would be numerous angry responses or not, I can only give how I feel about it. I think we can be separate but together. Respect our differences, yet coexist without thinking one is better than the other. I don’t want anyone giving me a job to make a black quota but by the same token that is the only way some black people have been given the opportunity. White people have blatantly and underhandedly kept black, gay, all minorities out of things for years, but then have a fit when we say ok, we’ll make our own. Then WE are accused of being racist, and wanting to segregate. That I don’t understand. And no Ms. Black America would not have white contendors. And ms Gay America would not have straight contendors, but if you have a contest named just MS America it should show all facets of society that America represents. Now if there is a MS. WHite america pageant I don’t see a problem. There is a Ms. Full figure America, no skinny women are in it. We are people with differences that we should be able to recognize.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
JBM - I agree that the miss america pageant should not be segregated in any way at all. I still hold firm to my opinion that if a miss white usa pageant was started to just include white women there would be hell to pay and a lot of “racist” allegations thrown. YOU might be mature enough to recognize it for what it is but I do believe the one’s I’ve spoken to here about it are a minority in that sense.
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
You put a black woman against a white woman in a job interview, everything is exactly the same (I know, that’s not reality, but this is hypothetical)…everything equal from education to GPA to knowledge of programs and literature, all equal except skin color… who do you think will get hired?
Don’t we need to know the color of the person making the hiring decision to really answer that?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Renee - I know all that and respect it and not making any excuses for the exclusion of races other than white (because it wasn’t just blacks excluded). However…those WHITE women in there..are not a good representation of the white community either. A full figured woman wouldn’t be welcomed in the pageant either. What about a single mom? A female body builder? I actually think they are all a waste of time but that’s besides the point. I have never heard of or seen a miss full figured pageant, interesting, maybe I should look into that. Even if I were 120 lbs I would still be ‘full figured’ because I actually have the curves that women are “supposed” to have.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Atman - I was actually going to say something about your seperation of catholics and christians too but I didn’t. They difference is the protestant and non-protestant but they are all christians just the same.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Wow. We were typing the same thing at the same time, Renee.
And, BB - about that job interview thing. If a black woman gets a job over a white woman, all things equal, that white women will probably feel angry, and blame “government programs” of today, without ever once considering why things are the way they are. That black woman who got the job will probably feel that for the first time in her life, she is beginning to be treated equally. In fact, she might feel vindicated for the scores of jobs her mother, aunts, cousins, and grandmothers didn’t get because they were black.
For whatever reason, many white people like to sweep slavery under the rug, and refuse to take responsibility for their ancestors role in it. It reminds me so much of my daughter who nearly dies each time she is grounded for something SHE did or didn’t do. I try to teach her that there are consequences for every single thing you do.
Hopefully, the white woman who was passed over for that job will understand that there are consequences for every single thing you do, and that sometimes those consequences live on throughout generations. Hopefully, she’ll teach her children the same.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Jestnot - hardly…
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
JBM - How is that fair?! (not the job thing). I have NO problems admitting how incredibly wrong slavery was. WAS. I’m not taking personal responsibilty for something that my ancestors may or may not have done. I take responsibilty for MY OWN actions alone and I’ve never owned a slave. How is it fair to condemn a man for his grandfathers crimes?
By Jack
September 29, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
As far as the job interview, is affirmative action (legal discrimination) part of the picture?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
My point with the job interview is that because of affirmitive action white women have a lot to fight against, the white male, the black male, the black female and then each other cause lets face it…women are mean to each other.
another point with it is that this world will NEVER be color blind or gender blind.
By Archie
September 29, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Ben I liked your 11:59 am post. I am amazed that a criticism of Sherry digressed into a discussion of race. For the record there some blacks that feel just as Sherry about New Orleans that it was a Sodom and Gommorrah and I tell them the same thing I told Sherry,i.e. it makes no sense. Sherry had a right to her opinion but she deserved to be criticized for it but she is like a lot of religious people that can’t make logical connections. Ben I also liked your 9:16 am post because it shows you are in the real world and see all things. A race of people is not a herd of cattle where everyone enjoys or does the same thing which is why no one associates every white businessman with a corporate crook and no one should associate teenagers with gang members just because of dress. Ben and Renee have a good job with their discussion of race so I will change the subject. Why does Michael Brown think he did a good job when no one else does? This dude implied that the governor didn’t want help for certain parts of New Orleans. Of course there is a letter stating just the opposite.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Good point, Jestnot.
And, one more thing BB. About your comment, “I know that blacks have a lot more history to complain about (key word..history)…
Just how do you go about determining how long is long enough for someone to get over something? Furthermore, even if blacks were expected to “get over” slavery by the time the clock struck midnight on January 1, 1975, exactly when were we supposed to get over racism?
When were we supposed to “GET OVER” racism? Better question: HOW are we supposed to “GET OVER” racism when IT STILL EXISTS TODAY?
I don’t buy the whole “white man keeping us down” nonsense. I am one of many black people who made something huge out of a small opportunity.
You can talk about history all you want, but you do NOT get to determine how someone’s history can affect them in the present. How would you like it if I told you Sabrina’s death is HISTORY. GET OVER IT.
By Jestno
September 29, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
BB - the assumption in the question was the white woman would get the job, because it was a white hiring person. However we know that if it was black hiring person, the black woman would get the job. “Help my own, a Sistah out” and all that. Yes, we would have to know the race of the hiring person.
How are white people who came to the US in the mass migration of the late 1800s responsible for slavery again? Granted, whites have all the advantage but how are they responsible for slavery?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
JBM - whhhooaa! I thought we were having a civilized conversation. NOTHING determines how long is long enough. It will never be over. Racist still exists among both blacks and whites. Sexist still exists. I didn’t mean it that way at all.
jestnot - your off the mark on my hypothetical question. It wouldn’t matter what color the hiring person was. A white person would not necessarily hire the white employee.
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
BB - forgot about the affirmative action angle, but that would depend on if the ‘quota’ had been met.
I do not mean anything by the previous assumption, but people are going to hire those they are most comfortable with and who are similiar to them, generally.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
Jestnot - Your right about that too.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
I still hold firm to my opinion that if a miss white usa pageant was started to just include white women there would be hell to pay and a lot of “racist� allegations thrown.
BB - Perhaps this is true. The question to ponder is why would a miss white usa pageant be started? What would be the point? MISS BLACK AMERICA, MISS GAY AMERICA, MISS FAT AMERICA, and all the other specialized MISS AMERICA pageants were created to serve a minority group of people who were, for WHATEVER flippin reason, U-N-D-E-R-R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-E-D. Get it?
It’s all about the INTENTIONS. Black people didn’t (and wouldn’t) start a friggin pageant for the sole purpose of excluding another group of people. The intention was to acknowledge the beauty, accomplishments, talent and intelligents of those who were U-N-D-E-R-R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-E-D.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
The beauty of history is that we are able to LEARN from it and yes.. MOVE on. A lot of times that includes “getting over it”, but not in the sense that you have taken it. What I was pointing out was that for some reason, the hardships that women in general (black or white) have gone through is overlooked because apparently we are supposed to be ‘over it already’. Do you know how many times I’ve heard “you can vote, drive and work, what more do you want?”
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
JBM - How is that fair?! Maybe it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair, dear. Just ask any black person over the age of 55.
Oh, and this is a very civilized conversation from my perspective. If your comment didn’t refer to how long it should take for people to get over trauma, to what did that “history” comment refer?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
JBM - I’m sorry I struck a chord with you, but back off a little, I haven’t disrespected you in any form or fashion here. Why wouldn’t white women want one. There is no pageant that is soley theirs (not that their should be, it’s just an example) and as I suspected..someone got upset at the idea that a non-minority would want something that was soley theirs.
And YES I GET it.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hardly civilized. I don’t like being ‘cursed’ at. I didn’t start yelling at anyone. I find it funny that you can post your opinion over and over and over and if I do the same it’s unacceptable because it doesn’t reform to your opinion?
LIFE isn’t FAIR TO ANYONE! Along with those black women ask any WHITE woman over 60 that couldn’t teach while married so she had to wait until she was done teaching to get married!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
BB - I would hardly compare being able to get married while teaching to not being able to go to school and learn. I understand your point, but women’s equality and civil rights are two very seperate issues that bare no comparison.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
BB - When I began my career, I was a minority times three. I am black. I am a woman. And, I was 22 (my age was relevant, as I ended up supervising people who were older than me, and by 24 made close to 6 figures).
I had to overcome the obstacle of being the youngest, most inexperienced person on the team. I had to overcome the obstacle of being the ONLY woman on the team. Believe me when I tell you, the challenges that come with being a woman don’t even BEGIN to compare to the challenges that come with being black. I respect the problems you feel you face being a woman in a “man’s” world. But, believe me, you can’t compare the two.
By the time you get to #12, I’d be on #8,612.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
BB - When white people decide that they need or want their own pageant for whites only, let me know and we’ll continue that part of the discussion. Until then, like I said, why on earth would white people want to start their own pageant, and what would the intention be?
I don’t recall cursing at you. I never curse, not even in “real life.” I don’t deny raising my “online voice,” because that is what people do when they passionately debate an issue that they feel strongly about. In my opinion, hitting below the belt during debate starts with name-calling, cursing, making obscene gestures, or violating one’s space. I have done none of the above, but if nonetheless you are offended, I apologize.
Once again, you cannot compare the “pain” of not being able to teach with the pain of not being able to attend school. I’m telling you, don’t start this BB. By the time you get to 14, I’ll be on 8,914.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 29, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Jestnot Don’t we need to know the color of the person making the hiring decision to really answer that? I think statistics can answer your question. The chance of being interviewed by someone who is black is small, unless the position is entry level. However, anyone applying for a Management position – will 90% of the time be interviewed by a white person.
Buildingbridges – you don’t have to go back to slavery, the 1960’s contains current information to draw from. There are some very recent cases of how blacks are treated in this country TODAY. By the way… blacks are condemned everyday as lazy, stupid, government entitled, criminals, lacking ambitions, etc…. The only time whites, being interviewed by a white person, does not obtain the position, is if the other white candidates are better qualified. The reason in some cases is that people feel comfortable working with people who look like themselves. Many can’t get over the idea of working with people who might not look like them.
Walk a day in my shoes.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
No I’m not trying to “compare” the two, I’m trying to make the realization known that blacks are not the only one’s wronged (granted the wrong against them was/is far more severe). They are two seperate things but with similar outcomes, both being discrimiated against. There was a time when it was unheard of women being educated and looked down on for it.
JBM - (thank you btw) you have accomplished a hell of a lot more than even most MEN out there and that’s great and certainly something to be proud of! I don’t feel that anyone’s accomplishments should be downplayed. I’m in an engineering field (all men), I fought 3 years of cancer taking away a lot of time out of my life and 10 years to get through school…I didn’t CHOOSE to get cancer but I fought through it just like you have fought through obsticles to make something amazing out of your life and it shouldn’t matter what color you are those are great accomplishments.
A lot of times it feels like it’s not equality that’s desired, it’s revenge. And as I said before, I hold no responsibility for what my ancestors may or may not have done I had nothing to do with it and can not do anything to change it. I’m sorry that there are still racists out there and I’m sorry that I can’t change that either but I can choose not to participate in it and to call out anyone that does.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
JBM - I left for lunch and you are on a roll. I don’t even need to type because I would just be reitterating your points. Time for you take over anyway, I held it down this morning :)
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Ok JBM - Fine. I won’t start it. I have no opinion on the matter and will keep it that way. that’s the PC thing to do right?
The “cursing” was referring to all the “friggins” in one of your posts to me which is in essense the same as cussing. But I see you didn’t mean it that way and thank you for apologizing.
By lozen
September 29, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Tabooger; You are such a fool! And when white Liberals saw that Blacks were making far too much progress in this country and would soon become fully integrated - they had to stop it. And they stopped it with Civil Rights! Where did you get your version of history? From your fourth grade teacher?
BB: You seem like a basically nice woman who just doesn’t know any black history or black people.
If there is such a push for equality and ignoring the skin color why are there things like jet magazine and miss black usa? I know what would happen if there was a magazine called whitey and a miss white usa right? Am I wrong in assuming that there would be an uproar if either of those existed? Do you really not remember that all magazines were for whitey until Jet started publishing just a few short years ago? Do you really not realize Miss USA was totally and completely white women only until just a few years ago?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
GOODNESS…bunch of coyotes here. I’m just like everyone else, with an opinion and a thought. I NEVER meant to try to COMPARE the differences between the two and am sorry that it ended up in that direction. I was honestly just trying to get a little perspective on things, another view, albeit a little bit off view because I can only speak of what I experience and see, but still a different view.
fairness is relative. Everyones feelings are relative. The only relation I have to make are the things I have, as I said before, experienced. I can’t walk a day in your shoes but you can’t walk a day in mine either.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
Lozen - starting with the insults. Do a little reading and you’ll see I’ve properly been put in my place.
I am a nice person but your wrong, I do know about black history and I know about white history and I know about medieval history.. I know a lot of things and it amazes me that when a difference of opinion is stated the first thing that comes out of the mouth is “well obviously your uneducated…”
And DUH yes I knew that about miss america pageant. It was a freaking example already!
By Ben
September 29, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Truth be told. Nobody on this board should really be arguing about how hard they have it as black person unless they are in their 50s. Anybody, today, that claims that they are being held back by the color of their skin is a fool in my opinion.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Lozen - “Do you really not remember” NO I don’t remember because I’m not that old.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
“I know that blacks have a lot more history to complain about”
No they haven’t - that is another falsehood that folks have been taught to believe!
There isn’t a race or ethnic group around that has not been enslaved by another!
We have been taught to believe (literally) that slavery originated here. We have been taught to believe that certain times in our history are to be considered as: Times of Slavery. When the real truth is: Very few people ever owned slaves. The wealthiest 2 to maybe 3 percent of whites, were the only ones who owned slaves. Yet, slavery is defined as an era where: “Whites owned Blacks”. In addition to that, the Caribbean, Central and South America is where the overwhelming vast majority of slavery was conducted and for far longer than here in North America.
But, because there was slavery here; which ended over 140 years ago - we have to hold on to the legend of it. All so that, somehow, through some strange voodoo - we can pretend that all negative things that happen to Blacks are the result of it!
It’s such incredible nonsense. But, believed by most…
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Taboga - Yeah, my post on a history in slavery was ignored so I’m sure yours will be too.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
A lot of times it feels like it’s not equality that’s desired, it’s revenge
This may or may not be true. But, I betcha one thing: if equality is achieved, there will be no desire for revenge.
Renee, you did hold it down this morning! Next time, let a sister know before you up and leave!!! :-)
By taboga
September 29, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Tabooger; You are such a fool! And when white Liberals saw that Blacks were making far too much progress in this country and would soon become fully integrated - they had to stop it. And they stopped it with Civil Rights! Where did you get your version of history? From your fourth grade teacher?
No Lozen, I didn’t get it from my “fourth grade teacher” - that’s where you got yours. And that’s why you believe in all the simpleton nonsense. You were a Blank CD. The teacher copied data to you. Now you play that data and nothing more. And you’re obviously not Re-writable.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
On a different topic. I just read the article about how flight attendents are outraged over the jody foster movie… I don’t know about the rest of y’all but it’s a movie for goodness sakes! Don’t they know it’s hollywood and that it doesn’t mean to portrait the union in that sense?
Thoughts on hollywood vs. real life? Does what hollywood show really portrait what is real life?
By Ben
September 29, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Taboga - it IS a big deal because it happened here. It’s part of our history. Regardless of the fact that it happened more than 140 years ago, the prejudice brought on by the belief that blacks are inferior still exists.
I agree that not all negative things that happen to black people are the result of it, but it does a role. If only one person owned slaves it would be wrong because it doesn’t dismiss the notion that PEOPLE were PROPERTY.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
I don’t know JBM - I think there would be a group or several groups that would still be seeking that revenge.
By Greg
September 29, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Why even listen to you? You were advocating for multiculturalism to be removed from the curriculum. That’s great. We can go back to reading about Dick and Jane and their happy little world where Mommy stays at home with the kids and that Daddy goes to work in his blue suit.
So blacks don’t have more to complain about? I see. So when my Grandmother had to stand in the rain on the back stoop of a hamburger joint because she was black, she didn’t have it any worse than the Irish or the Italians. You’re right, they were friendly towards the blacks because we were all a minority.
Ireland is this big melting pot of AIDS, exploited land, and repressed people just like Africa, right? Little children in Ireland are having their arms chopped off in the Diamond mines? The Italians are in a bitter civil war all over the country because the Europeans set up the boundaries for Italy.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Ben - maybe they should stop making those shirts that say things like “property of Nike” or whatever. lol I’m just teasing now. I’m out of the serious bitter arguments for now, I’ve made some mistakes in my posts but I’ve made some really good points too but a lot of those get overlooked. But I’ve gotta let my blood pressure lower a little.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
It’s ok BB. We still love ya. :)
By Renee
September 29, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
We have been taught to believe (literally) that slavery originated here. We have been taught to believe that certain times in our history are to be considered as: Times of Slavery. When the real truth is: Very few people ever owned slaves. The wealthiest 2 to maybe 3 percent of whites, were the only ones who owned slaves. Yet, slavery is defined as an era where: “Whites owned Blacks�. In addition to that, the Caribbean, Central and South America is where the overwhelming vast majority of slavery was conducted and for far longer than here in North America.
The Caribbean, Central annd South America conducted slavery in addition to the slavery here in North America. Although it may have lasted longer it was NOT the vast majority. And to pretend that slavery is not that big of a deal and that barely anyone had a slave is just a bunch of crap. Maybe it wasn’t a time of slavery for you, perhaps YOU can look at it as prosperous time, when crops were plentiful not due to any slave owners hard work.
The fact is this, every black person was brought to be a slave and the vast majority of white people DID own a slave. They may have not owned as many slaves as the wealthy or maybe they could not afford the well fit slaves but YES they had them. And the less wealthy stole slaves, and family members gave them slaves, and slaves were forced to birth NEW slaves (it goes on and on).
And yes slavery was in the medieval times, and other epics in history, but they do not hold such a profound place in society TODAY.
By Greg
September 29, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
One more thing about the multiculturalism: Maybe they should take it out. God knows, I want my children to grow up and believe that they are ugly because they have broad noses, kinky hair, dark skin, and brown eyes. I want them to be referenced as Tar Baby, Little Sambo, and any of the other creative names.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
BB - If I’m not mistaken, I did respond to your comments about history. Perhaps it just wasn’t what you wanted to hear?
BEN - I would agree, except that I think you’re meshing two different claims: one, that black people can’t complain about how hard they have it unless they are over 50. The second, is that black people are fools if they claim that in 2005, they are being held back.
Being held back and “having it hard” are two very different things. You do NOT have to be over 50 to “have it hard.”
But, I would certainly agree that it is unwise for a black person to claim that they are being “held back”.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Greg - Ireland is a in a constant state of uproar within itself. They have been fighting a.. I don’t even know how many years.. civil war! Famine, prostitution, government controlled land… Each have their own problems.
Africans sold africans as slaves. Even though it was wrong to accept it here it was started there.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
JBM - the only history comment I saw was about the ‘getting over it factor’ that was misunderstood because I wasn’t good at explaining it initially. Sometimes I do go back and catch a post I missed originally.
Jack - lol thanks.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
Africans sold africans as slaves only because they were promised their safety and riches upon riches for turning their fellow africans in. From the beginning black people have been turned against each other and used as pawns.
By Ben
September 29, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
JBM - We are on the same page. I didn’t mean to mesh the two. They are two different points.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
BB- did you mean to say “WHITE Africans sold BLACK Africans as slaves.”??
Very few people owned slaves
Very few people owned slaves? VERY FEW PEOPLE OWNED SLAVES?
Okay, NOW I know exactly what I’m working with here. I’m done with this.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
JBM - I already SAID that white africans sold black africans as slaves! I said that WAY back when like over an hour or so ago!!
I NEVER said that very few people owned slaves. NEVER.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Uh oh, cat fight.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
JBM - I said it at 10:36 am!!!
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Jack lol no cat fight here…
By taboga
September 29, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
And yes slavery was in the medieval times, and other epics in history, but they do not hold such a profound place in society TODAY
And just where do we have slavery in this country - TODAY?
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
I think on any other day of the week, I wouldn’t have even gotten into this conversation. I’m a pretty non-confrontational person, and I really don’t like conflict. Any other day of the week, I would’ve just sat on the sidelines.
Just this morning on my way to the MARTA station, I told my partner about an experience I had yesterday on the train. It hurt me all the way down to my soul.
Nearly every evening, the train is full when I get on, or becomes full within 2-3 stops. Yesterday, I boarded with the same group of “regulars”. 8 or 9 women, three men. One of the women is about 7 mos. pregnant. When we got on, I sat down, then saw that the pregnant girl was standing, so I offered her my seat. I then went to stand with the other group of people standing. At least 4 of those women, were over the age of 50, one about 70. In front of the pregnant lady sat two men, to their left sat a man and a woman. This group of four were all together, and appeared to be in good health. They appeared to range in age from 35-50.
At about the fourth stop, a young woman boarded the train. She appeared to be about 25-27 years old. All three of the gentlemen stood to offer her their seats. The original group of people continued to stand all the way to their stop downtown.
I’m sure I need not disclose anyone’s race.
I also won’t disclose to you what my reaction was - I’m a little embarassed by it.
My point is that racism is alive today. Whether we like to admit it or not. This is just one example (call it a small example, minor, questionable - whatever you want). THIS is an example.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
BB - I didn’t mean to imply that “very few” statement was yours…. I knew you didn’t say that.
By Jestno
September 29, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Anybody read the Smithsonian article last month about the generational slavery existing in Niger Today? Blacks owning blacks.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
JBM - race included or not, that’s a horrible act against anyone, I’m sorry you witnessed that and it would have broken my heart too. I don’t have the authority to state that it wouldn’t happen had those older ladies been white or not, but it may have, I don’t know, it shouldn’t have happened regardless. I have seen people practically run my grandmother over because she was too slow. I think that some people just have a low tolerance for older people. NOT trying to compare the two, I just hate seeing elders dis-respected. They are the one’s that people should be looking to for wisdom!
not to mention - men are pigs. ;-) jk guys.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
JBM. Scum comes in all colors. At least you can feel good about giving up your seat.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Of course there’s “racism” today. There always has been - there always will be. And it’s because we are: Human Beings. We are not little robots where you can write a program to remove racism from everyone’s database. But the vast majority of people are not racists!
But yet, because we see instances of racism by some - we have to all jump on our high horses and act as if it runs RAMPANT in our society and thus we need a whole new round of federal legislation that will do nothing but compound the problem and create additional ones!
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
JBM - Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I was searching posts to make sure I didn’t inadvertily (sp?) say that.
Seriously, I like you, even when you ‘curse’ at me (;-) JK). We may not agree all the time but you seem like a real together lady.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Aye dios mio.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
“The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).”
Taken from: Americancivilwar.com
By lozen
September 29, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
atman, jesus died over 2,000 years ago. Somebody call Sylvia Brown or some other channeler/psychic so we can see what jesus has to say!
By FatherOfThree
September 29, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
And just where do we have slavery in this country - TODAY?
Just last month there was a sting in DT atlanta where they found 30-40 minorities that were being sold out of a storage unit. This is a ring that is still in operation. Who buys them? White, upper class, men and women; for sex and labor.
My last boss hired our systems/programmer personel from SAmerica. This ensures him that they will work for him for four years (work visa) at the salary hired (15k less than our previous systems/programmers). If they demand a pay increase after the four years, he refuses to sponser them and hires new guys a week later.
Plus - If any of you are going to site the ‘slavery’ that went on IN african tribes; please include that they captured person was treated as part of the family and often wedded their ‘owners’ daughter. Also, they ‘earned’ their freedom - as was in the colonies for a short while; but then the people in control decided they could be considered chattel, and owned indefinitely.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
But the vast majority of people are not racists!
The vast majority of people are prejudiced (maybe not against blacks) but against one group of people or another and it is almost always expressed in a racist fashion.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
“According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.”
“To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.”
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
thus we need a whole new round of federal legislation that will do nothing but compound the problem and create additional ones!
Did someone say that here today? I missed it. Or were you referring to Rangel’s comments?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Fo3 - NOT comparing, there were also soom slaves here that were treated as family. I don’t have facts on that but I’m sure it could be found. Slavery regardless of how they are treated in the family and “earning” freedom is STILL slavery!!
Paying someone with stipulations in a job is not slavery. Stupidity maybe on the perons accepting the terms, but not slavery.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
PERSON not perons
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Thx, BB.
TABOGA - I hope it didn’t appear to others that I was “jumping on a high horse” because I certainly wasn’t. However, racism does run rampant in our society. Just because you don’t see or recognize it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The example I spoke of was not a random incident - it is something that happens every single day. Try as you might, it cannot be minimized or ignored. It is rampant, and is demonstrated frequently.
Oh, and the “whole new round of federal legislation” issue has to be taken up with someone else. That’s not my argument.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
I’m sure that the census reports in 1860 weren’t racially biased at all. Anything at that time to make the white man look good.
Yes, we black people will take responsibility for slavery. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Damn those blacks starting slavery.
By Michael H.
September 29, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Indeed, it is not a “hot topic� this week, though both commentators manage, as is required for their ideological juxtaposition and necessary clash, to get several things wrong. Ms. Glass makes the minor mistake of claiming that marriage ceremonies assert “man and wife� whereas many conclude with “husband and wife� and she overstates the significance of the name change just as Ms. Feldhahn does for different reasons.
Ms. Feldhahn makes a more serious mistake by invoking the practices in other societies with different histories. Male domination takes different forms in different societies and the fact that the notoriously chauvinist cultures of China and Latin America do not require a woman to change her name upon marriage is simply irrelevant to the history of the convention in the United States. Their patriarchy is manifested in different ways. Apart from bringing up the exotic fact that her brother is married to a Chinese woman there is little point in introducing this into the discussion.
I see no reason to attach any significance to the claims of Steven Rhoads which appear to be more ideological than sociological. No “message� is necessarily being sent by a woman who does not change her name and there is no reason to think that this has anything to do with the causes of divorce, another issue than must be brought into nearly every discussion by Ms. Feldhahn.
At least everyone agrees that it is a woman’s decision in the end.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
MAN my spelling stinks… SOME not soom!
Taboga - I also stated earlier today that some slaves were also owned by blacks. that was in my 10:36am post. Other things from that post got pounded, but those comments remained un-touched. :)
By Jack
September 29, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
FatherOfThree, “My last boss hired our systems/programmer personel from SAmerica. This ensures him that they will work for him for four years (work visa) at the salary hired (15k less than our previous systems/programmers). If they demand a pay increase after the four years, he refuses to sponser them and hires new guys a week later.”
How is this slavery? He did not OWN the guy from South America. Sounds like shrewd business practice. Why out source when you can bring cheap labor in? Sounds bad but thats capitalism.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
BB - “some slaves were treated like family… [but this] is still slavery”
Exactly what is your point?
Taboga - Any idea who administered the US Census in 1860?
By FatherOfThree
September 29, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
BB,
I disagree. America added the notion of absolute ownership; and that IS a different slavery.
For example: Early America had ‘breeding farms!’ That is a WHOLE lot different!
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Renee - I’m not sure how biased they are but there probably is some room for error. HOWEVER it is true that not all slaves were owned by whites. A LOT were, but not all. I never meant to imply that it was the fault of blacks or even that blacks sold blacks as slaves, but not all blacks were victims, some were the villans.
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
I don’t think the real issue is the slavery abolished in the USA so long ago and even earlier in Haiti and Jamaica, but rather the Jim Crow laws, voting-ability-requirements, etc that were instituted after blacks were alledgedly free.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
my point was just because the tribes treated slaves like family and let them ‘earn’ their way to freedom didn’t make it any less of a slavery.
I’m not denying that america put the spin on complete ownership, I just don’t know that as fact. I do know that there were instances of slaves here being treated like family and earning freedom and privately being educated.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Jestnot - black men were given the freedom to vote long before women (of any color) were.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Even if this is true, and a small amount of blacks owned slaves, what difference does it make. They weren’t the majority and it doesn’t take away what happened or make it any better.
To top it all off, in the 1800’s any black person that was free was trying to hide. They weren’t ALLOWED to own property, even the most upstanding black person was in fear of being killed or taken back into slavery. How were they owning land and slaves?????
By sickoftheneocons
September 29, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
I’d like to know where it all originated. Who was that first white man (or woman) who looked at a black man (or woman) and said “Because he/she is black, they are inferior to me?” How did it all get started in the first place? Was it when some Europoean merchant stepped foot on the African continent, saw the indiginous (sp) population wearing “less sophisticated” clothing and carrying “less sophisticated” tools and weapons that he thought, these people will be easy to dominate because they have inferior trappings then they are inferior to me, oh, and they just happen to be black or did they think they were inferior becuase they were black? I’d just like to know.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Renee - I guess it just goes to show that not everything is black and white (no pun intended honestly). There were black landowners.. I mean gone with the wind even said that and you gotta believe everything written in there! (TOTALLY JK). Can’t explain how..sorry, I wasn’t there.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Renee,
Of course it was Blacks who started the slavery of Blacks. It was Blacks who sold their own people into Slavery!
And though I am not concerned about that at all. I do find it interesting that the very people who were responsible for selling people into slavery to begin with, have somehow got a free pass in all of this…
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Renee - sorry meant to add this in my last post. No it doesn’t make up for it but there were other people involved besides the white men.
It’s hard to compare apples and oranges but the best analogy I could come up with: If 5 guys decided to rape a girl and all of them were involved with the tackle and the violations of her personal space, yet 4 were white and 1 was black… are the 4 white boys more responsible for the act than the 1 black boy just because he was the minority??
By Scott
September 29, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
You know, I love history. Read tons of it. I think history is an invaluable tool to remind us where we have been and guide us to where we should or should not go.
Having said that, I am not now, nor will I ever be responsible for the great deeds or horrible atrocities committed by the valiant or the despicable throughout a time period that my grandfather wasn’t even around for, much less me. I am certainly responsible for my actions and how I let the knowledge of that history shape my own mores and attitudes, and not the shortcomings of prior generations.
Slavery was/is a horrible institution, regardless of where it has been practiced. I haven’t heard anyone dispute that and I certainly wouldn’t. But telling BB that she should not tell anyone to get over slavery because it is akin to her cat’s death is just plain silly. Which one of those actually occurred during her lifetime? Do you think it might be reaching a tad to expect her to wallow in the wrongs of 150 years, or even 40 years ago, if that isn’t part of her history? Or anyone who is in her position? Certainly it would behoove her and anyone to know and learn from that history to shape their present and future. But take personal responsibility for it? Hardly.
Racism is out there from all sides. Every race has some ignorance in it toward other races. No one race has the market cornered on it. Before I get jumped on by those who know I am not black, I am speaking from first hand experience, not supposition or tv education or media indoctrination. There is not a racial group in this town I have not worked with or for and I have seen racism rear it’s ugly head in every environment and situation. The media isn’t solely responsible for that, but does exacerbate things, especially in Atlanta, at times. They would help more by just reporting the event impartially but that just isn’t the media of any kind. Let’s face it, peace and harmony would make for a slow news day. Every community has good sensible leaders and people in it…it’s just a shame that we only give airtime to the idiots (kinda like when tornados hit and they find the dumbest sucker in town to talk to..)
One last thing…reverse racism does not exist…judging someone based on their race is racism, regardless of the direction it comes from or toward
By lozen
September 29, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Okay, so I am old enough to remember the days before civil rights. I went to a segregated school. I lived in a segregated neighborhood. i heard the way white people talked about black people. I heard preachers and sunday school teachers claim if god had meant for whites and blacks to live together, we would have been born in the same neighborhoods. The reason slavery was so appalling in this country is because this country was supposed to be a country where all were equal and free according to our constitution and declaration of independence. For how many years did we live a lie in this country? My parents’ and grandparents didn’t own slaves; they were poor white trash. But they thought black people were ALL … make up your list of everything negative here. They looked at black people as less than human. They chose to believe a lie and live a lie. How could they think of black people as being just like them, treat them the way they did, and still pretend to themselves that they were good, god-fearing people? They couldn’t, and that’s why they bought the lies. Now whenever I am forced to attend family functions I hear the comments about black people again! They shouldn’t get special treatment, it’s time to end affirmative action. But there’s still the talk about how ALL blacks are different from ALL whites. The prejudice is still there. In my opinion no white person has any right to tell any black person what’s wrong with blacks. Look at your own group and do something about that. And stop trying to rewrite history to make your white a* feel better!
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Of course it was Blacks who started the slavery of Blacks. It was Blacks who sold their own people into Slavery!
If they hadn’t the white people they were selling them to would have taken them as slaves. If you have a gun to me (or sword) telling me I need to turn over some people if I don’t want to die or become a slave I bet I will fill a ship up with people too.
I guess it was a black salesman who sailed over and gave the plantation owners a presentation on how slaves would be beneficial to them.
BB- Any black landowners were few and far between and have been until recently. (By recently the last 50 years).
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
sickoftheneocons - sigh I swear we’ve been through this. Everyone has added their knowledge of the subject. White african colonies enslaved black african colonies and sold them. Someone said they did so to ensure their own safety which I would be inclined to agree with as well. There is a LOT more to it than this. Not to forget to mention that in Roman times there were white people enslaved.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Good question, Renee.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
BB- I hear your analogy but saying the blacks are just as much to blame for slavery as the whites is just asinine. And the blacks started slavery blah, blah.
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Sickoftheneocons - slavery as an institution had been abolished in Europe, it basically UnChristian. Europeans started traveling, ran into Africans who went “Pst, we do slaves, you want to buy some?” Europeans could not justify it. But the Bible states something about “non-believers can be enslaved” and since many Africans were content with their Islam or Animist religions, they would not convert to Christianity. And therefore the Europeans were able to justify it. Ethiopia had been historically Christian from around 100A.D. and was never enslaved and was not colonized until Mussolini/Italians did in the 1930s, unlike the rest of Africa.
There is a whole section in the Old Testament that deals with the treatment of slaves so it is not a white/black thing. There are even rules related to using them for sex.
There was three-part piece in PBS a few months ago, and while it did not explain slavery, it did address why the world became predominately white-dominated. Temperate climates and the easy domestication of plants and livestock were the two primary reasons. Metallurgy for weapons as well. Zebras had had centuries on horses to be skittish around anything that might want to eat it, including humans, so were not as easily domesticated. In fact, they still are not capable of domestication.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Renee - I didn’t mean to imply that they are equally wrong. But you implied that because the black slave owners were so few that it didn’t matter yet the responsibility of my ancestors is still on my shoulders because I’m white…that’s where I was going with it.
By sickoftheneocons
September 29, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Buildingbridges, pardon me, white african colonies enslaved black african colonies, yes but when and why did those first white colonies enslave those first black colonies, when was it decided amongst those white african colonies that those black africvan colonies were inferior and needed to be enslaved? and did they do so because they thought that becuase they had black skin, they were naturally inferior or did they think the black african colonies were inferior because they had inferior technology and just happened to be black? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Renee,
You live in a bubble. No, no slave amabassadors sailed over to the U.S. to let us all know about slaves to be had in Africa. No, not at all. It was known here because the slave trade from Africa had been going on for CENTURIES!
No one rowed a little boat ahsore in Africa and put a gun to anyone’s head or threw a net over them as was depicted in Roots. (And we all know that whole story was fiction.)
Blacks in Africa sold them! And certain tribal leaders amassed fortunes for selling their own people into slavery…
By sickoftheneocons
September 29, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Jestnot, so it’s your contention that traveling Europeans happened upon some Christian Ethiopians who pandered members of the African population as slaves because they were non-believers? Interesting.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Scott. Good post. There is no reverse racism just like there is no reverse discrimination. Racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Okay, let’s just say for arguments sake that there is a black landowner. His former master gave him 5 acres and likes this black man very much. Now even though his former master likes him very much, the other white people in the community do not like him, do not think he should be owning property, etc. He wants to seem like he is one of them, he wants to be accepted. He has a house, he gets slaves, that’s what he knows, maybe he will be one of them now.
Or scenario two. There is a black landowner. His former master gave him 5 acres and likes this black man very much, the other white people int he community do not like him. He wants to help other blacks. He takes them into his home, but calls them slaves. They then attain safety from the white person but for the books they are slaves.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Jack - thank you
By Jestnot
September 29, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
sickof - NO, I was stating that Ethiopians were not enslaved because they were already Christian, but many other Africans were not. And therefore could be enslaved.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
No one rowed a little boat ahsore in Africa and put a gun to anyone’s head or threw a net over them as was depicted in Roots. (And we all know that whole story was fiction.)
And how do you know, oh wise one, that the whole story was fiction. Because I KNOW otherwise and would LOVE to go there with you!
By lilith
September 29, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
It is true that all minorities in this country have been treated horribly. Starting with the native americans and followed by Irish, Scots, Italians, Chinese and more recently Vietnamese and Mexicans, there’s been very bad treatment. Oh, and women and children weren’t always treated so good either! A lot of indians, a lot of blacks, a lot of women, hate white men. Surely you guys feel this somewhere deep in your lily white bones. If I were a white man, I’d be very afraid of the future backlash that’s coming.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
Ok Renee..that’s fine and both very possible ideas of solutions. Here’s another..
Scenerio three: a black land-owner. Maybe he aquired the land on his own. Maybe his fellow neighbors are also black land-owners. They own slaves because they too, like the white slave owners, were thinking that it’s “ok” to own slaves and lived their lives in a way that it was considered “proper” to live.
They aren’t all martyrs, maybe they owned slaves because they COULD and WANTED to.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
*A lot of indians, a lot of blacks, a lot of women, hate white men. Surely you guys feel this somewhere deep in your lily white bones. If I were a white man, I’d be very afraid of the future backlash that’s coming. *
Sure it concerns me, but simply becasue it proves to me yet again that racism and bigotry is not exclusive to anyone but that all are capable of it.
By sickoftheneocons
September 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Why, amongst all this ballyhoo over slavery and racism has no one brought up the plight of the Jews? My ancestors were among some of the first Hassidic Jews in the world and my people are still discriminated against, not only in America, but the world over and have been for, not hundreds of years, but THOUSANDS! No disrespect to the black folks on this blog, but no one tried to wipe your race completly off the face of the Earth. Why do I not whine and complain about it? because, while it affects me daily, I choose to ignore it. I choose to not let the injustices of the past affect my present. Good luck to us all!
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
BB - The rapist analogy really was apples and oranges, as you suggested.
Scott, correct me if I’m wrong, but no one said that you were “responsible for the great deeds or horrible atrocities committed by the valiant or the despicable throughout a time period that my grandfather wasn’t even around for, much less me.”
My comment was that there are consequences to every action, and that sometimes those consequences extend throughout the generations.
“…telling BB that she should not tell anyone to get over slavery because it is akin to her cat’s death is just plain silly. Which one of those actually occurred during her lifetime?
How much does it matter? Furthermore, I didn’t tell BB that she shouldn’t tell anyone to get over slavery because it is “akin” to her cat’s death. I, unlike you, would NEVER EVER suggest that slavery is even remotely similar to the death of a friggin cat. If you re-read what I said, you will (hopefully) understand that I told her that NO ONE has a right to determine how long it should take for anyone to get over anything. Period. I don’t care if you’re getting over the loss of a job, boyfriend, car, mother, or a turtle. NO one can tell me how long I should take to get over something. THAT was my point. Sorry if you missed it. Furthermore, whether something happens in one’s lifetime is less relevant than whether it AFFECTS their life.
“Do you think it might be reaching a tad to expect her to wallow in the wrongs of 150 years, or even 40 years ago, if that isn’t part of her history?”
Yes, I do think it’s reaching to expect someone to “wallow”…. I never said that I expected her to wallow. Those are your words not mine. Further, if BB (or anyone else) doesn’t understand the “wrongs of 40 years ago” because it’s not a part of their history, they should shut up and talk about something they DO know and/or understand. (Not directed at you BB)
“Certainly it would behoove her and anyone to know and learn from that history to shape their present and future. But take personal responsibility for it? Hardly.”
Who said anything about taking personal responsibility? Not me.
Lastly, no offense Scott, I’m sure you’re a cool dude, but I really don’t give a flying fig newton what racial groups you’ve worked with. Your “first hand” experience is hardly that.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Or scenario two. There is a black landowner. His former master gave him 5 acres and likes this black man very much, the other white people int he community do not like him. He wants to help other blacks. He takes them into his home, but calls them slaves. They then attain safety from the white person but for the books they are slaves.
Put your right hand on the red spot and your left foot on the green spot. Now move your left hand between your legs and put it on the second red spot…
Twister was a hell of a game!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 29, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
Your ignorance of the slave trade shows just how much you truly lack in intelligence. Yes, some African were sold by their tribes. However, most were kidnapped by Europeans to be sold and I am positive guns were held to their heads to keep them on that ship. How do I know, because they did not bring over the weakest Africans or those that were frail? Only the strongest survived…
By taboga
September 29, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
And how do you know, oh wise one, that the whole story was fiction. Because I KNOW otherwise and would LOVE to go there with you!
Renee,
You may be the only person who is unaware that Alex Haley invented that whole story!
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
BB - I’m going to leave it alone. Black people are at the root of slavery! Not only did they cause it, they provoked it, and encouraged it. The slaves probably weren’t slaves. They misinterpreted it as being slaves when they were actually adopted family members.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
As I will state again, feelings are relative. I’ll get over sabrina’s death in time but it’s hasn’t even been 2 weeks yet and she wasn’t a ‘friggin’ (slang word for f**kin) cat to me, she was my family. Can we put her out of this? please?
With all due respect, you did inadvertly tell me that I was responsible for my ancestors actions.
12:15pm post “For whatever reason, many white people like to sweep slavery under the rug, and refuse to take responsibility for their ancestors role in it.
Hopefully, the white woman who was passed over for that job will understand that there are consequences for every single thing you do, and that sometimes those consequences live on throughout generations. “
Lilith - a lot of us “lily whites” have atleast one of those nationalities in their blood and I can trace 3 of those nationalities down many many generations…so since they were treated badly should I still be upset about it?
By taboga
September 29, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Your ignorance of the slave trade shows just how much you truly lack in intelligence. Yes, some African were sold by their tribes. However, most were kidnapped by Europeans to be sold and I am positive guns were held to their heads to keep them on that ship. How do I know, because they did not bring over the weakest Africans or those that were frail? Only the strongest survived…
Lord have mercy…
By Jack
September 29, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
We should all go home today and listen to some Beatle’s music and everyone will be in a better mood tomorrow. Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Rd. or The White Album should do.
By Carol Marianne
September 29, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, Believe it or not, in Canada, to take a man’s name upon marriage, is only social convention and here, we have something called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it means exactly what it says. Changing her name after marriage, is a matter of social convention…only! It is not legally required. My spouse and I are interpendent however, I have kept my family name and society can read into that what they want. I do not buy in to society or religious beliefs about a woman giving up her personal identity, in other words, I am a whole person, not half of my spouse. This is all about semantics but in this situation, words carry a lot of social weight.
I myself, when asked if I’m Mrs. So and So, tell others, no…she’s dead (my in-law). I am not who I married. I signed my wedding certificate (Justice of the Peace) as my own person, not as an appendage. Social symbolism is quaint but is choice in North America. In the province of Quebec, women automatically keep their family names.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Taboga - since you brought it up I am sure you have an abundance of facts to back up your statement. Like I said I would love to go there with you.
Oh, and your personal opinions don’t count.
Like I said, I would LOVE to go there with you. You need to stick with things that you know about. Contract bidding, Bush, any Republican issue that you rant about etc….
JBM - you’re up next lol
By Carol Marianne
September 29, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Shaunti’s conservative and traditional observation is that like it or not, name change by a woman, is a societal convention. Is it written in stone in the States, so to speak, that upon marriage, a woman has to change her name? Where is the democracy in that?
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Renee throwing hands up…. yes that’s EXACTLY what I said. White men were not to blame at all in any way. I said that. I also said that blacks came over here and said “please oh please let me be your slave and get beaten and bear your illegitamate children and become a part of your breeding farm” I said that. I also said that blacks were the root of ALL evil. The hurricane ISN’T bushes fault after all, it’s gotta be a black persons fault. That’s EXACTLY what I said.
GOOD GRIEF!!! Your the one that couldn’t see ANY wrong that ANY black slave owner did, you sent it all back to being the fault of a white man when it very well MAY NOT have been. Why is it that YOU can defend your black slaves but I can’t defend that there actually MIGHT have been some decent white folks back then that treated slaves right and gave them freedom and educated them? or that there might have been a couple of rotten black apples in there?
You have just shown me your prejudice. You have stated what YOU would have me thinking and it’s FAR FAR from the truth.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Jack - I like yellow submarine personally.. will that suffice? :)
By Scott
September 29, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
JBM - If that made you angry, sorry…but let’s get a few things straight right here
1) It’s a tad ego-centric of you to assume that all of my comments were based on SOMETHING YOU SAID. I didn’t call you out, because I didn’t feel it neccessary since most of what I was addressing didn’t come from you.
2) You want me to get (hopefully) your points, but you completely miss mine. Thanks for reciproicity
3) I don’t care if you don’t give a flying fig newton what I have done. I have not contradicted one racially discriminatory experience you have claimed to witness or be victim of. That’s not fair to you since I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t dispute what you say in that regard. Don’t you dare sit there in your condescending, chip on your shoulder tone, and tell me what I have or have not done or experienced first hand. Because I am white I have no first hand experience? Please. That was about the most racist thing you could have said and had it printed on this blog. Why didn’t you just call me a stupid cracker and get it over with? I have always respected your opinions but thank you for pointing out that I can’t expect the same from you
By taboga
September 29, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Renee,
Did you hear about the terrorist attacks on 9/11…?
Just checking.
Anyway, since I thought that everyone under the blue knew about Haley’s hoax, and as i was not prepared to offer “evidence” - I did a quick Google search and found an article by a Black Man that I thought you might enjoy:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/alex.htm
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 29, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Discussing Race in this country is a lost cause, so let’s just divide the country into 3 parts and live seperately from today forward. (Whites, Blacks and Others)
Now, let the discussion continue: Which part of the country do your group prefer? LOL:)
Ha.ha.ha….
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
did someone say cracker? That reminds me, I’m hungry…
sorry Scott- I’m not trying to undermind your post, it was a good post I liked it because I have felt the same way a couple of times today, but it is getting late in the day and everyone’s temper is flying because this, like so many other things, is an age-old argument and we all see it differently.
By Renee
September 29, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
I just don’t want to continue going back and forth, hence the sarcasm with my earlier post.
And for the record we never discussed decent white people, and I never disputed that there were any.
I’ve showed you my prejudices, against whom dear? White people? Because I will not agree that black people are the cause of slavery? It’s very convenient to put slavery on black people, and quite ridiculous in my opinion. But if you want to continue believing that it was black slave owners beginning and encouraging slavery then please by all means, do so. Like picking through a rape and finding out there was a time the rape victim gave it to the rapist willingly. So this time wouldn’t be a rape. (Apples and oranges right). Of course. Anyway, hate that you got so upset on your end.
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
BB - you really really missed it, dear. Seriously. Know how I know? “I’ll get over sabrina’s death in time…” ????
?????
?????
?????
Did you really think this had anything to do with your cat? Oh, and for the record, I have 3 cats, 1 dog and 2 turtles. I love my pets as though they were my children and can’t imagine my life without a single one of them.
For the last time, my point was that no one person has a right to tell any other person how long it should take to get over any one thing. PERIOD.
You said:
With all due respect, you did inadvertly tell me that I was responsible for my ancestors actions.
And then you quoted me as saying, “For whatever reason, many white people like to sweep slavery under the rug, and refuse to take responsibility for their ancestors role in it.
I misused the words “take responsibility for” when I should’ve said “acknowledge.” That is what I meant. Many white people DO INDEED refuse to acknowledge their ancestors role in slavery.
My final comment on this subject is a quote:
In my opinion no white person has any right to tell any black person what’s wrong with blacks. Look at your own group and do something about that. And stop trying to rewrite history to make your white as feel better!* — Lozen/AJC/Opinions/Woman to Woman/September 29, 2005
In closing, in my opinion, no white person has any right to tell any black person how to feel, when to feel it, and when to STOP feeling it. Once you and your mama have walked ONE SHORT NYC BLOCK in my mama’s and my shoes….
Come talk to me.
By Archie
September 29, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Thanks Lozen for 3:06 pm post. Just Being Me,I now understand you better and I am not stereotyping.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
BB - perhaps
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
renee - I never SAID black people caused slavery and I would not want you to say they did. THAT’s where the hangup is.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
BB …but I wasn’t angry until that post…heck, I routinely disagree with Lozen but thought she had some insightful things to say today…I just thought that was out of bounds
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this
JBM - whatever. this is bull s**. Everyone is taking everybody elses comments out of context and putting them back like THEY want to hear them. I never said to get over it, no one can tell anyone when they should get over it, I NEVER SAID THEY COULD!!!
You have once again implied that because I’m not black (and what the hell does my mom got to do with it?) I have no right to make any comments about it. My mom had nothing to do with slavery either. I AM NOT taking responsibility for those things and you bringing up that me and my mom need to walk a mile in your and your moms shoes goes to again prove that you indeed feel that I as a white person am responsible for any ancestors that may or may not have owned slaves.
I did NOT miss the point DEAR I was just making a statement and ya’ll need to NOT bring sabrina in this no matter what the point of it is for. I was p** off the wall the first time you made that comment but I let it go, pick your battles right? Not because of WHAT you were saying but just that you would even bring it up in the first place. I didn’t start this conversation on slavery, I have never once stated that I thought it was a GOOD thing and that I wish it would come back. I have done NOTHING but say what I know about it and state my opinions on it. BUT instead of listening and having an adult conversation about it you say “walk a day in my shoes” well HONEY walk a day in mine… it’s no picnic in the park either!!
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Scott - I have no idea what post you are talking about.
By Carol Marianne
September 29, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
It’s unbelievable in reading most of the replies to this question of women changing their names once married, that there are some people who still believe a woman is chattel. Religious beliefs are….beliefs not actual law and it appears those in favour of a woman obeying her spouse, are patriarchal in their thinking. Sad when one thinks about it.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
BB- I was refering to JBM’s last post directed to me
By Just Being Me
September 29, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
LOL Renee… If I’m “up,” I’m on my way up outta here! It’s time to shut this PC down and head home!
Scott -
If you weren’t addressing me, then I apologize. The first comment of yours I quoted, I didn’t assume it was directed toward me. That’s why I started out with, “no one said…” After that, I only responded to those comments of yours that appeared to be directed at me concerning my reference to BBs cat.
Because I am white I have no first hand experience? You were referring to first hand experience with racism. Unless you have been a victim of racist - not a witness to racism - I wouldn’t care how many groups you’ve worked with, it is NOT first hand experience.
I’m walking out the door. Y’all have a good night.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
and if I have stepped out of bounds there are numerous others here who have too…
By Carol Marianne
September 29, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Here in Canada, changing her name, is a woman’s choice. It’s part of our country’s constitution.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Carol - changing your name is not a law down here either. Nor does it always have to do with religion. The reason you don’t see much discussion about it on this ppage right now is because most of the people in here don’t see it as much of an issue
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Scott - oh ok. sorry, seeing a little red at the moment. :)
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
JBM - I have been the victim of it as well as the witness…THAT is my first hand experience
Have a safe drive home
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Yeah I think we are all pretty much in agreement about the name changing topic. I mean, some of us think it should still be honored but in the long run it’s not that big of a deal either way.
Good thing tomorrow is friday. What else can we think of to discuss. Maybe we can find something a little less emotional in light of the fact that it’s supposed to be a BEAUTIFUL and cool weekend. Perfect for going out with the family and forgetting about all the hardships and crap of the world. Family is more important than all of that anyways.
By FatMoose
September 29, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Bridges,
Sorry to see people brought Sabrina into this mess of a blog. Some people have no class - just understand that and smile.
ps - Take heart in tha Sabrina and Moose are using these classless peoples mouths as litter boxes at night;)
Have a good day.
And I will add that, although you did not state it; ‘Get over it’ is not a bad message regarding slavery, IF you are speaking to one who never EXPERIENCED it - which goes for any person over the age of ??.
As for Discrimination? Well, there seems to be enough to go around (not specific to one color, but a class) and any fixes would have to be systemic in light of that - and not directed to a special group.
By taboga
September 29, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Let’s ask a simple question. And to answer the question, no one needs to try and recall what they learned in school or what someone has told them - just think for yourself.
Does anyone believe that ships would anchor off the coast of African countries and send small boats ashore with a handful of men equipped with small arms and nets? And do you think that these men hid in the bushes waiting for a black to come by so they could throw a net around him and haul him back to the ship?
And this was how hundreds of slaves were captured, put on the ship and were brought over here?
Does anyone really believe that?
Well, that’s exactly the way Alex Haley described how his ancestors were brought to America in Roots…
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - I think I told BB already ( and if I haven’t please accept this too BB) but please accept my sincere condolences for your loss. I know that is hard…Take care
By Jack
September 29, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Carol, How did you find out about this blog in Canada? Welcome to the fray.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - lol yeah I know. :) You have a good evening too. Again I’m sorry about Moose.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Taboga - yeah and that’s what some read and believe.
Scott - I believe you did but I appreciate it the same.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Tab. Roots was good. So was The Autobiogrphy of Miss Jane Pittman. The later brought tears to this white boy’s eyes. Didn’t put us in a good light at all.
By FatMoose
September 29, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Scott,
Thanks, that is big of you.
By Dusty
September 29, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Renee, have you heard of Professor Henry Louis Gates, WEB DuBois Professor of Humanities at Harvard? You should read some of his writings. Go to Google and call up “professor gates of harvard”. On the first result page, scroll down to “Alex Haley’s ‘Roots’was plagiarized from a white author”. You might find out what is well known in academic circles.
By Scott
September 29, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
FatMoose & BB - Your very welcome. I know how hard it is to lose a beloved pet and I pray that the good memories will overwhelm the bad ones for you both
By Renee
September 29, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Yes Dusty it is well discussed in academic circles. I’m not sure what circles you are implying I am part of. But just because it is the belief of the majority in an academic circle, does not make it fact. And I have read writings from both authors. While they make good points about some issues, all they say is not fact.
I’m gone for the day, no need to repond. It will go on forever, and its not that important, at least not at 5:00 when it’s time to go home.
By buildingbridges
September 29, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
JBM - I know you won’t read this until tomorrow and I really don’t want to get this all stirred up again so please take my following comments as a left over anger from today, but the point that I think I failed to get across was not that I didn’t get what you were saying when making the comparison about sabrina it was this statement that sent me over the edge:
“I would NEVER EVER suggest that slavery is even remotely similar to the death of a friggin cat”
That ‘death of a friggin cat’ was the phrase that caused my eyes to lose focus out of pure anger. that’s why I responded the way I did, it wasn’t about your original post it was about the fact that it was very disrespectful especially with it being so soon after she died. I was trying to state that those feelings are relative. I was never exposed to slavery, does it make me angry, yes very much so, but in a far off kind of way, in the same way that the holocaust makes me angry, I can’t do anything about it I hate like hell that it happened but I am personally “over it” because I was never directly involved with it in the first place. I was very much involved with the care and watching of my cat deteriate into hardly nothing and watching her die in my arms. THAT was very real to me and very fresh. NO I’m not stupid enough to even compare the two but that’s because the two aren’t comparable. I have no emotional ties to slavery or the holocaust, I did have those emotional ties to my cat.
By Jack
September 29, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Hi Dusty. Hit any cans in them thar hills?
By taboga
September 30, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Comrades and other anti-americans (I apologize for leaving out you others previously - it won’t happen again),
Reading the AJC Opinion section is a nice escape from reality every morning.
Andrew Young has it figured, that the reason for low voter turnout is because of many people’s obligation to their work! Yep, that’s it. Many people just can’t get off of work for a couple hours every 2 to 4 years in order to vote!
They’re worried about getting fired! But of course, on any other day except election day - there’s no problem getting off work whatsoever. “Sick Days” are used left and right and any one of about 4,182 excuses will be used to get out of work on any day people choose.
But let that one Tuesday roll around every few years - and that’s THE day that so many people are devoted to their jobs and simply can’t make it to the polls!
I do need to give credit where credit is due however. The honorable Andrew Young did make his obligatory reference to Martin Luther King in his piece, BUT - he did not mention “Selma” at all!
By Archie
September 30, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this
I do agree Taboga that people could work harder to get out and vote. That might be the only thing in that post that I agree with but it is a very good point. I do not argue with anyone about why they don’t vote because some don’t vote for religious reasons and the rest,well, pick-a-reason.
By Bruce
September 30, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this
A little humor for a Friday morning!
Dear Husband:
I’m writing you this letter to tell you that I’m leaving you for good. I’ve been a good woman to you for seven years and I have nothing to show for it.
These last two weeks have been hell. Your boss called to tell me that you had quit your job today and that was the last straw. Last week, you came home and didn’t notice that I had gotten my hair and nails done, cooked your favorite meal and even wore a brand new negligee. You came home and ate in two minutes, and went straight to sleep after watching the game.
You don’t tell me you love me anymore, you don’t touch me or anything. Either you’re cheating or you don’t love me anymore, whatever the case is, I’m gone.
P.S. If you’re trying to find me, don’t. Your BROTHER and I are moving away to West Virginia together! Have a great life!
Signed Your EX-Wife
Dear Ex-Wife
Nothing has made my day more than receiving your letter. It’s true that you and I have been married for seven years, although a good woman is a far cry from what you’ve been. I watch sports so much to try to drown out your constant nagging. Too bad that doesn’t work.
I did notice when you cut off all of your hair last week, the first thing that came to mind was “You look just like a man!” My mother raised me to not say anything if you can’t say anything nice. When you cooked my favorite meal, you must have gotten me confused with MY BROTHER, because I stopped eating pork seven years ago. I went to sleep on you when you had on that new negligee because the price tag was still on it. I prayed that it was a coincidence that my brother had just borrowed fifty dollars from me that morning and your negligee was $49.99.
After all of this, I still loved you and felt that we could work it out. So when I discovered that I had hit the lotto for ten million dollars, I quit my job and bought us two tickets to Jamaica. But when I got home you were gone. Everything happens for a reason I guess. I hope you have the filling life you always wanted. My lawyer said with your letter that you wrote, you won’t get a dime from me. So take care.
P.S. I don’t know if I ever told you this but Carl, my brother was born Carla. I hope that’s not a problem.
Signed Rich As Hell and Free!
By Lyrazel
September 30, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
So why not just have a National Voting Day that is a Natl. Holiday designed for one reason to get people to the polls. We have many silly holidays now where just banks and federal offices close…why not make one of them vote day? …..still laziness and apathy seems to be most peoples excuse for not voting, not work. Could the reason be we DONT have a national voting day be the fact politicians really dont want everyone to vote…
By Renee
September 30, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this
Bruce - That’s funny.
Lyrazel - I think a National Voting Day would be a good idea, but I don’t think voting should ever be a problem,
By Jack
September 30, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this
Andrew Young lost all credibility when he showed up in court to say good things about Jamal Al Amin and asked for the courts mercy for this coll blooded murderer.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
BRUCE - Hilarious!!
BB - I’m not doing this all over again today, but I want to clarify two things. First, I won’t even try to explain my apparently offensive use of the phrase “friggin cat,” but it wasn’t meant to hurt you. The lost point was that the atrocities of slavery and affects of racism cannot, in my opinion, be compared with any other loss. Secondly, in my 4:08 post, the part that began with, “My final comment on this subject…” was not directed toward you. It was a general comment to any and everyone who participated in the discussion on racism. It had nothing to do with your individual mother.
By Jack
September 30, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
The polls are oprn 7-7. They do that so people can vote before or after work. Apathy is the problem. The voter id law is a GOOd idea. That prevents dead people from casting votes.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
Bruce that’s great! I had something funny I was going to post too. I’m sure y’all have read it but still cute.
perspective on life according to george costanza: “The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A death. What’s that, a bonus?!?
I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you go live in an old age home. You get kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, then, when you start work, you get a gold watch on your first day. You work forty years until you’re young enough to enjoy your retirement. You drink alcohol, you party, and you get ready for High School. You go to primary school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back, you spend your last 9 months floating with luxuries like central heating, spa, room service on tap, then you finish off as an orgasm!! Amen.”
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
Speaking of the voter id law… is there something I need to do now? I got something in the mail supposedly from the voters registration office but they wanted my ss# and the return was just a postcard, no sealed envelope and I wasn’t about to send my ss# on a postcard that isn’t secured. I didn’t know what to do with it.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
Why are we so close minded about everything?
Everyone in New Orleans who didn’t get out should have and could have.
Everyone is able to vote since they can take a sick day off for everything else.
Why on earth is it so hard to consider other variables? Other potential situations?
I’m not saying that everyone has a valid excuse for not voting. But, why is it so hard to consider (and acknowledge) the fact that some do?
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
and to add to that… unless your boss is a complete a hole, which I know there are some, they aren’t going to have a problme with you coming in a little late, taking a long lunch or leaving early to go vote!
By Renee
September 30, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
Cute BB
By Jack
September 30, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
A man was driving down the street in a nervous sweat because he was late for a very important meeting and couldn’t find a parking place. Looking up toward heaven, he said “Lord, take pity on me. If you find me a parking place I will go to Mass every Sunday and give up tequila the rest of my life.”
Miraculously, a parking place suddenly appeared. The man looked up again and said, “Never mind- I just found one!”
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
Renee, you wanted FACTS on Alex Haley. Perhaps you haven’t read the court records. Hal Courlander, author of “The African”, a 1967 novel, took Haley to court for plagiarisim. In court, Haley admitted to the judge that he had lifted most of his material for “Roots” from Courlander’s book. The judge allowed an out of court settlement. Haley paid Courlander $500,000. “Roots” was pure fiction.
If you care to deny what Haley himself admitted, go ahead.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
JBM - your right, I would consider very few things valid excuses, but there are some.
By Bruce
September 30, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
I like that BB, sounds like a prefect ending to me.
I am all for another day off with pay. Give me a voter day and that would make me so happy. Where I vote it takes me about 15 minutes. That would leave me with 7 hours and 45 minutes I would get paid to do what I wanted….. Bring it on.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Jack - LOL that’s funny!
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Jack - Allow me to be devil’s advocate for a moment. In New York where we have a very useful public transportation system and polling places on every corner, the polls are open from 6:00a to 9:00p.
Here in Atlanta, there are many, albeit not the majority, who rely on public transportation to get to and from work. In that MARTA is hardly convenient for many, there are too many people who leave at 7:00 to get to work and won’t get home until 6:30/7:00p. Many of those same people work far away from their homes, therefore far from their polling places.
For some people, even early voting doesn’t help.
For some people, the opportunity to arrive late or leave early for the sake of voting doesn’t even exist.
Some people’s bosses give them a hard time.
Some people live check-to-check and can’t afford to take two hours off from work to vote.
Some people don’t care.
Some people don’t see the value of their vote.
Some people don’t believe in voting.
Some people don’t want to be involved in politics, for whatever reason…
There are scores, possibly hundreds, of reasons people don’t vote.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Duh! I forgot my closing sentence:
Apathy is A reason people don’t vote, not THE reason.
By Renee
September 30, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Actually Dusty - Alex Haley SETTLED out of court for $650,000 not $500,000 AND this was for a portion of the story not the ENTIRE story. And there are a dozen factors surrounding the settlement. I am aware of what he has been ACCUSED of, but thank you Dusty. I thought we left this alone yesterday.
By Jack
September 30, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
JBM. Yeah. It’s just like working out. Easy to be lazy and not do it. Any excuse will do.
By Joker
September 30, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
I saw a whole line of dead people voting the last election. Standing right there, looking like ghosts, and then voting.
Stupid poll workers. And maybe the state had had all their software development ‘outsourced’, so there were no checks-and-balances for absentee ballots.
I have always thought you should have to show ID to vote, and when I do that, the poll worker looks at me like I am a moron. So instead they require that I verbally spell out a complex last name. “Duh, why do you think I showed you my license?”
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
JACK - that was too funny!
By Renee
September 30, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
My FINAL comment on this. It was only THREE to FOUR paragraphs that the lawsuit was pertaining to.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
JACK - Open your mind, man. For some, it goes beyond just being lazy. But, nevermind.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
OK most of the vents on AJC don’t get to me but this one did..
“Most renters are irresponsible people who can’t buy a house.”
I don’t know how many of y’all read cobb county vents but for some reason they’ve all gotten on the apartment thing (first it was the suvs, now apartments) and most of them agree that apartment dwellers are pretty much scum.
I don’t get how some people think…why would anyone think that because someone is in an apartment, they are too irresponsible to buy a house? I’m single, just out of college.. I’m not READY to buy a house. I could, just don’t WANT to. OH AND I DRIVE AN SUV…I guess I’m the scum of the scum huh?
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
It’s kinda like the things some said about the name change. that it was too much hassle. Nothing is too much hassle if you REALLY want to do something. It might boil down to what sounds like a good excuse but if it was something the person really wanted, nothing would stand in the way.
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
People don’t skip voting just because they are lazy. Philosophy aside, most people don’t vote because they don’t see any real affect on their daily lives. Why do young people vote in such few numbers? Because there are few issues that really affect them. Most young people aren’t yet affluent to worry about tax shelters, homestead exemptions, or the future of social security. Once those issues affect their lives (i.e., when they are older and more successful) they tend to vote in higher numbers. I voted last November but considering the outcome of the majority (of which I am not), I probably won’t vote in a state election again, at least not in Georgia. I will however continue to vote in local elections that affect me directly.
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Jack, didn’t hit any cans in the hazy blue but did get to a Chopin piano concert and an art exhibit by some guy named Fambrough. I am so full of culture (and fried seafood) that my floating house may sink.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
Eirik - You voted last nov. but didn’t get your way so you think that your vote didn’t count?
That’s whats wrong with a lot of people and why they don’t vote. If we all threw a hissy fit everytime we didn’t get our way and quit voting then we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces, giving up our own rights.
By Jack
September 30, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
JBM. I know. Laziness is just one reason of many. But that and apathy are probably on top. “My vote won’t count, it’s just one vote”
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
Dusty - that’s aight..I shot up your share! ;-)
By Jack
September 30, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
If you can vote and don’t. You should not criticize the government.
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
Well hissyfit sounds good Buildingbridges and that’s the kind of rhetoric that guilts people into voting, but the truth is given the electoral college system, my vote didn’t amount to squat. The outcome in Georgia was already well known as far as the Presidential election goes. I didn’t vote for Bush but I really wasn’t that disappointed that he won. I haven’t given up any right, I can still vote anytime I want to. I’m sorry but in reality, life is not a civics lesson.
But tell me..why someone should vote when they absolutely know their vote will not have any affect on the outcome? And don’t get me wrong, I have always voted since 1978..to date myself…but frankly I’m not buying the “it’s my duty as an American crap” anymore.
By Jack
September 30, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Eirik. Imagine if every voter had your opinion. What a place this would be. Dork.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Eirik - that is of course your perogotive (sp?). Hissyfit wasn’t a term trying to ‘guilt’ anyone into voting.
I definitely don’t agree with your philosophy about it all though.
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jack,
So answer the question…why vote when it will have no affect?
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Or..why vote when you don’t care about any of the issues, and don’t see any difference in the candidates?
By Jack
September 30, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
You don’t KNOW the outcome til after the vote. People gave up their lives to give us the right to vote. Why squander that right.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Jack answered that for me… if every voter had your idea and didn’t vote….and I mean everyone… it WOULD make a difference. How do you KNOW it doesn’t make a difference? Because it didn’t go your way last time? It went my way so I feel it made a difference… It’s all relative isn’t it…
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
If you don’t care about the issue or the candidate then whatever..don’t vote. But then don’t complain when whoever wins does something you don’t like or don’t complain when the issue ended up being more of an “issue” than originally thought it would be. (I mean ‘you’ in general…. not ‘you’ eirik)
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
Oh come on…we knew what the outcome of the presidential election here in Georgia was going to be…the polls were overwhelming in favor of Bush.
And the “people have died” comment will surely tug at the heartstrings…so if nothing else…one should vote to honor them?
I can honor the fallen in other ways…ways that are more significant than the futile exercise of voting when I absolutely know my vote is useless.
By Archie
September 30, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me you are right that we should not be close-minded but no one touched on the religious aspect for not voting as much as religion is discussed on this blog. It has been suggested that weekend voting be allowed in my state. I hurt some people’s feelings about voting so I no longer argue with anyone about I just take attitude that Jack took in earlier post, which is don’t complain if you don’t vote. Our leaders have done a good job overall in the last 229 years that is if you think America is great. I mean both Republicans and Democrats have done some good but obviously there’s room for improvement. Some of the government programs in place are what keep us from looking like a 3rd world country. Right now there’s too much greed and the leaders need to protect the people from it. Title loans,gas prices, high interest credit cards, are things people choose to use but yet there’s no reason people should be gouged.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
Jack, I agree with your 10:29.
I also kind of agree with Eirik’s feelings about the electoral college taking away the significance of each individual vote…
By Jack
September 30, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Eirik. Don’t bother voting. You have to have some degree of intelligence to do so and you are lacking that.
By Bruce
September 30, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Most people vote for the same reason the give blood. So they can get time off from work… I know not everyone is allowed time off to go vote but I bet that is a small percentage.
By dee
September 30, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
From Sherry: Ben, do you not see graffiti mostly in black neighborhoods? Doesn’t the black youth mostly dress with their pants halfway down so you can see their underwear,with big gold chains around their necks, $200 sneakers, shirts and pants 10 sizes too large, with a bandanna on their head (or doo-rag?)…looking like a regular gang member.”
If it’s so bad, why are all the white suburban upper middle class youths following the trend? Rap and the rap culture has been made into the multi billion dollar a year industry by white, suburban youths. Amazing isn’t it?
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
BuildingBridges,
If everyone felt like me and decided not to vote, and I didn’t care about the issues and thought the candiates were going to be corrupt and inept regardless of their party, then I would not care if anyone voted.
If the issues were important to me and I thought the stakes were high and I thought the outcome would be close, I would vote.
I of course understand your point and Jack’s…that there is a percentage of risk that what I think is a pre-determined outcome could actually go completely the other way if enough people don’t participate, perhaps in favor of an extremist, and that we all should make sure that doesn’t happen by having as many people possible determine the outcome..i.e., the democratic process.
I think that I personally am intelligent and perceptive enough to see that coming and would react accordingly…but frankly I don’t see that ever happening.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Jack, not all groups had to fight for the right to vote. If no one died for your right to vote, why would you feel compelled to vote to honor them? Perhaps Eirik is one of those who was born with the right to vote (e.g. white, male, etc.).
Lastly, no one is acknowledging his valid claim that the electoral college inhibits the collective authority of voters.
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Good comeback Jack…
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Dee,
If it’s so bad, why are all the white suburban upper middle class youths following the trend? Rap and the rap culture has been made into the multi billion dollar a year industry by white, suburban youths. Amazing isn’t it?
No, it is not surprising: middle/upper class folk have been slumming for fun/trend for centuries. Mainstream culture is just a convienent tool for society to normalize the odd behaviours created by deviants. It is a type of fun mockery that flushes the behaviour out of the system - examples: bell bottoms, flourescent clothing, 80s hair (except for lesbians and rednecks…odd those go together!)….etc
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
I am one of those that was born a certain way…a way that the majority of Georgians don’t like (some 70%). This majority also was given the opportunity to determine the legal status of my relationship to my partner. Perhaps you were in that majority yourself, so please don’t throw up “privlege” to me.
By dee
September 30, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
From taboga: Their “Uncle Tom�: Martin Luther King and the so-called “Black Civil Rights Leaders�. The white Liberal slave owners of the 60’s offered the new “Uncle Toms� a room in the big house if they would convince Blacks of their so-called movement to “help� the Blacks.
King preached non violence; while Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X preached to give back exactly what was given to them, hate. Malcolm X stated, “I’ll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King.”
By Jack
September 30, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
JBM. That is a valid claim but we live in a republic and not a democracy. Did anyone notice the vent quoting Gerald Ford? It said: A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it away. Food for thought.
By Comment
September 30, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
John Adams, the second one, and sixth president, was appalled that some states were turning over Electoral College votes selections from the intended state legislatures, to having the common man decide the Electors. Thought those commoners too stupid to make such important decisions. Of course he lost the next election to that man-of-the-people, Andrew Jackson.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Eirik - I understand what your saying. Makes sense. Don’t necessarily agree but I understand.
JBM - everyone has a group somewhere along the line that FOUGHT for their rights. We all know that slavery was a totally different situation and I do NOT want to get back into that but those boys didn’t just walze out of europe without a fight. America didn’t gain its indepence from the crown without a fight!
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Jack - I did read that, definitely food for thought.
Eirik/JBM/Comment - I’m certianly not one to denying that about electoral collage votes. I don’t like it much either. It should be only about the numbers from the ballots. If it takes a week to count them, so be it, we don’t need instant gratification (or 24 hour tv glue in some cases).
But then again (to play d.a.)…if it’s ONLY about the electoral votes, why was everyone so insistant on the recounts if they didn’t matter?
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Jack, now the government big enough to spend trillions of dollars more than it collects is ALSO small enough to fit into our bedrooms. Amazing how they can do that, huh?
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
BB - Not everyone is part of a group that fought for their right to VOTE. We’re talking about voting here, not slavery.
EIRIK - Honey, you obviously misunderstood my point. My point was to stimulate Jack to think beyond the “box.” Jack said (in other words) that you should vote just because so many people died for your right to vote. I thought that was quite a big assumption. How do we know that you are a part of a group that had to fight for the right to vote? I was saying that not EVERYONE can say that their ancestors fought for their right to vote. I was saying that if a person is not a part of that group, then why should they feel they HAVE to vote to honor those people?
And, by the way, you’re obviously new around here. I am definitely not a part of the majority you referred to in your 11:12 post.
By dee
September 30, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
From By Jack :The polls are oprn 7-7. They do that so people can vote before or after work. Apathy is the problem. The voter id law is a GOOd idea. That prevents dead people from casting votes.
Remember Gore vs Bush I and Bush vs. whats his name II; the polls were PACKED days before the actual voting day; 7 - 7 may need a little help. Also how many dead people in Georgia have been voting? Has any body actually taken a count? Or was it said as just a “scare” tactic to justify getting the law changed?
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
It was just a scare tactic — not only regarding “dead voters” but all those illegal immigrants who vote so they’ll get more welfare… AS IF they’d risk discovery and deportation by standing in line at the polls for three hours and demanding a ballot in broken english….
No actual significant fraud of this nature has been presented. It’s the kind of news that travels through rumor and accusation.
By dee
September 30, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
By DeltaX: No, it is not surprising: middle/upper class folk have been slumming for fun/trend for centuries. Mainstream culture is just a convienent tool for society to normalize the odd behaviours created by deviants.
You’re correct — look at how far the KKK, NeoNazis, and Rush Limbaugh got in this world!! It’s from all those middle/upper class people “slumming.”
By Whiley
September 30, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
There is a strange story on the news today. A white man mentioned something about crime problems in black communities? Is he in trouble now? I missed the report. Did I hear this right that now a white person cannot discuss the fact that crime in predominately black neighborhoods is a problem? This isn’t a big secret, we just aren’t allowed to talk about it? I need to see if I can find another article on this. Fascinating what we Americans choose to get angry about.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
no…they didn’t fight for the right to VOTE soley they fought for their freedom and rights to have a democracy where they COULD vote! It’s not the same but it is. When the united states was finally able to be, white males had the ‘right’ to vote but they fought like hell to be able to have those and all other rights. Blacks and women fought for equal rights which INCLUDED the right to vote.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Whiley - that seems to be correct. don’t you just love double standards? sarcasm
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me ,
I drift in and out of this forum. Anyway, please accept my apologies…I think you obviously understand my anger.
I believe Jack was assuming the big group of being American, not one particular race or ethnic group.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues.”
Those were his words and I as a black female can get angry about it and I am.
Unborn children have not committed any crimes. It is just stupid to predict that they will committ a crime, I don’t care what the statistics for 2005 say.
In case you didn’t know, there are many blacks who have never committed a crime.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Fascinating what we Americans choose to get angry about.
Whiley - that seems to be correct. don’t you just love double standards? sarcasm
Whiley/BB - Are you referring to the man who said that the crime rate would go down if more black women aborted their babies?
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
Dee,
Those are three (count them: 123) instances of hate.
Where as we were talking about trends: Did you want to change your point? My example broke the racial line you drew, is that what angered you?
If not, how about addressing what I said.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
Amazed - Don’t even go there with them. For real.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Amazed -Of course there are many blacks who have never committed a crime. There are many whites who would never think that.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Ah… William Bennet, former Secretary of Education, and popular right-wing “moralist.” As sales of his popular Book of Virtues were moving swiftly, the news broke of his regular trips to Las Vegas where he routinely lost tens of thousands of dollars. He used the “it’s an addiction, therefore a disease” excuse, (also popularized by the drug-addict Rush Limbaugh) when confronted with the odd discrepancy between daily public bashing of anyone who isn’t perfect, and his own “moral” shortcomings, which are of course, DIFFERENT.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Amazed I feel compelled to say it again: PLEASE don’t go there with them.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
JBM - no… no no no!! not at all. I don’t agree with that statement in any form. I’ve seen just as many nasty white criminals that I think should be castrated or fixed!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
buildingbridges,
If you honestly held that view, you would not have been sarcastic about Whiley’s comments. What William Bennett said is not a sarcastic or funny thing. This man is an ex-Secretary of Education for peace sakes. I will never let anyone insult my race and definitely not my future unborn children.
Just Being Me - I won’t go their with them again. I viewed all the comments from yesterday and I know what you mean.
By Eirik
September 30, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
So Bennet is saying that crime is down because of more abortion of black babies. Does that include white collar crime as well? If there were more abortions of white babies could we expect fewer Enrons?
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Amazed - Your 12:16 was exactly what I was going to say. All I can do is shake my head and keep on movin’ along… I, too, am amazed.
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Amazed,
How about posting the WHOLE phrase?!?!
He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.�
It is obvious that he was showing that although you can make a casual connection bw events; that the practice, although making economic sense, may not make moral sense.
By Renee
September 30, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Yes, let’s keep this moving….we had enough of this yesterday.
By Huh
September 30, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Actually William Bennet, former Secretary of Education, and popular right-wing “moralist”
feels he is owed an apology for people getting upset about it.
But when you think about it, you could make the same argument for creating a more socially-responsible society: just abort all the compassionate conservatives.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Hmmm… Delta, imagine your father-in-law telling your husband in front of you that if you fail to have dinner ready on time every night, he could smack you around, blacken your eyes once or twice, and you’d shape up and have dinner ready on time. But then he said, “No, son, that wouldn’t really be a moral thing to do…” (wink wink, nudge nudge) Would you feel better about your father-in-law’s morals then? Would you think he had anything positive to contribute to a conversation?
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
In a shameless attempt to change the subject (and because I’m a TV-junkie), are there any Apprentice fans out there? Or ER?
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - I am very aware of the entire phrase and it doesn’t make his statements any less insulting.
No connection at all can be made, regarding crime and unborn children. Absolutely no statistical data can justify a statement such as this. Would you like for me to say that unborn white children will be KKK members, just becaue only white people belong to the group and should be aborted. DeltaX, that is just crazy. You should be just as insulted as a black person would be for Bennett making such a statement about unborn children.
You can not justify such a statement.
By Renee
September 30, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
Just Damn. WHAT SENSE WOULD THAT PRACTICE MAKE??????
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
amazed/JBM - not EVERYTHING I say is pure evil… THIS is what my sarcastic response was for..
“Did I hear this right that now a white person cannot discuss the fact that crime in predominately black neighborhoods is a problem? This isn’t a big secret, we just aren’t allowed to talk about it?”
NOT that ignorant comment about abortion. If I were going to get on THAT I would have yesterday during all the other rigamaroo.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
JBM, last night’s ER was a shameless, yet successful attempt to manipulate our emotions. What a little witch that girl was for not getting the C-section. And what’s up with couples who go to any lengths to have their “own” child? Just goes to show what can go wrong. I don’t judge what people do when they want kids but can’t bring ‘em around the usual way, because I don’t know what I would do. I’m just saying it was an interesting presentation of the issue. Or should we talk about what a SIN it is to leave a man like Luca all alone crying into his wine? Day-uuuum. That’s just wrong.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
JBM - I love ER. I also missed the final show of law and order. Did you happen to catch it? Who was the culprit?
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
kimberly - I’ve always had this fear that I won’t be able to have my own baby for whatever reason it may be. I don’t know what I would do either. I like to think that I am openly accepting of adoption as an alternative, but I wish I knew for sure if my fear came true then I’d definitely go that route with no questions asked and none of the extreme measures to have one of ‘my own’.
By Greg
September 30, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
While we are on the topic, how come nobody talks about serial killers being predominately white males?
By Ben
September 30, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Some of you need therapy!
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I know!!! The best part of all was the beginning when the lady was cracking on Abby’s shoes, and then broke her ankle!!! Sam ticked me off for treating Luca like crap, and for scaring the stupid, selfish pregnant girl out of having the C-section. But, then Luca ticked me off for running behind Sam’s dumb behind. And, the stupid, selfish pregnant girl ticked me off for being so stupid and selfish.But, what really sucked is that the parents wouldn’t take the baby home in the end. THAT ticked me off to no end.
Buildingbridges, the mother and daughter both ended up in prison.
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Dee,
In your question: Would you like for me to say that unborn white children will be KKK members, just becaue only white people belong to the group and should be aborted. You would be right, if he said should. And where did you hear he did the ? Or is that also your imagination?
He is pro-life - does not believe there IS a situation that would permit a moral abortion.
This is just you getting ramped up by what you ‘think’ someone meant - not what they actually said.
The statement could be made that if we killed all people, there would be no crime - but that makes no economic OR moral sense.
Show me where he promotes, in ANYWAY what-so-ever, the line of thinking you have presented him as stating.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
My offspring “surprised” me. Can’t imagine getting preggers “on purpose.” But I kept her. Good decision I think. Still, it was MY decision. Would NEVER force someone to go through it if they weren’t willing. NEVER. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER.
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Greg,
Or that Serial killers are majorily abused as children by female caretakers/mothers.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Ben, Amen.
Greg, because then some idiot might suggest what a good (but immoral) idea it would be to abort all white babies.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
DeltaX,
Someone with True Moral values would never think or speak a statement such as the one Bennett made. Don’t hold your idol too high, it might fall on you.
You can’t apologize by saying you don’t believe it (could\would\should) occur. To relate criminal behavior to unborn children is just plain hateful. Many pro-lifers believe in the dealth penalty, so Bennett being a pro-lifer doesn’t hold water with me.
The next thing you “crazy” conservatives will say is that it’s genetics. I consider his words to be an implied statement.
I will not comment on this topic again today.
By dee
September 30, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
From DeltaX: Dee,Those are three (count them: 123) instances of hate. Where as we were talking about trends: Did you want to change your point? My example broke the racial line you drew, is that what angered you?
DeltaX I was just AGREEING with you! You said “Mainstream culture is just a convienent tool for society to normalize the odd behaviours created by deviants.”
And I said “You’re correct â€â€? look at how far the KKK, NeoNazis, and Rush Limbaugh got in this world!! It’s from all those middle/upper class people “slumming.â€?
I was agreeing with your point that “Mainstream culture is just a convienent tool for society to normalize the odd behaviours created by deviants”. The names/groups I mentioned above are DEVIANT in my view. So I basically agreed with your main point. Just because I put it in a package you didn’t like, does not make me angry or trying to change the subject.
By taboga
September 30, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Huh,
Hi Eaton!
The problem with your “abort all compassionate conservatives” statement: You little butt-wipes won’t be in any position of power to do it!
In case you haven’t noticed - you’re losing! And when your pathetic little self takes a look around this time next year - you’ll be losing even more!
And in two more years when you finally get a job and are out of the house with Mom and Dad - it’ll be even worse for you son!
What, you thought I wasn’t going to be out here today? You worked up enough nerve to post - hoping that I wasn’t out here? But i’ll tell you what, I have take care of a little business for a while - so don’t be afraid to post.
I’ll come back and tar and feather you later!
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
He is not my idol - actually he is nothing to me and I am not a conservative.
I find it absurd that you would read a part of a phrase that is a part of a conversation, and use it to devise hate.
Not continuing? Try re-reading the ARTICLE and not the rehash that compartmentalizes parts of statements.
Right now you are furthing stereotypes: Is that what you have to provide? Ignorance with no care to CHECK your facts before pointing that hate gun?
By Huh
September 30, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
Since I am not Eaton, HUH?
Power shifts change, just look at the last 20 years.
By Huh
September 30, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Taboga,
My education was not purchased with Daddy’s Money or Student Loans.
My acreage was not purchased with Daddy’s Money
I do not work for My Daddy
So I am already way way ahead of you.
ROTFLMFAO
By Tim
September 30, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
I’ll come back and tar and feather you later!
I figured he was into some pretty kinky stuff
By Scott
September 30, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
AMAZED/JBM : I wasn’t sure what you were refering to, so I went back to find out what was said by Bennett. I have to say that it amazes me that any human being with synapses in the brain firing at all would have the thought that astatement like that would be even remotely acceptable or justifiable. Just plain stupid
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
It wasn’t on this board but I read somewhere that someone made the comment that all those convicted of rape/molestation/etc. should be ‘fixed’ so that they can’t have offspring. What are y’alls thoughts on that? Besides the obvious infringing on their reproduction rights that is… I honestly am not sure how ‘genetic’ these traits are. I think a lot of it is learned behavoir, not necessarily by parents either but just surroundings in general (which of course is dictated by parents.)
Kimberly - I’m glad you made the right choice for you! Your kids a lucky one. I can’t hardly wait to have babies!! My bf and I have talked about marraige but we are both pretty fresh out of college and not ready for the kids yet.
By mel
September 30, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is this: If we forget slavery, and just deal with today, we would still have a problem. I would say that 90% of white people in this counrty love the status quo. Few, if any, will admit that white privelidge exists, because that would mean acknowldging that they benefit from it. They love the fact that majority rules. Whites are more likely to be on welfare, do drugs, drink and drive, commit crimes against children, start wars, steal your money (not with a gun, but with a pen), blow up buildings, commit fraud, and shoot their classmates. Are there problems in the black community? Heck yes. But there are problems in the whit ecommunity, and they are hardly being addressed. Why aren’t we discussing the epidemic of perverted white men who are likely to have sex with your children?
Whites love to rewrite history. Much of what our children learn in class is a lie, designed to make the white man the hero.
“Mainstream” is just another word for “white”. Anyone who says, “Let’s just forget skin color” is ignorant. They say that because their skin color is the default color. White is the “norm”. That’s why there is a BET, and Jet, and Ebony. Because black children need to see people who look like them. IMO, differences should be celebrated.
“Speak correct English” is just code for “Talk like us, white people”. Why? Because most WHITE PEOPLE don’t speak correct English. The amazing thing is that black sin this country speak with a timbre and inflections tha can be traced back to Africa. Don’t be afraid of what you don’t understand.
You can call yoursleves liberal all you want, but at the end of the day, you enjoy being the majority in this country.
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 30, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Amazed, Delta, and Huh: Thank goodness someone his picked up this thread. I posted this yesterday morning around 10:20 ish, and wondered why there was no response. You have renewed my faith in human nature and blogging…
Well, if being PC (politically correct) is not your preference, check out what Bill Bennett the ethics czar, author of the Book of Virtues, gambling addict has to say about Social Security crime, poverty, race, and abortion.
Check out the Media Matters transcript of his show.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006 BENNETT: But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could � if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
To be fair, this was interview was done regarding the book Freakonomics, which points out that Roe V. Wade has had an impact on Social Security and crime statistics. He did’t just pull out this crime reduction method out of his butt…but that would be true of any population, so why even mention race?
I would also point out that of course you can’t abort babies, only fetuses, but then I’m a bit of a stickler for language and scientfic fact. If Bennett is talking about infanticide, we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes that this too, is reprehensible…
The thing that shocked me when I heard this exerpt of the interview was how blase and matter of fact Bennett sounded when talking about it; there was no hint of absurdity nor incredulity. Just another interview…
That the author of The Book of Virtues, Former Education Secretary, could make such a statement,let alone even entertain it privately, astounds me.
I guess I have not become so jaded that I can no longer be shocked.
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Someone explain to me what is wrong with Bennet pointing out the absurdity (AND moral implications) of ‘freak-onomics’ (sp?) casual connection bw abortions (black&minority) and crime rates?
Or is it that, like in discussion on here, if one refers to something derogatory - they get attributed to saying and wanting that?
Is this not what happend with the ‘Why are there not more females in science?’ workshop a few months ago?
And Cosby’s comments before that?
And, is this exactly the notion brought up earlier today that one cannot even talk about the (crime in black n-hoods); which is one of the pink elephants in the room??!!?!?
Absurd - really tired of the ignorance.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
Another person close to need therapy.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Some of you black people on here might be upset, but there really is NO white privilege in the terms you are speaking of. Noone is holding black people back except black people themselves.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Scott, what amazes ME is that some people will actually exert energy to defend, condone and justify statements like that.
Delta, a statement like that can only be described as hateful. You can drown it in perfume, clothe it in silk, decorate it with sequins, or say it with a smile… it doesn’t matter. A non-racist and/or non-hateful person would NEVER make a statement like that in the middle of any conversation, in the middle of any sentence, in any circumstances, no matter what. It doesn’t matter what you say before it, or after it.
You should be ashamed of yourself. The scary part is that you’re not. Neither are the rest of those that find his comments “not that bad,” or “funny” or worthy of ill-humored sarcasm. YOU are all reprehensible.
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
“And, is this exactly the notion brought up earlier today that one cannot even talk about the (crime in black n-hoods); which is one of the pink elephants in the room??!!?!?”
Why don’t you talk about what’s going on in YOUR hoods…you know, pedophelia, DUI’s, Meth addiction, corporate theft and fraud, serial killings, etc. You see, most of us know there is a problem in our community. But we don’t need hypocrites telling us what we should and shouldn’t be doing. White people are criminals too, so deal with that…
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Mel,
Why is it when my GF (who is black) tells her daughter to study at the library, since there is not enough room for her study group at our house, and when her daugter replies: “That is what white people do, and I am not white;” my GF gets p** too?
Just like your notion of mainstream being white: Nope - pleanty of well-off black kids wearing ‘hood fasion too.
Mainstream is exactly just that - mainstream (white, black, yellow…).
“Not a rebel by 20, you have no heart; not conforming by 25, you have no brains” - applies to many of todays african-americans. And is still true.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
Ben, white privilege and black people being “held back” are two different things all together.
I would agree that there is no superpower-force holding black people back.
But, I can’t agree that there is no white privilege. Perhaps you just haven’t noticed, witnessed, or experienced it.
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
BEn, you cannot be serious. My goodness, you are out of touch. The biggest privelidge is that white people don’t have the misfortune of representing their entire race when they make one misstep. I could give you some examples, but I don’t even think you would hear it. And white people aren’t expected to be deviant and criminal, even though many are. White people are expected to be good, and if they’re not, it’s an exception. Balck people are expected to be bad, and if they’re good, it’s an exception. Stop being an apologist. You really need to wake up.
By Huh
September 30, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Sandy - you were just too on top of things yesterday since I did not hear about that until this morning, on someone’s personal blog, before seeing it later on the news sites. Your comment yesterday made me think of ancient Bennett history. I did not know it was a new good example of compassionate conservatism.
I’ll have to pass on all that Kinky tar and feather stuff but not surprised. You know how all those conservatives are really kinky behind closed doors.
By Curious
September 30, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
I wonder how many people would openly admit to being racist, to any degree.
I wonder how people would respond to me if I openly acknowledged that I am becoming more and more racist as I grow older.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Actually Mel, I am wide awake and have been for a while. Black people feel like we represent our whole race because WE let them make us feel that way. I’m sorry but what you do has no reflection on me, REGARDLESS of what the media, Taboga or anyone else thinks. Who cares about another person’s missteps. That’s part of the problem - most black people are so concerned about “being black” or about what someone else is going to think about them, they don’t accept responsibility and look for something to blame for their misfortune or mistakes - and that is usually white people.
I’m not apologizing for anything. I just accept reality. And my reality is I couldn’t care less about what somebody thinks I’m supposed to be like as a black person.
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
“Why is it when my GF (who is black) tells her daughter to study at the library, since there is not enough room for her study group at our house, and when her daugter replies: “That is what white people do, and I am not white;â€? my GF gets p** too?”
No, what I am saying is that white people enjoy the freedom of knowing that “American”, and “mainstream”, are rally “white”. Mind you, I don’t mean cultural norms like getting married, having a family, learning, studying, etc. I mean the media, the language, holidays, etc. People hav complained about black boys wearing baggy pants and the like. That’s just code for, “why can’t they dress in khakis and polo shirts, like respectable white guys”. Yes, white youth are emulating this style of dress, but the fact that it’s a “style” and not the norm says something, don’t you think? It’s really very subtle but it’s true. Take TV, for example. There are rarely more than 2 or 3 minorities on any “Mainstream”, prime time show at a time. Why? Because you, the majority, are used to seeing yourselves on TV. ANy deviation from the “norm” is considered a niche, specialized, or pandering to other groups.
By dee
September 30, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
From DeltaX: Dee, In your question: Would you like for me to say that unborn white children will be KKK members, just becaue only white people belong to the group and should be aborted. You would be right, if he said should. And where did you hear he did the ? Or is that also your imagination?
DeltaX nope, it’s YOUR imagination. I never said that!! I hope you’re not drinking your lunch……
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
“Black people feel like we represent our whole race because WE let them make us feel that way.”
Ok. That’s fair. But Taboga said one thing that I agreed with. When you have years of conditioning by the government, media, pop culture, etc. telling you that you are inferior, it’s hard to just ignore it and keep on stepping.
Do I believe there is some plot to keep the black man down? No. But white privelidge exists, and I believe there are way more white supremacists out there than you know. Most of them don’t wear hoods, but every now and then, like Mr. Bennett, they will let something slip.
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
“I wonder how many people would openly admit to being racist, to any degree.
I wonder how people would respond to me if I openly acknowledged that I am becoming more and more racist as I grow older.”
Good for you. Honesty is refreshing, isn’t it? If we could all just admit what we think, I believe we could be on the road to understanding. I’m telling you, most people in this country, probably 95%, are racist in some way.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
And so what if they are out there? Who really gives a damn unless they are burning a cross in your yard or trying to physically harm you.
It may be hard to ignore the “voices,” but until we do, we are going to have the same battles. People (black people) need to stop trying to defend themselves against the stupidity and focus on what they need to do to get out of the circle. But everybody is so caught up in “bein black,” or settling for the notion that they don’t have opportunity because the “man” is holding them back.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Curious, if you had asked me first thing yesterday morning if I had even a piece of a racist bone in my body, I would say no with disgust that you would even ask such a thing.
Today, I don’t know.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Mel - I would have to say that I completely agree (as long as your including the black community in that 95%). Almost everyone has some prejudice and/or racism in them.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Well it’s nice to be in the 5%!
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
“It may be hard to ignore the “voices,â€? but until we do, we are going to have the same battles. People (black people) need to stop trying to defend themselves against the stupidity and focus on what they need to do to get out of the circle. But everybody is so caught up in “bein black,â€? or settling for the notion that they don’t have opportunity because the “manâ€? is holding them back.”
I care because these people are making decisions that affect me and my family. I care because there are some in our community who haven’t experienced what we’ve experienced and don’t know what we know. I care because I have to work beside these people. It’s nice that you can turn a blind eye to these things, but I can’t.
And what is wrong with being caught up in “being black”? Whites are caught up in being white! Black is beautiful, but most of us don’t know or don’t believe it because we’ve been conditioned to think otherwise. Why should there only be room for 2 of us at the top? I believe these things should be taken up in our community, yes, but what’s wrong with challenging the status quo? Many white people don’t even know what the deal is. It’s like asking a fish to describe water. These things are so ingrained in all of us that most of us aren’t aware that they exist. African Americans, IMO, should stop trying to assimilate. We need to study our own history and culture. I see nothing wrong with that, do you?
By dee
September 30, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
But everybody is so caught up in “bein black,� or settling for the notion that they don’t have opportunity because the “man� is holding them back.
I’m not caught up in “being black” I am black! I’m also Spanish, Indian, and French. My roots span 4 continents and many generations. If you look at me, you may or may not see the Spanish, Indian and French right away — you may only see the black — so what race am I? I’m human, I’m a member of the Human race. Why can’t that suffice in America? I’ve lived in other countries where what I call myself doesn’t matter. My outside didn’t matter, it was my inside and my worth that I was judged on. Why is America still hung up with what’s on the outside?
By Archie
September 30, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
JBM your 2:05 pm post is on the money because I heard the actual statement this morning on the Tom Joyner show and I thought yes,I get what he’s(Bennett) saying but why did he have to bring in race to make his point. I was trying to avoid saying this but incarceration rate is really about enforcement. If the law were really enforced equally you would not see any major disparity in the number of races in jail. Newspapers have done studies on the disparity in sentencing and how people get second chances. That’s the biggest reason I strongly disagree with Ben. I don’t just read the AJC. Rhetorical question. How much do think Jenna X makes compared to ol’ girl on the corner? Why can guys go into a legal brothel in Nevada? Check the majority of women that work there? They have no fear of getting arrested for doing the same thing that some girl does in other parts of country. The point is there is some privilege in this country and it is connected to money and race. I really wanted to stay with the voting topic because let’s face it all levels of government failed New Orleans. You had an incompetent mayor,a governor that was overwhelmed,and a president that had incompetent people working for him and then he didn’t know what was going on. So who you put in office could definitely affect your life.
By mel
September 30, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
“Mel - I would have to say that I completely agree (as long as your including the black community in that 95%). Almost everyone has some prejudice and/or racism in them.”
Asolutely. Blacks are racist, too. Of course, our racism doesn’t have as much power, but it’s there all the same.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Nothing wrong with challenging status quo if its being done because that’s who you are and what you want, but not when its done just because the ‘status quo’ is white and want nothing to do with the ‘white man’. Be who you are, screw what others thinks black or white! Plus, there’s nothing wrong with being status quo either.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
I don’t turn a blind eye. I deal with what affects me in my environment. I work to change the things that I can around me, whether it’s my family, neighbors or my friends. I hate to break it to you, but people in government aren’t making decisions to negatively affect black people. They may make them to benefit themselves, but it really has nothing to do with black or white. It has to do with MONEY.
Nothing is wrong with being black. What is wrong is what most black people think being black is. And you know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. I see nothing wrong with studying black history, culture and everything that goes along with it - but you need to study history and culture period. You can’t say because I’m black, I only know all that is black. You have to educate yourself PERIOD. Otherwise we are headed toward separate but equal - we will be devided black, white and other. And that’s not what this country is about, and it’s not a positive direction.
By Whiley
September 30, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
OK, I finally found the full story on one of the news channels. They replayed the entire radio interview about abortion & crime in black neighborhoods. Can I say I’m just as offended that some man was implying the reason Social Security is so bad today is because millions of aborted fetuses didn’t grow up to contribute their earnings???? Did I actually hear that correctly? It’s abortions fault????!!! How is it America is the greatest country in the world when so many of it’s citizens are just plain stupid???
Then Al Sharpton appears & wants an apology? lol.
By buildingbridges
September 30, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Mel - “Asolutely. Blacks are racist, too. Of course, our racism doesn’t have as much power, but it’s there all the same.”
WHAT?!?! racism is racism… that’s just … ugh.. nevermind.
Have a great weekend everyone. I’m going to get my long straight hair trimmed so I can stay in the ‘status quo’.
By Ben
September 30, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
I’m outta here. Have a good weekend people! Seriously though, some of you need therapy. lol
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure what the “caught up in bein[g] black” comment means… can someone BLACK explain that to me? No offense, I’m just not interested in hearing make-up tips from my contractor.
By taboga
September 30, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Mel,
I think you have made some exceptional points. And whether I agree with all of them or not it doesn’t matter, because it is so extremely gratifying see someone out here on the board who actually thinks for themself rather than parroting the same old tired and worn-out babbling!
But there is not a person (rational) under the sun, who if they listened to what Bill Bennett had to say (I have) within the context of his statement - would think that there was anything he stated that was racist!
What we have, is a bunch of Useful Idiots who didn’t hear what he was talking about - out here whining as usual!
All in the world the man was trying to say, was that you can’t use the wrong reasons to try and achieve your goal. And his example of: Aborting all Black children… was to point out that yes, if your goal was to reduce crime and all you cared about was “reducing crime”, aborting black children would help do so, but it would be immoral and reprehensible to do that! He was using that example in an absurd fashion to point out how you can’t be so focused on one thing, that you try and accomplish that one thing and you wind-up doing doing something far worse!
But as usual, the little goobers on the Left, took that one little sentence out of a long discussion he was having with a caller, willfully and deliberately took it completely out of context and took off: See, see, see, Bill Bennett is racist, see, see, see!
By mel
September 30, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
“I hate to break it to you, but people in government aren’t making decisions to negatively affect black people. They may make them to benefit themselves, but it really has nothing to do with black or white. It has to do with MONEY.”
And who are the people in government? White people, mostly. And why is that? Because we’re all used to there only being room for a few “others” at the top. You can fight it all you want, but it’s true. If there were more “others” making decisions about money, more of us would be positively affected by the changes.
And I do know what you are talking about. And I agree. The problem is, we are taught that we ONLY need to know American history, and we all know what that means. I plan to educate my kids on ALL cultures, but African history will have an emphasis in my home, as well as the truth about American history.
See, I’m starting to think that separate but equal wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Otherwise, what are black people doing? Being folded into a white background, where our history is second best, our looks are second best, our achievements are second best, our contributions are second best. Think about it; the only reason we allow it is because it’s all we’ve ever known! Again, goldfish and water. The status quo says that majority (white) rules, and all else is less than. You can’t conceive of an America where blacks have more power, more representation, where we set the standard for beauty, education, morals, etc. Why? Because you’re used to white people doing it. Nobody here is comfortable with that picture, and why should you be? It’s not what you’re used to.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Ben,
I don’t and many others as well, care about what other people think of me. Yes, I do care about being “black”, because I love myself and that’s me. I don’t waste my time, because life is too short, worrying about finding someone to blame for my very limited mistakes or shortcomings.
Nor, do I believe that the majority and/or some blacks, wake up in the morning thinking about blaming white people for their mistakes or shortcomings. I will make a broad generalization and say, most could care less.
To end this tirade of mine, “What you do has no reflection on me” statement is true when you are viewing yourself as a person “Ben” - but it does reflect how other people might view you, because of something some other person might have done who shares some of your outward appearance traits. Take for instance, the comment made by a doctor in the Northeast about the overweight white woman and only black men wanting to marry her. I had a really good laugh, because the comment was so unbelievable. This man actaully believed his statement.
It’s crazy comments that usually get my goat.
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Ben, I agree with you because I believe in personal responsibility. And that is for everybody. It does seem that we go more and more for government responsibility. We’ve had some terrible emergencies lately. But, when I see money being passed out like candy bars, I get worried. How long before we go broke?
By mel
September 30, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Same here, Taboga. I rarely agree with you, but at least you stand by what you believe.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Mel, I agree with you on the distortions of history, but disagree with you on the merits of segregation. White people who grew up without exposure to African-Americans or black American culture are BORRRRRRR-ING, prone to narrow scopes of vision, and often shallow. As a white person actually FROM Atlanta, I feel at home in the color mix, and enjoy the company of those who are both familiar to me, yet different from my stiff white protestant relatives. When I travel out West, I’m BOTHERED by the lack of color in the crowds. Too many blue-eyed folks in one place gives me the creeps. We have to KNOW each other in order to understand and get along, IMHO.
By mit
September 30, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
oh bennett should have used a better example. i am sure there are plenty more examples to get his point across than linking crime rate with the amount of aborted black babies. what did he think would happen?
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
I don’t give a flying flip what he was trying to say… why on earth would a white man use “aborting black babies” as an example of anything?
The racism claim is largely due to the fact that he could have very well made that same exact point by saying that if you wanted to reduce the crime rate, you could abort all white babies…. he could’ve chosen any group, but he chose black. One cannot ignore the question that begs to be answered: why?
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
MIT, I guess he, like many, thought he was above reproach…
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Why? Because Bennet is a pompous, money-grubbing, racist, hypocritical blowhard who makes his fortune perpetuating stereotypes, prejudices, shame, and fear, (in the name of the greater good) that’s why.
By mel
September 30, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I hear you. I know there are many white people who love and want tdiversity. I just think that there is an “American norm”, which most of us accept as true and right, and we’re all ok as long as nothing threatens that norm. And sometimes, things happen (like Katrina) that expose certain feelings and attitudes, on all sides, and we need to deal with them. I don’t think there are many blacks who wnat to go back to Africa, and there aren’t many whites who want to go back to Europe. We’re all here to stay, but like you said, we’ve got to find a way to know eachother. But how can we REALLY know eachother when we keep trying to sweep our differences under the rug, you know?
By lozen
September 30, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
How can one grow up in a racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic culture and not be all those things? Gay people are all homophobic in the beginning; that’s why it’s so hard to come out and why so many gay teens commit suicide. For sure a lot of us have a lot of rascism in us! A lot of us have a lot of sexism in us. Some of us, at some point in our lives, usually as a result of education and exposure to different cultures and ideas, or out of our love for a gay person, black person, etc., admit that we have those prejudices because that’s what we’ve all been taught. That is the beginning of examining our racist, sexist, homophobic assumptions whether we learned them from our parents, our culture, our church, and seeing that they are nothing but prejudice and ignorance. But then some of us never really become aware of that - as you can see by reading this blog!
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Dusty, ME TOO! When I see no-bid contracts and “special bonuses” being handed out to Halliburton subsidiaries like candy bars, it steams my clams, too. Especially since they are not held to the general standards of accounting and accountability the way ordinary folks are. Also, when I see tax breaks going to people who will use it for a THIRD HUMMER or fourth vacation home, I think, WE, the United States of America are going broke! But really, $$Four Trillion$$ in DEFICIT is a negative number. We are WAY past broke!
By Michael H.
September 30, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
I see that one of America’s best known self appointed professional scolds and Virtuecrat, Bill Bennett, the bookie of virtue, has put his considerably sized shoe in his mouth once again. His ruminations on crime resulted in his pointing out that if black babies were aborted then the crime rate would decline. One would think that the one time philosophy professor, former Reagan secretary of education and Bush drug czar, now turned theocrat, author of The Book of Virtues who made millions promoting flinty self-discipline, personal control, and moderation lost his credibility when he lost his own self-discipline and gambled away nearly eight million dollars in those Las Vegas fleshpots. Well, it remains to be seen, since conservatives have a tendency to close ranks around their adored ones and defend them (in contrast to the treatment they accord liberals or democrats who are vilified for their an ill chosen remark or an immoral action.)
Witness the reaction to Rush Limbaugh among his “dittoheadâ€? fans. Instead of repudiating him as a self-righteous hypocrite they embraced him with their prayers. Limbaugh took a stern line on demon dope (“If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up”) while himself possessing and consuming controlled substances in prodigious quantities (twelve thousand tablets during a four-month period in 2001-enough to soothe his back troubles for sixteen years.) In Limbaugh’s case, the difficulty goes beyond an embarrassing inconsistency between professed beliefs and private behavior, because the “problem” he has acknowledged having-being “addicted to prescription pain medication”-correlates strongly with committing acts that the law defines as crimes. So, perhaps instead of telling the rest of us what is moral, he should join the 450,000 other people who are in jail for using drugs and reward us with a long period of welcome silence.
Ah, but is was a good week for us liberal democrats to practice a bit of Schadenfreude. Delay the “Hammerâ€? was indicted, Cheney’s chief of staff turned out to the Judith Martin’s source, and now the blowhard virtuecrat Bennett is on the run. And “W,â€? a.k.a. the “big dummyâ€? numbers are headed southward. A blissful week, both in terms of the weather and domestic politics.
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
mit,
Bennett was responding to a caller, who, in turn, was referring to the freak-o-nomics (sp?) notion that crime has slowed with the abortion of minority, mainly black, poor unborn children.
It may be a nasty subject, but he was pointing out the flaws in what many IDIOT racists believe.
And I personally understand not skirting around a subject just because it is unpalattable. Same for the women in science workshop where whats-his-name got bashed for suggesting ALL posibilities be looked at.
Sugar coating a serious (or seriously incorrect) topic does little to mitigate the damage - but now we have people that just WANT something to blame others for, and cannot talk about REAL issues! Because someones feelings might get hurt??? Grow up - people are trying to resolve complex issues here!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
September 30, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
JBM - Because he found(for lack of a betterword) a correlation between blacks and crime.
My question would be, why abort the babies at all, they have not committed any crimes? It seems as if the black fetus is guilty before birth or proven innocent.
Does anyone get this? A child has yet to be born, but someone could show a correlation to reduce crime, before a crime has been committed. Talk about stereotyping……
What type of crimes would be reduced? Is there a better crime to committ, I’m not aware of?
By lozen
September 30, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Taboga, you are a fool! And his example of: Aborting all Black children… was to point out that yes, if your goal was to reduce crime and all you cared about was “reducing crime�, aborting black children would help do so, but it would be immoral and reprehensible to do that! It is the most stupid thing to defend this ignorant, racist statement. It is an ignorant, racist statement and there is no way to make it anything but an ignorant, racist statement. I would think even a fool like you could see that!
By mit
September 30, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
X, you don’t have to repeat to me what I already know.
but, bennett is a radio talk show host. He is not trying to solve complex issues. and they (bennett and caller) were obviously not talking about a REAL issue. bennett said, “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,”
pay close attention to “but i do know that it’s true” his whole after argument is pointless when he states he knows this to be true. It doesn’t matter what else he has said before or after. he screwed himself with this statement.
By Just Being Me
September 30, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Amazed, but since he’s white, why couldn’t he focus on the correlation between whites and crime? Or Californians and crime? Heck, he could’ve picked a state and said “if all Iowans had abortions, the crime rate will go down…”
And yes, I get your point about aborting babies (or as Sandy puts it “fetuses”).
By Michael H.
September 30, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Steven Levitt is not responsible for Bennett’s distortions. Levitt claimed, in an earlier study, that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, was partially (30% if I remember correctly and I may not) responsible for the unprecedented decrease in crime in the 1990s. The reason was that many women who knew that they were not in a position to raise a child because of lack of education and resources elected to have abortions. He did not talk about black women in particular or black babies or race. But Bennett did.
By kimberly
September 30, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Michael H: Well said and AMEN, Brother! {:->
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
And I know it is true that if you abort all white (insert ANY color here) unborn children; the crime rate would decrease.
There is no new info there people! And if this offends you; maybe you need to check your ‘I want to be a victim’ meter: seems a little high to be healthy.
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
OH, gee, Kimberly with her customary burnouts (Halliburton & rich people). I could listen to her better if she had a new approach. And Michael is back—he who wants to be the “great intellect” that calls President Bush the “big dummy”. Michael is more the “big loser”.
But Mel, are you blind? Can you not see Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas? That many of the mayors of the largest cities in America are black? That newspaper editors throughout the country are black? That black doctors serve in almost every medical facility in the country and the previous director of CDC was black? That black professors are in every university in the country? You are not seeing things in their true light. Try and catch up with modern times.
By mit
September 30, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
amazed, i guess drug related crimes.
white drug addict, ok, get into rehab. black drug addict, life in prison.
I am white, know what the officer said when I got pulled over for DUI? Just be careful. I said no problem and went home. I wasn’t totally wasted but I did fail the field sobriety test (the one when you move your eyes side to side. I did fine going left but my eyes started twitching on the way to the right side)
know what happened to a friend of mine (black) for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? jail. they ended up having to through it out in court but he still went to jail and had to get bailed out. know what that same cop would have told me? Just be careful.
By Whiley
September 30, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
“why couldn’t he focus on the correlation between whites and crime?”
Why aren’t white people allowed to discuss the real problem of ramped crime in black neighborhoods? It does no good to deny or ignore it. Whites aren’t getting away with just as many crimes, they just aren’t doing it at that high rate. Why does everyone act like this isn’t true? You cannot fix what you can’t admit.
By Renee
September 30, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Amazed you hit it on the money
By Michael H.
September 30, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Mit,
No offense, but you are quite wrong. Bennett is trying to tell or instruct us in the solutions to complex problems. He did that as professor of philosophy at Texas, as secretary of education under Reagan, as the drug tzar under Bush senior, and now as a “fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute, in many popular books on morality, politics, and on his talk show. He is one of the leading intellectual lights or “mature” voices among American conservatives.
He is not billed (no pun intended) as an entertainer, but a know it all moralizer who can repair all the ills of society.
Have a read of some of his stuff if you think otherwise.
By Blue Sky Mine
September 30, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I read through your comments yesterday and I wanted to thank you for them. Although I am not of the same race as you, I still want to understand and be informed. I thought the incident on MARTA was a good way to bring home your point about the difficulties that black people still deal with on a dily basis.
As for voting or the lack thereof, there are several things that could be tried:
No one thing is going to work, but a combination of things might help. Some people will not vote no matter what, but all of the above things have been tried in other states and other countries with some sucess.
As for the Electoral College, it should be made porportional. If you win 55% of the vote in a state, you get 55% of the electoral votes, etc. It seem ridiculous that a candidate for President can win with 51% of the popular vote, but 80-90% of the EC. It makes it appear as if they won in a landslide, when the truth is far from it.
As to the point about people not being able to vote because they are working, in some classes that’s true. For instance, a factory worker in a Dalton carpet mill cannot walk off the line in the middle of the day to go vote. Our current system of voting does favor the higher-up classes. The working poor do face more obstacles when it comes to voting. My points above would help to equalize things though.
By mit
September 30, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
michael,
no offense taken, its just my view that someone sitting behind a mic talking to people calling in does nothing to solve complex issues. they can talk about complex issues but in the end they haven’t solved a thing, they just talked about it. I have never read nor intend to read any of bennett’s books. the book of virtues?
sounds like his virtue versus my virtue and he is going to tell me what’s right and that’s that. I don’t need anyone telling me what virtues I should have. what is right and wrong. my parents did that long ago. Which I have altered since. right vs. wrong is all ‘in my eyes’. and then I guess, technically, “its not what is right, its only wrong if you get caught.”
By taboga
September 30, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
I am yet to see a poster that understands what Mel is talking about. And it’s damned amazing!
How many of you White people have been to other countries of the world? Well, if you have spent any time in different parts of the world, you will quickly realize that people from all over the world have an image of an american as being: White.
In fact, if you go to Central or South America, you will find it common that White Americans are referred to as Americans, but a Black American is referred to as a: Negro.
My explanation is a roundabout way of trying to get you to see what he is talking about. And what he is saying is absolutely correct.
Most people, whether they admit it or not (like he already stated), think that Black people have to become more white in order to fit in. The only way that Black people can truly fit in, is if they talk like whites, dress like whites, have the same interests as whites, etc. He is absolutely right. And oddly enough, there are both Whites AND Blacks who feel this way!
Where I disagree with him completely - is the reason why. The reason why is because most people don’t understand what it is to BE an American. It has nothing to do with what color you are, what you look like, what kind of clothes you wear or how you talk.
An American has the guts to be what he is - and he makes no excuses for it. An American understands that it is his responsibility to determine his own future - no matter how tough the road may be. An American doesn’t whine and complain about what someone else is not doing for him - he does it himself. An American does not let petty name-calling or other trivial adversity deter him, he moves right past it - proudly! An American speaks his mind - rather than saying what he thinks should be said so as to gain acceptance from others. A real American has no time for the silliness of “Political Correctness” - he’s too busy being an American to be concerned with such childishness. An American is not afraid to be who HE is and he doesn’t whine, moan and groan every time he’s offended or gets his feelings hurt…
The hell with whether or not Blacks are being American - we have fewer and fewer people of All colors who are being American anymore! We’ve turned into a bunch of whining, sniveling little adolescents who think there needs to be a convenient shoulder to cry on every time we stump our toe!
And if more and more Blacks will fit the description of an American above - then move over White Boy and let the Brother through - I am own his side!
By Sandy/Sanhan
September 30, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Sorry Mel, but I gotta disagree with your assessment of Taboga. I think the only thing he stands for is distorting others’ views to engage in mental mastubation and self-gratifcation, not to learn or improve his or anyone else’s knowledge or understanding.
He actually excels at that which he accuses the “goobers”: taking one little portion from a more complex discussion and deliberately taking it out of context. Despite his claims that he thinks for himself, he uses the popular yet transparent ploy that he appears to have adopted from the conservative talking points to distract detractors from the topic at hand. He’ll usually follow it up with some sort of insult, some screed against communism, and then a challenge to match his wits. And don’t forget: the misplaced colons. As predictable as a republican scandal…
Michael H, I have to admit to indulging in a bit of the Schadenfreude this week, too. And don’t forget, it’s Friday-look for the hidden news stories the administration hopes we’ll overlook.
By taboga
September 30, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Sandy,
You would disagree with a Ham sandwich! Or agree with a ham sandwich - whichever side it would take for you to prance out here and pretend to be some walking-thesaurus intellectual!
You don’t make a point. You’ve never made a point. You simply try to impress someone with your wording and punctuation; while criticizing others for their misuse of it, and hope that that passes you of as some enlightened intellectual - while disguising that you’re a complete air-head who couldn’t grasp a point to a conversation if it was thrown at you like a life-preserver!
Little simpletons like you are a dime a dozen!
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
Bravo, Taboga, bravo.. I love your description of an American. You got that 100% right.
By Michael H.
September 30, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
If you have an argument or simply something to say it.
Until you do so, I think it is you who is the big loser who knows nothing, reads nothing, has nothing to say, so just calls names. I can give an argument for why Bush is the big dummy, though I am sure it would be wasted on you.
By Whiley
September 30, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
I also must add, I refuse to change my last name if I ever marry again. (Unless my fiance’s last name is Clooney.)
By Michael H.
September 30, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
Thanks Kimberly I enjoyed writing it (though some conservatives don’t have a sense of humor when it comes to their own.)
Let’s hope we have more reason to feel good this weekend and next week Sandy. Dick, “go F yourself” Cheney is going to have a few sleepless nights this week.
I just see that Dusty the moron complimented Tabasco the fascist. Well, good, another knuckle dragger to ignore in the future.
By lozen
September 30, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Taboga, it’s you who would disagree with a ham sandwich and not Sandy. Sandy makes many, many good points and you never do. Everything she said about you in that last post is TRUE, and everything you accused her of in your last post is true about you, not her. She is an enlightened intellectual and you are a fool!
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
Kind of funny you would take such a strong stance. When, taking a strong stance, pro or con, was the blog concensus (sp?) of a ‘red flag’ to watch out for and exit the relationship quickly.
No one really cared about it much - but comprimise was KEY. Why no comprimise from you?
By taboga
September 30, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Michael,
Isn’t it amazing at how the “Big Dummy” ran circles around all the brilliant Democrats to get elected Governor twice?
Then “Big Dummy” threw aside the brillian and articulate - Forest Gore.
But “Big Dummy” wasn’t finished. He had to dispose of the “nuanced” and “enlightened” John Kerry as well.
And the “Big Dummy” did all of that with the Democrats, the News Media and Academia working to defeat him!
And so, little intellectual wanna-be’s like you get your panties all wet from polls and news about Tom Delay and Bill Bennett.
That’s what little simpleton losers do…
By lilith
September 30, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Taboga, We’ve turned into a bunch of whining, sniveling little adolescents who think there needs to be a convenient shoulder to cry on every time we stump our toe! This is what you choose to see in the world through your blinders and not what the world is really like for most Americans. You are a fool who thinks what you choose to see behind your twisted thinking is reality!
By DeltaX
September 30, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Tab,
No, Rove did all that.
Bush bankrupted every business he had and floundered at every venture - until he became the poster boy for Rove.
By Dusty
September 30, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Michael, I could give you dozens of excuses as to why you are a big loser. But time is short and nothing will penetrate you thick armor of pseudo-intellectualism. I won’t bother to try such a monumental task.
By joe
September 30, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
You ladies, Sandy, Lozen, Lilith are right on. He is the biggest fool I’ve ever run across. Don’t have to name him, you all know who I mean. And Dusty can’t really discuss anything; he/she is almost as big a fool as he is!
By Female Reader
September 30, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Okay, here’s my take on it…I happen to like my original last name. I’ve dated fellows with horrid last names, like “Dick” for instance. And I’ve dated fellows with nice last names, but ones that sounded really horrid with my first name. And I’ve even dated a few whose last names I’d be comfortable using. I think it’s something that is either important to a couple or not; personally I think I’d like to be identified as a “couple”, so I’d like our names to match. As for always taking the male’s last name? Why? Esp. if it’s a nasty name? Pick another!! (Moon-child comes to mind.) Pick one together! (Let the wedding guests pick from a hat?)
By taboga
September 30, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Go take another drink and have a good weekend - you’re starting to slur your words!